What Do Cyclists Have Against Cycle Tracks ?

GwylimT

There are quite a few cycle lanes here, but they're rubbish, they are filled with stones etc so you would have to cycle very slowly to prevent skidding, they also seem to be used as a free car park, so the most you can cycle is arouns ten metres before having to pull out of the lane.

I wouldn't use a cycle lane on an A road, drain holes, a nice covering of stones limiting you to a snails pace, it makes them completely pointless.

Altarf

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

I guess the difficulty is for those that don't cycle, these cycle lanes can look fine but simply aren't hence people don't use them.

That completely misses the point.

The issue is that there are a significant number of cyclists that whatever the state of the cyclepath will refuse to use it, because it is beneath them to do so.

On my route to the railway station at 7 am in the morning , every day I pass the same cyclist heading to the same place. I usually pass him on a single carriageway 60 mph A road. It is a fast straight A road taking lots of HGVs and other traffic that has just come off a motorway, and is the last straight stretch for a while, so lots of overtaking.

Now what is hilarious is that Sustrans was successful in their campaign for the local authority to spend £4 million to create a cycle route that completely avoids this road. The route is shorter, cuts across fields so no junctions with roads, and is in perfect condition. So why not use it?

And just for the icing on the cake, the A road cyclist never wears any high viz whatever the time of year or weather.

It seems with some cyclists it is some kind of warmed macho attitude that they won't use it as cyclepaths are not for 'serious' cyclists like them.

Dicing with death on a fast A road or a quicker and pleasant cycle down an arrow straight £4 million cyclepath. It's not rocket science is it.

GwylimT

Altarf wrote: »

That completely misses the point.

The issue is that there are a significant number of cyclists that whatever the state of the cyclepath will refuse to use it, because it is beneath them to do so.

On my route to the railway station at 7 am in the morning , every day I pass the same cyclist heading to the same place. I usually pass him on a single carriageway 60 mph A road. It is a fast straight A road taking lots of HGVs and other traffic that has just come off a motorway, and is the last straight stretch for a while, so lots of overtaking.

Now what is hilarious is that Sustrans was successful in their campaign for the local authority to spend £4 million to create a cycle route that completely avoids this road. The route is shorter, cuts across fields so no junctions with roads, and is in perfect condition. So why not use it?

And just for the icing on the cake, the A road cyclist never wears any high viz whatever the time of year or weather.

It seems with some cyclists it is some kind of warmed macho attitude that they won't use it as cyclepaths are not for 'serious' cyclists like them.

Dicing with death on a fast A road or a quicker and pleasant cycle down an arrow straight £4 million cyclepath. It's not rocket science is it.

Where is that if you don't mind me asking? We have one that sounds very similar, its mainly frequented by dog walkers and runners.

Norman_Castle

Altarf wrote: »

That completely misses the point.



On my route to the railway station at 7 am in the morning , every day I pass the same cyclist heading to the same place. I usually pass him on a single carriageway 60 mph A road. It is a fast straight A road taking lots of HGVs and other traffic that has just come off a motorway, and is the last straight stretch for a while, so lots of overtaking.

Now what is hilarious is that Sustrans was successful in their campaign for the local authority to spend £4 million to create a cycle route that completely avoids this road. The route is shorter, cuts across fields so no junctions with roads, and is in perfect condition. So why not use it?

Why not leave 10 minutes early one day and stop and ask him. He may have very valid reasons for not using it. If you expect a polite response it'll be best if you avoid condescendingly assuming he's stupid and you are right.

Ballard

There aren't many cycle paths in my area but I have been known to use one which shares the path with pedestrians. it's not ideal, though, as it swerves around bus stops and rubbish bins along the route. It also crosses several junctions and has overhanging branches that need dodging. All in all it's only really practical to use it to go past slow moving traffic.

If there were good quality cycle paths I would definitely use them.

It's funny that cyclists can apparently be 'superior' but motorists can't.

Nasqueron

If it cuts across fields is it a proper tarmac surface and well maintained?

You really need to get off your high horse with high viz, read Rule 59 - the directs are "should" not "must" for helmet, high viz and reflective gear. The only must is Rule 60 regarding lights and reflectors so while your personal opinion is that high viz is a good idea (which in autumn/winter I agree with) it is not mandatory so the cyclist not wearing it has chosen to do so and it's none of your business.

Altarf

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Why not leave 10 minutes early one day and stop and ask him. He may have very valid reasons for not using it. If you expect a polite response it'll be best if you avoid condescendingly assuming he's stupid and you are right.

To be honest have not interest why, my only interest is when they get squashed by an HGV that my journey isn't delayed.

Nasqueron wrote: »

If it cuts across fields is it a proper tarmac surface and well maintained?

Completed about three years ago, billiard table smooth tarmac surface, raised where it is likely to flood.

Nasqueron wrote: »

You really need to get off your high horse with high viz, read Rule 59 - the directs are "should" not "must" for helmet, high viz and reflective gear. The only must is Rule 60 regarding lights and reflectors so while your personal opinion is that high viz is a good idea (which in autumn/winter I agree with) it is not mandatory so the cyclist not wearing it has chosen to do so and it's none of your business.

Again, I don't care that they have so little concern for their health. If they want to play Russian roulette because the rules say your "shouldn't" rather than "don't" that is entirely up to them.

[Deleted User]

Molerat maybe its time you got out of your car and had a bit of exercise and had a go at cycling yourself and just try some of these cycle tracks which make you stop every 100 yards. Some of them are more dangerous than staying on the main road where we have the right of way . On the tracks at every junction we would have to stop, and check left and right to continue.We have every right to be able to make good progress on the main roads as the people in cars.
The roads are not made just for private drivers they are for all road users and that includes horses, mobility scooters, caravans, lorries.
You sound like that prime idiot Katie Hopkins who`s now jumped on the anti cyclist bandwaggon against cyclists .It seems its now de rigueur, as an ultra right winger, to condemn cyclists. Why does their clothing irritate you ? whats it to you if they want to look like team members in the Tour de France, at least the gear is bright and visible.
I` m a 30,000 miles a year driver and also like cycling( just done my 20 miles ) so I m not biased but I personally wont wear Lycra and I can t see why people like it so much but then I don`t like tattoos neither but millions go for them. Cyclist bashing is really getting a bit silly ,its old hat now,and getting boring . It started in London with cyclist`s being slagged off, and maybe they have some grievances with thousands of them jumping lights (like cars do ) and pavement riding but the rest of the UK cyclists are not that common enough to irritate car drivers who imagine they rule the road.
A prime example of people who feel a grievance to someone on a bike is there for all to see with the last poster Altarf views on people who ride bikes..Altarf..you re bonkers to say that your journey may be delayed by a death of a cyclist is over the top. You have nicked the phrase about people getting "squashed " from Jeremy Clarkson ,he said the same thing about railway suicides as a joke. You can t get away with it, ,unlike Clarkson, and you just sound daft.

Cycrow

Sometimes it's the drivers that force you out Of the cycle lanes.

One I avoid because I've had too many issues whenever I've been in it.

Many drivers seem to get scared when they see a car coming road the bend and just swerve into the cycle lane even though thre was no need too, and not caring if there was a cyclist there.

All of the drives that go past me, beeping and shouting to get in that cycle lane, all of them, have moved across and blocked the cycle lane as they drive in it. If they want cyclist to use them, they could at least keep them clear for them.

One time I was going down a road at the speed limit following a car in front, there was a narrow cycle filled with parked cars. At the junction at the end, the driver then had a good at me saying I held him up by not being in the cycle lane

silverwhistle

Altarf wrote: »

To be honest have not interest why, my only interest is when they get squashed by an HGV that my journey isn't delayed.

How charming..

Completed about three years ago, billiard table smooth tarmac surface, raised where it is likely to flood.

Has it been maintained? You don't seem very familiar with the reality of cycle paths in much of the UK. Does it have right of way over side entrances crossing it to enter any parallel roads?

You see, most of us can imagine there being many reasons why he doesn't use the path, but then we appear to have a wider experience of the matter than you who just appears eager to get to places as fast as possible and get angry with people. When I drive I see many such people and they cause far more accidents and hold ups than any cyclist.