Last week we looked at the road positioning that cyclists often use, and why they will sometimes place themselves in the “Primary” position despite that fact that it may slow down following traffic. We saw that cyclists will do this for the benefit of their own safety, and to prevent other road users from overtaking when the cyclist can see that there isn’t space up ahead, or to avoid other hazards. We also learned that cyclists are particularly vulnerable road users, and that minor incidents in a car can become major accidents when a cyclist is involved.

So if cyclists are in such danger on the road, why use it? Local governments spend tax payers money increasing cycling provisions, so why don’t cyclists just get off the road and use those instead? Surely it is in everybody’s interest if they didn’t use the road at all.

Firstly, lets clear up an incorrect belief that I’ve heard a couple of times. Cyclists are not allowed to cycle on the pavement. It is illegal to do so, and cyclists caught may have to pay a fixed penalty fine (Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988). It also completely disregards the needs of any pedestrians, who in comparison to cyclists are the more vulnerable party. Cyclists who do this are being selfish, but sometimes justify their actions in that they feel pressurised into using pavements to avoid the dangerous behaviour of a minority of people on the road.

Cycle lanes are often touted as a catch-all solution to this problem. Theoretically, a segregated cycle lane will allow a cyclist to be safe from other traffic, and also without the cyclist affecting other road users or pedestrians.

Sadly, many cycle lanes are so badly designed they are utterly unusable. Imagine a road where the signposts are grounded in the middle of the lane, and whats more, a tree is planted there too! Ridiculous? For cyclists this is more common than you might think. Many cycle lanes are “advisory” meaning that other road users can use them to drive in, sometimes to park in or walk on, but give the impression that cyclists must remain in them at all times.

This isn’t the case. In fact, The Highway Code was recently amended to make this clear (rule 63).

Yet some cycle lanes are installed without any consideration for the impact that their placement may have. Last week’s article demonstrated that a cyclist may need to move to the centre of a lane when passing a traffic island to prevent dangerous overtaking. However, near my home the council have painted cycle lanes to encourage the cyclist to keep to the left.

Furthermore, there simply isn’t space on the road for the cyclist and the car to pass side by side at the island, as this photograph demonstrates. The lane shown here is “advisory” which means that other vehicles may use that part of the road should they wish, however this sort of marking encourages cyclists to keep to the left, and drivers to think that there is space to pass by safely when there is not.

Cycle lanes are also poorly maintained. It is not uncommon for them to have broken glass, and other debris scattered across them. They are often used for parking other vehicles (increasing the chance that a cyclist may be “doored“), or simply be a handy place to put road signage. Where cycle lanes are not a part of the road they are often treated as footpaths by pedestrians, a problem which is exacerbated by the proliferation of shared use paths and increases the problem of cyclists having to look out for potential dangers.

Similarly, cycle lanes are quite often not the most direct route. They often cover many more junctions than a road, with frequent “Cyclist Dismount” signs.

Not that I want to portray myself as Twickenham Cyclist’s shameless publicist, but he has produced a very good video demonstrating how much longer a journey can take when using a cycle path. Cycle paths can be equated to drivers having to travel long journeys through housing estates and carparks. The route would laborious, and the progress slow. Roads, on the other hand, provide more-or-less direct routes to the required destination, with rules that are followed by most users.

Don’t get me wrong, a well designed cycle lane can be of great benefit to many cyclists. Sometimes they will be a handy route for avoiding heavy traffic, provide a shortcut (or even a longcut), give new or inexperienced cyclists somewhere to gain confidence without intimidation, or for leisure cyclists to have a gentle pedal.

But a cyclist may choose to use the road, not only because it is their legal right to do so, but for the same reason any motorist will choose to use a particular route - it is the easiest, quickest, or otherwise most beneficial way for them to get to where they are going.

It occurs to me that this post and my last portray cycling almost as an inherently dangerous activity, when this quite frankly isn’t the case. As long as a cyclist takes the appropriate measures to protect themself, and other road users do likewise (not really an undue expectation) then cycling is a perfectly safe activity.