Cycle path etiquette - a question for cyclists.

[njee20]

Yes, that’s a huge pain in London on some of the bi-directional cyclepaths - people who feel the need the mount the sun on their handlebars and point it straight into your eyes. Wholly counterproductive given drivers will be blinded by it!

[The Stationmaster]

Because they take up far less width than any other vehicle...

 

As said as well, a group of 6 is better arranged 3x2, it’s half the length and discourages stupid, unsafe overtakes

 

Good to see we’ve now reduced to the usual “everything that’s wrong with cyclists” nonsense after some useful debate.

 

Agree with your final point.

 

It is interesting round here that the various road races (or time trials or whatever they are called for cyclists) generally work in a way which avoids bunching so you are only looking to pass, when you can, a single cyclist although that can still be difficult on some of the really twisty roads but most of them in such events are hardly dawdling along.  The counter side of all that is that one organiser of a triathlon style event (since sent packing following numerous complaints from nearby villages) not only applied for ludicrous road closures to facilitate his event but picked roads which were dangerous for cyclists if they weren't closed and that led to a cyclist being fatally injured while practicing over the route when it was subject to normal traffic.   The events on fast, much wider, main roads which still take place present very few bunching problems.

 

Indcidentally on many of out country roads, ignoring the bends, you can't pass even a single cyclist at the recommended separation because the road isn't wide enough.   Meeting a hose & rider coming the other way isn't so problematic as you simply stop until they have passed.

[njee20]

People die on all sorts of roads sadly, overwhelmingly when hit by a car or other vehicle. A cyclist dying is not, in isolation, proof the road was unsuitable, not least because I’d bet my hat that another vehicle actually killed him, not the road.

 

Cycling events take all forms, true road races are rare, and are held with a rolling road block (or full closed roads). Racers must still obey the Highway Code though if a rolling block is used, and are disqualified for crossing a solid white line under such conditions.

 

The vast majority of events are ‘sportives’ - which are non-competitive and effectively unregulated, riders can ride in bunches or dribs and drabs. I find them very irritating as a driver frankly, because the standard of riding is usually very poor. There’s usually a gross sense of entitlement by the participants too.

 

Why do you stop for a horse, but not a bike? You are more inconvenienced by the horse, yet you afford them more courtesy.

[Nearholmer]

Both roads and many cycleways are shared-use spaces, motor vehicles and bikes, bikes and pedestrians, and most of this thread could be boiled-down to a few truisms:

 

- when in a shared space, a minority of people will use a position of power to bully; a few motorists bully cyclists; a few cyclists bully pedestrians;

 

- a minority of people have a blithe disregard for their own safety;

 

- a minority of people have a callous disregard for the welfare of others;

 

- a minority of people, while not actively bullying, can be more that a bit selfish.

 

- possibly ‘a minority of people’ should be altered in all of the foregoing to cover the fact that nearly every one of us can lapse into each of the above bad behaviours on occasion;

 

- ‘twas ever thus, and until we all miraculously transform into saints it will ever be so.

[jjb1970]

Both roads and many cycleways are shared-use spaces, motor vehicles and bikes, bikes and pedestrians, and most of this thread could be boiled-down to a few truisms:

 

- when in a shared space, a minority of people will use a position of power to bully; a few motorists bully cyclists; a few cyclists bully pedestrians;

 

- a minority of people have a blithe disregard for their own safety;

 

- a minority of people have a callous disregard for the welfare of others;

 

- a minority of people, while not actively bullying, can be more that a bit selfish.

 

- possibly ‘a minority of people’ should be altered in all of the foregoing to cover the fact that nearly every one of us can lapse into each of the above bad behaviours on occasion;

 

- ‘twas ever thus, and until we all miraculously transform into saints it will ever be so.

 

 

Sums it up perfectly.

[Reorte]

Indcidentally on many of out country roads, ignoring the bends, you can't pass even a single cyclist at the recommended separation because the road isn't wide enough.   Meeting a hose & rider coming the other way isn't so problematic as you simply stop until they have passed.

Plenty of those around here, and most of them make good places to cycle. On the quiet ones when I'm cycling I don't have a problem with stopping and moving my bike out of the way. That would be annoying pretty fast on the few busy single track roads but I prefer to keep off them altogether. Mind you I only cycle for leisure (and my waistline demonstrates nowhere near often enough).

[Butler Henderson]

Yes, that’s a huge pain in London on some of the bi-directional cyclepaths - people who feel the need the mount the sun on their handlebars and point it straight into your eyes. Wholly counterproductive given drivers will be blinded by it!

Working out the right light to fit can be problematic - often need something to pick out potholes in unlit locations. My main light is a whopping 450 lux rechargeable but I do always dip it. It does have an Eco mode although no lux is specified as well as Flash Beacon and Strobe. The purpose of those latter modes is to draw attention  while flash also has the benefit of significantly increasing battery life. On the basis that something less bright might be useful when not venturing into unlit location I bought today from that well know cycle store, Lidl, a set of rechargeable lights - the front being a miserly 60 lux max, and it has a built in sensor to vary the brightness - something the 450 lux one could benefit with. It does not flash so I will be interested to see how long it lasts.

[cctransuk]

Because they take up far less width than any other vehicle...

 

As said as well, a group of 6 is better arranged 3x2, it’s half the length and discourages stupid, unsafe overtakes

 

Good to see we’ve now reduced to the usual “everything that’s wrong with cyclists” nonsense after some useful debate.

 

Let's just be clear - this is a retired cyclways officer posting, of many years' experience, from one of the most heavily-cycled cities in the UK.

 

Right - taking your logic as OK, it is presumably fine for two Smart cars to 'double-up' because they occupy no more width than an HGV?

 

... or for six - arranged 3 x 2 - to proceed along the highway as they occupy far less space than an HGV?

 

Such assertions are clearly fatuous - no vehicle on a public haighway should travel alongside another unless it is overtaking - end of story, no buts.

 

Frankly, whilst I have all the time in the world for individual cyclists going about their daily business, the current fad for lycra-clad mobs travelling en-masse on the public highway is an absolute menace to road safety.

 

Why should cyclists think that it is fine to race and undertake time trials on the public highway, when any other class of road-user (except runners / walkers) would be taken to task and probably, rightly, be prosecuted?

 

The public highway is no place for competitive events of ANY kind - unless the authorities in their wisdom(?) have closed the highways affected to all other traffic.

 

If I go out on a Friday night and plaster street furmiture with "GIANT FURNITURE SALE!" signs, I can be prosecuted. If the organisers of a race or time trial go out and plaster street furniture with " BEWARE RUNNERS" or "BEWARE CYCLES" signs, that is apparently fine.

 

The public highway network is for everyones' use in getting from A to B; it's not a running arena or a velodrome. Those who have the urge to outrun / out-cycle their fellow obsessives should do it on private land, and not endanger themselves and others by abusing the highway network.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited August 26, 2018 by cctransuk

[njee20]

Sorry, the suggestion that 4 bikes is the same as 4

Smart cars is total idiocy, a strawman of spectacular irrelevance. The rest of your post appears to be a poorly conceived rant of similar merit. That you had anything to do with cycling in a professional career is slightly terrifying, but explains quite a bit!

 

Working out the right light to fit can be problematic - often need something to pick out potholes in unlit locations. My main light is a whopping 450 lux rechargeable but I do always dip it. It does have an Eco mode although no lux is specified as well as Flash Beacon and Strobe. The purpose of those latter modes is to draw attention while flash also has the benefit of significantly increasing battery life. On the basis that something less bright might be useful when not venturing into unlit location I bought today from that well know cycle store, Lidl, a set of rechargeable lights - the front being a miserly 60 lux max, and it has a built in sensor to vary the brightness - something the 450 lux one could benefit with. It does not flash so I will be interested to see how long it lasts.

Do you mean lux, or lumens? I’ve not consciously seen lux quoted, but lumens regularly is. The actual brightness isn’t as significant as where it’s directed, as you’ll well know. The advancement in LED technology has led to an arms race in output, which on the one hand is great, but is a huge pain at the same time!

 

My main light, which I never use on the road is 2,600 lumens, which is more than enough to light the entire road, but short of pointing it 3” from your front wheel it wouldn’t be appropriate on the road.

[Nearholmer]

As a footnote to Mr Isherwood’s:

 

After all, we’re not French are we?

Edited August 26, 2018 by Nearholmer

[jjb1970]

I once got told off for going out on a bike ride by some sportive organiser when I still lived in Cumbria. Apparently I was free loading their event by riding the course not having paid. The fact I cycled around those particular roads most weekends was no excuse. For all I don't like swearing I recall that I did resort to some choice language that day.

[njee20]

Nice to know the sense of entitlement isn’t just the participants. It’s great more people cycle, but sportives epitomise all sorts of things that are wrong with cycling IMO.

[jjb1970]

I've really never seen the point of sportives. I can see why people ride competitively  by road racing, time trialing etc. I can see why people go touring or just go out for a leisurely bike ride and lots else but sportives just seem to be something for people who want to think they're some sort of mini-me pro-road racer. Certainly I'm not going to avoid my usual cycling routes just because some sportive turns up on them.

[cctransuk]

Sorry, the suggestion that 4 bikes is the same as 4

Smart cars is total idiocy, a strawman of spectacular irrelevance. The rest of your post appears to be a poorly conceived rant of similar merit. That you had anything to do with cycling in a professional career is slightly terrifying, but explains quite a bit!

 

 

Is that the best that you can do? I was hoping for a reasoned, logical rebuttal; not a petulant insult.

 

I have a career's worth of empirical knowledge of the development of shared-use highway facilities in cities and in rural areas. With my colleagues, we studied best practice; the behaviour of all categories road users; and applied them to the particular circumstances that applied at a particular location. We developed facilities, networks and signage which are now used as prescribed methods nationally.

 

We did NOT start from the stand-point that any road-user had a right to priority of consideration over any other; (though it has to be said that a certain body of cyclists now seem to think that their 'green credentials' entitle them to priority wherever they go).

 

Cyclists frequently pointed us at the example of Holland - spacious cycle tracks, physically separated from carriageways and footways, with priority over pretty much everything, we were told!

 

Britain is NOT Holland - or any other European country whose road network was pretty much obliterated in WW2, or whose population density is a fraction of ours. We have inherited a Romano / Medieval road system thath has been built around and confined by centuries of settlement; only the latter part of which has known heavy motor traffic.

 

Trying to combine pedestrian, equestrian, pedal-cycle and motor traffic in a confined space, giving equal consideration to the needs of each group, is a constant juggling exercise and, in the end, will please no-one. Add to that constant change in the political priorities of the powers-that-be, and you are on a hiding-to-nothing.

 

Despite all of the challenges, I enjoyed my time in local government highway engineering, and was rightly proud when we - very occasionally - gained accolades from one or other of the parties involved.

 

Nonetheless, forty years was enough for me, and I rarely comment publicly on that time. Now and again, though, certain posts that reek of self-interest and disregard for others will wake me from my slumber, and prompt me to inject personal professional knowledge where only prejudice is evident.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[njee20]

Some points are so far beyond “logical rebuttal” it’s not worth trying.

 

A Smart ForTwo is 2.7m long and 1.7m wide. A road bike has a wheelbase of about 1m, and a width of c60cm, allowing for space around the rider. Therefore a bunch of cyclists 2x2 still take up less space than a single Smart ForTwo. Suggesting that cyclists riding side by side is akin to saying small cars should be able to drive side by side is crazy.

 

Two cyclists side by side take up less than half a single lane. If two Smart cars also took up half a lane I’d be equally happy for them to drive two abreast, but they don’t. You see it with motorbikes quite regularly, particularly in urban environments.

 

I really don’t think I can say anything else.

[Norm81]

Here is a professional cyclist explaining why two abreast is safer:

 

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/chris-boardman-explains-why-cyclists-ride-two-abreast-in-new-safety-video-187215

 

A HGV in the UK I believe has a maximum width of 2.55m which is clearly less than two 1.7m wide smart cars.

[cctransuk]

Some points are so far beyond “logical rebuttal” it’s not worth trying.

 

A Smart ForTwo is 2.7m long and 1.7m wide. A road bike has a wheelbase of about 1m, and a width of c60cm, allowing for space around the rider. Therefore a bunch of cyclists 2x2 still take up less space than a single Smart ForTwo. Suggesting that cyclists riding side by side is akin to saying small cars should be able to drive side by side is crazy.

 

Two cyclists side by side take up less than half a single lane. If two Smart cars also took up half a lane I’d be equally happy for them to drive two abreast, but they don’t. You see it with motorbikes quite regularly, particularly in urban environments.

 

I really don’t think I can say anything else.

 

Please point me to where I stated that "4 bikes is the same as 4 Smart cars".

 

What I did say was "... taking your logic as OK, it is presumably fine for two Smart cars to 'double-up' because they occupy no more width than an HGV? ... or for six - arranged 3 x 2 - to proceed along the highway as they occupy far less space than an HGV".

 

The point - to spell it out - is that just because a vehicle is narrower than another, does not entitle the narrow vehicle to 'double-up' in order to occupy the same width of carriageway as a wider vehicle.

 

Why this idiotic notion is espoused by so many cyclists - especially the more vehement obsessives - is beyond reason; in fact, "... total idiocy ..." as you put it !!

 

You see, you did get my point - it just took a while.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[NittenDormer]

Why DO cyclists 'double-up'?

 

No other road-users would dream of doing it - with the possible exception of horse-riders.

 

I just don't understand why cyclists feel that they are somehow exceptions to the single file in one lane practice.

 

The carriageway of a public highway is no place for idle chit-chat - 100% attention is needed.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

i believe most motorists do this, whenever they have a passenger in the other front seat?

[cctransuk]

Here is a professional cyclist explaining why two abreast is safer:

 

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/chris-boardman-explains-why-cyclists-ride-two-abreast-in-new-safety-video-187215

 

A HGV in the UK I believe has a maximum width of 2.55m which is clearly less than two 1.7m wide smart cars.

 

I respectfully decline to agree with a 'professional cyclist'.

 

I am, still, a professional highway engineer, and I would submit that I have a better understanding of the safety needs of all road users than someone with vested interests.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[NittenDormer]

To get back to the original point, the correct etiquette for families is for the kids to instinctively get out of the way, and for the parents to tell the kids to get out of the way, while being the only ones in the way. If walking as a couple / pair, the correct behaviour is for both to move across to the opposite side of the path at the same time, thereby both being considerate AND maximising 'in the way' time. Despite experiencing this many times as a cyclist, I still do this myself as a pedestrian.

[cctransuk]

i believe most motorists do this, whenever they have a passenger in the other front seat?

 

That may (or may not) be so - but it is incontestible that ANY form of concurrent activity whilst driving is detrimental to concentration.

 

I, (and I suspect many more drivers than you give credit for), try and make absolute minimal communication with other occupants of a vehicle that I am driving. That desire to concentrate extends to not using in-car entertainment - all of my cars have been sold after extended use with brand-new entertainment systems.

 

Each to their own.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Guest]

I am, still, a professional highway engineer, and I would submit that I have a better understanding of the safety needs of all road users than someone with vested interests.

You really don't.

[chris p bacon]

 

The public highway is no place for competitive events of ANY kind - unless the authorities in their wisdom(?) have closed the highways affected to all other traffic.

 

 

 

Having been involved with a 10 mile run for a number of years,  the local authorities and Police are contacted, and a license given, with plenty of marshalls and signage a road event presents few problems.

 

On the subject of cycle time trials we have regular events here on the A1, it is a dual carriageway and the theory is that there is a 2nd lane for traffic to overtake safely. Unfortunately there are also 2 roundabouts on the section they use and the cyclists ignore the traffic lights on the Black Cat and swap lanes to turn without looking back. I can understand they are trying to set a good time but they won't in the front of a HGV radiator grill.

[Nearholmer]

John

 

Leaving aside sportives, which seem to leave everybody bar the participants scratching their heads, perhaps the biggest flaw in your argument is the idea of equality between road users.

 

There is no meaningful equality between a person inside several tonnes of metal moving at many km/h and a person on a bike, weighing perhaps 100kg including the bike and effectively naked. E=0.5mv^2 in each case. Reaction times the same. Braking distances surprisingly similar, but only if speed is similar.

 

Similar, although by no means so great, because both are effectively naked, disparity exists between person on bike and pedestrian.

 

It’s because of the natural inequality that protective measures are needed for the “weaker” party. And, they need to be good, not riddled with nasty traps.

 

Best measure is possibly equality of speed in shared-use areas: motor vehicles capped at 15km/h where bikes are present, and everyone capped at 5 Km/h where pedestrians are present. It might sound insane, but it works a treat in safety terms, and makes city centres pleasant again.

 

Town-to-town bike trips, rather than in-town, are Sustrans territory, and they know how to pick/create routes that maximise safety and minimise conflict, often by pointing cyclists onto the secondary or tertiary route.

 

So, please move on from the misleading over-simplification of ‘equality of right to use’ to the concept of equality of right to safety. Personally, I want, demand even, to be as safe when i’m riding my bike as when i’m riding in my car, and it isn’t an unreasonable want, it’s just that, as a society, we ‘got our head in the wrong place’ over this, ceding all sorts of things including safety, pleasantness, and consumption of resources for the convenience (until it all clogged-up) of car travel.

 

Kevin

Edited August 27, 2018 by Nearholmer

[caradoc]

I respectfully decline to agree with a 'professional cyclist'.

 

I am, still, a professional highway engineer, and I would submit that I have a better understanding of the safety needs of all road users than someone with vested interests.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

I am not doubting your, or your colleagues, professional knowledge and experience, but I have to ask whether you or they actually cycled, perhaps on a wet and windy day, the routes you designed, maybe before and after ?

 

I also have to say that, on many British roads, overtaking two cyclists riding abreast is no more difficult than overtaking one, given the width of our roads and the necessity of obstructing the opposing carriageway to overtake anything. I only ever ride solo nowadays, but I do often have to go a fair bit from the kerb, not to obstruct or annoy motorists but to avoid being thrown off my bike by potholes, sunken drains, subsided road edges or litter; I humbly apologise to any drivers whose progress I have therefore impeded. 

 

As has been said above, all road and path users should show consideration to others, sadly there are those on two legs, two wheels and four, who regard anything in their way as the enemy.