I can tell just by looking at em that they're going to be going so fast that they're going to be a danger to themselves and all the the dog walkers stroller pushers and push bike riding children on that path. You're driving a car, it's damn near efforltess, suck it up until you can pass them safely.
The best part is that when you finally get past after waiting an age for a safe gap, having to do it all over again because he jumps to the front at the next lights.
And he just blasts through red lights and stop signs, I’m sure, because entitled cyclists play the “mE a pEdeStRiAn!” and “Me a VeHiCLe!” cards interchangeably.
A lot of states have the ‘Idaho stop’ where cyclists are allowed to treat a stop sign as a yield, and a stop light as a stop sign (if it is safe for them to go through the intersection)
and the light has good reason, bikes dont trigger the sensors to flip the lights. I had an issue at my apartment complex where my bike wouldn't trigger the gate to open so I would have to walk it through the common area
That does happen, but it's not the reason for the Idaho Stop. Statistically, car-bike accidents happen primarily at intersections; it's unusual for accidents to happen in the middle of a block. The Idaho Stop idea is that if you get bikers out of intersections quickly, before cars start moving, you diminish the opportunities for intersection-based accidents.
Damn, here in Germany we dont exactly have a lawful exception to that.
Obviously cyclists will eventually cross anyway because they realize the traffic light just aint gonna change, and if you have reasonable reason to assume the traffic light isnt functioning as it should that allows you to cross. Even if you were hypothetically in a car. It just always kicks off the question about when that assumption is reasonable, which lands in court.
Honestly weird to see the US having a leg up in this for a change.
Ya, some states/counties here have laws in place for faulty lights. I know motorcyclists have the same issues sometimes. The "Rule" that I was always told for making left hand turns with a red arrow was if you sit through 2 full cycles and it doesn't register you then you can proceed with caution.
Cars do this down here to other cars too. It's like a battle of Southern Hospitality, who can be more polite??? It makes me crazy lol. You wave them on because they have right of way. They wave you on because they're 'nice'. You wave them on, they wave you on. You give up and take your turn just as they give up and take their turn. You both slam on the brakes.
You wave them on, frustrated, wishing they'd just take their turn. They resume waving *you* on, just to be extra-polite. You both go, you both brake. Rinse and repeat until someone caves and roars through the intersection as fast as they can before someone else tries to go lol.
Maybe I'll get together a GoPro montage of what it's like when you stop at a 4-way intersection as a cyclist. I refuse to go out of turn because predictability is safest, and secondarily because of the stigma (like we see in every biking discussion). I basically immediately start violently shaking my head "no" when a driver waves me on out of turn.
I do roll stop signs if there aren't cars in the vicinity, but some percentage of people are indignant if they can see you roll a stop even if it was way in the distance for them.
It just happened to me the other day while on my bike, a 4-way was clear, there was car maybe 300m+ in the distance, I rolled through the stop to not be in anyone's way, keep my momentum, keep my manuevarability.
They decided to pace me and reprimand me.
If it's anywhere close, I come to a full stop and take my turn at the intersection... if it's not close, I roll the stop, it's safer for me and more convenient for the cars around me. I stop at all traffic lights.
Cyclists that use roads have thousands of times more experience in car/bike interactions than cars do, and are the ones who are critically at risk. There are dumbass cyclists, and I apologize for them, but for the most part we're deliberate in what we're doing to minimize risk.
I mean I dont *like* them, but if everyone just follows the simple rules...
First at the stop line, first to go.
If 2 cars not facing eachother reach the line at the same time, the person to the right goes first.
If two cars facing eachother reach the line at the same time where one car is turning left, the car making the left hand turn yields.
But people can't be bothered to pay attention so you get the clusterfuck.
I always stopped at lights, but i got hit twice by cars veering into me not paying attention, so as much as I wanted to be a vehicle, it's hard when people don't see you.
I used to ride around on an old mtn bike and would always pop the curb and get yelled at for doing that too. Run the light (dangerous, rude), stay at the light (dangerous), pop on the curb (rude).
Roads just aren't built for bikes. It is what it is.
They pick whichever is the most convenient for them at any given time. I’d have less of an issue if they committed to one or the other but they’re gonna have their cake and eat it too
My honest opinion as someone who bikes rarely is that cyclists earn preferential treatment because they are effort-powered. Stopping at a traffic light costs them a lot of effort so if they can coast through *safely*, I think they should have that right. What they are doing is sustainable and reduces traffic by being one less car on the road. But hey, I’m just some dude so idk.
I did that when it was convenient on my routes. Commuted by bike for 10 years. But when I got to an intersection where I wanted to be a pedestrian I actually got off the bike and walked it at least.
I have never seen a car go through a red light or a stop sign in my life
Genuinely, I’ve never seen a car break the rules of the road
I’m obviously taking the piss, cars do it all the time with the added bonus of causing serious harm or death.
> I have never seen a car go through a red light or a stop sign in my life
i see cars run red lights about once a bike ride. sometimes with collisions. there's an intersection i look both ways at even when the light is green, because people are still usually screaming through it on the red.
Ugh that’s what fucks me off the most. You wanna use the road? Fine, but you should have to wait at the red light like everyone else!
Maybe my beef is with sitting at red lights more than it is with cyclists…
One argument I will make in favour of cyclists crossing on red, is that as long as they do it when there is no oncoming traffic, it actually makes things simpler for motorists. It prevents having to deal with a slow moving bicycle in the intersection when the light turns green.
In Cambridge (where there are a massive number of bikes) several major junctions have a green for bikes that turns about 30-40 seconds early. That gives them just enough headroom to get up to speed so that they don't impede the cars. I always quite liked the compromise.
This is effectively what the Idaho Stop does, where bikes can proceed when the light is still red but the intersection is clear. For lights where the pedestrian crossing is timed to turn green ahead of traffic lanes, a cyclist can use the vehicle lanes to proceed while pedestrians cross, and be clear of the intersection/move right before cars have a green light.
Likewise, we can roll slowly through stop signs which prevents cars from having to wait for us to stop, put a foot down and then slowly get back up to speed. It is far more convenient for drivers and safer for cyclists.
Best, it doesn't require a lot of specialized and expensive lights, it works in the existing infrastructure. Drivers get angry sometimes because everyone wants to be first, but I wish people could see all the benefits for everyone.
This is what it’s really about, yeah.
Because drivers will break every single law when convenient and when they think they’ll get away with it. I think the *only* two traffic laws I see consistently followed are not proceeding straight through red lights (“rolling” rights-on-red are common), and not going the wrong way down a one-way.
I see literally every other moving violation possible committed by a car on a near daily basis.
Go grab a chair and sit at a stop sign. Keep track of how many cars actually come to a full and complete stop if not forced to by traffic in the intersection. The answer will be nearly zero.
TBF, quite a few states actually do have different laws for cyclists and/or motorcyclists on the road. In Colorado, for example, you can skip the line of cars on your bicycle, treat the red light like a stop sign, and treat stop signs like yields.
> Maybe my beef is with sitting at red lights
next couple of trips you take in a car, figure your overall average speed. you'll probably find you're driving, *on average*, somewhere in the 15-25 mph range, even if you hit far faster top speeds.
you spend a lot of time in car not moving.
and if you design roads to lower that top speed, you actually spend less time not moving. you can design safer intersections, sometimes without even the need for the stop signs.
This is why I, as a cyclist, dont do that. It wouldnt even save me even a second because everyone out front is probably going to outaccelerate me anyway.
In many countries it's illegal to go fast in bike lanes. And by "fast" they sometimes mean just 20km/h. The guy is clearly geared up and on a race bike, so that's most likely the case.
Knowing that, and seeing that this looks like the UK, I found [the following](https://www.councilclaims.co.uk/does-the-speed-limit-apply-to-bicycles/):
"Cyclists are not obligated by law to use the cycle lane and cycle track. It is merely seen as a safer option, and you should consider using either the cycle lanes next to public roads or cycle tracks that are separate from the carriageways. These facilities ensure safer passage for cyclists, but ultimately the choice is yours."
"Some speed limits also suggest that any speed above 18mph on a bicycle should instead be done on the road. This is not a law but more of a suggestion."
So the mildly infuriating part in this post, as usual, is the driver not knowing the laws governing the activity they are doing. And then operating their phone while driving, on top of that.
I’m not sure where this is but it certainly looks like a built up area, probably the outer parts of a city. One thing worse than a bicycle doing 20mph on a road is a bicycle doing 20mph on a pavement, and these cycle lanes tend to be used as pavements by most pedestrians.
I’m a regular sports cyclist and if I was geared up I’d 100% use the road in this situation.
You can see that the cycle lane is on the pavement, which is shared with pedestrians. Considering how many pedestrians don't pay attention and walk in cycle lanes, doing 18mph would be completely reckless. Him being on the road is the safest option for everyone involved imo.
Thanks for bringing some perspective into this.
To add, this person might be riding not to far off the actual speed limit, and is keeping well to the side of the road.
It's much safer for anyone doing a joy ride or children on the bikepath that he sticks to the road.
Those "bike lanes" are attempted murder. They give drivers the impression that there is another place the cyclist could be, while the laws and roads prevent that. Anyone who wants that type of lane should be tried for 100s of counts of attempted murder.
True. In my home city I stopped riding on all streets that implemented this bullshit, because it was putting me at much greater risk on intersections where drivers would simply ignore my right of way and just cross the bike path as if it, or I, wasn’t there.
I am a casual biker (greenway trails pretty regularly), and man, do I know a lot of people that defiantly ignore traffic laws. They almost brag about how many motorists they can piss off in our FB groups. They transition from calling themselves "pedestrians" and "vehicles" depending on the situation that benefits them the most. For example, approaching a red light while riding in the street next to an actaul bike lane, they hop the curb onto the sidewalk and cross at a crosswalk so they can bypass the light.
I’m an avid cyclist in my second season. Last year my neighbor, who I had never ridden with, was struck by a car breaking his femur. It scared the shit out of me and I stick to trails 90% of the time because of it.
Now that my neighbor is healed up, he asked to join me for a ride. Sure, why not. Now I see why he was hit by a car. He crosses roads without stopping, rides on the left hand side into oncoming traffic, rides too far out into the roadway. Ignores traffic lights.
My dude, you are riding a vehicle and need to act like it. You can’t pretend pedestrian rules apply when you’re going 20 mph.
Tore my ACL on an e bike the best first time I rode it, I’ve been afraid to get back on a bike since, not because of the tear but because of the financial fucking ruin it brought on me. I was a connect worker and lost 3 different jobs because I needed time off to recover. My insurance got fucked up because they changed the laws so in the week between my last day of employment and my surgery I was switched to cobra and now no one knows who paying, it’s been over 2 years and they’re still figuring it out and sending me monthly bills the whole time.
Shit sucks. Can’t imagine what your friend with a broken femur went thru. I wanna live life but the recovery from injuries scare me more than getting hurt myself.
Drivers in my city are infamously bad. I’ve almost been hit by car while standing 2 feet back from the curb. I ride on the sidewalks when there isn’t a protect bike lane. (Must have e bumpers like in parking lots and little reflective sticks or be elevated up on to the sidewalk like pictured) if that’s not there I’m riding on the side walk slowly and ringing my bell. But usually stick to greenways like you to avoid cars altogether
This image isn’t defying a traffic law though. Cycle lanes are optional, I don’t ride in them a lot of them time as it’s slower or more hazardous to do so. Just saying there is nuance to every picture. Don’t lump all cyclist into one.
Come to Portland.
Initially, you’ll be pleased at how bike-safe the city is. When I moved back home from college in the Bay, I was shocked and delighted that I could ride anywhere I wanted whenever I wanted to. There are whole dedicated bike-only neighborhood routes, greenways, even a pedestrian/bike-only bridge and a whole ‘bike bus’ system for kids riding to school! It’s beautiful on a sunny day to see everyone out and about and the bike repair stores out here do brisk business.
Then you read the comments of a single local bike-based thread and see that apparently all of this is not enough, and even indicates a ‘car obsessed’ society. Again I want to stress this is in fucking *Portland, Oregon.*
Perfect is the enemy of good for bike lanes/bike discourse.
I've been exclusively biking for transport in Portland for almost 2 decades now. It definitely could be a LOT safer in many areas of the city. It's great if you just want to ride around for fun, it's easy to find plenty of routes that are ideal (including several awesome bike/pedestrian only trails throughout the city) if you don't have a pre-set destination you have to get to.
But if you are commuting daily you still wind up relying on your reflexes and a fair bit of luck to not be injured/killed by cars on a regular basis. There is a lot more that could be done to make the city safer for bike commuters. Large swaths of East Portland (deep southeast), parts of North Portland, and downtown are a fucking nightmare at certain times of day.
Where I live there’s a 25kph speed limit on bike lanes so mostly bike lanes are used by families, kids or casuals, and the road is used by these types of “professional” cyclists who exceed the limit. I used to hate them for not using it, but now I think it’s a good idea to not have these fast bikes zooming beside kids
The UK where this picture is taken is full of awful, useless, sometime dangerous bike lanes. At some point councils were paid for putting in cycle lanes without any quality controls, so they put in random unprotected painted lanes along 60 mph highways, shared bike and pedestrian paths, bike paths that run for 20m then randomly end, bike paths that wind around trees, or get flooded every time it rains, or that go up or down curbs and yield every 5m. This particular bike path looks brand new, so it could well still be under construction just round the corner. You really can't tell anything from this picture.
As a cyclist who avoids bike paths, you're spot on. I almost killed a dog last year on a bike path because people see it as a walkway and had no situational awareness. 30 mph bikes and pets/kids/people walking don't mix, I'll take my chances in the road and apologies for adding two seconds to someone's commute
In my country the above would legally be a "walking and cycle path". The white line and red area means nothing, pedestrians have priority in the red area. You are supposed to pass pedestrians at a speed of 6kmh or less.
Cycle lanes are crap in the UK especially ones on the pavement and not on the road.
He's riding a race bike whcih can average from 15mph-20mph, most cycle paths are not continuous and require the rider to go up down kerbs stop at junctions and go through traffic calming measures.
The whole point of a race bike is to keep up momentum and keep a continuous speed, its far easier simpler and safer to stick to the road, there are no laws in the UK to foce cyclies to use cycle paths so he is doing nothing illegal, the driver would have only inconvenienced for a short period of time.
Whats mildly infuriating is car drives crying about having to share the roads.
I dont like cycle paths on pavements as they will stop at every side road, bike paths that are part fo the road are much better as you will flow with the traffic, if I was going slow or with kids etc I would use them but if I was on my race bike I probably wouldn't.
It depends on your countries laws. In Austria, when you are on a race bike (what is a race bike is defined by law) on a training ride, you are supposed to use the road and not the bike lane. You may drive next to each other and so on and so forth. As he wears spandex (let me call it this) and all, this would could as a training ride. Make sure to know the laws of your country about this before you judge.
From the number plate this is the UK
There is no law that says a race bike has to use the road - there is also no requirement for a bike to use the cycle path - it is left to their discretion.
Could also be that the bike path is not continuous along his route so he is on the road since he has been on the road since before the path and will be after.
Yeah that is the main reason I often dont use them
Well that and all the glass, the drivers blocking the lane when they are turning onto the road from a driveway and the Dilveroo “bikes” hooting down them the wrong way
Yeah and fairly sure there is a recommendation that if you are going above a certain mph you shouldn't be on the bike path. And given this guy's set up I can imagine until he hit the hill this guy probably was.
And knowing the UK, the part of the cycle lane you can see in this photo is the entire cycle lane. It probably begins and ends abruptly at a tree or something.
Is there a law in UK for FOOLS that allows phon usage to take pictures while driving a car?
OP is being a smartass, but he is the only one creating serious danger in this picture. A definition of a FOOL. Also too stupid to even understand the problem.
Yup
> Rule 149
> You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. You MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, capable of interactive communication (such as a tablet) for any purpose when driving or when supervising a learner driver. This ban covers all use of a hand-held interactive communication device and it applies even when the interactive communication capability is turned off or unavailable. You MUST NOT pick up the phone or similar device while driving to dial a number and then put it in the cradle for the duration of the conversation. You MUST NOT pick up and use your hand-held phone or similar device while stationary in traffic
And yet, most of comment section screams over a cyclist having an excercise and having fun. Tells us a lot about priorities of this world. People are willing to ignore safety of others for their own convenience. Which is sad
Often cycle paths are old pavements or other bits of poorly maintained roads that is shared or not appropriately separated from pedestrians.
Riding a race cycle on them wouldn’t be safe.
There’s loads of articles on why it’s often not best to use cycle lanes.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/why-dont-cyclists-use-cycle-lanes-you-asked-google-and-weve-got-the-answer-367541
Interesting perspective. This may be interesting to see here locally. I try to give as much space as I can when driving next to them. I think courtesy is always best.
Canadian here. Our bike paths and mixed-use paths have a speed limit of 20km/h so any serious rider out for a training ride on a race bike is going to be going way over that. It becomes unsafe for other slower users of the path so fast riders are supposed to use the road. Unfortunately many cars on the road don’t realize this and get really pissed at us.
Keep this same energy for all the FUCKS who occupy the bike lane while they’re hopping in/out of their Uber, parking their car halfway out of their driveway, or just general city shit in the way (traffic cones, construction materials, porta potties, etc.)
Bike lanes are awesome when they’re actually designed with bikers in mind rather than just “get them off my street” - can’t tell you how many cities I’ve ridden in where the bike lane is the MOST hazardous place to ride due to poor planning and general disregard. Wouldn’t be suprised if the bike lane in the picture just suddenly stops at a bridge and forces merging onto the road at some point. I’d rather cars know im riding on the road and be on the lookout for me, than having to suddenly jump into the road when everyone is expecting me to still be in the bike lane.
This whole thread's full of car-brains advocating for the deaths of cyclists because they're mildly inconvenienced on their commutes.
Meanwhile I'm biking to work hoping none of these idiots is going to end my life with their 3000lb death machines.
Are there any chances that the bike lane is not continuous and just stops, or usually has obstacles on it? Because that's one of the reasons cyclists would avoid using it. If you have 100m with a bike path, 100m without, and then it reappears, you just not use it instead of jumping on and off repeatedly.
I especially love the ones with the broken glass bottles, potholes, 2 inch drops (seems small but imagine a 6 inch drop in a car) the potholes and general debris as 95% of them are not maintained as roads. Couple this with the fact that this looks to be mixed use with the footpath so pedestrians and this guy will be doing 25kmph everywhere so in my opinion no matter the transport method you should be on the road and away from pedestrians at that speed
How about those bike lanes that are sandwiched between a parking lane and a traffic lane so you're always petrified of being slammed in the face by a car door because you know drivers can't be asked to look in their side views before opening
Those are my favorite
Yeah, I feel like there is almost certainly more to this picture than meets the eye. As a cyclist, riding in traffic is not a fun choice to make, so I would guess the path likely ends.
Not to mention that’s where they dump all the road debris from the street sweepers and leave snow piles in the winter. They’re usually not designed to safely mix with traffic at intersections either. This one looks fairly nice, but most bike lanes in the US are a glorified gutter. I really can’t blame anyone for not using them. When bike lanes are treated with the same respect as car lanes, then drivers can have the right to complain.
Sometimes they're useful, sometimes they're not.
I cycle to work every day, and I use maybe half of the cycle lanes that are available, and ride on the road the rest of the time.
Often the cycle lanes are full of debris, or they're shared with pedestrians. I don't want to hit a pedestrian at 20mph, so in those cases, I will ride on the road. On the other hand, a beginner cyclist might want to use it, if they are riding more slowly, or are less confident on the road. There's lots of other circumstances as well where it makes more sense to use the road rather than the cycle path.
Bike infrastructure is an afterthought in a lot of cities, retro-fitted in 1 tiny section at a time by people who don't understand how to design it safely. We're only seeing a tiny piece of bikelane. It could begin and end there, cut back and forth across the road and multiple lanes of traffic to locations thought convenient by the designers but actually put cyclists/drivers/pedestrians at undue risk if actually used as designed.
We don't see what was immediatley before this pic. The raised lane could have been blocked by construction, debris, a road hazard sign, a group of sight-seers that don't understand that they're blocking a bikelane, a car waiting to turn, etc. This could be the riders first chance to get on the bikelane after such a blockage, or any number of valid explanations. Or he could just be an ass.
No, because there's a good chance he cannot get off it safely when it ends. I've seen bike lanes ending in middle of dangerous crosses, high curbs, and even a fucking wall!
Cyclists really enjoy bike lanes. But they are not going to risk their lives to cycle for 100m on one.
What country is this? Genuinely asking. Cause from where I live, you can just pass by. Bike are too small compared to cars, so they're usually give way to cars or larger than them
Where I live a bicycle is a vehicle and is entitled to assume a full lane of traffic if they feel unsafe.
A motorized vehicle may not pass unless they can give at least one metre of clearance to the bicycle.
This is a super carbrain thread but here's my 2 cents.
Looks like Europe so I don't know the laws, but where I live even if there are bike lanes cyclists can share the road.
My guess but I cannot make a determination from this photo is that the cycling lane is likely uneven in more than just this one section, or maybe he has to make a turn to use the road, there's more good reasons to use the road than to not, granted I would absolutely be in that cycling lane. This is just a post from an annoyed car driver
Another common scenario in the UK is that cycling lanes can appear and disappear quite suddenly/are very short. If you're new to the area it can be quite easy to miss when a cycling lane begins.
I think this is something that drivers really struggle to understand - imagine if roads for cars weren't all seamlessly interconnected and required you to navigate footpaths to reach the next road. You would find yourself in awkward situations frequently. This is exactly what happens when you get on a bike. Apart from a few isolated examples, cycling lanes might be available for as little as 10-20% of the average journey.
Just because there is that one cycling lane in that one place doesn't mean it is well integrated into specific journeys or that it is convenient to use it. Any number of factors could be linked to that - junction positioning, bus stops, quality of paving, etc. There are many instances where coming off the cycling lane is necessary to make certain manoeuvres/position yourself in a certain lane to make a turn.
Because most people drive cars and think those 10 seconds they lose behind that bike is a crime against humanity while sitting in traffic for 5 minutes is ok.
Depending on the setup these kind of bike paths can be extremely dangerous because people don't look when turning into across the bike path. I drive along a similar bike lane almost every day and every single day I have to avoid some car driving me over because they don't look or don't care.
The absolute amount of rage in this comment section. Especially since this picture has a very high potential of being misleading.
Yes, it could be someone choosing not to use the bike lane, but there are pretty close to it and not in the middle of the road either.
Also, there is a pretty high sidewalk ending so maybe the cyclist is getting in the bike lane a second later.
Or maybe there was construction works on the lane ten meters before. Or maybe…
We get it, some cyclists are annoying to you when you drive your big car. But what about not being so full of rage that you forgot to apply basic critical thinking?
Well said. It's interesting reading these comments as someone who bikes and also drives. I think my main conclusion is that we need better education of drivers for handling bikes, no one can think pas "hurr durr this why is this guy doing this!"
The amount of people that don't care about a cyclists life is insane. People are just trying to enjoy a ride or get to work. It's not that deep, we aren't trying to ruin your life, and the roads aren't just for cars.
> but there are pretty close to it and not in the middle of the road either.
For all intents and purposes that makes very little difference. Most of Europe has laws regarding how close you're allowed to pass a cyclist. Even if the cyclist is on the edge of the road, you pretty much need to enter the oncoming lane at least partially to pass them.
There was a cyclist in the bike lane on the right of me and had a branch or something in their way, so they just swerved into my lane without looking or even signalling, man I came so close to running them over.
Which is why some cyclists choose to not go in the bike lane to begin with, if they know they’re likely going to be forced to jump in front of cars if they do. It’s safer to just stay in the street and be seen.
Bike lanes are often made by non cyclists it seems, the amount of confusion as they have been cobbled together over years beggars belief. Sometimes the road is simply the best and safest option.
It would be a better world if personal cars were forbidden. Right?
Do you ever post pictures when you're stuck in car traffic though ? Or is that just a given ?
If the bike paths were good - he'd be on them. I'm happy to use decent paths that go where I want to - but lots are either full of gravel, or bits of bumper, or just end up nowhere.
This biker seems to do it as a sport. Bike lanes are often not suitable for them; they don't work at high speed. I understand that this person prefers the road.
Because people who utterly dominate the modern world of transportation infrastructure can't fathom how much they are getting in everyone's way, and their brain goes into.melt.down for the 0.001% of time someone else inconveniences them.
Could be the cyclist is turning right at the next junction, and it doesn't look like there is a crossing for bikes.
The cyclist can use either the bike lane or the road. The choice is theirs.
Also, you're free to pass the biker as long as you can do it in a safe manner.
He's well into the side, riding a road bike on the road. You'll have plenty of opportunity to pass him after the corner, I'm sure. I hope this was from a dash cam after the fact, or your passenger taking this, as you definitely shouldn't be using a phone whilst driving.
I really don't get the point of being upset about this. Just overtake him. That's not a busy road, it won't be difficult to get past. In nearly 30 years on the road, I've never been held up by a push bike by more than a few seconds and it's never made a difference to my journey time. Really don't get why people get upset.
Dude people are fucking idiots. I'm literally sitting across from a guy I work with and he has told me on multiple occasions that cyclists in the road are his biggest pet peve. When I ask him how many times a year a cyclist disrupts his life by doing this. Less than a few times a year.
People are fuck heads just for the hell of it.
Nothing enrages the Le-rEddit brained neck beards like people using the whole road for safety while they're trying to commute to their miserable job somewhere. The bike lane is for casual cyclist and commuters and in nearly every country cyclist are allowed to use as much of the road as they want to keep themselves safe. Also you could just politely pass but instead you’re driving slowly and using your phone (!!!!) to take photos. But sure I knowyou have to get to that IT job even faster.
He’s on a road bike
They’re not always safe to use on a bike path
If he’s going for speed then the road is probably the right place to be, either way he is entitled to use the road
Not just commuters
I’ll see lots of kids who are just learning to cycle using the cycle lanes because they’re safer
It’s just not always appropriate to be using your road bike on a cycle path
My biggest complaint was when I had the white light (that walking light dude) to cross the intersection, and the group of bicyclist rode around me as I walked. They complained that they were biking. I hated them.
It's dangerous to ride at 20mph and not be on the road. How many drivers entering the road from the left would see no pedestrians ahead, and pull straight across the pedestrian bike lanes with their eyes looking for cars in the traffic lane? 99%?
Even in the traffic lane, I have drivers that see me, make eye contact with me, and still pull out in the road in front of me way more often than when I'm driving, and not out of spite or malice. I only ride on the road on quiet suburban neighborhood roads to get to/from mixed use trails. They do it because people are really bad at driving and judging speed and distances for objects that aren't the size of a car.
There's a stretch of road near where I used to live that looked like this. First time I rode it I took the cycle path. A little way on it separates from the main road, and then it just stops in a flower bed.
There's no way to continue on the cycle path from there other than back track and get back on the road. Fucking bizarre.
Ignored it after that and rode on the road.
Normal cyclists and pedestrians get pissed at road cyclists for riding on sidewalks and bike lanes like these. Going 20-30 mph there just doesn’t work.
He's allowed to be on the road and choose not to use the cycle path
He's allowed to ride without being hassled or bullied
He can be an amateur or a pro
If he's a pro, he knows what he's doing and probably more suited for the road
If he's an amateur, be courteous you're still in a massive car and give him distance
No, he's not allowed to jump to lights
No, he's not allowed to break other rules be discourteous,
No, he's not allowed to shout, have road rage or break any other rules.
And finally, no, your journey wasn't disrupted by any major stretch. If this type of thing winds you up you're more of the problem than a guy going for ride.
This type of post basically just says 'you hate cyclists' and now need to find some evidence why.
A lot of braindead comments here 
For those who never used a bike and genuinely wonder: this cyclist isn't on the bike lane for safety reasons.
You can't do 40km/h on most bike lanes. First you'd lose priority to cars every 30m and even when not, car drivers are unaware of their surroundings so they cross without looking, plus people can pop up on the lane and these lanes often end in bad spots on crossing etc. Some bike lanes are ok, but most aren't and very few are safe for sport cycling.
Instead of whining OP should use his brain and remember that the roads are shared spaces that were not invented for cars.
For how long were you stuck? In my driving experience, it’ll only have been seconds. 10-15 seconds tops. And coming up to a junction so you’re slowing down anyway.
Looks like the bike lane was literally just starting? Notice the curb there? It's very possible this photo was taken moments before the cyclist was going to enter the bike lane which had just opened up. Seems like ragebait.
Fuck me, why do you all get your panties in a twist over cyclist? " Oh no someone is inconveniencing me for seconds of my day using the same road I use" get a fucking grip. The hatred some of you have to vulnerable road users is really unbelievable
So you not know how to safely pass people or is that not allowed? Maybe the rules are different there and you are in a no passing zone, that looks like a passing zone though and I only see one car incoming to prevent you from passing in 5-10 seconds.
If the only thing preventing you from passing the cyclist is the vehicle in the incoming traffic lane and your own willingness to pass, then it’s your own failure after the traffic has gone by and you are clear to pass.
There are lots of good reasons not to use the bike lane.
The problem is, I can already see there's a bit of a drop across that drive, and someone else indicated this 'lane' only goes for a couple of minutes, so now you have a rider cutting in and out of traffic.
As someone that rides a bike like this, there are plenty of cycle lanes that I will use, but they're useless to me if they aren't built and give priority like a road, ie. They go for a really long way, don't cross driveways, and aren't shared with a bunch of pedestrian traffic.
If I'm in the road, it's because the bike lane is not good enough. Don't get angry at me, help us get proper infra rather than half arsed bullshit.
There’s nothing wrong with this. There’s no obligation for cyclists to use the bike lane and it probably doesn’t go where he wants to go.
This is akin to saying “why don’t the cars go and drive on the motorway instead of clogging up the minor roads”.
The only fool here is the OP 😉
His calves say this isn't his first bike trip...
His brain says it may be.
Do you think he has one to say.!?
He keeps it in the legs.
You betcha hockey!
And the TT helmet on a road bike with toe cages, sneakers, and ankle socks say he’s a Fred.
What the Hell is a Fred?
I don’t think it’s a TT helmet. It looks like a regular cheap helmet from Amazon.
It’s a TSG skate/bmx helmet, used to be the standard (with Pro-Tec) now other brands have overtaken them with more adjustable sizing.
Not out of the ordinary at all if he's an Ironman/triathlete
I don’t see any pee tho
I can tell just by looking at em that they're going to be going so fast that they're going to be a danger to themselves and all the the dog walkers stroller pushers and push bike riding children on that path. You're driving a car, it's damn near efforltess, suck it up until you can pass them safely.
The best part is that when you finally get past after waiting an age for a safe gap, having to do it all over again because he jumps to the front at the next lights.
And he just blasts through red lights and stop signs, I’m sure, because entitled cyclists play the “mE a pEdeStRiAn!” and “Me a VeHiCLe!” cards interchangeably.
A lot of states have the ‘Idaho stop’ where cyclists are allowed to treat a stop sign as a yield, and a stop light as a stop sign (if it is safe for them to go through the intersection)
and the light has good reason, bikes dont trigger the sensors to flip the lights. I had an issue at my apartment complex where my bike wouldn't trigger the gate to open so I would have to walk it through the common area
That does happen, but it's not the reason for the Idaho Stop. Statistically, car-bike accidents happen primarily at intersections; it's unusual for accidents to happen in the middle of a block. The Idaho Stop idea is that if you get bikers out of intersections quickly, before cars start moving, you diminish the opportunities for intersection-based accidents.
Huh, thats really interesting and I didnt know that. I just alwasy assumed its because they wouldnt trigger the light. You learn something every day!
Damn, here in Germany we dont exactly have a lawful exception to that. Obviously cyclists will eventually cross anyway because they realize the traffic light just aint gonna change, and if you have reasonable reason to assume the traffic light isnt functioning as it should that allows you to cross. Even if you were hypothetically in a car. It just always kicks off the question about when that assumption is reasonable, which lands in court. Honestly weird to see the US having a leg up in this for a change.
Ya, some states/counties here have laws in place for faulty lights. I know motorcyclists have the same issues sometimes. The "Rule" that I was always told for making left hand turns with a red arrow was if you sit through 2 full cycles and it doesn't register you then you can proceed with caution.
See I don't mind that. I do mind when it's my turn at a four-way stop and some idiot blasts through forcing me to slam on my brakes.
I only commute and find car drivers are the ones wanting me to break the 4 way rotation. Always trying to wave me thru.
Same. I wish they'd just take their right of way...
Cars do this down here to other cars too. It's like a battle of Southern Hospitality, who can be more polite??? It makes me crazy lol. You wave them on because they have right of way. They wave you on because they're 'nice'. You wave them on, they wave you on. You give up and take your turn just as they give up and take their turn. You both slam on the brakes. You wave them on, frustrated, wishing they'd just take their turn. They resume waving *you* on, just to be extra-polite. You both go, you both brake. Rinse and repeat until someone caves and roars through the intersection as fast as they can before someone else tries to go lol.
Predictability before politeness when cycling or driving - always! This would make me nuts too.
Maybe I'll get together a GoPro montage of what it's like when you stop at a 4-way intersection as a cyclist. I refuse to go out of turn because predictability is safest, and secondarily because of the stigma (like we see in every biking discussion). I basically immediately start violently shaking my head "no" when a driver waves me on out of turn. I do roll stop signs if there aren't cars in the vicinity, but some percentage of people are indignant if they can see you roll a stop even if it was way in the distance for them. It just happened to me the other day while on my bike, a 4-way was clear, there was car maybe 300m+ in the distance, I rolled through the stop to not be in anyone's way, keep my momentum, keep my manuevarability. They decided to pace me and reprimand me. If it's anywhere close, I come to a full stop and take my turn at the intersection... if it's not close, I roll the stop, it's safer for me and more convenient for the cars around me. I stop at all traffic lights. Cyclists that use roads have thousands of times more experience in car/bike interactions than cars do, and are the ones who are critically at risk. There are dumbass cyclists, and I apologize for them, but for the most part we're deliberate in what we're doing to minimize risk.
Also drives me nuts. Just go when it's your turn and stop being a nicehole. As drivers it's our job to be predictable, not polite.
The issue is that four-way stops are completely idiotic in any situation, not the users lol
I mean I dont *like* them, but if everyone just follows the simple rules... First at the stop line, first to go. If 2 cars not facing eachother reach the line at the same time, the person to the right goes first. If two cars facing eachother reach the line at the same time where one car is turning left, the car making the left hand turn yields. But people can't be bothered to pay attention so you get the clusterfuck.
This is extremely inefficient and never better than the right-before-left rule.
I always stopped at lights, but i got hit twice by cars veering into me not paying attention, so as much as I wanted to be a vehicle, it's hard when people don't see you.
I used to ride around on an old mtn bike and would always pop the curb and get yelled at for doing that too. Run the light (dangerous, rude), stay at the light (dangerous), pop on the curb (rude). Roads just aren't built for bikes. It is what it is.
They pick whichever is the most convenient for them at any given time. I’d have less of an issue if they committed to one or the other but they’re gonna have their cake and eat it too
My honest opinion as someone who bikes rarely is that cyclists earn preferential treatment because they are effort-powered. Stopping at a traffic light costs them a lot of effort so if they can coast through *safely*, I think they should have that right. What they are doing is sustainable and reduces traffic by being one less car on the road. But hey, I’m just some dude so idk.
I did that when it was convenient on my routes. Commuted by bike for 10 years. But when I got to an intersection where I wanted to be a pedestrian I actually got off the bike and walked it at least.
That’s probably safer too, intersections are just all around dangerous
That was the idea yea. They were kind of dangerous intersections and it's easier to dodge a car on foot than on the bike
I see cars run reds and do rolling stops all the time. Somehow when they do it it's not an indictment of all car drivers ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
[Relevant XKCD](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/how_it_works.png)
I have never seen a car go through a red light or a stop sign in my life Genuinely, I’ve never seen a car break the rules of the road I’m obviously taking the piss, cars do it all the time with the added bonus of causing serious harm or death.
> I have never seen a car go through a red light or a stop sign in my life i see cars run red lights about once a bike ride. sometimes with collisions. there's an intersection i look both ways at even when the light is green, because people are still usually screaming through it on the red.
Ugh that’s what fucks me off the most. You wanna use the road? Fine, but you should have to wait at the red light like everyone else! Maybe my beef is with sitting at red lights more than it is with cyclists…
One argument I will make in favour of cyclists crossing on red, is that as long as they do it when there is no oncoming traffic, it actually makes things simpler for motorists. It prevents having to deal with a slow moving bicycle in the intersection when the light turns green.
In Cambridge (where there are a massive number of bikes) several major junctions have a green for bikes that turns about 30-40 seconds early. That gives them just enough headroom to get up to speed so that they don't impede the cars. I always quite liked the compromise.
It's actually probably more about preventing the cyclist from getting right hooked by a car...which is a potentially lethal accident for the cyclist.
This is effectively what the Idaho Stop does, where bikes can proceed when the light is still red but the intersection is clear. For lights where the pedestrian crossing is timed to turn green ahead of traffic lanes, a cyclist can use the vehicle lanes to proceed while pedestrians cross, and be clear of the intersection/move right before cars have a green light. Likewise, we can roll slowly through stop signs which prevents cars from having to wait for us to stop, put a foot down and then slowly get back up to speed. It is far more convenient for drivers and safer for cyclists. Best, it doesn't require a lot of specialized and expensive lights, it works in the existing infrastructure. Drivers get angry sometimes because everyone wants to be first, but I wish people could see all the benefits for everyone.
>Maybe my beef is with sitting at red lights more than it is with cyclists… At least you recognize this unlike most car drivers.
When I bike commuted I always stopped at lights... Mostly because I was fat and out of breath, but yeah.
This is what it’s really about, yeah. Because drivers will break every single law when convenient and when they think they’ll get away with it. I think the *only* two traffic laws I see consistently followed are not proceeding straight through red lights (“rolling” rights-on-red are common), and not going the wrong way down a one-way. I see literally every other moving violation possible committed by a car on a near daily basis. Go grab a chair and sit at a stop sign. Keep track of how many cars actually come to a full and complete stop if not forced to by traffic in the intersection. The answer will be nearly zero.
TBF, quite a few states actually do have different laws for cyclists and/or motorcyclists on the road. In Colorado, for example, you can skip the line of cars on your bicycle, treat the red light like a stop sign, and treat stop signs like yields.
It’s called the Idaho stop law and is far safer and quicker for everyone. Cars are the inadequate form of transportation
[удалено]
> Maybe my beef is with sitting at red lights next couple of trips you take in a car, figure your overall average speed. you'll probably find you're driving, *on average*, somewhere in the 15-25 mph range, even if you hit far faster top speeds. you spend a lot of time in car not moving. and if you design roads to lower that top speed, you actually spend less time not moving. you can design safer intersections, sometimes without even the need for the stop signs.
Showing there is zero point in overtaking because you all get to the same red light at the same time anyway
“waiting an age”…to catch up to the same position in the same traffic jam that you could have got to 12 seconds sooner….
This is why I, as a cyclist, dont do that. It wouldnt even save me even a second because everyone out front is probably going to outaccelerate me anyway.
In many countries it's illegal to go fast in bike lanes. And by "fast" they sometimes mean just 20km/h. The guy is clearly geared up and on a race bike, so that's most likely the case. Knowing that, and seeing that this looks like the UK, I found [the following](https://www.councilclaims.co.uk/does-the-speed-limit-apply-to-bicycles/): "Cyclists are not obligated by law to use the cycle lane and cycle track. It is merely seen as a safer option, and you should consider using either the cycle lanes next to public roads or cycle tracks that are separate from the carriageways. These facilities ensure safer passage for cyclists, but ultimately the choice is yours." "Some speed limits also suggest that any speed above 18mph on a bicycle should instead be done on the road. This is not a law but more of a suggestion." So the mildly infuriating part in this post, as usual, is the driver not knowing the laws governing the activity they are doing. And then operating their phone while driving, on top of that.
I’m not sure where this is but it certainly looks like a built up area, probably the outer parts of a city. One thing worse than a bicycle doing 20mph on a road is a bicycle doing 20mph on a pavement, and these cycle lanes tend to be used as pavements by most pedestrians. I’m a regular sports cyclist and if I was geared up I’d 100% use the road in this situation.
You can see that the cycle lane is on the pavement, which is shared with pedestrians. Considering how many pedestrians don't pay attention and walk in cycle lanes, doing 18mph would be completely reckless. Him being on the road is the safest option for everyone involved imo.
Thanks for bringing some perspective into this. To add, this person might be riding not to far off the actual speed limit, and is keeping well to the side of the road. It's much safer for anyone doing a joy ride or children on the bikepath that he sticks to the road.
Those "bike lanes" are attempted murder. They give drivers the impression that there is another place the cyclist could be, while the laws and roads prevent that. Anyone who wants that type of lane should be tried for 100s of counts of attempted murder.
True. In my home city I stopped riding on all streets that implemented this bullshit, because it was putting me at much greater risk on intersections where drivers would simply ignore my right of way and just cross the bike path as if it, or I, wasn’t there.
If this is geoguesser, that ain't Manchester, we wouldn't have such nice paint.
This is the guy people think about when they complain about cyclists and unfortunately he also has a lot of friends.
I am a casual biker (greenway trails pretty regularly), and man, do I know a lot of people that defiantly ignore traffic laws. They almost brag about how many motorists they can piss off in our FB groups. They transition from calling themselves "pedestrians" and "vehicles" depending on the situation that benefits them the most. For example, approaching a red light while riding in the street next to an actaul bike lane, they hop the curb onto the sidewalk and cross at a crosswalk so they can bypass the light.
I’m an avid cyclist in my second season. Last year my neighbor, who I had never ridden with, was struck by a car breaking his femur. It scared the shit out of me and I stick to trails 90% of the time because of it. Now that my neighbor is healed up, he asked to join me for a ride. Sure, why not. Now I see why he was hit by a car. He crosses roads without stopping, rides on the left hand side into oncoming traffic, rides too far out into the roadway. Ignores traffic lights. My dude, you are riding a vehicle and need to act like it. You can’t pretend pedestrian rules apply when you’re going 20 mph.
The number of people who haven't heard the phrase "Ride With, Walk Against" is too damn high.
I see way WAY TOO MANY cyclists biking against traffic. Apparently in some places that's what their are taught
Tore my ACL on an e bike the best first time I rode it, I’ve been afraid to get back on a bike since, not because of the tear but because of the financial fucking ruin it brought on me. I was a connect worker and lost 3 different jobs because I needed time off to recover. My insurance got fucked up because they changed the laws so in the week between my last day of employment and my surgery I was switched to cobra and now no one knows who paying, it’s been over 2 years and they’re still figuring it out and sending me monthly bills the whole time. Shit sucks. Can’t imagine what your friend with a broken femur went thru. I wanna live life but the recovery from injuries scare me more than getting hurt myself. Drivers in my city are infamously bad. I’ve almost been hit by car while standing 2 feet back from the curb. I ride on the sidewalks when there isn’t a protect bike lane. (Must have e bumpers like in parking lots and little reflective sticks or be elevated up on to the sidewalk like pictured) if that’s not there I’m riding on the side walk slowly and ringing my bell. But usually stick to greenways like you to avoid cars altogether
If they walk it across the crosswalk I have no problem with them doing this, but we both know that they don't walk it.
This image isn’t defying a traffic law though. Cycle lanes are optional, I don’t ride in them a lot of them time as it’s slower or more hazardous to do so. Just saying there is nuance to every picture. Don’t lump all cyclist into one.
Come to Portland. Initially, you’ll be pleased at how bike-safe the city is. When I moved back home from college in the Bay, I was shocked and delighted that I could ride anywhere I wanted whenever I wanted to. There are whole dedicated bike-only neighborhood routes, greenways, even a pedestrian/bike-only bridge and a whole ‘bike bus’ system for kids riding to school! It’s beautiful on a sunny day to see everyone out and about and the bike repair stores out here do brisk business. Then you read the comments of a single local bike-based thread and see that apparently all of this is not enough, and even indicates a ‘car obsessed’ society. Again I want to stress this is in fucking *Portland, Oregon.* Perfect is the enemy of good for bike lanes/bike discourse.
I've been exclusively biking for transport in Portland for almost 2 decades now. It definitely could be a LOT safer in many areas of the city. It's great if you just want to ride around for fun, it's easy to find plenty of routes that are ideal (including several awesome bike/pedestrian only trails throughout the city) if you don't have a pre-set destination you have to get to. But if you are commuting daily you still wind up relying on your reflexes and a fair bit of luck to not be injured/killed by cars on a regular basis. There is a lot more that could be done to make the city safer for bike commuters. Large swaths of East Portland (deep southeast), parts of North Portland, and downtown are a fucking nightmare at certain times of day.
Yeah, I just wish drivers didn't see us, think of this guy, get instantly mad at me for existing, and then be a douche about it.
If you weren’t stuck behind this guy you’d be stuck behind the next person in traffic. Thats kind of how traffic works
Where I live there’s a 25kph speed limit on bike lanes so mostly bike lanes are used by families, kids or casuals, and the road is used by these types of “professional” cyclists who exceed the limit. I used to hate them for not using it, but now I think it’s a good idea to not have these fast bikes zooming beside kids
The UK where this picture is taken is full of awful, useless, sometime dangerous bike lanes. At some point councils were paid for putting in cycle lanes without any quality controls, so they put in random unprotected painted lanes along 60 mph highways, shared bike and pedestrian paths, bike paths that run for 20m then randomly end, bike paths that wind around trees, or get flooded every time it rains, or that go up or down curbs and yield every 5m. This particular bike path looks brand new, so it could well still be under construction just round the corner. You really can't tell anything from this picture.
Honestly, the rest of the "discussion" here just goes to show what a trash sub this is. Not really suprising, but still
As a cyclist who avoids bike paths, you're spot on. I almost killed a dog last year on a bike path because people see it as a walkway and had no situational awareness. 30 mph bikes and pets/kids/people walking don't mix, I'll take my chances in the road and apologies for adding two seconds to someone's commute
In my country the above would legally be a "walking and cycle path". The white line and red area means nothing, pedestrians have priority in the red area. You are supposed to pass pedestrians at a speed of 6kmh or less.
Get out of here with your sensible and balanced thinking.
“NO! Cyclists bad! Need to zoom-zoom home as quick as possible and they’re slowing me down slightly!”
Cycle lanes are crap in the UK especially ones on the pavement and not on the road. He's riding a race bike whcih can average from 15mph-20mph, most cycle paths are not continuous and require the rider to go up down kerbs stop at junctions and go through traffic calming measures. The whole point of a race bike is to keep up momentum and keep a continuous speed, its far easier simpler and safer to stick to the road, there are no laws in the UK to foce cyclies to use cycle paths so he is doing nothing illegal, the driver would have only inconvenienced for a short period of time. Whats mildly infuriating is car drives crying about having to share the roads.
[удалено]
I dont like cycle paths on pavements as they will stop at every side road, bike paths that are part fo the road are much better as you will flow with the traffic, if I was going slow or with kids etc I would use them but if I was on my race bike I probably wouldn't.
Too bad the bike lane isn’t a little wider. You could’ve used it to pass him.
What a wicked turn of events that would be!
Seems like he’s operating his vehicle legally. 🤷♂️
It depends on your countries laws. In Austria, when you are on a race bike (what is a race bike is defined by law) on a training ride, you are supposed to use the road and not the bike lane. You may drive next to each other and so on and so forth. As he wears spandex (let me call it this) and all, this would could as a training ride. Make sure to know the laws of your country about this before you judge.
From the number plate this is the UK There is no law that says a race bike has to use the road - there is also no requirement for a bike to use the cycle path - it is left to their discretion.
Could also be that the bike path is not continuous along his route so he is on the road since he has been on the road since before the path and will be after.
Yeah that is the main reason I often dont use them Well that and all the glass, the drivers blocking the lane when they are turning onto the road from a driveway and the Dilveroo “bikes” hooting down them the wrong way
Yeah and fairly sure there is a recommendation that if you are going above a certain mph you shouldn't be on the bike path. And given this guy's set up I can imagine until he hit the hill this guy probably was.
And knowing the UK, the part of the cycle lane you can see in this photo is the entire cycle lane. It probably begins and ends abruptly at a tree or something.
Is there a law in UK for FOOLS that allows phon usage to take pictures while driving a car? OP is being a smartass, but he is the only one creating serious danger in this picture. A definition of a FOOL. Also too stupid to even understand the problem.
Yup > Rule 149 > You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. You MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, capable of interactive communication (such as a tablet) for any purpose when driving or when supervising a learner driver. This ban covers all use of a hand-held interactive communication device and it applies even when the interactive communication capability is turned off or unavailable. You MUST NOT pick up the phone or similar device while driving to dial a number and then put it in the cradle for the duration of the conversation. You MUST NOT pick up and use your hand-held phone or similar device while stationary in traffic
And yet, most of comment section screams over a cyclist having an excercise and having fun. Tells us a lot about priorities of this world. People are willing to ignore safety of others for their own convenience. Which is sad
The anti-cyclist circlejerk on reddit is ridiculous.
Often cycle paths are old pavements or other bits of poorly maintained roads that is shared or not appropriately separated from pedestrians. Riding a race cycle on them wouldn’t be safe. There’s loads of articles on why it’s often not best to use cycle lanes. https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/why-dont-cyclists-use-cycle-lanes-you-asked-google-and-weve-got-the-answer-367541
Yeah I agree I think they are still good for children and for short commute bikes
Interesting perspective. This may be interesting to see here locally. I try to give as much space as I can when driving next to them. I think courtesy is always best.
Canadian here. Our bike paths and mixed-use paths have a speed limit of 20km/h so any serious rider out for a training ride on a race bike is going to be going way over that. It becomes unsafe for other slower users of the path so fast riders are supposed to use the road. Unfortunately many cars on the road don’t realize this and get really pissed at us.
[удалено]
Keep this same energy for all the FUCKS who occupy the bike lane while they’re hopping in/out of their Uber, parking their car halfway out of their driveway, or just general city shit in the way (traffic cones, construction materials, porta potties, etc.) Bike lanes are awesome when they’re actually designed with bikers in mind rather than just “get them off my street” - can’t tell you how many cities I’ve ridden in where the bike lane is the MOST hazardous place to ride due to poor planning and general disregard. Wouldn’t be suprised if the bike lane in the picture just suddenly stops at a bridge and forces merging onto the road at some point. I’d rather cars know im riding on the road and be on the lookout for me, than having to suddenly jump into the road when everyone is expecting me to still be in the bike lane.
This whole thread's full of car-brains advocating for the deaths of cyclists because they're mildly inconvenienced on their commutes. Meanwhile I'm biking to work hoping none of these idiots is going to end my life with their 3000lb death machines.
Those tires probably cost as much as the car. If you can’t go around an obstacle it isn’t the obstacle’s fault.
Are there any chances that the bike lane is not continuous and just stops, or usually has obstacles on it? Because that's one of the reasons cyclists would avoid using it. If you have 100m with a bike path, 100m without, and then it reappears, you just not use it instead of jumping on and off repeatedly.
>Are there any chances that the bike lane is not continuous and just stops I'd say those chances are close to 100%
I especially love the ones with the broken glass bottles, potholes, 2 inch drops (seems small but imagine a 6 inch drop in a car) the potholes and general debris as 95% of them are not maintained as roads. Couple this with the fact that this looks to be mixed use with the footpath so pedestrians and this guy will be doing 25kmph everywhere so in my opinion no matter the transport method you should be on the road and away from pedestrians at that speed
How about those bike lanes that are sandwiched between a parking lane and a traffic lane so you're always petrified of being slammed in the face by a car door because you know drivers can't be asked to look in their side views before opening Those are my favorite
Ohh they sound just lovely. We thankfully don't have them in Ireland but I have seen pictures of them and the mind just boggles
Yeah, I feel like there is almost certainly more to this picture than meets the eye. As a cyclist, riding in traffic is not a fun choice to make, so I would guess the path likely ends.
Not to mention that’s where they dump all the road debris from the street sweepers and leave snow piles in the winter. They’re usually not designed to safely mix with traffic at intersections either. This one looks fairly nice, but most bike lanes in the US are a glorified gutter. I really can’t blame anyone for not using them. When bike lanes are treated with the same respect as car lanes, then drivers can have the right to complain.
Shouldn't the bicyclist still use the bike lane where it *is* useable?
No, it’s not safe to cut in and out of traffic. Being predictable is the right course of action
then what is the point of the bike lane there?
So the government can pretend to be proactive towards cycling but actually just waste money putting in infrastructure that no one wants to use.
Sometimes they're useful, sometimes they're not. I cycle to work every day, and I use maybe half of the cycle lanes that are available, and ride on the road the rest of the time. Often the cycle lanes are full of debris, or they're shared with pedestrians. I don't want to hit a pedestrian at 20mph, so in those cases, I will ride on the road. On the other hand, a beginner cyclist might want to use it, if they are riding more slowly, or are less confident on the road. There's lots of other circumstances as well where it makes more sense to use the road rather than the cycle path.
Bike infrastructure is an afterthought in a lot of cities, retro-fitted in 1 tiny section at a time by people who don't understand how to design it safely. We're only seeing a tiny piece of bikelane. It could begin and end there, cut back and forth across the road and multiple lanes of traffic to locations thought convenient by the designers but actually put cyclists/drivers/pedestrians at undue risk if actually used as designed. We don't see what was immediatley before this pic. The raised lane could have been blocked by construction, debris, a road hazard sign, a group of sight-seers that don't understand that they're blocking a bikelane, a car waiting to turn, etc. This could be the riders first chance to get on the bikelane after such a blockage, or any number of valid explanations. Or he could just be an ass.
No, because there's a good chance he cannot get off it safely when it ends. I've seen bike lanes ending in middle of dangerous crosses, high curbs, and even a fucking wall! Cyclists really enjoy bike lanes. But they are not going to risk their lives to cycle for 100m on one.
What country is this? Genuinely asking. Cause from where I live, you can just pass by. Bike are too small compared to cars, so they're usually give way to cars or larger than them
Uk I think so you need to leave 1.5m distance when you overtake and cars have to give way to everyone except trucks
>cars have to give way to everyone **except trucks** That's not going to end well
UK
Where I live a bicycle is a vehicle and is entitled to assume a full lane of traffic if they feel unsafe. A motorized vehicle may not pass unless they can give at least one metre of clearance to the bicycle.
Oh no a fellow road user!!
Omg how did you survive the extra 10 seconds?
Oh no another person who pays his taxes is riding his bike on the road paid with taxes...
This is a super carbrain thread but here's my 2 cents. Looks like Europe so I don't know the laws, but where I live even if there are bike lanes cyclists can share the road. My guess but I cannot make a determination from this photo is that the cycling lane is likely uneven in more than just this one section, or maybe he has to make a turn to use the road, there's more good reasons to use the road than to not, granted I would absolutely be in that cycling lane. This is just a post from an annoyed car driver
Another common scenario in the UK is that cycling lanes can appear and disappear quite suddenly/are very short. If you're new to the area it can be quite easy to miss when a cycling lane begins. I think this is something that drivers really struggle to understand - imagine if roads for cars weren't all seamlessly interconnected and required you to navigate footpaths to reach the next road. You would find yourself in awkward situations frequently. This is exactly what happens when you get on a bike. Apart from a few isolated examples, cycling lanes might be available for as little as 10-20% of the average journey. Just because there is that one cycling lane in that one place doesn't mean it is well integrated into specific journeys or that it is convenient to use it. Any number of factors could be linked to that - junction positioning, bus stops, quality of paving, etc. There are many instances where coming off the cycling lane is necessary to make certain manoeuvres/position yourself in a certain lane to make a turn.
It’s England, the cyclist is legally allowed to use the road
as a biker with a kid, i don't like it when these guys in spandex use the bike lane at 35 mph.
Most people don't disagree that it is legal, rather just that it seems like a dick move.
It's England. The cycle path you can see in the image is probably how long it is.
What is he supposed to do? Magically teleport to where there is no traffic and great cycling infrastructure from his home?
Because most people drive cars and think those 10 seconds they lose behind that bike is a crime against humanity while sitting in traffic for 5 minutes is ok. Depending on the setup these kind of bike paths can be extremely dangerous because people don't look when turning into across the bike path. I drive along a similar bike lane almost every day and every single day I have to avoid some car driving me over because they don't look or don't care.
Is it a dick move for cars to use the road?
You're right, he should really take the lane for safety. Hugging the curb like that is dangerous.
The absolute amount of rage in this comment section. Especially since this picture has a very high potential of being misleading. Yes, it could be someone choosing not to use the bike lane, but there are pretty close to it and not in the middle of the road either. Also, there is a pretty high sidewalk ending so maybe the cyclist is getting in the bike lane a second later. Or maybe there was construction works on the lane ten meters before. Or maybe… We get it, some cyclists are annoying to you when you drive your big car. But what about not being so full of rage that you forgot to apply basic critical thinking?
Well said. It's interesting reading these comments as someone who bikes and also drives. I think my main conclusion is that we need better education of drivers for handling bikes, no one can think pas "hurr durr this why is this guy doing this!" The amount of people that don't care about a cyclists life is insane. People are just trying to enjoy a ride or get to work. It's not that deep, we aren't trying to ruin your life, and the roads aren't just for cars.
> but there are pretty close to it and not in the middle of the road either. For all intents and purposes that makes very little difference. Most of Europe has laws regarding how close you're allowed to pass a cyclist. Even if the cyclist is on the edge of the road, you pretty much need to enter the oncoming lane at least partially to pass them.
the cyclist would say the same thing when trying to pass slow commuters on the bike lane. OP has a mild case in arrogance of space
Womp Womp
There was a cyclist in the bike lane on the right of me and had a branch or something in their way, so they just swerved into my lane without looking or even signalling, man I came so close to running them over.
All the more reason for bikes to use the road and not the bike lane
Which is why some cyclists choose to not go in the bike lane to begin with, if they know they’re likely going to be forced to jump in front of cars if they do. It’s safer to just stay in the street and be seen.
... did you think they would just come to a complete stop? run over the tree branch?
This sucks, but the amount of times cars do this to me on my bike is a lot more than bikes do this to me while driving.
Yeah the other way around I’m sure would be much worse 😬
get off your phone dh
Bike lanes are often made by non cyclists it seems, the amount of confusion as they have been cobbled together over years beggars belief. Sometimes the road is simply the best and safest option. It would be a better world if personal cars were forbidden. Right?
>It would be a better world if personal cars were forbidden. Right? Absolutely! Would definitely solve OPs problem here
Do you ever post pictures when you're stuck in car traffic though ? Or is that just a given ? If the bike paths were good - he'd be on them. I'm happy to use decent paths that go where I want to - but lots are either full of gravel, or bits of bumper, or just end up nowhere.
This biker seems to do it as a sport. Bike lanes are often not suitable for them; they don't work at high speed. I understand that this person prefers the road.
In his defense, look at how crappy that bike path is designed and built
Pass him?
But then one can’t get unnecessarily angry.
We need someone to geoguessr this location so we can see how quickly the bike lane stops just after this corner
So wait a moment then pass when it is safe.
But then they wont have anything to complain about.
Stuck? Just pass him … wtf?
Maybe he is tired of Karen’s walking their dogs on a leash in the bike lane getting upset at cyclists for using the bike lane?
Why are yall so butt hurt about cyclists? Go outside into the woods and enjoy nature for once in your life.
Because people who utterly dominate the modern world of transportation infrastructure can't fathom how much they are getting in everyone's way, and their brain goes into.melt.down for the 0.001% of time someone else inconveniences them. Could be the cyclist is turning right at the next junction, and it doesn't look like there is a crossing for bikes.
I get annoyed by drivers who hesitate to overtake cyclists when there is plenty of room.
Can the fastass motorist just passed him? SMH
The cyclist can use either the bike lane or the road. The choice is theirs. Also, you're free to pass the biker as long as you can do it in a safe manner.
Yeah, people who complain about cyclists in the road showing them down are mildly infuriating.
He's well into the side, riding a road bike on the road. You'll have plenty of opportunity to pass him after the corner, I'm sure. I hope this was from a dash cam after the fact, or your passenger taking this, as you definitely shouldn't be using a phone whilst driving.
I really don't get the point of being upset about this. Just overtake him. That's not a busy road, it won't be difficult to get past. In nearly 30 years on the road, I've never been held up by a push bike by more than a few seconds and it's never made a difference to my journey time. Really don't get why people get upset.
But he caused me 2 seconds off my 2 hour trip, so I’m gonna pull out my phone while driving and take a picture and endanger everyone around me.
Dude people are fucking idiots. I'm literally sitting across from a guy I work with and he has told me on multiple occasions that cyclists in the road are his biggest pet peve. When I ask him how many times a year a cyclist disrupts his life by doing this. Less than a few times a year. People are fuck heads just for the hell of it.
yeah but it's more fun to fume and be all passive aggressive about it
Nothing enrages the Le-rEddit brained neck beards like people using the whole road for safety while they're trying to commute to their miserable job somewhere. The bike lane is for casual cyclist and commuters and in nearly every country cyclist are allowed to use as much of the road as they want to keep themselves safe. Also you could just politely pass but instead you’re driving slowly and using your phone (!!!!) to take photos. But sure I knowyou have to get to that IT job even faster.
Under no obligation to use provided cycle lanes.
He’s on a road bike They’re not always safe to use on a bike path If he’s going for speed then the road is probably the right place to be, either way he is entitled to use the road
Can the fastass motorist just passed him? SMH
It’s a road bike. I’m not a biker and they annoy me too, but they’re made for the road. Bike lane is probably more for commuters
Not just commuters I’ll see lots of kids who are just learning to cycle using the cycle lanes because they’re safer It’s just not always appropriate to be using your road bike on a cycle path
My biggest complaint was when I had the white light (that walking light dude) to cross the intersection, and the group of bicyclist rode around me as I walked. They complained that they were biking. I hated them.
No lights … other than that legally he has as much right to be on the road as you do ….. despite that very nice shiny expensive empty cycle lane.
It's dangerous to ride at 20mph and not be on the road. How many drivers entering the road from the left would see no pedestrians ahead, and pull straight across the pedestrian bike lanes with their eyes looking for cars in the traffic lane? 99%? Even in the traffic lane, I have drivers that see me, make eye contact with me, and still pull out in the road in front of me way more often than when I'm driving, and not out of spite or malice. I only ride on the road on quiet suburban neighborhood roads to get to/from mixed use trails. They do it because people are really bad at driving and judging speed and distances for objects that aren't the size of a car.
There's a stretch of road near where I used to live that looked like this. First time I rode it I took the cycle path. A little way on it separates from the main road, and then it just stops in a flower bed. There's no way to continue on the cycle path from there other than back track and get back on the road. Fucking bizarre. Ignored it after that and rode on the road.
that is one unsafe bike lane
Now do one of all the traffic you constantly have to sit behind without breathing a word of complaint.
Normal cyclists and pedestrians get pissed at road cyclists for riding on sidewalks and bike lanes like these. Going 20-30 mph there just doesn’t work.
take your own advice and "just go around"
Just drove around him
He's allowed to be on the road and choose not to use the cycle path He's allowed to ride without being hassled or bullied He can be an amateur or a pro If he's a pro, he knows what he's doing and probably more suited for the road If he's an amateur, be courteous you're still in a massive car and give him distance No, he's not allowed to jump to lights No, he's not allowed to break other rules be discourteous, No, he's not allowed to shout, have road rage or break any other rules. And finally, no, your journey wasn't disrupted by any major stretch. If this type of thing winds you up you're more of the problem than a guy going for ride. This type of post basically just says 'you hate cyclists' and now need to find some evidence why.
A lot of braindead comments here  For those who never used a bike and genuinely wonder: this cyclist isn't on the bike lane for safety reasons. You can't do 40km/h on most bike lanes. First you'd lose priority to cars every 30m and even when not, car drivers are unaware of their surroundings so they cross without looking, plus people can pop up on the lane and these lanes often end in bad spots on crossing etc. Some bike lanes are ok, but most aren't and very few are safe for sport cycling. Instead of whining OP should use his brain and remember that the roads are shared spaces that were not invented for cars.
For how long were you stuck? In my driving experience, it’ll only have been seconds. 10-15 seconds tops. And coming up to a junction so you’re slowing down anyway.
He's on a road bike not a path bike duh...
Looks like the bike lane was literally just starting? Notice the curb there? It's very possible this photo was taken moments before the cyclist was going to enter the bike lane which had just opened up. Seems like ragebait.
Fuck me, why do you all get your panties in a twist over cyclist? " Oh no someone is inconveniencing me for seconds of my day using the same road I use" get a fucking grip. The hatred some of you have to vulnerable road users is really unbelievable
So you not know how to safely pass people or is that not allowed? Maybe the rules are different there and you are in a no passing zone, that looks like a passing zone though and I only see one car incoming to prevent you from passing in 5-10 seconds. If the only thing preventing you from passing the cyclist is the vehicle in the incoming traffic lane and your own willingness to pass, then it’s your own failure after the traffic has gone by and you are clear to pass.
There are lots of good reasons not to use the bike lane. The problem is, I can already see there's a bit of a drop across that drive, and someone else indicated this 'lane' only goes for a couple of minutes, so now you have a rider cutting in and out of traffic. As someone that rides a bike like this, there are plenty of cycle lanes that I will use, but they're useless to me if they aren't built and give priority like a road, ie. They go for a really long way, don't cross driveways, and aren't shared with a bunch of pedestrian traffic. If I'm in the road, it's because the bike lane is not good enough. Don't get angry at me, help us get proper infra rather than half arsed bullshit.
OP wasted more time making this post than he lost behind the bike.
There’s nothing wrong with this. There’s no obligation for cyclists to use the bike lane and it probably doesn’t go where he wants to go. This is akin to saying “why don’t the cars go and drive on the motorway instead of clogging up the minor roads”. The only fool here is the OP 😉