[Closed] Cycle lane etiquette - new driver question

I'd have used the lane if it was a well designed cycle lane. ROund here, they're few and far between as you often find they're interrupted by side roads where the cyclists are expected to give way to cars - almost as if the only reason for cycle lanes is to get bikes out of the way.

In your case, I don't know what the cycle lane was like. if it was indeed long and useful and traffic free, then I'd problbay say they should have had the grace to use it,

But...there was a pretty wide and completely clear cycle lane just to the left (part of the road), which was unobstructed as far as I could see (also free of other users).

I see this a lot on the old A77 between Newton Mearns and Kilmarnock. The old dual carriageway has been turned into a two lane road, and a completely separate cycle lane built, which is separated from the road by a kerb, yet some roadies appear to refuse to use it and still cycle on the road. The mind boggles.

Example here with the cycle lane visible on the right: http://goo.gl/maps/sP5ko

Any roadies able to explain the logic behind not using it?

Tea, anyone?

Sensible answer - cycle lanes at the side of the road are often full of puncture-inducing cr@p. But, yeah, I personally would probably use it in the situation above. Riding two-abreast whilst ignoring the available cycle lane is taking the piss somewhat.

although 2 abreast is perfectly legal its rather inconsiderate to ride like that on a busy 30mph road. As for the cycle path, if I was pootling along at 15 I'd have used it.

I think in your position a quick toot of the horn would be acceptable to let them know you're there.

I see this a lot on the old A77 between Newton Mearns and Kilmarnock.

Funnily enough bob, it was further up the A77, closer to Shawlands.

The simple answer to this would be to not have a kerb between the road and cycle lane.

This is the road in question, cycle lane is clearly visible on left.

[IMG] [/IMG]

Myself, even if the cycle lane was a worse surface, I might hop into it to let someone by, and then return to the smoother road surface.

The combination with 2 abreast does seem to be taking the piss. But I don't think people are this awkward [i]just[/i] for the sake of it. Maybe they had some dodgy overtakes earlier and didn't want to chance any more.

There's a short section of the Taff Trail in Cardiff as it exits the north end of Haley Park which is for all intents and purposes a widening of the pavement. It's about 400 metres long, crosses 4 junctions where cyclists are expected to give way and is a right royal pain as the line of sight at the junctions is mostly obstructed.

So I use the road that runs parallel for this sections because the cycle path is so badly designed. Quite often get a "use the cycle path" shout from passing motorists!

Hmmm... I wonder if givent he parked cars they were worried about vehicles pulling out. How many parked cars were there?

There are so many lines on that road ^, I'm not sure I'd know what to do - as a driver or a cyclists...? 😯

To be clear, were there cars parked in the parking area? If there were then, personally, I would be riding at least next to the line between the cycle lane and the 'car' lane so that there was distance between me and the parked cars.

If there weren't then I'd be riding along the parking area.

As an aside, that is a really shitty, crap and totally stupid road layout. It is, unfortunately, a shining example of how incompetent Local Authority workers are.

Yeah, there were quite a few parked cars since it was after 6pm, so most people home for the evening.

Which would help to explain a reluctance to use the lane. Perhaps it was just people noticing the lane combined with the 2 abreast which caused the slightly less patient drivers behind me to make some fairly risky overtaking moves.

Regardless of the type of 'obstruction' you should never overtake unless it is safe to do so. This doesn't just apply to drivers.

I would argue better (though admitedly more work) in that instance to have a narrower road with just driving lane and part and integrate a cycle lane onto a wider pavement. Or at least once you change it take the old lines off...

That's a **** road. OK looks like there's some (edit: tiny) blue signs the other side of the cars, and I guess there's the occasional bike painted in the cycle lane? Otherwise, to me it looks more like a door-opening zone, sponsored by Dulux.

But highway code also (afaik) says to make good progress, so if there was a backlog of motorised traffic, I'd pull over when there's a gap to let them past, unless I'm riding at the speed limit, downhill.

Probably not a good idea to belt down a shared path at 15mph if there are pedestrians on it.

although 2 abreast is perfectly legal

I dunno about legal but according to the highway code you shouldn't be riding two abreast on busy roads. I'd have pulled over into it to let cars overtake.

Lots of cyclists are inconsiderate/unaware (just like the rest of the general public).

Probably not a good idea to belt down a shared path at 15mph if there are pedestrians on it.

Agreed, but they can be done so pedestrians don't walk on the cycle part. In Leeds city centre some of them have a kerb step down, different coloured tarmac like little roads. That part of it works well. What doesn't is they're tiny and poorly thought out.

I dunno about legal but according to the highway code you shouldn't be riding two abreast on busy roads.

Possibly the wrong terminology, rule would have been better I guess....

Anyway, its number 66 for anyone who's interested

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837

Probably not a good idea to belt down a shared path at 15mph if there are pedestrians on it.

Agreed, but they can be done so pedestrians don't walk on the cycle part. In Leeds cuty centre some of them have a kerb step down, different coloured tarmac like little roads. That part of it works well. What doesn't is they're tiny and poorly thought out.

I forget which rule it is in the HC but cyclists travelling at more than 18mph mustn't use shared use paths. Although I agree that 15mph is probably not a good idea either.

Yeah, there were quite a few parked cars since it was after 6pm, so most people home for the evening.

Personally, there's no way I'd cycle in that lane if there were a lot of parked cars. A door will do some significant damage to your face.

That's a typically badly planned road. But because the cycle lane's there it just makes drivers more irate that you don't use it.

In fact looking at that road, I don't think two abreast seems unreasonable either. I wouldn't feel too comfortable sandwiched between the parked cars and moving traffic.

BB - cycle paths on or shared with pavements can have glass, zombie pedestrians, make you stop at side roads etc, I rarely use them, and cyclists are not compelled to in law.

As for PF's situation, cycle lanes right be parked cars are useless IMO - no way am I riding close to parked cars in case I get doored. That said, I wouldn't ride 2 abreast there either, but I don't expect as much room as some do when being overtaken.

There are so many lines on that road ^, I'm not sure I'd know what to do - as a driver or a cyclists...?

Agreed. WTF?

Yeah, there were quite a few parked cars since it was after 6pm, so most people home for the evening.

That splendidly crap road layout means the lane appears to be right in the "door zone". If there were a lot of cars parked then they may have been staying (sensibly) out of it.

Still even then, if I were them I'd have pulled into it as soon as I got to a bit where I could see there were either no cars parked, or I could see as I approached that they were parked for a while.

Probably not a good idea to belt down a shared path at 15mph if there are pedestrians on it.

Depends on the path really. I do that kind of speed all the time on shared use, but the path is wide and there are few pedestrians.

I see this a lot on the old A77 between Newton Mearns and Kilmarnock.

Bob - I ride that section a lot and always on the cycle lane, although I have noted it doesn't get swept or cleared same way as the road. I asked a guy from a local road club (who use the road rather than the cycle lane mostly) and his take was debris and puncture potential on the cycle path was a hazard ....

Personally, there's no way I'd cycle in that lane if there were a lot of parked cars. A door will do some significant damage to your face.

Bit confused - the OP said 'But...there was a pretty wide and completely clear cycle lane just to the left (part of the road), [b]which was unobstructed as far as I could see[/b] (also free of other users).' So the road was clear as far as he could see but there had been a few parked cars elsewhere?

In which case why not briefly pull over into the cycle lane if you are holding people up? It doesn't inconvenience you at all.

In fact looking at that road, I don't think two abreast seems unreasonable either.

As above, the highway code says to ride in single file on busy roads.

Bit confused - the OP said 'But...there was a pretty wide and completely clear cycle lane just to the left (part of the road), which was unobstructed as far as I could see (also free of other users).' So the road was clear as far as he could see but there had been a few parked cars elsewhere?

I took that as "cycle lane itself was clear , but there are cars parked to the left of it, as per the situation on the right of the photo"

That road's a disaster, from the city centre right out to the Malletsheugh.

It simply isn't wide enough most of the way for continuous parked cars at the kerb, then a cycle lane, then a regular road lane, but they've painted that arrangement anyway.

In the picture above, there's no way I'd ride in what I think is supposed to be the cycle lane. Too great a risk of a door opening or a pedestrian or dog or something suddenly appearing, and then where do you go? Normal road lane all the way, although ideally positioned on the left of it.

Wouldn't ride 2-up along it though, unless in a (quick) bunch or traffic was minimal or traffic was moving at the same speed as me and whoever I was with. Too many hazards.

Bit confused - the OP said 'But...there was a pretty wide and completely clear cycle lane just to the left (part of the road), which was unobstructed as far as I could see (also free of other users).' So the road was clear as far as he could see but there had been a few parked cars elsewhere?

In which case why not briefly pull over into the cycle lane if you are holding people up? It doesn't inconvenience you at all.

The OP also said later on (which I quoted) that there were a lot of parked cars. There's obviously different ideas of unobstructed here. It's clearly in the door zone.

I generally pull back into lanes like these when I can see there's no parked cars, and I agree it's common sense to let traffic past when you can (I think there's very few people in the world would wilfully hold them up - it's an uncomfortable experience for most, having traffic build up behind you) but it's not all black and white. What happens when you need to pull back out of the lane and the traffic is passing you at speed within inches? In my experience drivers rarely compensate for you having to pull out, even in obvious circumstances like when you need to pass parked cars. Bottom line is, you're either part of the flow of the traffic, or not. And if you're not, you better be out of the way.

Bit confused - the OP said 'But...there was a pretty wide and completely clear cycle lane just to the left (part of the road), which was unobstructed as far as I could see (also free of other users).' So the road was clear as far as he could see but there had been a few parked cars elsewhere?

Cycle lane was clear.

Road ahead (i.e. in front of cyclists) was clear.

Parked cars in parked car section.

I suppose it falls on the definition of "clear" (whether or not the chance that a parked car [i]might[/i] open a door instantly means that an otherwise clear path is no longer clear).

It simply isn't wide enough most of the way for continuous parked cars at the kerb, then a cycle lane, then a regular road lane, but they've painted that arrangement anyway.

It's a wide road - they have just squandered the available space with compromises and ill-thought-out token measures. As usual.

Look at the Google StreetView above. A classic case of a road that could so easily have been sensibly designed like this instead:

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Can't see any reason not to use the cycle lane in the OP's picture - I generally don't like the kerbed off/totally separate ones as they never get sweeped and I'd rather inconvenience drivers than myself with punctures/slashed £40 tyres thanks to all the crap people leave on them.

The problem is the parked cars and other blind hazards. In my opinion they should have been riding single file just to the right of the bike lane. I do this quite frequently and it works surprisingly well as long as you aren't bimbling at 5mph. Cars can still overtake but realise they shouldn't squeeze past you.

Other than the already stated that cycle lane is far to narrow. Small cars could get past okay in the extreme right of their lane but big cars and especially lorries will also try and go past which is far to close. The white line does NOT protect you from 30 tonnes of steel and hatred.

I generally don't like the kerbed off/totally separate ones as they never get sweeped and I'd rather inconvenience drivers than myself with punctures/slashed £40 tyres thanks to all the crap people leave on them.

750 miles on shared use so far this year and 1 puncture. [i]*touch wood*[/i]

If they don't get sweeped then tell the council to sweeped them. 😉

[i]there was a pretty wide and completely clear cycle lane[/i]
+
[i]Yeah, there were quite a few parked cars[/i]

Means I do not understand the situation described.

My friend was knocked off on a cycle lane exactly like that when someone swung a door open into it. Dislocated shoulder. Its a terrible design and means its an unwinnable situation for the cyclist
- use the lane, risk getting doored (then blamed for being too close to the car)
- don't use the lane, drivers complains about being held up

If you're not in the cycle lane(safer), you'd have to cross onto the opposite carriageway to overtake anyway, so can't see two abreast would make much difference?

Squeezing past whilst they are in the cycle lane is pretty risky given the chance of being 'doored'.

there was a pretty wide and completely clear cycle lane
+
Yeah, there were quite a few parked cars

Means I do not understand the situation described.

What is it you don't understand?

The cars were parked in the parking bays, the cycle lane was clear.

BB - cycle paths on or shared with pavements can have glass, zombie pedestrians, make you stop at side roads etc, I rarely use them, and cyclists are not compelled to in law.

Agreed, but this isn't an urban cycle path, it's in the middle of nowhere. It's across the Fenwick moors between Glasgow and Kilmarnock so peds, glass etc should be rare. Glass could just as easily be found on the road too.

The council have built a circa 20 mile well surfaced cycle path, completely separate from traffic, that some cyclists wont use. I understand they're not compelled to but I'd weigh up the options as

Safe cycle track with very occasional ped, glass and side road

vs

Open road with traffic doing 60mph+, side roads, glass, potholes etc

To me at least, the cycle path seems like a no brainer. I appreciate some roadies are too much in "the zone" to bother with a cycle path that would require very occassional slowing down for peds or side roads

The council have built a circa 20 mile well surfaced cycle path, completely separate from traffic, that some cyclists wont use. I understand they're not compelled to but I'd weigh up the options

I refer you to:
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/in-praise-of-sustrans-and-traffic-free-cycle-paths-photos

Some people seem pathologically against off-road traffic-free cycle paths - even when they offer a superior ride to the road.

OK I see your point BB, if I ever see a path like that I'll try it!

If the Cycle lane follows a sensible route along a section of road with sensible ending/merge with main carriageway before junctions/roundabouts?
Then yep I do use those on my own commute.

Cycle lane on pavement or cutting on/off of pavement and/or on road but just feeding cyclists into pinch points with the main carriageway and motorised traffic or placing them in blind spots when it narrows or randomly ending at junctions/roundabouts?
Nah I'll stick to the proper road when faced with those efforts, irrespective of how clear they are of other users they are not planned in terms of traffic flow or safe merging of motorised/non-motorised traffic at differing speeds...

Not all cycle lanes are created equal, and just because its there doesn't mean its the safest place to cycle.

If the road ain't wide enough for a safe pass, wait until you get to a bit where it is...

I had a prick in a combi van drift across 2 lanes on a 3 lane roundabout in my direction last night, it seems having a mobile clamped to his left ear while tackling the A4/M4 interchange (J12) meant he had an extended blindspot which in turn apparently gave him the right to drive wherever he fancied without actually looking... In my view it's not really cyclists who really need a special segregated lane its bit of a messs like this one who are incapable of adhearing to the basic laws of driving...

To me at least, the cycle path seems like a no brainer. I appreciate some roadies are too much in "the zone" to bother with a cycle path that would require very occassional slowing down for peds or side roads

I avoid traffic at all costs. If there's a traffic free (or minimal traffic) route, 9 times out of 10 I will take it, even if it takes longer.

But, I will say, if you're covering a lot of miles and you have to slow down or stop every two minutes it soon becomes a bit tedious. That cycle lane looks great, and I'd probably use it, but I can imagine it's not so well designed at junctions? I could be wrong. Trouble is in this country cycle lanes are there to please a handful of voters and satisfy budgets. The level of thought, attention and maintenance that goes into them is usually minimal.

Some people seem pathologically against off-road traffic-free cycle paths - even when they offer a superior ride to the road.

I suspect it's because it doesn't fit well with their Lance Armstrong fantasies to have to share a cycle path with 'normal' people. And all this stuff about punctures is a bit of a red herring imo - I used to cycle nearly every day to work and back along a cycle path on the route of an old railway line - never had a single puncture.

Having said that I do avoid the pavement ones where you cross multiple side roads and have to stop/give way at each one.

My experience of shared bike paths is within a city, glass, neds, dogs & leads all make it a nightmare IMO when I can easily pedal at 15-20 on roads.

My out of town road riding tends to centre on routes I knowm (on fairly quiet roads), and yes I want to make progress, so exploring any tracks isn't a priority. I'm quite happy for them to exist tho.