but they just don't do themselves any favours.
🙄
There's a half mile stretch of road between my house and my kids nursery. There's a shared use cycle path (it's the pavement!) along the route. If I'm towing the kids in the trailer I'll usually use it. However there are two staggered gates for no apparent reason that I can't get through with the trailer. I have no option but to take to the road for those (I'm sure annoying some motorists in the process who can't understand why I'm not on the cycle path.) There are numerous driveways to watch out for. There are about half a dozen junctions where the cycle path takes you into a dangerous crossing where you can't really see the traffic coming from behind you that might be turning into the junction. There's also frequently cars parked blocking the entire path (3 this morning) leaving no option but to go onto the road. Also it's fairly busy with pedestrians who don't pay any attention to the pavement markings. Takes ages and a lot of concentration to navigate all that, where if I just stay on the road it's an awful lot simpler, clearer, safer, and faster.
How are they not doing themselves any favours? The only transgression they have committed against anyone is 'being there'
Okay, you have to live round here to 'get it' probably....but suffice to say that the general local populace are hugely peed off with roadies riding with little consideration, using their numbers to bully car drivers and shouting abuse, spitting and thumping cars they consider to have broken their rules.
I'll leave it there, got work to do!
roadies riding with little consideration, using their numbers to bully car drivers and shouting abuse, spitting and thumping cars they consider to have broken their rules.
On the A24 ?
And I have never heard of cyclists bullying car drivers by ganging up on them in large numbers.
Sounds like bollox to me.
Okay, you have to live round here to 'get it' probably....but suffice to say that the general local populace are hugely peed off with roadies riding with little consideration, using their numbers to bully car drivers and shouting abuse, spitting and thumping cars they consider to have broken their rules.
Hmm they are usually in lycra aboard a ~8kg of carbon and plastic with only their legs to power them. Motorist is in a couple of tonnes of metal box with about 100 horse power of engine to speed them along, usually going 3 or 4 times as fast. How does a cyclist could bully a motorist?
but suffice to say that the general local populace are hugely peed off with roadies riding with little consideration, using their numbers to bully car drivers and shouting abuse, spitting and thumping cars they consider to have broken their rules
If that's true it sounds like a rubbish situation 'round there', but ponder this... how many of those abusive inconsiderate 'roadies' are motorists come 8:30 on a weekday morning?
Might I go out on a limb and suggest that if the above is true then the problem you have is with dickheads, not roadies...
I wonder how those same people behave towards other road users when driving?
Not to mention that most of the behaviours you mention there, while unacceptable, are normally responses to feeling threatened, people don't go thumping cars and hurling abuse when everyone shares nicely, it's a result of feeling threatened or endangered, again, not saying I condone it but that's the normal trigger. Also, excepting filtering in urban traffic, if a car is close enough to thump then it's too close, or are you saying that these groups of feral abusive roadies are riding up to cars and thumping them unprovoked?
On the A24 ?And I have never heard of cyclists bullying car drivers by ganging up on them in large numbers.
Sounds like bollox to me.
FFS...no not on the A24 [s]Nobby[/s] Ernie.....AROUND HERE, where huge numbers of roadies descend on the lanes and Olympic routes, in groups and can cause big hold ups and don't give a ****! If any motorist dare try and overtake, they get the aforementioned treatment.
Obviously not all, some ride as considerately as possible, but others don't!
[url= http://www.dorkingandleatherheadadvertiser.co.uk/great-mole-valley-cycling-debate-opinions-divided/story-27551430-detail/story.html ]A link for you[/url]
It's a shame they don't seem to have done one of those maps simon posted showing where the car drivers were killed by those cyclists bullying car drivers.
Nice that the top comment on that article actually spouts some sense
Unfortunately it's yet another instance of a minority of cyclists giving the rest of us a bad name. Remember that the vast majority of cyclists are also drivers and therefore well aware of both road uses. It would be useful if people would take a step back, ignore the extremes/minorities and give each other some consideration.
Its the age old problem of a minority of nobbers (in any activity) then becoming over-represented and over-focussed on as the norm when in fact they are not.
They should ban cars and make them use the M25 instead!
peekay - Member
Some silly sausage has started a petition for cycling to be banned on the dual carriageway section on the A24 between Dorking and Leatherhead...
The obvious answer is for another silly sausage to start a petition to drop the speed limit on the road because it's dangerous to cyclists.
Bet you'd get more signatures too. 🙂
The obvious answer is for another silly sausage to start a petition to drop the speed limit on the road because it's dangerous to cyclists.
From that map up there it looks pretty bloody dangerous to motorists too!
I've had plenty of punctures on that cycle lane. It's a lot worse in the winter with all the crap off the road and overhanging trees dropping on the cycle lane. I usually go up over whitedown to avoid it if I have to be on the road. I never use the s-bound one as the n-bound is bi-directional anyway.
I could also understand why people would use the road with the cycle lane having to stop to give way to every road joining on to the main road FFS. I'd like to see them try this with the main road.
For me though, this A-road is nuts and I tend to stick to the back roads wherever possible anyway, much more pleasant and not difficult to find quiet roads.
AROUND HERE, where huge numbers of roadies descend on the lanes and Olympic routes, in groups and can cause big hold ups and don't give a ****! If any motorist dare try and overtake, they get the aforementioned treatment.
What on earth are you talking about? You make the place sound like a warzone.
It's a shame they don't seem to have done one of those maps simon posted showing where the car drivers were killed by those cyclists bullying car drivers.
I haven't checked its accuracy, but I think [url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps ]this[/url] contains every instance of this kind of incident.
What on earth are you talking about? You make the place sound like a warzone.
yep...
No it isn't. That hyperbole exceeds even the shit the NIMBYs spout.
Have now read that article, my favourite bit is:
The real problem is the small number of hooligan cyclists who behave so badly while they're practising the rest of the year on the Olympic route."There is a very small percentage of cyclists out there who are somewhat antisocial."
Disgruntled residents have already made their feelings clear during two cycle events in June and July, with police receiving reports of sharp objects left in the path of bikes.
Yeah, the problem is the hooligan cyclists, not the disgruntled residents.
My comments have been related mainly to that stretch on the A24 as it's (unfortunately) one of the better examples of a cycle path and yet people still are choosing to not use it for their own specific reasons.
Generally though, what is the answer?
Based on what's been said, it's fair to assume that lane was 100% smooth, maintained, had right of way etc, people would still choose not to use it.
The whole progress argument will never go away. People speed, jump queues etc to get that bit further ahead or to a destination quicker.
So does that leave legislation as the only answer?
Generally though, what is the answer?
People not being self-centred ****s with a sense of entitlement? Cyclists and motorists.
^ what he said, can't we all just get along and share nicely?
People will choose the best route for them, if the cycle path is not the best route then people will not choose to use it, mandating that they do through bylaws is not the answer and only serves to legitimise the idea that cyclist shouldn't be on the 'car roads', and thus legitimise the anger.
I cycle commute on 6 miles of dual carriageway (3 miles in each direction) on the A38 in Bristol every day.
It is a 40mph limit road, but as this dual carriageway comes off Junction 16 of the M5, some motorists tend to use it as an extension of the motorway.
There is a shared use path on either side. I do not use it because:
1. It is bestrewn with loose gravel, broken glass, and dog excrement. Even my 28c Schwalbe Durano Smart Guards (i.e. max puncture protection tyres) and full-mudguards-even-in-summer commuter can only take that for so long.
2. I cannot cruise at ~25mph past pedestrians legitimately using the shared use path.
3. On the north-bound 3-mile section using the shared use path would add an extra 29 side road junctions where I do NOT have priority (I have NOT counted dwellings where the drive backs directly onto the main road). Junctions are the statistically the most likely place to have an incident.
4. On the north-bound 3-mile section using the shared use path includes 22 tight spots around bus shelters, bits that are barely wider than road bike bars, fencing, or places where the 'shared use' facility ceases to exist at all.
5. On the north-bound 3-mile section using the shared use path adds an extra 11 sets of traffic lights.
i.e. if you are trying to get somewhere at more than 5mph, it is a completely useless 'facility', created purely for a council box-ticking exercise.
On the other hand, using the dual carriageway:
1. It is technically a 40mph road. I find the speed differential between me and motorists is usually less than that experienced on single carriageway national speed limit A or B roads.
2. At rush hour I'm the only thing moving.
3. There are now wide nearside lanes installed, so motorists do not have to move into the right-hand lane to overtake me giving ~1m of space. I find 1m adequate at a speed differential of ~20mph. However, 90% of motorists appear to be unaware of the lane dimensions, and/or the dimensions of their vehicle, so they dither endlessly behind me for no reason. This enrages other motorists.
4. It is a wide and straight road, there is plenty of room for everyone, and sight-lines are good.
5. it is fast, smooth, direct and fairly well maintained.
6. 3 sets of traffic lights, otherwise traffic on the dual carriageway has priority over everything.
[quote=dknwhy ]Based on what's been said, it's fair to assume that lane was 100% smooth, maintained, had right of way etc, people would still choose not to use it.
Eh? Where on earth are you getting that from in this thread? The reason I wouldn't use it is one of the conditions you mention which isn't met, from what I've read from other people, their reasons for not using it are also one of those conditions. So if those were all met (as they are for bike paths in Holland) then we would all use it.
The whole progress argument will never go away. People speed, jump queues etc to get that bit further ahead or to a destination quicker.
So does that leave legislation as the only answer?
Additional legislation? Because all the things making it dangerous are already illegal. Or were you suggesting legislation to force cyclists to use the bike path which doesn't meet any of those conditions above?
Of course if we did have bike paths like in Holland I wouldn't have any objection to legislation forcing cyclists to use them, because such legislation would have no affect on my behaviour.
Sorry to pick on one post specifically, but this is a good example of a regularly trotted out theme.
All this does is show that you don't know why people are using the road, it doesn't mean there isn't a reason, but it means you are ignorant of that reason.
Plenty of people on this thread have offered up explanations, and their own reasoning but fundamentally it comes down to the same thing every time.
- People want to travel from A to B.
- Their primary goal is normally getting there with the least amount of effort.
The path is effectively split into two section. One section with a quiet road intersecting it, then another section that's intersected by a dead end road. The sections are joined up at the roundabout bit I mentioned.
For both of these sections there is no difference between speed on the road and speed on the path. There is no logical explanation for choosing the road apart from wanting to.
For both of these sections there is no difference between speed on the road and speed on the path. There is no logical explanation that [b]I can see[/b] for choosing the road apart from wanting to. [b]Perhaps I should try and ask a few of the people I see on it what their reasons are[/b]
You might be bang on, it might be that 100% of the people you see who choose not to use the path are raving mad, have a deathwish, or simply want to assert their right to be there. Or it could be perhaps, they have a reason, just not one that's occurred to you.
Take my kerb example form earlier, I was a bit taken-aback by that one, but it came out of a discussion with a local lady who was just getting back into cycling after a 30 year gap.
When she first got back on a bike she had a bit of a spill when she hit a slightly raised/not dropped enough kerb in the wet at the wrong angle and it had her off, ever since then she's avoided most of the transition between paths as she is terrified of coming off again. It may not be rational to you but it is to her and it lead to about 6 months of her not using certain bits of cycle path on her route because she was too scared to join them, and didn;t feel comfortable slowing enough/stopping to join carefully due to cars behind her, so she just carried on on the road as she was more scared of falling off than the traffic.
aracer - Member
dknwhy » Based on what's been said, it's fair to assume that lane was 100% smooth, maintained, had right of way etc, people would still choose not to use it.
Eh? Where on earth are you getting that from in this thread? The reason I wouldn't use it is one of the conditions you mention which isn't met, from what I've read from other people, their reasons for not using it are also one of those conditions. So if those were all met (as they are for bike paths in Holland) then we would all use it.The whole progress argument will never go away. People speed, jump queues etc to get that bit further ahead or to a destination quicker.
So does that leave legislation as the only answer?
Additional legislation? Because all the things making it dangerous are already illegal. Or were you suggesting legislation to force cyclists to use the bike path which doesn't meet any of those conditions above?Of course if we did have bike paths like in Holland I wouldn't have any objection to legislation forcing cyclists to use them, because such legislation would have no affect on my behaviour.
I wasn't directing anything at you personally. More the general theme that "people have their reasons not to use it".
I am sure that if we had perfect cycle paths, the majority of cyclists would use them but some still wouldn't (look at Amedias' recent response).
RE: additional legislation, I only think legislation would be fair if the cycle facilities were fit for purpose i.e well surfaced & maintained with right of way.
RE: additional legislation, I only think legislation would be fair if the cycle facilities were fit for purpose i.e well surfaced & maintained with right of way.
Even then I don't think additional legislation is appropriate
For one, if you made the facilities [i]that [/i]good, the number of people choosing not to use them would dwindle to almost nothing so the issue would be too minor to require legislating.
I am sure that if we had perfect cycle paths, the majority of cyclists would use them but some still wouldn't (look at Amedias' recent response).
My point weas that what you think is a good facility, might not be. If it was a perfect path, even that lady would have joined it safely 😉
People choose to use the roads when the facilites are not the best choice. If the facilities are good enough that they are the best choice then that leaves only people who want to ride on the roads to prove a point, and if the facilities are really there and that good then what point are they trying to prove? I think what you would find is that those people either don't actually exist, or that there are only 3 of them.
BUT, more than that, legislating to take away a choice/right/privilege whatever you want to call it needs a reason, and the sole reason here appears to be 'to stop grumpypants drivers getting angry' and that in my book is not grounds for curtailing existing access rights for a group of users.
We really really are too quick to skip over the actual issue, the level of anger and vitriol, and lack of respect seen on our roads, and I think it's sadly telling that when faced with this scenario, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to actually address that.
This petition (and others) aren't started started for the safety of the riders, if it were [i]really [/i]about safety of the riders the petition would be to look at the source of the danger, about improving driving and infrastructure on that bit of road (or more widespread).
It was started because some people don't want to share, and instead of doing right thing and telling all parties they have to play nicely with everyone, we're actually thinking about appeasing them? madness!
I use the cycle lane on the bit from Pixham Lane to Box Hill. The Northbound side is better surfaced than the other as a link between those two points its fine. I think its ok up to the Leatherhead roundabout too but I've not cycled that bit. I certainly wouldn't use the road on that bit just through safety considerations although I can see why people do. Not in favour of bans but if the cycle lane was as good quality as the road more cyclists would use it I'm sure.
Perhaps I should try and ask a few of the people I see on it what their reasons are
I have, usual response is 'ah the cycle path, it's covered in glass, it's badly surfaced' etc.
But it isn't.
I could of course ask more people but I'm not bothered, it's up to them where they ride. I wouldn't do what they do but that's their choice.
But it isn't.
Hmm. Oh yes it is. (I use it).
I have, usual response is 'ah the cycle path, it's covered in glass, it's badly surfaced' etc.But it isn't.
Right now? but maybe it was last time they used it, or has been on X out of Y times, so now they can't be bothered taking the risk so just ignore it.
There's an alleyway I avoid walking through locally at night now, cos it was often littered with dog eggs, I have no idea if it is right now or not, but next time I have to go to my friends house, I won't go via the alley, maybe I'm missing out on alleyway bliss, we'll never know though...
ernie_lynch - Member"roadies riding with little consideration, using their numbers to bully car drivers and shouting abuse, spitting and thumping cars they consider to have broken their rules."
On the A24 ?
And I have never heard of cyclists bullying car drivers by ganging up on them in large numbers.
Sounds like bollox to me.
Rockape63 - MemberFFS...no not on the A24 Nobby Ernie.....AROUND HERE, where huge numbers of roadies descend on the lanes and Olympic routes, in groups and can cause big hold ups and don't give a ****! If any motorist dare try and overtake, they get the aforementioned treatment.
You think I'm a nob because I don't agree with you ? I (road) cycle a lot in what you call "AROUND HERE", usually at least once a week, I have never witnessed any cyclists in that part of the world [i]"using their numbers to bully car drivers and shouting abuse, spitting and thumping cars"[/i], despite having seen many thousands of road cyclists in that area over many years.
Now I'm not suggesting that because I have never personally witnessed it myself it has never occurred. What I am suggesting is that it is nonsense to claim, as you have done, that this is typical behaviour. It clearly isn't.
^^ this
Well to add from me except I'm off to cycle down to Dorking and a few laps of the Surrey hills and I'll be on the cycle path. No way would I use the A24!!
[quote=dknwhy ]I wasn't directing anything at you personally. More the general theme that "people have their reasons not to use it".
You disagree with that then, despite reasons being given?
I am sure that if we had perfect cycle paths, the majority of cyclists would use them but some still wouldn't (look at Amedias' recent response).
ISTM that perfect cycle paths (or even just Dutch ones) wouldn't have the sort of transition kerbs which put the lady in his example off using them. If they did, then they're not up to spec and that is still a valid reason.
You disagree with that then, despite reasons being given?
I don't disagree at all. If people choose to ride on the road due to their own reasons and there's no law to say they can't, there's nothing wrong with it.
Personally, I'll trade off the negatives to ride on the path rather than the road.
Ernie - I'm guessing don't get out as often as you state or you'd have seen first hand both on the A23 and the A3 the way "roadies" behave and react to motorists and indeed other cyclists who don't conform to "their standard"
I've done at least 50,000 miles of riding around the Surrey Hills and I've never seen cyclists 'bullying' motorists.
Ernie - I'm guessing don't get out as often as you state or you'd have seen first hand both on the A23 and the A3
Well you're guessing wrong. And whilst I ride on the A24 most weeks at least once I use the A23 even more - most road rides I go on require to me use the A23.
And no, cyclists bully car drivers, shouting abuse, spitting, and thumping cars, is not typical behaviour.
EDIT : I have no idea about the A3. Why would cyclists using the A3 be any different? And who wants to cycle on the A3?
Ernie - Every single week there's a group doing time trials circuits for several hours causing major hassle, delays and far too many near misses.
It's beyond a joke
hammyuk - Member
Ernie - Every single week there's a group doing time trials circuits for several hours causing major hassle, delays and far too many near misses...
Too many near misses?
I think your perspective may be a bit skewed unless the cyclists are the ones overtaking cars too closely.
From the sounds of all this discussion the speed limit is far too high on that stretch of the road and there's too many drivers with the attitude they are prepared to kill or maim someone to save a few seconds.
It's strange how car drivers rarely pass within inches of a tractor even though it's no faster than a cyclist.
Skewed?
Nope - I use that stretch (and the rest of it daily).
The speed there is perfectly acceptable.
It's a dual carriageway with good visibility and a national speed limit as is all of it until Kingston.
The issue is the number of riders who quite often get bunched up and are then passing each other, causing havoc.
Doesn't matter how far ahead you are looking as a car driver or indeed bike rider - when cyclists decide to move out into the centre of a 70mph road without bothering to ensure its safe then it's time to stop it for theirs and everyone else safety.
It's got nothing to do with how near anyone is when overtaking - having to slam brakes on because of the above is dangerous for everyone. A tractor gets passed as it takes the entire lane.
Drivers are being forced to slow rapidly and often un-safely because of the cyclists moving out into the centre of the road without warning. You can "read the road" to the best possible level but far too often you are left with no choice and nowhere to go when the road is busy, with vehicles both behind and alongside you leaving everyone holding their breath.
As someone else posted - setting them off at one minute intervals is not enough to stop it happening every single week they are out on that road.
You think I'm a nob because I don't agree with you ?
Actually I don't think you're Nob Ernie, it was just a bit of a nobbish response, seeing as I said 'around here' and you inferred I was talking specifically about the A24. You may think it's bollox, but I live here and know what I know. I don't think in all my previous posts on various subjects, that anyone has ever accused me of lying.
Oh and whilst on the subject,(of the aforementioned stretch) this road has been there for such a long time and no one EVER cycled on it until recently....why would that be?
simons_nicolai-uk - MemberBut it isn't.
Hmm. Oh yes it is. (I use it).
So where is it covered in glass and badly surfaced then? I've ridden it 9 times so far this week on a bike with 23mm tyres and didn't have any issues. There is a very small amount of glass on one bit that's easily avoided, unless you're blind, but that's it.
Nope - I use that stretch (and the rest of it daily).
The speed there is perfectly acceptable.
It's a dual carriageway with good visibility and a national speed limit as is all of it until Kingston.
The issue is the number of riders who quite often get bunched up and are then passing each other, causing havoc.
If its a dual track road with good visability a competent car driver should be pulling out into the next lane in good time or (and this is the bit you seem to have difficulty with) slowing down! It also should not be hard to predict that a faster rider will catch a slower one and therefore predict when it will pull out. It just sounds like you are a crap driver to me.
Every single [s]week[/s] day there's [s]a group doing time trials circuits for[/s] millions of cars clogging up the roads for several hours causing major hassle, delays and far too many near misses - just because people are too ****ing lazy to walk/cycle a mile or 2
It's beyond a joke
fixed it! 🙂
