Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Exemplar
    • By Exemplar 8th Aug 18, 9:41 AM
    • 1,185Posts
    • 484Thanks
    Exemplar
    Not a rant about cyclists - just a question
    • #1
    • 8th Aug 18, 9:41 AM
    Not a rant about cyclists - just a question 8th Aug 18 at 9:41 AM
    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

    Last edited by Exemplar; 08-08-2018 at 9:46 AM.
    'Just because its on the internet don't believe it 100%'. Abraham Lincoln.
Page 2
    • parking_question_chap
    • By parking_question_chap 8th Aug 18, 8:09 PM
    • 1,825 Posts
    • 1,658 Thanks
    parking_question_chap
    Could be due to the condition of the cycle path, or there is a slight bump and dip on entry and exit of the cycle path.

    Over many miles these decelerations/accelerations and bumps make a big difference to your bike journey.

    Personally I cycle sometimes to commute and for fun, and I would rather take the cycle path and get out of the way of cars. However many of these lycra type cyclists seem to think they are immune to any sort of danger.
    • Houbara
    • By Houbara 8th Aug 18, 10:14 PM
    • 4,066 Posts
    • 2,646 Thanks
    Houbara
    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
    Last edited by Houbara; 12-08-2018 at 7:29 PM.
    • parking_question_chap
    • By parking_question_chap 8th Aug 18, 10:59 PM
    • 1,825 Posts
    • 1,658 Thanks
    parking_question_chap
    It does sound like a rant against cyclists exemplar . You gave it away with the comment about cyclists finding it acceptable to "retard " traffic.
    Originally posted by Houbara

    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
    • By aleph_0 9th Aug 18, 1:16 AM
    • 522 Posts
    • 347 Thanks
    aleph_0
    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

    Originally posted by Exemplar
    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!7i1 3312!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
    • By prowla 9th Aug 18, 8:01 AM
    • 10,121 Posts
    • 8,358 Thanks
    prowla
    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
    • By Nasqueron 9th Aug 18, 10:50 AM
    • 6,217 Posts
    • 3,791 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    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.
    Originally posted by parking_question_chap
    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
    • By Mids_Costcutter 9th Aug 18, 5:57 PM
    • 803 Posts
    • 7,858 Thanks
    Mids_Costcutter
    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
    • By Norman Castle 11th Aug 18, 8:57 AM
    • 7,700 Posts
    • 6,459 Thanks
    Norman Castle
    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.
    Originally posted by prowla
    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.
    Last edited by Norman Castle; 11-08-2018 at 9:05 AM.
    Don't harass a hippie. You'll get bad karma.

    Never trust a newbie with a rtb tale.
    • prowla
    • By prowla 11th Aug 18, 10:42 AM
    • 10,121 Posts
    • 8,358 Thanks
    prowla
    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.
    Originally posted by Norman Castle
    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
    • By Norman Castle 11th Aug 18, 11:54 AM
    • 7,700 Posts
    • 6,459 Thanks
    Norman Castle
    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.
    Originally posted by prowla
    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?
    Don't harass a hippie. You'll get bad karma.

    Never trust a newbie with a rtb tale.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 11th Aug 18, 12:01 PM
    • 6,217 Posts
    • 3,791 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    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.
    Originally posted by prowla

    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.
    • fred990
    • By fred990 11th Aug 18, 11:01 PM
    • 93 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    fred990
    It's the lost art of overtaking.....bomb around in a straight line then.....errr?
    Car drivers are a menace, how on earth can they not just do a simple overtake? Granted the odd road is narrow but whatever happened to mirror-signal-manoeuvre? How do car drivers make such a big deal out of something so simple?
    • Herongull
    • By Herongull 12th Aug 18, 1:18 AM
    • 1,330 Posts
    • 755 Thanks
    Herongull
    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.
    Originally posted by prowla
    Cyclists ARE traffic too!

    They are not allowed on motorways but they are legitimate traffic on all other roads. Any motorist who regards their presence as an accident waiting to happen should not be driving on the roads.

    What an appalling attitude!
    • Herongull
    • By Herongull 12th Aug 18, 1:36 AM
    • 1,330 Posts
    • 755 Thanks
    Herongull
    The original question from the OP is actually rather odd as he says he sometimes cycles that route.

    But if that was the case, he must know the cycle path is very narrow and is shared with both pedestrians and with cyclists going the opposite direction (as pointed about by Adelph) - this is very clear from looking at it on Streetview.

    If you follow it along on Streetview, you can actually see a pedestrian who actually takes up quite a bit of the width of the path.

    Any cyclists on the path would have to cycle very slowly in order to keep pedestrians and any oncoming cyclists safe.

    The OP must know all this if he sometimes cycles this way instead of driving. He must also already know that is why some cyclists choose to cycle on the road instead. So why ask the question?
    • esuhl
    • By esuhl 12th Aug 18, 6:20 AM
    • 8,491 Posts
    • 6,232 Thanks
    esuhl
    It's the lost art of overtaking.....bomb around in a straight line then.....errr?
    Car drivers are a menace, how on earth can they not just do a simple overtake? Granted the odd road is narrow but whatever happened to mirror-signal-manoeuvre? How do car drivers make such a big deal out of something so simple?
    Originally posted by fred990

    What's been puzzling me recently, is how some drivers refuse to overtake cyclists using an empty overtaking lane. Yes, I'm in the primary position... but the road is empty and there's a spare lane for you! But they sit behind me for a mile before angrily overtaking as close as possible.


    It's almost like... they want to slow down for cyclists so they have something to be angry about.
    • esuhl
    • By esuhl 12th Aug 18, 6:31 AM
    • 8,491 Posts
    • 6,232 Thanks
    esuhl
    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.
    Originally posted by prowla
    Rubbish! There are plenty of NSL roads where anyone would be crazy to travel at 15mph. NSL just means that no specific speed-limit has been set for the road -- not that it's safe to travel at 60mph!

    And besides, non-driving cyclists pay taxes to build big roads for cars, and then to fix all the potholes cars cause. In rush hour, cyclists have to wait while all the cars block the roads so that no one can get past.

    It's unfair that cyclists subsidise motorists. If more money was spent on cycling infrastructure, so that cyclists of all ages and abilities could travel quickly and safely away from motor traffic, then cyclists wouldn't need (or want) to use the roads.
    • prowla
    • By prowla 12th Aug 18, 7:39 AM
    • 10,121 Posts
    • 8,358 Thanks
    prowla
    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?
    Originally posted by Norman Castle
    I see what you did there - asked a question with the answer in it.


    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.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Ah - 30s.


    Yes, many other things can be slow too; funnily enough, the suggestion was not aimed specifically at bikes, but rather selfish road users who have no consideration for people wanting to get on with their lives.


    Cyclists ARE traffic too!

    They are not allowed on motorways but they are legitimate traffic on all other roads. Any motorist who regards their presence as an accident waiting to happen should not be driving on the roads.

    What an appalling attitude!
    Originally posted by Herongull
    I know that some cyclists do have an appalling attitude and think nothing of inconveniencing other road users.


    There are some roads which I (being a cyclist) would not consider safe to go on. My son's car was at a garage last week and he asked me if I thought it would be OK to cycle his route to work, to which I said no, I did not think so.


    My opinion is that cyclists are very vulnerable and there is inherent danger in sharing the same piece of tarmac as cars/lorries driving at 60/70 mph.


    Rubbish! There are plenty of NSL roads where anyone would be crazy to travel at 15mph. NSL just means that no specific speed-limit has been set for the road -- not that it's safe to travel at 60mph!

    And besides, non-driving cyclists pay taxes to build big roads for cars, and then to fix all the potholes cars cause. In rush hour, cyclists have to wait while all the cars block the roads so that no one can get past.

    It's unfair that cyclists subsidise motorists. If more money was spent on cycling infrastructure, so that cyclists of all ages and abilities could travel quickly and safely away from motor traffic, then cyclists wouldn't need (or want) to use the roads.
    Originally posted by esuhl
    Yes, of course you are right about smaller NSL roads not being safe to drive at speed; I had thought it was probably implied that I meant roads where you could sensibly drive up to NSL, as opposed to a single-lane windy track which only a professional in a rally car could hope to negotiate at anything above 15 mph if they had practiced it and knew it was clear ahead.



    So, regarding your "Rubbish", I would amend my assertion to relate to NSL roads when it would normally be safe to drive at 60/70 (were the road clear, conditions OK, etc. and all other permutations of yebbuts).



    The general taxation is a red-herring; are you saying that the taxes from motor vehicle use does not amply pay for the roads? And, of course, the non-drivers still make use of and benefit from roads, even if they don't drive themselves.


    So no, cyclists do not subsidise motorists.


    But I agree that there should be a cycling infrastructure. FYI, I participated in some of the TRL trials of road signage, traffic lights and roundabout systems for cyclists, so I do know that the matter is under consideration.


    I also fully agree with you about the value of a cycling infrastructure and I think that it is something we need; my town has many cycle routes which keep bikes and cars apart and that is a good thing, IMHO.


    There should also be rules in place for councils to maintain the upkeep of cycle paths.


    So, going back to my preceding post, I think that bikes and vehicles on NSL roads (where you could safely travel at speed, caveats, etc.) is an accident waiting to happen and I think it is a credit to the patience and care of drivers in general that there are not more.
    • Norman Castle
    • By Norman Castle 12th Aug 18, 8:04 AM
    • 7,700 Posts
    • 6,459 Thanks
    Norman Castle
    I see what you did there - asked a question with the answer in it.
    Originally posted by prowla
    Feel free to share the answer.
    Don't harass a hippie. You'll get bad karma.

    Never trust a newbie with a rtb tale.
    • Norman Castle
    • By Norman Castle 12th Aug 18, 8:32 AM
    • 7,700 Posts
    • 6,459 Thanks
    Norman Castle

    So, going back to my preceding post, I think that bikes and vehicles on NSL roads (where you could safely travel at speed, caveats, etc.) is an accident waiting to happen and I think it is a credit to the patience and care of drivers in general that there are not more.
    Originally posted by prowla
    So larger high speed roads which are often treated as motorways rather than NSL roads. The only fair and reasonable way to remove cyclists from these is to provide a usable cycle route. Again, if the high speed of the traffic is dangerous for other road users reducing the speed will reduce the danger.

    Patience and care is a given for good driving. I don't think drivers deserve credit for driving adequately.
    Last edited by Norman Castle; 12-08-2018 at 8:36 AM.
    Don't harass a hippie. You'll get bad karma.

    Never trust a newbie with a rtb tale.
    • prowla
    • By prowla 12th Aug 18, 10:52 AM
    • 10,121 Posts
    • 8,358 Thanks
    prowla
    So larger high speed roads which are often treated as motorways rather than NSL roads. The only fair and reasonable way to remove cyclists from these is to provide a usable cycle route. Again, if the high speed of the traffic is dangerous for other road users reducing the speed will reduce the danger.

    Patience and care is a given for good driving. I don't think drivers deserve credit for driving adequately.
    Originally posted by Norman Castle
    As I said, I agree that cycle routes are the way to go.


    I suppose if every car needed someone walking in front of it carrying a red flag, then the danger would be reduced down to near-zero; however, the purpose of the road would be negated.



    NSL dual carriageways have the same speed limit as motorways, but if someone goes on to one unable to get anywhere near that, then they are impeding the other road users who simply want to get on with their lives.



    I think that drivers deserve a lot of credit for their patience.


    Back to the cycle routes - I think that they should be mandatory.


    The current situation on many roads is not a healthy one.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

213Posts Today

2,187Users online

Martin's Twitter