[Closed] Cycle lane etiquette - new driver question

I can do pretty much the same commute to work along NCR4 by the Kennet (and do so now and then), it certainly is more pleasant.
However it takes me closer to 75mins each way, while taking the road route on my road bike, is more like 45mins.

It's not [I]'Lance Armstrong fantasies'[/I] its practicality, I need ot get home in a timely fashion and I don't see why I should be bullied off of the roads into unsuitable, ad-hoc lanes, just because the UK currently has a massive collective hard-on for Cars and driving like ****ers...

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.

Well my experience of shared bike paths in a city is a pleasant route, completely separate from the road, where I can easily pedal at 15-20 (and have never had a puncture).

It's not 'Lance Armstrong fantasies' its practicality, I need ot get home in a timely fashion and I don't see why I should be bullied off of the roads into unsuitable, ad-hoc lanes, just because the UK currently has a massive collective hard-on for Cars and driving like ****...

There's plenty of very badly thought-out cycle lanes and I agree you shouldn't feel obliged to use them - but some people seem to object to ever using them at all on 'principle'.

Once i figured out those pictures, that really is some crap road marking!!

I would be inclined to ride on the white line dividing the cyclepath from the main carriage way, parked cars doors being swung open you need to give yourself space and assume the driver is an idiot. If there are two of you, personnally i would single out for a bit if i felt it was safe for a driver to come past, but it really comes down to whether it is actually safe to overtake, not necessarily what a car driver thinks is safe to overtake.

i'm an idiot.

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.

Sometimes i will use a cyclepath, but dogs running lose, leads stretched across, chavs out to nick your bike, i have personnally known a couple of people get mugged over the years on this path. Other paths are an afterthought, come and go, disappear when you need them, pinchpoints, junctions, go the wrong way, etc. the usual pointless offerings.

One on the way to work is actually surfaced in slate chippings, WTF

Well my experience of shared bike paths in a city is a pleasant route, completely separate from the road, where I can easily pedal at 15-20 (and have never had a puncture).

+1 my (Endomondo tracked) average is ~15mph for a MTB-commuter on shared use path. And I could go quicker than that if I was fitter and less fat 😀

IME people get hung up about having to slow down for gates, peds, dogs etc without considering that on a city road they'd be slowing down for lights, junctions, roundabouts, traffic, peds, etc

There's plenty of very badly thought-out cycle lanes and I agree you shouldn't feel obliged to use them - but some people seem to object to ever using them at all on 'principle'.

+1 again. Some people don't even seem to have given them a go. They just automatically assume they will be crap.

Yes, many are. But some are great.

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

But Graham that costs more than paint does....

From the photos posted I'd be tempted to do the same: in addition to all the crap on the cycle path, the car emerging up ahead should (!) give way if I'm on the road, I expect I'd have to give way if on on the cycle path. And if there were parked cars lining the road, I'd be defensive and try make sure people only overtook when there was enough space. That said, if there was a large queue I'd either let them past or give or give it some more beans.

Miguel Indurain and Eddie Merckx were riding two abreast up ahead.

...we were sat around 15mph.

Liar

Liar

Miguel was riding backwards to make conversation with Eddy a bit easier 🙂

His calves were also obstructing my view of the road.

I should point out that Big Mig was the thing that got me into cycling, I wanted to be just like him!

A tough feat mind you:

Indurain had a physiology superior to fellow athletes. His blood took seven litres of oxygen around his body per minute, compared to 3–4 litres for an ordinary person and 5–6 litres for fellow riders. His cardiac output is 50 litres a minute; a fit amateur cyclist's is about 25 litres. Indurain's lung capacity was 7.8 litres, compared to an average of 6 litres. His resting pulse was as low as 28 BPM, compared to an average 60–72 bpm, which meant his heart would be less strained in the tough mountain stages.

But Graham that costs more than paint does....

Sadly that is the bottom line.

Money > Lives.

[url= http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/531312/how-britain-has-failed-cycling.html ]UK spending on cycling is appalling[/url] (~70p per cyclist per year).
Meanwhile [url= http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2011/08/cycling.aspx ]cycling delivers billions in revenues and health benefits[/url].

In my limited exposure to cycle lanes, they're generally badly laid out and invariably collection toughs for crud, glass, forkwits, parked cars etc.

When on a road bike I avoid what ones there are on my commute but do have to concur that two abreast tootling is a bit inconsiderate.

Some wag on Strava has [url= http://app.strava.com/segments/1480861 ]aptly named[/url] one of my commute sections. There's dedicated bus lanes on each side and a cycle path on the south side.

The 'regulars' use the bus lanes and folk out riding their bikes tend to keep to the cycle lane.

[i]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.[/i]

Being an almost daily user of this path I'll give you several reasons. And I'm not even going to go anywhere near the fact that bikes have as much right to use the road as cars.

- there isn't a lot of traffic on this section of the a77 so cyclists aren't holding up cars. There are also long straight sections with plenty of overtaking opportunities.
- the cycle path has several junctions cutting across it - floak, clunch road to name two.
- the cycle path is covered in stones and other debris. I have to pester my MP at least once a year to get it swept then a half hearted effort is put in.
- if you're out for a fast blast its difficult to get into a proper rythm with all the stop starting.
- the cycle path crosses the a77 in four places, again stop/start stuff. Fine if you're out for a pootle with the kids.
- if you're riding in a group then avoiding stones/glass/grit/debirs is difficult and presents a hazard in itself.
- groups riding on the path is a pain in the arse as people coming up behind can't get past.

Coming home last night aroudn 8pm there were over 30 cyclists out, unedr 10 were riding on the road. It didn't create a hazard or inconvenience for anyone.

[i]Funnily enough bob, it was further up the A77, closer to Shawlands.[/i]

I never ride on the path on that bit, see the cars to the side of the path well people in them open doors without looking. The surface of the path on that section is also pretty bad.

This section is also between two sets of lights so you would have been stopping soon after your meeting with them anyway.

Hope that clears this 'incident' up for you.

Valid points, but personally I'll take my chances with debris and road gaps instead of cars flying past at 60mph+

and I have to also respond to this nugget

[i]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[/i]

There are no potholes on the road, there is glass on the path quite often, its not 20 miles long, there are often horses, runners, cars regularly parked on the path.

Your presenting a cycling utopia and having ridden around 3000 miles on the on that route this year I can assure you it is.

The road is quiet bob, any traffic has plenty of space to overtake.

Valid points, but personally I'll take my chances with debris and road gaps instead of cars flying past at 60mph+

It's a pretty quite section of road though - I ride a loop at least once a week which involves joining the old 77 at the Eaglesham Moor junction and coming off at Mearnskirk and I rarely see more than half a dozen vehicles as most of the traffic is on the M77.

As I am usually on my own I go on the path, but reckon if in a group the road could be preferable

This kind of thing...

- if you're out for a fast blast its difficult to get into a proper rythm with all the stop starting.
- the cycle path crosses the a77 in four places, again stop/start stuff. Fine if you're out for a pootle with the kids.
- groups riding on the path is a pain in the arse as people coming up behind can't get past.

Makes me wonder how life would be if drivers took the same approach:

[i]"Well officer, all these junctions and other cars were really breaking my proper rhythm. I was out for a proper fast blast, not a pootle..."[/i]

Makes me wonder how life would be if drivers took the same approach:

"Well officer, all these junctions and other cars were really breaking my proper rhythm. I was out for a proper fast blast, not a pootle..."

I'd think the officers would think it was fine, if in all other respects the motorist was obeying the law and driving at 10mph under the speed limit.

In fact, thats why motorists tend to use the motorways and dual carriageways where available.

GrahamS - Member
This kind of thing...

- if you're out for a fast blast its difficult to get into a proper rythm with all the stop starting.
- the cycle path crosses the a77 in four places, again stop/start stuff. Fine if you're out for a pootle with the kids.
- groups riding on the path is a pain in the arse as people coming up behind can't get past.
Makes me wonder how life would be if drivers took the same approach:

"Well officer, all these junctions and other cars were really breaking my proper rhythm. I was out for a proper fast blast, not a pootle..."

Don't be silly.

Just to second what other people have said, there's no way I'd ride in that lane if there were parked cars to the left. Being doored hurts, and it tends to throw victims outwards away from the door (and under the wheels of whatever's passing them in the main part of the road)

[i]This kind of thing...

- if you're out for a fast blast its difficult to get into a proper rythm with all the stop starting.
- the cycle path crosses the a77 in four places, again stop/start stuff. Fine if you're out for a pootle with the kids.
- groups riding on the path is a pain in the arse as people coming up behind can't get past.

Makes me wonder how life would be if drivers took the same approach:

"Well officer, all these junctions and other cars were really breaking my proper rhythm. I was out for a proper fast blast, not a pootle..." [/i]

thats just daft.

I never ride on the path on that bit, see the cars to the side of the path well people in them open doors without looking. The surface of the path on that section is also pretty bad.

This section is also between two sets of lights so you would have been stopping soon after your meeting with them anyway.

Hope that clears this 'incident' up for you.

Thanks for your post, but in all honestly it didn't really add anything that hasn't already been said. Your tone was poorly judged though (unless of course you intended to come across the way that you did)

groups riding on the path is a pain in the arse as people coming up behind can't get past

Thought this one was funny though 🙂

I [i]could[/i] have thought the same of a couple of cyclists who decided to ride two abreast at 15mph on a busy road 🙂

Don't be silly.

thats just daft.

Meh... what is so silly or daft? We expect drivers to react properly to traffic on the road.

If we want to encourage safe utilitarian cycling then we may have to accept that some of us will need to slow down on occasion, especially in busy towns.

We shouldn't demand from motorists that which we are not prepared to do ourselves.

Same argument as stopping at red lights really.

[i]Thanks for your post, but in all honestly it didn't really add anything that hasn't already been said. Your tone was poorly judged though (unless of course you intended to come across the way that you did)[/i]

Really, I gave you the reasons as a regular user of the path.

The section where you allegedly couldn't get past is one of the quietest sections of the road, I'm quite sure you could have passed easily.

Your learning well.

I could have thought the same of a couple of cyclists who decided to ride two abreast at 15mph on a busy road

GrahamS - Member
"Don't be silly."

"thats just daft."

Meh... what is so silly or daft? We expect drivers to react properly to traffic on the road.

So a cyclist who chooses to ride on the road rather than a bike path because they will make better progress isn't reacting properly to traffic on the road? How so? Because they're not getting out of the way of cars?

If we want to encourage safe utilitarian cycling then we may have to accept that some of us will need to slow down on occasion, especially in busy towns.

We shouldn't demand from motorists that which we are not prepared to do ourselves.

Same argument as stopping at red lights really.

You've lost me there.

You've lost me there.

Simple. There seems to be an assumption by some that cyclists should always be allowed to go flat out. That all roads should allow fast, roadie sport cycling. Even if that means inconveniencing other road users such as motorists, fellow cyclists or pedestrians.

If you look at the Netherlands, the in-town cycling is at a more relaxed pace. Efforts like the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_wave ]Green Wave[/url] specifically reward cyclists for maintaining a steady 12mph.

If part of the plan to encourage cycling is to reduce urban traffic speeds then some must accept that their cycling speed (in towns) may also have to drop.

Unpalatable, but that's give-and-take.

to answer the OP not having read all the predictable arguments - I would not use the bike lane if there were parked cars - you need to be more than a metre away from parked cars at all times to avoid being doored. basic defensive cycling. thus I would be in the middle of the lane and you would only be able to overtake if there was no car coming the other way and thus two abreast does not alter this situation

I would get out of the way as soon as safe fore me to do so. I would not ever go into that metre of safety between me and a parked car

Serious Q: riding 2 abreast and 1m+ from parked cars, would cyclists actually be allowing drivers enough room to overtake them safely (while giving parked cars on the other side 1m of room too)?

[img] [/img]

Yes, but they won't be able to squeeze through in the traditional 2 cars 1 bike setup.

If you had cyclists 2 abreast, and one cyclist oncoming, I don't think an overtake could be done safely. For that reason I think 2 abreast is unreasonable.

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?

I'll answer it....and I'm not a roadie.
I cycle to work in Prestwick from Glasgow couple of times a week and I use the A77 all the way to Kilmaurs. As soon as East Ren council sort out the cycle lane i'll be more than happy to use it. I've asked Glasgow and east ren to clean it but my appeals get no where. There's glass everywhere from nobends who throw bottles from cars. The amount of folk I pass who have punctures is unreal. There's also loads of wind blown debris and gravel from the road surface making it a pain in the ass for road bikes. Not only that, but where the cycle lane hits a junction, the cycle lane turns up that road killing your momentum. Not so much a problem once, but when there's several turnings all of which are at the bottom of the dips you've lost all your speed for the incline. There.

In that instance the overtake couldn't be done safely for a very short period of time.

really? I wonder if a driver could see past 2-abreast to see an oncoming cyclist.

I think TJ is spot on with his assessment a few posts above. On the road pictured a safe overtake of a safe cyclist is going to take them well into the opposite lane so no problem with 2 abreast.

For the debris in the cycle lane, it's not so much how often it's swept, it's the amount that's cleared by car tyres. A lot will stick to (or in) them that could damage a bike tyre or get flicked off the main road - straight into the cycle lane. The cleanest part of the road to cycle is usually where the car tyres line up.

cynic-al - Member
really? I wonder if a driver could see past 2-abreast to see an oncoming cyclist.

🙄

Can you see past cars before crossing the white line to overtake?

Yes, they have glass at eye level.

On the road pictured a safe overtake of a safe cyclist is going to take them well into the opposite lane so no problem with 2 abreast.

The highway code doesn't agree.

The highway code doesn't agree.

That depends on how you interpret it. The highway code isn't very clear, I'd say.

I kinda read it as, treat it like car, move into the other lane and overtake properly...rather than stating a distance, which in some instances may well make it impossible. I think it's intentionally vague.

It's pretty clear in saying that you shouldn't ride two abreast on busy roads, which it sounds like this was.

I would not use the bike lane if there were parked cars - you need to be more than a metre away from parked cars at all times to avoid being doored. basic defensive cycling. ... I would not ever go into that metre of safety between me and a parked car

Personally I think this is a bit hard line. If you are approaching parked cars on a long straight road then you'll be aware of cars that are clearly parked up and empty (by seeing them at a distance, seeing no peds near them, and seeing no one through their windows). If I had traffic behind me I'd use that point to move into the "door zone" and let them past.

(Edit: can't be arsed with the two abreast argument again)

Graham - sorry but you are wrong on this. Its another basic defensive measure - always go wider than a metre from a parked car. See yesterdays thread about making cycling safer - being doored by someone in a parked car is a common injury.

I look in every car - every one - as well - a metre is barely enough if somone opens a door. You cannot always tell for sure with headrests, tinted windows etc if a car is empty.

By riding in this way you do not hold up cars at all in any way they will be in the same place in the next jam.

If you go into the door zone you are foolish and putting yourself in unnecessary danger.

You may consider my attitude hardline - I consider yours very dangerous. You are removing your safe margins and allowing cars to squeeze past in a dangerous manner.

Edit - you also need the space to give you somewhere to go if a car does try to squeeze past - same as if you are riding along a stretch with barriers - you ride wider as you cannot escape off the road

Just to say I've not read much past the first few posts. But are you sure what you're looking at is a cycle lane?
There are loads round here on the busier roads. They're about the width of a cycle lane, but they just mark the edge of the carriageway.

grum - Member
It's pretty clear in saying that you shouldn't ride two abreast on busy roads, which it sounds like this was.

Should/should not is advice must/must not is legal requirement.

Agree with TJ on road positioning too, better to leave space inside you than have no-where to go.