Feed aggregator

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 October 2014 - 11:53am
Mick F wrote:We don't need facilities, we need to be respected as valid road-users and given space with no harassment, being an accepted part of the road transport system.
We need both. Yes, a right to ride on the road, but there are places where motorists have proven themselves incapable of being trusted to coexist with all non-motorised users and high-speed motorways are not the only one.

We have motorways, so let's have decent cycleways in key places where they can improve cycling... and I mean decent cycleways. There are some which come close but they need their faults correcting - barriers and unsafe junctions are the most common failings. There are also many many more where the blue plates should probably be removed or replaced with something like the "bikes allowed if you really want" German ones. Also in the mix, let's have more 20mph and no-through-motors zones, green space routes, school routes and cycle-friendly town centres - not every road needs a cycleway.

Meanwhile, let's keep pushing for http://www.RoadJustice.org.uk too.
Education, education, education, not segregation, segregation, segregation.
That's the failed approach of the last 80 or so years, isn't it? Why would it work now when it hasn't yet?

Re: Lights: flashing, bright: article in Cycle

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 October 2014 - 11:52am
Just to satisfy my curiosity, if somebody has some form of bar-mounted front lamp, why would they be bothered whether it was just to the right of the stem or the left? I'm thinking here of some sort of clip-on bracket which goes on the fatter bit of the bars near the stem. I can understand why riders might be unaware of the requirement in the regs and so might position it to the nearsie, but I can't think of a reason for saying it's imperative that it should be fitted to there, rather than on the offside.

Re: Dry bags - a lightweight alternative to panniers

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 11:45am
Ive always used drybags when on tour - to supplement my four panniers - on the rear rack and contain things that either i'm not too bothered about getting wet and my waterproofs - to me all this light stuff has one drawback - durability - I suppose a simple trade off - 20km a day? - im happy to average a 100/day - most of my stuff has done a couple of hundred days on the road and still have at least another couple of hundred days left in them

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 October 2014 - 11:40am
Yeah, just coz they have more and better facilities, it doesn't mean that it's a good place to cycle. Yes, I agree that it's safe and easy to get to work/shops/etc, but that doesn't mean I'd like that model here.

We don't need facilities, we need to be respected as valid road-users and given space with no harassment, being an accepted part of the road transport system.

Education, education, education, not segregation, segregation, segregation.

Re: tablet for touring

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 11:39am
Sorry I don't have it with me right now. I will post more details later. It was about ten quid I think.

Re: Knocked off bicycle. Driver won't give insurance details

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 October 2014 - 10:32am
Psamathe wrote:The Mechanic wrote:gaz wrote:As he is the Director of a Limited Company his home address is a matter of public record.

Go to Companies House website and sign up to WebCHeck. You'll need to ask for a "current appointments report" which is free.


Not quite so. It is common for Directors to give the Company address on their registration. I am a Director if 5 companies and most of my co-Directors use the Company address.
Me too. Not a good idea to make your home address publicly available on the internet. Particularly when there are so many sites that publish the info (in addition to Companies House) e.g. http://companycheck.co.uk (again, all immediately available online to everybody).

Ian

Its a legal obligation for a director to provide Companies House with their residential address. However, under the Companies Act 2006 the director can provide an address for service which can be his accountants, solicitors, the company's own registered office, or his grandma. If the director provides a service address, then the residential address is private and is only available to the security services and the police. There is nothing on Companies House now to acknowledge whether the service address shown is the directors home address or not.

Re: Dry bags - a lightweight alternative to panniers

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 10:13am
bigjim wrote:I have toured a few times using a Carradice Overlander bag. It weighs about 300g including the straps, I like the square shape. It has padding on the back so sits nicely on a rack. It also doubles as a rucksack and the shoulder straps are removeable to use to tie to the rack. It's better than a sack as it has a big zip around the front and can easily slide your hand in for items. I put items in plastic bags for ease of accessability. It also means you can strap a tent etc to the flat surface. I reckon it's easily about 26litre.
That looks a very neat solution bigjim.

Re: tablet for touring

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 10:11am
Can I ask what keyboard you used?

Re: Cycling Eutopia ?

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 October 2014 - 9:49am
I'd like a rule which gave 1 mile of cycle track (on-road or separate) for each new mile of road that is created or re-surfaced. Wouldn't take that long to have an improved transport system.

I agree with you Mick, to be Utopia I would need a lot of variety in the scenery. Cycling in Denmark is fun but it is lacking variety scenery-wise. Cycled there this year and last year. Preferred Holland as at least there were lots of waterways but both countries have much better provision for cyclists than the UK

Re: Lighting a bike/high vis on tour

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 9:44am
Spinners wrote:I find the use of all black cycle clothing baffling and see so many cyclists dressed like this nowadays.

You see lots of people dressed in black. So why should that change if they want to ride a bike somewhere?

I avoid black and grey for cycling jackets but only because I don't really like them as colours for any jackets, and being a stocky slaphead I tend to look like a bouncer when in black. But it's really just a personal colour choice, a bit like having a black car.

Pete.

Re: Lighting a bike/high vis on tour

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 9:40am
mjr wrote:I think I'd be inclined to use a dynamo if I wanted lights most of the time

More than an inclination for me. Put a decent hub dynamo on and connect it to modern LED lamps and that's your lighting problems sorted for the whole way. Use automatic lights like BuM's "Senso" models and you don't even have to worry about deciding when to turn them on... You can override the sensors and just use them as daytime running lights (bulbs blowing very much less of an issue with LED tecnology, it's not only brighter but a lot more reliable), and that takes a way a lot of your hi-viz-without-the-hi-viz issues.

I'm not a big fan of hi-viz, but there is a big difference between "colourful" and hi-viz. While you might like all-over black there are practical reasons of overheating in the sun why you might be better off with some alternatives, at least some of the time.

Be aware that in training these days position is emphasised as probably the most important part of being seen. If there is a small pothole in your track you generally see it despite it being small and nothingness because it's where you're looking for things. It's not required that it be surrounded in dayglo paint. But if you're not looking it doesn't matter if it is surrounded in dayglo paint, because you're not looking. Same goes for drivers and cyclists: if they don't look they won't see you, if they do look you'll be seen. Once seen research has now suggested there's no difference in e.g. care in overtaking of riders in loud clothes.

Pete.

Re: Clipping and running

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 October 2014 - 9:09am
Sum wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:I've just rewatched the video and can see no evidence of a strong acceleration (as would be needed to maintain road speed). However it is very difficult to see any acceleration anyway. His cadence doesn't seem to increase at all though. The onus is still on the person making the manoeuvre.
Well you wouldn't see any acceleration/deceleration if he was maintaining road speed, would you!? However to me he looks as if he's moving past the camera guy at the time of collision. He certainly doesn't look as if he was pulling back.[/quote[

Sorry - I was unclear. In order to maintain speed along the road, whilst travelling diagonally, he would have to increase his speed over the tarmac. I'm not sure he does this, so his sideways manoeuvre inevitably adds a "backwards" component relative to the riders around him.
It is this component that is exacerbated by the rapidity of the manoeuvre.

A more gentle change of direction would have reduced this component (which is possibly/probably what caused the collision) as well as allowing time for the component to have been observed and accounted for by the other riders.

OT: Had it been me behind then the rider in front might have been in a world of pain - since his rear wheel would have been caught by my feet/pedals which can't "give" sideways, so he'd likely have been down, with me completely unable to stop before running him over.

Poor judgement by both, but only one of the riders actually caused a collision.

Additionally we don't see long enough, but the forward rider certainly stops pedalling, but then starts again, implying that he didn't stop. Note that this is speculation.

EDIT: Just read the description on the video:
"The guy in the silver and blue Pinarello cut-off in front of a rider and took his front wheel out. He saw the accident he caused and sped away."

Re: Lighting a bike/high vis on tour

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 8:57am
Spinners wrote:I find the use of all black cycle clothing baffling and see so many cyclists dressed like this nowadays.
If you see them, it can't be so bad for visibility Do you find the continuing use of black cars baffling, too?

Back to the original question: I didn't have a problem in NZ (except the blasted helmets) but there wasn't much traffic where I was riding. In the US, there was so much traffic that most of it didn't move very fast - I did avoid big roads because I wasn't going anywhere in particular.

I think I'd be inclined to use a dynamo if I wanted lights most of the time, or a good "be seen" set of lights if it was just for occasional use in areas of poor visibility and few cycles - many Cateye or Smart ones seem OK for that.

Re: Clipping and running

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 October 2014 - 8:55am
[XAP]Bob wrote:The point is that the onus is always on the person making a manoeuvre. (We'll return to the verbal signal at the end)
We've already said that the guy in front is partly to blame, and this is yet more repetition on that. I guess what I'm saying is that once the rider behind tells the guy in front to go ahead then his actions resulted in an assumption of duty as well i.e. part of the onus is now on him as well.
[XAP]Bob wrote:I've just rewatched the video and can see no evidence of a strong acceleration (as would be needed to maintain road speed). However it is very difficult to see any acceleration anyway. His cadence doesn't seem to increase at all though. The onus is still on the person making the manoeuvre.
Well you wouldn't see any acceleration/deceleration if he was maintaining road speed, would you!? However to me he looks as if he's moving past the camera guy at the time of collision. He certainly doesn't look as if he was pulling back.
Again part of the onus is on the rider behind once he tells the rider to go ahead.
[XAP]Bob wrote:I know what the words were - I was questioning the meaning behind them. "Go ahead" could mean: I'm letting a gap open up so that you can go ahead in a few seconds, or it could mean: there is already room for you to go ahead, or it could mean something else entirely.
The onus is on the person making the maneuver to ensure that it is safe, and he didn't even look - it's a couple of seconds between looking and swiping. Interestingly his hand also comes over the front of a brake lever - doesn't look like he touched the brakes though.
You can't say that the guy didn't even look. The guy looked twice; as he was indicating and when the rider behind said “go ahead go ahead” just before he pulled out. The brake lever thing is interesting.
The rider behind clearly said something and if "go ahead" didn't mean go ahead then he has to accept responsibility for that. The fact that he said go ahead means that part of the onus is upon him as well. I certainly wouldn't wave someone out if my safety was dependent upon them waiting until the gap got bigger, or having to suddenly go much faster. As it it I suspect the rider behind meant go ahead and he didn't spot the wheel overlap.
[XAP]Bob wrote:The rear rider makes an error of judgement - either in terms of space or in terms of word choice...
Agreed, the rear rider and the front rider as well. Fundamentally we seem to be agreeing (I think!)

Re: constant tyre lubrication system

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 8:51am
simonhill wrote:A detailed in depth test of different tyres rolling resistance. I think everything I have seen so far is purely subjective, ie peoples opinions. What we need are FACTS!
A link to the Fietsersbond's tests including rolling resistance is given in viewtopic.php?p=827831#p827831 amongst other topics in this forum.

Re: tablet for touring

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 8:48am
I took a Nexus 7 (new model) on our five month tour round Britain this summer. I added a cheap blue tooth keyboard for typing the blog. I really couldn't fault it in any way. The battery life was adequate and we used a top up battery for backup. The keyboard (I'm typing on it right now) was excellent. Not the cheapest option I know but it did just work so I'm happy.

Re: Lighting a bike/high vis on tour

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 8:46am
Spinners wrote:I find the use of all black cycle clothing baffling and see so many cyclists dressed like this nowadays.
Perhaps he wants cosy up to the Kiwis by dressing as an All Black. Totally unnecessary though - Kiwis are for the most part very nice people - friendly, approachable, welcoming.

Re: LLC and Wales Questions

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 7:51am
Alternative start to Day 1 created with Bikeroutetoaster

http://bikeroutetoaster.com/BRTWebUI/Course/735840

I've not tried to publish a route like this before, so let me know if it works.

There's no easy way onto the mountain, but this is the best in the area.

Re: Clipping and running

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 October 2014 - 7:49am
Sum wrote:Bob, apologies for dissecting your post in Reohn-like fashion but in this particular case it seem the easiest way to reply. I hope I haven't responded to anything out of context.

I'll try to keep it together on the reply...
Sum wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:I know this looks like it was state-side, but the HC advice still applies:
Highway Code 111 wrote:Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.
The requirement to use your own judgement isn't limited by the signals of other road users.
I’m not certain of what your point is here. The HC rule you quote states that flashing headlights is not a signal to proceed. When read in context with rule 110:-
Highway Code 110 wrote: Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.
There’s obviously a big difference between someone flashing their headlamp to alert someone, and giving a clear verbal signal to proceed. However if your point was that the guy in front failed to spot that there was insufficient room to pull out then I’d agree. In fact I've already said that both riders must have misjudged the gap and they are both responsible for their actions.

The point is that the onus is always on the person making a manoeuvre. (We'll return to the verbal signal at the end)


Sum wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:I hadn't heard the "go ahead, go ahead" on first viewing, but my opinion isn't largely altered - the change of road position was aggressive, and unnecessarily so.
We don't know that but what is clear from the video that the guy indicated to pull out either into or across the paceline and the guy behind told him to go ahead even though there was wheel overlap.
[XAP]Bob wrote:If you change direction like that then you (by definition) reduce your speed along the road (since you are travelling across it). It looked like a very small clip, possibly the gap was there for a gentle cross, but the rapidity of the manoeuvre required a larger gap.
Only if you don't accelerate to compensate. Again the video doesn't bear that out. The cyclist seems to be accelerating to overtake the camera guy (before he did a runner!) The guy behind may have misunderstood the intentions of the other guy, perhaps not expecting him to pull out as far as he did as you suggest, but if that was the case then that simply means he made an error in judgement when he said "go ahead". The "use your own judgement and proceed carefully" applies equally here.
I've just rewatched the video and can see no evidence of a strong acceleration (as would be needed to maintain road speed). However it is very difficult to see any acceleration anyway. His cadence doesn't seem to increase at all though.
The onus is still on the person making the manoeuvre.

Sum wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:Or maybe the shout was "I'm letting up to let you go through", not "come straight across me"
No, the shout was "go ahead go ahead" after the guy indicated he wanted to pull out.
I know what the words were - I was questioning the meaning behind them. "Go ahead" could mean: I'm letting a gap open up so that you can go ahead in a few seconds, or it could mean: there is already room for you to go ahead, or it could mean something else entirely.
The onus is on the person making the manoeuvre to ensure that it is safe, and he didn't even look - it's a couple of seconds between looking and swiping. Interestingly his hand also comes over the front of a brake lever - doesn't look like he touched the brakes though.

Sum wrote:Just to make it clear (again) I'm not defending either guy, or criticising the other, but rather that I don't think it's a simple case of saying that only one person is at fault here. I think both riders made an error in judgement.
The rear rider makes an error of judgement - either in terms of space or in terms of word choice...

Re: constant tyre lubrication system

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 7:44am
simonhill wrote:A detailed in depth test of different tyres rolling resistance. I think everything I have seen so far is purely subjective, ie peoples opinions. What we need are FACTS!
see here:
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/tech/JL.htm

Sorry to say that there is little of interest to those of you who still cycle a bike with those weird great big wheels, but you can employ the relative values - you could always ask John if he wouldn't mind doing some extra tests for the antediluvian amongst you, although I'm fairly sure I know what he'll say...
Syndicate content

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