Cycle Lanes: Use them, or else...
by Treehugger Interns on 08.26.06
Given last week’s heated debate on Treehugger regarding helmets for cyclists, the following story looks set to also cause some controversy. British cyclist Daniel Cadden has just been found guilty of “inconsiderate cycling”. His crime? Well that depends on who you talk to...
The police officers who stopped Daniel apparently claimed that he was blocking traffic because he was cycling too far out from the curb, thereby “forcing” cars to illegally cross the solid white line in the centre of the road in order to overtake. Daniel contested this as he was riding fast downhill, and the national guidelines published by the Stationary Office state that: “The primary riding position (the centre of one’s lane) should be your normal riding position when you can keep up with traffic, or when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you dangerously.” One would be forgiven for assuming that there was no case to be answered. The judge, however, begged to differ. He found the defendant guilty on the grounds that he should have crossed three busy lanes and used the segregated cycle lane that was available to him.
So, should cyclists be forced off the roads if separate lanes are provided? Cycling groups have, after all, been campaigning for safer cycle routes for years. Why should motorists be held up when a safe route exists? Or, as the CTC, the national cyclists’ organisation, argues, is this just another example of cyclists being forced off the road as motorists’ rights are given priority? On the one hand I do have some sympathy with motorists. If we campaign for more cycle paths , it seems rich to then complain when we are asked to use them. On the other hand, the reality is that many cycle paths in the UK are inadequate, and sometimes downright dangerous (the picture above shows a particularly bad example). Many popular routes only enjoy segregated paths for some of their length, and on only one side of the road. In these cases it makes little sense for cyclists to dismount, cross the road to use a designated lane for a mile or two, and then cross again to join traffic. More cycle lanes are certainly welcome, but until they reach a high enough standard of safety and convenience it seems unfair and counterproductive to force cyclists to use them. Having said that, I’m sure those stuck behind me in their 4x4s at rush hour may disagree. [Written by: Sami Grover]
If there is a cycle lane you should use it.
And the bit quoted about preventing following drivers from passing you dangerously just sounds stupid and unsafe.
Bike lane? Absolutely not. L
egally the laws in much of the US are similar to that of the UK in terms of where to ride. Just because there is a lane doesn't mean that it is convenient.
I agree that when possible use a bike lane if it's there, but bike lanes stop and start, and are often cut into by cars for turning, etc. Furthermore when a bike needs to make vehicular maneuvers like turning left or right... well you gotta be where it is safest.
In this situation the biker should have completed going downhill, and if he was holding up traffic, then he should have pulled to the side if it was safe to do so.
The bike lane isn't always the safe lane, and I'll agree with the above group, bikes shouldn't be segregated from drivers - because ti can't be sustained and maintained seperately. There's just not enough bikers to do that. When motorists have less exposure to bikes, then any situation they are in with a bike is more aggrevating and downright dangerous for all parties.
Sorry, bike where it's safe, and whenever possible be courteous, but don't risk your life because someone might be in a hurry and need to pass you.
If you have a SAFE lane (for your speed and type of bike and able to support the amount of bike and or foot traffic) then you should use it. If not your bike is a vehicle and you should take your lane. Vehicles behind should pass when safe and legal.
James, have you ever cycled in the UK, especially in a major city? On a daily basis, I deal with dangerous cycle lanes caused not only by drivers but also by pedestrians. As the article mentions, I am legally entitled to not use a cycle lane if I feel that it is dangerous. My question in this situation is why did the police not stop those drivers who were breaking the law? The cyclist was following the law but the motorists were not ... so, why was it the cyclist being picked on?
There are two reasons some cyclists ride in the middle of the lane to prevent passing
First riding in the middle of the lane ensures visibility. Usually once the car gets close I move to one side of the road
Second, the cyclist might have a different safe passing distance than the motorist, and ride in the middle to prevent any passing at all. Having a car come withing 3 inches of you at 40 miles an hour can be terrifying.
Also, refusing to use bike lanes is not a good way to get more built.
I have to disagree with James. Cycling is my primary means of travel these days and I can assure y'all that there are plenty of situations where the most sensible thing to do is to take the lane so as not to get winged by discourteous motorists speeding by. Being that there are no cycle lanes anywhere around me, I have no experience with them and nothing to offer on that point.
Cycling through London it is often the safest thing to do to control the lane as a motorbike or car might do. This is fine if your speed is adequate or the situation would be dangerous otherwise. And I have yet to experience any frustration from drivers when this is done fairly - waving a thankyou when you pull back also keeps things fair.
I often feel that we are stuck in the middle - can you imagine a pedestrian being arrested for walking in a cycle lane!!
Many cycle lanes share space with pedestrians which is often more dangerous than riding with cars. Wherever they are painted in they never seem to be surfaced in a manner that takes account of the needs of a cycle, in the gutter etc.
Where I live, all of the off-road lanes (of which there are many and they are generally well thought out) have maximum speed limits of 10mph. As a commuter and serious rider, I typically ride closer to 17mph, and often 20+. Riding on the lanes when they are busy (weekends, afternoons) puts unpredictable child riders and slower recreational riders in danger - a situation similar to a car going 40 past a cyclist three inches away.
I'm not anti bike at all before people start thinking that.
And yes, I know in some places cylce lanes are crappy, ie in nottingham where loads of them have trees/bences/bins/etc in the middle of them.
But to me, intentionaly holding up traffic is stupid, inconsiderate and dangerous.
To those people who want cyclists to be treated the same as motorists, how much road tax would you like to pay? ;)
James, sometimes - for instance on narrow bridges or the chicanes in the London 'Ring of steel' - it is safest to temporarily ride in the centre of the lane so that cheeky drivers don't try to edge past you, risking your life just so they can get to their destination 3 seconds earlier.
Most cycle training courses also advise that cyclists ride in the 'primary position' as it reduces confusion for cars behind you about whether to pass you or not, and also tends to mean you catch fewer opened car doors when passing parked traffic.
if im hurtling down a hill- as i do as i leave my house- i find it safer to use the main road lane as opposed to the cycle lane, as you have more room...if not you are too close to the pavement, and if you hit that at speed youre in trouble.
however you should stick to the cycle lane or the roadside if you cant keep up with traffic.
the cyle lanes here in britain arent the best though, maybe we should take our cues from amsterdam.
As a motorist before becoming a cycle commuter, I would take joy in terrorizing cyclists who i though were not riding close enough to the curb by driving past then as close as I could with out hitting them.
As a result I am one of those cyclists who ride there bike as close to the curb as is possible.
In this case it is evident that the judge is not a cyclists, (nor the traffic officer) as i identify with there verdict from my position as a former motorist.
As a cyclists I have the right just as a motorist to take the most direct rout to my destination, despite attempts to create cycle lanes.
A consideration in my choice of rout as a motorist is traffic, number of stops, distance and time.
As a cyclists it is safety number of stop's, avoiding inclines, distance and time.
This irresponsible ruling that should be challenged did not take into consideration that the motorists could choose to use roads with double lanes only (probably compromising greatly on distance or even impacting his desired destination) or choose a rout with less traffic, or even choose to use a bike and help reduce the UK's carbon emissions.
I see more conflict of this nature in the future, unless governments recognize the importance cycling can play in an economy. ie: reducing green house gases, dependence on foreign oil, reducing the cost of infrastructure (roads), increasing exercisers / health, etc.
Government publicly acknowledging the benefits of cycling could help to create awareness that driving is at the cost to the environment and health, and should not be a right but a less desirable choice and cyclists are not a burden but people making an better choice.
My $0.02 worth Tim
This U.K.-based article does not translate well to my U.S. cycling advocacy perspective. I see a confusion of term. Bike lanes are never separate from the road -- those are called shared-use paths, sidewalks, or something similar. Paths are always segregated from the road. Is the article advocating for more bike lanes or paths?
Just so that everyone knows ... the verdict is being appealled by the Cyclists' Defense Fund.
From what I'm hearing U.K. is a lot more bicycle friendly. Where I live, Bicycle lanes are used to park cars on. Or as extra space for cars to manuever.
Agreed, here in NYC bike lanes are mainly for delivery trucks, cabs, and pedestrians hailing cabs. All of which give you no respect. I have never seen anyone getting a ticket for parking in a bicycle lane. Pedestrians are the worst because they will literally look you in the eye and if there are no cars coming behind you they will walk right out in front of you. That's why I ride as close as I can to them and skid when I get to them. It really pisses me off when they do that, but when I get to see them dance my anger quickly turns to laughter. Like they say, you gotta give respect to get it, and if you do that you're fair game in my book.
If you want to see some fine examples of 'quality' UK cycle paths check out http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month
If they made sensible routes I would use them, but a cycle lane that is 2 metres long, or shared with a footpath/sidewalk isn't going to work for me.
There are loads like that with stuff stuck in the middle.
Every lane is a bike lane!
When you start discriminating against certain types of road users this is what happens. That's why I have decided (after much research) that the Same Roads, Same Rules, Same Rights policy is the best and safest for bicyclists. I understand that my findings are controversial, and that both cyclists and motorists prefer to shun cyclists off into the sidelines of the roadways. And while I'm definitely a fan of having cars kept out of my way, and of prioritizing bike (and other small/efficient vehicle) travel but I simply can't, in good conscience, promote segregated roadways because the danger of cyclist inferiority is so high.
So there you have my thoughts on the matter. If you are travelling on the road, you have a right to be there in whatever lane is the most appropriate one for your direction of travel. If someone is behind you, and there isn't room to pass, then they need to wait just like everyone else in traffic.
Also, consider what happens when our dreams do come true and bikes (and other HPVs) far outnumber cars. If we have spent all our bicycle advocacy making tiny little bike lanes and paths, we'll have empty roads and packed bike lanes. That would just be silly. No it just makes far more sense to use the roads for all traffic, and make sure that everyone knows that this is the way it is and that if they don't like it they can take the train :-)
I commute every day in Stockport/Manchester. When given a chance (no traffic) I reach about 24mph with my legs. During busy periods I am often slowed down by cars and other motorised traffic. For me - cars slow me down rather than vica-versa. They then have the cheek, having slowed down my journey and fumigated me, to zoom past me as soon as they can which means using at least (minimum) 6 to 7 horsepower to beat air-resistance and that's not counting 21% efficiency against my (body-ineffiencient as well) 0.5 to 1 horsepower output for my 4.2 mile journey. I still beat my partner who unfortunately drives to the same workplace. So the car, overall slower than me, during busy periods in a city, forces me to be slower, uses at least 12 times as much energy as me (depending on where I get my food from and wind conditions etc. and traffic flow and car size etc. etc. and etc.) - ... and has right of way on the road. Oh - the car kills a lot of people too. Does it make sense? I'm looking forward to being electric again on my bike - more efficient than my body on the bike itself, and depending on where the powerstation is (although we're with wind) it might just be more efficient than my eating as I don't have an allotment. Dave.
How about the Police start prosecuting people who park in bike lanes. Or those who occupy the green 'safe area' at traffic lights that cyclists can use to turn right in. These are huge deterents to cyclists using cycle lanes. I've almost been flattened on numerous occaissions when I've had to pull out of a bike lane to pass a car parked on it.
And as for the 10 yard long bike lanes that my local council is so fond of installing...
And there seems to be very little enthusiasm from the councils to sweep the cycle lanes round our way, so they're usually covered in crud, hedge clippings, nails etc
I'll keep riding on the road thanks. I have enough nouse to look after myself, don't scare walkers as I cruise by at 25 mph and i can control the traffic in my lane if I have to.
It's about time plod employed a bit more sense in enforce the ass that the law sometimes is.