CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 14 min 38 sec ago

Re: Brakes work, shame brain doesn't

28 February 2015 - 12:09am
Should lights change straight from red to green without the amber? Would that stop vehicles starting on amber? Red means stop, but green means go if it is safe to do so. Clearly it wasn't, but the other two cyclists may have obscured his view.

Re: Not all bad..

27 February 2015 - 11:48pm
I think just about every driver today gave me enough room when they were passing, for around 30 miles on the road. For a few hundred yards I did hold up one van driver on a narrow road, but there was nowhere I could let him pass. In one case a car gave me a wide berth although in my view he took a risk as it was on a bend. I wasn't cycling at peak time though, and I think that makes a difference to people's motoring behaviour.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

27 February 2015 - 11:32pm
Ellieb wrote:When it comes to filtering on the left, I would say it is perfectly safe as long as you do it properly. It may well be a grey area legally, but from my perspective you just have to bear in mind that people may not expect you to be there and not 'see' you and so act accordingly. Since this is how I cycle anyway I don't see how filtering changes the way I approach road safety. It is certainly 'safer' than some of the undeniably legal things which I do, like turning 'right' on large trunk road roundabouts, and much safer than undeniably legal things which I don't, like cycling along busy Dual Carriageways with sliproads. The choice is mine. If you are personally uncomfortable with left hand filtering then don't do it. If you feel that you are aware on the potential hazards and can deal with them accordingly, then go right ahead. There is absolutely no need to ban filtering on the left. Like any cycling activity there is risk, if you are unaware of the risks then it is probably unacceptably hazardous, but let's not try and ban a manoevre which is realtively easy to perform safely.
I agree with most of the above.

Sometimes filtering on the left is perfectly safe. I'd even go as far as saying that on a straight wide road with no junctions where the filtering is taking place, it's a helluva lot safer than filtering between lanes of walking pace traffic on a dual carriageway (in my view) - as mentioned here: http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/how-to/filtering . I can see more danger from going between cars than passing a walking pace lorry on the left on a straight road with plenty of space.

Re: Cyclists are treated as if they are staionary.

27 February 2015 - 10:13pm
OK, I know I learned to drive a very long time ago (my provisional licence was in Latin) but I was taught that when passing another vehicle you only pull back into the nearside lane when you can see the passed vehicle in your rear view mirror. How hard can it be?

Much of the behaviour I witness on a daily basis makes me question the way drivers are trained these days. If I was running the country our roads would be less crowded because it would be much harder to get a driving license in the first place (I'd include a test of candidates mental attitude, any sign of short temper / road-rage = no licence) and I'd revoke licences for offences such as mobile phone use, tailgating, applying makeup, shaving, reading the newspaper and many many more things. I could easily take 20% of drivers (and their vehicles) off the road thereby curing congestion.

I always was a liberal softie

Re: Cyclists are treated as if they are staionary.

27 February 2015 - 9:15pm
The thing I keep getting is people deciding to manoeuvre around me on junctions etc. I've lost count of the number of people who have overtaken me on traffic lights or roundabouts as I'm trying to turn. The best one though was the idiot who chose to overtake me on a hairpin bend. It's one where bikes can easily go round faster than cars who almost have to stop but this one guy went for it anyway. Total.......

Re: Cyclists are treated as if they are staionary.

27 February 2015 - 7:34pm
Off on a tangent again, but when I'm pulling a trailer behind my pick up truck, motorists measure their braking distance from my vehicle. NOT the trailer. Grumble grumble...hc

Re: Not all bad..

27 February 2015 - 7:15pm
A couple of years ago i was shaved past by a bus.
I wrote to the company with the reg number and i got an email back apologising for the driving and that they would "take action" against the driver. not knowing what the "action" would be , and only wanting to mention it to the company so they would have a word with the driver, i replied to the email saying just that.
The following months and still to this date all buses from that company have passed me with space and respect. I sent another email praising them for the respect and space i have been receiving.

I definitely think it's important to not just send complaints but also praise when it's merited.

I wonder what has the greater effect.

Re: Pinch points.

27 February 2015 - 7:10pm
Tonyf33 wrote:The amount of times that a vehicle comes into view that looks like they are on a collision course and you move to the left only for them to sail by with more width than you thought, I can guarantee that will happen using mirrors and at a given speed your reactions may not be enough if you are unfortunate enough anyway..


Must depend on the mirror. Mine gives a pretty good picture. The only times I've changed course to avoid near misses I could count on both hands. Well maybe I'd need toes as well. Like the time I was 3 feet on to a 6ft wide shoulder on a USA road. Watched a group of motorcyclist coming up behind me. One of the group broke off and drove onto the shoulder intending to buzz past me within inches. I waited until he was committed to his line then moved 2 feet right. No problem. Without a mirror who knows? Probably just a scary moment. I should say that was the only problem I had with hundreds of motorcyclists passing me on that tour.

Re: Not all bad..

27 February 2015 - 6:59pm
pwa wrote:Kylecycler

Nice pic. And sometimes it really is like that. Don't worry about the vehicles behind me. I let them pass as soon as practicable. Today I came up behind two horse riders on a sharp left hand bend. At the same time a Rangerover approached from the other side. The Rangerover slowed, the horses went to single file and one of the riders asked me to wait a moment. Rangerover passed slow and wide, then I did the same. One of the horse riders said thanks as I passed. Text book stuff from everyone, and nothing but smiles.

And that's how things could be if all road users were as thoughtful,it's only when the ego takes a front seat that the troubles begin.
Today,young chap in a mat black customised Focus with a big bore exhaust came up behind me as I was approaching the crest of a hill.
I waved him past as the road was clear.
He gave me plenty of room and flashed his hazards and waved once he'd passed me.
It's all very simple if we work together and help one another

Re: Question About cycle Lane Signs/Use Mandatory/Advisory

27 February 2015 - 6:51pm
Bicycler wrote:Oh Gaz, after I'd gone through the trouble of emphasising all my other "shoulds"...
Sorry , personal bugbear of mine is the A282 on which cycling is prohibited. The prohibition used to be signed on all of the various approaches but in recent years the HA have been getting lazy.

Having "cycle-proofed" the A2 at it's junctions with the A228 to the extent that you won't find a live cyclist on it, the HA no longer feel it necessary to sign the prohibition . Most people think of the A282 as being the M25.

Re: Pinch points.

27 February 2015 - 6:32pm
irc wrote:............ I don't see a downside to using a mirror though so why not?
Nor me there are only pluses,unless you count folding the mirror up when not in use,and down to use a downside.I can't think of any others

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

27 February 2015 - 6:27pm
When it comes to filtering on the left, I would say it is perfectly safe as long as you do it properly. It may well be a grey area legally, but from my perspective you just have to bear in mind that people may not expect you to be there and not 'see' you and so act accordingly. Since this is how I cycle anyway I don't see how filtering changes the way I approach road safety. It is certainly 'safer' than some of the undeniably legal things which I do, like turning 'right' on large trunk road roundabouts, and much safer than undeniably legal things which I don't, like cycling along busy Dual Carriageways with sliproads. The choice is mine. If you are personally uncomfortable with left hand filtering then don't do it. If you feel that you are aware on the potential hazards and can deal with them accordingly, then go right ahead. There is absolutely no need to ban filtering on the left. Like any cycling activity there is risk, if you are unaware of the risks then it is probably unacceptably hazardous, but let's not try and ban a manoevre which is realtively easy to perform safely.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

27 February 2015 - 5:40pm
Vorpal wrote:Highway engineers put silly narrow cycle lanes on the inside. They put ASL lead-ins on the inside. They put access points to shared infrastucture on the inside. And they do these things on streets where congestion is normal. That implies not only permission, but an *expectation* that cyclists will filter on the inside.

On every ASL, I've ever seen, the only legal point to enter it is on the inside. If cyclists can't do that, as the law currently stands, there is no point in ASLs.
While we're on the topic of ASLs with left side feeder lanes .... I've posted this pair of pictures before:
station road - before.jpg
station road - after.jpg
The ASL has been painted out. Pffft! Gone! I originally took the second picture about 4 months ago and thought at the time it may be only a temporary painting-out, the road had just been re-surfaced. But no: it's still like that now, appears to be a permanent change.

So are ASLs falling out of favour with the powers-that-be? Has anyone else got any similar examples? Admittedly the road in question is not particularly busy.

My feeling is that a dangerous bit of 'infarcestructure' has gone, and good riddance! I tend to avoid using the feeder lane anyway - for reasons that have already been discussed at great length in this thread.

Re: Question About cycle Lane Signs/Use Mandatory/Advisory

27 February 2015 - 5:39pm
beardy wrote:The right to walk and cycle across the Severn Bridge was created in exactly that way.

There is a motorway going over the Severn Crossing, we are not allowed to cycle on it.
There is also a cycle track on the same bridge structure but it is separate from the motorway.

If historically, before it was a motorway, cyclists were allowed to use the carriageway they lost that right a long time ago.
Oh dear, I am sorry for raising that tangent; it was just a bit of trivia, of no real importance. The Severn Bridge carriageway has always been a motorway. All I was saying was that the right of passage for cyclists and pedestrians on the adjacent path was created under the special roads act. It does illustrate that 'special road' does not necessarily mean 'motorway' or require the prohibition of cycles. It would be perfectly possible for example to specify a special road that prohibited motors but allowed bicycles, pedestrians and animals.

Re: Question About cycle Lane Signs/Use Mandatory/Advisory

27 February 2015 - 5:29pm
Oh Gaz, after I'd gone through the trouble of emphasising all my other "shoulds"...

Of course you are right. Short of going through the London Gazette archives looking for orders it's all we can do to keep our eyes out for signs. I don't think they'd be able to enforce a prohibition that hadn't been signed.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

27 February 2015 - 5:20pm
Edwards wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:So let's actually address the source of the problem, and that's not the lady in question

And while you do that another person might be killed because a simple piece of advice that corresponds to the roads as they are now is ignored by some. That advise is

Do not cycle down the same side of vehicles that are indicating that direction. Especially the side opposite the driver.
And the people who still do this will listen next time because?

H&S has a clear process for preventing recurrent accidents and in this environment that process is routinely ignored - you are proposing the same error.

I'm not saying that we promote the manoeuvre, but that's not the correct focus.

Re: Brakes work, shame brain doesn't

27 February 2015 - 4:47pm
methinks he's too intent on getting away from the other cyclists waiting at the junction to see/hear the lorry!

Re: Not all bad..

27 February 2015 - 4:44pm
Kylecycler

Nice pic. And sometimes it really is like that. Don't worry about the vehicles behind me. I let them pass as soon as practicable. Today I came up behind two horse riders on a sharp left hand bend. At the same time a Rangerover approached from the other side. The Rangerover slowed, the horses went to single file and one of the riders asked me to wait a moment. Rangerover passed slow and wide, then I did the same. One of the horse riders said thanks as I passed. Text book stuff from everyone, and nothing but smiles.

Re: Question About cycle Lane Signs/Use Mandatory/Advisory

27 February 2015 - 4:38pm
Bicycler wrote:All non-motorway special roads should have their prohibitions explicitly signed.
They should ... but they don't.

Bicycler wrote:The simple answer is that you can cycle anywhere there isn't a motorway or prohibition sign telling you that you can't.
See above .

Re: Question About cycle Lane Signs/Use Mandatory/Advisory

27 February 2015 - 4:17pm
Special roads are interesting because they work on the exact opposite principle to the rest of the road network, types of traffic have to be specifically included in the order whereas elsewhere you may use a road unless you are prohibited by an order. The motorway sign is itself a prohibition sign for non-motorway traffic. All non-motorway special roads should have their prohibitions explicitly signed. Incidentally there is nothing stopping a special road from allowing pedestrians or cyclists. The right to walk and cycle across the Severn Bridge was created in exactly that way.

All very interesting but we're complicating things too much. The simple answer is that you can cycle anywhere there isn't a motorway or prohibition sign telling you that you can't. To answer Valbrona's question, no roads other than motorways carry an automatic prohibition of cycling. The term "Expressway" is used infrequently in the names of roads in the UK but it does not have an official meaning. Some are motorways, others special roads, others all purpose roads

In addition to what everyone else has said about cycle lanes, mandatory ones should be backed up by an order prohibiting motor traffic entering them which should also prohibit parking, they might also prohibit loading though many don't. In the case where somebody has just drawn a solid line without a properly made order to back it up the lane is effectively only advisory.

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