Cycle path etiquette - a question for cyclists.

[jjb1970]

As with most things where we interact with others, ultimately it all boils down to us all extending a little respect and courtesy to others and conforming to certain accepted codes of behaviour. I'm a cyclist, a pedestrian and a driver. As a cyclist I've experienced the dangers of aggressive driving, vehicles leaving inadequate over taking space, veering across me to turn etc. As a pedestrian I've experienced cyclists ignoring red lights, riding on busy pavements and pretending to time trial along shared cycle paths in MK and relying on anybody else to get out of the way. As a driver (and cyclist in some cases) I've experienced suicidal pedestrians crossing roads in a way which is an invitation to be killed, ignoring crossing rules, cyclists riding in silly ways etc. These things are not happening because classes of road user are stupid or bad (for what its worth, I find most of our road users are actually pretty responsible) but because individuals are irresponsible. Where people extend a little courtesy and apply the highway code things tend to work well and make for pretty stress free travel.

[njee20]

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..

You evidence spectacularly that you don’t. Not least because you’re dismissing what one says, on behalf of an entire, very vulnerable group, because he has a “vested interest”. Yes. In his own survival.

[holywell junction]

I`m a dog owner (2 little yappies) and I agree with everything said above. I love watching the faces of other owners when they let dogs wander to mine despite my warnings. Normally I get a cheery "he won't do anything". It's not theirs, it's mine who will try the savaging!

 

They are nervous. Does anyone out their know that a yellow lead means nervous dog, give me space? Maybe it's time for some sort of driving test for dog owners?

 

Cyclists are generally very appreciative when I short lead the dogs.

[Butler Henderson]

 

Do you mean lux, or lumens?

 

Instructions say lux - maybe a poor translation .

[holywell junction]

And another thing....please please please will drivers learn that it is not their right to occupy my oncoming lane when passing a cyclist. The cyclist has an equal right to be there, so wait until it is clear and overtake as you would any other vehicle. I am getting a bit fed up of other drivers trying to kill me!! Grumpy Monday rant over!!

[cctransuk]

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

 

Kevin,

 

I don't think that I have stated that I or my former colleagues ever exercised a policy of 'equality of right to use'; please correct me if you can point me to that error. Our policy was of equality of right to consideration; and in the case of the most vulnerable road-users, the right to safety often implies physical separation - if our confined roads so permit.

 

Unfortunately, there is a sector of cyclists which equates physical separation with second-class road user status, and which refuses to use anything but the main carriageway, despite there existing a quality off-carriageway alternative. They demand that all other traffic on the main carriageway should conform to restrictions which maximise the ability of cyclists to travel, head down, at maximum speed with little or no regard for their own, or anyone else's safety.

 

That sector is viewed in my former profession as arrogant, and as being as inconsiderate of other road users as motorists who drive with no regard for the safety of cyclists.

 

There will always be those, in any sector of road-use, who demand optimum conditions for their chosen mode of travel, with zero compromises on their part.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[cctransuk]

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.

 

I joined local government engineering in 1971 and, until 1984 we - (myself, wife and two children) - never owned a motor vehicle. All local travel, professional and leisure, was undertaken by pedal-cycle in a busy city with probably the highest cycle-use in the UK. At the time of our arrival, that city had zero cycle facilities.

 

Over the subsequent forty years our engineering team - the majority of whom were cycle-users - developed cycling and shared-use facilities which were way ahead of practice elsewhere. Indeed, the DoT authorised special experimental regulations to enable us to 'push the envelope'. Visiting parties of highway professionals regularly came to see what we were doing - from within the UK and the rest of the world.

 

So, I think that I can reassure you that we professionals - at least within my team - had a more than adequate understanding of the needs of cyclists for a safe environment; along with a clear impression of the prejudices of some cyclists (and their pressure groups) against any facility that does not provide for maximum convenience for cyclists, regardless of inconvenience and compromise of safety amongst other road-users.

 

This may be unpalatable - but it is fact.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Nearholmer]

OK John, perhaps I read more than you meant into what you said.

 

The more we poke at this, the more it makes me think that perhaps the issue where shared space is impractical is to have more reserved spaces for bikes, or perhaps routes where bikes are given priority. Most carriageways are de-facto ‘motor only’, most pavements are de jure ‘pedestrian only’, and as motor traffic speed and density has increased cycling has effectively been squeezed out in most places.

[Nearholmer]

OK John, perhaps I read more than you meant into what you said.

 

The more we poke at this, the more it makes me think that perhaps the issue where shared space is impractical is to have more reserved spaces for bikes, or perhaps routes where bikes are given priority. Most carriageways are de-facto ‘motor only’, most pavements are de jure ‘pedestrian only’, and as motor traffic speed and density has increased cycling has effectively been squeezed out in most places.

 

I’m talking cycling for transport, not racing, and I’m imagining secondary and tertiary roads where cyclists are given priority and speed is tightly restricted.

[cctransuk]

I’m talking cycling for transport, not racing, and I’m imagining secondary and tertiary roads where cyclists are given priority and speed is tightly restricted.

 

This was from the outset, the central plank of the cycleway network that we set about creating in Cambridge.

 

Unfortunately, that policy was widely criticised by the local cycling pressure group as relegating cyclists to a second or third-class status, and that policy has in recent years developed towards providing high-cost cycling infrastructure within the curtilage of the major radial routes serving that city.

 

This is as it should be nowadays, but it was and is my contention that it was necessary for the provision of cycle facilities to evolve over time. The success of lower-key facilities eventually persuaded those who hold the purse-strings to invest in the higher-impact schemes.

 

That evolution was hampered by cycling pressure groups demanding that we skipped any form of evolution, and morphed directly from the 'amoeba to the primate' in a single step.

 

On the other hand, the vast majority of everyday cyclists seemed to appreciate and use the alternative routes via parallel secondary roads.

 

Just my experience as the officer who frequently had to justify policy at hostile public meetings and in the local press.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited August 27, 2018 by cctransuk

[Enterprisingwestern]

I'm only cycling to keep fit and enjoy myself, but having kept up with this thread I'm wondering if I've got the wrong idea?

 

Mike.

[njee20]

I don't think that I have stated that I or my former colleagues ever exercised a policy of 'equality of right to use'; please correct me if you can point me to that error. Our policy was of equality of right to consideration; and in the case of the most vulnerable road-users, the right to safety often implies physical separation - if our confined roads so permit.

 

Unfortunately, there is a sector of cyclists which equates physical separation with second-class road user status, and which refuses to use anything but the main carriageway, despite there existing a quality off-carriageway alternative. They demand that all other traffic on the main carriageway should conform to restrictions which maximise the ability of cyclists to travel, head down, at maximum speed with little or no regard for their own, or anyone else's safety.

 

That sector is viewed in my former profession as arrogant, and as being as inconsiderate of other road users as motorists who drive with no regard for the safety of cyclists.

 

There will always be those, in any sector of road-use, who demand optimum conditions for their chosen mode of travel, with zero compromises on their part.

I'm saddened, disappointed and terrified in equal measures by your stance.

 

Segregation can work fantastically in certain instances, but it's not a panacea for cycle infrastructure. Segregated paths are often full of debris, pedestrians, dogs, the routes can be circuitous, and you have to give way frequently at side roads, with the added fun of drivers coming from behind and turning across the path without consideration of anyone using it. None of these things are conducive to them being a pleasant or safe place to cycle. This isn't anything to do with being inconsiderate, antisocial or wanting to race or whatever tripe you've come up with, it's about making your way from A-B in the safest, most pleasant way possible. Some are, of course, excellent, many are not. It's not a one size fits all solution.

 

Would you use this?

 

Segregated routes where adjacent to a main carriageway often simply end, leaving you needing to re-join the road, with no easy way to do so. If they're heavily used then they can easily become congested, and then are less safe.

 

 

 

Look at London's Cycle Superhighways, they're not segregated in the main, but they're extremely well utilised, usually with at least 2 lanes of bikes (shock horror), and empower riders to ride in a primary position, where cars are then forced to treat cyclists as traffic, rather than relegating people to an ill-conceived segregated route where cars can make their important journeys without silly cyclists getting in the way. This is nothing to do with arrogance.

 

 

Our infrastructure has improved massively in the last 10 years, cycling is a huge benefit for all sorts of reasons, and not just to the participants. Imagine if every cyclist was in a single-occupancy car, do you think that would be better? That we have planners lambasting people for wanting to ride their bikes, whilst showing how little they truly understand about it is a real shame. Your job should be to be disinterested, not to be writing off some of the most vulnerable users as arrogant, and flatly dismissing explanations for why they may adopt a certain position.

 

Thank goodness you're retired.

[cctransuk]

I'm saddened, disappointed and terrified in equal measures by your stance.

 

Segregation can work fantastically in certain instances, but it's not a panacea for cycle infrastructure. Segregated paths are often full of debris, pedestrians, dogs, the routes can be circuitous, and you have to give way frequently at side roads, with the added fun of drivers coming from behind and turning across the path without consideration of anyone using it. None of these things are conducive to them being a pleasant or safe place to cycle. This isn't anything to do with being inconsiderate, antisocial or wanting to race or whatever tripe you've come up with, it's about making your way from A-B in the safest, most pleasant way possible. Some are, of course, excellent, many are not. It's not a one size fits all solution.

 

Would you use this?

 

Segregated routes where adjacent to a main carriageway often simply end, leaving you needing to re-join the road, with no easy way to do so. If they're heavily used then they can easily become congested, and then are less safe.

 

 

 

Look at London's Cycle Superhighways, they're not segregated in the main, but they're extremely well utilised, usually with at least 2 lanes of bikes (shock horror), and empower riders to ride in a primary position, where cars are then forced to treat cyclists as traffic, rather than relegating people to an ill-conceived segregated route where cars can make their important journeys without silly cyclists getting in the way. This is nothing to do with arrogance.

 

 

Our infrastructure has improved massively in the last 10 years, cycling is a huge benefit for all sorts of reasons, and not just to the participants. Imagine if every cyclist was in a single-occupancy car, do you think that would be better? That we have planners lambasting people for wanting to ride their bikes, whilst showing how little they truly understand about it is a real shame. Your job should be to be disinterested, not to be writing off some of the most vulnerable users as arrogant, and flatly dismissing explanations for why they may adopt a certain position.

 

Thank goodness you're retired.

 

Eight years retired - and still they tell me how I should (have) do(ne) my job !!

 

Anyone can state how the ideal cycle facility should be built from the cyclists' standpoint - the hard part is reconciling those, (and they're all different), with the equally forcefully felt demands of all the other categories of road user, the physical reality of how little highway space is available, and with how little money the powers-that-be are willing to spend.

 

Only when you have done that - for the best part of forty years - can you tell me how it should be done.

 

Thank God I got out after forty years - this last few days have forcefully reminded me how many people there are around with huge opinions and little practical knowledge.

 

End of my input to this thread.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited August 28, 2018 by cctransuk

[Nearholmer]

There’s clearly a lot going on here, because, in urban areas, I would personally rather ride on routes which are either fully segregated or use ‘back roads’ where cyclists have effective parity or priority. And I suspect that a great many frequent, but not hard-core, cyclists feel the same, especially children and oldsters making short trips. The London cycle super-highways are ‘bike motorways’ and aren’t the total answer to everything. In London, I sometimes use the dreaded hire bikes (made of solid lead!) and prefer back streets.

[beast66606]

Your photo - Leicesterbad02 - looks fairly obvious to me, give way to any pedestrians and then continue between the bollards, there's no need to use the road at all . The cycle path markings are clearly visible on the other side of the bollard, or have I missed something ? 

 

The roads are there for ALL to use (around here we don't have footpaths in a lot of places, everyone uses the road - so complaining about cyclists getting a bad deal is a red herring to me, try WALKING along some of "my" lanes and see how bad cyclists can be, they are worse than cars as you can't hear them and then they pass close by (not always but then not all car drivers are bad either))

 

Personal insults are cheap and unnecessary.

[Nearholmer]

” then continue between the bollards”

 

The bollard is the issue ...... low bollards are a death-trap when cycling. It needs a prominent post c1000mm talk to be properly visible, and ones in the middle of the path serve no purpose except to cause accidents, they need to be either side.

 

We have a ‘tank trap’ pyramid of concrete, about 400mm high, in the middle of a steep downhill section on the route from home to school. It serves absolutely no purpose (I think it might be an old survey datum or boundary marker) and I have to warn my children about it every day to avert disaster.

 

These little details are mega-important to safety and usability, just like the crossings of side-roads as they enter main roads ....... they are what make cycling fun or a trip to casualty.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Nearholmer

[njee20]

Your photo - Leicesterbad02 - looks fairly obvious to me, give way to any pedestrians and then continue between the bollards, there's no need to use the road at all . The cycle path markings are clearly visible on the other side of the bollard, or have I missed something ? 

 

The roads are there for ALL to use (around here we don't have footpaths in a lot of places, everyone uses the road - so complaining about cyclists getting a bad deal is a red herring to me, try WALKING along some of "my" lanes and see how bad cyclists can be, they are worse than cars as you can't hear them and then they pass close by (not always but then not all car drivers are bad either))

Yeah I meant to take that photo out when I found the second one, but meh, you have to give way 50 yards further on to a side road too, with more bollards. It introduces conflict which doesn't need to exist. It's still not a cycle path I'd choose to use.

 

I couldn't agree more that the roads are for all, that's precisely what I'm saying. Doesn't that mean that cyclists should be free to use them with everyone else, rather than being told that by doing so they are being arrogant? As a cyclist I don't want special treatment, the exact opposite in fact. Putting cyclists on a poor quality segregated path where they have to give way to cars and pedestrians doesn't achieve this. Yet planners are telling us that it's inconsiderate of cyclists not to use infrastructure, no matter how poor it may be.

 

I'm not defending bad riding, or bad driving, or bad walking. We established long ago on this thread that a small minority of people, regardless of vehicle (including shoes as a vehicle) are idiots, but that's not what I'm talking about, and is irrelevant to my point.

Edited August 28, 2018 by njee20

[Nearholmer]

Anyway, I just remembered this sign on a cycleway near home, which I must have passed a million times before spotting (it’s about 3m up in the air, when the deadly-dangerous miniature railway is on the ground).

 

And, some shared-use we haven’t discussed: autonomous robots. Here my son and his pals ‘talking’ to one on their way home from school, as it goes about it’s grocery-delivery work.

[Andrew F]

I want that sign on a t-shirt but with the words "Caution Railway Modeller"

[alastairq]

I gave up any further thoughts of cycling, when I got thighs like Bradley Wiggins'....

[GeoffAlan]

edit....

 

Unfortunately, there is a sector of cyclists which equates physical separation with second-class road user status, and which refuses to use anything but the main carriageway, despite there existing a quality off-carriageway alternative. 

edit......

 

That sector is viewed in my former profession as arrogant, and as being as inconsiderate of other road users as motorists who drive with no regard for the safety of cyclists.

 

I disagree with the premises that physical separation has been executed with any 'quality'.

 

The reason I refuse to use separate provision is that uniformly it requires the user to give way far too often as is usually cursed by bad sight-lines for both cyclist and the main road.

That such a 'quality' alternative exists is yet to be proved to me. 

I can take anyone interested to such a farcility in Sedgefield County Durham where vast expense was spent in providing cyclists with an off road/on footpath rout around two small roundabouts. the road is not particularly busy but if I were to ride it it change the need for me to look right 90 degrees twice at each roundabout give way in 9 places, the crossing of a carriageway three times and the need for observation at 180 degrees from direction of travel twice.

 

It's not always perverse on the part of cyclists to avoid the provided alternative, sometimes it is survival.

Edited August 28, 2018 by GeoffAlan

[Chris M]

Resurecting an old thread. This is shows my old and new warning devices.

[Dava]

In Lecester, cyclists persistently use New Walk, which has been a dedicated walkway for 200 years with cycling banned, as a cycle way. this includes Uber & Deliveroo riders at speed & many riders with fast dangerous cycling downhill in the dark into crowds of people. The police will not enforce the ban, there are 2 CCTV cameras which are not used to monitor use.

 

I am a cyclist but not in Leicester and very hacked off by the inconsiderate and often dangerous nature of urban guerilla cycling.

[ejstubbs]

I am a cyclist ... and very hacked off by the inconsiderate and often dangerous nature of urban guerilla cycling.

 

I'm afraid I have to agree.  There's one that particularly annoys me on my walking route to the office.  That takes me through the Haymarket tram stop which is segregated from the road parallel to it and is clearly marked "no entry except for trams" at each end.  There are two light-controlled pedestrian crossings at this tram stop, but of course because only trams are supposed to be going that way, the crossing lights consist of the red/green man, and tram position light signals.  More than once I have had a close encounter with a person riding a bike illegally through the tram stop being totally unaware of the meaning of the tram signal and sailing through the crossing when I have a green man.  So their illegal behaviour puts me at risk - as well as themselves (it's ironic - and annoying - given the hoo-ha that various cycling organisations originally created about the risk to cyclists from the tram lines, that plenty of people now seem to have no issue with cycling along a set of tram tracks between platforms which offer no safe route of escape for a bike.)

 

It looks to me as if it should be pretty simple to deter people from riding bikes through there by removing a few rows of the flush brick paving that runs all the way through the tram stop.  However, I don't know what's underneath it so I've no idea how tricky it might be to make it good enough to meet all required standards.  The tram stops further out of town are only paved between the foot crossings at each end; outside the tram stop itself they are just rails on a normal trackbed, as here.

Edited December 12, 2018 by ejstubbs

[njee20]

Yep, as we've all agreed several times we can come up with myriad examples of bad cycling.

 

Not 10 minutes ago I saw a car overtake another coming up to a blind crest over solid white lines, and the other day I had to perform an emergency stop to avoid a pedestrian who'd just walked into the road in front of my car. None of these things are overly relevant. I would happily see cyclists fined for riding on the pavement or in pedestrianised areas or jumping red lights. I also want to see drivers fined for speeding and the various other offences most commit regularly. The difference is that one group kill a lot more people. Yet it's not drivers who are ostracised, because that's normal behaviour to which we are desensitised.