-
So much this^
For these reasons I loathe the conflict that the infrastructure creates. Especially when people feel obliged to try and guide me with a ton or more of metal to where they think a cyclist "ought" to be.
-
It might be shit, but using the road is far shittier IMO. Used to be the worst bit of my commute, now I just take it easy in the cycle lane. Much faster and much less stressful (West to East)
-
But seriously... the existence of cycle infrastructure does not create a legal obligation to use it.
Not in this country yet, and hopefully unlikely given certain liberal legal traditions, but there have already been attempts in the past to move the Highway Code closer to such compulsion (fought off by the CTC each time).
It's always worth emphasising that in the countries most known for segregated cycle tracks (e.g., the Netherlands, Denmark), cycling in the carriageway is not permitted where a track exists. Officially, this is supposed to apply only to tracks that are clearly parallel to a given alignment, but seemingly in practice this can be bent; friends have told me that they were ordered off the carriageway by police in the Netherlands to use a path that ran at quite some distance to the road they were on, and which they hadn't even seen.
Another illustration may be of interest. In Germany, things have gone somewhat in the other direction, fortunately. The StVO (sort-of equivalent to the Highway Code, although a proper legal instrument and not a partially advisory compendium) has been revised in several stages to ensure that the 'duty to use cycle paths' can only be imposed in exceptional circumstances. I believe it took campaigners decades to secure this revision. Authorities at first largely ignored it for 14 years until a test case (which itself took seven years) was finally settled in the Federal Administrative Court in January 2011. It confirmed the rule changes. Progress on removing the official orders to use each individual sidepath is still glacial, though, despite a clear judgement by the highest administrative court in the country. Needless to say, there as here many drivers still assume that one has to use sidepaths, even if the orders (and signs erected as a consequence) defining them, which persist in many/probably most places, have technically become unlawful.
Simply put, once cyclists lose their right to ride in the carriageway, they'll either never get it back or it'll take a long fight to claw some of it back.
You are reading a single comment by @Velocio and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
dancing james
umop3pisdn
Oliver Schick
@Velocio
Embankment.
What is it with that road now?
If one chooses not to use the cycle lane (which can be quite congested, and really isn't comfortably spacious, and those bumps!), then every car driver and motorcycle rider will give you grief.
Even though it's really obvious I'm riding with cameras, it doesn't stop people from consciously acting like idiots, imposing their presence dangerously and depriving me of what space there is.
I'm perfectly able to keep up with traffic or overtake it safely, I respected all the reds. But still... just grief.
And because I appear to have to justify not using the cycle lane... it's on one side of the road, if I were going East > West it's totally convenient and the lack of space irks but whatever... but going West > East it's horrible trying to enter and exit the cycle lane, and it is no faster, and breaks the nice flow I have when I'm commuting and just moving all the time.
But seriously... the existence of cycle infrastructure does not create a legal obligation to use it.