Cyclists and other road users

[Charles Morgan]

Having cycled for a year, my only conclusion about the positioning of cycle lanes was that whoever designed them was trying to kill me. One of the greatest differences between intention and result that I have ever seen.

Having had a senior civil servant in my car who was from the department responsible for road signs I now understand why. He has never driven, and couldn't navigate using the road signs.

 

[st13phil]

Having had a senior civil servant in my car who was from the department responsible for road signs I now understand why. He has never driven, and couldn't navigate using the road signs.

Unfortunately, you could make a similar observation about the applicability of the experience that many senior civil servants bring to their assigned role. Which explains a great deal...

 

[219]

But only a very small number of cyclists flout the rules, whereas a large number of motorists do, both as a proportion and an absolute figure.
True, you don't see many cars driving on the pavement, but how about failing to indicate on a roundabout?

Now, don't go thinking I have any sympathy for bad cyclists, but most are well behaved. No, I do however see so very many bad drivers.

Certainly as an absolute figure - only because ( in this country at least ) there are many more motorists than cyclists .

As a proportion , I would disagree . The standard of driving is generally higher than the standard of cycling .

Yes , it is probably commonplace to see motorists commit 'minor' infractions such as marginal speeding or not signalling where ( sometimes ) it would be beneficial , but still driving otherwise reasonably competently .

On the other hand , it is an everyday sight in cities and large towns to see cyclists run red lights , cycle on pavements , cut up other road users and generally conduct themselves in a manner that would cause any motorist to lose their license .

Of course there are some very bad drivers out there , but the number of cyclists who blatantly endanger themselves and others is proportionately greater .

Based on my observations .

I was taught to ride on the road, after age of about 8yo we would get reprimanded for riding on the pavement - by parents and authorities, my dad was once fined half a crown for cycling without lights.

So was I - back in the 1960's - but the roads are a very different place now , what with much greater volumes of traffic , vehicles which tend to be in more of a rush and driven with less consideration for other road users , often roads are lined end-to-end with parked cars between which and moving traffic cyclists are forced to ride and any of which could throw a door open into your path at any time .

Back in the 1960's , roads were quieter , populated by slower moving vehicles , life was lived at a slower pace and people were not in such a rush . Parked cars were occasional obstacles and overtaking them was less hazardous than it is now , due to less other traffic .

I cycled around on the roads when at primary school and felt quite safe ; I most certainly would not want any of my children doing it now .

Even as an adult cyclist I feel safer on the pavements under some circumstances : when I worked in Edinburgh and used to commute by bike regularly during the summer months ( about 12 years ago ) my place of work was in South Gyle Industrial Estate - the roads were lined with parked cars and if you cycled alongside them you risked either getting a car door thrown open in your path or , if you left enough room to avoid that fate , mown down by an artic or delivery van . At the time , the wide pavements were sparsely used , so I always felt safer riding on the pavement , away from motorised traffic , and keeping a safe distance from any pedestrians . Once out of the industrialised area , these same pavements were divided down the middle with one side for pedestrains and the other for cyclists anyway . The most hazardous bit of my 20 mile commute out into West Lothian was crossing the Gyle Roundabout at the end of the Edinburgh City Bypass - after that it was a separate cycle lane all the way out past the airport to Newbridge and country roads/lanes after that . It still dumbfounds me why idiots on bikes chose to ignore the excellent cycle lanes ( with perfect surfaces and well away from other traffic ) and rode on the dual carriageway amongst traffic doing 70 mph when they didn't need to .

In the view of most cyclists, the cycle lanes/paths are not fit for purpose and woefully inadequate and often dangerous imo too narrow and give-way too often. It takes effort to start and stop and start a bike, cyclists do not like to stop: this is not efficient.
So these lanes are designed by idiot non-cycling committees to fulfil a government quota, miles and miles of under-used white lines in all the wrong places. There are websites devoted to idiot-lanes e.g. 3 meters length terminating in a steel barrier. A dreadful waste of our money.

In my view , most cycle lanes hereabouts ( Central Scotland ) are pretty good , being either completely separate from roads ( laid on disused railway tracks ) , separate lanes apart from the road surface with a raised kerb to keep other traffic out , or half of a wide pavement with a line down the middle to segregate pedestrians and cyclists . Even in Edinburgh/Glasgow , there are plenty which are just a painted area of the roadside , with a different colour of tarmac to make them obvious which are both wide and continuous . It probably depends where you are looking .

It takes a lot more effort to both start and stop a motor vehicle weighing upwards of a tonne than a bike weighing a few kilogrammes ( try pushing even a small car and you will find out ) . Motorists ( and especially HGV drivers ) do not like stopping and starting either .

It is not an optimum lane width they are under-cutting but a minimum width of 1.5 metres - it takes 0.75m just to ride a bike in a straight line due to the way that a two-wheel vehicle balances. Therefore anything below 1.5m is not a cycle lane/path.
Therefore change the road layout to make it safer for everyone: roundabouts do not suit bicycles - they should not be used as constant punctuation - but nugatory mini-roundabouts seem to be proliferating.

I can ride my bike in a straight line needing not much more than the width of the handlebars - so probably about 0.75 m is about right . Since most cycle lanes in the road are ONE WAY ( one on each side of the road ) there is no real need for it to be any wider than this . After all , if one cyclist needs to overtake another , they can always come out of the lane ( having first checked they are not going to inconvenience faster traffic behind ) - this is much the same as bus lanes where buses can come out of their lane to overtake each other - or do you advocate bus lanes to be two buses wide to facilitate this ? In the rare instance of a bi-directional cycle lane due to narrow overall road width , then one cyclist is just going to have to come out - no big deal - and not so different to single track roads with passing places or a lot of the country roads where I live which are not wide enough for two vehicles to pass - you just have to accept it and drive safely in a manner that fits to the conditions .

Roundabouts are not my favourite things when on my bike either - mainly because there is the danger of being 'cut up' by other drivers heading for their exit and make no allowance for cyclists . However , the roads are designed for the whole mix of road users so are a compromise to best suit the needs of everyone . On many routes , putting in 'mini roundabouts' gives those coming out of side roads or turning right into them a chance to proceed they would not get without otherwise putting in a more costly set of traffic lights .

Yes they cause damage to pedestrians, which is why bikes have long been confined to the road for their safety.
I agree with the training, the responsibility for that being the parents.
But not mandatory training and testing. Will your 2yo have to have L-plates? ;-) Do remember that the vast majority of adults are licensed/tested motor drivers.
The RoSPA test used to be a requirement for cycling to school.

I don't remember it being a requirement where I grew up , but pretty much EVERYONE did it anyway . As I remember , it was towards the end of primary school , but many of us cycled to school before then .

Along with a requirement to show some identification , a mandatory CPT , only on completion of which a registration number would be issued to the cyclist ( and be theirs for life ) , would be one way of ensuring that all road-going cyclists had at least had some basic training - it is evident from some of the idiots seen with bikes on the road that they have not a clue ( or not a care ) about the basic rules of the road .

No , kids shouldn't need L plates , but they should be allowed to ride on the pavement , where they will be relatively safe .

Apparently studies have found the cause is that the peds are motorists, they get out of the car and behave like a motorists, expecting to still be invulnerable in their metal box. Wrong mind set, the motorist has got to think car park = pedestrians = gormless people. These same gormless people drive cars too.

The same people who are bad drivers tend to be bad pedestrians - however either one can cause problems all by themselves .

A pedestrian is entitled to step out when safe to do so, they must look! (in the Hwy/C rules). A bicycle takes longer to stop than a car from the same speed. A bike travels between 12mph and 24mph (or more) minimum speed for a bicycle is about 8mph = wobble and fall over (ok, so I can track stand but I'm a clever clogs). Personally I really object when some oik cycles along pavement and straight over a zebra without giving the cars a chance - candidate for a Darwin.

They 'ought' to look ( especially since they are the ones likely to suffer most from a collision ) , but ultimately have absolute priority at designated pedestrian crossings and other crossing places such as road junctions . There is a greater onus on drivers to be looking out for pedestrians whenever they approach crossings ( or indeed whenever a pedestrian is sighted approaching the edge of a pavement ) .

Bikes may take longer to stop from the same speeds ( although I remain to be convinced , my bike stops pretty well ) but they still tend mostly to be travelling at much slower speeds than motorised traffic , therefore should still be able to pull up in short distances .

No matter what type of vehicle , it is incumbent on the driver/rider to be aware of pedestrians wishing to cross and to adjust their course or speed to avoid or give way as required .

Road Fund License was discontinued in the 1930s - it never went into road repairs anyway! (came to an end in 1937 under the 1936 Finance Act).
It is Vehicle Excise Duty i.e. it is a tax like what we pay on a bottle of booze (mutters... blood sucking parasites).

Pretty much what I said .

It may not mean the centre line but usually means the lane line. You can kill a cyclist if you pass too close. We give horses plenty of room because they can kick the car off the road (seen that done!), should we not give the cyclist the same consideration, or do we want to flatten the blighter. There is a Hwy/C rule here that motorists do not obey.
The clearance is generally interpreted as being the height of the cyclist on the bike, laid out sideways on the road, plus some clearance = about 2 to 3 metres from kerb (the cyclist is not at the kerb) i.e. 10 feet - pretty much the entire lane width.

Bikes and horses are meant to be afforded clearance of six feet , minimum - this was laid down in case law many years ago and was the teaching when I did my CPT . If a mounted rider can reach out with their riding crop and whack the roof of your car - then you are too close .

If you can manage to give wider berth then good and well . A bit of common sense and observation of the stability and manner of the rider will indicate the safe clearance required .

Cycles are meant to be conducted 'twelve to eighteen inches from the better part of the nearside' - used to be quoted as 12"-18" from the kerb , but the newer phrase takes account of potholes , broken road surface , drains etc .

Jolly good and that's nice and proper. Well done.
Me, yes I did pass the Cycling Proficiency Test (RoSPA) which I still ride for sport/fitness and some local transport, and passed the motorcycle test and car, plus licensed to drive big lorries too (not that I often do).

Yes , I passed mine ( circa 1969 ) , led my school team which won the county championships ( Grange Primary School - West Lothian ) and took the individual first prize for highest score in the championships ( being the only competitor out of a couple of hundred to score 100% for a perfect run ) , but then I'm a 'clever clogs' too

I still cycle recreationally and sometimes do a partial commute by bike/train during the summer months (but usually need the van for work so don't always have the option ) .

I likewise did car test , motorcycle part one ( bike broke down and was sold before doing part two , so never bothered as I never got another bike ) but had ridden round on L plates for years as you could back then with a full car license . Did various advanced tests in cars ( IAM , LSD Class 1 {similar to RoSPA Gold nowadays} , NADA Gold ) before going on to do police TPO training and their PI {potential instructor} course before teaching advanced driving and ultimately training others to give instruction for IAM .

I never did any HGV training , but dad was a haulage contractor and I did drive Bedford TK's and various bits of plant around his yard before the business was sold due to his failing health in his latter years .

 

[oldcro]

Neither you, me, nor the trucks or the pay anything towards road maintenance from the VED.

Road upkeep is paid for from our income tax etc.

So don't complain that cyclists don't pay for the road because you don't either. Or rather you both do...

I was quoting what had been posted by various members in the past which seemed to contradict each other. Read and criticise what I actually wrote not what you think I wrote, because I did not complain in my post about cyclists paying to use the roads.

By the way the VED paid ends up in the same government income pot as our income tax etc, so claiming none of the VED paid goes toward road upkeep cannot be correct.

 

[Stratman]

Having cycled for a year, my only conclusion about the positioning of cycle lanes was that whoever designed them was trying to kill me. One of the greatest differences between intention and result that I have ever seen.

Having had a senior civil servant in my car who was from the department responsible for road signs I now understand why. He has never driven, and couldn't navigate using the road signs.

Is this a bad time to point out most gyneacologists are men?

 

[MOCAŠ]

Having cycled for a year, my only conclusion about the positioning of cycle lanes was that whoever designed them was trying to kill me.

Examples?

 

[Charles Morgan]

Ebury Road - contraflow cycle lane which takes you down a line of parked cars, so if you have to swerve to avoid someone opening their car door (a regular occurrence) you are forced into the line of oncoming traffic.

Vauxhall Bridge southbound - a tiny lane carved out of a lane already too narrow for commercial vehicles. Lethal.

Nine Elms Road - may have changed recently, but a lane on a pavement which requires you to swerve around street furniture, either further on the pavement or into the traffic.

Hyde Park - cycle lanes shared with pedestrians, many of whom need to be avoided by swerving.

off the top of my head.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Sounds like you've had some bad experiences, and I'm not going to claim that all cycle lanes serve their purpose well. Some may well have been installed primarily to meet a notional quota, and some of those may be doing more harm than good.

Have to say, though, that the provision within Hyde Park is pretty good, particularly along the eastern part of South Carriage Drive, where the alternative would be to tough it out with the traffic along Knightsbridge. In other parts of the park with which I'm familiar (such as West Carriage Drive and the broad path that runs parallel to Park Lane), the areas for pedestrians and cyclists are clearly demarked, although the available width is admittedly tight in places.

What's needed now is for other park users to gain a greater awareness of the presence of cyclists. You'd think that, all other things being equal, a cycle lane would be safer on a footpath than on a roadway, but the fact is that motorists are far more likely to respect the demarked area than are wayward pedestrians. Worth pointing out, though, that Royal Parks has an onging plan to improve cycling provision in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, so things will improve in time and the fact that cycling is allowed at all on the park's former footpaths should be welcomed.

As for Ebury Street, I remember when they installed the one-way system and closed off the junction with Grosvenor Gardens for motorists. At the time I thought it was a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but I can see why they did it: it provides a route parallel to Buckingham Palace Road, but free from the danger and pollution of the constant stream of buses and coaches making their way to Victoria Coach Station and beyond.

I take your point about having to cycle alongside parked cars, but I suspect Westminster can ill-afford to lose the parking provison along the length of the street, so it has arrived at a compromise. As per my previous post on this thread, urban cyclists frequently encounter parked cars on roads without cycle lanes, and they are used to being vigilant for doors that are about to be opened (I fell foul of this once myself when I was a teenager, but never have since). At least with the contraflow they stand a better chance of seeing whether the passenger seat is occupied. Also, having the cycle markings in place might help remind those in the passenger seat to take extra care when opening their doors (though that bit may be wishful thinking on my part).

 

[trainer]

In general in the daylight I find cyclists very good. The problem comes when it is dark or getting dark and sine of them equip themselves with a light that barely glimmers and expect toe be seen. I have had some very good halogen lights over the years ranging from £20 to £150 per set set so that I could see and be seen. Flashing LEDs are okay if used to back up a static light.

When guys cycle together they do tend to ride side by side which does make overtaking ( where safe) more difficult. And from the cycling clubs I have observed and ridden with there is not a great deal of discipline across roundabouts etc.

There are too many motorists by the same token who don't see a bike when it is decked out like a Christmas tree and pull out regardless. Speed past when overtaking and cut the cyclist up when getting back in lane etc.

In reality there are good and bad on both sides. As this is mainly a drivers forum I would expect most comments to be about cyclists. Whilst I don't ride anymore I an coming out of retirement and braving the roads again for a daft challenge.

 

[jefrs]

Examples?

Try here, hundreds of them
Cycle Facility of the Month

 

[Rich27]

Try here, hundreds of them
Cycle Facility of the Month

Brilliant, laughed my self silly at the useless cycle lanes