CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 29 min ago

Re: Name the landmark

24 January 2015 - 5:29pm
Correct. Well done. Took the photo in a rush, if I do another I'll try to get more background in.

Don't judge a book by the cover.

24 January 2015 - 5:17pm
This mornings ride. Wath to barnsley, derne valley via herons reach. Teenagers on motor bikes on the cycle path. Scumbags.
2 miles further on I hit the black ice. . Down like a sack of coal.
as I laid on the ice stunned and self checking for injury when I heard the motor bikes approaching, they stopped and the 2 lads ran towards me, 1 shouting " don't move, stay still", " have you hit your head", " lets help you up". They stayed with me until I had gathered myself. " sure your ok". I thanked them and they returned to their motorbikes, fired up and wheelied off up the cycle path. Neither over 16. But they knew exactly what to do.
I'm battered and bruised but glad they where there.

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

24 January 2015 - 3:42pm
Hear hear.

Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual gives the definitive guidance on traffic management and this does give a clear requirement that cyclists should be properly catered for. The problem is that the roadworks always restricts roadspace, which is already at a premium. Accommodating vehicles and pedestrians along the existing route are normally essential. If something's got to give - it's usually the dedicated space for cycling - if there is any. I do get very frustrated as a cyclist when I'm asked to get off and push - but as someone involved in roadworks, sometimes there just isn't an easy alternative.

Re: Name the landmark

24 January 2015 - 3:37pm
Chuchgate, Bolton. Gold post box for Jason Kenny.

Found by google rather than local knowledge .

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

24 January 2015 - 1:52pm
I think a bit of common sense and tolerance is needed from all parties when work has to be done. If the works are essential and result in all traffic (pedestrian and cyclist) being funnelled into a narrow gap, I would probably comply with a "cyclists dismount" sign whether it was advisory or compulsory. If I could see the way through was clear for its whole length I might ride through.

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

24 January 2015 - 11:45am
martinn wrote:... Part of my commute is along a shared path, (the road is one way), the path is not a bad width, not ideal but not bad, ...
Therein lies at least part of the problem.

There are guidelines and recommendations on the minimum width for shared use paths, which have changed over the years. Highway authorities aren't bound by the guidelines so we end up with paths that are "not a bad width, not ideal but not bad".

As soon as any kind of works further narrow such a shared path then the reaction is "cyclists must dismount for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians" .

The Highways Agency are repairing a shared use path near me at the moment resulting in its closure to cyclists and pedestrians. The diversion is through an unlit, muddy, potholed Country Park because that's safer than using the lit smoothly paved road.

Cyclists who use cycletracks (in this case as an alternative to an 8-lane pseudo-motorway) can't be diverted onto an adjacent unclassified minor road as they might not be used to riding on roads.

The bulk of the diversion (all but 15 yards out of 1/4 mile) is on a route through the Country Park approved for shared use. The Highways Agency want cyclists to dismount on the diversion for the safety of both cyclists and pedestrians as the diversion route isn't considered suitable for road bikes (which apparently can't be ridden on roads either ).

I haven't taken a look at how it has all been signed yet, I'm assured that the "dismount" is only advisory.

The mind boggles, can't wait for it to all be over.

Re: Female Cyclist Death In North London

24 January 2015 - 11:30am
I am first and foremost a cyclist, but I am also a white van driver. And I am sure that somewhere out there is a keen cyclist who is also a tipper truck driver. Let's not descend into tribalism here. Bad, dangerous use of our roads should be condemned, but we should not lash out at people simply because of their mode of travel. After all, aren't we cyclists victims of that sort of misplaced anger sometimes?

Re: CTC challenge rides

24 January 2015 - 11:27am
Thanks for the pointers, was hoping for somthing a little closer to home, but at least now I know they exist and where to find them, so i can keep looking

Martin

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

24 January 2015 - 11:04am
Sorry should have clarified, the whole of the path is for joint use, there are no white lines,
The original "testing" chicanes made from plastic barriers were a bit tight to walk through let alone push a bike through, although they have been removed after 1 day.

Martin

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

24 January 2015 - 10:47am
You refer to a "shared path" but I'm not clear what you mean. If there's a white line up the middle so pedestrians use one half and cyclists the other and if they then dig up the cyclists' half, then you cannot legally ride on the remaining bit which is a footway. OTOH, if the entire width of the path is for joint use by both cyclists and pedestrians, then digging up one half doesn't affect the status of the other half. The red sign you mention might be properly used in the first case, and in the second case it would just be another example of signs being lobbed about at roadworks by people with no idea about what they mean. It's pointing out the obvious to say that if it's the second case scenario, then a rider's duty to be considerate towards pedestrians is even greater when a path's width is restricted. A cyclist wheeling a bike is generally wider than one mounted; depending on the length of the restricted bit, a rider might be best waiting at the start of the works to let pedestrians pass. That's all down to being considerate in the specific circumstances.
========================================================================

PS: Forgot to say:- if there were to be a temporary TRO to cover the roadworks, then there would be notices displayed (eg on lamp posts) explaining the arrangements.

Also, and as you are probably aware, passers-by will be guided by what it says on the signs and may react accordingly and PCSO's / police may be no better informed.

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

24 January 2015 - 10:04am
It's hard to know what you are legally obligated to do. You could find out by contacting the highways authority responsible. They may have put a temporary traffic order in place.

Many local authorities make temporary traffic orders for the road / motor traffic, and froget about cyclists. I don't know your local authority, but chances are moderate that the signs are there without any legal authority behind thme. However, even if you find that there is no temporary traffic order that makes the shared use facility pedestrian-only, I would ride cautiously, and dismount in the presence of any pedestrians.

Re: CTC challenge rides

24 January 2015 - 9:54am
There are only 3 scheduled so far. The first two are

http://www.ctc.org.uk/event/ctc-two-mil ... lenge-ride

http://www.ctc.org.uk/event/ride/mersey ... -challenge (local challenge ride)

The way to find them is from the CTC home page, select 'Ride', then 'UK Cycling Events'
http://www.ctc.org.uk/uk-cycling-events

Then you can use a keyword to search. I used 'challenge' in the search box to find the events already scheduled.

Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

24 January 2015 - 9:49am
Hi all,

Part of my commute is along a shared path, (the road is one way), the path is not a bad width, not ideal but not bad, and the path is clearly marked as a shared path.
Currently they are doing some what I assume is drainage work and half of the path is obstructed, red square "cyclist dismont" signs have been placed at both end of this work.
The signs say Cyclists dismount and use the footway. As the route is a shared path, does this actually make any form of legal sense?
I also thought that this type of sign should only be used if there are no other options?
Also as there are no cyclist remount signs, how do you know when to remount your Cycle? could you want for say one or two paces, then remount as you had assessed the situation and come to the conclusion that it was safe to do so?
(I am taking about the route by the dovecote (Pub) Nr Long Ashton in Bristol)

Many thanks
Martin

CTC challenge rides

24 January 2015 - 9:36am
Hi all,

not quite sure where to post this.
I was looking at participating in the Forest of Dean spring classic this year and whilst trying to find the course details, I came across CTC challenge rides. From the litle information I gleamed, these sounded a bit like sportives, but organised by the CTC. I have tried looking at the CTC website, but could not find any info. (Might be not seeing the wood for the trees).
So did the CTC run or still run sportives and if so are they/ were they Helmet optional?
And if they still do run them how do I find out about them?

many thanks
Martin

Re: UKIP - get off road, cycle on pavement

24 January 2015 - 9:35am
The reality is motorists want us off the road and pedestrians don't want us there either.

Re: UKIP - get off road, cycle on pavement

24 January 2015 - 9:06am
Yesterday cycling home from the shops, I was nearly forced off the road by car that pulled out of a side junction and drove at my to get round a parked car. When I called out that they could have waited the car stopped and the passenger amid a some abuse told me to get off the road and ride on the pavement. Given that I was riding an 8' long bakfiets long john cargo bike I don't think their suggestion was really practical. I doubt the majority of pedestrians would agree with them either. Unfortunately what I actually replied with was a return of abusive language. Not the best response but probably the only one they would have understood. I expect they will be voting UKIP - if they vote at all and are literate enough to write an X.

Re: Female Cyclist Death In North London

24 January 2015 - 7:50am
tipper truck drivers ARE the dregs of society, far and away the % of these people that cause the death or near death of cyclists alone (me included) is up there for % of incidents to number of vehicles, if not THE top vehicle type.
And just because you drive X vehicle doesn't mean a) you have a license that isn't suspended, b) you are able to drive that vehicle properly & are licensed to do so, c) you give 3 whatnotts to anybody else on the road and their safety so long as you can get from A-B-C as quickly as is possible..
In most cyclists opinion tipper lorry drivers are the equivalent to that nasty mess you get on your shoe when walking behind a dog owner in the dark that doesn't give a stuff either..

Re: Female Cyclist Death In North London

23 January 2015 - 11:23pm
AlaninWales wrote:What does "bottom feeders" mean? The dregs who have been rejected by others? Drivers with a criminal conviction (have those who have served their terms paid their debt to society ?) ?
Those just passed their certificates and looking for work?
Are you really putting all in the same category? Surely if I hadn't had a dram there might be others wanting employment as tipper drivers?
To be fair a friend of mine who's a truck driver (and who has worked as a tipper lorry driver) is pretty dismissive of them as a group.
I get the impression that for a lot of them some of what you mention above applies...

Re: Female Cyclist Death In North London

23 January 2015 - 10:51pm
Valbrona wrote:AndyBSG wrote:Yet again it's at a junction and yet again it involves a HGV and it seems that, yet again, it was also a tipper truck.

But aren't tipper truck drivers the bottom-feeders of the truck driver community and are the type likely to show the least responsibility?
What does "bottom feeders" mean? The dregs who have been rejected by others? Drivers with a criminal conviction (have those who have served their terms paid their debt to society ?) ? Those just passed their certificates and looking for work?
Are you really putting all in the same category? Surely if I hadn't had a dram there might be others wanting employment as tipper drivers?

Re: Female Cyclist Death In North London

23 January 2015 - 10:49pm
661-Pete wrote:The banksman (should that be 'banksperson'? ) idea sounds good to me. Wasn't there a rule, some time ago, that a certain type of HGV: wagon-and-drag, had to have a second person in the cab? But of course, if this were (re-)implemented, we'd all end up paying for it, seeing as freight transport costs are factored into the cost of living.


We're already paying, it's just that some families are paying the ultimate price and the rest of us are paying in fear.

I see no reason to not require banksmen in urban areas at least.
I also see no reason to have HGVs moving around urban areas during peak traffic, with or without banksmen.

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