MailOnline and its readers have meltdown over video of cyclist riding perfectly legally on road

If you look at the history, roads for pedestrians and horses were either dirt tracks or cobblestones.

Then cyclists come along and demand smooth alternatives to cobbles, and get them (tarmaced roads etc).

Finally, cars are built for the road cyclists demanded.

farnz wrote:

If you look at the history, roads for pedestrians and horses were either dirt tracks or cobblestones.

Then cyclists come along and demand smooth alternatives to cobbles, and get them (tarmaced roads etc).

Finally, cars are built for the road cyclists demanded.

Obligatory link: https://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

Jack, the original Daily Mail article included a specific request from the journalist who wrote it to send in pictures of cyclists not using infrastructure to their own address. This has now been changed to tips [at] mailonline.co.uk. Comments suggesting that folk send in pictures of poor infrastructure/lanes blocked by cars look to have been deleted by road.cc. Seems a little heavy handed.

I don't think they can edit someone elses post so they had to delete the original one with the out of date contact which means everything related to it goes as well.

cbrndc wrote:

The commenters quoting the 18mph figure for cycle lanes have all got it a bit wrong. The advice was proposed for shared use (cycle and pedestrian) paths (not cycle only lanes or tracks). It stated that if you intend to cycle at 18mph or quicker you should use the carriageway. I recall that he document that proposed this was never ratifed anyway but it does appear in some consultation documents for proposed shared facilities.

Mea maxima culpa.  In fact I believe the more comprehensive cycle infra guidance is here (gov.uk address, SFW).  A search on design speed will reveal that cycle lane (including shared lanes where cycling is the primary purpose but pedestrians are permitted) design speed may vary by installation but each speed comes with its design standards.

Bear in mind, of couerse, that this Local Transport Note was issued in July 2020.  Most infra will pre-date and should be assessed(*) on the prevailing guidance at the time it was installed. (* ie criticise it and call for improvements, by all means, but reflect on the standards to which the highways team was working at the time before playing the man not the ball).

Not a defacto ringroad at all. However, the airport, where I work is near there, and the road is busy due to the industrial estate here, and it's also one of the main routes into Bournemouth from Ferndown and further away from A31 for those not wishing to use A338. They've done such a bad job though, what could have been great, and I supported it, isn't

Pyro Tim wrote:

Not a defacto ringroad at all. However, the airport, where I work is near there, and the road is busy due to the industrial estate here, and it's also one of the main routes into Bournemouth from Ferndown and further away from A31 for those not wishing to use A338. They've done such a bad job though, what could have been great, and I supported it, isn't

Thanks for local info. Sounds like another common issue, the "what was initially planned != what was agreed after consultation != what was actually done".

I wonder what would happen if we actually had, y'know, standards for this across the UK?  Like we do (mostly...) with roads? Maybe there'd be less "designed by someone who'd never seen a bicycle" / hopeless compromises? Maybe we wouldn't have dozens of different incomprehensible, inconvenient or plain dangerous "bright ideas"?  Maybe we'd not have paths suddenly giving up because there were a few loud voices against or it seemed too much effort to do properly?

Our UK laissez-faire approach here definitely isn't helping. Although what gets said is "we should not impede the local authorities doing this in the most appropriate manner" what we get is "Who cares? If you really fight about it you can have rubbish in several years' time".

I raised this with the TCF team. The challenge for them is that they are trying to provide safe links for timid and new cyclists, who would perhaps be prepared to stop and beg at crossings. Firstly, in answer to an early question, the works are not yet finished, but also :

"If you are looking at cycling on the carriageway to go north, then that is the move of a confident cyclist. The drainage kerb finishes 30m south of Northbourne Roundabout. That should give enough time for a confident cyclist to get across to the offside lane.
However, if you are concerned about that manoeuvre, the crossing is set to instant demand for cyclists/pedestrians. So you could come off onto the shared cycleway, stop for a second to press the push button, then divert off the crossing onto the carriageway with the cars safely stopped behind the stopline at the lights. "
This takes you to a footpath with no cycling. If planning on exiting cycle lane to turn right at Northbourne roundabout, it is in reality much less than 30m, but about 3 car lengths, to get across 2 lanes, while reading the roundabout. Nigh on suicide

Another pet annoyance! Councils and their designers - probably through frank ignorance - seem only to think of cyclists as either a) like pedestrians suddenly put on wheels - so slow, nervous and actually happier to regularly stop and push or b) something like an indestructable scrambler bike. I guess the latter is their view of "competent cyclists" but from the designs this comes across more like "these people are risk-insensitive and don't follow the rules anyway, so we'll give them an access point back onto the road and on their own heads be it".

What we should have - as proved by such an approach working in several countries - is c) neither pedestrians nor cars but cyclists. These are ordinary humans of all ages / abilities who are as vulnerable as pedestrians and need protection from motor vehicles but can comfortably proceed at 8-12 mph with some ranging above 20mph. They need good surfaces (more than motor vehicles) and also to be able to keep a moderate speed (again more important than for pedestrians or cars). They have their own space requirements e.g. path widths, turn radii and and access points (e.g. can get a mobility bike / bike with trailer through). They are less of a threat to pedestrians than motor vehicles but are not suitable for mixing with them in most places. Their infrastructure shouldn't rely on motorists getting it right for their safety (so e.g. crossings and junctions should have excellent sight lines so cyclists can assess if it's safe and at least ATM in UK "cyclists have priority" ideas should be used very carefully).

That's why we could really do with a Boardman / Burnham combo even here in Edinburgh.

Hello.  We've been expecting you.

Attitudes matter eh?  And who says irony is dead.

I don't appreciate "people" like the "journo" responsible for this rabid ill-researched, factually inaccurate, clickbait nonsense making life way more dangerous for vulnerable road users every day.

Whilst I'm sure Nigel Nick Freeman "Claire" is genuinely a cyclist rather than an angry keyboard warrior pretending to be something they are not, her apparent prejudices do somewhat cast her reliability as an impartial witness into doubt in my view.

Besides, as we all know, cyclists don't just do it to "annoy motorists" - where's the challenge in that? - like shooting large fish in a small barrel.  

It's town planners, triathletes, the Illuminati and Lizard People that we're really after.

The invoice for our collective time providing your therapy is in the post BTW

I don't appreciate people spreading garbled disinformation like "if you are going at an average speed of 18mph, the recommendation is that you should use the cycle lane if one is provided."

mdavidford wrote:

I don't appreciate people spreading garbled disinformation like "if you are going at an average speed of 18mph, the recommendation is that you should use the cycle lane if one is provided."

If you look carefully, you'll find it here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/made-up-sh!t-that-isnt-in-t...

I think from memory the speed of 18 mph came from a judge in a court case who deemed that it was a reasonable speed for a person on a bicycle to ride on the road as opposed to using a cycle lane. This was dependant on a useable cycle lane being available that was not compromised by obstructions. I cannot recall the exact details but gained an impression that the judge was trying to interpret the highway code in a helpful manner to the cyclist at the time, like many memories this latter part may be false but grocery shopping awaits and time is too short to spend hours researching details.

If it is the case of Cadden, it was not that you should use the cycle lane at under 18mph, it was that his speed (said to be around 20mph) would have been excessive for the cycle lane.  Additionally, he would have had to cross a carriageway with a 50mph limit (twice) to use that lane. The judge noted that in the light traffic, any delay to motorists was transitory.  The case did not set a precedent, however, and the case was judged on its own merits.

However, I note that DfT guidance set design speed limits (although the copy I inspected at the time of accumulating that 'knowledge' was draft at the time). Design speed limit is not the user's speed limit, but that the infrastructure should be deemed safe for use at that limit.  In the same way, dual carriageways have a design speed of 120kph.  You're not expected to drive (or cycle) at that speed.

From this account:

Quote:

 "The judge at Shrewsbury Crown Court told Cadden that he was as entitled to be on the road as anyone else and there was no obligation on him to use the cycle path."

As for whether you should use the cycle lane: the Highway Code recommends using infrastructure where it is available, while recognising that it is not always suitable or safe to do so. In any case, the right to use any part of the carriageway remains in place unless local restrictions or road type (motorway class) dictate otherwise. Some consideration for other road users comes into play, but the fact that a motorist might have to slow down is not an automatic contraindication.

Thank you for your reply and research I know it was a few years ago and standards (or guidance notes) have been introduced the latest being LTN 1/20 sadly not always followed. Although I remain hopeful that designs and new infrastructure introduced by local authorities are changing largely for the better but at a incredicably slow pace. More sadly as being shown by Leicestershire County Council is that if so minded they have the option of ignoring any guidance or need to follow a duty of care and then deem anything they build as 'safe' regardless of the facts ? I love to be able to cycle on a dedicated path or lane but many are more dangerous than the road and are not properly designed for cyclists (or walkers).

GMBasix wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

I don't appreciate people spreading garbled disinformation like "if you are going at an average speed of 18mph, the recommendation is that you should use the cycle lane if one is provided."

If you look carefully, you'll find it here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/made-up-sh!t-that-isnt-in-t...

I'm seeing a broken link...

Read the URL