[Closed] Cycle lane etiquette - new driver question

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tea, anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[IMG] [/IMG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

although 2 abreast is perfectly legal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, its number 66 for anyone who's interested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. WTF?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cycle lane was clear.

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

Parked cars in parked car section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Means I do not understand the situation described.

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

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

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

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

Means I do not understand the situation described.

What is it you don't understand?

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

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

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

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

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

vs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i'm an idiot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, many are. But some are great.

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

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

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

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

...we were sat around 15mph.

Liar

Liar

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

His calves were also obstructing my view of the road.

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

A tough feat mind you:

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

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

Sadly that is the bottom line.

Money > Lives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that clears this 'incident' up for you.

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

and I have to also respond to this nugget

[i]Agreed, but this isn't an urban cycle path, it's in the middle of nowhere. It's across the Fenwick moors between Glasgow and Kilmarnock so peds, glass etc should be rare. Glass could just as easily be found on the road too.
The council have built a circa 20 mile well surfaced cycle path, completely separate from traffic, that some cyclists wont use. I understand they're not compelled to but I'd weigh up the options as
Safe cycle track with very occasional ped, glass and side road
vs
Open road with traffic doing 60mph+, side roads, glass, potholes etc[/i]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This kind of thing...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GrahamS - Member
This kind of thing...

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

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

Don't be silly.

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

[i]This kind of thing...

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

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

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

thats just daft.

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

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

Hope that clears this 'incident' up for you.

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

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

Thought this one was funny though 🙂

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

Don't be silly.

thats just daft.

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

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

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

Same argument as stopping at red lights really.

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

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

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

Your learning well.

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

GrahamS - Member
"Don't be silly."

"thats just daft."

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

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

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

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

Same argument as stopping at red lights really.

You've lost me there.

You've lost me there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[img] [/img]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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