Are cycle lanes a waste of time?

[splodgeyAl 10]

I apologise if many people have said this over the last 3/4 pages already, but aren't you criticising cycle lanes because of poor cycling skills and lack of adherence to the rules by some cyclists?

 

apology accepted

[garryn 10]

(1)-I also saw a cyclist yesterday not stopping at traffic lights when the cars do................

 

The cyclist I saw on my way home actually moved from left to right straight in front of me and didnt indicate with his/her arm that they were in fact turning down a side road (3), they are on the road with us motorists and (2)I just think they should also obide by the highway code same as us.

 

1&2-I drove to work yesterday. Went thro on amber, looked in the rear view, 3 cars followed me. Lights definitely not still on amber.

 

3 highway code actually says to be aware cyclists can't always indicate. Look for them carrying out rear views (lifesavers) as this can in itself indicate that a position change is imminent

[DT Ralge 10]

Planner1 may well help me out here but I am sure that many cycle lanes are intended to do little more than narrow the road and keep 4-wheelers in check - they stop most car drivers thinking about overtaking - sorry to disillusion you bikers, they aren't for you! (What on earth are we to make of the cycle lanes on Clarkehouse Rd?)

And then there's the bitty bits of cycle lane and bollards on Abbey Lane (these have caused me to chuckle endlessly, "on your bike ... now get off ... on your bike ...) again they stop people overtaking ...

 

there are plenty of other examples of Councils painting the road to do nothing other than prevent numpties on four wheels meeting each other in the middle - A57 towards Worksop after Red Lion crossroads, centre line moved to the right and a generously wide carriageway-marking line on your left (it's NOT a bikelane) - check it out for yourselves.

[Kurgon 10]

As Steveh points out, cyclists are in no way obliged to use cycle lanes- the rules for cyclists are clearly laid out in the highway code and it's a little disturbing that there are car drivers out there who are under the impression that a cyclist not using a cycle lane is somehow breaking the rules of the road or being irresponsible.

 

Cyclists, when having a choice between 2 legal places to ride, need to make the judgement as to which is the safest- sadly, being on a cycle lane is not always the safest/best option.

 

Some reasons why have been mentioned in previous posts- additionally, in some road situations, it is simply not safe to be riding right at the edge of the road.

 

The point of cycle lanes should be to increase cycling safety- not as a method of shunting cyclists to the edge of the road out of the way of cars.

 

Responsible cyclists use their judgement to choose whether, in a given situation, it is better to be on the cycle lane or not.

 

Are cyclists alowed to use footpaths?

 

 

Just a question

[garryn 10]

Are cyclists alowed to use footpaths?

 

 

Just a question

 

Permissive footpaths or pavements?

 

footpaths, I believe, that bikes aren’t allowed – however they aren’t disallowed either. It’s basically that you have no ‘right’ to use it.

 

Pavements. Kids 10 and under can legally be on there. If you’re with a kid under 10, you can be there. Otherwise you should be on the road/cyclelane. Potentially theres a fine if you’re not. However, Paul Boateng, in guidance to the police, said that they should recognise that some adults would be scared next to busy roads and the fines weren’t for this situation.

[garryn 10]

Planner1 may well help me out here but I am sure that many cycle lanes are intended to do little more than narrow the road and keep 4-wheelers in check - they stop most car drivers thinking about overtaking - sorry to disillusion you bikers, they aren't for you!

 

I disagree that they're to slow down cars. Although I will agree that they stop people 'thinking' about overtaking.

 

There was a study done. looking at roads with and without cycle lanes. On roads without them cyclists are generally given more room by overtaking vehicles. On roads with them cars will just sail by, ignoring the highway code as regards how much space you're supposed to leave.

 

Another thing not considered is that the lanes painted are well under whats considered the ideal width. A car drives down the middle of the lane and I guess the driver expects the cyclist to do the same in his lane?

 

Only problem is the lanes are approx 1m wide. the edge of the lane is designated with paint (notorious for being slippy). CTC guidance is that you cycle NO CLOSER than 750mm to the kerb.

 

(BTW - I remember seeing a recommended width for a cycle lane. It was 6 foot.)

[garryn 10]

Just had a conflict with a van driver.

 

Seemed to think that overtaking meant to get alongside you and then keep moving swiftly left, forcing you into the kerb. This is at the approach to red lights, where there’s already standing traffic.

 

Kept doing it as he was getting a blast from a 120db airhorn…

 

Tried asking him “why’d you do that?”, “what did it gain you?”, “Have you passed your test, never mind applied for a licence or read the highway code?”

 

He was doing the usual ‘look ahead, If you don’t look at the cyclist he doesn’t exist’

 

Moved the bike back, tried the nearside door. Unlocked. So I opened it.

 

He tried to say he gave me plenty of room as he overtook. Pointed out he didn’t overtake, he never got past me. He merely used the size of his vehicle to try to dangerously bully another road user.

 

“No I didn’t, I’m a cyclist”:suspect:

 

“OK, why don’t you try driving like you know what you’re doing then?”

 

At that point I saw the lights had changed to amber, clipped in and cycled off, leaving his nearside door open.

 

Now following this I heard his wheels spin as he accelerated to shut the door and he passed me blasting his horn.

 

 

But he gave me about 6’ of room on the overtake!

[DT Ralge 10]

I disagree that they're to slow down cars. Although I will agree that they stop people 'thinking' about overtaking.

 

There was a study done. looking at roads with and without cycle lanes. On roads without them cyclists are generally given more room by overtaking vehicles. On roads with them cars will just sail by, ignoring the highway code as regards how much space you're supposed to leave.

 

Another thing not considered is that the lanes painted are well under whats considered the ideal width. A car drives down the middle of the lane and I guess the driver expects the cyclist to do the same in his lane?

 

Only problem is the lanes are approx 1m wide. the edge of the lane is designated with paint (notorious for being slippy). CTC guidance is that you cycle NO CLOSER than 750mm to the kerb.

 

(BTW - I remember seeing a recommended width for a cycle lane. It was 6 foot.)

 

OK but if you look at most/many of the painted lanes there is no fixed width of cycle lane BECAUSE all they are doing is filling in an available width - their thought process goes, "this is how much we should be giving cars (whatever that is) so what is left for bikes." Hence, there are plenty of roads around the country where there is only a cycle lane on one side of the road - so it's not just Sheffield.

I effect the council road safety team is only considering how to control motorised vehicles and the scrpaes they get themselves in. By positioning the traffic in a certain part of the road and limiting (for most drivers) the opportunity to overtake their safety aims can be achieved. Almost as a by-product of this are the cycle lanes - that is most clearly seen, as I wrote, on the A57 towards Worksop where they haven't bothered painting a cycle in the lane they have created only on one side. They don't stop every idiot thuogh.

One of the most important messags given in any on-road training is that Councils do NOT often (ever?) spend money pre-emptively. Their remit and budgets only allow reactive spending. i.e. problems of overtaking/speeding on this road according to Police incident reports - what tools do we have to deal with this ... painting cycle lanes is just one tool in their armoury.

[garryn 10]

Most are apparantly ill thought out and seem painted purely because the moneys available from central govt to 'promote cycling' (?)

 

You have to wonder about the fact that cycle lanes are painted predominantly with the 'non mandatory' broken line (which effectively means cars can use that part of the road, why bother with a lane in the 1st place?) and generally theres no parking restriction alongside (which confuses car drivers as they somehow expect cyclists to stay in the lane and still make forward progress through parked vehicles)

 

As to councils only acting reactively, that's why I report incidents to the police. Theres little enough done by the police to prosecute dangerous driving at present

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3850621.ece

 

I've heard too many reports recently of the police reps misinforming the public to stop them reporting incidents (e.g. one cyclist knocked of his bike, being left hooked by a car, which subsequently shot off, was told that he couldn't personally report it at a police station as 24hrs had passed - even tho witnesses were available had phoned and got an ambulance to attend etc. As far as I know thats a hit and run?)

 

If reported incidents rise then maybe they'll have to do something.

Soon those incidents I report will have video backup.

[DT Ralge 10]

Most are apparantly ill thought out and seem painted purely because the moneys available from central govt to 'promote cycling' (?)

 

You have to wonder about the fact that cycle lanes are painted predominantly with the 'non mandatory' broken line (which effectively means cars can use that part of the road, why bother with a lane in the 1st place?) and generally theres no parking restriction alongside (which confuses car drivers as they somehow expect cyclists to stay in the lane and still make forward progress through parked vehicles)

 

As to councils only acting reactively, that's why I report incidents to the police. Theres little enough done by the police to prosecute dangerous driving at present

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3850621.ece

 

I've heard too many reports recently of the police reps misinforming the public to stop them reporting incidents (e.g. one cyclist knocked of his bike, being left hooked by a car, which subsequently shot off, was told that he couldn't personally report it at a police station as 24hrs had passed - even tho witnesses were available had phoned and got an ambulance to attend etc. As far as I know thats a hit and run?)

 

If reported incidents rise then maybe they'll have to do something.

Soon those incidents I report will have video backup.

 

More power to your elbow in reporting these incidents. You maybe stole my thunder on the use of video - I have reckoned for some time that there is a massive market waiting to be exploited in in-vehicle video recording. To go with their tracking and vehicle/driver data recording devices, some of the larger commercial vehicle (and bus, I believe) operators already have such technology. Only problem is where to point the lens - there's so much crap driving all around.

[Lindos 10]

Theres to sides to every story...

 

On thursday morning I was confronted twice by cyclists using the pavement on the upper part of Hanover way. It seems that if there is no cycle path provided, this means thay can use the whole pavement.

 

The first chap, fully kitted out in proper cycling gear, had to stop because he couldn't get past me. I politely showed him where the road was and he duely used it for about 3 yards, then popped back on the pavement to continue his journey. He shouted something I didn't quite catch, is seems he thought I was being unreasonable; perhaps I should have walked on the road for him?

 

The second chap was a fair weather, dressed in tee shirt and without a helmet. He was probably afraid to use the road, I pointed out where he should be, but he just sat on his bike and looked at the floor.

[garryn 10]

This isn't the bit with the shared use path is it?