CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 2 hours 20 min ago

Re: dog causes accident

26 July 2014 - 9:38pm
If this was an incident on the road - where a cyclist had stopped for some reason (any reason) and an Audi had plowed into the back of them, then there would be no dispute whatsoever here that the Audi driver was at fault. They should be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear.

We are talking about a shared use path - a place where pedestrians have priority and where walking dogs as a perfectly acceptable. A dog wandering erratically about a path does not constitute being out of control. "out of control" means jumping up at people nipping cyclists ankles and so on. It is up to cyclists to look where they are going and to be able to stop if necessary (whether that is for a group of pedestrians, a dog or even a cyclist stopping in front of you).

Re: dog causes accident

26 July 2014 - 8:28pm
If there is a law (bylaw), stating dogs must be on a lead, then why not contact the local council and ask them to do something about it. Either put up signs or have an officer patrol the area.

Re: dog causes accident

26 July 2014 - 8:08pm
the dog was running free;the owners two hundred yards behind;the accident victim,was part of a group of five,bunched together;at the point of impact the trail is narrow,with a drop of ten feetr to the beach below;the dog spooked the trailer driver,who abruptly stopped;id say the dog was indirectly responsible,for the accident;no the dog wasnt on a bicycle!

Re: Ring, ring?

26 July 2014 - 7:46pm
Don't rummage in the attic unless you want to. Wilkinson's are currently selling "I love my bike" rotary bells that are pretty loud for under £2. Cover or remove the sticker if you don't like it. Or many bike shops have little pingers for 2 or 3 pounds.

Re: dog causes accident

26 July 2014 - 7:23pm
If I'm reading this right, it looks like the initial braking cyclist was at fault, not the dog or owners.
I don't personally know the camel trail, but my own local SUP has plenty of four legged furballs on it and given their unpredictability, I gradually slow right down to around 5-6 mph and give as much room as I can while passing. The owners give a nod or say thanks and everyone goes about their business.
Only twice in 2 1/2 years have I had to slam the brakes on due to the dog escaping it's owners clutches and due to my low speed at both times, no injuries or incidents.

Re: Ring, ring?

26 July 2014 - 6:59pm
I removed my bell shortly after my bike was delivered thinking it to be a waste of time and very uncool.
I refitted it after an elderly lady on the Rochdale Canal path complained that it would be more polite ringing a bell than shouting at her. I've been told I have a 'stern' tone in my voice by friends and family and I certainly didn't want to give the wrong impression on my rides.
As in Si's case, most folk I've passed after ringing have been pleasant and often give an appreciative smile. I travel pretty slowly on paths (10-12 mph) and ping the bell well in advance usually so braking isn't an issue.

Re: dog causes accident

26 July 2014 - 6:18pm
god. the camel trail is a nightmare at this time of year - far too much traffic on it for it to be safe. hope the girl is allright. stick to the cornish lanes, only traktors on them

dog causes accident

26 July 2014 - 5:53pm
riding on the camel trail,a dog accmpanied by owners,and not under control,caused a little girl to somersault over the handlebars,causing her to land on both knees.i had previously tackled the owners of said dog,ten minutes before about the rules governing stray animals on the trail;their retort was, "what rule"a typical stupid answer i have confronted in the past;apart from the obvious dangers,which they had not been aware of.the accident had been caused by a group of inexperienced cyclists,with trailer,seeing the dog in front of them,noticing it was weaving from side to side,stopped abruptly,and the little girl following,was propelled into the rear of the trailer,and then to the ground;confronting the pair, and in spite of witnessing the whole scenario,a denial their dog was responsible;eventually the rational turned to violent threats from the dog owners.;later on the miscreat pointed to a little dog,doing the same,off the lead,saying,hes doing the same;he hadnt realised his own rhetoric!
another point,bodmin is to become a town geared for cyclists,with infrastructures built;the camel trail will become just another motorway.how sad!

Re: Sri Lanka Commonwealth Cyclists On M74

26 July 2014 - 5:25pm
Didn't say it was safe, just possibly safer than their roads in Sri Lanka.

Re: Ring, ring?

26 July 2014 - 3:33pm
I don't have a bell fitted and TBH I don't have much of a problem,probably one in a thousand complain,if anything people tend to thank me for being polite and slowing down for them especially when approaching from behind.
The ones that make comments about me not having a bell I stop and politely explain that a bell isn't a statutory requirement and my reasons for not having one are that generally most people prefer to hear a polite request to get past and are grateful for me slowing down for them.
Very occasionally I've had a totally belligerent response (I can remember no more than two or three in the last 5+ years) but I reckon those people are just belligerent no matter what,which is their problem not mine.
Of couse some will say 'then why not have a bell anyway' use it and speak,my answer that I like to cover my brakes whenever I'm on a SUP and that on two occasions I've been in the situation when I had a bell fitted and was using it I only had one brake covered and very nearly came to grief due to the reactions of teenagers acting silly on one occasion and a dog on a retractable lead that was out of sight on another.

Re: Asshat In A Car

26 July 2014 - 3:30pm
On the dualled A11 between Thetford and Mildenhall, there isn't even going to be a cycle path, or an alternative road for some miles...

Re: Sri Lanka Commonwealth Cyclists On M74

26 July 2014 - 3:29pm
Hard shoulders are reckoned to be pretty unsafe for broken-down motorists. Can't see why it would be different for bikes.

And then there's the junctions...

Re: Ring, ring?

26 July 2014 - 3:25pm
double post retracted.

Re: 50 mph for lorries

26 July 2014 - 3:21pm
feefee8 wrote:They're trialling this on the A9 in Scotland at the moment to try and reduce the mad overtakes on that road. You might still end up in a 2 mile long convoy but travelling ever so slightly faster! I think the perceived success must be encouraging a more nationwide raising of the limit.
sent you PM.

Re: Ring, ring?

26 July 2014 - 3:20pm
I used to be of the opinion that a polite "excuse me please" accompanied by slowing down significantly ought to be enough to keep anyone happy. Yet since I got a bell I find that even if I ring the bell and don't say anything else, the vast majority will move aside and thank me for ringing it.

Of course there are always some, both on foot and on bike, who are dead set on being annoyed about something and no matter what you do you can't placate them.

Re: Asshat In A Car

26 July 2014 - 3:18pm
It's like the A9 north from Dunblane to Inverness, you can cycle it and people do and I defend their right to do it, there is a cycle path, surface isn't great, and some people use that and personally I would as I don't go that fast. However, I'm not sure that the people who cycled about a week ago in poor light in dark clothing when it was wet and busy along the A9 were doing the right thing, but they had no option at that point.

Ring, ring?

26 July 2014 - 3:08pm
Hi all

I suspect I'm not the only one who gets grief from pedestrian users of shared use cycle paths (eg canal towpaths) because of the serious offence of not having a bell.

I was told many years ago by my late Mum and Dad (both of whom had a lot of cycling miles between them) that many people of a certain age couldn't hear cycle bells- and this is true. A lot of walkers are over a certain age, and has we know, hearing is one of the first things to go. I always give polite warning of my presence and slow down accordingly and say " thank you" when I pass- but it seems to make not much difference.

My suspicion is that if it wasn't the bell some people would make an issue of, it would be the lycra- in fact a lot of people don't want us using shared use cycle paths at all, despite the fact that the only reason they have a reasonable surface is precisely because they are a cycle path.

Typical- they don't want you on the road, and then they don't want you off the road.

So I will be ferreting in the loft for my ancient cycle bells I used to use as a child, and haven't used since- to match my equally ancient Claud Butlers..maybe I might find my Dad's even more ancient twin bottle cage to match..very retro.

Re: E petition surfacing redressing

26 July 2014 - 2:35pm
iviehoff wrote:cheesypeeps wrote:Hi
Please sign this petition.
I nearly came off my road bike the other week as there had been no attempt at all to sweep away the loose stones. Like riding on marbles.
Sadly your petition is based upon a misunderstanding of what surface dressing is and what it is for. I suggest you delete it, because no one will take any notice of a petition founded upon such misunderstandings, and will find them very easy to bat off. We actually need more surface dressing, not less. But clearly we need it to be done properly and safely.

Surface dressing is not resurfacing, cheap or otherwise. It is a life-extension technique for the existing road surface. It is a cost-effective and low carbon road maintenance technique. A lot less of it has been done of late, because of budget restrictions, and this has been a false economy, because it has resulted in road surfaces breaking up and potholing. Potholes are terrible for cyclists, and when you next see a badly potholed road, you can think "if only they'd done a surface dressing in time, this wouldn't have happened."

As I said, what we need is for surface dressing to be done properly and safely. But I would caution against simply demanding things unless you have an idea how they can be practically and effectively delivered. Ask yourself, exactly what legal change do you have in mind that would achieve this. You can say, that's for them to say, but actually it isn't. It is easy for them to say that there isn't a practical adjustment and bat your demands off, unless you actually have something in mind and some evidence that it works well.

I think it's you who is sadly mistaken. Surface dressing seems to be used INSTEAD of resurfacing. All the potholes, ridges, imperfections, minor bumps etc are still there after the dressing has been done. Many of the potholes are because roads have been dressed time and again when they really needed resurfacing.
What we need is more resurfacing and less surface dressing.
The Bridport gravel used for surface dressing is also about the worst surface for creating vehicle tyre noise.

Re: Sri Lanka Commonwealth Cyclists On M74

26 July 2014 - 2:34pm
timdownieuk wrote:I could well imagine that a motorway hard shoulder would be way safer than many roads that they train on back home!

If it was legal I'd take a rural motorway shoulder before a busy fast A road any day. I've cycled a few sections of Interstate shoulders in the USA and it felt perfectly safe.

But the places where riding on the interstates is legal is usually in very rural areas where there is few junctions and bugger all traffic compared to the UK. HGVs frequently moved into the offside lane to pass me even when I was at the inner edge of a 12ft wide shoulder.

Re: Sri Lanka Commonwealth Cyclists On M74

26 July 2014 - 1:20pm
I could well imagine that a motorway hard shoulder would be way safer than many roads that they train on back home!


  • 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


Terms and Conditions