A councillor in Dunfermline, in Scotland, has told the local press (link is external) how they received "dog's abuse" for telling cyclists they should use cycle lanes.

Jean Hall-Muir accused local cyclists of taking the law "unto themselves", saying they "do what they want".

"If you provide a cycle lane they go on the road. If you point it out you get dog's abuse from the cyclists as they don't want to hear it from anyone else," she said.

"I would like to see an elevated responsibility from the cyclists. If you're provided with a dedicated lane, you're expected to use that and stay in it, but I don't know how much we can do."

Interestingly the article was illustrated with a picture of one new-looking shared-use path from the area, the sort of infrastructure that could help new riders who might not have the confidence to negotiate the road and would otherwise be cycling on the pavement (or not at all), but might seem unnecessary to those with more experience.

"We can't make people use them," Lesley Craig, from the traffic management service added. "It's a mandatory cycle lane that's there for their use but we're dealing with human nature. If cyclists are still allowed to cycle on the road we can't enforce against them doing that. We just have to provide what we can and hope they will use it."

Another councillor, Lynn Ballantyne-Wardlaw, had at least spoken to those of us told to use such 'infrastructure'... "One of the reasons cyclists shared with me, as to why they still cycle on the road rather than use cycle lanes, is that the detritus and mess that ends up on cycle lanes damages their wheels and they find it safer on the road."

At risk of veering off into opinion here... can councillors really get pissed off if the extent of their 'infra' is widening and resurfacing a pavement and calling it a shared-use path? I think I already know the answer, but it's nice to have a short rant after writing all of the above... admittedly there's only one picture, but a £700,000 scheme... wow.

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-8-june-2023-301751#live-blog-item-46319

On 08/06/2023 01:27 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> A councillor in Dunfermline, in Scotland, has told the local press (link is external) how they received "dog's abuse" for telling fairy-cyclists they should use the provided chav lanes.
> Jean Hall-Muir accused local chav-cyclists of taking the law "unto themselves", saying they "do what they want".
> "If you provide a chav-cycle lane they go on the road. If you point it out you get dog's abuse from the fairy-cyclists as they don't want to hear it from anyone else," she said.
> "I would like to see an elevated responsibility from the chav-cyclists.

There's the problem in a nutshell.

Chavs on bikes have no sense of responsibility and especially not to
others. They are all that matters.

> If you're provided with a dedicated chav-lane, you're expected to use that and stay in it, but I don't know how much we can do."
> Interestingly the article was illustrated with a picture of one new-looking shared-use path from the area, the sort of infrastructure that could help new riders who might not have the confidence to negotiate the road and would otherwise be fairy-cycling on the pavement (or not at all), but might seem unnecessary to those with more experience.
> "We can't make people use them," Lesley Craig, from the traffic management service added. "It's a mandatory chav-cyclimng lane that's there for their use but we're dealing with (sub?) human nature. If chav-cyclists are still allowed to ride their fairy-cycles on the road we can't enforce against them doing that. We just have to provide what we can and hope they will use it."

What do you mean "have to"?

If they aren't being used, what is the point in wasting taxpayers' money
on them?

Cease and desist and return the current chav-lanes for use by normal
people in normal modes of transport.

> Another councillor, Lynn Ballantyne-Wardlaw, had at least spoken to those of us told to use such 'infrastructure'... "One of the reasons chav-cyclists shared with me, as to why they still ride their fairy-cycles on the road rather than use chav lanes, is that the detritus and mess that ends up on chav lanes damages their wheels and they find it safer on the road."

So there is literally no point in appropriating valuable road space for
use by chavs on their bikes.

> At risk of veering off into opinion here... can councillors really get pissed off if the extent of their 'infra' is widening and resurfacing a pavement and calling it a shared-use path? I think I already know the answer, but it's nice to have a short rant after writing all of the above... admittedly there's only one picture, but a £700,000 scheme... wow.
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-8-june-2023-301751#live-blog-item-46319

Comments time... I'm going to selectively bypass the debate on what constitutes dog's abuse...

OnYerBike: Preaching to the choir here, but if cyclists aren't using the infrastructure provided, then it's probably not very good. Cyclists just want a convenient and safe route. Rather than trying to "force" cyclists to use the infrastructure provided, maybe think about why cyclists don't want to use it and then try to improve it.

Steve K nailed it...

"Bloody cyclists, cycling on the pavement"

(puts up shared use sign)

"Bloody cyclists, not cycling on the pavement"

hawkinspeter: "They build a shitty 'cycle lane', don't maintain it, have it cede priority at every side road and then blame cyclists for not using it."

HoldingOn: "I try and avoid shared footpaths if I can — the one section I do use it, is because the road is very narrow, full of potholes and car/lorries get so f****** close I have to change my shorts.

"Do I avoid the shared footpaths as some form of weird protest or a feeling of self-entitlement? No — as with (I would imagine) most cyclists, I avoid the shared footpaths because I am going a heck of a lot quicker than pedestrians, on a vehicle that is quieter than someone running.

"I need to slow way down when I see a pedestrian, because chances are they can't hear me/my bell (definitely not if they are wearing headphones) and last thing I want is to crash into someone/ get a punch from someone who got a fright as I went past."