CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 29 min 16 sec ago

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

24 April 2015 - 9:05am
kwackers wrote:I saw that. Good on them! I'm fed up with folk who think they can park wherever they like with impunity and then whine like a girl when they get a ticket.
The reality is that whilst not long ago parking companies were extracting the urine it's gone too far the other way now.
I take your point but is the sexist comparison necessary?

Re: Pannier question

24 April 2015 - 7:17am
Check panniers are not affecting the rear brake, either by pushing the cable run out of shape or actually pressing on the brake arms themselves (if it's a v- brake).

Re: Pannier question

24 April 2015 - 7:15am
Possibly that your standing on the pedals, and so when you had the weight on you it was 'helping' in the down phase, but not too noticeable in the 'lift'?

Re: Pannier question

24 April 2015 - 7:07am
Not that I can recall from my experience. I take it nothing is rubbing anywhere and that your tyres are pumped up and your bearings are in good condition?

Re: Sad news from Nottingham

24 April 2015 - 12:00am
TrevA wrote:The collision may have occured on the Toucan crossing (pure speculation).

You're in a hole.
Stop digging!

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

23 April 2015 - 11:13pm
iviehof, I have been ticketed for obstruction when parking when I wasn't, and could prove it - the police action was part of some intimidation against a particular group, whose activities I was just there to photograph. The police wouldn't even accept my complaint about it.

However, I still think there ought to be automatic serious penalties when it is proven that someone used a mobile phone whilst driving.

I've had a copper lie to my face about where his own car was parked, and then when we both looked round, there it was. Not where he had said it was. He still wouldn't back down. Undoubtedly some police officers are lying toads, but phone records are definitive.

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

23 April 2015 - 11:08pm
LollyKat wrote:I'm sorry if you took it like that as I didn't intend it as such - it was not aimed at you. I had never heard of the entrapment you describe. I was thinking of all the eejits who bang on about the 'war on the motorist' and complain about speed cameras, traffic light cameras, public parking, etc.

The perils of forum posting .

I'm afraid that poster seems to have a bee in their bonnet about parking tickets, whilst most of the rest of us were discussing people using mobile phones when driving. I didn't see you suggesting that anyone should be being chased for parking fines, or even speeding fines, when signage was inadequate.

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

23 April 2015 - 11:05pm
iviehoff wrote:Flinders wrote:iviehof, that is not what LollyKat said.
I don't like it when people put words into other people's mouths and then criticise them for what they haven't said. It doesn't advance the debate, it trivialises it.
Good. Because that is what LollyKat did, and I was complaining about it.

That is not how it looks/looked to me at all. And it still isn't.

Pannier question

23 April 2015 - 10:57pm
Just got a second pannier for my commuting bike.

One pannier has my work clothes and lunch/tea in it. The second pannier has my laptop and other odds and sods in it. I used to transport these items in a rucksack.

Now I thought that, as the weight of me plus the bike plus 'luggage' was the same, the bike would take the same amount of effort to propel along. However, when moving away from rest I've noticed that it takes a lot more effort to get going. Feels like the feeling that I got when towing a caravan (only done that once). Is this normal?

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

23 April 2015 - 9:20pm
iviehoff wrote:In the past the courts have thrown out such private penalties as disproportionate. However on this occasion the parking company tried again with a novel argument and got judgement in their favour, which has just been confirmed at court of appeal.
I saw that. Good on them! I'm fed up with folk who think they can park wherever they like with impunity and then whine like a girl when they get a ticket.
The reality is that whilst not long ago parking companies were extracting the urine it's gone too far the other way now.

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

23 April 2015 - 5:11pm
Vote for Eric Pickles.

Re: Stafford > Newport (Shrops) cycleway

23 April 2015 - 3:59pm
Managed to double post, sorry.

Stafford > Newport (Shrops) cycleway

23 April 2015 - 3:49pm
I said I'd post when I'd cycled the new bit that finally connects this all up. (It is an old railway)

Upside:
The new bit, which connects the end section in Shropshire with the rest from Stafford that previously went beyond Gnosall and just stopped, is wider than the rest. Two cyclists could comfortably potter along two abreast if the path was clear (you could do this on the Shropshire bit, but that is a bit narrower). It has a surface of fairly small gravel, not as smooth as clay, but not bad. I tried it up to 15mph, at which point it got a bit bumpy, as if there were slight lateral ridges, but it wasn't bad even on my bike which has 23c HP tyres and an aluminium frame. I suspect it will pack down.
This overall means that from Stafford to Newport, you only have to cross a tiny minor road on the flat, and come off the track once, and that's at Gnosall where the bridge has gone. You have to drop down from the embankment, cross the road at a cycle crossing with lights, and go back up. The Stafford side isn't too bad, the Newport side is a mess, steep, loose gravel with a nasty hairpin half way up.
I did the Haughton>Newport section only. Unless it has been resurfaced since I last used it, be warned that the surface at the other end between Derrington and Stafford is like ballast, doable but very uncomfortable on a road bike.
I had a lovely ride on my section, primroses,shady trees just starting to come out a lot of the way, silver birches etc. Some bits it was like riding in a wood (for some reason they have put little bends in bits of it). Benches to stop at, even picnic tables between Gnosall and Newport, and at the get-on point at Haughton where you can park a car if you want to start from there as a visitor. There is a point where you can access the canal towpath.

Downside:
The path dumps you on the A41 outside Newport, and after that is badly signed or not signed at all.
You have to swing left on a tarmac-ed section towards a nasty roundabout when you come off the track, and you have to cross the A41 close to the roundabout itself. Heavy and fast-moving traffic makes this difficult, though there is a central refuge. A very kind driver stopped to let me across on my way back, thank you, sir!:D

Once over the road, the tarmac path swings you right into an industrial estate and dumps you there with no signage. If you followed road signs, you'd have to return to the main Telford road and cross it (no fun) and then cycle along it to the next roundabout, and turn right into Newport (absolutely no fun at all, as this is a very fast road). However, I asked a local, and if you carry on through the industrial estate, straight on at the little roundabout, and carry on, buses and cycles can get into the town centre. You cross a chicane with bollards and then take the second left to the main street. Turn left on the main street if you want the excellent 2nd hand bookshop and are feeling up to cycling back with a pile of books in your rackpack , right for the main drag.

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

23 April 2015 - 2:31pm
LollyKat wrote:I had never heard of the entrapment you describe. I was thinking of all the eejits who bang on about the 'war on the motorist' and complain about speed cameras, traffic light cameras, public parking, etc.
I'm not one of those eejits, I agree they are eejits. I believe in enforcement. But if you give public authorities powerful methods enabling them to make lots of money from dodgy practice, history suggests they will take advantage of it.

I'm not talking about the friend of mine who got debt collection notices for parking tickets he'd never received. The warden moved his moped before photographing it, and then putting it back, putting no ticket on the bike, and then using a corrupt debt collector to try and collect the unpaid debt: that's just fraud. Fortunately my friend met someone who witnessed it happening and the warden ended up in prison.

When speed cameras were first permitted to be widely used, quickly police forces started to apply entrapment. It didn't last very long, because it was clamped down on quickly too. But clamping down on it did involve what were arguable stronger restrictions than would be desirable for proper use of the cameras. Let me give an example of entrapment that resulted in my first speeding ticket. Along a road in Oxford was affixed a 40mph speed limit sign on every lamppost. Then came one 30mph sign only briefly visible among thick vegetation. Then the camera. I was surprised to get a ticket because I thought I was observing the speed limit, unsurprisingly not having seen the briefly visible 30mph sign among the forest of 40mph signs. But since I live 30 miles from Oxford I was only able to examine the nature of the trap after the time to pay the ticket, so I paid. But it was all dismantled a few weeks later, so presumably some people made a fuss about it.

A street very close to this office was once an example of parking entrapment, though it depends upon a rather specific consideration. One side of the street is in Camden and the other side in Westminster, and each has their separate parking meter. Originally, there was no clear signage so people would put money in the wrong meter, then get tickets, start arguing as they had the meter ticket, and the councils used it as a nice earner. But it gives an indication of how unclear signage can be used as entrapment. People have been fined for parking on invisible yellow lines, etc.

My wife got entrapped by a parking machine the other day. Assessing that she had adequate coins in her purse to pay in coins, she started a process of paying, to find the machine wouldn't accept her 20p coin. However if she cancelled the procedure to pay by another method (card was possible), or go and get some more change, it would keep whatever money she had already paid, and forget she had paid it - it said so clearly. She felt she had morally done her best, and just hopes that the failure of the camera to read her numberplate properly means that they won't pursue her for a large fine for underpaying by 20p.

And sizes of penalties for small transgressions is an issue. Staying a couple of minutes longer than you paid for is a rather different case from being just a few mph over the speed limit, after all there isn't any danger involved, merely the loss of income to the car park from your excess occupation of the space designed for parking. A case at the appeal court is in the news today. A parker was fined £85 by a private parking company for overstaying by a few minutes in a space for which he had paid in advance £2. In the past the courts have thrown out such private penalties as disproportionate. However on this occasion the parking company tried again with a novel argument and got judgement in their favour, which has just been confirmed at court of appeal. It can still be appealed to the supreme court. Scotland has certainty on this matter, since they passed a law stopping such abuse, but apparently Westminster is unwilling to pass similar laws.

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

23 April 2015 - 12:25pm
I'm sorry if you took it like that as I didn't intend it as such - it was not aimed at you. I had never heard of the entrapment you describe. I was thinking of all the eejits who bang on about the 'war on the motorist' and complain about speed cameras, traffic light cameras, public parking, etc.

The perils of forum posting .

Re: Sad news from Nottingham

23 April 2015 - 11:56am
eileithyia wrote:Quick look on Street view and i can see no signed cycle route at the junction mentioned in the article, but what appears to be a 4 landed DC that dips into an underpass, and what appears to be a side road/service road that runs parallel and is segregated from the main DC..... there is no left turn sign as you approach the side road, and left turn only sign as you exit.

As with so many accidents it is hard to speculate without full facts.

It's the junction of the Nottm Ring Road and the A52. The Ring Road goes under the A52 in an underpass. If heading southbound, there's a left filter lane to take you to the traffic island where you can go left towards Nottm, or right towards Derby. There's a shared use cycle path next to both the southbound and northbound carraigeways, there's a toucan crossing right next to the island and one about 200 yards further north.

The incident looks to have happened before the road went under the underpass. Looking at where the motorbike ended up, it's about 100 yards after the northernmost toucan crossing. (photos confirm it was on the southbound carraigeway).

The collision may have occured on the Toucan crossing (pure speculation).

Re: no wonder...

23 April 2015 - 11:03am
Well, at least it's better than all those motorists I see driving whilst on the dog and bone...

Re: no wonder...

23 April 2015 - 10:04am
661-Pete wrote:Probably caused a huge tailback, too...

Re: no wonder...

23 April 2015 - 10:03am
Probably caused a huge tailback, too...

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

23 April 2015 - 10:02am
Flinders wrote:iviehof, that is not what LollyKat said.
I don't like it when people put words into other people's mouths and then criticise them for what they haven't said. It doesn't advance the debate, it trivialises it.
Good. Because that is what LollyKat did, and I was complaining about it.

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