Cars parking in the cycle lane on a busy Road.

ohreally

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

I had to wait a couple of minutes for someone to answer

The tea boy.

dacouch

ohreally wrote: »

The tea boy.

Or PC Savage

mttylad

Time to fit some dexian to the front of the bike as a bumper and crash into the parked cars

Marco_Panettone

Painted lines are NOT an adequate cycle lane. Campaign to have it removed and replaced by a proper, hard-segregated lane no less than 2m wide. If cars can drive or park in something they will.


Or do this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ-8xj8CUZw

Altarf

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Painted lines are NOT an adequate cycle lane. Campaign to have it removed and replaced by a proper, hard-segregated lane no less than 2m wide.

Since virtually no roads can accommodate having 4m cut out of them (2m each side), this would just mean that all cycle lanes should be removed.

Smart cyclist logic as usual.

aleph_0

Altarf wrote: »

Since virtually no roads can accommodate having 4m cut out of them (2m each side), this would just mean that all cycle lanes should be removed.

Smart cyclist logic as usual.

Many roads can accommodate having 4m cut out of them. Obviously, it might require a more politically difficult decision, because it might involve removing a general-traffic lane, or car parking. I've cycled on many roads with cycle lanes <2m, but general traffic lanes wider than the recommended width, or with hatching in the centre.

But, that's beside the point. Marco was responding to an OP talking about cars parking in the cycle lane. That implies traffic is flowing fine past a 1.8m wide car. Thus, it's more-than-likely that there's room for a 2m cycle lane in this location.

In case you're not aware, government guidelines give the recommended width of 2m, and a minimum of 1.5m. Going below this usually creates a lane that causes more problems than it solves.

Marco_Panettone

Altarf wrote: »

Since virtually no roads can accommodate having 4m cut out of them (2m each side), this would just mean that all cycle lanes should be removed.

Smart cyclist logic as usual.

As painted lanes provide absolutely no protection (physical or legal) to cyclists they should all be removed. They encourage riders to stick to the far left of the road when it isn't safe, they encourage drivers to give less room when overtaking, they give a false sense of security to riders who aren't protected and allow drivers to think that cyclists should be in them and not use the full lane.


Most roads could easily accommodate 2m wide cycle lanes. If people park on the road there's space. If there's a bus lane there's space. It's about priority of what the space is used for.

spiro

The other option to protect cyclists is to introduce the same law as in France, when overtaking a cyclist in a town you need to give 1.5m clearance, outside of towns 2m clearance.

System

spiro wrote: »

The other option to protect cyclists is to introduce the same law as in France, when overtaking a cyclist in a town you need to give 1.5m clearance, outside of towns 2m clearance.

Given that the primary road out of my village is not wide enough in places to be classed as 2 way (<4m width) road and the rest of the time only just qualifies as 2-way then that stupid rule would mean that no cyclist could ever be overtaken.

In fact that would be totally unworkable in the most of the UK

brat

!!!!!! wrote: »

Given that the primary road out of my village is not wide enough in places to be classed as 2 way (<4m width) road and the rest of the time only just qualifies as 2-way then that stupid rule would mean that no cyclist could ever be overtaken.

In fact that would be totally unworkable in the most of the UK

Motorists should give at least 1.5 metres clear space when overtaking cyclists. There is almost no excuse not to do that.
If it's not physically possible to give them 1.5 metres, then reconsider your overtake. Most cyclists will present you with an opportunity to overtake them safely at some point, and thank you for your patience.