Gransnet forums

AIBU

AIBU expecting cyclists to use the cycle tracks?

(222 Posts)
NanSue Thu 03-Sept-15 22:49:36

I was driving to my Mum's this afternoon about 3 miles from where I live. I have to use a narrowish long road for the first mile or so on which there is a perfectly good cycle track, halfway down was a man riding a racing bike at a fair old speed on the road right next to the cycle track in his Lycra shorts. As I was about to overtake him he had a bit of a wobble and I'm still not sure how I managed to avoid him and it really shook me. It seems to be a regular occurrence that these "serious" cyclists (I say serious because it's always the ones in the cycling shorts etc.,) always ride on the road. Does anyone have any idea what they have against the cycle tracks?? I am NOT anti cyclist, I ride a bike myself from time to time, but always on the track wherever possible.

thatbags Tue 22-Sept-15 19:23:00

ana, I've only just seen your response to one of my posts from 13 Sept, the one about pedestrians having right of way across a minor road at a T-junction if they were already walking along the main road.

Cars have to give way to wheeled vehicles on main roads at T-junctions. They should also give way, at give way junctions, to pedestrians. Some do.

thatbags Tue 22-Sept-15 19:25:18

Good post, candelle.

NfkDumpling Wed 23-Sept-15 10:46:44

Agree. A good post Candelle. I do ride a bike as well as drive. One with a basket on the front. At a sedate 5-8 miles an hour. 10 downhill with a following wind. Very easy to overtake. I too was taught to ride out from the edge, to give room to move in if necessary when being overtaken.

But I was also taught to be very aware at all times of other road users and pedestrians. To use my bell (a heck of a lot of cyclists don't have one these days - certainly not racing bikes) when passing people - although I frequently prefer to say "Excuse me" as it feels more polite - and give them plenty of space.

We don't have the luxury of bike tracks here, but share the roads with walkers, motor bikes (often at great speed), horse riders, tractors, beet lorries, deer, dog walkers, cars, cross country bikers, white van drivers - and racing cyclists. And it's the latter who seem to be most oblivious to their surroundings. Of course there are selfish people across the board who think they own the road, motor cyclists used to be the worst. But nowadays so many are taking to racing bikes with no training or guidance about the difference between a racing bike and my old thing with the basket on the front.

crun Wed 23-Sept-15 23:58:57

There are a lot of people claiming experience of cycling, but none showing any awareness of the current teaching on the use of cycle paths.

NfkDumpling Thu 24-Sept-15 15:00:51

One would assume the rules for using a cycle path are basically the same as any other path or road...... With consideration and awareness of other users. It's all down to good manners in the end.

Why cyclists don't use cycle tracks is a mystery to me. Why would you want to ride with lorries and cars squeezing past whilst trying to avoid pot holes and drain covers when there's a perfectly good track close by. Even if the surface on the track isn't perfect, it's still safer I'd have thought.

NanSue Tue 29-Sept-15 20:26:16

Precisely! I could not have put it better myself Nfk

NudeJude Wed 30-Sept-15 11:49:06

Slightly off subject, but what I find annoying is when people ride their horses on main roads at rush hour. There are lots of country lanes, paths and tracks suitable for horses in the area, so why subject their animals to the dangers of using the road particularly at peak times. Seems inconsiderate to both animals and other road users.

Lupatria Wed 30-Sept-15 12:55:15

the other sunday when I was taking my oh to work as usual - fairly early as he's a head chef and has to get the ovens, etc turned on to do the carvery for customers - one cycling organisation in this area [new forest] held an event.
the visibility was very bad owing to mist and I couldn't see more than 5 yards in front of the car.
there were hundreds of cyclists going along this road in the new forest - wide enough for two cars to pass but with a terrible surface. the cyclists were riding bunched up [as they usually do] and it was extremely difficult to pass them - and pass them we had to.
going up one hill slowly one cyclist fell off his bike in front of me - I think it was gravel but he certainly wasn't riding on the edge of the road like others [he was riding at least two abreast].
how I stopped I don't know - and I don't know how the van behind me stopped either. if the van had hit me then he would have pushed me into the cyclist lying on the ground [still "riding" his bike!].
it shook me very badly and I was in shock for most of the rest of the day - I couldn't stop thinking what would have happened if i'd hit him or actually run over him!! it's been a couple of weeks now but every time I drive along that piece of road - and I drive along it twice a day five days a week - I get a flashback of that day.
I emailed the organisers of the event asking why it was allowed to go ahead seeing as there was thick mist - I haven't even had the courtesy of a reply.
every Saturday and sunday we have to be prepared for cyclists along that road - they ride in bunches never in single file as it says in the highway code and, sorry to say, appear to be of the opinion that they own the road and cars shouldn't be driving along it!!
sorry for going on - I feel very strongly that events such as this shouldn't be allowed on roads which aren't suitable. and this road definitely isn't suitable.

oldbony Wed 30-Sept-15 13:56:33

I used to be both a cyclist & a bicker. I do give consideration to cyclists, but boy, are they a pain in the neck in London.
Most have lights, but not all.
Few stop at traffic lights, even pedestrian lights.
They overtake one another without even a glance behind to see if they are safe.
And getting injured or killed by HGVs. If they remained behind at lights instead of sneaking, I sue the word advisably, up the inside of the HGV, they would not be in a position to be crushed.
The cycle lobby is very vociferous. It's time motor vehicle drivers were given a fair shake.
angry

crun Wed 30-Sept-15 14:17:21

Did it not occur to you that: "When driving in fog you should be able to pull up well within the distance you can see clearly" (Rule 235) instead of demanding that the roads be cleared of other users whilst you drive as recklessly as you please?

The Highway code doesn't require that cyclists ride in single file, nor would riding in single file have necessarily made it any easier to overtake, unless you were planning to flout Rules 162, 164 & 166.

thatbags Wed 30-Sept-15 15:31:13

Keep it up, crun. I enjoy your posts. Yes, if someone is hit from behind by another vehicle, it is ALWAYS the fault of the person behind, not the one in front. If you can only see five yards in front of you you should be going slowly enough to stop within five yards. It's really a very simple rule and easy to understand. Anyone who can't understand it shouldn't be driving.

And weather causing bad visibility isn't anyone's fault. One needs to allow extra time for journeys if visibility is bad. Get real, lupatria.

crun Wed 30-Sept-15 16:07:12

"Keep it up, crun. I enjoy your posts."

Thanks, I'm beginning to feel a bit on my own here. I've got a big post half-drafted when I can be arsed to finish it.

Stopping distance is 5 yards from 10.3mph, re: riding in single file, I forgot to post this.

NfkDumpling Wed 30-Sept-15 18:31:39

lupatria obviously was driving within her stopping distance as she did stop in time. However, a lot of people don't - especially motor cyclists - and I do think it was irresponsible of the organisers not to have delayed the race until the weather cleared..

thatbags Wed 30-Sept-15 21:33:12

If drivers didn't have to cancel their arrangements because of mist, why should cyclists have to? People don't seem to understand what public road means.

Some commenters/drivers just seem to think that cyclists shouldn't be in their way. Why shouldn't they? Slow-moving lorries can be, or farm vehicles. Why not bikes?

My answer to my own question is that it's a power thing. Motor vehicles are more powerful and can go faster than bikes therefore, one assumes the (possibly subconscious) thinking goes, why shouldn't they be allowed to by making bikes get out of their way?

thatbags Wed 30-Sept-15 21:35:10

Yes, nfk, I realise lupatria must have been able to stop within the distance she could see. The get real remark was about allowing extra time when there is poor visibility.

Anya Wed 30-Sept-15 23:09:29

crun you have my full support too.

My problem is that I just get so fed up of the 'same old, same old' from motorists who think the road is only for their convenience and other road users (a foreign term to some) have an equal right to use the road, whether on teo wheels, four feet or whatever. In the end I CBA to reply, which shouldn't be the case I know.

But you do such a great job......

Anya Wed 30-Sept-15 23:11:45

'teo' is the technical term for wheeled vehicles other than automobiles and includes tractors, motor bikes and rickshaws to name but a few.

crun Thu 01-Oct-15 01:12:25

Here’s John Franklin on cycle paths:

"The fear that bikes and cars are incapable of mixing safely has led to the popular belief that for cycling to be a practical mode of transport, cyclists should keep – or be kept – out of the way of motor traffic as much as possible. This has led to a concentration on engineering measures to promote cycling, and in particular on measures that segregate cyclists, in varying degrees, from other traffic.

So strong is the perception that cycle paths and other facilities must be safer than riding in traffic that few people look further. But where this has been done – and in particular where account has been taken of unreported crashes, which are much more common off-road, although they are not necessarily less serious – the statistics are not comforting. From across Europe and America there is much evidence of cycle facilities being the least safe place to cycle.

People tend to fear most being hit from behind whilst cycling – the only type of crash best prevented by segregation – but this risk is very small, especially for someone who rides conscientiously. Most crashes are as a result of turning or crossing movements, and occur because the cyclist is not seen, or his actions not predicted. All drivers give most attention to those parts of the highway where there is risk to themselves, and see much less easily anything, or anyone, outside of a quite narrow field of vision. A cyclist is safest riding within this zone of maximum surveillance, not outside it.

Cycle paths alongside roads are often advocated as the 'ideal' way to improve cycling safety, but to the surprise of many people, their safety record in practice is poor. It is in fact easy to see why.

Consider a simple T-junction with a cycle path parallel to the through road. (See diagram) The first thing to notice, is that the addition of the cycle path changes a 3-way junction into a 5-way one, increasing its complexity for cyclists and motorists alike. Good road engineering strives to minimise confusion; making a junction more complicated invariably increases the likelihood of someone making a mistake.

Look at two cyclists approaching the junction, one on the cycle path and the other on the road. The path cyclist has to look for danger through an angle of up to 270°, for he is at risk not only from traffic entering or leaving the side road ahead, but also from vehicles following that might turn into the side road. Looking for traffic through such a large angle requires much movement of the head, which takes time, and the cyclist has no way to influence the actions of other drivers. Last-minute changes of circumstances are easily missed. At busy times, the only way to be really sure that there is no danger from any direction is to stop, and even then the cyclist may face increased risk re-starting.

The road cyclist, on the other hand, can use positioning and listening to reduce the angle over which concentration is necessary to less than 90° close to the junction, which is within the compass of eye movement alone and can therefore be carried out more easily and quickly. Through positioning, a cyclist can exert considerable influence on the movements of other vehicles, as well as ensuring that he is easily seen. He also enjoys the benefit of a speedier and less complicated passage.

This example illustrates, too, why collisions at cycle path crossings are often more serious than crashes elsewhere on roads. If a cyclist is hit by a car at a crossing, he will be hit side-on and will bear the full force attributable to the car's velocity. Most road collisions, on the other hand, involve only a glancing impact when the force felt by the cyclist is less.

Cycle lanes and other means by which cyclists are expected to ride separately from general traffic lead to similar problems and, again, the casualty record is not good. The actions of cyclists are best understood and respected by others when they are following the same rules of the road. If cyclists behave differently to other road users, they can expect to come into conflict with them more often, for the mutual understanding, so essential for road-sharing, will be less. Many facilities introduced to improve cycling safety address problems that seldom lead to crashes, whilst introducing new dangers that do. At the same time, they require cyclists to exercise greater, rather than less, skill in more demanding situations. Many people simply can't cope.

Good road positioning is not about keeping out of the path of other traffic as much as possible. Telling cyclists to keep to the road edge, and restricting their movements through cycle lanes, compromises their ability to react to changing circumstances and encourages bad riding practice generally."

Franklin again in Cyclecraft:

"If there is a cycle lane marked across the mouth of a side road always ignore it. Such lanes pass through the very place where risk of collision is greatest."

A major reason why cycle paths are so impractical is that they are constructed like footpaths, but pedestrians can turn on the spot and step sideways, wheeled vehicles can’t. Another example is having to wait for four changes of the traffic lights to make a right turn at a crossroads. Cyclists are also recommended not to use cycle paths when riding fast.

Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

The DVSA is the branch of the Department of Transport that publishes the Highway Code, Cyclecraft for cyclists, and Roadcraft for advanced motorists. Here are the instructions published by the DVSA for cycle instructors who are being trained to teach the National Standard for Cycle Training:

"In the UK no cycle facilities are compulsory for cyclists to use. Therefore the choice over whether to use any facilities provided should be on the basis of whether or not they will give the cyclist any advantage in terms of safety and/or access. This will be for the individual cyclist to decide. Staying in the normal flow of traffic rather than using a cycle facility is therefore a valid choice……….The choice of whether to use facilities should always lie with the cyclist.

The trainee should decide whether or not to use cycle infrastructure and explain their decisions whether they are for reasons of safety or convenience.…..Reasoning: The quality of design of cycle lanes and facilities varies greatly……Where lanes are narrow, they will undoubtedly be safer riding in the primary position [centre of the traffic track] outside the cycle lane. Trainees should also avoid cycling in lanes where the surface is poor. Cycle lanes can often be blocked by parked vehicles and other obstructions or be so short and/ or narrow that their use would be unreasonable and getting in and out of them expose the cyclist to more risk."

So there you have it, straight from the horse’s DVSA’s mouth.

Here’s Duncan Pickering from the *Institute of Advanced Motoring*:

"A bicycle is a vehicle on the road and a person riding it has the right to act like any other person on the road….. Some motorists think it is a divine right to be moving at whatever speed they want…….. I'm afraid it is tough if a cyclist holds them up."

The other way in which cycle paths make cycling more dangerous is that they cultivate the arrogant “get outa my way” attitude amongst motorists, which then makes the roads that don’t have cycle tracks more dangerous. Traffic engineer Hans Monderman turned urban transportation planning upside down with the groundbreaking concept of “Shared Space.” His idea is disarmingly simple: remove traffic lights, signs, crosswalks, lane markers and even curbs so that pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists must negotiate their way through streets by interacting with, and reacting to, one another.

Monderman’s work demonstrated that city and village streets become safer when they are stripped of traffic controls so that drivers must take cues from observing people rather than signs. Though it sounds chaotic, the results of Shared Space have shown to be just the opposite: traffic moves slower and the rate of major accidents declines drastically.

“A wide road with a lot of signs is… saying, go ahead, don’t worry, go as fast as you want, there’s no need to pay attention to your surroundings. And that’s a very dangerous message.”

“All those signs are saying to cars, ‘this is your space, and we have organized your behaviour so that as long as you behave this way, nothing can happen to you’. That is the wrong story”.

“Who has the right of way? I don’t care. People here have to find their own way, negotiate for themselves, use their own brains.”

“Essentially, what it means is a transfer of power and responsibility from the state to the individual and the community.”

“When you treat people like idiots, they’ll behave like idiots.”

Hans Monderman

"Doesn't the highway code say that slow moving vehicles should pull over so as not to hold up traffic flow?"

HC Rule 169: "Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."

So let’s look at what the DVSA say in more detail:

"Trainees must position themselves where they can be seen and should not cycle in the gutter. Where there is little other traffic and/or there is plenty of room to be overtaken they may ride in the secondary position. Where the road is narrow and two-way traffic would make it hazardous for the trainee to be overtaken by a following vehicle they must be observed to ride in the primary position.…… Trainees may be wary of cycling in the primary position as this will put them in the stream of traffic when their natural instinct might be to keep away from it. However, where appropriate, it will actually offer them more protection as they will be able to see more, be seen more easily by other road users and most importantly it will prevent drivers from attempting to overtake them where the road is too narrow."

thatbags Thu 01-Oct-15 07:35:14

Spot on. All of it. Thanks, crun. It confirms all the things I learned through experience when cycling regularly.

tiggypiro Thu 01-Oct-15 09:08:27

Well done crun. Last week I biked into town 4 miles along a rural A road (not too busy ). I wear a bright yellow jacket (not just a tabard), have bright pink ribbons sticking out at the side and have, and use, a rear view mirror. In other words I can see and be seen.

Incident No. 1
2 cars coming towards me and one coming up behind which I expected to slow down to allow the 2 cars to come first. He forgot he had the facility to slow down and pushed on through literally inches from me. One wobbly from me and ......................

Incident No. 2
Coming into town the road has bollards in the middle at intervals to allow pedestrians to cross. Between the bollard and the pavement is about 1 vehicle width. At these points I usually position myself further from the pavement to prevent cars pushing through. I checked my mirror and saw white van man coming up behind a bit too fast and close so I stayed in the side. He overtook me just as we got to the bollard with his wheels going up on the kerb around the bollard. How he missed it and me remains a mystery.

Incident No. 3
Cycling down the High Street where cars are parked in spaces at an angle to the road a car reversed out right into my path. I could see the driver so he could have seen me. Fortunately at least one of us (me) had the good sense to stop right beside him as it happens. I thumped my fist VERY hard on his boot, he looked at me and drove off. I would hope that his nice shiny Jaguar car now has a dent in it - fist shaped !

To all those of you who think cyclists should not be on the road can I ask you if you think any of those incidents were my fault ?

My trips into town are not usually so problematic thank goodness but I am seriously considering buying a helmet camera.

annodomini Thu 01-Oct-15 09:38:32

Yesterday I was driving through the village, slowed down, signalled left to turn into the car park behind the hardware store. At that point, a cyclist - not a child, riding fast, flashed past me on the pavement to my left. He nearly came to a very sticky end and was not (of course) wearing a helmet.

thatbags Thu 01-Oct-15 11:35:59

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.

thatbags Thu 01-Oct-15 11:37:11

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

thatbags Thu 01-Oct-15 11:40:13

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

crun Fri 02-Oct-15 12:07:30

"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.