Blimey. Thought that would just be a link rather than occupying three screens' worth of the thread and missing out all the embedded tweets, making it confusing and kinda useless. Hey ho. Yay the new forum.
I’ve heard about the speed on cycle lanes thing and I think it comes from some long lost scroll.
Another interesting snippet arises from a Department for Transport consultation document that never turned into anything other than a consultation. The 2004 Local Transport Notes on Walking and Cycling document had an annex D Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists which recommends "As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
HIghway code sort of mentions
• The use of cycle routes, advance stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings may make a cyclist’s journey safer but the use of these is not compulsory – Rule 61
and Also mentions the non compulsory motorist rules
• When passing cyclists, motorists should allow plenty of room – Rule 212
• Cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Motorists should therefore give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction which the cyclist may have to take – Rule 213.
I was also going to suggest incanting ‘ Bez’ three times as this is his thang 🙂
IMHO You can’t really argue well with a 2 ton armchair.
Abuse for not using a cycle path...is there anything you can do about it?
Yes, you can use the cycle path.
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 16px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: #eeeeee;">Yes, you can use the cycle path.</span>
Because, as any social historian will tell you, if you provide crap facilities for a minority group and force them to use them against their will by shouting abuse at them or assaulting them if they refuse, that group clearly has no grounds for complaint and it really works out well and everyone gets on just fine.
Or maybe if everyone used them they would build better ones and more of them due to demand.
[b]wobbliscott[/b] wrote:
Cycle paths are there for a reason, use them whenever possible I say.
Yes, the reason being that councils have a budget to spend and/or in order to get cyclists out of the way of proper road users. Sure somewhere underneath there is an intention to improve things for cyclists, but that tends to be lost by the time implementation happens more often than not. The vast majority certainly aren't there in order to make it easier, faster or safer for cyclists. As for using one wherever possible, it's certainly possible to use [url= http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/June2017.htm ]this[/url] or [url= http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/May2016.htm ]this[/url] or [url= http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/April2014.htm ]this[/url] - are you sure you're using the correct wording there, or would something different be more appropriate?
Abuse from other road users is OTT and out of order, but still cyclists love to moan about having better infrastructure and when it is put in and some decide not to use, some abuse is probably to be expected.
Your point is? Because as a rule, if cyclists aren't using the infrastructure, then it isn't better infrastructure - there's a simple rule of thumb here, make the infrastructure good enough and cyclists will use it. Personally I'd love to have better infrastructure, and I've been actively involved in pushing for it - that doesn't mean I have to use every rubbish bike facility there is which makes my life less convenient and less safe. There's a fundamental failure of logic with your argument here. It also seems that you think the abuse is justified...
If cyclists want peoples attitudes to change towards them then the ball is just as much in their court as the other road users.
Bingo. The good old "if cyclists want drivers attitudes to change argument". I've got news for you, when I'm riding a bike I'm not "cyclists" - I don't see what the behaviour of anybody else riding a bike should make to the attitude of drivers to me.
A bit of give and take from both sides is what is required.
You write as if it is a balanced situation - it isn't, motorists already take far more than their fair share, cyclists don't have to give them anything in order to obtain fairness.
A cyclist who wants to ‘make progress’ on public infrastructure wether it be road our shared cycle path still needs to observe and be respectful of other road users just as cyclists demand from car/lorry/van drivers and pedestrians. These are not racetracks at the end of the day, so just as you’d expect a speeding car to slow down and take care as it approaches other road users, so should a speeding cyclist.
I'm not sure how you think a cyclist isn't being respectful of other road users when they're just riding along the road. Nor am I sure what you think constitutes speeding for a cyclist - 27mph certainly isn't on a 50 limit road.
If you're referring to the use of shared paths, then of course you should slow down and take care when approaching other users - which is why if you want to get somewhere without being unduly delayed a shared use path isn't suitable. Hence shared use paths aren't "better infrastructure" - mostly they're just a sop. Of course in the same way if drivers don't like having to share the road with cyclists and want to go faster without being held up behind them they should be on the motorways.
[b]rene59[/b] wrote:
Or maybe if everyone used them they would build better ones and more of them due to demand.
Or maybe if everybody used them they'd build more rubbish ones because they'd think the existing ones were fine. Honestly that's about the most rubbish argument for using cycle paths I've ever seen - even if all cyclists used the paths and none used the roads I doubt that would result in a single meter of high standard infrastructure being built.
Yep, best plan i would say! Just carry on with your day serenely and chuckle when you realise dicks will always be dicks and they can't affect you if you don't let them.
Most but not all cyclepaths are worse than useless
Anyone who thinks all cyclist should use them all the time obviously never rides a bike around town or on roads.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Wow, that is quite special (the first one, damn you for editing and making your images work) - exactly what purpose is that supposed to serve?
Dunno aracer - can't figure it out at all. Starts and finishes at the central islands.
this one is my favourite
[img] 
[/img]
Abuse from other road users is OTT and out of order, but still cyclists love to moan about having better infrastructure and when it is put in and some decide not to use, some abuse is probably to be expected.
So, if women feel unsafe on late night trains, and women only carriages are provided, but those carriages have no seats, no windows, and a leaking roof, would a woman who refused to use one expect to be told "GET BACK IN THE WOMEN ONLY CARRIAGE YOU F****** IDIOT!"?
(Shouty text is deliberate)
As usual, people are perfectly happy to behave, on the road, in ways that they'd never dream of, in other everyday situations - which is kinda weird, if you think about it.
Use the all the time in Denmark because they have same priority as road along side so no worries a junctions and everyone respects them. Only issue on a fast road ride you have to contend with a lot of slow cyclists as so many Danes commute and shop by bike.
Here I never use them for all the reasons listed above.
If you want to check out the stretch it is in Southampton, I was heading north along rownhams road to north baddesley from bakers drove. According to strava looks like my max speed along there was 30.9mph I go plenty quicker on the summer bike. It is a short stretch of 50mph, maybe half a mile tops between 30mph limits. The cycle path is fine if you are bimbling along on a mtb at a sedate pace, it is under tree cover and covered in slippy dangerous debris (as well as dog walkers, give ways and a bus stop) So I don't use it, plus I'd have to cross the main road to get on to it, and off of it. The road is plenty wide enough for safe passing as every other driver seems to manage.
if I was commuting in in rush hour, I probably would use the cycle path despite its condition When I'm out for a 45min training ride at lunch time when roads are quiet I stick to the road.
if anyone else rides there regularly and gets abuse if it is a convertible metallic gold merc it is the same twonk.
Edit looks like it is a bit longer. 1.21miles
https://www.strava.com/segments/7216206?filter=overall
I was told off on Thursday in the Cowgate area of Newcastle by an old chap (I believe "awd gadgie" is the correct descriptor) for stopping my cycle on a red light at a pedestrian crossing. He seemed to think I was giving the area a bad name.
Or maybe if everyone used them they would build better ones and more of them due to demand.
Ahh, the old
Argument, how quaint*....
*(Read as 'Naive' ).
Isn't that the wrong way round? Kevin's idea was build first, come later, not come first build later.
As it were.
You're right.
But it's still bobbins.
It's bobbins because it's the wrong way round - if you build the infrastructure (proper integrated infrastructure, not stupid shared use paths) then people will come, that's what studies show happens.
OP.. just smile and wave enthusiastically at him and shout back that you can't hear him.
Become immune to cockwomblery. Smile, ignore and don't let these eejits ruin another of your days.
I've not been up Rownhams Lane by bike ever as far as I can remember and it's been 6+ years since I was a passenger travelling along it, so I'm unfamiliar with the fine detail despite being quite local.
I don't go out of my way to use cycle lanes around central and eastern Southampton, in my experience most are not fit for purpose. About the only exceptions are the shared pedestrian/cycle path over Northam Bridge (which lost most of its shared path signs that were embedded into the pavement when the bridge lost its solid central barrier a few years back), which I use pretty much every time if briefly using the A3024 towards Bitterne (into town before 0700 I stick to the road), before I use Quayside; Chessel; Brownlow; White's before then using the shared path past Bitterne Leisure Centre (the underpass by it officially became shared use in the last few months, I've cycled it for years with caution).
I guess it comes down to three options, as regards verbal abuse...
Let it fly over your head, don't do anything rash and carry on your ride
Use the carp cycle lane(s)
Buy a camera or two, to record the abuse and then hand footage over to police
Use the all the time in Denmark because they have same priority as road along side so no worries a junctions and everyone respects them
Which is exactly how ours should be but the strange thing is although other countries have nailed the cycling infrastructure ours still seems to be unable to look at how it’s been properly done and implement it here.
if I was commuting in in rush hour, I probably would use the cycle path despite its condition When I’m out for a 45min training ride at lunch time when roads are quiet I stick to the road.
I find where I’m riding that rush hour actually slows the cars to around 20 mph and actually makes it safer as you can take a primary position (gasp) and be more car whereas when it’s quiet you’ll get a close pass at speed.
Its a tricky shout this riding a bike on the road thing there’s definately a knack to it but in reality it shouldn’t be this hard.
If it is just the one driver and the ride is a loop you do in your lunch time, could you not just reverse the route and avoid the numpty
Maybe beg / borrow/ steal a camera and report him once before changing, so at least it is bringing it to the attention of plod, but certainly not post it all over forums and twitter etc - all you need to do is bring it to their attention, not get involved in an interweb war.
Life's too short to get bogged down with 1 person annoying you.
Thing is, it is a little more than annoying. someone pulling alongside you within arms reach when you are riding pretty quick and giving you verbal and looking at you rather than the road is dangerous.
I've ignored the first three times and only this time have I paid attention to the car and thought it is probably the same person.
I've ridden that stretch 55 times and had abuse 4 times now (over the last year). compared to 0 times with the rest of the country....
I do vary the lunch time loops, but being in a city means whatever direction you ride you end up on a fast road for a stretch at some point.
Biggest problem: that such assholes are around.
Personally don't like these conflicts and avoid fighting these idiots. Ruins my whole day.
Personally I vacillate between thinking Dutch style segregated infrastructure is "the answer" and believing that it would just have the effect of validating all the angry motoring arses in their persistent belief that roads are for motorised transport only.
For me the response to Chief Constable Anthony Bangham's comments this week frames the whole issue of behaviour on British roads.
(warning; frothy mail click bait)
http://www.****/news/article-5348791/Police-chief-wants-drivers-film-law-breaking-motorists.html
For those not inclined to click, basically The DM have likened a police chief to the stasi for daring to suggest the police actually enforce the law...
God forbid twunts in Mondeos have to look at a speedometer, dab the brakes or (gulp) wait till its safe to steer round a person out on a bicycle, on their way to the next traffic light queue...
I can't help thinking everyone seemed to be getting along reasonably well on the road until about 20 odd years ago, something seemed to change in the late 90s/early 00s and and slowly the roads have become an increasingly tense, fraught environment...
Just shout at them back asking why they are not using the nearest motorway? After all motorways were built just for cars!
Btw, can’t believe some of the replies on here, do many of you actually even ride a bike??
The best step would be presumed liability as in most of the rest of europe. We might get a bit more respect then
the next best thing would be only to allow cycle lanes to be built if designed by people who cycle regularly. the final think would be to completely ban the stupid and useless painted on the road stuff.
Face it, they don't get it, your just. In the way. I have been driven into for not using cycle lane. Even doing 40 in a 30 zone. You can't win. Now I no longer commute on a road bike. I use an old mtb so if I get in a situation just ride into the car and play dead. Or stay on the path plodding through the cack.
I climbed out from under a punto and the dashdboard of a corsa. Police were not interested. Don't end up a smear on the road.
Joe Public simply doesn't understand the poor suitability of a lot of our cycling infrastructure. The Highways Authorities need taking to task.
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 18px; font-style: italic;">knobs in all walks of life, don’t take it personally.</span>
Amazed at how many of them are on here, it's depressing.
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12px;">Thing is, it is a little more than annoying. someone pulling alongside you within arms reach when you are riding pretty quick and giving you verbal and looking at you rather than the road is dangerous.</span>
Next time (there will be one) get his number and report him for a close pass. That's getting some attention these days.
Or even report him for all 4 (5) close passes.
(Camera would be better obviously)
A big problem is the state of the cycle paths. I got abuse on the weekend for not riding one that was empty. The problem is that they simply painted it on a wide pavement and put in give way markers at every junction so it’s a total pita to use.
</span><span style="color: #444444; font-size: 16px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: #eeeeee;"> </span><span style="color: #444444; font-size: 16px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: #eeeeee;">(I’d be tempted to see if you can get him to also threaten you if you really want the police to take action).
and that is my problem with cyclists wearing cameras. Rather than trying to capture what would have happened anyway there seems to be an incentive to either make great YouTube footage or goad people into committing a (further) offence.
in this instance a camera seems like a good idea if you can keep your cool and simple ignore him. He may get bored, he may get worse in which case you’ll have the evidence - and “this guy does this to me every week, or this guy gets 3” closer every time” will likely get more interest than a one off where it’s arguable if an offence has been committed.
id suggest you also capture footage of exactly why that path is so bad as it will save you a lot of time with people who haven’t ridden a bike since they were 12.
</span>The best step would be presumed liability as in most of the rest of europe. We might get a bit more respect then
I’m not a huge fan of presumed liability*, and this is one of the reasons. Drivers with an attitude problem don’t suddenly become drivers with an enforced respect for cyclists because the law changes - they become drivers even more convinced that cyclists are self righteous cocks in their way intentionally hiding them up with their legal shield.
Now presumed liability will only come into play after an accident (too late for the cyclist). I don’t know if you’ve noticed but most of the arrogant drivers believe they have superior skills and so won’t have a crash (none of them are keen to scratch their paintwork) and so inconsiderate, poorly thought out, rude, or malicious close passes don’t stop because the muppet behind the wheel either has no idea it is threatening or wants it to be threatening but believes they have the skills to stop it actually being an accident.
Given how many people drive on our roads without insurance, MOT, and or the correct driving license I’m not sure presuming liability achieves anything other than pushing up premiums for drivers who follow the rules. Now a presumption of prosecution for any collision involving vulnerable road users — that could achieve things and wouldn’t even need a law change.
*the main reason I don’t think it’s a great idea is I see some fairly attrotrious cycling and giving those guys any extra belief in their invincibility seems like a bad idea.
Because, as any social historian will tell you, if you provide crap facilities for a minority group and force them to use them against their will by shouting abuse at them or assaulting them if they refuse, that group clearly has no grounds for complaint and it really works out well and everyone gets on just fine.
Bez for king of the internet!
I’m not sure presuming liability achieves anything other than pushing up premiums for drivers who follow the rules.
The main aim thing it achieves is ease of access to compensation for victims, many of whom face an uphill and combative task: either a serious crash can become emotionally traumatic and financially expensive on top of physically harmful, or minor crashes are things that people simply resign themselves to rather than attempting to be rightfully compensated.
I agree that it's probably completely impotent on most other issues that people cite in relation to it, though.
http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/bez-selling-a-dream-at-the-cost-of-reality/
I see some fairly atrocious cycling and giving those guys any extra belief in their invincibility seems like a bad idea.
I see some really atrocious driving and even when people are in charge of 100 times the weight of a bicycle and an engine with 300 or so times the horsepower, society is happy to give them airbags, impact bars, crumple zones and various other things that mean they practically are invincible—never mind just the feeling of being so. We're so keen to divorce them from the fact that moving that sort of vehicle at up to 70mph or so is inherently dangerous that we even give them somewhere to rest their hot coffee, a graphical map to look at, and a microphone so they can talk on the phone.
I think, in the grand scheme of things, presumed liability for the people with 0.3hp and a 15kg pair of wheels isn't going to precipitate a sharp rise in the billions of pounds we spend annually mopping up debris and bodies from the roads.
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 16px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: #eeeeee;">Bez for king of the internet!</span>
TBH I thought the later "women-only carriages" analogy made the point better 🙂
[i]and that is my problem with cyclists wearing cameras. Rather than trying to capture what would have happened anyway there seems to be an incentive to either make great YouTube footage or goad people into committing a (further) offence.[/i]
I wonder if your personal problem with camera users is as big as my problem with dickheads who think this is the case with all camera users...
I've got 2 defences against people who shout things at me on the bike - 1) I don't hear them and 2) I can shout louder and more sweary than they can if I do hear them due to a drop in the music volume.
I constantly struggle with this subject when driving along the A283 near Shoreham in particular, only to be held up by one or several cyclists during rush hour. Its roughly a 4 mile stretch, with virtually no safe passing points as the traffic is so heavy in both directions during this time and the actual single carriageways aren't particularly wide. Despite this many cyclists insist on battling the headwinds and trudging along, meaning a frequent queue of traffic directly behind them, sometimes stretching back for a mile itself!
And all the while, there is a dedicated cycle path following the river, not 50m to the side of them on the road. Yes its darker on the path, yes there might be leaves or a rabid rabbit on the path - maybe they'd even have to ride a bit slower to safely traverse this stretch - but surely thats the safer, and more considerate option all round?
I'll always try to defend cyclists but we make it very difficult for ourselves at times.
"And all the while, there is a dedicated cycle path following the river, not 50m to the side of them on the road."
sorry to be pedantic and overly specific but this isn't actually a dedicated cycle-path, it's a shared route gravel track that's quite off-road in places, potholed and frequently puddly and muddy in Winter months.
i use it a lot, and if i'm on my CX or MTB i'll ride it because it's a nice quiet corridor, but if i'm on my road bike i'll avoid it for all but the driest months, and then i'll use the pleasingly meandering road on the other side of the river to the A283, but that's out of personal choice rather than to be 'considerate' to the heavy traffic on the main road so it can go about its business without other people 'getting in the way'
