This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
**Rant alert - leave now if you are not in the mood for a rant!**
Dear pedestrians. I understand that you don't want me to cycle on your pavements as I scare you, so some very nice people have built some lovely cycle lanes for me to cycle in. They are separated from the pavement and the road by a nice kerb, have bikes painted in them, and even have bike traffic lights. If you, as a pedestrian, feel the need to wander down these cycle lanes with earphones in, or wander out onto them without warning or even looking, please don't look at me as if I am public enemy number one. Yes, I nearly hit you, but you wandered out into my lane without looking or even walking in a way that would suggest that you might wander out! (This is not an isolated incident!) If you want me off the pavements, then treat me as traffic please!!
Dear pedestrians. I understand that you don't want me to cycle on your pavements as I scare you, so some very nice people have built some lovely cycle lanes for me to cycle in. They are separated from the pavement and the road by a nice kerb, have bikes painted in them, and even have bike traffic lights. If you, as a pedestrian, feel the need to wander down these cycle lanes with earphones in, or wander out onto them without warning or even looking, please don't look at me as if I am public enemy number one. Yes, I nearly hit you, but you wandered out into my lane without looking or even walking in a way that would suggest that you might wander out! (This is not an isolated incident!) If you want me off the pavements, then treat me as traffic please!!
1
In reply to girlymonkey:
Ha ha! If you find pedestrians annoying you should try riding in a country where the vast majority of the bike paths are just the pavement with a line down the middle, and even then there is no consistent concept as to when that splits bikes from walkers or when, walker and bikes going one way are on one side of it and while bike and walkers going t'other way are on the otherside. Those extendable dog leads were the bane of my commute in Helsinki, invariably Fido would be over beyond the bike lane, crapping on the grass or whatever with his lead stretching back to his owner on the otherside and ready to garotte any passing cyclist.
I used to let this stuff bother me a lot http://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/dumb-helsinki-cycle-paths-2...
Ha ha! If you find pedestrians annoying you should try riding in a country where the vast majority of the bike paths are just the pavement with a line down the middle, and even then there is no consistent concept as to when that splits bikes from walkers or when, walker and bikes going one way are on one side of it and while bike and walkers going t'other way are on the otherside. Those extendable dog leads were the bane of my commute in Helsinki, invariably Fido would be over beyond the bike lane, crapping on the grass or whatever with his lead stretching back to his owner on the otherside and ready to garotte any passing cyclist.
I used to let this stuff bother me a lot http://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/dumb-helsinki-cycle-paths-2...
In reply to girlymonkey:
Bike lanes never seem to work properly as most people are not aware that bikes can go fast (often including the people who design bike lanes). Given the choice of a crap bike lane or the road, I choose the road.
Bike lanes never seem to work properly as most people are not aware that bikes can go fast (often including the people who design bike lanes). Given the choice of a crap bike lane or the road, I choose the road.
In reply to Bob:
the problem is the one way systems. The bike lane takes me the right way where the road doesn't. The lane it's self is ok, just the pedestrians that are the problem!
the problem is the one way systems. The bike lane takes me the right way where the road doesn't. The lane it's self is ok, just the pedestrians that are the problem!
In reply to girlymonkey:
We pedestrians have paid for those cycle lanes too from our taxes. If some cyclists can ride the pavements, then some pedestrians can walk in cycle lanes.
Don't be so possessive !
We pedestrians have paid for those cycle lanes too from our taxes. If some cyclists can ride the pavements, then some pedestrians can walk in cycle lanes.
Don't be so possessive !
In reply to Skol:
Lol, share and share alike eh? I'd better join the ranks of pavement cyclists as I pay my taxes too and they must pay for the upkeep of the payments!
Lol, share and share alike eh? I'd better join the ranks of pavement cyclists as I pay my taxes too and they must pay for the upkeep of the payments!
1
In reply to Jimbo C:
Same here.
> Bike lanes never seem to work properly as most people are not aware that bikes can go fast (often including the people who design bike lanes). Given the choice of a crap bike lane or the road, I choose the road.
Same here.
In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:
The thing is, if we don't use the cycle paths that they build, then there will be no incentive for them to build them better and pedestrians will never learn that bikes are vehicles and crossing a cycle lane should be treated as crossing a road. If we just shun them, then whoever it is that is responsible for these things (I don't actually know who that is!) will just give up trying to make things better for bikes. I appreciate being out of the flow of traffic, and I particularly appreciate that the cycle route takes me in a more logical way through a one way system! I want more of them, and I want pedestrians to learn to treat me as traffic, or to not complain if I ride as a pedestrian!!!
The thing is, if we don't use the cycle paths that they build, then there will be no incentive for them to build them better and pedestrians will never learn that bikes are vehicles and crossing a cycle lane should be treated as crossing a road. If we just shun them, then whoever it is that is responsible for these things (I don't actually know who that is!) will just give up trying to make things better for bikes. I appreciate being out of the flow of traffic, and I particularly appreciate that the cycle route takes me in a more logical way through a one way system! I want more of them, and I want pedestrians to learn to treat me as traffic, or to not complain if I ride as a pedestrian!!!
In reply to girlymonkey:
Headphones are the new baseball cap. A decade or three back you could instantly reduce your IQ by sticking a baseball cap on your head, peak backwards if you really wanted highlight your Neanderthal ancestry. Now you can achieve the same effect by sticking some expensive electronics over your ears.
Headphones are the new baseball cap. A decade or three back you could instantly reduce your IQ by sticking a baseball cap on your head, peak backwards if you really wanted highlight your Neanderthal ancestry. Now you can achieve the same effect by sticking some expensive electronics over your ears.
In reply to Jimbo C:
Local council has just spent a considerable amount of money installing a shared footpath/cycle path along one side of a main road that previously had no pavement. This path is wide enough to drive a van along - the workmen were doing just that while building it.
I'm not sure why they've put it here, as there are perfectly good footpath/minor road/cycle track alternatives close by. You only ever saw a few cyclists and the occasional mis-guided runner along that road.
Unfortunately, it's ruined the road for cycling down. I'm used to going far faster down that road (now reduced from 60 to 50 mph) than would be safe on that shared, 2-way path, where, previously, I could have used the narrow band of hard shoulder. The width of the path now means I'd be pushed out into the traffic if I used the road, which now has less room for cars to pass - capped off by the appearance of a series of traffic islands as part of the development that are obviously there to stop overtaking, which means frustrated drivers.
Bonkers. (I hope that description made sense).
> Bike lanes never seem to work properly as most people are not aware that bikes can go fast (often including the people who design bike lanes). Given the choice of a crap bike lane or the road, I choose the road.
Local council has just spent a considerable amount of money installing a shared footpath/cycle path along one side of a main road that previously had no pavement. This path is wide enough to drive a van along - the workmen were doing just that while building it.
I'm not sure why they've put it here, as there are perfectly good footpath/minor road/cycle track alternatives close by. You only ever saw a few cyclists and the occasional mis-guided runner along that road.
Unfortunately, it's ruined the road for cycling down. I'm used to going far faster down that road (now reduced from 60 to 50 mph) than would be safe on that shared, 2-way path, where, previously, I could have used the narrow band of hard shoulder. The width of the path now means I'd be pushed out into the traffic if I used the road, which now has less room for cars to pass - capped off by the appearance of a series of traffic islands as part of the development that are obviously there to stop overtaking, which means frustrated drivers.
Bonkers. (I hope that description made sense).
In reply to LastBoyScout:
That does sound pretty poorly designed, and sounds like it was unnecessary anyway!
That does sound pretty poorly designed, and sounds like it was unnecessary anyway!
In reply to LastBoyScout:
Makes perfect sense. In a lot of situations all that is needed for safe cycling is a wide enough road with plenty of opportunity for vehicles to pass cyclists at a safe distance.
Makes perfect sense. In a lot of situations all that is needed for safe cycling is a wide enough road with plenty of opportunity for vehicles to pass cyclists at a safe distance.
In reply to felt:
Correct! I believe the best way to get good relationships between all road users is to not annoy people by jumping lights etc. It's nice to be nice!
Correct! I believe the best way to get good relationships between all road users is to not annoy people by jumping lights etc. It's nice to be nice!
1
In reply to girlymonkey:
A question to all really. On trunk roads with the white line at the side, offering approx 2 feet of space, do you use this or ride in the main carriageway?
This isn't a loaded question, and I'm on your side girlmonkey.
I see lots of cyclists not using this 'cycle lane' and often wonder why?
A question to all really. On trunk roads with the white line at the side, offering approx 2 feet of space, do you use this or ride in the main carriageway?
This isn't a loaded question, and I'm on your side girlmonkey.
I see lots of cyclists not using this 'cycle lane' and often wonder why?
In reply to Skol:
I would if I was sure it would continue. I sometimes get worried cycling in bits like that if I am out of the main flow of traffic as the drivers aren't watching out too closely for me there. If I am then forced back into the line of traffic suddenly then it could be dangerous. If I know the road though and know the layout then I would use it.
I would if I was sure it would continue. I sometimes get worried cycling in bits like that if I am out of the main flow of traffic as the drivers aren't watching out too closely for me there. If I am then forced back into the line of traffic suddenly then it could be dangerous. If I know the road though and know the layout then I would use it.
In reply to LastBoyScout:
Or possibly a conflict between you (I'm guessing a confident road cyclist who rides at speed) and Old Mrs Jones who doesn't ride down that road at all because it's too scary?
That is the paradox. Cycle facilities such as these (or the MK redways, or similar) are very good for Dutch-style low speed utility cycling on Dutch-style bikes (or adapted mountain bikes), they are actively bad for "proper" road cyclists. The question is where the balance is.
Neil
Or possibly a conflict between you (I'm guessing a confident road cyclist who rides at speed) and Old Mrs Jones who doesn't ride down that road at all because it's too scary?
That is the paradox. Cycle facilities such as these (or the MK redways, or similar) are very good for Dutch-style low speed utility cycling on Dutch-style bikes (or adapted mountain bikes), they are actively bad for "proper" road cyclists. The question is where the balance is.
Neil
Post edited at 19:52
In reply to Skol:
No you haven't, it comes directly out of bicycle tax.
> We pedestrians have paid for those cycle lanes too from our taxes. If some cyclists can ride the pavements, then some pedestrians can walk in cycle lanes.
No you haven't, it comes directly out of bicycle tax.
In reply to Skol:
I ideally don't ride on "trunk roads" because there is often a parallel quieter option, and it is no fun at all. But if I am on one I will use the "shoulder" to reduce the chance of being hit if it's wide enough.
Neil
I ideally don't ride on "trunk roads" because there is often a parallel quieter option, and it is no fun at all. But if I am on one I will use the "shoulder" to reduce the chance of being hit if it's wide enough.
Neil
In reply to girlymonkey:
Good point. I try to use them but occasionally have to be a bit aggressive to be in a good vis ability position at junctions etc. sorry for the hijack.
I wonder at the point of some cycle lanes in towns, where pedestrian traffic on pavements is heavy, and the only way to negotiate people is to walk in the road/cycle lane for a while. Although,headphoned, elderly , stupid people are all perceivable risks that a vulnerable cyclist should be aware of?
Good point. I try to use them but occasionally have to be a bit aggressive to be in a good vis ability position at junctions etc. sorry for the hijack.
I wonder at the point of some cycle lanes in towns, where pedestrian traffic on pavements is heavy, and the only way to negotiate people is to walk in the road/cycle lane for a while. Although,headphoned, elderly , stupid people are all perceivable risks that a vulnerable cyclist should be aware of?
In reply to Skol:
I had a bad time in one near me just last week.
There was a grid half the width of the Cycle lane and 2 inches deep, with a drainage ditch that tram-lines you into a wall if you should bounce out of the grid just so. would have been better out in the traffic, it wasn't particularly like the were any turns for traffic to turn across you, and the main carriage way is plenty wide even with the cycle lane.
Now I've not been cycling long, but it seems to me that the best places for cycle lanes is approaching junctions where stationary traffic tends to build up forcing you to filter in an unsafe way if you want to make any progress.
I had a bad time in one near me just last week.
There was a grid half the width of the Cycle lane and 2 inches deep, with a drainage ditch that tram-lines you into a wall if you should bounce out of the grid just so. would have been better out in the traffic, it wasn't particularly like the were any turns for traffic to turn across you, and the main carriage way is plenty wide even with the cycle lane.
Now I've not been cycling long, but it seems to me that the best places for cycle lanes is approaching junctions where stationary traffic tends to build up forcing you to filter in an unsafe way if you want to make any progress.
In reply to girlymonkey:
I'll admit to jumping some red lights which I know (from experience) are a bloody deathtrap if you try and wait for a green light.
I cross Trafford roundabout in Manc / Salford Quays, twice a day on a bike. Coming out of the quays, you've got three lanes of traffic hitting the roundabout. Now all three lanes can go 'over' the roundabout, or the leftmost two can take the left turn (and head towards manc centre).
If I'm on a cycle, I'm in the leftmost lane, going straight over
Very often, cars in either of those two leftmost lanes will turn off, regardless of whether I'm there or not, despite me wearing Hi-Viz clothing (or as I refer to it, my Klingon Cloaking Device. I've had a lot of near misses.
If the lights are on red at the approach to that roundabout and it's clear, I'm away to give myself a head start and increase my life chances slightly.
> Correct! I believe the best way to get good relationships between all road users is to not annoy people by jumping lights etc. It's nice to be nice!
I'll admit to jumping some red lights which I know (from experience) are a bloody deathtrap if you try and wait for a green light.
I cross Trafford roundabout in Manc / Salford Quays, twice a day on a bike. Coming out of the quays, you've got three lanes of traffic hitting the roundabout. Now all three lanes can go 'over' the roundabout, or the leftmost two can take the left turn (and head towards manc centre).
If I'm on a cycle, I'm in the leftmost lane, going straight over
Very often, cars in either of those two leftmost lanes will turn off, regardless of whether I'm there or not, despite me wearing Hi-Viz clothing (or as I refer to it, my Klingon Cloaking Device. I've had a lot of near misses.
If the lights are on red at the approach to that roundabout and it's clear, I'm away to give myself a head start and increase my life chances slightly.
In reply to Skol:
Not a cycle lane and usually full of things to puncture your tyres, and rough as a badgers ar@@ to ride on. So no if I'm on a trunk road, but I avoid trunk roads like the plague , not pleasant roads to ride on at all. If you do ride to the left of the white line, you get motorists passing very close to the white line at over 60mph, not safe or nice at all. Left of the line you are often out of line if sight of a driver, so reducing your safety again.
Not a cycle lane and usually full of things to puncture your tyres, and rough as a badgers ar@@ to ride on. So no if I'm on a trunk road, but I avoid trunk roads like the plague , not pleasant roads to ride on at all. If you do ride to the left of the white line, you get motorists passing very close to the white line at over 60mph, not safe or nice at all. Left of the line you are often out of line if sight of a driver, so reducing your safety again.
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
The point is that if Old Mrs Jones wants to cover the journey from end to end of this stretch of road, there is already a much safer alternative along a mix of residential roads and dedicated, shared and wider paths/cycle tracks - it just, possibly, needed better signage.
Spot on.
I got stopped by a driver a while ago for not using such a path on another road and tried to explain that it wasn't safe for me or other users at the speeds I could cycle at and that I (and them) were much safer if I was on the road.
> Or possibly a conflict between you (I'm guessing a confident road cyclist who rides at speed) and Old Mrs Jones who doesn't ride down that road at all because it's too scary?
The point is that if Old Mrs Jones wants to cover the journey from end to end of this stretch of road, there is already a much safer alternative along a mix of residential roads and dedicated, shared and wider paths/cycle tracks - it just, possibly, needed better signage.
> That is the paradox. Cycle facilities such as these (or the MK redways, or similar) are very good for Dutch-style low speed utility cycling on Dutch-style bikes (or adapted mountain bikes), they are actively bad for "proper" road cyclists. The question is where the balance is.
Spot on.
I got stopped by a driver a while ago for not using such a path on another road and tried to explain that it wasn't safe for me or other users at the speeds I could cycle at and that I (and them) were much safer if I was on the road.
In reply to girlymonkey:
Dog leads grrrrrrrr.
Walking side by side in cycle lane and ignoring bell grrr
Walking wih young child and doing nothing to stop kid running across path as cyclist approaches (and you've seen) irresponsible.
Dog leads grrrrrrrr.
Walking side by side in cycle lane and ignoring bell grrr
Walking wih young child and doing nothing to stop kid running across path as cyclist approaches (and you've seen) irresponsible.
Post edited at 20:12
In reply to Orgsm:
I agree with all of that except the last sentence. Around here we have some A roads with these white lines, and I try to use them as much as possible. I think the solid white line does give some indication to drivers that they shouldn't cross it leaving me ? safer . It's a lottery though, isn't it?
> Not a cycle lane and usually full of things to puncture your tyres, and rough as a badgers ar@@ to ride on. So no if I'm on a trunk road, but I avoid trunk roads like the plague , not pleasant roads to ride on at all. If you do ride to the left of the white line, you get motorists passing very close to the white line at over 60mph, not safe or nice at all. Left of the line you are often out of line if sight of a driver, so reducing your safety again.
I agree with all of that except the last sentence. Around here we have some A roads with these white lines, and I try to use them as much as possible. I think the solid white line does give some indication to drivers that they shouldn't cross it leaving me ? safer . It's a lottery though, isn't it?
In reply to LastBoyScout:
The number of people you see walking around the verges of the grid roads in MK where there is always an alternative would suggest people don't always use these if the route is not *glaringly* obvious.
Neil
The number of people you see walking around the verges of the grid roads in MK where there is always an alternative would suggest people don't always use these if the route is not *glaringly* obvious.
Neil
In reply to girlymonkey:
I use a short stretch of segregated cycleway every day on my commute to work to avoid having to go round a tortuous one way system. There is a white line down the middle, pedestrian and cycle symbols either side and helpfully to make the distinction even clearer, the cycle side has a green non slip bitumenous surface on it. And every day I meet pedestrians on the cycle side of the white line. Do I shout at them? No. Do I accuse them of having no consideration for other users and that basically, they are just a bunch of vandals? Do I just ride at them and make them move? No. I slow down and move out of their way and just get on with it (sometimes with gritted teeth mind).
As a mountain biker, road cyclist and someone who has spent the last three years of his professional life devising and implementing off-road cycleways, I know more than most about the levels of abuse cyclists get from walkers and other road users - and most of that is not evidence based at all. The Dept. for Transport has carried out research into cycle lanes (they are not pavements if cycling is allowed on them, they are cycleways) and has found that walkers are most likely to stray into and use cycle lanes and are more agressive and territorial if cyclists stray into 'their' side of the lane. Remind anyone of the Ramblers? Segregated cycleways entrench behavioural patterns such as this is 'my' space and that over there is 'yours' and encourages cyclists to go faster, because they think walkers will stay where they should be. Unsegregated lanes moderate behaviour and reduce speeds because all users are prepared to expect the unexpected.
In short, we all need to get on!
Aye,
Davie
I use a short stretch of segregated cycleway every day on my commute to work to avoid having to go round a tortuous one way system. There is a white line down the middle, pedestrian and cycle symbols either side and helpfully to make the distinction even clearer, the cycle side has a green non slip bitumenous surface on it. And every day I meet pedestrians on the cycle side of the white line. Do I shout at them? No. Do I accuse them of having no consideration for other users and that basically, they are just a bunch of vandals? Do I just ride at them and make them move? No. I slow down and move out of their way and just get on with it (sometimes with gritted teeth mind).
As a mountain biker, road cyclist and someone who has spent the last three years of his professional life devising and implementing off-road cycleways, I know more than most about the levels of abuse cyclists get from walkers and other road users - and most of that is not evidence based at all. The Dept. for Transport has carried out research into cycle lanes (they are not pavements if cycling is allowed on them, they are cycleways) and has found that walkers are most likely to stray into and use cycle lanes and are more agressive and territorial if cyclists stray into 'their' side of the lane. Remind anyone of the Ramblers? Segregated cycleways entrench behavioural patterns such as this is 'my' space and that over there is 'yours' and encourages cyclists to go faster, because they think walkers will stay where they should be. Unsegregated lanes moderate behaviour and reduce speeds because all users are prepared to expect the unexpected.
In short, we all need to get on!
Aye,
Davie
1
In reply to DR:
Good point, well made. Yes it's easy to get annoyed at pedestrians, they often seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are on a cycle track, or even crossing a road unless they hear a motor coming. And dogs - totally unpredictable, it's as if they have a mind of their own!
But I reckon the only way cyclists are going to get the respect we deserve is by going out of our way to be as pleasant as possible. When mountain biking I always say hello to walkers. And their dogs. Always let them know you're there. And slow down - yes even though it might cost you a few seconds and damage your Strava stats. Always thank the drivers that are considerate. I reckon if you do this you'll enjoy your riding more.
Good point, well made. Yes it's easy to get annoyed at pedestrians, they often seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are on a cycle track, or even crossing a road unless they hear a motor coming. And dogs - totally unpredictable, it's as if they have a mind of their own!
But I reckon the only way cyclists are going to get the respect we deserve is by going out of our way to be as pleasant as possible. When mountain biking I always say hello to walkers. And their dogs. Always let them know you're there. And slow down - yes even though it might cost you a few seconds and damage your Strava stats. Always thank the drivers that are considerate. I reckon if you do this you'll enjoy your riding more.
In reply to girlymonkey:
But don't get me started on the f@&£*#g t*#ts who park their white vans in cycle lanes
But don't get me started on the f@&£*#g t*#ts who park their white vans in cycle lanes
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
yes, I am all about being nice to everyone. I don't shout at the pedestrians who wander into my path, and I do slow down when I suspect someone might step out, my rant was about the ones who don't even look or give any idication of leaving the pavement and then give me the death stare! I get annoyed at them, but not out loud (except on an internet forum!! lol)
As for people parking in cycle lanes, my mum now stops and tells them off. She says now she has grey hair she is sure it's her right and privilege to be the grumpy old eccentric!! lol
yes, I am all about being nice to everyone. I don't shout at the pedestrians who wander into my path, and I do slow down when I suspect someone might step out, my rant was about the ones who don't even look or give any idication of leaving the pavement and then give me the death stare! I get annoyed at them, but not out loud (except on an internet forum!! lol)
As for people parking in cycle lanes, my mum now stops and tells them off. She says now she has grey hair she is sure it's her right and privilege to be the grumpy old eccentric!! lol
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Riding home tonight on the canal bank I was overtaken by a cyclist who didn't acknowledge my greeting and who then pushed past other path users without so much as an excuse me of any kind (bell, "bike behind" or similar). I followed at a distance almost apologising for the lack of consideration by a stranger.
> But I reckon the only way cyclists are going to get the respect we deserve is by going out of our way to be as pleasant as possible. When mountain biking I always say hello to walkers. And their dogs. Always let them know you're there. And slow down - yes even though it might cost you a few seconds and damage your Strava stats. Always thank the drivers that are considerate. I reckon if you do this you'll enjoy your riding more.
Riding home tonight on the canal bank I was overtaken by a cyclist who didn't acknowledge my greeting and who then pushed past other path users without so much as an excuse me of any kind (bell, "bike behind" or similar). I followed at a distance almost apologising for the lack of consideration by a stranger.
In reply to DR:
It's this reducing speed business that I don't understand. My work is a 38 mile commute, If I cycle I generally get the train for the first 12 miles or so then ride the rest, This already turns a 45 min drive into 2 hours so why on earth would I want to reduce my speed? It doesn't exactly encourage people to swap their car for a bike does it? 'Right guys, I want you to leave that nice safe, warm dry box, get on a hard saddle, work really hard, get wet, sweaty, take twice as long and put yourself in considerable danger - oh and by the way can you slow down a bit and take longer please?'
I ride most of my distance on trunk roads, a fair bit dual carriageway and definitely use the section behind the white line where possible, There is a four mile section with nice smooth cycle way/footpath which I don't use simply because the gates every 100 meters or so, pedestrians, kids, dogs joggers etc mean that to do so would put another 5 mins on an already long journey, not to mention massively increase the risk of a collision.
I commute by bike to increase my fitness and stamina, something that is not going to happen if I pootle along at two miles an hour. My best average is around 17mph (27kph) over the full 38 miles and as with all averages I regularly go a lot faster than this, not the sorts of speeds you want to hit a dog or child at hence the reason I use the road.
There is a section near the end where I feel genuinely safer doing just over a mile between two roundabouts on a 70 limit dual carriageway bypass than using the old road with its width restrictions and parked cars and school traffic and buses all fighting for space and none of them looking out for a cyclist. On the bypass I'm behind a solid white rumble strip, out the way of traffic and pedestrians.
If you want to make cycling a viable means of commuting outside of cities then you need two things, decent regular trains, and fast obstruction free cycle lanes. No one is going to seriously contemplate a commute of any real distance using the cycle lanes we have now unless they only work part time and can afford 4 hours a day to commute.
It's this reducing speed business that I don't understand. My work is a 38 mile commute, If I cycle I generally get the train for the first 12 miles or so then ride the rest, This already turns a 45 min drive into 2 hours so why on earth would I want to reduce my speed? It doesn't exactly encourage people to swap their car for a bike does it? 'Right guys, I want you to leave that nice safe, warm dry box, get on a hard saddle, work really hard, get wet, sweaty, take twice as long and put yourself in considerable danger - oh and by the way can you slow down a bit and take longer please?'
I ride most of my distance on trunk roads, a fair bit dual carriageway and definitely use the section behind the white line where possible, There is a four mile section with nice smooth cycle way/footpath which I don't use simply because the gates every 100 meters or so, pedestrians, kids, dogs joggers etc mean that to do so would put another 5 mins on an already long journey, not to mention massively increase the risk of a collision.
I commute by bike to increase my fitness and stamina, something that is not going to happen if I pootle along at two miles an hour. My best average is around 17mph (27kph) over the full 38 miles and as with all averages I regularly go a lot faster than this, not the sorts of speeds you want to hit a dog or child at hence the reason I use the road.
There is a section near the end where I feel genuinely safer doing just over a mile between two roundabouts on a 70 limit dual carriageway bypass than using the old road with its width restrictions and parked cars and school traffic and buses all fighting for space and none of them looking out for a cyclist. On the bypass I'm behind a solid white rumble strip, out the way of traffic and pedestrians.
If you want to make cycling a viable means of commuting outside of cities then you need two things, decent regular trains, and fast obstruction free cycle lanes. No one is going to seriously contemplate a commute of any real distance using the cycle lanes we have now unless they only work part time and can afford 4 hours a day to commute.
Post edited at 23:00
1
In reply to DR:
Erm, good? I use my bike to get around the place as quickly and safely as possible, not as a means of meeting interesting new people.
So making people slow and stressed is actually a design goal for the UK's cycling facilities? That probably explains why I don't often use them...
> Segregated cycleways entrench behavioural patterns such as this is 'my' space and that over there is 'yours' and encourages cyclists to go faster, because they think walkers will stay where they should be.
Erm, good? I use my bike to get around the place as quickly and safely as possible, not as a means of meeting interesting new people.
> Unsegregated lanes moderate behaviour and reduce speeds because all users are prepared to expect the unexpected.
So making people slow and stressed is actually a design goal for the UK's cycling facilities? That probably explains why I don't often use them...
In reply to girlymonkey:
Isn't illegal to ride on the pavement? I'm guessing it's not illegal for a pedestrian to walk in a cycle lane. Happy to be corrected
Isn't illegal to ride on the pavement? I'm guessing it's not illegal for a pedestrian to walk in a cycle lane. Happy to be corrected
In reply to girlymonkey:
I don't have a problem with cyclist on the footpath as long as they slow down and give pedestrians a wide berth. Covering their brake is a good idea but a lot of people have no concept of this. Motorists should also give this a go eg when approaching pedestrian crossings.
I don't have a problem with cyclist on the footpath as long as they slow down and give pedestrians a wide berth. Covering their brake is a good idea but a lot of people have no concept of this. Motorists should also give this a go eg when approaching pedestrian crossings.
In reply to robbo99:
I don't think there is (that's what a quick google search suggests).
Its more a question of education than anything else. When i lived in Germany, pedestrians walking in the cycleway was the exeception rather than the rule as pedestrians know not walk in cycle lanes.
My commute takes me along the worst thought out cycle lane ever. It has since been removed but it ran along directly next to a line of parking spaces and was about as wide as an open car door...
God knows what the planner waas thinking at the time.
I don't think there is (that's what a quick google search suggests).
Its more a question of education than anything else. When i lived in Germany, pedestrians walking in the cycleway was the exeception rather than the rule as pedestrians know not walk in cycle lanes.
My commute takes me along the worst thought out cycle lane ever. It has since been removed but it ran along directly next to a line of parking spaces and was about as wide as an open car door...
God knows what the planner waas thinking at the time.
In reply to paulcarey:
Germany is a much more compliant country, though - there is a recognition that for the greater good everyone has to comply to little rules like that. In the UK that is generally considered frivolous.
The Netherlands less so, but there you know that if you walk in the cycle lane you *will* get hit.
(In both countries, notably, it is legally required to use a cycle lane if present)
Neil
Germany is a much more compliant country, though - there is a recognition that for the greater good everyone has to comply to little rules like that. In the UK that is generally considered frivolous.
The Netherlands less so, but there you know that if you walk in the cycle lane you *will* get hit.
(In both countries, notably, it is legally required to use a cycle lane if present)
Neil
Post edited at 09:26
1
In reply to paulcarey:
The planner was thinking: "The rules say I must put in X metres of cycleway per kilometre of road so I'll put them here"
The planner was thinking: "The rules say I must put in X metres of cycleway per kilometre of road so I'll put them here"
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
Yeah that is true about people generally more willing to follow the rules in Germany. Which part of me liked a lot when I lived there, but also annoyed me!
It's a while since i used the Cable St cycleway but because there are so many cyclists most pedestrians seem to keep away. i'm sure a regular user will be along in a minute to say its terrible.
Yeah that is true about people generally more willing to follow the rules in Germany. Which part of me liked a lot when I lived there, but also annoyed me!
It's a while since i used the Cable St cycleway but because there are so many cyclists most pedestrians seem to keep away. i'm sure a regular user will be along in a minute to say its terrible.
In reply to Neil Williams:
I do - I used to get a perverse thrill from trying to get as many tuts as possible
I do - I used to get a perverse thrill from trying to get as many tuts as possible
In reply to paulcarey:
I think in Germany, as much as anything, its due to bikes being far more common. Here, many drivers done cycle, so have no patience for them on the road, and many pedestrians don't cycle so have no consideration for the cycle lanes or patience for them on pavements. In Germany, they want you to ring your bell at them if you are on the pavement (which is expected), here you would be rude for doing so even in a area that is permitted to be shared bikes and walkers (canal tow paths etc). I find a cheery hello can go down OK most of the time, but would never dream of ringing a bell!
I think in Germany, as much as anything, its due to bikes being far more common. Here, many drivers done cycle, so have no patience for them on the road, and many pedestrians don't cycle so have no consideration for the cycle lanes or patience for them on pavements. In Germany, they want you to ring your bell at them if you are on the pavement (which is expected), here you would be rude for doing so even in a area that is permitted to be shared bikes and walkers (canal tow paths etc). I find a cheery hello can go down OK most of the time, but would never dream of ringing a bell!
In reply to girlymonkey:
Funny, that. In MK ringing the bell is usual and isn't considered aggressive. Maybe it's the slight Dutch influence that comes from having the Redways?
I'd rather have a friendly bell from a distance giving plenty of time to get out of the way than a shout, which even if it is friendly sounds less so.
Neil
Funny, that. In MK ringing the bell is usual and isn't considered aggressive. Maybe it's the slight Dutch influence that comes from having the Redways?
I'd rather have a friendly bell from a distance giving plenty of time to get out of the way than a shout, which even if it is friendly sounds less so.
Neil
In reply to girlymonkey:
Buying a bell was the best thing in London, particularly for warning pedestrians. The intervvls between the pings of the bell depend on how imminent the collison is going to be!
It's funny, I would never dream of a voice warning. Always say thank you though when on shared path when someone does move.
Buying a bell was the best thing in London, particularly for warning pedestrians. The intervvls between the pings of the bell depend on how imminent the collison is going to be!
It's funny, I would never dream of a voice warning. Always say thank you though when on shared path when someone does move.
In reply to paulcarey:
I only have a bell on the tandem - the brakes are shocking on it!
When I get a bike seat for my daughter, I will probably fit that with a bell and let her ring it constantly :-D
I only have a bell on the tandem - the brakes are shocking on it!
When I get a bike seat for my daughter, I will probably fit that with a bell and let her ring it constantly :-D
In reply to paulcarey:
And nothing says "bike" like a bell (other than a larger bell which says "tram" )
A shout could be anything.
Neil
And nothing says "bike" like a bell (other than a larger bell which says "tram" )
A shout could be anything.
Neil
In reply to Skol:
This is because the cars don't use that bit of road and thereby sweep it clear of broken glass and other puncture hazards )
> A question to all really. On trunk roads with the white line at the side, offering approx 2 feet of space, do you use this or ride in the main carriageway?
> I see lots of cyclists not using this 'cycle lane' and often wonder why?
> I see lots of cyclists not using this 'cycle lane' and often wonder why?
This is because the cars don't use that bit of road and thereby sweep it clear of broken glass and other puncture hazards )
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
I always think a bell is a bit rude, with an inference of 'get out of my way, I'm better than you' - same with car horns, really*. Shouting is just the same thing for people who aren't too timid to vocalise their sense of superiority.
Best is to passive-aggressively ride right behind people really slowly and quietly, till they look around as the building resentment becomes palpable, give a start and jump out of the way
*Which are almost never used in the 'careful, old thing, I don't think you've noticed me' way they're supposed to be, but pretty much shorthand for 'what the $%&* are you doing, get out of my way'
> I'd rather have a friendly bell from a distance giving plenty of time to get out of the way than a shout, which even if it is friendly sounds less so.
I always think a bell is a bit rude, with an inference of 'get out of my way, I'm better than you' - same with car horns, really*. Shouting is just the same thing for people who aren't too timid to vocalise their sense of superiority.
Best is to passive-aggressively ride right behind people really slowly and quietly, till they look around as the building resentment becomes palpable, give a start and jump out of the way
*Which are almost never used in the 'careful, old thing, I don't think you've noticed me' way they're supposed to be, but pretty much shorthand for 'what the $%&* are you doing, get out of my way'
Post edited at 17:34
In reply to nufkin:
Car horns sound aggressive, though. I think cars would do well to have the kind of setup Manchester trams have - a friendly "toot" as a warning of presence, and an almighty scream if they're about to run you over.
Neil
Car horns sound aggressive, though. I think cars would do well to have the kind of setup Manchester trams have - a friendly "toot" as a warning of presence, and an almighty scream if they're about to run you over.
Neil
In reply to nufkin:
If cyclists who ride on pavements and/or shared paths are too shy either to ring a bell or shout hello, maybe they need to Trotify their bikes:
http://www.trotify.com
If cyclists who ride on pavements and/or shared paths are too shy either to ring a bell or shout hello, maybe they need to Trotify their bikes:
http://www.trotify.com
In reply to Ramblin dave:
It's not so good if people do random and unexpected things.
> Erm, good? I use my bike to get around the place as quickly and safely as possible, not as a means of meeting interesting new people.
It's not so good if people do random and unexpected things.
In reply to girlymonkey:
I starting to find myself wanting to give sarcastic applause if pedestrians used their necks and looked in my direction before stepping into the road a few years ago. Hopefully I'm now more chilled.
I starting to find myself wanting to give sarcastic applause if pedestrians used their necks and looked in my direction before stepping into the road a few years ago. Hopefully I'm now more chilled.
Post edited at 19:25
In reply to Timmd:
Riding home on the canal path a few weeks ago I approached a couple of women walking along (same direction as me). "Bike behind!" I called. The woman on the left moved to the right side of the path whilst the woman on the right moved to the left side. At which point they both burst in to laughter!
I prefer not to use a bell, I'd rather have both hands either covering or on the brakes, so a gentle "Bike behind!" is usually all it needs. Not met anyone (yet) who objected.
> It's not so good if people do random and unexpected things.
Riding home on the canal path a few weeks ago I approached a couple of women walking along (same direction as me). "Bike behind!" I called. The woman on the left moved to the right side of the path whilst the woman on the right moved to the left side. At which point they both burst in to laughter!
I prefer not to use a bell, I'd rather have both hands either covering or on the brakes, so a gentle "Bike behind!" is usually all it needs. Not met anyone (yet) who objected.
In reply to girlymonkey:
I don't have pedestrians to worry about.
During my night time training missions ,sheep are my nemesis.
Twice last week they were more stupid than they undoubtedly already are ,and ran out in front of me .
Bike lights seem to make them panic.
Have to watch for the deer as well.
I don't have pedestrians to worry about.
During my night time training missions ,sheep are my nemesis.
Twice last week they were more stupid than they undoubtedly already are ,and ran out in front of me .
Bike lights seem to make them panic.
Have to watch for the deer as well.
In reply to Bob:
If I use my voice as an alert while riding, I tend to use "coming past on your left/right" so they know which way to step. Doesn't always work though!
Neil
If I use my voice as an alert while riding, I tend to use "coming past on your left/right" so they know which way to step. Doesn't always work though!
Neil
In reply to nufkin:
I often have this dilemma when running, when I approach people from behind. If I shout in good time, it really sounds like "Get out of my way!", but if I leave it until I can say it more quietly, i am right behind them by then and often give them a start.
I usually go for the late call, and if they are startled, smile, say something nice, and carry on. It seems better.
I often have this dilemma when running, when I approach people from behind. If I shout in good time, it really sounds like "Get out of my way!", but if I leave it until I can say it more quietly, i am right behind them by then and often give them a start.
I usually go for the late call, and if they are startled, smile, say something nice, and carry on. It seems better.
In reply to Timmd:
So design a proper segregated facility where people are highly unlikely to do unexpected things and we can all get where we're going in a quick, safe and stress-free manner. Until then I'll be on the road.
Can you imagine anyone from the Department for Transport worrying that "segregated motorways entrench behavioural patterns such as this is 'my' space and that over there is 'yours' and encourages motorists to go faster"?
> It's not so good if people do random and unexpected things.
So design a proper segregated facility where people are highly unlikely to do unexpected things and we can all get where we're going in a quick, safe and stress-free manner. Until then I'll be on the road.
Can you imagine anyone from the Department for Transport worrying that "segregated motorways entrench behavioural patterns such as this is 'my' space and that over there is 'yours' and encourages motorists to go faster"?
1
In reply to nufkin:
At medium range a bell works nicely followed up by a shout if needed (or nod and thanks if not).
Although on my mountain bike the hum of the tyres can do the job fairly well themselves.
> I always think a bell is a bit rude, with an inference of 'get out of my way, I'm better than you' - same with car horns, really*.
At medium range a bell works nicely followed up by a shout if needed (or nod and thanks if not).
Although on my mountain bike the hum of the tyres can do the job fairly well themselves.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Roads pavements and bike lanes aren't personal racetracks.. Attitudes like yours basically make safe transport impossible.
Roads pavements and bike lanes aren't personal racetracks.. Attitudes like yours basically make safe transport impossible.
In reply to dissonance:
It's curious how bikes expect pedestrians to scatter before them but would go berserk at drivers who shot up behind them blaring their horns.
It's curious how bikes expect pedestrians to scatter before them but would go berserk at drivers who shot up behind them blaring their horns.
In reply to MG:
Not so much scatter but act consistently as indeed any road or path user should do.
On canalside paths pedestrians have right of way but that doesn't mean they should block other users or not look when changing direction. You wouldn't condone cyclists or drivers who randomly went from one side of the carriageway to the other without indicating so why should pedestrians be under any less responsibility.
Not so much scatter but act consistently as indeed any road or path user should do.
On canalside paths pedestrians have right of way but that doesn't mean they should block other users or not look when changing direction. You wouldn't condone cyclists or drivers who randomly went from one side of the carriageway to the other without indicating so why should pedestrians be under any less responsibility.
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Designing isn't the problem. Its finding the money and space to do something about it that's the problem.
> So design a proper segregated facility where people are highly unlikely to do unexpected things and we can all get where we're going in a quick, safe and stress-free manner. Until then I'll be on the road.
Designing isn't the problem. Its finding the money and space to do something about it that's the problem.
1
In reply to MG:
No, i expect pedestrians to treat the seperate bit of the road dedicated to bikes as part of the road, not part of the pavement! If I had my bike on a pavement, I wouldn't expect them to get out of my way. If pedestrians wanderer out onto a road without looking, drivers would use the horn!
No, i expect pedestrians to treat the seperate bit of the road dedicated to bikes as part of the road, not part of the pavement! If I had my bike on a pavement, I wouldn't expect them to get out of my way. If pedestrians wanderer out onto a road without looking, drivers would use the horn!
1
In reply to girlymonkey:
That wasn't aimed at you. I agree, if there are dedicated lanes for everyone, they should be used as planned. Assuming they are decently designed. This may mean cyclists have to slow down a bit though.
I was more thinking of cyclists who insist on their right to cycle down the middle of the lane on roads regardless of traffic but then expect pedestrians to get out of their way when they use a bell on paths. A general attitude of consideration from all would be preferable.
That wasn't aimed at you. I agree, if there are dedicated lanes for everyone, they should be used as planned. Assuming they are decently designed. This may mean cyclists have to slow down a bit though.
I was more thinking of cyclists who insist on their right to cycle down the middle of the lane on roads regardless of traffic but then expect pedestrians to get out of their way when they use a bell on paths. A general attitude of consideration from all would be preferable.
In reply to MG:
Its curious how some people talk shit.
> It's curious how bikes expect pedestrians to scatter before them but would go berserk at drivers who shot up behind them blaring their horns.
Its curious how some people talk shit.
1
In reply to girlymonkey:
They have this arrangement in Cardiff. It is good but poorly executed. I am both cyclist and pedestrian and as the later, it is not immediately obvious which is which. Also, the colour and style of bricks they use actually draw you (as a pedestrian) to use the cycle lane which is also free of street furniture like lamps and control boxes.
As a cyclist it bugs the hell out of me too, but I would rather be jostling with pedestrians instead of cars.
They have this arrangement in Cardiff. It is good but poorly executed. I am both cyclist and pedestrian and as the later, it is not immediately obvious which is which. Also, the colour and style of bricks they use actually draw you (as a pedestrian) to use the cycle lane which is also free of street furniture like lamps and control boxes.
As a cyclist it bugs the hell out of me too, but I would rather be jostling with pedestrians instead of cars.
In reply to MG:
Eh? I'd like to get to work quickly and safely like everyone else. If cycling on the road is quicker and safer than cycling on an unsegregated shared pavement then I'm going to do that.
Would you call motorways and dual carriageways "personal racetracks"?
> Roads pavements and bike lanes aren't personal racetracks.. Attitudes like yours basically make safe transport impossible.
Eh? I'd like to get to work quickly and safely like everyone else. If cycling on the road is quicker and safer than cycling on an unsegregated shared pavement then I'm going to do that.
Would you call motorways and dual carriageways "personal racetracks"?
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Thus not using dedicated cycleways installed a large expense, obstructing motor traffic that will now have less room as a result of the cycleways and encouraging no more investment in cycle infrastructure because "cyclists won't use it anyway". All so you get to work two minutes quicker. Separating cars and bikes is far safer but will result in cyclists having to go a bit slower.
No - they have speed limits, in case you hadn't noticed.
> Eh? I'd like to get to work quickly and safely like everyone else. If cycling on the road is quicker and safer than cycling on an unsegregated shared pavement then I'm going to do that.
Thus not using dedicated cycleways installed a large expense, obstructing motor traffic that will now have less room as a result of the cycleways and encouraging no more investment in cycle infrastructure because "cyclists won't use it anyway". All so you get to work two minutes quicker. Separating cars and bikes is far safer but will result in cyclists having to go a bit slower.
> Would you call motorways and dual carriageways "personal racetracks"?
No - they have speed limits, in case you hadn't noticed.
In reply to GrahamD:
Money, maybe, although cycling is a pretty small drop in the ocean of Britain's transport budget.
Space - this one's a pet hate of mine. Here's a list (plucked from Google, bu I think it's fairly well respected) of "top cycling cities": http://copenhagenize.eu/index/
I'm seeing quite a lot of old towns, cramped medieval centres and so on. Given that, I can't really see how people in Britain can apologise that a lack of space is the reason that we can't get decent cycling facilities in our towns.
"Political will" is probably the phrase you want.
> Designing isn't the problem. Its finding the money and space to do something about it that's the problem.
Money, maybe, although cycling is a pretty small drop in the ocean of Britain's transport budget.
Space - this one's a pet hate of mine. Here's a list (plucked from Google, bu I think it's fairly well respected) of "top cycling cities": http://copenhagenize.eu/index/
I'm seeing quite a lot of old towns, cramped medieval centres and so on. Given that, I can't really see how people in Britain can apologise that a lack of space is the reason that we can't get decent cycling facilities in our towns.
"Political will" is probably the phrase you want.
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
....or maybe a bit of all of that. Political will after all is supposed to reflect the wants of the population. We maybe don't lobby hard enough nor are we willing to stump up money.
....or maybe a bit of all of that. Political will after all is supposed to reflect the wants of the population. We maybe don't lobby hard enough nor are we willing to stump up money.
In reply to MG:
It's not a dedicated cycleway if it's got pedestrians wandering all over it.
Hang on, is it or is it not unreasonable to expect not to have to share space with pedestrians and slower vehicles? Or is it reasonable for motor vehicles but not for bikes?
If the cycling infrastructure is useless then there's no point wasting money on it anyway. Hopefully, though, people with any sense will look beyond "cyclists won't use it anyway" and think "maybe they would it we made it less rubbish."
But they're a lot faster than they would be if they had pavements and pedestrian crossings and were used by bikes, horses, tractors etc. They're a segregated facility that's designed so that cars can get to places faster. Which you seem to consider to be an unreasonable and selfish thing to want.
> Thus not using dedicated cycleways
It's not a dedicated cycleway if it's got pedestrians wandering all over it.
> obstructing motor traffic
Hang on, is it or is it not unreasonable to expect not to have to share space with pedestrians and slower vehicles? Or is it reasonable for motor vehicles but not for bikes?
> that will now have less room as a result of the cycleways and encouraging no more investment in cycle infrastructure
If the cycling infrastructure is useless then there's no point wasting money on it anyway. Hopefully, though, people with any sense will look beyond "cyclists won't use it anyway" and think "maybe they would it we made it less rubbish."
> No - they have speed limits, in case you hadn't noticed.
But they're a lot faster than they would be if they had pavements and pedestrian crossings and were used by bikes, horses, tractors etc. They're a segregated facility that's designed so that cars can get to places faster. Which you seem to consider to be an unreasonable and selfish thing to want.
1
In reply to GrahamD:
Well, political will determines whether we're happy to re-allocate money and space away from motor vehicles and toward bikes.
Whether or not it'd be a good idea to do that, "political will" suggests that it's something we could do if we wanted whereas just saying "no space and no money" suggests an inescapable limitation that it's pointless even thinking about changing.
Sorry, this is a pet hate of mine...
Well, political will determines whether we're happy to re-allocate money and space away from motor vehicles and toward bikes.
Whether or not it'd be a good idea to do that, "political will" suggests that it's something we could do if we wanted whereas just saying "no space and no money" suggests an inescapable limitation that it's pointless even thinking about changing.
Sorry, this is a pet hate of mine...
Post edited at 09:44
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
We were discussing dedicated cycleways. But anyway, it makes much more sense to combine pedestrians and cars than cars and bikes.
In an ideal world there would be three lanes (cars, bikes and pedestrians). Often there isn't room for this however so a compromise is needed. What doesn't work is having a bike lane taking up a strip of land and then having bikes insisting on using the road still. No one suggests its OK for pedestrians to walk down the middle of the road when there is a pavement, the same argument should apply to bikes.
We were discussing dedicated cycleways. But anyway, it makes much more sense to combine pedestrians and cars than cars and bikes.
In an ideal world there would be three lanes (cars, bikes and pedestrians). Often there isn't room for this however so a compromise is needed. What doesn't work is having a bike lane taking up a strip of land and then having bikes insisting on using the road still. No one suggests its OK for pedestrians to walk down the middle of the road when there is a pavement, the same argument should apply to bikes.
In reply to MG:
Actually, it seems that increasing numbers of extremely inconsiderate runners *do* seem to think it is perfectly OK to run down the middle of the road, causing disruption to cars and cyclists, largely in central London, where a pavement is provided and even where the pavement is not congested (but the road is). I've seen it nearly cause accidents on a number of occasions.
FWIW, what you say is the case in the Netherlands and Germany at least - and if a cyclist *does* erroneously ride on the road they are given very short shrift by drivers.
Neil
> In an ideal world there would be three lanes (cars, bikes and pedestrians). Often there isn't room for this however so a compromise is needed. What doesn't work is having a bike lane taking up a strip of land and then having bikes insisting on using the road still. No one suggests its OK for pedestrians to walk down the middle of the road when there is a pavement, the same argument should apply to bikes.
Actually, it seems that increasing numbers of extremely inconsiderate runners *do* seem to think it is perfectly OK to run down the middle of the road, causing disruption to cars and cyclists, largely in central London, where a pavement is provided and even where the pavement is not congested (but the road is). I've seen it nearly cause accidents on a number of occasions.
FWIW, what you say is the case in the Netherlands and Germany at least - and if a cyclist *does* erroneously ride on the road they are given very short shrift by drivers.
Neil
Post edited at 09:56
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Depends what you mean by "useless". The issue is that a cycle facility (something like the MK Redways) which is quite good for low-speed utility cycling isn't necessarily good for higher-speed road cycling, either for longer-distance commuting or for those who pursue cycling as a sport.
My take on it, though it would be as I am a low-speed city utility cyclist on the Dutch model, is that we should balance how much car travel each takes off the road when seeing which to favour in a given city, though. I don't think any road planning decisions should be based on those who wish to cycle as a pure sporting activity any more than they are for those who wish to drive or ride a motorcycle on that basis. People can use the road on that basis if they wish provided they conform to traffic laws, but the priority in transport planning is precisely that - transport, not sport.
But I suspect that view may well make me unpopular
Neil
Depends what you mean by "useless". The issue is that a cycle facility (something like the MK Redways) which is quite good for low-speed utility cycling isn't necessarily good for higher-speed road cycling, either for longer-distance commuting or for those who pursue cycling as a sport.
My take on it, though it would be as I am a low-speed city utility cyclist on the Dutch model, is that we should balance how much car travel each takes off the road when seeing which to favour in a given city, though. I don't think any road planning decisions should be based on those who wish to cycle as a pure sporting activity any more than they are for those who wish to drive or ride a motorcycle on that basis. People can use the road on that basis if they wish provided they conform to traffic laws, but the priority in transport planning is precisely that - transport, not sport.
But I suspect that view may well make me unpopular
Neil
1
In reply to MG:
If pavements were in the same state as most cycle lanes then pedestrians would be walking in the road!
> We were discussing dedicated cycleways. But anyway, it makes much more sense to combine pedestrians and cars than cars and bikes.
> In an ideal world there would be three lanes (cars, bikes and pedestrians). Often there isn't room for this however so a compromise is needed. What doesn't work is having a bike lane taking up a strip of land and then having bikes insisting on using the road still. No one suggests its OK for pedestrians to walk down the middle of the road when there is a pavement, the same argument should apply to bikes.
If pavements were in the same state as most cycle lanes then pedestrians would be walking in the road!
1
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Try somewhere like India or Thailand, where that is very often the case!
Neil
Try somewhere like India or Thailand, where that is very often the case!
Neil
In reply to MG:
If somebody riding a bike is wanting/needing to go faster than is considerate or safe on a cycle lane into which pedestrians may be straying, why is it a problem if they cycle quickly on the road instead?
Presumably, if they keep pace with the surrounding traffic and cause no obstructions, you wouldn't have a problem with that?
> In an ideal world there would be three lanes (cars, bikes and pedestrians). Often there isn't room for this however so a compromise is needed. What doesn't work is having a bike lane taking up a strip of land and then having bikes insisting on using the road still. No one suggests its OK for pedestrians to walk down the middle of the road when there is a pavement, the same argument should apply to bikes.
If somebody riding a bike is wanting/needing to go faster than is considerate or safe on a cycle lane into which pedestrians may be straying, why is it a problem if they cycle quickly on the road instead?
Presumably, if they keep pace with the surrounding traffic and cause no obstructions, you wouldn't have a problem with that?
Post edited at 11:59
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
That's fair enough.
> So design a proper segregated facility where people are highly unlikely to do unexpected things and we can all get where we're going in a quick, safe and stress-free manner. Until then I'll be on the road.
That's fair enough.
In reply to Timmd:
The 2004 Local Transport Notes on Walking and Cycling document (Department of Transport) had an annex D; Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists which recommends "As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
i.e. The Government recommends that those cycling at speed 'should' use the main carriage way. So if you are cycling on the road at speed, rather than the cycle lane you are following best practice........something that your average anti-cyclist driver probably has no knowledge of, nor would probably agree with.........but the advice is there, and for a reason.
The 2004 Local Transport Notes on Walking and Cycling document (Department of Transport) had an annex D; Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists which recommends "As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
i.e. The Government recommends that those cycling at speed 'should' use the main carriage way. So if you are cycling on the road at speed, rather than the cycle lane you are following best practice........something that your average anti-cyclist driver probably has no knowledge of, nor would probably agree with.........but the advice is there, and for a reason.
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
Yeah... a lot of it is based on common sense and give-and-take, I think. It's reasonable to expect to slow down when you're actually poking through the town centre. On the other hand, as you get out into the very centre of town the distances and the amount of space that's easily available both increase so you'd hope for something that'll actually let you get where you're going some time this week.
In fact, pretty much the same consideration applies as with roads - we're happy to drive slowly through the residential backstreets to your house, and deal with the odd horse or tractor on country lanes, but there's a motorway for getting from Birmingham to Manchester.
Conversely, not all on-road cycling is equal, and I'd guess that most cyclists will be more likely to take the on-road option if it's a smaller, slower and quieter road where they're less likely to significantly hold up traffic anyway.
> Depends what you mean by "useless". The issue is that a cycle facility (something like the MK Redways) which is quite good for low-speed utility cycling isn't necessarily good for higher-speed road cycling, either for longer-distance commuting or for those who pursue cycling as a sport.
Yeah... a lot of it is based on common sense and give-and-take, I think. It's reasonable to expect to slow down when you're actually poking through the town centre. On the other hand, as you get out into the very centre of town the distances and the amount of space that's easily available both increase so you'd hope for something that'll actually let you get where you're going some time this week.
In fact, pretty much the same consideration applies as with roads - we're happy to drive slowly through the residential backstreets to your house, and deal with the odd horse or tractor on country lanes, but there's a motorway for getting from Birmingham to Manchester.
Conversely, not all on-road cycling is equal, and I'd guess that most cyclists will be more likely to take the on-road option if it's a smaller, slower and quieter road where they're less likely to significantly hold up traffic anyway.
Post edited at 12:19
1
In reply to MG:
The post I was replying to was specifically talking about the policy of designing shared-use pavements without a divider rather than with one.
And on the second point, it depends a great deal on the road. Going through the town centre (where the pavements are packed and the cars are moving slowly anyway) it makes more sense to put the bikes on the road. Going along the route of a non-urban trunk road it makes more sense to put the bikes with the (relatively few) pedestrians, although in those cases the "we haven't got room for three segregated facilities" argument looks particularly silly.
Major suburban routes are somewhere between the two and often seem to be the worst places to cycle - the major challenge in planning a leisure rides around here is often finding a traffic-free or quiet route out of town...
> We were discussing dedicated cycleways. But anyway, it makes much more sense to combine pedestrians and cars than cars and bikes.
The post I was replying to was specifically talking about the policy of designing shared-use pavements without a divider rather than with one.
And on the second point, it depends a great deal on the road. Going through the town centre (where the pavements are packed and the cars are moving slowly anyway) it makes more sense to put the bikes on the road. Going along the route of a non-urban trunk road it makes more sense to put the bikes with the (relatively few) pedestrians, although in those cases the "we haven't got room for three segregated facilities" argument looks particularly silly.
Major suburban routes are somewhere between the two and often seem to be the worst places to cycle - the major challenge in planning a leisure rides around here is often finding a traffic-free or quiet route out of town...
1
In reply to girlymonkey:
In the spirit of this topic's title: "Dear Pedestrians, before you swear at me and declare, vocally and self-righteously, that the rules of the road apply to me, too, please take a moment to observe the traffic light I am cycling through: it's green for me, not you!"
Many cyclists ignore red lights. I am not one of them. Why do pedestrians assume that the presence of a cyclist in an intersection automatically implies that the light was red?
In the spirit of this topic's title: "Dear Pedestrians, before you swear at me and declare, vocally and self-righteously, that the rules of the road apply to me, too, please take a moment to observe the traffic light I am cycling through: it's green for me, not you!"
Many cyclists ignore red lights. I am not one of them. Why do pedestrians assume that the presence of a cyclist in an intersection automatically implies that the light was red?
In reply to Xharlie:
Corrected that for you
> Some cyclists ignore red lights. I am not one of them. Why do pedestrians assume that the presence of a cyclist in an intersection automatically implies that the light was red?
Corrected that for you
In reply to Xharlie:
I prepare to call out 'It's green' for when that happens, Sheffield seems quite chilled from that perspective though.
I prepare to call out 'It's green' for when that happens, Sheffield seems quite chilled from that perspective though.
In reply to Bob:
In London it might well be "many" - but perhaps because of high-profile enforcement (good!) it has noticeably reduced recently.
Neil
In London it might well be "many" - but perhaps because of high-profile enforcement (good!) it has noticeably reduced recently.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
I was riding home one night through the village and pulled to a smartish stop at a pedestrian crossing as the lights were turning. The middle-aged guy who'd triggered the change commented "I'd have ridden through myself".
I do wonder what the actual rate of RLJ by cyclists is/was? It's almost a car driver's litany: "I'll try not to kill you when you stop jumping red lights. In the meantime I'll do what I like"
I was riding home one night through the village and pulled to a smartish stop at a pedestrian crossing as the lights were turning. The middle-aged guy who'd triggered the change commented "I'd have ridden through myself".
I do wonder what the actual rate of RLJ by cyclists is/was? It's almost a car driver's litany: "I'll try not to kill you when you stop jumping red lights. In the meantime I'll do what I like"
In reply to Bob:
I see RLJ by cyclists very rarely, last time I saw it was in Hebden Bridge and they got abuse from other cyclists waiting at the lights.
I see RLJ by cyclists very rarely, last time I saw it was in Hebden Bridge and they got abuse from other cyclists waiting at the lights.
In reply to Bob:
I commute (by bike) through London every day of every week. "Many" is quite appropriate and repeat offenders are prolific.
I commute (by bike) through London every day of every week. "Many" is quite appropriate and repeat offenders are prolific.
Post edited at 13:40
In reply to Xharlie:
I wonder if it's a "big city" thing, I've seen it in Manchester (not been to London for 20 years other than having to walk between Kings X and St Pancras ) but hardly see it at all round here - Airedale, Skipton down to Bradford/Leeds. I'm not saying I don't see it, just that it's so rare that when it does happen it's something I remember - I've got between 14 and 28 sets of lights to go through on my commute depending on the route taken. Compared to the percentage of motor vehicles that stop in ASZs or jump lights it's still minuscule.
I wonder if it's a "big city" thing, I've seen it in Manchester (not been to London for 20 years other than having to walk between Kings X and St Pancras ) but hardly see it at all round here - Airedale, Skipton down to Bradford/Leeds. I'm not saying I don't see it, just that it's so rare that when it does happen it's something I remember - I've got between 14 and 28 sets of lights to go through on my commute depending on the route taken. Compared to the percentage of motor vehicles that stop in ASZs or jump lights it's still minuscule.
Post edited at 13:50
In reply to Xharlie:
Also a considerable number of pedestrians doing it too. Do people yell at them as well, I wonder?
> I commute (by bike) through London every day of every week. "Many" is quite appropriate and repeat offenders are prolific.
Also a considerable number of pedestrians doing it too. Do people yell at them as well, I wonder?
In reply to The New NickB:
All depends on what you count at RLJing.
I'll never do it at a cross roads, but at pedestrian crossings I go across once the pedo has crossed. I wouldn't do it in a car, but on a bike it makes sense to get going before the traffic does.
All depends on what you count at RLJing.
I'll never do it at a cross roads, but at pedestrian crossings I go across once the pedo has crossed. I wouldn't do it in a car, but on a bike it makes sense to get going before the traffic does.
In reply to Bob:
I nearly killed myself yesterday doing it by mistake! I must have ridden over something, and the sound it made sounded like my rear light falling off the bike (this has happened before, really need to put a better light on!!). I obviously should have stopped to check it, but wasn't thinking and looked down to check. While looking down, I presume I must have gone through a red light, as I looked up to find myself uncomfortably close to a taxi turning right. Fortunately my brakes are good!! Totally stupid, and would have been entirely my fault if I had crashed into him, I couldn't believe I did it!
I nearly killed myself yesterday doing it by mistake! I must have ridden over something, and the sound it made sounded like my rear light falling off the bike (this has happened before, really need to put a better light on!!). I obviously should have stopped to check it, but wasn't thinking and looked down to check. While looking down, I presume I must have gone through a red light, as I looked up to find myself uncomfortably close to a taxi turning right. Fortunately my brakes are good!! Totally stupid, and would have been entirely my fault if I had crashed into him, I couldn't believe I did it!
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I'm talking about junctions. I agree about pedestrian crossings.
> All depends on what you count at RLJing.
> I'll never do it at a cross roads, but at pedestrian crossings I go across once the pedo has crossed. I wouldn't do it in a car, but on a bike it makes sense to get going before the traffic does.
I'm talking about junctions. I agree about pedestrian crossings.
In reply to The New NickB:
Depends on the circumstances - I'll invariably RLJ a complex 5 road junction on my way home if a certain pretty traffic cop waves me through: she has an admirably pragmatic approach
I also get to jump red lights legally, but I am in Brussels - what would Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells think of it?
Depends on the circumstances - I'll invariably RLJ a complex 5 road junction on my way home if a certain pretty traffic cop waves me through: she has an admirably pragmatic approach
I also get to jump red lights legally, but I am in Brussels - what would Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells think of it?
1
In reply to DR:
Aside from the problems of obstructions and debris that have already been mentioned, for me one particularly annoying aspect of segregated cycle paths out of town is that despite being on the major road you often lose the right of way at every single junction. If you're training or long distance touring this makes them effectively useless - or worse than useless since they encourage drivers to act more irresponsibly and aggressively towards anyone choosing not to use them. Surely there must be a way to design the junctions so that the cyclist still has priority... if it was as easy and quick to get from A to B on the cycle path I'd most likely take the poorer surface over the artic lorry bombing past inches from my elbow, and everybody wins.
Aside from the problems of obstructions and debris that have already been mentioned, for me one particularly annoying aspect of segregated cycle paths out of town is that despite being on the major road you often lose the right of way at every single junction. If you're training or long distance touring this makes them effectively useless - or worse than useless since they encourage drivers to act more irresponsibly and aggressively towards anyone choosing not to use them. Surely there must be a way to design the junctions so that the cyclist still has priority... if it was as easy and quick to get from A to B on the cycle path I'd most likely take the poorer surface over the artic lorry bombing past inches from my elbow, and everybody wins.
In reply to Ciro:
Bugs me as well. Presumably the give way line at side junctions needs to be moved to include the cycle path as well
Bugs me as well. Presumably the give way line at side junctions needs to be moved to include the cycle path as well
In reply to The New NickB:
I once almost ended up coming to blows with another cyclist when he jumped a red light at a pedestrian crossing at speed, almost knocking over a small child in the process (as I caught and passed him further down the road, I told him I'd be watching over my shoulder and if I saw him try it again I'd clothesline him off the f*cking bike... he wasn't very pleased).
Even if you believe you're slowing down and making sure you're not putting anyone at risk, what sort of message is that sending out to the rest of the road users, who may not act as "responsibly"?
There's a signal that says it's OK to use your discretion - flashing amber.
> I'm talking about junctions. I agree about pedestrian crossings.
I once almost ended up coming to blows with another cyclist when he jumped a red light at a pedestrian crossing at speed, almost knocking over a small child in the process (as I caught and passed him further down the road, I told him I'd be watching over my shoulder and if I saw him try it again I'd clothesline him off the f*cking bike... he wasn't very pleased).
Even if you believe you're slowing down and making sure you're not putting anyone at risk, what sort of message is that sending out to the rest of the road users, who may not act as "responsibly"?
There's a signal that says it's OK to use your discretion - flashing amber.
1
In reply to Ciro:
We are not talking about the same thing. I stop, I may give myself a couple of seconds head start on a driver if the situation allows, but i always stop.
We are not talking about the same thing. I stop, I may give myself a couple of seconds head start on a driver if the situation allows, but i always stop.
In reply to Ciro:
Stuff like this is quite fun, too:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.1983152,0.0966207,3a,75y,335.3h,92.47t/da...
Strictly speaking you have priority over all the driveways, but in practice you have to slow down pretty much to a halt for all of them, because you're so close in that someone pulling out isn't going to see you until it's too late.
I still use that cycle lane, though, because the main road isn't much fun either.
Obviously this is another case where we can't do any better because there's no space on our narrow roads...
Stuff like this is quite fun, too:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.1983152,0.0966207,3a,75y,335.3h,92.47t/da...
Strictly speaking you have priority over all the driveways, but in practice you have to slow down pretty much to a halt for all of them, because you're so close in that someone pulling out isn't going to see you until it's too late.
I still use that cycle lane, though, because the main road isn't much fun either.
Obviously this is another case where we can't do any better because there's no space on our narrow roads...
Post edited at 17:37
In reply to The New NickB:
We are talking about the same thing... riding through a red light is riding through a red light.
Every red light jumper who sees you doing that is taking it as justification for jumping the lights in whatever manner they do so.
Every car driver who thinks cyclists don't obey the rules of the road so they shouldn't have to treat them the same as any other road users takes your action as justification for their view.
Every copper who sees you doing it but can't be arsed to write a ticket has his view that cyclists bring trouble on themselves confirmed. I actually had one giving me grief while I waited for an ambulance, as he didn't believe I'd been going through a green light when a pedestrian walked out from behind a van.
We are talking about the same thing... riding through a red light is riding through a red light.
Every red light jumper who sees you doing that is taking it as justification for jumping the lights in whatever manner they do so.
Every car driver who thinks cyclists don't obey the rules of the road so they shouldn't have to treat them the same as any other road users takes your action as justification for their view.
Every copper who sees you doing it but can't be arsed to write a ticket has his view that cyclists bring trouble on themselves confirmed. I actually had one giving me grief while I waited for an ambulance, as he didn't believe I'd been going through a green light when a pedestrian walked out from behind a van.
In reply to Skol:
good point some pedestrians walk in the road as if it were an extention of the pavement too
good point some pedestrians walk in the road as if it were an extention of the pavement too
In reply to Ramblin dave:
That kind of thing would be better the other side of the trees on a Dutch style intermediate-height kerb.
Neil
That kind of thing would be better the other side of the trees on a Dutch style intermediate-height kerb.
Neil
1
In reply to Ciro:
For me that's the most annoying thing about the segregated lanes. The cycle lanes in Geneva seemed to have a good solution: they are raised on the same level as the pavement, but on the approach to a junction there is a ramp down to the road level and then a marked cycle lane across the junction. There's a picture of the far side of a junction here where you can see the ramp back onto the cycle path:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OlD1O2cDP68/TgzFV_tqsVI/AAAAAAAAAFg/RyLAEXYmuvY/s...
> ...for me one particularly annoying aspect of segregated cycle paths out of town is that despite being on the major road you often lose the right of way at every single junction.... Surely there must be a way to design the junctions so that the cyclist still has priority...
For me that's the most annoying thing about the segregated lanes. The cycle lanes in Geneva seemed to have a good solution: they are raised on the same level as the pavement, but on the approach to a junction there is a ramp down to the road level and then a marked cycle lane across the junction. There's a picture of the far side of a junction here where you can see the ramp back onto the cycle path:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OlD1O2cDP68/TgzFV_tqsVI/AAAAAAAAAFg/RyLAEXYmuvY/s...
1
In reply to bigbobbyking:
What is the situation with cycling in Switzerland and in particular where you should do it absent any cycle lanes? In Vevey I always found that people pretty much universally cycle on the pavement unless they have an expensive road bike and are wearing lycra.
Neil
What is the situation with cycling in Switzerland and in particular where you should do it absent any cycle lanes? In Vevey I always found that people pretty much universally cycle on the pavement unless they have an expensive road bike and are wearing lycra.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
I sometimes find myself thinking that if one keeps in mind what rules are created to achieve, breaking them perhaps isn't so bad so long as the same outcome still happens.
Like how you're not suppose to park on pavements for obvious reasons, but occasionally you see one which has been parked on a corner wider than the rest of it, and it's still easy enough to use.
If everybody thought carefully and was considerate, I don't suppose we'd need so many rules.
I sometimes find myself thinking that if one keeps in mind what rules are created to achieve, breaking them perhaps isn't so bad so long as the same outcome still happens.
Like how you're not suppose to park on pavements for obvious reasons, but occasionally you see one which has been parked on a corner wider than the rest of it, and it's still easy enough to use.
If everybody thought carefully and was considerate, I don't suppose we'd need so many rules.
Post edited at 23:13
In reply to Neil Williams:
I don't live there anymore: but I didn't find people getting annoyed when I cycled in the road. My main memory of other cyclists was a total lack of lights after dark. But I think Geneva is a bit of an anomaly compared with the rest of Switzerland because it has such a large ex-pat population.
I don't live there anymore: but I didn't find people getting annoyed when I cycled in the road. My main memory of other cyclists was a total lack of lights after dark. But I think Geneva is a bit of an anomaly compared with the rest of Switzerland because it has such a large ex-pat population.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Amateur hour. This is how to manage that sort of thing properly.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/September20...
> (In reply to Ciro) Stuff like this is quite fun, too:
Amateur hour. This is how to manage that sort of thing properly.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/September20...
In reply to Timmd:
Probably true. Some would argue you only need one rule/law - "don't be a dick". I see the point.
Neil
Probably true. Some would argue you only need one rule/law - "don't be a dick". I see the point.
Neil
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I never said that making people slow down was a design goal of UK cycle facilities. I said that users themselves moderate their behaviour and cyclists have a lower average speed when there are no middle white lines - two very different things.
Davie
I never said that making people slow down was a design goal of UK cycle facilities. I said that users themselves moderate their behaviour and cyclists have a lower average speed when there are no middle white lines - two very different things.
Davie
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...