You're viewing a single thread.
Is there no cycling infrastructure in this city? I mean I support people to cycle in whatever way they can but this seems like a dangerous way to ride.
This was filmed in London, which actually has some of the best cycling infrastructure in the UK (though that's a low bar to pass). It seems, however, that he's taking a route that happens to not have much of that infrastructure on it.
Though as you say, people should be able to cycle however they please, and it is enshrined in UK law that cyclists are not required to use cycling infrastructure. In this case I'd say he's going fast enough that he'd be a danger to the slower cyclists and pedestrians on the cycle paths and multi-use pathways, so riding on the road makes more sense anyway.
There's definitely some bits of that with a shared pedestrian/cycle path on the left.
While it's perfectly legal to ignore that, I've seen how people drive in this country. I'd fucking use it. I don't really want "But I had right of way" on my headstone, while some van driver gets a £60 fine and a two month ban.
Shared paths require cyclists to stop at every side road, which is bullshit. They have right of way on the road itself so they will obviously use it instead.
Also, pedestrians don't read road signs so they often think you're not allowed to be on the shared path. I've seen cyclists get assaulted for using them and had plenty of people shouting at me for doing what I'm allowed (but not legally required) to do.
They're just a cheap and lazy way to pretend there is cycling infrastructure when there isn't, really.
Shared paths are more dangerous to use if you're going at any speed. Motorists aren't looking for cyclists when driving over them into side roads and driveways, and cyclists lose priority at every side road.
Quite so. My city in Australia has excellent shared paths, but the one paralleling one main road is the only one where I have had a close call with a car
On that route I ride on the road so I'm seen and cars can avoid me
They're probably not looking for you whizzing up the middle of them either.
At the end of the day you're a squishy meat sack and they're in a two ton metal box, albeit in central London, one travelling at about 5 mph. If you feel safer doing that then you do you. I'm just saying I wouldn't.
Feel what you want to feel, but we have data that it's safer on the road than the "pavement" (sidewalks in the UK) and I'd rather go by data than feelings. Feeling safe is not the same as being safe.
It's how you're supposed to ride. You get ahead of the traffic at every possible opportunity because it's safer that way.
We don't have legally required bicycle tests but that motorcyclist is doing what they're supposed to as well. While you probably wouldn't want to be changing lanes quite as frequently on your test, you would fail the test if you sat in traffic rather than overtaking it where possible. If the traffic was speeding instead of stationary, you'd fail your test if you stuck to the speed limit regardless. If you leave the examiner behind, it's their job to catch up to you.
They're not cars and they're not supposed to pretend that they are. The road rules are different and they're intended to make bikes of all types less vulnerable to all the cars which might kill them by getting away from them as soon as possible.