CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 2 hours 23 min ago

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

14 October 2014 - 6:58pm
Ayesha wrote:
If there were no hills in Birmingham, we'd have the same problem with too many cyclists.

Nonsense.

Re: Sick people

14 October 2014 - 6:18pm
I once did a job for a woman who'd had someone commit suicide by jumping off a motorway bridge and landing on the bonnet of her car
I'll bet she's a bit nervous when she sees someone stood on a bridge she's driving under

Re: Have you been knocked OFF in a collision while cycling?

14 October 2014 - 5:40pm
The second time in eight years of having an 'off' due to someone else's incompetence was last week.

A student on a bicycle riding with earphones along a segregated cycle path. He wasn't paying attention until he heard my shouting, and then he turned into me instead of turning away. Idiot.

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

14 October 2014 - 5:35pm
If you Google "Hills in Copenhagen", you get Copenhagen, Louisiana, USA.

Why? Because there's NO hills in Copenhagen, Denmark.

If there were no hills in Birmingham, we'd have the same problem with too many cyclists.

Re: Sick people

14 October 2014 - 4:46pm
Yes, but the only people stopped on bridges would be there to throw stuff, so you'd know to avoid driving under them. Ok, maybe not illegal but strongly discouraged.

Re: Sick people

14 October 2014 - 4:42pm
Postboxer wrote:Also, I think it should be illegal to stand still on bridges directly above carriageways, especially motorways, makes me nervous every time I see anyone doing this, after the occasional stories of people dropping bricks etc.
That's certainly one of the most unusual "this should be banned" comments I've heard recently. Obviously if someone doesn't care about garrotting cyclists or lobbing bricks off bridges then they won't care about disobeying an obscure law on loitering. Anyway, I take a perverse pleasure stopping for a minute to observe traffic jams I am not a part of

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

14 October 2014 - 4:41pm
foxyrider wrote:kwackers wrote:Yeah, but imagine if each one of those was a car!

The Danes did!


So did the Latvians.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ues-139912

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

14 October 2014 - 4:39pm
NUKe wrote:The Danes certainly know how to do it.
It's not just the Danes, sadly the UK lies well down the Euro league table for cycle friendliness

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

14 October 2014 - 4:31pm
I was thinking the other day about the driverless car, thinking that maybe they could park themselves in a carpark, bumper to bumper, then shuffle themselves to the front when you want it.

Maybe the solution with cycles is some kind of winch system, each winch lifting several bikes at a time, then lowering them all when someone wants their bike back, all controlled securely by winchAp.

Or the rival bike big wheel, like the winch, but a big wheel lifting the bikes up into the air.

The Japanese big hole in the ground system seems overly engineered and overly high tech, but probably fits a high density of cycles but lacks flexibility for anything other than a standard bicycle.

Re: Sick people

14 October 2014 - 4:24pm
I just wish these people got caught more often, then severely punished but it must be hard to find them, unless the only shop for miles around has someone on CCTV buying tacks and black paint. Also, I think it should be illegal to stand still on bridges directly above carriageways, especially motorways, makes me nervous every time I see anyone doing this, after the occasional stories of people dropping bricks etc.

Re: Clipping and running

14 October 2014 - 4:21pm
A post under the video on youtube, but not by the poster of the video states it left one person unconscious and one with a broken hand.

I'd also argue that the rear cyclist is already overtaking the front cyclist when the front cyclist indicates to pull out, at the same time as he checks to see if it's clear, it also looks more like an order than an indication, sticking his arm out in front of other traffic to force a gap for himself. It's unclear whether or not he has checked over his shoulder before indicating but he also has a small mirror.

Re: Sick people

14 October 2014 - 4:12pm
Elizabethsdad wrote:Tacks on the road is one thing, this is on a whole different level of mindless,,,
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/1152154 ... f_the_law/

More loonies,you just cannot believe that kind of mindset exists

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

14 October 2014 - 3:52pm
kwackers wrote:Yeah, but imagine if each one of those was a car!

The Danes did!

Re: Clipping and running

14 October 2014 - 3:39pm
You make the mistake of using your point as if the rider in front is changing lanes..he isn't.
That wasnt what was in my mind at all. In fact back in the days when I took my IAM on the motorbike we were supposed to indicate before moving position within a lane, it was important enough to be one of the seven parts that made up "the system". The indication for the subsequent manoeuvre, say a lane change, was another separate one of the seven.

Certainly in the UK you would be in the wrong (being the rider behind) no matter whether it was a 'group' ride, which it isn't in any case.

I dont know what you ground that on, if there is any reason why that is so, then I would not like to remain ignorant about it. The "guy in front" was himself making an overtake and again it is in the highway code that he must check that nobody is already doing that to him before making a move.
Now I am not sure that anything in the HC is really applicable to this but what there is doesnt help the "guy in front"s case.
I would agree with your assessment of the situation more if the rider behind had piled into the back of him but he had his wheel clipped from the side. In order for the manoeuvre not to have resulted in collision the rear rider would have to have taken some instant avoiding action.

Up until the wheels hit I would have expected the "guy in front" to accelerate clear of the other rider rather than steer sideways into a collision or wait until the gap was larger. I think it possible that he actually thought the gap was larger but didnt do a "lifesaver" to confirm it.

Re: Clipping and running

14 October 2014 - 2:46pm
beardy wrote: The person behind fails to yield to a clear and dinstinctive signal.

Yes he does fail to yield but as any (and every)body knows indicating alone does not give you a right to proceed.
The nearest I can find in the HC is overtaking rules and they say when being overtaken do not deviate from what you were doing.
Similarly when we cycle in the gutter and find our path obstructed by a pothole (or parked car) we have to indicate and manoeuvre in good time. If that good time doesnt exist we have messed up and have to stop and wait for a gap in the traffic (cursing because we didnt get out soon enough).
You make the mistake of using your point as if the rider in front is changing lanes..he isn't.
In front = priority, if you are the vehicle behind you don't try sneaking up on the inside after the vehicle in front has indicated to turn, if you're somehow overlapping by a few cm why would you hold your line and force the pperson/vehicle in front from making their desired move?
Certainly in the UK you would be in the wrong (being the rider behind) no matter whether it was a 'group' ride, which it isn't in any case.

Stopping and waiting for a gap in this instance would have meant the rider behind crashing into him as he certainly wasn't prepared to deviate from his course or slow down so what was the rider in front meant to do. Force the rider behind to slow/move somehow?
As I said early doors, two wrongs don't make a right and in this the HC is quite clear, you don't plow on regardless because someone has made an error in judgement but in this case the guy in front does everything right aside from an over the shoulder check..the guy behind just ignores/fails to act at all on very clear indication of intent.

I wouldn't want the second rider anywhere near me on the road (car, van, bike whatever) because clearly his understanding of speed/position & hazard perception is negligible and to state other wise is just ludicrous. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever the rider behind shouldn't have slowed/moved..none at all. To defend him has no justifaction at all IMO.
And if I was the guy in front and had damage, I'd be taking the guy behind for damages..YMMV

Re: Have you been knocked OFF in a collision while cycling?

14 October 2014 - 2:25pm
Maybe all this high mileage and no accidents is not luck ...... Maybe cycling is simply not dangerous.
51 years cycling and only 1 knock off, by a fellow cyclist, as previously detailed.
I think there may be small group who like to believe it's dangerous.... makes them look more macho perhaps ...

Re: Have you been knocked OFF in a collision while cycling?

14 October 2014 - 2:14pm
I voted "knocked off - motorist's fault"

"Offed" by motons 3 times. Come off not my fault twice. Come off was my fault once.

When I was 6 a total <correct word not allowed on a family-friendly forum> of a motorist thought it would be a great idea to reverse into the kiddy out cycling with his Mum.

When I was 7, while extricating myself from the upside-down-in-the-ditch position I decided that riding along the cycle path with my eyes shut was not a very good idea

At 15 I was left-hooked by a Letchworth taxi.

At 17 a patch of loose gravel removed all grip from my front tyre (From this incident I learned that by standing on a bent rim and shifting your weight about you can straighten it enough to get you home. Once home Dad took the bendy wheel into the shed and un-bendied it for me, so it couldn't have been that bad)

About 5 years ago I had a very gentle low-speed "off" on a patch of black ice.

55 weeks ago I was T-boned on an otherwise empty roundabout on a clear sunny morning by another <appropriate-word-not-allowed> of a moton.

No serious damage has been done to me and, more importantly, to any of the bikes I was riding at the time. Not a bad record for over 40 years and at least 350,000 miles of regular cycling.

Re: Clipping and running

14 October 2014 - 1:47pm
If it is two people agreeing to ride together, it is a mutual responsibility to ride so as not to endanger each other (which is why I'm surprised that Tonyf33's responses are not more widely echoed)
There is no formal agreement and no written rules that I know of. However people who regularly ride in informal groups like this (I am thinking mainly Audax and CTC rides here) seem to normally ride quite close without any incidents, even when he have not met before that ride.

In my experience anybody doing what that guy in front did (unless there was a brick in front of him) would be given a wide berth by anybody who saw it for the rest of the ride. We do have a mutual responsibility and most of us see the guy in front rider as being the one who acted recklessly.

There are no rules that I know of, this could be a similar situation to cars using the headlight flash as a signal to go ahead, widely done but not quite right.

If I was going on a ride this weekend, I dont want any like the guy in front in my group and have no worries about sharing roadspace with the one that he "offed".

If I am wrong in this I would like to know it and why, it is rather like riding on the left side of the road, if we are all following the same rules it is safer for all.

Re: Clipping and running

14 October 2014 - 1:36pm
beardy wrote:Rule 163 has those unfortunate words "as much room as you would give a car".

Plenty of filtering cyclists do not give cars anywhere near that much room.
I would give a cyclist as much room as on that picture if I was doing the same speed as a car (around 30mph), I dont when we are both pootling along at 10-20mph.
Please do if you pass me. As the HC used to say "Remember that cyclists may be unable to maintain a straight line, particularly due to adverse wind conditions or poor road surface".
beardy wrote:Also it appears that there is no law against riding two abreast, so is this really overtaking or riding two abreast? The highway code was written because motorists were too stupid to work this out between themselves and kept killing and injuring, it isnt really written with cyclists (or even motorcyclists) in mind most of the time, it is after all a car overtaking in that picture.
If it is two people agreeing to ride together, it is a mutual responsibility to ride so as not to endanger each other (which is why I'm surprised that Tonyf33's responses are not more widely echoed); if they were simply two cyclists (who happened to dress similarly ) passing in the street, then I would expect (well, wish for more like) something more akin to the HC passing distance.
beardy wrote:I have no objection to a published set of rules which were actually written with cyclists in mind (may be the Dutch have such a thing) but I dont think we have any such thing in the UK. However being a pretty civilised bunch and with a degree of self preservation, such incidents are not a major problem and the need for a specific code isnt that great.
I can not think of any group of cyclists who I have ever ridden with considering what the guy in front did was right and what the guy behind did was wrong, yet others on the forum do think so so doubt is there.
I do think we would have a different viewpoint if the rider was not part of the group and just a "passer by" in which case they should be given a wider berth.
I would hope so, but my experience with some overtaking cyclists is that they treat other cyclists they encounter as if they were part of the same club peloton (sp?); I find this unnerving and in traffic, dangerous.
beardy wrote:I never ride in formal groups and dont have that background (all those funny masonic handsigns) but have thousands of miles of informal group riding behind me. I have taken out one person's rear light and had one taken out myself. I think there is an unwritten, informal, incomplete agreement amongst such riders about what is acceptable. We are actually using each others close physical proximity for a mutual benefit.Yeah well like I said I dislike riding in groups (actualy I will accept someone slip-streaming if asked, but generally it's not my thing).

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

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions