[Closed] Why do some cyclists favour a 50mph dual carriage way over a decent cycle path

covered in glass and dog eggs usually, what do you care?

Depends, it's hard to see the condition of cycle lanes when whizzing past in a car, many are built and then never maintained, poorly designed, and if you couple that with general debris.. The road might be the smoother option.

For the year I've used the path dog shit and glass has not been an issue. And I don't care unlike some motorists. But I do wonder why

Depends, it's hard to see the condition of cycle lanes when whizzing past in a car, many are built and then never maintained, poorly designed, and if you couple that with general debris.. The road might be the smoother option.

This. Where I live we have fully segregated network and I've had to change from 25c tyres to 28c to cope with the constant getting rattled by the lousy surface. Looks smoother than a baby's bum until you're actually riding on it.

The few road sections I do on my commute are bliss.

At weekends when the roads are quieter I will use the main roads - it's smoother and also quicker for the same distance as you don't have to stop start all the time - the roads are direct but the cycle paths meander.

We need to get the general public to appreciate this so they can stop judging cyclists who (entirely legitimately) choose to use the road and assuming they're being deliberately awkward... (as the OP appears to be)

I drive a busy dual carriageway between newcastle and congleton and it bamboozles me as to why cyclists choose the unlit, national speed limit drag strip over a perfectly nice, much slower trot via a local village which even links in at both ends. Low and behold a cyclist was killed on it last year in the early hours of the morning. I've ridden it once and it was terrifying.

We need to get the general public to appreciate this so they can stop judging cyclists who (entirely legitimately) choose to use the road and assuming they're being deliberately awkward... (as the OP appears to be)

I don't hold much hope of this. I've been at community council meetings were this question has been raised and answered by a previous cop who was a keen road cyclist. Despite a full explanation in line with what's written above, someone on the CC got in touch with the council and were told that the tarmac used on the cyclepath was suitable for all bikes including road bikes, so that was the end of it - cyclists on the road were arseholes, end of.

For the year I've used the path dog shit and glass has not been an issue. And I don't care unlike some motorists. But I do wonder why

There are many situationally dependent reasons why anyone may or may not do something, of which many still may be valid. But I wouldn't overlook the fact that some people just like to be contrary.

Perhaps they're trolling motorists in order to become the next YouTube sensation?

I'm with the OP on this one. It might be perfectly legal to ride on the dual carriageway A road, but what's legal isn't always necessarily sensible.

Strava?

Taking the cycle path is seen as ceding your right of way for some cyclists, sure. Compartmentalising cars on the road, and cyclists on a separate path is something to resist, from this point of view.

A-road cycle lanes out in the sticks might be ok, but urban ones just shitify the ride. One's just been laid down over 3 or 4 miles on the south approach into Manchester - Wide open road that you could ride quickly and safely is now narrow and awkward, with cars extra resentful of your presence. It goes through the curry mile which is funny in the evening - cycling meets ten-pin bowling.

cycle lanes ain't as good for head down, arse up, aerotuck 40kph+ efforts

I strava the route and don't think this is the reason

I generally ride on roads rather than cycle paths - you have right of way over side junctions and a smoother surface.

I don't ride dual carriageways unless they are 40mph or lower. Too scary at faster speeds.

But I often use roads because many cyclepaths are rubbish.

[quote=footflaps ]I generally ride on roads rather than cycle paths - you have right of way over side junctions and a smoother surface.

THIS most cyle lanes have not really been designed with cylist son mine

One forced you to stop as the angle was so bad you could not even look over your shoulder at each point of a roundabout and i had to give way to everything
On the road i could see and had right of way [ sometimes
It was faster and it was safer

I guess they do it because they want to just like you cycle where you want to

Who cares what other cyclists or road users do as long as it does not endanger you and it's legal ??

If it's anything like the one near me the tarmac is rough as anything but it looks fine when driving. It's also has the usual narrow, shared use, in convenient entry and exit point from the direction that it is on the opposite side of. Usual waste of money.

Why is everyone being so tetchy?

The amount of cycle paths that go in front or basically through peoples driveways! And being expected to stop at junctions! Daftness.

[quote=konabunny ]Why is everyone being so tetchy?

what the **** do you mean by that eh well WHAT
****

The problem with most cycle lanes iscthat using them means you have to crosscmany more junctions and junctions are the main source of danger.

As said above this path is good in every way, I agree most are shit and I generally ride on the road, which in Sheffield/Rotherham is often in poor condition.

But given the choice between road and a good path I'd always choose the path.

If you want to get a move on, then yes many cycle paths are awful. They might:

1) be crossed by loads of entrances and be closer to them so sight lines are terrible

2) Be full of pedestrians and much slower cyclists having a leisurely pootle.

3) Occasionally sod off into a housing estate like the one on the A48 through Newport

Any of these can make them frustrating or downright dangerous when you're trying to train and are doing 23mph.

As for dual carriageways - I don't like them myself unless there's a wide hard shoulder. Then they are pretty safe imo. Except for the on and off ramps, you have to watch and give way on those.

Cycleways are good for leisure cyclists or MTBers on their way back from trails. You might say that we don't have the right to charge around as fast as we want, but actually we do - on the road, where it's perfectly safe if motorists drive properly.

But given the choice between road and a good path I'd always choose the path.

Assuming that's the real-life choice of course - as described above by many, it's often not the choice - the path not a good one - it's rough, full of hazards or putting the rider in danger by repeatedly crossing traffic...

Part of my commute goes past a hospital. I ride the road. The 'perfectly good' cycle path isn't that good IMO - it crosses car park traffic 3 times in 200 yards - the drivers are trying to negotiate the car park, they're not looking for cyclists and at each crossing point there are high hedges which block visibility for both the cyclists and the drivers. I found this out when I nearly got hit last month. I've not come near being hit since I started using the road.

The road is clear, smooth and I'm more visible on there than I am on the path...

Dunno then, personally I'd use it if it was the better option.

I drive a busy dual carriageway between newcastle and congleton and it bamboozles me as to why cyclists choose the unlit, national speed limit drag strip over a perfectly nice, much slower trot via a local village which even links in at both ends. Low and behold a cyclist was killed on it last year in the early hours of the morning. I've ridden it once and it was terrifying.

Would that be the A34? If so I've got that beat.
I've seen a couple of people riding on the A500.
Baffles me as to why, it really is a border line suicide attempt. Would scare the crap out of me.

I know they are legally entitled to do so and road users should be paying attention, but in reality when driving on a dual carriageway, with both lanes travelling at 60mph+ you really don't expect to come across a cyclist at 20mph, if that.

Baffles me as to why

Some of my local solo rides have me riding along a 70mph A-road.

The reason why?

Cos the nice, quiet country roads I like riding on do, at times, come to an end (funnily enough!) The only way to get back on to the next nice quiet, country road, is to ride along the main road for a few hundred yards.

I'm constantly watching over my shoulder at these points as I believe the vast majority of drivers will be blatting along at full chat and if they even see me they'll be sitting there all judgemental thinking "Baffles me as to why, it really is a border line suicide attempt. Would scare the crap out of me."

I don't know if people have always been this stupidly judgemental about cyclists or whether it's a recent thing, or social media just reveals it to the rest of us 😯

Pffff, like when has molgrips evah done 23mph, apart from that time he got done for speeding

But yeah cycle lanes are built to footpath spec so just go bumpy dead quickly, but if they were built to carriageway spec they'd cost a brazillion quid a metre and just never get built

There is one on my commute, it has 'cyclist dismount' signs at every junction and when it gets to the big roundabout where it meets the motorway, you are directed to a footpath underpass.

They have put in a junction that gives the cars right of way to drive in and out of the new KFC

Sod that

[img] https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSni-i8Zq_gUjwSEinpTNb4MId_V03hnBuRs2DwaTnZsKrmgj-4 [/img]

I'd fall into the aforementioned "judgemental" category.

The dual carriageway A-road which I used to commute on in the mornings had loads of cyclists. Average speed in the right-hand lane was no less than 80mph, left lane ranged from 50-70mph. Witnessed loads of swerving from left lane to right to get past cyclists, with attendant slamming on of brakes by the X5's and Audis in the right lane. The cyclists' presence basically turned an almost-chaotic situation (morning rush hour full of frustrated middle-managers) into a bubble of fully-fledged chaos in their immediate vicinity.

Not sure if (or how many) cyclist casualties occurred along this stretch, but I'd be surprised if it was in single figures. As mentioned earlier, just because something's legal doesn't automatically make it sensible.

Of course, that's where judgement comes in.

Ive seen people ride on the A34 down south, crazy, clearly they are idiots..
What is more worrying though is sections of road that may appear inconspicuous and worth a go like the section of A3057 between kings somborne and stockbridge. By the map its fairly short piece of A road that you might think is not busy. YOU ARE WRONG ITS LETHAL.
This section is very dangerous for bikes and can easily be avoided by going up cow drove hill.

just because something's legal doesn't automatically make it sensible.

And what if something's [i]necessary[/i] to complete your journey? FFS 😯

We can't go around labelling cyclists for 'being in the wrong' whenever they ride along a bit of road that we randomly judge 'not sensible'. There may well be a very good reason for it like, for example, they have no other choice!

When I commute to Kendal on the A590 (c.20miles and alterates beteeen high speed single and dual) there are sections that truly are terrifying but if you add up all the additional time for the quiter routes you'd be looking at another 30-40 mins which would render it undoable. That said maybe 50% is on cycle way/back roads with only a couple of miles of really bad stuff. But the bad stuff is BAAAAD.

And what if something's necessary to complete your journey? FFS

We can't go around labelling cyclists for 'being in the wrong' whenever they ride along a bit of road that we randomly judge 'not sensible'. There may well be a very good reason for it like, for example, they have no other choice!

If you say so.

As far as necessary goes, this is Aberdeen I'm talking about, pretty sure their finances could stretch towards one of those X5's or Audis. Even the chavs up here drive GTi's...

And also on the necessary theme, there were only really loads of them on the warm and sunny mornings, so they definitely had alternative transport.

But each to their own, at least my car has crumple zones.

Would that be the A34? If so I've got that beat.
I've seen a couple of people riding on the A500.
Baffles me as to why, it really is a border line suicide attempt. Would scare the crap out of me.

Sure is the 34 that bit over the hill by makro is a drag strip. I use Red Street personally but I see a regular gang of cyclists mixing it up with the top speed challenge from talke roundabout to the crest of the hill. Nuts

Mmm judgement. I was judged to be in the wrong for not using the cycle path a couples of weeks ago. Driver close-passed, then brake checked me, then went right round a roundabout, crossed the centre line and deliberately hit me head on. Could have been avoided I think, by holding my primary position better, so that's what I do.

Used to do 200 yards on the A264 which during rush hour is very busy. I preferred that (and the roundabout to get on it) then taking the quiet road and then trying to cross it in one of the tiny gaps between 70mph cars driven by people only caring about getting to work. In road shoes.

When driving one day I did see some cycling it further along, with a trailer 😯

Yep regularly see people cycling on the A61 between Sheffield and Chesterfield. Never use it myself. Seems to range from full on Lycra boys and girls going full pelt to a random old guy dressed in black on a BSO.

Seems odd as you can go via dronfield or take some of the quieter roads towards the edge of the peaks.

And what if something's necessary to complete your journey? FFS

In the context of the OP, how is it necessary to be on the road when a perfectly usable path is available?

I too used to commute between Sheffield and Chesvegas and tried the A61 which is smooth and has a mini hard shoulder but getting buzzed by trucks at 60mph rapidly lost its appeal

Not sure if (or how many) cyclist casualties occurred along this stretch, but I'd be surprised if it was in single figures. As mentioned earlier, just because something's legal doesn't automatically make it sensible.

Indeed. Though it would be nice if people, and this isn't aimed at you, focused a little more on the illegal in the situation (i.e the cars breaking the speed limit), rather than the insensible - riding a bike on a road where people break the speed limit.

I ride on a dual carriageway daily, but it's only about 400m long and has a 30 limit, so I'm not counting it as the proper scary stuff 🙂

Roadies who use major roads are like cyclists who stick their bikes on the roof or boot of an empty car: the penny hasn't dropped yet.

When I started mountain biking I assumed I should buy a roof rack and have the bike up there like a trophy, wasting my fuel and getting covered in road salt. Then one day I thought: "Hang on - why not just chuck it in the back of the car where it's safe?"

Then when I started road cycling I stuck to the main roads, which I knew as a driver. Then one day I thought: "Hang on - the old B road would be much nicer than this!"

Swansea Valley is a case in point, council/sustrans have done a really fantastic job on the cycle paths (brand new tarmacked surfaces etc) but still loads of commuter/casual cyclist plodding up and down the main road.

It took a while for a handful of die-hards to stop using the A376 after the fantastical multi million off-road riverside cycle route had been built..

No doubt they whined that it was littered with debris or lethal or crap until they went and had a look..
It took about 3 years I reckon, and has dropped from dozens of cyclists risking their lives every day, to maybe a couple of stubborn gits per week

Hmm, for 20 years my 'main commute route' has been on the A50/a511. It has a limit of 70mph for stretches. I am not belligerent nor do I have a death wish. The surrounding roads are single carriageway with a 60mph limit but cars drive at speeds that match the dual carriageway. But, these roads have less room so drivers try to squeeze you.
I said to people before, if you had the chance to drive on a badly laid surface, where you are forced to stop every mile or so, where you NEVER had right of way, where broken glass and dog shit littered the way, lampposts randomly placed in you lr way, would you choose to use it? The answer is No, only an idiot would choose that.

if there's a perfectly safe, convenient cycle path then why the **** are people driving along the road destroying the planet and ramming poisonous fumes down the throats of baby robins.

Guy on my commute cycles in the bus lane rather than the cycle lane next to it, no idea why, can understand why drivers are miffed

Too many "Cyclists must dismount" to cross the road signs. They really piss me off, you can be on and off the bike several times in a few hundred yards if you obey them.

Maybe it should be the other way round - it's the cars that cause the danger, so the car driver should dismount and push the car across the intersection. 🙂

Very few people will choose a busy road if there is an effective alternative available, so maybe the cycle path is not as "decent" as you think.
There's a very busy dual carriageway near me that is used by a number of cyclists. I was knocked off my bike by a motorist there...while I was cycling on the off road cycle path! A lot of the path is very poorly surfaced, indirect and dangerous in places, as my experience demonstrates. However, a lot of people will just look and say "Why aren't they using the cycle path?"

you have right of way over side junctions

This is a big one for me. I used to ride into Cambridge from the west, and there was a cycle lane next to the A road. For a mile or 2 it just passes fields so I'd use it, and it was great- quiet, smooth, in pretty good nick and no dog biscuits.

When it gets into the outskirts of Cambridge though, you start having to stop at all the side junctions, where you have to watch traffic over 270 degrees to cross safely. I think I read somewhere a high proportion of accidents happen at junctions like that.
In addition, the path runs across the front of houses, most of which have very high hedges or fences so you can't see if a car is backing out until it appears in front of you.

So, when it got to that point I'd hop off the cycle lane back onto the road. I'm sure lots of drivers thought I was stupid or making some kind of point, but the reality was that the cycle path just didn't meet my needs any more and in my judgement was actually more dangerous than the road.

Witnessed loads of swerving from left lane to right to get past cyclists, with attendant slamming on of brakes by the X5's and Audis in the right lane. The cyclists' presence basically turned an almost-chaotic situation (morning rush hour full of frustrated middle-managers) into a bubble of fully-fledged chaos in their immediate vicinity.

I'm astounded that I have to point this out on a cycling forum, but the problem there isn't the cyclists.

Very few people will choose a busy road if there is an effective alternative available

Is it just laziness perhaps? Are these alternate routes longer?

I've commuted to / from work on my bike occasionally. There's broadly two options, either cut through town on the roads or take the canal towpath. The towpath is obviously much more pleasant for any number or reasons (save for running the dog poo gauntlet every time you get within 30 yards of a bridge) but it's also somewhere between 50% and 100% further in distance. So what I ended up doing was going in on the road so I could get to work faster, but coming back home via the canal where I can have a scenic little leisurely pootle. Er, I mean, shred to the power of gnarl, obviously. Ahem.

Where I live the roads are fairly narrow, but have 40 mph speed limits, and a separate cycle lane. In both the morning and evening commute I often find myself in a long line of cars following a cyclist doing 15 mph (not using the cycle path). The road is too narrow to safely over take.

As a cyclist I think these people give us a bad name...

As a cyclist I think these people give us a bad name...

By using a road they are entitled to use and pay for with their taxes?

On a cold morning it's nice being in a bus lane, bathing in the warm fumes. It gets a bit filthy after a while though. Seriously though..buses stop all the time, whilst cyclists find stop start frustrating and inefficient as they need to preserve momentum. Whoever thought buses and cyclist sharing the same road space was a good idea needs a firm smack. Never mind the obvious discrimination issues.

As many others have said.. Most cyclists experience of cycle paths in this country is they are crap, inconvenient and frequently dangerous. A small short pleasant stretch is often ignored as many riders concioulsy or subconsciously expect it to Peter out into a confusing mix of designed out priority, poor quality surfaces, dangerous junctions, barriers and possibly bear traps. And that ignores seasonal issues such as even if it is a good path it will be slippery with leaf litter in Autumn, and Icy and ungritted In winter as Highways authorities are unlikely to give it the same level of maintenance as the adjacent road.

Don't blame the rider not using it, blame the local authority, sustrans and the Dept of Transport who have conspired to deliver this clusterduck of cycling nonprovision over the years.

By using a road they are entitled to use and pay for with their taxes?

No-one's arguing that they're not entitled to be there. It's all about consideration for others.

If I was holding up a long string of traffic in rush hour, I'd pull over periodically to clear the backlog a bit. That's regardless of whether my transport was a bike or anything else (caravan, tractor, HGV, horse, mobility scooter, pogo stick etc etc).

The cyclist is in the right, of course. But every man and woman behind is thinking the same thing: "****ing cyclists!" Then they'll get into work and tell everyone who'll listen that they're late for work because all cyclists are inconsiderate bastards who don't even pay road tax. It's the cyclist's fault you see, that's what everyone will say, see and hear.

It's flawed logic, of course. They're late for work because they left at the last possible second and didn't factor in any extra time to allow for possible delays. But that's not the point.

We've every right to be on the road, but by playing the "entitled" card and by adopting the "I'm all right jack, bollocks to the cagers" attitude, you're not just pissing off your fellow man unnecessarily when you could just be nice and let them get on their way, but you're contributing to the cumulative frustration that eventually persuades a driver to do something reckless / dangerous.

And then you'll be one of Those Guys, the ones who are constantly posting videos on Youtube angrily shouting out registration plate numbers. Suddenly, the cyclists are angry too.

Is it their fault, did they do something wrong? Not at all. But with a bit of consideration from the cyclist by going out of their way for ten seconds, the drivers would've got to work happy (and on time) telling their colleagues about what a pleasant change it was that a cyclist actually pulled over to let them past, the cyclist would be in a safer place on the road without cars all over their back wheel, and YouTube would be a whole lot less shouty.

We don't and shouldn't [i]have[/i] to do this, of course. But why not just be nice and courteous to people? Everyone's a winner, nut-roast dinner.

If it was about consideration for others every car driver would throw his keys away and never poison an asthmatic child again

It's not about entitlement...it's about the likelihood that the alternative provided by the authorities is even more shit. It's that key point which should be the focus for driver rage.

I don't disagree.

But, drivers don't see, or know that. Or care. They see some lycra-clad poindexter blowing out of their arse, holding everyone up, when to their minds there's a "perfectly good" cycle lane that they "should" be using. Whether it's fit for purpose is utterly irrelevant, that's what they see.

And you're right that drivers should be more patient, more considerate also. But it's so very easy to see how frustration can turn to anger and ultimately, even though we're in the right and it's their fault not ours, we still come off worse for it in the long run.

As a cyclist I think these people give us a bad name

I wish people would stop repeating this line, and challenge it whenever they hear it. There's no collective responsibility or reputational damage because of the behaviour of an individual. I'm responsible for my own behaviour on the road.

Motorists kill around 5 people every day on UK roads and are responsible for 98% of pedestrian deaths and injuries, but we don't seem to hear people suggesting that this gives motorists a bad name.

I wish people would stop repeating this line, and challenge it whenever they hear it. There's no collective responsibility or reputational damage because of the behaviour of an individual. I'm responsible for my own behaviour on the road.

Motorists kill around 5 people every day on UK roads and are responsible for 98% of pedestrian deaths and injuries, but we don't seem to hear people suggesting that this gives motorists a bad name.

Thing is though that while you/we me might think this is so obvious it doesn't need to be spelled out, most people who aren't cyclists will be busy getting on with lumping us all together whenever they see someone on a bike do anything remotely out of order.
Even though it's obviously ridiculous I don't think it's as easily dismissed as you make out.

[i]I'm with the OP on this one. It might be perfectly legal to ride on the dual carriageway A road, but what's legal isn't always necessarily sensible. [/i]

+1

I often see folk riding on the road between Melrose and Galashiels - and not just 'roadies' but ordinary folk. It's a NSL and not wide.

There is a cracking cyclepath all the way, and I've always used it - it's like 'Gods Waiting Room' around here and the standard of driving is shocking, so one less risk.

And you're right that drivers should be more patient, more considerate also. But it's so very easy to see how frustration can turn to anger and ultimately, even though we're in the right and it's their fault not ours, we still come off worse for it in the long run.

There's no collective responsibility or reputational damage because of the behaviour of an individual.

Legally there isn't, but in real life there is. Apparently, I jump red lights, I love holding up drivers, and I litter. Who knew?

Thing is though that while you/we me might think this is so obvious it doesn't need to be spelled out, most people who aren't cyclists will be busy getting on with lumping us all together whenever they see someone on a bike do anything remotely out of order.
Even though it's obviously ridiculous I don't think it's as easily dismissed as you make out.

I don't think it's obvious, and I [b]do[/b] think it needs to be spelt out, hence "I wish people would stop repeating this line, and challenge it whenever they hear it".

A former colleague starting to give me an earful about something a cyclist had done (because I cycle to work) so I politely asked what it had to do with me, and pointed out that I didn't hold her responsible for the daily carnage caused by [b]some[/b] motorists. She did a bit of a double take and backed off. The thing is, she was a perfectly nice person, and didn't really bear any malice, but just had that default "bloody cyclists" position that so many people start from.

People will actually think twice and often back down if you ask them to think about it. If it just keeps being repeated without challenge, it reinforces the lazy prejudice that cyclists are a general nuisance, who all need to behave better before they have any right to safety on the road. I'd just encourage people to stop apologising, and point out a few facts about who is really causing the damage next time you encounter this.

Going back to the original point, I certainly don't advocate cycling on fast, busy roads just because you can. I would choose something else wherever possible, but unfortunately, the alternatives in the UK are often just not fit for purpose.

I was once behind a car at a sharp junction where you have to look right back over your shoulder. The car pulled out, and I rolled up to the line looking back over my shoulder. It was clear so I went, but then the car had stopped 10ft out of the junction to let someone cycling on the pavement cross the road via an island. I had to brake suddenly and I held out my hand in a WTF gesture.

Well the guy took exception and argued with me - in his opinion I should've been grateful to him because he was 'helping one of you'. He told me that he'd done ME a favour by letting some random across the road who happened to be on a bike. Even otherwise reasonable people can have the most bizarre ideas caused by the us/them concept.

I don't think it's obvious, and I do think it needs to be spelt out, hence "I wish people would stop repeating this line, and challenge it whenever they hear it".

+1

Lazy prejudice needs challenging wherever we meet it. Overall, Western society appears to have made great strides over the last 10 years in this respect. Cyclists and immigrants are the two groups who seem targeted the most at the moment...

With cycling in particular, the lack of care (or worse) from drivers towards cyclists is the biggest barrier to more people riding. At a time when we have serious obesity, mental illness and environmental crises, we need to fight anti-cycling prejudice as hard as we can for the good of the wider community - there's a bigger purpose here.

It alarms me how judgemental people are towards cyclists, and so stubborn with it too. Ultimately you have no idea why a cyclist might be riding along a main road and until you actually have a face to face chat with them and get their perspective then you have absolutely no justification for judging them...

As drivers we have a responsibility not to cause harm to other road users which is enshrined in law and the terms of our licences. It concerns me that some people are determined to ignore this responsibility and seek to blame others for their own failures...

I think the question is why do drivers not see it as their responsibility to avoid killing and maiming other road users?

There are all sorts of reasons people have already suggested for not using a cycle lane. Some may not apply to this one but cycle facilities which are genuinely safe and practical for riding at speed are few and far between.

The average driver in this country is a selfish tosser. It doesn't really matter what roads you ride on you are not particularly safe as they care more about saving 30 seconds than your life.
By cyclists obeying their wishes and getting off the roads you are just pandering to them and they are getting what they want.

Where I live there is not a single cycle path and pretty much no pavements (combined with horses strolling around) but drivers still drive around at 50mph, with zero patience or consideration for any other road users.

philjunior - Member
I think the question is why do drivers not see it as their responsibility to avoid killing and maiming other road users?...

Indeed. And more to the point why is the law so lenient when they do so?

I generally use the quieter back roads and paths but sometimes if I need to get from A to B as quick as possible I use the main road. I don't enjoy the cars but needs must.

Whilst I don't understand how using main roads for all rides can be enjoyable I would defend the right of all cyclists to continue to use all roads. We don't want segregation to ban us from the main roads and those die hard roadies do help keep drivers used to cyclists on fast roads. As such I recon they are doing us all a service!?

On the using a roads front rather than the cycle lane one. If you are not local lots of these alternative routes are hard to find and navigate. If you are just in an area and trying to travel somewhere all the sign post will push you along the mai. Road. It's not always possible to sit and plan a nice route.

[Ultimately you have no idea why a cyclist might be riding along a main road and until you actually have a face to face chat with them]

That's a good idea!

I didn't expect my query to get so many responses

I think the question is why do drivers not see it as their responsibility to avoid killing and maiming other road users?

The attitude you are describing is not some universal human attritubute. It is a learned (British) behaviour which can be unlearned, although it is going to take time.

And this...

I just see it as a cultural problem we have acquired over the last ~50 years, that just needs collectively shaking off now...

Cars worship, and the assumption that the world will accomodate "petrol heads" desire for speeding, impatient and agressive driving has just become a bit too much IMO... I say **** Em!

Boo ****ing hoo 😥 , you had to use a bit of your dwindling cognitive function and some minor limb movement so you didn't wipe out someone doing something perfectly legal on a road... What do you want a bloody medal?

****ing car bores, they're everywhere these days, regaling us with fascinating tales, normally illustrating (in rather broad strokes) why everyone other than them on the road is a moron...

It's alright, Top Gear will be back on soon, so you can resume masturbating over footage of Mondeos and 5 series sliding about an airfield...

Motorists kill around 5 people every day on UK roads and are responsible for 98% of pedestrian deaths and injuries

This is an interesting stat. Any more details about it. Are the five deaths just deaths on the road, so all users or just motorists?

This is an interesting stat. Any more details about it. Are the five deaths just deaths on the road, so all users or just motorists?

That will be the total numbers of deaths involving cars. Around 1800 per year.

First sheet on this page has the numbers but cyclists are in the lowest group at 109 in 2013 and most of those are in London IIRC.

[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-road-fatalities ]Road deaths[/url]

Basically a "decent cycle path" is a very rare thing. It could be simple assumption that all cycle paths are rubbish (not far from the truth) so stick on the road.

There are no decent ones around my way. They're all shared use with pedestrians which frankly is far more dangerous to the pedestrians than a bike on the road is to a car. All are partial runs for a short distance then lob you back out onto the road often at a very dangerous point, or you have to stop frequently to cross an adjacent road, maybe having a fair detour down the side road on the official route before it crosses, and then you've got cars swinging in from the main road to watch out for. Straight road all going along together is safer, even if it makes impatient tossers angry.

Should remember roads were also originally surfaced for the use of bikes. Before that they were unrideable tracks for horses. Cars came later and they can be thankful that the surfacing made it useable for cars.

Those motorist kill figures are just by kinetic energy, it doesn't include the people that car drivers kill by poisoning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17704116