Zoe wrote:I feel a bollard is the answer on all of the cycle lanes. I'm less bothered about the blue paint.
PeterEccles wrote:I suspect the cyclists who are using the main road are the dangerous ones who think the cyclists in the bike lane are too slow and that dodging cars, going through red lights and mounting the pavement (when things are inconvenient for them) is their right.
La Martinet wrote:Wrong (and the final comment's offensive to boot).Ivanhoe wrote:Agreed. And, for what it's worth, my opinion is that is definitely should be obligatory otherwise what is the point of it?It would be interesting to debate whether these sort of cycle lanes (completely segregated from the traffic) should be compulsory for cyclists to use.
As you say, motorists can only use the main road (unless they happen to have ended up in the cycle lane in error), pedestrians can only use the pavements (unless they are taking their lives in their hands and trying to cross, of course) but at the moment, cyclists seem to use all three parts of the highway as they please.
The inmates are running the asylum.
Sandgrown Dave wrote:Highway code Rule 63: "Cycle Lanes ... Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills..."
The roads are not, as many seem to think, provided for the use of motor vehicles. They're available to cyclists, horses and even pedestrians (Highway Code Rule 1 says to use the footpath where provided, but there's no actual prohibition on walking in the road).
Sandgrown Dave wrote:The assertion that cyclists use pavements as they please is gratuitous and tiresome.
PeterEccles wrote:Sandgrown Dave wrote:The assertion that cyclists use pavements as they please is gratuitous and tiresome.
I'm sorry if you find it gratuitous and tiresome. Are you suggesting it doesn't happen or that they should be allowed when they want?
Ivanhoe wrote:... Maybe we could discuss whether the current HC should continue to apply in situations where we've changed the situation radically and have set aside up to half of the pre-existing carriageway for the benefit of cyclists?
In some sense, isn't the Balance skewed too much if the roads are for cyclists and the segregated cycle paths are for cyclists as well?
... But the issue of traffic in London (and by "traffic", I mean everyone from pedestrians to juggernauts) has surely got to have a solution based on compromise. It's a huge, brave, quite possibly fantastic, thing that's been done to make these segregated cycle lanes. It could revolutionise transport in town if it gets more people on two wheels. I'm just wondering whether it makes sense to make the little space left that's not a segregated cycle lane or a pavement a space solely for motorised transport.
For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.
7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?
Read the latest issue before signing up