CTC Forum - On the road

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

Re: Downslink works: Bramber to Shoreham-by-Sea

9 February 2016 - 12:26am
squeaker wrote:Despite what it says on the engineering drawings, limestone 'dust' has been used as the top surface, so much like the recent Downslink alternative route under the A283 by the river. For drainage, the designer seems to be relying on camber plus permeability of the sub base. Having ridden it yesterday, my main concern is the edges in some parts, which are not to spec. and are going to crumble quickly, as well as presenting a bit of a hazard.
30cmEdgeDrop.jpgDrainage doesn't occur through base - ever - as it should be well compacted. Continuous shedding of rain water along the length is what is required and a camber or slant can achieve this. In the picture the path looks higher than the surrounding land, which should be fine. There appear to be ditches either side of the path which can take the water away from the path. I agree the limestone dust doesn't look that well rolled at the edges. Nearby or overhanging trees are the other problem that cause deterioration rural paths whatever the surface including black top (ie "tarmac").

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

8 February 2016 - 9:29pm
TonyR wrote:cycleruk wrote:It could be a local "rat run"?
The normal main road way could have hold ups so those in the know take the lane.


Those in the know are unlikely to take a lane so narrow that a cyclist and a car can't pass each other. The first time they meet another car is going to create an impasse with somebody having to reverse up.

My suggestion for any road too narrow for a car and a bicycle to pass each other is to ban cars from it. Cycling both ways and people who want to motor can find a different route!

Re: Downslink works: Bramber to Shoreham-by-Sea

8 February 2016 - 9:04pm
Does anybody know if the re-surfacing on the Bramber to Shoreham part of the Downs Link has been completed yet. Could find any info on the website.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

8 February 2016 - 7:51pm
ambodach wrote:There are sadly fairly frequent collisions on the A85 between Connel and Oban. There is a back road ( a cycle route incidentally) from Connel to Oban. Once police have been alerted one of their early moves is to close this back road to all motor traffic. Otherwise being single track it very quickly becomes a very long car park. At least it leaves it free for bikes and emergency vehicles. Generally it does not carry too much traffic so is reasonable to cycle on. Mind you anything would be better than the A85.
I was once shouted at by a driver on this road, who had to wait for me to get to a passing-place (I was riding uphill) "why can't you cyclists use the cyclepaths?". My response "why don't you drivers use the motorways?". A frequent exchange for many I know but I've never had it in such a location!

I've no idea where the nearest cyclepath or motorway to Oban is!

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

8 February 2016 - 6:02pm
Bmblbzzz wrote:I agree with the comments about unreliability of gradient chevrons on OS maps.
MikeF wrote:Bmblbzzz wrote:Don't forget that vehicles going up hill have priority over those descending! I was going uphill - the same direction as them. Surprisingly nothing came down the hill. Seemed like a pointless route for a rat run.

Ah, that's different. My original comment was fairly tongue in cheek anyway; not sure whether I thought you or the drivers were going uphill, but I had assumed you were going in opposite directions. So now it becomes clear you were first squeezing into the side then getting off and walking to allow cars to overtake you. That seems very... generous of you! It's difficult to judge the situation without being there but I would probably have made them crawl along behind me if there was no room to overtake, until the point at which I could no longer ride it.Yes I realised it was tongue in cheek. Yes I admit I have to take my own time on a steep hill and not be "harassed" by vehicles stuck behind me. But shouldn't that Royal Mail Postman be on a bicycle too, rather than in a van?

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

8 February 2016 - 5:06pm
brooksby wrote:Does anyone else remember these low tech sat-nav alternatives. They had a very good zoomed-out overview interface, and they folded up into a handy pocket-sized package. What were they called?... "Maps", that's it - maps. Bl**dy reliable, too - I never had one spontaneously reboot on me.
But they never showed more detail when you zoomed in, unless you forked out for a series of expensive upgrades

Re: The Poplar High St collision

8 February 2016 - 5:00pm
freiston wrote:If I've got this right, the cyclist wasn't in a cycle lane per se, but one of those blue marked junction priority strips that appear at the junctions on cycle superhighways. I had never come across a cycle superhighway before and so was unfamiliar with the ins and outs of one. It seems to me that the blue priority marking would be nigh on impossible for the driver to see until already committed to turning and that as things stand, prior knowledge of the road and the priorities given to cyclists would be required for the 'scheme' to be safe.
It is "a cycle lane per se" because the superhighway just gives up and vanishes at many junctions, becoming a bad old blue paint lane. I think the junctions on cycle superhighways have been bodged into that form for two main reasons:
So I don't agree that motorists need to understand the particular scheme. They just need to understand that cycle lanes always have priority, like bus lanes, but I've seen enough motorists crash with buses to know many don't.

That's why continuing the cycle track across the junction with appropriate hard measures like corner posts is preferable to dumping cyclists back onto the road for short stretches IMO.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

8 February 2016 - 4:56pm
I agree with the comments about unreliability of gradient chevrons on OS maps.
MikeF wrote:Bmblbzzz wrote:Don't forget that vehicles going up hill have priority over those descending! I was going uphill - the same direction as them. Surprisingly nothing came down the hill. Seemed like a pointless route for a rat run.

Ah, that's different. My original comment was fairly tongue in cheek anyway; not sure whether I thought you or the drivers were going uphill, but I had assumed you were going in opposite directions. So now it becomes clear you were first squeezing into the side then getting off and walking to allow cars to overtake you. That seems very... generous of you! It's difficult to judge the situation without being there but I would probably have made them crawl along behind me if there was no room to overtake, until the point at which I could no longer ride it.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

8 February 2016 - 4:47pm
TonyR wrote:brooksby wrote:Does anyone else remember these low tech sat-nav alternatives. They had a very good zoomed-out overview interface, and they folded up into a handy pocket-sized package. What were they called?... "Maps", that's it - maps. Bl**dy reliable, too - I never had one spontaneously reboot on me.

They had lots of display problems on a windy day though. Sometimes it proved impossible to scroll the display on a windy day without risking wrecking the whole thing

Did you never use the scroll-lock feature? You would put a heavy object on each corner.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham2

8 February 2016 - 4:43pm
brooksby wrote:Vantage wrote:I can see your point, but that isn't a dual carriageway, it's a single lane. The traffic had indeed stopped. Even the big white van at 0.08sec in had stopped before the left sideroad and that in itself should be enough of a giveaway that he/she is letting someone through.
It's one thing to take the view that filtering up the inside is entirely legal but bloody stupid to assume its ok to go blazing up the inside or between vehicles like a eejit and across every junction without a care in the world.
Right of way is of no use in a wooden box.

I think the problem here is that far too many motorists, when someone has stopped 'to let them across', think that means its safe to actually do so and that they don't need to think about anything else.

Mind you, it's not just motorists - how many people here have had near misses with pedestrians who think that its safe to cross a road because all the motor traffic is nose to tail and stopped, and don't think that maybe they ought to check for cyclists (or scooters or motorcycles, for that matter) coming down the gap between the lanes?

Good point. Last week a car in a queue of traffic stopped short of my junction to 'let me out' as I was waiting in the car to turn right. I waited, as I could see through the queue in front of him that there was some traffic coming the other way. The unspeakable driver behind me (who had overhauled me in the 30mph zone behind us, breaking the speed limit) blasted on his horn to tell me to pull out. No doubt he would have done - into the path of the oncoming cars which would have had to have stopped or hit him. All he saw was the chap 'letting me out', he took no account of any other traffic.

Re: Commuting - best pannier?

8 February 2016 - 4:42pm
Smiles wrote:... ferrying work clothes (shirt, pants, socks neatly folded and double wrapped in plastic bags to prevent creasing), ...

Why are you worried about creasing your socks?

Re: Commuting - best pannier?

8 February 2016 - 4:20pm
I put a conventional black 20 litre rucksack inside one Ortleib roll top pannier All my work stuff - laptop, cables, papers, plus a small washbag for my shower - fits in the rucksack. When I get to work I lift the rucksack out and use it as normal. The ruck sack gives the pannier a reasonable shape.

I use the other roll top for my waterproof cycling gear, ferrying work clothes (shirt, pants, socks neatly folded and double wrapped in plastic bags to prevent creasing), tool kit and lock.

I do need to guard against packing too much in the ruck sack, and I keep my suit, belt, (hand) towel hung on hangers on a coat rack at work. Work shoes go in my draw.

Smiles.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

8 February 2016 - 2:13pm
brooksby wrote:Does anyone else remember these low tech sat-nav alternatives. They had a very good zoomed-out overview interface, and they folded up into a handy pocket-sized package. What were they called?... "Maps", that's it - maps. Bl**dy reliable, too - I never had one spontaneously reboot on me.

They had lots of display problems on a windy day though. Sometimes it proved impossible to scroll the display on a windy day without risking wrecking the whole thing

Re: Deliveroo

8 February 2016 - 12:51pm
I don't remember cars driving through the middle of Broadmead, though I've seen it on old photos, but there used to be car parking off the Horsefair. Perhaps still is. It was there in the early '90s. Though I'm sure most people driving along there are just picking up their lazy passengers from Debenhams, MacD's or Cabot Circus.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

8 February 2016 - 11:53am
brooksby wrote:pwa wrote: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.

Does anyone else remember these low tech sat-nav alternatives. They had a very good zoomed-out overview interface, and they folded up into a handy pocket-sized package. What were they called?... "Maps", that's it - maps. Bl**dy reliable, too - I never had one spontaneously reboot on me.

Not so handy in a car, though. Not unless you have a good mapreader as a passenger to tell you which way to go at the next junction.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

8 February 2016 - 11:23am
pwa wrote: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.

Does anyone else remember these low tech sat-nav alternatives. They had a very good zoomed-out overview interface, and they folded up into a handy pocket-sized package. What were they called?... "Maps", that's it - maps. Bl**dy reliable, too - I never had one spontaneously reboot on me.

Re: Deliveroo

8 February 2016 - 11:14am
Redvee wrote:Bmblbzzz wrote:I remember when that cut through was a full-on road! Only about twenty years ago... Perhaps less.


And when Broadmead had cars running through the middle of it and not pedestriansised.

Did you know that the Horsefair and Penn Street - which go around the outside of Broadmead past Debenhams, and between Cabot Circus and 'proper' Broadmead - are supposed to be "buses, taxis, cyclists and 'for access'" only? You'd never know it, given that crossing it can take 5 minutes. So many people completely ignore the sign by Primark and go into there anyway - I think many of them interpret 'for access' as 'I cannot be bothered to walk that huge long distance from thre Cabot Circus multi storey car park'. (another frequently ignored one is the similar sign which means 'general traffic' isn't supposed to come off the Centre and onto Quay Street).

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham2

8 February 2016 - 11:05am
Vantage wrote:I can see your point, but that isn't a dual carriageway, it's a single lane. The traffic had indeed stopped. Even the big white van at 0.08sec in had stopped before the left sideroad and that in itself should be enough of a giveaway that he/she is letting someone through.
It's one thing to take the view that filtering up the inside is entirely legal but bloody stupid to assume its ok to go blazing up the inside or between vehicles like a eejit and across every junction without a care in the world.
Right of way is of no use in a wooden box.

I think the problem here is that far too many motorists, when someone has stopped 'to let them across', think that means its safe to actually do so and that they don't need to think about anything else.

Mind you, it's not just motorists - how many people here have had near misses with pedestrians who think that its safe to cross a road because all the motor traffic is nose to tail and stopped, and don't think that maybe they ought to check for cyclists (or scooters or motorcycles, for that matter) coming down the gap between the lanes?

Photos from the Old Ports Reliability

8 February 2016 - 10:20am
Nice to share some love for the old school reliability rides. Like Audax dating back to a time before cycling was cool again!
Good turn out yesterday, if you're new to cycling and don't fancy the Audax route then the early season reliabilies are great. There's still about a month or so of them left around the country. If you don't know what they are think original sportive. For a couple of quid.

Pics from Old Ports one here

Re: Downslink works: Bramber to Shoreham-by-Sea

8 February 2016 - 9:57am
Despite what it says on the engineering drawings, limestone 'dust' has been used as the top surface, so much like the recent Downslink alternative route under the A283 by the river. For drainage, the designer seems to be relying on camber plus permeability of the sub base. Having ridden it yesterday, my main concern is the edges in some parts, which are not to spec. and are going to crumble quickly, as well as presenting a bit of a hazard.
30cmEdgeDrop.jpg

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