Non-motoring > Cycling Corner - Volume 9   [Read only]
Thread Author: VxFan	Replies: 96

New Wed 22 Jan 14 19:24   Cycling Corner - Volume 9 - VxFan

***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 10 ***** More pedal power chat. Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 30 Jan 14 at 21:26

New Wed 22 Jan 14 13:42   Folding bike - movilogo

Bought my first folding bike (an entry level Dahon with 7-gears). Cost me £300 from Halfords. Within 5 days discovered it only £250 elsewhere. Challenged Halfords on their 7-day price match policy. They refunded me £50 without quibbles :-) It has 20-inch wheels but I'm somewhat struggling to control it on gear 1 where it is not having enough speed (based on my cadence) to keep the balance :-( Otherwise, riding it is fun.

New Wed 22 Jan 14 17:48   Folding bike - Bromptonaut

Which model? I cannot find a Dahon on their website at less than £336? They're nice bikes, not quite as good a fold as the Brompton but perhaps a better fit for some applications other than rail commuting.

New Wed 22 Jan 14 19:22   Folding bike - movilogo

Vybe C7A. It is £336 now but during Xmas it was having 10% off promotion. I booked it then and collected from store 2 weeks later.

New Thu 23 Jan 14 18:00   Folding bike - Bromptonaut

Dahon have recently had a period of 'turbulence'. One of founder David Hon's sons has moved off with other family members to form a new bike company called Tern. Tern's products look remarkably like Dahons but the patents/IP implications don't seem to deter buyers. PLenty of Terns on London's road by late last year. The split produced this bit of doggerel on another site which tickled my funny bone. For every Dahon (Tern, Tern, Tern) There is a season (Tern, Tern, Tern)

New Fri 24 Jan 14 12:22   Folding bike - movilogo

For most folks, Dahon = Tern

New Thu 23 Jan 14 18:13   Clipless Pedals - Bromptonaut

The family got me a set of Shimano SPDs for Christmas. Basic 'clipless' pedals with a reflector unit underneath that doubles as a rudimentary platform pedal. Yesterday I put the pedals on my Dawes tourer and the cleats on my Aldi cycling shoes and have now done a couple of rides round the local lanes. Found them quite easy to get used to and a quantum leap in efficiency compared to toe clips/straps. The unclip manoeuvre seems straightforward enough and used it today on road when I needed to let a car past on single track section between Gayton and Tiffield No doubt my 'clipless moment' awaits but I'm getting there with them. What are others' experience of this technological great leap forward?

New Thu 23 Jan 14 18:22   Clipless Pedals - Manatee

I have some of these I've used for longer rides on the Brompton. www.wiggle.co.uk/shimano-m324-combination-pedals/ I don't leave them on as it deprives me of the folding one. I haven't had the unclipping problem, but I did slacken them off a bit. Don't use them when it's cold - those shoes are not warm at all, and I can't be bothered with the foot covers. Not that I do much in this weather - no joy in it. You've reminded me I haven't been to the Eykyn Arms at Gayton for a good while, is it still a proper pub? Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 23 Jan 14 at 18:23

New Thu 23 Jan 14 18:41   Clipless Pedals - Robin O'Reliant

I used clipless since they first appeared in the mid eighties. In nearly thirty years of use I never had a single clipless moment and there is no need to ever have one. Don't slacken the release mechanism, that won't prevent a stuck foot at all, just make you more likely to pull your foot out accidently. The sole reason people have those "Moments" is because they panic and pull up the foot as they try to release - the very thing the clipless mechanism is there to prevent. It's a SIDEWAYS TWIST ONLY - and your foot will release no bother. Pull up at the same time and you'll stay clipped in. Those who fear clipless should try what we had to do in the days of clips and straps. Most serious cyclists and everyone who raced had metal plates tacked on the sole of the shoe with a slot into which the rear cage of the pedal fitted. Stopping meant reaching down on the move to flick the quick release on the toestap open so you could extract your foot, and pulling it taut again after moving off. Even in traffic it became second nature and the move to the new fangled clipless was a doddle.

New Thu 23 Jan 14 18:53   Clipless Pedals - Bromptonaut

>> I have some of these I've used for longer rides on the Brompton. >> >> www.wiggle.co.uk/shimano-m324-combination-pedals/ >> I need a pair of those for the mountain bike though I'd get them from Simpsons rather than wiggle. For me the Brompton's USP was that I can ride it in ordinary clothes and I've never messed with that. One other regular B commuter form Northampton has them on his though. Now kids have left home and Mrs B and I will holiday as a couple we've considered a second Brompton. If using it for day rides as opposed to just tootling or accessing the Boulangerie I might think about swapping a set temporarily. >> Don't use them when it's cold - those shoes are not warm at all, and >> I can't be bothered with the foot covers. Not that I do much in this >> weather - no joy in it. >> >> You've reminded me I haven't been to the Eykyn Arms at Gayton for a good >> while, is it still a proper pub? Gayton's a funny place as, like Kislingbury, whether on bike or car you're naturally routed away from real centre. I've been to the Queen Vic occasionally (does it still have it's boozer cruiser minibus?) but not sure about the Ekyn. Will have a look next time I'm out that way.

New Thu 23 Jan 14 19:33   Clipless Pedals - Manatee

>> need a pair of those for the mountain bike though I'd get them from Simpsons rather than wiggle. Never used either - or heard of Simpsons. I hope you get discount, they want £45. Chain Reaction are about the same price as wiggle. I got mine from bike-discount.de when I was ordering some well priced tyres and tubes. I just checked and they were about £24, but they haven't got them now. The Eykyn was very 1970s with a big "tap room" with a skittle table when I last went, maybe 5 years ago.

New Thu 23 Jan 14 19:48   Clipless Pedals - Bromptonaut

>> Never used either - or heard of Simpsons. I hope you get discount, they want >> £45. A proper local bike shop in north London. Got me out of holes a couple of times with repairs/parts and like all such places its 'use it or lose it'. I think we're now down to just one proper bike shop in Northampton, Newlec. Last couple of times I've been in there for spares (gear changer and later a BB cassette) they've wanted me to wait while it's ordered in. Simpson's web service is excellent and they carry a good range of Brompton spares. If that means paying over the odds occasionally I'll live with it. > The Eykyn was very 1970s with a big "tap room" with a skittle table when >> I last went, maybe 5 years ago. Perhaps Mrs B and I might go up there for lunch one day. There's still a skittle table in the Bakers Arms, Bugbrooke's proper boozer, where The Lad's now a regualr. The one in the Bells has gone though.

New Fri 24 Jan 14 04:57   Clipless Pedals - Duncan

>> www.wiggle.co.uk/shimano-m324-combination-pedals/ I bought two pairs of those when I got back into cycling after I retired some three years ago. A pair for the Trek road bike and a pair for the Raleigh - was MTB, now rather hybridised with skinnier tyres - the idea being that if I got both bikes with the same clipless pedals, there was less chance of my getting confused! I have only had one "clipless moment" and that wasn't really my fault. A Jagwar slowed to let me cross the A3 at Wisley, then changed his mind at the last moment, I couldn't get my foot down in time and sat on the ground in a very undignified heap! No harm done, just some dented pride. The time to be wary with clipless pedals is when you think you have mastered the technique.

New Fri 24 Jan 14 12:17   Clipless Pedals - crocks

I've been using spd pedals since I bought my mountain bike in 1995. The bumpy, fast and steep cycling I was doing then would have been impossible without them. I haven't have any "clipless moments" on the road. But off-road I did once end up still attached to the bike while lying in a bed of brambles, head first down a 30° slope. I can't remember exactly how it happened but I do remember the discomfort of extracting myself from that situation! Like Duncan I now run the bike with skinnier road tyres and M324 combination pedals so I can use any footwear.

New Sat 25 Jan 14 14:17   Clipless Pedals - Bromptonaut

>> I have some of these I've used for longer rides on the Brompton. >> >> www.wiggle.co.uk/shimano-m324-combination-pedals/ Here's another clipless solution for the Brompton: www.amazon.com/Wellgo-QRD-W01-Mountain-Clipless-compatible/dp/B00EF7YVVS Quick release bearings so pedals can be removed easily.

New Fri 24 Jan 14 15:11   Ups and downs track - henry k

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/25741090

New Sat 25 Jan 14 14:05   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

Cont from volume 8. Westpig mentioned fatality in Southampton. Among several points of dispute I questioned why it was only charged as driving without due care. Here's another one creating a storm over on Cyclechat: www.roadjustice.org.uk/case-study/cyclist-killed-crash-risby-suffolk-71012 This time site was a country road parallel to the A14 and charge was death by careless. Suspended sentence, 12month ban and community service.

New Sat 25 Jan 14 14:13   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - No FM2R

My children cycle in Santiago, which is a capital city and very busy. I constantly bang on to them that being in the right won't be much compensation as they walk up to St. Peter. I think far too much is made of legal right, and a little more focus on using common sense to look after oneself and other road users, irrespective of the law and your rights, would go a long way. Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 25 Jan 14 at 14:14       1

New Sat 25 Jan 14 14:30   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

>> My children cycle in Santiago, which is a capital city and very busy. I constantly >> bang on to them that being in the right won't be much compensation as they >> walk up to St. Peter. >> >> I think far too much is made of legal right, and a little more focus >> on using common sense to look after oneself and other road users, irrespective of the >> law and your rights, would go a long way. I wouldn't argue with the general idea Mark and of course younger riders may be more vulnerable than adults. How much cycling is there in Santiago? The 200% growth in riding in London in past 15yrs has made a massive difference. Bikes are now a major part of the traffic, not just and oddity. My point in challenging Westpig was that with right technique and realistic grasp of the risks the vast majority of urban roads are do-able on a bike. In risk assessment terms, while the consequence number is high the probability multiplier can be managed down to point where the result is acceptable.

New Sat 25 Jan 14 14:54   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - No FM2R

>> I wouldn't argue with the general idea Mark and of course younger riders may be >> more vulnerable than adults. >>How much cycling is there in Santiago? Amazingly sooo much more than you might think. Santiago is quite a diverse place; so there are very modern areas built with cycle paths and cycle traffic lights and separation, although usually without physical barrier. In such areas cycling is very safe and there are lots of cyclists. Really lots. In the older parts of town there is barely room for cars and pedestrians, never mind bikes. There is quite a different matter. The buses are deadly, and lorries not much better. Cycles theoretically have the right of way in many situations, but you'd be taking your life in your hands if you relied on it. In those areas then there are commuters and messengers. Not ultra modern messengers like New York or London, rather broken down bits of iron with worn out people on them. Traffic is such an issue here that cycling is growing very quickly. For South America the Chilean roads are reasonably safe; compared to the UK of course they are awful. Cars are usually not an issue. Mostly because the standard of driving is so bad, so frighteningly awful, that you truly have to watch what everybody else is doing all the time, so bicycles and motorbikes rarely go unseen. I agree with the risk assessment approach. However, how many cyclists understand the word "risk"? i.e. it could happen. Or the word assessment for that matter. And unlike here, I think car drivers fall into a sense of security because things are generally so orderly in the UK (compared to here, for example). Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 25 Jan 14 at 14:55

New Sat 25 Jan 14 20:57   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Westpig

>> My point in challenging Westpig was that with right technique and realistic grasp of the >> risks the vast majority of urban roads are do-able on a bike. In risk assessment >> terms, while the consequence number is high the probability multiplier can be managed down to >> point where the result is acceptable. >> ...and that's where I disagree. When you are cycling forwards, you can't see backwards..and that's where the weariness is coming from. Then bung in automatic movement to miss pot holes or pull out to overtake parked cars etc...it's an accident waiting to happen...and that's without the ones cycling down roads that would be dangerous just stood there looking at the oncoming traffic, let alone facing the other way. How many cyclists do a lifesaver look over their right shoulder to see if it's safe to overtake a parked car or swerve to miss a pot hole..and are prepared to stop if it isn't? What percentage do you think would do that? IMO exceptionally few, if any.

New Sat 25 Jan 14 21:09   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Runfer D'Hills

As a kid from the age of nine I cycled in all weathers a ten mile round trip to school and often back and forth again in the evenings for extra-curricular stuff across and into central Edinburgh which even then wasn't exactly traffic free. Now I cycle in central London regularly and locally in my busy little congested home town in Cheshire all the time. So far, in nigh on half a century of such risky and wantonly dangerous behaviour it hasn't resulted in me coming into inadvertant physical contact with any other road user. There is much in the modern world which possibly needs to be banned, controlled or otherwise censured but the sensible use of bikes as sharers of infrastructure is pretty low on my list of of them.

New Sat 25 Jan 14 21:29   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

>> ...and that's where I disagree. When you are cycling forwards, you can't see backwards..and that's >> where the weariness is coming from. >> >> Then bung in automatic movement to miss pot holes or pull out to overtake parked >> cars etc...it's an accident waiting to happen...and that's without the ones cycling down roads that >> would be dangerous just stood there looking at the oncoming traffic, let alone facing the >> other way. The Highway Code tells you to give space to cyclists precisely because they might wobble due to the wind or to avoid potholes, drain covers etc. > How many cyclists do a lifesaver look over their right shoulder to see if it's >> safe to overtake a parked car or swerve to miss a pot hole..and are prepared >> to stop if it isn't? What percentage do you think would do that? IMO exceptionally >> few, if any. IME most do a lifesaver. But as the term implies it's meant to deal with the unexpected. If you're approaching a cyclist from behind and he's coming up to a line of parked car what do you think he's going to do? Ride over them? Fly into the air like in ET? No, of course not. He's going to do same as a car and steer round them. Also, if he's got any sense, he'll ride round them leaving enough room to react to unexpected opening of doors. So you ease, drop a gear or three and stay behind until it's safe to pass. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 25 Jan 14 at 21:31

New Sat 25 Jan 14 22:59   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Westpig

>> The Highway Code tells you to give space to cyclists precisely because they might wobble >> due to the wind or to avoid potholes, drain covers etc. For heaven's sake B....that's in an ideal world. I agree everyone should be au fait with the Highway Code..but..am realistic enough to know they are not...not by a long shot. >> >> >> > How many cyclists do a lifesaver look over their right shoulder to see if >> it's >> >> safe to overtake a parked car or swerve to miss a pot hole..and are >> prepared >> >> to stop if it isn't? What percentage do you think would do that? IMO >> exceptionally >> >> few, if any. >> >> IME most do a lifesaver. >> >> But as the term implies it's meant to deal with the unexpected. If you're approaching >> a cyclist from behind and he's coming up to a line of parked car what >> do you think he's going to do? You keep on emphasising what the motorist ought to be doing...I agree totally agree with what you say..now let's go back to what the CYCLIST OUGHT TO BE DOING....especially with the knowledge of what actually happens in the real world. >> No, of course not. He's going to do same as a car and steer round >> them. Also, if he's got any sense, he'll ride round them leaving enough room to >> react to unexpected opening of doors. So you ease, drop a gear or three and >> stay behind until it's safe to pass. Yes...again in an ideal world....but the WORLD IS NOT LIKE THAT. If you were driving a car up lane 1 of a motorway and were catching up something much slower and you needed to move to lane 2...you'd hope a faster motorist in lane 2 already, would anticipate your need and they themselves move to lane 3 early, to help you move to lane 2...trouble is, we all know that doesn't always happen...so you indicate early and hope they get the message. If they don't, you have to stay there. Well same principle for the cyclist...if some tit driving behind them hasn't noticed what they are up to and what they are likely to do...(and this WILL be the case)....then they (the cyclist) need to create their own luck and save their own bacon...if not it's curtains. ...and who is the most vulnerable? Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 25 Jan 14 at 23:00       2

New Sun 26 Jan 14 10:27   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

I'm not going to carry on a 'snip quote duel over this. It becomes difficult to follow and tedious even for the committed participant. The vast majority of motorists behave as I describe. It's not in their interest to have an accident. No cyclist should be blind as to what's behind. Regular checks over the shoulder are augmented by hearing. Mirrors are available for those with limited movement or who otherwise find them useful; that's one of the ways you make your own luck The parked car/3 lane motorway analogy doesn't really work. If there's a row of parked cars at side of road everyone is passing them. Like a car you move out in advance having chosen a gap to move into after doing a final lifesaver and a signal if necessary first. If there's no gap and no motorists co-operates by creating one for you you've got room to stop behind - again you've made your own luck. Ride far enough from the kerb to be visible and to have space to dip into if things go t*ts up. Making your own luck again. At the end of the day if you think urban cycling is too dangerous then nobody's going to force you to do it. A fast growing number of people are doing it in London and our other big cities. I am proud to have been one of them for thirteen years. The KSI numbers are still too high and we need to work to mange them down, particularly life changing injuries. Overall the risks are acceptable to individuals doing the riding. Only a tiny tiny number of journeys end anywhere other than their intended destination.       1

New Sun 26 Jan 14 11:45   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Manatee

The fundamental problem is a lack of empathy on the part of a number on both sides. As I came up behind a couple of cyclists yesterday, approaching a long right hand bend (30 limit, often badly observed), they visibly moved out a yard. I had no intention of passing them but many, if not most, would have done at that point and potentially had to cut in. I knew exactly what they were doing, which was to claim the road and keep me behind, rather than invite a pass that would have been uncomfortable. It was obstruction, and would have been seen as gratuitous by some drivers. They were doing at least 15mph anyway, and I trundled round the bend then passed on the other side of the road (not within the frequently seen grudging yard which nearly all drivers think is OK, often with a large speed difference), and got an unexpected wave (I think). Horse riders are a much bigger inconvenience, as a result of which they usually make a point of acknowledging consideration - maybe more cyclists could try that, it might gain more understanding. I am sometimes passed by the same newish MX5 on a bit of rural A road near here - goo.gl/maps/LBtmM - the owner must make a regular trip that coincides with my run to the paper shop. She is usually doing 50 plus, and passes within what feels like a couple of feet even with a clear road in front of her on both sides. It's quite scary and knowing where she lives I have thought about having a word - I don't think it's deliberately hostile, there is just no understanding there.       1

New Sun 26 Jan 14 13:41   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

>> The fundamental problem is a lack of empathy on the part of a number on >> both sides. An excellent and thoughtful post. Couple of times on yesterday's ride I was overtaken in places where driver's view was poor and risked a sharp pull in if something came other way. Your MX 5 lady is an example of a common trait. The return* from several of my local ride routes traverses this lane: goo.gl/maps/PB5zy Cars coming from behind tend to be considerate, less so those coming the other way who are doing 30-40mph. If I duck in as soon as I see them I'm riding on the rough and muddy shoulder of the carriageway while they zip past with no loss of speed. If instead I hold my position roughly where the middle of a car would be they have to slow down and move to their nearside as they would for car. When they have it's time to nip in and acknowledge with a cheery wave. If it's a nutter in a chavved up Clio and doesn't slow then there's still time to escape to the verge. * I could go out that way too but the 1:10 from a cold start isn't a welcome prospect.

New Sun 26 Jan 14 11:50   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Runfer D'Hills

>>Overall the risks are acceptable to individuals doing the riding. Only a tiny tiny number of journeys end anywhere other than their intended destination. Correct. Do you know what, I used to enjoy reading this little sub-thread when it was mainly written by those who had a genuine and positive interest in cycling and bikes. However, in recent times it seems to have been mainly hi-jacked by those who just want a platform to whinge about cyclists and I'm no longer enjoying having to plough through all that crap to get to the entertaining and informative bits. Maybe those who just want vent their spleen could create a different thread called "Miserable Gits Corner" or something ? It would make it a lot easier to decide which threads to bother to open for all parties wouldn't it? The "MGs" wouldn't have to bother reading good things about bikes as it clearly irritates them, and the people interested in cycling wouldn't have bother reading all the guff from the MGs side. I reckon as an idea, it's got legs y'know... ;-))       5

New Sun 26 Jan 14 14:35   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Westpig

>> I'm not going to carry on a 'snip quote duel over this. It becomes difficult >> to follow and tedious even for the committed participant. Is that an admittance of defeat? >> >> The parked car/3 lane motorway analogy doesn't really work. If there's a row of parked >> cars at side of road everyone is passing them. Like a car you move out >> in advance having chosen a gap to move into after doing a final lifesaver and >> a signal if necessary first. If there's no gap and no motorists co-operates by creating >> one for you you've got room to stop behind - again you've made your own >> luck. ...are you having a laugh?....When was the last time a cyclist checked what was coming, didn't like what he/she saw and stopped rather than overtake a parked car? I'm not convinced I've ever seen that. >> At the end of the day if you think urban cycling is too dangerous then >> nobody's going to force you to do it. I don't actually...I just think it's unacceptably dangerous when cyclists flout the laws and fail to heed common sense, mixed with unaware, unthinking motorists. I would be prepared to cycle in an urban environment.... but would take considerably more defensive measures than the many I witness. >> The KSI numbers are still too high and we >> need to work to mange them down, particularly life changing injuries. That will need to come from the cycling community as well as the motorists..and until that is fully realised, the sad figures will continue. >> Overall the risks are acceptable to individuals doing the riding. Well they will be if they are deliberately ignored.

New Sun 26 Jan 14 15:35   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

Wp, I don't believe this is about defeat and I don't think you do either. At the end of the day we'll agree to differ. I have seen somebody stop because a car driver was unobservant of his/her intention to pass parking bays. Occasionally been pipped when doing so but that's because some drivers have no tolerance. Never seen an accident or witnessed an emergency stop for a cyclist just bumbling out. You started this thread linking to a court case where a cyclist was killed on an urban road. Because you saw that road as dangerous you implied the victim was in part to blame. I've tried to point out that it's not as bad as you think. With the right techniques and, to use your phrase, creating your own luck, the risks that are there can be managed down. You now turned to the old saw of arguing that cyclists are, as a group, acting outside the law. No argument that flouting laws is, or at least can be, dangerous. Red light jumping, even when done carefully and safely at junctions such as Russell Sq SW corner, brings cycling into disrepute. No lights at night is just stupid. Common sense is a different thing. Your common sense tells you not to ride on Mountbatten Way, or even apparently the A5 through Barnet division of the MPS . I would be cautious but wouldn't rule the first out just because it's a three lane city by-pass. The second is just a set of consecutive High Streets and relatively easy urban riding. Managing down injuries is down to both sides and I'm fully in favour of campaigning and getting training particularly for students and other younger people new to London riding. There's also a lot road engineers can do to avoid building new death trap junctions and modifying older ones. I've already pointed out that risks are not ignored, just considered differently and mitigated for.

New Sun 26 Jan 14 17:14   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Westpig

>> You started this thread linking to a court case where a cyclist was killed on >> an urban road. Because you saw that road as dangerous you implied the victim was >> in part to blame. To clarify, I didn't think the victim was to blame for the accident, not at all...but, yes I do think the victim is/was responsible for his own destiny..and that cycling down a 3 laned, 50mph road like that was incredibly foolish. >> >> I've tried to point out that it's not as bad as you think. With the >> right techniques and, to use your phrase, creating your own luck, the risks that are >> there can be managed down. What on earth technique can you use to prevent someone ramming into you with at least a 40mph speed difference, FROM BEHIND? >> >> You now turned to the old saw of arguing that cyclists are, as a group, >> acting outside the law. I'm saying, in general, a lot of cyclists could do a lot more to help with their own safety, and that would include law compliance, such as stopping at red lights, showing lights at night, etc. >> No argument that flouting laws is, or at least can be, dangerous. Red light jumping, >> even when done carefully and safely at junctions such as Russell Sq SW corner, brings >> cycling into disrepute. No lights at night is just stupid. We agree then. >> >> Common sense is a different thing. Your common sense tells you not to ride on >> Mountbatten Way, or even apparently the A5 through Barnet division of the MPS . Interesting that you should choose the A5, that being just about the only one of the ones I mentioned that you could safely cycle down. I mentioned those roads, inc the A5, to show that the Borough I policed had a load of major roads on it... and therefore might know what I'm talking about. I'm happy to confirm that the A5 would be acceptable to me, apart from the flyover at Staples Corner. I'm also happy to confirm it would be stupid of someone to cycle down Mountbatten Way, just as stupid as someone trying it on most parts of the A406 North Circular Road...and similar. >> I've already pointed out that risks are not ignored, just considered differently and mitigated for. I am absolutely convinced that you and others choose to ignore the risks, because you wish to partake in your pastime. It's not convenient to you to recognise the difficulties, so ostrich like, it's head in sand time. Just to clarify, I'm not talking about all cycling...just in the areas where there's unacceptable danger...and whilst 'unacceptable' can be subjective, I mean 'unacceptable' to the average man in the street. Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 26 Jan 14 at 17:14

New Sun 26 Jan 14 18:58   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - No FM2R

Ok, now I fully acknowledge my own ability to pointlessly pursue and argument beyond any reasonable point, but even for me this is ridiculous. There are idiot car drivers who don't see or anticipate, even when they should. There are idiot cyclists who do daft stuff with feelings of invincibility. Also, there are people like me who are both a cyclist and a motorist and who do not get knotted up in who has the strict legal right/duty to do this, that or the other and just get on with sharing the roads. In a collision, the large metally thing will usually do better than the small fleshy thing. So, beyond the law, it behooves the one who will suffer to pay a little more attention. Not because of the law, but just because they should. But it would be ridiculous to adopt the principle of "you must not do this because the other idiots are not to be trusted". Far better to start measures to reduce the number of "other idiots". So, for me, Westpig's arguments tend to suggest that the speed limit should be halved and cameras doubled to compensate for the careless or incompetent motorist, not that cyclists should be banned. Strange though, because the people who will rise up in anger at being told to drive at 25mph will be shouting about how safe they are at 50mph. As ever, the motorist wants nobody else on the road because the speed makes it so dangerous for them, but doesn't want laws imposed because it is so safe to drive at those speeds. All a bit dumb really. Cars are big, fast and heavy. Cyclists are small, slow and vulnerable. Not only do both have the right to be on the road, we should want both to have the freedom to be on the road. Find a way to achieve that or suffer ridiculous and unhelpful legislation.       2

New Sun 26 Jan 14 19:12   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Robin O'Reliant

Well said that man.       1

New Sun 26 Jan 14 19:22   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

>> Well said that man. +1 I'd also add that 'man in the street' view of risk is of little value. My neighbours think I was 'brave' (ie foolish) to ride alongside the permanently near stationary traffic in Trafalgar Sq. All that really counts are overall numbers. These tell us cycling is less safe than driving, roughly as safe as walking and much safer than motorcycling. Those and the experience of folks who actually ride busy streets.

New Mon 27 Jan 14 10:13   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Westpig

>> All a bit dumb really. Cars are big, fast and heavy. Cyclists are small, slow >> and vulnerable. Not only do both have the right to be on the road, we >> should want both to have the freedom to be on the road. Find a way >> to achieve that or suffer ridiculous and unhelpful legislation. Why not apply that logic to some/most roads, but not the fast ones..and allow motorised traffic to get a move on unimpeded by the slower stuff...as is the case on a motorway? The other thing is, I've never said the cyclist shouldn't be there by law...I've said they shouldn't be there if they have any sense. I'd be saying the same if someone went down there on a horse. Would you want to cycle down Mountbatten Way?...knowing an HGV or coach will come along in a minute in lane 1....with someone overtaking them in lane 2...all at 50mph or more...and there's going to be a squeeze.

New Mon 27 Jan 14 11:35   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

>> Why not apply that logic to some/most roads, but not the fast ones..and allow motorised >> traffic to get a move on unimpeded by the slower stuff...as is the case on >> a motorway? Ahh, so it's about other road users being able to proceed unimpeded by cyclists. A motorway is a long distance road with alternatives and very limited access. There are a few other examples such as the A630 Sheffield Parkway from M1/J33 towards the city centre. Not a solution for roads like M/batten way which has houses along it and its side roads. >> Would you want to cycle down Mountbatten Way?...knowing an HGV or coach will come along >> in a minute in lane 1....with someone overtaking them in lane 2...all at 50mph or >> more...and there's going to be a squeeze. Such a thing is of course possible. In practice it will resolve itself as NoFM suggests. Accidents of this type on urban roads are incredibly rare. The real danger, in numbers terms, is on rural A/B roads. It comes from unthinking/dangerous overtakes both from behind and vehicles coming other way and people just driving too fast for the conditions.

New Mon 27 Jan 14 15:44   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Westpig

>> Ahh, so it's about other road users being able to proceed unimpeded by cyclists. >> No Bromptonaut it is not. Not in the slightest. You only see what you want to see. My posts are about unnecessary risk. My most recent comments about faster roads, is in response to No FM2R 's suggestion that either we all get on or accept some draconian laws to ensure we do and/or much lower limits...and if that were so, especially the much lower limits, then I think they should only apply to certain roads, not the current faster ones. >> Would you want to cycle down Mountbatten Way?...knowing an HGV or coach will come >> along >> >> in a minute in lane 1....with someone overtaking them in lane 2...all at 50mph >> or >> >> more...and there's going to be a squeeze. >> >> Such a thing is of course possible. In practice it will resolve itself as NoFM >> suggests. Accidents of this type on urban roads are incredibly rare. >> >> The real danger, in numbers terms, is on rural A/B roads. It comes from unthinking/dangerous >> overtakes both from behind and vehicles coming other way and people just driving too fast >> for the conditions. 'In practice it will resolve itself'....I'd want a lot more than that. If you are happy for you to be competing with all the users of a m/way type road..then crack on. I think you'd be foolish. I agree with your thoughts on 'A' roads..however.....you and I both know that happens, whatever the rights and wrongs of it....so the fellow/lady on the bicycle IS at some risk, and at times considerable risk...and should take steps to alleviate it. Please bear in mind I have a motorcycle and a bicycle myself (albeit I don't use the pedal power very much).

New Mon 27 Jan 14 16:41   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Pat

So, what do we all make of this one then? tinyurl.com/o4bwxv6 Pat

New Mon 27 Jan 14 16:46   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Haywain

"So, what do we all make of this one then?" Everybody knows that you shouldn't argue with an Audi driver - they must always be given right of way; they are special people.

New Mon 27 Jan 14 16:47   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Armel Coussine

Two uptight prats getting nasty with each other. It's bound to happen sometimes.

New Mon 27 Jan 14 16:53   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Alanovich

Audi driver in the wrong and needed telling. Just wish the cyclist had lamped him back after getting up. Hope the chino-wearing mouth breather gets prosecuted.

New Mon 27 Jan 14 16:57   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Armel Coussine

Both mouth breathers if you ask me. The cyclist's demeanour and body language are aggressive and self-righteous ostensibly about some marks painted on the road, idiotic behaviour. The driver or passenger of the Audi is even worse. One thing leads to another. A nasty little scene.

New Mon 27 Jan 14 17:12   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

>> Audi driver in the wrong and needed telling. Just wish the cyclist had lamped him >> back after getting up. Hope the chino-wearing mouth breather gets prosecuted. I'd agree in general but if the cyclist was effin and jeffin then he's taking a risk. Amongst offending cars 'aspirational' marques such as Audi, BMW and Range Rover seem over represented. But maybe that's my bias confirmation. OTOH compliance with those boxes in London is abysmal. Professional drivers of buses and hackney cabs are amongst the worst. It's not much good stopping a bus with its front wheels just behind the line when the driver sits waay out ahead of them!

New Mon 27 Jan 14 17:52   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Armel Coussine

>> OTOH compliance with those boxes in London is abysmal. Professional drivers of buses and hackney cabs are amongst the worst. Perhaps. I have often offended myself... but actually Bromptonaut you know what London is like, and that motor vehicles quite often get stopped in cycle aprons, yellow boxes etc... it isn't always deliberate. I usually stop behind the line when I can. Why attract needless attention by looking as if you are hustling? You can hustle discreetly anyway. Not many cyclists are a pain but some are.

New Mon 27 Jan 14 17:09   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Westpig

>> So, what do we all make of this one then? Audi driver completely out of order for resorting to unnecessary physical violence. Cyclist out of order for deliberately getting himself into a confrontation. Road planners out of order for planning something whereby the much slower traffic comes up from behind, undertakes you and then stops right in front of you, which annoys and will cause problems....why not have a system whereby the bikes queue up at a biggish box mainly at the nearside, but not blocking motorised transport? Cyclist could have been more polite and not blocked the car at the traffic lights...(like all the other cyclists did). So..Audi driver was a tit ...and the cyclist was a tit...and the road designer who thought that one out is also a tit.

New Mon 27 Jan 14 17:35   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

> >> Road planners out of order for planning something whereby the much slower traffic comes up >> from behind, undertakes you and then stops right in front of you, which annoys and >> will cause problems....why not have a system whereby the bikes queue up at a biggish >> box mainly at the nearside, but not blocking motorised transport? In a way those boxes are an example of what NoFM mentioned last night where if motor drivers won't be sensible they might be disadvantaged. If the cyclists are alongside the cars they're out of driver's line of sight and get squashed against kerb or, where left turns are permitted, turned across in the classic left hook. The boxes address that by placing cyclists where drivers can see them. They're usually used in London in places where traffic proceeds in spurts from one junction to the next. Any impression of motorists being held up is dispelled when they join the next queue.

New Mon 27 Jan 14 17:38   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Pat

Wouldn't it be far safer for cyclists to simply stay in the queue behind any vehicle they come up against stationary at traffic lights? Pat       2

New Mon 27 Jan 14 18:06   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

>> Wouldn't it be far safer for cyclists to simply stay in the queue behind any >> vehicle they come up against stationary at traffic lights? >> >> Pat Depends how long the queue is and what sort of vehicle is at front, certainly if it's a truck best to stay behind. While advanced stop lines are a good thing there is a school of thought that says nip in and wait behind the first or second car in the queue. When he moves off stay behind or pass if he's turning left or right. Generally, bikes will out accelerate cars in urban stop start/traffic jamming unless car driver is doing that stupid floor it/stamp on brake thing beloved of owners of Maseratis and such like. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 27 Jan 14 at 18:07

New Mon 27 Jan 14 18:08   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Pat

>>Generally though bikes will out accelerate cars in urban traffic jamming<< And that is a huge part of the problem! Pat

New Mon 27 Jan 14 18:39   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Westpig

>> While advanced stop lines are a good thing When I'm driving in an urban environment, being a motorcyclist as well anyway, I have no problem leaving plenty of gap and letting a motorcycle weave in front of me at a red light. However, when it is more than one, or loads, that's different...because they are going to hold me up when the lights change...and it's a slow enough journey as it is in a city centre, without all and sundry piling in at the front. Same principle with a bicycle, and they are much slower than a m/c, so I don't want any directly in front of me. Why oh why does anyone think it sensible to put the slow vulnerable one right in front of the motorised one? I think it's a cracking idea letting the bikes have an area where you can see them...but not right in front. Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 27 Jan 14 at 18:40       1

New Mon 27 Jan 14 17:59   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Manatee

The cyclist didn't "block" the car at the traffic lights, he correctly used the box as marked for cycles. How many cyclists are supposed to wedge themselves next to the kerb to oblige motorists, when a box has been provided and marked for them? Audi at fault for driving into box and alongside cycle Cyclist correctly, though possibly it was not the best idea, to inform Audi man he is breaking the rules (no effin and jeffin at this point). Audi at fault for racing past cycles. Cycles easily catch Audi, showing Audi would not have been held up anyway. Cyclist illustrates problem with getting angry at bad behaviour - you don't know what sort of person you are dealing with. He was thumped, but he could have been knifed, shot or run over. Audi driver criminally at fault for hitting cyclist. The balance of fault and aggression, as well as law breaking, seems to be with the driver here, who is also likely to be a danger to other road users generally, as he has a serious attitude problem. The cyclist was in the right of it, but as is often the case discretion would have been better than valour. The chances of somebody seeing the light, or politely agreeing with you when you try to educate them is next to zero unless you happen to be wearing a police uniform. If anybody wants to push in front if me, my response is to let them. It saves a lot of angst, and possibly worse. Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 27 Jan 14 at 18:00

New Mon 27 Jan 14 18:43   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Westpig

>> The cyclist didn't "block" the car at the traffic lights, he correctly used the box >> as marked for cycles. How many cyclists are supposed to wedge themselves next to the >> kerb to oblige motorists, when a box has been provided and marked for them? Cyclist correctly used the box as intended by the road planners..and by doing so blocked the way for the Audi...which was a rudeness that the Audi driver obliviously had the hump about, as would I. None of the other cyclists did it. The rest of it I agree with you and as for the violence, it makes Audi man a thug.       1

New Mon 27 Jan 14 20:13   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Westpig

>> Audi driver obliviously had the >> hump about, as would I. Should read 'obviously'....I got spell checked.

New Mon 27 Jan 14 20:03   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - NortonES2

Driving into the box is a threat, and no doubt deliberate.       1

New Mon 27 Jan 14 20:12   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Armel Coussine

>> Driving into the box is a threat, and no doubt deliberate. That's total garbaggio comrade. It's the damn road FFS. We are all allowed to drive/ride/walk/waddle/crawl on it with due caution and due consideration for all the other carphounds trying to get in the way or run you over. And quite frankly I don't approve of possessive or selfish attitudes to its (almost unlimited) space. STFU, get on with it and watch your bum and everyone else's.       2

New Mon 27 Jan 14 20:24   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - NortonES2

Up yours too! Audi man went into the box to be assertive: it works both ways. He got a reaction. Cyclist should have lamped him first, probably being fitter than your average Audi slob.

New Mon 27 Jan 14 20:44   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Armel Coussine

>> Cyclist should have lamped him first, probably being fitter than your average Audi slob. I can't agree NIL. It's true that cyclists are fitter on the whole than car drivers. They tend to be angrier and ruder too. In this case the cyclist came up against someone nastier and more aggressive than him. Served him right I thought. I didn't say up yours NIL. I just said you were writing garbaggio. As you were. Cycle boxes aren't sacrosanct. They are part of the road surface.       1

New Mon 27 Jan 14 20:54   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

>> Cycle boxes aren't sacrosanct. They are part of the road surface. > Line at entry to cycle box is a stop line. If you've crept into one while lights are green then fair enough. If you cross it when lights are red its an FP with fine and points same as any other light. Unfortunately the rozzers find it easier to lecture cyclists over helmets or hi-viz than boo offending drivers.       1

New Mon 27 Jan 14 19:59   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - NortonES2

"why not have a system whereby the bikes queue up at a biggish box mainly at the nearside, but not blocking motorised transport?" Have you never noticed WP, that it's long queues of cars (1 occupant) that hold up traffic? Where is your solution?       1

New Mon 27 Jan 14 20:11   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Westpig

>> Have you never noticed WP, that it's long queues of cars (1 occupant) that hold >> up traffic? Where is your solution? >> Is that it then? Hassle the drivers of cars enough so that they don't drive there? What about those that have to, or live in there?       1

New Mon 27 Jan 14 20:39   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

>> Is that it then? Hassle the drivers of cars enough so that they don't drive >> there? >> >> What about those that have to, or live in there? This is London. Those who have to drive are few and far between. When we had staff parking places off Lincoln's Inn Fields on first come/first served they were immediately occupied by young men. Easy to drive and a showy car + public transport was outside their budget. Bit of a fuss when we reserved most of spaces for disabled, shift staff and other truly essential users.

New Mon 27 Jan 14 16:56   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Bromptonaut

@Westpig On the Mountbatten way question I suggest we agree to differ. Outside of towns it's not just A & B roads, unclassified county roads are just as potentially risky. The major problems, from a rider's perspective, are overtakes without adequate visibility, close passes, and opposite direction traffic taking a slack line through bends so on my side of the road. Oh and speed of course. Real casualty numbers are actually low. In Great Britain (UK excl Northern Ireland) for 2011 there were 107 deaths and 3,085 serious injuries. As I've observed before the latter number is not very informative as it covers everything from broken collar bones to amputations and life changing brain injury. The victims are 80% male/20% female which I suspect, outside of London commuting, is probably representative. So what can be done to alleviate? Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 27 Jan 14 at 16:57

New Mon 27 Jan 14 17:00   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Westpig

@ Bromptonaut....agreed....and in fairness, civilised as usual.

New Wed 29 Jan 14 15:31   Cycling on 'Dangerous' Roads - Westpig

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-25949342 Driver found NG

New Wed 29 Jan 14 14:30   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Crankcase

An advert promoting cycling safety, but showing the cyclist not wearing a helmet has been banned by the ASA. They also didn't like that she was further out in the road than they thought was responsible to show. "...the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it should not be shown on TV again as not wearing a helmet was "socially irresponsible". "Furthermore, we were concerned that whilst the cyclist was more than 0.5 metres from the kerb, they appeared to be located more in the centre of the lane when the car behind overtook them and the car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572 It's a bit rude about the poor woman too - I didn't think she looked that bad. Last edited by: Crankcase on Wed 29 Jan 14 at 14:31

New Wed 29 Jan 14 15:03   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Westpig

"Cycling Scotland was told that any future adverts featuring cyclists should be shown wearing helmets and placed in the most suitable cycling position". It's the....... 'and placed in the most suitable cycling position'....... bit that interests me.. because the ASA obviously thinks that cycling in the middle of the carriageway is 'socially irresponsible' and does 'not aid Health and Safety'. Couldn't agree more. Some of the ideas coming from cycling federations and the like are at odds with other groups and IMO cause conflict where there shouldn't be any or at the very least we should be trying to iron out conflict.

New Wed 29 Jan 14 15:34   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Alanovich

>> >> the ASA obviously thinks Since when were they the arbiters of safe driving/cycling practice?

New Wed 29 Jan 14 16:26   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Manatee

>> "Cycling Scotland was told that any future adverts featuring cyclists should be shown wearing helmets >> and placed in the most suitable cycling position". >> >> It's the....... 'and placed in the most suitable cycling position'....... bit that interests me.. because >> the ASA obviously thinks that cycling in the middle of the carriageway is 'socially irresponsible' >> and does 'not aid Health and Safety'. >> >> Couldn't agree more. I couldn't agree less. Outrageous ruling by the ASA. The car has managed to give the cycle a full car's width of space without crossing the line, so no case to answer even if we accept the ridiculous premise that drivers must not be obliged to cross it.

New Wed 29 Jan 14 16:39   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Armel Coussine

Cars are allowed to cross double white lines when overtaking cyclists or even tractors. So it's rubbish to complain about cars being 'forced' to cross the road centreline. If it's a two lane road and they are doing any sort of speed - anything over 20 or 25 mph - cars are endangering cyclists if they don't give them several feet of clearance. If they have to pass close to the cyclist it's rude and dangerous not to slow down.

New Wed 29 Jan 14 16:21   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Manatee

>> "Furthermore, we were concerned that whilst the cyclist was more than 0.5 metres from the >> kerb, they appeared to be located more in the centre of the lane when the >> car behind overtook them and the car almost had to enter the right lane of >> traffic." What an utterly moronic comment, that sums up the general ignorance on the part of drivers where cycles are concerned. The expectation that they should not have to enter the other lane to pass a cyclist makes drivers dangerous, because they don't expect to have to wait behind a cyclist when there is oncoming traffic. Most roads aren't even fit to ride on 50cm from the kerb.       1

New Wed 29 Jan 14 18:52   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Westpig

>> The expectation that they should not have to enter the other lane to pass a >> cyclist makes drivers dangerous, because they don't expect to have to wait behind a cyclist >> when there is oncoming traffic. I think you'll find it's the 'unnecessary' having to pass the cyclist by using the other lane. That's how I understood it. Why make the car go over there when it didn't need to.

New Wed 29 Jan 14 19:05   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Bromptonaut

>> Why make the car go over there when it didn't need to. It did need to. Apart from riding where she can be seen if you watch the ad carefully she's positioned herself perfectly to avoid a large pothole on her left. Otherwise she'd be left swinging out suddenly. The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group are on the case as well: www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/1401_appcg_asa_nice-way-code-ruling_let.pdf Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 29 Jan 14 at 19:07       1

New Wed 29 Jan 14 19:16   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Westpig

>> It did need to. Apart from riding where she can be seen if you watch >> the ad carefully she's positioned herself perfectly to avoid a large pothole on her left. >> Otherwise she'd be left swinging out suddenly. You must have better eyesight than me then..because I cannot see a pothole that requires her to casually meander along in that part of the road, right where other people would want to use the road.

New Wed 29 Jan 14 19:25   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Bromptonaut

>> You must have better eyesight than me then..because I cannot see a pothole that requires >> her to casually meander along in that part of the road, right where other people >> would want to use the road. > The pothole is visible lower right of screen (riders left) in last few frames. If she's using the road she's doing so irrespective of what others want to do. It's an ad. It's designed to make a point about why cyclists shouldn't be expected to ride in the gutter and should, per the HC, be given space as though they were a car. To that extent it maybe emphasises things.

New Wed 29 Jan 14 19:35   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Manatee

>> You must have better eyesight than me then..because I cannot see a pothole that requires >> her to casually meander along in that part of the road, right where other people >> would want to use the road. I can't see a pothole either. So what? Perhaps she wants to use the road too? The ASA are not even complaining that the driver shown had to use the other lane - the say"...car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic." So perhaps both of them were happy, in this staged scene? At the heart of this Toadish attitude is that cyclists have lesser rights than motorists. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I truly hope that we will at some point see a real shift in the general mindset here, as with drink driving.       1

New Wed 29 Jan 14 20:10   ASA bans cycle safety ad - NortonES2

Response to WP. You can't see the pothole because you don't want to. It's only an advert, to make a point about passing other road users, especially vulnerable ones, with some respect, wherever they are. Same goes for cyclists on the pavement: that they also often couldn't care less, is a reflection of the epidemic of selfishness and the (linked possibly?) idiotic cuts in police presence on roads. Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 02:11

New Wed 29 Jan 14 21:18   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Manatee

>> Response to WP. You can't see the pothole because you don't want to. I suspect that Wp, like me, hadn't twigged that Cranks posted a different link with a video which I hadn't seen, as does nothing to change my view. There's a reasonable one here - vimeo.com/71811411 Pothole is unmistakable, and it also looks as if the bit of the road (about 0.5 metres maybe?) nearest the kerb might even be setts. Looks as if the ASA has shot itself in the foot, regardless of those two observations. Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 29 Jan 14 at 21:19

New Wed 29 Jan 14 21:29   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Bromptonaut

Manatee, Thanks for pointing out the setts, I'd missed those. I suspect ASA saw this as simple and missed the technical/political issues around bikeability and cyclecraft altogether.

New Wed 29 Jan 14 22:01   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Westpig

>> >> Response to WP. You can't see the pothole because you don't want to. >> >> I suspect that Wp, like me, hadn't twigged that Cranks posted a different link with >> a video which I hadn't seen, as does nothing to change my view. Correct..thank you...I agree the pot hole is obvious...although she is still quite a long way out. >> Looks as if the ASA has shot itself in the foot, regardless of those two >> observations. >> I think the ASA line reflects what a heck of a lot of people think..and...there's either got to be a compromise somewhere generally or some considerable education of drivers..but...just foisting new attitudes on a great chunk of the population is unrealistic.. and some of those new attitudes conflict with what many would consider to be reasonable.

New Wed 29 Jan 14 22:37   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Bromptonaut

>> Correct..thank you...I agree the pot hole is obvious...although she is still quite a long way >> out. But it's not far back up thread you were suggesting cyclists universally pulled out late for obstructions (in that case parked cars) without proper observation. >> I think the ASA line reflects what a heck of a lot of people think..and...there's >> either got to be a compromise somewhere generally or some considerable education of drivers..but...just foisting >> new attitudes on a great chunk of the population is unrealistic.. and some of those >> new attitudes conflict with what many would consider to be reasonable. Just because a lot of people think something doesn't make it right. If you're occasionally held up by a cyclist that's life; ust wait until there's space/time. I'm acutely aware of bikes and my 1.9D 'lingo is not equipped for lightening overtakes. Don't think I've ever waited longer than a minute to get past a bike, even on French mountain passes. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 29 Jan 14 at 22:38

New Wed 29 Jan 14 23:23   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Kevin

>If you're occasionally held up by a cyclist that's life; ust wait until there's space/time. Recently, I've deliberately been leaving work later than usual to avoid getting caught in a queue of traffic behind a cyclist doing 15 to 20mph on the A33 returning to Basingstoke from Reading on his daily commute. It's a prime route to/from the M4 and mostly single carriageway 50 limit with continuous traffic in both directions. Passing opportunities are therefore very limited. I've seen plenty of drivers getting frustrated and going for a dodgy overtake, risking either side-swiping the guy or having a head-on with oncoming traffic. Should everyone in the queue behind him, which can be up to half a mile long, just accept "that's life" for the next ten miles or should the suicidal idiot recognise the danger/inconvenience he's causing and catch a bus?       1

New Wed 29 Jan 14 22:04   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Westpig

>> Response to WP. You can't see the pothole because you don't want to. Sorry to disappoint. I didn't see it..because I couldn't see it, in one of the clips it wasn't visible.       1

New Thu 30 Jan 14 00:24   ASA bans cycle safety ad - NortonES2

OK: what seems obvious isn't always so. I take it back.

New Wed 29 Jan 14 19:29   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Boxsterboy

I really cannot see why MPs are wasting their time complaining about the ASA ruling regarding the wearing of a helmet. It really is common sense. They must have had some cyclo-fascists hounding them, and thought 'let's just wing a letter off to shut them up!'       1

New Wed 29 Jan 14 20:02   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Bromptonaut

>> I really cannot see why MPs are wasting their time complaining about the ASA ruling >> regarding the wearing of a helmet. It really is common sense. They must have had >> some cyclo-fascists hounding them, and thought 'let's just wing a letter off to shut them >> up!' If you think helmets are 'common sense' than feel free to wear one. If you look further at their efficacy, about EN v Snell standards and the experience of countries such as Oz where they've been made compulsory you'll find the argument is more nuanced. And the issue here is not just helmets. ASA have taken a very selective view of the Highway Code, created a new piece of road terminology, the parking lane, and flown in face of large sections of what's taught in Bikeability - the modern Cycling Proficiency Exam.       1

New Wed 29 Jan 14 21:12   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Robin O'Reliant

>> >> If you think helmets are 'common sense' than feel free to wear one. If you >> look further at their efficacy, about EN v Snell standards and the experience of countries >> such as Oz where they've been made compulsory you'll find the argument is more nuanced. >> >> When you take a detailed look at cycle helmet effectiveness, the available stats before and after their introduction and widespread use you'll understand why I believe they joined bottled water as one of the great consumer con-tricks of the 20th century. There isn't a single creditable source that can show any benefits. Wear one if it makes you feel safer, but forget the common sense argument in favour because as Brompt indicates it is far from cut and dried.       1

New Wed 29 Jan 14 19:20   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Manatee

>> >> The expectation that they should not have to enter the other lane to pass >> a >> >> cyclist makes drivers dangerous, because they don't expect to have to wait behind a >> cyclist >> >> when there is oncoming traffic. >> >> I think you'll find it's the 'unnecessary' having to pass the cyclist by using the >> other lane. That's how I understood it. >> >> Why make the car go over there when it didn't need to. Why make the cyclist ride in the gutter when she doesn't need to, and she will put herself in more danger by doing so? There are plenty of drivers who think that if they are five or six feet from a kerb, then they can pass a cyclist without deviation or hesitation. That is their default position, it is frightening and dangerous, and that is the attitude I detect in the ASA's very ill-informed comments. If the cyclist whose head was smashed by a minibus mirror had been riding out, he might actually have been seen by the driver who has just been let off - the minibus driver claimed not to have been aware the cyclist was even there. If my attitude comes across as one-sided, it's because it is. A collision between bike and car is a very unequal contest, with life at stake on one hand and paintwork on the other. The frequency with which drivers unconsciously terrorise cyclists is absolutely shocking. The fact that many obviously think they are not a problem is exactly why they are. One thing I do agree with you on (posts passim) is the need for defensive riding. Expecting drivers to take care around you is naive and foolish. Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 29 Jan 14 at 19:21       1

New Wed 29 Jan 14 19:29   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Westpig

>> If the cyclist whose head was smashed by a minibus mirror had been riding out, >> he might actually have been seen by the driver He would have died sooner. Are you REALLY suggesting that a cyclist should own the lane on a 3 laned road subject to a 50mph limit, one that we all know many will drive along at 70mph plus?....into a low winter sun? I can see the thought processes of owning the lane in a 30mph congested urban road at times of pinch..e.g. keep left bollards...however doing so at other times and like this lady was in the advert just causes unnecessary conflict. >> One thing I do agree with you on (posts passim) is the need for defensive >> riding. Expecting drivers to take care around you is naive and foolish. Agreed..and putting yourself in the position whereby you are causing conflict isn't good either. There needs to be a happy medium, as ever. >> >>

New Wed 29 Jan 14 19:32   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Bromptonaut

Cutting back to principles, which bit of Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful does this ad offend?

New Wed 29 Jan 14 19:44   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Manatee

>> >> >> If the cyclist whose head was smashed by a minibus mirror had been riding >> out, >> >> he might actually have been seen by the driver >> >> >> He would have died sooner. Are you REALLY suggesting that a cyclist should own the >> lane on a 3 laned road subject to a 50mph limit, one that we all >> know many will drive along at 70mph plus?....into a low winter sun? To be truthful, it was a general comment. I wouldn't be sure how, or if, to ride that road safely myself. It would be interesting to actually see it. Keeping to the extreme left on fast duals and road like that one almost guarantees very close, very fast passes. Riding out may be preferable, but frankly neither sounds very attractive to me. Classic case for a cycle lane, much as I dislike them.

New Wed 29 Jan 14 21:54   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Westpig

>> Why make the cyclist ride in the gutter when she doesn't need to, and she >> will put herself in more danger by doing so? I don't think she should be in the gutter....and neither do I think she should be right out in the middle of the road. That was quite a wide road.... there should be ample room for her on a bike and a car without anyone being anywhere near the other carriageway. >> There are plenty of drivers who think that if they are five or six feet >> from a kerb, then they can pass a cyclist without deviation or hesitation. That is >> their default position, it is frightening and dangerous, and that is the attitude I detect >> in the ASA's very ill-informed comments. How is riding in the centre of a lane ever going to change that? All it does it irritate people and have them skim past further out in the road.

New Wed 29 Jan 14 22:21   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Manatee

>> >> There are plenty of drivers who think that if they are five or six >> feet >> >> from a kerb, then they can pass a cyclist without deviation or hesitation. That >> is >> >> their default position, it is frightening and dangerous, and that is the attitude I >> detect >> >> in the ASA's very ill-informed comments. >> >> How is riding in the centre of a lane ever going to change that? All >> it does it irritate people and have them skim past further out in the road. Well it works for me, on a certain type of road, typical of here. If the road looks just wide enough to squeeze past me on the same side, but too narrow for comfort, then riding out means that a following car can only pass when there is a gap. The driver then has more space and usually (not always, I agree) allows more clearance. Similar thinking applies when approaching a blind bend. If safety (not bloody-mindedness) means I'm really not happy to be passed there, it gives me some control. It also means that if a driver tries to pass me anyway, as I hear or see them doing so I have somewhere to retreat to to increase my safety margin. Riding close to the verge, as if politely to make room, actually pressurises some drivers to attempt a pass when they really aren't comfortable. I wouldn't expect you to make an unsafe pass, because you are a trained and experienced driver who plans ahead and observes acutely, but there are plenty who will, especially if they think you are trying to make room for them. I'm sure you can make that sound anti-social if you want, but I can honestly say I experience far less hassle when my position is clear. I do try to get a move on to minimise any delay, which I can't do when verge-hugging, and I move left a couple of feet when the road is clear and visible. It's not a war to me, it's about the most effective way of cooperating. Much easier to do than to explain. Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 02:11

New Wed 29 Jan 14 22:38   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Westpig

>> I'm sure you can make that sound anti-social if you want, but I can honestly >> say I experience far less hassle when my position is clear. I do try to >> get a move on to minimise any delay, which I can't do when verge-hugging, and >> I move left a couple of feet when the road is clear and visible. >> >> It's not a war to me, it's about the most effective way of cooperating. Much >> easier to do than to explain. >> I don't think we are too far off agreement...trouble is some twonk will read/hear about owning the lane on some forum or similar and will then go out and do so, regardless of the circs ..because it's his right..and will wind everyone up.

New Wed 29 Jan 14 22:56   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Manatee

>> I don't think we are too far off agreement...trouble is some twonk will read/hear about >> owning the lane on some forum or similar and will then go out and do >> so, regardless of the circs ..because it's his right..and will wind everyone up. I'm sure it will happen, as you say. And just as cyclists will seize on all bad driving as proof that drivers are always in the wrong, the drivers will do the reverse. Perhaps I should say, the kind of road I find this most useful is where half a yard of road + cyclist + one to one and a half yards of clearance will put a car across the line anyway - but some will still try to pass with oncoming traffic, or into a bend, sometimes at alarming speed. I'm not making too much of the example in the video. It's a very wide road, so plenty of space anyway, and the point was to demonstrate giving consideration and space to the cycle.

New Thu 30 Jan 14 02:57   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Armel Coussine

Sod the video. You have to give cyclists five or six feet of clearance if you're shifting, two if you aren't. Of course you have to assess their competence and the road ahead before you attempt it. However I often notice cars continuing to follow a bike when they could easily overtake. It isn't that difficult. They are simply crap drivers, like the big majority.

New Thu 30 Jan 14 10:11   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Bromptonaut

The ruling has been withdrawn pending a review. Decision made by ASA C/Ex in light of a potential flaw. www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2014/Cycling-Scotland-Ruling.aspx

New Thu 30 Jan 14 10:24   ASA bans cycle safety ad - Manatee

Quelle surprise.