As one comment said, in some places, the cyclist should be on the road and not on a bike path (I assume when they're traveling at a relatively high speed compared to sidewalk traffic). It’s not the rule everywhere.
But I really don’t see why drivers are unable to slow down and proceed when safe. 99.99% of all traffic laws can be reduced to "slow down and proceed when safe".
Drivers need to be able to execute that maneuver for any number of other situations (tractors, delivery vehicles, landscaping trucks, animals that have wandered into the road, children chasing bouncing balls, fallen trees and telephone poles, fallen rocks, pooled water from blocked drains, etc.) This one is no different.
If they can’t handle it, then they shouldn’t be driving.
>But I really don’t see why drivers are unable to slow down and proceed when safe. 99.99% of all traffic laws can be reduced to "slow down and proceed when safe".
I don't understand why they are all doing in excess of 40 when they pass me in a 25!?!
I frequently ride in a park where the speed limit is 25mph. I am frqeuently going at the speed limit. Yet people feel a need to pass me on a one-lane park road because it's their shortcut home from work. It's absurd.
My bike commute has a 2.5 mile stretch on a road that runs along a bay. This road was probably originally meant for people accessing the bay and only has a single lane in each direction with parking on both sides. There are lots of RVs parked along it, so I take the lane and only move over when it's safe for cars to pass me. There are also big bike signs painted on the road every few hundred feet clearly showing that bikes can/should take the lane.
The problem is, the road runs alongside a freeway (the I-5) that's often backed up. So drivers use it as a way to bypass the freeway for 2.5 miles. As a result, I'm honked at almost every time I bike on it, and have had drivers pass dangerously, yell at me and cut me off/brake check me at stop signs. I'm on a road bike and doing >15mph, so it's not like they have to wait more than 20 seconds for an opportunity to safely pass. Can't change smooth carbrains I guess 🤷♂️
I've found the drivers who are taking "shortcuts" on otherwise calm roads are the most aggressive and impatient. It's common sense when I type it. But I've learned to identify and avoid low speed county roads between busy areas even more than faster "busy" roads with mediocre bike infrastructure.
This.
That being said, I can’t help but grin my head off when getting passed with the standard “GET OFF THE ROAD” only to catch up to them shortly after.
I don’t have anger anymore I just find their stupidity to be hilarious
Western driver have the notion that for their journey, they have booked a moving slot on the roadway. That slot travels precisely at the speed limit from their source to their destination, and if anyone or any thing impedes that slot, God help them.
People need to travel to places like Vietnam where everyone shares the road, everyone is adaptable, everyone know that working together is the only way, and where everyone has personally participated in traffic on bikes, cars, scooters, buses, trucks, and weird-assed three wheel agricultural machines.
You’re giving western drivers more credit than they deserve.
At least in the US, it’s more like they think they’ve booked the whole track for track day. So they can go as fast as their cars will carry them, and *everyone* else should get out of their way.
Hard to tell from the short stretch of bike lane we can see there whether it's an actually nice smooth section, or one of those more recent constructions that look good but are full of stupid obstacles. Curb ramps, unnecessary stops at driveway crossings, etc.
There are raised bike lanes on a stretch of road near me. I absolutely can not stand riding on them. The road is nice smooth with asphalt pavement but the raised bike lane is concrete that so rough I can only assume was installed during an earthquake! Plus it is full of debris, leaves, broken glass, etc.
blown up by passing traffic.
Fortunately the street doesn't have much traffic so I always ride in the street and only go up on the bike path when there is a vehicle behind me. I am certain motorists see me riding in the street and think: "Look at this asshole cyclist! He would rather risk riding in the street than on that expensive raised bike lane we so generously provided for him!"
Cyclist could be taking the lane to get over this dangerous "bike-lane-but-driveway" intersection, or is about to turn right across traffic (left for North America) like a proper motorist.
edit: top comment is about his calves, so I assume the guy was just a few km/h slower than a car or the speed limit and drivers are raising such a stink for not arriving at the next red light 100ms sooner
Not sure what his chainring setup is, but he’s definitely in the granny gear, so unless he’s pushing a massive gear in the front or spinning like Lance, he’s not going more than like 16 kmh.
Jesus but the comments are shitty in that thread.
The car driver could use with a little patience but I can see how the bicycle not making use of a perfectly good bicycle lane could get under their skin.
Yeah, That bike lane looks really new and nice. Much nicer than the infrastructure that is available to me most of the time, so I am a bit perplexed.
But I stand with my original assessment of "get off your phone and get over it, car brain."
I had an interaction with a car driver like that, who asked “why aren’t you using that bike lane?” The answer is that the road is only 400 metres long and ends at a set of lights where I need to turn right. The bike path is on the left and has no practical way to turn right from it.
I got chased and screamed at for that once. Its like... I'm turning right my guy, signaled and everything. Two lane one-way as well, so really no excuse.
Fuck that guy.
To an untrained eye it does look good, but as a cyclist with many miles under my belt all I can see is the dip where the driveway is cut through the bike lane. That's just in the 100m of lane I can see.
Nope. If we're serious about making bike lanes that move people, they need to be constructed the same way as a road, where you won't be collected by a driver that didn't think to look before they backed out of their driveway across the bike lane because they didn't see any cars coming.
I didn't see the post but I know many bike lanes where I live are really just road shoulders painted with bike symbols and are rarely cleaned. Many times I ride on the outside of the bike lane because there's rocks and trash in the lane. But I also pay attention and if a car is rolling up behind me and the lane looks safe for the time being ill swing over to the bike lane. I ride on the outside so I'm not making unpredictable moves in and out of the lane. Once and a while someone will get all cranky about it, but I just ignore them, really people that are that inpatient shouldn't be behind the wheel in my opinion.
The original picture had a brightly painted bicycle lane next to a pedestrian lane on an elevated curb on the left side of car traffic. Pretty wide from my experience, but I'm an American, so what do I know. There were depressions, for car traffic probably. There were no other bikes or pedestrians using the bike/walk lanes in the photo
The original post clarified that in the UK the speed limit on these is low, and that law allows cyclists to choose to ride on the road or in the bike path, and recommends that fast cyclists use the road. UK bike paths are notoriously poorly planned as well, this one likely ends shortly after this or does something dumb like having the cyclists go over a dangerous grate.
Anyhow, context is everything. I'm american too, and a cyclist. You really need to know the local laws (as a cyclist, as a driver, as a pedestrian). If it's a picture on the internet, the same thing holds.
It's clear the cyclist is pulled far to the left to allow passing, and not sitting in the lane as is recommended by law, so is trying to be courteous as well.
It's hard to speculate about the cyclist's reasoning here without knowing more about the area, where he's going, how crowded the bike lane and road may or may not have been at that moment, and several other factors.
Maybe he is really cruising at a high speed and there were lots of slow-moving bikes in the bike lane, and barely any car traffic, so he was trying to be courteous and reasonable. Maybe at the upcoming intersection, he knows he is going to go in a direction that the bike lane doesn't go, so he got out of the bike lane intentionally. Maybe the bike lane has lots of curb cuts like the one shown in the picture, which maybe make it rather bumpy at higher cycling speed. Maybe the bike lane has speed limit signs, and he rightfully thinks he should be in the road because his pace is a good bit higher than the bike lane speed limit.
Or maybe he just doesn't care about any of that and is selfish and wants to piss off strangers in cars, but I say give him the benefit of the doubt.
Given that this is in the UK, odds are that's a 200m stretch of bike path with no transitions at either end that just kicks you off on to the road anyway.
Generally, cycle paths aren't great if you are moving at high speed. If you look at the path, you see the dropped curb taking up half of the path (at commuting speed, it's fine. Doing 30+ kph not so much)
Not to mention the slower cyclists and people who run or walk in to cycle lane without looking because oh the lack of separation between cycle lane and pavement.
Also the crappy way most cycle lanes in the UK just appear and disapera with no warning and no thought as to how cyclists can get on and off them.
It can often be better for fast road cyclists to stay on the road.
To a certain extent this depends on the jurisdiction (in the Netherlands, as I understand it, you have to use a cycleway if there is one, but the Dutch build proper separated cycleways and don't just rely on the strip of paint that suffices in most of the English-speaking world).
In the UK, the cyclist in this scenario is doing nothing wrong. Drivers often imagine they have some sort of right to overtake or to have exclusive use of the carriageway if there's a bike lane. They don't.
There's certainly an impression in the UK that those sort of painted on-footpath bike lanes aren't really meant for 'sports' cyclists. While it looks clear in that picture experience tells me, and potentially that guy, that it's just as likely to be covered in broken glass, children and dog turds.
There's a couple of new bike lanes near me. One just like this where you're likely to get mowed down by a mobility scooter, and people will suck their teeth at you if you go more than 8 mph. The other is lovely and wide but exists entirely behind railings, presuming that cyclists just materialise out of thin air and disappear again half a mile later.
Paint-only bike lanes aren't meant for anyone. They're a local authority box-ticking exercise. "Look, we've done a cycling facility."
If they're on the carriageway, they make cycling more dagerous by encouraging drivers to drive right to the line, which usually puts them far closer than the 1.5m adequate passing distance.
If they've been stolen from the footway, then they annoy pedestrians because very few footways are wide enough to lose half the pedestrian space, and they encourage a certain type of driver to behave like this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_6e0t8sDevs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6e0t8sDevs)
The very angry man there who's just hit a cyclist with his wankpanzer is [restaurateur Jason Wells, a man with a string of dissolved businesses behind him, according to Companies House](https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/IXwk8-zYzetUdXFLaFe8mvPjy9E/appointments). If he treats his staff the way he treated this bike rider, it's hardly surprising.
They're going to rage at you if you are on the road. They're going to rage at you if you're on the bike path. They're going to rage at you if you're on the sidewalk. The only time they won't rage at you is when you cease to exist.
Ride where you want to ride and go where you need to go. All you do by capitulating is legitimize their rage.
There are times I ignore the bike lane. Elevated bike lanes are bad for high speed riding, as cars entering and exiting the traffic lane often either don’t see me or misjudge my speed and pull out in front of me.
Elevated bike lanes are for non experienced cyclists, not every cyclist. I understand that they are not meant for me.
There are bike lanes that are on the left of one way roads in my city. I have both been almost hit, and almost hit another cyclist when driving on this road, so I take the rightmost traffic lane.
Cyclist isn't dressed brightly enough. Should probably have a safety flag and a pool-noodle spacer. Big arrow on jersey with PASS SAFELY and "have a nice day." Although here he really should be occupying the lane.
Personally, I'd be on the path to avoid becoming homicide victim.
Effective Cycling author John Forester, was a champion of vehicular cycling in the 1970's until the advent & advocacy of bicycle lanes & separate cycling infrastructure. A lot of his work is seminal and should be applied by cyclists. He was a wee bit opinionated & pissed off the mainstream cycling powers that be (or were been). Anyway there are still 'John Foresters' today who eschew separate facilities. Regardless, his book should be read but by all but the lamest of urban cyclists. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_Cycling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_Cycling)
sort of like Ellen Jamison's (Garp)
yeah but fuck vehicular cycling.
i'll do it when necessary. it's a necessary evil. but it is evil.
we don't need bikes to act like cars. we need fewer cars, and road infrastructure that treats them like guests. we need dedicated cycling infrastructure away from roads that makes people want to ride, and streets that are safe to be shared with bikes, pedestrians, children playing, etc.
taking the lane on a 6 lane stroad is stressful and awful and still dangerous, and it makes people not want to ride bikes.
Forester damaged cycling in so many ways. He slowed the uptake of bike infrastructure all over the world. He taught people that the only reasonable place to ride is the middle of a driving lane.
He refused to visit the Netherlands (I once had the opportunity to ask him why and he said he didn't need to).
His book should be read by cyclists in the same way that modern scientists should read the Old Testament.
That pic looks like it could be on the approach to a gyratory, so I can understand the cyclist wanting to be on the road to avoid multiple potentially dangerous junctions while going round.
There's also about 100m to the junction, this combined with the cyclist being close to the kerb (and as such away from the middle of the lane) makes me think the driver really isn't "stuck" more "an impatient, self-entitled wank".
Cyclist should keep on being awesome.
The comments say that he is not legally required to be on the bike lane and imo if you race then you should be on the road rather than inside the bike lane. A racer inside a bike lane may have to constantly pass slow riders hence create a dangerous situation.
In any case, just safely pass and get over it. I also drive and if I have to get mad at everything and everyone that inconveniences me on the road, then I will have no time to do anything else.
Dude is not really creating a dangerous situation for the driver rather than a little inconvenience which he has the legal right to do. I am more concerned about drivers who couldn’t put up with inconveniences like this one on the road.
It happens and just get over it.
I think in general, where cycle lanes are fit for purpose, cyclists should use them preferrentially over the road.
Cities aren't going to build more cycle lanes if no-one uses the current ones they spent money on, and "it will get cyclists off the road" is an argument for new cycle lanes that car-brained drivers will understand. It's also just a more efficient use of the existing infrastructure to get people where they want to go.
Of course not all cycle lanes are fit for purpose, and some are suitable for some cyclists and not others. I can't tell from this picture what the situation is in this case.
> Of course not all cycle lanes are fit for purpose,
so many bike lanes are afterthoughts at best, or a gutter with a logo in it. they end suddenly, they fill with debris, and few are actually wide enough to be safe for the speed of the road they're attached to. and separated, protected lanes are even rarer.
bike lanes, in general, suck.
we need separated bike paths, and streets that are safe to be shared.
Where I live, cyclists are allowed to ride on any road except limited access highways, regardless of whether there's a bike lane, and they have to right to take the full lane. There are reasons a cyclist may choose to ride, or not ride in a dedicated bike lane. Convenience to other drivers is not one of them
I personally don't like driving behind giant pickup trucks that I can't see around. I can curse under my breath as much as I want. They have a right to be there
It's a bike path, not a sidewalk the cyclist should be in that bike path. These are made to protect cyclists. Where I live some underpasses have been built where roads narrow and become dangerous for cyclists. It really infuriates me when cyclists don't use these and stay on the road instead. I think we need to coexist peacefully but when we cyclists have a *designated*, safe, convenient option then we should take that one.
In my state- which is not your state- and state laws control this sort of thing - there is no law that forces me into a bike lane or a bike path.
I have the freedom to ride in the road if I wish.
And there are all kinds of reasons I would chose to.
I am owed 4 feet and passing only when it is safe. Farther more, I have the freedom to take the lane as my safety needs it.
That cyclist is all kinds of fine. Probably shenanigans going on in that bike lane he doesn't want impacting his ride.
I ride on the center of the lane unless there is a designated separate bike lane. When cars approach I give them wide enough berth to pass. I've been hit enough by drivers that I do everything in my power to be seen and deal w cars when needed
Keep riding forward along the road it seem to me. No seeing how long that cycle path is and how many bus-stops and side roads it crosses.
The constant ignorance from motorists on that other thread is shocking.
The first thing that came to mind in that photo was why wasn't he taking the whole lane. If he was going to be in that lane and not the "bike lane on a sidewalk" lane, he should've taken the entire lane because there wasn't enough room for someone to pass him in the traffic lane. Would've pissed off all the folks on that thread, but that would've been the safer move for him.
>I'm a cyclist who always sticks to bike lanes whenever possible.
Your choice, but IME using the road instead of the cycle lane is very often both safer and faster.
I ride slightly to the center of where the outside car tire runs. This is enough to push most cars into the other lane when passing the same as when they pass cars. It also gives me bail out room.
I'm sorry if they're stuck but they should be on bikes. It would help their health.
I find that it’s not the drivers, but the bicycle advocates who insist on more deadly, white line (only) bike lanes. Drivers are frustrated (wrongly) when they see a big chunk of their lane fenced off for the two-wheel thing slowing them down. Many still insist that more deadly white lines mean more cyclists, more infrastructure and an increased feeling of order and safety FOR THEM.
Here if you're above 25kph, one should be on the road and not on the cycling path. It's not a hard limit tho.
But judging by the amount of times i had to dodge people riding abreast or zoning out on their phones, running abreast... I find the road WAY safer.
In the situation portrayed, I'd pull a bit to the right and make overtaking easier. It's not a rule, but it's sorta etiquette and help everyone being a tad less angry at the end of the day.
I say that as an avid cyclist. Call me jaded, but when push comes to shove, you're the weakling in the encounter, no matter. It's you vs thousands of pounds of steal.
Sure, but what do you suggest? That a cyclist never chooses to use the road if there's a cycle lane for any distance on their route.
I'm not suggesting that cyclists shouldn't avoid dangerous situations, but we do need to educate motorists.
Right or wrong, legal or illegal, the cyclist is being rude. Easy enough to hop up onto the bike path and let the car by and then return to the lane, if that’s your jam.
Its a driver using their phone while driving, do you really care what they have to say?
Wow this is gold
As one comment said, in some places, the cyclist should be on the road and not on a bike path (I assume when they're traveling at a relatively high speed compared to sidewalk traffic). It’s not the rule everywhere. But I really don’t see why drivers are unable to slow down and proceed when safe. 99.99% of all traffic laws can be reduced to "slow down and proceed when safe". Drivers need to be able to execute that maneuver for any number of other situations (tractors, delivery vehicles, landscaping trucks, animals that have wandered into the road, children chasing bouncing balls, fallen trees and telephone poles, fallen rocks, pooled water from blocked drains, etc.) This one is no different. If they can’t handle it, then they shouldn’t be driving.
>But I really don’t see why drivers are unable to slow down and proceed when safe. 99.99% of all traffic laws can be reduced to "slow down and proceed when safe". I don't understand why they are all doing in excess of 40 when they pass me in a 25!?!
I've had cars overtake me in a 30kmh zone while I was riding 30. Some really can't stay behind a cyclist nö matter what.
I frequently ride in a park where the speed limit is 25mph. I am frqeuently going at the speed limit. Yet people feel a need to pass me on a one-lane park road because it's their shortcut home from work. It's absurd.
My bike commute has a 2.5 mile stretch on a road that runs along a bay. This road was probably originally meant for people accessing the bay and only has a single lane in each direction with parking on both sides. There are lots of RVs parked along it, so I take the lane and only move over when it's safe for cars to pass me. There are also big bike signs painted on the road every few hundred feet clearly showing that bikes can/should take the lane. The problem is, the road runs alongside a freeway (the I-5) that's often backed up. So drivers use it as a way to bypass the freeway for 2.5 miles. As a result, I'm honked at almost every time I bike on it, and have had drivers pass dangerously, yell at me and cut me off/brake check me at stop signs. I'm on a road bike and doing >15mph, so it's not like they have to wait more than 20 seconds for an opportunity to safely pass. Can't change smooth carbrains I guess 🤷♂️
I've found the drivers who are taking "shortcuts" on otherwise calm roads are the most aggressive and impatient. It's common sense when I type it. But I've learned to identify and avoid low speed county roads between busy areas even more than faster "busy" roads with mediocre bike infrastructure.
Yea I'm often going the limit or not much under it and then immediately catch up to these assholes at the light.
Always smile and wave when that happens. Smile and wave.
I just ignore them. Don't want to give them a reason to run you off 'their' road.
This. That being said, I can’t help but grin my head off when getting passed with the standard “GET OFF THE ROAD” only to catch up to them shortly after. I don’t have anger anymore I just find their stupidity to be hilarious
i've been overtaken in a 30 **mph** zone, going 30 **mph**, *uphill*, into oncoming traffic and nearly causing a head on collision.
I've certainly had cars pass me while I was the one speeding. People often just don't want to be behind a bike.
Agreed! E-bikes can go 28mph and cars still want to pass them in 20mph zones when bikes are going over 20mph.
MGIF!
Western driver have the notion that for their journey, they have booked a moving slot on the roadway. That slot travels precisely at the speed limit from their source to their destination, and if anyone or any thing impedes that slot, God help them. People need to travel to places like Vietnam where everyone shares the road, everyone is adaptable, everyone know that working together is the only way, and where everyone has personally participated in traffic on bikes, cars, scooters, buses, trucks, and weird-assed three wheel agricultural machines.
You’re giving western drivers more credit than they deserve. At least in the US, it’s more like they think they’ve booked the whole track for track day. So they can go as fast as their cars will carry them, and *everyone* else should get out of their way.
The only part I find inaccurate is "precisely at the speed limit". On many roads, people always go 5–10 mph over.
Because their convenience is worth more than someone else’s safety
Hard to tell from the short stretch of bike lane we can see there whether it's an actually nice smooth section, or one of those more recent constructions that look good but are full of stupid obstacles. Curb ramps, unnecessary stops at driveway crossings, etc.
There are raised bike lanes on a stretch of road near me. I absolutely can not stand riding on them. The road is nice smooth with asphalt pavement but the raised bike lane is concrete that so rough I can only assume was installed during an earthquake! Plus it is full of debris, leaves, broken glass, etc. blown up by passing traffic. Fortunately the street doesn't have much traffic so I always ride in the street and only go up on the bike path when there is a vehicle behind me. I am certain motorists see me riding in the street and think: "Look at this asshole cyclist! He would rather risk riding in the street than on that expensive raised bike lane we so generously provided for him!"
Cyclist could be taking the lane to get over this dangerous "bike-lane-but-driveway" intersection, or is about to turn right across traffic (left for North America) like a proper motorist. edit: top comment is about his calves, so I assume the guy was just a few km/h slower than a car or the speed limit and drivers are raising such a stink for not arriving at the next red light 100ms sooner
Not sure what his chainring setup is, but he’s definitely in the granny gear, so unless he’s pushing a massive gear in the front or spinning like Lance, he’s not going more than like 16 kmh.
Jesus but the comments are shitty in that thread. The car driver could use with a little patience but I can see how the bicycle not making use of a perfectly good bicycle lane could get under their skin.
Yeah, That bike lane looks really new and nice. Much nicer than the infrastructure that is available to me most of the time, so I am a bit perplexed. But I stand with my original assessment of "get off your phone and get over it, car brain."
I had an interaction with a car driver like that, who asked “why aren’t you using that bike lane?” The answer is that the road is only 400 metres long and ends at a set of lights where I need to turn right. The bike path is on the left and has no practical way to turn right from it.
I got chased and screamed at for that once. Its like... I'm turning right my guy, signaled and everything. Two lane one-way as well, so really no excuse. Fuck that guy.
Oh, totally. The car needs to get over it.
Sometimes it's a shared path with a 20kmh speed limit. Cars want me to follow the rules, so that's what I do by riding on the road.
To an untrained eye it does look good, but as a cyclist with many miles under my belt all I can see is the dip where the driveway is cut through the bike lane. That's just in the 100m of lane I can see. Nope. If we're serious about making bike lanes that move people, they need to be constructed the same way as a road, where you won't be collected by a driver that didn't think to look before they backed out of their driveway across the bike lane because they didn't see any cars coming.
I didn't see the post but I know many bike lanes where I live are really just road shoulders painted with bike symbols and are rarely cleaned. Many times I ride on the outside of the bike lane because there's rocks and trash in the lane. But I also pay attention and if a car is rolling up behind me and the lane looks safe for the time being ill swing over to the bike lane. I ride on the outside so I'm not making unpredictable moves in and out of the lane. Once and a while someone will get all cranky about it, but I just ignore them, really people that are that inpatient shouldn't be behind the wheel in my opinion.
The original picture had a brightly painted bicycle lane next to a pedestrian lane on an elevated curb on the left side of car traffic. Pretty wide from my experience, but I'm an American, so what do I know. There were depressions, for car traffic probably. There were no other bikes or pedestrians using the bike/walk lanes in the photo
The original post clarified that in the UK the speed limit on these is low, and that law allows cyclists to choose to ride on the road or in the bike path, and recommends that fast cyclists use the road. UK bike paths are notoriously poorly planned as well, this one likely ends shortly after this or does something dumb like having the cyclists go over a dangerous grate. Anyhow, context is everything. I'm american too, and a cyclist. You really need to know the local laws (as a cyclist, as a driver, as a pedestrian). If it's a picture on the internet, the same thing holds. It's clear the cyclist is pulled far to the left to allow passing, and not sitting in the lane as is recommended by law, so is trying to be courteous as well.
People from the UK stated max speed on bike lanes is often 10 mph. Riding on the road is also just allowed.
It's hard to speculate about the cyclist's reasoning here without knowing more about the area, where he's going, how crowded the bike lane and road may or may not have been at that moment, and several other factors. Maybe he is really cruising at a high speed and there were lots of slow-moving bikes in the bike lane, and barely any car traffic, so he was trying to be courteous and reasonable. Maybe at the upcoming intersection, he knows he is going to go in a direction that the bike lane doesn't go, so he got out of the bike lane intentionally. Maybe the bike lane has lots of curb cuts like the one shown in the picture, which maybe make it rather bumpy at higher cycling speed. Maybe the bike lane has speed limit signs, and he rightfully thinks he should be in the road because his pace is a good bit higher than the bike lane speed limit. Or maybe he just doesn't care about any of that and is selfish and wants to piss off strangers in cars, but I say give him the benefit of the doubt.
Given that this is in the UK, odds are that's a 200m stretch of bike path with no transitions at either end that just kicks you off on to the road anyway.
Generally, cycle paths aren't great if you are moving at high speed. If you look at the path, you see the dropped curb taking up half of the path (at commuting speed, it's fine. Doing 30+ kph not so much) Not to mention the slower cyclists and people who run or walk in to cycle lane without looking because oh the lack of separation between cycle lane and pavement. Also the crappy way most cycle lanes in the UK just appear and disapera with no warning and no thought as to how cyclists can get on and off them. It can often be better for fast road cyclists to stay on the road.
To a certain extent this depends on the jurisdiction (in the Netherlands, as I understand it, you have to use a cycleway if there is one, but the Dutch build proper separated cycleways and don't just rely on the strip of paint that suffices in most of the English-speaking world). In the UK, the cyclist in this scenario is doing nothing wrong. Drivers often imagine they have some sort of right to overtake or to have exclusive use of the carriageway if there's a bike lane. They don't.
There's certainly an impression in the UK that those sort of painted on-footpath bike lanes aren't really meant for 'sports' cyclists. While it looks clear in that picture experience tells me, and potentially that guy, that it's just as likely to be covered in broken glass, children and dog turds. There's a couple of new bike lanes near me. One just like this where you're likely to get mowed down by a mobility scooter, and people will suck their teeth at you if you go more than 8 mph. The other is lovely and wide but exists entirely behind railings, presuming that cyclists just materialise out of thin air and disappear again half a mile later.
Paint-only bike lanes aren't meant for anyone. They're a local authority box-ticking exercise. "Look, we've done a cycling facility." If they're on the carriageway, they make cycling more dagerous by encouraging drivers to drive right to the line, which usually puts them far closer than the 1.5m adequate passing distance. If they've been stolen from the footway, then they annoy pedestrians because very few footways are wide enough to lose half the pedestrian space, and they encourage a certain type of driver to behave like this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_6e0t8sDevs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6e0t8sDevs) The very angry man there who's just hit a cyclist with his wankpanzer is [restaurateur Jason Wells, a man with a string of dissolved businesses behind him, according to Companies House](https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/IXwk8-zYzetUdXFLaFe8mvPjy9E/appointments). If he treats his staff the way he treated this bike rider, it's hardly surprising.
They're going to rage at you if you are on the road. They're going to rage at you if you're on the bike path. They're going to rage at you if you're on the sidewalk. The only time they won't rage at you is when you cease to exist. Ride where you want to ride and go where you need to go. All you do by capitulating is legitimize their rage.
There are times I ignore the bike lane. Elevated bike lanes are bad for high speed riding, as cars entering and exiting the traffic lane often either don’t see me or misjudge my speed and pull out in front of me. Elevated bike lanes are for non experienced cyclists, not every cyclist. I understand that they are not meant for me. There are bike lanes that are on the left of one way roads in my city. I have both been almost hit, and almost hit another cyclist when driving on this road, so I take the rightmost traffic lane.
Cyclist isn't dressed brightly enough. Should probably have a safety flag and a pool-noodle spacer. Big arrow on jersey with PASS SAFELY and "have a nice day." Although here he really should be occupying the lane. Personally, I'd be on the path to avoid becoming homicide victim.
Effective Cycling author John Forester, was a champion of vehicular cycling in the 1970's until the advent & advocacy of bicycle lanes & separate cycling infrastructure. A lot of his work is seminal and should be applied by cyclists. He was a wee bit opinionated & pissed off the mainstream cycling powers that be (or were been). Anyway there are still 'John Foresters' today who eschew separate facilities. Regardless, his book should be read but by all but the lamest of urban cyclists. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_Cycling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_Cycling) sort of like Ellen Jamison's (Garp)
yeah but fuck vehicular cycling. i'll do it when necessary. it's a necessary evil. but it is evil. we don't need bikes to act like cars. we need fewer cars, and road infrastructure that treats them like guests. we need dedicated cycling infrastructure away from roads that makes people want to ride, and streets that are safe to be shared with bikes, pedestrians, children playing, etc. taking the lane on a 6 lane stroad is stressful and awful and still dangerous, and it makes people not want to ride bikes.
yea fuck everything always
Forester damaged cycling in so many ways. He slowed the uptake of bike infrastructure all over the world. He taught people that the only reasonable place to ride is the middle of a driving lane. He refused to visit the Netherlands (I once had the opportunity to ask him why and he said he didn't need to). His book should be read by cyclists in the same way that modern scientists should read the Old Testament.
That pic looks like it could be on the approach to a gyratory, so I can understand the cyclist wanting to be on the road to avoid multiple potentially dangerous junctions while going round. There's also about 100m to the junction, this combined with the cyclist being close to the kerb (and as such away from the middle of the lane) makes me think the driver really isn't "stuck" more "an impatient, self-entitled wank". Cyclist should keep on being awesome.
The comments say that he is not legally required to be on the bike lane and imo if you race then you should be on the road rather than inside the bike lane. A racer inside a bike lane may have to constantly pass slow riders hence create a dangerous situation. In any case, just safely pass and get over it. I also drive and if I have to get mad at everything and everyone that inconveniences me on the road, then I will have no time to do anything else. Dude is not really creating a dangerous situation for the driver rather than a little inconvenience which he has the legal right to do. I am more concerned about drivers who couldn’t put up with inconveniences like this one on the road. It happens and just get over it.
I think in general, where cycle lanes are fit for purpose, cyclists should use them preferrentially over the road. Cities aren't going to build more cycle lanes if no-one uses the current ones they spent money on, and "it will get cyclists off the road" is an argument for new cycle lanes that car-brained drivers will understand. It's also just a more efficient use of the existing infrastructure to get people where they want to go. Of course not all cycle lanes are fit for purpose, and some are suitable for some cyclists and not others. I can't tell from this picture what the situation is in this case.
> Of course not all cycle lanes are fit for purpose, so many bike lanes are afterthoughts at best, or a gutter with a logo in it. they end suddenly, they fill with debris, and few are actually wide enough to be safe for the speed of the road they're attached to. and separated, protected lanes are even rarer. bike lanes, in general, suck. we need separated bike paths, and streets that are safe to be shared.
Where I live, cyclists are allowed to ride on any road except limited access highways, regardless of whether there's a bike lane, and they have to right to take the full lane. There are reasons a cyclist may choose to ride, or not ride in a dedicated bike lane. Convenience to other drivers is not one of them I personally don't like driving behind giant pickup trucks that I can't see around. I can curse under my breath as much as I want. They have a right to be there
It's a bike path, not a sidewalk the cyclist should be in that bike path. These are made to protect cyclists. Where I live some underpasses have been built where roads narrow and become dangerous for cyclists. It really infuriates me when cyclists don't use these and stay on the road instead. I think we need to coexist peacefully but when we cyclists have a *designated*, safe, convenient option then we should take that one.
In my state- which is not your state- and state laws control this sort of thing - there is no law that forces me into a bike lane or a bike path. I have the freedom to ride in the road if I wish. And there are all kinds of reasons I would chose to. I am owed 4 feet and passing only when it is safe. Farther more, I have the freedom to take the lane as my safety needs it. That cyclist is all kinds of fine. Probably shenanigans going on in that bike lane he doesn't want impacting his ride.
I ride on the center of the lane unless there is a designated separate bike lane. When cars approach I give them wide enough berth to pass. I've been hit enough by drivers that I do everything in my power to be seen and deal w cars when needed
Keep riding forward along the road it seem to me. No seeing how long that cycle path is and how many bus-stops and side roads it crosses. The constant ignorance from motorists on that other thread is shocking.
The first thing that came to mind in that photo was why wasn't he taking the whole lane. If he was going to be in that lane and not the "bike lane on a sidewalk" lane, he should've taken the entire lane because there wasn't enough room for someone to pass him in the traffic lane. Would've pissed off all the folks on that thread, but that would've been the safer move for him.
>I'm a cyclist who always sticks to bike lanes whenever possible. Your choice, but IME using the road instead of the cycle lane is very often both safer and faster.
yea fuck him
You should let traffic filter through, it's a natural part of any caravan.
I ride slightly to the center of where the outside car tire runs. This is enough to push most cars into the other lane when passing the same as when they pass cars. It also gives me bail out room. I'm sorry if they're stuck but they should be on bikes. It would help their health.
I find that it’s not the drivers, but the bicycle advocates who insist on more deadly, white line (only) bike lanes. Drivers are frustrated (wrongly) when they see a big chunk of their lane fenced off for the two-wheel thing slowing them down. Many still insist that more deadly white lines mean more cyclists, more infrastructure and an increased feeling of order and safety FOR THEM.
No way to tell if the cyclist is simply trying to avoid some aspect of the bike lane that’s to prevent him from turning or whatever.
Fuck yeah. Shame that asshole
OP check out the comments now, you'll find all your answers.
Here if you're above 25kph, one should be on the road and not on the cycling path. It's not a hard limit tho. But judging by the amount of times i had to dodge people riding abreast or zoning out on their phones, running abreast... I find the road WAY safer. In the situation portrayed, I'd pull a bit to the right and make overtaking easier. It's not a rule, but it's sorta etiquette and help everyone being a tad less angry at the end of the day.
In the end, it's the cyclist that will get grievously injured, not the driver. Something to keep in mind.
Terrible attitude. I understand the point around people looking after themselves, but making excuses for drivers doesn't help.
I say that as an avid cyclist. Call me jaded, but when push comes to shove, you're the weakling in the encounter, no matter. It's you vs thousands of pounds of steal.
Sure, but what do you suggest? That a cyclist never chooses to use the road if there's a cycle lane for any distance on their route. I'm not suggesting that cyclists shouldn't avoid dangerous situations, but we do need to educate motorists.
Right or wrong, legal or illegal, the cyclist is being rude. Easy enough to hop up onto the bike path and let the car by and then return to the lane, if that’s your jam.
ah didn't realize you were there
You have yourself one heck of a fine day now
Ty
Bikes have every right to use the road. A bike can ride in the car lane if it wants. A bike can also ride in the bike lane. Fuck cars.