CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 6 min 26 sec ago

Re: Stop!

9 March 2015 - 8:02pm
Playing devils advocate, aren't bicycles a different type of vehicle and shouldn't they be considered differently to motor vehicles? Why ought rules designed to control flows of motor traffic apply to cyclists?

Re: lorry passing too close

9 March 2015 - 7:43pm
This is mine from this morning..... Should I report the driver?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKl90rG ... e=youtu.be

Re: Butser Hill - proposed cyclepath for the missing link

9 March 2015 - 7:25pm
This project is still happening, with a bit of a delay . . . . . I don't expect it to be open until 2016 . . .

Queen Elizabeth Country Park to Petersfield cycle route
Updated 15 January 2015

Expected start date
Expected start: April 2015 and expected completion: November 2015.
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/transport-sche ... scheme.htm

Trying to squeeze the path around the corner into the Country Park is proving to be hugely expensive.

Re: Stop!

9 March 2015 - 7:18pm
[quote="pwa" ............ some cyclists see themselves as informal road users, or pedestrians on wheels.[/quote]Nicely put.
Pedestrians on wheels.

You see it all the time. The other day at the lights in the village, a chap on a bike came down the hill to the left of the traffic waiting at the red light passing them all and mounted the start of the pavement, then proceeded through the lights and tuned left ......... still on the pavement .............. then off and up the road after the pavement ended.

Had I been a pedestrian (on foot!), I'd have done as he did.

Re: Eastern European cyclist escorted off motorway

9 March 2015 - 7:11pm
That situation where there is a junction is an interesting scenario. It is very similar to the one I mentioned earlier where a crossing was threatened with closure without replacement because people viewed the crossing as unsafe and campaigned for a bridge (which the then Ministry of Transport was unwilling to provide). The excuse in that case (and I assume in your example) is that a bridge placed in the immediate vicinity of the junction would limit visibility at the junction.

Re: Stop!

9 March 2015 - 7:04pm
An important point here is the different manner in which rljing is conducted by motorists and cyclists. From my observations misbehaving motorists' RLJing seems to consist of a lot of amber gambling which continues for a couple of seconds after the lights have changed to red. There is also a lot of encroachment beyond the stop line and ASLs. Misbehaving cyclists by contrast tend to be much more noticeable in their RLJing, effectively ignoring the lights altogether.

I must admit to being a bit uncomfortable when cyclists groups try to draw an equivalence between this behaviour. Whilst, of course, misbehaviour by motorists has the greatest potential for danger and is therefore the more serious, I think that ignoring red lights in the manner some cyclists do is clearly more form of RLJing. I suspect that if motorists started sailing through lights in such a manner we would all agree on that.

Re: Eastern European cyclist escorted off motorway

9 March 2015 - 7:03pm
How about this one in South Yorkshire, a little north of Doncaster.

road crossing.JPG

The road is the A1 and i've never seen this bit of road as quite as Google have captured it! I have used this crossing from Skelbrooke to Campsall but i certainly wopuldn't recommend it. The alternatives are a newish road bridge half a mile north or a footbridge about the same distance south close to where the road becomes motorway. The local buses don't go into Skelbrooke so school children have to cross here every day, on a bike you could more easily use the bridges but it would add quite a chunk to your route especially going west.

Re: Eastern European cyclist escorted off motorway

9 March 2015 - 6:51pm
Vorpal wrote:Bicycler wrote:Vorpal wrote:Often, the real problem is crossing them. They aren't pleasant places for walking, and there are usually (not always) better alternatives.
The footpaths crossing at level nonsense is part of the reason they don't make these roads motorways where they would be obliged to provide a bridge or subway.
That was my point.
Ah, okay. My apologies for the repetition.

The one thing I will add is that paths with even moderate levels of use do tend to be provided for and - by and large - the remainder tend to be little used rural paths which seldom have many vulnerable users who would find the road a particular obstacle. It does depend upon the road though. True pseudo-motorways may be difficult for anyone to cross and bridges should always be provided.

Nevertheless, an informal crossing is still preferable to no crossing. One thing to bear in mind with proper motorways is that, though provision must be made, it does not necessarily follow that the provision will be nearly as convenient as the path it replaced. Many rights of way crossing motorways will be extinguished and others significantly diverted to minimise the number of crossings. In some locations a similar policy is followed where a bridge or subway is provided for an A-road.

I live near a dual carriageway crossed at grade by 4 footpaths in relatively short succession (say 200m) . Traffic volumes are fairly high but low enough to mean there is seldom a wait of much over a minute to cross each carriageway. The ideal may have been four bridges but I am fairly confident that the four crossings are more convenient than a single bridge with significant diversions which would have been a much more likely outcome.

Re: Stop!

9 March 2015 - 6:09pm
You also need to count the cyclists obeying the lights by slowing down on their approach so they don't arrive at the lights until they're green again. By percentages I would assume a higher percentage of car drivers run red lights, by numbers, I assume it will be many more.

Re: lorry passing too close

9 March 2015 - 4:00pm
Vantage wrote:I never did hear back from the company.
Please excuse the language.

http://youtu.be/3X61xx6ABOQ

Language is to be expected, but I'd suggest not ducking back in between those parked cars, and passing them wider out.

The ducking in can easily be taken as an invitation to overtake (which is clearly wasn't), and the door zone could easily land you on the road...

Re: Stop!

9 March 2015 - 3:48pm
gaz wrote:Those nice Men at the Ministry have also provided some information with regard to their campaign strategy: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... nk-cyclist

The first diagram I see when I click on the link is what appears to be a close overtaking car

Re: Stop!

9 March 2015 - 3:41pm
pwa wrote:MikeF

a motorist jumping a red light is certainly more dangerous (to others) than a cyclist doing the same thing. But motorists already know they should not be doing it, and a sign would not help. Prosecution might.

The reason for singling out cyclists with this particular sign must be that, in terms of numbers, they are the biggest offenders. Stand beside a busy junction in a city and you will see cyclists treating red lights as Give Way signs. More so than motorists. It is as if some cyclists see themselves as informal road users, or pedestrians on wheels. This sign is clearly aimed at them. It would be nice if some free training could be given to them. The odd bit of advice on a sign is inadequate for someone who may not have looked at the Highway Code.

None of this excuses bad road use from other road users, but I do see signs intended to improve their behaviour so I don't mind the occasional sign aimed at the less law abiding cyclists.

I disagree, I see many more motorists than cyclists - and that despite the fact that one law abiding motorist prevents those behind them from jumping the light, whereas a single stopped cyclist is easy to filter around and so subsequent cyclists can continue to jump the light, even if there is stationary traffic ahead of them.

Re: Stop!

9 March 2015 - 12:30pm
pwa wrote:MikeF

a motorist jumping a red light is certainly more dangerous (to others) than a cyclist doing the same thing. But motorists already know they should not be doing it, and a sign would not help. Prosecution might.

The reason for singling out cyclists with this particular sign must be that, in terms of numbers, they are the biggest offenders. Stand beside a busy junction in a city and you will see cyclists treating red lights as Give Way signs. More so than motorists. It is as if some cyclists see themselves as informal road users, or pedestrians on wheels. This sign is clearly aimed at them. It would be nice if some free training could be given to them. The odd bit of advice on a sign is inadequate for someone who may not have looked at the Highway Code.

None of this excuses bad road use from other road users, but I do see signs intended to improve their behaviour so I don't mind the occasional sign aimed at the less law abiding cyclists.


Depends where you are. Here, it used to be fairly law abiding wrt drivers and red lights. After months of congestion due to badly managed road works, some drivers started to regard lights as advisory. In the rush hour, I reckon at one particular junction at least 3 went through at red at every sequence just from one of the roads into the junction.

Re: Stop!

9 March 2015 - 12:28pm
Interesting, as you say, that it is facing the wrong way...

This weekend in Shropshire we came across a pair of signs, one either side of a main trunk road, one saying 40, the other national. They were brand new, had the orange square backgrounds, and hadn't been twisted round in an accident as they were both on two poles apiece.
Coming back, it was clear that one had been installed the wrong way round, as the same thing happened in reverse.
It isn't a wide road, & you'd have to be as blind as a bat not to realise you'd put one of them up the wrong way round.

Re: lorry passing too close

9 March 2015 - 12:23pm
Here's mine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1-nqFzCmCE

Looks jerky on my machine, not sure why. Quite an old one, I reported it to the guy in charge and he threatened me with libel (apparently I was making the company look bad!) So I told him to do one and made it public.

Bear in mind it's a wide angle lens so things are closer than they look and after the roundabout I was moving over to try to increase space between him and me. (The road also opens up to multiple lanes about 100m further up so he had no excuse).

Re: lorry passing too close

9 March 2015 - 11:57am

How he didn't take the tape off your bars with that pass is beyond me.

Re: Stop!

9 March 2015 - 11:16am
MikeF

a motorist jumping a red light is certainly more dangerous (to others) than a cyclist doing the same thing. But motorists already know they should not be doing it, and a sign would not help. Prosecution might.

The reason for singling out cyclists with this particular sign must be that, in terms of numbers, they are the biggest offenders. Stand beside a busy junction in a city and you will see cyclists treating red lights as Give Way signs. More so than motorists. It is as if some cyclists see themselves as informal road users, or pedestrians on wheels. This sign is clearly aimed at them. It would be nice if some free training could be given to them. The odd bit of advice on a sign is inadequate for someone who may not have looked at the Highway Code.

None of this excuses bad road use from other road users, but I do see signs intended to improve their behaviour so I don't mind the occasional sign aimed at the less law abiding cyclists.

Re: Stop!

9 March 2015 - 11:06am
I haven't read the article, but this discussion reminds me of this-

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... of-a-death

Re: Stop!

9 March 2015 - 11:02am
MikeF wrote:I don't like this sign at all. Why is the word cyclists needed?! Why isn't it a sign for all users? Plenty of motor vehicles don't stop at red lights either, but by implication it is portraying cyclists as bad and drivers as good.

Yes that's my feeling on it too.
It's the only time I've felt like grafitting(real word?)a sign and writing in big black lettering across it
''WHAT ABOUT THE CARS'' as I see far more cars RLJing than I ever see cyclists doing it and they are far more dangerous to other road users!

Re: Stop!

9 March 2015 - 10:23am
pwa wrote:It's a simple request for compliance with the rules of the road, and some people (unfortunately) do need telling. I have seen signs telling people to drive carefully, keep their speed down and so on, so with that background I have no problem with this cycling related sign.But it's not just a cycling issue. As I have been nearly "mown down" as a pedestrian on numerous occasions by motorists on failing to stop at red lights I don't understand why they aren't targeted. They are by far the biggest danger. It also reinforces the view that by some motorists that they are good and cyclists are bad.

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