If they use the cycle track. Our local council has spent millions making routes and caused months of traffic holdups in the process, but you almost never see a cyclist using them. Easier to find them using the road or the footpath.
Cycling campaigners welcome 'close pass' ruling
- Thread starter empip
- Start date
If they use the cycle track. Our local council has spent millions making routes and caused months of traffic holdups in the process, but you almost never see a cyclist using them. Easier to find them using the road or the footpath.
Sponsored Links
There is a big difference between the delay a car can cause and a cyclist. A cyclist, or a gaggle of cyclist should expect to be overtaken frequently by most motorised road users and plan the bunch accordingly with suitable gaps. Its not only them riding two abreast, but the usual lack of gaps which make them difficult, risky and sometimes just dangerous to overtake. Two abreast on a narrow winding road, where passing another car would be impossible, is simply selfish - but that is what they do, then they wonder why driver become upset.
I aim to leave at least a 1 metre gap, more if the speed differential is higher, but generally as much gap as it is safe to leave.
A lot of cycle paths are too slow and badly maintained for cycling on. Fine for little kids and doddery old dears but you're effectively a pedestrian at every street joining and leaving the road. That's assuming they aren't one of the cycle paths that seem to be designed to get the cyclist killed if they use them.
As always, it isn't always a simple situation.
There's definitely an agenda at play when it comes to cyclists. It can be argued this is a positive step i.e. towards a healthier, greener more sustainable future. It can also be argued it's being forced upon society without proper planning or indeed the number of cyclists to justify some of the initiatives. For example, look at the debate around unused cycle lanes, with even more congestion due to the cycle lane taking up a vehicle lane (or part of.) I was also reading something the other day about a roundabout / junction that gives cyclists and pedestrians the right of way. Fine. Except in this scenario the lights (stopping vehicles) were set to activate every minute or so ... whether there was a cyclist or pedestrian waiting or not! Result, more congestion, more pollution (start/stop traffic.)
There's no doubt we're seeing a change, albeit gradual, away from vehicles having priority within cities, towns and built-up areas. However, encouraging us to use our vehicles less when things like public transport still fall short (sometimes way short) of the mark means it's going to be an uphill battle (for governments and councils) for the foreseeable future.
It's all very well saying 'cycle more' or 'walk more' however for many of us there are still multiple reasons why this isn't always practical.
Sponsored Links
Several miles of brand new cycle path down York Road, Leeds, which cost millions and caused hours of delay to vehicle drivers for many months whilst the work was done. I rarely see any cyclist using it, more often they are using the road or the pedestrian footpath - the few I do see. Some councillors pet crazy project.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,742
- Reaction score
- 2,634
- Country
The recognised minimum distance is 1.5m.
I can't see the difference between having a car or bikes in front of you.
I can't see the difference between having a car or bikes in front of you.
Get used to it as I suspect we're going to see a lot more.
I keep my ire* for cyclists and poor car drivers inside the car with me. Life's too short to allow myself to get wound up about what will inevitably only be a minute or two's delay.
*That's not to say i don't use the full range of expressive English at the time.
*That's not to say i don't use the full range of expressive English at the time.
Which explains a great deal. A car is usually making much better progress, is more predictable in its progress, with a fixed length. A group of cyclists can spread for many yards along the road, travel slower and this makes them more difficult to get past them.
Ok it's the Daily Mail, so not everyone's cup of tea, however they're reporting a U turn on some of the lanes that were introduced due to covid:
Cycle lanes installed are being ripped out again after paralysing cities and fuelling local uprising | Daily Mail Online
Cycle lanes installed are being ripped out again after paralysing cities and fuelling local uprising | Daily Mail Online
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,742
- Reaction score
- 2,634
- Country
When you say "overtake", do you mean "pass stationary traffic"?
Matters not.
No one should be going more quickly than they can safely stop in the distance they can see is clear.
Drivers can / do flick between lanes to try and get a move on, some will open their door (sometimes to get out and see what the hold up is, or get something from their boot), pedestrians will walk out between stationary cars......
It's all very well a cyclist being "in the right", but it doesn't do them much good when they're on their arris, or under some truck's wheels.
Ride and drive like everyone else is a blind idiot who is out to kill you :you'll live longer that way
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,670
- Reaction score
- 2,668
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
My cycling days are nearly over, armaco barriers mean the chances of being killed has increased, pushed into hedge is bad, but at least there is some give in a hedge. But that is because where I live now, we have no cycle tracks.
Before moving the cycle tracks were very good keeping the cyclist and motor transport separate, and this included the signs, the motor transport road was one way, but to take the cyclist on one way route, would result in them going around a roundabout which was dangerous for them, so the cycle path was two way, made clear intended to be two way by cycle path signs.
However this resulted in cyclists ignoring the road signs, and this is the problem, on one route clearly you are correct to ignore road signs, so how can the cyclist know which signs to ignore? Part of the cycle route went through the town of Shotton, the blue round cycle path sign said you should ride on the raised paved area with the pedestrians and it was a shared way, but written signs said no cycle riding on the walkway, but nothing defined what was walkway and what was cycle path.
Earlier on same route there was a line down centre of pavement showing which bit for for cycles and which bit for pedestrians, but they stopped before the town. We are not talking about a small cycle use, this was a major national cycle track.
I blame the councils who seem to have no idea of how to sign cycle ways, well to be fair not much better with roads, with 20 MPH signs with wrong colours and no end of limit signs at schools, and we are told 20 MPH sign has no standing in law without traffic calming measures as well, but I bet you can still get fined? In main it is knee jerk reaction to some complaint without enough thought being given to what is being done.
Be it general rule of drive on left and walk facing on coming traffic, and some one then marking intermittent walkways in reverse direction, where I live pavements are only on the East side of road, even then road not wide enough for 2 way traffic over whole length, so chicane where houses have reduced width and down traffic given priority, which also seems odd, as always was give way to traffic going up hill.
Before moving the cycle tracks were very good keeping the cyclist and motor transport separate, and this included the signs, the motor transport road was one way, but to take the cyclist on one way route, would result in them going around a roundabout which was dangerous for them, so the cycle path was two way, made clear intended to be two way by cycle path signs.
However this resulted in cyclists ignoring the road signs, and this is the problem, on one route clearly you are correct to ignore road signs, so how can the cyclist know which signs to ignore? Part of the cycle route went through the town of Shotton, the blue round cycle path sign said you should ride on the raised paved area with the pedestrians and it was a shared way, but written signs said no cycle riding on the walkway, but nothing defined what was walkway and what was cycle path.
Earlier on same route there was a line down centre of pavement showing which bit for for cycles and which bit for pedestrians, but they stopped before the town. We are not talking about a small cycle use, this was a major national cycle track.
I blame the councils who seem to have no idea of how to sign cycle ways, well to be fair not much better with roads, with 20 MPH signs with wrong colours and no end of limit signs at schools, and we are told 20 MPH sign has no standing in law without traffic calming measures as well, but I bet you can still get fined? In main it is knee jerk reaction to some complaint without enough thought being given to what is being done.
Be it general rule of drive on left and walk facing on coming traffic, and some one then marking intermittent walkways in reverse direction, where I live pavements are only on the East side of road, even then road not wide enough for 2 way traffic over whole length, so chicane where houses have reduced width and down traffic given priority, which also seems odd, as always was give way to traffic going up hill.
... and some even open a door on purpose in the face of an approaching cyclist/motorcyclist.
Sponsored Links
