CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 11 min 38 sec ago

Re: Cycling Tips 1936

29 August 2015 - 11:48am
Regarding the brake on the left of the bike, I heard that the reason that most bikes have the rear brake on the left in the UK is so that you have more control over the bike when signalling to turn right - the assumption being that the rear brake gives more control. In countries where traffic is on the right hand side of the road, the brakes are the other way round (apparently).

What surprised me about the clip was the shallow angle that she crossed those tram tracks.

Re: losing the stabilisers

29 August 2015 - 11:35am
Well done! You should be looking forward to the years to come when she'll be dropping you on the sprints and the climbs!

I remember, I never had stabilisers, I graduated straight from tricycle to two wheels and I'm fairly sure I mastered the balance thing and was riding confidently on the road, within less than a day. I remember my mother coming home from work and being amazed at the progress I'd made. I would have been about eight or nine at the time. My sister took a while longer, she had been on stabilisers. I have in my possession some charming 8mm footage of her first attempts, not very successful, at starting herself going on two wheels for the first time. Eventually, as the film shows, she made it, albeit rather wobbly.

Re: Shoreham air crash

29 August 2015 - 11:25am
Brucey wrote:Flinders wrote:It's still ridiculous, I'm afraid, to suggest that someone driving past a piece of land should be regarded as accepting the risk of things that may be taking place there....

I live near an airfield, with whom I have no problems, and was only the other day driving down the M1 past Kegworth. And I can see, if you can't, the difference between a commercial aircraft that has to have a flight path over roads because there is no other way....
I can see where you are coming from but I don't agree. You choose where you go and the risks are different wherever that is. Not all public roads are equally safe and if most people don't think about that when they are driving around, more fool them.
I think a lot depends on the detail. Not necessarily relevant to the Shoreham tragedy, but if you check out an area in detail, buy a house there 'cos all looks safe and then a few years later somebody comes along and builds e.g. an incinerator (health risks) next door then you don't have a choice. Were people driving along the road there "by choice" or not (e.g. going to do the shopping is something you pretty well have to do whilst going to watch an air display (e.g. from outside the airfield) is something you do have a choice about. Where I feel the case against something is stronger is when it is impacting people who don't really have much choice (or limited choice).

For example, I'm afraid I have less sympathy for people who buy a house at the end of a busy runway then complain about the noise yet have a lot of sympathy for people who buy a house in a quiet area then somebody comes along and builds a runway ending by their house.

Technically most people pretty well always "have a choice" and it comes down to a question of degree. People having to go shopping could delay their trip until after external high risks have passed and maybe e.g. miss taking their kids out to football ... People who have a runway build beside their house could sell-up at a massive loss.

Ian

Re: Shoreham air crash

29 August 2015 - 10:57am
Flinders wrote:It's still ridiculous, I'm afraid, to suggest that someone driving past a piece of land should be regarded as accepting the risk of things that may be taking place there....

I live near an airfield, with whom I have no problems, and was only the other day driving down the M1 past Kegworth. And I can see, if you can't, the difference between a commercial aircraft that has to have a flight path over roads because there is no other way....

I can see where you are coming from but I don't agree. You choose where you go and the risks are different wherever that is. Not all public roads are equally safe and if most people don't think about that when they are driving around, more fool them.

FWIW you could (easily) mandate that airports are built in places/such a way that aircraft don't go lower than a certain altitude over houses and roads. The reason this isn't done is just money; occasionally killing people is cheaper and the public believe it is 'an acceptable risk'.

cheers

Re: Bike provision on Beeston tram route and a question

29 August 2015 - 10:56am
Even though I cycle I would much rather see trams than busses in cities as a lot of people regard buses as an "inferior" form of transport so stick with their cars, but trams don't seem to have the same sort of poor image that busses have and they are much more pleasant to use than busses.

I notice in many continental towns there are a lot of trams AND a lot of cyclists so it shows that the two can happily co-exist.

Re: losing the stabilisers

29 August 2015 - 10:35am
nice story. I remember the first time I became independant on my little black bike. My dad would walk holding the seat as I rode then bit by bit releasing hold or putting back hand.

Re: Shoreham air crash

29 August 2015 - 9:53am
Flinders wrote:The one risk we factor in as it is unavoidable unless we do no commercial flying. The other is avoidable without banning airshows, or even stunts.

The only reason for commercial flying is because there is a demand for it from a sizeable proportion of the population. The only reason for airshows is because there is a demand for it from a sizeable proportion of the population. In both cases there is a proportion of the population that is not part of the demand but that suffers negative consequences as a result. I read that in the Shoreham case, apparently all of the victims were local and some of them were there to watch the airshow from outside the airfield.

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

29 August 2015 - 9:24am
irc wrote:

What can we learn? That if you have an altercation and near miss with someone you are better watch their reaction just in case they are not normal. I've had people attempt something similar with no provocation. She knew something was happening when said "please don't knock me off" but even then didn't think it prudent to do a shoulder check after passing him. The attack wasn't out the blue.

What can we learn? That it might have been better to avoid the near miss by braking or swerving round him.

As for too much time spent analyzing incidents? Perhaps, but feel free not to contribute.

IMO it's too much of an assumption to state that the attack wasn't out of the blue in the sense that she could have predicted it. How do really know this? Say she looked back, what would that do?

And as for breaking or swearing, we have no idea about the speed or how close the traffic was behind to gauge whether that was a good idea. We also don't really know how close they were or whether there was almost a collision. We are judging this by her words ''please don't knock me off'' which cannot be understood unless we ask her why she said that.

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

29 August 2015 - 9:00am
aspiringcyclist wrote:irc wrote:
Not at all. We frequently discuss incidents in hindsight. We can often learn by doing this. Not any different from discussing whether riding in primary might have made a crash less likely. In some organisations they have formal debriefs after serious incidents to ascertain with the benefit of hindsight whether anything might have been done better. The ones I've been involved in have not been about blaming but about learning. Better to learn from someone else's mistake than to make them all yourself.

What exactly can we learn here?

This is not a common occurance and isn't very predictable. If someone is willing to push another preson riding a bike into heavy traffic for something as minor as an alleged 'hand sign' then we are not dealing with a normally functioning individual.

What can we learn? That if you have an altercation and near miss with someone you are better watch their reaction just in case they are not normal. I've had people attempt something similar with no provocation. She knew something was happening when said "please don't knock me off" but even then didn't think it prudent to do a shoulder check after passing him. The attack wasn't out the blue.

What can we learn? That it might have been better to avoid the near miss by braking or swerving round him.

As for too much time spent analyzing incidents? Perhaps, but feel free not to contribute.

losing the stabilisers

29 August 2015 - 8:23am
One month until her 9th birthday and my youngest has finally taken to two wheels!

Her mum hasn't been too helpful in this challenge as telling Erin the reason she couldn't stay upright was because of her talpies condition. Way to knock a little girls confidence. Pfft!
I removed and binned those stupid troublesome training wheels over a month ago as I had come to the conclusion that they were just a hindrance. Several attempts in the past at getting her to balance with them on but bent up had been marred as the wheels inevitably hit the ground and sent the bike in all sorts of directions. Needless to say, removing them had the effect that she wouldn't go near the bike as she feared falling off. Erin decided to give it another go last week after discovering that her younger cousin had lost his stabilisers and that if he could do it, so could she.
The two girls and I met my sister and her two boys at Queens Park at 11am and after she watched Sam racing off she was raring to go. I have to say, pushing my little girl and letting go of her was one of the scariest things I've ever done. Watching in horror as she sped away toward the bushes. Yep, she crashed into them. But up until that point, she was on two wheels. The return trip was halted by boggy grass and that had her off again. Third time she only hit the grass when she stopped via the brakes.
Now it was time to get her to take off on her own. I had difficulty explaining this one so it was left to her 5 yr old cousin to explain and demonstrate that procedure. This was only his second day of riding since losing those wretched stabilisers.
By 1pm the pair of them were riding all over the park with the biggest smiles you could imagine. Ice creams all round was the topping to the cake. Brilliant day. Proud daddy

https://youtu.be/paNyZN9dsME

https://youtu.be/qWmK8mgmlNs

Erin is now planning on touring with me next year with the condition that her panniers are pink and that her buildabear How To Train Your Dragon Toothless dragon does the navigating from her pink princess bar bag. Seems reasonable to me



Ps. If anyone knows of any bikability type ccourses in the Bolton or Darwen areas I'd love to hear about them. The local councils of these areas Web pages are completely useless in this search.

Re: Shoreham air crash

29 August 2015 - 7:52am
It's still ridiculous, I'm afraid, to suggest that someone driving past a piece of land should be regarded as accepting the risk of things that may be taking place there. For some roads there is no alternative route, and road signs don't tell you what private citizens may be doing on all the plots of land alongside.

If landowners wish to do something on their land that is dangerous, that's up to them. If people choose to go to an event knowing those risks, that's up to them. But if someone is doing something dangerous outside that land, that can't be regarded as something that is a risk that has been accepted by people outside the landowner's area.

I think you will find that's how the law regards it. And though I personally am not against air shows, I'm not so daft as not to be able to see that the attitude that people outside the venue have taken the risk knowingly that they will be landed on by a stunt flyer just because they drove down a public road is the attitude best likely to provoke the public into wanting air shows banned.

I live near an airfield, with whom I have no problems, and was only the other day driving down the M1 past Kegworth. And I can see, if you can't, the difference between a commercial aircraft that has to have a flight path over roads because there is no other way, and a venue choosing to do actual stunts over roads and houses. The one risk we factor in as it is unavoidable unless we do no commercial flying. The other is avoidable without banning airshows, or even stunts.

Re: Shoreham air crash

29 August 2015 - 12:14am
Flinders wrote:
It's all about the risks we actively accept. People driving on the road had accepted the risk of driving, but not the risks of an airshow next to the road. However, I even heard one person suggest that simply by driving past an airfield they had accepted the extra risk, which is ridiculous...

ridiculous? Not at all. That is very similar to suggesting that if you drive near the sea, or over a bridge, there is no conceivable chance that your car might end up in the water, or that if you buy a house near an airport, you shouldn't have any increased risk that an aircraft is going to end up in your garden or drop 'loo ice' on your house or anything like that. Only a moron wouldn't ever think about such things, or not realise that there was some added risk.

Every time I drive past an airfield I'm looking out for planes; it is just common sense to do so. On the M25 near Heathrow you are regularly beneath 400 tonnes of aircraft that is only a few kts above its stall speed; in the event of catastrophic multiple engine failure (which can and does happen from time to time, mostly at take off or landing) it is quite likely that you will be sharing the road with a jumbo jet, and knowing that this might happen is a good start to self preservation.

If you are arguing that people driving on the A27 didn't know the airfield was there and didn't think about it, I'd argue that they perhaps should have done; its been while since I was down that way, but there are signs, right? If nothing else, if aware of aircraft motorists would then not be startled by aircraft suddenly appearing, which can and does cause accidents in its own right.

As it happens a commercial plane is liable to go in doing less than 100mph and you have a pretty good chance of seeing it coming; a military jet doing aerobatics, less so. Thus I'm not sure awareness would have made much practical difference in this event, I think that some people would have been killed in any event. But I would also suggest that there were very probably some folk who were keeping their eyes peeled, saw what was happening and took avoiding action, too.

As you say it is all about what people perceive to be 'acceptable risk' but that is not the same thing as 'no risk'. Commercial planes come down in built-up areas and squash people quite often; I think you should be aware of that possibility anytime you are near an airfield.

BTW There is a list of prangs here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_accidents_and_incidents_resulting_in_at_least_50_fatalities

in which there were at least fifty casualties (all types) in the crash and on this list they identify bystander casualties. Bystanders are not killed in most crashes but they do form a significant percentage of the whole. You will note that there are about 500 items on this list which means that on average there are about five crashes per year that kill enough people to make it onto the list. The actual rate is a fair bit higher than that because although people have been flying for about 100 years, the vast majority of these prangs have happened in the last 65 years, since commercial aviation 'took off' (ahem). Very few (any?) items on this list are airshow accidents.

cheers

Re: Shoreham air crash

28 August 2015 - 11:35pm
Latest update shows that the fears expressed in the OP were well-founded: at least one of the victims was a cyclist.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/13633846 ... _of_crash/
RIP.

Re: Shoreham air crash

28 August 2015 - 10:54pm
Brucey wrote:1gunsalute wrote: I do object to people doing things that put third parties' lives at risk. Commercial flights really don't do that (at least not directly, let's not get onto climate change).

fair point about third party risk and that is what the recent policy changes are intended to address. But that is a matter more of perception than actual numbers.

Despite the risks being vanishingly small, commercial flights have killed far more innocent bystanders than air displays have (or ever will), and that is before you get into all the collateral damage that commercial aviation causes, which is plentiful and includes many things other than climate change.

If you wanted not to endanger others you wouldn't fly, drive a car, go out in public if you thought you might have any infectious virus, or any one of a hundred other everyday things.

Remember the law of unintended consequences? Well, I think that if vintage jets are banned from aerobatic manoeuvres, the whole attitude to maintaining and operating them is liable to become more lax. I don't care what the rules say, that is just human nature....

cheers

It's all about the risks we actively accept. People driving on the road had accepted the risk of driving, but not the risks of an airshow next to the road. However, I even heard one person suggest that simply by driving past an airfield they had accepted the extra risk, which is ridiculous.

For now, nobody knows why it happened, and the CAA seem to me to be doing exactly the right things in the interim until investigations have been completed, which can take a very long time as it's a complicated situation. They have grounded the specific aircraft in case it is structural, limited the activities of older aircraft in case that may be a factor, and are looking into airshow procedures to see if risks might be able to be better controlled.
There really isn't much else sensible to say about it until the cause(s) is/are known.

Re: Pre-ride (or pre-drive) checks.

28 August 2015 - 10:46pm
Years ago in London, where I used to have to lock my bike up in public every day, I'd check brakes, tyres, and also check no toerag had nicked the batteries in my Ever Ready lights (because they did one night ). I used to have to adjust brake cables practically once a week - these days cables don't stretch like they used to and being rural now I don't do the stop-start mileage- they go a year without needing adjustment.

Pre-run checks now are tyre pressure (by finger and thumb, and additionally by pump if in doubt) and brakes as I roll across the drive. Also I try to remember to reset the computer, but sometimes forget.

Re: Bike provision on Beeston tram route and a question

28 August 2015 - 10:34pm
I think the problem is that the people who plan and design transport networks are generally not cyclists and have no understanding of the needs of cyclists. I live 15 miles southwest of Nottingham and I have commuted from home to work but this was via Trent Lock and the canal towpath and cycle path via Attenborough and Beeston Marina then canal to the City.

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

28 August 2015 - 9:05pm
irc wrote:
Not at all. We frequently discuss incidents in hindsight. We can often learn by doing this. Not any different from discussing whether riding in primary might have made a crash less likely. In some organisations they have formal debriefs after serious incidents to ascertain with the benefit of hindsight whether anything might have been done better. The ones I've been involved in have not been about blaming but about learning. Better to learn from someone else's mistake than to make them all yourself.

What exactly can we learn here?

This is not a common occurance and isn't very predictable. If someone is willing to push another preson riding a bike into heavy traffic for something as minor as an alleged 'hand sign' then we are not dealing with a normally functioning individual.

You can always find something you could have done 'better' but the level of scrutiny that is sometimes given to these sorts of incidents borders on the absurd. I remember seeing a thread with the met police officer passing a cyclist really closely and many were in a debate about how early he was taking the right hand lane.

Re: Home made electrolyte solution

28 August 2015 - 9:04pm
Yes the Aldi juice I have is called double strength squash ( mines orange+pineapple flavour ) with no added sugar. I didn't want that I'd prefer to add if I felt it necessary which I don't, but at the time I bought it I also bought some honey as an alternative sweetener but have never required it. It takes very little of the concentrate to give plenty of flavour. Using Aldis mix strength( which I don't, mines weaker ) the 1.5 litre bottle makes 13.5 litres of drink, about 5p per 500ml bike bottle plus 1/2p worth of salt and 1/2 p of bicarb so 6p per 500ml serving.... most definitely cheaper than energy tabs etc. Carbs wise this wouldn't have many so you'd still need to eat but I simply need an electrolyte replacement as I sweat like a burst pipe. I know energy drinks have other super ingredients that turn us into pro peleton athletes but I can't say I've noticed any difference using SIS drink or home made as I'm not a top level athlete.

Re: Pre-ride (or pre-drive) checks.

28 August 2015 - 8:46pm
I always squeeze the tyres as I pick up the bike and touch the brakes as I climb on.

On the motorbike I usually touch the brake and check I can see the glow from the brake light illuminating the garage before I leave.

In the car I find TPMS useful, I tend to flick through to the TPMS screen and it's comforting to see the tyre pressures all equal. Beyond that I do leave it up to modern electronics to warn me of any impending doom; and even then when it does tell me something like "parking sensor failure, go to dealer" I've learnt to simply switch off and start again and they usually go away.

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

28 August 2015 - 8:39pm
The offender handed himself to the police, but only after the vid was released. He must have realised he could not escape, with his ugly mug all over the Internet. I'd like to think this could be a turning point, with the police taking road crime seriously, and video evidence from victims taken notice of. We'll see, although I'm not holding my breath.

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