Vorpal wrote: I would write to the highways authority (East Riding Yorkshire Council?) and ask them to remove that cycle lane.
.
mercalia wrote:I thought op said internal hub gear - the picture shows derailleur?
MikeF wrote:"give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car"
The problem with that advice is that motorists often overtake other cars very closely. It would be much better if it said "at least half a car's width"
drossall wrote:20. More importantly, experience shows I think that you have to give bikes a real advantage. Make short car journeys awkward. Stevenage and MK ran into trouble because the bike paths aren't bad, although they are impossible to find your way around, but the roads are also built to make life easy, so people still choose cars.
drossall wrote:. People get to Dalkeith by following signs to Edinburgh till they get close. They do not follow signs to Peebles then Eddleston then Penicuik and so on. So why would you expect them to get across Milton Keynes by navigating from village to village? The only sane way to get from Wavendon to Bradwell is by following signs to Stony Stratford.
gaz wrote:Whilst riding along towards the "Give Way" you are expected to check over your shoulder to see if there is any motor traffic approaching from behind that you may need to yield priority too.
The utility cyclist wrote:Easiest solution to make a network in London would be to just take one side of the carriageway and make it for people on bikes only, no motorvehicles at all on that side with priority over every junction/entrance for people on bikes with a no parking ban on that side of the network route.
That way no extra space is required, no actual building of infra, just some well placed dividers and a bit of paint so we have a two way lane that is 3.5metres wide, all of which will save taxpayers millions of pounds!
tykeboy2003 wrote:Roads are only dangerous because motorists are;-
1. largely ignorant to the rules of the road with regard to vulnerable road users
2. mostly ignore speed limits
3. hugely impatient and intolerant
4. have their prejudices with regard to cyclists (in particular) pandered to by our obnoxious press
there are probably a few more. All can be fixed by proper enforcement and public education; massively cheaper than funding cycle specific infrastructure. Not to mention the savings to be made from having a healthier and less obese population as a result of some getting out of their cars.
mjr wrote:The replacement Highways England is improving with IAN 195/16 and https://cycletraffic-elearning.com/ but that's all a bit new yet and mainly for major routes. MPs should force some minimum compulsory standards onto local councils to deter them from building cyclist-mincers and new FOTMs. (I mean real FOTMs, not just stuff that its editor dislikes.)
Vorpal wrote:There are dogs that might like to make a game of chasing cyclists. I would expect them to be restrained in an area where cyclists could be expected, such as on a cycle path.