CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 25 min ago

Re: no wonder...

22 April 2015 - 6:31pm
Vorpal wrote:When dogs can drive, it's no wonder that driving standards are deteriorating...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... are_btn_fb

Oh,I don't know,I've seen cleverer dogs than some humans behind the wheel

Re: no wonder...

22 April 2015 - 5:42pm
Don't hound him. He was only trying to get to Barking...

Re: Sad news from Nottingham

22 April 2015 - 4:01pm
The whole ring road has a wide pavement that's been turned into a reasonable cycle path, separated from the road by a grass verge mostly, with toucan crossings at most of the junctions. NCN route 6 passes within 200 yards of where this accident happened. I'd have been on that rather than the Ring Road path at this point. The western section of the ring road has reasonable paths throughout. They do get a bit more disjointed on the northern section, but this accident was on the western section, nears the ring road/A52 junction.

The council/HA have spent quite a bit of money in recent years to get the path up to standard (sometimes at the expense of other routes within the city).

Can't vouch for the signage but anyone local would know it's safer on the path.

Re: Sad news from Nottingham

22 April 2015 - 3:53pm
TrevA wrote:So sad but there is really no need for her to have been on the road at that point. There's a perfectly adequate cycle path on that stretch of road. I'm not normally in favour of segregation but it makes sense on the constantly busy, 4 lane racetrack that is the Nottingham Ring Road.
And it's well signed, obvious that it stays swept and the surface quality continues and where it will gracefully renter the road network?

No? Oh...

I only ask because without any confidence that a track doesn't turn into a single track, MTB only, path after a few hundred yards before dropping you onto the M6 why would you take it?

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

22 April 2015 - 3:51pm
iviehoff wrote:... give them the fines and there is incentive for abuse; don't give them the fines and they have no reason to operate the cameras at all. Economic theory suggests that there must be a better place part way between where they get a share of the fines, but not so much as to give them a strong incentive to run it as an abusive money-maker.
So if a lot of motorist choose of their own free will to break the law, then it is an abuse to catch and fine them??? With that attitude, there is no hope for the rest of us.

Re: Sad news from Nottingham

22 April 2015 - 3:09pm
So sad but there is really no need for her to have been on the road at that point. There's a perfectly adequate cycle path on that stretch of road. I'm not normally in favour of segregation but it makes sense on the constantly busy, 4 lane racetrack that is the Nottingham Ring Road.

no wonder...

22 April 2015 - 3:00pm
When dogs can drive, it's no wonder that driving standards are deteriorating...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... are_btn_fb

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

22 April 2015 - 2:15pm
thirdcrank wrote:Even without privatisation of that type, camera enforcement has been characterised as being income-driven. I think it's fair to say that the reluctance of some chief police officers to use more speed cameras has its roots here. I get the impression that "cash-strapped" local authorities have no such qualms, but E Pickles is keen to put a stop to it.

The police's reluctance to use more cameras these days comes from the fact that it costs them - someone else gets all the revenue. Some forces even closed all cameras down because of the budget cuts in the recession. You seem to have a choice between two bad places, give them the fines adn there is incentive for abuse; don't give them the fines and they have no reason to operate the cameras at all. Economic theory suggests that there must be a better place part way between where they get a share of the fines, but not so much as to give them a strong incentive to run it as an abusive money-maker.

Camera enforcement is commonly used in privately run car parks, and we know there is enforcement abuse by some cowboys. There is even greater potential for it to be abused in public parking enforcement, and I can therefore understand, in part, Mr Pickles' reluctance to allow it, as we would not wish our councils to be tempted by the potential gains from high productivity extortion.

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

22 April 2015 - 10:03am
Norman H wrote:Arm yourself with an OS map and get out there exploring.
+1 it's great fun

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

21 April 2015 - 10:57pm
Lancashire is one I know of with only C's and no D's, E's etc. Devon (IIRC) goes down to F's. As I said, unlike A and B roads, C, D, E, F, G, U, Q, X etc. are purely for local administration purposes without any set statutory definition, generally they end or change designation or number at administrative boundaries - a bit like public path numbers on definitive maps for that matter.

I agree I oversimplified what LA's may know about individual routes. This varies greatly but it is generally fair to say that unless there has been cause to investigate this (eg. for a definitive map order) they tend not to have too much info. Highway records have always been concerned primarily with maintenance liability rather than levels of public rights and this was a major reason for the creation of definitive maps of public rights in the first place. If an authority does believe they know the level of rights over an unrecorded route (and it is of a type which should be recorded on the definitive map) then they are neglecting their statutory duty to record it. This is actually now a very pressing issue. As it currently stands, on 1st January 2026 - a mere 10 1/2 years from now - all footpaths and bridleways which existed before 1949 (ie. when the definitive maps were created) but which are not recorded on the definitive maps will cease to be public highways. Non-vehicular highways need to be properly recorded ASAP.

RUPPs were recorded as part of the first definitive maps. The idea was to record very minor vehicular highways which were better considered as part of the ROW network than the road network. The eventual definition in the 1949 Act "a highway, other than a public path [footpath or bridleway*], used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths or bridleways are so used" with its apparent focus on use rather than rights caused instant confusion. The recording of RUPPs was very inconsistent and very incomplete. Many areas simply didn't bother recording any vehicular roads or omitted many because they weren't much used by walkers or equestrians, some others recorded footpaths or bridleways which ran along private access roads as RUPPs

LA's were required to reclassify all RUPPs by the Countryside Act 1968 (47 years ago). The act stated that the draft revision must be done within 3 years of the Act Rights of way have always been low on some LA's list of priorities and with many LAs not anywhere near completing this process in the intervening 38 years, parliament redesignated the remainder en masse as Restricted Byways (a newly created category) in 2006. I'm intrigued to know how you feel that motorists were advantaged by this process.

*Public Path was defined elsewhere in the act as the collective term for footpaths and bridleways.

Re: Tram takes bikes but only uphill!

21 April 2015 - 10:26pm
brynpoeth wrote:circa 1978 there was an agreement (CTC involved) that bikes could go free on trains, so many applied for free tickets that the website crashed (back then ) and then one could just take ones bike for free, no need for a ticket

I remember that, though I think it was 1977. I applied (by post, as this was pre-PC days) for two tickets in what I thought was good time, so that we could go to the York Rally. Unfortunately the demand was so high that not enough tickets had been printed, and we had to pay £3 for each bike - a significant amount of money in those days.

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

21 April 2015 - 10:19pm
I'm reasonably local (NW7) but I'm not sure I can be of much help as I mostly cycle on tarmac. One advantage of this area is that it's on the edge of the Green Belt and in only a few miles you can be on quiet country roads.

From Ruislip out through Harefield and on to the Chalfonts will get you into some excellent cycling countryside. This route crosses the Grand Union Canal which forms part or NR61. To the south NR61 takes you to Uxbridge, Windsor and Maidenhead, using for part of the way the tow path alongside the Canal and the Jubilee River. Heading north will take you to Rickmansworth which is another good jumping off point for the Chilterns. Here NR61 becomes The Ebury Way (old rail bed) which will take you to Watford and from there deeper into Hertfordshire to St Albans. At St Albans NR61 becomes The Alban Way, once again on old rail bed, and takes you west to Hatfield and beyond to Hoddesdon and Ware. Just to the north at Welyn Garden City is the Ayot Green Way (part of NR57) which links Welwyn Garden City and Wheathamstead and might form part of a circular tour.

Arm yourself with an OS map and get out there exploring.

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

21 April 2015 - 9:51pm
Bicycler wrote: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 .....
Surrey's C&D roads are published on this map eg http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=538763&y=148050&z=110&sv=538763,148050&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=797&ax=538763&ay=148050&lm=0 as well as their own website

LAs vary, and I have 4 around here!, but as far as I know all have "C" roads and "D" roads. I know West Sussex has "E" roads as well, but these are not primarily for vehicle use if at all. I think, at least some LAs, know or at least are aware of more than you give them credit for.

The green dotted routes are not necessarily unmade roads, but they do tend to be minor ones.

"Roads used as public paths" had to be reclassified starting about 15 years ago so they don't exist now. One judge, apparently, couldn't understand the concept. Many were reclassified as Public Bridleways rather than Byways. Sadly I think the reclassification gave more "right" to motor vehicles, but that's a personal view.

On this "B" road the public footpath ie right of way is along a section of it! (Yes I know the OS map doesn't show that, but OS has numerous mistakes) And this is sign to warn motorists, but how many realise the reason.

But if you cycle outside London, where there aren't PROWs, you come across these issues.

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

21 April 2015 - 7:16pm
samsbike wrote:Slow Loris I am in Ruislip

Ah. I'm quite a bit further east and am not familiar with Ruislip. The TFL local cycle guide 3 covers your area - it shows some off road tracks that may or may not be decent for cycling on. If you don't already have this map (free from TFL) it could be worth checking out.

If you make your way east towards Watford or Bushey and cross over the M1, there are some good off-road paths between there and Radlett – Otterspool and Bricket Wood common are very pleasant. You could combine these with some quiet lanes to make a circular route.

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

21 April 2015 - 6:26pm
Even without privatisation of that type, camera enforcement has been characterised as being income-driven. I think it's fair to say that the reluctance of some chief police officers to use more speed cameras has its roots here. I get the impression that "cash-strapped" local authorities have no such qualms, but E Pickles is keen to put a stop to it.

The activities of Jonathon Wild gave "cash for collars" a bad name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wild

Sad news from Nottingham

21 April 2015 - 6:15pm

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

21 April 2015 - 6:08pm
Slow Loris I am in Ruislip

Re: fewer motorists fined for mobile use

21 April 2015 - 5:17pm
Using a mobile, speeding and lack of seatbelt should be outsourced to a g4s or serco to enforce for a percentage of the fines ( 50 pct ? )

any speeding over a certain percentage can then be given to the police for full prosecutions.

If there was a commercial incentive to enforce then I am sure people would soon stop.

Re: Tram takes bikes but only uphill!

21 April 2015 - 5:07pm
circa 1978 there was an agreement (CTC involved) that bikes could go free on trains, so many applied for free tickets that the website crashed (back then ) and then one could just take ones bike for free, no need for a ticket

another time a railway manager said: he had learned as a boy never to cycle so far from home that he could not cycle back before the gloaming.

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

21 April 2015 - 4:45pm
samsbike wrote: Unfortunately my commute home is through London which is no fun and I despise the canal path.

I just need to find something around NWLondon and Bucks that has a reasonable loop.

To the OP – whereabouts in NW London are you? I may be able to give you some pointers. If you're near Harrow/Watford it would be worth getting OS Landranger map 166 – there are a few off-road routes around West Herts / Chilterns which are non-technical and very pleasant when it's dry. As others have said, one of the best ways to find suitable routes is to go out exploring.

For Bucks, Wendover Woods is popular for MTB trails and easily accessible by train - Chiltern rail to Wendover. Another option is to hop on the Metropolitan line to Amersham or Chesham and check out the bridleways and byways there. The OS Explorer maps are ideal for those as they have more detail than the Landranger series. The Ridgeway has already been mentioned – it would be a long slog but there are great views from the top of Ivinghoe Beacon. I've no experience of off-roading in the Chilterns but I've often seen riders when I've been out walking.

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