Road safety work in Haxby Road ‘risks lives of cyclists’

York Press: he speed humps in Haxby Road , New Earswick, which one cyclist says make it more dangerous he speed humps in Haxby Road , New Earswick, which one cyclist says make it more dangerous

A CYCLIST claims lives are being endangered by motorists darting into a cycle lane to avoid new speed cushions on a York road.

Matt Marsden said an additional line of speed cushions had been installed by City of York Council in Haxby Road, near Joseph Rowntree School, which stretched further into the cycle lane than previously.

“This has led to cars ‘darting’ out of the traffic lane and into the cycle lane on every occasion that I have used this route to commute to work,” Mr Marsden said.

“On two of these three occasions, the car has been dangerously close to knocking me down. My fiancée has also been on the receiving end of this.

“I use super bright lights on my daily commute, and still some drivers cannot see me in their wing mirrors when I’m coming up the cycle lane.

“Can you imagine how much less they will see a school child who uses no lights at that time in a morning?”

Mr Marsden said he was astonished that following a recent spate of cyclists being killed in London, the authority in York was putting more cyclists – especially commuting children – in direct danger. “Not one bit of common sense appears to have been used when constructing these new speed humps,” he claimed.

He pointed out that even installing a speed hump the width of the road would be preferable to the current situation.

But a council spokeswoman said potential conflicts between cyclists and motorists should be minimal, as vehicles should be travelling at a reduced speed, which should result in a safer environment for cyclists.

“In addition, the cycle lanes should emphasise to motorists the presence of cyclists on road,” she said.

Tony Clarke, the council’s head of transport, said the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers was paramount, which was why the council approved work to improve access and crossing points in and around the school in Haxby Road last October.

Mr Clarke said records indicated there had never been any traffic incidents on this road involving cyclists in conflict with vehicles.

“However, the scheme will of course be subject to a post-completion road safety audit,” he said.

“Any recommendations made by the audit on safety grounds will be fully reviewed and relevant actions taken to remedy any concerns.”

Comments (67)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:21am Tue 10 Dec 13

VinceBlack says...

The line dividing the cycle lane is broken, not solid, so the car drivers are free to cross into the cycle lane.

Mr Marsden's comment "I use super bright lights on my daily commute, and still some drivers cannot see me in their wing mirrors when I’m coming up the cycle lane" tends to suggest he is overtaking on the inside. If so he is the one which needs to use more care not to position himself up the inside of a car which is maneuvering around the unnecessary road furniture.
The line dividing the cycle lane is broken, not solid, so the car drivers are free to cross into the cycle lane. Mr Marsden's comment "I use super bright lights on my daily commute, and still some drivers cannot see me in their wing mirrors when I’m coming up the cycle lane" tends to suggest he is overtaking on the inside. If so he is the one which needs to use more care not to position himself up the inside of a car which is maneuvering around the unnecessary road furniture. VinceBlack

10:31am Tue 10 Dec 13

asd says...

Mr Clarke said records indicated there had never been any traffic incidents on this road involving cyclists in conflict with vehicles.
So why alter the road if no accidents? there is pedsetrian crossings for kids people to cross, and 20 mph speed limit. So yet another waste of money spent on so called cycle safety when there is no need for it.
Mr Clarke said records indicated there had never been any traffic incidents on this road involving cyclists in conflict with vehicles. So why alter the road if no accidents? there is pedsetrian crossings for kids people to cross, and 20 mph speed limit. So yet another waste of money spent on so called cycle safety when there is no need for it. asd

10:41am Tue 10 Dec 13

carpon says...

I really dislike speed humps; why not just invest in the technology available?
If it’s a 30 or 20 mph, install average speed cameras, at least then the motorist is not getting bills for anti roll bar damage and causing noise and more localised pollution by gearing down and accelerating. I would not like to be an ambulance driver rushing a patient with a spinal injury to hospital over them stupid humps. As for the cyclists, well by human nature unfortunately once again the minority cause the problems same as motorists. The fact is they are the most vulnerable on our roads and as a motorist I give them that respect.
I really dislike speed humps; why not just invest in the technology available? If it’s a 30 or 20 mph, install average speed cameras, at least then the motorist is not getting bills for anti roll bar damage and causing noise and more localised pollution by gearing down and accelerating. I would not like to be an ambulance driver rushing a patient with a spinal injury to hospital over them stupid humps. As for the cyclists, well by human nature unfortunately once again the minority cause the problems same as motorists. The fact is they are the most vulnerable on our roads and as a motorist I give them that respect. carpon

10:41am Tue 10 Dec 13

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Why are there never any cyclists on a very expensive new cycle track built alongside the ring road between Haxby Road roundabout and the next roundabout going west at Clifton Moor? Either it's not open yet, a complete waste of money... or both.
Why are there never any cyclists on a very expensive new cycle track built alongside the ring road between Haxby Road roundabout and the next roundabout going west at Clifton Moor? Either it's not open yet, a complete waste of money... or both. Garrowby Turnoff

10:43am Tue 10 Dec 13

MrsHoney says...

It's the same on Heslington Road, you almost have to broach the cycle lane in order to get over the huge speed bumps. I do keep a careful eye out I admit, I think I'm more aware of cyclists because my husband cycles. But really there's no excuse for people not looking properly before moving into a cycle lane. I do agree though if there haven't been any accidents then these speed bumps are a waste of money, if it aint broke don't fix it! The speed cushions as they call them that they're using these days are a ridiculous size! I dread to think what it's doing to my car, wearing down the inside of my tyres!!
It's the same on Heslington Road, you almost have to broach the cycle lane in order to get over the huge speed bumps. I do keep a careful eye out I admit, I think I'm more aware of cyclists because my husband cycles. But really there's no excuse for people not looking properly before moving into a cycle lane. I do agree though if there haven't been any accidents then these speed bumps are a waste of money, if it aint broke don't fix it! The speed cushions as they call them that they're using these days are a ridiculous size! I dread to think what it's doing to my car, wearing down the inside of my tyres!! MrsHoney

10:51am Tue 10 Dec 13

The Great Buda says...

asd wrote:
Mr Clarke said records indicated there had never been any traffic incidents on this road involving cyclists in conflict with vehicles.
So why alter the road if no accidents? there is pedsetrian crossings for kids people to cross, and 20 mph speed limit. So yet another waste of money spent on so called cycle safety when there is no need for it.
That is the correct answer.
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Mr Clarke said records indicated there had never been any traffic incidents on this road involving cyclists in conflict with vehicles. So why alter the road if no accidents? there is pedsetrian crossings for kids people to cross, and 20 mph speed limit. So yet another waste of money spent on so called cycle safety when there is no need for it.[/p][/quote]That is the correct answer. The Great Buda

10:52am Tue 10 Dec 13

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

Full width speed tables would be much more preferable. If drivers want to mess up their tracking (thus compromising your steering, tyres and suspension - and subsequently the safety of yourself and other road-users) they should drive astride the slopes of a speed bump . If they want to cause less damage to their cars, they should, drive over the centre of speed bumps with left and right sides alternately.

So, in keeping their cars more roadworthy, drivers can be expected to weave left and right, therefore entering the cycle lane in the first instance and into the face of oncoming traffic in the second. Unsafe in both instances and a moronic piece of traffic management. Speed bumps or cushions like this are an abomination for everyone on the road - other than trucks and buses which don't have to slow down as they pass astride them. Speed tables are a much more sensible idea.

That said, why has no-one ever invented the speed trough? Not only would it keep the road drained, it wouldn't half slow people down.
Full width speed tables would be much more preferable. If drivers want to mess up their tracking (thus compromising your steering, tyres and suspension - and subsequently the safety of yourself and other road-users) they should drive astride the slopes of a speed bump . If they want to cause less damage to their cars, they should, drive over the centre of speed bumps with left and right sides alternately. So, in keeping their cars more roadworthy, drivers can be expected to weave left and right, therefore entering the cycle lane in the first instance and into the face of oncoming traffic in the second. Unsafe in both instances and a moronic piece of traffic management. Speed bumps or cushions like this are an abomination for everyone on the road - other than trucks and buses which don't have to slow down as they pass astride them. Speed tables are a much more sensible idea. That said, why has no-one ever invented the speed trough? Not only would it keep the road drained, it wouldn't half slow people down. Ignatius Lumpopo

11:51am Tue 10 Dec 13

the original Homer says...

As someone stated earlier, the dividing line is broken, so cars can use t as part of the highway, just the same as cyclists can use the main part of the road to avoid potholes, or parked cars (patrking is legal there).
Mr Marsden thinks motorists don't see him in their mirrors - maybe they do see him, but actually know how to use the road? Sounds like he wants cars to give way to him illegally undertaking them.
As someone stated earlier, the dividing line is broken, so cars can use t as part of the highway, just the same as cyclists can use the main part of the road to avoid potholes, or parked cars (patrking is legal there). Mr Marsden thinks motorists don't see him in their mirrors - maybe they do see him, but actually know how to use the road? Sounds like he wants cars to give way to him illegally undertaking them. the original Homer

12:18pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Didactic says...

1. I am not a fan of these cushions as a cyclist or car driver.

2. The point of a cycle lane is that cars and bicycles can share the same bit of road. It isn't illegal (or even bad cycling) to proceed at your own pace in a cycle lane and pass slower cars.

3. I would imagine that the speed humps are there to encourage cars to stick to the 20mph limit which is not there for cyclists. It is there for the pedestrians and people who live in that area. Some of the anti-cycling comments on here are laughable and undermine the valid points that are made about the suitability of these speed cushions.
1. I am not a fan of these cushions as a cyclist or car driver. 2. The point of a cycle lane is that cars and bicycles can share the same bit of road. It isn't illegal (or even bad cycling) to proceed at your own pace in a cycle lane and pass slower cars. 3. I would imagine that the speed humps are there to encourage cars to stick to the 20mph limit which is not there for cyclists. It is there for the pedestrians and people who live in that area. Some of the anti-cycling comments on here are laughable and undermine the valid points that are made about the suitability of these speed cushions. Didactic

12:20pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Great Gable says...

Technically he's not 'Illegally Undertaking' He's in a designated cycle lane. If there was no cycle lane then he would be. You are right that cars can enter the cycle lane, but they do not have priority and shoud always check that its safe to do so before entering as with any other lane change. If you are driving on a motorway in Lane 1, do you stop when you see cars in Lane 2 are at a standstill or slow-moving? Likewise if you are in Lane 2, do you suddenly jerk to the left and jump into Lane 1 without making the traffic aware?

I think the point being made is the saftey of the children, as its outside the school, who are perhaps less aware of the dangers and may not as visible or quick enough to react.
Technically he's not 'Illegally Undertaking' He's in a designated cycle lane. If there was no cycle lane then he would be. You are right that cars can enter the cycle lane, but they do not have priority and shoud always check that its safe to do so before entering as with any other lane change. If you are driving on a motorway in Lane 1, do you stop when you see cars in Lane 2 are at a standstill or slow-moving? Likewise if you are in Lane 2, do you suddenly jerk to the left and jump into Lane 1 without making the traffic aware? I think the point being made is the saftey of the children, as its outside the school, who are perhaps less aware of the dangers and may not as visible or quick enough to react. Great Gable

12:36pm Tue 10 Dec 13

greenmonkey says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
Why are there never any cyclists on a very expensive new cycle track built alongside the ring road between Haxby Road roundabout and the next roundabout going west at Clifton Moor? Either it's not open yet, a complete waste of money... or both.
Cos its not finished yet!
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: Why are there never any cyclists on a very expensive new cycle track built alongside the ring road between Haxby Road roundabout and the next roundabout going west at Clifton Moor? Either it's not open yet, a complete waste of money... or both.[/p][/quote]Cos its not finished yet! greenmonkey

12:44pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Buzzz Light-year says...

No such thing as illegally undertaking.
It's called filtering.
No such thing as illegally undertaking. It's called filtering. Buzzz Light-year

12:51pm Tue 10 Dec 13

goatman says...

But a council spokeswoman said potential conflicts between cyclists and motorists should be minimal, as vehicles should be travelling at a reduced speed, which should result in a safer environment for cyclists.

“In addition, the cycle lanes should emphasise to motorists the presence of cyclists on road,” she said.

After nearly being hit twice by cars moving left into the cycle lane last night outside JR whilst biking home to Wigginton, may I suggest that the council spokeswomen should go and use her Mk 1 eyeball to see what is actually happening!
But a council spokeswoman said potential conflicts between cyclists and motorists should be minimal, as vehicles should be travelling at a reduced speed, which should result in a safer environment for cyclists. “In addition, the cycle lanes should emphasise to motorists the presence of cyclists on road,” she said. After nearly being hit twice by cars moving left into the cycle lane last night outside JR whilst biking home to Wigginton, may I suggest that the council spokeswomen should go and use her Mk 1 eyeball to see what is actually happening! goatman

1:44pm Tue 10 Dec 13

BigJon says...

goatman wrote:
But a council spokeswoman said potential conflicts between cyclists and motorists should be minimal, as vehicles should be travelling at a reduced speed, which should result in a safer environment for cyclists.

“In addition, the cycle lanes should emphasise to motorists the presence of cyclists on road,” she said.

After nearly being hit twice by cars moving left into the cycle lane last night outside JR whilst biking home to Wigginton, may I suggest that the council spokeswomen should go and use her Mk 1 eyeball to see what is actually happening!
The problem is that incidents involving "being nearly hit" don't get reported to anyone so how would the council have any record of them?
[quote][p][bold]goatman[/bold] wrote: But a council spokeswoman said potential conflicts between cyclists and motorists should be minimal, as vehicles should be travelling at a reduced speed, which should result in a safer environment for cyclists. “In addition, the cycle lanes should emphasise to motorists the presence of cyclists on road,” she said. After nearly being hit twice by cars moving left into the cycle lane last night outside JR whilst biking home to Wigginton, may I suggest that the council spokeswomen should go and use her Mk 1 eyeball to see what is actually happening![/p][/quote]The problem is that incidents involving "being nearly hit" don't get reported to anyone so how would the council have any record of them? BigJon

2:27pm Tue 10 Dec 13

VinceBlack says...

Highway code 167, "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users"

It is quite simple, if you're coming up the inside of moving traffic you're overtaking, and putting yourself at risk of them moving, quite legally, around the lane.

As is often the case cyclists putting themselves at risk and then feeling hard done by when their gamble goes wrong.
Highway code 167, "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users" It is quite simple, if you're coming up the inside of moving traffic you're overtaking, and putting yourself at risk of them moving, quite legally, around the lane. As is often the case cyclists putting themselves at risk and then feeling hard done by when their gamble goes wrong. VinceBlack

2:37pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Devils_advocate says...

Since when were they called cushions!? Is this they council's PR dept. trying to soften the image?
Since when were they called cushions!? Is this they council's PR dept. trying to soften the image? Devils_advocate

2:43pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Pedro says...

As a user of this road for many years there is a lot bad about it. People have been crawling through York (often late) and put their foot down when they reach Haxby Road to make up for it. The number of sheltered and part sheltered homes in the district. Some containing elderly drivers who shouldn't be on the road. It has a lot of snake bends. Leafs fall on the cycle lane, indeed they never seem to be cleared. Buses stop for disabled customers and drivers overtake on to oncoming traffic due to impatience. It is a very bad cycle road, but if you have to go there what choice have you got?
As a user of this road for many years there is a lot bad about it. People have been crawling through York (often late) and put their foot down when they reach Haxby Road to make up for it. The number of sheltered and part sheltered homes in the district. Some containing elderly drivers who shouldn't be on the road. It has a lot of snake bends. Leafs fall on the cycle lane, indeed they never seem to be cleared. Buses stop for disabled customers and drivers overtake on to oncoming traffic due to impatience. It is a very bad cycle road, but if you have to go there what choice have you got? Pedro

3:10pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Didactic says...

VinceBlack wrote:
Highway code 167, "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users" It is quite simple, if you're coming up the inside of moving traffic you're overtaking, and putting yourself at risk of them moving, quite legally, around the lane. As is often the case cyclists putting themselves at risk and then feeling hard done by when their gamble goes wrong.
The point is that the cycle lane is not part of the traffic lane. If you were in a filter lane on the motorway you could reasonably expect a car in the outside lane to check its mirrors before pulling into your lane.

Personally, if traffic was moving at more than a crawl I would not bother to go up the inside as I have seen so many cyclists get cut up that way. I have been on the receiving end, and actually have done it to a cyclist by mistake too as sometimes they are hard to spot.

I do think we should all be better at protecting cyclists in cycle lanes though. They do encourage cyclists to 'presume' that drivers will respect the lane, and as such they can lessen the caution of someone using the lane. Drivers need to realise this, and cyclists need to learn to cycle defensively. Both parties should work together a bit more as cycling should be encouraged. Rather than cursing the cyclist for making better time than them, the car driver should be grateful that the cyclist has replaced what could be another car on the already overloaded York network.

What really upsets me is stationary traffic that positions itself half way in a cycle lane. There is no reason for it other than carelessness and selfishness (unless you are a big fat lorry or bus).
[quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: Highway code 167, "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users" It is quite simple, if you're coming up the inside of moving traffic you're overtaking, and putting yourself at risk of them moving, quite legally, around the lane. As is often the case cyclists putting themselves at risk and then feeling hard done by when their gamble goes wrong.[/p][/quote]The point is that the cycle lane is not part of the traffic lane. If you were in a filter lane on the motorway you could reasonably expect a car in the outside lane to check its mirrors before pulling into your lane. Personally, if traffic was moving at more than a crawl I would not bother to go up the inside as I have seen so many cyclists get cut up that way. I have been on the receiving end, and actually have done it to a cyclist by mistake too as sometimes they are hard to spot. I do think we should all be better at protecting cyclists in cycle lanes though. They do encourage cyclists to 'presume' that drivers will respect the lane, and as such they can lessen the caution of someone using the lane. Drivers need to realise this, and cyclists need to learn to cycle defensively. Both parties should work together a bit more as cycling should be encouraged. Rather than cursing the cyclist for making better time than them, the car driver should be grateful that the cyclist has replaced what could be another car on the already overloaded York network. What really upsets me is stationary traffic that positions itself half way in a cycle lane. There is no reason for it other than carelessness and selfishness (unless you are a big fat lorry or bus). Didactic

3:52pm Tue 10 Dec 13

the original Homer says...

Great Gable - let's just say I'm not a fan of overtaking on the inside. Except in a very few circumstances i think it's dangerous. I also think too many people see it as normal, and think other drivers should be expecting it.

In the circumstances described, I do not see that lane as being designated for cyclists. It's marked as an advisory (not mandatory) cycle lane, signified by the line being broken rather than solid. As such other vehicles can use it, i.e. it's not designated for cyclists. The broken line also means traffic can move in and out of the lane, which is usually the safety criteria for banning ovettaking on the inside.

The exceptions where "undertaking" is allowed (one-way street, traffic turning right, traffic moving slowly in queues) don't seem to apply, which makes sense to me, as I think undertaking would be dangerous. The exemption for traffic moving slowly in queues could apply (just) but note the word is plural - "queues". On that road, it means a queue of bikes could pass a queue of cars, but the bikes would have to make a queue first.

The questions about motorways are covered by it being illegal to ever overtake on the inside on a motorway, except to avoid being involved in an immediate accident. If you're in lane 1, and lane 2 slows or stops, then so should you, continuing up the inside would be dangerous. If you were in lane 2 then you could use lane 3 to pass, but not lane 1.

The law is actually quite clear on all of these, but many road users aren't aware, and that misunderstanding is where things start to get heated.

In truth, the particular road markings used there could be wrong, and could need refreshing to protect cyclists more. However, as things stand, we should drive to the law and expect others to do the same. Whatever the rules are, the only safe way to use the roads is to all stick to the same set.
Great Gable - let's just say I'm not a fan of overtaking on the inside. Except in a very few circumstances i think it's dangerous. I also think too many people see it as normal, and think other drivers should be expecting it. In the circumstances described, I do not see that lane as being designated for cyclists. It's marked as an advisory (not mandatory) cycle lane, signified by the line being broken rather than solid. As such other vehicles can use it, i.e. it's not designated for cyclists. The broken line also means traffic can move in and out of the lane, which is usually the safety criteria for banning ovettaking on the inside. The exceptions where "undertaking" is allowed (one-way street, traffic turning right, traffic moving slowly in queues) don't seem to apply, which makes sense to me, as I think undertaking would be dangerous. The exemption for traffic moving slowly in queues could apply (just) but note the word is plural - "queues". On that road, it means a queue of bikes could pass a queue of cars, but the bikes would have to make a queue first. The questions about motorways are covered by it being illegal to ever overtake on the inside on a motorway, except to avoid being involved in an immediate accident. If you're in lane 1, and lane 2 slows or stops, then so should you, continuing up the inside would be dangerous. If you were in lane 2 then you could use lane 3 to pass, but not lane 1. The law is actually quite clear on all of these, but many road users aren't aware, and that misunderstanding is where things start to get heated. In truth, the particular road markings used there could be wrong, and could need refreshing to protect cyclists more. However, as things stand, we should drive to the law and expect others to do the same. Whatever the rules are, the only safe way to use the roads is to all stick to the same set. the original Homer

4:40pm Tue 10 Dec 13

PKH says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
Why are there never any cyclists on a very expensive new cycle track built alongside the ring road between Haxby Road roundabout and the next roundabout going west at Clifton Moor? Either it's not open yet, a complete waste of money... or both.
One of the reasons is that going from Clifton Moor towards Haxby it is actually more dangerous than cycling on the A1237 because cyclists using the tack have to cross two lanes of traffic to go over the Rail Bridge on the A1237. It is a typical half baked measure by CYC.
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: Why are there never any cyclists on a very expensive new cycle track built alongside the ring road between Haxby Road roundabout and the next roundabout going west at Clifton Moor? Either it's not open yet, a complete waste of money... or both.[/p][/quote]One of the reasons is that going from Clifton Moor towards Haxby it is actually more dangerous than cycling on the A1237 because cyclists using the tack have to cross two lanes of traffic to go over the Rail Bridge on the A1237. It is a typical half baked measure by CYC. PKH

4:48pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Can't all be wrong says...

A council spokesman said "as vehicles should be traveling at a reduced speed, which should result in safer environment for cyclists".
I think they have missed the point. When a motorist is confronted by a giant foreign body in the centre of the carriage way, the natural instinct is to avoid it, hence the move to one side or the other of the obstruction.
Maybe cyclists should learn to read the road ahead, and anticipate this type of evasive action regardless of who is or is not in the right.
A council spokesman said "as vehicles should be traveling at a reduced speed, which should result in safer environment for cyclists". I think they have missed the point. When a motorist is confronted by a giant foreign body in the centre of the carriage way, the natural instinct is to avoid it, hence the move to one side or the other of the obstruction. Maybe cyclists should learn to read the road ahead, and anticipate this type of evasive action regardless of who is or is not in the right. Can't all be wrong

4:51pm Tue 10 Dec 13

imassey says...

VinceBlack wrote:
The line dividing the cycle lane is broken, not solid, so the car drivers are free to cross into the cycle lane.

Mr Marsden's comment "I use super bright lights on my daily commute, and still some drivers cannot see me in their wing mirrors when I’m coming up the cycle lane" tends to suggest he is overtaking on the inside. If so he is the one which needs to use more care not to position himself up the inside of a car which is maneuvering around the unnecessary road furniture.
No, the picture is actually inaccurate - the humps referred to actually straddle a solid demarcation line.

I emailed the council with the same concerns (as a cyclist and driver) especially given the number of schoolchildren who cycle that stretch of road. It sounds like a more-or-less stock email is being sent it in reply, one that quotes rules, regulations and ideal-world scenarios rather than real-life attitudes towards cyclists and the highway code. After all, if every motorist obeyed the latter, other would be no need for speed humps or cameras. The fact is, most motorists go over these humps at the least inconvenient position and so veer into the cycle lane, at busy times blocking it for cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: The line dividing the cycle lane is broken, not solid, so the car drivers are free to cross into the cycle lane. Mr Marsden's comment "I use super bright lights on my daily commute, and still some drivers cannot see me in their wing mirrors when I’m coming up the cycle lane" tends to suggest he is overtaking on the inside. If so he is the one which needs to use more care not to position himself up the inside of a car which is maneuvering around the unnecessary road furniture.[/p][/quote]No, the picture is actually inaccurate - the humps referred to actually straddle a solid demarcation line. I emailed the council with the same concerns (as a cyclist and driver) especially given the number of schoolchildren who cycle that stretch of road. It sounds like a more-or-less stock email is being sent it in reply, one that quotes rules, regulations and ideal-world scenarios rather than real-life attitudes towards cyclists and the highway code. After all, if every motorist obeyed the latter, other would be no need for speed humps or cameras. The fact is, most motorists go over these humps at the least inconvenient position and so veer into the cycle lane, at busy times blocking it for cyclists. imassey

4:54pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Mullarkian says...

It is legal to undertake on a motorway if the outside lanes are moving slower than your lane otr even stopped.
It is legal to undertake on a motorway if the outside lanes are moving slower than your lane otr even stopped. Mullarkian

4:54pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Stevie D says...

The problem here is that cycle lanes are very often fundamentally unhelpful and potentially dangerous, but too many cyclists don't realise this and think that a row of painted dashes down the edge of the road will somehow magically protect them.

When traffic is moving, cycle lanes encourage drivers to treat cyclists as "out of lane, out of mind", and not leave them enough room when overtaking. And some cycle lanes are criminally narrow, making this problem even worse. When traffic is stationary, cyclists often think that squeezing between the traffic and the kerb is the safest way to overtake the queue, and this isn't helped by cycle lanes directing them to this side.

What is very often safer is for drivers to keep right over to the left when queueing, so that cyclists can overtake them on the right, but this is outside a lot of cyclists' comfort zone, and they get nervous when they're more than a foot from the kerb, so won't do it.

Most cycle lanes are a waste of paint, and don't make things any better for cyclists. Certainly the ones on Haxby Road are positively dangerous. But councils want to be seen to help cyclists, so they spend money on cycle lanes even when they don't do any good at all.
The problem here is that cycle lanes are very often fundamentally unhelpful and potentially dangerous, but too many cyclists don't realise this and think that a row of painted dashes down the edge of the road will somehow magically protect them. When traffic is moving, cycle lanes encourage drivers to treat cyclists as "out of lane, out of mind", and not leave them enough room when overtaking. And some cycle lanes are criminally narrow, making this problem even worse. When traffic is stationary, cyclists often think that squeezing between the traffic and the kerb is the safest way to overtake the queue, and this isn't helped by cycle lanes directing them to this side. What is very often safer is for drivers to keep right over to the left when queueing, so that cyclists can overtake them on the right, but this is outside a lot of cyclists' comfort zone, and they get nervous when they're more than a foot from the kerb, so won't do it. Most cycle lanes are a waste of paint, and don't make things any better for cyclists. Certainly the ones on Haxby Road are positively dangerous. But councils want to be seen to help cyclists, so they spend money on cycle lanes even when they don't do any good at all. Stevie D

4:55pm Tue 10 Dec 13

imassey says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
Why are there never any cyclists on a very expensive new cycle track built alongside the ring road between Haxby Road roundabout and the next roundabout going west at Clifton Moor? Either it's not open yet, a complete waste of money... or both.
It's not fully open yet - only today I saw one cyclist waiting to cross the road at the end of it in order to continue his journey towards Haxby. Surely that is more dangerous than cycling the length of that stretch on the left hand side of the road?
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: Why are there never any cyclists on a very expensive new cycle track built alongside the ring road between Haxby Road roundabout and the next roundabout going west at Clifton Moor? Either it's not open yet, a complete waste of money... or both.[/p][/quote]It's not fully open yet - only today I saw one cyclist waiting to cross the road at the end of it in order to continue his journey towards Haxby. Surely that is more dangerous than cycling the length of that stretch on the left hand side of the road? imassey

5:14pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Caecilius says...

BigJon wrote:
goatman wrote:
But a council spokeswoman said potential conflicts between cyclists and motorists should be minimal, as vehicles should be travelling at a reduced speed, which should result in a safer environment for cyclists.

“In addition, the cycle lanes should emphasise to motorists the presence of cyclists on road,” she said.

After nearly being hit twice by cars moving left into the cycle lane last night outside JR whilst biking home to Wigginton, may I suggest that the council spokeswomen should go and use her Mk 1 eyeball to see what is actually happening!
The problem is that incidents involving "being nearly hit" don't get reported to anyone so how would the council have any record of them?
Oh yes, they do. I reported to the police a lorry driver who pulled out of Cemetery Road straight in front of a cyclist coming up Fishergate, who had to brake violently to avoid going under the wagon. The civilian who took the details took the incident seriously. The plod it was assigned to, despite having the full registration of the vehicle, plus the location and time of the delivery the driver then made to a nearby business, couldn't be bothered. Similarly, the Council appear to be uninterested in reports of drivers blocking the road and endangering others by illegally obstructing a box junction, even though it's covered by a traffic camera and they've had the police monitoring it previously for that very reason.

Goatman has it right. The Council spokeswoman clearly doesn't visit this website, as she's unaware that some York motorists boast about flouting speed limits and couldn't care less about the presence of cyclists on the road.
[quote][p][bold]BigJon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]goatman[/bold] wrote: But a council spokeswoman said potential conflicts between cyclists and motorists should be minimal, as vehicles should be travelling at a reduced speed, which should result in a safer environment for cyclists. “In addition, the cycle lanes should emphasise to motorists the presence of cyclists on road,” she said. After nearly being hit twice by cars moving left into the cycle lane last night outside JR whilst biking home to Wigginton, may I suggest that the council spokeswomen should go and use her Mk 1 eyeball to see what is actually happening![/p][/quote]The problem is that incidents involving "being nearly hit" don't get reported to anyone so how would the council have any record of them?[/p][/quote]Oh yes, they do. I reported to the police a lorry driver who pulled out of Cemetery Road straight in front of a cyclist coming up Fishergate, who had to brake violently to avoid going under the wagon. The civilian who took the details took the incident seriously. The plod it was assigned to, despite having the full registration of the vehicle, plus the location and time of the delivery the driver then made to a nearby business, couldn't be bothered. Similarly, the Council appear to be uninterested in reports of drivers blocking the road and endangering others by illegally obstructing a box junction, even though it's covered by a traffic camera and they've had the police monitoring it previously for that very reason. Goatman has it right. The Council spokeswoman clearly doesn't visit this website, as she's unaware that some York motorists boast about flouting speed limits and couldn't care less about the presence of cyclists on the road. Caecilius

6:50pm Tue 10 Dec 13

brummiebob says...

The only reason a car would pull into the cycle lane is to avoid the speed restriction of the speed cushion. Cyclists are allowed to undertake or filter, if they weren't what would be the point of a cycle lane? Far too many drivers in York give no consideration to how vulnerable cyclists are, racing past at pinch points to then join the queue at the next junction. If you are driving in the vicinity of a cyclist imagine it is your son, daughter or some other loved one. Then drive accordingly, take your time, consider the unexpected, allow space. Respect other road users, keep your distance and no one will be injured.
The only reason a car would pull into the cycle lane is to avoid the speed restriction of the speed cushion. Cyclists are allowed to undertake or filter, if they weren't what would be the point of a cycle lane? Far too many drivers in York give no consideration to how vulnerable cyclists are, racing past at pinch points to then join the queue at the next junction. If you are driving in the vicinity of a cyclist imagine it is your son, daughter or some other loved one. Then drive accordingly, take your time, consider the unexpected, allow space. Respect other road users, keep your distance and no one will be injured. brummiebob

6:52pm Tue 10 Dec 13

gjh says...

The Highway Code informs drivers of vehicles as follows- "do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable." Therefore to say that is it is alright for a driver to use the cycle lane on a whim is wrong. Using it to avoid a speed hump is not a justification as this is not an unavoidable action. This also means that cyclists can legitimately ride at their own pace within a cycle lane and pass vehicles that are on their off-side
The Highway Code informs drivers of vehicles as follows- "do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable." Therefore to say that is it is alright for a driver to use the cycle lane on a whim is wrong. Using it to avoid a speed hump is not a justification as this is not an unavoidable action. This also means that cyclists can legitimately ride at their own pace within a cycle lane and pass vehicles that are on their off-side gjh

7:07pm Tue 10 Dec 13

MorkofYork says...

"she's unaware that some York motorists boast about flouting speed limits"

Everyone flouts speed limits. No one's boasting. It's not flouting anyway, it's driving at the appropriate speed.
Limits are meaningless, the driver still has to decided what speed is safe within the limit. Improving road safety shouldn't be about reducing top speeds but about informing drivers so they have more things to give caution to.
"she's unaware that some York motorists boast about flouting speed limits" Everyone flouts speed limits. No one's boasting. It's not flouting anyway, it's driving at the appropriate speed. Limits are meaningless, the driver still has to decided what speed is safe within the limit. Improving road safety shouldn't be about reducing top speeds but about informing drivers so they have more things to give caution to. MorkofYork

8:12pm Tue 10 Dec 13

bolero says...

Can Pedro please define an elderly driver and at what age should a motorist stop driving? The law is quite clear in regard to what abilities are required to drive a motor vehicle. And while we're at ; wouldn't a lot of these problems be solved and a lot of money saved if the most dangerous form of transport;i.e. the bicycle were banned from our roads.
Can Pedro please define an elderly driver and at what age should a motorist stop driving? The law is quite clear in regard to what abilities are required to drive a motor vehicle. And while we're at ; wouldn't a lot of these problems be solved and a lot of money saved if the most dangerous form of transport;i.e. the bicycle were banned from our roads. bolero

8:42pm Tue 10 Dec 13

couldn't care less says...

Some of you make me sick. Almost as sick of the paper running these ridiculous stories and feeding the trolls on both sides.

As said that cyclist could be your child/loved one.

Shame on us all
Some of you make me sick. Almost as sick of the paper running these ridiculous stories and feeding the trolls on both sides. As said that cyclist could be your child/loved one. Shame on us all couldn't care less

8:44pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Pedro says...

bolero wrote:
Can Pedro please define an elderly driver and at what age should a motorist stop driving? The law is quite clear in regard to what abilities are required to drive a motor vehicle. And while we're at ; wouldn't a lot of these problems be solved and a lot of money saved if the most dangerous form of transport;i.e. the bicycle were banned from our roads.
Drivers should have to re-sit their tests every five years after 75.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Can Pedro please define an elderly driver and at what age should a motorist stop driving? The law is quite clear in regard to what abilities are required to drive a motor vehicle. And while we're at ; wouldn't a lot of these problems be solved and a lot of money saved if the most dangerous form of transport;i.e. the bicycle were banned from our roads.[/p][/quote]Drivers should have to re-sit their tests every five years after 75. Pedro

8:55pm Tue 10 Dec 13

TERRIER3 says...

no way would i cycle round the city, far too dangerous, theres simply too much traffic around, also have you seen the cyclists who have a canopy on the front or back with their children in it? your having a laugh, i cant believe they put their children at such risk just because they think they are being eco-friendly and trendy, sod that
no way would i cycle round the city, far too dangerous, theres simply too much traffic around, also have you seen the cyclists who have a canopy on the front or back with their children in it? your having a laugh, i cant believe they put their children at such risk just because they think they are being eco-friendly and trendy, sod that TERRIER3

9:03pm Tue 10 Dec 13

sometimes i tell the truth says...

Pedro wrote:
bolero wrote:
Can Pedro please define an elderly driver and at what age should a motorist stop driving? The law is quite clear in regard to what abilities are required to drive a motor vehicle. And while we're at ; wouldn't a lot of these problems be solved and a lot of money saved if the most dangerous form of transport;i.e. the bicycle were banned from our roads.
Drivers should have to re-sit their tests every five years after 75.
How about 'drivers should have to re-sit their tests every five years after passing their initial test'? Have you never thought how strange it is that you can pass you test at 17 and drive for the next 50+ years without updating your skills? Gets around the issue of age discrimination as well.
[quote][p][bold]Pedro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Can Pedro please define an elderly driver and at what age should a motorist stop driving? The law is quite clear in regard to what abilities are required to drive a motor vehicle. And while we're at ; wouldn't a lot of these problems be solved and a lot of money saved if the most dangerous form of transport;i.e. the bicycle were banned from our roads.[/p][/quote]Drivers should have to re-sit their tests every five years after 75.[/p][/quote]How about 'drivers should have to re-sit their tests every five years after passing their initial test'? Have you never thought how strange it is that you can pass you test at 17 and drive for the next 50+ years without updating your skills? Gets around the issue of age discrimination as well. sometimes i tell the truth

9:07pm Tue 10 Dec 13

IAM a Driver says...

Two things to bear in mind:
1. A car driver can only enter the cycle lane with a broken line "if necessary", not to avoid a speed bump/cushion (whatever).
2. It is not illegal to undertake on a bicycle. Even when there is not a bike lane
Two things to bear in mind: 1. A car driver can only enter the cycle lane with a broken line "if necessary", not to avoid a speed bump/cushion (whatever). 2. It is not illegal to undertake on a bicycle. Even when there is not a bike lane IAM a Driver

10:10pm Tue 10 Dec 13

MorkofYork says...

Good luck getting people to slow down by implying they're incompetent. Some of you can't see past your own prejudice.

A £600000 hazard awareness campaign would be a lot more effective than £600000's worth of 20mph signs no one pays attention.
Good luck getting people to slow down by implying they're incompetent. Some of you can't see past your own prejudice. A £600000 hazard awareness campaign would be a lot more effective than £600000's worth of 20mph signs no one pays attention. MorkofYork

10:27pm Tue 10 Dec 13

bolero says...

Pedro wrote:
bolero wrote:
Can Pedro please define an elderly driver and at what age should a motorist stop driving? The law is quite clear in regard to what abilities are required to drive a motor vehicle. And while we're at ; wouldn't a lot of these problems be solved and a lot of money saved if the most dangerous form of transport;i.e. the bicycle were banned from our roads.
Drivers should have to re-sit their tests every five years after 75.
Why 75? You have not qualified your original statement either.
[quote][p][bold]Pedro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Can Pedro please define an elderly driver and at what age should a motorist stop driving? The law is quite clear in regard to what abilities are required to drive a motor vehicle. And while we're at ; wouldn't a lot of these problems be solved and a lot of money saved if the most dangerous form of transport;i.e. the bicycle were banned from our roads.[/p][/quote]Drivers should have to re-sit their tests every five years after 75.[/p][/quote]Why 75? You have not qualified your original statement either. bolero

11:09pm Tue 10 Dec 13

MorkofYork says...

"There are plenty on here who think it acceptable to kill or maim cyclists"

Complete nonsense. Not hurting people is a primary motivator behind restricting speed, same as not damaging your car. I think these apply to most people.

Yes i think people should be free to make stupid decisions that put themselves at risk, mainly because i don't like the alternative.
"There are plenty on here who think it acceptable to kill or maim cyclists" Complete nonsense. Not hurting people is a primary motivator behind restricting speed, same as not damaging your car. I think these apply to most people. Yes i think people should be free to make stupid decisions that put themselves at risk, mainly because i don't like the alternative. MorkofYork

2:24am Wed 11 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

VinceBlack wrote:
The line dividing the cycle lane is broken, not solid, so the car drivers are free to cross into the cycle lane.

Mr Marsden's comment "I use super bright lights on my daily commute, and still some drivers cannot see me in their wing mirrors when I’m coming up the cycle lane" tends to suggest he is overtaking on the inside. If so he is the one which needs to use more care not to position himself up the inside of a car which is maneuvering around the unnecessary road furniture.
Typical anti-cyclist viewpoint. Should have guessed this would be the first response.

I have had the same thing happen to me as described in the article. and NO I was NOT "overtaking on the inside" as you describe without even knowing the situation... I was riding along getting near the humps, when a car OVERTOOK ME and the darted across into the cycle lane to avoid the hump. Quite how this puts the cyclist as being in the wrong is beyond me... but then again I'm guessing you still believe you pay the 'road tax' and so have more of a right to use the road...

also, note this:
I use super bright lights on my daily commute, and still some drivers cannot see me in their wing mirrors when I’m coming up the cycle lane

It is most likely that car drivers are simply not even looking into their wing mirrors before performing such a dangerous move. I have had it at Wigginton Road where I'm about to turn left into Haxby Road and am approaching a queue of stationery vehicles when suddenly one of them turns left out of the queue (several vehicles back from the lights), partially mounts the pavement, and almost clips my front wheel as he decided to turn so late, and all without using an indicator. Then we have drivers who, at a red light sit there with no lights flashing, and as soon as the lights go green they overtake the cyclist in front of them who was also waiting at the red light, and then they turn left without indicating.

This setup at New Earswick is risky, and the fact motorists are dashing into the cycle lane to avoid speed humps shows just how porrly designed a lot of York's cycle network really is. Look at the cycle lane in the photograph, that is barely 1m wide - the Department for Transport states cycle lanes should be a minimum of 1.5m wide so as to allow wobble room and so cyclists can avoid sunken gulleys or drain covers. This has not been done... and in fact, because it's a route used by schoolkids I would suggest the council widen the pavement to take in the current cycle lane, then partially sink one side of the widened pavement and make it an on-pavement cycle lane - giving that physical seperation from motor vehicles and also preventing motor vehicles from taking risky moves to avoid speed humps.

But a council spokeswoman said potential conflicts between cyclists and motorists should be minimal, as vehicles should be travelling at a reduced speed, which should result in a safer environment for cyclists.

Is this 'spokeswoman' Anne Semlyn, or whatever her name is, who thinks making everybody drive slower throughout the city will also be safer for cyclists??
[quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: The line dividing the cycle lane is broken, not solid, so the car drivers are free to cross into the cycle lane. Mr Marsden's comment "I use super bright lights on my daily commute, and still some drivers cannot see me in their wing mirrors when I’m coming up the cycle lane" tends to suggest he is overtaking on the inside. If so he is the one which needs to use more care not to position himself up the inside of a car which is maneuvering around the unnecessary road furniture.[/p][/quote]Typical anti-cyclist viewpoint. Should have guessed this would be the first response. I have had the same thing happen to me as described in the article. and NO I was NOT "overtaking on the inside" as you describe without even knowing the situation... I was riding along getting near the humps, when a car OVERTOOK ME and the darted across into the cycle lane to avoid the hump. Quite how this puts the cyclist as being in the wrong is beyond me... but then again I'm guessing you still believe you pay the 'road tax' and so have more of a right to use the road... also, note this: [quote]I use super bright lights on my daily commute, and still some drivers cannot see me in their wing mirrors when I’m coming up the cycle lane[/quote] It is most likely that car drivers are simply not even looking into their wing mirrors before performing such a dangerous move. I have had it at Wigginton Road where I'm about to turn left into Haxby Road and am approaching a queue of stationery vehicles when suddenly one of them turns left out of the queue (several vehicles back from the lights), partially mounts the pavement, and almost clips my front wheel as he decided to turn so late, and all without using an indicator. Then we have drivers who, at a red light sit there with no lights flashing, and as soon as the lights go green they overtake the cyclist in front of them who was also waiting at the red light, and then they turn left without indicating. This setup at New Earswick is risky, and the fact motorists are dashing into the cycle lane to avoid speed humps shows just how porrly designed a lot of York's cycle network really is. Look at the cycle lane in the photograph, that is barely 1m wide - the Department for Transport states cycle lanes should be a minimum of 1.5m wide so as to allow wobble room and so cyclists can avoid sunken gulleys or drain covers. This has not been done... and in fact, because it's a route used by schoolkids I would suggest the council widen the pavement to take in the current cycle lane, then partially sink one side of the widened pavement and make it an on-pavement cycle lane - giving that physical seperation from motor vehicles and also preventing motor vehicles from taking risky moves to avoid speed humps. [quote]But a council spokeswoman said potential conflicts between cyclists and motorists should be minimal, as vehicles should be travelling at a reduced speed, which should result in a safer environment for cyclists.[/quote] Is this 'spokeswoman' Anne Semlyn, or whatever her name is, who thinks making everybody drive slower throughout the city will also be safer for cyclists?? Magicman!

2:27am Wed 11 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

asd wrote:
Mr Clarke said records indicated there had never been any traffic incidents on this road involving cyclists in conflict with vehicles.
So why alter the road if no accidents? there is pedsetrian crossings for kids people to cross, and 20 mph speed limit. So yet another waste of money spent on so called cycle safety when there is no need for it.
Exactly, and it hasn't made it safer for cyclists, it's made it slightly worse. The road cannot support a proper on-road cycle lane, and both research and physical tests have proven that drivers overtake cyclists faster and closer on a road with a painted cycle lane than they do on a road of the same type and width without a cycle lane - so if a road cannot support 1.5m wide cycle lanes on the road surface THE DON'T PUT THEM IN!!
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Mr Clarke said records indicated there had never been any traffic incidents on this road involving cyclists in conflict with vehicles. So why alter the road if no accidents? there is pedsetrian crossings for kids people to cross, and 20 mph speed limit. So yet another waste of money spent on so called cycle safety when there is no need for it.[/p][/quote]Exactly, and it hasn't made it safer for cyclists, it's made it slightly worse. The road cannot support a proper on-road cycle lane, and both research and physical tests have proven that drivers overtake cyclists faster and closer on a road with a painted cycle lane than they do on a road of the same type and width without a cycle lane - so if a road cannot support 1.5m wide cycle lanes on the road surface THE DON'T PUT THEM IN!! Magicman!

2:29am Wed 11 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
Why are there never any cyclists on a very expensive new cycle track built alongside the ring road between Haxby Road roundabout and the next roundabout going west at Clifton Moor? Either it's not open yet, a complete waste of money... or both.
Idiot, the 'expensive new cycle track' is missing a very important component at the moment: A BRIDGE!!
I suppose everybody that keeps banging on about 'cyclists should be using this track now' would be the same people who'd turn onto an unfinished section of motorway and then go flying off an unfinished bridge into a river.
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: Why are there never any cyclists on a very expensive new cycle track built alongside the ring road between Haxby Road roundabout and the next roundabout going west at Clifton Moor? Either it's not open yet, a complete waste of money... or both.[/p][/quote]Idiot, the 'expensive new cycle track' is missing a very important component at the moment: A BRIDGE!! I suppose everybody that keeps banging on about 'cyclists should be using this track now' would be the same people who'd turn onto an unfinished section of motorway and then go flying off an unfinished bridge into a river. Magicman!

2:32am Wed 11 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

MrsHoney wrote:
It's the same on Heslington Road, you almost have to broach the cycle lane in order to get over the huge speed bumps. I do keep a careful eye out I admit, I think I'm more aware of cyclists because my husband cycles. But really there's no excuse for people not looking properly before moving into a cycle lane. I do agree though if there haven't been any accidents then these speed bumps are a waste of money, if it aint broke don't fix it! The speed cushions as they call them that they're using these days are a ridiculous size! I dread to think what it's doing to my car, wearing down the inside of my tyres!!
Indeed. a reasonable viewpoint...
I personally don't like speed bumps of any sort - there are more effective non-damaging methods to make people slow down.

As an example, the road past the school could be built to weave left and right around build-outs (but not so that traffic has to go on the other side of the road), so that people driving at 20mph past the school maintain a constant speed (which is not possible with speed humps of any type) and if anybody goes too fast then they crash into a build-out.
[quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: It's the same on Heslington Road, you almost have to broach the cycle lane in order to get over the huge speed bumps. I do keep a careful eye out I admit, I think I'm more aware of cyclists because my husband cycles. But really there's no excuse for people not looking properly before moving into a cycle lane. I do agree though if there haven't been any accidents then these speed bumps are a waste of money, if it aint broke don't fix it! The speed cushions as they call them that they're using these days are a ridiculous size! I dread to think what it's doing to my car, wearing down the inside of my tyres!![/p][/quote]Indeed. a reasonable viewpoint... I personally don't like speed bumps of any sort - there are more effective non-damaging methods to make people slow down. As an example, the road past the school could be built to weave left and right around build-outs (but not so that traffic has to go on the other side of the road), so that people driving at 20mph past the school maintain a constant speed (which is not possible with speed humps of any type) and if anybody goes too fast then they crash into a build-out. Magicman!

2:34am Wed 11 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
Full width speed tables would be much more preferable. If drivers want to mess up their tracking (thus compromising your steering, tyres and suspension - and subsequently the safety of yourself and other road-users) they should drive astride the slopes of a speed bump . If they want to cause less damage to their cars, they should, drive over the centre of speed bumps with left and right sides alternately.

So, in keeping their cars more roadworthy, drivers can be expected to weave left and right, therefore entering the cycle lane in the first instance and into the face of oncoming traffic in the second. Unsafe in both instances and a moronic piece of traffic management. Speed bumps or cushions like this are an abomination for everyone on the road - other than trucks and buses which don't have to slow down as they pass astride them. Speed tables are a much more sensible idea.

That said, why has no-one ever invented the speed trough? Not only would it keep the road drained, it wouldn't half slow people down.
Or even better, make each lane undulate with some camber to the left and then to the right like a ribbon!!
[quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: Full width speed tables would be much more preferable. If drivers want to mess up their tracking (thus compromising your steering, tyres and suspension - and subsequently the safety of yourself and other road-users) they should drive astride the slopes of a speed bump . If they want to cause less damage to their cars, they should, drive over the centre of speed bumps with left and right sides alternately. So, in keeping their cars more roadworthy, drivers can be expected to weave left and right, therefore entering the cycle lane in the first instance and into the face of oncoming traffic in the second. Unsafe in both instances and a moronic piece of traffic management. Speed bumps or cushions like this are an abomination for everyone on the road - other than trucks and buses which don't have to slow down as they pass astride them. Speed tables are a much more sensible idea. That said, why has no-one ever invented the speed trough? Not only would it keep the road drained, it wouldn't half slow people down.[/p][/quote]Or even better, make each lane undulate with some camber to the left and then to the right like a ribbon!! Magicman!

2:39am Wed 11 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

Great Gable wrote:
Technically he's not 'Illegally Undertaking' He's in a designated cycle lane. If there was no cycle lane then he would be. You are right that cars can enter the cycle lane, but they do not have priority and shoud always check that its safe to do so before entering as with any other lane change. If you are driving on a motorway in Lane 1, do you stop when you see cars in Lane 2 are at a standstill or slow-moving? Likewise if you are in Lane 2, do you suddenly jerk to the left and jump into Lane 1 without making the traffic aware?

I think the point being made is the saftey of the children, as its outside the school, who are perhaps less aware of the dangers and may not as visible or quick enough to react.
Another example would be this: if you are driving along Tadcaster Road heading towards York, and wish to turn left off onto a side street, of which turning left crosses the bus lane, do you just jerk across and get slammed into by a big silver mercedes bendybus, or do you use your mirrors and look first whilst indicating your intentions? (by indicating, some bus drivers will slow and flash to let you turn in front of them)
[quote][p][bold]Great Gable[/bold] wrote: Technically he's not 'Illegally Undertaking' He's in a designated cycle lane. If there was no cycle lane then he would be. You are right that cars can enter the cycle lane, but they do not have priority and shoud always check that its safe to do so before entering as with any other lane change. If you are driving on a motorway in Lane 1, do you stop when you see cars in Lane 2 are at a standstill or slow-moving? Likewise if you are in Lane 2, do you suddenly jerk to the left and jump into Lane 1 without making the traffic aware? I think the point being made is the saftey of the children, as its outside the school, who are perhaps less aware of the dangers and may not as visible or quick enough to react.[/p][/quote]Another example would be this: if you are driving along Tadcaster Road heading towards York, and wish to turn left off onto a side street, of which turning left crosses the bus lane, do you just jerk across and get slammed into by a big silver mercedes bendybus, or do you use your mirrors and look first whilst indicating your intentions? (by indicating, some bus drivers will slow and flash to let you turn in front of them) Magicman!

2:43am Wed 11 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

Pedro wrote:
As a user of this road for many years there is a lot bad about it. People have been crawling through York (often late) and put their foot down when they reach Haxby Road to make up for it. The number of sheltered and part sheltered homes in the district. Some containing elderly drivers who shouldn't be on the road. It has a lot of snake bends. Leafs fall on the cycle lane, indeed they never seem to be cleared. Buses stop for disabled customers and drivers overtake on to oncoming traffic due to impatience. It is a very bad cycle road, but if you have to go there what choice have you got?
Indeed.... it's a shame there wasn't some sort of off-road facility, say for example next to a nearby watercourse away from the road itself. If only there was such a watercourse running from New Earwsick (or further out) going to the city centre somewhere around the Monkgate area that had space for a shared pedestrian/cycle lane next to it; if only......
[quote][p][bold]Pedro[/bold] wrote: As a user of this road for many years there is a lot bad about it. People have been crawling through York (often late) and put their foot down when they reach Haxby Road to make up for it. The number of sheltered and part sheltered homes in the district. Some containing elderly drivers who shouldn't be on the road. It has a lot of snake bends. Leafs fall on the cycle lane, indeed they never seem to be cleared. Buses stop for disabled customers and drivers overtake on to oncoming traffic due to impatience. It is a very bad cycle road, but if you have to go there what choice have you got?[/p][/quote]Indeed.... it's a shame there wasn't some sort of off-road facility, say for example next to a nearby watercourse away from the road itself. If only there was such a watercourse running from New Earwsick (or further out) going to the city centre somewhere around the Monkgate area that had space for a shared pedestrian/cycle lane next to it; if only...... Magicman!

2:47am Wed 11 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

Didactic wrote:
VinceBlack wrote:
Highway code 167, "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users" It is quite simple, if you're coming up the inside of moving traffic you're overtaking, and putting yourself at risk of them moving, quite legally, around the lane. As is often the case cyclists putting themselves at risk and then feeling hard done by when their gamble goes wrong.
The point is that the cycle lane is not part of the traffic lane. If you were in a filter lane on the motorway you could reasonably expect a car in the outside lane to check its mirrors before pulling into your lane.

Personally, if traffic was moving at more than a crawl I would not bother to go up the inside as I have seen so many cyclists get cut up that way. I have been on the receiving end, and actually have done it to a cyclist by mistake too as sometimes they are hard to spot.

I do think we should all be better at protecting cyclists in cycle lanes though. They do encourage cyclists to 'presume' that drivers will respect the lane, and as such they can lessen the caution of someone using the lane. Drivers need to realise this, and cyclists need to learn to cycle defensively. Both parties should work together a bit more as cycling should be encouraged. Rather than cursing the cyclist for making better time than them, the car driver should be grateful that the cyclist has replaced what could be another car on the already overloaded York network.

What really upsets me is stationary traffic that positions itself half way in a cycle lane. There is no reason for it other than carelessness and selfishness (unless you are a big fat lorry or bus).
Could not agree more.

I've recently adapted my bike with extra lights front, rear and on the sides so I can be seen from all angles, positioning front lights right at the ends of the handlebars so I can be seen by an oncoming vehicle even if behind a large vehicle turning left. But despite being lit up like this, I still had a car turn right into Hull Road from the gym opposite Tang Hall lane, literally right into my path just because he wanted to get behind the truck that was turning left in front of me and he didn't want to wait (not for me, not even for the cars behind me). When there's drivers like that on the road, what can you do as a cyclist? really, what can you do?
[quote][p][bold]Didactic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: Highway code 167, "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users" It is quite simple, if you're coming up the inside of moving traffic you're overtaking, and putting yourself at risk of them moving, quite legally, around the lane. As is often the case cyclists putting themselves at risk and then feeling hard done by when their gamble goes wrong.[/p][/quote]The point is that the cycle lane is not part of the traffic lane. If you were in a filter lane on the motorway you could reasonably expect a car in the outside lane to check its mirrors before pulling into your lane. Personally, if traffic was moving at more than a crawl I would not bother to go up the inside as I have seen so many cyclists get cut up that way. I have been on the receiving end, and actually have done it to a cyclist by mistake too as sometimes they are hard to spot. I do think we should all be better at protecting cyclists in cycle lanes though. They do encourage cyclists to 'presume' that drivers will respect the lane, and as such they can lessen the caution of someone using the lane. Drivers need to realise this, and cyclists need to learn to cycle defensively. Both parties should work together a bit more as cycling should be encouraged. Rather than cursing the cyclist for making better time than them, the car driver should be grateful that the cyclist has replaced what could be another car on the already overloaded York network. What really upsets me is stationary traffic that positions itself half way in a cycle lane. There is no reason for it other than carelessness and selfishness (unless you are a big fat lorry or bus).[/p][/quote]Could not agree more. I've recently adapted my bike with extra lights front, rear and on the sides so I can be seen from all angles, positioning front lights right at the ends of the handlebars so I can be seen by an oncoming vehicle even if behind a large vehicle turning left. But despite being lit up like this, I still had a car turn right into Hull Road from the gym opposite Tang Hall lane, literally right into my path just because he wanted to get behind the truck that was turning left in front of me and he didn't want to wait (not for me, not even for the cars behind me). When there's drivers like that on the road, what can you do as a cyclist? really, what can you do? Magicman!

2:54am Wed 11 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

Stevie D wrote:
The problem here is that cycle lanes are very often fundamentally unhelpful and potentially dangerous, but too many cyclists don't realise this and think that a row of painted dashes down the edge of the road will somehow magically protect them.

When traffic is moving, cycle lanes encourage drivers to treat cyclists as "out of lane, out of mind", and not leave them enough room when overtaking. And some cycle lanes are criminally narrow, making this problem even worse. When traffic is stationary, cyclists often think that squeezing between the traffic and the kerb is the safest way to overtake the queue, and this isn't helped by cycle lanes directing them to this side.

What is very often safer is for drivers to keep right over to the left when queueing, so that cyclists can overtake them on the right, but this is outside a lot of cyclists' comfort zone, and they get nervous when they're more than a foot from the kerb, so won't do it.

Most cycle lanes are a waste of paint, and don't make things any better for cyclists. Certainly the ones on Haxby Road are positively dangerous. But councils want to be seen to help cyclists, so they spend money on cycle lanes even when they don't do any good at all.
Absolutely... cycle further up this road into Haxby itself, beyond the Eastfield Avenue junction, and the cycle lane (if you can call it that) narrows to less than 40cm, barely wider than the drain covers. If that isn't just 'box ticking' "oh look we've put in cycle provision, now we can ask the government for more money for cycling projects", then I don't know what is.

If I'm passing queued vehicles then I'd like consistency: either all vehicles with their offsided to the white central dividing line so I can get past on the left, or all vehices with their nearside wheels almost touching the kerb so I can get past on the right. Sadly that doesn't happen - plus when a cyclist overtakes on the offside, they often get brandished as 'cycling dangerously' by those who don't like having been overtaken.
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: The problem here is that cycle lanes are very often fundamentally unhelpful and potentially dangerous, but too many cyclists don't realise this and think that a row of painted dashes down the edge of the road will somehow magically protect them. When traffic is moving, cycle lanes encourage drivers to treat cyclists as "out of lane, out of mind", and not leave them enough room when overtaking. And some cycle lanes are criminally narrow, making this problem even worse. When traffic is stationary, cyclists often think that squeezing between the traffic and the kerb is the safest way to overtake the queue, and this isn't helped by cycle lanes directing them to this side. What is very often safer is for drivers to keep right over to the left when queueing, so that cyclists can overtake them on the right, but this is outside a lot of cyclists' comfort zone, and they get nervous when they're more than a foot from the kerb, so won't do it. Most cycle lanes are a waste of paint, and don't make things any better for cyclists. Certainly the ones on Haxby Road are positively dangerous. But councils want to be seen to help cyclists, so they spend money on cycle lanes even when they don't do any good at all.[/p][/quote]Absolutely... cycle further up this road into Haxby itself, beyond the Eastfield Avenue junction, and the cycle lane (if you can call it that) narrows to less than 40cm, barely wider than the drain covers. If that isn't just 'box ticking' "oh look we've put in cycle provision, now we can ask the government for more money for cycling projects", then I don't know what is. If I'm passing queued vehicles then I'd like consistency: either all vehicles with their offsided to the white central dividing line so I can get past on the left, or all vehices with their nearside wheels almost touching the kerb so I can get past on the right. Sadly that doesn't happen - plus when a cyclist overtakes on the offside, they often get brandished as 'cycling dangerously' by those who don't like having been overtaken. Magicman!

2:57am Wed 11 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

brummiebob says...
The only reason a car would pull into the cycle lane is to avoid the speed restriction of the speed cushion. Cyclists are allowed to undertake or filter, if they weren't what would be the point of a cycle lane? Far too many drivers in York give no consideration to how vulnerable cyclists are, racing past at pinch points to then join the queue at the next junction. If you are driving in the vicinity of a cyclist imagine it is your son, daughter or some other loved one. Then drive accordingly, take your time, consider the unexpected, allow space. Respect other road users, keep your distance and no one will be injured.

gjh says...
The Highway Code informs drivers of vehicles as follows- "do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable." Therefore to say that is it is alright for a driver to use the cycle lane on a whim is wrong. Using it to avoid a speed hump is not a justification as this is not an unavoidable action. This also means that cyclists can legitimately ride at their own pace within a cycle lane and pass vehicles that are on their off-side

Two worthwhile comments that have sadly not been given enough credit, each only scoring 3 'likes'.
[quote]brummiebob says... The only reason a car would pull into the cycle lane is to avoid the speed restriction of the speed cushion. Cyclists are allowed to undertake or filter, if they weren't what would be the point of a cycle lane? Far too many drivers in York give no consideration to how vulnerable cyclists are, racing past at pinch points to then join the queue at the next junction. If you are driving in the vicinity of a cyclist imagine it is your son, daughter or some other loved one. Then drive accordingly, take your time, consider the unexpected, allow space. Respect other road users, keep your distance and no one will be injured.[/quote] [quote]gjh says... The Highway Code informs drivers of vehicles as follows- "do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable." Therefore to say that is it is alright for a driver to use the cycle lane on a whim is wrong. Using it to avoid a speed hump is not a justification as this is not an unavoidable action. This also means that cyclists can legitimately ride at their own pace within a cycle lane and pass vehicles that are on their off-side[/quote] Two worthwhile comments that have sadly not been given enough credit, each only scoring 3 'likes'. Magicman!

7:33am Wed 11 Dec 13

again says...

Can't all be wrong wrote:
A council spokesman said "as vehicles should be traveling at a reduced speed, which should result in safer environment for cyclists".
I think they have missed the point. When a motorist is confronted by a giant foreign body in the centre of the carriage way, the natural instinct is to avoid it, hence the move to one side or the other of the obstruction.
Maybe cyclists should learn to read the road ahead, and anticipate this type of evasive action regardless of who is or is not in the right.
An example of a poor driver who really needs a retest if they think like that.

They prioritise avoiding a speed hump by swerving rather than slowing slightly to avoid a human being! Incredible.
[quote][p][bold]Can't all be wrong[/bold] wrote: A council spokesman said "as vehicles should be traveling at a reduced speed, which should result in safer environment for cyclists". I think they have missed the point. When a motorist is confronted by a giant foreign body in the centre of the carriage way, the natural instinct is to avoid it, hence the move to one side or the other of the obstruction. Maybe cyclists should learn to read the road ahead, and anticipate this type of evasive action regardless of who is or is not in the right.[/p][/quote]An example of a poor driver who really needs a retest if they think like that. They prioritise avoiding a speed hump by swerving rather than slowing slightly to avoid a human being! Incredible. again

8:52am Wed 11 Dec 13

Buzzz Light-year says...

Indeed Magicman! the breadth of hate and ignorance on this page alone show exactly why we face such dangerous prejudice fuelled behaviour when we're out on the road.
Indeed Magicman! the breadth of hate and ignorance on this page alone show exactly why we face such dangerous prejudice fuelled behaviour when we're out on the road. Buzzz Light-year

9:45am Wed 11 Dec 13

Can't all be wrong says...

again wrote:
Can't all be wrong wrote:
A council spokesman said "as vehicles should be traveling at a reduced speed, which should result in safer environment for cyclists".
I think they have missed the point. When a motorist is confronted by a giant foreign body in the centre of the carriage way, the natural instinct is to avoid it, hence the move to one side or the other of the obstruction.
Maybe cyclists should learn to read the road ahead, and anticipate this type of evasive action regardless of who is or is not in the right.
An example of a poor driver who really needs a retest if they think like that.

They prioritise avoiding a speed hump by swerving rather than slowing slightly to avoid a human being! Incredible.
Have to disagree with you. I drive a car which by its design has a low suspension, I have to drive ultra slowly over these speed humps to avoid damaging my car. With the new generation of speed humps that now proliferate Yorks roads I have to negotiate them at crawling speed and off centre. This means I either have to pull into on coming carriage way or into the cycle lane, I have no choice. Before you suggest I change my car, sorry but that's not an option, just finished paying for it!
[quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Can't all be wrong[/bold] wrote: A council spokesman said "as vehicles should be traveling at a reduced speed, which should result in safer environment for cyclists". I think they have missed the point. When a motorist is confronted by a giant foreign body in the centre of the carriage way, the natural instinct is to avoid it, hence the move to one side or the other of the obstruction. Maybe cyclists should learn to read the road ahead, and anticipate this type of evasive action regardless of who is or is not in the right.[/p][/quote]An example of a poor driver who really needs a retest if they think like that. They prioritise avoiding a speed hump by swerving rather than slowing slightly to avoid a human being! Incredible.[/p][/quote]Have to disagree with you. I drive a car which by its design has a low suspension, I have to drive ultra slowly over these speed humps to avoid damaging my car. With the new generation of speed humps that now proliferate Yorks roads I have to negotiate them at crawling speed and off centre. This means I either have to pull into on coming carriage way or into the cycle lane, I have no choice. Before you suggest I change my car, sorry but that's not an option, just finished paying for it! Can't all be wrong

9:48am Wed 11 Dec 13

TheTruthHurts says...

A lot of the cycle lanes are just not fit for purpose, and this doesnt help any road user be it car cycle or pedestrian. The council could launch a thorough review online and ask for input from residents. Yes of course you will always get the odd extreme view but on the whole i think that people would put forward some sensible ideas. Especially on new roads and alterations. ie the new layout at the fox in Holgate (heading out of town) just doesnt really make sense and could use a tweak to make it clearer for all road users, not just cyclists.
A lot of the cycle lanes are just not fit for purpose, and this doesnt help any road user be it car cycle or pedestrian. The council could launch a thorough review online and ask for input from residents. Yes of course you will always get the odd extreme view but on the whole i think that people would put forward some sensible ideas. Especially on new roads and alterations. ie the new layout at the fox in Holgate (heading out of town) just doesnt really make sense and could use a tweak to make it clearer for all road users, not just cyclists. TheTruthHurts

9:54am Wed 11 Dec 13

VinceBlack says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Indeed Magicman! the breadth of hate and ignorance on this page alone show exactly why we face such dangerous prejudice fuelled behaviour when we're out on the road.
Do you ever wonder why York cyclists feel "hate and prejudice" (MTFU by the way).

It is because in York a large percentage of cyclists feel they are above the law and also invincible. Every day I see cyclists jumping red lights, deciding to become pedestrians to ride through crossings, driving up the inside of traffic turning left, not bothering with lights etc. Sure there will be good ones, but it is the bad ones which get you a bad reputation.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Indeed Magicman! the breadth of hate and ignorance on this page alone show exactly why we face such dangerous prejudice fuelled behaviour when we're out on the road.[/p][/quote]Do you ever wonder why York cyclists feel "hate and prejudice" (MTFU by the way). It is because in York a large percentage of cyclists feel they are above the law and also invincible. Every day I see cyclists jumping red lights, deciding to become pedestrians to ride through crossings, driving up the inside of traffic turning left, not bothering with lights etc. Sure there will be good ones, but it is the bad ones which get you a bad reputation. VinceBlack

10:10am Wed 11 Dec 13

the original Homer says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Indeed Magicman! the breadth of hate and ignorance on this page alone show exactly why we face such dangerous prejudice fuelled behaviour when we're out on the road.
The bit in the Highway Code which says cars shouldn't use cycle lanes unless "unavoidable" is just a guide, not law. The law says you can cross a broken line if it is safe to do so.

The bit about not overtaking on the inside does apply to cyclists as well as car drivers. Calling it filtering makes no difference. The key issue is whether the dividing line is solid or broken.

Where the dividing line is solid, bikes can freely pass cars on the inside, as their lane is designated for bikes only, and cars shouldn't encroach except to avoid an immediate accident.

Where the dividing line is broken, both lanes are available to all vehicles. Cars moving into the cycle lane need to check ahead and alongside. Bikes can only pass on the inside if there is traffic in both lanes and it is moving slowly in queues (i.e. a stream of bikes is OK, but 1 bike on its own is not OK).

A cycle lane witha broken line does not automatically give bikes the right to "filter" past cars. Only a solid line provides that right.

You would always hope that a car driver would also check behind and allow for bikes. However, it is not unreasonable for a car driver to pull in front of a bike, on the basis that the bike shouldn't be planning to come past on the inside anyway.

What cars shouldn't do, is pull in between a stream of bikes, as those are allowed to pass. Cars shouldn't cross solid lines, and they shouldn't come to a stop blocking a cycle lane.

The specific case described in the original article appeared to be of a car crossing a broken line into a cycle lane, with a cyclist coming up faster from behind. In that specific case the car was legal, as it was safe to enter the lane when it did. It only becomes unsafe if the cyclist decides to pass on the inside and the car driver can reasonably expect that the cyclist isn't going to do anything so daft.

There is also guidance to not change lane if it would cause another road user to have to brake or change course. Whether that applies or not is debatable. The car driver could argue that the cyclist should already be braking, to avoid getting into the situation of passing on the inside. In that argument it the car moving across is not causing the bike to brake.

It all really comes down to whether or not passing on the inside is OK. Personally, I would do it with a solid line, but not with a broken line.

Incidentally, although my posts may seem anti-bike, I cycle approximately 4000 miles a year, I also have a motorbike licence, and I used to teach defensive riding.

One final point. There is a comment that the photo doesn't actually show the right bit of road and that the incident actually happened where the line was solid. That would make all the difference, and the car driver would then be in the wrong. If that is the case, then we have had a hypothetical debate due to an inappropriate photo being used.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Indeed Magicman! the breadth of hate and ignorance on this page alone show exactly why we face such dangerous prejudice fuelled behaviour when we're out on the road.[/p][/quote]The bit in the Highway Code which says cars shouldn't use cycle lanes unless "unavoidable" is just a guide, not law. The law says you can cross a broken line if it is safe to do so. The bit about not overtaking on the inside does apply to cyclists as well as car drivers. Calling it filtering makes no difference. The key issue is whether the dividing line is solid or broken. Where the dividing line is solid, bikes can freely pass cars on the inside, as their lane is designated for bikes only, and cars shouldn't encroach except to avoid an immediate accident. Where the dividing line is broken, both lanes are available to all vehicles. Cars moving into the cycle lane need to check ahead and alongside. Bikes can only pass on the inside if there is traffic in both lanes and it is moving slowly in queues (i.e. a stream of bikes is OK, but 1 bike on its own is not OK). A cycle lane witha broken line does not automatically give bikes the right to "filter" past cars. Only a solid line provides that right. You would always hope that a car driver would also check behind and allow for bikes. However, it is not unreasonable for a car driver to pull in front of a bike, on the basis that the bike shouldn't be planning to come past on the inside anyway. What cars shouldn't do, is pull in between a stream of bikes, as those are allowed to pass. Cars shouldn't cross solid lines, and they shouldn't come to a stop blocking a cycle lane. The specific case described in the original article appeared to be of a car crossing a broken line into a cycle lane, with a cyclist coming up faster from behind. In that specific case the car was legal, as it was safe to enter the lane when it did. It only becomes unsafe if the cyclist decides to pass on the inside and the car driver can reasonably expect that the cyclist isn't going to do anything so daft. There is also guidance to not change lane if it would cause another road user to have to brake or change course. Whether that applies or not is debatable. The car driver could argue that the cyclist should already be braking, to avoid getting into the situation of passing on the inside. In that argument it the car moving across is not causing the bike to brake. It all really comes down to whether or not passing on the inside is OK. Personally, I would do it with a solid line, but not with a broken line. Incidentally, although my posts may seem anti-bike, I cycle approximately 4000 miles a year, I also have a motorbike licence, and I used to teach defensive riding. One final point. There is a comment that the photo doesn't actually show the right bit of road and that the incident actually happened where the line was solid. That would make all the difference, and the car driver would then be in the wrong. If that is the case, then we have had a hypothetical debate due to an inappropriate photo being used. the original Homer

1:08pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Buzzz Light-year says...

VinceBlack wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: Indeed Magicman! the breadth of hate and ignorance on this page alone show exactly why we face such dangerous prejudice fuelled behaviour when we're out on the road.
Do you ever wonder why York cyclists feel "hate and prejudice" (MTFU by the way). It is because in York a large percentage of cyclists feel they are above the law and also invincible. Every day I see cyclists jumping red lights, deciding to become pedestrians to ride through crossings, driving up the inside of traffic turning left, not bothering with lights etc. Sure there will be good ones, but it is the bad ones which get you a bad reputation.
Firstly, if I hadn't MTFU years ago I would already be maimed or dead. But that's not the point. WTF should I MTFU? Why should I have to bear the brunt of the very prejudice you display so very well here? Why am I answerable for the behaviour of someone else because I'm using the same machine as them?

How does a pedestrian "ride through a crossing?" Surely pedestrians walk?

Do you ever wonder why Black People feel hate and prejudice? It is because a large percentage of them feel they are above the law and also invincible. Every day I see them wearing rasta hats and smoking ganja, they're always in the news for murders and stuff. Sure there'll be good ones, but it's the bad ones that get all of them a bad reputation.

(Before the hard of understanding report me for that last bit let me be clear - IT'S SATIRE)

Prejudice is prejudice, it's unwarranted and on the roads it's dangerous.
[quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Indeed Magicman! the breadth of hate and ignorance on this page alone show exactly why we face such dangerous prejudice fuelled behaviour when we're out on the road.[/p][/quote]Do you ever wonder why York cyclists feel "hate and prejudice" (MTFU by the way). It is because in York a large percentage of cyclists feel they are above the law and also invincible. Every day I see cyclists jumping red lights, deciding to become pedestrians to ride through crossings, driving up the inside of traffic turning left, not bothering with lights etc. Sure there will be good ones, but it is the bad ones which get you a bad reputation.[/p][/quote]Firstly, if I hadn't MTFU years ago I would already be maimed or dead. But that's not the point. WTF should I MTFU? Why should I have to bear the brunt of the very prejudice you display so very well here? Why am I answerable for the behaviour of someone else because I'm using the same machine as them? How does a pedestrian "ride through a crossing?" Surely pedestrians walk? Do you ever wonder why Black People feel hate and prejudice? It is because a large percentage of them feel they are above the law and also invincible. Every day I see them wearing rasta hats and smoking ganja, they're always in the news for murders and stuff. Sure there'll be good ones, but it's the bad ones that get all of them a bad reputation. (Before the hard of understanding report me for that last bit let me be clear - IT'S SATIRE) Prejudice is prejudice, it's unwarranted and on the roads it's dangerous. Buzzz Light-year

1:25pm Wed 11 Dec 13

TheTruthHurts says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
VinceBlack wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: Indeed Magicman! the breadth of hate and ignorance on this page alone show exactly why we face such dangerous prejudice fuelled behaviour when we're out on the road.
Do you ever wonder why York cyclists feel "hate and prejudice" (MTFU by the way). It is because in York a large percentage of cyclists feel they are above the law and also invincible. Every day I see cyclists jumping red lights, deciding to become pedestrians to ride through crossings, driving up the inside of traffic turning left, not bothering with lights etc. Sure there will be good ones, but it is the bad ones which get you a bad reputation.
Firstly, if I hadn't MTFU years ago I would already be maimed or dead. But that's not the point. WTF should I MTFU? Why should I have to bear the brunt of the very prejudice you display so very well here? Why am I answerable for the behaviour of someone else because I'm using the same machine as them?

How does a pedestrian "ride through a crossing?" Surely pedestrians walk?

Do you ever wonder why Black People feel hate and prejudice? It is because a large percentage of them feel they are above the law and also invincible. Every day I see them wearing rasta hats and smoking ganja, they're always in the news for murders and stuff. Sure there'll be good ones, but it's the bad ones that get all of them a bad reputation.

(Before the hard of understanding report me for that last bit let me be clear - IT'S SATIRE)

Prejudice is prejudice, it's unwarranted and on the roads it's dangerous.
I couldnt agree more.

With the weather closing in cant we all just be a little bit more patient whether we walk, cycle or drive. It only takes a moments madness to injure someone or worse just to gain a few extra seconds........... Its just not worth it.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Indeed Magicman! the breadth of hate and ignorance on this page alone show exactly why we face such dangerous prejudice fuelled behaviour when we're out on the road.[/p][/quote]Do you ever wonder why York cyclists feel "hate and prejudice" (MTFU by the way). It is because in York a large percentage of cyclists feel they are above the law and also invincible. Every day I see cyclists jumping red lights, deciding to become pedestrians to ride through crossings, driving up the inside of traffic turning left, not bothering with lights etc. Sure there will be good ones, but it is the bad ones which get you a bad reputation.[/p][/quote]Firstly, if I hadn't MTFU years ago I would already be maimed or dead. But that's not the point. WTF should I MTFU? Why should I have to bear the brunt of the very prejudice you display so very well here? Why am I answerable for the behaviour of someone else because I'm using the same machine as them? How does a pedestrian "ride through a crossing?" Surely pedestrians walk? Do you ever wonder why Black People feel hate and prejudice? It is because a large percentage of them feel they are above the law and also invincible. Every day I see them wearing rasta hats and smoking ganja, they're always in the news for murders and stuff. Sure there'll be good ones, but it's the bad ones that get all of them a bad reputation. (Before the hard of understanding report me for that last bit let me be clear - IT'S SATIRE) Prejudice is prejudice, it's unwarranted and on the roads it's dangerous.[/p][/quote]I couldnt agree more. With the weather closing in cant we all just be a little bit more patient whether we walk, cycle or drive. It only takes a moments madness to injure someone or worse just to gain a few extra seconds........... Its just not worth it. TheTruthHurts

2:35pm Wed 11 Dec 13

bolero says...

There is only one danger to cyclists and that is the cyclists themselves who continually blatantly disregard the rules of the road which are designed to protect all sensible road users.
There is only one danger to cyclists and that is the cyclists themselves who continually blatantly disregard the rules of the road which are designed to protect all sensible road users. bolero

2:41pm Wed 11 Dec 13

imassey says...

Perhaps the more pertinent question is what is the advantage of having three speed humps spread across the road over just having two as in most other places (including on the rest of that stretch of road). I have, again, emailed the council asking that question and am awaiting a reply.

It's all very well quoting rules and regulations about the positioning of the humps to prove that they are "safe" but that isn't necessarily correct in the real world.

Also, an apology - as I cycled along this morning I realised that the unbroken line actually ends before the humps. The picture above is still taken from the wrong place, though.
Perhaps the more pertinent question is what is the advantage of having three speed humps spread across the road over just having two as in most other places (including on the rest of that stretch of road). I have, again, emailed the council asking that question and am awaiting a reply. It's all very well quoting rules and regulations about the positioning of the humps to prove that they are "safe" but that isn't necessarily correct in the real world. Also, an apology - as I cycled along this morning I realised that the unbroken line actually ends before the humps. The picture above is still taken from the wrong place, though. imassey

2:42pm Wed 11 Dec 13

imassey says...

bolero wrote:
There is only one danger to cyclists and that is the cyclists themselves who continually blatantly disregard the rules of the road which are designed to protect all sensible road users.
What an idiotic comment.

So, every cyclist who has ever had an accident has caused it themselves?
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: There is only one danger to cyclists and that is the cyclists themselves who continually blatantly disregard the rules of the road which are designed to protect all sensible road users.[/p][/quote]What an idiotic comment. So, every cyclist who has ever had an accident has caused it themselves? imassey

3:01pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Cheeky face says...

Cycle lanes need road markings and signs on posts as per the traffic signs and general directions regs of 2002, and the traffic signs manual. 1.5metres is the minimum if such cycle lanes are on highways.

Speed humps, speed thumps, speed tables and chicanes are options for councils but really do become a nuisance for ambulances etc.

Snow on roads will make the signs even more essential. Lots for the York council to check, especially with the Tour De France coming.

Lots for the road and pavement users to do by being courteous to others.

(I note that police have charged nearly 1000 cyclists in aeek in London for jumping red lights.)

Regarding travellers of any vehicle or pedestrians being stupid then fair dos so long as they do not abuse the fact!
Cycle lanes need road markings and signs on posts as per the traffic signs and general directions regs of 2002, and the traffic signs manual. 1.5metres is the minimum if such cycle lanes are on highways. Speed humps, speed thumps, speed tables and chicanes are options for councils but really do become a nuisance for ambulances etc. Snow on roads will make the signs even more essential. Lots for the York council to check, especially with the Tour De France coming. Lots for the road and pavement users to do by being courteous to others. (I note that police have charged nearly 1000 cyclists in aeek in London for jumping red lights.) Regarding travellers of any vehicle or pedestrians being stupid then fair dos so long as they do not abuse the fact! Cheeky face

6:54pm Wed 11 Dec 13

bolero says...

imassey wrote:
bolero wrote: There is only one danger to cyclists and that is the cyclists themselves who continually blatantly disregard the rules of the road which are designed to protect all sensible road users.
What an idiotic comment. So, every cyclist who has ever had an accident has caused it themselves?
That is not what I said. However, most cyclists can't even read traffic lights so small chance of being able to read print correctly.
[quote][p][bold]imassey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: There is only one danger to cyclists and that is the cyclists themselves who continually blatantly disregard the rules of the road which are designed to protect all sensible road users.[/p][/quote]What an idiotic comment. So, every cyclist who has ever had an accident has caused it themselves?[/p][/quote]That is not what I said. However, most cyclists can't even read traffic lights so small chance of being able to read print correctly. bolero

7:33pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Buzzz Light-year says...

bolero wrote:
There is only one danger to cyclists and that is the cyclists themselves who continually blatantly disregard the rules of the road which are designed to protect all sensible road users.
A clear case of victim blaming.
Google it.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: There is only one danger to cyclists and that is the cyclists themselves who continually blatantly disregard the rules of the road which are designed to protect all sensible road users.[/p][/quote]A clear case of victim blaming. Google it. Buzzz Light-year

7:39pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Buzzz Light-year says...

bolero wrote:
imassey wrote:
bolero wrote: There is only one danger to cyclists and that is the cyclists themselves who continually blatantly disregard the rules of the road which are designed to protect all sensible road users.
What an idiotic comment. So, every cyclist who has ever had an accident has caused it themselves?
That is not what I said. However, most cyclists can't even read traffic lights so small chance of being able to read print correctly.
More hate and prejudice.
Thanks for proving my point.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imassey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: There is only one danger to cyclists and that is the cyclists themselves who continually blatantly disregard the rules of the road which are designed to protect all sensible road users.[/p][/quote]What an idiotic comment. So, every cyclist who has ever had an accident has caused it themselves?[/p][/quote]That is not what I said. However, most cyclists can't even read traffic lights so small chance of being able to read print correctly.[/p][/quote]More hate and prejudice. Thanks for proving my point. Buzzz Light-year

8:15pm Wed 11 Dec 13

bolero says...

Have all cyclists got a guilt complex?
Have all cyclists got a guilt complex? bolero

9:43pm Wed 11 Dec 13

arglemcgee says...

TERRIER3 wrote:
no way would i cycle round the city, far too dangerous, theres simply too much traffic around, also have you seen the cyclists who have a canopy on the front or back with their children in it? your having a laugh, i cant believe they put their children at such risk just because they think they are being eco-friendly and trendy, sod that
Cycling is far more likely to increase the length of your life than to shorten it. Statistically it is often safer to cycle than to drive - even more so in a city like York where conditions are better than average. For young males it is a lot safer to cycle than to drive. In terms of the detail, a lot depends on whether you calculate it by distance travelled or time spent in your journey. You can make a point for either side of the argument using statistics. My point is, there's no justification for the hysteria surrounding the myth that cycling is dangerous - although we shouldn't take the approx 100 deaths of cyclists per year in the UK as acceptable (any more than we should for the 3,000 motorists killed on UK roads each year).
[quote][p][bold]TERRIER3[/bold] wrote: no way would i cycle round the city, far too dangerous, theres simply too much traffic around, also have you seen the cyclists who have a canopy on the front or back with their children in it? your having a laugh, i cant believe they put their children at such risk just because they think they are being eco-friendly and trendy, sod that[/p][/quote]Cycling is far more likely to increase the length of your life than to shorten it. Statistically it is often safer to cycle than to drive - even more so in a city like York where conditions are better than average. For young males it is a lot safer to cycle than to drive. In terms of the detail, a lot depends on whether you calculate it by distance travelled or time spent in your journey. You can make a point for either side of the argument using statistics. My point is, there's no justification for the hysteria surrounding the myth that cycling is dangerous - although we shouldn't take the approx 100 deaths of cyclists per year in the UK as acceptable (any more than we should for the 3,000 motorists killed on UK roads each year). arglemcgee

12:17pm Thu 12 Dec 13

fixedfanatic says...

I cycle this way to work and the speed humps do push cars into the cycle lane however a greater danger is the broken manhole cover adjacent to the cycle lane, its currently got a traffic cone next to it which makes you ride into it.

Despite having 2 rear lights, a front light that cost £140 and wearing a reflective jacket I am constantly overtaken by cars who then have to pull in quickly to avoid oncoming traffic, a little patience from drivers and observing road markings such as solid white lines would make very little difference to journey times and ensure you don't knock me off in the process.
I cycle this way to work and the speed humps do push cars into the cycle lane however a greater danger is the broken manhole cover adjacent to the cycle lane, its currently got a traffic cone next to it which makes you ride into it. Despite having 2 rear lights, a front light that cost £140 and wearing a reflective jacket I am constantly overtaken by cars who then have to pull in quickly to avoid oncoming traffic, a little patience from drivers and observing road markings such as solid white lines would make very little difference to journey times and ensure you don't knock me off in the process. fixedfanatic

1:11pm Thu 12 Dec 13

the original Homer says...

bolero wrote:
imassey wrote:
bolero wrote: There is only one danger to cyclists and that is the cyclists themselves who continually blatantly disregard the rules of the road which are designed to protect all sensible road users.
What an idiotic comment. So, every cyclist who has ever had an accident has caused it themselves?
That is not what I said. However, most cyclists can't even read traffic lights so small chance of being able to read print correctly.
Actually what you said (maybe unintentionally) was that every accident to a cyclist is caused by themselves or by another cyclist.

You said "There is only one danger to cyclists". Logically it follows that there can therefore only be one cause of accidents to cyclists.

Obviously wrong, as there are bad drivers, bad road designs, bad weather etc etc., but you defined all of those as being no danger to cyclists.


I don't think that is true, but it is what you said (intentionally or not).
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imassey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: There is only one danger to cyclists and that is the cyclists themselves who continually blatantly disregard the rules of the road which are designed to protect all sensible road users.[/p][/quote]What an idiotic comment. So, every cyclist who has ever had an accident has caused it themselves?[/p][/quote]That is not what I said. However, most cyclists can't even read traffic lights so small chance of being able to read print correctly.[/p][/quote]Actually what you said (maybe unintentionally) was that every accident to a cyclist is caused by themselves or by another cyclist. You said "There is only one danger to cyclists". Logically it follows that there can therefore only be one cause of accidents to cyclists. Obviously wrong, as there are bad drivers, bad road designs, bad weather etc etc., but you defined all of those as being no danger to cyclists. I don't think that is true, but it is what you said (intentionally or not). the original Homer

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree