Cycling UK Forum

I had one of those today: a black BMW convertible, hood down, stopped in the middle of a T junction. Waved me past and pointed out he was on the phone, which was better than some. Probably good he stopped, as a police car passed in front of me at the next junction and would probably have ticketed him. I doubt if the police had turned at the junction and seen his car stopped in the road, they would have done more than tell him to move on and park up.

hexhome wrote:My instinct would say that he is correct, it would cover any nefarious activity.

I've my doubts about removing cycle shelters, as I feel those inclined to nefarious activity will either continue anyway or move to other nearby places and annoy other people, so what's really needed is policing. But that's a different topic.

What I'd love to know is whether bikes do suffer being left parked in the rain for relatively short periods (say up to eight hours), compared to the damage done riding in the rain? I've been surprised that any web searches I could think of found little hard data, just stacks of anecdotes.

honesty wrote:Sustrans route 33 Stop Line Way - connects at the top to route 3 and extends to the coast at Burnham, at the other end goes from Taunton to Ilminster and on down to Axminster. The levels bits are mostly back country lanes with a few offroad path sections.

Warning on this one: there are currently two "missing links" in North Somerset, either side of Weston-super-Mare, which means you either need to detour (route 26 to Sandford and back up through Puxton, Hewish and Ebdon to avoid the Yeo, a section of footpath and a small road to avoid the Ax - the latter seems to be marked on Open Cycle Map as route 33 now) or ride on the fairly busy A370. Much as I love WsM, if you're detouring down route 26, I'd stay on it to Cheddar Gorge to do the tourist bit, then ride south to Wedmore and west back to Burnham along B roads.

Local police are against putting cycle shelters (over those awful street pod things) because yoofs gather under them and damage or nick bits from bikes. The liaison officer seems to be suggesting that seat covers are sufficient because your bike rusts from being ridden in the rain anyway. Does anyone have data or good logical arguments that I can use, or is he right and I should give up and cherish the few built-under-cover bike parking spots they can't easily remove from our town?

martinn wrote:The counciler responsible for transport in North Somerset, has said that they do not have the money to move the route, ask Sustrans, but in the latest interview was quoted as saying they may need to look at methods which reduce cycle speed to walking pace, hence I fear another new barrier on my route. (Just out of interest, i have tried to find out where the actual collision occoured, and all the news articles are very sparce on details, so i suspect it was on the road section (Farleighs green is the estate).

I know it well and I agree it was probably on the road section. Given North Somerset Council's awful track record on barriers (like the worse-than-useless crash-hazard ones around North Worle which are the wrong barrier types in the wrong places), I suspect they'll be installed at high-visibility points that look good and do next to nothing about any possible actual problem. I feel that the key is to press for hard numbers, using whatdotheyknow.com and the Mercury, to suggest that there is no problem and that Elfan Ap Rees is wasting council tax.

Go along to Weston Town Hall and ask a public question at the start of a full council meeting, requesting assurances that the route will be monitored before they waste any more money installing barriers or diverting routes like they've done in WsM? (And think of a good followup question - or a few to choose between - as they don't get to see that in advance.)

Sometimes barriers do get removed (see viewtopic.php?f=6&t=76492&start=30 for a gate on NCN1 we've sort-of got opened) but it's harder to get rid of problems once they've been built and there's a bad habit of putting loads of barriers all along a route at once - I think councils must get some sort of bulk-buy discount. It's probably better and a bit easier to stop them being installed if you can.

Mark1978 wrote:But think of it from the councils point of view. The barriers are already there so are the status quo - so you have to have a benefit analysis for the work / money spent on their removal.

Yeah, it's one rule for the installation, another for the removal! How can we hold the councils to account for wasting taxes installing barriers without any evidence of need?

Vorpal wrote:No. It was along the lines, of 'the barriers are necessary because...' There were several variants. The most common was that *someone* had complained about motorcyclists using the path.

I've had that one, in Somerset. Then I made a Freedom of Information Request for the evidence of motocycle abuse of newly-obstructed paths https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... orth_worle which came back as Not Held, so then I asked Avon and Somerset Police (sometimes known as Avoid and Swerve-it, thanks to how they answer public questions) https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... _mini_moto which came back as it would cost too much to find out the specifics, but all motocycle complaints in that area were only a low level! So there was no objective evidence, just claims of anecdotes that could not be verified.

Now I suspect blaming motorcyclists is often just a way of using prejudices against one "outsider" group (motorcyclists) to mess with another (cyclists). What I don't understand is why - after all, even if you don't ride a bike, who benefits from making cycling more difficult? Petrol stations?

JohnW wrote:I encounter several types of barrier, but my opinion is that the A-frame is best, least dangerous to cyclists, and easiest of them, and appears to be relatively successful This isn't to be interpreted as an expression of liking for them - but in the real world, with things as they are, I personal accept the need for them.

I don't accept the need for them. We need policing to stop path abuse, not things that force some types of bicycle to use alternative routes and cause occasional crashes for others.

Here's the one from the NCN1 by the river in King's Lynn. They're either side of the crossing of Wisbech Road. It's been crashed into so many times from both sides that the paint is chipped and rusting. Where it goes through the path is a mess of weeds. At least three other accesses to the path have no barriers at all and there's a gap in the fence next to this one (on the right as viewed - it's a bit narrow, which may explain the crash damage to the right-hand support of the A-frame), so I don't know why it hasn't been removed yet. If an A-frame is the best barrier, then no barriers should be used ever!

danfoto wrote: I imagine that if anybody cares to dig deep enough, there's an awful lot about that chap in the public domain which is not in the public domain regarding us lesser mortals.

Sadly, some banks still use things like place of birth and mother's maiden name which are matters of public record for everyone and fairly easy to obtain. I wish they'd start using strong encryption (SSL client-side certificates, monkeysphere, OpenPGP and so on) instead of posting out Chinese plastic calculator-like devices which I may lose, or asking extra questions like "memorable name" which I may forget which name I've told to which bank - one of my banks is introducing so much security theatre that I think I may close my account before I lose access completely!

Anyway, I think it's reasonable to suggest people don't publish their account details. It's up to them if they want to accept a direct bank transfer by sending details through encrypted email, or use a transfer account. The best defence is to have an account that isn't a main account for incoming transfers, don't leave much money in it and check the statements for transactions you don't recognise!

Si wrote:It would be nice if we could have a title that is concise, catchy and explains exactly what we are/do. (hey, I know, how about "British Cycling", what's that you say...already gone, d'oh).

Already gone? Drat! What else can we try? How about we want a whole nation cycling, so "Cycle Nation"? Oh, that's already gone too? :-/

I like Cyclists Touring Club and would also be OK with Cycling Transport Club, Cycle Travel Club and various other variations. I think the current doesn't-stand-for-anything is a bit silly and I think it would be good to keep the name's link with the past. I don't mind either new or old logos, and the letters ctc could maybe be fashioned into a person riding a bike.

I'm another non/lapsed-member and as I've written elsewhere, the campaigning, outreach and (theoretical?) cyclist control are the main Selling Points but the local ctc branch seem inconsistent/reluctant on them, with comments pretty similar to some of the "get on the road" style feedback I've had on this blog. I can get insurance and discounts that I like more elsewhere, and I've little interest in group road rides on weekday mornings while I'm at work. I'm not against ctc but I don't feel joining it would add £44/year worth of value, so I expect to focus on volunteering for the local CycleNation group and I'll maybe get around to joining ctc one day.

So it'll soon be the Strava User Group, right?

Si wrote:people higher up in the council had already suggested that traffic flow changes were pretty much ruled out,

That's the main problem and one that North Somerset Council seems to suffer from too: if it pleases people on bikes but upsets anyone else because it involves substantial layout changes, creation orders or compulsory purchase, it can't be done.

Si wrote:and that if traffic changes were called for then a survey and model would be required which would eat up most of the budget for the route before anything had been built at all.

Really? Downloading data from some automated sensors and downloading and using the free-to-download TEMPro is that expensive?

I don't know Si's case and it may be that the indirect route was still worthwhile, but sometimes I wonder if the "do nothing / throw that dead skunk back in the politician's lap" option was considered fully. And give me a route designed by an authorised proactive civil engineer who actually knows LTN 2/08, TAL 15-99 and so on rather than a committee of cycling officers and reps any day!

Conversely, in King's Lynn, Norfolk, NCN 1 is routed right through the town centre - through the pedestrian shopping zone with an overlarge bike ban (you can take a truck up Tower Street or Union Lane but not a bike) instead of the recently renovated South Quay and oft-renovated Tuesday Market Place.

As I understand it, Community Infrastructure Fund 2 should have paid for contraflow cycling to enable rerouting (South Quay, Norfolk Street) but more money than planned was all spent turning a cycle track into a bus road and so signs and traffic orders got cut. But CIF2 was still a cycling project, if you believe Norfolk County Council!

Oh well, at least Norwich City Council are the lead on their Cycling Ambition project!

Si wrote:Just because the surface isn't tarmacked doesn't mean that it's uncomfortable. It you've 120psi 23mm tyres maybe...but how many novices are going for that option?

Clearly I'm not riding where you're riding! I rode a road bike when I was younger but now I've got 65psi 38mm and many of the cycle track surfaces are still uncomfortable even unladen at reduced speed and I'm sure all the rattling increases the wear and tear on my bike. Some of it even rings the bell itself!

Si wrote:As for the get off the road screams - you'll find that shouted at you whether there is a cyclepath or not.

Oh sure, a bit because there are a few idiots, which is why I wrote it increases if there's a cycle track, because that's my experience.

Si wrote:My experience with novices is that they don't mind going a little further if it either avoids certain perceived problems, or it is a nicer option.

To a degree, but it's a balancing act. Too much further adds time and can also contribute to an unnecessary "bike is too slow" decision, so the preference should be for direct and smooth if there aren't perceived problems.

I accept that cycle routes aren't going to be exactly what would benefit me most because I'll probably keep using a bike until it's really nasty out there, but I think the majority will be deterred more than I am, so we should make it easy for them. Sometimes that will mean that easy and indirect is worth building instead of hard but direct, even if people like me won't use it, but at the moment, most of the country seems to be getting both rubbish and indirect too often.

The detail for Norwich is http://www.norwich.gov.uk/TransportAndS ... ation.aspx and B4 of the application provides the detail. Most of it seems pretty sane to me, making things smoother or more direct on the whole. There are a couple of naughties like speed tables which will probably be unpleasant for riders and they're putting in indirect cycle track bypasses instead of fixing the recent dangerous speed-increasing rebuilds of roundabouts like Earlham Road/Outer Ring which used to be OK for bikes, but that's more than balanced out if they make easier crossings of Bluebell Road, Colman Road and Chapelfield Road which have caused problems for at least 20 years. Let's hope they do the good bits first!

meic wrote:I just am rather cynical that CTC comes even close to that description as it is now a Charity not a membership organisation.

Being a Charity doesn't mean you can't be a membership organisation, although it does surrender some autonomy and flexibility. I think a better argument would be to suggest the shockingly low 4% voter turnout means CTC isn't really under democratic control...

meic wrote:Personally I am perfectly happy with non-democratic, protest movements like Greenpeace and Sustrans.

Well, Greenpeace's international board and national officers are elected (through a rather debatable fuzzy process, but it's still elected), so that's a bad example to use. Anyway, each to their own, just don't suggest Sustrans is mainly funded or controlled by cyclists at large!

Now, back to the meat: what the heck's going on in North Somerset?