Cycle lanes ..



Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paul - XXX

Guest
Hi all,

Just been riding out from Nottingham towards Hucknall, past Bulwell ? golf course. Nice wide road,
single lane each way, nice three (two sometimes) foot wide cycle lane picked out in red, hi-grip
surface, both cycle lane and roadway clearly marked. This is NOT a shared path or anything like,
it's a separate cycle lane ..

So why is it that the two cyclists I passed were in the middle of the road way, meaning I
effectively undertook them, and the one who passed me was also in the roadway, ie not using the
cycle lane, and didn't use the cycle lane after passing me. None of them were turning right, they
all carried on regardless. This really does cause car drivers confusion. It's bad enough the
friggin' buses get their own lanes, but when cycles are also given lanes and don't use them can you
wonder why drivers don't understand cyclists and/or cycling ..

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1417 wu in 10303 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm
 
M

Marc

Guest
Paul - *** <[email protected]> wrote:

> So why is it that the two cyclists I passed were in the middle of the road way, meaning I
> effectively undertook them, and the one who passed me was also in the roadway, ie not using the
> cycle lane, and didn't use the cycle lane after passing me.

Because they can.
 
A

Alan_f

Guest
"wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Many cyclists don't use cycle lanes becasue
> 1. you don't have to
> 2. Those that are provided are mostly ****
> 3. at side of roads get full of the **** thrown to the side by cars -
glass,
> bits of old tyre. etc., etc parked cars... etc., etc
> 4. statistically more dangerous to ride in cycle lanes (I'm sure someone
will
> come up with the figures)
> 5. 2ft wide isn't that wide - not wide enough IMHO - not big enough for my
ar*e
> that's for sure ;-)
> 6. Motorists' brains think cycle lane & drive right to the edge of the
lane,
> thus giving cyclists less clearance when overtaking than if cycle lane not there.
>
> Anymore, anyone?

Well we could have

7. End just when they are needed most e.g. roundabout, road junction etc (remember the cyclists
dismount and use pedestrian facility signs)

8. Some prat is walking their dog (funny they don't normally try that on the main road)

9. They are designed for people who cycle at 5 mph not 15/20 mph i.e. blind bends and sharp bends!

10. There's a road sign positioned in the middle of the cycle way for the benefit of drivers on the
main road.

Conclusion

People who campaign for and design cycle ways don't normally ride bikes so that they have not got a
clue. I think a better policy would be to treat motorists who cut up and generally abuse, injure and
kill cyclists much more severely and I say that as a motorist (any cyclist myself)

JMTPW

Alan
 
W

Wafflycathcsdir

Guest
Many cyclists don't use cycle lanes becasue
1. you don't have to
2. Those that are provided are mostly ****
3. at side of roads get full of the **** thrown to the side by cars - glass, bits of old tyre. etc.,
etc parked cars... etc., etc
4. statistically more dangerous to ride in cycle lanes (I'm sure someone will come up with
the figures)
5. 2ft wide isn't that wide - not wide enough IMHO - not big enough for my ar*e that's for sure ;-)
6. Motorists' brains think cycle lane & drive right to the edge of the lane, thus giving cyclists
less clearance when overtaking than if cycle lane not there.

Anymore, anyone?

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
~~~~~~~~~~
 
P

Paul - XXX

Guest
Alan_F deftly scribbled:

> "wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Many cyclists don't use cycle lanes becasue
>> 1. you don't have to
>> 2. Those that are provided are mostly ****
>> 3. at side of roads get full of the **** thrown to the side by cars
>> - glass, bits of old tyre. etc., etc parked cars... etc., etc
>> 4. statistically more dangerous to ride in cycle lanes (I'm sure someone will come up with the
>> figures)
>> 5. 2ft wide isn't that wide - not wide enough IMHO - not big enough for my ar*e that's for
>> sure ;-)
>> 6. Motorists' brains think cycle lane & drive right to the edge of the lane, thus giving cyclists
>> less clearance when overtaking than if cycle lane not there.
>>
>> Anymore, anyone?
>
> Well we could have
>
> 7. End just when they are needed most e.g. roundabout, road junction etc (remember the cyclists
> dismount and use pedestrian facility signs)

Can't say I noticed that, I cut across onto a disused railway track before I got to the end
f it .. ;)

> 8. Some prat is walking their dog (funny they don't normally try that on the main road)

Heheheh, well that could happen anywhere ..

> 9. They are designed for people who cycle at 5 mph not 15/20 mph i.e. blind bends and sharp
> bends!

Not in this case, wide enough for two and really rather good, in both directions .. ;)

> 10. There's a road sign positioned in the middle of the cycle way for the benefit of drivers on
> the main road.

? Dunno about this ..I didn't see one ..

> Conclusion
>
> People who campaign for and design cycle ways don't normally ride bikes so that they have not
> got a clue.

Do you know anyone who does this ?

> I think a better policy would be to treat motorists who cut up and generally abuse, injure and
> kill cyclists much more severely and I say that as a motorist (any cyclist myself)

So are you actually against the provision of cycle paths then ?

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1417 wu in 10303 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm
 
P

Paul - XXX

Guest
wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter deftly scribbled:

> Many cyclists don't use cycle lanes becasue
> 1. you don't have to

Heheheh, fair comment. Maybe the reason car drivers get annoyed is that they don't realise this.

> 2. Those that are provided are mostly ****

This particular one is really rather good.

> 3. at side of roads get full of the **** thrown to the side by cars - glass, bits of old tyre.
> etc., etc parked cars... etc., etc

See answer to (2)

> 4. statistically more dangerous to ride in cycle lanes (I'm sure someone will come up with the
> figures)

I didn't know that, thanks .. ;)

> 5. 2ft wide isn't that wide - not wide enough IMHO - not big enough for my ar*e that's for
> sure ;-)

It's a short 2' 'bit' that goes past the golf club entrance / exit. Everywhere else it's wide enough
for two, IMHO.

> 6. Motorists' brains think cycle lane & drive right to the edge of the lane, thus giving cyclists
> less clearance when overtaking than if cycle lane not there.

Dunno about that, I actually felt quite safe in it.

> Anymore, anyone?
>
> Cheers, helen s

Bearing the above in mind then, do you actually like cycle lanes ? Do any other cyclists like and
use cycle lanes ? I generally (nowadays) only use the road to get to bits of interesting off-road
hilly things, and personally I like cycle lanes, I don't mind shared path lanes etc etc. That may be
because I live outside a city though.

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1417 wu in 10303 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm
 
S

Simon Hay

Guest
Paul - *** wrote:

> Bearing the above in mind then, do you actually like cycle lanes ? Do any other cyclists like and
> use cycle lanes ? I generally (nowadays) only use the road to get to bits of interesting off-road
> hilly things, and personally I like cycle lanes, I don't mind shared path lanes etc etc. That may
> be because I live outside a city though.

For all the bad things that are said about them (a lot of which I entirely agree with, particularly
about parked cars, side turnings and
ice/broken glass/piles of rubbish), I do think that in various places the cycle lanes are quite
handy - particularly when there's nose-to-tail traffic :) If there's an empty road though I'll
always go down the middle of it...

Shared use paths are different. There are various alternative versions of my daily route; in one
part I have the choice between going up South Ealing Road, which can be fairly busy in
mornings/evenings, or along shared use paths which run pretty much parallel. I always used to go for
the latter when I started, but after however long it is now I feel much more confident riding in
traffic and tend to prefer taking my chances with (usually stationary!) cars than huddles of
pedestrians with vicious dogs, etc. On the other hand, the towpath along the river between Kew and
Chiswick is shared use, and that's great (except for the odd dog...) - probably because it's plenty
wide enough for there to never be any contention for space.

Simon
 
P

Paul - XXX

Guest
Andy Todd deftly scribbled:

> 7. pinch point/bad design later on makes it safer not to use the cycle lane.

Why would something at the end of a lane make the rest of the lane unsafe ?

> 8. lack of use after a night frost may mean their is ice on the lane.

The same could be said of any road surface ..

> 9. Pulling out of cycle lanes can be dangerous (regardless of how much you indicate). So if
> turning right later safer not to use cycle lane.

Pulling out and turning right is dangerous on a bike (and in a car) at any time, why is it more so
on a cycle lane ?

I take it you're against cycle lanes then ?

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1417 wu in 10303 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 20:49:12 -0000, "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Bearing the above in mind then, do you actually like cycle lanes ? Do any other cyclists like and
>use cycle lanes ?

An interesting question. I like the /idea/ of cycle lanes, but not the way they are almost
invariably put into practice. The fatal flaw in the concept seems to me to be that if the lane is
actually wide enough to cycle in, the cagers park in it- and if it's not wide enough to cycle in the
poor old dears on their wicker basket specials feel compelled to try to keep in the Green Kleptonite
and end up being scared half to death. The rest of us just ignore them and ride according to best
practice - and get shouted at for not staying inside the cycle lane.

Obviously there are places where cycle lanes are a Good Thing - in crowded town centres, for
example, where the roads are wide enough in the first place and they can be used to let bikes get
past nasty junctions without playing dodgems with people who are too distracted by their phone
conversation and being late for work to pay any attention to cyclists. Advanced stop lines are the
most valuable use of Green Kleptonite, although you tend to find that motorcyclists think that the
omission of the engine in the bicycle pictured on the green bit is an oversight, so you can end up
being left-hooked by Mr Matching Leathers on his Yamahonduki Firebom 125.

But in most cases the best solution is for the road to be wide enough to allow a car to overtake
without coming into conflict with me or an oncoming car. This is becoming an accepted policy in some
parts of the US, reportedly, specifically as an alternative to Kleptonite.

The only good thing which cycle lanes do is alert the dozy twats to the fact that bicycles exist
(which works the first three times they drive along the road).

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
M

Marc

Guest
Paul - *** <[email protected]> wrote:

> Andy Todd deftly scribbled:
>
> > 7. pinch point/bad design later on makes it safer not to use the cycle lane.
>
> Why would something at the end of a lane make the rest of the lane unsafe ?
it doesn't make the rest of it unsafe, but does that matter if the end is unsafe and you can't get
out of it because the traffic won't let you?
>
> > 8. lack of use after a night frost may mean their is ice on the lane.
>
> The same could be said of any road surface ..

The road always defrosts faster, motor vehciles need more friction so get more heat into the road,
the edges of the road will always be colder plus how many gritters have you seen on cylce tracks?
>
> > 9. Pulling out of cycle lanes can be dangerous (regardless of how much you indicate). So if
> > turning right later safer not to use cycle lane.
>
> Pulling out and turning right is dangerous on a bike (and in a car) at any time, why is it more so
> on a cycle lane ?
Because you need to make two manouveurs one into the flow of "real" traffic and one to turn right.
 
A

Alex Graham

Guest
Paul - *** wrote:
> Do any other cyclists like and use cycle lanes ? I generally (nowadays)

I tend to go in cycle lanes unless I can see they are full of small sharp gravel or sludgey ice and
grit residue,.

On some roads the surface is really poor at the edge, and the cycle lane is stupidly narrow, so I
prefer to ride just on the outside of it.

One thing I find annoying is where a cycle lane goes through a keep clear section where a road
island type crossing is. You have to move into the car lane so as not to cycle over very bumpy and
dense paint. Obviously some twatface in a car tries to get through as well..

--
-Alex

----------------------------------
[email protected] www.westerleycycling.org.uk http://alexpg.ath.cx:3353/cycling/
----------------------------------
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 20:59:23 -0000, Paul - *** <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Why would something at the end of a lane make the rest of the lane unsafe ?

Because you have to exit it at some point, and merging with streams of moron cagers is a relatively
dangerous manouvber.

> The same could be said of any road surface ..

Any road surface that's untrafficked, but teh real road will be much more trafficked than the
cycle path.

> Pulling out and turning right is dangerous on a bike (and in a car) at any time, why is it more
> so on a cycle lane ?

Because moron cagers think that a bicycle in a cycle lane is a piece of static street furniture and
pay no attention to any signals it might be giving.

> I take it you're against cycle lanes then ?

I am. Overall (on average) they are a waste of money that makes cycling more dangerous -
dramatically so for the people conned into using them, and slightly so for the people that sensibly
avoid them.

Much better if all teh moneyt spent painting inappropriate bits of tarmac red had been spent putting
sheffield stands all over the place, or enforcing traffic law on motor vehicles, or prosecuting the
lunatics who get hundred-pound fines for murder, so long as their chosen weapon is a car.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
G

Geraint Jones

Guest
Paul kisses <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not in this case, wide enough for two and really rather good, in both directions .. ;)

Make up your mind, a while ago it was only

> three (two sometimes) foot wide cycle lane picked out in red

I'm not sure I would like to keep in a three foot wide lane that wasn't well away from obstructions
and other traffic, but I certainly couldn't do so if there was already someone else in it.
 
J

James Annan

Guest
Paul - *** wrote:

>
>
> So are you actually against the provision of cycle paths then ?

Yes, they are almost always worse than useless and the money could be much better spent elsewhere.

James
 
A

Andy Todd

Guest
inline

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Andy Todd deftly scribbled:
>
> > 7. pinch point/bad design later on makes it safer not to use the cycle lane.
>
> Why would something at the end of a lane make the rest of the lane unsafe ?

because it is at the end and has to be negotiated. Their are sections of cycle path near me which
are perfectly good except for that fact that they are not safe at the end. If I cant exit safely
then the only option is not to enter.

Ultimately the saying "A chain is only as strong as its' weakest link" is valid for cycle
lane design.

>
> > 8. lack of use after a night frost may mean their is ice on the lane.
>
> The same could be said of any road surface ..

True, but which one has had over 1000 wheels go over it?

Some people seem to think that grit is this magical substance that the moment it is applied removes
all ice from the road. Unfortunately they are wrong. When you have spun out a few times due to ice
on the road you tend to take the safe option when commuting to wok.

>
> > 9. Pulling out of cycle lanes can be dangerous (regardless of how much you indicate). So if
> > turning right later safer not to use cycle lane.
>
> Pulling out and turning right is dangerous on a bike (and in a car) at any time, why is it more so
> on a cycle lane ?
>

The problem is that the average driver gets confused as to what you are indicating, and 'solves' the
problem by overtaking.

Turning right on a bike is dangerous at all times, primarily because cars will overtake even if you
are indicating. The real problems happen when you are doing this from lane 1 (cycle lane) and
crossing lane 2 (vehicle lane).

Ultimately the safe riding option is to take control of the road. You cannot do this when using the
cycle path.

> I take it you're against cycle lanes then ?
>

Good cycle provision I dont have a problem with. Unfortunately 99% is a traffic calming measure in
drag. I am against such 'provision'.

This includes a cycle lane similar to your description on my way to work. (Built as a 3 lane road,
slowly traffic calmed since)

> --
> ...................................Paul-*** Seti 1417 wu in 10303 hours
> http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm
>
 
A

Alex Graham

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> You see, that's just careless typing - I think what you meant was "I /would/ tend to go in cycle
> lanes /except/ I can see they are full of small sharp gravel or sludgey ice and grit residue ;-)

Phear the typing madskilz

:p
--
-Alex

----------------------------------
[email protected] www.westerleycycling.org.uk http://alexpg.ath.cx:3353/cycling.php
----------------------------------
 
T

Tony W

Guest
"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> So are you actually against the provision of cycle paths then ?

Tricky one that. It seems that providing lanes & paths is necessary to encourage more people to
cycle as there is a wide perception that the roads are now too dangerous for cyclists and there is
some mystical belief that a couple of inches of white paint separating the lane for tonnes of
speeding metal imparts some mystical force that protects the cyclist from injury.

The facts are different. Cycle lanes are, statistically, more dangerous -- in part because they move
the cyclist to the wrong part of the road to be clearly seen by motorists (more accurately, into an
area that motorists tend not to look for danger).

Personally, it would not worry me if cycle lanes were abolished -- cycle paths are somewhat
different but most of them could go too.

However, I appreciate that to encourage new or returning cyclists they do offer a psychological fig
leaf without which the newbie may not get started.

Perhaps a better solution would be to make 'car lanes' that encouraged drivers to scurry in the
margins of the road, leaving the direct routes to cyclists and buses?

T
 
J

John

Guest
On 14 Feb 2003 18:44:48 GMT, [email protected] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote:

>Many cyclists don't use cycle lanes becasue
>1. you don't have to
>2. Those that are provided are mostly ****
>3. at side of roads get full of the **** thrown to the side by cars - glass, bits of old tyre.
> etc., etc parked cars... etc., etc
>4. statistically more dangerous to ride in cycle lanes (I'm sure someone will come up with the
> figures)
>5. 2ft wide isn't that wide - not wide enough IMHO - not big enough for my ar*e that's for sure ;-)
>6. Motorists' brains think cycle lane & drive right to the edge of the lane, thus giving cyclists
> less clearance when overtaking than if cycle lane not there.
>
>Anymore, anyone?
>
7. Having paid for the roads through general taxation, I shall cycle, within the law, wherever I
damn well please.

OK? Regards,

John
 
P

Paul - XXX

Guest
Geraint Jones deftly scribbled:

> Paul kisses <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Not in this case, wide enough for two and really rather good, in both directions .. ;)
>
> Make up your mind, a while ago it was only
>
>> three (two sometimes) foot wide cycle lane picked out in red
>
> I'm not sure I would like to keep in a three foot wide lane that wasn't well away from
> obstructions and other traffic, but I certainly couldn't do so if there was already someone
> else in it.

It was a very short 2' piece past the golf club entrance ...

I was riding the bike, I didn't have a measure, so have guessed at the size .. it could easily have
been 4' or 5' wide .. ;)

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1417 wu in 10303 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.