Suicidal Cyclist

andrewf75

Throbbe wrote: »

On a personal level I would be very happy with that approach.

With one notable exception where I can commute around 13 miles on a well surfaced bridleway free of motorised traffic I tend to stick to the road as the safer and more convenient option. The overwhelming majority of drivers pass me considerately and the small handful that don't may well be thinking I should be off the road. Removing cyclepaths would (I hope) overcome this mindset.

However, not all cyclists are as confident in traffic, or want to travel at the paceI do. For people like my grandmother, who can no longer drive, such facilities mean that she can still maintain her independance and cycle to the shops with confidence.

When my daughter starts cycling to school I'd want her to use cyclepaths until she feels competent on the road, which may not be for years.

The other alternative of course is to bite the bullet and build cycle facilities that meet all those needs, on which I can safely do 20mph while passing my grandmother and daughter and being passed by proper sport cyclists. At current investment levels that is unlikely to happen soon.

I think this shows the clear divide between cycling enthusiasts and people who just cycle to get from A to B.

People complain that cyclists don't use cycle paths, but the problem is that the kind of cyclists that the cycle paths are for don't exist yet in large numbers because we have been so slow to change attitudes to urban transport in the UK. The default is still to get into your car even for a journey of a mile or two.

Cycle enthusiasts are better off on the road because they travel at high speed. Cycle paths should be there for ordinary commuters to get around safely.

Norman_Castle

All the tax everyone is talking about, there's a product at the end of it. You know, the packet of cigarettes, the pint of beer, the flatscreen TV. When I pay to tax my car, what is the product I get at the end?The right to be on the road. A car driver has to pay for that right (or acquire it for free if exempt) whereas a cyclist doesn't. That's absolutely fine by me. But to say that drivers aren't paying for the roads, just because it's all not ringfenced, is just plain wrong.

Vehicle tax is either fuel duty which is a purchase tax and VED which is designed to reduce pollution. With stamp duty or inheritance tax. What "product" is received?

Paying vehicle taxes does not give you the right to use the roads. They are paid to avoid tax evasion penalties.

Motorists benefit from all public spending. Why should they be allowed to claim selected parts and state what they believe their taxes are being used for?.

jjlandlord

Cycle paths are for cyclists, not just for the 'amateur' cyclists.
Cyclists must adapt their speed to road conditions as all other vehicles must do.

That being said, I don't think it is compulsory for cyclists to use cycle paths. (is it?)
However, considering that such paths are for their benefits and that cyclists often complain about the lack of such paths, not using them because "there are not good enough for me" would really be taking the p*ss.

If anything cycle paths should be compulsory where they exist and it should be forbidden to block them (e.g. by parking on them).

I also think that they should be more cycle paths and that they should be more separated from car lanes wherever possible.
Bicycles and cars/vans/lorries do not mix well in the same way that pedestrians do not mix well with cars.

I cycled in China in the past and it is very good to have bike lanes as wide as car lanes with often a pavement separation.

Strider590

almillar wrote: »

If I don't tax my car, it's not allowed to be on the road. If I want to drive anywhere on that road, the fuel is taxed too. Just 2 examples of drivers CONTRIBUTING to the costs of roads - again, I acknowledge, not directly.

I hate to state the obvious, but cyclists need fuel too, in the form of nutrition, energy and water. All of which they pay tax on, in the form of VAT.

The sooner people realise why driving is so costly, the better.
It's all about the British class system, ultimately the costs of motoring are a tax on wealth.

VED taxes large higher polluting vehicles, the more expensive your tastes, the more you pay...... Which keeps the working classes in their place and keeps the middle classes in debt up to their eyeballs.
BUT it also has another purpose, to tax older cars off the road completely, boosting consumerism, boosting sales of new cars and ultimately boosting the treasury intake of VAT from the sale of said new cars.

Idiophreak

jjlandlord wrote: »

Cycle paths are for cyclists, not just for the 'amateur' cyclists.

Out of interest, do you have any proof of that, or is it just what you *think* is the case.

Personally, I've cycled most in Oxford, where the council cycle plan is really quite explicit that the cycle paths are provided for little kids getting to school, granny getting to work etc. Cyclists that travel at any significant speed *are supposed* to use the road network. They want the fast bikes away from the slow bikes/pedestrians and around vehicles of comparative speed. (this is why there are so many 20mph speed limits in Oxford...)

Personally, I'm with Throbbe...As a half decent cyclist, the only thing cycle paths get me is yelled at by people who, like you, wrongly believe I'm supposed to be on the cycle path. In a very real sense, the cycle paths are worse than useless for me....So I'd never complain that I want more of them.

Idiophreak

Altarf wrote: »

So what is the reason why cyclists don't use them. I don't think there is a *reason*, just a lack of thought.

I don't use cycle paths because
1) They often require you to give way to join and/or leave the cycle path.
2) They're often poorly maintained, overgrown and crumpled with tree roots. Dog mess is also an issue (as above)
3) They often require you to give way at roundabouts/side roads etc
4) More often than not, you have to cross roads or take different routes around roundabouts etc to stay on the cycle path. This is annoying and confuses the hell out of your sat nav.
5) They're often short, token paths.
6) You're often at risk of people stepping out, car doors opening, car's reversing out of driveways, etc etc

You'll note that all of these are "often" the case, rather than "necessarily" the case...which is the point. You see the start of a cycle track and *odds on* there's going to be something about it that makes it worse than just staying on the road...So I just ignore them.

adouglasmhor

One cycle route I used had a kissing gate at the bottom of the biggest steepest hill on it at the end of a 3 mile flat run, whoever thought of that needed shooting to put them out of our misery.

Norman_Castle

That being said, I don't think it is compulsory for cyclists to use cycle paths. (is it?)

No.........

Idiophreak

adouglasmhor wrote: »

One cycle route I used had a kissing gate at the bottom of the biggest steepest hill on it at the end of a 3 mile flat run, whoever thought of that needed shooting to put them out of our misery.

....and clearly had never ridden a bike.

Nearby to where I used to live, there's a pedestrian / cycle bridge. Obviously, because it was shared use (line painted down the middle, "cycle lane" one side, "footpath" the other) they got concerned about bikes going too quickly and colliding with the pedestrians....So they put one of those cycle chicanes on each approach to the bridge to slow down the bikes. Except, of course, they only put them on the "cycle lane", not the "footpath" t...Result: Bikes all ignore "cycle lane" and ride on "footpath" instead. Result.

Idiophreak

jjlandlord wrote: »

Have I proof that cycle lanes are for cycles? Er I can read and understand words.



Well that's exactly why people yell at some cyclists... Because they behave like c*nts.


Soem cyclists really need to start fitting a saddle on their bikes, methinks.

I don't really understand the hostility...?

How is me riding my bike in the place the council want me to ride my bike me behaving like a c*nt?

Or are you simply calling me a "c*nt" because I had the audacity to suggest that your belief all cycles are supposed to use cycle paths may be "wrong"?

Is someone suggesting you're wrong what you mean by "behaving like a c*nt"?

If so, I'm really sorry. I didn't mean any offence in suggesting that you might be wrong. It's just that not many people take the time to read their local cycle plans / policies before forming their opinion...so I could have understood you being wrong in this instance.

Turns out I was right to think you might not have full grasp of what you're talking about...you are just a poorly informed dimwit. It's not your fault...I blame the parents. Smoked in pregnancy, dropped you as a child, withheld affection, who knows what caused this scarring. Just hope one day you learn to live with your issues without lashing out. Poor thing.