CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 20 min ago

new found respect for the road

25 January 2015 - 3:50pm
a few months back i got hit by a van whilst minding my own business cycling down the road. the driver decided to pull out and plough into me! it was the middle of the day but apparently he didnt see me.
suffering a broken wrist and a little bang to the head. luckily i got off light.

ive always been very confident in riding everywhere, london, france wherever. a no hemlet fool.
so following the accident i had a severe blow to my road confidence and bought a tonne of new highvis/hemlet/gear.

anyway i decided yesterday it was time to give it a go again. and dressed in my luminous clothing, youll never guess what happened...i had a car fly past me and clip me with its wing mirror, knocking me down again! i managed to protect my fragile wrist and land on my elbow/hip instead. only getting a few scrapes.

I love riding my bike more than anything but im starting to wonder if the roads are truly just really unsafe.

im sure most of you are very careful on the roads but i thought id share this for anyone who was like me, or the whole of amsterdam, and thinks its a good idea to go riding without a helmet.

it appears there are a number of truly useless drivers out there!

KEEP YOUR EYES PEELED

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

25 January 2015 - 3:49pm

Yes, diversion signs for cyclists can be done.

AFAICT these were used when the Highways Agency upgraded the A2 six lane pseudo-motorway to eight lanes. Volumes of cyclists over that section at the time were practically nil but clearly they wanted to put an official diversion in place during the works, just in case (or just to satisfy their insurers).

What troubles me is that at the end of last summer they closed the cycletrack adjacent to the same stretch of the A2 but did not sign any alternative. Workmen on site stated that there was "no obvious alternative route" for them to sign. All the more need for a signed diversion. More disappointing was the fact that the diversion they had used a few years before for the carriageway works was perfectly suited to the task, they'd even left most of the signs in place .

What has left me gobsmacked in the latest closure is the fact that they don't consider the alternative on road route to be suitable, far safer to get off and walk through the woods in the dark .

Re: UKIP - get off road, cycle on pavement

25 January 2015 - 3:48pm
I can see both sides here, thus I would suggest that: if the thread stays vaguely about cycling then it can stay here. If it moves onto wider things and leaves cycling behind then we may split the non-cycling stuff out to the Tea Shop. But in either case, if people did happen to get nasty then we'd remove either bits of or the whole thing.

Re: UKIP - get off road, cycle on pavement

25 January 2015 - 3:41pm
wrangler_rover wrote:Note to the moderators:
It is maybe time to lock this thread as it has wandered into politics again and is in danger of becoming divisive, more so than the helmet debate!
Why ?
Politics are relevant to cycling (particularly where one party has a candidate who thinks cyclists should be banned from the roads and only allowed to cycle on pavements).

Anything is "in danger of becoming diverse". Even threads about QL release springs (or something like that).

It seems very relevant to cyclists and cycling so why on earth lock something "just in case ...".

Ian

Re: UKIP - get off road, cycle on pavement

25 January 2015 - 3:34pm
wrangler_rover wrote:Note to the moderators:
It is maybe time to lock this thread as it has wandered into politics again and is in danger of becoming divisive, more so than the helmet debate!
The problem with a remark like that, is that the person making it, often does so out of aspiring to have the last word - even if it is marginally off-topic! This thread was about politics from the outset, it hasn't 'wandered' into it.

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

25 January 2015 - 3:14pm
Twice, I have seen signs to help cyclists, so I know it can be done. One time, a rail crossing was closed for repair. And it was completely closed. It was located several miles along a single lane road that would mean coming back along the same route. I don't know who was responsible for the sign, but along with the standard road works signs, there was one that said 'cyclists use diversion'. It was standard-looking and slightly weathered sign, so I presume it could have been used on other occasions. The other time was on the London / Essex border, so I'm not sure the authority responsible. There were various road works & diversion signs. And there was also a sign that said 'route for cyclists'. When I followed it, I came to a park, where there was a sign that said 'cyclists dismount and use footway'. There, the route led down a pavement next to a park (it wasn't really a footway, but I presume they were using a standard sign), and on the other side was a residential street. It was a nice diversion, and rather shorter than the on-road one. It was a little unfortunate that there were no more signs after that to tell cyclists how to rejoin the main road, but at least someone had thought about it, and I managed to figure it out.

Re: UKIP - get off road, cycle on pavement

25 January 2015 - 2:54pm
Merry_Wanderer wrote:I doubt if the people voting UKIP look beyond their proposals on immigration. Hopefully some greater exposure of UKIP to TV debate programmes will expose their (in my opinion) lack of credibility

Unfortunately the one example we have of the Cleggers v Farrago debate on the BBC resulted in voters going for Farrago. To expose a lack of credibility you also need a lack of gullibility.

Re: Don't judge a book by the cover.

25 January 2015 - 2:42pm
Ossum story

Re: UKIP - get off road, cycle on pavement

25 January 2015 - 2:41pm
"The SNP is a party enlightened offering more equality for all."
That is good if you are Scottish.
The way I see it, the SNP want England to bankroll Scotland, they want independence from England but they want to have their say on English issues in Westminster. Hypocritical?

Note to the moderators:
It is maybe time to lock this thread as it has wandered into politics again and is in danger of becoming divisive, more so than the helmet debate!

Re: Don't judge a book by the cover.

25 January 2015 - 2:29pm
Don't get me started on "Absolutely!" .
The cyclists that turned up at my ice patch as the lads rode away immediately started to slag off the boys on their motorbikes. I put them right ln no uncertain terms. They weren't convinced. Any chance to have a moan I think.

Re: UKIP - get off road, cycle on pavement

25 January 2015 - 2:00pm
This whole rise of popularity in UKIP makes my stomach churn and fills me with dismay and disbelief. Unbelievable they actually have women in the party who will turn back the clock for women's rights. As they will do with gay rights too.
The evidence is we as a nation are dissatisfied with the present state of political parties so here in Scotland there has been a huge shift to SNP. The SNP is a party enlightened offering more equality for all. Whilst in England UKIP seems to be offering the exact opposite.

Re: Don't judge a book by the cover.

25 January 2015 - 1:22pm
Bonefishblues wrote:Heltor Chasca wrote:Like. Kids are overly demonised.
I've noticed that they too start every sentence with like.

Smarty pants! Yes. Annoying. But every 'adult' interviewee on the radio starts sentences with 'So'.

Like so mega annoying...hc

Re: Don't judge a book by the cover.

25 January 2015 - 1:14pm
Heltor Chasca wrote:Like. Kids are overly demonised.
I've noticed that they too start every sentence with like.

Re: UKIP - get off road, cycle on pavement

25 January 2015 - 12:45pm
I doubt if the people voting UKIP look beyond their proposals on immigration. Hopefully some greater exposure of UKIP to TV debate programmes will expose their (in my opinion) lack of credibility

Re: Don't judge a book by the cover.

25 January 2015 - 12:04pm
young lad (with his mates) called my red bib longs 'schwag' yesterday, actually wrong use of the urban word but I knew what he meant, interacted with him and asked them if they cycled to school. It's far too easy for 'adults' to take the way some kids speak as being agressive when it is often just the way they speak between themselves and indeed wanting to impress their mates. Just interacting normally and most are quite happy to enter into a conversation (if not usually brief..lol)

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

25 January 2015 - 11:58am
My understanding is the red book is a cut down and simplified version of Chapter 8. The code of practice status means "follow this guidance and you'll be compliant with the law".

Regarding signing of cycling diversions, it's difficult to arrange for diversion of only part of the traffic - espicially as there are very few cycling specific "prescribed" signs. Signs without specific wording have no legal validity - important for local authorities defending themselves from armies of no win no fee lawyers.

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

25 January 2015 - 11:28am
I don't mind in the circumstances where there clearly isn't space to cater for everyone. I have always found it frustrating, however, when cyclists have clearly not even been considered, or haven't been considered until the last moment.

I came across this all the time on rural lanes in Essex, when diversion signs were put up. Often, but not always, it was safe for cyclists to continue, and only motorists needed to divert. Most of the time the only way cyclists could tell was to try it and see. It would have been nice, just once, to see 'cyclists may proceed with caution' , 'cyclists may be required to dismount', or a diversion just for cyclists. I mostly just carried on past diversion signs, and if I can to place where people were working, I'd wait until they noticed me & gave an indication of whether it was safe to proceed. Of the hundreds of times I did this, I can only recall being told once that I was not permitted to go through. And then, there was bridleway that was a better alternative than the signed diversion. But I knew that because I had used it before. Someone who didn't know the area wouldn't have known. Even with a map, it's hard to know if such things are useable by cyclists.

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

25 January 2015 - 11:04am
The "red book" is rather like the highway code in that it is an explanation of the implementation of the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act. However if works aren't laid out in accordance with this the contractor could find themselves with an FPN The Traffic Signs Manual is, basically, a list of approved signs and where they should be used.

Frustrating as it may be the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and cyclists are still, sadly, the few

Re: UKIP - get off road, cycle on pavement

25 January 2015 - 10:52am
james01 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11361505/Ban-the-jobless-from-driving-to-ease-congestion-Ukip-candidate-says.html

Not really a surprise considering the calibre of the typical UKIP candidate.
And we now find that a senior UKIP Official from their National Executive Council says that the NHS is a complete waste of money (remembering that Farange also thinks the NHS should to a private insurance funded health service).

What is surprising is that people (even people contributing to this forum) actually vote for these people. So cyclists to get off roads onto pavements, NHS "a complete waste of money", etc.

I would be interested to hear how those voting for them support such principles.

Ian

Re: UKIP - get off road, cycle on pavement

25 January 2015 - 10:33am
Postboxer wrote:But we want the motorists who want us off the road, off the road too.
Only in the same way we want gun toting maniacs off the streets

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