It’s in the Code (From York Press)

Mr Setter - to deliberately cycle outside the Blossom Street cycle lane and thus block the progress of other traffic is aggressively anti-social behaviour, no matter how you twist, selectively quote, and apply your own spurious gloss the words of the highway code. The mere hypothetical existence of pot-holes, car doors and gully covers doesn't justify purposefully riding in the middle of the lane and blocking the way of faster road users (including, potentially, other cyclists).

Every other road user will assume that you are deliberately holding up the rest of the traffic to make some kind of political point (and - be honest! - that would be true wouldn't it?).

The roads are a shared space and its up to cyclists as much as other road users to behave politely, not least because any driver observing your antics will tar all other cyclists with the same brush and assume that we are all rude, aggressive, dangerous road-hogs.

There's nothing anti-social about being aware of your own safety. Mr Farleys advice is excellent.

Mr Udigawa wrote:
There's nothing anti-social about being aware of your own safety. Mr Farleys advice is excellent.

Mr Farley's advice IS excellent, but Mr Setter's is not.

It seems to be calculated to deliberately provoke and inflame hostility towards cyclists by other road users. That is not a 'road culture' I want to be part of.

Bo Jolly wrote:

Mr Udigawa wrote: There's nothing anti-social about being aware of your own safety. Mr Farleys advice is excellent.

Mr Farley's advice IS excellent, but Mr Setter's is not. It seems to be calculated to deliberately provoke and inflame hostility towards cyclists by other road users. That is not a 'road culture' I want to be part of.

Nothing wrong with Mr Setter's advice either. Defensive cycling is a must in York sometimes and if people can't see why a bike might occasionally need to move out into the flow of traffic I would seriously question their driving ability.

Mr Udigawa wrote:

Bo Jolly wrote:

Mr Udigawa wrote: There's nothing anti-social about being aware of your own safety. Mr Farleys advice is excellent.

Mr Farley's advice IS excellent, but Mr Setter's is not. It seems to be calculated to deliberately provoke and inflame hostility towards cyclists by other road users. That is not a 'road culture' I want to be part of.

Nothing wrong with Mr Setter's advice either. Defensive cycling is a must in York sometimes and if people can't see why a bike might occasionally need to move out into the flow of traffic I would seriously question their driving ability.

I wouldn't question your point about the occassional need for defensive cycling, but that's not what Mr Setter is advocating.

He is supporting the opinion of a few other correspondents that cyclists should totally ignore the new cycle lane and instead cycle in the general lane to the right of it.

(Unless by 'defensive cycling' you mean the vision conjured up by PP of wild, unpredicatable lurching across the carriageway, deliberate blocking of other vehicles, accompanied by incomprehensible hand-waving, in an effort to enforce his role of self-appointed- traffic-cop-with-a-c
hip- on-his shoulder!)

Bo Jolly wrote:

Mr Udigawa wrote:

Bo Jolly wrote:

Mr Udigawa wrote: There's nothing anti-social about being aware of your own safety. Mr Farleys advice is excellent.

Mr Farley's advice IS excellent, but Mr Setter's is not. It seems to be calculated to deliberately provoke and inflame hostility towards cyclists by other road users. That is not a 'road culture' I want to be part of.

Nothing wrong with Mr Setter's advice either. Defensive cycling is a must in York sometimes and if people can't see why a bike might occasionally need to move out into the flow of traffic I would seriously question their driving ability.

I wouldn't question your point about the occassional need for defensive cycling, but that's not what Mr Setter is advocating. He is supporting the opinion of a few other correspondents that cyclists should totally ignore the new cycle lane and instead cycle in the general lane to the right of it. (Unless by 'defensive cycling' you mean the vision conjured up by PP of wild, unpredicatable lurching across the carriageway, deliberate blocking of other vehicles, accompanied by incomprehensible hand-waving, in an effort to enforce his role of self-appointed- traffic-cop-with-a-c hip- on-his shoulder!)

No, please don't associate me with the Pedalling one... shudder!
But again, if I don't consider a cycle lane safe for use I won't use it, simple.

Bo Jolly wrote:
Mr Setter - to deliberately cycle outside the Blossom Street cycle lane and thus block the progress of other traffic is aggressively anti-social behaviour, no matter how you twist, selectively quote, and apply your own spurious gloss the words of the highway code. The mere hypothetical existence of pot-holes, car doors and gully covers doesn't justify purposefully riding in the middle of the lane and blocking the way of faster road users (including, potentially, other cyclists). Every other road user will assume that you are deliberately holding up the rest of the traffic to make some kind of political point (and - be honest! - that would be true wouldn't it?). The roads are a shared space and its up to cyclists as much as other road users to behave politely, not least because any driver observing your antics will tar all other cyclists with the same brush and assume that we are all rude, aggressive, dangerous road-hogs.

Bo, you're so right it hurts.

I apply the same principles elsewhere too, though. Just the other day, there was an old couple walking down the pavement (presumably on their way into town). They were walking unbelievably slowly, chatting etc, totally oblivious to me coming up behind them.

Well, the pavement was too narrow to get past (there was loads of traffic so couldn't overtake in the road) and I was late for work. So I walked REALLY close behind them and started saying stuff like "your pension comes from my taxes", "my council tax pays for this pavement" and generally intimidating them. EVENTUALLY (after about 5 seconds) they walked single file, looking suitably intimidated; job done, I was on my (very important) way.

Yet another example of aggresive, antisocial behaviour, probably driven by them wanting to make some political point or other. Don't they understand that they paint all pensioners in a bad light?

Rude, aggressive pavement hogs the lot of 'em.

YUhatin,

If you treat the road in the same way as you treat the pavement then you're really asking for trouble. The main reason being that, er, there aren't one-ton lumps of metal driving at 30mph on the pavement.

Are you really saying its acceptable for cyclists to be on the road and be 'totally oblivious' of the traffic behind them?

Are you suggesting that on Blossom Street, the road is 'too narrow' for other traffic to pass cyclists safely?

And actually, it IS quite rude to block the pavement. It matters far less though as there is usually a way round and the disparity in speed is much less.

I just don't get the mentality of some cyclists (a tiny minority I suspect). When I'm cycling I expect other road users to be polite, to let me get past if I'm moving faster than them, not deliberately get in my way and to behave predictably. They have exactly the same expectations of me... I don't see why that's a problem.

Bo Jolly wrote:
I just don't get the mentality of some cyclists (a tiny minority I suspect). When I'm cycling I expect other road users to be polite, to let me get past if I'm moving faster than them, not deliberately get in my way and to behave predictably. They have exactly the same expectations of me... I don't see why that's a problem.

Ah, but you see, you don't have the benefit of moral superiority.

Bo Jolly wrote:
I just don't get the mentality of some cyclists (a tiny minority I suspect). When I'm cycling I expect other road users to be polite, to let me get past if I'm moving faster than them, not deliberately get in my way and to behave predictably. They have exactly the same expectations of me... I don't see why that's a problem.

Yebbut you have no idea why people are doing what they're doing, and it seems to me that you're immediately assuming that they have some sort of vendetta.

Take, for example, cycling over Lendal bridge from the library end. There's a pedestrian crossing outside museum gardens where it's wide enough for a car but not a car and a bike (or, god forbid, a bike and a bus).

If (big if) there's flowing traffic with a car behind there are 2 options:

1. Cycle along the yellow lines and have them try to squeeze past to reach the (red) light 2 seconds earlier (even though I pretty much hold the same speed as the car in front);

2. Cycle nearer the middle so they can't overtake and then go back left afterwards. Still holding about the same speed as the car in front.

I've tried 1, and it's not particularly comfortable having a massive 4x4 about 2 inches from your elbow. Who then has to slam on the brakes in front of you when they reach the car in front's bumper. So I do 2.

Am I deliberately holding up traffic? Yep. By about 2 seconds.

Is there a valid reason? I'd argue yep. I don't want to get squashed.

Might Mr 4x4 man think that I'm cycling in the middle of the road for no reason just to annoy him? Yep.

The point is that if you actually believe in being polite, relaxed, sharing space etc then the fact that you're held up by a cyclist for about 10 seconds shouldn't really matter.

The fact that it grates on you so much leads me to suspect that you're not all that relaxed. Which is a shame.

YUHatin? wrote:

Bo Jolly wrote:
I just don't get the mentality of some cyclists (a tiny minority I suspect). When I'm cycling I expect other road users to be polite, to let me get past if I'm moving faster than them, not deliberately get in my way and to behave predictably. They have exactly the same expectations of me... I don't see why that's a problem.

Yebbut you have no idea why people are doing what they're doing, and it seems to me that you're immediately assuming that they have some sort of vendetta.

Take, for example, cycling over Lendal bridge from the library end. There's a pedestrian crossing outside museum gardens where it's wide enough for a car but not a car and a bike (or, god forbid, a bike and a bus).

If (big if) there's flowing traffic with a car behind there are 2 options:

1. Cycle along the yellow lines and have them try to squeeze past to reach the (red) light 2 seconds earlier (even though I pretty much hold the same speed as the car in front);

2. Cycle nearer the middle so they can't overtake and then go back left afterwards. Still holding about the same speed as the car in front.

I've tried 1, and it's not particularly comfortable having a massive 4x4 about 2 inches from your elbow. Who then has to slam on the brakes in front of you when they reach the car in front's bumper. So I do 2.

Am I deliberately holding up traffic? Yep. By about 2 seconds.

Is there a valid reason? I'd argue yep. I don't want to get squashed.

Might Mr 4x4 man think that I'm cycling in the middle of the road for no reason just to annoy him? Yep.

The point is that if you actually believe in being polite, relaxed, sharing space etc then the fact that you're held up by a cyclist for about 10 seconds shouldn't really matter.

The fact that it grates on you so much leads me to suspect that you're not all that relaxed. Which is a shame.

I'm not sure why you've changed the subject, YUhatin. I don't really want to get into a blow-by-blow analysis of your technique...

I'm having a moan because some cyclists are earnestly advising other cyclists to ignore the nice, swanky, wide cycle lane that the council has made for us in Blossom Street, and instead to ride outside the cycle lane, blocking other traffic (because there are cars, or mythical potholes, or something). I'm not the one saying unreasonable things here!

Ok, so a car parked outside KFC 'might' throw their door open wide to it's full extent, without looking? And that would completely block the cycle lane would it? (which along with the drainage channel there probably totals about 2 metres wide) Don't think so to be honest.

I cycle a fair bit round the city. 50% of the time i'm passing parked vehicles. I just pull out about a metre from them if i suspect there's any risk of doors opening. It's the same here. There's plenty of room to give the cars a wide berth while remaining inside the ample cycle lane. Just pull to the right hand side of it - you're a good 1 1/2 metres from any car doors.

As someone who has been "doored" in the past by a car driver on double yellow lines, I'll continue to leave enough space between the left hand edge of my handlebars and the possible opening width of a car door when passing.

I'm sorry if I hold up the cars behind me, but I've found through hard experience it's not much fun when you've got a solicitors battle on with the guys insurance company to pay for a completely bent bike, bruised bones in your hip & elbow, damaged clothing, the shock from almost being run over by the truck following and the long lasting pain and time off work.

I'm having a moan because some cyclists are earnestly advising other cyclists to ignore the nice, swanky, wide cycle lane that the council has made for us in Blossom Street, and instead to ride outside the cycle lane, blocking other traffic (because there are cars, or mythical potholes, or something). I'm not the one saying unreasonable things here!

I they're not going to use cycle lanes, remove all of the bloody things and let the traffic flow free of these obstructions.

Everyone here has totally missed the simplest solution, which the council again refuse to adopt. Enforce the parking laws on those cobbles, even before the cycle lane, plenty of cycles and vehicles have been near misses or damaged by opening doors, on what is after all a Double yellow and no loading at certain times, stick small bollards along the outer edge of the cobbles, problem for all solved, except the illegal parkers, who can't be bothered to park across the road in the Crescent.One wide vehicle there used to block the left lane for all traffic causing hold ups back to Micklegate bar before, still nothing done about it when they spent all that money.

Local paper people are funny aren't they. I live in York. I am a cyclist. I am a motorist. The two are not mutually exclusive states. If you are a cyclist and cycle at the margins / right by the kerb get hold of a Cyclecraft and find out why cyclists are not using the lanes. If you are a motorist and moaning about cyclists not using the cycle lanes, get a copy of Cyclecraft and read it. I don't use the lanes. When I am at risk of motorists making close overtakes or coming alongside me when there's no where in front to go, or if I am going through junctions, I cycle in the middle of the lane. Not only is this perfectly legal, it's advisable from a bike safety point of view. Cyclecraft will explain. I wear helmet mounted cameras and reports any incidents of dangerous overtaking or other incidents to the police. I don't really care what other motorists think with regards to where I cycle. At the end of the day I position myself for my safety and not your convenience. When I drive I leave room for cyclists as per HWC rule 163 and have patience and understand why they are where they are. If you can't do this then you should surrender your driving licenses. Go on youtube. You'll find some examples of poor York driving and explanations of safe cyclist road positioning.

aka. maybe some drivers should mount a bike now and again, and actually try to integrate into the miserable, selfish, thrombosis that is York city traffic. You never know they might even develop some empathy.

farmer_robot wrote:
Local paper people are funny aren't they. I live in York. I am a cyclist. I am a motorist. The two are not mutually exclusive states. If you are a cyclist and cycle at the margins / right by the kerb get hold of a Cyclecraft and find out why cyclists are not using the lanes. If you are a motorist and moaning about cyclists not using the cycle lanes, get a copy of Cyclecraft and read it. I don't use the lanes. When I am at risk of motorists making close overtakes or coming alongside me when there's no where in front to go, or if I am going through junctions, I cycle in the middle of the lane. Not only is this perfectly legal, it's advisable from a bike safety point of view. Cyclecraft will explain. I wear helmet mounted cameras and reports any incidents of dangerous overtaking or other incidents to the police. I don't really care what other motorists think with regards to where I cycle. At the end of the day I position myself for my safety and not your convenience. When I drive I leave room for cyclists as per HWC rule 163 and have patience and understand why they are where they are. If you can't do this then you should surrender your driving licenses. Go on youtube. You'll find some examples of poor York driving and explanations of safe cyclist road positioning.

Cyclecraft by John Franklin is the definitive guide to safe cycling. It meets the national standard for Bikebility training (the one time cycling proficiency test) which many Local Authorities including York offer through schools and to adults.
Defensive cycling is a very necessary part of survival.
And as for the commentator who accuse me of lurching wildly across the carriageway....I practice the Bikeabiklity standards and often receive courtesy from other road users.

Von_Dutch wrote:
Ok, so a car parked outside KFC 'might' throw their door open wide to it's full extent, without looking? And that would completely block the cycle lane would it? (which along with the drainage channel there probably totals about 2 metres wide) Don't think so to be honest.

I cycle a fair bit round the city. 50% of the time i'm passing parked vehicles. I just pull out about a metre from them if i suspect there's any risk of doors opening. It's the same here. There's plenty of room to give the cars a wide berth while remaining inside the ample cycle lane. Just pull to the right hand side of it - you're a good 1 1/2 metres from any car doors.

Interesting you should say that. There is a man in London right now awaiting trial on a charge of manslaughter for doing exactly that. Unfortunately, whatever happens in the trial will not bring the dead cyclist back to his family.
It really is quite sickening that so many "drivers" think not losing a few seconds in reaching the next red light is more important than someone else's life.

Both these letters make excellent points therefore showing the writers have their heads firmy screwed on.

--

BoJolly completely missed the point that YUhatin made about the pensioners on the pavement. If you can't make the connection then I fear for your driving ability. Let's also remember the cycle lane on Blossom Street is ADVISORY, which means cyclists are not compelled to use it, unlike one that is marked with a solid white line... likewise, as much as it annoys me, cars are allowed to park on advisory cycle lanes, whereas it is illegal to park on compulsory ones.

Magicman! wrote:
Both these letters make excellent points therefore showing the writers have their heads firmy screwed on.

--

BoJolly completely missed the point that YUhatin made about the pensioners on the pavement. If you can't make the connection then I fear for your driving ability. Let's also remember the cycle lane on Blossom Street is ADVISORY, which means cyclists are not compelled to use it, unlike one that is marked with a solid white line... likewise, as much as it annoys me, cars are allowed to park on advisory cycle lanes, whereas it is illegal to park on compulsory ones.

You misunderstand the nature of so called "mandatory" cycle lanes (those with a solid white line). Cyclists are not compelled to use these; they are mandatory only in the sense that drivers are compelled to stay out of them even if there are no cycles present.