Feed aggregator

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

CTC Forum - On the road - 24 July 2014 - 6:04pm
stephenjubb wrote:The roads in a way are like nature the bigger vehicles rule in a way in that it is us and pedestrians get injured, so we have to do everything in our power to prevent injurys.

Its does the cause no good with bad practice from some so called "cyclists" who ride on the pavement.
On my way to where I used to work I usually used the road through a busy junction. Several people told me the road was two busy to cycle on. When there were roadworks on the road making it an unpleasant single lane I chose to use the adjacent shared use farcility. The same several colleagues told me I shouldn't have been riding on the pavement. None would accept the existence of shared use paths, having never heard of them!

We can't win. They just want us to disappear. Helpfully we're halfway there because we are already invisible

Re: South from Paris centre

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 24 July 2014 - 6:02pm
That's one to look into, thanks Graham!

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

CTC Forum - On the road - 24 July 2014 - 5:10pm
stephenjubb wrote:Bicycler wrote:stephenjubb wrote:Though you could use the same logic for supporting the "get in the cycle lane" advice.

Indeed correct. However, I can choose not to ride 2 abreast however on the cycle lanes some are dangerous or one cannot make progress and I have had drivers tell me to get in the cycle lane when it wasn't suitable. In these situations I'll take the abuse and igore them.

The worse was in Inverness on the A9, I'd done a 65 mile trip from Ullapool and just did not see it.

Drivers were quite correct that in that instance I should have been on the cycle track, but I received with looks of venim shouts of get on the f???ing cycle track. Talk about shocking.

The roads in a way are like nature the bigger vehicles rule in a way in that it is us and pedestrians get injured, so we have to do everything in our power to prevent injurys.

Its does the cause no good with bad practice from some so called "cyclists" who ride on the pavement.

I find a good way to view angry drivers is to try and think poor so and so, driving that car. It does get hard though with lots of abuse, but I get little but then up north there is less traffic.

If it is a flash car I think no thanks, I would have to work 100s of hours extra to afford it when I could work a fraction extra and cycle tour rather than pay for a flashy tin can.

Its a great mindset, I never get jealous of anyone in a porsche or rolls royce! If they like those things fair play, I just won't get envious. Lifes too short.

South from Paris centre

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 24 July 2014 - 4:58pm
I am planning a ride through France and intend going through Paris, entering via part of the Avenue Verte which should deposit me at the Notre Dame. Does anyone have any ideas for a route south from there down towards Fontainbleau - as traffic free as possible without adding too many miles

Re: Looking for inspiration/ideas for a tour in Germany.

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 24 July 2014 - 4:27pm
Nigel
Any chance of explaining how you travelled to Donaueschingen?

Thanks

Re: Train tickets and bike reservations for someone in the U

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 24 July 2014 - 4:02pm
I want to thank everyone who responded. Here are the results:

I booked an advanced tickets from Slough to Reading to Cardiff to Holyhead for £46 at the eastcoast.co.uk site with a bicycle reservation. I wasn't able to post it to my family member as the card I used was a foreign, so I will have to pick the tickets up at a station.

I decided not to ride to Reading, as I will likely do that on the way back and it doesn't add much time or trouble to the trip. I leave at 10:30, arriving in Holyhead about 18:00.

Re: Triumph of HiViz over common sense?

CTC Forum - On the road - 24 July 2014 - 3:45pm
I like to see people riding bikes in everyday clothes. On my regular training [but I'm not training] so, excercise run I see a chap who rides a decent road bike but he has normal trousers with bicycle clips and an ordinary shirt with the sleeves rolled up. Sometimes he has an old suit jacket on. No helmet. Big saddlebag. He sets a fair old pace and seems quite happy.
We also have locally a character who does a lot of the local gardens in, say, 5 mile square area. I see him all over the shop. He rides a hybrid bike and carries his limited amount of gardening gear with him. I've even seen him with a large Flymo lawnmower over one shoulder, riding one handed and balancing the mower with the other hand.
I live in a very, very heavily trafficked area. He roams around in all weathers, weaves through the crazy traffic. Never gets beeped or shouted at. He wears old gardening togs, boots and a flat cap. Been doing this for at least 30 years and still with us.
Makes you think.

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

CTC Forum - On the road - 24 July 2014 - 3:11pm
stephenjubb wrote:Bicycler wrote:stephenjubb wrote:And although legal riding two aside whilst legal does make drivers angry. Although legal it is just better avoided even if there are x reasons why it should be allowed.
Eh? It is allowed. If there are x reasons why it is beneficial at times then surely it is not good advice to tell people never to do it.

Ah, you may be right, wrong choice of words.

I just avoid it wherever possible because it just cheeses off car drivers ( who think it is illegal) and I don' need the grief.
Thanks for the clarification. I can understand that view. there are certainly drivers who get annoyed at cyclists they perceive to be doing something wrong regardless of whether they actually are or whether it affects the driver in any meaningful way. Though you could use the same logic for supporting the "get in the cycle lane" advice.

Mark1978 wrote:Who is this road safety GB NE anyway. From the looks of it it's a motoring organisation trying to put cyclists in their place.

Oh Mark, you just don't understand! They are one of those groups of "anti-driver ideologists" giving the false impression that we should care about road safety: http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Road-sa ... story.html

Now I realise that road safety is all about punishing law abiding motorists and raising money

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

CTC Forum - On the road - 24 July 2014 - 3:04pm
Bicycler wrote:stephenjubb wrote:And although legal riding two aside whilst legal does make drivers angry. Although legal it is just better avoided even if there are x reasons why it should be allowed.
Eh? It is allowed. If there are x reasons why it is beneficial at times then surely it is not good advice to tell people never to do it.

Ah, you may be right, wrong choice of words.

I just avoid it wherever possible because it just cheeses off car drivers ( who think it is illegal) and I don' need the grief.

Re: Touring bike alternatives?

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 24 July 2014 - 2:40pm
Have you looked at the 'allroad' machines? nice stuff from Giant, Trek, Specialized and even Raleigh!

You could do that particular ride on a quite spritely bit of kit so a sportive style would easily be okay and make a nice commuter too.

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

CTC Forum - On the road - 24 July 2014 - 2:29pm
Who is this road safety GB NE anyway. From the looks of it it's a motoring organisation trying to put cyclists in their place.

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

CTC Forum - On the road - 24 July 2014 - 2:23pm
You can't obstruct the highway when cycling by dentition you are using the highway for it's intended purpose. If you'd stopped and sat down in the middle of the road perhaps that would be obstruction.

Re: Looking for inspiration/ideas for a tour in Germany.

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 24 July 2014 - 2:21pm
How about Luneburg Heath? There is a great bikeline guide covering the area and rather than a single loop there are several which can be combined depending on your needs.

You can fly into Hamburg and take the train to a starting point of your choice, Luneburg, Uelzen, Celle for example. Pleasant scenery, great food, wide variety of accomodation options and plenty to see!

Easy riding - when i took my bike i can't recall needing to change gear in a fortnight!

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

CTC Forum - On the road - 24 July 2014 - 2:17pm
stephenjubb wrote:And although legal riding two aside whilst legal does make drivers angry. Although legal it is just better avoided even if there are x reasons why it should be allowed.
Eh? It is allowed. If there are x reasons why it is beneficial at times then surely it is not good advice to tell people never to do it.

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

CTC Forum - On the road - 24 July 2014 - 2:03pm
stephenjubb wrote:Nothing wrong with it. If more cyclists followed it ( helmets obviously a persons own preference) roads would be safer.

There's no evidence that hi-viz makes roads safer.

Riding in single file makes a group longer to pass, which in some scenarios makes the pass more difficult to execute safely. Sometimes riding two abreast makes a safe pass more difficult, sometimes it makes it easier, and sometimes it prevents an unsafe pass where no safe pass is possible.

The instruction "If there is a cycle lane, use it!" is so painfully ill-advised from a safety perspective that I don't have the energy to explain it, but https://twitter.com/bollocksinfra is worth a look.

I could also list certain scenarios where using hand signals is less safe than not doing so.

Their advice is all about things that frustrate the significant minority of narrow-minded people who only see cycling from the driving seat of a car, and is all stuff that seems superficially sensible, but much of it is at best complex on closer inspection, some of it is quite flawed, much is pretending that the vulnerable have responsibility for things fundamentally out of their control whilst undermining the little control that they do have, and little if any is actually based on evidence and data.

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

CTC Forum - On the road - 24 July 2014 - 1:45pm
More than unbelievable - utterly infuriating - Poorly designed - Victim blaming - Incorrect. - Even the backtracking does not go far enough.

Please do not forget the organisation concerned have taken public money to do this and appear not to have consulted anyone.

Charities such as the CTC and Sustrans would have done this for a lot less even possibly for free.

If I was a tax payer in the area I would be contacting my councillor or doing a freedom of information request for the cost.

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

CTC Forum - On the road - 24 July 2014 - 1:42pm
Nothing wrong with it. If more cyclists followed it ( helmets obviously a persons own preference) roads would be safer.

They quote

Where pedal cyclists in the region are partially to blame for collisions, contributory factors are usually failing to look properly,
cyclists entering the road from the pavement, being careless, reckless or in a hurry, and failing to judge the other vehicle's path or speed

I see so much of this in London and in Hull some cyclists do contribute to their own accidents.

Coming out of doctors the other day, at end of a bus junction a middle aged lady rather than wait, she rode on a pavement with all other pedestrians for a 100 yards then onto road.

If some "supposedly responsible adults" do not set an example then what does that say to the younger generation?

Drivers can be bad but so can cyclists. In London where I commute other cyclists can be more dangerous. Many times I've nearly changed direction only for a cyclist to be doing a close overtake and I would have hit him and I not followed the rules I used as a driving instructor which is mirrors ( and shoulder check on a bike) before changing direction.

They are wrong on the cycle lanes some are good some are bad.

Perhaps from the communication they've received they may revise their thoughts. Maybe they are non cyclists and need to consult the CTC.

I hope any negative comments do not detract from them becoming disenchanted, they are doing a good thing albeit some parts of it need re-interpretation.

And although legal riding two aside whilst legal does make drivers angry. Although legal it is just better avoided even if there are x reasons why it should be allowed.

Re: 50 mph for lorries

CTC Forum - On the road - 24 July 2014 - 1:13pm
broadway wrote:LollyKat wrote:I was surprised when I heard this on the news today - I wasn't aware that there was a 40mph limit for lorries on such roads. I've never noticed a lorry sticking to it...


I have been behind such a lorry

Me too.
Some hauliers and retailers with their own lorry fleets have taken to having stickers on the back explaining that they are limited to 40mph on single carriageways, in order to explain to angry drivers who don't know the law that the driver is only obeying the law when driving at 40. Even so, not all drivers with stickers on their lorries do stick to the limit. It goes back to the days when lorry brakes were not as good as they are now, and jacknifing when braking was common; over the years as lorry braking has improved and there have been fewer accidents of that sort, the law has been widely ignored, so it isn't surprising that many people without HGV training don't know it.
Some roads have specific signs about it- the road out to Stranraer from the motorway used to have a lot of them, but I haven't been that way in years, so don't know if it still has.

Re: 50 mph for lorries

CTC Forum - On the road - 24 July 2014 - 1:06pm
They're trialling this on the A9 in Scotland at the moment to try and reduce the mad overtakes on that road. You might still end up in a 2 mile long convoy but travelling ever so slightly faster! I think the perceived success must be encouraging a more nationwide raising of the limit.
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