Not a rant about cyclists - just a question

Options
13567…11

Comments

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Newbie
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    edited 12 August 2018 at 7:29PM
    Options
    It does sound like a rant against cyclists exemplar . You gave it away with the comment about cyclists finding it acceptable to "retard " traffic.
    Firstly, I have equal rights to my little bit of road space as you do. Please try and remember that the next time you start fuming at a cyclist.
    I do a lot of leisure cycling and I try and keep as close to the kerb as the pot holes and grating s allow me. I do this to keep out of the way and minimise getting hit. Two feet from the edge suits me fine. But what I have found is that some motorists refuse to pass me unless they can give me a 10 ft gap, and so it is they who hold up traffic flow whilst they wait for a clear stretch of oncoming traffic to give me a super wide berth.
    Personally I am fine with around a 5 ft clearance and dont feel intimidated at this distance. I just want you to get past quickly and get out of my way. I don`t like the sound of a revving diesel engine irritating me so be brave and pass me for gods sake and stop hanging back like a learner. The really idiotic ones give out a tetchy hoot on the horn sometimes.
    . The people who hang back causing others to slow are too timid IMO..
    Blame the timid drivers , they re the ones responsible for retarding traffic.They need to get a move on and get past quickly.
    The average London bus driver or Cabbie will often pass cyclists with a few inches to spare . Now that is intimidation and against the law in some counties but 4ft to 5 ft, or one and a half metres is fine by me. That way I would never hold anyone or vehicle up at all except possibly on the narrowest single track roads
    Cycle tracks in towns are just more dangerous. We have to stop and wait at every junction. They add risk. They are suitable for the very young riders. I don`t want to be stopping every 50 yards to get across a junction. My journey is as every bit as important as the next mans and I will not be relegated to a second class road user.
    All the traffic can get by me with absolutely no slowing down or retardation, so yes I find it acceptable to pedal my bike on main roads with national speed limits at all times. I don t find it acceptable for people to infer that the roads are there just for them. Stop being selfish and calm your speed down .
    If the timid and poor drivers feel they have to crawl past me with a huge clearance then they need to be a little more confident and improve their driving skills
  • parking_question_chap
    parking_question_chap Posts: 2,694 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Options
    Houbara wrote: »
    It does sound like a rant against cyclists exemplar . You gave it away with the comment about cyclists finding it acceptable to "retard " traffic.


    How does that show that OP is ranting?

    Retard means to slow down or hinder the progress of something. OP was alluding to the fact that cylists using the road rather than the cycle path will be slowing down motor traffic.

    Their post is very well presented and asks a reasonable question whilst keeping a civil tone.
  • aleph_0
    aleph_0 Posts: 539 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Exemplar wrote: »
    https://postimg.cc/gallery/299f522k8/


    So I drive to work because I have to. On the days I don't need the car I cycle and use the cycle lanes. I'm not precious about my bike and use it as I use the car, a tool to fulfil a function.

    For the past few days I have noticed what I would class as sporting cyclists using a particularly dangerous part of my route. My post this morning is to just understand why these guys would rather cycle dangerously than use the cycle path provided (in the pictures you will see it, the cycle lane is the larger part, pedestrians get the narrower part closer to the road).

    I'm sure that there are many arguments as to why from either side but I'm interested as to why someone would both put themselves in harms way from a vehicle over a pedestrian and also why It's considered acceptable to retard the traffic so badly (as was the case this morning).

    I'm not after an argument (although it will turn in to one as usual) rather a genuine reason. Do roads offer more safety? Are there less hazards? is it OK to not use a (in this case) well maintained cycle lane?

    Picture 1 = Aerial view
    Picture 2 = South to North Street View

    299f522k8

    To answer your last question first - yes it is ok to not use a cycle facility. It's up to an individual to decide whether a facility is suitable for their journey, just as people might choose to drive different routes. Similarly, it's acceptable for someone cycling to slow down traffic as a result, just as motor vehicles regularly impede my progress when cycling.

    As to why some people have chosen to cycle on the carriageway on this stretch, there are a few factors. For one, cycle provision is usually of such poor quality, that one is inclined to assume that such provision is poor unless proven otherwise (and when cycle provision is good, usage is near on 100%, e.g. see the good quality Cycle Super Highways in London).

    Cycling on the carriageway is also less dangerous than you might perceive it to be. In particular, the big risks are at junctions, and often it is safer to proceed through junctions in the main flow of traffic, rather than try to cross multiple flared, high-speed entrances/exits (the roundabouts at either end of this stretch of road is probably where accidents could occur).

    In this case, I don't think your summary of the path is correct. It's signed as a shared use:
    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.0465232,-0.7782322,3a,19.3y,344.25h,87.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc3fm3Iqd0g27VMKInzMXVw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

    This means the whole (using that term loosely, it's not very wide) width of the path is shared between pedestrians and cyclists, in both directions. It's pretty narrow for this purpose. The dotted line is very near the carriageway, and I'd suggest forms a virtual verge, discouraging pedestrians/cyclists from walking near the carriageway, to avoid drafts/overhangs. If I was cycling/walking along there, I would want to be passing at a pretty slow pace. Also, on the other side of that sign is a "cyclists dismount" sign. Whilst such a sign is advisory, it gives an indication of the quality of the provision.

    In short, even if it is well maintained (no debris, etc.), this stretch of shared use path, imo, is going to be less convenient and more dangerous than just remaining on the carriageway.
  • prowla
    prowla Posts: 13,162 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    Cyclists may use the road.
    Cyclists can go really slow and retard traffic.
    Some cyclists indeed seem to have little regard for their own safety.
    Some cyclists have little or no regard for other road users.

    My opinion is that cyclists should not be on national speed limit roads.
    But without a supporting infrastructure, where might they go instead?
    Perhaps some roads should have a minimum speed limit.
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 8,827 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    parking_question_chap wrote: »
    How does that show that OP is ranting?

    Retard means to slow down or hinder the progress of something. OP was alluding to the fact that cylists using the road rather than the cycle path will be slowing down motor traffic.

    Their post is very well presented and asks a reasonable question whilst keeping a civil tone.

    When I used to drive to my old job it was 50% in NSL 60 zones - there was a golf course on the way and I was repeatedly stuck behind old gimmer drivers doing 30mph at 8:45am trundling along to golf - I accept that and pass them when they go into the course.

    Drivers are stuck behind bikes for 10-30s typically and moan, yet don't seem to be fussed about being stuck in traffic for 10 minutes on a commute.
  • Mids_Costcutter
    Mids_Costcutter Posts: 844 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    In the Netherlands (among other countries with higher levels of cycling than the UK) facilities for cyclists are designed to ensure that journeys by bike are safer, quicker and more attractive than using busy A and B roads or their equivalent. Cyclists of all abilities and experience will choose to use them for this reason.

    The shared-use path in Newark looks like it was an existing footway that was just 'converted' to allow use by cyclists as well as pedestrians even though it's too narrow for this purpose and doesn't give cyclists priority at side-road junctions.

    If streets and towns in the UK were designed for cyclists from the outset, not just as an afterthought as here then perhaps the OP wouldn't have needed to post their question in the first place!
  • Norman_Castle
    Norman_Castle Posts: 11,871 Forumite
    Photogenic First Post Name Dropper First Anniversary
    edited 11 August 2018 at 9:05AM
    Options
    prowla wrote: »
    Cyclists may use the road.
    Cyclists can go really slow and retard traffic.
    Some cyclists indeed seem to have little regard for their own safety.
    Some cyclists have little or no regard for other road users.
    Unlike cyclists, motorists are responsibly for thousands of deaths and serious injuries every year. Motorists should be more concerned about this than finding fault with cyclists. Many motorists are oblivious to how potentially dangerous they are and are contemptuous to anyone who delays them.

    Congestion causes much greater delays than slow moving cyclists but motorists seem to accept this, mainly because they are part of the problem.


    My opinion is that cyclists should not be on national speed limit roads.
    But without a supporting infrastructure, where might they go instead?
    Perhaps some roads should have a minimum speed limit.
    Minimum speed limits on NSL roads effectively excluding everything other than motor vehicles solely for the convenience of motorists? If there are safety concerns because of the speed difference lowering the maximum speed would help.

    Millions of accidents are avoided by non motoring road users simply staying away from moving vehicles. You're suggesting even more road users are pushed aside to allow motorists to do what they want.
  • prowla
    prowla Posts: 13,162 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    Norman_Castle wrote: »
    Minimum speed limits on NSL roads effectively excluding everything other than motor vehicles solely for the convenience of motorists? If there are safety concerns because of the speed difference lowering the maximum speed would help.

    Millions of accidents are avoided by non motoring road users simply staying away from moving vehicles. You're suggesting even more road users are pushed aside to allow motorists to do what they want.
    I am suggesting that a cyclist doing 15 mph and holding up a queue of traffic on an NSL road, where otherwise the traffic could safely flow at 60 mph is indeed an inconvenience.


    Cyclists on an NSL road are an accident waiting to happen, which neither the motorist nor presumably the cyclist want to come about.
  • Norman_Castle
    Norman_Castle Posts: 11,871 Forumite
    Photogenic First Post Name Dropper First Anniversary
    Options
    prowla wrote: »
    I am suggesting that a cyclist doing 15 mph and holding up a queue of traffic on an NSL road, where otherwise the traffic could safely flow at 60 mph is indeed an inconvenience.
    Its a very minor inconvenience, have you considered the inconvenience for the cyclist having to find an alternate, possibly much longer route?


    Having to slow occasionally to pass a cyclist will make very little difference to journey times. I would prefer not to slow because of slower traffic but I accept it as part of driving.


    Slowing from 60 to 15mph for 2 minutes extends a journey by how long?
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 8,827 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    prowla wrote: »
    I am suggesting that a cyclist doing 15 mph and holding up a queue of traffic on an NSL road, where otherwise the traffic could safely flow at 60 mph is indeed an inconvenience.


    Cyclists on an NSL road are an accident waiting to happen, which neither the motorist nor presumably the cyclist want to come about.


    This is just a red herring argument, you can be stuck behind a tractor, on old man in a big car doing 30, a funeral party, a big lorry etc etc. There are any number of vehicles and road users that can slow you down which are much harder to pass than a bike. If your day is so hectic being behind a bike for 30s until a safe overtaking space appears will cause you problems then you need to plan your days better.


    60mph is a LIMIT not a target. It won't kill you to not do 60 for a short time period.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards