CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 4 min ago

Re: Overtaking Wide? Your views.

6 November 2015 - 2:38pm
To avoid the door zone for parked cars you need to go wide.
I'd have thought it also made it easier for following traffic to see you.

Re: I'm amazed!

6 November 2015 - 2:04pm
Just passed that sign again. This time it reads CYCLISTS, NIGHT AND DAY, LIGHT UP YOUR WAY! Does this mean I'm going to get abuse because I don't have lights on in the daytime?

Re: Overtaking Wide? Your views.

6 November 2015 - 1:54pm
Vorpal wrote:If there isn't room for a bike and car to share outside the door zone, there isn't room. Impede oncoming traffic? Would you think of it that way if you were driving a car?


In a car I'd be expected to wait, if I’m crossing the centre line any vehicle coming the other way on that side of the line has priority. If traffic in both directions needs to cross the centre line, then it's a matter of negotiation and trying to find that balance between assertive, polite and safe. I find the ideal in those circumstances is to follow a car rather than be at the front of the queue. Often the choice on a bike is wait like a car or proceed but not in the ideal road position. I'd proceed with caution.
As for the original question, if it's safe to overtake, then how much of the carriageway you use is your choice and yours alone, not your problem if anyone thinks it’s too much, better that than you thinking it’s not enough.

Re: Overtaking Wide? Your views.

6 November 2015 - 1:24pm
RideToWorky wrote:All good points guys!


Will bear in mind.
Especially the bit of give loads of space!

Bit difficult though, with the skinny roads around bristol, to leave a full car door gap, and not impede oncoming traffic!
If there isn't room for a bike and car to share outside the door zone, there isn't room. Impede oncoming traffic? Would you think of it that way if you were driving a car?

Read
Bicycler wrote:john Franklin's book Cyclecraft

Re: Fireworks - Thursday 5th Nov - watch out!

6 November 2015 - 1:10pm
Hiya All,

So glad it was a quiet one last night!

Took on board riding advice from the forum from the last couple of weeks
Looking forward to riding over spent firework cartridges in the coming next few weeks


Regards
Martin

Re: Jumping lights. difficult to talk about.

6 November 2015 - 12:15pm
On the few occasions I have "gone through" red lights on my bike, I've been turning left and wanted to get clear of an outside car. So I got off, pushed the bike round the left tun, got back on and rode off- so I don't consider I jumped the lights.

Ian

Re: Jumping lights. difficult to talk about.

6 November 2015 - 11:00am
I've had to ( some would argue not ) go through 2 red lights recently. These were the temporary lights put up over a 150yd section of road for repair etc. The problem I had was the sensor simply not detecting my presence so I made sure it was clear as far as I could see and went through. I'm sure many have encountered this and waiting for a car to come up behind me when it was quiet wasn't really an option.
Where road users are concerned I take that as human and non-human.... foxes, deer, rabbits, badger, pheasants etc, all require at times to cross our highways and we should respect those too, we all have the right to live. Speed limits have an important role particularly where human reaction times( for all ages ) and the laws of physics come into play.

Re: Jumping lights. difficult to talk about.

6 November 2015 - 10:55am
rfryer wrote:The "problem" is that many drivers think that the law is there to be followed, not something to pick and choose based on one's perception of what's safe.Laws are there to be followed. Not liking them or thinking you know better (eg. not stopping at a pelican red when you cant see any pedestrians as a perfect example). Tough. Follow the law. Its the same argument in the Sun (I think, I only saw the story on the Beeb when they were going through papers) this morning about Police "making money" with speed cameras. Follow the law, don't speed and they wont make money. Simples. If you don't like the law then by all means campaign to get it changed, but you cant just ignore them because you think you know better.

Re: Jumping lights. difficult to talk about.

6 November 2015 - 10:01am
I get comments like that from Work colleagues, they are usually trolling for a response which they no longer get and have now got bored and moved on.

Re: Jumping lights. difficult to talk about.

6 November 2015 - 9:48am
squeaker wrote:rfryer wrote:.... but I also think that most drivers allow themselves to be constrained by laws that are serving no purpose other than to inconvenience them, for example, low speed limits at quiet times....No purpose? Minimised traffic noise levels for a start, and just because the time is 'quiet' doesn't mean there are not some vulnerable road users around


Certainly agree with that one, used to be overtaken by a speeding driver every morning i was on a particular shift through a local village...... clearly it was soooo early there was no one else around...... except the local paper boys and cycling to work midwife.....

Re: Jumping lights. difficult to talk about.

6 November 2015 - 9:46am
While I agree that many drivers follow laws in pointless circumstances, eg stopping at a red pelican crossing when there is no one around, this is usually accompanied by selectively following other laws – examples already in this thread, others could be lane discipline on motorways, parking, – and those laws they follow were often only introduced because too many drivers fail to use common sense when not compelled by law; so in the case of pelican crossings, drivers will not stop to let someone cross the road unless made to by a traffic light.

Also, laws often have a point which is not immediately obvious. Squeaker has pointed out the purpose of speed limits even in the absence of traffic.

Re: Jumping lights. difficult to talk about.

6 November 2015 - 9:35am
rfryer wrote:.... but I also think that most drivers allow themselves to be constrained by laws that are serving no purpose other than to inconvenience them, for example, low speed limits at quiet times....No purpose? Minimised traffic noise levels for a start, and just because the time is 'quiet' doesn't mean there are not some vulnerable road users around

Re: Old A roads

6 November 2015 - 9:34am
Richard A Thackeray wrote: - The Swan, at Aberford (now sadly closed)
It still has its coaching bell!

What was the coaching bell for? I'm guessing it can't have been a door bell! Maybe it was rung to summon the passengers when the coach was ready to depart? (I did google 'coaching bell' but the results were predictable... )

(For some reason I can't get the photo in my quote )

Re: Unexpected behaviour on Cycle Lanes

6 November 2015 - 9:23am
MartinC wrote:jgurney wrote:MartinC wrote:This thread demonstrates that there isn't an accepted etiquette

There is - the Highway Code says cycle on the left and walk on the right.

If a significant number of people don't do it then it's not accepted! Whether that's right or wrong, good or bad, etc. are other questions.

The number of nuisances trying to ride on the right, walk on the left, etc is large enough to be exactly that - a common nuisance - but I've not seen it happen in such numbers as to suggest that the British public are rejecting the Highway Code en mass. Walking on the left does seem to be spreading on the suburban ped/cycle routes. I suspect that is mainly due to urbanites lacking experience of rural roads and not knowing any better, rather than a deliberate choice to be a pest to cyclists (even if it can start to feel deliberate after a series of encounters with them).

Re: Unexpected behaviour on Cycle Lanes

6 November 2015 - 9:09am
Bmblbzzz wrote:I'd also initially assumed it was about paths which are completely separate from roads, but some later replies seemed to be road-side (pavement) situations.

Quite - neither of those are cycle lanes.

Re: Jumping lights. difficult to talk about.

6 November 2015 - 9:05am
rfryer wrote:The "problem" is that many drivers think that the law is there to be followed, not something to pick and choose based on one's perception of what's safe. You can argue that most drivers do break laws at some point, but I also think that most drivers allow themselves to be constrained by laws that are serving no purpose other than to inconvenience them, for example, low speed limits at quiet times, or traffic lights at red when nobody is around.

Being frustrated at having to follow laws just because they're there, it's understandable why a motorist might censure other road users that don't play by those rules.

I don't shoot lights on the bike or in the car. But I'm sure that many drivers who whine about cyclists doing it
a) do it themselves (especially on temporary lights, where almost every car that gets the red first will still go through.)
b) break speed limits
That opinion is based on how many drivers I see doing both. Add tailgating to that as well.

Re: Jumping lights. difficult to talk about.

6 November 2015 - 8:09am
The "problem" is that many drivers think that the law is there to be followed, not something to pick and choose based on one's perception of what's safe. You can argue that most drivers do break laws at some point, but I also think that most drivers allow themselves to be constrained by laws that are serving no purpose other than to inconvenience them, for example, low speed limits at quiet times, or traffic lights at red when nobody is around.

Being frustrated at having to follow laws just because they're there, it's understandable why a motorist might censure other road users that don't play by those rules.

Re: Upset car driver?

6 November 2015 - 7:52am
I agree with Mark1978. Fundamental point is that an adjacent cycle path does not change the right of a cyclist to use the main carriageway. A lot of this abuse is being caused by misperceptions and CTC should keep campaigning for this to be made clearer in the Highway Code or by national advertising.
High quality engineered cycle paths (like NL etc) would allow more of us to choose them...compulsion should never be necessary.

I think OK to report; it's hard to do but I might have ignored this one though.

Jumping lights. difficult to talk about.

6 November 2015 - 7:23am
One of my workmates was talking about how crazy cyclist jump lights and stuff, do I. I said in that in some situations it is a lot safer go through the lights especially if you turn left and give way to cars going across that junction. Cycling is one of the few things where safety and following the law are at complete odds. And all cyclist have to choose how they are going to take this.

Probably to many non cyclist. The worst dangerous cyclist always jump lights so to prove your not one of them, don't do it. Same logic could apply to car insurance overcharging me for having tinted windows on my BMW. Taking the tinted windows off will lower my premiums considerably but it will not make me a safer driver but attract more attention from thieves as I often keep goods in my car.

Re: Old A roads

6 November 2015 - 7:22am
BeeKeeper wrote:Flite wrote:The A6, Kendal to Shap. Quiet and spectacular
There must be other bits of the A6 which can be used, for example Carlisle to Penrith is quiet for most of its length.

I used to cycle the A6 between Derby and Bakewell quite frequently. Fairly busy but generally wide enough not to be a problem, scenic and relatively flat in a hilly part of the country.

About

CTC

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