Feed aggregator

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 10:57am
Psamathe wrote:What actually constitutes "dismounting" ?

Not done it recently but when I was younger we used to hop off the saddle (i.e. dismounted) and sort of scoot along standing on one pedal (one foot on one pedal, both legs/body same side of bike ...) bike leaning a bit over and balancing. You could still go pretty fast and we used to do it on pavements where there might be "angry pedestrians" (basically we thought "we are not riding on the pavement").

Ian

The judgement in Crank v Brooks (1980) has it that you are still a cyclist while scooting with one foot on a pedal and only become a pedestrian when pushing the bike with both feet on the ground.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 10:52am
thirdcrank wrote:In short, a CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign is not mandatory in itself but something else may makedismounting a requirement.

Like when you are in severe danger of falling off your bike laughing?

harlow-dismounts.jpg

Re: 1.5 or 1.75"

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 10:40am
I also ride a LHT and tour with rear only.

I use the 1.5s and they are fine. I used to use 1.75 and they were also fine. I changed to 1.5s to reduce weight, make the bike feel more sporty, etc. I can't really see any difference.

I imagine that the bigger ones give you a bit more cushioning. You can pump the 1.5s up harder, but look up tyre pressures and you will probably find that you never need to go that high anyway I now ride at 50 psi or less.

Re: Lesser known hazards for off-road cyclists

CTC Forum - MTB - 12 August 2014 - 10:37am
So many hazards. Who knew?

Re: 1.5 or 1.75"

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 10:36am
I doubt the 1.75" with the same tread roll much different to 1.5". Where I notice fatter tyres at least is on the acceleration, but once they're up to speed...

tbh on a loaded tourer I doubt you'd notice the acceleration much either.

Re: 1.5 or 1.75"

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 10:17am
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=89225


I've 1.5 M+s on mine. TBH, I can't really feel much difference to the 1.75s, especially if I don't pump them up every two or three rides.

1.5 or 1.75"

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 10:13am
Hi all,

After a week tour i've found out my 2.0" tyres are creating too much rolling resistance for my type of riding. I also plan to remove front rack and travel with just 2 back panniers and ortlieb holdall therefore reducing weight considerably.

I've had some recommendations on the Schwalbe Marathon HS 368 for the type of tyre, which seems perfect and I will likely go for this, it's just the width of 1.5 or 1.75 i'm unsure of. I'm tempted by the 1.5's more, anyone have experience with them both?

Thanks,

Re: Devon C2C

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 9:39am
To elaborate a bit on the Tavistock routes, heres a shot of the sustrans map:
Untitled.jpg

The official route is shown in yellow. The route Mick has suggested is continued in red. The one I took is the middle route in purple, now known as NCN 327. I liked it because i still got to ride over the viaducts in Tavistock, and got to cycle up a quiet back lane past Brentor Tor.

Re: Devon C2C

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 9:29am
SeanieG wrote:Thanks folks, useful info. Is the 'gap in the middle' where you used to have to divert off at Lake Viaduct?You never had to divert off at Lake Viaduct despite what the signs and maps told you!

What you should have done ........ and I became very tired of stating this to everyone I could ........ was to keep going past the Picnic Area and to nearly the main road. There was a barrier and you turned left off the railbed and up a path to the main road at a big layby. Turn south on the main road for a level half mile to the Fox and Hounds pub, turn right downhill and freewheel a few hundred yards to turn left onto the rest of the Granite Way.

Simple!

This is old hat now of course because the Granite Way is open all the way through. How long it will remain so I don't know because the old railbed all the way from Meldon to Tavistock is shortlisted for opening for rail traffic as a bypass for the main line at Dawlish.

Personally, I'd rather the railway be re-instated than keep it as a cycle track.

Re: Devon C2C

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 9:26am
Hi,
SeanieG wrote:Thanks folks, useful info. Is the 'gap in the middle' where you used to have to divert off at Lake Viaduct?
Yes straight thru now

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 9:25am
Oglet Lane Banjo Player wrote:In West Lothian there are a number of these ridiculous signs tell cyclists and Riders to dismount on road bridges that cross the Union Canal. Logically there should also be signs telling motorists to get out and push.
I have to admit that I don't know the bridges in question, but I expect that it is because the railings/parapets don't meet the standards for cycle facilities & bridleways.

It's a bit silly really, because if it were a road with an old humpback bridge, they wouldn't put up cyclists and riders dismount signs. But ehy can just as well use that as the next bridge where motor traffic isn't allowed.

It would probably be better to warn users of the actual hazard than to just put up dismount signs.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 9:13am
This is perhaps the difference between "must we?" and "should we?"

The CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign isn't mandatory so ignoring one doesn't involve the commission of a specific criminal offence in the way that ignoring a STOP sign does. OTOH, so many of these things are only really fully considered when something goes seriously wrong when everybody is looking to point the finger, especially when the compo looks like running into megabucks.

The general meaning of different shapes and colours of traffic signs is at the head of each group in the HC etc., but this is only broad guidance. While blue rectangular signs are advisory, they often advise about a separately signed prohibition or mandatory instruction. The start of a mandatory cycle lane will be signed with a blue rectangular sign and it's only the solid white line which mandatory. The various manifestations of bus lanes are also signed with rectangular blue signs. Back to CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs, if there were to be some sort of traffic ban with an exception for "pedal cycles pushed by hand" then that sign might be appropriate but IME they never seem to be used in such situations. (Before anybody asks, AFAIK they are more numerous than you might think. eg one-way street orders tend to habe an exception for pedal cycles being wheeled contraflow by a pedestrian.)

In short, a CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign is not mandatory in itself but something else may makedismounting a requirement.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 9:06am
I remember being particularly annoyed when the new curvey bridge over the Avon opened. The council up until then seemed to have favoured the split approach, for example the Bristol to Bath Cycle Path is clearly marked in two halves - one for cyclists, one for pedestrians which on the whole works well.
When the bridge was opened, they missed the opportunity to be consistant and up popped the Cyclists Dismount signs. The bridge was good and wide - plenty wide enough to allow a 50/50 split, but no they had to spoil it all with lazy signing - and of the course the irony is that dismounted cylists take up twice as much room width-wise and are on the bridge 'in the way' many times longer than they would be if they had stayed in the saddle... try explaining that to an angry commuter, though.
I did write to the council trying to make this point but received no answer.
Trouble is once the sign is up, everybodys' expectations are set - remain in the saddle and you are seen as a wrong 'un by everybody else, some cyclists included!
Capture.JPG

Re: Info on route from Las Alpujarras to Malaga

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 9:00am
Will be ok on good 25mm tyres & lightly loaded. The track is decent condition apart from the steeper bits where the surface can be quite broken. Even then they are mostly rideable but you could always push for a while. I don't recall any descents

HarryD

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 8:51am
Mark1978 wrote:But where is the sign? Usually these are on shared pavements and the like. But cyclists are only allowed on footways by special permission, if that permission is revoked - by means of a "cyclists dismount" sign, would the rider not then be guilty of cycling on the pavement?
It isnæt a matter of revoking permission. But if the shared route becomes a pedestrian only route, 'cyclists dismount' is not the correct sign, unless it otherwise meets the condition described above in gaz's post.

It should inded be signed, but they should use 'end of route' or 'cyclists rejoin carriageway' instead.

PRL wrote:The draft London Cycling Design Standards lists "Cyclists Dismount" as a "sign to minimise or avoid" (together with "End of Route" and similar. )
Dawn seems to be breaking.
The excellent design guide that has been in use in Essex for some years also lists 'cyclists dismount' as a sign to avoid. And there arenæt hug numbers of them Essex. But it doesnæt seem to have any real impact on design choices. Just sign selection

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 8:51am
In West Lothian there are a number of these ridiculous signs tell cyclists and Riders to dismount on road bridges that cross the Union Canal. Logically there should also be signs telling motorists to get out and push.

Re: Anyone use a trailer ?

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 8:47am
Cheers, will send them that picture.

Dave

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 8:39am
Mark1978 wrote:But where is the sign? Usually these are on shared pavements and the like. But cyclists are only allowed on footways by special permission, if that permission is revoked - by means of a "cyclists dismount" sign, would the rider not then be guilty of cycling on the pavement?
They don't revoke permission.

Many of them seek to have cyclists dismount to join the road - which is an absurd suggestion.

On the slip road you you should step out of your car before joining the motorway...

Re: Horse Riders

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 8:25am
Postboxer wrote:Or a stick to prod them.
And when the juice runs clear...

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 8:24am
But where is the sign? Usually these are on shared pavements and the like. But cyclists are only allowed on footways by special permission, if that permission is revoked - by means of a "cyclists dismount" sign, would the rider not then be guilty of cycling on the pavement?
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