Not sure if this sort of thing has been raised before....but here goes: Why, oh, why do some cyclists insist on not using cycle lanes. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a cyclist on the road, going up a hill, with a queue of cars waiting to overtake when, RIGHT NEXT to the cyclist, is a cycle lane! To be fair, I've never seen an electric bike doing that - in most cases its a cyclist (or group of cyclists) in all the (Lycra?) gear. I can only guess that they see it as a "matter of principle" or, in some way, see cycling on a cycle lane as beneath them. Fine - each to their own BUT - the problem is that it is giving all cyclists a bad name and is undermining moves to get more cycle lanes into the transport network. Just a thought!
Cyclists avoiding cycle lanes
- Thread starter Wingreen
- Start date
You're right it is the lycras/roadies on their sport bikes, but there are very good reasons for it. Their thin skinny tyres are only suited to tarmac in reasonably good condition and the whole purpose of the cycling they are doing is to keep going
Cyclepaths are very ill maintained and often even poorly constructed:
They are never swept and don't benefit from the sweeping effect of motor vehicle tyres.
Typically they often have broken tarmac surfaces.
Some are constructed with thick gravel surfacing creating severe drag.
The cutting of hedges alongside often leaves them strewn with sharp thorns.
They are often thoughtlessly used by pedestrians, frequently in groups not giving way and even abusing cyclists sometimes.
And dog walkers with their dogs running loose or on very long extending leads, both creating danger.
And then there's the hold up at every side road meaning stopping for other traffic.
All in all the hazards are such they they are not worth roadies trying to use them.
And there is also a serious political threat, the fear of cyclists being banned from roads by law, everywhere that cyclepaths exist. That is something none of us want.
And so what if traffic is held up? The roads are for all vehicles and traffic is held up by tractors, JCBs, road sweeping vehicles, drain clearing vehicles, white lining vehicles, road repairs, and by horses with or without pulling anything.
Give cyclists well constructed and maintained paths with penalties for misuse by pedestrians and priority over traffic at side road junctions and they'll all willingly use them. They do in the Netherlands where such conditions do exist.
.
Nothing wrong with not using dedicated cycle paths, for roadies they just aren't suitable and they can't toot along at a good speed. I also very rarely use them except for when I'm out on a long ride then I use as much offroad as possible.
The cycle lanes here are very poor, tree roots are one issue.Poorly conceived and maintained means the road is a safer better option, zombie walkers and dogs do not mix well with cycle traffic.
The cycle lanes here are very poor, tree roots are one issue.Poorly conceived and maintained means the road is a safer better option, zombie walkers and dogs do not mix well with cycle traffic.
OK - I concede that its a lot more complicated than I had set out - and undoubtedly you both raise valid issues.
However, one point raised I'd have to disagree with - at least in relation to many cycle lanes/paths that have recently been constructed: the surface on these are tarmaced and often in better condition than the road itself. They run in parallel, just a few inches away from the main road, but (some) cyclists just wont use them.
Anyway, its clearly something that is going to generate debate.
One problem, of course, is that when they are not used (admittedly, possibly for good reason), the "public" are going to see them as a waste of money, leading to pressure on decision makers to cut back funding, leading to fewer cycle paths - to the detriment of all those other (fairweather/casual) cyclists.
However, one point raised I'd have to disagree with - at least in relation to many cycle lanes/paths that have recently been constructed: the surface on these are tarmaced and often in better condition than the road itself. They run in parallel, just a few inches away from the main road, but (some) cyclists just wont use them.
Anyway, its clearly something that is going to generate debate.
One problem, of course, is that when they are not used (admittedly, possibly for good reason), the "public" are going to see them as a waste of money, leading to pressure on decision makers to cut back funding, leading to fewer cycle paths - to the detriment of all those other (fairweather/casual) cyclists.
I agree with the comments above made by flecc and Nealh.
I can't imagine any cyclist would choose to mix it with cars / trucks / buses if there is a decent cycle lane available. The problem in my experience is that the cycle lane is often covered in road debris, or the surface is so badly broken up / potholed that there is a real risk of loss of control / wheel damage. Even on my bikes shod with hefty Schwalbe Marathon Plus tyres, there are sections of some cycle lanes which are, to all intents and purposes, unusable. If it is safe, then I'll always use a cycle lane.
I also feel that in certain cases, some 'new', but poorly thought out cycle lanes have actually made the roads less safe for cyclists.
I can't imagine any cyclist would choose to mix it with cars / trucks / buses if there is a decent cycle lane available. The problem in my experience is that the cycle lane is often covered in road debris, or the surface is so badly broken up / potholed that there is a real risk of loss of control / wheel damage. Even on my bikes shod with hefty Schwalbe Marathon Plus tyres, there are sections of some cycle lanes which are, to all intents and purposes, unusable. If it is safe, then I'll always use a cycle lane.
I also feel that in certain cases, some 'new', but poorly thought out cycle lanes have actually made the roads less safe for cyclists.
In summary it's the usual British disease of never doing anything properly. We make token attempts at providing cycle paths but too often build them badly, starting nowhere and soon after a very short stretch finishing nowhere. Or we just give up and paint silly white lines at the side of road to provide cycle lanes that are too narrow and create dangerous pinch points at road islands.
It's what we always do. Other countries create superb high speed rail networks. We talked about it for 50 years and then built one silly little stretch from the channel tunnel to London. Just look at the decades we've talked about HS2, which has been started but we still haven't decided whether we will complete it or even where it is going to!
The same with roads, others get whole networks of motorways, we get the hard shoulders on our few used for fast traffic on so called smart motorways, which have already needlessly killed many people.
It's all so unnecessary.
The Dutch and British politicians want us to cycle instead of driving:
The Dutch spent 50 years building superb country wide cycling facilities and clamping down on car usage. Now 70% of the Dutch cycle and almost 50% cycle every day for every purpose. Their e-bike sales every year equal one for every 40 of the population who could cycle.
We made our pathetically inadequate contribution to cycling facilities. Now only an estimated 8% of Britons own a roadworthy bicycle and only 3% cycle with any degree of regularity. Our e-bike sales at their peak are equal to about one in 1000 who could cycle.
.
Last edited:
Many cycle lanes are quite short, as well as being in bad condition - therefore even if you risked life, limb and bike on a roadside cycle lane, you'd only have to get off that dark horrible tree root debris infested and potholed or uneven surface shortly anyway. It certainly isn't worth it, in my part of the country. I only cycle on roads, or cycle lanes on roads, unless they look like they've been mined for coal, or bombed from orbit or something. I think the only real solution is the quite unrealistic hope that all roads are widened, to accommodate decent and well maintained purpose built cycle lanes within them, rather use than these horribly bumpy dimly illuminated and dangerous tarmac horror stories, which have been tacked on as an afterthought.
Last edited:
Yes it was worth raising and there's nothing wrong with being a minority since they are often right. It seems the difference is that you do have some decent cyclepaths, something that most of us are sorely lacking.
I have one superb one with a very wide and clearly marked pedestrian lane and separated with a wide continuous white line, cycle lanes for both directions. The snag? It's only a little over two hundred yards long and for half the local population can only be reached across a pedestrian crossing over a multi lane road. You can see why few ever cycle on it.
.
Depends. Purpose built cycle lanes completely separate to the adjacent road and with a barrier/ raised curb structure so that the cycle lane is entirely separate from the road is one thing and I would happily cycle on.
A white line painted on the road where the camber of the road dips into the curb often covered in debris is another, and I think are actually dangerous as they encourage cars to overtake without consideration and generally squeezing by.
Those type for my own safety I need to ride probably just outside of or at best just inside the line that is meant to indicate the edge of the cycle lane.
A white line painted on the road where the camber of the road dips into the curb often covered in debris is another, and I think are actually dangerous as they encourage cars to overtake without consideration and generally squeezing by.
Those type for my own safety I need to ride probably just outside of or at best just inside the line that is meant to indicate the edge of the cycle lane.
Depends on the cycle lane. We have some ones in my city that are sandwiched between constantly parked cars and the live car lane, and are narrow. So you have a risk of being car doored or side swiped by passing a HGV/Van/Bus. Plus they tend to end abruptly dumping you into the carriageway.
It just goes to show with these few meagre posts this country's cycle facility solutions are just s**t.
If we don't use the cycle lanes that ARE any good (safe and well paved) then I guess we can't expect to get (m)any more. It's certainly a hot topic.
The ideal cycle path is well signed, easy to find, and allows me to ride with the same comfort and close to the same speed as if I was on the road it wants to get me off. For clarity, that's typically 12mph average.
That means a proper surface, as good as the road, not the patchwork quilt of individual barrow loads of green tarmac I experienced on the approach to I think Preston, from the Liverpool direction. Not the gravel covered, bumpy parts of the route from Balloch to Tarbet on Loch Lomond side. Not the thorn covered paths next to shorn thorn hedges that nobody thought to clear up seeing as it was a cycle path, in Stirling, and just outside Ormskirk, which were the causes of my only two punctures so far on this bike.
And of course not those silly windy pavement based idiocies, where I have to bounce over kerbs, make frequent sharp changes of direction, cross every driveway and side road as the give way vehicle, adding significantly to my journey time.
I have missed many starts of cycle routes because I passed the signs before I saw them, and there was no second way in. The designers seem to think I'm at walking pace, with nothing else occupying my attention!
I missed others because the signs were not clear where they went. If I'm passing through on a long journey, I need the signs to confirm the name of somewhere on my route to give me confidence in where it goes - sort of like a road sign. I need the signs to be readable at cycling speed, from the direction of approach - sort of like a road sign. Not high up on a pole, parallel to my direction of travel, where I can't see them!
I will happily use a proper cycle path, but on a long day I will not waste time or distance hoping something's right, and I will not put up with more than about 10% added journey time or distance, and I have suffered enough on inadequate surfaces.
and finally...finding the start of a cycle path in a city centre is harder than it should be! I have ridden into Glasgow from north and south, but never yet found my way out the other side easily!
It's a two way thing. Nealh made mention of London getting proper cycle lanes and we do have one good route. Running from West London outskirts all the way to the West End and City, it's segregated all the way except for a short bit by Buckingham Palace. And it's packed with all the thousands of commuting cyclists every week day and quite extensively at weekends too. Of course motorists and taxi drivers all moan like hell about it taking some road space. The photo below shows a section of that segregated route, note the concrete barrier between cyclists and traffic:
However that isn't the only way that cyclists can get a fair deal, most London cycling commuters do anyway, even where there's no good cycle lanes. It's by the sheer numbers with which they dominate. It's a very brave driver who tries to bully such numbers. On some routes the GLC report that bicycles are close to equalling the number of private cars.
Examples:
So if enough cyclists take to the roads, they get the space they need anyway by sheer force of numbers.
.
Last edited:
Here are a few reasons from my limited experience:
- cycle lanes aren't always the most direct route. Sticking to the road is often quicker.
- cycle lanes running parallel to the main road and crossing each minor road / junction off it can mean giving way to turning traffic every 500m (or maybe not now with the new 'hierarchy of road users' - but you try it first before I have to, eh!). You end up with a horrible stop/start journey, whereas staying on the main road let's you flow nicely.
- the more segregated we are the less the other road users think or care about us. There's a small but finite danger of being legislated off the real road in some situations (as in use the cycle path or get fined).
- cycle lanes aren't always the most direct route. Sticking to the road is often quicker.
- cycle lanes running parallel to the main road and crossing each minor road / junction off it can mean giving way to turning traffic every 500m (or maybe not now with the new 'hierarchy of road users' - but you try it first before I have to, eh!). You end up with a horrible stop/start journey, whereas staying on the main road let's you flow nicely.
- the more segregated we are the less the other road users think or care about us. There's a small but finite danger of being legislated off the real road in some situations (as in use the cycle path or get fined).
..... and just to add: some cycle lanes are shared with peds or separated by a line down the middle. Many cyclists ride at 15mph+ which on such routes is hazardous to all - the road is therefore much safer for the peds and cyclists.
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
