Feed aggregator

Re: Non driving cyclists

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 September 2014 - 11:34am
Flinders wrote:..... They make it far harder to see pedestrians, cyclists, and animals.


How?

Re: A one day coast to coast

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 18 September 2014 - 11:23am
Why not try the Way of the Roses route. Morcambe to Bridlington or vice versa.

Re: Non driving cyclists

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 September 2014 - 10:49am
reohn2 wrote:When it's raining or when vision is limited ie;fog,etc,they have their uses,especially on motorways.

In those circumstances drivers should have their headlights on, and the DRLs would therefore be off, since they don't run together.

Re: Latest speeding excuse..

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 September 2014 - 10:46am
Flinders wrote:Bonefishblues wrote:Flinders wrote:I read the actual report.
According to that, he already had six points on his licence. Given how unlikely it is that any speeding driver is caught, if those points were for speeding, he would have to be a serial offender, and I would not have taken the excuse given.
Either it's a legitimate excuse or it isn't. The number of points already on the licence has no bearing on that, nor does any speculation that he's a "serial speeder". He might be the unluckiest man in the World or he might be an out and out nut-job, who knows?

I disagree. If he's had points for speeding already, he should be speed aware and, if he then developed a problem, have found an alternative way to travel or avoid roads where he can't stop if necessary, whether or not he's used that excuse before or not. Of course, if he has used the excuse before, he shouldn't be using it again anyway.
It's so rare to be caught for speeding, even though it happens all the time, that anyone caught more than twice has either been spectacularly unlucky or is a serial offender.
er...which is what I said.

You didn't offer the latter option in your OP. You asserted that "he would have to be a serial offender, and I would not have taken the excuse given" hence my comment.

Re: Pulled Over By The Police

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 September 2014 - 10:38am
Bicycler wrote:Flinders wrote:It can be difficult. There's a path here through a park. It's even part of the NCN. But it isn't signed once you're in the park, nor identified as a cycle path in any way, even where other paths cross it (with no indications of who should give way), so some pedestrians get aggressive about cyclists using it at all.

Agreed, and that is why I very rarely decide to challenge others about use of paths. People who don't do a particular activity are usually unaware of the exact rules and restrictions of doing that activity.

In my PC's case though, the lack of one way signs should have ended his assertion of me being on a one way street. Unless of course he knew the street to be wrongly signed, in which case he should have been reporting the signage

I didn't mean to undermine your post- in my opinion, the PC ought to have stopped you politely in the first place (in case you had made a genui8ne error yourself), and, when you pointed out the facts of the case, should have checked and apologised. He was behaving like a thug 'because he could'. I wish I could believe it was an isolated case of that, but I'm losing confidence in the police- sad for me, as my uncle used to be a copper, and, I think, a good one, and the contact I had with the police when a family member was killed in a RTA was very positive. But the policing situation seems to me to be deteriorating fast.

Re: Latest speeding excuse..

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 September 2014 - 10:32am
Bonefishblues wrote:Flinders wrote:I read the actual report.
According to that, he already had six points on his licence. Given how unlikely it is that any speeding driver is caught, if those points were for speeding, he would have to be a serial offender, and I would not have taken the excuse given.
Either it's a legitimate excuse or it isn't. The number of points already on the licence has no bearing on that, nor does any speculation that he's a "serial speeder". He might be the unluckiest man in the World or he might be an out and out nut-job, who knows?

I disagree. If he's had points for speeding already, he should be speed aware and, if he then developed a problem, have found an alternative way to travel or avoid roads where he can't stop if necessary, whether or not he's used that excuse before or not. Of course, if he has used the excuse before, he shouldn't be using it again anyway.
It's so rare to be caught for speeding, even though it happens all the time, that anyone caught more than twice has either been spectacularly unlucky or is a serial offender.

Re: Non driving cyclists

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 September 2014 - 10:31am
If the OP changes the thread title to ''Kind but idiotic cyclist encounter'' we'll know what s/he means.
DRL's haven't anything to do with the thread at all,but the loonie who on the one hand thought he was offering a bit of good advise,on the other hand was so willing to risk life and limb by RLJing
There's one born every minute ,as they say

If we're to debate the pros and cons of DRL's IMO they only make life worse for vulnerable road users by encouraging drivers to only look for light points.
When it's raining or when vision is limited ie;fog,etc,they have their uses,especially on motorways.
Otherwise if you can,switch them off please.

Re: Non driving cyclists

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 September 2014 - 10:28am
Light in daylight ought to be banned outright. They make it far harder to see pedestrians, cyclists, and animals.
They are also a complete waste of energy.

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 September 2014 - 9:18am
The flying motorbike (no motor vehicles) wouldn't be appropriate anyway, since it would be notification of a TRO banning motor vehicles on that road, which would apply in both directions, unless it were to be made a one-way street, which takes us back to where we started. The concept of a so-called false one-way street seems to be widely used and recognised in traffic calming schemes. What we are discussing is that arrangement, but with an exception for cyclists. So a No Entry sign, with an exception plate for cyclists is appropriate. Creating an exemption for cyclists to ride lawfully contraflow in a one-way street, either with a cycle lane or without one, is a related issue but not so widely accepted by the authorities, although they seem to be getting there. There's a set of signs prescribed for this arrangement to warn everybody what's what, and that also includes NO ENTRY signs with exeption plates for cyclists.

Re: A one day coast to coast

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 18 September 2014 - 9:09am
Why on gods green earth would you wanna go through Blackburn of all places???

I can thoroughly recommend The Carmen Rose in Ribchester instead. It's a 6 mile detour and you'll have to do a complete U-turn to get back on the route, but it's definitely worth it. It's not a huge tearoom/café but with (from memory) 5-6 tables seating 4 each, you should be fine.
https://plus.google.com/112810906559817 ... l=uk&hl=en

Best of luck to you

Re: Non driving cyclists

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 September 2014 - 8:54am
BearOnWheels wrote:Coming back from Cumbria today my experience tells me it makes drivers more careful about pulling out in front of you…they can gauge the distance better, but this could be a matter of perception.So ... not a lot of help to cyclists then.

Re: Rear rack safe on Fixie axle?

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 18 September 2014 - 8:49am
I'm in a similar position. I'm riding a charge plug ( stop laughing is my first fixie sspeed) and doing the c2c next week. I was looking at racks but eventually went with alpkit luggage. Is worth a look, soft luggage that fits onto the frame. I'm using the tail pack that holds enough kit for credit card touring for three days including associated spanners. The frame bag looks good too. Just Google them. It's an option although I'd recommend packing as lightly as possible and weigh your expected luggage to see how much you're carrying.

As an example I cycle commute on a Brompton with 10kg front and rear and that's tools. keep in mind 25kg is around the max for air travel allowance. You will likely need considerably less.

Also check the lfgss forums (Google is your friend) I got a lot of good advice from there about touring on a fixie.

Re: Non driving cyclists

CTC Forum - On the road - 18 September 2014 - 6:26am
Something I've seen a lot of is newish cars driving in the dark with no rear lights on, but with front DRLs. I think many drivers think their lights are on all the time, front and rear - but many/most are only on at the front. This certainly applies to our Kia Picanto, and many Citroens.

It's not a problem if the driver (correctly) switches on their main lights at dusk, but there are many who prefer to drive in town without headlights, and think the DRLs are all they need.

Re: Coed Y Brenin

CTC Forum - MTB - 18 September 2014 - 12:07am
Dwi'n dod Cearfyrddin, gwiboi - felly dwi'n 'get' Cymru.

You are defending antisocial tightwads who are happy to enjoy a facility but can't be bothered to make a reasonable and nominal contribution to that facility's upkeep.

A one day coast to coast

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 September 2014 - 11:54pm
Hi All,
I'm planning on a coast to coast next June, a load of my friends want to do it too so I need to be super organised! As we'll stay in a Travelodge on the Friday night before, and the Saturday night once we're done, I really want to get the basics sorted by the end of October so that I can book the rooms etc.

Here is the proposed route taking in a bit of the TdF route from York to Skipton:
Scarborough - York - Harrogate - Skipton - Preston - Lytham St Annes
http://www.everytrail.com/view_trip.php?trip_id=2965508

People will be on a mixture of Road bikes, Tourers and Mountain Bikes (with road tyres). I'm going to organise it so that we only travel in groups of 3 or 4 so we don't block the traffic too much, and that we stop a few times so that everyone can socialise a bit.

This is the basic schedule:
Meet at Marine Drive, Scarborough to watch the sun rise then set off in groups of 3 or 4 leaving on a staggered start basis.

The daylight lasts 17 hours and trip is 133 miles so this is NOT a race… We only need to achieve an average speed of 8mph.

The stops I am suggesting are:
1. On 42 miles – York Tesco Extra, York YO30 4XZ
2. On 80 miles at Skipton Morrisons, Skipton BD23 1RT
3. On 110 miles at Blackburn Boddington Arms - Fayre & Square, Blackburn BB2 7LE

The end will be at North Promenade, Lytham St Annes where everyone will meet up to watch the sun set.

This site was invaluable when I organised a JOGLE in 2011 and a Great Yarmouth to Bicester in 2013. Any advise with be gratefully received, be it route, stops, or whatever.

Many thanks in advance,
Nathan

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 September 2014 - 11:38pm
Fair (and obvious) point on the "wrong" end of one-way streets. It's getting late... However, putting No (Motor) Vehicles there would not be an option. That would be a sensible place for No Entry (Except cycles) if there were a cyclist contra-flow - but then my point that No Entry warns the excepted cyclist to expect to encounter vehicles immediately would apply.

I was trying to say that you can't swap "No Motor Vehicles" for "No Entry (Cyclists excepted)" because the first allows horse-drawn vehicles and the second doesn't. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Obviously, if the sign were "No Vehicles", then neither cars nor bikes nor horse-drawn carts could enter.

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 September 2014 - 11:21pm
Mostly agree. Two points:
- One of if not the most common use of a no entry sign is to sign one end of a one-way street. They are also often used to create "false" one-way streets of normal bi-directional roads; through traffic is effectively prohibited from travelling the length of the street in one direction

-Horse drawn vehicles are vehicles and covered by the "no vehicles" sign

Re: Non driving cyclists

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 September 2014 - 11:16pm
BearOnWheels wrote:You can turn DRLs off on most cars - I am aware of three very different vehicles that I look after, all have DRLs and they can be turned off via a control panel.
I ALWAYS keep them on simply for insurance reasons. On the accident report form..'did you have lights on?' tick a YES! So a precaution…
What, so you will get blamed for distracting another road user and contributing to the collision?

I agree about how rare it is for police to question failed lights lately.

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 September 2014 - 11:11pm
I don't see "Except cycles" as a solution to incomprehension of signs.

My understanding is that No Entry means No Entry, and No Vehicles means No Vehicles. These are different things. No Motor Vehicles is just a variation of No Vehicles that only, obviously, affects motor vehicles.

No Entry belongs in a place where, beyond the sign, there is typically free movement in multiple directions, and no particular restriction on vehicle types, but access is not allowed at that point, for example:

  • car parks, preventing people coming in the out or out the in, so to speak
  • two-way streets, as mentioned above, which have restrictions on access at one end - there's one round here which is a normal two-way residential street, from which you can turn out at the busy end, but turning in there isn't allowed, probably because it would be used as a short cut and cause traffic problems

Using No Entry with "Except cycles" in place of No Motor Vehicles would be wrong because, when I pass No Motor Vehicles on my bike, I should know that I'm not going to encounter cars coming the other way, at least for a bit. When I pass No Entry (Except cycles), I should expect the immediate possibility of meeting cars coming from other directions.

Using No Vehicles with "Except cycles" in place of No Motor Vehicles would be pointless, because I believe that No Motor Vehicles is better understood than No Vehicles anyway.

And both would be wrong because the alternatives have different consequences for horse-drawn carriages and so on.

Re: Non driving cyclists

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 September 2014 - 11:09pm
c53204 wrote:All road users should be aware of such things as the Highway Code - is that not the case. Removing the fact that the cyclist had no reason to know about motor vehicle regs, he thus had no reason to comment. Even less riding through a red light - now that he should be aware of.

Ride or drive on the road, the read the Highway Code and stick to the rules and laws when using the road - simples. The roads would be a lot better if everyone did.
Agreed that all road users should know the rules which apply to them. I implied from your titling the thread "Non driving cyclists" that you thought that whether somebody had a driving licence or not had some bearing on their behaviour as a cyclist.

Maybe the guy thought he was being helpful by reminding you that your lights were on? Misguided it may have been but I wouldn't hold it against somebody who was just trying to do a good deed. It would be sad if we refrained from simple acts of courtesy out of worry that some will tell us to mind our own business. I make a point of telling people if they have a light out if the situation arises. Most are grateful for the heads up.
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