CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 3 hours 10 min ago

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 9:45pm
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.

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.

Oxford has very little infrastructure but modal share of around 17%

Bristol has spent a lot of money on cycling infrastructure but doesn't make the top list

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-

Re: Any practical advice to reduce heart rate?

6 February 2015 - 9:41pm
Which bit of you is holding you back? Is it your aerobic capacity or your power or something else?

Are you out of breath when you train or is it that you haven't got enough strength? If you are training with an elevated heart rate at the level that you say you are then I would say that you maybe need to look at other aspects of your training.

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. Where I live in Sheffield about half of my eight mile ride home is up a constant uphill slope - that's about four miles of continual uphill. I can use this for strength training for legs - obviously also raises my heart rate. Going the other way, I can pedal with little load on my legs but fast - improves my aerobic capacity. Also look at fartlec interval training.

There is more than just cardio to think about with training. I'm no sports scientist but I'm sure that there are things like how much glycogen your muscles can store. How easily can they get rid of lactic acid.

I'm wondering whether strength training at a gym maybe of some use.

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.

Re: Reporting this driver? Road safe or police?

6 February 2015 - 9:31pm
The 2nd cyclist isn't in the gutter until the overtake puts them there. The driving is careless. The video should go to the police.

Re: Any practical advice to reduce heart rate?

6 February 2015 - 9:17pm
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
I spent all last year on a 50 Ib MTB bike, road course with 20 % off road lots of stop starts and a couple of step hills thrown in, all at 80 % Max HR.
For me this has been my best training...................for road endurance on a road bike.
Its thought that working in one zone improves the other as you sway in and out of zones.
I don't think it needs to be religiously sticking to a particular HR.

Re: How Heavy is too Heavy?

6 February 2015 - 8:54pm
In the whole year of 2012 that I was with the club, only once was I sat in a position that allowed me to keep an eye on the bike and that was during the height of summer when we were sitting outside the cafe soaking up the sun.
The worst cafe stop was locking the bikes to typical town centre bike stands, walking 3-4 mins to a supermarket (Booths I think), down past all the tills, up a flight of stairs and then walking to the back of a large cafe area were there enough room for all of us. I'll not be doing that ride again unless there's a change of cafe stop

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 8:53pm
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.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 8:40pm
TonyR wrote:honesty wrote:Part of this change is we need to affect how people drive around and with people on bikes, for example turning across cycle lanes without checking - it'll take many many years for this to percolate into society.

And do you think that will happen faster if cyclists are segregated away in their ghettos where motorists don't have to think about them or where cyclists are mixed in with other traffic so motorists are constantly reminded of their presence and required to learn to interact with them?

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.

Re: Reporting this driver? Road safe or police?

6 February 2015 - 8:14pm
aspiringcyclist wrote:Although it might appear so, I was not trying to filter up the left hand side of the van. The claim that 'over eager' camera users bring hostility onto themselves is nonsense. Those drivers simply have anger management problems and cannot stand when someone reports their criminal and dangerous behaviour.

Still not sure why you were where you were on the road.
In my opinion it is not the responsibility of other road users to take someone else to task over their actions. The response is almost always going to be defensive or aggressive. Up to the point you had words with the driver he (assuming it was a he) probably didn't have too much of an issue with cyclists. He may well do now.

Re: How Heavy is too Heavy?

6 February 2015 - 6:32pm
Bolton Clarion as far as I am aware are a pretty competitive club. I ride out with Bury CTC and we cross paths pretty regularly. I've seen Clarion set a fair old pace. I see you are loyal to your club, but is it the same club you originally joined or has it changed out of recognition? If I want an easy, pleasant organised day, I ride out with South Manchester CTC B section. I find I am welcomed by both clubs. It's all CTC.
Bury can also get a move on depending on who is out [young, keen, carbon etc] but they don't complain about waiting for you. I'm probably the slowest hill climber there [they do a lot of hills] but it's not a problem for them. They only wait if there is a turnoff but I can usually keep them in sight. I've never come across criticism of bike or rider in either club.
It's good to ride out with a different mob sometimes.

Re: Female Cyclist Death In North London

6 February 2015 - 5:56pm
A sad postscript to this story is that the women who died, Stephanie Turner, had a sister Wendy who died giving birth only last September. A double tragedy for their parents. There is an article in our local paper about it as Stephanie originally came from East Allington here in South Devon.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 4:39pm
You are assuming that all cycling infrastructure is uniform. But we know that there are vastly different types of cycle paths possible, some better than others. There are plenty of good solutions to the problems of side roads and junctions, but Royal College Street and Tavistock Pl does not have them.

As I said, is the 'safety in numbers' a causal relationship? Cycling was in decline in the Netherlands in the 1970s, the rate has gone up since then. Clearly it is much safer, so rather than focusing on nebulous ideas such as culture or driving standards, we should be looking at the one major thing that sets it apart from most of the world: infrastructure.

Re: How Heavy is too Heavy?

6 February 2015 - 4:16pm
I have lived in both rural and urban areas, including 6 years in Nottingham and 3 years in Cambridge, both places with high rates of bike theft, and have NEVER lost a bike in over 50 years of owning many bikes - in spite of relying upon pretty weak cable locks in low risk situations, deploying heavier locks only in locations I judge to carry a higher risk of bike theft. Nobody in my household has ever lost a bike in fact, but only so long as they were still in my household or still following my advice on bike security!

Parking your bike in some random place out in the countryside, even in a village, is really very safe. Reason: no bike thief in their right mind would cruise the countryside, because most of the time it would be a complete waste of time and with so few other people/vehicles around, the thief runs a high risk of being noticed as he pokes around looking for one to steal. I still ALWAYS lock the bike (in spite of the sometimes effusive insistence by one's host that it is not necessary), but only to guard against some opportunist strolling by and fancying a joyride on it. They won't have any tools, so not much of a lock is required.

With the increase in weekend cycling, some rural locations are beginning to offer sufficiently rick pickings to attract organised bike thieves. Most of the bikes in those locations however, are still not locked at all! So the risk for anyone who DOES lock remains very low, especially if their bike has enough unfashionably practical attributes (such as mudguards) to make it less easy to sell to the kind of idiot who buys a blatantly stolen bike! But this situation needs watching. If UK ever DOES become a cycle-friendly country like Holland, where all sorts of locations attract masses of cyclists and any fool can recognise a genuinely useful bike when he sees it, tourists will have to live with the same risks of bike theft as Holland. But we are nowhere near that yet - unfortunately.

The key to avoiding bike theft is to think like a thief. If you were going to steal bikes, where would you go? how would you do it? and what would cause you move on to a different location or a different bike? Answer those questions correctly and your bike will not be stolen. My two children did each lose a couple of bikes whilst at university, but they lost them by taking risks I would NEVER take in urban situations. Those are: 1) failing to lock to a solid object, 2) leaving the bike out of doors overnight (even if locked to a solid object), 3) failing to use a gold standard lock at an extreme high risk urban location (e.g. rail station bike park in scruffy area).

Apart from any urban street overnight, railway stations are surely the worst place of all to leave a bike. Apart from the rich pickings for thieves, they can work in the secure knowledge that the owner is far-far away and very unlikely to return in the next ten minutes. And if anyone challenges: they rented this cordless angle-grinder because they lost their key didn't they? For six months, I had to leave a bike once a week at Oxford Station all day. I used a very unfashionable bike and two big locks and parked it in a most conspicuous place, surrounded by plenty of more attractive but less securely locked bikes. And still I worried about it.

But when I lock my titanium tourer to the fence in clear view of the ticket office (no need to ask the staff to watch it, because the thief must assume I did) of some rural tourist attraction, I do not worry at all.

As for insurance companies' simple rules: they do not concern me. I CAN afford a new bike. So I do not need bike insurance. So I save the not inconsiderable sums I might otherwise have spent in premiums and buy myself a new bike or upgrade from time to time.

If all my bikes were stolen at once however, that would be embarrassing, so I DO include them in my normal household fire and theft cover.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 4:09pm
honesty wrote:Part of this change is we need to affect how people drive around and with people on bikes, for example turning across cycle lanes without checking - it'll take many many years for this to percolate into society.
In parts of East Anglia, that happens already, but you still can't rely upon it because the one you assume stops could be the one that doesn't
TonyR wrote:aspiringcyclist wrote:I'm fairly sure not being around HGVs not fitted with guards is safer than being around HGVs fitted with guards.

Not necessarily as all segregated networks have to unsegregate around junctions and side roads.
Not necessarily. They're not good examples (because it's most often the cyclists that get the extra distance and gradients and there were many other design mistakes), but the networks in the 1960s-90s new towns/cities did not merge at all junctions.

Most retrofit cycleways will probably merge for cost reasons, though. The obvious solutions are Protected Intersections (physical separation but turning traffic has to wait - both motor and human) or Barnes Dances (time separation, adding bikes to the pedestrian crossing phase).

The segregated cycle lanes in Bloomsbury and on Royal College St both had high accident rates for cyclists at the side roads in particular and putting stop lines across the cycle lane was seen as the only solution to cyclists being hit by turning motorists at Byng Place. See for example https://consultations.wearecamden.org/c ... provements
Which is about RCS not Byng Place. Probably give way lines were seen as the only solution because they're blooming short-sighted and motor-centric if they're anything like some other safety auditors.

Where is the evidence that 'safety in numbers' is a real phenomenon?
Jacobsen P. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Injury Prevention vol. 9 pp 205-209, 2003 ( http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/3/205).
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... _rpt_0.pdf
The 2003 paper has been accused of confounding correlation and causality in Forester J, "Does Increasing the Number of Cyclists Reduce the Accident Rate?" 2006 http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/So ... Safety.htm amongst others.

That is a CTC briefing which turned me away for years. The poor-looking fit of the curve shown (and the failure to show its construction) should be a suggestion that this does not adequately explain the effect and at best, there are other significant factors... and if you plot the other dataset, the UK local authority one that CTC didn't graph in its briefing, it's a fairly lousy fit with =0.466 roughly:
ctc-sin-la.png
In layman's terms, there's more unexplained than explained by the "safety in numbers" effect...

Other criticisms have been that there may not be "safety in numbers" but there is risk in rarity and cycling is still rare enough in the UK that we're experiencing that (I think that one was from NZ, where helmet laws, sparse population and large distances don't help); or that there's a relatively small subset of killer motorists and a sort of "predator satiation" occurs; or that a large number of cyclists results in designers delivering safer cycling infrastructure in the area (which is also basically arguing that infrastructure-first may be backwards... but if that were true, wouldn't the incessant "promotion" efforts have worked better?)

The fact is cycling in the Netherlands was marginalised post war up to the 1970s until a turning away from car-centric policies, something we never had in Britain. Could it be feasible that the increase in cycling was due to the safer cycling conditions, not the other way round?
No because what increase there was happened before the construction of the cycle facilities and during and since their construction cycling hasn't increased.
So do you feel that the key change in the Netherlands was restricting urban motor traffic in the 1970s (including "woonerf" roads) in response to high level of deaths (especially children) or what other measures?

If there is not the political will somewhere to introduce similar restrictions, is creating restricted/protected space for cycling on the busiest roads a useful alternative measure?

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 3:59pm
Postboxer wrote:TonyR wrote:[quote=But what you have missed with those pictures is that in Dutch city centres the cyclists are on the road and the motorists are controlled so you should not only edit in the cyclists on the road but edit out the trucks and most of the cars.

I think that's the point isn't it?

As I understood it the point was that Dutch cyclists would be hidden away in their own segregated facilities, not mixing it on the road with other traffic. Which misrepresents the reality which is much of the Dutch city centre cycling is done on the roads with traffic restricted.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 3:56pm
honesty wrote:Part of this change is we need to affect how people drive around and with people on bikes, for example turning across cycle lanes without checking - it'll take many many years for this to percolate into society.

And do you think that will happen faster if cyclists are segregated away in their ghettos where motorists don't have to think about them or where cyclists are mixed in with other traffic so motorists are constantly reminded of their presence and required to learn to interact with them?

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 3:52pm
TonyR wrote:[quote=But what you have missed with those pictures is that in Dutch city centres the cyclists are on the road and the motorists are controlled so you should not only edit in the cyclists on the road but edit out the trucks and most of the cars.

I think that's the point isn't it?

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 2:21pm
It's small steps. We need to radically shift how we design living spaces so that they accommodate people rather than cars, which does mean changing where planning permission is granted for schools for example. This is not going to happen over night. Approving 2 huge segregated cycleways in the capital is a step towards how we think about what is designed and hopefully will signal a shift in how this is done in the future. Now that's not to say there aren't going to hiccups along the way (as well as shoddy shared use paths) but that shouldn't mean we don't do it. Part of this change is we need to affect how people drive around and with people on bikes, for example turning across cycle lanes without checking - it'll take many many years for this to percolate into society.

Re: How Heavy is too Heavy?

6 February 2015 - 2:06pm
Well a quick (if ever there was a stupider word to describe my pace of cycling) 10 mile 'see how she feels being lighter' test ride today did indeed feel quicker. My average speed remained at 10.18mph which isn't a great deal different to the usual, but I was in jeans, jacket and walking boots instead of the faster feeling lycra and spuds and was a little more hilly on the return trip via the LBS. Had to buy a bagman as the pendle was at a stupid angle and bashing the mudguard and back of my legs. I swear this bike is gonna leave me bankrupt sooner or later. Carradices owner must be rolling in millions!
re the insurance. It'll have to be changed soon as the bike is now over 3 years old and therefor subject to their depreciation clause. Ridiculous. How it now costs less than £600 to replace my bike with its current model is a mystery to me. I may look into a home insurance provider that also covers the bike.
The proof of the pudding will be next Wednesday when the next ride is (if it's not cancelled) and we'll see how I do then.
As always, thanks for everyones views

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 1:56pm
aspiringcyclist wrote:I'm fairly sure not being around HGVs not fitted with guards is safer than being around HGVs fitted with guards.

Not necessarily as all segregated networks have to unsegregate around junctions and side roads. The segregated cycle lanes in Bloomsbury and on Royal College St both had high accident rates for cyclists at the side roads in particular and putting stop lines across the cycle lane was seen as the only solution to cyclists being hit by turning motorists at Byng Place. See for example https://consultations.wearecamden.org/c ... provements

Where is the evidence that 'safety in numbers' is a real phenomenon?

Jacobsen P. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Injury Prevention vol. 9 pp 205-209, 2003 ( http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/3/205).
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... _rpt_0.pdf

The fact is cycling in the Netherlands was marginalised post war up to the 1970s until a turning away from car-centric policies, something we never had in Britain. Could it be feasible that the increase in cycling was due to the safer cycling conditions, not the other way round?

No because what increase there was happened before the construction of the cycle facilities and during and since their construction cycling hasn't increased.

Clearly cycling infrastructure has to start somewhere, or else you could use that excuse to stop anything being built.

This reminds of these images, showing Dutch cyclists being overlaid on British roads.





[/quote]

But what you have missed with those pictures is that in Dutch city centres the cyclists are on the road and the motorists are controlled so you should not only edit in the cyclists on the road but edit out the trucks and most of the cars. Also urban planning is such that in the suburbs schools and shops and housing are in close proximity within a community not miles away at the end of a main road. So kids can cycle to school because its both nearby and connected with "woonerf" roads.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 1:40pm
Richard Fairhurst wrote:I think this debate is a couple of days late for Groundhog Day.

DKUATB Bill Murray had to relive Groundhog Day 12,395 times (yes someone actually worked it out) before he got to live happily ever after.

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