CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 2 hours 27 min ago

Re: Superhighway

7 February 2015 - 9:31am


Here is a video explaining some solutions to the junction/side road problem.

Re: Any practical advice to reduce heart rate?

7 February 2015 - 9:25am
Just looked at the strava link, so 163av for 23kph av.....
I think maybe your weight might have a bearing, more body for the heart to pump the nutrients to....

Ok I am a little older than you, but first started to race with a HRM when in my 30's. I race time trials at 35-40kph/av at 160-170 hr and yes i have been riding a bike a lot longer and am not as tall or as weighty as you....
20 yrs on and i still race at the above averages. When i ride on the flat at your speeds i would be averaging 110-130hr.

I think there is a combination of things going on here, lack of overall fitness, your weight and relatively new to cycling (sport?).
It does however sound to be a bit on the high side and personally i would get an MOT from my Dr.

Reporting this driver? Road safe or police?

7 February 2015 - 9:23am
aspiringcyclist wrote:I don't understand some of these responses. I already said that I wouldn't report the first incident because it isn't anything to report: I was just in a bad mood on that ride. The driver in the video pointless went into the right hand lane when he was going ahead. It was a petty complaint, as I said.

The second incident is what made me angry and what I spoke to the driver about. Even if he didn't 'have a problem with cyclists', he still clearly drives terribly around them and feels that it is acceptable. Incompetent and confident driving isn't something to take lightly.

The 1st incident is you cycling badly. No wonder you don't want to report it.

The 2nd incident is possibly the van driver at fault but that's up to the decision of the other cyclist to report it or not. So marginal I have my doubts. It's not up to you to confront members of the public about 3rd party incidents.

I don't think the police are going to be particularly interested in my opinion. I would leave it and start Monday's commute on a good note...hc

Re: Reporting this driver? Road safe or police?

7 February 2015 - 9:14am
The comment about finally getting the editing software prompts me to ask "When did this happen?" In the absence of an accident, there can be no prosecution for dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving if a Notice of Intended Prosecution is not served on the keeper or driver and that would have to be posted to arrive within 14 days of the alleged offence.

Based on the reported experience of others I'd say, don't waste your time trying to report this to the police, even if it's still within that fortnight.

Beyond that, my own experience with dealing with traffic offences (which pre-dates camcorders) makes me think that this would have been a non-starter, even in the days when the prosecution of traffic offences was a higher priority. I'm referring here to evidence for a prosecution and I can't see much of that in the footage. As is often the case, the effect of the lens here may tend to distort reality (eg the gas van on your offside at one point looks almost as long as a railway carriage.) A witness to the events may be corroborated by a vid but getting angry tends to reduce a witness's credibility.

While the overtake of the other rider didn't comply with the Highway Code, it didn't seem to bother the rider much eg he seemed to ride past during your exchange with the driver without even bothering to look what was going on.

Doubts have been expressed about confronting the driver. The only significant evidential value I can think of is that with a helmet camera, a mugshot of the driver would help identification if it were to be disputed.

Re: Reporting this driver? Road safe or police?

7 February 2015 - 9:08am
aspiringcyclist wrote:I don't understand some of these responses. I already said that I wouldn't report the first incident because it isn't anything to report: I was just in a bad mood on that ride. The driver in the video pointless went into the right hand lane when he was going ahead. It was a petty complaint, as I said.

The second incident is what made me angry and what I spoke to the driver about. Even if he didn't 'have a problem with cyclists', he still clearly drives terribly around them and feels that it is acceptable. Incompetent and confident driving isn't something to take lightly.

+1

Re: Reporting this driver? Road safe or police?

7 February 2015 - 9:04am
I don't understand some of these responses. I already said that I wouldn't report the first incident because it isn't anything to report: I was just in a bad mood on that ride. The driver in the video pointless went into the right hand lane when he was going ahead. It was a petty complaint, as I said.

The second incident is what made me angry and what I spoke to the driver about. Even if he didn't 'have a problem with cyclists', he still clearly drives terribly around them and feels that it is acceptable. Incompetent and confident driving isn't something to take lightly.

Re: Superhighway

7 February 2015 - 7:41am
TonyR wrote:Mark1978 wrote:I do despair when people trot out the same old things about cycling with heavy traffic being fine etc.

No it isn't but the answer is not to confine the cyclists to small ghettos and make everywhere else off limits, its to deal with the traffic, as the Dutch have done, to make it fine to cycle everywhere. If we're talking about the same old things being trotted out, segregated facilities have been trotted out as the answer and built for over 70 years now and it hasn't worked. Royal College St in London was the pinnacle of the local activists' achievement until it was found it was causing more accidents than before and then the tired old excuse "but they didn't build it properly" was trotted out yet again and they had another go. Its time to admit if you can't get it right in 70 years you probably won't do any better in the next seventy years and try a different approach. One of controlling the motorised traffic, not the cyclists.

Nice strawnan... No one has ever talked about stopping cyclists riding on the road.

Re: Superhighway

7 February 2015 - 7:40am
TonyR wrote:mjr wrote:It need not make cycling more dangerous, slower or less convenient. Do the cycleways alongside the harbour through Bristol's Castle Park and from Counterslip to Temple Quay do any of that? What about the cycleway by the road up the north side of Temple Meads station?

Show me the data that shows what you claim is true and not just a wishful assumption. Wherever people have collected the data it has shown cycle facilities to be more dangerous than the road so why should Bristol be any different?

Profpointy made the original assertion, so its up to him to provide evidence Tha segregation is more dangerous, not the other way round.

Re: Reporting this driver? Road safe or police?

7 February 2015 - 2:25am
I wouldnt ride like the cyclist in the footage. I clearly think he ignored the vans signalled intent to change lanes, and go up the inside, and when blocked started in on the verbals. He should have given way to the van driver. The 2nd incident where the van overtakes the cyclist clearly looked a case of dangerous driving, but without it being reported by that cyclist nothing is likely to be done. 3rdly the cyclist with the cam lost his marbles and went to have a natter in a place that wasnt safe because of the 1st incident.
In terms of my own personal risk assessment I view that kind of cycling as the sort thats likely to get me killed if i did it. Im far happier just sitting in primary behind the van, and waiting.

Sorry about disagreeing but I just see it as the sort of typical commuter-cyclist-expects-right-of-way-behaviour i see all day long in london, and its this that gives cyclists a bad rep.

Re: Superhighway

7 February 2015 - 1:00am
TonyR wrote:mjr wrote:It need not make cycling more dangerous, slower or less convenient. Do the cycleways alongside the harbour through Bristol's Castle Park and from Counterslip to Temple Quay do any of that? What about the cycleway by the road up the north side of Temple Meads station?

Show me the data that shows what you claim is true and not just a wishful assumption.
Bristol's Castle Park: cycleway is 500m with priority and no reported collisions, road route (via Newgate) is 800m with at least two sets of traffic lights and a few junctions and 10 reported collisions along route (1 serious at junction with Union Street).

Counterslip to Temple Quay: cycleway is 600m with one road crossing (Friary) and no reported collisions (I wouldn't have been surprised by one on that crossing), road route (via Victoria Street) is 900m with I'm not sure how many traffic lights around Temple Circus, 8 junctions and 14 reported collisions along the route (5 serious).

Distances from http://cycle.travel/map, collisions from http://bristol.cyclestreets.net/collisions (and I think I'm being generous in not counting some which are at the ends of the road routes) and descriptions from maps and memory.

So both seem faster, safer and more convenient. This shouldn't be surprising: I think I've ridden all of those quite a bit over the years and I chose them because I knew they were like heaven and hell!
Wherever people have collected the data it has shown cycle facilities to be more dangerous than the road so why should Bristol be any different?
Now show me your data, but if it's Franklin's Redway data, then I'll laugh at it for reasons me and others give on http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/cyclynn/redways#comments and the earlier page.

Re: Superhighway

7 February 2015 - 12:13am
TonyR wrote:Royal College St in London was the pinnacle of the local activists' achievement until it was found it was causing more accidents than before and then the tired old excuse "but they didn't build it properly" was trotted out yet again and they had another go.
Nice narrative, but is it true? http://www.voleospeed.co.uk/2011/06/und ... -deja.html suggests not.

Re: Superhighway

7 February 2015 - 12:04am
mjr wrote:It need not make cycling more dangerous, slower or less convenient. Do the cycleways alongside the harbour through Bristol's Castle Park and from Counterslip to Temple Quay do any of that? What about the cycleway by the road up the north side of Temple Meads station?

Show me the data that shows what you claim is true and not just a wishful assumption. Wherever people have collected the data it has shown cycle facilities to be more dangerous than the road so why should Bristol be any different?

Re: Superhighway

7 February 2015 - 12:01am
mjr wrote:That's not modal share and Cambridge has quite a lot of infrastructure, although more routes use modal filtering than protected space, but the commuter share has increased to 30% from about 25% since 2001 and during that time, Cambridge has been building more protected space as well as even more modal filtering

So where has this "more protected space" been built exactly?

London has 3.9% cycle-commuting; most people living in Hackney ride to or through Camden which does have some infrastructure; Central London numbers aren't published as such but Inner London is, which at 6.5% seems far from "dominant", doesn't it?

"Bikes now make up around 16% of traffic in Central London, rising to around a quarter or even half of all journeys on some routes during peak hours."
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/pr ... ords-began

"The biggest ever census of bike use in the city reveals one in four road users during the morning rush hour is a cyclist - and on key routes such as river crossings and roundabouts bikes even outnumber all other vehicles."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/m ... 71069.html

You were saying?

... Bristol has spent a lot of money on cycling infrastructure but doesn't make the top list
I think it's fair to say that Bristol hasn't been spending a lot of money for very long, much of what they spent was spent unwisely (converted paths with trees) until very recently, plus there's been quite a history of favouring motor vehicles to overcome (there was a dual carriageway diagonally through a fine Georgian city centre square 1937-2000).

"Bristol has become England's first "cycling city" in a £100m government scheme aimed at encouraging cycling."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7462791.stm

Bottom line: what really would get the masses out on the bikes again? The answer may vary from place to place, but reallocating some road space from carriageway to cycleway seems like a good idea for London.

What would get the masses out cycling - try reading David Horton's Fear of Cycling.- http://www.copenhagenize.com/search?q=horton
What might get them cycling though is a ubiquitous network that goes wherever you need to go and is safe to cycle the whole way. Its called the road network with controls on motor vehicles.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 11:39pm
profpointy wrote:That's dishonest argument to malign the motives of those (like me) who disagree with you. All I see in towns is infrastructure which makes cycling more dangerous, slower, and less convenient. Apparently I should embrace this extra risk because somehow it will help a mythical six year old.
It need not make cycling more dangerous, slower or less convenient. Do the cycleways alongside the harbour through Bristol's Castle Park and from Counterslip to Temple Quay do any of that? What about the cycleway by the road up the north side of Temple Meads station? Would you prefer to still be mixing it with taxis, buses and confused motorists in front of the station like we used to?

Now, many towns have built some crap, but not all cycleways need be crap. You need not have constant stop start at junctions if there's good intervisibility, but very few yet have been built that way in this country.

Conversely, good cycleways are essential for making cycle journeys practical. Ordinary people get fed up with having motorists tailgating them for large stretches. There are several ways to avoid that but do nothing and claim the current crap is "quite good" isn't one of them!

Now, the real risk is in my view (opinion only = can't back this up) is on roads outside towns, which ain't getting cycle lanes any time soon.
My current home borough is roughly two-thirds rural. If I'm remembering correctly, you're not as likely to be involved in a collision riding on rural roads, but collisions are more likely to be deadly.

Most of the worst A roads are avoidable by using a shorter route, so you don't need to be on them long (especially if care is taken when building bypasses, but that hasn't always happened) and the remaining minority usually have space where cycleways could be built to complete the links. The difficult (=expensive) bits will be widening things like bridges if needed - ideally to add a protected cycleway, but at least to make lanes or add mixed-use paths.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 11:20pm
TonyR wrote:Mark1978 wrote:The only time cycling modal share has had any big impact is when there is the infrastructure to support it.

Really?

Cambridge has a higher modal share than anywhere - up at Dutch levels at about 30% - and yet has very little infrastructure.
That's not modal share and Cambridge has quite a lot of infrastructure, although more routes use modal filtering than protected space, but the commuter share has increased to 30% from about 25% since 2001 and during that time, Cambridge has been building more protected space as well as even more modal filtering
London now has very high levels of cycling with very little infrastructure to help - in Hackney its 14% and in Central London now cycling is the dominant commuting mode.
London has 3.9% cycle-commuting; most people living in Hackney ride to or through Camden which does have some infrastructure; Central London numbers aren't published as such but Inner London is, which at 6.5% seems far from "dominant", doesn't it?
... Bristol has spent a lot of money on cycling infrastructure but doesn't make the top list
I think it's fair to say that Bristol hasn't been spending a lot of money for very long, much of what they spent was spent unwisely (converted paths with trees) until very recently, plus there's been quite a history of favouring motor vehicles to overcome (there was a dual carriageway diagonally through a fine Georgian city centre square 1937-2000). At 7.5% then no, it's not in the top few, but if London "has very high levels" with 3.9% then what is that?
Milton Keynes, East Kilbride, Stevenage have lots of good infrastructure and very little cycling - about 2% modal share.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/20 ... g-to-work-
Ohhhh you can't write that mix of old falsehoods (MK doesn't have good infrastructure but also doesn't have little cycling) and then link to something that shows Milton Keynes a 2.8% national average level of cycle-commuting (not modal share) and doesn't include East Kilbride!

That is also a bit misleading because as well as poor motor-centric plans, both MK and Stevenage have fast trains and commuter services to London. When you look at maps like http://datashine.org.uk/#table=QS701EW& ... at=51.8917 you can see that effect all around London, with all the commuting towns being a bit darker than similar-size towns elsewhere in the country. If you look at the Active People Survey instead, which isn't only commuters, then many of those places show much higher levels of regular cycling.

In short, the statistics paint a rather more complex picture and it seems completely wrong to abuse them to suggest "infrastructure is useless".

What would be more interesting would be how people feel about cycling on routes with different measures. I do ride on the carriageway when I must (including when a cycleway is crap for some reason) but I prefer to ride routes with fewer or no motors. Isn't that true of most people, given the choice?

Bottom line: what really would get the masses out on the bikes again? The answer may vary from place to place, but reallocating some road space from carriageway to cycleway seems like a good idea for London.

Re: Reporting this driver? Road safe or police?

6 February 2015 - 10:58pm
Malaconotus wrote:The 2nd cyclist isn't in the gutter until the overtake puts them there.

I think he was (I full screened it and he's only 18" away AFAICS). I agree with 661-pete that the cyclist should have anticipated the pinch point in the traffic lane ahead and that someone would try to squeeze in.

I don't think it's reportable but it's totally inexcusable and it's sickening nonetheless.

I even wonder whether a bike lane here would be justified to keep the traffic to the right during the inevitable queues.

However, it shows why cyclists take the lane and in that sense it may be a really useful video for any motorist out there still unconvinced.

Re: Any practical advice to reduce heart rate?

6 February 2015 - 10:52pm
Rich_S wrote:The fat commuter wrote:One question, I'm assuming that you're not carrying around excess weight because I know first hand that that makes for a slow ride.

No, I pretty much take what I need.
I actually was being a bit more personal than that - are you overweight? 15 st is a lot of weight to carry around if you want to be a race cyclist (not as much as my 17 st though).
Look at people like Bradley Wiggins - over 6 ft and about 11 stone (if my Google search is correct).

Regarding fat burning and heart rate, I don't go for this 'fat burning range' of 120 - 140 bpm. Yes, as a percentage you will get more calories from fat - however, the total amount of fat burnt would be higher when exercising at a higher intensity - it's just that you'll also burn more readily available energy that is stored in your muscles.

Re: Any practical advice to reduce heart rate?

6 February 2015 - 10:31pm
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
Rich_S wrote:Sounds like it's going to be a slow ride this weekend.

Thanks guys!
Only applicable if you aim is to fat burn


That's not a bad plan, I'm about 6ft and just under 15 stone.

The fat commuter wrote:Which bit of you is holding you back? Is it your aerobic capacity or your power or something else?

I guess it's aerobic capacity... Well, I'm not sure anything is 'holding me back' ummm... Might need to give that one some thought - I guess I'd be out of breath when cycling up a steep hill

The fat commuter wrote:Someone else has mentioned varying your training regime. See if you can find a long gentle slope. This is easier in some parts of the UK than others.

Down in the southwest we have flat or hills, Not to many gradual slopes, I'll go 'hunting' and see what I can find to mix it up a bit.

The fat commuter wrote:One question, I'm assuming that you're not carrying around excess weight because I know first hand that that makes for a slow ride.

No, I pretty much take what I need.

By all means - take a look at my strava if it may help.....
https://www.strava.com/athletes/2208629 ... ce=top-nav

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 10:29pm
Mark1978 wrote:I do despair when people trot out the same old things about cycling with heavy traffic being fine etc. Well it isn't. Not for the majority of people.

In fact being against proper provision is rather selfish; it's great that you like city cycling most don't and will never do when they have to cycle with cars and lorries. So opposing it is a good way to keep cycling your exclusive little hobby.

The only time cycling modal share has had any big impact is when there is the infrastructure to support it.

I do feel ashamed on occasion that fellow cyclists are so anti mass cycling.

That's dishonest argument to malign the motives of those (like me) who disagree with you. All I see in towns is infrastructure which makes cycling more dangerous, slower, and less convenient. Apparently I should embrace this extra risk because somehow it will help a mythical six year old.

I am all for mass cycling - the more of us (by us I mean the general population) the better it will be for a whole host of reasons, but building more so called infrastructure which makes cycling worse, won't do it. I don't know where this "proper provision" existing - other than totally non-road routes on (say) disused railway lines - which by their nature go to and from places, bits and pieces of lanes don't help as essentially they make the junctions far more hazardous, and the constant stop start makes any journey longer than a pootle to the shops impractical on a bike.

I live in Bristol - quite good for cycling (mostly) even on seemingly cycle-unfriendly bits - but possibly because (again opinion) a fair few of us cycle. And by the way I'm talking practical cycle-to-work journey's here, not roadies out for a Sunday, nor pootling round the park as a leisure pursuit.

Now, the real risk is in my view (opinion only = can't back this up) is on roads outside towns, which ain't getting cycle lanes any time soon.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 9:55pm
honesty wrote:Since we've been mixed in with other traffic for almost 150 years and currently cycling is grumbling along at 2% share and drivers still try to kill you regularly, no.

No. If they are trying to kill you regularly they are remarkably unsuccessful at it. Their success rate is only about 1 in 20 million.

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