• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Should cyclists be compelled to use the cycle lane?

*SD*

Administrator
Staff member
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Not sure if this would be better suited in politics and law but I'll post here to be on the safe side.

Whilst discussing this issue with a friend earlier this morning, I thought I'd do a bit of digging to see what the opinions of cyclists are on this matter. The matter being, should cyclists be compelled (required) to use a cycle path where such is present? None of this applies where no cycle path/lane is present.

The following article from huffpost (2014) argues that cyclists should not be compelled to use the cycle lane, or more accurately, explains why they don't (generally) use them.

why don't cyclists use the cycle paths that are built for them?

The disagreement between cyclists and motorists has gone on for years. Motorists argue that cyclists are a pain in the arse because they hold up traffic, make no effort to allow motorists to pass easily, don't pay road tax (bad argument for several reasons), don't use the cycle lanes provided which cost obscene amounts of money to build, don't signal, jump red lights and don't have insurance etc etc etc.

Cyclists argue that other slow moving vehicles also hold up traffic, they do pay road tax (many cyclists also own cars), they are allowed to use the entire lane, and generally deny jumping red lights etc.

So it seems motorists and cyclists do not, for the most part, see eye to eye. The law/highway code as it stands in the UK is that cyclists have every right to use the roads, so this thread is not about what the law actually is - it's more about sharing views as to what the law perhaps should be, or changes you'd like to see. I don't know the score in other countries but don't let that stop you posting your views from wherever you are.
 
arg-fallbackName="Master_Ghost_Knight"/>
Yes.
And living in the Netherlands for a while (country with most bycicles per capita in the world) I might have a thing or 2 to say about that. Sharing traffic with cars is dangerous, not only to yourself but to other people. Screw you if that upsets your old man sensibilities, but the ability to get home in one piece trumps your misguided notion of freedom of mobility.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Master_Ghost_Knight said:
Yes.
And living in the Netherlands for a while (country with most bycicles per capita in the world) I might have a thing or 2 to say about that. Sharing traffic with cars is dangerous, not only to yourself but to other people. Screw you if that upsets your old man sensibilities, but the ability to get home in one piece trumps your misguided notion of freedom of mobility.


I tend to agree. Whilst perfectly legal for cyclists to use the same roads as vehicles weighing in at up to 44 tonnes (even more in special circumstances) and travelling and considerable speed, being legal doesn't necessarily translate to 'good idea'

I mean if it's their only mode of transport and they need to get to work etc, and there is no cycle lane provision I guess there's not much of an argument to be had. I'm mainly talking about where there are cycle lanes.

Reasons for not using cycle lanes have been known to include -

Litter
Pedestrians
Other cyclists being present (yes, really)
And 'I don't have to'
 
arg-fallbackName="Master_Ghost_Knight"/>
1. Don't litter. Litter is not a problem in the Netherlands.
2. Cycle lanes are not for pedestrians, pedestrians aren't bike's.
3. Of course other cyclist are present, is that fixed by going into the car lanes? No. So you rather hit a car or a bike?
4. Screw you if you think you don't have to. This is like saying, why the hell can't I drive on any side of the road if I want to?
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Interestingly, searching with keywords 'should cyclists' produces the following suggestions-


 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

5. Or you go up on the pavement and hit pedestrians.

The number of times I was clipped by cyclists on the pavement when I walked to work in the UK... :roll:

On one occasion, whilst walking along the pavement towards a pedestrian crossing, I stepped slightly to my left angling towards the crossing, and was clipped by a female cyclist in racing gear as she passed between me and the curb - about a foot width(!) - and continued on up the hill still on the pavement, without so much as a glance back or apology.

If I'd caught her any harder than I did, she'd have ended up going head-first into the vehicle approaching the crossing at speed.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Also, 'cyclists are' produces the following -

 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,

5. Or you go up on the pavement and hit pedestrians.

The number of times I was clipped by cyclists on the pavement when I walked to work in the UK... :roll:

On one occasion, whilst walking along the pavement towards a pedestrian crossing, I stepped slightly to my left angling towards the crossing, and was clipped by a female cyclist in racing gear as she passed between me and the curb - about a foot width(!) - and continued on up the hill still on the pavement, without so much as a glance back or apology.

If I'd caught her any harder than I did, she'd have ended up going head-first into the vehicle approaching the crossing at speed.

Kindest regards,

James

I'm fairly sure riding on the pavement is illegal, I'll check! But yes I've heard similar tales from friends.

I often drive large machinery and if they try to sneak around me at a junction they're usually in the blind spot. Especially in anything articulated. Many have met their death through doing this. Different to what you're talking about I know, but still worth a mention.
 
arg-fallbackName="Gnug215"/>
What the actual ballcrap?

Cyclists don't use the cycle lane? Where in the hell do you weenies live???
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
*SD* said:
... this thread is... about sharing views as to what the law perhaps should be, or changes you'd like to see. I don't know the score in other countries but don't let that stop you posting your views from wherever you are.

I'm in Thailand, but I'm from the U.K. originally.

I personally believe that all vehicles using petrol combustion engines should be banned permanently.

The only exceptions should be for mass transit, emergency vehicles, and for those with severe mobility impairment. This would then make roads far more amenable to cyclists anyway, at which point, yes I think cyclists should be obliged to use the road / designated lanes - assuming they're old enough to be trusted riding a bike on the road.

I am not a cyclist.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Sparhafoc said:
*SD* said:
... this thread is... about sharing views as to what the law perhaps should be, or changes you'd like to see. I don't know the score in other countries but don't let that stop you posting your views from wherever you are.

I'm in Thailand, but I'm from the U.K. originally.

I personally believe that all vehicles using petrol combustion engines should be banned permanently.

The only exceptions should be for mass transit, emergency vehicles, and for those with severe mobility impairment. This would then make roads far more amenable to cyclists anyway, at which point, yes I think cyclists should be obliged to use the road / designated lanes - assuming they're old enough to be trusted riding a bike on the road.

I am not a cyclist.

Do you mean all internal combustion engines irrespective of fuel type or specifically petrol? Either way, I can see an argument for that. It's a bit of a hot topic over here at the moment, however, it's very impractical and dare I say it - unlikely. Electric vehicles can't replace all transport needs at present. I'm sure it'll get there but it's not there yet. They do seem quite viable for city transport, though. There was a little test thing going on here (I mean specifically where I live) back in 2013. I had an electric car for a day, a Nissan Leaf. Went like a rocket and was cool for zipping around but it serves no purpose for me in the industry I work in. Hence I have a nice big juicy 4x4 instead.

Anyway, sounds like your bias (I don't mean that in a twatty way) is in favour of cyclists?

TBH I was talking more about how things currently are, and the whole 'cyclists are a nuisance' thing, with the central question being, should they be obliged to use a cycle path where present. I see you do address this question, but with the context that roads be more amenable to cyclists in the first instance so it doesn't quite hit what I was getting at. If I'm being unclear as to what I'm asking, please let me know.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
*SD* said:
Do you mean all internal combustion engines irrespective of fuel type or specifically petrol?

I'm not really sure I've got a comprehensive list in my head, but if they produce a waste gas that fucks with the atmosphere or is directly harmful to people, then all those ones! :)

*SD* said:
Either way, I can see an argument for that. It's a bit of a hot topic over here at the moment, however, it's very impractical and dare I say it - unlikely.

Very unlikely. Fortunately for drivers, slightly more likely than me being made Emperor of Everything where my opinions and preferences become law! :lol:

*SD* said:
Electric vehicles can't replace all transport needs at present. I'm sure it'll get there but it's not there yet. They do seem quite viable for city transport, though. There was a little test thing going on here (I mean specifically where I live) back in 2013. I had an electric car for a day, a Nissan Leaf. Went like a rocket and was cool for zipping around...

Yep, here's hoping that there's a wave of clean technologies for personal mobility.

*SD* said:
Anyway, sounds like your bias (I don't mean that in a twatty way) is in favour of cyclists?

Yes, but solely because they produce no significant emissions, although I now have visions of methane-producing cyclists tearing holes in the ozone with their emissions. I suppose it's also beneficial to society as a whole because people are likely to be fitter if they have some exercise in their lives.

*SD* said:
TBH I was talking more about how things currently are, and the whole 'cyclists are a nuisance' thing, with the central question being, should they be obliged to use a cycle path where present. I see you do address this question, but with the context that roads be more amenable to cyclists in the first instance so it doesn't quite hit what I was getting at. If I'm being unclear as to what I'm asking, please let me know.

No, no... it's just my take on it - a point that subsumes every other element of the discussion and I appreciate you mean something quite different.

So, from the context of right now, today, with extremely restricted meaning... then yes, I think cyclists should largely be restricted to using bike lanes. However, I don't think there should be any real repercussions if a cyclist carefully pulls onto a pavement to go a few yards. I also think young kids should be free to ride on the pavement.

I live in Thailand, so it's a perfectly typical occurrence that motorbikes (and sometimes cars) will drive on the pavement when the rider can't be arsed to drive far up the road to find a u-turn, or because it's raining and there's an overhang, or sundry other selfish reasons, and people largely just accept it without comment.

I think tolerance should sometimes trump laws, but should never wholly circumvent them.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
slightly more likely than me being made Emperor of Everything where my opinions and preferences become law! :lol:

Get in line, buddy! ;)
Yep, here's hoping that there's a wave of clean technologies for personal mobility.

I think there will be, although if it's electric then we have to produce that electric etc, not an argument I want to get into!
Yes, but solely because they produce no significant emissions, although I now have visions of methane-producing cyclists tearing holes in the ozone with their emissions

I think all potential emissions are blocked by a shiny material called.... spandex ;)
I suppose it's also beneficial to society as a whole because people are likely to be fitter if they have some exercise in their lives.

Yeah no major argument there, there was a piece in the news just yesterday saying four in five people aren't getting enough exercise. I suppose one major snag here is when you need to go somewhere sufficiently far away as to make cycling impractical. There are lots of others, now I think of it but maybe that would be for another thread.
a point that subsumes every other element of the discussion

I agree, it's all relevant and a direction I expected the conversation to go in at some point.
then yes, I think cyclists should largely be restricted to using bike lanes. However, I don't think there should be any real repercussions if a cyclist carefully pulls onto a pavement to go a few yards

I'm not actually sure what (if any) the repercussions are. I will see what I can find out!
I also think young kids should be free to ride on the pavement

Absolutely. That's where I learnt to ride a bike, no one seemed to mind, it was perfectly normal. Are kids not allowed to in Thailand? I could well be mistaken but I think here it's only motorised stuff that isn't allowed on pavements. With the possible exception of mobility scooters etc. That's an aspect I hadn't considered, if I'm honest.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
*SD* said:
Are kids not allowed to in Thailand?

Adults on motorbikes routinely drive on the pavement in Thailand - it's really all down to whether you're caught by the wrong policeman and the wrong time. I often see policemen riding motorbikes on pavements here anyway!!

The real problem for kids riding bikes on Thai pavements is that the pavements are rickety and treacherous in their own rights! :lol:
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

Of course, in Italy, mopeds and motorbikes are (in)famous for being - rather than merely driving - on the pavement.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Akamia"/>
Here in Alaska – at least, my part of it – we don't have many bicycle lanes. We do have them, but I think I only know of maybe one or two.

Any time I ride a bike, I use the sidewalk unless there is indeed a bicycle lane, in which case I use that instead.

I didn't know people actually rode them on the pavement in some places; in my town, and other places I've been in the US, that's practically unheard of. Closest a bike gets to riding on pavement is when there is no sidewalk, but even then, they don't ride in the path of the cars on the road.

Of course, maybe riding on the road is more common here than I think it is, and I don't know because I don't get out much. :geek:
 
arg-fallbackName="Visaki"/>
Yes.

Just as cars are compelled to use the road designated for them. I really don't understand how this can even be a topic for a serious discussion.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Akamia said:
Here in Alaska – at least, my part of it – we don't have many bicycle lanes. We do have them, but I think I only know of maybe one or two.

Any time I ride a bike, I use the sidewalk unless there is indeed a bicycle lane, in which case I use that instead.

I didn't know people actually rode them on the pavement in some places; in my town, and other places I've been in the US, that's practically unheard of. Closest a bike gets to riding on pavement is when there is no sidewalk, but even then, they don't ride in the path of the cars on the road.

Of course, maybe riding on the road is more common here than I think it is, and I don't know because I don't get out much. :geek:


I'd love to live in Alaska!

So where does the law stand there on whether cyclists have to use the cycle lanes or not? Sounds like the cyclists there have more sense than the ones here!
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Visaki said:
Yes.

Just as cars are compelled to use the road designated for them. I really don't understand how this can even be a topic for a serious discussion.


It is over here, causes quite a lot of road rage and violent outbursts. Often amusing (youtube is full of such clips) but occasionally cyclists end up getting battered for acting like knobs.
 
arg-fallbackName="ldmitruk"/>
Hi,

Here in Edmonton we have dedicated bike lanes as part of the cycling network. A cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists they can ride outside the lanes. As for riding on the sidewalk, only bicycles with wheels having a diameter of less than 50 cm may be ridden on them unless they are shared use.

What some people don't realise is that the roads are funded through property taxes here so cyclists do pay for the roads. It is also interesting to note it cyclists who lobbied for the paving of roads in the 19th century.

Cheers
 
Back
Top