Cycling UK Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by Cycling UK
Updated: 28 weeks 3 days ago

Re: OVER THE HANDLEBARS

13 April 2016 - 8:03am
Maybe the P-fairy got her aim wrong and sent the harpoon towards the disk instead of the tyre.

Re: OVER THE HANDLEBARS

13 April 2016 - 7:52am
I used to "zone out" on routes I cycled frequently and would often "wake up" a couple of miles down the route having navigated several junctions without remembering anything of that part of the journey. Maybe you hit a particularly soft bit of gravel or obstruction hidden by gravel whilst in such a state?

Looking at medical possibilities maybe a TIA or some other type of black out? Something my granny used to call "a funny turn".

OVER THE HANDLEBARS

13 April 2016 - 6:44am
Riding along a gravelly track minding my own business, not going too fast!!, when I found myself sailing over the handlebars heading for the ground with my arms outstretched and my head ready for landing. No serious injury, thank the Lord.

Bike on ground, front wheel free and revolving, no sign of any material locked up in mudguard, mudguards undamaged, brakes free and working.

All bits checked out later especially front disc brake (Shimano Deore) but can find no apparent cause.

Any ideas/opinions?

Re: Deliveroo

12 April 2016 - 12:13pm
I've noticed Just Eat using cycle couriers with similar boxes recently.

Re: Dogs on cycle paths - how many where you live?

12 April 2016 - 11:30am
Quite, it was those ones I meant.

Re: Dogs on cycle paths - how many where you live?

12 April 2016 - 8:22am
Bicycler wrote:As such I abhor things like pedestrian crossings designed with the sole aim of minimising interruption to motor traffic. That said, we wouldn't wish to have a highway network tailored towards inconsiderate pedestrians either. Pedestrian crossings give priority to the pedestrian. Raised crossings are even better as vehicles are forced to slow. Light controlled crossings give priority to the motor vehicle. Every adjustment of the timings of lights seems to make pedestrians wait longer in order to minimise interruption to motor traffic. Shorter timings aren't implemented.

Re: Dogs on cycle paths - how many where you live?

12 April 2016 - 8:11am
john4703 wrote:mercalia wrote:more than once along canal paths I have been tempted to kick them into the canal.....
I did that once, well into the river, after it bit my ankle. I have no idea if it got out again as I did not stop to find out.

My pet hate is dogs on long leads that stretch right across the cycle path.Those dog owners are very likely motorists as well. Aggression towards their dogs might encourage them to take similar action against cyclists on the road, eg close passes

Re: Dogs on cycle paths - how many where you live?

11 April 2016 - 7:50pm
mercalia wrote:more than once along canal paths I have been tempted to kick them into the canal.....
I did that once, well into the river, after it bit my ankle. I have no idea if it got out again as I did not stop to find out.

My pet hate is dogs on long leads that stretch right across the cycle path.

Re: rain

11 April 2016 - 5:45pm
Went to today and rode round Denbies vineyard Surrey, it was very wet. My wife took the dog out and they were pretty well soaked. Good job my legs are waterproof.
Mind is is still April.

Re: Cycling opportunity Keswick -Kendal

11 April 2016 - 3:28pm
Dean wrote:Here you go, Graham:

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topi ... msg2012120

Apologies for link to another forum, I'll provide my own photos after next week. Apparently the guards at the security hut tell the cyclists to walk, but it's two miles, so only the most rule-abiding pay attention, and the rest accept the telling-off from the security guard at the other end.

People we know up there went over on their bikes and had to walk. Seems crazy to me. They did say there was heavy equipment about, but I can't imagine that's the case for the whole two miles.
Also, the signage is appalling. As far away as Keswick it just says the road is closed, and there is a barrier across half the road, no mention of the fact you can get through on foot and/or with bikes, or that it is only closed close to Dunmail Raise, several miles away. We saw a couple by the sign in Keswick, the young lady was crying. I thought they were having a row so didn't stop, but realised afterwards they had probably gone there to use the road, possibly not even as far as Grasmere, and were faced with a sign saying the road was closed and diversion signs suggesting all traffic used the M6.

I think the council have done very badly over the signage- very badly.

Re: Dogs on cycle paths - how many where you live?

11 April 2016 - 12:24pm
Oh dear Lord

I'm no apologist for inconsiderate motor vehicle driving. There exists - and must exist - a duty of care to those more vulnerable road users. Our highways are routes for various different types of road user and we shouldn't prioritise motor vehicles over the rest. A pedestrian should have as much a right to a convenient journey as the driver or cyclist. As such I abhor things like pedestrian crossings designed with the sole aim of minimising interruption to motor traffic. That said, we wouldn't wish to have a highway network tailored towards inconsiderate pedestrians either. We wouldn't think it acceptable to have people walking aimlessly or dogs playing around in our arterial routes holding up vehicular traffic behind. Thus, I can accept mjr's argument that our main cycle routes ought to allow similarly unencumbered passage of cycles.

Of course ossie is right to point out that many routes simply aren't designed to be wide enough for users to pass without slowing or stopping. Fair enough, we can only ride to the conditions that are present not those that we would wish to be present. I don't think this tells the full story though, many cycle routes actually do have similar traffic flows and (once we consider the narrowness of cycles compared to cars) similar effective widths to many country roads. Yet there is a different mindset of users. A pedestrian user of a country lane is not inconvenienced or unduly slowed by vehicles, but they try to keep an eye out for coming vehicles. Dogs are kept in check, not running round freely to be called to heel every time a car appears. Bob is right that roads are shared resources, but on the roads sharing seems to mean keeping an eye out for other road users for the expedience of all. On a "shared use" path it seems to mean the subservience of cycles and the right of pedestrians to act without regard to the likely existence of cycle traffic.

Re: Butser Hill - proposed cyclepath for the missing link

11 April 2016 - 10:38am
Graham wrote:Sorry about the confusion. The QECP staff, South Downs Staff, Rights of Way staff - who all work out of QECP - are all wonderful and sympathetic !
It is the general public who can show hostility to spending on cycling.
Some can but it's not overwhelming in surveys like "Bike Life" (although those are mostly big city respondants, I think). Could someone press the sympathetic staff to help explain/educate the local objectors - I'm sure we can all think of how more modal shift to cycling and even simply more cycling visitors to a location can bring benefits for non-cyclists. Could someone draft briefing notes and maybe even a poster that others could republish if they agree with it?

Re: Butser Hill - proposed cyclepath for the missing link

11 April 2016 - 8:02am
Sorry about the confusion. The QECP staff, South Downs Staff, Rights of Way staff - who all work out of QECP - are all wonderful and sympathetic !
It is the general public who can show hostility to spending on cycling.

The big problem with opening the new track on a temporary basis is not the southbound user - where the situation is certainly no worse than cycling alongside the A3 southbound.

Anyone heading northbound would have to walk along the margin of the A3 ( facing the traffic ) until they could join the end of the new track. This is the stuff of Highwaymens' nightmares.
I suspect it won't be very long before that area becomes a construction site again when access will be heavily controlled/prohibited..
I think it was better to keep it closed.

Another view :
If any public body were to provide a temporary, missing-link facility for ( northbound ) cyclists to use the existing, incomplete route, then anyone KSI'd in that section might create circumstances for a "negligence claim" against the public body.
By contrast, anyone KSI'd cycling northbound on the A3 itself would have no chance of claiming negligence against a public body.
It would be described as misadventure. The victim would be blamed for choosing to ride on the A3.
Nobody would be prosecuted - even if strong evidence of punishment pass, careless or dangerous driving - cyclist swerved in front of vehicle : sun blinded the driver : spider jumped off the sunshield and distracted the driver . . . . . .

Re: rain

11 April 2016 - 7:37am
Just got a new allotment. Its quite frustrating because of the frequent rain showers. Everything is going to get planted late. Someone had pinched most of the Rhubarb plants on it but I have put some bins on a couple of small corms that were left to force them in this chilly weather.

Its out at sea you can really see rain showers and squalls clearly, they sweep along with dark streaks of rain. So, if you are at somewhere at the seas edge you will see them clearly too.

Al

Re: Dogs on cycle paths - how many where you live?

11 April 2016 - 6:57am
Bicycler wrote:I'm a driver.
We don't have motor roads in my area*.
We have shared use pedestrian, horse, and vehicle roads.
Should dogs generally wander free until another road user approaches at which point the owner can call it to heel or put it on a short lead? After all, what is the worst case? That these other road users have to STOP?
Surely not a problem unless you believe these shared roads are for time trialling.
*Actually we do have one or two

A bit ridiculous perhaps, but there's a serious point here. Surely our national cycle network ought to be a network optimised for cycling, where cycling is quick and convenient. Cycling on a cycle route shouldn't be a slower, more subservient experience than using the roads.

As a point of information, the legal status of many shared use paths is "cycle track".

I don't see what it's ridiculous. That's exactly what our road network is, a shared resource.

The tragedy of the commons doesn't require an individual to take more than their fair share, a group can - and in the case of motor vehicles, they do.

The true ridiculousness is that the road users who kill and maim are not taught and expected to be prepared to stop. They are not taught that the safety of all road users is more important than their maximum speed...

Re: rain

11 April 2016 - 6:44am
I remember doing a photo shoot on Marazion beach with my touring buddies, one year. Out to sea we could see the next band of showers sweeping in (we had had a lot of short lived showers on that trip). We jumped on the bikes and hightailed it down the road, heading eastwards. We watched as one of the showers passed behind and to our left, and the other passed from our right and in front.... distinctly raining in our next destination town of Helston...... and sure enough when we arrived the streets were wet, but we had ridden in glorious sunshine all the way and it was now cracking the flags of Helston....

We weren't always so lucky on that trip as I recall sheltering under bridges, and behind a low wall at Penzance to gain what minimum shelter it could offer us as yet another shower swept in...

Re: rain

11 April 2016 - 6:09am
No rain - or winds - are forecast for today, so I'm off riding for the morning.
After breakfast, I'm off.

Re: Cycling opportunity Keswick -Kendal

10 April 2016 - 10:20pm
Here you go, Graham:

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topi ... msg2012120

Apologies for link to another forum, I'll provide my own photos after next week. Apparently the guards at the security hut tell the cyclists to walk, but it's two miles, so only the most rule-abiding pay attention, and the rest accept the telling-off from the security guard at the other end.

Re: Butser Hill - proposed cyclepath for the missing link

10 April 2016 - 9:33pm
Graham
Thanks for the clarification - I don't know how a reader was supposed to know you were referring to non staff.
I think my point about seeing the broader picture still stands though - they can still benefit from increased usage of the park by those arriving on cycles from the north.
I went past the end point today and continue to be amazed that the authorities have prevented any of the path being used because the last section is incomplete as they could at little cost have provided a short section of (perhaps walking) temporary route from where the new surface ends to just over the bridge. I know the Elf & Safety brigade will claim it leads cyclists into a false sense of security in riding the route and them dumping them by the bridge but that is so much safer than expecting them to ride on the A3 over the Butser Cutting , a much longer distance, with no protection. They already have signage from the start indicating a cycle route so cannot claim they are not encouraging cyclists to head south that way.

Re: Butser Hill - proposed cyclepath for the missing link

10 April 2016 - 9:03pm
It wasn't the QECP staff who were foaming at the mouth.

I work with others, who meet at QECP, many of whom would not dream of cycling anywhere & are deeply attached to their motor vehicles ( and what they think it says about their social status ). . . . i.e. fairly normal people . . . the marketeers have worked their spell . . .
 
  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cycling UK is a trading name of Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC) a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no: 25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales charity no: 1147607 and in Scotland charity no: SC042541. Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, Surrey GU2 9JX.

Copyright © CTC 2016

Terms and Conditions