CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 59 min 34 sec ago

Re: Lights: flashing, bright: article in Cycle

17 October 2014 - 12:01pm
I put it on the left because I find it easier to use the buttons there, they could move and I would get used to it.

Except one of my bikes has a brake top lever fitted just for the front brake, which is on the right side and doesnt leave room for the light.

On the other hand I do have a smaller LED light fitted on the stem of each bike, if only they were BS stamped (and I had pedal reflectors) then I would be legal on the new bike as well as the old ones.

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

17 October 2014 - 11:53am
Mick F wrote:We don't need facilities, we need to be respected as valid road-users and given space with no harassment, being an accepted part of the road transport system.
We need both. Yes, a right to ride on the road, but there are places where motorists have proven themselves incapable of being trusted to coexist with all non-motorised users and high-speed motorways are not the only one.

We have motorways, so let's have decent cycleways in key places where they can improve cycling... and I mean decent cycleways. There are some which come close but they need their faults correcting - barriers and unsafe junctions are the most common failings. There are also many many more where the blue plates should probably be removed or replaced with something like the "bikes allowed if you really want" German ones. Also in the mix, let's have more 20mph and no-through-motors zones, green space routes, school routes and cycle-friendly town centres - not every road needs a cycleway.

Meanwhile, let's keep pushing for http://www.RoadJustice.org.uk too.
Education, education, education, not segregation, segregation, segregation.
That's the failed approach of the last 80 or so years, isn't it? Why would it work now when it hasn't yet?

Re: Lights: flashing, bright: article in Cycle

17 October 2014 - 11:52am
Just to satisfy my curiosity, if somebody has some form of bar-mounted front lamp, why would they be bothered whether it was just to the right of the stem or the left? I'm thinking here of some sort of clip-on bracket which goes on the fatter bit of the bars near the stem. I can understand why riders might be unaware of the requirement in the regs and so might position it to the nearsie, but I can't think of a reason for saying it's imperative that it should be fitted to there, rather than on the offside.

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

17 October 2014 - 11:40am
Yeah, just coz they have more and better facilities, it doesn't mean that it's a good place to cycle. Yes, I agree that it's safe and easy to get to work/shops/etc, but that doesn't mean I'd like that model here.

We don't need facilities, we need to be respected as valid road-users and given space with no harassment, being an accepted part of the road transport system.

Education, education, education, not segregation, segregation, segregation.

Re: Knocked off bicycle. Driver won't give insurance details

17 October 2014 - 10:32am
Psamathe wrote:The Mechanic wrote:gaz wrote:As he is the Director of a Limited Company his home address is a matter of public record.

Go to Companies House website and sign up to WebCHeck. You'll need to ask for a "current appointments report" which is free.


Not quite so. It is common for Directors to give the Company address on their registration. I am a Director if 5 companies and most of my co-Directors use the Company address.
Me too. Not a good idea to make your home address publicly available on the internet. Particularly when there are so many sites that publish the info (in addition to Companies House) e.g. http://companycheck.co.uk (again, all immediately available online to everybody).

Ian

Its a legal obligation for a director to provide Companies House with their residential address. However, under the Companies Act 2006 the director can provide an address for service which can be his accountants, solicitors, the company's own registered office, or his grandma. If the director provides a service address, then the residential address is private and is only available to the security services and the police. There is nothing on Companies House now to acknowledge whether the service address shown is the directors home address or not.

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

17 October 2014 - 9:49am
I'd like a rule which gave 1 mile of cycle track (on-road or separate) for each new mile of road that is created or re-surfaced. Wouldn't take that long to have an improved transport system.

I agree with you Mick, to be Utopia I would need a lot of variety in the scenery. Cycling in Denmark is fun but it is lacking variety scenery-wise. Cycled there this year and last year. Preferred Holland as at least there were lots of waterways but both countries have much better provision for cyclists than the UK

Re: Clipping and running

17 October 2014 - 9:09am
Sum wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:I've just rewatched the video and can see no evidence of a strong acceleration (as would be needed to maintain road speed). However it is very difficult to see any acceleration anyway. His cadence doesn't seem to increase at all though. The onus is still on the person making the manoeuvre.
Well you wouldn't see any acceleration/deceleration if he was maintaining road speed, would you!? However to me he looks as if he's moving past the camera guy at the time of collision. He certainly doesn't look as if he was pulling back.[/quote[

Sorry - I was unclear. In order to maintain speed along the road, whilst travelling diagonally, he would have to increase his speed over the tarmac. I'm not sure he does this, so his sideways manoeuvre inevitably adds a "backwards" component relative to the riders around him.
It is this component that is exacerbated by the rapidity of the manoeuvre.

A more gentle change of direction would have reduced this component (which is possibly/probably what caused the collision) as well as allowing time for the component to have been observed and accounted for by the other riders.

OT: Had it been me behind then the rider in front might have been in a world of pain - since his rear wheel would have been caught by my feet/pedals which can't "give" sideways, so he'd likely have been down, with me completely unable to stop before running him over.

Poor judgement by both, but only one of the riders actually caused a collision.

Additionally we don't see long enough, but the forward rider certainly stops pedalling, but then starts again, implying that he didn't stop. Note that this is speculation.

EDIT: Just read the description on the video:
"The guy in the silver and blue Pinarello cut-off in front of a rider and took his front wheel out. He saw the accident he caused and sped away."

Re: Clipping and running

17 October 2014 - 8:55am
[XAP]Bob wrote:The point is that the onus is always on the person making a manoeuvre. (We'll return to the verbal signal at the end)
We've already said that the guy in front is partly to blame, and this is yet more repetition on that. I guess what I'm saying is that once the rider behind tells the guy in front to go ahead then his actions resulted in an assumption of duty as well i.e. part of the onus is now on him as well.
[XAP]Bob wrote:I've just rewatched the video and can see no evidence of a strong acceleration (as would be needed to maintain road speed). However it is very difficult to see any acceleration anyway. His cadence doesn't seem to increase at all though. The onus is still on the person making the manoeuvre.
Well you wouldn't see any acceleration/deceleration if he was maintaining road speed, would you!? However to me he looks as if he's moving past the camera guy at the time of collision. He certainly doesn't look as if he was pulling back.
Again part of the onus is on the rider behind once he tells the rider to go ahead.
[XAP]Bob wrote:I know what the words were - I was questioning the meaning behind them. "Go ahead" could mean: I'm letting a gap open up so that you can go ahead in a few seconds, or it could mean: there is already room for you to go ahead, or it could mean something else entirely.
The onus is on the person making the maneuver to ensure that it is safe, and he didn't even look - it's a couple of seconds between looking and swiping. Interestingly his hand also comes over the front of a brake lever - doesn't look like he touched the brakes though.
You can't say that the guy didn't even look. The guy looked twice; as he was indicating and when the rider behind said “go ahead go ahead” just before he pulled out. The brake lever thing is interesting.
The rider behind clearly said something and if "go ahead" didn't mean go ahead then he has to accept responsibility for that. The fact that he said go ahead means that part of the onus is upon him as well. I certainly wouldn't wave someone out if my safety was dependent upon them waiting until the gap got bigger, or having to suddenly go much faster. As it it I suspect the rider behind meant go ahead and he didn't spot the wheel overlap.
[XAP]Bob wrote:The rear rider makes an error of judgement - either in terms of space or in terms of word choice...
Agreed, the rear rider and the front rider as well. Fundamentally we seem to be agreeing (I think!)

Re: Clipping and running

17 October 2014 - 7:49am
Sum wrote:Bob, apologies for dissecting your post in Reohn-like fashion but in this particular case it seem the easiest way to reply. I hope I haven't responded to anything out of context.

I'll try to keep it together on the reply...
Sum wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:I know this looks like it was state-side, but the HC advice still applies:
Highway Code 111 wrote:Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.
The requirement to use your own judgement isn't limited by the signals of other road users.
I’m not certain of what your point is here. The HC rule you quote states that flashing headlights is not a signal to proceed. When read in context with rule 110:-
Highway Code 110 wrote: Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.
There’s obviously a big difference between someone flashing their headlamp to alert someone, and giving a clear verbal signal to proceed. However if your point was that the guy in front failed to spot that there was insufficient room to pull out then I’d agree. In fact I've already said that both riders must have misjudged the gap and they are both responsible for their actions.

The point is that the onus is always on the person making a manoeuvre. (We'll return to the verbal signal at the end)


Sum wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:I hadn't heard the "go ahead, go ahead" on first viewing, but my opinion isn't largely altered - the change of road position was aggressive, and unnecessarily so.
We don't know that but what is clear from the video that the guy indicated to pull out either into or across the paceline and the guy behind told him to go ahead even though there was wheel overlap.
[XAP]Bob wrote:If you change direction like that then you (by definition) reduce your speed along the road (since you are travelling across it). It looked like a very small clip, possibly the gap was there for a gentle cross, but the rapidity of the manoeuvre required a larger gap.
Only if you don't accelerate to compensate. Again the video doesn't bear that out. The cyclist seems to be accelerating to overtake the camera guy (before he did a runner!) The guy behind may have misunderstood the intentions of the other guy, perhaps not expecting him to pull out as far as he did as you suggest, but if that was the case then that simply means he made an error in judgement when he said "go ahead". The "use your own judgement and proceed carefully" applies equally here.
I've just rewatched the video and can see no evidence of a strong acceleration (as would be needed to maintain road speed). However it is very difficult to see any acceleration anyway. His cadence doesn't seem to increase at all though.
The onus is still on the person making the manoeuvre.

Sum wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:Or maybe the shout was "I'm letting up to let you go through", not "come straight across me"
No, the shout was "go ahead go ahead" after the guy indicated he wanted to pull out.
I know what the words were - I was questioning the meaning behind them. "Go ahead" could mean: I'm letting a gap open up so that you can go ahead in a few seconds, or it could mean: there is already room for you to go ahead, or it could mean something else entirely.
The onus is on the person making the manoeuvre to ensure that it is safe, and he didn't even look - it's a couple of seconds between looking and swiping. Interestingly his hand also comes over the front of a brake lever - doesn't look like he touched the brakes though.

Sum wrote:Just to make it clear (again) I'm not defending either guy, or criticising the other, but rather that I don't think it's a simple case of saying that only one person is at fault here. I think both riders made an error in judgement.
The rear rider makes an error of judgement - either in terms of space or in terms of word choice...

Re: Clipping and running

17 October 2014 - 12:07am
Yes, but that's not we're debating here is it. We've already said the guy in front is partly to blame. We're discussing the actions of the guy that told him to pull out even though there wasn't room.

If you was in the position of the guy behind, would you still tell the guy to pull out even if there wasn't room for him to do so. If you did, and caused a pile up, would you still expect others to ride with you? I wouldn't. I wouldn't ride with either TBH.

Re: Clipping and running

16 October 2014 - 11:57pm
If I was in the position of the guy in front and the other said "go ahead" I would accelerate in front of him, checking where he was. If I wasnt able to do it as the gap was too small or I lacked the power then I would say "I cant, I will go behind you" Also I would move over slow enough that he could react to it.

If the guy behind made an error of judgement then it was about the proficiency of the guy in front.

These sorts of manoeuvres are frequent in loose group rides and we manage with complete strangers even. I would have no difficulties sharing space with the guy behind but the guy in front I would keep well away from.

Re: Clipping and running

16 October 2014 - 11:32pm
Bob, apologies for dissecting your post in Reohn-like fashion but in this particular case it seem the easiest way to reply. I hope I haven't responded to anything out of context.
[XAP]Bob wrote:I know this looks like it was state-side, but the HC advice still applies:
Highway Code 111 wrote:Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.
The requirement to use your own judgement isn't limited by the signals of other road users.
I’m not certain of what your point is here. The HC rule you quote states that flashing headlights is not a signal to proceed. When read in context with rule 110:-
Highway Code 110 wrote: Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.
There’s obviously a big difference between someone flashing their headlamp to alert someone, and giving a clear verbal signal to proceed. However if your point was that the guy in front failed to spot that there was insufficient room to pull out then I’d agree. In fact I've already said that both riders must have misjudged the gap and they are both responsible for their actions.
[XAP]Bob wrote:I hadn't heard the "go ahead, go ahead" on first viewing, but my opinion isn't largely altered - the change of road position was aggressive, and unnecessarily so.
We don't know that but what is clear from the video that the guy indicated to pull out either into or across the paceline and the guy behind told him to go ahead even though there was wheel overlap.
[XAP]Bob wrote:If you change direction like that then you (by definition) reduce your speed along the road (since you are travelling across it). It looked like a very small clip, possibly the gap was there for a gentle cross, but the rapidity of the manoeuvre required a larger gap.
Only if you don't accelerate to compensate. Again the video doesn't bear that out. The cyclist seems to be accelerating to overtake the camera guy (before he did a runner!) The guy behind may have misunderstood the intentions of the other guy, perhaps not expecting him to pull out as far as he did as you suggest, but if that was the case then that simply means he made an error in judgement when he said "go ahead". The "use your own judgement and proceed carefully" applies equally here.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Or maybe the shout was "I'm letting up to let you go through", not "come straight across me"
No, the shout was "go ahead go ahead" after the guy indicated he wanted to pull out.

Just to make it clear (again) I'm not defending either guy, or criticising the other, but rather that I don't think it's a simple case of saying that only one person is at fault here. I think both riders made an error in judgement.

Re: Lights: flashing, bright: article in Cycle

16 October 2014 - 10:39pm
SA_SA_SA wrote:I had presumed centrally rather central so roughly central ie just to the left was good enough....
The law say centrally so, presumably, just left of is technically not compliant. I can't imagine a policeman stopping you, but if a driver hit you and claimed that the position of your light contributed, I suppose the case would have to be argued.

I can't imagine that there is any case law, however.

Re: Lights: flashing, bright: article in Cycle

16 October 2014 - 10:16pm
Great debate! Thanks for all the replies everyone.

Re the pedal reflectors - my point was that they are a useful default for the rider who has no interest in other than getting on the bike and riding it. Riding back home yesterday I had a stealth cyclist coming towards me on the common - what I saw was his pedal reflectors lit up in my (IQ Cyo) headlamp. If you've got other reflectors and lights, then you should be free to swap them for reflector-less ones.

It seems quite a few people agree with me on the overly bright and too-white flashing front lights. I had two of those yesterday and one today on the way home. Frankly, they hurt my eyes,and are highly distracting. These lights should be banned from sale (at least those with fixings for bike or clothing), as they are a hazard on the roads. The overly blue-white colour and the small size makes it worse, and it is a shame that car headlights seem to be subject to the same trend.

Flashing rear lights are less dangerous and unpleasant, but I still don't like them and if I am riding in a group I will ask the people in front of me to put theirs on steady. But it does seem like the benefits of them should be carefully researched before encouraging them.

The reflective orange/yellow vests are very good because they give you shape, you are not just a point of light. Even in my bike headlamp they show up well. Similar principle as the red reflective border you see commonly on the rear of large lorries. Not suggesting any compulsion, but I observe that they are good if you want to be seen.

When I am out of town at night, oncoming cars more often than not do dip their lights for me, I guess the Cyo looks like a proper headlight and so gets some respect perhaps?

Shall I write a letter to Cycle? (is someone from Cycle editorial team reading this?)

Peter H

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

16 October 2014 - 8:45pm
Yes, in 2010 I enjoyed riding right through Manchester city centre from the Cheshire border right up through Bury and beyond .... and back again a few days later. In fact I reckon it was one of the more enjoyable rides I've done, but I wouldn't say I would want to do it often, and I wouldn't say it was anywhere near Utopia.

Even if they had installed a wide, smooth, quiet cycle track all the way, it still wouldn't be Cycling Utopia.

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

16 October 2014 - 8:29pm
Oh I think it'd be awfully dull if there were no cities to look at. I quite enjoyed riding in Cambridge today but I'm not sure I'd want to do it every day.

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

16 October 2014 - 8:12pm
Yep.
Ridden there, and Amsterdam, and Antwerp.

Cycling Utopia is a place where there is scenery, hills, sweeping countryside, vales and valleys, quite lanes, mountains and hills, smooth roads, cafes and pubs, castles and farms and draughty barns ........

Not a busy European city.

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

16 October 2014 - 8:03pm
Mick F wrote:I don't agree with this statement whatsoever.
Why not? Ever ridden there?

On the canal towpath widths: I guess that's more of a problem for canals than rivers. Rivers fluctuate enough to deter most people from building too close unless they build some fairly significant barrier next to the river. It's still unlikely to have many roads into it and the cycleway can still have space for a low-junction route.

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

16 October 2014 - 7:24pm
Copenhagen is one of the best places in the world to be a cyclist This is the opening sentence in the linked article.
I never read any further.

I don't agree with this statement whatsoever.

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

16 October 2014 - 4:39pm
Apart from the common or garden idiot turning right across me on Wigmore Street in London, knocking me off, and not stopping (my thanks to the other drivers that stopped to see I was OK) , I had a passenger open a car door on me when both I and the car were stationary at traffic lights, knocked me clean over sideways. She simply didn't look before opening the door.

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