Do new cyclists favour main roads?

[a lower gear]

Nuttycyclist wrote (on the Time Trial on A14 thread):

I am seeing more and more cyclists on main roads (ones which personally I use a map to select a quieter alternative), and I am also seeing a major increase in cyclists who feel the need to wear hi-viz, helmets, and daytime flashing lights at all times.  Many of these give off vibes to me of new-comers to cycling, possibly car drivers who cannot read maps and relied on GPS?   Years ago I recall a rider injured on a main road, when we asked why he was using the dual carriageway and not the old main road it bypassed, the answer was along the lines of "that would have been a good idea, didn't think of that, I just went the same way I always drive".

Out today, in the car again, I passed several cyclists on a fast road.  I gave them space but other drivers weren't because these cyclists (wearing hi-viz and with lights) were wobbling on the gritty dirt between the white line at the edge of the road and the grass verge.  i.e. they were giving drivers the impression it was safe to pass without pulling out because the cyclists were not in the way.  (In reality, one wobble off a pebble and they'd by in the middle of the carriageway and under fast traffic).

Later I was on a slower road and came up behind a couple of cyclists.  I hung well back for a few minutes as it wasn't safe to pass - I couldn't see around the next bend.  The cyclists got more and more agitated and in the end wobbled into a field entrance and waved me past.

I too have been observing very similar trends and had been meaning to post asking whether others of this parish had similar impressions. Of course, once one starts noticing something and then looking for further examples, one starts selectively noticing what fits one's preconceptions... Nevertheless, I'm convinced that there is indeed such a trend.

When passing cyclists in a car I try whenever possible to get all four wheels over the white line - do unto others, etc. This frequently seems to result in great surprise. On one occasion recently on a 30mph road after hanging 50m back for some time waiting for a safe place to pass, and then passing with all wheels over the white line the cyclist responded to a furious load of two finger gesturing. I'm still puzzled by that incident. 

But back to the thread - I'm convinced that there are newcomers to cycling following car routes that are less than optimum for cycling due to vicious hills and heavy traffic, whilst ignoring quieter less hilly routes that run parallel. Surely it reflects a blind following of the same route they drive.

Whatdaya all think?     

[teethgrinder]

It makes sense to me.
People just want to get some place and I think that people do just go the same way as they did in their cars. After all, they know it will get them to where they want to go.
I think it's a very good thing that people aren't bullied off the roads becaue it's "too busy" nor are they shy of cycling up hills.
If the motorists don't like sharing the roads with others, then they can go the quieter route.

[Cudzoziemiec]

There are definitely (well - by definitely I really mean it seems that way to me, but it is a very distinct observation) more cyclists wearing hi-viz and using lights in all conditions, but I don't know that they're definitely newbies. In fact I know for a fact that some of them have been cycling since before I was even born!

[Ashaman42]

But back to the thread - I'm convinced that there are newcomers to cycling following car routes that are less than optimum for cycling due to vicious hills and heavy traffic, whilst ignoring quieter less hilly routes that run parallel. Surely it reflects a blind following of the same route they drive.

Whatdaya all think?   

Well I know for me some of the quieter routes I've found have only been through exploring or intent perusing of Googlemaps, it's not alway obvious (particularly if just following road signs for navigation) that a quieter parallel route even exists.

I can see new cyclists not taking that initial effort when they simply want to get from A to B.

[cycleman]

i will use a roads if i need to get somewhere directly and use lights in low viz or sun shade conditions.a friend was nearly killed by a. driver who did not the cyclist in the shade of trees . although i enjoy the lanes much more most of the time

[Kim]

I don't know.  Most new cyclists I've known have been fairly motor-traffic averse, at least at first, and tend to prefer back roads and off-road paths (even where they're demonstrably more hazardous than the A roads).  On the other hand, hills and navigation can be additional challenges that are greatly mitigated by using more major routes.

Personally, if I'm trying to get somewhere, I'll generally prefer a flatter route with fewer surface hazards.  I like urban multi-lane roads and bus lanes - roads that might be busy, but where motor traffic is generally able to give you room without a fuss.  I hate de-facto motorways and narrow lanes where people drive at inappropriate speeds.  Quiet lanes with lots of hills and gravel are lovely if I'm out to enjoy the journey.

FWIW, I CBA with hi-vis, will use lights in poor visibility, and have never made a two-fingered gesture to a random road user.

[uphillbothways]

I think there are two approaches made by novices - those who cycle like they drive and those who cycle like they walk. The former will often travel by needlessly long and busy routes because they don't have the mindset to pick their way through the backstreets; The latter tend to slowly wiggle and weave, uncertain of exactly where on the road they belong, nervously hugging the kerb or riding from pavement to pavement, using pedestrian crossings rather than making a right turn across traffic. I can't blame either group, as there's still a doleful lack of good cycle training in this country.

I think the increasing numbers of the former group is a positive symptom of the rising popularity of cycling in the UK. Cyclists of the latter type tend generally to be people who cycle because they have no other choice - mainly children and the very poor. Cycling is simply the least-worst transport option available to them. The former group of cyclists are people who have positively chosen to get on a bike in favour of their car, for which they should be lauded. They usually have the means and the inclination to 'do it properly' - nice bike, hi-vis, tons of blinkies - but it's a classic case of 'all the gear, no idea'. It simply doesn't even occur to them to get some cycle skills training. I suspect that many of them imagine that having ridden their Raleigh Chopper to school in 1979 is suitable preparation for a cross-London commute in 2013.

In the US, there are similar issues with motorcycling. Many states have no distinct licensing requirement for motorcycles - anyone with a car driving license can buy a 1000cc sportsbike and ride it away, which leads to some truly horrifying accidents. The Motorcycle Safety Foundation have made great inroads in getting new riders trained, largely by partnering with manufacturers and dealerships. I don't know what the solution is for cycling in the UK, but I think it's quite clear that a lack of training is an issue that urgently needs to be addressed.

[Greenbank]

I don't know what the solution is for cycling in the UK, but I think it's quite clear that a lack of training is an issue that urgently needs to be addressed.

One suggestion is that it's related to cycling proficiency lessons in schools being cut n years ago. It's only n years later that these people who didn't get cycling proficiency reach the point where they become semi-regular cyclists.

I've no idea how you'd actually try and work out whether there is any correlation or not.

[Crumbling Nick]

I'm not convinced that these (presumed) new cyclists are getting it wrong. There are learning processes.

I find it very difficult to navigate by bike off main roads in unfamiliar towns & cities. Signage, even on signed cycle routes is utterly opaque if you're a stranger. I frequently get lost. Country roads don't present a problem, because the topology is so much simpler.

When riding on those routes I don't seem to concentrate properly on survival in the motor vehicle jungle, because the navigation takes up too much brainpower. It's much more straightforward on main roads, and usually quicker.

I suspect that the riders in OP may be just finding a personal comfort zone. It's a moot point whether that's safer than the alternative - think about risk compensation. Is there any genuinely relevant science?

[giropaul]

My observation is that the hypothesis is probably correct (for around here at least.

I don't think it is a single factor though. From my observations in central Staffordshire I would say that some of the factors are:

- they don't know the lanes, and have never used them in a car or any other way. In fact, even when I'm with cyclists of many years' experience many of them still don't know the lanes.  Many non-cyclists and new cyclists are amazingly unaware of their local area.
- it seems that buying a Garmin (to do Strava on  ) is a necessity before even cycling shorts! I'm guessing that it's not as easy to map the little lanes - and there may be no Strava segments! (when will we get cycling returned to its original owners please?)
- the newcomers seem to exclusively use their best (carbon) wheels and lightest tyres at all times - not suited to our lanes.
- all and every new-comers rides MUST (by some law I'm unaware of) be recorded and the average speed, and lots more useless detail, shared with the world. Main roads = fast performances.

I'm not being TOO cynical am I 

[davelodwig]

I'm not a new cyclist and I tend to favour main roads, but mostly because I tend to be trying to get somewhere in the least amount of time and big roads let me put the hammer down and get on with it.  It's also often the case that the big roads will go directly (enough) to the general area people are trying to get to.

I wouldn't want to recommend the inner ring road in Birmingham to a newbie though, that scares me and I use it every day.

I would imagine that for a lot of new cyclists, it's about just following their old route from the car, or following road signs which tend to be a bit better on the main roads. Some probably don't realise their are on-line tools to help them find nice quieter routes.

[Ham]

I suspect it all has to do with our (human) generally shit risk assessment ability when faced with pitting our ability against statistics. Because of course, that's not what we do. We just ride and expect to stay alive. In reality, there are situations that are more dangerous than others and in order to maximise your chance of survival, you avoid putting yourself into that position.

The easiest explanation for this is the danger of lorries in cities. If you don't ever drive up the left hand side, you reduce (not remove, note) the danger from that source.

Any preventable accident needs the coincidence of a minimum of two low frequency events. For example, nipping the wrong way down a one way street that you've used thousands of times, at the same time as a boy racer comes the other way. You might have a reasonable expectation that there shouldn't be a boy racer on the road, but if the two of you are in the same place at the same time, you got trouble.

Main roads and side roads just have different risks attaching to them - neither are actually "safe" and if you rode around some parts of Essex, you would realise that. Me, I'm happy (for variable quantities of happy) on any road, but I try to make sensible decisions based on conditions I perceive at the time. The main roads have a much more clear and present danger, were I to use the side I would modify my speed and look so that I wouldn't be forced to wobble in the road.

As to what other riders do, often not the right thing. Whether in a car or on a bike. The way forward is for more people to cycle and to introduce strict liability. Then, after some years, it might begin to approach the level of cycling comfort in Catalonia, where drivers would occasionally give a sociable toot as the passed safely on the other side of the road, and I never felt actually threatened even on a single carriageway main road in the driving rain. OK That did get a bit scary with the sidewind.

[Basil]

On hanging back until it is safe to overtake.  I've also found that, no matter how far back I hang, the cyclist soon starts to show signs of stress.  I can understand this.  When I'm the cyclist it can be somewhat un-nerving.  You're aware of the car - you have no idea what they are going to do because you can't really watch them. 

When passing cyclists in a car I try whenever possible to get all four wheels over the white line - do unto others, etc. This frequently seems to result in great surprise. On one occasion recently on a 30mph road after hanging 50m back for some time waiting for a safe place to pass, and then passing with all wheels over the white line the cyclist responded to a furious load of two finger gesturing. I'm still puzzled by that incident. 

I've had this sort of thing happen quite a few times too. 

[nuttycyclist]

I'm not convinced that these (presumed) new cyclists are getting it wrong. There are learning processes.

I find it very difficult to navigate by bike off main roads in unfamiliar towns & cities. Signage, even on signed cycle routes is utterly opaque if you're a stranger. I frequently get lost. Country roads don't present a problem, because the topology is so much simpler.

When riding on those routes I don't seem to concentrate properly on survival in the motor vehicle jungle, because the navigation takes up too much brainpower. It's much more straightforward on main roads, and usually quicker.

I suspect that the riders in OP may be just finding a personal comfort zone. It's a moot point whether that's safer than the alternative - think about risk compensation. Is there any genuinely relevant science?

The majority of the ones I have seen recently, that prompted the original comment, have been in places where the usual driving route is the bypass, but the more sensible cycling route is the direct A->B route along the road that was the main road before the bypass was built.


The question over whether GPS is de-skilling people and making them incapable of looking at a map is possibly for another thread.    I've rarely had any navigation issues, even in strange towns, when I have a map on the bar bag; yes the GPS might suddenly want to route a funny way, and yes the signs might be pointing car drivers out of residential streets/quiet lanes, but the map hasn't changed and the obvious route on the map is still easily the obvious route on the ground.

[Pancho]

Conversely, when I drive I find myself taking the bike route with which I'm familiar!

[mrcharly-YHT]

On hanging back until it is safe to overtake.  I've also found that, no matter how far back I hang, the cyclist soon starts to show signs of stress.  I can understand this.  When I'm the cyclist it can be somewhat un-nerving.  You're aware of the car - you have no idea what they are going to do because you can't really watch them. 

When this happens to me I briefly hug the kerb and wave the car/bus/lorry through. It gets appreciation from the drivers; the bus drivers on my commute know me know and are really friendly and accommodating. Even drive defensively to protect *me* (as in block lane/roundabout and wave me through sort of thing).

[Toady]

Some of the generalisations in the OP rankled a bit. 

I wear a hi-vis vest when night riding, and the morning after, and on winter morning rides.  It also has lots & lots of lovely pockets & is a very practical garment.  I leave my back light on if visibility is poor or if I forget to switch it off.  And when I'm driving a car I rely on my GPS, which doesn't mean I can't read a map - I just don't need to, I'll glance at the map before a new journey then hand over to Sponge Bob (who voices my Tom Tom).  When I'm riding on lanes I may pull over into a gateway (although whether I "wobble" is open to interpretation) to let traffic pass if I happen to know that up ahead passing places are limited or there's a big narrow hill or something, it gets them off my tail, and it stops them being delayed and costs me at most a few seconds.  To me that's win-win.  Others may regard it as supine.   So I fall into many of the categories that the quoted text in the OP scorns, but mostly as the result of reasoned decisions.  I normally wear a h*lm*t too.

[Ham]

Oh yeah. I *like* stopping on hills to let traffic past  Of course I could have carried on, no problem.

maybe.

Edit: again referring to Catalonia (sorry) on the main road out, with about 10K of 10%+ frequented by cyclists, you got both: streams of traffic sitting quietly behind without visible impatience and others (like me) who pulled over from time to time, even though there were very few stopping places.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

French drivers often hang back a long time.  It doesn't bother me now I am used to it.  In very quiet areas I have even had oncoming drivers give a wave as they pass.   I suppose they may not see another road user that day!

[Biggsy]

I find the original post quite bizarre.  I think new cyclists like quieter roads because they find main roads intimidating to start with.

I'm not a new cyclist and I favour main roads when I'm going somewhere (rather than pottering or exploring countryside).  More often than being hillier, IME, they're generally flatter and more direct than smaller roads, and have fewer junctions without right-of-way on my way.  And a greater amount of overtaking room makes cycling more relaxing for me, even though I am confident enough to take the lane when needed on any type of road.  And I wear some hi-vis sometimes.

I don't include many fast dual-carriageways these days.  I call them "trunk roads" or "dual-carriageways" rather than "main roads".

[simonp]

My commute in 1991, aged 19, during summertime, when I'd just bought my first mountain bike:

http://goo.gl/maps/SS7jA

Couple of streetview pics:

http://goo.gl/maps/MQ7Zb

http://goo.gl/maps/JEXwG

I did sometimes take a longer route home. But finding quiet routes was even harder back then than now, and I managed to ride the short, mainly DC route in about an hour at best, 1h20 typically, whereas the long way would take nearly two hours.

[Manotea]

I've ridden in London since a young'un so unfazed by traffic. I'd cycle everywhere guided by the london bus route map I used to lift from the bus garage  across the road. That would get me as far as Redill, then I'd just follow the signs saying A23, Brighton. I'd never been near a country lane until I started riding Audax (well, not if it wasn't on a bus route).

[simonp]

The difference between then and now is traffic volume. Also, that was Scotland. Similar-class roads around Cambridge such as the A14 are major trunk routes and would be deeply unpleasant to cycle on, and I've never tried. But there are plenty cases still where I prefer the main road to going through the bypassed village.

[GothonaBrompton]

I think in London, unless you make an effort to look up an alternative, quieter route, it can be quite difficult due to the myriad of one way streets.  Following a bus route that you know goes where you want then makes sense I guess.

There are several alternatives to most of Victoria Street SW1 (a horrid road with all the construction), but loads of cyclists still use it as it is the most physically direct, even if it is nasty.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I still question the assumption that hi-viz is necessarily a sign of a new rider. In fact today I rode to Bath and back, that's about 50km, on a completely non-road path (old railway) and there were lots of people on that wearing hi-viz and even lights, in bright sunlight. Some were carbon fibre roadie types, some old guys in their 70s on retirement bling, some were pottering on step-thrus and hybrids. A real mix.