CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 15 min 41 sec ago

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

18 July 2014 - 10:23am
Flinders wrote:Pete Owens wrote:Flinders wrote:Paths on footpaths are rarely other than dangerous for everyone, at least round here, not least because they make cyclists give way at all junctions, often where a cyclist simply cannot get into any position where they can see all the traffic that could hit them if they crossed.
Actually that is getting cause and effect mixed up. They make cyclists give way because cycle paths are dangerous - not vice-versa. The problem you describe re. inter-visability of conflicting traffic applies every bit as much to drivers approaching a junction where cyclists have priority. In either case the cyclist or driver is put in a position where they have to stop for vehicles coming from behind. The logic of making cyclists rather than drivers perform this difficult task is that cyclists, being more vulnerable, are more likely to take greater care and that we have better all round visibility and awareness of our surroundings.
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.

What - that drivers are more likely to notice something in fron of them than coming from behind? It is exactly the same difficulty you describe for cyclists where cyclists have to give way.
You don't know the junctions in question, and I do.

If it involves a cycle path running parallel to a road and passing through a juncton where streams of traffic cross each others paths then you are creating conflict and this will result in more crashes. If you think your junction has some novel design feature that avoids this ineviatable conflict then perhaps you could post a google earth link so we can see what you mean.
If the path were to be regarded as part of the road and not the pavement,

Then it would be a cycle lane not a cycle path. The problems here are less severe in that case due to the greater intervisibility. Indeed, one recommended way of mitigating the danger of cycle paths is to merge with the carriageway as you approach junctions - though you can only do this for one-way cycle paths.
with side road junctions set back,

If the path is set back then the it cannot be considered part of the road. You are simply exacerbating the problem by reducing the intervisibility. The greater the degree of seperation the less the likelyhood of drivers and cyclists noticing each other.
the cyclists would have priority and drivers would be able to see them perfectly well.

That reduces the chance of drivers noticing the cyclist even when traffic is free-flowing and it is the driver coming from behind. From their perspective, even if they notice a cyclist on the path as they approach the junction, the geometry you describe will make it look as if the cyclist is turning away from the road - until they swerve across their path at the last moment.
Drivers would never have to stop for vehicles 'coming from behind'.

If a cycle track is running parallel to the road a driver is driving along and a cyclist is riding faster than the car and priority is marked for the cycle track the the driver very much does have to give way to a vehicle coming from behind.
As it stands, cyclists can't see the traffic that may be about to smash into them.

Visibility works both ways. If a cyclists can't see the traffic then the drivers can't see the cyclist.
As for 'coming from behind' at some junctions drivers aren't just coming from behind, they're coming from all directions.
Indeed, but it is the ones coming from behind that are most difficult to see.

The Fairy has the last laugh

18 July 2014 - 10:11am
Consulting my end of term records....I notice that I've gone through the whole of the last bikeability year without having to fix a p*nct*re for any trainees....until yesterday, the final lesson before the next bikeability year starts in September. Girl managed to get a 2 inch screw right through the tyre! The P*nct*re Fairy will always have the last word

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

18 July 2014 - 10:09am
Cycle paths with dropped kerbs and priority don't necessarily help. Even if it weren't for the increased likelihood of conflict with other traffic, duiscussed by Pete Owens, they are slower and less convenient. One junction becomes 4, the distance travelled is greater, and getting the path set back sufficiently from the junction often requires a circuitous route.

The benefits of various infrastructure have been debated endlessly on here, but IMO, quiet roads, limited permeability to motor vehicles, and 20 mph speed limits are preferable. When that isn't possible, the cycle-specific infrastructure should be completely separate, and not substantially inconvenience cyclists.

Converting pavement to cycle path is almost always a bad solution for many reasons.

In Southend-on-Sea, there is plenty of space, and it's a lovely place on a nice day. The unitary authority *could* have created a nice space, for cyclists and pedestrians if they were willing to inconveience motor vehicle users. IMO, the esplanade is no place for through traffic. They should have designed 'shared space', limited access to motor vehicles (no through route) and prioritized other routes for motor vehicles. alternatively, they could have invested in high quality segregated infrastructure. But they didn't. They invested in parking and whatever it takes to keep the peds & cyclists from spilling out onto the road. /rant

Attention London cyclists only! Red light running survey

18 July 2014 - 9:46am
Hi all,

I am currently writing a research paper into red light running among cyclists in London. Part of this paper involves a survey, which investigates the extent of red light running and the reasons why cyclists run red lights.

As a keen cyclist myself, I want to provide an objective view of the subject with the ultimate aim of supporting measures to improve cyclist safety.

Please could you spare 2 minutes and complete this (very brief!) survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NQQMZ6V

Please note that the survey is only for people who cycle in London, and are over 18 years of age.

Many thanks in advance for your help!

Alex

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

18 July 2014 - 9:45am
Mark1978 wrote:Thing is if that cycle track did have dropped curbs, was wide and had a better surface than the road and took you around the junction without having to stop then you would use it.

I would

Where is it?..... Holland?

Certainly not around here. Though there are some cycle paths that are worth taking, giving a substantial benefit to me on my cycle, they are the tiniest proportion.

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

18 July 2014 - 9:35am
Mark1978 wrote:Thing is if that cycle track did have dropped curbs, was wide and had a better surface than the road and took you around the junction without having to stop then you would use it.

No. The reason I avoid cycle paths is that I don't want to get squshed by a car, and at junctions cycle paths greatly increase the likelyhood of collisions. This has nothing to do with the condition of the cycle path itself (how smooth it is, how regularly it is swept, how wide it is, whether it is shared with pedestrians, what shape and height of kerbs are used and so on) but the ineviable conflicting traffic movements through junctions.

Re: Cruelty to bikes

17 July 2014 - 11:14pm
That's quite impressive

Re: Cruelty to bikes

17 July 2014 - 10:19pm
If there were rules about this I would have been banned from cycling many times over

turns out riding in the sea isn't good for gears.

Or suspension.

Or riding into walls to see how fast the bike stops.

How about cutting a spoke to see what happens.

Or using the maximum chain angle possible because "it sounds like a motorbike"

Or cleaning the oil off the chain with a brunsh because it made my hands dirty when I put it back on (for some reason it fell off quite regularly)

Or forgetting to tighten the rear wheel nuts and being surprised at how fast the bike would slow down when the wheel came off

or chucking the anti turn washers from a hub gear because they looked stupid

My bike was once dropped off the back of a car while heading off for a camping holliday.

I used to try and run in to the back of my brothers bike because it would make him skid

I rounded off just about every fastener using vise grips because I was too lazy to get a screwdriver

I used to turn the bike upside down, spin the wheel up and push polystyrene into the tyre to shred it.

Sometimes it takes a bit of cruelty in order to learn.

Re: get off your phone!!

17 July 2014 - 10:16pm
To operate a touchscreen phone without looking, use voice control or a Morse code keyboard. It's still a distraction, so I only do it while walking, not driving or riding. It's better than all the phone zombies you see walking around...

Re: Cruelty to bikes

17 July 2014 - 9:36pm
Kenn wrote:You could use one or both toe straps to fix the friction lever to the downtube and/or bottle cage and hold a lower gear. If you have toe straps! Another good reason to avoid these new-fangled clipless pedals.

Or just carry a spare toe strap?

Re: Cruelty to bikes

17 July 2014 - 9:26pm
Or just use the limit stops on the changer - I've had to do this a couple of times when a cable snapped. (I've learnt to check cables regularly and carry spares )

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

17 July 2014 - 9:21pm
661-Pete wrote:mjr wrote:And here comes another idiot saying bikes should be constrained to inadequate cycle lanes, but they should still be allowed to park lorries in them! http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-n ... -mandatory

Well, this individual clearly works for a company which delivers alcohol for consumption. It might be pointed out, that there are some five times as many deaths in the UK due to alcohol intake, as there are of all transport-related deaths put together. I doubt if he would accept that as an argument against his credentials as a 'safety' campaigner, but worth a try...
And about 1 in 6 of road traffic deaths are due to alcohol.

Re: Cruelty to bikes

17 July 2014 - 9:08pm
You could use one or both toe straps to fix the friction lever to the downtube and/or bottle cage and hold a lower gear. If you have toe straps! Another good reason to avoid these new-fangled clipless pedals.

Re: progressing through a group of cyclists

17 July 2014 - 8:57pm
put scythes on the wheel ends......like the ancient chariots lol

Re: Cruelty to bikes

17 July 2014 - 8:55pm
Kenn wrote:What's wrong with downtube shifters? They never go wrong....
Except when they do!

I can remember at least one occasion when I had the choice of top gear or riding one handed holding the shifter in place (which can be interesting in hilly city traffic - deciding when to let go of the lever to grab the front brake) as it had decided that no matter how much you tightened it it wouldn't stay put.

Rick.

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

17 July 2014 - 8:38pm
[XAP]Bob wrote:Flinders wrote:Postboxer wrote:I saw a National Express coach the other day that had a sticker with a picture of a bike and a message something like, 'Caution, this vehicle has blind spots' - seemed fairish.
That seems reasonable, as it warns of a genuine problem rather than being aggressive and unhelpful as the 'stay back' one does.
Yes - although a non articulated vehicle shouldn't have blind spots, how hard can it be to have the required mirrors?

Fair enough. I hadn't realised that visibility problems unsolvable by mirrors were limited to artics.

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

17 July 2014 - 8:35pm
Pete Owens wrote:Flinders wrote:Paths on footpaths are rarely other than dangerous for everyone, at least round here, not least because they make cyclists give way at all junctions, often where a cyclist simply cannot get into any position where they can see all the traffic that could hit them if they crossed.
Actually that is getting cause and effect mixed up. They make cyclists give way because cycle paths are dangerous - not vice-versa. The problem you describe re. inter-visability of conflicting traffic applies every bit as much to drivers approaching a junction where cyclists have priority. In either case the cyclist or driver is put in a position where they have to stop for vehicles coming from behind. The logic of making cyclists rather than drivers perform this difficult task is that cyclists, being more vulnerable, are more likely to take greater care and that we have better all round visibility and awareness of our surroundings.

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. You don't know the junctions in question, and I do. If the path were to be regarded as part of the road and not the pavement, with side road junctions set back, the cyclists would have priority and drivers would be able to see them perfectly well. Drivers would never have to stop for vehicles 'coming from behind'. As it stands, cyclists can't see the traffic that may be about to smash into them. As for 'coming from behind' at some junctions drivers aren't just coming from behind, they're coming from all directions.

Re: get off your phone!!

17 July 2014 - 7:57pm
Its bloody tractors around here now and I am getting fed up with it. Wish the police would target them.

Re: Cruelty to bikes

17 July 2014 - 7:56pm
Easily acquired skill? I ended up in a field the first front shift!

I do love friction shifting and recently converted another bike to it, though. First one for 5 years. We'll see if the love lasts.

Re: Cruelty to bikes

17 July 2014 - 7:41pm
What's wrong with downtube shifters? I use them all the time. They are inexpensive. They never go wrong. They rarely need adjusting. They seem to last for ever. The short cable runs reduce friction. They make stem/handlebar changes and adjustments easier. They need a little practice to make slick changes without looking down, but it's an easily acquired skill.

I believe they initially went out of fashion because racers wanted to change up prior to launching an attack without alerting competitors. Nowadays manufacturers prefer gearing which is complex, expensive, wears out fast and requires every system component to be part of a groupset -all of which maximise profits.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Carol McKinley (Acting)
  • 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