Some photos of such highways.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3824340/Cycle-lane-madness-Britain-Mail-Online-readers-reactions.html
I only have " exposure " to the one shown re Surbiton, the A307 Portsmouth Road.
What world do these planners live in ?
This project is taking many months, possible over a year to build in the Portsmouth Road from
Surbiton towards Kingston. When I say build I mean it.
The "easy" bit is finished, kerbs, raised crossings etc. including helpful signs for cyclists
" Cyclists please dismount and use the crossing to access the cycle lanes"
and another sign where the cycle lanes end
The next phase is to construct the cycle lanes on the lower level tow path of the Thames.
It looks like they are going to construct / build it up level with the road.
We cannot expect cyclists to decend to the tow path level and back up again.
The photo is interesting as I do not recall ever seeing a double decker bus on that road.
In fact the single decker bus is so very infrequent I do not recall the last time I saw one.
The cycle lane is easy to use going towards Kingston.
Guess what ? Cyclists coming from Kingston ignore the signs and just carry on as they always have. With the very narrow lanes of course the traffic cannot overtake so a queue builds up going back towards Kingston.
I see few cyclists using the the lanes so who agreed to this madness
Rant over.
|
|
Cycle highways are the new bus lanes, all part of the policy to make urban driving so difficult that people won't bother driving.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 6 Oct 16 at 13:28
|
|
To a large degree that's true. In the centre of large cities public transport,walking and cycling are the transport of the majority. The number of car users is actually small in comparison and any increase in road space is untenable. Road traffic is however responsible for most pollution and congestion. It makes sense to deter car use in such places. Outright bans are unacceptable. Making driving difficult works.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 6 Oct 16 at 13:44
|
I have a sort of Jekyll and Hyde attitude to it. I'm more than happy to walk or cycle in city centres, and when possible and practical I do so. Any restructuring which allows that to happen more safely and conveniently has my support. However, there are occasions, mainly business related in my case, when I have no choice but to use a car in urban areas due to the amount of kit I need to carry. The contents of the loadspace of a large estate car are not easy to carry on foot, on a bus or on a bike. Most taxis wouldn't have the room for my stuff and using trains wouldn't work for the same reasons.
I'm not sure how I'd manage the situation in truth. Of course our cities are congested and it behoves all of us to do our bit to help to relieve that. One option might be some version of congestion charging which might help a bit, but doesn't really treat "all men as equal" in that those who can afford it then have a perhaps, "unfair" advantage over those who can't.
I guess it boils down to trying to create a change in attitude to urban travel by encouraging people to walk or cycle when possible, so maybe the provision of cycle lanes is a step in the right direction, who knows?
One thing for sure, doing nothing and hoping it'll cure itself isn't working.
|
The private car is no longer suitable for inner city transport. Well, I guess it never was but it didn't matter much when there weren't many of them.
I wonder what proportion of the vehicles on London's roads on any given day are private vehicles.
|
The Surbiton example is not in the town centre but on the approach.
The Thames is on one side and houses on the other side of the road.
The cycle lane has to stop before the shops/bars etc. start.
I will no longer use the route from Kingston anywhere near rush hours or lunch time but divert onto another route past three schools and I would expect quite a few more to follow the same route. I wonder how much it is all costing but it is not my borough :-(
|
>> The number of car users is actually small in comparison and any increase in road space is untenable. >>
You've clearly never driven in, for instance, Liverpool city centre.
|
|
I have actually driven in Liverpool City centre and many other cities. There were indeed a lot of cars. The point I was trying to make was that if you take the number of people arriving in a City centre by car, public transport, cycling and walking then car users are the in the minority but They are using the largest proportion of available space and responsible for most pollution congestion and cause most danger to other road users.
|
|
This is only a problem now, because, unlike some other European countries, we've left it so late to try and design our road system to accommodate cyclists. There'd be lots more cyclists on the road if we only felt safe to be there.
|
>> There'd be lots more cyclists on the road if we only felt safe to be there.
>>
It is not just traffic and pot holes but cheap road resurfacing.
On my regular routes I know where to serve round drain covers and that is in a car.
Road resurfacing is regularly done by slapping a layer of material on top of the existing and if you are lucky adjusting the height of foul water and surface water manhole covers in the centre of the road.
Drains covers are often ignored with the result that they get deeper and deeper below the road surface which is bad for my cars suspension but frightening for a cyclist especially when traffic spares him/her no wobble room.
Add to that repaired trenches for water, electricity cables gas repairs/ replacement that then slump. We are also experiencing the after effects from cable TV all those years ago.
Not a smooth ride!!!
|
Cannot comment on Henry's example as I don't know that bit of London at all. All too often the design of these 'farcilities' means they're doomed to being ignored by being inconvenient and/or dangerous. The (advisory) 'cyclist's dismount' at beginning/end and at intermediate crossings is a major part of the inconvenience bit.
The well known and now rather ancient east/west route from Torrington St via Tavistock Place in London illustrates the danger of a narrow two way route on one side of the road. Although it has priority over the side roads it crosses a significant proportion of motor traffic overlooks or ignores the cyclists right of way. Those who do comply, particularly turning right into or out of the side roads, have to watch two streams of two way traffic - nightmare. The worst bits have been improved recently by creation of a second cycle way on the south side for westbounds with original being eastbound only.
Wonder how long the Mail's photographer had to wait to picture the new E/W route along the Embankment with no bikes in it!!!!
|
I was asked a question recently by my daughter about cycle lanes, and don't know the answer:
Are cycle lanes always one-way, in the direction of the side of the road they are on?
If there is a cycle lane only on one side of the road, is it one or two-way?
The one in question is in Lancaster - no signs, just a pictogram painted on the road. Is it directional depending on which way up it is? If it is directional, does it retain that directionality even when it leaves the road and branches off through a park? If you join a cycling lane from the side, how do you know which way it runs?
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Mon 10 Oct 16 at 20:08
|
Cliff,
There are all sorts of variations, one way, two way and, at least in London contraflow in one way streets.
If just paint on side of two way road I'd assume in absence of markings to contrary that it's directional. Once it's in the park then anybody's guess.
Can you show us on streetview?
|
>>
>> Can you show us on streetview?
>>
www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.034173,-2.7859406,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8nDlIagaPyfoAJlGpDZLhw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
There is a stretch of road where the right-hand pavement has bicycle pictures, appearing to indicate a path on the "wrong" side of the road. (No track on the other side).
But going back a bit , the previous picture is in the opposite orientation.
Then back further round the bend past the tree at the junction, the picture reverses again.
Further on, the pavement track merges on to the road, just before a large tree blocks the path. Those signs appear to indicate that it is one-way, in the direction of traffic flow, ie on the left.
The question is, cycling the other way coming along the road, is it correct to move over onto the right-hand pavement and ignore the apparent indication of the upside down picture? Are the pictures orientated completely at random, and the track two-way?
It's my daughter's regular route into the university, but she is nervous of using the cycle track because some cyclists treat it as one-way only.
|
I wouldn't be riding down it at all. It's intrinsically unsafe - cars are unlikely to give way when turning into or pulling out of driveways; it's littered with obstructions and there's no indication of where pedestrians and bikes should stick to.
I'd be on the road, which should have been widened to accommodate both bikes and cars. Painting a line on the pavement is the preserve of lazy councils who make a gesture towards bike riders while someone at the top trousers the central government cash.
|
Yes it's a poor solution. They haven't even separated the cycles from the peds. It works for the kind of cyclist who is really a wheeled pedestrian, i.e. small children or others pedalling at up to 7-8mph. No use to anybody who is doing 10mph+ or for the pedestrians who are supposed to share it with them.
As such I would treat it as two way. The painted pedestrian is upside down too, and I don't suppose it is meant to be one way for them.
Essentially it's a footway, and painting a bike on it is worse than nothing to grown up cyclists who will not use it, yet will be vilified by cyclist-haters for not doing so.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 11 Oct 16 at 11:36
|
I actually think it's quite well conceived given the space restrictions.
The road is too narrow to have cycle lanes on it. So they've allocated one footpath to pedestrians, and the other to cyclists (and pedestrians). Any pedestrian with any sense will use the non-cycle side.
The road is a very dangerous route for cyclists, with parked cars on both sides. Presumably it is regularly used by cyclists (often students), so Something Had To Be Done. I'd certainly cycle on the pavement; if that makes me a not-grown-up cyclist, well at least I am less likely to be having that discussion with St Peter than a grown-up cyclist who is mixing it with the vehicles on the road.
So yes, it's a two-way cycle lane, with added pedestrians, so go gently.
|
Grown-up cyclist was a poor choice of words. But certainly anybody who is trying to cover some mileage.
There's a wide footway on the opposite side, and more space on the path side that is grassed. It's a fairly half-baked solution whichever way you look at it, but no doubt money was a factor (quite rightly).
The question is whether it has made things better or worse. Judging by the position of the lamp post in the middle of the cycle/footway, the pavement has been widened, so the road might have been wider to start with.
To Cliff - the lamp post in question has a pictogram sign on both sides, suggesting it is not one way for cyclists.
|
Our council did a similar thing to the road between Leatherhead and Ashtead.
They narrowed the road in places (to the extent that by one set of lights the 2 lanes are too narrow for 2 modern cars!) to enable a shared path/cycle lane. This path has countless crossovers with side roads, house entrances, etc. such that few cyclists uses it (apart from very small children on their way to school). The cycling forum told the council they would be making a mistake, but Highways Engineers know best! The council also removed a footbridge and added a pedestrian phase to the lights, narrowed side turnings making it almost impossible for goods vehicles to turn down, just for good measure.
So now we have a narrower road with less space for vehicles, which are delayed by pedestrian crossings which weren't there before, and are further delayed by cyclists in the road, when the set-up before was fine, really. And people wonder why there are so many queues on this road?!?!
|
|
See my post of 6/10/16. Second one in the thread.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 11 Oct 16 at 17:21
|
>> The road is a very dangerous route for cyclists, with parked cars on both sides.
Difficult to get a feel for what it's really like as we don't know time of day in October 2009 the google car passed that way. I'd guess during working day as most houses lack driveways and there would be more parking when folks are at home.
Nothing that encourages adult cyclists onto the pavement outside a primary school is 'well conceived'. More like criminally negligent.
While parked cars are a hazard I cannot see anything to make it particularly dangerous unless it's a rat run for traffic avoiding the A6 into Lancaster City Centre.
Like Fursty I'd ride in the road with the other traffic.
|
Thanks for that. So it's a poor solution for several reasons.
But the consensus does seem to be that there is no automatic assumption that a cycle lane has a particular direction of flow, irrespective of which way the pictures are orientated, and that a cycle track does not necessarily follow the flow direction corresponding to the adjacent lane of vehicle traffic?
|
Is there any law which makes cycle lanes directional and can you be fined for going the "wrong" way as a driver would on a one way street? Or is it down to the common sense of cyclists, you know, the ones who get on the inside of vehicles signalling left.
|
Funnily enough, the cyclist on the inside of a car trying to turn left scenario triggered a vehement encounter on my commute tonight. The driver was out of her car all red faced and bellowing, whilst the mousey cyclist was looking a bit terrified and puzzled at being shouted at. Traffic was held up for some time as exchanges of view were given.
Whilst it seems like not a good idea for bikes to be nipping up the left hand side of traffic that is trying to turn left, or to be coming towards you on the wrong side of the road, or the wrong way up a one way, or not stopping at red lights, or cycling on the pavements, all done with no lights, it's so completely normal in Cambridge that everyone just lets it happen and you have to chill out about it.
I reckon the driver was from out of town and expected different behaviour, and of course, that can be a problem.
|
>> Or is
>> it down to the common sense of cyclists,
>>
Lancaster experience suggests that cyclists are aggressive and self-assertive even to their fellows. Lycralists assume automatic right of way over lesser plodders.
|
|
Last Saturday I, and many other motorists were blocked by about 20 club? cyclists, they were at cruising speed completely blocking one side of a winding rural road. There were about a dozen cars behind them but they made no effort to allow traffic to pass them. I wonder how many of them were drivers and knew exactly what effect they were having.
|
And how long did you have to put up with this terrible inconvenience on a minor road at the weekend? And at the end of the day the twenty cyclists have as much right to be there as you do.
By the way I'm not a cyclist but just try to be a little tolerant of others.
|
Extract from rule 66 Highway Code.
"Never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"
|
|
Would thy not the have posed an equal problem to overtaking on a narrow winding road if they were strung out in single file? How long were you limited to "cruising speed, 20 mph? By this incident. How was it resolved? How wide was the road. Google picture?
|
>> at the end of the day the twenty cyclists have as much right to be there as you do.
>>
>> By the way I'm not a cyclist but just try to be a little tolerant
>> of others.
>>
Maybe I'm being naive but wouldn't life be more pleasant if all road users were as concerned about their responsibility and courtesy to others as much as their "right" to do something.
Maybe if the cyclists ON was following were a little tolerant the situation might have been improved.
|
Actually, I think I'm with the cyclists on this one. A block of cyclists travelling at 15-20 is in effect the same driving challenge as coming up behind a slow moving tractor with trailer or similar, and can be overtaken at a suitable opportunity in one go.
If there are lot of bikes strung out single file instead, then you can only usually hop past a couple of them, then wait for the next opportunity, hop past another couple, repeat fifty times. And that's assuming there are gaps and its safe to get back in after each hop.
I prefer the first scenario.
And of course, the sums almost always mean that the time lost by being baulked for a while is matter of two minutes or something in the end, which is only just enough time to get a thirtieth of the way through a Genesis track anyway.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Wed 12 Oct 16 at 09:28
|
>> A block of cyclists travelling
>> at 15-20 is in effect the same driving challenge as coming up behind a slow
>> moving tractor with trailer or similar, and can be overtaken at a suitable opportunity in
>> one go.
>>
>>
Exactly. And a considerate tractor driver will pull over and let a car pass.
|
|
Eventually. You'd get knowwhere if you pulled over every few hundred yard to let everyone past.
|
>> Eventually. You'd get knowwhere if you pulled over every few hundred yard to let everyone
>> past.
>>
A quarter of a mile is a few hundred yards. Most farmers round here are courteous enough to pull over long before that if there is a verge, passing place, field entrance etc.
Cyclists never do.
|
>> Exactly. And a considerate tractor driver will pull over and let a car pass.
ON's complaint was that they didn't single up as the HC says they should. Since he's not still stuck behind I guess a pass was facilitated when safe and possible.
Until he says how long he was held up and if possible posts a streetview i'm giving the 'lycra louts' the benefit of the doubt.
|
>> Until he says how long he was held up and if possible posts a streetview
>> i'm giving the 'lycra louts' the benefit of the doubt.
>>
Through the village of Crossford on the A994 and on through the village of Caineyhill to the roundabout at the junction with the A985. There is a straight bit between the villages but there was opposing traffic. A distance of just over two miles travelling at a speed between five and twenty mph. I was about sixth in the queue and there were many cars behind me.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 13 Oct 16 at 18:19
|
Most people manage to walk along a busy high street getting past slow walkers, getting out of the way of fast walkers, dodging pushchairs and trolleys, largely wihtout issue.
so why does the red mist drop when;
a) we get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle
b) kick in double if either cyclists or horses are one or other party.
|
>> so why does the red mist drop when; >>
Who mentioned red mist ? I merely commented on inconsiderate cyclists. I am very careful with horses, they are big, heavy, easily frightened and can do damage to their riders and my car. Cyclists should know better than to block a main road.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 13 Oct 16 at 20:22
|
>>Who mentioned red mist ?
Me. If you read carefully you'll see where I wrote it.
|
>> Cyclists should know better than to block a main road get in the way of cars.
Fixed it for you.
|
>> >> Cyclists should know better than to block a main road get in the way
>> of cars.
>>
>> Fixed it for you.
>>
An inconsiderate Lycra lout on a Brompton must be an amusing sight. I would drive behind one for the entertainment.
|
As a fastish moving group they're probably easier to pass as they were then in single file. EDIT cross post with Crankcase making same point.
Was biking in New Forest at weekend on a straight but narrow section of unclassified road. For those that know it the section of the Burley road that took over the formation of the Brockenhurst to Ringwood railway closed by Dr Beeching. It connects two sections of off road route also following the former railwaty. There were streams of cyclists both ways singled up as the HC instructs. The stupidity and impatience of motorists was unbelievable.
Same on the heavily traffic calmed Burley to Holmesley road after the end of the railway ride at Burbush.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 12 Oct 16 at 09:30
|
Possibly, but we sometimes have to be tolerant of others even if they are in the wrong. Sometimes it's easier to accept things as they are and the minor inconveniences don't really matter much anyway
I can honestly say that in all my years living in flat East Anglia with lots of rural cyclists both of the club and individual sort I have never been held up by more than a few minutes by a cyclist. I do feel that there is a lot of exaggeration going on in many of these stories.
|
It's really very simple, whether you are driving, cycling, riding a horse or walking, indeed however you are currently using a shared space to facilitate propelling yourself, it does no good to think of the others there at the time as "them", but rather to look on everyone present as members of the "us" team.
Even if some aren't reciprocating in that basic strategy, at least one of you is trying to be sensible rather than confrontational. Takes two to tango sort of thing.
|
I do feel that
>> there is a lot of exaggeration going on in many of these stories.
>>
On the Internet, surely not ;)
|
>>never been held up by more than a few minutes by a cyclist. I do feel that there is a lot of exaggeration going on in many of these stories. <<
Nor by one lorry overtaking another but the same motorists will have no patience with that either....and exaggerate!
Pat
|
>> I can honestly say that in all my years living in flat East Anglia with
>> lots of rural cyclists both of the club and individual sort I have never been
>> held up by more than a few minutes by a cyclist. I do feel that
>> there is a lot of exaggeration going on in many of these stories.
>>
Is that the flat East Anglia with no hills and long straight roads?
As opposed to some bits of Scotland with hills and lots of bends.
|
No it s the flatish East Anglia with lots of very bendy roads and lanes. Your lack of geographical knowledge is common I'm afraid. The completely flat area to which you allude is the Fens which occupy part of Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire and a very small part of Norfolk.
East Anglia, comprises Norfolk Suffolk and part of Cambridgeshire and Essex and is certainly low but not all flat. It has a very high density of roads and lanes many of which are extremely bendy and often narrow.
|
|
I miss the English countryside. Beautiful.
|
And what would being tolerant have consisted of? Not being there, presumably.
As has been said, strung out in single file they might have been even more of an obstacle.
As a driver I see far more impatience from motorists than obstructiveness from cyclists. Lack of consideration from a driver to a cyclist can mean death or serious injury. The reverse is unlikely to be the case. Following a cyclist recently, where I judged it unnecessary, potentially unsafe and intimidating to pass, a following white van overtook us both.
As a solo cyclist I use a winding narrow lane near here regularly. There are a few spots I can move over to let someone by, and I do. The rest of the time I ride out, because there isn't room for a safe pass and experience proves that if they start a pass, where I would never do so myself, and an oncoming vehicle appears I am almost certain to be cut up.
|
It has to be said, though we all make mistakes. I remember once years ago overtaking someone on a straight clear stretch that turned out, halfway through the overtake, to have a cyclist on the other side of the road heading towards me. Clear day, no issue with the cyclist - it was absolutely my fault that the poor chap had to head himself into the verge and stop (he didn't come off the bike or anything).
That and other driving errors over the years I hold in my mind for review when I find I'm getting grumpy with other road users.
Although last night in queueing traffic when we're all trying to get through the green, I was a bit huffy about the man in front who was Not Keeping Up by a big margin, was All Over The Road sufficient to make oncoming traffic slow and swerve, who Suddenly Dived Into The Kerb where there is no stopping and without indicating, and Was On His Mobile the whole time.
When I went past I gave him a hard stare he didn't see and intended to to hoot, but missed and hurt my hand instead. That'll teach him.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Wed 12 Oct 16 at 09:46
|
>>But the consensus does seem to be that there is no automatic assumption that a cycle lane
>>has a particular direction of flow, irrespective of which way the pictures are orientated, and
>>that a cycle track does not necessarily follow the flow direction corresponding to the
>>adjacent lane of vehicle traffic?
Pavements that are shared space with pedestrians are usually a free-for-all. Like this. goo.gl/maps/CkLdWkDwyju The stretch between the pedestrian lights and the side-road to the left of the picture is bi-directional shared space. As it's short, cyclists are mostly fairly tolerant of the pedestrians; how kind of them. You can see the red "no more bicycles" signs at the left of the picture and at the right of the picture. Both signs have blue "shared bicycle and pedestrian space" signs on the reverse.
A cycle lane that is part of the road, on the edge of the road has the same sense as the adjacent road lane. Unless it is a one-way-street and there is a line and it is a contra-flow bike lane (in which case it will be (in the cyclist's contra-flow direction of travel) on the left-hand side of the road). Like this: goo.gl/maps/1CVmkx5q8382
And then there are decent two-way cycle routes on pavements. goo.gl/maps/s4STVLkLFz72
There really is too little courtesy on the roads these days. My father would always - and taught me always to - pull over if somebody wanted to get past. Maybe it's a relic from a gentler age of motoring; when his Hillman Minx really would only cruise at 40mph. I was in the Highlands the other week on some roads with very little traffic. The three cars that wanted to pass me I let do so within thirty seconds. I on the other hand tailed some cars for thirty minutes before they let me pass. I don't really understand it; if you're almost alone in beautiful scenery wouldn't you be happier if the idiot behind you wasn't there? Or do they never look in their mirrors?
|
>> >
>>
>> A cycle lane that is part of the road, on the edge of the road
>> has the same sense as the adjacent road lane.
>>
I can't find that in the Highway Code ?
|
>> I can't find that in the Highway Code ?
Probably because it's assumed to be covered by the general 'traffic proceeds on left' rule?
Contraflow cycle lanes (excepting wrong way running in quiet one way streets) are discouraged because of risk of cyclists conflicting with vehicles going the 'normal' way. Contraflow or two way running on one side generally requires segregation with kerbs or pavement running (see Mapmaker's links above.
Seven or eight years ago TfL built an unsegregated contraflow bus lane along Theobalds Road/Vernon Place/Bloomsbury way. For first years of it's life cyclists were officially prohibited to extent that police and CPSO's would redirect cyclists and book the argumentative ones.
Eventually they conceded to continuing use and installed rudimentary segregation before redesignating it bus AND cycle.
goo.gl/maps/CQsqEZZSMHt
Still too risky for my taste; if you or the bus drivers cock up there's way too little room for a safe escape. You're either squashed against the pedestrian safety fences or in amongst/through the poles segregating main carriageway.
|
>> >> I can't find that in the Highway Code ?
>>
>> Probably because it's assumed to be covered by the general 'traffic proceeds on left' rule?
>>
Probably yes. But a risky asumption where cyclists are concerned :)
|
|
I was "stuck" ( aka delayed a bit ) behind a tractor for quite a few miles today. Twisty winding road which gave no safe opportunity to pass. It was mildly frustrating of course but in the scheme of things not nearly as annoying as many other things in life. Sometimes you just have to kick back, chill and accept that stuff happens. Getting worked up about trivial stuff is a waste of mental energy.
|
>> I was "stuck" ( aka delayed a bit ) behind a tractor for quite a few miles today. It was
>> mildly frustrating of course but in the scheme of things not nearly as annoying as
being stuck behind a cyclist.
|
Probably because for a tractor to pull in and let the traffic pass it means they have to first find a suitable place to pull in.
It's a moments inconvenience for a cyclist on a narrow or twisty country lane to put their foot down on the grass verge and let the queue of traffic pass.
Surely the cyclist would be showing consideration for other road users?
Pat
|
>> Surely the cyclist would be showing consideration for other road users?
That'll be a first. Round here they have no regard for anyone other than themselves.
|
I can see how negotiating around a cyclist might cause anxiety for a new or inexperienced driver, but I am mildly surprised that it presents any increased blood pressure in someone who has years of experience and apparently ( allegedly? ) encounters that entirely normal scenario on a regular basis.
Getting angry about trivial matters can indicate deeper health problems. Might be worth getting that checked out?
Are you generally a nervous driver? There are refresher courses available I believe.
|
How patronising.
Does that mean all the car drivers who get angry at getting stuck behind an overtaking lorry present a health risk, need a medical check up or a refresher course?
Pat
|
Anyone who gets angry about trivia needs to take stock of what is really important. Stuff happens, every day, getting wound up or anxious about life's normal activities is pointless.
Everyone gets frustrated by things but it all needs to be held in perspective.
Unreasonable anxiety often does point to much deeper problems and yes, should be taken seriously by anyone who finds themselves reacting badly to normal life.
|
>> How patronising.
>>
>> Does that mean all the car drivers who get angry at getting stuck behind an
>> overtaking lorry present a health risk, need a medical check up or a refresher course?
If they are getting angry almost certainly yes. There is is too much anger on the roads. Being delayed behind a lorry, tractor or bicycles for a few minutes should not make you angry. If it does there is something wrong with you that needs sorting.
|
Oh, for goodness sake you two, it's merely a turn of phrase.
Used commonly by both of you at times and by all of us in general speech.
I hate cabbage doesn't mean you literally 'hate' cabbage or that you need anger management to stop you physically battering every cabbage you see.
But of course, you both know that.
Pat
|
|
Frustration and anger are two separate things. Regularly getting angry on the road or any other area is something to have a look at. The average bit of frustration when you're trying making a nice bit of progress is common to many and I wouldn't say was anything to worry too much about.
|
|
Exactly Sooty, but it seems there are some here who feel that anyone who is using a different form of propulsion to them is intrinsically in the wrong. Chill pills needed maybe. Or an attitude shift at least.
|
>> Chill pills needed maybe. Or an attitude shift at least.
The same could be said of some people who post to forums that get wound up by others who pass comment about cyclists not giving way.
|
If they were doing so in anger then, yes indeed. If they were doing so to offer a reasoned counterpoint then it all gets a bit tenuous to make that connection don't you think?
|
I don' t see anyone getting "wound up".
Isn't this a discussion forum in which we may express our views in a polite and reasonable manner?
|
Ah, I think you're missing the point CG if I may say so. It's absolutely fine to agree with anyone constantly whinging about cyclists but not at all acceptable to point out that they might just be being the tiniest bit pathetic and might consider conceding that. That's not the way it works at all. Surprised at you frankly.
;-)
|
Ah!
Good to know how it works! ;-)
|
No problem, any time.
;-)
|
It is CG, but it would be interesting to see what cyclists views are on this...
>>It's a moments inconvenience for a cyclist on a narrow or twisty country lane to put their foot down on the grass verge and let the queue of traffic pass.
Surely the cyclist would be showing consideration for other road users?
<<
Despite the many cyclists on here, so far it's been ignored.
Pat
|
Of course cyclists should show consideration. The issue is how consideration manifests itself and how we share the road.
Riding singly or as a couple it's easy to pull in to kerb/verge or to facilitate a pass by tucking in and waving following vehicles by. Doing so in a fast moving group like that encountered by ON requires considerable coordination and is not without risk. If wheels touch riders will be thrown off and may in turn unseat others. A tight fast moving group should be a relatively easy target for an overtake. Given that road safety advice is to give cyclists as much room as a car then if you cannot get past the group you'd not get any more joy passing a singleton.
And I don't believe tractors or other slow vehicles pull in anything like as often as people here assert. They don't do it on the A5 never mind lanes between villages.
Pat, when you were driving a 40 limited HGV on a 60 NSL did you pull in every time a car came up behind?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 14 Oct 16 at 14:54
|
And I don't believe tractors or other slow vehicles pull in anything like as often
>> as people here assert. They don't do it on the A5 never mind lanes between
>> villages.
They don't here but they don't really need to, plenty of flat quiet roads.
Isn't there a distance limit for tractors on roads to travel between fields?
|
Actually they're pretty good around here but the beet season has started and some of the tractor combinations being moved around are a good length when you get the tractor, beet cleaner and then the loader.
It's the lack of long layby's that cause the problems and the mud left on the wet roads for early morning motor cyclists!
Pat
|
>> Actually they're pretty good around here but the beet season has started
Don't think they've started much yet, quite a few of them are used as cover crop and the shooting season hasn't really started yet.
|
My next door neighbour has been carting sugar beet into Wissy, sorry Wissington for almost a fortnight now!
You are always slow in Suffolk:)
Pat
|
>> My next door neighbour has been carting sugar beet into Wissy, sorry Wissington for almost
>> a fortnight now!
>>
>> You are always slow in Suffolk:)
>>
I'll take your word for, not living in Suffolk I wouldn't know. ;-)
|
>>Pat, when you were driving a 40 limited HGV on a 60 NSL did you pull in every time a car came up behind<<
Of course not. At the risk of getting pilloried (yet again, but at least I'm honest) I was doing 56MPH wherever it was safe to do so and there were no speed cameras, so why should I?
>>A tight fast moving group <<
Surely two abreast is the maximum recommended?
In a tight fast moving group should any wheels accidentally touch while anything was overtaking, even leaving 6' of space between the outer one could easily result in carnage.
Pat
|
>> Surely two abreast is the maximum recommended?
Rule 66 You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
Note the should as opposed to speed limits which are MUST :-P
The two abreast/single up stuff has not changed in fifty years. There was a public information film on the subject in sixties/seventies. It makes reasonable sense if riding in pairs or very small groups. For reasons already pointed out above it doesn't work for fast moving road bikes where a 'peloton' formation is easier for both riders (including communication from ride leader to participants) and for drivers overtaking.
>> In a tight fast moving group should any wheels accidentally touch while anything was overtaking,
>> even leaving 6' of space between the outer one could easily result in carnage.
It's a possibility but an improperly co-ordinated stop ups the risk factor considerably. We had a nasty 'face plant' injury on a folding club ride round MK a few years ago. Ride leader stopped to allow viewing of concrete cows. Two at the back of the croc were paying insufficient attention an one was offed. That was off road on a 'redway'.
|
>> Isn't this a discussion forum in which we may express our views in a polite and reasonable manner?
Not when certain forum members refer to others as "pathetic".
|
Crikey.
Suggesting someone is acting in a somewhat pathetic manner if they believe that to be true doesn't seem particularly impolite or unreasonable to me.
|
>> Not when certain forum members refer to others as "pathetic".
Nearly, but not quite, as offensive as "certain forum members" posting that they "loathe" cyclists. You can get treatment for anger management apparently. Or you could just chill out. Try it, it's a nice place.
But if you live by the sword...
;-)
|
>> Nearly, but not quite, as offensive as "certain forum members" posting that they "loathe" cyclists. You can get treatment for anger management apparently.
Do people who loathe Jedward, The Chuckle Brothers, Justin Bieber, etc also require anger management treatment too then? Or is it only a requirement for 2 wheeled menace haters?
|
|
Loathing an individual is reprehensible unless they have done something abhorrent. Loathing a group of people who have nothing in common apart from their mode of transport is incomprehensible.
|
>>Loathing a group of
>> people who have nothing in common apart from their mode of transport is incomprehensible.
>>
Unless it's the Wehrmacht :)
|
>> 2 wheeled menace haters?
Is that what you really feel for such an everyday activity, "hatred", "loathing"?
Wow, what a terrible place to be in your head, knowing that most days for the rest of your life you are likely to encounter situations which will cause you to feel such destructive emotions.
We all have things we aren't all that keen on, but hatred and loathing, pretty extreme don't you think?
But if you're happy there, then enjoy yourself. For what it's worth though, I find it best saving hatred and loathing for subjects and situations that really are hateful and loathsome, rather than ones which at worst, are mildly frustrating.
Stuff happens, life happens, most of it doesn't matter. You're only winding yourself up over stuff you can't control. It's really not good for you. But it is, of course, your choice.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Sat 15 Oct 16 at 19:34
|
|
Err, you don't that's all a joke, right?
|
It is indeed a joke Sooty. Not quite sure what he's getting at. Never mind eh?
|
|
I thought it obvious, anyway how's the LAT, plenty of runs to terminal 1 recently? ;-)
|
|
It's doing well thanks, 16,000 mile service next week. So far no probs at all. Like it very much. Bit slower to accelerate than the old one but I'm used to that now. Very comfortable thing.
|
|
Sounds like a good big barge, how long did it take you to clock up the 16k?
|
|
Would have to check but I think I got it either the last week of May or the first week of June. Around then anyway. So just over 4 months I guess. Been quite busy !
|
|
That's some going, I think that would be about be enough mileage roughly for me and the OH combined for about 2 years!
|
|
Well, it is a lot, and my own little way of dealing with it is to try to keep myself reasonably physically fit. Not obsessively so, but I do try to do at least something regularly that contributes to that. Eat sensibly and watch the booze sort of thing too. If your body is in reasonable shape it keeps your mind clear too.
|
The point I'm trying to make is that you got annoyed about people having a dig at you about Primark.
Perhaps you should be the one seeking anger management classes if that's all it takes for you to RAISE your voice at people ;).
|
The point you are so clearly ( deliberately? ) missing is that I was only pretending to be annoyed at some lightweight Internet banter for mild comedy effect. You seem to be genuinely annoyed at normal daily activities. Big difference. Huge.
Anyway, I'm going to leave it there. Bit bored with this now in truth. Have a nice calm day. That's what I'm going to do.
|
>> Anyway, I'm going to leave it there.
Thank god for that.
|
Ah, the old, selective, out of context quotation gambit?
Try a bit harder. Or just accept that you might just indeed be clutching at multiple straws to avoid discussing the actual subject matter. :-)))
I really am out of this one now ( feel free to selectively quote that too )
But you might just want to reflect on why you're so wound up about stuff that we all have to deal with rationally on a daily basis. It's erm, not normal you know...
|
>> But you might just want to reflect on why you're so wound up about stuff
>> that we all have to deal with rationally on a daily basis. It's erm, not
>> normal you know...
Still as patronising as ever I see.
|
>> How patronising.
Only semi-serious I suspect - TIC in the delivery, serious in the bit about not getting worked up.
>> Does that mean all the car drivers who get angry at getting stuck behind an
>> overtaking lorry present a health risk, need a medical check up or a refresher course?
Probably.
I try to be mostly amused if I can, aware that being cross causes me grief and the lorry drivers none at all.
If I see what looks like a serious elephant race starting, I move over, let the pushy ones tailgate the overtaker, and set the trip counter. The record stands at 11 miles, recorded on the A1 IIRC over 20 years ago. One was faster uphill, the other downhill; neither by very much!
I wasn't always so serene, admittedly. But it's the best way.
|
Traffic / cycle highways - Old Navy
