AIBU expecting cyclists to use the cycle tracks?

absent there is part of the road traffic act that relates to an offence of 'pedalling wantonly and furiously on the Queens highway' I believe. What speed you would have to get to I have no idea though.

"they are never in the wrong"

Of course cyclists are sometimes in the wrong, but less often than motorists it seems.

[sigh] of course he would trisher, they are never in the wrong.
I suppose because motorists pay road tax they may feel that they do have a right to drive on the roads because they more than pay for them, and that if there is a cycle track then perhaps cyclists should use it (presumably paid for out of road tax) and not ignore it in favour of dodging in and out of the traffic then blaming everyone else when they cause an accident, or hitting poor pedestrians who get in their way (see other thread, hope you are better now felice).

Don't know why this is resurrected but it comes on the day I was overtaken as I crossed the road with a green man at the lights by a cyclist who then made his way up the street, criss crossing from the road to the pavement, swerving round pedestrians and dodging cars. He was well on his way to causing an accident either hitting someone who was walking or being hit by a car. I suppose being a cyclist he would blame the other party when it happened.

N&G The reason is that there are millions of motorists with a vested interest masquerading as a concern for cyclists safety, thousands of ignorant cyclists who don't know where their best interests lie, and the usual collection of safety campaigners who think they owe society a moral duty. Against an army like that there's little hope for a any rational debate. Cycle paths are built by motorists for motorists.

As I think I may have Asperger's, I'm listening to a program on autism as I type this. When someone mentioned this blog it struck me just how appropriate these words are to this thread:

"We seek truth, not sham;
Reality, not opinion.
We say it like it is,
With no hidden agendas.
We’re not imprisoned in what others think."

Cyclepaths aren't the first, and won't be the last, counterproductive policy that an irrational society wastes money on, because people are more interested in what makes them feel better than what works.

Falconbird a problem with motorists is that many routinely ignore speed limits, but society isn't prejudiced against them in the same way they are against cyclists. Cyclists don't ram motorists off the road, cyclists don't sabotage roads with barbed wire and fish hooks. The TRL have shown that more cycle accidents are caused by motorists than by cyclists (children excepted).

I live near a lovely cycle track which was an old railway line and enjoy sitting on a bench and watching the cyclists.

BUT the problem is they never ring their bells as a warning that they are behind you.

I've only skipped through this thread because I'm sure my views have already been voiced by other but your post Crun about 30 odd studies on why cycle paths are more dangerous than roads makes me wonder why we're still building the things at great cost if that's the case?

Anyone know?

Anyone looking at this, you need to read the text. I watched it twice without realizing what I was looking at.

At least there's somebody willing to use the cycle path.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNPag9KcPXI

A little light reading for the open minded: a list of 30-odd studies finding that cycle paths are more dangerous than riding on the road.

A couple of interesting comments from the Transport Research Laboratory:

"The literature review found little research on the role of other road users in cycle collisions, particularly in terms of their behaviour; the main focus of most papers was on the cyclist."

"motorists perceive that there is a 'social norm' for motorists to pass cyclists even if they do not think it is safe to do so"

"I do not think that cycling several bikes abreast and wobbling about from verge to white lines is cycling with thought for other road users."

It isn't supposed to be, it's prioritising safety over convenience. If motorists were doing the same, they wouldn't be getting irate in the first place.

Lost track of this thread for a bit. When I'm driving I don't assume cyclists will be on cycle tracks mainly because in my experience they aren't. When I used to cycle five miles to work, only about two miles of that was cycle paths and in fact those were on space shared by pedestrians. Since I didn't cycle fast I used the cycle tracks but it'd have been a right pain for both me and pedestrians if I had been a fast cyclist.

There are no pavements on many of the roads round here so one jolly well has to be prepared for cyclists and pedestrians on the road.

I'll have a look at that, crun. Thanks.

Thatbags if you're interested in risk compensation have a read of Adams. It ought to be compulsory reading really.

But a driver is not sitting there thinking about whether there might be cyclists who regard cycle tracks as being badly designed, they will simply assume that that is where cyclists will be.

All cyclists and drivers should indeed expect the unexpected, but it is incumbent upon both cyclists and drivers to take steps not to be themselves the unexpected, by driving carefully and with thought for other road users. I do not think that cycling several bikes abreast and wobbling about from verge to white lines is cycling with thought for other road users.

It works both ways: cyclists must have thought for the needs of other road users, just as motorists (and horse riders and motorcyclists and bus drivers etc.) must.

I don't agree with your last comment, lucky. Drivers should always be on the lookout for the unexpected. "Expect the unexpected" is a good rule of thumb, I reckon.

Besides which, crun and others, including me, have explained why many cycle tracks are badly designed by people who don't know enough about cycling and are often not really fit for purpose.

Busy = dangerous, quiet = safer? This is another common misconception. In fact it's precisely the other way around, it's been known for more than half a century that the roads get safer as they get busier, not more dangerous. It's called Smeed's Law.

That's very interesting, crun. Two of the three times I was knocked off my bike by a car there was no other traffic about. The first one pulled out of a side road into me (no, I've no idea why he didn't see me either). The second one crossed my path turning right suddenly (no signal) and there was no time for me to brake. Unfortunately my bike didn't make a dent in his car.

I would like to add that the original post was about use of cycle tracks. Where they exist it is important that cyclists use them because, whatever you regard as the rights and wrongs of these tracks in principle, drivers will be expecting cyclists not to be on the road, and the unexpected might cause an accident.

I DON'T blame the cyclists - that was the point of my post! I am saying that there are good drivers and good cyclists, bad drivers and bad cyclists. And the cyclists are the most at risk of injury in this situation.

When I did my advanced driving course I was criticised for driving too slowly as this is a known cause of accidents. Cyclists need to make sure that they drive in a way that does not slow down the flow of traffic to the point where it becomes a danger.

Oh heavens – it’s not a battle, but simply a matter of wanting people to be safe.

It’s a battle because motorists want cyclist’s safety less than they want convenience for themselves.

No way would I ride a bike round here - it is a suicidal act.

As I’ve already said, in spite of everything it’s not suicidal. By choosing a car you are reducing your life expectancy seven times more than by cycling. Motorists treat cyclists like children who are stupid for playing in front of the traffic, but they are seven times less stupid than those who choose to be unfit lard-arses.

The simple fact is that accidents happen and when these happen between a cyclist and a motorist, the greater size and weight of the car/van/lorry means that the cyclist is in danger.

Yes, exactly, and there’s no motive for motorists to change because they have all the convenience, whilst cyclists have all the danger. I’m alright Jack.

There is no way that all accidents can be prevented, and it does not mean that motorists hate cyclists, but simply that the combination is fraught with hazard.

A lot of motorists patently hate anyone who gets in the way of what they want. I’ve been barged off the road, slapped, squirted with water, spat at, and even threatened with a hammer. My cousin worked as a traffic warden, and she even had threatening phone calls at home. I’ve already cited the research by Walker, who found that being polite simply goaded motorists into being deliberately malicious, it was the threat of prosecution that made them change.

Of course there are crass idiotic motorists who speed; but equally there are crass idiotic cyclists who have a point to make by riding/ wobbling in wide bunches and risk their lives doing so.

They aren’t making a point, they’re making themselves safe. On 5 Sept you described yourself as overtaking safely, and then complained of the risk of them swerving unexpectedly, but if you haven’t left room for them to move it’s not a safe place to overtake. Some cyclists have been known to wobble deliberately because it gets them more overtaking clearance. Last Tuesday I was barged into the gutter by a motorist who chose to overtake where there wasn’t room, rather than wait 5 seconds. I’ve already shown you the instructions from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency that 50% of all children are currently being taught, and there are calls for it to be put on the national curriculum, so you’re going to have to learn to like it or lump it.

Mutual consideration is the stuff of an ideal world, however laudable.

Mutual consideration is what you get when both parties have the same to gain, and the same to lose. On the other hand confrontation is what usually results when one party has a monopoly on all the power.

I always hang back when I meet a cyclist - but that is no help to safety as the motorists behind me get irritated and then overtake me plus the cyclists, putting more people at risk.

And why do you blame the cyclists rather than the motorists?

Oh heavens - it s not a battle, but simply a matter of wanting people to be safe. No way would I ride a bike round here - it is a suicidal act. The simple fact is that accidents happen and when these happen between a cyclist and a motorist, the greater size and weight of the car/van/lorry means that the cyclist is in danger. There is no way that all accidents can be prevented, and it does not mean that motorists hate cyclists, but simply that the combination is fraught with hazard.

Of course there are crass idiotic motorists who speed; but equally there are crass idiotic cyclists who have a point to make by riding/ wobbling in wide bunches and risk their lives doing so. Mutual consideration is the stuff of an ideal world, however laudable. In the meantime cyclists are at risk - I worked for a head injury service for many years, so speak from experience.

There are many places round here where there are narrow roads with hills and blind bends and meeting a cyclist at the top of a hill, or round a bend, is a scary business, especially if they are wobbling about the road.

And I do get annoyed when a cyclist thinks that glancing behind equals a signal that they are about to turn right.

I always hang back when I meet a cyclist - but that is no help to safety as the motorists behind me get irritated and then overtake me plus the cyclists, putting more people at risk.

Cyclists in single file with high viz gear, helmets and consideration for other road users are not a problem.....except for the state of the roads (I live in pothole country!). In an ideal world these potholes would be filled - but we are not in an ideal world, and this issue is not about principles but simply about safety.

As long as there are inconsiderate cyclists, inconsiderate motorists and poor road surfaces, cyclists will be at risk. No-one has a magic wand to right these wrongs.

"Last week I biked into town 4 miles along a rural A road (not too busy )."

Busy = dangerous, quiet = safer? This is another common misconception. In fact it's precisely the other way around, it's been known for more than half a century that the roads get safer as they get busier, not more dangerous. It's called Smeed's Law.

The reason that busy roads are safer is precisely because people see them as more dangerous. When people perceive more danger they take more care, and when they take more care the accident rate goes down. That's the whole point of being careful.

It's the same reason why Monderman's shared space schemes reduce the accident rate instead of increasing it. You would think that mixing cars cyclists and pedestrians all together in the same space would be more dangerous, and it's precisely because that's what everyone thinks that the accident rate goes down. They take more care!

If cyclists feel safer on a cycle track that's a reason why they're likely to take less care, and thus make themselves less safe.

A Scandinavian traffic engineer called Janssen showed that people drive faster when they wear seatbelts, that's why the death rate among pedestrians and cyclists went up after seatbelts were made compulsory.

In the 1970s America did an experiment in which the compulsory motorcycle helmet legislation was revoked in 50% of the states, and retained in the other 50%. The death rate was lower in the states with no compulsion, because riders with no helmet feel more vulnerable, and thus ride more carefully as a result.

When the Davy Lamp was introduced into coal mines the number of explosions increased. Why? Because once the miners felt protected from the risk of explosions, they were less careful about checking the mines for methane. Sparks from tools will ignite the methane, as well as naked flames.

Safety is not simple, people always assume that safety devices reduce accidents, but they forget that feeling safer changes people's behaviour in a way that increases the danger.

Don't mean my post to sound irritating, anno, though I'm aware it probably does.

...even if he was in the wrong. Anticipation of wrong or stupid behaviour by other road users is the essence of good driving.

Was it a cycle path as well or just a pavement, anno? If the latter, then cyclist was not careful enough; if the former, he had every right to keep going; presumably you overtook him at some point not far before the junction so could have anticipated his wish to keep going.