One reason I don't like cycle paths

[Artstu]

Clearly this driver thinks this cyclist should be on the cycle path. One of the closest misses I've seen.

www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUSJYSGaIQLBKj5U_KYAbrrA&v=XlHQXLI8iiM#t=82

 

[jazper53]

Absolutely horrifying
I think after that I would be cycling on the pavement for the rest of the journey. I hope they identify the culprit and send him back from where he comes from, minus his load and vehicle.

 

[Artstu]

There's a very wide stretch of road near me about 6 miles long, the council have painted a white line on to make a cycle lane, now because traffic hardly ever drives on it, it is strewn with debris, so at times I ride just outside the line, you then get drivers honking at you and almost trying to push you into the cycle lane.
Without the line the road would be kept clean at the edges and there would be no conflict. It's a lazy council meeting some target for cycle provision no doubt, but instead of making cycling safer it makes it more dangerous.

 

[baldylox]

I see this kind of thing happen quite a lot. I'm not sure that I would ride on the road given the fact that there is a perfectly usable cycle path available. Absolutely no excuse for that kind of driving though, these idiots need to be brought to book!

 

[jackhandy]

Bugger riding on that road - what with the hatching making for a narrow carriageway.
I'd be on the cycle path, which is fit for purpose, even with the lamp posts.
But, of course, there's no excuse for attemted murder.

 

[pdarnett]

Meanwhile in Bradford... VIDEO

 

[flapajack]

That pavement seems more than adequate IHMO for riding a bike so not sure why you feel the lamp posts would cause a problem. If there wasn't such pavements though the I would send the video straight to the police.

 

[Artstu]

That pavement seems more than adequate IHMO for riding a bike so not sure why you feel the lamp posts would cause a problem. If there wasn't such pavements though the I would send the video straight to the police.

It sounds like you think that because the footpath has those blue signs the driver's behaviour is somehow acceptable

Of course the footpath is OK to ride on, but that doesn't mean you should or have to use it.

 

[jackhandy]

Of course the footpath is OK to ride on, but that doesn't mean you should or have to use it.

Bet he uses it now, though - I know I would.

 

[Artstu]

Bet he uses it now, though - I know I would.

I bet he doesn't.

 

[peerjay56]

I bet he doesn't.

The A59 is a fast A road, and the lanes are usually sufficiently wide to pass cyclists with plenty of room to spare; but the cyclist wasn't hanging about. And there is no compulsion for him to use the shared path/cycle lane. Interesting to read that the driver concerned has been identified and sacked by his employer, and the police are also investigating.

 

[Artstu]

And there is no compulsion for him to use the shared path/cycle lane. Interesting to read

Exactly, and in any link like that, it is always sad to see the reaction and attitude of none cyclists to these events.

Bet he uses it now, though - I know I would.

If it means riding in the way you do, then no thanks I'll take my chances on the road. I mean no offence by this, but found your video faintly ridiculous. and that's what almost all cycle paths are, ridiculous.

 

[jackhandy]

Exactly, and in any link like that, it is always sad to see the reaction and attitude of none cyclists to these events.



If it means riding in the way you do, then no thanks I'll take my chances on the road. I mean no offence by this, but found your video faintly ridiculous. and that's what almost all cycle paths are, ridiculous.

You know - You've posted some very peculiar comments on these forums, but this has to be one of your silliest.

"None cyclist" riding 50 100 miles a week:

You seem to advocate riding in the road when there's a viable alternative:

My use of the provided cyle path to circumnavigate traffic lights on a Very dangerous hump-back bridge is ridiculous?

Makes me wonder who is the none-cyclist here.

 

[Artstu]

I wasn't calling you a none cyclist, I was referring to the comments in the link. It's in the quoted text above my comment.

http://www.caravantimes.co.uk/news/people/human-interest/forest-of-dean-caravans-fires-driver-after-cyclist-near-miss-is-caught-on-film-$21384068.htm

 

[Artstu]

You seem to advocate riding in the road when there's a viable alternative:

If you want to ride on the cycle path that's fine, you do so. I just never want to see a time when we're compelled to do so.

 

[Artstu]

You know - You've posted some very peculiar comments on these forums, but this has to be one of your silliest.

Really

 

[Artstu]

My use of the provided cyle path to circumnavigate traffic lights on a Very dangerous hump-back bridge is ridiculous?

Missed this sorry, yes to me it is, I much prefer to behave in the same way normal traffic does, you're predictable to other motorists then, and therefore in my view safer, and treated equally and with respect from the decent motorists.

 

[flecc]

I do use cycle paths wherever possible but also maintain that the roads are for all vehicular travel. Just because cyclists are slower than other traffic is no reason for them to be removed, after all there are other slow movers such as horse riders, milk floats, JCBs, tractors etc.

Just as a driver sometimes has to slow down before getting a chance to pass safely due to the width of most of those, they should also treat a bicycle the same way. The fact that a bike is narrow is no excuse for squeezing past dangerously without slowing. A bicycle in a marked traffic lane or road half "owns" that lane or road half in the same way as a wider vehicle does, so overtakers should be prepared to move into other lanes to pass when safe to do so.

Every road user deserves the same respect and consideration, regardless of their chosen vehicle or its motive power.

 

[flapajack]

If you want to ride on the cycle path that's fine, you do so. I just never want to see a time when we're compelled to do so.

I actually think where there are perfectly good cycle paths provided then cyclists should use them whenever possible. Obviously "whenever possible" can mean a lot of different things to different people but there is really no excuse to use the road and cause more inconvenience for other road users when a deliberate attempt has been made to accommodate cyclists.

 

[Artstu]

when a deliberate attempt has been made to accommodate cyclists.

I don't agree. Sticking a few signs up on a pavement just isn't good enough by a long way. Now if they made proper cycle lanes with priority at all junctions and no pedestrians, and also kept the cycle lane clean, then and only then could I agree with your point of view.