Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nick W]

Either a lack of knowledge or stupid...

I think it`s the latter as it is easily visible, it`s a good size and off the main road, everything a cycle lane should be.

Well designed junctions? Decent, maintained road surface clear of obstructions? All the road complaints apply to cycle lanes too.
Just because it's there doesn't necessarily make it safer.


As a cyclist, I would rather they stopped playing with cycle lanes, and spent the money on maintaining the roads better.

[Mr Gav]

Either a lack of knowledge or stupid...

I think it`s the latter as it is easily visible, it`s a good size and off the main road, everything a cycle lane should be.

Well designed junctions? Decent, maintained road surface clear of obstructions? All the road complaints apply to cycle lanes too.
Just because it's there doesn't necessarily make it safer.


As a cyclist, I would rather they stopped playing with cycle lanes, and spent the money on maintaining the roads better.

It`s a brand new tarmac purpose built cycle lane Nick so it shouldn`t need any maintenance in the short term 

[Andy B]

  I will use a safe cycle path when one is available (the unsafe ones get ignored, I cycle too fast for their design). 

A bit of a funny comment that, cyclists wanting motorists to slow down for their safety yet won`t use a slower cycle path which would keep them safe 

You see that regularly here, they prefer to take on a 4 lane by-pass instead of using the cycle lane that takes them slightly out of their way

Leeds City Council have spent quite a bit of money putting in some decent cycle lanes on the major routes in and out of Leeds but I see one lad on a morning using the A64 dual carriageway instead of the excellent cycle lane provided, risking his life with buses and HGV`s and to a lesser extent cars. 

From a local motorway junction to a local massive industrial park there is a 10/12 ft wide cycle lane adjacent to the road. It's there because the road is used almost exclusively by HGVs. Recently I saw half a dozen lycra clad knobs riding along the road followed very closely by one of said HGVs that couldn't pass. The cyclists gained nothing other than frustrating the following traffic, the cycle lane was empty.

[Kevin Wood]

Cycle lanes just serve to give motorists another reason to moan about cyclists whilst allowing the council to tick their "cycle friendly" box.

I've certainly never come across one around here that's of any practical use for a cyclist. They are either much too twisty to maintain a sensible speed, require you to dismount and cross a side road every couple of hundred yards, have pedestrians wandering around on them, or simply don't go anywhere you'd want to go, or anywhere at all.

We would indeed be better off abandoning any idea of separating cyclists and other traffic and instead upgrade to road so it's free of pot holes right to the kerb and free of traffic calming features that endanger cyclists.

[Bigron]

You have it spot on, Kevin. Not only uiseless, but a danger: paramedics hate the Segregated type because motorists now have nowhere to move over to in order to let them and other emergency services pass, so are lobbying to have them removed.
London is a case in point - well done, Boris!
Non-segregated lanes, such as those on FOOTpaths, are the work of the devil; not only are they another source of needless danger, but because cyclists are allowed on SOME footpaths, they feel that that have every right to cycle (often recklessly) on any pavement.

Ron.

[Andy B]

Cycle lanes just serve to give motorists another reason to moan about cyclists whilst allowing the council to tick their "cycle friendly" box.

I've certainly never come across one around here that's of any practical use for a cyclist. They are either much too twisty to maintain a sensible speed, require you to dismount and cross a side road every couple of hundred yards, have pedestrians wandering around on them, or simply don't go anywhere you'd want to go, or anywhere at all.

We would indeed be better off abandoning any idea of separating cyclists and other traffic and instead upgrade to road so it's free of pot holes right to the kerb and free of traffic calming features that endanger cyclists.

They do exist. There's the one as in my previous post, one along side parts of the 'East Lancs' & there were some excellent cycle lanes alongside a 'bus way' (I'd never heard of one before) in Cambridge

[Bigron]

Unfortunately, this country just isn't big enough to cater for the needs of all road users, so those who own and pay for the roads (the motorists) must take priority.
If cyclists want dedicated road space, they must pay for it, as do motorists, in the same way - via licensing and taxation. No contributu=ion = no road space.
Those who are also motorists will claim that they already pay, which 9is true, but ONLY as motorists, not cyclists, in which role they are freeloading! 

Ron.

[ronnyd]

I mostly use the cycle lanes, but as Guffer says, some ain,t fit for purpose. The worst ones, for me that is, are when shared with stupid pedestrians with their i-pods, phones, 100 yard long doggie leads etc. Also the markings have now worn away so no one knows which is bike lane and which is for pedestrians. Not that they cared if they could see the markings anyway

[Bigron]

"Stupid" pedestrians,  ronnyd? What, for using FOOTpaths provided for their use?
Come now.....

Ron.

[ronnyd]

I did say shared Ron lad.

[Bigron]

I still like the "Lad", but i disagree with this dangerous shared thing - feet and pedals are incompatible, especially when those feet belong to children and the infirm.
Surely only a politician/self-serving councillor would argue otherwise?

The cycle lobby, in their persistent claims to privileges that they are not entitled to are well on the way to developing a climate in which they will be banned from everywhere except private parks and trackways.

Ron.

[ronnyd]

I agree 100% with you Ron lad Shared space for riders and walkers just doesn,t work for me, for the reasons i stated earlier.

[Bigron]

Good; I'm glad I didn't upset you but this "war" isn't going to end soon because our several needs are quite different - but it's good to tease! 

Ron.

[Gaffers]

You really believe that as a cyclist i haven't paid anything towards the roads? Do you live in 1936? Because that was the last year in which road tax existed in its entirety (was abolished in 1937) at which point VED came in to effect and roads were paid for out of general taxation. That income, corporate, value added as well as things like VED. I dont want to disclose how much tax i pay but lets put it this way, i am a company director, i get a decent salary and pay full tax, i also pay corporation tax as well as a hefty vat bill.  I pay ved on 2 cars, a spend way too much (according to the missus) on bikes, parts, accessories and services. But hey, i suddenly become a freeloading tax dodging scrounger once i get on 2 wheels.

Coincidentally, guess how much the VED was for the leaf i used to have? £0. Yup the aqure root of sweet fa.

Also consider that a decent road bike can cost 4k.  That's 800 quid in vat right there and then. Plus if you get nee tyres, a few inner tubes and an annual service you can add a couple of hundred a year to that so there another 40 squids.

Still think that cyclists dont pay for the road?

[STEMO]

Look here, Matt, you're on our road. If you want to pedal about the place, get yourself a cycle lane. That's that, no more to say.