Feed aggregator

Re: Non driving cyclists

CTC Forum - On the road - 48 min 3 sec ago
Yes they do make it harder. And that's medical fact, not opinion.

If you are driving and the traffic coming the other way has its lights on, the eye will close up, as has been mentioned earlier, making it harder to see anything unlit. It also affects the way you perceive tonal contrast, again making it harder to see anything unlit. It will also make if harder to see colours, as the parts of your vision that see colour won;t operate as well, making even the brightly coloured clothing some of us wear to be seen harder to see.

Next time you're on a road where a lot of drivers have their lights on in good light (like just after the dawn when some drivers haven't yet remembered to switched their lights off) you look for yourself at how difficult it makes it to see anything else when oncoming cars have their lights on, and how much easier it is to see other things when the cars coming the other way have no lights on.

Also, if you can't see a car without lights on in broad daylight

a) you won't see a bike or a pedestrian either
b) you ought not to be driving at all.

Re: Short Survey - Do you use service stations?

CTC Forum - On the road - 51 min 26 sec ago
Grandad wrote:At 1.00am, 346k into a 600k ride (Daylight 600 audax) coffee and sandwiches at the all night garage in Fort William made a very welcome break.

+1

Also one at Gretna Gateway Rbt always coincides with a meal stop for me.

Re: Latest speeding excuse..

CTC Forum - On the road - 51 min 32 sec ago
It has to undermine the claim though doesn't it? "I was only doing this because of such and such", despite evidence that you have done the same thing on two previous occasions when such and such didn't apply. Is having been convicted of doing the same thing on multiple occasions in the past an irrelevant consideration for the magistrate when dealing with other offences?

Re: Latest speeding excuse..

CTC Forum - On the road - 52 min 37 sec ago
Flinders wrote:Previous convictions can't be taken into account when deciding if someone is guilty. But they are taken into account when sentencing. That seems fair enough to me, on the whole.
...but to further extrapolate previous convictions to assume that more (undetected) offences have taken place, which is where I came in - is that OK?

Re: Latest speeding excuse..

CTC Forum - On the road - 56 min 55 sec ago
Previous convictions can't be taken into account when deciding if someone is guilty. But they are taken into account when sentencing. That seems fair enough to me, on the whole.

Re: Short Survey - Do you use service stations?

CTC Forum - On the road - 59 min 17 sec ago
Mick F wrote:I use them, and am happy to do so.
Personally, I lean my bike in full view of me and the staff. Open clear windows are ideal to lean a bike on ..... just like Mark1978 says.

I don't want any cycle facilities thank you. Usually they are bike racks or Sheffield stands, and they are usually too far away, so you can stuff any cycle facilities. I don't want 'em at all.

I won't even leave my bike outside a village shop without locking it up to something immovable, even if it's just by a lightweight lock. If someone went for it and it wasn't locked, even if I noticed them do it whilst looking for what I wanted and buying it, I'd never get out it time to catch them. You must be able to run faster than me......

Re: Latest speeding excuse..

CTC Forum - On the road - 1 hour 27 sec ago
AlaninWales wrote:Bonefishblues wrote:Bicycler wrote:Not necessarily habitual but at the very least occasional and most likely regular or habitual. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that he could have only ever exceeded the limit on three occasions. The odds would be so unbelievably small as to be incredible. Would anybody care to estimate the odds of a single incident of speeding being detected and the driver issued with points rather than just being advised of their speed?

In any case the driver knew the law and had been caught on two previous occasions for the same offence. Would we view any person caught three times for any other criminal offence as "unlucky"?

It only requires a single incident of speeding to endanger others so it should only require a single incident to be punished. Can we imagine the excuses of just being unlucky to get caught or needing a pee working in the case of a workplace safety violation?
You may well be right, but Courts deal in evidence, not supposition.
In a criminal case they deal in evidence that something is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. It would be unreasonable to doubt that someone caught speeding three times has broken the speed limit more than three times, because the chances of that happening are unreasonably small.
Fair enough, let's take it into the Magistrate's Court then.

Magistrate
"The Defendent has now been caught three times. He therefore is a serial speeder and has, beyond reasonable doubt, broken the law on other occasions, albeit he was undetected. I will therefore dismiss his plea in mitigation on that basis."

I'm deeply uncomfortable with that, which is where/why I responded to the previous poster, who suggested that this should apply.

Lewes Road Brighton- new facility any good?

CTC Forum - On the road - 1 hour 21 min ago
Calling Brighton & Hove residents: my older daughter has just started her Physics degree at Sussex Uni and has taken her cute little Dawes Duchess (loop frame, 1x7 gearing, basket on front) with her with the intention of using for around and about and possibly odd trips into town. She had been told that cycling facilities in Brighton are a bit better than average (for the UK ) and looking on the Brighton & Hove City Council website the key route for her into town, Lewes Road, has had recent significant improvements, with apparently a 2 meter wide cycle lane separate from the bus lane: http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content ... provements.

I had previously looked at the out of date views on Google Street View and was a bit concerned to see the amount of cycle lanes running next to parked cars, in the door zone, at the 'town' end of things, but this has also apparently been addressed- anything I should be telling her or can a local reassure me this facility is now up to scratch? Plus also any other specific advice re cycling in B&H; I appreciate the sea front cycle path will have its issues with pedestrians.

Re: Latest speeding excuse..

CTC Forum - On the road - 1 hour 23 min ago
Bonefishblues wrote:Bicycler wrote:Not necessarily habitual but at the very least occasional and most likely regular or habitual. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that he could have only ever exceeded the limit on three occasions. The odds would be so unbelievably small as to be incredible. Would anybody care to estimate the odds of a single incident of speeding being detected and the driver issued with points rather than just being advised of their speed?

In any case the driver knew the law and had been caught on two previous occasions for the same offence. Would we view any person caught three times for any other criminal offence as "unlucky"?

It only requires a single incident of speeding to endanger others so it should only require a single incident to be punished. Can we imagine the excuses of just being unlucky to get caught or needing a pee working in the case of a workplace safety violation?
You may well be right, but Courts deal in evidence, not supposition.
In a criminal case they deal in evidence that something is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. It would be unreasonable to doubt that someone caught speeding three times has broken the speed limit more than three times, because the chances of that happening are unreasonably small.

Re: Latest speeding excuse..

CTC Forum - On the road - 2 hours 1 min ago
Bicycler wrote:Not necessarily habitual but at the very least occasional and most likely regular or habitual. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that he could have only ever exceeded the limit on three occasions. The odds would be so unbelievably small as to be incredible. Would anybody care to estimate the odds of a single incident of speeding being detected and the driver issued with points rather than just being advised of their speed?

In any case the driver knew the law and had been caught on two previous occasions for the same offence. Would we view any person caught three times for any other criminal offence as "unlucky"?

It only requires a single incident of speeding to endanger others so it should only require a single incident to be punished. Can we imagine the excuses of just being unlucky to get caught or needing a pee working in the case of a workplace safety violation?
You may well be right, but Courts deal in evidence, not supposition.

Re: A one day coast to coast

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 3 hours 10 min ago
Why groups of 3or 4?
I still recall the police making riders of the National 400 in Fife years ago insisting a group of 4 every couple of minutes. Imagine how frustrated drivers were with that by the time they tried to pass their twentieth group?

Re: Latest speeding excuse..

CTC Forum - On the road - 3 hours 42 min ago
Of course.

I think the poster was making a different point, however, which is what I was responding to.

The inference was that because he had been detected 3 times, then here is an individual who is an habitual speeder.

Re: Latest speeding excuse..

CTC Forum - On the road - 3 hours 58 min ago
Surely if you've been caught twice you're a serial offender?

Isn't that kind of the meaning of the word serial?

Re: Non driving cyclists

CTC Forum - On the road - 3 hours 59 min ago
Flinders wrote:..... They make it far harder to see pedestrians, cyclists, and animals.


How?

Re: A one day coast to coast

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 4 hours 10 min ago
Why not try the Way of the Roses route. Morcambe to Bridlington or vice versa.

Re: Non driving cyclists

CTC Forum - On the road - 4 hours 44 min ago
reohn2 wrote:When it's raining or when vision is limited ie;fog,etc,they have their uses,especially on motorways.

In those circumstances drivers should have their headlights on, and the DRLs would therefore be off, since they don't run together.

Re: Latest speeding excuse..

CTC Forum - On the road - 4 hours 46 min ago
Flinders wrote:Bonefishblues wrote:Flinders wrote:I read the actual report.
According to that, he already had six points on his licence. Given how unlikely it is that any speeding driver is caught, if those points were for speeding, he would have to be a serial offender, and I would not have taken the excuse given.
Either it's a legitimate excuse or it isn't. The number of points already on the licence has no bearing on that, nor does any speculation that he's a "serial speeder". He might be the unluckiest man in the World or he might be an out and out nut-job, who knows?

I disagree. If he's had points for speeding already, he should be speed aware and, if he then developed a problem, have found an alternative way to travel or avoid roads where he can't stop if necessary, whether or not he's used that excuse before or not. Of course, if he has used the excuse before, he shouldn't be using it again anyway.
It's so rare to be caught for speeding, even though it happens all the time, that anyone caught more than twice has either been spectacularly unlucky or is a serial offender.
er...which is what I said.

You didn't offer the latter option in your OP. You asserted that "he would have to be a serial offender, and I would not have taken the excuse given" hence my comment.

Re: Pulled Over By The Police

CTC Forum - On the road - 4 hours 55 min ago
Bicycler wrote:Flinders wrote:It can be difficult. There's a path here through a park. It's even part of the NCN. But it isn't signed once you're in the park, nor identified as a cycle path in any way, even where other paths cross it (with no indications of who should give way), so some pedestrians get aggressive about cyclists using it at all.

Agreed, and that is why I very rarely decide to challenge others about use of paths. People who don't do a particular activity are usually unaware of the exact rules and restrictions of doing that activity.

In my PC's case though, the lack of one way signs should have ended his assertion of me being on a one way street. Unless of course he knew the street to be wrongly signed, in which case he should have been reporting the signage

I didn't mean to undermine your post- in my opinion, the PC ought to have stopped you politely in the first place (in case you had made a genui8ne error yourself), and, when you pointed out the facts of the case, should have checked and apologised. He was behaving like a thug 'because he could'. I wish I could believe it was an isolated case of that, but I'm losing confidence in the police- sad for me, as my uncle used to be a copper, and, I think, a good one, and the contact I had with the police when a family member was killed in a RTA was very positive. But the policing situation seems to me to be deteriorating fast.

Re: Latest speeding excuse..

CTC Forum - On the road - 5 hours 1 min ago
Bonefishblues wrote:Flinders wrote:I read the actual report.
According to that, he already had six points on his licence. Given how unlikely it is that any speeding driver is caught, if those points were for speeding, he would have to be a serial offender, and I would not have taken the excuse given.
Either it's a legitimate excuse or it isn't. The number of points already on the licence has no bearing on that, nor does any speculation that he's a "serial speeder". He might be the unluckiest man in the World or he might be an out and out nut-job, who knows?

I disagree. If he's had points for speeding already, he should be speed aware and, if he then developed a problem, have found an alternative way to travel or avoid roads where he can't stop if necessary, whether or not he's used that excuse before or not. Of course, if he has used the excuse before, he shouldn't be using it again anyway.
It's so rare to be caught for speeding, even though it happens all the time, that anyone caught more than twice has either been spectacularly unlucky or is a serial offender.

Re: Non driving cyclists

CTC Forum - On the road - 5 hours 2 min ago
If the OP changes the thread title to ''Kind but idiotic cyclist encounter'' we'll know what s/he means.
DRL's haven't anything to do with the thread at all,but the loonie who on the one hand thought he was offering a bit of good advise,on the other hand was so willing to risk life and limb by RLJing
There's one born every minute ,as they say

If we're to debate the pros and cons of DRL's IMO they only make life worse for vulnerable road users by encouraging drivers to only look for light points.
When it's raining or when vision is limited ie;fog,etc,they have their uses,especially on motorways.
Otherwise if you can,switch them off please.
Syndicate content

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

 

Terms and Conditions