CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 4 min ago

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 1:24pm
Somebody would not be breaking any law by walking across your lawn either!

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 1:15pm
PRL wrote:To get to the RHS gardens at Wisley from London the simplest way of getting under the M25 is Muddy Lane :

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.32609 ... vgOjKw!2e0

We cycled this way for many years but gates and No Cycles signs have appeared together with an abusive resident. Since the alternative routes involve long diversions onto even muddier tracks we resorted to pushing but the landowner claims that even this is forbidden.

CTC briefing is that this is a grey area legally but he is probably wrong.

What to do ? offer 20p for any damage to his nettles and advise him to sue if he can show that more damage has been caused ?

If you're not breaking any laws pushing your bike along this stretch of footpath,track/way get as many of your cycling friends together and have an organised push along it
TBH I'd do it just to wind this oink up,little hitlers are there to be irritated

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

28 October 2014 - 11:55am
Ellieb wrote:Do you really think that, for example, cycling experience has no influence on whether you have an accident? That weather conditions have no impact at all?
I think you misunderstand the report. The author says (p134) that cycling experience does decrease the risk of a crash. However, this (and other factors) does not significantly affect the odds ratio of conspicuous clothing. In other words, the effectiveness of hi-viz for experienced riders is the same as for inexperienced riders.

The smallish sample is reflected in the wide confidence intervals. The study found that hi-viz increased the crash odds by 20%, but this was not significant because of the wide CI. A larger study would reduce the CI and perhaps give a definitive result.

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

28 October 2014 - 11:47am
Ellieb wrote:The fact remains that on the basis of 76 crashes they managed to rule out all of these variables. That is a pretty impressive use of statistics. Do you really think that, for example, cycling experience has no influence on whether you have an accident? That weather conditions have no impact at all? I'm all for decent science, but at the end of the day you have to look at what the results seem to be saying. I'm sorry, but when you think of accident causation, to say that you can reliably rule out each individual potential factor, let alone account for the interaction of all these factors, I think is stretching it a bit. On the basis of 76 crashes.
I think you have to look at what the report says: "was not significantly affected" is not the same as "has no influence".

It's seems quite reasonable for a study including 76 crashes to fail to detect a significant effect of those factors. If I've remembered the method they use correctly (my statistics postgrad was a while ago and I've not reread the report this morning), it depends on the variance among the results. Given that the police estimate that something 80% of crashes involving riders aged over 25 are solely/partly the motorist's fault (Source: http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/w ... -motorists ) and I doubt anything the cyclist does can help all that much in those (the most experienced riders on their favourite routes might avoid a few by backing off when they think "that car looks like it's about to do something daft", but how many?), that'll increase the variance and make it harder to detect any effect.

Basically, the best things we can do to make cyclists safer at the moment may well be to improve driving standards, or redesign the most dangerous locations with safety of all road users foremost in mind. Hi-vis is a red herring... or at least a fluorescent yellow herring.

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

28 October 2014 - 10:55am
TonyR wrote:Ellieb wrote:Do you really think that a study which involves only 76 crashes is conclusive proof?
Perhaps it is if you want it to be.

With a 95% confounding adjusted CI of 1.06 to 5.7, its pretty strong evidence and a lot better than "because I think so"

The odds ratio was not significantly affected by adjustment for possession of a driving licence, reported bicycle safety training in childhood, psychometric associates of risk taking behaviour, cycle helmet wearing, years of experience of cycling, distance or number of trips cycled in the previous seven days, type of bicycle, the use of bike-mounted lights or reflectors, weather or lighting conditions, familiarity with the route or alcohol consumption within 8 hours prior to the recorded journey.

The fact remains that on the basis of 76 crashes they managed to rule out all of these variables. That is a pretty impressive use of statistics. Do you really think that, for example, cycling experience has no influence on whether you have an accident? That weather conditions have no impact at all? I'm all for decent science, but at the end of the day you have to look at what the results seem to be saying. I'm sorry, but when you think of accident causation, to say that you can reliably rule out each individual potential factor, let alone account for the interaction of all these factors, I think is stretching it a bit. On the basis of 76 crashes.

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

28 October 2014 - 10:52am
gaz wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:Amazingly men in business suits are visible, ....
No they're not.
Mr Farley wrote:..."I didn't see David Cameron"...
The collision was inevitable from the moment he chose not to wear something to EN471:Class 3 .

He saw the men in suits, and ran through - he didn't see that it was David Cameron, nr did he see the person concealed behind someone else - that's not all that surprising.

The "men in suits" were visible to him - as he freely admits. But running through a group of men in suits doesn't normally end up with the jogger being arrested for police incompetence.

Re: I Hate Virgin Trains

28 October 2014 - 10:32am
geocycle wrote:Northern rail are best, rubbish trains but lots of space and no restrictions or booking, just hop on and off, very helpful. .

I agree about Northern. Perhaps they have improved some trains recently but some of them have seemed to me like tin cans on wheels. They do seem very reasonable and easygoing with bikes though as you say and for this they are ti be aplauded

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

28 October 2014 - 9:57am
TrevA wrote: Try buying bottoms in any colour that isn't black - you may be there some time.
There are several reasons for that: this is one of them

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

28 October 2014 - 9:50am
gaz wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:Amazingly men in business suits are visible, ....
No they're not.
Mr Farley wrote:..."I didn't see David Cameron"...
The collision was inevitable from the moment he chose not to wear something to EN471:Class 3 .


Well played, Sir!

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

28 October 2014 - 8:55am
[XAP]Bob wrote:Amazingly men in business suits are visible, ....
No they're not.
Mr Farley wrote:..."I didn't see David Cameron"...
The collision was inevitable from the moment he chose not to wear something to EN471:Class 3 .

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

28 October 2014 - 7:37am
[XAP]Bob wrote:Nearly all of the studies which have looked at high vis didn't look at any crashes...

FTFY

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

28 October 2014 - 7:00am
Ellieb wrote:Do you really think that a study which involves only 76 crashes is conclusive proof?
Perhaps it is if you want it to be.

With a 95% confounding adjusted CI of 1.06 to 5.7, its pretty strong evidence and a lot better than "because I think so"

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

28 October 2014 - 6:14am
Ellieb wrote:Do you really think that a study which involves only 76 crashes is conclusive proof?
Perhaps it is if you want it to be.
Which way?

Some of the studies which have looked at high vis didn't look at any crashes...

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

27 October 2014 - 10:35pm
Many sporting riders are Rapha clones or Team Sky wannabes. Team Sky kit is black, so is the kit of the Rapha-Condor racing team. Go into any bike shop and you are faced with a choice of ill-fitting Hi-viz or figure-hugging black lycra.

There are other coloured tops available but you have to shop around for them. Try buying bottoms in any colour that isn't black - you may be there some time.

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

27 October 2014 - 10:33pm
Do you really think that a study which involves only 76 crashes is conclusive proof?
Perhaps it is if you want it to be.

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

27 October 2014 - 10:16pm
Sagwagon wrote:I never said it was equal responsibility but a cyclist can help themselves and should.

Given that hi-viz has been shown to have no effect on cyclist safety exactly how does it help a cyclist help themselves?

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

27 October 2014 - 9:59pm
mjr wrote:Mick F wrote:I dress like a banana with a funny hat, plus wear mitts and have a mirror, plus have "visibility lights".
None of this can do any harm, and if it helps, that's good innit?
It can do harm... by helping to make cycling look like the sort of activity that is so dangerous it requires special protective clothing. We should join forces with walker safety organisations and reject this assault by motoring intersts.
+1

Re: Mudguard suggestions please

27 October 2014 - 9:47pm
Parlez-vous Francais? Salmon, web site seems to be down; quelle domage.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

27 October 2014 - 9:44pm
Yes, the OP question seems to be about the civil offence of trespass, the "usual accompaniment".

Motor vehicles generally can't be driven off-road or on a footpath (except within 15 yards of a road in order to park there, etc). RTA 1988 s34. This restriction is for motor vehicles, which don't include bikes.

Re: Mudguard suggestions please

27 October 2014 - 9:37pm
Thanks all for the suggestions. The SKS Race Blade XL is probably my best bet the problem is that they are a bit finicky in terms of fitting them. I've had them on a previous bike and they don't last a full season without rubbing/making noise etc... quite high maint in my opinion. I wish there was a mudguard that had two pieces... one for in front of the brake caliper and the other behind!

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