Cycling UK Forum

Aldwark Bridge reopened 17 February 2024.

More details here:-

viewtopic.php?p=1829439#p1829439

It's reported that Aldwark Bridge re-opened today (17 February 2024)

https://www.aldwarkbridge.com/about/

Toll bridge to reopen after 10-month closure

(Detailed BBC report)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1r15ny91n8o

Richard Fairhurst wrote: ↑8 Feb 2024, 1:14pm It looks like this is the brainchild of the Yorkshire Coast Business Improvement District (a sort of Chamber of Commerce on steroids, funded by a surcharge on business rates), and it's yet another attempt to do a North Coast 500-type product with diminishing returns. I'd be very surprised if there are signs for these circular routes.

I suspect it will sink without trace, but who knows.

Posting from my home in south Leeds, this might as well be on the dark side of the Moon, in terms of local knowledge but from what I've discovered from following links, this sounds right. It seems this organisation was formed in 2014 and will end later this year. It sounds as though there's unspent money so bike routes will be the answer.

CliveyT wrote: ↑16 Feb 2024, 9:46am Two bits of advice i would offer- Don't seek legal advice off a cycling forum. There are almost certainly people on here that know exactly what the law says, there are people on here who have a good idea, there are people on here who don't know and some of them will still venture an opinion. Working out which is which is difficult and " some people on the internet said it would be OK" will not be looked at favourably by customs and excise.
Secondly don't go around telling people what you're planning to do on a publicly viewable forum? :)

My nomination to be preserved in "Non technical: Too good to lose"

Engraved on a brass plaque would be a bonus

Ebikes in general and the EAPC regulations in particular are outside my training or experience so I'm cautious about posting here.

As a general point, the prosecution in a summary criminal case is not required to prove things which are only within the knowlege of the defendant. As more stuff is recorded on official computers like the DVLA, the less is within the exclusive knowlege of the defendant.

To take the example of the EAPC regulations, AIUI the user is availing themselves of exemptions wihich only they can be aware of. The exemptions from vehicle registration, which again AIUI are central to the EAPC scheme is - to me at least - the important thing here.

My reading of the limited reoprts of this Cardiff case, is that the police seized a number of scooters which on the face of it involved exploiting (?) flouting (?) the EAPC concessions. If these machines had no registration plates etc.,the police would have had no way to establish their legality or otherwise.At that point, nobody was being prosecuted. Depending on the timescales, AFAIK, it's open to any of those involved to reveal the information within their knowlege. That is, demonstrate how their use of their scooter was legal

I cannot see that a jury would play any part in this. (It would be different if it were to be alleged that somebody had an insurance claim, especially for serious injury, but I've read no mention of that.)

I'm a bit bemused by this. (And that's an understatement.)

I wore the Plus Two and ankle-length versions of these for a couple of decades ending in the late 1990s. In those days, they were a cotton fabric with a brushed back. OK in the dry but a pain when wet. I've looked back at some old posts where I compared it to riding in wet dish cloths.

This has had me wondering where a modern market for these might be. I see they are advertised by some part of Condor Cycles.

https://www.tudorsports.co.uk/ts110-york-plusses.html

This footnote made me wonder if they were a bit of a retro fad a couple of years ago

Note :- May 2021 - delivery on new production where out of stock will be 4-5 weeks - any orders placed will be sent in early June - Apologies for the inconvenience

I can only say I've tried to draw attention to the NFBUK material because it was something I was aware of. I have no intention of indulging in a discussion of what they mean, not least because I'm by no means their spokesperson.

I feel that by alerting to you to their campaign material, I have done all I can. You are, of course, free to ignore it, but please don't say you were not made aware.

I cannot see anything in my links which supports what you are saying.

I would say that the NFBUK material is not something I thought up. I linked to it as something I was aware of which seemed to contradict what you were saying. It's a long time since I took any part in cycle campaigning but I came in for quite a lot of aggro from people assuming I supported pavement cycling in its various forms which is how I was alerted to their views - or perhaps their predecessors'. I posted the links in an attempt to show that things are not as clear cut as you suggest. Indeed, they seem to be the opposite.

An excellent example IMO of "common purpose" currently the subject of a criminal trial.

PC Sharon Beshenivsky: Murder suspect spent two decades in Pakistan

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... e-68276370

I have read the thread from the beginning. (If there's anything you feel I'ver overlooked, I'll be happy to have another look. Your latest clarification suggests to me that I have not.)

Can I take it that you did not read my links to the NFBUK stuff?

Nearholmer wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 9:06pm ^^^

The trouble is that “the source” is simply incompatibility of characteristics between the vehicles using the roads (lorries, cars, and bikes) once the permitted speed significantly exceeds leg-power-speed (say >20mph, certainly >30mph).

It’s actually pretty much the same issue as has the potential to cause trouble on shared-use paths if traffic density is too high and/or users fail to share nicely, notably if cyclists make unconstrained use of their capabilities.

So, if you want each mode to be able to use its full capability, you probably need multiple paths (walkers, runners, cyclists), plus the road, and maybe even a different road for mopeds. Which doesn’t sound at all feasible, or even at all necessary, or at all environmentally desirable, in many places.

So, to make the world work sensibly, somebody has to operate below their ultimate capability, cars have to slow down for bikes on roads, and cyclists have to slow down for pedestrians on shared paths. Share nicely, in short. And, 90+% of people can manage that easily …… it’s the ones that can’t, either in cars or on bikes, that we’re talking about though.

The links I posted to The National Federation of the Blind of the UK material were about blind or partially-sighted pedestrians who did not agree with you. Of course, this is not all people with poor eyesight but those who do not want to share space with sources of danger.

I think it's important to understand that other groups may be opposed to sharing space with cyclists.

The National Federation of the Blind of the UK (NFBUK) is one such group. Here are two of their publications which are worth readig by anybody who believes that only selfish drivers object to the various forms of "shared use"

https://www.nfbuk.org/campaign/pavement ... or-people/

https://www.nfbuk.org/campaign-category ... vironment/

pjclinch wrote: ↑11 Feb 2024, 8:08am

plancashire wrote: ↑10 Feb 2024, 11:14am
How do you shift big shopping?

8-Freight cargo bike takes a crate comfortably in the load area. I tend to "do little and often" with just panniers on a more conventionally sized bike, but when it's something big or quite a lot it's the 8.

IMG_20210424_090149825.jpg

Pete.

Have you a fleet of machines to suit every occasion and somewhere to store them?

cycle tramp wrote: ↑10 Feb 2024, 2:53pm :twisted:

Jdsk wrote: ↑10 Feb 2024, 1:10pm These?


https://www.campfirecycling.com/product ... -1232.html

Jonathan

Them's the badgers! Thanks very much :-)

It may be worth adverting specifically for a pair of those in the "Wanted" section of the forum. I say that because as the former owner of a BoB YAK trailer I had no idea what you were looking for until it was clarified. . My memory is a bit vague now, but my BoB trailer (from SJSC) came with two sets of Nutz ie one set for Q/R and the other for a hub gear. I had a coaster (back-pedal brake) rear hub so the Q/R set were kicking about somewhere.

PS I see SJSC have these in several different threads at a cool £59.99
==================================================================

I've been out and checked in my garage. The bike which I used to use to tow the BoB YAK is now fitted with plain nuts so I must have known that the buyer wanted the fittings for the hub gear and swapped them ready for when they collected. The Q/R type are presumably still somewhere in my garage

https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/trailers/10 ... read-type/