CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 2 hours 13 min ago

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

1 November 2014 - 10:14pm
Thanks both, I've taken more time to read the Wikipedia entry now, and I see what you mean...

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

1 November 2014 - 9:58pm
Bicycler wrote:PRL wrote:The surface is gravel and lasted for many years with no obvious maintenance. The gates have led to a decrease in traffic so that , with nettles closing in, it is now hardly passable on foot - perhaps the aim is to extinguish any ROW.
Rest assured that once they exist they can only be extinguished by a legal mechanism.

It is generally the council's duty to cut back vegetation to stop it interfering with the highway. They don't tend to do much of this over the winter but if reported now it'll get sorted when they are next doing similar work in the area.

By the way, the landowner needs permission (from the council) for any new gates (rather than just replacing old ones) across any right of way. Unless there is a need to control livestock such permission is unlikely to have been granted. If no permission was granted the council have a legal obligation to order their removal.Strictly it's the responsibility of the (County usually) council to keep the footpath clear of vegetation growing on it, but side vegetation is the responsibility of the land owner.

Like others I agree that the "No Entry" signs are not the same vehicle prohibition signs. In fact there is a no entry sign on a two way road near me - it doesn't mean vehicles are prohibited. How those signs will be viewed in the claim by the cycling group for 20years unrestricted use I don't know.

You're correct about the gates. Perhaps anyone challenged by the landowner could enquire about how long the gate has been there etc. The problem is it depends on the landowner. The likes of Hoogstraten, and rough types can be extremely challenging!

Re: no no no cycling?

1 November 2014 - 9:44pm
A recent thread about CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs turned into a discussion of NO CYCLING signs with a redundant red diagonal.

viewtopic.php?p=810250#p810250

Re: no no no cycling?

1 November 2014 - 8:45pm
661-Pete wrote:I noticed on my recent trip, that the NO CYCLING signs are like that in the USA, with the diagonal bar. I've never understood why the European protocols proscribe the bar, it would make sound logical sense to me - but I suppose we're fairly used to our version, now. American cyclists, visiting Britain, might get it wrong I suppose.And by that logic speed limit signs should also have a bar through them, as well as all the others that only have a red circle. I would have thought technically the OP's sign is invalid as it's not a statutory sign. Motorists have "got off" parking penalties for incorrect signage so the same might apply here.

Re: Have you been knocked OFF in a collision while cycling?

1 November 2014 - 7:54pm
Three times in total. Car door twice and once cut up on a roundabout. Most recent was August this year.

Re: The financial cost/loss of UK Road incidents £15Billion

1 November 2014 - 7:03pm
My impression of things round here (Staffordshire M6 area) is that either the police have given up trying with traffic, or they have no staff. Due to a lot of road works, the congestion in town here is appalling and people are getting ratty having queued for an hour to do a ten minute journey and have started going through red lights three or more at a time (which is not usual) and blocking junctions willy nilly, with or without diamonds; it's getting unbearable and dangerous. Someone reported it and the only response they got was that statistically drivers here are better than average re red lights, totally missing the point that a unique crisis is developing which has transformed local driving habits, which has nothing to do with yearly averages. I wonder if they ever go into the town at all, obviously not for the last month.

We had livestock on the main road here recently, i.e., a cow. Some chaps in a truck saw it, stopped, and got it off the road. (this was rush hour). They phoned the police. No-one came. Eventually they rang the police again, as they were supposed to be working and had been waiting nearly half an hour, keeping the cow off the road. They were told that nobody would be being sent as no-one was available. They protested, and then the story changed to 'oh, actually we are looking for a car in your area'. They pointed out that two police cars had already gone past them. No joy. Meanwhile I and others were running around trying to find out whose cow it was, and someone had got hold of two farmers to look after it until the owner turned up so the men could get back to their work.
Had the two men just left, and the cow had got on the road, there could easily have been an accident. No doubt then the police would have suddenly found someone to come, and then closed the road for about 6 hours while they 'investigated' it. It would have cost a fortune in manpower and possibly a life.

One person suggested they should have said the cow had a gun.

Re: Name the landmark

1 November 2014 - 6:28pm
Is the gravestone the grave of Thomas Henry Morris, mentioned in this week's Cycleclips?
http://www.cyclingnorthwales.co.uk/page ... l_trag.htm

Re: Name the landmark

1 November 2014 - 6:20pm
Trig, is that Clipstone pithead?

I vaguely remember they were due to be torn down, though.

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

1 November 2014 - 2:03pm
TonyR wrote:drossall wrote:I've just noticed some of the background material in Wikipedia, which contributors to this discussion may find interesting, as it is generally supportive of the value of hi-vis, contrary to some reports up-thread.

Seems entirely consistent with what's up-thread to me. Lots of studies showing you can be seen more easily in hi-viz and the few studies there are showing no resultant safety benefit and the possibility of an increased risk to wearers
Indeed.

The main things I think that people fail to see is that being visible and being seen are two different things.
It's much better to be seen late than early. The basis for this is that spotted early and identified as a responsible cyclist means the autonomous part of the brain can safely shift you back out without bothering to alert one's consciousness.
Spotted late and identified as a maverick ninja and thus unpredictable means one's conciousness is alerted, it curses at the 'idiot cyclist' but it takes avoiding action since ninja's are notoriously random.

There's simply no benefit to being seen 200 meters up the road as compared to being seen 50 meters away and the evidence seems to support the idea that there's actually a disadvantage as pointed out above.
Finally, those of us who do wear all the gear and expensive lights ride along under the misapprehension that we're visible. Ninja's on the other hand probably presume they're not...

(Based on urban, street lit environments where a cyclist is fairly easy to spot regardless of what they're wearing - if you're looking).

Re: Have you been knocked OFF in a collision while cycling?

1 November 2014 - 1:42pm
My first accident happened on a roundabout, when a motorist pulled out in front of me. The road split into two lanes on the approach to the roundabout; the driver in the right hand lane saw me and stopped, but the one in the left hand lane pulled straight out without having a good view of the road. I went into the side of the car, and then fell sideways onto the tarmac. I was lucky in that my shoulder (and the car) absorbed most of the impact - there was no damage to the bike. I didn't notice that I was bleeding from the bridge of my nose, where my glasses had hit my face, until I arrived at work.

My second accident happened while I was at a T-junction, completely stationary and waiting to turn right out of a minor road, and a driver was turning right into the minor road. He cut the corner and drove straight into my bike. Fortunately I'd just managed to jump clear - I wasn't technically knocked off, but I did end up off the bike. The bike itself needed a new front wheel and new brake levers, which the driver paid for.

Re: The financial cost/loss of UK Road incidents £15Billion

1 November 2014 - 12:32pm
thirdcrank wrote:Tonyf33 wrote: ... One wonders why there is still so little done ....

This is the result of the casualty reduction approach. The most effective way of reducing cycling casualties would be to ban cycling on roads. The risk of that happening has now passed but politicians and highwaymen doing their dirty work still favour farcities, which they see as the next best thing.

And yet they fail to see that the motorvehicle is by far the greatest problem (or choose to ignore that fact) that by making things safer you actually increase welfare of society/make urban environments a more pleasant place to be and the kicker is that it is proven to be economically sound/beneficial in so so many ways.. http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views ... nd-economy
I tried hard toget my councillor just to get them to act on the Urban Transport Plan from over 2 years back but still we are waiting for even one single thing to be done..response..(in essence), economics. No-one is prepared to open their bloody eyes even just a smidgeon

Re: The financial cost/loss of UK Road incidents £15Billion

1 November 2014 - 9:24am
Tonyf33 wrote: ... One wonders why there is still so little done ....

This is the result of the casualty reduction approach. The most effective way of reducing cycling casualties would be to ban cycling on roads. The risk of that happening has now passed but politicians and highwaymen doing their dirty work still favour farcities, which they see as the next best thing.

Re: The financial cost/loss of UK Road incidents £15Billion

1 November 2014 - 9:07am
In my neck of the woods between J19 and J16 there is an incident and subsequent hold up almost daily,sometimes upto 3hours or more and 1 hour hold ups are a regular occurrence,usually during rush hour.
Traffic is very heavy most of the time.
Anyone living in the GM area will know it's reputation by radio reports alone if they don't actually use the stretch.

Other than chevrons painted on the road and a warning not to drive to close,there are no speed restrictions no extra camera surveillance and AFAIK no extra police patrols.

Something causes the incidents daily,it isn't an act of God or the devil,but bad driving.

Within a known high incident area with the correct approach to safety things could be better,instead of leaving it to the loonies own devices.
There may be efforts to stop the incidents that I'm not aware of,but if there are they ain't radical enough as they're having no effect.

You'd think on cost to the economy alone it'd be worth it,not to mention the human cost,but still it persists and has done for years.

So if the loonies can't be stopped on motorways what chance on ordinary urban,roads that must be much harder to police?
The answer is surely is good road layout,good policing and the power to remove the loonies from the roads.

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

1 November 2014 - 8:31am
drossall wrote:I've just noticed some of the background material in Wikipedia, which contributors to this discussion may find interesting, as it is generally supportive of the value of hi-vis, contrary to some reports up-thread.

Seems entirely consistent with what's up-thread to me. Lots of studies showing you can be seen more easily in hi-viz and the few studies there are showing no resultant safety benefit and the possibility of an increased risk to wearers

The financial cost/loss of UK Road incidents £15Billion

1 November 2014 - 5:26am
So having a butchers at the latest 2013 figures and it would seem that the 109 cycling deaths cost in a monetary figure c.£200M
Overall road statisitcs show a total cost of almost £15 Billion.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 013-00.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... dology.pdf
Whilst the financial losses cannot in any way relate to the emotional cost especially to those whom suffer severe injuries and/or loss of life even a small % drop in road casualties makes a huge huge difference.
One wonders why there is still so little done relative to what could/should be done not only to further reduce tragedy but also the financial loss to the public purse and individuals.

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

1 November 2014 - 12:27am
It's an important, but not always understood, point that "hi-vis" clothing varies between night and day. There's not much point in reflectives in the day (they don't stand out) and not that much point in fluorescent-type clothing at night (don't think it's intended for the fairly directional beam of a headlight).

This may not be an argument against light clothing in general.

I've just noticed some of the background material in Wikipedia, which contributors to this discussion may find interesting, as it is generally supportive of the value of hi-vis, contrary to some reports up-thread.

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

1 November 2014 - 12:15am
Fascinating to see how emotive this subject is.

2 years ago I wore a helmet almost all the time, a high vis vest / coat virtually every ride, and didn't consider wearing headphones. Now I rarely bother with the helmet, the vest only for the reflectives and listen to music on most commutes. These changes were based on practical experience and opinions / research read on this forum, which suggest these have little effect on safety.

"Anecdata" alert: ironically in my opinion it's the wearing of dark clothing at night that it is where it makes the least difference. More important is lighting and reflectives - the other night I was in my car on an unlit country road approaching a cyclist that I noticed easily further ahead because of the his lights and reflectives showing in my headlights. It wasn't until I was going past and alongside him that I noticed his top was day-glo yellow - it may just of well have been jet black.

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

31 October 2014 - 10:00pm
I see a few trainee snowmen on bikes.

Re: Name the landmark

31 October 2014 - 9:46pm
AdWatch wrote:Don't know where that is, but how about this one?

Angkor Wat.

Re: Name the landmark

31 October 2014 - 8:47pm
Don't know where that is, but how about this one?

2nd photo' added.

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