Feed aggregator

Re: Clothing layers for Touring

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 18 July 2014 - 1:40pm
Hi Skicat,

late September 2014 - Scotland....... King Alex will demand a passport, layers are the least of your worries!!!!

Nah, even the midges are still alive then, you'll be good in a couple of T-shirts,

Have a good trip,

Simon

Re: Any ideas of good 3 day (mainly off road tour)

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 18 July 2014 - 1:24pm
Dean wrote:Day 1 - Darlington to Cow Green (it's possible to link a few off-road bits to ride almost completely along the Tees, or on the road), pick up the Pennine Way and descend High Cup.

Camp on the moss, or there's a YHA in Dufton.

Day 2 - along to Knock and up the military road to Great Dun Fell, then carry on along the bridleway over the Tees to Tynedale.

Camp on the fells, or there's a YHA bunkhouse in Alston.

Day 3 - back over Yad Moss and down Teesdale back to Darlo. You could cut through Hamsterley if you wanted a bit more off-road, of course.

Might give that a go next week actually. Is that one you've done Dean?

Re: Attention London cyclists only! Red light running survey

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 July 2014 - 12:27pm
661-Pete wrote:I think we need to know more about what this is all about. I'm not a London cyclist, but if I were, I wouldn't feel happy about completing a survey published anonymously on a highly contentious topic.
Good point. Anyone know Imperial College's research ethics guidelines? I'd be surprised if anonymous solicitation and this survey design met them.

Re: Attention London cyclists only! Red light running survey

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 July 2014 - 12:19pm
There's not much we can do to see who posted it or what their ultimate aim is. My advice would be - if you think that there might be something wrong with the survey then don't fill it in.

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 July 2014 - 12:08pm
You know the area and I don't. Any comments on my part are general - and I only rarely see a tractor, let alone one that someone has tried unsuccessfully to shunt off the road

Re: Attention London cyclists only! Red light running survey

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 July 2014 - 12:05pm
I think we need to know more about what this is all about. I'm not a London cyclist, but if I were, I wouldn't feel happy about completing a survey published anonymously on a highly contentious topic.

Re: Attention London cyclists only! Red light running survey

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 July 2014 - 11:58am
You might find the following useful:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/do ... lights.pdf


Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does.
Roger Geffen, CTC

Re: A-hole in a van.

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 July 2014 - 11:46am
Good on you for for reporting the deadbeat looser, hope you get some sort of result...

Re: Attention London cyclists only! Red light running survey

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 July 2014 - 11:36am
I've completed the survey but agree with the comments above. If the question was posed as: have you been involved in a collision at a junction when stopping for a red light, I would be interested in the responses.

I'm fortunate not to have yet had a collision, but know it's likely to happen at some point. I rarely RLJ – only occasionally if I'm turning left and I can see there's no harm, but I have had occasion to RLJ if I feel threatened or intimidated by the driver behind. This happened once, at a pedestrian crossing about to change to red, when I was intimidated enough by a driver behaving very aggressively down a long stretch of a busy B road (tailgaiting, revving and swerving out to overtake in the face of oncoming traffic). I sped up to go over the crossing on amber while pedestrians were waiting – naturally he ploughed through on red to make a stupid overtake . It's not strictly a RLJ for me, but it's an exception as I usually slow down when an amber is about to go red. On numerous occasions, drivers behind me speed up to overtake me over a crossing or junction and I fully expect to see an pedestrian injured or worse .

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 July 2014 - 11:27am
drossall wrote:similarly, I'm not sure that people crash into the back of tractors that slow further to turn into lanes, but rather into cars that were previously doing 60mph.
Oh I've seen a fair few crashes in the two years riding this route. They crash into everything. Most often cars, but that's probably because they're the most plentiful vehicle type, but there seems to be a disproportionate number of farm vehicles, usually relatively unharmed while the car is seriously damaged. It's a 40mph limit but cars probably often do 50 if not 60.

While the county council was widening one section of road into town, cars were crashing into the temporary signals, relocated traffic islands and all sorts. Since completion, I've seen more crashes than I'd like and often I've not been able to see an obvious cause - best guess is driving into the back of another vehicle at high speed. Riding on those roads rather than the adjacent cycle tracks doesn't give me a warm confident feeling (heck, I'm a bit paranoid about driving a car on them), so mostly I take my chances with the added junctions (which mostly aren't too dangerous) and lumpy surfaces instead of idiot drivers, while all the time cursing the incompetence of all government organisations involved in failing to design better transport.

Re: A-hole in a van.

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 July 2014 - 11:25am
yes,id say it was a assault;therefore pursue it with the police as such.
condolences,sure you were badly shaken up.

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 July 2014 - 11:11am
mjr wrote:...mostly not driving into the backs of tractors and other slow-movers - sadly not always... especially where vehicles slow further to turn off into country lanes, farms and other yards!

Of course, the risks for bikes on the road in comparable situations are reduced somewhat because it's often not necessary for a bike to slow in order to turn. When it is, there's already a speed differential, so slowing a bit more isn't such a risk - similarly, I'm not sure that people crash into the back of tractors that slow further to turn into lanes, but rather into cars that were previously doing 60mph.

Re: New Route Planner

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 18 July 2014 - 11:04am
I tried a route from Aviemore to Braemar, just to see what it did, and it came up with a crossing of the Lairig Ghru.

When I checked the photos to see what the path was like, it turned out that the whole of the Lairig Ghru was a single 13-mile section between Piccadilly and the Derry Burn, and that showing the photos anywhere along the section gave the same selection of photos in the same order, so you'd got to go through all 75 of them to check out any one part.
Would it be possible to sort the photos so that those closest to the click location were shown first?

(also on YACF topic)

Re: Attention London cyclists only! Red light running survey

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 July 2014 - 10:53am
I agree 100% with iviehoff. I've collided with other road users and the only one at all I remember as related to traffic lights was a car in front fluffing its gears when pulling away as the lights changed to green and me riding into the back of it (bounced off with the front tyre, dismounted and straddled top tube, caught the bike as it fell, driver in front didn't even notice).

Also there are a lot of walkers crossing randomly in London, as is their right (red men are advisory and very over-cautious for most people), so I sound my bell even pulling away on green and try to negotiate passage with walkers who look at me, but it would be very easy to end up in a crash unrelated to rider RLJing and I think that would be confused in this survey.

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 July 2014 - 10:39am
Pete Owens wrote:... but the ineviable conflicting traffic movements through junctions.
"Inevitable" conflicts which could be evaded by grade separation, smart signalisation and so on... but you've heard that all before and they're almost never used in this country yet anyway.

If you're a 20mph bike in a 40mph all-traffic lane, isn't your forward movement conflicting with the forward movement of a 40mph vehicle behind? Of course, I'd agree it's a conflict that the data says is less risky. I suggest that's because the rules resolving that conflict are rather better known to most drivers and they comply with them, mostly not driving into the backs of tractors and other slow-movers - sadly not always, according to the amount of crash debris scattered along the A-road from my home to town, especially where vehicles slow further to turn off into country lanes, farms and other yards!

So let's say that doing 20mph on the front of a line in a 40 limit at least feels like conflict and it's one which usually lasts a longer time than the conflict at a cycleway/all-traffic junction. Could this be a reason why cycleways are perceived as easier or less stressful and even England's crap cycle lanes attract riders despite the statistics? Are its users minimising the time spent in conflict, rather than the expected damage from the conflict? I don't remember and didn't find any research on this.

On other posts added while I was searching for research: I agree that footway conversions are rarely much good; and I'm not convinced that cycle lanes are better than tracks across freeflowing junctions because it's so much harder to achieve good mutual visibility.

Re: Attention London cyclists only! Red light running survey

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 July 2014 - 10:33am
I think your question "have you ever been involved in a collision with another road user" is quite irrelevant to red light jumping. Very few collisions have anything to do with red light jumping. My collisions in over 20 years of cycling in London comprise 2 doorings and around 10 pedestrian collisions, entirely due to them running out in front of me. One of the doorings occurred while I was slowing down to stop at a red light, by a car waiting in an outer lane. Only one of those pedestrian collisions occurred at a light-controlled junction and I was going through a green light at a time. The quantity of heedless pedestrians who think the traffic will stop for them if they cross the road at a time of their own choosing is material in a city with as many pedestrians as central London.

My wife was knocked off her bike (actually it was my bike) by a car pulling out of a side road (not lights controlled) after she had been cycling in London for a total of 2 mins. Somewhat put her off.

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

CTC Forum - On the road - 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

CTC Forum - On the road - 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

CTC Forum - On the road - 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

Re: Clothing layers for Touring

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 18 July 2014 - 9:46am
What I take touring (My touring is fully self sufficient cycle camping)-

Rapha long sleeved merino baselayer
Haglofs fleece
Buffalo windshirt and/or a Gore windproof gilet
Berghaus GoreTex jacket.

Rapha touring shorts or Tracksters
Rohan silk undercrackers

Woolie Boolies

And a set of dry/clean clothes.
Syndicate content

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