CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 48 min 12 sec ago

Re: Accident Tue 7 Apr 18:00 Uddingston

21 April 2015 - 10:11am
Elizabeth_S wrote:Nope, that's the Keir roundabout! I hate it in a car, there's nothing like coming up the old A9 from Bridge of Allan and going around the Keir roundabout to the Dunblane turn off the B8033, which is dual carriageway , you come around the roundabout and spot the traffic heading south on the A9 towards the roundabout down a hill, you have to pass straight in front if it and does it brake, does it ever! And that's the lorries. For those of you who don't know, it is at the end of the A9 and start of the M9.
Although it's a long way from my regular haunts, I know that roundabout very well (didn't know it was called the Keir R/b though) having driven across it many times, never cycled, and I'm inclined to agree with you! My son who's lived in the Stirling area for some years, knows it even better, he often passes it cycling in the Doune and Callander direction, says he takes a long detour to avoid the roundabout. But apparently that's not an option for people cycling towards Dunblane, they have to take on all the A9 traffic as you say. It's a shame because at another busy roundabout on the old A9, at Stirling Bridge a few miles south, there's a quite serviceable network of cycle paths enabling you to avoid the roundabout itself. Bearing in mind that this is a major route into the Highlands, for cyclists as well as other road users, you'd have thought something could be provided at Keir....

Re: Accident Tue 7 Apr 18:00 Uddingston

21 April 2015 - 10:09am
"Better people" would seem to be the answer to a lot of things.

Re: Accident Tue 7 Apr 18:00 Uddingston

21 April 2015 - 9:51am
People should stick to speed limits, look out all the time for cyclists and pedestrians and everything and should generally be better people.



Well it was worth a try.

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

21 April 2015 - 9:46am
Statistics can get very complicated but one thing's for sure,enforcing the law,in the case of mobile use,talking or texting,etc ain't at all complicated if you wish to stop it.
If the penalties are harsh enough and the policing good enough it'll stop within months of implementation and the same goes with any known dangerous driving activities.
It can be done,the problem is we as a society have deemed we can't afford it and are prepared to liveor die with the consequences something I find abhorrent,we are our own worst enemy.

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

21 April 2015 - 9:05am
danhopgood wrote:Re. statistics on mobile 'phone use when driving:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31634425

Very interesting.

One thing that's obvious but is still worth noting, is that those observations only show activity at a given time. By that I mean that if you observed the colours of passing cars, you would soon have a pretty good idea what %age of cars were white. A couple of % of drivers using a phone at any given time suggests to me that those drivers are only a small part of the %age of drivers who might use a phone while driving. There will be some drivers, I expect, who never put their phone down and others who only do this occasionally. However, they are all people who consider the activity more or less OK and who might, therefore, be reluctant to convict another driver of causing death if "all they had done" was to use a mobile at the wheel.

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

21 April 2015 - 8:18am
danhopgood wrote:Re. statistics on mobile 'phone use when driving:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31634425

Supports what I thought. Car drivers using a hand-held phone are more than twice as likely to be texting than speaking.
I think texting whilst driving should incur an automatic ban of at least a year. It's far more dangerous than speaking on a phone. And the fine/points even for speaking on a phone should be far higher.
£100 as it starts at now isn't enough for either offence. Even the max fine of £1000 isn't enough. Some people spend £100 on phone charges in just a few months, and as the chance of being caught and fined is close to zero, most people would regard a £100 fine as a just a minor charge for doing it.
I suspect that their stats are on the low side. I see more than one in a hundred drivers using a hand-held phone round here, I think they text etc. before joining the nearby motorway, or when they come off it. It's probably more dangerous to do it on the minor roads, but they may feel they're less likely to be caught. Incidentally, there are plenty of laybys, service roads, car parks etc. that they could stop in to phone. They just think their convenience is worth more than other people's lives. And I'm sure that attitude on the road isn't confined to their use of phones.

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

21 April 2015 - 1:30am
Law enforcement in the UK is bonkers. You don't need highly trained, well paid, full-on Police Officers to deal with minor motoring offences, or any minor offence for that matter. Lets re-name PCSOs as 'Police Officers' and give them FIAT Panda's to patrol in.

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

20 April 2015 - 5:40pm
Re. statistics on mobile 'phone use when driving:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31634425

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

20 April 2015 - 4:34pm
(sorry, I was unclear, I didn't mean juries should divide blame, just decide on guilt or innocence of the actual charge of causing death by, etc.)
Though in some circumstances, it's little short of murder. I doubt they'd do me for being 'dangerous' if I went out with a gun and shot out at random and killed someone. Driving a car whilst texting seems to me to be no different.

Re: Accident Tue 7 Apr 18:00 Uddingston

20 April 2015 - 4:31pm
The power of CTC! After my comment about the lack of road markings a few days ago, they have suddenly appeared on the roundabout. All hail CTC!

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

20 April 2015 - 3:42pm
Flinders wrote:I think that if you have been using a mobile phone whilst driving within 5 minutes of an accident you should be automatically assumed to be guilty of dangerous driving and given the maximum penalty for that, without the need for a jury.
Juries should only be able to decide on whether, additionally, the dangerous driving was the direct cause of death or injury, or whether there were other contributory factors.

I think your first point needs to go a lot further. At the moment juries in effect get to decide what is careless or dangerous driving in a wide range of cases. I have often argued that there should be a policy framework for what it is, so that they just don't have the discretion in run-of-the-mill cases. If a policy statement says that you have a duty to see something legally present in the road, even in conditions of dense fog or light glare, then SMIDSY is no excuse, and the burden of duty is on the driver to see them, including travelling at a speed that allows them to stop in time for a stationary obstruction in the road in poor visibility. It ceases to be a matter of jury debate as to whether it is dangerous to run over a cyclist when blinded by glare. Doubtless any set of rules has its marginal and uncertain cases, but make certain a lot of run-of-the-mill cases, and set policy externally to what is sensible for society.

I disagree with the second issue you suggest. It's a rare case where someone is charged both with dangerous driving and with causing death by dangerous driving, in case the dangerous driving was not the cause of the death, but in principle it could arise. But I'd much rather we just had an offence of dangerous driving, with a penalty scale that took into account the consequences, and leave complex issues of causality to the judge in the rare cases where it arises. Juries are for assessing the reliability of evidence. They probably aren't much good at that either, but at least it is some kind of a back-stop against abuse of the legal process.

Re: First Sportive in June

20 April 2015 - 12:09pm
Mark1978 wrote:Get the idea of a race peloton out of your head, it isn't like that.
Sadly, there may be some who try to make like that. If anyone refers to the event as "the race", I let them go off ahead. They may be taking excessive risks and it's not unusual to hear of nasty crashes resulting from some group pretending to be a race peloton and clipping wheels and things like that. There should be emergency numbers for the event, but there's no team cars and medics so it can be a long old wait for them to get to you.

Please, either ride with friends whose riding you know and are willing to trust, or keep a safe stopping distance to the bike in front (and this is more than you think, more than just reaction time: if the rider in front crashes into an immovable obstacle, they will stop instantly).

Re: What is gr8 about motorcycling?

20 April 2015 - 11:52am
samsbike wrote:kwackers wrote:Probably for any question that involves subjective experience when the only sensible answer is to tell you to experience it yourself after which you won't need to ask...

Thanks put much better than I could. I suppose a good example is horse riding I cant see the point and have tried it, but I am sure mere words cant describe what it means to someone who cares. How difficult would it be to describe why you love riding your bike to someone who has never gotten out of their car?
Not very. I think many good examples may be found on this board already, when racing-style riders and Slow Bicycle Movement-style riders try to explain why they like it and seriously don't understand why anyone finds the other style fun

Re: First Sportive in June

20 April 2015 - 10:25am
pwa wrote:Ride with any group you think you can ride with, even if they look like a bunch of mates. They are unlikely to mind a new face. Find people who are not too fast to live with. On the flat it is difficult to judge how strong someone is, but as soon as you get a nice long climb there will be a sorting out and you will see who you can stick with.

That's the advantage of a sportive, groups form spontaneously you can tag onto the back of any group you come across. If you want to go ahead, then drop them and go on, if not then drop off the back again.

Personally I find that for most sportives it's group riding for about the first half, but the second half is usually on my own.

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

20 April 2015 - 10:22am
What kind of moron feels the need to text people every few minutes anyway? I've never understood why they do it. They need to get a life. Surely nobody really wants tombstone says 'their sumtotal contribution to the world was sending thousands of texts a month about nothing of any importance'.

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

20 April 2015 - 10:20am
On my currently totally unscientific impressions, I think hand-held mobile phone use when driving declined a bit after the law came in, but is now at a higher level than it was before the law came in. More people have phones, and what's worse, more of them are texting and not just talking, which is even more dangerous.
I think that if you have been using a mobile phone whilst driving within 5 minutes of an accident you should be automatically assumed to be guilty of dangerous driving and given the maximum penalty for that, without the need for a jury.
Juries should only be able to decide on whether, additionally, the dangerous driving was the direct cause of death or injury, or whether there were other contributory factors.

Drivers know they are highly unlikely to be caught, and even if caught having killed someone, are unlikley to be punished, so the law is now being pretty much completely ignored.
Speeding is nearly as bad. I'm now seeing speeding even in 'average speed' sections, where once you never did. As this seems only to be in some specific locations, I assume that the locals know the police in the area aren't interested, or that the devices concerned aren't actually switched on there.

Re: I rode off-road - fun, finding routes and how do you dre

20 April 2015 - 9:28am
MikeF wrote:531colin wrote:....and I go on the ones (with green blobs on 2 1/2") which are "right of way, but we haven't decided exactly which right of way just now".I know what you mean . Sometimes if you delve the local authority says they have "limited liability for maintenance", but still don't state what the right is. There are also "G" and "Q" roads, (see 1.4 here for a mention, if I remember correctly, with some sort of rights of way, but you'll have great difficulty finding out about them.
We're going off topic here but anything other than A and B classification is allocated by a local authority for it's own internal use only and these vary widely from one county to the next. Most if not all use 'C' for other important roads but beyond that there's no consistency and the lettering has no statutory meaning. I like the revealing honesty of your LA's terminology; 'Q' seemingly means " ? - no idea about this" and "limited liability to maintain" reflects the lack of maintenance such routes receive in practice. Strictly, authorities are either liable to maintain a section of highway or not, there's no provision for having limited liability to maintain. I suspect what they mean is that the route is currently not surfaced and thus there is no obligation to provide such a surface.

In general if something isn't obviously a normal public road or listed on the definitive map the LA won't have much of an idea about existing levels of rights or else they would be on the definitive map. Those rural green dotted routes on the OS maps are monuments to the incompleteness of the definitive maps. IME they most often seem to be byways (ie. very minor unsurfaced roads) left off the original definitive maps because they were roads. The term 'byway' wasn't used back in the 1950s when the maps were compiled (and generally they have changed little since). Some such routes could have been recorded as "roads used as public paths" but the definition was confusing and use was inconsistent. Many areas seem to have focused on recording FP and BW rights, and not considered these very minor vehicular roads/tracks.

Re: I rode off-road - fun, finding routes and how do you dre

20 April 2015 - 9:23am
Some mud turns to a sticky mire in winter. Some mud is so sticky you have to carry a bicycle over it, great clods adhering to the soles of your shoes. But some kinds of dirt surfaces can perfectly ridable even in winter, especially if explicitly constructed as an all-weather surface. Maps do not distinguish. But in general in winter I'd rather be somewhere high, slatey and peaty than somewhere low, clayey and chalkey.

Re: First Sportive in June

20 April 2015 - 7:55am
Ride with any group you think you can ride with, even if they look like a bunch of mates. They are unlikely to mind a new face. Find people who are not too fast to live with. On the flat it is difficult to judge how strong someone is, but as soon as you get a nice long climb there will be a sorting out and you will see who you can stick with.

Re: First Sportive in June

20 April 2015 - 7:38am
The one i rode a few years back, the riders were split into groups and set off in small(ish) groups. I found these groups then developed into their own small club groups / mates they normally ride with..... There was no attempt to stay together with other riders, ie every man for himself.
My own club also have a small charity ride early in the year, and similarly once dropped on a hill, there was no attempt of otherwise similarly paced riders, to wait and keep together..... unlike club runs, they were off keeping with their mates.

Audax it seemed that small groups would form and we would stick together ensure those at similar pace would get around together...

So if you enter alone be prepared that you might riding most of the route generally on your own.

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