Vehicular Cycling Reality

[middleagecyclist]

...Perhaps we could be a little less confrontational on this topic?

Tis fine by me. I certainly didn't set out that way on this thread.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

So Ann has a de facto ban from using the A1? I thought it was all about asserting the right to use the road?

As you said earlier Greg: "Could you avoid that route, possibly but why should you if it is convenient to use it?....Can you ignore the crap infrastructure and ride in primary? Yes."

Ah! but not if it is the A1 or similar. I see. Some routes are the most direct - and a few want that for convenience and time - but cyclists cannot really use them can they?

Of course Ann could use the segregated cycle path that runs alongside part of the A1 joining up the other roads but that would be boring I suppose?

Ah well. It is after all a confusing situation.

so you are a troll after all then. I'm out.

 

[Sara_H]

In my experience with 3 people who I've taught how to use primary they have all said that they feel far more comfortable when riding & have far fewer terrifying incidences when they think someone is going to hit them. None of them seem to have mentioned the extra intimidation from getting hooted at. In short, your presumption doesn't stack up. All of them were occasional or regular short journey only cyclists.

I agree with your friends experiences.

I'm fairly experienced cycle commuter - been cycling to work for ten years - but i'm not a very fit/fast rider.

Part of my trip home is a fairly steep uphill, single carriageway with an inadequate cycle path running along either kerb - I'll be doing 5mph (if that) in primary! far fewer problems doing that than using the cycle path, which practically invites drivers to pass too close.

 

[GrasB]

Of course Ann could use the segregated cycle path that runs alongside part of the A1 joining up the other roads but that would be boring I suppose?

Personally I don't find much problem with cycling down major trunk roads but then I'm a 'battle hardened' who's been putting in 10k miles/year for god knows how long. The fact of the matter is that using the A1 course as a route is never going to be pleasant for a typical commuting/utilitarian cyclist be it on or off road. Recommending such a route is a nice way to discourage cyclists in general. A quick glance at the map & a bit of google cam shows Stannington St. Rd. & the A192 to be a far more interesting & enjoyable route to ride on the face of it.

Interesting you choose that exact image to show the cycle path, clearly showing it's most dangerous point that Greg was talking about.

 

[al78]

it's a good, and often asked question. My honest answer... because I have no desire to ride on such paths down such routes. I'd rather get the NSL sections reduced in speed, with proper enforcement and find riding alongside an NSL dual carriageway utterly miserable, and life threatening at junctions/roundabouts.

I have ridden bits of the path alongside the A24 between Dorking and Leatherhead and found it no problem at all. Even the Horsham cycling club rides have used it to gain access to Box Hill.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I have ridden bits of the path alongside the A24 between Dorking and Leatherhead and found it no problem at all. Even the Horsham cycling club rides have used it to gain access to Box Hill.

so have I. what does that prove other than it is doable?
I would not go out of my way to ride it.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Perhaps we could be a little less confrontational on this topic?

perhaps we could open our minds when our pre-conceptions and false premises are challenged too.

 

[benb]

I think if some people took a breather, they'd realise that we're all on the same side.

I think we all agree that crap cycle lanes are usually worse than useless.

Some people think there is a place for segregated infrastructure, others don't.

My view is that the majority of roads that a normal person would want to cycle down don't need segregated lanes.
BUT it is vital that motorists are properly educated in how to behave on the roads around vulnerable road users and that legislation is properly drafted and appropriately enforced to deter dangerous drivers.

That still leaves some roads that are useful cycle routes but are pretty horrible to cycle on: NSL dual carriageways for example. I think a case could be made for segregated cycle lanes going in generally the same direction as those roads, but I'm sure they could be made more pleasant. Certainly lanes that simply go alongside busy dual carriageways are not much fun to cycle on, but even so for most cyclists they are likely to be preferable to the actual road itself.

I sometimes come up the A217 from Sutton to Rosehill, and can see why the cycle path (shared use mostly), crap as it is, is preferable to the dual carriageway for a lot of cyclists.

 

[Glow worm]

I think if some people took a breather, they'd realise that we're all on the same side.

I think we all agree that crap cycle lanes are usually worse than useless.

Some people think there is a place for segregated infrastructure, others don't.

Couldn't agree more. I can never understand why folk get in such a hissy fit over this stuff. Maybe we look at it from our own perspectives too much as 'battle hardened' experienced cyclists. I'm more interested in the views of those who currently don't cycle because (rightly or wrongly) they perceive it as too dangerous. What can we do to entice them out of their cars and into the saddle?

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

Couldn't agree more. I can never understand why folk get in such a hissy fit over this stuff. Maybe we look at it from our own perspectives too much as 'battle hardened' experienced cyclists. I'm more interested in the views of those who currently don't cycle because (rightly or wrongly) they perceive it as too dangerous. What can we do to entice them out of their cars and into the saddle?

Enforcing road laws would be nice start. Shame there's no-one available to do that

Anyway, a couple more budgets and only the rich or politicians will be able to afford petrol.

 

[davefb]

The trouble with that is all you are doing is getting the cyclists out of the way of WVM so his view that he owns the road is reinforced, his view that cyclists shouldn't be on the road is reinforced and he doesn't have to learn how to deal with driving with cyclists around. A triple own goal in trying to get drivers to learn to share the roads with cyclists.

I know what you mean, but I'd argue you're missing a point, you dont ride down roads "just to try to educate wvm", you choose routes for speed/ease/safety( surely?). yes , people should drive well, but they dont. I used to avoid that road driving due to the traffic levels and numptys, ( and I've driven down it , far far far more times than cycled it).
Just saying I'd rather money was spent on cycling to be concentrated and serve a purpose rather than lots of little bits to tick a tick box and thats a great example because there are enough other roads nearby that could be used ( and are used as rat runs).. I also wouldnt do this just for "avoid wvm" I'd do it to give cyclists a faster route into town... dont see why cyclists shouldnt get faster and less traffic lighted routes

 

[Amanda P]

I take your point about cycle lanes. Many motorists feel that as long as they're on the right of the white line, it's a safe pass. If there were no cycle lane, he'd probably have given you more room.

That's what the taxi driver said after he'd just thumped my shoulder with his door mirror. I must have imagined the bruises.

 

[BentMikey]

perhaps we could open our minds when our pre-conceptions and false premises are challenged too.

I'm not sure that's a very constructive reply, although I realise you're not referring to me.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I'm not sure that's a very constructive reply, although I realise you're not referring to me.

the op's posts exhausted my supply of constructiveness on the matter.

 

[BentMikey]

Six of one, half a dozen of the other mate.