New Highway Code rules.

[barryd]

No and to be frank if you need to ask that then you are out of touch with reality and only see what you want to see, but from your user name I assume you are a cyclist so possibly think all motorists are out to get them which is also unreal.


But you ignored the bit where you would need to do something to be identifiable or pay a few quid for insurance, and I mean all cyclists even children if using the road.

As you used to be an avid Biker Kev I am surprised at your views. I dont know when the last time was you were out on two wheels but I certainly find the treatment you get on either a pushbike or out on the scooter in certain parts of the country terrifyingly similar. Whether its the amount of traffic on the roads now or the increase in aggression or just plain stupidity I dunno but its rare to go out on two wheels (unless its round her out in the sticks) and not have at least one close shave incident with a motor vehicle. Maybe there is a problem with some cyclists in Leeds but my experience of cyclists is the majority seem to be pretty sensible. Not so much with other road users.

Ive said this before but as you know we often go up to Flamborough head and ill often cycle into Bridlington or ill ride the scooter there and around the other coastal towns and villages and you really have to have your whits about you. Its shocking the standard of driving and awareness of motorists.

 

[GeoffL]

Great that you have a dash cam in your vehicle, I use one too .......but why do some motorists have them in their cars then criticise cyclists for having a helmet cam ?

I've never seen anyone criticise cyclists for having a helmet cam. However, I've seen a fair few criticise those anti-motorist, militant vigilantes who put themselves in harms way to prove a point -- often creating the very situation they then criticise motorists for. Way too much "two wheels good; four wheels bad" in the cycling community IMO.

Road tax was abolished in 1937, the "vehicle excise duty" we motorists pay is a tax for owning a motor vehicle, it does not give anyone the right to be on the roads, a bicycle has as much right to be on the road as any motor vehicle. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle so paying the vehicle excise duty is not required. ELECTRIC CARS ARE FREE FROM EXCISE DUTY AND SO ARE VINTAGE VEHICLES OVER 40 YEARS OLD. cyclists are never going to be required to pay it.......also cyclists do not damage the road surface, so we have nothing to pay for.

The myth that won't die https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41212379

Passing a cycling test ? why ? most adult cyclists are also motorists ....they HAVE passed a test.......and are more road aware than the many drivers are who choose to ignore what they learned in their driving test anyway ! Speeding (we all do it ) , drink driving, driving without insurance, driving without MOT, illegal tyres, brakes pulling to one side, one headlight out, the list is endless .

Insurance is required by law for motorists because of the damage they cause in a crash to other cars, crash barriers, central reservations, lamp posts and killing people.....cyclists very very very rarely cause accidents ( or road infrastructure damage) pedestrian injuries are normally caused by people stepping out in front of cyclists without looking . It is not worth spending tax payers money on yet another insurance and registration enforcement system.

MOT's for bicycles is not necessary, bikes very very very rarely cause accidents, it is not worth the government spending tax payers money on another testing and enforcement system.
Even if a motor vehicle has 11 months MOT it does not mean the vehicle is road worthy ( it states that on the certificate, or is it on the V5 form ) so none of us should get "holier than thou " on that one.

So none of what you wish for is going to happen to bicycles . Sorry.

A few corrections are in order:

1. VED does apply to EVs, just as it applies to blue badge holders and older cars (not necessary vintage, which only covers the period between the two World wars). The rate might be zero, but it must still be 'paid' and VED applied for.
2. The amount of damage caused to the road per unit contact area is proportional to the pressure exerted upon the road surface. The pressure applied to the road is a little more than the tyre pressure itself. Bicycle tyres are (IME) inflated to somewhere between 50psi (for many MTBs) to 80psi (for hybrids) to over 100psi (for roadies). Meanwhile, a typical car tyre pressure is between 30 to 40 psi. This means that, per unit contact area, bicycles cause more road damage than cars.
3. Bicycles are involved in more 'accidents' per 1000 miles than cars (source ONS/RoSPA about six months ago), and the cause of the accident is often lack of maintenance of the bicycle or the bicycle not being suitable for road use (e.g. dedicated BMX bikes with no brakes, or riding after dark without lights). Since I strongly suspect that a formal MOT for bicycles would result in a massive reduction of cycling uptake, I'm against MOTs -- but I am for severe penalties (as severe as those imposed on drivers) for those who ride an unsafe bicycle on a public thoroughfare.
4. Exactly the same argument for compulsory car insurance applies to bicycles IMO (and, yes -- I have third party insurance for my bike; it's part of my home cover). Although the average amount of harm per 'accident' is less for bikes than cars, bicycles have a higher accident rate and the potential for fatality and serious injury remains -- a quick search of the 'net turned up several recent incidents where a cyclist had run over and killed a pedestrian. Presumably, the cost of cover will reflect the risk -- so cyclists will pay less than drivers -- but protection for injured parties should still be in place IMO.

 

[Pedalman]

No and to be frank if you need to ask that then you are out of touch with reality and only see what you want to see, but from your user name I assume you are a cyclist so possibly think all motorists are out to get them which is also unreal.


But you ignored the bit where you would need to do something to be identifiable or pay a few quid for insurance, and I mean all cyclists even children if using the road.

Don't assume all cyclists are uninsured . A lot of cyclists are insured for public liability through their house insurance, most cyclists that belong to a cycling club are required to be insured by "British Cycling" or they cannot enter races.( most cycling club riders are covered for £10m public liability insurance)

If you Google "accidents caused by cyclists" you will see there are next to none . From memory, fatalities caused by cyclists I think there were three in 2017 and one in 2020, it doesn't say who was at fault on the DoT website but pedestrians tend to walk into the road without looking because they don't hear a car and it is often only a couple of metres away which gives a cyclist no time to swerve.

I'm not out of touch because I am in amongst motorists and I talk from experience, over 50 years of adult cycling, a member of a cycling club, did a lot of racing in my younger days and I don't go through red lights because I don't want to give cycling a bad name. The vast majority of the motorists where I live "up north" (in the less congested areas) are pretty good and they do pass wide, more so now since the 1.5 metre passing distance signs have been around.

I have never lived or cycled in a big city but I do understand the commuter cyclists and delivery cyclists can be annoying but in general they don't kill anyone or cause infrastructure damage if they crash and fall off.

You should try cycling sometime and even if you are a really good rider and stick to the rules you will see how badly some drivers treat you ....the problem is you don't know if the vicar is driving or a cyclist hater is behind the wheel so "defensive riding " is a must . Cyclists ALWAYS end up the worst off in collision with a motor vehicle.

 

[st3v3]

Great that you have a dash cam in your vehicle, I use one too .......but why do some motorists have them in their cars then criticise cyclists for having a helmet cam ?

Because a cyclist won't need it to prove to their insurance company that they were not at fault.

In my experience, without fail, if a cyclist is deliberately putting themselves in a position to annoy a car driver they will have a head cam.

 

[Pedalman]

I've never seen anyone criticise cyclists for having a helmet cam. However, I've seen a fair few criticise those anti-motorist, militant vigilantes who put themselves in harms way to prove a point -- often creating the very situation they then criticise motorists for. Way too much "two wheels good; four wheels bad" in the cycling community IMO.


A few corrections are in order:

1. VED does apply to EVs, just as it applies to blue badge holders and older cars (not necessary vintage, which only covers the period between the two World wars). The rate might be zero, but it must still be 'paid' and VED applied for.
2. The amount of damage caused to the road per unit contact area is proportional to the pressure exerted upon the road surface. The pressure applied to the road is a little more than the tyre pressure itself. Bicycle tyres are (IME) inflated to somewhere between 50psi (for many MTBs) to 80psi (for hybrids) to over 100psi (for roadies). Meanwhile, a typical car tyre pressure is between 30 to 40 psi. This means that, per unit contact area, bicycles cause more road damage than cars.
3. Bicycles are involved in more 'accidents' per 1000 miles than cars (source ONS/RoSPA about six months ago), and the cause of the accident is often lack of maintenance of the bicycle or the bicycle not being suitable for road use (e.g. dedicated BMX bikes with no brakes, or riding after dark without lights). Since I strongly suspect that a formal MOT for bicycles would result in a massive reduction of cycling uptake, I'm against MOTs -- but I am for severe penalties (as severe as those imposed on drivers) for those who ride an unsafe bicycle on a public thoroughfare.
4. Exactly the same argument for compulsory car insurance applies to bicycles IMO (and, yes -- I have third party insurance for my bike; it's part of my home cover). Although the average amount of harm per 'accident' is less for bikes than cars, bicycles have a higher accident rate and the potential for fatality and serious injury remains -- a quick search of the 'net turned up several recent incidents where a cyclist had run over and killed a pedestrian. Presumably, the cost of cover will reflect the risk -- so cyclists will pay less than drivers -- but protection for injured parties should still be in place IMO.

Are you really saying bicycles cause all those pot holes because they have 100psi in their tyres and cars only have 30-40 psi ?

 

[Pedalman]

Because a cyclist won't need it to prove to their insurance company that they were not at fault.

In my experience, without fail, if a cyclist is deliberately putting themselves in a position to annoy a car driver they will have a head cam.

That is Irrational bias . I have a head cam for evidence and I do not deliberately annoy motorists.......if I deliberately put myself in a position that caused an accident ( and injury to myself ) I assume my head cam footage would go against me in the eyes of the police .

 

[GeoffL]

Are you really saying bicycles cause all those pot holes because they have 100psi in their tyres and cars only have 30-40 psi ?

Nice straw man argument there. Bicycles are not the only cause, but those potholes in the gutters (where cars typically don't go) are more likely due to bicycles than cars -- and cars are not responsible for the potholes found on cycleways where cars do not go. The fact remains that per unit contact area a bicycle tyre inflated to 100psi causes more damage to the roads than a car tyre inflated to 40psi.

That is Irrational bias . I have a head cam for evidence and I do not deliberately annoy motorists.......if I deliberately put myself in a position that caused an accident ( and injury to myself ) I assume my head cam footage would go against me in the eyes of the police .

Boy is that a perverse logical fallacy. @st3v3 didn't say that cyclists have head cams to annoy motorists. What he said is that those who set out to deliberately annoy motorists (i.e. the militant vigilantes) invariably have cameras -- it's part of their essential kit with which to wage their anti-motorist war.

 

[Pudsey Bear]

As you used to be an avid Biker Kev I am surprised at your views. I dont know when the last time was you were out on two wheels but I certainly find the treatment you get on either a pushbike or out on the scooter in certain parts of the country terrifyingly similar. Whether its the amount of traffic on the roads now or the increase in aggression or just plain stupidity I dunno but its rare to go out on two wheels (unless its round her out in the sticks) and not have at least one close shave incident with a motor vehicle. Maybe there is a problem with some cyclists in Leeds but my experience of cyclists is the majority seem to be pretty sensible. Not so much with other road users.

Ive said this before but as you know we often go up to Flamborough head and ill often cycle into Bridlington or ill ride the scooter there and around the other coastal towns and villages and you really have to have your whits about you. Its shocking the standard of driving and awareness of motorists.

We all have different experiences though I was a motorcycle courier in the 80s and went to most major towns and cities in the country more than once and I never really had a problem, the occasional slip early on using roundabout usually due to diesel overfill, but I never fell off, taxis were the real problem, and probably still are, but I always rode defensively which obviously worked as I have ridden hundreds of thousands of miles on two wheels, and as a kid, I would set off early Saturday morning and not get home until Sunday night, and all on my own as I preferred my own company, I did have bike mates but they were show off and I still don't like those regardless of what they are doing, So I know two wheels better than most and as said apart from taxis I never felt threatened a lot of that has to do with learning where to be on the road, what is actually on the road & don't make yourself vulnerable, and be aware of what's behind you.

 

[Pudsey Bear]

Don't assume all cyclists are uninsured . A lot of cyclists are insured for public liability through their house insurance, most cyclists that belong to a cycling club are required to be insured by "British Cycling" or they cannot enter races.( most cycling club riders are covered for £10m public liability insurance)

If you Google "accidents caused by cyclists" you will see there are next to none . From memory, fatalities caused by cyclists I think there were three in 2017 and one in 2020, it doesn't say who was at fault on the DoT website but pedestrians tend to walk into the road without looking because they don't hear a car and it is often only a couple of metres away which gives a cyclist no time to swerve.

I'm not out of touch because I am in amongst motorists and I talk from experience, over 50 years of adult cycling, a member of a cycling club, did a lot of racing in my younger days and I don't go through red lights because I don't want to give cycling a bad name. The vast majority of the motorists where I live "up north" (in the less congested areas) are pretty good and they do pass wide, more so now since the 1.5 metre passing distance signs have been around.

I have never lived or cycled in a big city but I do understand the commuter cyclists and delivery cyclists can be annoying but in general they don't kill anyone or cause infrastructure damage if they crash and fall off.

You should try cycling sometime and even if you are a really good rider and stick to the rules you will see how badly some drivers treat you ....the problem is you don't know if the vicar is driving or a cyclist hater is behind the wheel so "defensive riding " is a must . Cyclists ALWAYS end up the worst off in collision with a motor vehicle.

You do seem to be missing the point in your defence of cyclists I have to assume that you never transgress and never put your safety in the hands of the bloke who has never driven on the left before or has just had a nice joint, they struggle with the basics of staying alive and you trust them?


As I have said before I am not against cyclists per se, just anti stupid, and you have to admit that there are a lot out there who are in that group, as said not all, some are good riders, and are considerate, as for clubs meh, stupid idea, gang mentality when you come up behind them, leave a decent gap to let us past you easily and safely not frustrate people and then wonder why you get abuse.

 

[Pedalman]

Nice straw man argument there. Bicycles are not the only cause, but those potholes in the gutters (where cars typically don't go) are more likely due to bicycles than cars -- and cars are not responsible for the potholes found on cycleways where cars do not go. The fact remains that per unit contact area a bicycle tyre inflated to 100psi causes more damage to the roads than a car tyre inflated to 40psi.


Boy is that a perverse logical fallacy. @st3v3 didn't say that cyclists have head cams to annoy motorists. What he said is that those who set out to deliberately annoy motorists (i.e. the militant vigilantes) invariably have cameras -- it's part of their essential kit with which to wage their anti-motorist war.

I understand your "scientific" point about tyre pressure ( a pin puts more pressure on one point than an elephant )
I don't get your point about potholes in gutters being caused by bicycles, most bikes don't use gutters they are out in the middle of the road annoying motorist according to the comments on here. Cars do park in gutters and tuning the wheels when stationary or when parking and driving off will scrub the road far more than a bicycle tyre .
You also need to add on the total weight of the car/van/lorry that the 30-40 psi tyres are supporting ....I would agree with you if the weight on a car/van/lorry tyre was just 10 stone but overall weight surely should be factored into the calculations. you must have seen the ridges in squashed tar macadam where vehicle tyres run , a bicycle would never cause that.
Do a real world test and I'd wager the car, van and lorry tyres do more road damage than bicycles when you factor in the weight of the vehicle. It just makes sense.

 

[Pudsey Bear]

That is Irrational bias . I have a head cam for evidence and I do not deliberately annoy motorists.......if I deliberately put myself in a position that caused an accident ( and injury to myself ) I assume my head cam footage would go against me in the eyes of the police .

Why do you need evidence? this says to me you are going out knowing that something could easily happen to such an extent that you go forearmed expecting it to happen, ever heard of the self-fulfilling prophecy least you do admit there is a possibility that you annoy motorists (we have been known to annoy each other so a given really) and what about these idiots on the snake pass, not helping is it? not responsible is it? not breaking the rules is it? (err yes it is.) .

 

[Pudsey Bear]

As for bike tyres damaging the road surface Hmm, not sure about that one but you have only to look at a ballroom (remember those) floor and see the damage Stiletto heels do to hardwood do it's not inconceivable, so I wonder how that damage does occur.

 

[Pedalman]

Why do you need evidence? this says to me you are going out knowing that something could easily happen to such an extent that you go forearmed expecting it to happen, ever heard of the self-fulfilling prophecy least you do admit there is a possibility that you annoy motorists (we have been known to annoy each other so a given really) and what about these idiots on the snake pass, not helping is it? not responsible is it? not breaking the rules is it? (err yes it is.) .

I go out knowing there are motorists who dislike cyclists , as you seem too . I assume you were calling cyclists on the snake pass "idiots".
What do you mean by breaking the rules ? Riding two abreast perhaps ? That is not breaking any rules , the law does not stipulate cyclists must ride single file.

Rule 154 – “When meeting groups of cyclists riding two abreast, they may choose to move to single file if they deem it safer to do so. They are under no compulsion to do so and it can be safer and easier for you to overtake a compact group, when conditions allow, rather than a longer line of cycles.”.

The words "overtake when conditions allow" is a good point , patience from motorists when they want past cyclists is a rare thing though .

 

[Pedalman]

As for bike tyres damaging the road surface Hmm, not sure about that one but you have only to look at a ballroom (remember those) floor and see the damage Stiletto heels do to hardwood do it's not inconceivable, so I wonder how that damage does occur.

Yes , a needle puts more pressure on one point than an elephant , but I know what I would rather have standing on me !
The overall weight has to be factored into the calculation ....vehicles on tar macadam 2 tons up to 38 tons , bicycles and rider maybe 10 to 12 stone average ? I know what I'd rather have drive over me, yup

 

[MikeBBB]

Sorry, but your denial that "crash for cash" is a problem is derisory. As for your comment, "How anyone could suggest the motorist in the vid you posted showing a cyclist hitting the stationary car is anything other than to blame beggars belief." -- Really? Seriously? A cyclist smashes into a parked car and it's the driver's fault? -- now that truly beggars belief. Given that the stationary car was facing oncoming traffic, its driver would have been to blame had it been moving. However, the camera footage proved that not to be the case and probably saved disingenuous claims from the cyclists. Note that I never said that strict liability would render cyclists 'guilt free'. However, in a collision between a cyclist and a motorist, the motorist is assumed at fault unless there is evidence to the contrary notwithstanding who is the guilty party.

Given that cycling has more than its share of militant, vigilante activists intent on condemning motorists, I'm sure you will have no problem finding footage of 'antics of motorists'. However, the attitude of such cyclists is exactly what gives cycling a bad name and helps turn motorists against cyclists in general IMO.

Oops and Oh dear - unusually for me, I made a mistake. Normally, my proofreading in the interests of the precision accuracy necessary for debates like this, in places like this esteemed forum, has failed. I should of course have written "How anyone could suggest the CYCLIST in the vid - - ". Obviously the cyclist was to blame, and no, the cyclist wouldn't have been successful in a claim against the motorist. Even in Holland!

My bad. I trust you will accept my abject and humble apology in the spirit in which I make it.

I think, at the time, I was distracted. I was planning on putting the bike on the back of the camper to go and find motorists to annoy. Yes, that might be the cause. Actually, until the van was re-registered as a camper after being converted, with the resultant increase in speed allowable on an A road, it was quite often the source of irritation to many an entitled car driver, being limited as it was to 50. Now, I can zoom along with the rest of the traffic at 60, not holding people up. That it's the 204 version of the Transporter does of course mean I can leave many an example of super-rep in the dust if I choose to.

As to your possibly derisory and inflammatory comment that "cycling has more than its share of militant, vigilante activists intent on condemning motorists", that amused me. I submit that at least 90% of the comment in this fascinating debate are validating the stereotype of the "entitled motorist", reluctant to accept they don't have exclusive use of the public highway. Many of whom seem to drive at 50 mph on A roads, even when perfectly safe to do the legal limit (no need for the "it's not a target" comments), and won't allow overtaking on the single-track so common on roads like the NC500. Just a thought.

Interestingly, on my way back (by car) from the cycle shop just now, I have to navigate about a mile of new 20mph limit. I was of course overtaken by several of those pesky, law breaking cyclists in their dedicated cycle lane. Amusingly, the most annoying driver on that road was the kiddie in his little BMW trying to get me to "move on" as he clearly didn't like obeying the law, and the 20mph limit, judging by his numerous attempts to overtake me! I like cruise - I can set it at precisely 20mph.

The rest of my journey home on a fast A road was interrupted by several groups of pesky cyclists, all of which required us entitled motorists to slow down. Tut. I am delighted however to report that other than one outstanding dangerous driver who overtook another vehicle in the face of oncoming traffic, forcing the oncoming driver to brake - heavily, all the other interactions with our fellow road users was safe, respectful and pleasant.

I didn't see any potential "crash for cash" interactions today. No pedestrians trying to walk into the side of cars either. The only dangerous interactions were other motorists. As noted above. Two of them. In a 20 minute journey.

 

[GeoffL]

I understand your "scientific" point about tyre pressure ( a pin puts more pressure on one point than an elephant )
[...]

You are using another straw man argument. You initially wrote (in post #375 -- the post to which I responded) that, "... also cyclists do not damage the road surface, so we have nothing to pay for". As I've pointed out, cyclists do in fact damage the road surface and so your assertion doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The reason why lorries cause the ruts they do is because their tyres are inflated to bicycle-like pressures. You can see exactly the same effect on busy cycleways as riders are effectively forced into single file in each direction.

 

[MikeBBB]

Funnily enough, the extremely busy cycleways in Amsterdam didn't seem to have the enormous wear patterns you note. I rather suspect 30 tons of artic lorry crashing over potholes caused by other artic lorries will cause more damage than a bike. But this isn't my field of expertise. So, a little Googling finds me this plausible looking blog - which may - or may not - reveal the true cause of damage to the road surface.

Perhaps the "straw man" argument isn't quite as illogical after all. Naturally, I would prefer a properly referenced, peer reviewed science based study. After all, accuracy is everything.

Bicycles cause no damage to road surfaces - Ferrovial's blog

we’ll let you into an open secret, a life hack for cities to require fewer taxes in future: use a bicycle for moving around, because they cause no damage to road surfaces.

blog.ferrovial.com

Here's another interesting snippet. Again, a plausible source.

Chart of the Day: Vehicle Weight vs Road Damage Levels

Via Pedal Fort Collins, here’s a simple chart showing the basic relationship between vehicle weight and the amount of “damage” or wear that is caused to the roadway. The relations…

streets.mn

 

[GeoffL]

Funnily enough, the extremely busy cycleways in Amsterdam didn't seem to have the enormous wear patterns you note. I rather suspect 30 tons of artic lorry crashing over potholes caused by other artic lorries will cause more damage than a bike. But this isn't my field of expertise. So, a little Googling finds me this plausible looking blog - which may - or may not - reveal the true cause of damage to the road surface.

Perhaps the "straw man" argument isn't quite as illogical after all. Naturally, I would prefer a properly referenced, peer reviewed science based study. After all, accuracy is everything.

Bicycles cause no damage to road surfaces - Ferrovial's blog

we’ll let you into an open secret, a life hack for cities to require fewer taxes in future: use a bicycle for moving around, because they cause no damage to road surfaces.

blog.ferrovial.com

Here's another interesting snippet. Again, a plausible source.

Chart of the Day: Vehicle Weight vs Road Damage Levels

Via Pedal Fort Collins, here’s a simple chart showing the basic relationship between vehicle weight and the amount of “damage” or wear that is caused to the roadway. The relations…

streets.mn

Two sources from pro-cycle/anti-motoring sources that exhibit clear confirmation bias.

I prefer actual evidence. The first photo is of a Dutch cycleway. The second is on the Tarka Trail, the third is part of the Cornish Coast-to-Coast (the Camel Trail was similar until the Council effected repairs). In the first two, you can see the colour striations indicating the ruts. In the third, you can see what happens if damaged caused by bicycles is allowed to turn into potholes rather than being promptly repaired.

 

[MikeBBB]

Two sources from pro-cycle/anti-motoring sources that exhibit clear confirmation bias.

Except it isn't, is it? You've only skimmed the article - whereas had you been prepared to have your confirmation bias challenged, you'd have dug a little deeper before commenting. As I did, before posting. Why, it even discusses grip on a F1 circuit. So, hardly cycling biased, is it?

Ferrovial's blog

Innovation, technology, infrastructure or the environment. Brilliant ideas that we share in our blog, a perfect place to share them.

blog.ferrovial.com

And neither is this one - again, allow me to help with a link explaining their mission. I do accept they are rather more geared to "People-centered: transportation and public spaces should center on people rather than private vehicles". Which is far from "anti-motorist"! In fact, I strongly believe we need a hybrid approach. With far less reliance on personal transportation. Have I mentioned the Danish model before? Works exceptionally well. Look it up.

About Streets.mn

We formed Streets.mn because we think transportation and land use news and information in Minnesota can be done better. This site explores the pressing issues facing our cities, towns, neighborhood…

streets.mn

In the first two, you can see the colour striations indicating the ruts

What? Shadows and wear patterning! Of course, if you can provide the actual evidence of the cause of your interpretation, that would be most helpful.

Your third picture mirrors the condition of part of a cycleway I use often, the run near Loch Lubnaig. In that particular case, the potholes at the edges of the track are very obviously caused by the vehicular use it sustains. I'm a little uncertain as to why you seem to think the potholes in your picture would be caused by bikes. Especially as your earlier picture clearly shows a bike being ridden down the middle of the track. Were I a roads engineer, I'd suggest that the damage you suggest is caused by bikes, is actually the result of poor drainage on an inadequate surface, exacerbated by vehicle use.

Your confirmation bias is showing. Again.

 

[GeoffL]

Except it isn't, is it? You've only skimmed the article - whereas had you been prepared to have your confirmation bias challenged, you'd have dug a little deeper before commenting. As I did, before posting. Why, it even discusses grip on a F1 circuit. So, hardly cycling biased, is it?

Ferrovial's blog

Innovation, technology, infrastructure or the environment. Brilliant ideas that we share in our blog, a perfect place to share them.

blog.ferrovial.com

And neither is this one - again, allow me to help with a link explaining their mission. I do accept they are rather more geared to "People-centered: transportation and public spaces should center on people rather than private vehicles". Which is far from "anti-motorist"! In fact, I strongly believe we need a hybrid approach. With far less reliance on personal transportation. Have I mentioned the Danish model before? Works exceptionally well. Look it up.

About Streets.mn

We formed Streets.mn because we think transportation and land use news and information in Minnesota can be done better. This site explores the pressing issues facing our cities, towns, neighborhood…

streets.mn

What? Shadows and wear patterning! Of course, if you can provide the actual evidence of the cause of your interpretation, that would be most helpful.

Your third picture mirrors the condition of part of a cycleway I use often, the run near Loch Lubnaig. In that particular case, the potholes at the edges of the track are very obviously caused by the vehicular use it sustains. I'm a little uncertain as to why you seem to think the potholes in your picture would be caused by bikes. Especially as your earlier picture clearly shows a bike being ridden down the middle of the track. Were I a roads engineer, I'd suggest that the damage you suggest is caused by bikes, is actually the result of poor drainage on an inadequate surface, exacerbated by vehicle use.

Your confirmation bias is showing. Again.

The first of your articles claims "Bicycles cause no damage to road surfaces", which is clearly incorrect since, no matter how small, bicycles cause road wear and hence damage. At least the second acknowledges that bicycles cause road damage -- but incorrectly attributes damage to weight rather than pressure and/or the shear stress from acceleration and braking. The first of your articles acknowledges that shear stress plays an important factor but then appears to assume that everyone drives around like they're in a Formula 1 race whereas most motorists have a right foot that's much, much lighter.

Know that I have ridden all three of the cycleways photographed and that motor vehicles (other than scooters on the Dutch cycleway) are not permitted on them. Also, all three are asphalted. The ruts were much worse than they appeared on the photographs e.g. 1.5" to 2" deep on either side on the Tarka Trail. Since there is no motorised traffic, the wear-rut damage must be caused by non-motorised traffic -- i.e. cyclists and pedestrians.