Sometimes cyclists are their own worst enemy
About two miles of my commute are along a single carriageway bypass. this is a busy road but traffic moves quickly due to no major junctions, lights etc. Riding in this morning I saw a cyclist coming the other way, in primary position with approximately 50 frustrated cars stacked up behind waiting to overtake but with little opportunity to do so due to regular oncoming traffic.
The problem here? I was riding on the totally dedicated bike path! This is not a silly cycle lane separated by paint only, it is a former railway line that runs parallel to the road and completely separate from it! It is fast, free of obstruction and includes an underpass at the right point if you need to get back to the other side of the bypass.
It is so frustrating to see a cyclist doing this when we are blessed with a facility that lots of other riders are not so lucky to have
So, if that was you heading west along the Melrose bypass this morning, towards the BGH you are giving the rest of us a bad name and exposing yourself to unnecessary danger. Consider yourself told
His taxes paid for the road, why shouldn't he use it?
You see, I agree with you, and have raised similar points in the past.
Unfortunately we are turncoat yellow-bellied traitors to the cycling cause, for having the audacity to suggest that a cyclist might being the wrong. Apparently.
His taxes paid for the road, why shouldn't he use it?
Are you serious?
Totally agree with the OP. If there's a dedicated, good cycle path available I use it. whether on my commute, or my long sunday ride.
Why you'd want to mix it up with cars and lorries, when there's a perfectly good alternative is beyond me
Maybe he didn't know it was there?
Maybe the road was faster and/or more convenient for his purpose?
He's not doing anything wrong, there's no law that says you *have* to use a cycle path (thankfully!)
My taxes pay for the pavements, why shouldn't I sit down in the middle of one, spread out a picnic blanket and enjoy a meal? All those buggers can just go round.
Because it's inconsiderate, that's why.
Ok. Now give us your rant about all the drivers in that queue of cars who were the sole occupants of their vehicle, despite having access to car share schemes and public transport, or who were travelling less than a mile, or ferrying their kids to school because of an irrational fear of paedophiles.
Are you serious?
Yes. Sure, it may not have been the best decision to go on a busy road, but you could say that about lots of cycling decisions.
What I don't agree with is that he is somehow hurting the image of cycling by using a road he's got a perfect right to use. Once you start that argument - that cyclists should take a different route because they inconvenience car drivers - then you're on a slippery slope.
[i]Now give us your rant about all the drivers in that queue of cars who were the sole occupants of their vehicle, despite having access to car share schemes and public transport, or who were travelling less than a mile, or ferrying their kids to school because of an irrational fear of paedophiles. [/i]
So everyone involved in the incident was in the wrong. That makes it all alright then.
What I don't like also is the suggestion that one cyclist somehow has a responsibility to represent all cyclists. It's a common thing that we need to object to - we don't do it for car drivers.
Ok. Now give us your rant about all the drivers in that queue of cars who were the sole occupants of their vehicle, despite having access to car share schemes and public transport, or who were travelling less than a mile, or ferrying their kids to school because of an irrational fear of paedophiles.
Yeah, because that is a great argument 🙄
I shun dedicated bike paths and always use the roads.
What I don't like also is the suggestion that one cyclist somehow has a responsibility to represent all cyclists. It's a common thing that we need to object to - we don't do it for car drivers.
Of course people do. 4x4 drivers, audi drivers, old drivers...
People will stereotype, it is a fact of live. One bad cyclist will get noticed a lot more than 10 considerate cyclists. Not saying it is fair, just the way it is.
Edit: I do agree though that we should object to it
[i]Once you start that argument - that cyclists should take a different route because they inconvenience car drivers - then you're on a slippery slope. [/i]
I take your point, but 'we' (the cycling 'community') bang on that we want better facilities. In this case, it sounds like a good cycle lane is in place, so by choosing not to use it he's not helping the 'cause' because some will say 'we gave you what you said you wanted, you're not using it, so why should we bother?'
Plus, it's actually got nothing to do with cycling or cars. It's a simply a case of someone being inconsiderate. Their actions are inconveniencing a lot of other people, and there's something very easy that they could do that would stop that being the case. As has been said many times, some people are d1cks, and that's independent of their preferred mode of transport
Doesn't mean we should go along with it...
footflaps - Really? Why? Honest question.
IHN - you have hit the nail on the head.
Yeah, because that is a great argument
Seemed a pretty valid counter point to me....
Drivers need to get over the fact that sometimes they get slowed down by other traffic, be it a cyclist, a tractor or a hedge cutting vehicle. Cyclists aren't holding up traffic, they are traffic etc. If everyone was prepared to wait a little longer and put with the fact they've had a minute or two added to their journey the few minutes at 15 mph wouldnt be a problem.
And FWIW, there could be any number of reasons you're inconsiderate cyclist wasnt using the cycle path, get over it.
Anyone who's defending this cyclist is seems to be coming up with very selfish reasons, if he/she didn't know it was there fair enough.
on the taxs front his taxes also payed for the cycle route.
Remember one cyclist not using it is more obviouse than 100 cyclist using it,and the govement will use this to say well do we actuly need them.
thirdly,cyclistsdont pay road tax/rediculouse fule tax which the majority of motorists do, (im not saying we should)but there's another way to look at the tax sitution.
I'd love to car share but on my journey to work at 5 in the morning i'm lucky to see a single other car.
[b]giving the rest of us a bad name [/b]
This is the bit i have issue with.
I'm uncomfortable with this idea that i'm somehow resonsibile for him just beacuse i'm using the same form of transport. That i've got to correct every single other cyclists behaviour before i can ask for safer cycling conditions?
Why isn't this logic applied to any other way of grouping people together?
Why isn't this logic applied to any other way of grouping people together?
Unfortunately it is, in every aspect of life. I don't agree with it, but it is just the way it is.
[i]Why isn't this logic applied to any other way of grouping people together? [/i]
It is. All the time.
Football fans. Tories. Toffs. Chavs. Roadies. Audi drivers. Bus drivers. The French. The Germans. Politicians. Students...
If its a decent safe and fast enough route then I'd have used it.
I don't use some of the cycle route on my commute because it's a narrow poorly maintained pavement with side roads and driveways every 50 yards with a blue sign i.e. completely Carp!
Doesn't have to use but it is sometimes stupid not too, there's a great cycle path near me, very well sign posted and well built. Lots use it most of them tourists, many local roadies don't and it's on a horrible and dangerous stretch of road. Their choice though.
It's a common thing that we need to object to - we don't do it for car drivers.
Hhahaha good one.
I completely agree about poorly designed bike paths, in this case, it is very good.> Of course the local TT riders don't use it, but then they are not riding at peak commuting time.
I don't use some of the cycle route on my commute because it's a narrow poorly maintained pavement with side roads and driveways every 50 yards with a blue sign i.e. completely Carp!
This is the section of path
[img] 
[/img]
Is this is the point where is narrows towards the road
[img] 
[/img]
Rscott, congratulations. You must be the last person left using a cycling forum who still thinks that vehicle excise and fuel duty pays for roads.
I'm on the "show some consideration" side.
Yes, cyclists have every right to use the road. But if you've got 50 cars lined up behind you with nowhere to overtake then just pull over for a minute and let them past.
Not because you have to, or because cars are more important, but just because that is what a decent courteous unselfish person would do.
Same applies if you are riding a horse, driving a tractor, pulling a caravan etc etc
TBHm I'd probably use the path, it looks good and would get salted at the same time as road if its icy? That said, if there's ever walkers, slow cyclists on it etc, I might be tempted the use the road, or if its liable to ice over and not get gritted/salted in the cold weather.
cyclistsdont pay road tax/rediculouse fule tax which the majority of motorists do
Sweet Jesus. 🙄
Wot GrahamS sed
edit: (both things)
Hmm. If you've missed the entrance to that path then you're stuck on the road. That's a fast looking road, I'd imagine 20mph+ and I'd probably feel ok on the road. Is it a 30mph road? In which case I cannot imagine holding traffic up.
I like using bike paths but quite often when you don't know them and you're making good progress, it's safer to avoid them. Car drivers should realise that the roads are not designed for them to go as fast as they possibly legally can. Are you suggesting little old ladies who drive slowly should keep of the road at this time of day as well?
That second pic is driving me mad I know it....ah wait got it, right next to Borders General?
Hmm. If you've missed the entrance to that path then you're stuck on the road. That's a fast looking road, I'd imagine 20mph+ and I'd probably feel ok on the road. Is it a 30mph road? In which case I cannot imagine holding traffic up.
It is a 60mph bypass
Drac, correct
Ah thought so, a lovely straight road nice and flat.
Personally, if that cyclepath were here this morning I'd have expected it to be icy and would have avoided it. No idea what the weather was like there though so that may not apply.
edit: Of course, I'd have avoided the bypass as well if remotely practical to do so.
Some people just have a deathwish. FS - where would they be coming from to be on that stretch of road?
Hi G.
Most likely over the Boglie and heading to work at BGH
Makes me wonder if they are a visiting student or something similar and dont know the area. Given that there's lots of other much safer options.
It says a lot about the infrastructure in this country that that's considered to be a high-quality bike path.
I'd probably not have ridden that this morning, as it's pretty icy out and I'd assume it's not gritted.
thirdly,cyclistsdont pay road tax/rediculouse fule tax which the majority of motorists do, (im not saying we should)but there's another way to look at the tax sitution.
Oh dear. Where to begin?
Yes, cyclists have every right to use the road. But if you've got 50 cars lined up behind you with nowhere to overtake then just pull over for a minute and let them past.Not because you have to, or because cars are more important, but just because that is what a decent courteous unselfish person would do.
Same applies if you are riding a horse, driving a tractor, pulling a caravan etc etc
+1
Exactly - some people need to stop thinking about their 'rights' all the time and just get on with being a reasonable, considerate person.
It says a lot about the infrastructure in this country that that's considered to be a high-quality bike path
Really, what is wrong with it? I regard it as an excellent path.
It is usually gritted by the pavement gritter, a quad bike gritter that does the local area.
footflaps - Really? Why? Honest question.
Roads are faster and generally have less crap on them eg nails, broken glass etc. Also on roads you have priority over side junctions whereas on dedicated cycle paths, you generally don't eg most in Cambridge expect the cyclist to give way at side junctions.
Also, I pay my taxes and have as much right to use the road as the car drivers, so I feel no guilt over it.
Also, I pay my taxes and have as much right to use the road as the car drivers, so I feel no guilt over it.
some people need to stop thinking about their 'rights' all the time and just get on with being a reasonable, considerate person.
There are some cycle paths I won't use, but rejecting them out of hand is just daft IMO.
I'm with Graham & grum.
A little consideration goes a long way.
It looks like a good path, the side roads might be a bit of a bother but I'd use it to avoid that bypass every time. Strange that the path doesn't seem to show up on an OS map.
Totally behind grum's point about not being a d!ck, and all things being equal I'd use a path like that instead of the road. But very often things aren't equal, for some of the reasons listed above- ice, glass, getting onto it in the first place. On my old commute in and out of Cambridge there were paths I didn't use because they were on the opposite side of the road and I'd have to sit and wait to cross to get onto them.
some people need to stop thinking about their 'rights' all the time and just get on with being a reasonable, considerate person.
One could argue that insisting on driving to work rather than walking / cycling / using public transport is more selfish than cycling on the roads....
Go on miketaully Begin but before you do think.
Go on yes we allpay tax's which probably all go towards the road etc. but they also go towards bike lanes, pavements train l9 lines etc.
Just because you pay taxes and they get used for something doesn't mean you should avoid using alternative methods.
Heres an example. a man who doesn't Drive but payes taxes is walking down the middle of the road, to his let there is a usable safe, his responce to this is wellipay my taxes so why shouldn't i use it. footpath.
common sense says because your putting yourself in more danger than neccisery.
now this cyclist is riding in the road (possibly inocently and if so for give me) but there is what i can only persume is a safer place to do it that he has also payed for.
But what your saying is he is in the right just because he has payed his taxes.
well in that case I pay my taxes and they pay for the payevment so i'll drive my car on that. NO BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE ME AN IDIOT
What i was saying if your going to pull the paying your taxes cards out, you should think of all the other things that that can be related to.
Maybe the cycle path isnt a strava segment.
Go on miketaully Begin but before you do think.Go on yes we allpay tax's which probably all go towards the road etc. but they also go towards bike lanes, pavements train l9 lines etc.
Just because you pay taxes and they get used for something doesn't mean you should avoid using alternative methods.
Heres an example. a man who doesn't Drive but payes taxes is walking down the middle of the road, to his let there is a usable safe, his responce to this is wellipay my taxes so why shouldn't i use it. footpath.
common sense says because your putting yourself in more danger than neccisery.
now this cyclist is riding in the road (possibly inocently and if so for give me) but there is what i can only persume is a safer place to do it that he has also payed for.
But what your saying is he is in the right just because he has payed his taxes.
well in that case I pay my taxes and they pay for the payevment so i'll drive my car on that. NO BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE ME AN IDIOT
What i was saying if your going to pull the paying your taxes cards out, you should think of all the other things that that can be related to.
Any chance of a translation?
Also, people seem to forget that car domination of our roads is a relatively recent fad, all the roads I commute on were originally built for horse and carts, horses, cyclists and pedestrians. To demand we all get off them so as not to inconvenience car drivers seems a bit perverse, I don't remember the law changing giving drivers priority over other users.....
Any chance of a translation?
Yes he's a car driver who hates cyclists because they don't pay road tax (not that its existed since 1937).
To demand we all get off them so as not to inconvenience car drivers seems a bit perverse
You seem to have completely missed the point. No-one is saying that. What I am saying is that if there is a safe, well maintained, direct cycle path running parallel to the road, this would be a more considerate, and safer alternative.
Go on miketaully Begin but before you do think.
I'll answer. No one pays road tax there isn't a single person pays it. Fuel tax, well yes it's high but go on take a guess why cyclists don't pay it?
That looks an excellent path. Trouble is, coming westbound, it wouldn't look to me as any good at all. You arrive along the bypass with no footpaths , just verges. The path starts, at a set of steps down to who knows where, hardly suggesting a cycling facility, and just trundles along roadside for a fair distance, narrow and no clue if it's going to disappear down more steps. To join the path where it starts, you'd need to cross 60mph traffic, either by sitting in the middle of the road (60mph traffic passing you on either side) or by sitting by the kerb and waiting for both sides to be clear. Then when it does separate from the road, it does so at a fair old angle, not immediately obvious whether it's going to stick parallel to the road or veer off into town. Since it's the only path in view I'd have to assume at best shared use and therefore my front wheel would soon be sharing the forks with an extended lead and half a westie. It might be better on the ground, but that's my quick impression from streetview. Great to have nice paths, but if they're not signposted it's a bit like baking a nice cake then leaving it in the oven and not telling anyone about it.
Edit:yes, I am bored this morning, waiting for our allotted 10 minute slot at school for "progress day".
Sorry My key board is not working so i'll send this one from My phone.
Yes i am a car Driver, no i don't hate cyclists, I commute by bike around 50% of the time, but what i do hate is people who think that because you pay taxes it means you don't have to use common sense.
My example is basically saying that because you pay a tax for something doesn't mean you shouldn't use the alternative. You would never drive your car down a rail way. would you? your Taxes pay for them to you know.
I believe that if there is a alternative there for you,that is designed for you,you should try and use it.
And as for Road tax not existing, Just because they call it car tax, doesn't change what it actually does, you can enquirer with your local council about it, and will be told that it goes towards the maintenance of the roads alongside other things.
My example is basically saying that because you pay a tax for something doesn't mean you shouldn't use the alternative. You would never drive your car down a rail way. would you? your Taxes pay for them to you know.
Driving on the railway is illegal, cycling on roads isn't.
And as for Road tax not existing, Just because they call it car tax,
Vehicle Excise Duty – a tax on vehicles, not a payment for use of roads
You would never drive your car down a rail way. would you?
What? That's not a comparison at all.
And as for Road tax not existing, Just because they call it car tax, doesn't change what it actually does, you can enquirer with your local council about it, and will be told that it goes towards the maintenance of the roads alongside other things.
Well as pointed out above it's VED, yes we call it Car Tax but then that's because that's what it is a tax on cars not tax for using roads. I pay council tax, VAT, NI, PAYE and other taxes all of these help pay for all the things I get to use.
I like to hold all motorists responsible for the 1.6 million undutied, uninsured vehicles on the road. Therefore using the OPs logic all car drivers are legitimate targets for my wrath even if they do pay VED and have insurance.
Stereotype all you like, just don't get upset when people call you a fool for doing so!
Footflaps you don't seem to grasp the exaggeration in the examples, to try and put a point across.
Are you a very literal person always or do you just, not want to see that your way of looking at something is not the only one there is.
And i'm offended you think i hate cyclists, I have nowhere said you shouldn't ride on the road. I have even suggested that the person in question may not have known.
And as for Road tax not existing, Just because they call it car tax, doesn't change what it actually does, you can enquirer with your local council about it, and will be told that it goes towards the maintenance of the roads alongside other things.
Can I suggest you look at the (ironically named) http://ipayroadtax.com/
It's called VED - Vehicle Excise Duty and it's a tax/duty paid on the emissions given out per km by your car. It's not especially fair or balanced (I could have a massive gas guzzler which I drive for 200 miles/year and still pay more in "road tax" than a Nissan Micra which does 20,000 miles/yr but hey, lifes full of unfairness...
Like all taxes and duties, it goes straight into Government coffers for them to do with as they see fit - install duck houses, clean out moats, fund illegal wars or regime change, you name it. Maybe a few pence of it went towards fixing a pothole 500 miles from where you live. Well done.
I'm not sure that the cyclist, if confronted would use the "I've paid tax so I'll use it" argument. It's genuinely possible that he didn't know it was there, missed the turning onto it, is actually turning off somewhere else in a few minutes or whatever. Or maybe he's an inconsiderate arse in which case, at least he's being inconsiderate on a bike rather than inconsiderate in 2 tonnes of metal box.
And legally, he's still doing nothing wrong.
OP - are you a Daily Mail journalst? I mean seriously, you witness somebody riding a bike in a perfectly legal and acceptable manner then over exaggerate (50? Really?) the amount of vehicles driving behind him showing due care and attention and feel the need to rant about it. If this is all you've got to be worried about in your life then your a very lucky man.
All forms of vehicles have to share the same space (roads). I guess if there's a cycle lane present, there's an option to use it if wanted, but no legal/moral imperative to do so.
On my daily (cycle) commute, I get held up/slowed down by cars/buses/lorries/pedestrians/bin lorries - c'est la vie. Not something to get upset about, we all need to be on the roads.
Part of my commute takes in a path like that, but i don't use it and here's why.
I join the busy 60 mph road and turn left and after about 200 mtrs the road turns to a 30 mph residential area. In order get to the path i would have to cross 2 lanes of traffic and the grass verge (which you can't cycle over) separating the road and the cycle path. I would then cycle 200 metres, where the path the crosses the same road to join up with cycle path on the opposite side of the road at a pinch point, this cycle path i do use, although its marked on the road not a separate path.
I get no end of abuse from motorists for doing this, presumably because all they can see is a cyclist not using the cycle lane.
thirdly,cyclistsdont pay road tax/rediculouse fule tax which the majority of motorists do, (im not saying we should)but there's another way to look at the tax sitution.
I think you've also missed the other point
cyclist != non car owner*
Most 'cyclists' and when I say that I mean 'person riding a bike' also own cars so they DO pay all the associated taxes of owning and using a vehicle, like VED and tax on fuel.
*even yourself, as a cyclist own a car, so stop equating cyclists with people who don't own cars.
Strikes me as a case of bad road design/network management.
If better cycling option is constructed then that should be made clear to road users.
Information sign and road markings plus a TRO for pedal cycles on the bypass.
The network needs to be managed better for all road users because every mode of transport currently in use is necesscary.
agree with the op
selfishness from anyone gets on my thre'pennies
I think you've also missed the other pointcyclist != non car owner*
Most 'cyclists' and when I say that I mean 'person riding a bike' also own cars so they DO pay all the associated taxes of owning and using a vehicle, like VED and tax on fuel.
*even yourself, as a cyclist own a car, so stop equating cyclists with people who don't own cars.
It's even worse than that, I'm a cyclist that doesn't own a car so I don't pay VED on my own vehicle. However I regularly use hire cars and car club cars, which I do pay VED on!
We need a word/phrase for people who shouldn't be using the roads because they don't pay VED, I propose "classic car owners" or how about "electric vehicle owners" or "police car drivers" actually this is getting a bit silly now...
I love how the default position from people in cars in cases like this seems to be:
'there's a perfectly good cycle path there, why isn't he using it?'
When we should probably be asking the car driver:
'there's a perfectly good cycle path there, why aren't YOU using it?'
As has been said by so many people and backed up by many many legitimate studies, most car journies are short, and completed with a single occupant. If more people thought about it, were less lazy, and in fact you might argue, more considerate (;-)) then they would not be using cars for short single occupancy trips.
We need a word/phrase for people who shouldn't be using the roads because they don't pay VED
you're right it is silly, we don't need a word, we need to just stop mentioning VED/car tax in these discussions it simply is not relevant to your 'right' to be on the road.
And as for Road tax not existing, Just because they call it car tax, doesn't change what it actually does, you can enquirer with your local council about it, and will be told that it goes towards the maintenance of the roads alongside other things.
And if they told you that then they would be [i]wrong[/i]. Or if you prefer, they would be [i]correct[/i] but only because the exact same answer could be offered for ALL taxes, including VAT, Income Tax, Capital Gains etc etc.
In fact the only tax you pay that goes directly to the council to pay for roads (and other local services) is Council Tax.
Moreover, if you base road priorities on how much tax people pay then the ones with the most "rights to the road" would be rich alcoholic smokers that own their own businesses.
so trueIt says a lot about the infrastructure in this country that that's considered to be a high-quality bike path.
Yep I avoided the sustrans path I've been using of late coz I knew it would be slippy as hell. Will probably go sustrans on the way home tho.I'd probably not have ridden that this morning, as it's pretty icy out and I'd assume it's not gritted.
Shhh, whisper, I even took the dual carriageway as traffic was backed up on it.
To be honest if i was on that side of the road i might use it, but it doesn't look very wide, and is as seems normal infested with dogs leads and joggers with ipods at stupid volume. I certainly would not cross that road to use the cyclepath, i would only have to cross back over later which means twice the chance of getting killed as i see it.
As for ice, are there any wet leaves in the wooded sections,
My point on tax was to try and see how how silly an argument using tax was,to justify anything.
And cyclist +non car owner,what so because i own a car that only get used for when i work away from my home i'm not a cyclist, I cycle to work 50% of the time my journy is a 30mile round trip. when i work away the other 50% of time its around 50 miles each way and i usualy do 15 hour shift of physical work.
So because i have a car i'm not in your upper echalon of cyclists,that can disregard curtsy for others, and moan there is not enough cycle lanes for there commute (which there isn't) but then defend not using them.
I'm more proud to say i am a cyclist i do have and use a car, not all car drivers are are out to get cyclists infact itsthe minority and if i am riding in a area where there is a cycle lane and i'm not using it feel free to politly inform me.
Alot of hypocrisy from some i feel
My point on tax was to try and see how how silly an argument using tax was,to justify anything.
put the spade down and walk away.
Kinda bemused by the number of "mountain bikers" that apparently can't ride up kerbs or over ice and wet leaves 😀
My point on tax was to try and see how how silly an argument using tax was,to justify anything.
Well you've demonstrated a very silly argument, so job well done 😀
Kinda bemused by the number of "mountain bikers" that apparently can't ride up kerbs or over ice and wet leaves
I don't commute on a mountain bike, wet leaves/ice and 23mm tyres don't mix very well. Plus why put yourself in danger, crash on ice you slide, and sods law means you end up on the road anyway! been there done that and luckily no cars were there to greet me when i stopped. Local section of cyclepath, similar to above, is currently covered in grit and mud from tractor movements. The road is nice and clean because they bothered to clean it afterwards.
.