CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 2 hours 4 min ago

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

4 November 2014 - 9:49am
Shame it has to make the comparison with safety not pedestrian safety. But that would go against the BBC's institutional prejudice against cycling.

Re: Cafe & coffee

4 November 2014 - 9:07am
keyboardmonkey wrote:
Highly recommended, although the portion sizes mean that the cakes occasionally have to be shared



NO! Cakes are never shared!!!

Re: Cafe & coffee

4 November 2014 - 9:05am
andrich wrote:Called at the tearoom in Hovingham (Howardian Hills, N Yorks) yesterday. Had Apple pie and cream and a latte. I nearly fell over when they asked for £6.55. I t was £2.95 for the latte - dearer than Costa etc. I won't be calling there again unless I am desperate! I hadn't paid so much for lunch in Pickering!

The last time I was at that café half of us sheltered under the table umbrellas whilst the others sat on a bench eating their packups - in the rain - rather than pay those prices.

andrich wrote:Elvington is just down the road from me. Not likely to need a coffee after 5 miles!

Have you tried the World Peace Café in Kilnwick Percy, near Pocklington?

Highly recommended, although the portion sizes mean that the cakes occasionally have to be shared

kilnwick_percy_refreshments_640.jpg

Riders from East Yorkshire CTC are getting round to listing their other favourite cafés in that area:

http://eastyorkshirectc.org.uk/category/cafes

Re: Mystery raised things in cycle contraflow ...

4 November 2014 - 7:56am
It looks to me like the council are trying to ensure that vehicles don't try to go illegally through the gap in the lane barrier on the one way system. I can see two traffic control cameras in view. The armadillos presumably deter vehicles swinging to the right in order to be able to get through that gap. If this is the case, it's attempting to stop vehicles infringing on the bike lane.
I'm just speculating on why the gap is there at all but possible occasional emergency access is needed?

Re: Name the landmark

3 November 2014 - 10:43pm
gaz wrote:Is it possible to have an inconspicuous landmark?
Well, I'll just say, Mrs P and I spent ages trying to find it...

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

3 November 2014 - 10:10pm
Crank v Brooks establishes (in the context of a person crossing a zebra crossing) that a person wheeling a bike is a foot-passenger (pedestrian) and therefore a driver had been under an obligation to give way to the person on the crossing. This is irrelevant to the matter of trespass.

Nobody is disputing that a person wheeling a bike is a pedestrian. Case law suggests that pedestrians do not have unlimited rights on footpaths. The debate surrounds whether a bicycle is a "usual accompaniment" for a pedestrian and thus whether pushing one falls inside the right to pass along a footpath, or whether it does not fall into that category and is a trespass. In R v Matthias (1861) the judge directed the jury:
that the owner of the soil may remove anything that encumbers his close, except such things as are usual accompaniments of a large class of foot passengers, being so small and light, as neither to be a nuisance to other passengers or injurious to the soil.

Sheffield CC were definitely wrong to state as fact those items which do and don't constitute usual accompaniments and may or not be "taken on all Public Rights Of Way" as that has never been determined. At least the latter 2 criteria depend upon local circumstances so it is likely that whether or not something is a trespass depends to some extent on the footpath itself.

Re: Name the landmark

3 November 2014 - 9:56pm
Southwell Minster? Should have gone to SpecSavers

Re: Name the landmark

3 November 2014 - 9:50pm
Gaz - is that Southwell Minster?

Re: Name the landmark

3 November 2014 - 9:49pm
Is it possible to have an inconspicuous landmark?

Re: Cafe & coffee

3 November 2014 - 9:38pm
Elvington is just down the road from me. Not likely to need a coffee after 5 miles!

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

3 November 2014 - 9:11pm
beardy wrote:Skim down to "What are my rights on a public right of way" on these links.

http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/usersofprow
http://www.sthelens.gov.uk/what-we-do/t ... hts-of-way

Sheffield City Council is quite unambiguous

You have no right to push a bicycle along a Public Footpath.

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/trav ... e-map.html

I'd have suggested that Crank vs Brooks (the single worst name pair for a piece of case law in all of cycling) would strongly suggest that a person pushing a bike (i.e. having their feet on the ground and not on a pedal) classifies as a pure pedestrian, and that SCC is therefore talking baloney,

Of course they probably try to ban pushchairs and wheelchairs as well, it's a footpath after all. Walking sticks, crutches... shoes?

Re: Name the landmark

3 November 2014 - 8:24pm
While folks are guessing some of the earlier ones, here's a fairly inconspicuous one from my patch.
photo0004r.jpg
Unless you know it, you might find it hard to identify, but there's an interesting (and somewhat gory) story behind it. That's a clue...

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

3 November 2014 - 6:37pm
PRL wrote:Bicycler wrote:Signs - The thing that seemed odd there was the presence of no entry signs at both ends of a road, apparently prohibiting all traffic from accessing the road. It would be very odd to have a regulation order made with that restriction and specifying no entry signs. If the signs are correct then it is illegal to cycle past them and thus illegal to cycle the complete route.

The Surrey CC interactive map shows a Surrey cycle route going past the no-entry sign on Sanway Rd under the M25 and then dotted to Wisley Rd.

Whoever produced this
1) disbelieved the No-Entry sign
2) at least thought that pushing a bicycle did not constitute trespass.
As far as signs go they are either correct or they aren't. The council should be able to provide the order to which they relate. Anything else is speculation. It would be a mistake to assume that the preparation of the cycle route layer of the online map involved a detailed ground survey and the checking of all applicable Traffic Regulation Orders.

The trespass question is unlikely to be definitively answered anytime soon (until somebody takes it to court and nobody has bothered in the 150 years the bicycle has been around) but it mostly seems to be cycling groups who think it isn't. The civil servant at Surrey CC was almost certainly working from their own understanding rather than stating an informed opinion on an obscure matter of rights of way law. In any case their opinion would be irrelevant.

Re: Unbelievable

3 November 2014 - 5:28pm
A cycling friend of mine took his HGV class 2 licence a year ago and his instructor referred to cyclists as "organ donors" and then went onto explain why their life span is on par with your average fly ! Trouble was he went on at length to explain his reasons and my friend although initially annoyed by it had to admit that where hgv`s are concerned, some of his points were valid. Hmm.

Re: Helmet light

3 November 2014 - 5:23pm
They are good at stopping drivers who may be about to pull out of side roads in front of you (generally keep them on the road else, eyes swivel enough...)

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

3 November 2014 - 4:17pm
Bicycler wrote:Signs - The thing that seemed odd there was the presence of no entry signs at both ends of a road, apparently prohibiting all traffic from accessing the road. It would be very odd to have a regulation order made with that restriction and specifying no entry signs. If the signs are correct then it is illegal to cycle past them and thus illegal to cycle the complete route.

The Surrey CC interactive map shows a Surrey cycle route going past the no-entry sign on Sanway Rd under the M25 and then dotted to Wisley Rd.

Whoever produced this
1) disbelieved the No-Entry sign
2) at least thought that pushing a bicycle did not constitute trespass.

Re: Unbelievable

3 November 2014 - 3:57pm
Chris the Sheep wrote:gentlegreen wrote:I've been cut up twice at the same mini-roundabout by instructors without pupils (and Youtubed them) - I got a reply from the school on one occasion - though it wasn't clear whether she was excusing the unaccompanied instructor...


I usually post on threads like this to point out that I'm married to a driving instructor, and her car is our family car. That means I often drive unaccompanied and others assume that I'm an instructor. I'm aware of this and drive as impeccably as I can, but not all do.
Fair enough, but the advertising benefits instructors gain from having a fully branded car - as opposed to just a car with magnetic or a roofboard L-plates (and I agree with MJR these ought to be removed when used as a private car) - all go out of the window if the car is seen to be driven poorly. The kind of instructor I would want to be teaching a member of my family to drive safely is the kind of instructor who doesn't let their partner drive unsafely. It's a case of being seen to practise what you preach. It's good for your wife that you realise how your driving could affect your her business.

Re: Mystery raised things in cycle contraflow ...

3 November 2014 - 3:39pm
[XAP]Bob wrote:They're there to encourage you to use primary on the traffic lane...

Indeed - which was exactly what I did.
The daft thing is that by that point I was actually happy to ride in it ...

Re: Helmet light

3 November 2014 - 3:35pm
freeflow wrote:If you are riding on unlit roads and have many junction at which you turn left or right then IMHO helmet lights are essential as they allow you to see the potholes before you hit them. I use two on my helmet.

Need better bike lights there then

They're good for picking out roadsigns which are often above the cutoff of proper road lights, and for dealing with mechanicals...

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