***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
Just came across a lovely film from 1955 promoting the CTC. It's about railway excursion from the London area to Rugby for a day's cycle tour.
The music's relentlessly jolly, but the script is rather better than most of today's TV documentaries and the pictures are evocative, to me at any rate.
vimeo.com/2716712
Warning - their are shocking scenes of cyclists downing pints of beer! I suppose people were so relieved that Hitler had stopped dropping bombs on them, and at getting the NHS, that they they hadn't got around to telling people to stop enjoying themselves amicably and sensibly;-)
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 15 Dec 12 at 00:17
|
>>Warning - their are shocking scenes
"there are". Sorry. Fetch the smelling salts.
|
|
Even then they were cycling around 3 abreast and blocking country lanes!
|
|
No helmets either. Amazing survival rate nonetheless.
|
>> No helmets either. Amazing survival rate nonetheless.
>>
Yep, it's a wonder they lasted more than five minutes, isn't it? Cycle helmets and bottled water, two of the 20th century's biggest consumer cons.
|
|
Less people, less cars, nicer world.
|
>> Less people, less cars, nicer world.
>>
Not sure about the last bit. A society intolerant of those who didn't fit the norm, a bent police force, a shorter life expectancy and loose tea that had to be strained from the pot.
|
|
Yeah well, perhaps a bit romantic, but still its not all been forward and up since then.
|
>> Less people, less cars, nicer world.
>>
Victorian values? Radio 1 DJs , Scoutmasters, Choirmasters, Catholic Priests ......
|
>> Even then they were cycling around 3 abreast and blocking country lanes!
>>
Zero, you obviously are NOT a fan of green transport, are you?
Well, I can assure you that I am.
There's nothing better than creeping up on the lycrans riding 3 abreast, when one is driving a silent hybrid vehicle, and unleashing a really loud HOOOOOOONK from about 5 ft behind them.
|
|
Zero? Was he here? Has he been censored?
|
Oh sorry. My bad.
(having too many windows open at the same time FTL!)
|
|
....and some dodgy looking characters. Reminded me of an old Scoutmaster who had a 'reputation'.
|
Its graffiti
Zero woz ere
|
>>Zero woz ere
Surely you mean....
零是在这里
|
|
Talking of bi cycles, I wonder where Iffy has got to, last we heard from him, he'd bought a Brompton :(
|
>> Talking of bi cycles, I wonder where Iffy has got to, last we heard from
>> him, he'd bought a Brompton :(
I do hope he isn't seriously hors de combat or, worse, fallen off the perch especially as he's one of the Brotherhood. I think Rob emailed him.
|
He isn't real Manatee. None us us are. It's only you...
:-)
|
>> I think Rob emailed him.
He did, and from what I gather, he's taking a breather from the forum.
|
Thanks for sharing Manatee.
Suspect that some of the riders would have been, or been recognised by, the older members of the Harrow YHA group I joined in 1981.
The other thing that struck was how much the railway infrastructure has changed and yet how much I remember.
The exterior of Watford Junction station was unrecognisable but the platform level buildings were still extant as shown when I first lived there in 1986. Demolished 88-90 IIRC. Some bits of Rugby looked familiar too even though that's been rebuilt twice in recent years. The masts of Rugby Radio, now also mostly gone are visible as the train approaches its destination.
Some of the villages shown/signed such as Crick, Yelvertoft and the Haddons are just up the road from home. In fact I biked round there last year, including Naseby memorials, with the folding bike club (Origami Phoenix Rides). Started from Market Harborough and after lunch in Brixworth returned via the Brampton Valley Way - a bit of abandoned railway brought back into use as a cycle/walk route including a couple of tunnels.
|
Do you fancy this ride next year Bromp?
www.princes-trust.org.uk/support_us/events/palace_to_palace/wm_palace_to_palace_2013.aspx
I'll put my name down, and do it on the Brompton which I find surprisingly comfortable. I might need a motivation to get going again in the Spring, I don't think I'll be doing much more than the shop and back on the hybrid through the winter.
|
I'll give that some thought. Got roped in last week to look at (which means organise) a works entry in the BHF London to Brighton in 2013. Need to get weaving now so team is in place for registration in Feb.
Palace to palace would be good training and a fun ride even if L2B don't come off.
|
That film is quaint in a Jack & Jill way.
The biggest change on the bikes seems to be the lights - mini-lanterns they used to have compared to todays sleek LED lights.
|
A UK cycling ace from when I was racing.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9594186/Ray-Booty.html
Time trialling on a single fixed gear.
|
The bike in this video hasn't got a fixed gear - it's a "£10k carbon road bike used by Team Sky's Bradley Wiggins & Mark Cavendish". But you don't usually see road bikes doing this sort of stuff:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZmJtYaUTa0
Best bit for me is going over the bridge - 1:55 :o
|
For Brompton or Iffy, if they are looking in -
www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271052953011
Currently on the big auction. Although nominally not tall enough, it fits my P6R Brompton very well and it's pretty tough, woven nylon stuff. There's not a lot to spare at the back of the saddle, might be tighter if you use a telescopic seat pin and/or a tall saddle like the Brooks, but the zip could be left open a bit. The extended seat pin would be too tall for it to close I think.
Also good that it doesn't have "Brompton" printed on it.
|
Bradley Wiggins collides with car pulling out from petrol station; fortunately "The injuries he has sustained are not thought to be serious and he's expected to make a full and speedy recovery":
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20246940
Happened at 6pm last night, so I hope he had his lights on. Or perhaps he was doing 30-odd mph and the lady in the Astra misjudged it?
I admire him for doing his winter training in this country - he must be able to afford to do it in warmer climes. I know I would!
|
|
Broken wrist and ribs according to radio news this morning.
|
SMIDSY or lycra lout?
Only YOU decide. Vote now!
|
>> SMIDSY or lycra lout?
>>
>> Only YOU decide. Vote now!
ROFLOL!!!
|
|
White-van woman - the new scourge. I was followed by one once on the A428 driving with her head in her hands and steering with her elbows - I pulled in at the next lay-by and let her go past.
|
>> Unsurprisingly I'll go for SMIDSY.
Still don't know whether he was lit up. Walking along the A329 to the station in the mornings I see cyclists coming towards me with very bright lights - don't remember seeing any in stealth mode recently.
EDIT: just to clarify, that's walking along the pavement of the A329, and the cyclists are on the road :)
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 13:04
|
|
Given his profile, and pronouncements on helmet wearing, I'd be shocked if he wasn't lit up well.
|
|
Me too, but I'm surprised it hasn't been reported one way or the other yet, as presumably it would be a significant factor in the accident.
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 13:17
|
>> Broken wrist and ribs according to radio news this morning.
When asked if he was ok, Bradley said that his side burns.
|
>> >> Broken wrist and ribs according to radio news this morning.
>>
He is getting better.
"Olympic champion Wiggins was treated for A fractured rib and broken index finger"
For those with a deep interest in such important aspects of this event, a close up photo of the detached door mirror in pieces and to be noted that the glass appears to be intact :-)
news.sky.com/story/1008509/bradley-wiggins-out-of-hospital-after-bike-crash
|
And streetview: goo.gl/maps/UdTzH
EDIT: I like that review - "Expect to pay service station prices here" :o
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 14:37
|
Now the GB cycling coach also injured, sounds more serious with 'bleeding on the brain':
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20255862
|
|
If I believed things come in threes and I were Chris Hoy, I'd be getting a taxi for the foreseeable future.
|
An interesting, if rather long, post from The London Cyclist website.
www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
In a nutshell, move your head and eyes before pulling out.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 20:39
|
That's a very good link Bromp. I didn't know all that. It should be in the theory test.
Meanwhile it's a useful defence;-)
|
In Cambridge, the local cycling group are now vetoing any events that suggest that hi-vis or helmets should be worn.
"Crash survivors and charities have spoken of the vital protection helmets provide, but the cycling campaign says they might encourage complacency, and that promoting the wearing of safety equipment too heavily may put people off cycling."
www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Campaign-groups-veto-for-hi-vis-cycle-events-08112012.htm
|
|
There arn't many cyclist on British roads a few % of the population.We are not encouraged to use a cycle to dangerous for most people.Hi-vis is inportant and a helmet.But we are papering over the cracks good quality cycle paths segregated from motorised traffic is the only safe answer.
|
>> In Cambridge, the local cycling group are now vetoing any events that suggest that hi-vis
>> or helmets should be worn.
Broadly agree with them. I'm not advocating riding in camo but visibilty, at least in daylight, is achievable without dayglo.
I certainly won't take part in rides where helmets are mandatory. No problem if others want to wear one but for reasons I've mentioned before I prefer to go bare headed.
|
Unfortunately I think that as reported this will be misinterpreted and counterproductive.
I see exactly where they are coming from. Prescribing hi-viz and helmets puts all the responsibility on cyclists and does nothing to change tribal attitudes. Drivers in general have a negative attitude to cyclists (I have been guilty) and don't see them as legitimate road sharers. I was obliged mildly to rebuke a friend the other day for disparaging cyclists riding abreast - it was unsafe to pass, regardless, in my opinion and when there was a clear road ahead there was no reason not to use the other side of the road to overtake.
But, sadly, the people whose attitudes need to change, including the planners, won't "get" this stance by the Cambridge group at all.
I think it's also unrealistic to expect organisers of rides, who are doubtless obliged to do risk assessments and show they have taken all reasonable precautions, not to draw attention to widely accepted safety measures even if they do not make them mandatory.
An own goal for the cyclists I'm afraid.
|
This thread excursion got me looking for/at hi-viz on way up to Euston tonight. Under London streetlights it's more visible than black or navy but no better than ordinary pale coloured garments. The most conspicuous person I saw was a pedestrian in an off white raincoat.
OTOH, on the way home from the station, retro-reflective strips were picked out at well over a hundred yards.
|
>> An own goal for the cyclists I'm afraid.
It is. Specially as its not because of any anti cycling agenda, but because of the Blame and Compo culture. I wonder if they would like to sign a release form absolving anyone of any blame in the event of an incident before the event. Sort of a cycling pre nup.
Bet they wouldnt.
|
>> It is. Specially as its not because of any anti cycling agenda, but because of
>> the Blame and Compo culture. I wonder if they would like to sign a release
>> form absolving anyone of any blame in the event of an incident before the event.
>> Sort of a cycling pre nup.
>>
>> Bet they wouldnt.
I don't think its any less valid as a protest against stock responses to the Compo culture than to an anti cycling agenda. If we simply roll over and accept this stuff then we're complicit in it being 'mainstreamed' and seen as the norm in future.
If it's just a recommendation then I feel free to ignore. But if it's a condition of participation then I ain't taking part. Part of the problem is that, unlike in some sectors, insurers appear not to have a handle on the real risks. Instead there's a line that identifies the possibility of a cycling head injury and decides the control measure is a helmet. No real examination of either the probability of a life changing head injury or whether a helmet well help.
Simon Legg who organises the monthly 'Friday Night Ride to the Coast' has written fully on the subject over on Cycle Chat.
|
>> I was obliged mildly to rebuke a friend the other day for disparaging cyclists
>> riding abreast - it was unsafe to pass, regardless, in my opinion and when there
>> was a clear road ahead there was no reason not to use the other side
>> of the road to overtake.
I do hope your friend strongly advised you that you were in fact pig ignorant and that riding two abreast unnecessarily slows down everyone else and is incredibly selfish..and can often be the cause of needless conflict.
|
|
I expected that. But not from you. Have you read the HC recently?
|
>> I expected that. But not from you. Have you read the HC recently?
Probably a post I'd not make without being on beer but it's pretty much exactly what I'd expect from WP.
|
>> I do hope your friend strongly advised you that you were in fact pig ignorant
>> and that riding two abreast unnecessarily slows down everyone else and is incredibly selfish..and can
>> often be the cause of needless conflict.
Do you mean that riding two abreast slows down traffic unnecessarily or is the issueriding two abreast where it's not necessary?
EDIT If you think riding two abreast is automatically unnecessary and slows traffic then I think the selfishness is on your part. HC says single up on busy etc roads. On lanes there's no reason to deny cyclists the companionship of chatter.
We're still as easy to pass as a tractor or for that matter a florists van looking for a house gateway!! v
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 9 Nov 12 at 22:31
|
>> Do you mean that riding two abreast slows down traffic unnecessarily or is the issueriding
>> two abreast where it's not necessary?
I mean that our roads are ever more congested and they have to be SHARED by all.
If one element of road users claim them for themselves (i.e. their pace and their standards) exclusively over others, then they are ignorant and selfish.
Bicycles, by their nature, are much slower than motorised transport. Riding two abreast prevents wider motorised transport from overtaking, except in the most obvious overtaking spots. Riding singly mostly does allow overtaking.
So, habitually riding two abreast constantly and unnecessarily slows down the rest of the traffic....and is therefore incredibly selfish.
>> EDIT If you think riding two abreast is automatically unnecessary and slows traffic then I
>> think the selfishness is on your part.
Why? If I were walking up a narrow mountain path, slowly, chatting to a mate...and others came up behind us, I'd move in to single file to let them past...if I didn't i'd be selfish.
If I were playing golf slowly and others caught me up, I'd let them through, that's the etiquette and to do other than that...is selfish.
What's the difference on a bicycle? It's the same with horses.
HC says single up on busy etc roads.
>> On lanes there's no reason to deny cyclists the companionship of chatter.
Yes there is. Very much so. You don't really want to be on the wrong side of the road in a lane..and if you do you need to get on with it. Two cyclists side by side makes it considerably harder to get past safely. I see no reason why any reasonable person would want to dictate their low speed to all the other faster traffic..other than the reasons already stated.
>>
>> We're still as easy to pass as a tractor or for that matter a florists
>> van looking for a house gateway!!
No you are not. You wobble, change direction frequently and without warning and are exceptionally vulnerable, so the overtaker should take more care. Plus, tractors will often pull over to let you past and if they don't should do.
Lastly, my previous post was done with a pint of Carlsberg and a large home poured glass of red in me, that's it....not far off legal to drive and fully with it.
|
>> Lastly, my previous post was done with a pint of Carlsberg and a large home
>> poured glass of red in me, that's it....not far off legal to drive and fully
>> with it.
I didn't mean you were OTL. I meant if I'd not been on the beer I'd probably not have said your message was exactly what I'd expect.
|
As to passing cyclists without going over to other lane I think you need to read the HC on subject of cyclists and space.
As you say we need to share the roads. That doesn't mean cyclists allowing cars unimpeded progress at all times. If we need to ride out in urban traffic (same primary/secondary protocol as motorcyclists) we will. If we're riding country lanes and want to chat we will. Discourtesy and selfishness only come into play if there's a refusal to move over in a reasonable and safe time frame. Just as you do for the faster golfer or walker.
In end we may agree to differ
|
>> As to passing cyclists without going over to other lane I think you need to
>> read the HC on subject of cyclists and space.
I am well aware of the Highway Code's stance and completely agree with it. Furthermore, 4 wheeled drivers who ignore it are careless at best, if not dangerous.
>>
>> As you say we need to share the roads. That doesn't mean cyclists allowing cars
>> unimpeded progress at all times.
I have never said that or hinted at it. However if they can allow other people's progress, they should do so. Increasingly nowadays a significant number do not...and they are the ones I am aiming at. This includes those that think their tandem riding is acceptable.
If you were in a quiet country lane, riding in tandem, nattering with your mate, then a car came, so you reverted back to solo...no problem. Same scenario, but car came and you carry on regardless, then you are selfish if the road layout gives the car driver difficulty getting past, simple as that.
>> In end we may agree to differ
I don't think we are far off....but...in the scenario I first commented on, it is pig ignorant and selfish to ride like that.
|
I can't imagine where you get this "pig ignorant" from.
We came upon 2 cyclists riding side by side. He thought they shouldn't have been. I didn't see a problem. Had it been helpful to go single to let us by they may well have done, but it didn't arise.
As I think I said, it would have been unsafe to pass them anyway until there was a visibly clear road, and when there was, it wasn't a problem. There's a car along very couple of minutes, do you expect them to rearrange themselves every time they hear one? Perhaps they should ride 100 yards apart as well so they don't form an obstructive convoy?
It's the fact that you pounce on a possibility of a cyclist "holding up" a sacred car that is so telling. Where's the compromise in that attitude?
Do you consider anybody in front of you to be acting selfishly, or is it just cyclists? When does it become selfish for you to expect everybody else to clear the road for you to pass?
|
>> There's
>> a car along very couple of minutes, do you expect them to rearrange themselves every
>> time they hear one?
Yes. Or if cars come along that often, ride in single file. Why do I have to even point this out?
>> It's the fact that you pounce on a possibility of a cyclist "holding up" a
>> sacred car that is so telling. Where's the compromise in that attitude?
It would apply to anyone. Walkers, horses, cyclists, very slow moving vehicles. There's legislation to cover the motorised ones, which is why tractor drivers can be prosecuted.
It's also called good manners.
>>
>> Do you consider anybody in front of you to be acting selfishly, or is it
>> just cyclists? When does it become selfish for you to expect everybody else to clear
>> the road for you to pass?
If you truly believe that, then you are a fool.
Try driving in Scotland, where lorries will pull in to the nearside for you and give you a left hand indicator to help you past...just like English driving in the 50's or 60's, before it became this selfish modern me first and pfd to everyone else.
I think everyone, me included, should drive with consideration to others, if you can help them along, do it....and you riding two abreast is the complete opposite to that.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 23 Nov 12 at 01:22
|
>>It's also called good manners.
Says the man who calls me pig ignorant.
>>I think everyone, me included, should drive with consideration to others
About the only thing you've said in this thread that I agree with.
>>and you riding two abreast is the complete opposite to that.
We will have to disagree. Where it is obstructive, I wouldn't endorse it; otherwise, it's fine. And I write that as a driver.
You always struck me as a reasonable type. Hey ho. At least you're a long way from here.
|
Well, as you used the phrase "pig ignorant" to me, I hesitate to dignify your completely wrong headed tirade above with any further discussion.
However! Your confrontational comments are a brilliant illustration of the "tribalism" that gets in the way of properly safe cycling in this country - you sound like a menace, though I like to think that in reality you take more care than is apparent from your remarks.
What happens in practice on a 24' road is that a single cyclist, or two in line, will be overtaken when it is unsafe because the following traffic will squeeze by in the face of oncoming traffic or an approaching bend, sometimes at 60mph with a gap of a couple of feet as happened to me recently. I know the woman as it happens, and I know it won't have occurred to her that there is anything wrong in the way she drives. Had I been where I should have been, in the centre of the lane, she would have had to overtake properly. She could easily have done that without coming to a near halt by adjusting her speed a bit slightly in advance.
Experienced cyclists will protect themselves in two main ways.
The first is to ride 2-4 feet feet from the verge or kerb, which has several benefits -
a better surface without drain covers, broken glass, gravel and quite so many potholes;
it makes them more visible because they are more directly in the driver's view;
drivers will usually have to execute some sort of manoeuvre to get by, rather than carry on regardless;
there's a space to move into if necessary and you get the chance.
The second is to take more space and ride right where a car would be when an overtake from a following vehicle would put the cyclist in danger, typically near a junction. Sometimes known as "taking the lane" or the "primary position". This isn't some guerilla tactic dreamt up by lycra louts, it's sound practice and defensive.
It's explained a bit here, along with a reference to a court case brought by some "pig ignorant" police officers.
www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/technique-road-positioning-197/
and it is also a technique included in "Bikeability" the current day version of Cycling Proficiency promoted by DfT.
We have a long way to go. Note that I am writing as someone who is more driver than cyclist.
EDIT: Bromp's was a better reply, as usual.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 10 Nov 12 at 16:10
|
>> However! Your confrontational comments are a brilliant illustration of the "tribalism" that gets in the
>> way of properly safe cycling in this country
See, now I couldn't disagree more. Tribalism would be seeing one's own viewpoint, alone. I happen to think poor riding/driving is selfish, whatever the mode of transport. Sitting constantly in the middle lane of the m/way unnecessarily....tractor driver having hundreds stuck behind it.....horse riders two abreast..........cyclists two abreast.....and much, much more. Nothing tribal from my angle.
There's a specific offence within the Road Traffic Act, s3. Driving without reasonable consideration for other road-users. Cyclists or horses don't come within this of course, but the morals of it do.
>> you sound like a menace
What, for calling you selfish when you deliberately hold other people up?
>>
>> What happens in practice on a 24' road is that a single cyclist, or two
>> in line, will be overtaken when it is unsafe because the following traffic will squeeze
>> by in the face of oncoming traffic or an approaching bend, sometimes at 60mph with
>> a gap of a couple of feet as happened to me recently. I know the
>> woman as it happens, and I know it won't have occurred to her that there
>> is anything wrong in the way she drives.
So what you are saying is the two abreast bit, is an extension of taking the middle of the lane advice? So that the cyclist is safer and everyone else has to wait. Do you stop pedalling at a prudent place for someone to pass, wave them by, pull in to laybys, that sort of thing....or carry on regardless? Tenner says you often have conflict on your rides.
Had I been where I should have
>> been, in the centre of the lane,
More conflict due then, as above.
>> The second is to take more space and ride right where a car would be
>> when an overtake from a following vehicle would put the cyclist in danger, typically near
>> a junction. Sometimes known as "taking the lane" or the "primary position". This isn't some
>> guerilla tactic dreamt up by lycra louts, it's sound practice and defensive.
>>
>> It's explained a bit here, along with a reference to a court case brought by
>> some "pig ignorant" police officers.
There is a problem with that. If you ride on or in a motor vehicle you commit an offence if you deliberately impede others...yet those within the deeper recesses of cycling world advocate it as good practice. Now on the odd occasion, to prevent a problem, no real issue. All the time as a matter of course...well, welcome to a fraught and difficult journey.
It explains to me why some cyclists have helmet cams etc, just for their 'safety'...they're out there every day having strife....and they wonder why?
Lastly, I have a bike, a mountain bike. I don't use it as often as I should, but do use it fairly regularly, the mile and back down a country lane to the paper shop is a favourite. When my kids are old enough, it'll be family cycling near my home. Not one of us will be riding two abreast, I am not that ignorant.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 10 Nov 12 at 17:52
|
>> However! Your confrontational comments are a brilliant illustration of the "tribalism" that gets in the
>> way of properly safe cycling in this country -
I've had a little think about this 'tribalism'. I suspect a look in the mirror might more accurately find it.
The automatic sticking up for anything cycling regardless of the circumstances certainly smacks of tribalism to me. As does the mission creep of ways and practices initially intended to provide a degree of safety on occasions, to a cyclist, then adopted by some as the norm at all times.
|
>> >> However! Your confrontational comments are a brilliant illustration of the "tribalism" that gets in
>> the
>> >> way of properly safe cycling in this country -
>>
>> I've had a little think about this 'tribalism'. I suspect a look in the mirror
>> might more accurately find it.
>>
>> The automatic sticking up for anything cycling regardless of the circumstances certainly smacks of tribalism
>> to me. As does the mission creep of ways and practices initially intended to provide
>> a degree of safety on occasions, to a cyclist, then adopted by some as the
>> norm at all times.
I hereby give in. You have repeatedly called me an ignorant pig, which seems to be acceptable here. You have made up several things that I am supposed to have said or done. If you cannot see that you are the one with a problem then there is no point in going further.
You turned out to be a typical copper after all.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 11 Nov 12 at 15:23
|
>> I hereby give in. You have repeatedly called me an ignorant pig, which seems to
>> be acceptable here. You have made up several things that I am supposed to have
>> said or done. If you cannot see that you are the one with a problem
>> then there is no point in going further.
>>
>> You turned out to be a typical copper after all.
>>
Show us where Westpig actually called you 'an ignorant pig'
I have looked, and cannot find it in this thread.
IMHO it is you as a cyclist that appears to have turned out to be 'typical'.
|
>> Show us where Westpig actually called you 'an ignorant pig'
>> I have looked, and cannot find it in this thread.
Westpig described Manatee's view that cycling two abreast was OK as pig ignorant. Perhaps not precisely calling M and ignorant pig but pretty offensive anyway.
|
>> Westpig described Manatee's view that cycling two abreast was OK as pig ignorant. Perhaps not
>> precisely calling M and ignorant pig but pretty offensive anyway.
>>
If it is being done in such a way as to inconvenience other road users (ie not moving into single file when hearing or seeing another vehicle approaching) then it's ignorant. Which I think was the point being made.
We hear many a rant from committed cyclists about other road users having distractions such as radios, mobile phones et al. Whilst I concede that cycling is a social pastime and should not necessarily be conducted in grim silence, surely riding two abreast whilst having a natter is in itself a distraction from total concentration on the road. Let him who is without etc.
|
>> Westpig described Manatee's view that cycling two abreast was OK as pig ignorant. Perhaps not precisely calling M and ignorant pig but pretty offensive anyway.
>>
I strongly disagree that the original comment is 'pretty offensive'.
That comment taken out of context, and turned around, as both Manatee and yourself done with it, IMHO does neither of you, or any of the cycling community any favours.
|
>> I hereby give in. You have repeatedly called me an ignorant pig, which seems to
>> be acceptable here.
I have not. I have though declared that riding two abreast at times that slow other traffic down and there is no willingness to help the other traffic is pig ignorant. If you feel that cap fits you, then so be it.
>> You have made up several things that I am supposed to have
>> said or done.
Not that I'm aware of. If you could kindly point it out, if I have done so i'll apologise and put the record straight.
>> If you cannot see that you are the one with a problem
>> then there is no point in going further.
I cannot see that I have a problem, no. I think that all road users ought to be courteous to each other and if one set isn't then they are ignorant. If one set thinks they are more important than others, then they are ignorant. If one set obstructs others unnecessarily then they are ignorant. That includes the usual forms of transport that I indulge in i.e. cars/vans/motorcycles and the occasional cycle...and obviously the ones I don't e.g. horses.
If you think that me disagreeing with your view on riding two abreast is me 'having a problem' then I'd suggest the mirror is the apt angle again.
>>
>> You turned out to be a typical copper after all.
That reflects far more badly on you than it ever would me.
|
Tee hee, still at it then? Tell you what I find typical, old codgers who've retired early and perhaps as a result can't find anything better to do than bicker with each other on a forum all weekend !
Chillax chaps ! You should both have gone for a nice bike ride instead. We have, and it was great. Did a couple of dozen miles offroad in the most stunning late Autumn forest scenery today. Low weak sun through the trees, the light bouncing off the lakes, golden leaves under our tyres. Fab ! All this followed by a picnic back at the car.
Feeling good now, mince 'n tatties to come for tea after the dog walk before the light goes.
Monday tomorrow...Yuk !
:-)
|
>> The automatic sticking up for anything cycling regardless of the circumstances certainly smacks of tribalism
>> to me. As does the mission creep of ways and practices initially intended to provide
>> a degree of safety on occasions, to a cyclist, then adopted by some as the
>> norm at all times.
Not sure about the 'automatic sticking up' thing. What tends to happen is that some forummer, let's give them the pseudonym 'Pat', posts something about cyclists behaving outrageously - being out in the middle of the road and that sort of stuff.
Now hang on say, the I Dugong and others, it don't look like that from the saddle.
Westpig then joins in telling me I'm vulnerable and should be less assertive and that it's unreasonable to hold up the cars, even for a few seconds.
Which completely misses the point that, in modern traffic, stuff that was maybe once only necessary on occasions in 1974 (when Richard Ballantine's imprecation to ride high was first exposed) is now required at all times.
|
I don't think that's entirely true Bromp, it's more the content of the replies that give that impression.
>>Prescribing hi-viz and helmets puts all the responsibility on cyclists and does nothing to change tribal attitudes.<<
I was amazed at this remark but didn't have time to reply about it.
Assuming it's true, what is wrong with being totally responsible for your own safety?
Having said that, we all know it isn't true.
Every factory, haulage yard and indeed any business enterprise with outdoor space, is now full of people wearing High Viz vests, but that doesn't put all the responsibility on the person wearing it, indeed the responsibility of the forkie is to be observant and avoid responsibilityonsibility of the management is still to put rules in place to protect people who would otherwise choose not to protect themselves.
Why do cyclists feel they shouldn't take the same responsibility as everyone else does, whether road user or pedestrian?
Could it be because they are a militant lot of rebels? That's certainly how they come across.
While I'm on this thread I'd like to make a point about red flashing rear lights too.
I don't know how serious cyclists feel about them but most lorry drivers hate them and think a non flashing light is much easier to see. It's the inability to get a 'fix' on exactly where they are on an unlit road that's a problem for us.
Pat
|
Pat,
I'll reply on the helmets'n' hi-viz point when I'm hopme and have more time.
On flashing lights, whether front or rear, I entirely agree. Joining the Tavistock Way cycle route at night is a 'mare cos you can't judge the convergence speed of other bikes. The Boris Bikes are only fitted with flashers, no steady light at all.
A rear facing flashing red is best worn on clothing with a steady light on the bike.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 13 Nov 12 at 10:15
|
>> I don't know how serious cyclists feel about them but most lorry drivers hate them
>> and think a non flashing light is much easier to see. It's the inability to
>> get a 'fix' on exactly where they are on an unlit road that's a problem
>> for us.
>>
>> Pat
>>
I hate the things, they take away all perception of speed and distance when you are closing on someone using one. They're even worse in built up areas when it takes a while to figure out whether the light is actually on a vehicle or not.
|
|
My main cycle rear light is steady plus I have a second flashing one about 10" down the frame... and a decent reflector. At night I ride with an orange reflective material rucksack on my back.... but as for helmets or high-vis jackets... no thanks.
|
Couple of times each winter we go off road forest trail riding in the dark. Even the best bike lights are pretty rubbish and we use two white forward facing lamps each. One red static at the back just so we can sort of see each other. Even trails you would know like the back of your hand in daylight take on a deeply sinister feel at night under the canopy of branches. Well spooky but great fun !
On a well lubricated bike you are more or less silent running and all the nocturnal forest noises seem amplified. A breath of wind through the tree tops can be interpreted as an other worldly moaning, the rustle of a badger or a fox in the undergrowth can seem like a cacophony of sound and when the weak light from your lamps illuminates a pair of staring green eyes in your path, well, you see what I mean !
On steep descents you feel like you are plunging into the depths of Hades, only your rational side, if you know the trail well can persuade you to press on.
Best of all it's free, beats Alton Towers any day !
|
>>we go off road forest trail riding in the dark
I know its off topic...
I guess its quite similar to windsurfing storms at night with only a few vans on the beach to light things up (which make sod all difference when you're half a mile out other than as a guide back!)
Coming off a wave at speed in serious weather feels exactly like plunging into the depths of Hades. And for all the time you're coming down the water seems further away than you expected, but somehow when you hit it still comes as a surprise.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 13 Nov 12 at 11:59
|
|
Aw now thats torn it Mark, I've not been windsurfing for a few years but you've just ( probably ) cost me a lot of money ! Never done it in the dark though. Been night diving a few times. That's fun.
|
>>>Coming off a wave at speed in serious weather feels exactly like plunging into the depths of Hades
Even more off topic but the same feeling is to be had on small-medium sized private (i.e. not a ferry) craft offshore in rough weather. Boats don't run with "headlamps" so you are falling into black holes trusting the laws of physics will see you rise again over wind blown foaming crests.
|
>>on small-medium sized private (i.e. not a ferry) craft offshore
Ellen MacArthur said much the same when she was interviewed about sailing alone at night. Pitch black and the boat starts diving off a wave and you just assume it'll work out. Got some balls, that woman.
|
>>we go off road forest trail riding in the dark
Don`t know if you saw that Nature program on BBC1 last night with the "Hamster", but they fitted a mountain bike with "Bat-Technology" which allowed a totally blind rider to complete a ride down a twisting forested mountain-bike trail completely solo, without him hitting anything or falling off! - quite impressive!
|
|
No I didn't see that. Thanks for the info, I'll check it out.
|
|
Tis on iplayer @ 28.05 on the time-line ;-)
|
|
My red rear LED light will go into 'flashing' mode if the battery level drops below a certain level I guess to conserve what little juice is left for as long as possible.
|
>> Westpig then joins in telling me I'm vulnerable and should be less assertive and that
>> it's unreasonable to hold up the cars, even for a few seconds.
Not at all correct. If holds ups were for a few seconds whilst people sorted themselves out, I have no problem, none at all...and neither have I posted otherwise.
I have only ever posted about the cyclists who hold people up on purpose or are utterly indifferent to holding people up......... and seem content to be like it.
Like riding two abreast when a car comes along and making no effort to facilitate their progress.
|
|
+1, I can't abide the leaflets that come around in the post/free papers from the local council advertising communal bike rides and all of the 'model' riders are smiling and wearing helmets, puts me off going straight away!
|
Bradley Wiggins crash: Woman reported for summons
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-20271788
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-20271788
"The driver, who has not been named by police, was not injured in the accident."
Named by the DM though - she owns a Porsche garage. I'm sure that's significant.
tinyurl.com/d39ompd
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7gi2RxM1Qg&feature=related
Groningen is a nice city for cyclist.I have been there many times to see family.
|
|
When I was learning to drive, some 40 years ago, I was told to allow at least 6feet as I overtook a cyclist. Rarely am I allowed 6feet when I am out cycling.
|
>> When I was learning to drive, some 40 years ago, I was told to allow at least 6feet as I overtook a cyclist.
>> Rarely am I allowed 6feet when I am out cycling.
>>
IIRC A High Court judge once ruled that a cyclist is entitled to wobble.
I failed my first driving test partly for overtaking too close to a parked car.
" You should leave enough space for the door to fully open " I was informed.
|
Surely all that is necessary as so often is to follow the advice of the Highway Code.
For cyclists:
Never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.
For motorists:
Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car
See, Its easy isn't it.
|
As a recently retired life long cyclist I must say I tend towards Westpig's point of view on this. I was never comfortable riding two abreast unless on a traffic free road and was then happy to single out at the sound of any motor vehicle approaching in the distance. The only reason to ride two abreast is to chat with your mate and you can't really use that as a valid reason for causing an un-necessary obstruction.
That doesn't mean you should ride cowering in the gutter but I can fully understand why drivers get annoyed while two riders sit chatting to each other oblivious of their presence. The same applies to horse riders (Mrs RR is one) who exhibit similar tendencies.
|
>>The same applies to horse riders who exhibit similar tendencies.
>>
The Met police train their horses in my area and I was told by the trainers to - please accept that the horses out being trained need to be in pairs.
So it is not BiB being awkward .
|
Earwig go again. Extremism city.
As mentioned countless times before I am regularly a pedestrian, a horse rider, a cyclist and indeed a motorist.
When engaged in any of those fairly normal human pursuits I try to not only consider my own immediate needs but those of those around me. They are not by default my enemies. I try to respect their needs and preferences while maintaining my own standards. It really isn't hard.
Give a bit and take a bit. Don't stress, it's easy. We'll all be dead soon enough, enjoy it while you can.
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Sat 10 Nov 12 at 19:56
|
It's the assertion that riding two abreast is of itself grossly selfish that gets me. If you're riding in a group you want to talk. Not possible to do so if you're in a straggle.
There are plenty of roads in any County in the UK where riders can go side by side for miles and never see a motor vehicle. If one comes up behind and it can't get past then reasonable riders single up. If there's a gaggle there might be a few seconds between tail end charlie shouting 'oil up' and the formation shifting to line astern or echelon.
But the idea that the motorist is massively (or in any way seriously) inconvenienced by that wait is rubbish.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 10 Nov 12 at 20:27
|
>> It's the assertion that riding two abreast is of itself grossly selfish that gets me.
>> If you're riding in a group you want to talk. Not possible to do so
>> if you're in a straggle.
I don't think anyone has said that it is outright, more if it's done regardless.
>> But the idea that the motorist is massively (or in any way seriously) inconvenienced by
>> that wait is rubbish.
>>
Who's to say what others on the road might deem inconvenienced?
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 10 Nov 12 at 20:27
|
People here are complaining about 2 abreast. You need to try driving around semi rural France on a Sunday morning! Not unusual to catch up (or meet head on) a full width non-racing peleton occupying the whole road in conversation. No intention of narrowing down even on a 2 lane road.
There are several roads that I will not use. Remember in France an accident involving a cyclist isautomatically deemed to be down to the motorist.
|
>> People here are complaining about 2 abreast. You need to try driving around semi rural
>> France on a Sunday morning! Not unusual to catch up (or meet head on) a full width non-racing peleton occupying the whole road in conversation. No intention of narrowing down
>> even on a 2 lane road.
>> Remember in France an accident involving a cyclist is automatically deemed to be down to the motorist.
>>
The second statement could well explain the first.
Seems to me, where as in this country where cyclists often think themselves above the law, in France in fact they are....
|
And if the peleton was spread out in single file, taking up some 50m of the road, the chances of a car passing with oncoming traffic would be practically nil.
In Germany, cycling two abreast is essentially forbidden unless you are in a group of 10 or more riders.
|
>> >> It's the assertion that riding two abreast is of itself grossly selfish that gets
>> me.
>> >> If you're riding in a group you want to talk. Not possible to do
>> so
>> >> if you're in a straggle.
>>
>> I don't think anyone has said that it is outright, more if it's done regardless.
The phrase used was actually 'incredibly selfish'. Grossly was a synonym. No indication that WP permitted any exception.
As a reasonable cyclist I won't deliberately or capriciously stay 2ab or block a safe overtake. I might however delay moving in/singling to deter a dangerously close pass on a bend or pinch.
|
It's a silly argument actually. Common sense should apply both ways. I don't generally have conflict on a bike or in a car, I know I am a damned sight more considerate than the majority of drivers out there. Anybody who catches me quickly in the car is let by, as are tailgaters. I'm sure Westpig is careful too, and not at all the menace he impersonates. But many aren't and cyclists have to be very careful about squeezing out of the way and then being "buzzed". Timid cyclists are at more risk in my opinion.
De-personalising, the tribalism I referred to is not imagined. Nor is the unconscious high speed close passing or passing and cutting in. It exists in both camps too.
I wasn't the cyclist in the non-event I mentioned in passing, I was in a car with my friend driving. He commented on the "unhelpful" cyclists and I mildly demurred; he followed them for 50 yards until we could see round a bend and then passed on the other side of the road, as would have been the safe course anyway. No problem for anybody, and he didn't really disagree. His comment on the cyclists had been a knee-jerk.
I don't ride generally abreast as I have no cycling companions for the most part, and when I do they are usually some way ahead...
|
I am an occasional commuter cyclist and car driver so feel able to make comment.
I always wear a helmet, would never go out on bike without one. At night I have fixed and flashing lights front and back, two of each . I feel as a car driver the flashing draw your eyes towards them and the fixed light helps to give an idea of speed, size etc so you are more conscious of the cyclist and wary of their movements whereas one single lit rear light could maybe initially be taken as a red reflector.
I always wear hi vis, whether it just be a T shirt or the full waistcoat.
I accept there are differing ideas about helmets but I just cannot understand the amount of serious cyclists I see with all the gear on but it is all dark.
But I also have the same attitudes towards motorcyclists - why anyone would not have their lights on and wear hi vis jacket I don't know! Might not be biker trendy but you are always going to come off worse in any vehicle disagreement!
|
>> But I also have the same attitudes towards motorcyclists - why anyone would not have
>> their lights on and wear hi vis jacket I don't know!
Why should you need both? One or t'other should be adequate, if you cannot see a hi-viz in daylight hours far enough away to stop from normal road speeds then I'd question the driver's eyesight being of adequate standard; most motorcycles built during the last 10 years have lights which come on with the ignition anyway. Yet car drivers still offer the same tired old S.M.I.D.S.Y. excuse....
BTW you'll have to forgive me for being somewhat sceptical about the hi-viz craze currently sweeping the country. They do indeed have their place and as a safety aid for people WORKING on the roads they're invaluable, also for slow and vulnerable vehicles like bicycles, but they're also fast becoming ubiquitous and that spells danger because they become taken for granted.
|
As we've seen in this thread, cycling can generate some negativity on both sides.
Here's a more positive view of cycling. Well invented this man, I say. Nice idea.
www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Daphne-87-rides-again-after-dementia-stops-her-cycling-16112012.htm
Penny for the first grinch.
|
"Documentary offering an insight into the daily conflict between the 34 million motorists and 12 million cyclists as they compete for the same crowded space on the UK's roads. Cycle helmet cameras provide a close-up view of the unfolding tension and conflict as everyday incidents get out of hand, collisions take place and police on bikes chase down errant road-users."
www.radiotimes.com/episode/s7fgr/the-war-on-britains-roads
|
|
Understand its main sources are YouTube clips some of which have probably already been aired on here. No doubt will provoke a lot more heat and not much light!
|
Previews etc look uncomfortably like tabloid TV.
There are bad cyclists and bad drivers. The cyclists don't kill people.
|
>> Previews etc look uncomfortably like tabloid TV.
>>
>> There are bad cyclists and bad drivers. The cyclists don't kill people.
Bad cyclist can destroy lives every bit as much as bad drivers.
|
>> Bad cyclist can destroy lives every bit as much as bad drivers.
Numbers? examples?
|
You are the very epitome of why people dislike cyclists.
You refuse to wear a helmet, you get all militant when someone suggests high vis clothing, and you can not accept that cyclists can in any way be at fault.
How hard is to to accept that if a bad cyclist gets killed by a motorist who in no way was at fault will not cause that same motorist some distress that could ruin his life as well as the dead cyclist?
How many video clips of furious cyclists deliberately riding in to danger to prove a point have we seen?
Of course you cant. your thinking is completely radicalised by biking. Attitude like yours are are as much responsible for cycling deaths as much as the road planners or motorists.
|
>> How hard is to to accept that if a bad cyclist gets killed by a
>> motorist who in no way was at fault will not cause that same motorist some
>> distress that could ruin his life as well as the dead cyclist?
Of course it will. Except that it hardly ever happens.
|
|
Yeah right. Unbelievable.
|
>> You are the very epitome of why people dislike cyclists.
>>
>> You refuse to wear a helmet, you get all militant when someone suggests high vis
>> clothing, and you can not accept that cyclists can in any way be at fault.
>>
I've explained repeatedly why I cannot be ar*ed with a helmet. It's simply not worth the agg for the slight re-assurance it provides in mitigating an injury that's no more comon in cycling than in walking.
No problem with idea that cyclists need to be visible but that's not always best acheived by wearing a dayglo waistcoat. A good bright shirt is just as good in daylight and makes it easier to differentiate bewteen individuals in a group. Dayglo is next to useless under street lighting, no better than plain/pale. Retro reflective is however excellent for long distance visibilty on unlit roads.
|
>> I've explained repeatedly why I cannot be ar*ed with a helmet.
Entirely your choice, you may change your mind (or need a transplant of one) should you ever have the misfortune to head butt concrete or steel at speed. It does not matter how careful you are, he impact may not be caused by your fault.
|
|
Butting concrete or steel at speed? You do know, ON, that cycle helmets are only designed for minor blows, at the speed of a quick jog? I wear one simply because I might make an error and fall off under my own steam. I have no expectation that it will help if struck by a vehicle at speed. I don't yet wear one in the car although statistically more at risk:)
|
>> Entirely your choice, you may change your mind (or need a transplant of one) should
>> you ever have the misfortune to head butt concrete or steel at speed. It does
>> not matter how careful you are, he impact may not be caused by your fault.
And therein lies the point ON. At speed a bicycle helmet isn't a great deal of use; it's design limit for approval purposes is 12mph. I'm not saying it never happens or that it won't ever happen to me. I'm prepared to take the chance . If I wore one on the basis of my risk as a commuter/leisure cyclist then I'd be wearing it to walk home from the pub as well.
Then there’s the argument about rotational injury.
If I rode seriously off road I might think about one but not for the Sustrans routes, towpaths and dismantled railways that are my limit in straying off tarmac.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 6 Dec 12 at 13:58
|
>> And therein lies the point ON. At speed a bicycle helmet isn't a great deal
>> of use; it's design limit for approval purposes is 12mph. I'm not saying it never
>> happens or that it won't ever happen to me. I'm prepared to take the chance.
Your choice, I doubt if you would survive a bare head 10mph head impact without brain damage. I realise that a helmet will not help in a high speed (>20 mph) head impact any more than a 70mph impact with a tree will be helped much by a seatbelt and airbag.
|
>> Numbers? examples?
>>
I think what Zero means is that staring down in horror at the dismembered body of the cyclist who's just jumped a red light and gone under your car would be something that would have most of us regularly waking up screaming for the rest of our lives.
|
>> I think what Zero means is that staring down in horror at the dismembered body
>> of the cyclist who's just jumped a red light and gone under your car would
>> be something that would have most of us regularly waking up screaming for the rest
>> of our lives.
But you and I both know that's not what happens. I'm not going to justify red light jumping but 99% of it is kerbside stuff (ie the equivalent of America's right turn on red) or on over long pedestrian phases. OTOH the buses and taxis in London playing last one to stop after red is chicken are fatalities waitingfor a victim.
|
|
It's amazing how swiftly certain motorists move to the tactic of shouting militant when at a loss for an argument. Zero, what do you know about the value or otherwise of helmets? I think the answer is in your moniker.
|
>> It's amazing how swiftly certain motorists move to the tactic of shouting militant when at
>> a loss for an argument. Zero, what do you know about the value or otherwise
>> of helmets? I think the answer is in your moniker.
tell you what ask bradley wiggins, knows more than zero or nil don't you think?
|
>> tell you what ask bradley wiggins, knows more than zero or nil don't you think?
It rather looks like somebody "looked but did not see". It's pretty common.
|
|
Well, having seen the whole thing it was reasonably balanced. But the stuff near the end with the couriers was a stunt from around 2006. As representative of a bike commute as parading customised Scoobys is of driving on the M6.
|
Im amazed at the arrogance of some cyclists and having in the past cycled 100 miles a week, I dont recognise the thought process of diving through tiny gaps not knowing what is on the other side, natural selection is alive and well in lycra.
I also cannot for the life of me think why anyone would cycle up the inside of a lorry - totally idiotic - while the results are tragic, it is entirely avoidable. I never did it, I just sat level with the back bumper and waited for them to pull away, which might not make me cool, but I will live longer.
Some bad drivers too though who dont look, that lorry on the roundabout was terrible and who are these people who are so angry they need to get out of their cars? Totally nuts to react like that.
Not sure cyling around banging on peoples cars and shouting abuse will solve anything but it is a sure way to get a clout, which I think is what such people are really hoping for.
Quite balanced and plenty of moments to make you wince, sometimes I was with the cyclist, sometimes the drivers.
|
I thought it seemed quite well balanced, but as a cyclist I was horrified by the antics of some of the cyclists.
I've thumped a couple of vehicles in my years, the two I recall were vans cutting me up on left hand corners. In both cases they promptly gave me more space. I suspect they were either unaware or 'brain dead'.
I like the idea of BIBs on bikes. Perhaps if more prosecutions of errant cyclists were made the situation might improve. I cycled into town this morning. I was seriously peed off by the number of cyclists on the pavement in a busy high street.
|
Isn't it about time DRLs were compulsory on bikes, along with anything else that makes them more visible to other road users?
I think some of the agression from the car drivers was initially instigated by the bikers attitudes.
Cyclist - "I've got a video of you, and I'm gonna put it on youtube for all to see"
Driver - Smack. "Put that on there as well then"
Cyclist - "If I can reach out and touch your car, then your too close to me"
Funny how the same doesn't apply when the cyclist is under / overtaking the motorist though.
If the average speed for the motorist around London is <10 mph, why are cyclists bombing around at 25 to 30 mph? No wonder they've got little chance of being seen.
|
"why are cyclists bombing around at 25 to 30 mph? "
Because you were probably watching Bradley Wiggins and his mates. Was it the Olympics? Do you have any idea how fast the normal cyclist goes? Have you ridden a bike lately? Ever?
|
>> Do
>> you have any idea how fast the normal cyclist goes?
Are any cyclists "normal"?
:-D
Last edited by: L'escargot on Thu 6 Dec 12 at 08:38
|
"Are any cyclists "normal"?
:-D"
Well, I suppose we're a bit more intelligent than, say, the average car driver. :-)
|
>> Well, I suppose we're a bit more intelligent than, say, the average car driver. :-)
>>
You must be joking, anyone who gets themselves alongside a large vehicle, and in its blind spots, especially when it is manoeuvring, is about as intelligent as a table leg. No matter what they are driving or riding. :-)
|
"You must be joking,"
Well, I put a :-) to indicate that there was no malice in my observation - it didn't mean that I was joking :-)
|
>> "why are cyclists bombing around at 25 to 30 mph? "
>>
>> Because you were probably watching Bradley Wiggins and his mates.
No, I was watching the cyclist right at the start of the episode boasting about regularly cycling at 25 to 30 mph in town. The one who had little respect for other road users.
>> Do you have any idea how fast the normal cyclist goes?
Surely they should be riding at a speed suitable for the conditions. In a built up area with traffic and pedestrians, they shouldn't be tear arsing around zipping in and out of traffic.
>> Have you ridden a bike lately? Ever?
Yes. And I certainly don't cause 2 to 3 mile tailbacks during rush hour, unlike some of the cyclists I encounter on my way to and from work. If it were a tractor or other slow moving vehicle, one would expect it to occasionally pull over to let the build up of traffic behind them go on their merry way. Cyclists seem to be the exception.
|
>> I certainly don't cause 2 to 3 mile tailbacks during rush hour, unlike some of the cyclists I encounter on my way to and from work
Really?
|
>> Really?
Yes.
ok, some of it is probably down to a few motorists frightened to overtake the cyclist unless nothing is coming in the opposite direction for the next ½ mile (or not wanting their car thumped ;) )
|
>> >> Really?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> ok, some of it is probably down to a few motorists frightened to overtake the
>> cyclist unless nothing is coming in the opposite direction for the next ½ mile (or
>> not wanting their car thumped ;) )
I assume you observe this while travelling in the opposite direction, otherwise I don't see how you could know there was a 2-3 mile queue behind a cyclist?
I'd like to know where and when this happens, it's a phenomenon I've never seen.
|
>> I assume you observe this while travelling in the opposite direction, otherwise I don't see
>> how you could know there was a 2-3 mile queue behind a cyclist?
>>
>> I'd like to know where and when this happens, it's a phenomenon I've never seen.
I wonder if he means being 'stuck behind' a cyclist for miles? This occasionally happens to me on my way out of the village towards Northampton. A falling gradient and assistance from prevailing wind can allow a road bike to shift along at 25-30. There's one place i might get past but not easily and certainly not if there's opposite direction traffic.
A three mile long queue caused by a bike would be odd indeed.
|
>> I wonder if he means being 'stuck behind' a cyclist for miles?
Spot on. The traffic in front of me is at a crawl for up to 3 miles because of the cyclist(s) holding everyone up during rush hour.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 6 Dec 12 at 14:06
|
>> I think some of the agression from the car drivers was initially instigated by the
>> bikers attitudes.
>>
>> Cyclist - "I've got a video of you, and I'm gonna put it on youtube
>> for all to see"
>>
>> Driver - Smack. "Put that on there as well then"
>>
>>
>> Cyclist - "If I can reach out and touch your car, then your too close
>> to me"
>>
>> Funny how the same doesn't apply when the cyclist is under / overtaking the motorist
>> though.
>>
>> If the average speed for the motorist around London is <10 mph, why are cyclists
>> bombing around at 25 to 30 mph? No wonder they've got little chance of being
>> seen.
Most of the car drivers had their danders up long before anybody mentioned you tube. The camera captured their behaviour, it didn't set it up. The driver of the silver cab, which looked very much like a close pass to me, was foaming at the mouth 'cos his car had been banged on. And there's a hell of a difference between having a car oass inches from you at 20mph and filtering through traffic.
And traffic is bombing along at 30 at times even when the average is only 10mph.
|
>> And there's a hell of a difference between having a car oass inches from you at 20mph and filtering through traffic.
From what I saw of some of the cyclists on TV last night, they were hardly "filtering" through traffic. They were doing 20+ mph and treating the traffic as slalom cones.
|
>> From what I saw of some of the cyclists on TV last night, they were
>> hardly "filtering" through traffic. They were doing 20+ mph and treating the traffic as slalom
>> cones.
The bit at the end with the couriers racing shouldn't have been included. It's like a documentary on urban car commuting including idiots do-nutting on public raods etc.
The fact that they at least explained it was down to last minute pressure from CTC/LCC.
|
>> The driver of the silver
>> cab, ....................was foaming at the
>> mouth 'cos his car had been banged on.
...and so would I.
|
>> >> The driver of the silver
>> >> cab, ....................was foaming at the
>> >> mouth 'cos his car had been banged on.
>>
>>
>> ...and so would I.
That doesn't surprise me. But would you pull in so quickly after on overtake?
The driver said he was past the cyclist. He was. The rear of his cab however was not.
|
>> The driver said he was past the cyclist. He was. The rear of his cab however was not.
IIRC from the clip, there was a lot of justling between the cyclist and taxi driver before the face to face confrontation. Seems to me the cyclist was hellbent on winding up the taxi driver by continually "chasing him down" and then finally thumping the side of his vehicle because the taxi had the cheek to overtake him once again.
|
I've just been watching the clip again.
It's not really possible to 'chase down' motor vehicles on a bike but they passed and re-passed as you do in London traffic.
The camera guy (Gaz) says he'd seen the cab close pass other cyclists so he was watching out. I'd do the same. Eventually Gaz himself is close passed and takes issue by knocking on the cab. Cabbie then goes incandescent.
Knocking on vehicles is something I've managed to avoid but I can see how it happens. There's a point on my commute where I'm at risk of close pass/left turn and I mangae it by riding out. Even then it's not unknown for a car to pass me then turn left before he's completd the act.
|
>> I also cannot for the life of me think why anyone would cycle up the
>> inside of a lorry - totally idiotic - while the results are tragic, it is
>> entirely avoidable. I never did it, I just sat level with the back bumper and
>> waited for them to pull away, which might not make me cool, but I will
>> live longer.
I cannot fathom that either. Not going there unless the lorry has nowhere to go and there's an escape route available, for example jumping off the bike and onto a pavement. OTOH those killed have included a disproportionate number of foreign women. Road layout and particularly the presence of cycle lanes might well be a factor. And then there are the cases where the lorry overtakes then turns.
|
"The trouble is as a cyclist you are trying to stick to the law"
Oh really? Not much of that in evidence in these parts.
|
>> those killed have included a disproportionate number of foreign women.
Why is that? I guess I can understand the foreign bit if it refers to which side of the road people are used to, but why more women than men?
|
>> Why is that? I guess I can understand the foreign bit if it refers to
>> which side of the road people are used to, but why more women than men?
Women generally are over represented amongst London's cyling fatalities. There's a deal of specualtion as to why but few proven facts.
My favoured theory is that men are more likley to be riding assertively, taking posession of their lane (ie riding primary) where necessary. Women, particularly youngsters, are less inclined to do this and more prone to hugging the illusory safety zone near the kerb. They may then be more inclined to chance edging up side of a stationary lorry. They're certainly more vulnerable to being squeezed or turned accross by passing trucks.
|
Is there a significant difference between the number of male/female fatalities? And how does it compare to the total number of male/female cyclists?
And whilst it is obvious in an accident between car & bike who will suffer more, are there any figures available about fault or responsibility for those accidents?
Always figured that the objection to cycles came simply from the ease with which they can pass a car, but the frequent difficulty in overtaking them.
|
Looks like another one
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20624639
...and the comment from the cycling organisation doesn't bode well for the future.
EVERYONE needs to up their game...and that includes cyclists.
|
>> Looks like another one
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20624639
>>
>> ...and the comment from the cycling organisation doesn't bode well for the future.
>>
>> EVERYONE needs to up their game...and that includes cyclists.
NAh, they are all blameless.
|
>> Is there a significant difference between the number of male/female fatalities? And how does it
>> compare to the total number of male/female cyclists?
>>
>> And whilst it is obvious in an accident between car & bike who will suffer
>> more, are there any figures available about fault or responsibility for those accidents?
Olaf Storbeck's google spreadsheet is the best source I know:
tinyurl.com/dyqlpu9
|
Quote from a cycling board:
But the whole programme lost its end (and eventual) message of cooperation in the midst of a bunch of irrelevant videos that simply helped to enrage and entrench each side of the viewing public.
A truly astonishing film would have "exposed" the reality that there is no such war, that cycling in cities is a joy, that thousands upon thousands of riders enjoy the experience every minute of the day without a single issue. Sometimes people loose it and when they do they are often contrite literally moments later, its fear, its adrenalin, its an unnatural state that no-one can spend their entire day living within.
Pretty much sums it up I think
|
>> Quote from a cycling board:
>>
>> But the whole programme lost its end (and eventual) message of cooperation in the midst
>> of a bunch of irrelevant videos that simply helped to enrage and entrench each side
>> of the viewing public.
>>
>> A truly astonishing film would have "exposed" the reality that there is no such war,
>> that cycling in cities is a joy, that thousands upon thousands of riders enjoy the
>> experience every minute of the day without a single issue. Sometimes people loose it and
>> when they do they are often contrite literally moments later, its fear, its adrenalin, its
>> an unnatural state that no-one can spend their entire day living within.
>>
>> Pretty much sums it up I think
>>
>>
>>
They can't spell lose either!
|
Well, that's it then Roger, all cyclists are rubbish if they can't spell;)
Pat
* I'm off now*!
|
Tongue in cheek Roger, but none of the cyclists took the bait!
Pat
|
>> Tongue in cheek Roger, but none of the cyclists took the bait!
Pat
>>
Perhaps their dedicated reading partner / typist went to bed early...
Coz cyclists obviously struggle reading on their own... (eg road signs....)
:-)
|
>>Olaf Storbeck's google spreadsheet is the best source I know:
Thanks. Its a bit shocking really. I'm looking at it.
|
>> A predictable response ?
>>
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244242/Id-happily-run-Cyclist-took-controversial-BBC-documentary-inundated-hate-messages-death-threats.html
Entirely predictable and shows where the nutters are. Some contributors to cyclechat have been far less than complimentary to Gaz for speaking out. I watched the thing again last night and I really cannot see that anything he said justified threats or even explained why people thought it necessary to issue them.
|
|
And another predictable response. :-)
|
>> And another predictable response. :-)
>>
In fact totes amaze.
|
While there is no excuse for the violent threats he really did come across as the sort of person you would leave a place to avoid talking to, didn't do anyone's cause any favours.
|
I think he comes across as an aggressive cyclist who puts himself into dangerous situations and enjoys the confrontation it provokes.
I have every sympathy with the cyclists who are put into dangerous situations by aggressive or incompetent drivers.
As said above he does cyclists no favours.
|
>> I think he comes across as an aggressive cyclist who puts himself into dangerous situations
>> and enjoys the confrontation it provokes.
That again comes as no surprise. You've described me as a 'another shouty cyclist' because I've admitted to giving voice to my feelings when and Addison Lee Sharan put me in exactly the situatiation he was by silver cab man.
He's 24 and the cab sequence was not new - he might need some slack for youth/testosterone. He admits himself to learning that quiet 'more in sorrow than anger' expressions are lesss likley to up the ante.
OTOH if someone is about to squash to against the kerb you're entitled to be angry.
|
Yesterday evening I was proceeding in an Easterly direction down Oxford Road, Reading, in my car, at between 15-20mph (continuous traffic flow at that speed). Just as I indicated a left turn, a cyclist overtook me. On the inside. Good job I had my wits about me as he had evidently left his in the pub.
I would dearly have loved the opportunity to punch him on the nose.
|
>> left turn, a cyclist overtook me. On the inside.
Interesting - in Cambridge that is such normal behaviour you would be bonkers NOT to double check for "undertaking" cyclists every left turn you make. There will almost always be a cyclist, or multiple ones doing that when travelling at those speeds, which is pretty well as fast as you ever go anywhere in the city.
It doesn't stress me as a driver because I'm used to it I suppose. But when cycling in town I don't do it myself, much to apparent outrage of other cyclists who pile up behind.
|
>> Just as I indicated a left turn, a cyclist overtook me. On the inside.
If the traffic's moving at a speed the cyclist can maintain he's better off riding in it. Overtaking is best done motor vehicle fashion on the outside. That way you're out of the way of left turners, those who bale out of taxis without looking and the hazards from dopey pedestrians on i-pods. You're also where drivers expect overtaking traffic to be. It can feel dangerous when there's traffic coming the other way but with practice it's easy enough to integrate into the stream if you need to. Works for me on High Holborn of a night at any rate.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 7 Dec 12 at 15:58
|
|
Is there such a thing as "Defensive cycling" ? Defensive driving keeps me grief free and I have never been accused of holding up the traffic.
|
There is indeed defensive cycling, it's what the proper training for adults will emphasise.
Like driving it covers observation - visual and aural cues that might warn of the unusual, anticipation/preparedness (eg brakes covered around junctions), safe distances, and adaptations of other aspects of DD as taught to motorists.
Now part of that is keeping visible and out of the 'door zone' in urban situations. Any perceived 'safety zone' by the kerb is an illusion. You have to be where drivers can see you and react to your presence. There are also places like pinch points and narrow city streets where a motorist might try and squeeze by with insufficient room. It's good practice there to ride out far enough to dissuade them.
Sometimes that might mean holding them up for a few seconds, though in fact even in urban traffic you'll not delay them at all just alter the order in which you/they arrive at the next red light. It does however enrage some who accuse you of 'blocking' or 'wobblong all over the road'.
Explain, no need to shout but that can be difficult if they're being aggressive.
|
>>While there is no excuse for the violent threats he really did come across as the sort of person you would leave a place to avoid talking to, didn't do anyone's cause any favours.
I agree, and a better produced programme would have got behind that more.
You can hardly blame the bloke for not having the chummy PR friendly personality of a regular presenter, or for a less than objective real time soundtrack when he is on a bike wondering whether the next careless driver will knock him off.
Looking at the objective content alone, it would probably be quite instructive to watch it without the sound, and take his and the other vigilantes, comments and prejudices out of the evidence.
I'm not at all surprised at the response though. It's easy to identify the tribal attitude here (no, I'm not going to resume the sterile argument with Westpig) that exists in much more extreme form among the less engaged and even more easily led majority out there, and anybody who starts from there will 'find' plenty of 'evidence' to support their position in that film - on both sides.
There are some on each 'side', but where it is the exception with people cycling (very few of whom can be exclusively defined as cyclists) it feels nearer the norm amongst those who exclusively drive - the majority of four wheelers, when you exclude the ones who have a bike in the garage and do 20 miles a year.
The twist at the end was a sad but telling one - the old cabbie who saw both sides, his cyclist grandson having been killed. It hadn't changed his opinion that some cyclists exacerbate, or don't mitigate, the risk to themselves, which is beyond argument, but he didn't see that as absolving drivers as many seem to think it does.
The truth is that it's an imperfect world and cooperation is the solution as in so many things. We should all be on the same side - if we aren't regular bicyclists ourselves, our children may well be. Hostilities are inappropriate, as was the title of this "documentary".
|
>> There are some on each 'side', but where it is the exception with people cycling
>> (very few of whom can be exclusively defined as cyclists) it feels nearer the norm
>> amongst those who exclusively drive - the majority of four wheelers, when you exclude the
>> ones who have a bike in the garage and do 20 miles a year.
don't see any justification for that one in general,
What is certain is that in big cities especially in the middle of London, where I have driven fairly often, there is undoubtedly a high level of aggression among road users in general, and the only safe response I have found seems to be a level of decisive defensiveness, which I didn't see a lot of in the film, however many wheels people had.
|
I can easily see why 'Gaz' will meet a sticky end, be it on a bike or off it. An arrogant attention seeker who will one day get more attention than he can handle.
There are plenty of reasonable, fair minded cyclists on the roads who dont consider sharing the road some sort of contest. I am always wary of people who seem to be on some personal quest to change the world by their rules, they are usually a self-important nobody who thinks the world hasnt noticed them.
Last edited by: FoR on Fri 7 Dec 12 at 16:21
|
Well Stu, I have to agree with you:)
I would go as far as to say that Gaz isn't worthy of being called a 'cyclist'
He's a willy waving, attention seeking, self important idiot.
Incidentally, Commercial Motor conducted a poll among lorry drivers and 84% said that cyclists should have some form of compulsory formal training.
Just thought I'd throw that one in.....:)
Pat
|
Pat,
There are obviously other ways Gaz could have reacted; I've had similar close passes but responded with my bell, vocally and with fierce braking without slapping. But I'm fifty three, slightly built and well aware of my physical limitations.
OTOH if a passing vehicle is so close you can slap them them they're too close by some margin. If young, testosterone fuelled and big enough to 'look after yourself' reactions might differ.
The cabbie said he'd passed Gaz; dat true sister. Trouble is the back of his cab had not.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 7 Dec 12 at 23:58
|
My observations of Gaz are based on far more than I've read in this thread.
Have a look at this
www.youtube.com/user/CycleGaz?feature=watch
He's posted 349 videos on YouTube in 14 months.
In all of them he's shouting abusively at other road users.
Google his name and there are far more forums he features on.
Now tell me he isn't an attention seeking cyclists with a chip on his shoulder and an attitude problem.
Pat
|
>> My observations of Gaz are based on far more than I've read in this thread.
>>
>> Have a look at this
>>
>> www.youtube.com/user/CycleGaz?feature=watch
>>
>> He's posted 349 videos on YouTube in 14 months.
>>
>> In all of them he's shouting abusively at other road users.
>>
>> Google his name and there are far more forums he features on.
>>
>> Now tell me he isn't an attention seeking cyclists with a chip on his shoulder
>> and an attitude problem.
>>
>> Pat
>>
No I can't say I am. I've seen the type on PH, loves the agro and been the agrieved party. Loads of them out there. I'll bet even if everyone moved out of the way and had his own lane he'd find some agro. Some people are just like that.
|
>> My observations of Gaz are based on far more than I've read in this thread.
>>
>> Have a look at this
>>
>> www.youtube.com/user/CycleGaz?feature=watch
>>
>> He's posted 349 videos on YouTube in 14 months.
>>
>> In all of them he's shouting abusively at other road users.
>>
>> Google his name and there are far more forums he features on.
>>
>> Now tell me he isn't an attention seeking cyclists with a chip on his shoulder
>> and an attitude problem.
>>
>> Pat
That's actually quite a good video in terms of the subject. Turn the sound off if the sweariness offends.
The guy I worried about in the film was Lewis/Cycle Droid; the black guy handing out home made tickets. He had some real issues to confront and perhaps needs medical help. The Scot who was nearly crushed by the tanker came over well OTOH.
|
>> I've had similar close passes but
>> responded with my bell, ............
It's a long time since I've seen a bicycle fitted with a bell.
|
>> It's a long time since I've seen a bicycle fitted with a bell.
As a human being (version number AD1959.12) I have a voice as standard fit. I understand that, with v limited exceptions all other current homo sapiens are similarly equipped.
A bell can be usefull 'cos it says "excuse me there's a bike here" when pedestrians are in the road in a way the voice cannot manage. OTOH, of the need is for whoa/watch out/WTF you doing the voice is both faster and more nuanced.
|
I find the bell very useful when approaching pedestrians from behind on shared use ways. It's a sort of non-aggressive excuse me.
I've tried a whistle, but that just seems to antagonise motorists.
The most effective is SWMBO's front brake that lets out an ear-piercing screech in damp weather. I've seen a lad jump into a bush when he stepped out in front of her and she braked hard to avoid him!
|
>> OTOH if a passing vehicle is so close you can slap them them they're too close by some margin.
And yet, when a cycle is cutting through slower moving traffic, that same (or smaller) gap is perfectly adequate?
Last edited by: swiss tony on Sat 8 Dec 12 at 10:58
|
>> And yet, when a cycle is cutting through slower moving traffic, that same (or smaller)
>> gap is perfectly adequate?
Yes. You are comparing apples with pears.
Let's think about the consequences. What's the issue for the queuing motorist if he's clipped by a bike on a misjudged pass? Maybe, if he's unlucky, minor damage to his vehicle.
Car coming too close to cyclist at speed/accelerating misjudges and it's a hospital job - or worse.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 8 Dec 12 at 11:47
|
>> >> And yet, when a cycle is cutting through slower moving traffic, that same (or
>> smaller) gap is perfectly adequate?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Let's think about the consequences. What's the issue for the queuing motorist if he's clipped by a bike on a misjudged pass. Maybe, if he's unlucky, minor damage to his vehicle.
>>
>> Car coming too close to cyclist at speed/accelerating misjudges and it's a hospital job.
>>
Yes, damage to the car would be minor, but damage to the cyclist could still be major.
Note, I said 'slower moving traffic' and not stationary traffic.
A slight movement of a car or truck within its lane, or a lane change, would result in the cyclist having a spill.
Oh... and that 'minor' damage could quite easily add up to over a grand - do you really think the driver would just shrug that off, or would he maybe feel a hatred towards cyclists?
And cyclists wonder why motorists get upset?
Last edited by: swiss tony on Sat 8 Dec 12 at 11:56
|
Basically the onus is on the overtaker to allow a safe margin. If I cock up a pass in traffic and collide that's my lookout. If the speed difference between bike and slower moving traffic is more than a few mph then cyclist needs to be on outside - where overtakers should be. Filtering on the left is risky for any number of reasons, not just proximity. The biggy is passengers bailing without looking behind.
You talk about people having a hatred towards cyclists. Isn't that the mirror image of the aggression/chip on shoulder attitude that the helmet cam cyclists are said to be showing?
|
>> Basically the onus is on the overtaker to allow a safe margin.
Filtering on the left is risky for any number of reasons, not just proximity. The biggy is passengers bailing without looking behind.
>>
>>
>> You talk about people having a hatred towards cyclists. Isn't that the mirror image of
>> the aggression/chip on shoulder attitude that the helmet cam cyclists are said to be showing?
>>
>>
I agree the both of those comments.
The problem being too many cyclists overtake on the inside, often to quickly, and or weaving in and out.
Forgetting (so it seems) that being so small in profile, compared to a car (an issue also with us motorcyclists...) they can so easily be missed.
Regards the hatred, yes.
But (again both ways) contempt breeds contempt.
|
I'm not sure theres evidence for that judgement Stu.
What we've seen on the box are the edits the programme maker thought would fit his 'War on the Roads' proposal. His contributions over on CycleChat come over as pretty reasonable - even where I've differed from him for example over a piece of questionable Red Light Jumping where he felt stopping put him at risk from a following truck (which also ran the red).
|
>>I'm not sure theres evidence for that judgement Stu <<
There is enough for me. If he stuck his nose any higher in the air he would break his neck.
|
>> There is enough for me. If he stuck his nose any higher in the air
>> he would break his neck.
He's 24 and was quite a bit younger when the head cam film was shot. Cut him some slack.
|
>>He's 24 and was quite a bit younger when the head cam film was shot. Cut him some slack. <<
I get it, he is your lycra buddy, you cut him whatever slack you want and I will treat him like an adult who is responsible for their actions.
|
The day I wear lycra other than as a team/campaign shirt you can call me Meir Pat.
|
>> The day I wear lycra other than as a team/campaign shirt you can call me
>> Meir Pat.
>>
Which Pat would that be?
|
|
Save your fingers Bromptonaut. You can't reason with nastiness.
|
Stu,
I've debated with the guy on a cycling forum www.cyclechat.net/threads/sometimes-you-just-cant-stop-at-the-red-light.118525/
Not as civilised as C4P but the best of the cycling sites I know.
London commuting is a different animal to BMX in rural northants.
|
>>London commuting is a different animal to BMX in rural northants. <<
On a point of fact, I didnt grow up in Northants, I grew up in West Sussex and when I did most of my mileage it was on the back road rat runs in rush hour in the dark. Unlit country lanes are a different animal to London too.
|
>> London commuting is a different animal to BMX in rural northants.
>>
We live in rural Lincolnshire, and the style for BMX riders in our nearest town is for them to ride on the pavements with basic bikes which don't have any brakes.
|
2014 TdF will start in Leeds, and the 3rd stage will finish in London:
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20724621
|
Tour de France is a bit of a misnomer then, isn't it?
Does this mean that we won't be getting a Tour of Britain? I hope we do!
|
|
Of course - starts in Rheims with the third stage finishing in Paris :)
Last edited by: Focusless on Fri 14 Dec 12 at 11:08
|
>> Tour de France is a bit of a misnomer then, isn't it?
>>
Isnt it now called "Le Tour"?
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 14 Dec 12 at 12:34
|
"Isnt it now called "Le Tour"?"
I think it's just called 'Le Tour' for short - their website refers to it as both Le Tour de France and to Le Tour.
|
Frequently starts outside France.
Started from UK several years ago.
Started in Belgium this year IIRC
8o)
|
|
Great the tour to start in Yorkshire plenty of hills to clime for the riders.Let's hope no more drug scandals let it be a fair battle.
|
|
Mostly starts abroad these days. They even started in Ireland in 1998 and there was talk of starting one in America before they found Buzz Lightyear hadn't really flown unaided.
|
Cycling corner - Manatee
