AIBU expecting cyclists to use the cycle tracks?

So let me get this straight.

Car drivers need to be patient sometimes. So when I set out to pick up DGD from school, at most a 15-20 minute drive at about a steady 45-50 mph, I have to remember to set out 15-20 minutes earlier because I may come up behind a cyclist on the winding A road I have to negotiate.

Ok I will try to remember. Can't leave DGD standing in the playground upset because no-one is there to meet her, so I will allow 40 minutes for a 7 mile journey. Even though there are places where the cyclist(s) could pull in to let the queue of cars past but will not.

I will try to remember that is not the fault of the cyclist who wobbled dangerously out into the middle of the road in a long stream of traffic, causing a poor young woman to swerve as she was carefully negotiating her way past him and thus hit an oncoming car, killing two people. I am sure she will be reassured to hear that, especially as there is an excellent cycle track by the side of the road used by all other cyclists except that one who persisted in using the road.

I am always mindful of cyclists as there are so many of them on the roads around us - but they do seem to have taken over the roads in our area.
Along with the motorcyclists who speed and soup up their bikes to make the most noise possible.

I have no objection to cyclists using the roads (whether there is a cycle path or not) and always do my best to give them space and drive carefully. What I do object to strongly is them riding on the pavement. We live in an area where people like to take a stroll by the river but the number of times a cyclist has brushed past me at speed from behind making me jump has happened so often that I am constantly checking behind me to see if one is coming.

There is a lovely nature trail by the river that is quite clearly marked no cycling with big signs. Do they care? Not a jot. Shouting at walkers to get out of their way or madly ringing a bell is bad enough but the ones who swoosh past without notice are the worst.

Sorry rant over (I am not talking about children on their bikes but of adults)

I think anyone with a little common sense can see that there are good road users and bad road users among all groups, but the debate invariably ends up as Walker describes, with motorists comparing good motorists against bad cyclists, and cyclists comparing good cyclists with bad motorists.

On the subject of cycle paths, the problem with them is that they’re built for motorists, not cyclists. They’re popular with novice cyclists because they mistakenly believe that their interests lie in getting as far away from the traffic as possible, but experienced cyclists are a lot more ambivalent. You want my opinion, I think they’re a waste of tax-payers money because they’re teaching motorists that cyclists have no right to be on the road, and because the places where there’s room for them are the ones where they’re of least use.

If you give two tribes each their own territories to defend; then defend them is exactly what they will do, and a turf war breaks out. Pedestrians have their own territory which is protected by law, and motorists have theirs “because we pay road tax”, so cyclists are left as the minority that nobody wants. The result is that they get offered token cycle tracks in order to get them out of the way, and then the usual prejudice ensues if they don’t oblige by using them. Cycle tracks are the highway equivalent of a refugee camp.

When you create rules, people are apt to apply them slavishly and abdicate responsibility for using their own initiative and common sense, “It’s your fault for jumping a red light”, “It’s your fault for breaking the speed limit” etc. By contrast, Hans Monderman’s shared-space schemes create a safer, better system for everyone by putting the responsibility back onto the road users to negotiate with each other for the space they occupy. As a bonus, it also gets rid of a helluva lot of ugly street furniture. His party trick was to demonstrate the effectiveness of a shared space scheme by walking through the middle of a busy road junction blindfolded, a feat not only achieved in complete safety, but also without any fuss or abuse either. Shared space schemes are the way to go.

I was tempted to launch into a diatribe about some of the countless occasions when I’ve nearly been killed by motorists, but I’ll just refer you to the Transport Research Laboratory’s statistics which find that motorists are at fault more often than the cyclists (children excepted).

Just how much inconvenience does it take to justify killing a cyclist?

*thatbags the road near my house has a crossing that requires you to cross one side then wait in the middle for the next green man. Cyclists stand there astride their bikes waiting. It isn't too bad if it is just one cyclist and you but quite often there are a few people and more than one cyclist and there is no space. They use the crossing, although it isn't for bikes, because it is often quicker than sitting waiting at the lights.

thatbags - you have completely missed my point. The cyclists ride in bunches 3 OR 4 ABREAST. The comment that we should all fucking wait and laughing was a sign they were happy to hold up a long line of traffic. If they were riding single file cars could have safely passed them. I am not an angry or impatient driver

I hate cyclists in the woods who sneak up without a sound when I'm with my 2 year old gs and old labrador. Had so many near misses, why oh why can't they RING their bell? Lots of them don't even have a bell grrr

But it still isn't the fault of cyclists if roads are inadequate.

One gets maniacs even on the best roads. Every time I drive on a motorway (which is not frequently) I'm struck with the number of lunatics behind wheels. I'm equally struck by how many decent and polite drivers there are.

I'm not saying that there aren't pain in the butt cyclists. Of course there are, just as there are pains in the butt every other kind of person, but people who rant on about how awful cyclists are just sound very angry and impatient to me. I bet they are impatient behind slow automobiles as well.

I take the same view of horse-riders as I do of cyclists: why on earth should they get out of the way of other road users? They have just as much right to be there, minding their own business and going at their own pace. Seems a lot of people don't get that at all.

For me the point is that a long tailback carries its own dangers. Whether we like it or not there are those who find this hard to deal with and take unnecessary risks in this situation. Personally I am happy to wait, and this is part of why I like living in the country, but that does not apply to all and risky overtaking is likely.

I also have a problem when passing a cyclist in a safe place that they often move out at the last minute and it is pretty scary!

A straightforward question (i.e. non-aggressive): What does this mean, please? "trying to cross at crossings where their bike blocks the pavement"

I haven't been able to imagine the scene where a bike blocks a pavement at a crossing. Is the person with the bike waiting to cross the road too?

I've never come across this problem so I can't visualise it and would appreciate a more detailed description.

Crun Do you have any opinions of your own? Or are just going to quote others and plagiarise stuff from the Internet? Just asking.

Well said trisher!

I am not prejudiced against cyclists and the idea that just because I object to the way some of them behave I must be is ridiculous. As a pedestrian I am subjected to dodging them, trying to cross at crossings where their bike blocks the pavement and wondering if one of them is going to swerve in front of me when the traffic lights turn red. Of course not all cyclists do this and some behave perfectly. Why is it prejudiced to ask that something be done about those who do not?

"So when a cyclist undertakes me, runs into the back of me, doesn't stop at a red light and I have to brake suddenly to avoid him/her, doesn't give hand signals and turns right in front of me, doesn't have lights, cycles across a pelican crossing when the red man is showing, doesn't stop when a pedestrian is crossing a zebra crossing or pelican crossing when they have priority or cycles the wrong way around a roundabout, I'll remember it's not the cyclists fault."

"What you see in discourses about cycling is the absolute classic 1960s and 1970s social psychology of prejudice. It’s exactly those things that used to be done about minority ethnic groups and so on – the overgeneralisation of negative traits, under-representation of negative behaviours by one’s own group, that kind of thing. It’s just textbook prejudiced behaviour. This is played out in the media, on television and radio and, most virulently, via social media and website comments."

Dr Ian Walker
Senior Lecturer in Traffic and Transport Psychology, Bath University

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/01/sabotage-and-hatred-what-have-people-got-against-cyclists

I live in the country too. I just slow down if there's something slow in front of me. There's only one place it's safe to overtake for four miles from our house. So what? That's life.

Well, why shouldn't you fucking wait (your phrase; asterisks are just patronising), sunseeker? Seriously. If cyclists have as much right to use the road as car drivers do, which they do, why should they get out of your way just because you have a more powerful engine?

I still think you cannot assume they are laughing about holding up other road users. That's just your take because you are annoyed. They might just be enjoying riding together.

You also seem to be forgetting that most cyclists also drive cars, so they know about being held up too. Maybe they come into the patient category of drivers who don't think everything slower than them has to get out of their way.

sunseeker - we live in the countryside too and your post contains things that happen with us all the time. The last thing anyone wants is an accident and people hurt.

I am wondering why if they don't like them and don't want to use them cyclists persist in asking for cycle lanes? Wouldn't it be better, safer and easier if the road was just a little wider instead. My objection to cyclists is city based, where they pick and choose as to where they ride and what rules they apply. So they will ride a cycle lane for a bit, come up onto the pavement if they feel like it, swerve up onto the pavement to avoid a red light and use a pedestrian crossing when it suits them. You never know where they will come from.

This seems to be turning into an cyclists -v- car drivers thread. All I say is I will respect your right to use the road, if you respect my right to use the road and that includes being aware of other road users.

As previously said I am used to be held up by tractors, cows and horse riders - and accept that as I live in the country. What annoys me are those cyclists (and that is not all cyclists) who seem to think they have more rights on the road. When I am held up behind a bunch of cyclists, it's not a number riding single file (that would not be a problem) - its around 15/20 riding 3/4 abreast making it impossible to overtake. (yes I have had them laughing at the hold up they are causing - even to the extent of one turning around, laughing and saying "you will all just to have to f**** wait")

Just yesterday I was returning home when I saw two cyclists in front of me riding single file - I indicated and started to pull out to overtake when the second rider suddenly swerved out and started riding alongside the one in front. I had to brake sharply causing the car behind me to also brake sharply. The cyclists continued on happily unaware of the fact they had almost caused an accident. I am sure all cycling GNs can come up with samples of bad car driving - but the fact is that cyclists are much more vulnerable than car drivers and should therefore be aware of whats around them and ride accordingly.

The Tour of Britain is coming this way. I shall be out watching and cheering on. It's properly organised and advertised. No problem.

When travelling by car one generally estimates how long to allow for the journey, and then add a bit to allow for tractors. Now the journey from our town to the large village where we often shop (Wroxham, for those who know the area) takes 15 minutes in perfect conditions. Allow 20-25 for tractor. Now we have to allow 45 minutes to allow for cyclists. It's a cause of complaint for local tradespersons as there isn't really an alternative route.

Most of the cyclists aren't racing, just practising, and they like this road in particular. Other roads are inflicted but not to the same extent. Throw motorcyclists who also love the sweeping (blind) bends into the mix and ......

I am a cyclist as well as a driver and I have 2 pieces of equipment which make me feel safer (no cycle paths here). The first is a rear mirror which means I can see what is coming up behind without having to turn my head. The 2nd is my old riding whip pushed through the basket on the front of my bike. On the end is a fluorescent pink ribbon. The whole thing probably sticks out about 8'' but makes traffic give me a bit more room. I also cycle about a yard from the edge of the road which gives me room to go to if someone decides they need to push past.
In my riding days I had to use roads to get to bridle paths and some cars passed so close I could have belted their roof with my whip. I then fastened the ribbon on and when I heard anything coming would stick it out. This was in addition to both me and my pony being dressed in fluorescent pink.
I'm afraid some drivers seem to do their utmost to see how close they can get and how fast they can do so.
In town I ride my bike in the same way and in the same position as I would in my car. I travel at about 14mph so not exactly holding anyone up in town.

If cycling is coming back into vogue - which is great and also very healthy - we need to find some way of accommodating that. Unfortunately our roads as currently constituted cannot do so safely. It needs a rethink and lots of investment.

Apparently bicycle road time trials started in 1880 when bicycles were the fastest things on the roads. With the introduction of the motor car such events were "pushed off the road". Now they are becoming popular again and motorists still want to push them off the roads. Plus ça change....

Nfk, that may be so, but (a) they are racing (which requires effort and concentration, especially in a 'clump', (b) they are not the majority of cyclists, (c) you may be mistaken about them being oblivious. Just because they don't wave cars past doesn't mean they are oblivious to other road users.

I'm not sure cycling clubs/groups are allowed to have road races without police permission precisely because it can be an inconvenience to other road users. I don't think they can race just any time.

“Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.” Rule 163

On our lanes it is almost never safe to overtake a cyclist, especially a row of them, so what happens is that a huge queue develops.Inevitably someone near the rear of the tailback loses their rag and chances a bit of dangerous overtaking.

Horse riders pull in and do all they can to be helpful to other traffic; these racing cyclists are oblivious to other road users and I have never once known one behave with good manners and thought for others - honestly it really is dire round here!! The simple fact is that these roads cannot cope with cyclists of this ilk and traffic in the same space without great danger ensuing.