CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 50 min 52 sec ago

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

5 February 2016 - 12:38pm
Too many humans, full stop. This morning, I was listening to Bill Gates, on DID - nice bloke, don't get me wrong, but he was banging on about ending malaria and saving lives and I thought, "Weird - for a bright bloke, you just don't get it... we don't need more people on this earth, we need LESS, so spend all that money thinking of ways we could get rid of them some of them!"

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

5 February 2016 - 12:32pm
Used for the classic Catford Hill Climb.

To quote the Catford CC 707 yard climb with an average gradient of 12.5%, with two stretches of 25% which requires an all-out lung bursting effort to get up the climb. The current record of 1 minute 47.6 seconds was set by Phil Mason (San Fairy Ann CC) in 1983 and despite the inducement of various special prizes has not been broken for 31 years!

It wasn't broken in 2015 either.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 11:20am
reohn2 wrote:Tom Richardson wrote:And the criminals walk free unaffected by any laws they've broken.
The Great British justice system once again shown up for the farce it is..........

What is the alternative? Either we require a high standard of proof or more innocent people are convicted.

Guilty people escape justice every day. It's good when new evidence or scientific progress catches up with them but the reality is you can't convict everyone. Even murder and manslaughter where time and resources are almost unlimited have a "get away with it" percentage of around a third in England and Wales.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20910859

Caught by DNA advances.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... e-10826515

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

5 February 2016 - 10:56am
mjr wrote:cycleruk wrote:I quite often will use the country lanes to avoid our main roads, due to congestion and numerous traffic lights.
It's really no quicker but much more pleasant.
Only more pleasant for the ratrunning motorists For everyone else it's an unambiguous loss. I'm glad that three of the local side roads here are gated, which deters many of the ratrunners who apparently just can't bear to get out of their car four times in half a mile.
I agree. And traffic on unclassified rural roads is increasing at a far faster rate than the national average for all roads (this was the case even before sat nav).

MikeF wrote:Yesterday I decided to cycle this little lane near Ide Hill in Kent; a new road for me.
However there was an unimaginable number of vehicles using it and it's so narrow in a deep cut where it climbs the hill, that I had to dismount and squeeze into the narrowest place possible to let them pass. The vehicles had difficulty starting through lack of traction because of the leaves on the road. After doing this several times I gave up and pushed the bike to the top. It's marked as 1in7 on the OS map, but it seemed steeper - maybe because all the traffic! What I thought would be the quietest of roads unexplored by me, turned out to be a busy route even mid morning!
Don't forget that vehicles going up hill have priority over those descending!

Re: The Poplar High St collision

5 February 2016 - 10:48am
kwackers wrote:What I find surprising is that other cyclists don't seem to understand what a cycle lane actually is and defend a driver who was prepared to turn across one without first checking or even attempting any form of caution despite his view being obviously restricted.
The biggest achievement of the motoring lobby has been to turn cyclist against cyclist, decrying them as "not a real cyclist" or "just a person on a bike". There's even people happy to accuse left-hooked cyclists of trying to "undertake" on cycling forums, but take a look at the tidal wave of "I'm a cyclist myself BUT..." comments on news websites any time a cyclist is injured and realise how far we need to go

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

5 February 2016 - 10:45am
cycleruk wrote:I quite often will use the country lanes to avoid our main roads, due to congestion and numerous traffic lights.
It's really no quicker but much more pleasant.
Only more pleasant for the ratrunning motorists For everyone else it's an unambiguous loss. I'm glad that three of the local side roads here are gated, which deters many of the ratrunners who apparently just can't bear to get out of their car four times in half a mile.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

5 February 2016 - 10:35am
It could be a local "rat run"?
The normal main road way could have hold ups so those in the know take the lane.
I quite often will use the country lanes to avoid our main roads, due to congestion and numerous traffic lights.
It's really no quicker but much more pleasant.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

5 February 2016 - 10:11am
Sat Nav. That's the reason. I'm as bad as anyone for driving on lanes because the Sat Nav sends me that way. You don't really have much choice if you don't know the alternatives and you are relying on Sofia (or whatever voice you have chosen) to get you to your destination. Ideally you would want your Sat Nav to exercise a bit more discretion and avoid tight lanes as much as possible, sticking to wider roads except where that would greatly lengthen the journey. Lanes that were once the domain of those with local knowledge are now less quiet. Sad, really.

Too many vehicles!!!

5 February 2016 - 10:02am
Yesterday I decided to cycle this little lane near Ide Hill in Kent; a new road for me.
However there was an unimaginable number of vehicles using it and it's so narrow in a deep cut where it climbs the hill, that I had to dismount and squeeze into the narrowest place possible to let them pass. The vehicles had difficulty starting through lack of traction because of the leaves on the road. After doing this several times I gave up and pushed the bike to the top. It's marked as 1in7 on the OS map, but it seemed steeper - maybe because all the traffic! What I thought would be the quietest of roads unexplored by me, turned out to be a busy route even mid morning!

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 9:55am
gaz wrote:It is not a dual carriageway in any sense. A central reservation makes a dual carriageway, not the number of lanes in any particular direction.
OK, pedantry aside there are two lanes. Both of which need to be clear before you turn across them.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 9:50am
kwackers wrote:... it's not a dual carriageway in any traditional sense ...
It is not a dual carriageway in any sense. A central reservation makes a dual carriageway, not the number of lanes in any particular direction.

Leaving that aside IMO fault on both parts, driving off remains inexcusable.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 9:41am
Tom Richardson wrote:Postboxer wrote:their own insurance won't be affected at all will it?

it will if they give an honest answer to the question on their proposal for about claims made against them. They've not shown any honesty so far so its a fair presumption that they are likely to lie about it again but its risky for them to do that - the hire companies insurer will match the claim with the hirer of the vehicle and make that info available to other insurance companies so there's a good chance of them being caught out. It will cost them in the long run.

Meanwhile the victim of the crime will be recompensed so they're no worse off so there's no loss to them (provided that they've made a claim like a motorist would in those circumstances).

And the criminals walk free unaffected by any laws they've broken.
The Great British justice system once again shown up for the farce it is..........

Re: something you don't see every day....

5 February 2016 - 9:20am
TonyR wrote:AndyBSG wrote:I wonder if it looked anything like this....

http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/12/van-drive ... 5-5560998/

No comment though on how the motorist managed to film all this or why his attention was not on the road but peering into the car in the next lane.

It was the passenger filming from the cab of a 7.5 tonne flatbed so they were elevated, hence the viewing angle.

If you watch it with the audio you can here the passenger narrating to the driver rather incredulously what's going on!

Re: The Poplar High St collision

5 February 2016 - 8:55am
If you wish to remain alive as an urban cyclist, you have to be aware of the risk of this happening. You have to be prepared to stop, especially if you are unsighted. Yes, you have priority, but the reality is that a sufficiently large minority of vehicles won't give it to you, so you have to take precautions, whatever the law is. I'd like to see a successful prosecution for a strike in such a case, then maybe drivers will begin to learn it is true. But ultimately until we have roads populated by saints, then caveat cyclista in such circumstances.

Re: KNOCKED OFF AGAIN!

5 February 2016 - 8:04am
I believe that when I am driving I am most likely to make a silly mistake (like the one described) when reversing. I assume the same applies to other drivers. It is stupidly easy to try to reverse quickly into the space you have just vacated without properly checking that somebody else has not occupied it. Lesson for driver: double check everything when reversing. Lesson for everyone: view reversing lights as alarms, warning you that you may need to get out of the way.

Re: The Poplar High St collision

4 February 2016 - 10:35pm
Similar thing happened to me many years ago in London. Driver didn't stop. Other drivers did, however, get out of their cars to make sure I was okay, for which I'm still grateful.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham3

4 February 2016 - 9:06pm
foxyrider wrote:Vantage wrote:The driver should have stopped regardless of who hit who but that clearly is entirely the cyclists own fault.

Agreed - obviously not looking at traffic behaviour and relying on others to do the watching. Couldn't see that it was the drivers fault at all, the bike hit the rear of the car so the 'in collision with a car' that the media like to use would, in this instance, be correct!
The car driver was crossing a marked (blue!) cycle lane. As described above, that is no different than crossing any other traffic lane. The driver is obligated to ensure it is clear.

I have to admit that it was not wise of the cyclist to cross the junction so quickly without good visibility, but IMO, the junction design is really poor.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham3

4 February 2016 - 8:09pm
foxyrider wrote:Agreed - obviously not looking at traffic behaviour and relying on others to do the watching.
Couldn't see that it was the drivers fault at all, the bike hit the rear of the car so the 'in collision with a car' that the media like to use would, in this instance, be correct!
So you'd be happy to swing across two lanes of traffic without making sure there was no traffic coming and if you happened to hit something whilst turning right you'd claim it was their fault?
Good luck with that.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 7:52pm
I have pruned out the Poplar High St collision into a new topic in "On the Road"

About

CTC

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