On the one hand, some drivers don't like or want to see cyclists in what they view as 'their' road and blocking their path (open to much controversy of course), but on the other hand some cyclists prefer to take primary position as it keeps them out of the door zone and leaves room to swerve left if a motorists overtakes them unacceptably (some cycle lanes are woefully inadequate). So, what do you think, as a road enthusiast?

I can certainly see an argument for banning cyclists from a small number of HQDCs*. The biggest danger from having cyclists on fast dual-carriageways is crossing sliproads – this is a far bigger danger than having cyclists on the carriageway with traffic passing at 60–70mph – and the only real safe solution is for cyclists to use jug-handle turns across the exit and entry sliproads.

On the other hand, in absolute terms, just how much danger is being posed by cyclists using these roads? In my experience, very few cyclists do use these roads – because they are all-too aware how dangerous (not to mention unpleasant) they are to cycle on. So in effect, we'd be spending a fortune (because any such legislative change seems to cost a fortune) to ban something that virtually no-one does anyway, which is hardly a good use of time or money.

Outside that very limited set of roads, cyclists should mix with other traffic. Sure, there will be some cases where it is sensible to provide off-road cycle tracks, such as where it allows cyclists to bypass (or take an assisted route through) large and complex junctions, or just to provide a more pleasant, shorter or easier route ... but it should be the cyclist's choice whether to use it or not.

What we absolutely should do forthwith is to burn off about 95% of all on-road cycle lanes, as they are harmful and dangerous, and do not help cyclists in any way.

* including urban routes such as the D-road, Coventry ring road, A38 through Brum, former A40(M) etc.

The main roads (most A Roads, all HQDC's, Motorways) should either have segregated cycle facilities or a suitable alternative route (of no significant extra distance), as should some of the busier B roads.

Below that roads will either be lightly trafficked country lanes where, provided sight lines are good, there's no real need for segregation (at least for the time being), or destination streets where the only people on them should be cyclists or people arriving at / departing from there destination and should therefore be subject to a 30km/h / 20mph limit.

As for on street cycle paths - I have to agree with Stevie D - although I would narrow the "car" lanes and put a cycle track up one side of the street (with a kerb between it and the road) and start prioritising pedestrian and cycle access across junctions (especially entering and exiting side roads).

Most places where on road facilities have been provided there is the space to do this, with perhaps a marginal loss of footpath width (moving all the junk (lights, bins, trees) to be in a single line would be a useful start!

I want to know which idiot came up with the Castle Boulevard scheme - a lane which randomly disappears for part time parking bays, then reappears, the occasionally loops round the parking bays http://goo.gl/maps/Fe1G and the vanishes for a junction. The better plan here would have been to put the parking bays on the northern side of the road between the trees, leaving the pavement the same width as it is around the trees - tidying up the south side pavement a tad, then building a two lane cycle lane with kerb separation from the road - leaving the cars in narrower lanes (to encourage a more appropriate speed for the road) and removing all the pedestrian refuges but replacing them with a couple of Zebra crossings. Down this stretch it's not as if there are any busy roads to the south - they are all car park accesses, primarly for small businesses, offices, and apartments. You could even provide a similar scheme down Lenton Boulevard using the existing off road cycle path at the eastern end, Alderney Road and Hungerton Street to provide a bypass of the roundabout and allow both cars and cyclists to have better sight lines when crossing at a light controlled junction. Something along the lines of http://goo.gl/maps/Mu9t shouldn't effect the traffic too much, yet would provide massive improvements for cyclists.

Weirdly though it seems like some cyclists actually feel more comfortable riding on a fast dual carriageway than a single carriageway of a similar quality, mainly due to the extra lane that motors can overtake with. What I think we really need is a crackdown on drivers that want to express why cyclists shouldn't be on a DC, on the road itself. That's what causes accidents.

What do you mean by that? It doesn't seem to make sense.

There have been a few cases of cyclists being killed on high quality dual carriageways reported on here in the past few years. While cyclists may be legally entitled to drive on them, the roads in many cases are treated as motorways and are really not suitable or safe for "vulnerable" traffic such as cyclists, animals or pedestrians.

If the first option would read:

I had taken that. But as everywhere includes small residential streets it is way over the top to separate cyclists from motorists there.

I think what Papsie means is drivers who deliberately get too close to cyclists, to intimidate them. It's fine to discuss the rights and wrongs on a forum like this, or in the pub or wherever else, but when you're on the road you should give cyclists the space they need – whether you agree with them being there or not.

On smaller, less busy routes such as rural B roads, side streets e.t.c, I see no reason why there needs to be any change to what we have now. I have no issue with cyclists being on such routes provided they're sensible/reasonable enough to keep over to the kerbside to allow traffic to pass and not a third of the way out (or more) into the lane, or in 'rows' of two… The latter I do personally have an issue with, especially where it clearly causes a lot of disruption.

What I do have an issue with are cyclists on HQDC's or other major S2 routes which really are too dangerous for them. A segregated cycle lane should really be provided where space allows, without the need to cut into existing lanes for motorised traffic or allow them to continue cycling along a very busy motorised lane (or lane one in the case of dual carriageways).

I would quite strongly disagree with suggestions for cycle lanes on most routes.

Only on fast dual carriageways
I don't like the lanes on small roads as they take up a lot of room

Keep to the kerbside? The reason they keep a third of the way out into the lane is because it is the only way to prevent the sort of highly dangerous overtakes you seem to advocate. At least three feet is required when overtaking.

Your proposals for segregated routes sound more like 'get out of my way' than a serious attempt to improve anybody's safety. I'm not aware anybody advocates segregated lanes on side streets.

Moreover riding in the gutter guarantees a puncture before too long.

As I said in another thread... give and take, live and let live, peace and love, etc, etc...