CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 50 min ago

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

4 November 2014 - 10:30pm
People riding horses (even in full daylight) sometimes wear high-viz tabards these days, and horses often have high-viz 'quarter-sheets' (blankets over the back behind the saddle and over the bum) and/or high-viz boots (strips round the lower part of the leg) that are reflective and/or high-viz.

In daylight you'd think it was difficult not to see a horse whatever it or its rider was wearing, but drivers still drive into them.

(this is not an argument for cyclists to wear high-viz, BTW, just an observation in reply to a query in a post above. And re helmets, children riding horses on roads are legally obliged to wear one. Adults aren't, at least when I last looked. But given the height of a horse and the fact that it has a mind of its own, you have to be pretty stupid not to wear a helmet when riding one- almost no riders ride without in the UK.)

Claiming compensation after being knocked off your bike

4 November 2014 - 10:07pm
I was after some advice...

In July I was out riding on a Gran Fondo and 9 miles into my planned 80miles a 4x4 towing a caravan made to overtake me on a corner. An interesting graph can be found on my Strava as my speed drops instantly from 21mph to zero as I was knocked clean off by bike into the curb, pavement and hedge.

My bike was largely unscathed, minor cosmetic damage, but my kit was ripped but rather more significantly I now have a large scar on my thigh which is difficult to conceal. Luckily the severe bruising to my right arm cleared up after a few weeks and my grip and strength had returned in my hand, had it not I fear that may have ended my career, although I feel lucky to have even walked away from the collision!

The driver did not stop. I was able to ride onto the next village and reported the incident to the police. I have since completed a statement and am awaiting further investigation. I need to replace my kit and was told compensation claims were made independently.

Where is the best place to start?

Thanks in advance - Laura

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

4 November 2014 - 9:40pm
Does the horse wear hi-vis and a helmet?

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

4 November 2014 - 8:23pm
I wear hi-vis. Do I think it makes a difference? Not at all.
Apart from the obvious 'fact' that in most scenarios a driver *should* be able to see a rider without hi-vis consider this:-

Imagine yourself riding along in the dark without hi-vis, how would you ride?
Now imagine yourself riding with hi-vis, how would you ride now?

I suspect most folk will respond very differently to those two scenarios.
So now consider the fact that your average driver often has trouble seeing a cyclist in broad daylight!

So if you think you'd ride more carefully, change your route or do anything differently in the two scenarios then it should be obvious why not wearing hi-vis isn't quite as stupid as first appears. People not wearing hi-vis *think* they can't be seen. Those wearing it *assume* they can.

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

4 November 2014 - 7:29pm
It's that subtle difference between "I choose to do this" and "other people should do this". The latter obliges us non-believers to argue our case. If people stopped trying to insist that others wear the stuff then we could all go about our own business perfectly happily. Rest assured that we do not wish to take away your right to have hi-vis

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

4 November 2014 - 7:12pm
Ann Kennedy wrote:Yes every driver should drive at a speed that allows them to stop when they see a hazard ahead ... but sadly we don't live in that utopian world and there are stupid or just tired drivers on the roads. So why would you not increase your chances of being seen by wearing hi-viz when on your bike?? To me it is an issue of self-preservation rather than a question of whether drivers should drive better ...
It's an issue of self-preservation to me, but there's little evidence that hi-vis will preserve anyone. If you read the earlier messages above and on earlier pages, some people hypothesise how being seen a bit earlier might hurt as much as it helps.
And i am also a driver and last winter had a very nasty close shave whilst driving - I was stationary in the road, waiting to turn right on a dark and wet night - I just did not see the idiot on a bike in black and with no lights until the very last minute ... we missed each other but it was a matter of inches and i got quite a scare!
Why were you trying to see him with no lights? Turn them on!

More seriously: no-one is arguing that riding an unlit bike at night is a good idea, but it's still only a factor in 2% of collisions. Focus on the bigger source of dangers: bad drivers.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

4 November 2014 - 7:00pm
Should anybody wish to read Mathias in full it's linked from here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=85109&start=15#p766399

Crank v Brooks: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=58598#p494460

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

4 November 2014 - 6:54pm
Yes every driver should drive at a speed that allows them to stop when they see a hazard ahead ... but sadly we don't live in that utopian world and there are stupid or just tired drivers on the roads. So why would you not increase your chances of being seen by wearing hi-viz when on your bike?? To me it is an issue of self-preservation rather than a question of whether drivers should drive better ...

I am also a horse rider and always wear hi viz and a helmet when on horseback or on bike ... research shows that cars see horseriders with hi-viz 3 seconds earlier than those without ... not much but it's quite a bit of braking distance.

And i am also a driver and last winter had a very nasty close shave whilst driving - I was stationary in the road, waiting to turn right on a dark and wet night - I just did not see the idiot on a bike in black and with no lights until the very last minute ... we missed each other but it was a matter of inches and i got quite a scare!

Re: Mudguard suggestions please

4 November 2014 - 6:42pm
I have a similar question. I ride a Specialized MTB with Marathon Ultimate tyres and a Topeak pannier rack. Just back from riding the Thames Valley way - not too wet but got covered in mud up my back in particular and also well spattered on my legs. Not sure what sort of mud guards would suit - ideally want something that is easy to put on and take off as often disassemble bike for air transport. What should i be looking for?

Also, my husband also rides a (different and larger) MTB and has same tyres and pannier rack but miraculously he does not get as muddy .. why should that be??

Re: Mystery raised things in cycle contraflow ...

4 November 2014 - 6:24pm
It certainly looks like they've been put there by/for motorists with no consideration to cyclists.

Re: Mystery raised things in cycle contraflow ...

4 November 2014 - 5:33pm
bogmyrtle wrote:If it is a two way cycle lane is it possible they were put at that angle (first picture) to prevent cyclists leaving the cycle lane into the oncoming one way traffic/
It was barely wide enough to be a one way cycle lane even before those death traps were fitted there !
The irony is that people are rarely ever actually going to be travelling in opposite directions ...
I rather suspect that this is the work of the South Glos council planning department - they're famously mistrustful of the cycling culture that keeps leaking over the border from Babylon (Bristol) and are very fond of placing lethal bollards on shared paths.

Re: Mystery raised things in cycle contraflow ...

4 November 2014 - 5:21pm
If it is a two way cycle lane is it possible they were put at that angle (first picture) to prevent cyclists leaving the cycle lane into the oncoming one way traffic/

Re: The financial cost/loss of UK Road incidents £15Billion

4 November 2014 - 4:54pm
kwackers wrote:Good job the Conservatives are in then.

Their basic idea seems to be to reduce government intervention on pretty much everything until we're doing it all ourselves or paying big business for the privilege (or it's not being done) whilst shifting the real power to corporations who can manipulate you however they like and thanks to the reduction in "meddling" under the guise of "doing away with the nanny state" and all the underlying stuff that goes with it there'll be little legally you can do (even if you could afford to).
Of course you could always take your case to Europe whilst you've still got 'human rights', best be quick though!

Spot on!
They can do almost anything they like when the population is either asleep or busy wrapped up in facebook or twitter.What a stupid nation we are

Re: Mystery raised things in cycle contraflow ...

4 November 2014 - 4:41pm
They're also in the cycle lane, making them a feature of the cycle lane, not the other lane.

Re: The financial cost/loss of UK Road incidents £15Billion

4 November 2014 - 4:39pm
I have wondered before why there is a delay between the lights changing, if green means proceed if it is safe to do so, there would seem to be little need for anything but the shortest of delays.

Re: The financial cost/loss of UK Road incidents £15Billion

4 November 2014 - 4:15pm
Flinders wrote:My impression of things round here (Staffordshire M6 area) is that either the police have given up trying with traffic, or they have no staff. Due to a lot of road works, the congestion in town here is appalling and people are getting ratty having queued for an hour to do a ten minute journey and have started going through red lights three or more at a time (which is not usual) and blocking junctions willy nilly, with or without diamonds; it's getting unbearable and dangerous.
It's nice to know that Norfolk was ahead of you motorway counties in some ways. Drivers here have continued through red lights until it's almost laughable for at least 15 years and now the council just seems to set longer and longer times between one set of lights going red and the next going green, with the obvious knock-on delay for any pedestrian and/or cycle crossings nearby.
Someone reported it and the only response they got was that statistically drivers here are better than average re red lights, totally missing the point that a unique crisis is developing which has transformed local driving habits, which has nothing to do with yearly averages.
Never mind that point - are drivers there statistically better than average re red lights simply because so few of the jumpers are being caught now? Sounds like it could be another example of the tragedy of targets.

Re: The financial cost/loss of UK Road incidents £15Billion

4 November 2014 - 3:44pm
toomsie wrote:I don't like the idea of increasing the size of government for anything. Even for the best investments.
However it is not possible for cyclists to buy their own road safety unless they give up cycling altogether.
Good job the Conservatives are in then.

Their basic idea seems to be to reduce government intervention on pretty much everything until we're doing it all ourselves or paying big business for the privilege (or it's not being done) whilst shifting the real power to corporations who can manipulate you however they like and thanks to the reduction in "meddling" under the guise of "doing away with the nanny state" and all the underlying stuff that goes with it there'll be little legally you can do (even if you could afford to).
Of course you could always take your case to Europe whilst you've still got 'human rights', best be quick though!

Re: The financial cost/loss of UK Road incidents £15Billion

4 November 2014 - 3:21pm
I don't like the idea of increasing the size of government for anything. Even for the best investments.
However it is not possible for cyclists to buy their own road safety unless they give up cycling altogether.

Re: Mystery raised things in cycle contraflow ...

4 November 2014 - 2:09pm
They're just installed "wrong"

You can see that the new set are still being installed (barriers around) and they are also "wrong" by the same amount

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

4 November 2014 - 1:57pm
The wording used was "usual accompaniments of a large class of foot passengers" so clearly not requiring a majority. I don't think it is concerned with quantities of individual items either, more the types of things usually brought with pedestrians. To my mind the biggest stumbling block here is that a bicycle is a vehicle and it has been established that moving certain other vehicles (such as handcarts) is not included in a pedestrian's right of passage. Is a bicycle sufficiently unlike a cart to be viewed differently, as the type of thing pedestrians might be expected to have with them when exercising their right?

Times change and things do get viewed differently. Mathias concerned an old fashioned large pram. The jury viewed this as a usual accompaniment but were split on the issue of whether it amounted to a nuisance or injured the soil and they were dismissed. The same jury unsure of the legitimacy of pushing prams would probably have viewed pushing a bicycle as a trespass. No doubt we would now take it for granted that a pram is okay and maybe pushing bicycles has now become sufficiently normalised that we might now view it as a normal use of a footpath. We are unlikely ever to find out.

I have heard about carrying bikes to avoid trespassing before but I have no idea where it came from. It has become a cycling myth. The judge in Mathias considered things carried amongst the accompaniments to pedestrians so if you subscribe to the view that a bicycle isn't a 'usual' one then it isn't one when on your shoulder either.

I do occasionally push my bike down footpaths where cycling isn't allowed and where there isn't a convenient way to ride round. I have yet to have a nasty encounter but I think I would obey a request from the landowner if one was given as I couldn't be sure I had the right to use the footpath in that way. Sometimes it is in our interests to keep the peace. Luckily it is an issue which rarely raises its head because most landowners aren't bothered about the odd cyclist pushing their bike - one once congratulated me on being a cyclist who obeyed the no cycling sign and we had a good chat, a brew and some cake (he also gave me permission to cycle down the track whenever I chose ). It's just a shame that the landowner in the OP is so uncompromising.

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