Feed aggregator

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...

Re: LLC and Wales Questions

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 7:34am
mcallaghan wrote:raybo wrote:I didn't like the diversion after Porthmadog. You won't either.

There is a train that spans the river where the closed vehicle bridge goes. That train is currently running over a completed bridge. I arrived at the station minutes after it left (I wasn't even aware of it until I got to the diversion). I have no idea where it goes or stops, but if it stops on the other side of the river, I'd try to arrange my exit from Porthmadog to meet the train and take it over the river instead of riding the A roads that make up the diversion.

What route did you take? 2 hours is an awful long time to have to wait for a train to continue the journey. Or are there other options for crossing in that area? The route I plotted seemed the most direct route for getting around the close bridge.

I take it that they're still doing construction on the bridge? Might explain why I was unable to plot a course over the bridge on RideWithGPS (and why NCN 8 disappears on that section too on same site).

I rode the signed diversion following the 2 A Roads you have in your route linked above. My stopping place that night was Dolgellau, so I didn't have 2 hours to wait for the train. Had I know about it, I would have adjusted the time I doddled in Porthmadog to catch it.

There is to reason to ride on bike-unfriendly A roads when a 10 minute train ride (if that) is available.

Re: Lighting a bike/high vis on tour

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 7:00am
I find the use of all black cycle clothing baffling and see so many cyclists dressed like this nowadays.

Off-road route mapping

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 5:48am
Hi
I'm sure that somebody will find this mapping site useful for planning some off-road routing
http://www.rowmaps.com/
Regards
tim-b

Re: LLC and Wales Questions

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 3:36am
Here is an amended Day 1 out of Chester, based on the advice in this thread:

http://ridewithgps.com/routes/6286072

Not knowing the streets like a local, thats the best I could come up with trying to follow directions - correct me if I am wrong anywhere! (Or create the route yourself )

Lighting a bike/high vis on tour

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 2:07am
On tour in NZ I used a bright Cateye flasher on the rear at all times. Even on a bright day cyclists can be difficult to see in time when travelling at 100kph, particularly in wooded areas where you may be moving in and out of dappled light.

Cateye has a rack mount that fits Tubus racks and probably other brands as well, allowing Cateye lights to be mounted on the rack. My rack pack is a brightly coloured Alpkit Gourdon which aids visibility too

I also don't plan to ride at night carry a Cateye front light in case I caught out, and after a truck started crossing when I was halfway across this long one-lane pick-a-plank girder bridge where a cyclist is easily lost from view amongst the girders on a bright sunny day (yep, one lane for everybody, cars, trucks, trains...and bikes).



Otherwise I do wear bright cycling clothing but not hi-viz. The NZ company Ground Effect makes an excellent range of plain cycling clothing so you don't look like a billboard. Once off the bike I change into street clothing. Look at MacPac and Icebreaker, all very suitable for NZ conditions. Most other tourists I met wore also cycling clothing.

Re: Clipping and running

CTC Forum - On the road - 17 October 2014 - 12:07am
Yes, but that's not we're debating here is it. We've already said the guy in front is partly to blame. We're discussing the actions of the guy that told him to pull out even though there wasn't room.

If you was in the position of the guy behind, would you still tell the guy to pull out even if there wasn't room for him to do so. If you did, and caused a pile up, would you still expect others to ride with you? I wouldn't. I wouldn't ride with either TBH.

Re: Lighting a bike/high vis on tour

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 17 October 2014 - 12:01am
In NZ (and Oz) it is common for all people doing outside work to wear hi-viz shirts. They are made of synthetic airtec type material. They are fairly cool to wear and sun proof, polo style with long sleeves so good for keeping sun off neck and arms. I wear one most of the time for cycling in the UK and often abroad (wearing now in Japan). Much cheaper than cycling shirts.

As they are so common you won't look like a cyclist in NZ. Personally I would want something to make me stand out in NZ, the traffic is not the best.

Don't know about US?

For the tunnels in Taiwan I bought a very lightweight reflective waistcoat. Hi viz mesh with lots of reflective strips. Light and easy to carry.

Re: Clipping and running

CTC Forum - On the road - 16 October 2014 - 11:57pm
If I was in the position of the guy in front and the other said "go ahead" I would accelerate in front of him, checking where he was. If I wasnt able to do it as the gap was too small or I lacked the power then I would say "I cant, I will go behind you" Also I would move over slow enough that he could react to it.

If the guy behind made an error of judgement then it was about the proficiency of the guy in front.

These sorts of manoeuvres are frequent in loose group rides and we manage with complete strangers even. I would have no difficulties sharing space with the guy behind but the guy in front I would keep well away from.

Re: constant tyre lubrication system

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 16 October 2014 - 11:49pm
Maybe a job for the CTC technical expert (CJ).

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!

In reality probably beyond the resources of the CTC, but maybe there is a budding research student at a engineering university who could undertake this.

I use the standard Marathons and am happy with them, but have absolutely no idea if they are good or bad at rolling. They just last well on my tours and have never given me any problems, so I stick with them.

Re: Clipping and running

CTC Forum - On the road - 16 October 2014 - 11:32pm
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.
[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.
[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.
[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.

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.

Re: Lighting a bike/high vis on tour

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 16 October 2014 - 11:12pm
I can not imagine going on a tour without lights, things dont always go to plan and you could end up needing to ride after dark. If the panniers stopped the existing mounts being of any use then I would fit or make another.

Not quite what you were asking about but reflective tape can be applied to the mudguards and reflective material can be taped onto forks, tyres can be bought with reflective bands on them.

When it comes to trying to look bright in daytime, it has to be big. Small bits of different colour will break up your shape and camouflage you. All black may be more easily visible than you think. A single different colour could be better but lots of different bright colours breaking up your shape could be worse.

It may be worth considering a flag on a pole but I have never gone that far on an upright solo bike.

Re: Lighting a bike/high vis on tour

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 16 October 2014 - 10:46pm
Having recently (mostly) given up wearing a helmet, I've taken to wearing a Hi-Vis Buff on my head http://www.buffwear.co.uk/new-aw-14-15-adult-headwear/aw-14-15-reflective-buff/r-yellow-fluor-reflective-buff.

I suppose I think it might help, keeps insects from getting tangled ...

I find it takes a few seconds to put on and less to take off when getting off the bike (but not much use if you are wearing a helmet as relatively little will not be obscured ...)

Ian

Re: Lighting a bike/high vis on tour

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 16 October 2014 - 10:45pm
In the USA, if lighting is required, many states require that the bicycle is equipped. A head torch does not meet legal requirements. Furthermore, many states require the use of lights in reduced visibility, as well as at night. Some states in Australia also require lighting in poor visibility, though some only require that lighting be used, if the bicycle is equipped.

I suggest that you at least get a reasonable set of battery lights, like Cateye, or something to carry with you and use when needed, even if you don't plan to ride at night. They might be cheaper to get in your starting country.

Unless you want to familiarise yourself with the requirement for every state you visit, use lights anytime visibility is poor (you can't distinguish a person 400 feet away), regardless of night or day.
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