CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 55 min ago

Re: A bit of a death wish?

10 June 2014 - 7:11am
Of course, Shootist being the good road user he is will have slowed down until he could see what this strange orange object was on the road and then acted appropriately to wait behind or pass it.

Re: A bit of a death wish?

10 June 2014 - 6:49am
Would it be really pedantic to point out that contrast is the important thing about visibility.

Against a grey road surface the maximum visibility would be achieved by a white fairing HiViz would be counter productive

Re: Mr Loophole Strikes Again . . . .

10 June 2014 - 6:19am
As this thread is more about mitigation than loopholes, I'll mention one of my own hobbyhorses: remorse. This is a general point, rather than about this case.

Sentencing guidelines now require that a discount should be given to a defendant who shows remorse. This can be significant eg making the difference between custody and liberty. Fair enough, since if a defendant sincerely recognises their error then they are part way there already. OTOH, I get the impression that remorse is now routinely chucked into many mitigation speeches as though the discount is there for the asking.

There are various ways in which remorse might be shown eg an early indication of a guilty plea, especially when the evidence doesn't make a conviction inevitable anyway. OTOH, it would be reassuring to hear a report of a judge saying "Since you seem to blame everybody but yourself for what happened, there will be no discount for remorse."

Re: A bit of a death wish?

10 June 2014 - 6:08am
I agree fully about how dangerous lack of visibility is!

Yesterday I was on a dual carriageway and because of the Ford Transit van in front of me, I simply could not see the family car in front of the van

What was worse was that the car was grey even further reducing its visibility



These family cars are simply too low and invisible to be on the road with vans and lorries


But, here's my point. It seemed to me a very dangerous place to drive such a car. It was relatively safe, IMO, at the time I was there, but I could imagine several traffic scenarios where it wouldn't be. Now, I have no doubt that there will be howls of protest about the right to drive a small family car on dual carriageways, the responsibilities of other road users, and all the common objections. But who is the one that is going to end up in ICU if he's lucky, or in the Crem? I would advocate some very high vis accessories to increase tis car's visibilityat the very least. I also now expect further howls of protest about the need for high vis items on cars. But consider this, the vehicle I saw was in fact painted dark grey to match the average road surface?

We can all talk theory about responsibility of drivers, but there is little point in doing so when practice results in 50 yards of family stained tarmac.

Re: Motorcycle Noise

10 June 2014 - 5:27am
tatanab wrote:Why pick on motorcyclists? The complaint should simply be modified exhausts since people also modify cars by adding bean tin exhausts. The difference is that the noisy motorcyclists tend to be posers who only get out in good weather, whereas the posers in noisy modified cars are out all year round.

Again, nope. Some cars may be loud, but nowhere near bikes. When miles from a road in the hills, or out on a boat at sea, or behind double glazing, or in a crowd, it's motorbikes you'll hear far more than any cars.

Re: Motorcycle Noise

10 June 2014 - 5:19am
One of the primary reasons I got out of the world of mobikes.

TonyR wrote:Mick F wrote:I cannot understand why anyone wants a loud engine noise.
Why don't people enjoy quiet efficiency, rather than a noisy wasteful racket?

What's wrong with a quiet motorbike?

The helmets they wear cut out all the sound so they have to have it loud to hear the engine at all.

Nope.

I used to get headaches from the noise. Even with a choice of pricey helmets and good earplugs. Actually found in-ear headphones playing music better sometimes.

Had 2 bikes that stood out. A Tuono, that when I tried without the baffles was stupid, and I felt ashamed riding it through a village, and put them straight back in. The other, a KTM Adventure, came with a 2-1 and no baffle. It was ridiculous, and as long as I owned it, was trying to get the baffle found by the dealer who claimed it was somewhere in the store... When I finally sold it, and heard it ride away, was the 1st time I'd heard it from the 'outisde'. I was so embarrassed that I'd been that offensive.

beardy wrote:Having put on hi-viz, riding with the headlight on and still getting vehicles fail to notice your presence, you can not help but notice that you get noticed much more when your exhaust baffles have "fallen out".

Do you use this approach on your bicycle also?

Re: A bit of a death wish?

10 June 2014 - 5:04am
I was riding a trike a couple of weeks ago, through country lanes, and went along a straight stretch I know well, past a primary school. As I carried on up the road, I noticed a red Audi (uh-oh, I thought- yup, prejudiced, ey? ), and slowed down as I approached the oncoming bend, watching them in the mirror all this time, seeing as there was no other traffic about. And this was after all, a red Audi...

Just as I rounded the bend, this car braked quickly behind me, then pulled alongside (just around a blind bend, remember?), and the driver told me how hard I was to notice, dressed in black... Not that my clothes were exactly visible, but anyway. I have no idea what she was looking at all along the straight by the school as I was watching her car approaching (no chance anywhere near the 30 (as it wasn't the flashing lights at that time), judging by the haste). I doubt I was any shorter than half the kids there, sheep, dogs, potholes, goblins, whatever. I know that road well, and it was unusually quiet at that moment, and you'd need special training not to see something ahead there, however bleedin' low.

Re: Pedestrians forced to wear reflectives?

9 June 2014 - 11:38pm
JohnW wrote:reohn2 wrote:Leech,parasite,creep,slickly excuse for humanity.Take your pick...............

John - I think you're being unnecessarily complementary about this sewer rat.
I was just trying to be kind to the gentleman

Re: Pedestrians forced to wear reflectives?

9 June 2014 - 11:36pm
JohnW wrote:reohn2 wrote:Leech,parasite,creep,slickly excuse for humanity.Take your pick...............

John - I think you're being unnecessarily complementary about this sewer rat.
Or even complimentary

Re: Thirst Whilst Cycling

9 June 2014 - 11:29pm
Mick F wrote:Normally I can go for fifty miles without stopping for a drink or anything to eat.
However, my 62mile yesterday was in 23degC heat, and I got through both bottles and no food other than the huge Full English before I left.

I only seem to need to drink if I sweat. My ride up to Manchester - 300miles in four days - I hardly drank anything. It was chilly and wet, and I didn't sweat at all.
I tend to agree with Mick, I find I drink very little for the first 40/50 miles or so unless it particularly hot or i am working hard. I aways start hydrated with tea generally. I find If I overdrink I end up looking for a hedgerow. I do find after about 50 miles my rate of fluid intake starts to increase and the longer I ride the higher it gets

There is a lot known about hydration in Sport and people but why does this equate this to everday cycling?

Re: Thirst Whilst Cycling

9 June 2014 - 11:16pm
One other thing that may lend credence to Mick F's theory (full english breakfast, couple of decent mugs of tea before you set off) is that a full english is usually quite salty (bacon especially). Sodium makes you retain water so you may be able to go further on the same volume of water.

Anecdotal evidence of this: I was at a volleyball tournament a couple of years ago. Moderately warm July day, nothing exceptional; we all had fried brekkies (2x sausage, 2x bacon, egg, beans) before we started. Others on the same campsite (who it turned out we were drawn against later) had other stuff (some of it cereals, some a bit more "hair-of-the-dog" style. Guess who got cramp? Clue = not us.

Re: Pedestrians forced to wear reflectives?

9 June 2014 - 10:58pm
reohn2 wrote:Leech,parasite,creep,slickly excuse for humanity.Take your pick...............

John - I think you're being unnecessarily complementary about this sewer rat.

Re: Thrown into cycle commuting - not by choice!

9 June 2014 - 10:51pm
I think your choice of a bicycle is an admirable one in your circumstances. If you persevere for a month you will then be seeing the benefits health wise as well as finiancial. I used to commute 13 miles when I used to work in London and I really miss the buzz. You will find bicycles are a joy if you can get through a month and you are starting this in a good season.

I too, would recommend a second bike for value, if you have any money left invest in a Goretex jacket, comfort is everything. SPDs make cycling easier. Don't get a cheap car whatever you do as has been suggested unless you're a mechanic as they are a lottery.

Good luck, I take my hat off to you.

Re: Motorcycle Noise

9 June 2014 - 10:04pm
Having put on hi-viz, riding with the headlight on and still getting vehicles fail to notice your presence, you can not help but notice that you get noticed much more when your exhaust baffles have "fallen out".

I notice that people often approved of the noise of my old Triumph and BMW "thumpers" but nobody likes my two strokes.

Re: Vote UKIP...

9 June 2014 - 9:51pm
Mick F wrote:Scotland leaving the UK?
Hope you don't mind, but I thought I'd paraphrase you with respect to Scottish Independence.

People have to understand that leaving the UK but keeping all the UK advantages in trading will not be an option, whatever people say. Thinking it will be is just living in la-la land.
When all the debate started I would have preferred Scotland remain part of UK. Now, I'm thinking better if they leave. What has finally convinced me is the Westminster politicians offering Scotland the devolved powers to set their own income tax rates (if they remain part of the UK). Traditionally you pay tax based on where the work is done (e.g. work in France though commute from UK, you pay French tax). So you might be doing the same job in one office whilst somebody doing the same job in another office a mile away on the same salary is paying a lower income tax rate. Or if based on where you live, the person you are sitting next to in the office doing the same job on the same salary might be paying lower income tax because they live a mile further north/south of you ! Completely unworkable.

As I understand it, currently Scotland gets more money per head from Westminster than e.g. England. So say Scotland then sets a lower income tax rate; equitable arrangement ? Bad enough at the moment with different regions getting different amounts per head from Westminster and getting additional advantages (e.g. free prescriptions, not having to pay tuition fees at University, etc.).

If it is a different country then very different situation.

Ian

Re: Restricted Byway Access?

9 June 2014 - 9:51pm
If you fire off a question to the council they may have some information if they have looked into the status of the route recently or if it has been stopped up or diverted. They would be able to tell you if they viewed it as public and that would rule out a drafting error by Ordnance Survey. In my experience often all the council are able to tell you is that they have it recorded as unclassified road number Uxxxxx and it should be a highway of some description. The last time I enquired about one they asked me if I had any idea about status of the route!

Have you noticed there is a public footpath which ends on that road? That is a good example of what I was on about. There is no way that the intention was to record a cul-de-sac footpath which ends on a private road. If the footpath ran through to the main road at Oxen Law then it would have been recorded that way. It's almost certain that the footpath ends on the 'private' road because the road was thought to be public when the definitive map surveys took place in the 50s. If it was public then it still will be now.

There are thousands upon thousands of these inconsistencies and councils have neither the resources nor inclination to sort them out. It is a shame really because councils spend vast amounts of time and resources sorting out new access agreements whilst abandoning routes with existing rights like this one may have, which could make them really useful links

Re: Motorcycle Noise

9 June 2014 - 9:42pm
Mick F wrote:What's wrong with a quiet motorbike?

Quite. That's why I wear custom fit earplugs as well.

Re: Vote UKIP...

9 June 2014 - 9:30pm
Psamathe wrote:mjr wrote:As for "one can easily trade with other countries not in the EU" how much have you tried that?
Also, can our economy afford to lose even a small percentage of the existing EU trade.

When the recession hit I was surprised at how sensitive our economy was to pretty small %ages on negative growth. So to lose even a small part of the EU trade could set us back badly. And how would those losing their jobs feel about it? Plus, leaving the EU is not going to increase demand for our exports through the rest of the world.

Ian
Quite.
And many manufacturing companies from outside the EC locate factories here (and therefore provide jobs and taxes here) because this is a useful English-speaking base for them within the EU.
If we're out of the EU, there's no advantage to them being here. As there is already overcapacity in many markets due to the global recession, those that also have bases elsewhere in Europe will just close their factories here in preference to those they have elsewhere in the EU. And the rest will relocate PDQ.
EU companies, if they need to reduce headcount (as again, many do at the moment) will close their UK operations in preference to closing plants in the EU.
You'd be surprised how many job that will affect- very few manufacturing companies are British-owned these days.
It's a grim prospect.
And EU companies will tend to source components from companies within the EU too.

People have to understand that leaving the EU but keeping all the EU advantages in trading will not be an option, whatever people say. Thinking it will be is just living in la-la land.

Re: Restricted Byway Access?

9 June 2014 - 9:19pm
I do like a SABRE answer and that's quite interesting. I was expecting the situation to be 'no access' and that's that. From what you are saying consulting Durham Council doesn't seem like it will achieve much anyway? I've consulted the definitive map and it's not marked on there.

The owner remarked that the road heading North was the 'proper' route but as you might guess it's no more than a line across a field so not much use for a road bike.

It's not a massive issue really and I'm don't fancy confronting the owner again, even if he was perfectly civil. But this does provide a short connection between the roads above Lanchester and the Waskerley Way for just the sake of a gate.

Re: Motorcycle Noise

9 June 2014 - 9:13pm
I cannot understand why anyone wants a loud engine noise.
Why don't people enjoy quiet efficiency, rather than a noisy wasteful racket?

What's wrong with a quiet motorbike?

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

 

Terms and Conditions