Why I prefer cycling in bus lanes to bike lanes

[ian]

It's changed considerably in the decade that I've been doing it (and I only got a bike to cycle to the pool up the road) but it has a long way to go. It's good to see things happen in central London and the inner boroughs, but there's nothing in outer boroughs. You can probably count the number of cyclists in Croydon on one hand and still have enough fingers free to play the trumpet. It's an aggressive and unpleasant environment.

I think there's some tension between that culture of fast, aggressive, and mostly male London cyclists and the new demographic. Those cycle lane people. Amateurs! They define themselves as cyclists, forged in the fury of the Elephant & Castle, tempered by the heat of the Old Street roundabout. How dare these wobbly people claim to be cyclists! Bikes with baskets. Children. Women. Oh my. Everyone will be doing it soon.

[mattc]

....
 an environment in which most people feel that in order to cycle in London they need to be fast, fit and assertive. I can't imagine that style of riding would go down well in, say, Utrecht, but it's currently the norm in London, which is how we wend up with scenes such as the ones in the OP. 

Supporting Anecdata:
I was quite happy to plunge across the Arc de Triomphe "roundabout" on a weekday morning without prior experience of Paris riding. I can't imagine being so happy with a comparable junction in London.

Antwerp was a ghastly dump, but the roads never felt dangerous, and I had no clue of the layout (or frankly the local rules)!

[SA_SA_SA_SA]

I don't see how the narrow 2 way path in the video and  the behaviour on it is going to encourage people who are too nervous to cycle on a road, to take up cycling. Being knocked flying  then bouncing off the (hard) tarmac/concrete (or being knocked into another passing vehicle) is going have the same effect whether a caused by a car or a bike: possible broken limbs/perhaps death etc etc. 

I

[Kim]

A lot of people who are nervous of cycling in traffic are quite happy to cycle in quite hazardous conditions:  Narrow busy paths with poor sightlines and treacherous surfaces, often next to freezing water, for example.  Or on the pavement where they have to give way to the exact same traffic that they're scared of in their blind spot at every side road.

Humans are, by design, shit at estimating risk.

[ian]

I don't see how the narrow 2 way path in the video and  the behaviour on it is going to encourage people who are too nervous to cycle on a road, to take up cycling. Being knocked flying  then bouncing off the (hard) tarmac/concrete (or being knocked into another passing vehicle) is going have the same effect whether a caused by a car or a bike: possible broken limbs/perhaps death etc etc. 

I

Because the vast majority of time none of these things happen. People get safely and pleasantly from A-to-B without having to fight it out with motorised vehicles.

[Cudzoziemiec]

....
 an environment in which most people feel that in order to cycle in London they need to be fast, fit and assertive. I can't imagine that style of riding would go down well in, say, Utrecht, but it's currently the norm in London, which is how we wend up with scenes such as the ones in the OP. 

Supporting Anecdata:
I was quite happy to plunge across the Arc de Triomphe "roundabout" on a weekday morning without prior experience of Paris riding. I can't imagine being so happy with a comparable junction in London.

Antwerp was a ghastly dump, but the roads never felt dangerous, and I had no clue of the layout (or frankly the local rules)!

I once walked across there from the Arc to the outside, having reached the Arc by the official route; I can't remember now what that was but I think it was an underground passageway. But on the way back I just walked across at a random point between the cars. It was, however, an evening rush hour so nothing was moving. Perhaps more to the point I was 20 and therefore immortal.

[SA_SA_SA_SA]

A lot of people who are nervous of cycling in traffic are quite happy to cycle in quite hazardous conditions....

Yes, but I just wish the separatists  would refrain from asking for such things until
they can guarantee they will be built properly wide enough (4m for bi-directional)  and with a big enough gap to any adjacent motor vehicle//all purpose road  ie a C/B road specially for cyclists. 
 

Until then I would prefer such routes to be invisible from roads so as cyclists using the road get less hassle.

I am usually worried when such new routes are announced: it is likely to mean a useful road has now become a choice between  punishment passes/verbal hassle  or the rubbish/hazardous facility.

I

[ian]

They're not hazardous. It's simply a small proportion of cyclists are unwilling to cycle to suit the conditions. Yes, occasionally there will be accidents. I'd rather be clipped by another cyclist than an 18 tonne lorry.

[Kim]

They're not hazardous. It's simply a small proportion of cyclists are unwilling to cycle to suit the conditions.

I have scars that suggest otherwise.  Admittedly that's my own fault for cycling inappropriately for the conditions (5mph with both feet on the pedals, in the case of the incident that required hospital treatment), but none have involved collisions with other path users.

Cycle infrastructure needs to be built to a quality that doesn't actively endanger cyclists through obstacles and poor surfaces that require technical off-road skills (and bikes) to negotiate.  I'd suggest that the superhighway featured in the OP meets that standard, it's just not built to accommodate the volume of badly-behaved cycle traffic that it's getting.  I too would rather be clipped by a lycra lout than an 18 tonner.


I can remember the last time I got abuse^[1] for not using a cycle facility.  It was also the first time I got abuse for not using a cycle facility.  That's way down in the noise of general motorist aggro.


_{[1] From someone other than Basil}

[mattc]

If I'm on my own, abuse from car occupants is about 80% likely to relate to cycle-paths.

(if I'm not, then it will almost always relate to 2-abreast-ness!)

It is incredibly frequent. And I have to tolerate sh1t about it at work at least once a week (often just overheard - not "bants" aimed at me).

[Pete Owens]

Me too. Since they built a cycle path alongside my commute I get abuse about once a week. Previously I experienced nearly 30 years riding along the same road without incident.

[Kim]

Maybe I just don't spend enough time riding alongside obvious cycle paths (round here it's mostly pavements with un-obvious blue signs making them shared-use, or paths away from the road that the drivers don't see).

I do have issues with a couple of places where on-road cycle lanes have recently been painted, with the result that I now get passed closer (mostly due to the protective properties of the magic paint rather than malice) and abuse if I don't stay in the lane.  But magic paint isn't cycle infrastructure.

[ian]

It's rush hour, it's London, anything is going to be busy. Even a dedicated facility that's a world better than the usual UK cycling provision (and I know how shit it typically is, I have to cycle through Croydon). That people in London are using bicycles as a genuine method of transport in significant numbers and that with facilities like this we might actually expand the gamut of cyclists beyond the typical blokes in lycra should be celebrated. Being able to whiz across London is blissful and liberating.

I couldn't give a shit what motorists think of my choice.

[SA_SA_SA_SA]

I still think the OP path is too narrow as theres not enough space between oncoming cyclists to pass safely unless they slow a lot or one stops which sort of defeats the purpose of making cycling convenient for the masses. There should be enough space between two oncoming cyclists for them to pass safely without slowing a lot: that would require it to be much wider IMO. I don't view being passed closely and fast by cyclists as different from motor  vehicle close passes. Eg two  approaching 20mph cyclists have a max 40 mph impact speed. 

There is also not a big enough gap between it and the motor traffic lane IMO.

IMO for such paths alongside roads unidirectional would be best (bidirectional would also make like more awkward for pedestrians as they now in effect have several 'roads' to cross).

I too would rather be clipped by a lycra lout than an 18 tonner.

but the tarmac won't any be  softer if I am clipped by a cyclist and catapulted from my bike (in the OP video possibly into the path of motor traffic): it could still be serious/fatal. 
I don't want to clipped by oncoming cyclists anymore than other vehicles.

I want 2 way cycle routes to be wide enough that that I can keep a safe space between me and oncoming cyclists just like on an all purpose B road.

[matthew]

I have had abuse on my commute here streetview image.

The area to the left of the white line is neither designed, designated or maintained as a cycle path in either direction, but that doesn't stop the drivers from thinking it is or should be used as such. Going the other way isn't too bad and the area to the left of the line is habitually used as a cycle lane by all of us. However in the direction of travel shown in the image (marginally up hill of course) the verge and debris encroaches further now than when google drove through. This makes it impractical to use as a cycle lane until through the right hand bend and out from under the trees.

[jane]

I've been cycling in London for the best part of the last 40 years and I don't really agree with that. Central London has always been a great place to cycle, and is getting even better recently. Yes, you have to keep your wits about you, but that applies equally to driving, walking, catching the tube. There are a lot of people trying to get where they're going in the shortest time possible, which does engender a bit of aggression in some people, but you get just as many aggressive pedestrians as you get aggressive drivers and aggressive cyclists.

Depends what you mean by a great place to cycle. I've been riding around the city for over 40 years now. I've always loved it, but even back in the 70's, you had to be pretty feisty to claim your space on the road. In many ways more so than now because there wasn't so much congestion slowing motor traffic down. I remember well, flying down Park Lane and taking rather crazy risks to get in the right lane, alongside cars that were traveling at much higher speeds than they do now down there.  My commute in 1979 was from Clapham to Walthamstow, over London Bridge taking in such delights as the Elephant double roundabout pre signalisation. You had to be very assertive to claim your space there in those days, so I'd say that the transport environment back then  was distinctly un cycling friendly and I did develop a pretty aggressive, or at least, very assertive way of cycling. However, I don't ride that way on these new cycle lanes, and really there's no excuse for people behaving like prats on a cycle track where they don't have to fight to claim safe space on the road. I blame the Strava culture myself!

[Kim]

I reckon Strava culture is an effect rather than a cause.  People who want to be competitive will compete against their watch or some other road user if there isn't a clever timing database tool available.  The road environment has been biased in favour of that kind of^[1] cyclist for years, so it's not surprising that there are plenty of them around.


_{[1] If you're fast, you don't have to be as assertive.}

[Ham]

It's a bit of both, innit? There are MGIF cyclist the same as MGIF drivers. There are swathes of new converts to cycling who are seduced by the Strava Syndrome (whether or not they actually use Strava). I recognise Jane's narrative, I was there too. it takes a maturity of cycling perspective to step back from the "race" and enjoy the ride and hey, five years ago most of these riders weren't on bikes. Ain't that fucking fantastic?

We're living in changing times. Personally, I don't enjoy sharing the CS at busy times, but that's a choice. I can either ride roads at basically my own speed or I can share the safe CS with other cyclists by slowing down.

And no, I'm far from perfect. I will ride fast if it is safe and I get the chance, and I have to put serious effort into not intimidating slower riders; I hope I mostly do that now.

[jane]

Just as an aside, if any SE London commuters who use Quietway 1, or could use it, are passing through the South Bermondsey and Deptford bit, I'll be there with Lewisham Cyclists, a cuppa and some cake for anyone willing to stop and answer a few questions about the Quietway and specifically the junction at Trundleys Rd, where we'll be.

[zigzag]

i enjoy using segregated lanes in off-peak times; during the rush hour i have to be much more vigilant and alert (than on the road where i can go with the flow of traffic) due to oncoming cyclists overtaking one another. i only choose the cycle lane if it's on the same side of the road that i need to travel on, otherwise a normal road every time, it feels safer and more relaxed.

[Jurek]

I've got to say that I agree entirely with this ^
In the last year they've allocated / created  much 'cyclists only' infrastructure in Waltham Forest, where I commute to.
Much of it I avoid because:
The cycle lane outside Blackhorse Road tube station and bus stop is invariably full of people waiting for a bus or being dropped off at the station.
Similarly the one on Blackhorse Lane, adjacent to a pavement full of meandering peds but, more importantly, this road is peppered with entrances to industrial estates. Vehicles leaving these invariably place themselves across the cycle lane while they wait for a gap in the traffic. As ZigZag says there's a greater feeling of safety and need for less vigilance when riding along the road at a speed not too dissimilar to that of the traffic.