Why don’t cyclists use cycle lanes
Discussion
Why don’t cyclists use cycle lanes
Firstly I’m a keen cyclist and living in the middle of a big town. Now to make cycling easier the council have developed loads of different cycle lanes and cycle routes to accompany the main routes which is great.
Now why is it I often see cyclists ignoring the lanes that are right next to roads and instead cycle on the roads?
Now I could understand if the cycle routes were swarming with people (they are empty), badly surfaced (they’re smooth) . I can also understand if the cycle paths are only for 100m or so, so its not worth getting off the road to get back on 100 m later.
What really baffles is me is there are 2 stretches of 40-50mph dual carriageways that are 2-3 miles long (each) and both have excellent wide cycle ways that run directly parallel. Not only this but on one of the dual carriageways there is a crossroad every 3-600m or which has traffic lights. The cycle paths bypass these lights, meaning you don’t have to stop for them and can get a clean run. Why is it whenever I cycle the route I always see cyclists on the dual carriageway cycling, putting themselves in danger, slowing down traffic and having to stop for a set of lights every 500 m?
Excuse all the waffle, but am I missing something? Do riders they are too important to cycle on the dedicated cycle paths or are they just stupid?
Firstly I’m a keen cyclist and living in the middle of a big town. Now to make cycling easier the council have developed loads of different cycle lanes and cycle routes to accompany the main routes which is great.
Now why is it I often see cyclists ignoring the lanes that are right next to roads and instead cycle on the roads?
Now I could understand if the cycle routes were swarming with people (they are empty), badly surfaced (they’re smooth) . I can also understand if the cycle paths are only for 100m or so, so its not worth getting off the road to get back on 100 m later.
What really baffles is me is there are 2 stretches of 40-50mph dual carriageways that are 2-3 miles long (each) and both have excellent wide cycle ways that run directly parallel. Not only this but on one of the dual carriageways there is a crossroad every 3-600m or which has traffic lights. The cycle paths bypass these lights, meaning you don’t have to stop for them and can get a clean run. Why is it whenever I cycle the route I always see cyclists on the dual carriageway cycling, putting themselves in danger, slowing down traffic and having to stop for a set of lights every 500 m?
Excuse all the waffle, but am I missing something? Do riders they are too important to cycle on the dedicated cycle paths or are they just stupid?
Well, usually cycle lanes are poorly designed, fall way short minimum standards and have dangerous entrances and exits. On my commute there is probably 5 to 6 miles of cycle lanes, of which 200 - 300 metres is actually safe to use and / or compliant.
That and if you're traveling faster than 17mph then you don't have to use them.
Pedestrians use them to as if they're additional pavements and they rarely look where they are going - although to be fair they treat the first 2-foot of road the same way too.
That and if you're traveling faster than 17mph then you don't have to use them.
Pedestrians use them to as if they're additional pavements and they rarely look where they are going - although to be fair they treat the first 2-foot of road the same way too.
Edited by mk1fan on Friday 26th June 14:03
t. Cycle paths ON THE ROAD are okay because you can actually ride fast and they aren't covered in sAs said in my experience you often get loads of crap on cycle lanes from general rubbish to gravel/mud and again when riding I'm usually up at teh 20mph+ level which makes it very awkward when you come accross another rider, pedestrian, animal etc etc as people generally don't expect you to be cycling that fast!
Cycle paths can be a bit mixed, several of the ones near me are punctuated by junctions every 10yds or so, which make it like riding a roller coaster:
\______/----\_____/---------------\________/---------\_________
etc
If I rode a pure road bike I'd avoid them. Quite fun on something a bit chunkier though!
There are two sections of steep-ish hills with heavy traffic where there'd be a major speed difference between me and the four wheeled traffic, so I think they're great on those stretches. Have to say - touch wood - in 4 weeks or so of comuting by bike 3 or 4 days a week I've yet to come up with a puncture or anything.
\______/----\_____/---------------\________/---------\_________
etc
If I rode a pure road bike I'd avoid them. Quite fun on something a bit chunkier though!
There are two sections of steep-ish hills with heavy traffic where there'd be a major speed difference between me and the four wheeled traffic, so I think they're great on those stretches. Have to say - touch wood - in 4 weeks or so of comuting by bike 3 or 4 days a week I've yet to come up with a puncture or anything.
Ok I agree with all the points and if I saw what has been described I'd avoid them. But I still cant see why some cyclists choose cycling on dual carrigeway with cars approaching them behind at upto 60-70 mph when there is a smooth crap free safer alternative, with hardly any pedestrians.
TwistingMyMelon said:
Ok I agree with all the points and if I saw what has been described I'd avoid them. But I still cant see why some cyclists choose cycling on dual carrigeway with cars approaching them behind at upto 60-70 mph when there is a smooth crap free safer alternative, with hardly any pedestrians.
There's a stretch of dual carriageway on which I do this, and it's because to get on the cycle path I'd have to stop, get off the bike, lift it across the kerb and get on again. At the other end I'd have to do the same thing and also carry it across ten feet of grass verge; none of these things - or the pedestrians and 'shopping' cyclists with whom I'd have to share the path - are compatible with my lunchtime training ride, so I stay on the road.Edited by Nick_F on Friday 26th June 17:18
TwistingMyMelon said:
Ok I agree with all the points and if I saw what has been described I'd avoid them. But I still cant see why some cyclists choose cycling on dual carrigeway with cars approaching them behind at upto 60-70 mph when there is a smooth crap free safer alternative, with hardly any pedestrians.
ahh - it's the "hardly any pedestrians" bit. If I'm on a flat, fast A road then I'm usually doing between 20-25mph, faster if the gradient or wind is helpful. If you try that on your average cyclepath you'll either be very uncomfortable or be regarded as a hooligan by pedestrians & those who are just pottering along at 10mph. (and I'd agree with them)
Cycle paths are fine; they should be compulsary for young kids while they gather road sense and I'd happily use one if I was just out for a 10-15mph potter with the missus.
But they just aren't designed for anyone who wants to press on. Take the example you mention - a DC with junctions yet it goes across a cross road avoiding traffic lights ? how does that work ? I'd feel safer crossing with traffic lights under busy road conditions any day.
b2hbm said:
But they just aren't designed for anyone who wants to press on.
I agree on the whole, but if you're going up a steep hill in the rush hour I find it hard to believe you're doing 20+mph.Or to put it another way, I'm definitely not, which is why I take to the cycle lanes for that bit. In other places though the roads are much better surfaced and much more direct than the cycle paths (which peel off and wind around a seperate route), what's more they're quite flat so I can usually pretty much match the speed of the traffic. At that point I stick to the road, but on the hills I'd rather not run the gaunlet with the traffic.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff