CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 22 min ago

Road bike with mudguards

8 August 2014 - 2:16pm
Hi, I would like an endurance styled road bike for commuting and long day rides.
I would like it to take fixed mudguards so I can ride in winter too.
Budget - upto £700.
Hoped to buy a Carbon frame, but unlikely.
Any suggestions for possible bikes welcome.
THanks

Re: national route 1

8 August 2014 - 1:57pm
mercalia wrote:Yes I only took it as I started from Dartford and met a guy who had come from Gravesend to Dartford on route 1. I had been looking for a better way than the coastal main road that is roller coaster like. That section is not too bad but I think I wont use it again as is a slowish ride with too many diversion. The stoney bit on the section u refer to is not gravel lol more like large grey stones/rocks bedded into he ground, not nice at all for a non sus bike. By the way I was on a short trip and ended up at Upnor (Castle) NE of Rochester. It is a nice little place on the estuary with a nice little walk in/out pub & the barmaid was quite happy to refll my water bottle.

Upnor is really nice, the castle was built in 1559, the only costal fort in the England to fire a shot in anger (although it was much too late to stop the Dutch).
There is a London stone in Lower Upnor dated 1204, lots of history around the area. Can be really nice on an autumn morning:

upnor-001.JPG

Re: national route 1

8 August 2014 - 1:35pm
Yes I only took it as I started from Dartford and met a guy who had come from Gravesend to Dartford on route 1. I had been looking for a better way than the coastal main road that is roller coaster like. That section is not too bad but I think I wont use it again as is a slowish ride with too many diversion. The stoney bit on the section u refer to is not gravel lol more like large grey stones/rocks bedded into he ground, not nice at all for a non sus bike. By the way I was on a short trip and ended up at Upnor (Castle) NE of Rochester. It is a nice little place on the estuary with a nice little walk in/out pub & the barmaid was quite happy to refll my water bottle.

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

8 August 2014 - 1:15pm
Here's a thought.
What would the local reaction have been, if a group of gypsies or other travellers had taken it upon themselves to construct this 'road' and toll booth? (Without Planning Permission, naturally). Judging by our local experience, travelling communities are very adept at creating ex tempore roads out of nowhere, and then using them to get their caravans into fields...

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

8 August 2014 - 1:07pm
broadway wrote:But before giving permission the council word have to have ensured all the necessary assessments of the site had been done. That would have basically stopped him in his tracks even with emergency planning.

He'd have just needed to do those assessments - and paid for them to get done

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

8 August 2014 - 12:54pm
[XAP]Bob wrote:mjr wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:There maybe is a need for a mechanism to call "emergency" planning meetings - public attendance being the mechanism for complaints to be raised.
One problem with that is that only one member of the public is allowed to speak against any application at most current planning authority planning committee meetings - but as a way around that, I've seen a parish council hold its planning committee meeting hearing the same application (which usually allows multiple public contributions) just before the planning authority one.

That should mean that the parish council response to the planning authority reflects the public will... and I think the planning authority has to explain its reasons more fully if it disagrees with the parish council. I feel this is actually a pretty useful function of parish councils.

Hence the concept of an emergency meeting - allowing for actual public engagement, only one plan being discussed. Not a "normal" process.
This would of course cost the applicant more money, but then again it's only needed once in a blue moon.

But before giving permission the council word have to have ensured all the necessary assessments of the site had been done. That would have basically stopped him in his tracks even with emergency planning.

Re: national route 1

8 August 2014 - 12:44pm
mercalia wrote:from Gravesend Kent east to Lower Higham - onesection to avoid. Sections are strewn with glass debris and potholes as it goes between delapitdated commercial premises. then onto a terrible concrete "road" that gives terrible bumps at the section joins then onto a long flat but very rough stoned track only fit for mt bikes ( very pretty ride but hard to enjoy it while your teeth are chattering).

The cobbled section is particularly bad, although I think it can be avoided easily enough. It's grim for the NCN1, I wonder what visiting cycle tourists make of it?
I quite like the gravel track though on my hybrid (with front sus), there is a WW2 gun emplacement down a track at the bike barrier in the middle of the path. Wife takes her cyclocross bike on that path too and regularly complains of sore wrists as she has CF forks. Definitely not suitable for a road bike, there is a road which runs parallel which would be the better option.

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

8 August 2014 - 12:42pm
gentlegreen wrote:The guy who flattened part of Offa's Dyke was let off.
Googling suggests that ignorance can be a defence.

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/46

I think that that is superseded by PPG15 (and the new one which I can't remember the name of as it was after my time).
For instance, the bloke who destroyed part of the priddy circles with the "best of intentions" has found himself around £50k out of pocket.

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

8 August 2014 - 12:35pm
A bit off-topic (sorry) but I've noticed that these days with a lot of planning issues people are increasingly going for "retrospective" planning permission (for a license after the unapproved development has been in use for 4 ? years).

It seems that planning officers have to give consideration to planning applications, whereas planning enforcement is at the authorities discretion. And when cut need to be made "discretionary" activities are easier to cut.

And planners are far less likely to require somebody to know down a house built without approval (given the likely court hearings, costs, etc.); so where a development would probably be refused through a planning application prior to development, it is more likely to be approved when submitted retrospectively.

So the system becomes rather abused and as others have pointed out, damage is done (archaeological, environmental, etc.).

"If I rules the world", other than accidental planning violations (e.g. thinking you had Permitted Development Rights when your property had such rights withdrawn many years ago), enforcement would be a matter of "demolish and restore then we talk"; or at least manager in a far far stricter manner.

Ian

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

8 August 2014 - 12:30pm
The guy who flattened part of Offa's Dyke was let off.
Googling suggests that ignorance can be a defence.

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/46

2 Control of works affecting scheduled monuments.

(1)If any person executes or causes or permits to be executed any works to which this section applies he shall be guilty of an offence unless the works are authorised under this Part of this Act.

(8) In any proceedings for an offence under this section in relation to works within subsection (2)(a) or (c) above it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he did not know and had no reason to believe that the monument was within the area affected by the works or (as the case may be) that it was a scheduled monument.

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

8 August 2014 - 12:23pm
reohn2 wrote:Si wrote:If someone were to construct such a road with a view to it being permanent then I'd agree with all your points,but it's temporary,I think all parties recognise that fact.

the problem is that the road might be temporary, but the damage may be permanent. For instance, if construction of that road has destroyed archaeology then abandoning the road will not put that archaeology back.

I take your point but there are archaeological sites being destroyed without anyone ever knowing it,if there was evidence of such I'd agree but (and I sympathise with you) society can't check for archaeological evidence every time a spade is put in the ground.

With major developments like this it is up to the developer to get the archaeological assessment done before development (polluter pays), thus it costs us nothing as tax payers, and the developer will have factored in the pre-con work to their plans. If people follow planning guidelines then this is always done. In this case the planning guidelines have not been followed and any archaeology may have been lost for ever.

Re: Joining a road turning right

8 August 2014 - 11:58am
Vorpal wrote:I don't know the junction, and I'm not entirely certain what the OP is asking, but it is usually both safer, and quicker to take junctions like this as the operator of a vehicle (e.g. do what the driver of a car would do) than it is to use pavements or cycle facilities.

cycle lanes at junctions can be especially problematic because larger vehicles overtaking will hide a cyclist, and the drivers of other vehicles may not be aware that the cyclist is there.

I was approaching a busy roundabout yesterday and spied a cyclist on a bike path clutching his bike waiting in vain for a break in the traffic so that he could cross as a pedestrian. It would have been a LOT easier and quicker to have approached this as a road user rather than a pedestrian.

Tim

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

8 August 2014 - 11:47am
reohn2 wrote:mjr wrote:reohn2 wrote:If at the planning meeting the council decide that the land must be restored to original by next spring no one will know it ever existed

Is such a condition possible?
I've idea,but if not it should be.

It is possible to put restoration as a condition of planning approval. This is often done on a much longer term basis for quarrying and extraction sites.

Re: Dissertation Birmingham Commuters

8 August 2014 - 11:46am
Edwards wrote:As both my wife and I are no longer commuters we can not help directly.

But you may find Birmingham Cyclists Forum helpful.
Assuming that you did not know of them before.

He's on there.

Re: Joining a road turning right

8 August 2014 - 11:34am
I don't know the junction, and I'm not entirely certain what the OP is asking, but it is usually both safer, and quicker to take junctions like this as the operator of a vehicle (e.g. do what the driver of a car would do) than it is to use pavements or cycle facilities.

cycle lanes at junctions can be especially problematic because larger vehicles overtaking will hide a cyclist, and the drivers of other vehicles may not be aware that the cyclist is there.

Re: Joining a road turning right

8 August 2014 - 10:12am
Yes okay. The picture of the turn filter might have thrown me. If it's that way round (and it's one or other seeing as there are only two possible right turns) then, yes, there is a cycle path which runs all the way along that road into town. I can understand the OP's question. It is not a very nice road to cycle down. In all honesty there needs to be better cycling provision out this way. These 2 roads are a huge barrier to cycling into Preston from the towns and villages to the west.

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

8 August 2014 - 10:10am
[XAP]Bob wrote:There maybe is a need for a mechanism to call "emergency" planning meetings - public attendance being the mechanism for complaints to be raised.
One problem with that is that only one member of the public is allowed to speak against any application at most current planning authority planning committee meetings - but as a way around that, I've seen a parish council hold its planning committee meeting hearing the same application (which usually allows multiple public contributions) just before the planning authority one.

That should mean that the parish council response to the planning authority reflects the public will... and I think the planning authority has to explain its reasons more fully if it disagrees with the parish council. I feel this is actually a pretty useful function of parish councils.
reohn2 wrote:If at the planning meeting the council decide that the land must be restored to original by next spring no one will know it ever existed

Is such a condition possible? Is it feasible or will the operator just cease trading and leave the council to clean up and consider an expensive legal process to recover the costs?
Edwards wrote:Do farmers need planning permission to put farm tracks across fields they own?

No, but farmers can do all sorts of things without planning permission, as long as it's restricted to agricultural use, although some can be challenged afterwards if problematic. They can't open farm tracks as public roads without seeking permissions/agreements, can they?

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

8 August 2014 - 10:08am
Edwards wrote:I thought that the problem was about cyclists not being welcome, as in the title.
Which turned out that cyclists and pedestrians were well catered for by the council at the site of the original worksite.

Why has it now moved to the fact that there may or may not be old relics in the field.
It could be important if there were any.

Do farmers need planning permission to put farm tracks across fields they own?
Exactly!
There's more ecological and archaeological damage done to the land by farming than almost anything else,but we need cheap food so we can throw a third of it away

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

8 August 2014 - 9:57am
I thought that the problem was about cyclists not being welcome, as in the title.

Why has it now moved to the fact that there may or may not be old relics in the field.

Do farmers need planning permission to put farm tracks across fields they own?

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

8 August 2014 - 9:57am
Si wrote:If someone were to construct such a road with a view to it being permanent then I'd agree with all your points,but it's temporary,I think all parties recognise that fact.

the problem is that the road might be temporary, but the damage may be permanent. For instance, if construction of that road has destroyed archaeology then abandoning the road will not put that archaeology back.

I take your point but there are archaeological sites being destroyed without anyone ever knowing it,if there was evidence of such I'd agree but (and I sympathise with you) society can't check for archaeological evidence every time a spade is put in the ground.

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