tufty wrote:Riding on a "side of the road" cycle path means, amongst other things, having to stop at every side road which crosses it. In theory, you are in the "inner lane" and vehicles wanting to turn across your path should give way, but what usually happens is "sorry mate, didn't see you" or "give way, you lycra clad cunt". Also not enough space to overtake, overhanging branches, twats parking across / on the cycle path, pedestrians, rollerskaters, pushchairs, etc.
Unless it's a dedicated cycle way entirely separate from the road system, (i.e. not a lane or footpath of a road), you're usually far safer on the road.
Thanks. Yeah I've often thought our "retrofitted" cycle paths did little more than take up room from either the road or pavement.
You've just confirmed that they seem to be little more than paying lip service to the requirement.
You get the same thing with cycles v. pedestrians as you get with motorists v. cyclists. Pedestrians will stare you down trying to assert their right of way on the cycle path.
gumboot wrote:You get the same thing with cycles v. pedestrians as you get with motorists v. cyclists. Pedestrians will stare you down trying to assert their right of way on the cycle path.
Hmm, yes. I guess in the end regardless of whether someone's a cyclist, pedestrian or motorist, you get both responsible ones & irresponsible ones but it's only the latter that anyone remembers.
Probably a lot of people naturally think they are in the right if they are the more vulnerable party. In the water, power gives way to sail.
Yeah, normally cyclists have to along at a slow crawl on cycle lanes because of all the crossings, pedestrians, curbs, pets, and even motorists that get in the way. It's really only there for children and the elderly... or if you need to avoid getting sweaty.
I've seen boat races cut across ferry lanes (who the fuck organises that?) with sail still expecting automatic right of way over steam despite the 10000:1 displacement difference.
This was a new one to me, v slow cyclist on the path weaving all over the shop. I slow to pass and they still nearly hit me. The problem? Fucking texting
I can't find a citation atm but I read some time ago that either the Highway Code or a official adjunct to it recommended that cyclists doing over 14mph (IIRC) should use the road, not shared cycle lines. Only really makes sense in case like the one in the video where the "cycle lane" is just part of the footway, and usually the part where people stand to cross and where the street furniture is.
Cycling into work a few weeks ago I was passed by a guy, on a pedal bike, dressed in branded lycra. For context this was going through a village in the Gloucestershire countryside; outside the village it's national-speed-limit two-lane roads. Behind the cyclist was a motorbike riding very, very cautiously, then a car driving aggressively behind the motorbike, clearly trying to barge past. Most confusing. Anyway, after passing me (uphill) the cyclist slowed right down and I caught up to the back of the aggressive car. What was going on was this: the bike was weaving all over the road apparently at random, swearing at anything else that moved. The motorbike was trying to work out how to safely pass a cyclist who kept drifting out over the central line and, presumably, the car driver hadn't seen what was happening and just wanted 60mph again. Eventually the car shoved past both the motorbike and the cyclist and then the motorbike passed also. This left me to observe the cyclist who I really didn't want to pass myself. Utter madness on wheels: weaving all over the lane, shaking his fist at cars vans and lorries regardless of how they drove. He actually shouted "come on then, stop, if you're hard enough" to a passing car without irony. Never seen anything like it. He's not going to live long if he carries on like that.
venusian wrote:I can't find a citation atm but I read some time ago that either the Highway Code or a official adjunct to it recommended that cyclists doing over 14mph (IIRC) should use the road, not shared cycle lines.
Nah, it's a DoT advisory notice, not a HW code thing
EDIT: the AA's advice for cyclists and motorists is pretty good though it's kind of amazing how many drivers think it's safer for riders to be in the gutter, some even thinking that's where they're required to be.
sack wrote:It's just par for the course in that area
It's not really though is it? It's a narrow road, there'll be some friction from people who don't feel it should be shared but they're the minority. I can pretty much guarantee that a coked up midget trying to ram someone off the road and blocking it in a coked up meltdown won't be happening today. Or tomorrow or for a good while.
sack wrote:One thing I'm liking around here is that cycling is nothing special and as natural as walking - If it's really close you walk, if it's a bit further but not a massive distance away you jump on the bike. No shouting and wailing about who has the right to do what and where - just people getting from A to B. I think I've seen the *one* obligatory lycra-lout plowing through a park like he owns it but nothing more.
Ooof, that sounds a lot like victim blaming in the context of this thread. In that original video do you think the rider is a lycra lout shouting and wailing about who has the right to do what and where?
I'm not commenting on that specific video - It's pretty obvious who the (tiny) prick is in this case, but having lived by one of the Richmond park gates for 3 years I've seen a lot of hassle from both sides.
In fact I'd say the one reasonable group of people around there are the horse riders, probably because their form of transport is a living thing they genuinely care about
gumboot wrote:You get the same thing with cycles v. pedestrians as you get with motorists v. cyclists. Pedestrians will stare you down trying to assert their right of way on the cycle path.
Only if they believe you've seen them and are going slowly enough not to bounce them into a fence.
XBox Gamertag: GovernmentYard
Everything else: governmentyard
sack wrote:
In fact I'd say the one reasonable group of people around there are the horse riders, probably because their form of transport is a living thing they genuinely care about
Cyclists don't shit right across cycle lanes and the inside of a single-carriageway lane though, so that balances things out. On the other hand, bicycles aren't really edible.
XBox Gamertag: GovernmentYard
Everything else: governmentyard
Common sense would suggest that where cycle paths are adjoined to footpaths the cyclist should be doing no more than jogging pace, they are not race tracks.
Definitely, if you've got a group of people sharing a resource then you make sure the most vulnerable ones are treated carefuly.
The same way goes for drivers sharing the road with cyclists.
Drivers get an enormously good deal, they pay the same towards road upkeep and repair as everyone else but cause more wear and tear and have far greater infrastructure demands than other road users. So if the price to pay is waiting for a slower vehicle in front to become safe to pass then that's price to pay.
the one thing that is at least fair to all road users in the area surrounding Richmond park is you don't have to worry about the shitty road surface in the cycle lane - it's shitty all the way to the middle.
I know we all pay for it, but fuck only knows what they're spending that cash on.
