Cycling UK Forum

Kirst wrote:EF, I showed the video to a friend of mine who also cycles that path, and he emailed me today to say he noticed the flattened patch of nettles!

He rang me today, about a work thing, but said he'd passed you this morning and smiled to himself. I suggested next time he should offer to hold the camera while you re-enact the roll. Wave if you see him - he's easily the tallest cyclist you'll pass.

NUKe wrote:

Well one good example of the scheme doing what its supposed to.
Although I hope your employer suitably compensates you for using the cycle for work.

25p per mile.

NUKe wrote:In my work place I m am often a loan voice when it comes to the cycle work scheme and I probably, I am here as well. I do not believe the cycle to work scheme does anything to encourage people to cycle to work. If you can afford to buy a 1000 pound bike to cycle discounted to 600 then you can afford to buy a sub 400 pound bike which will be more than adequate for the purpose of cycling to work.

I wouldn't have a bike if it wasn't for the bike to work scheme. The scheme gave me the encouragement I needed to buy a bike and use it for commuting, without having to hand over £500 all at once. The £22 or so deducted from my salary every month was much easier to budget for than finding £500. My job involves travelling round south east Edinburgh to people's homes and I use my bike for that as well as for the commute. And I'm not alone - several of my colleagues have bought bikes and use them for commuting and for client visits because of the scheme.

Maybe he said "like a pig?" - he was trying to sell you one. Or offer you a Percy Pig from his tweedy pockets.

toontra wrote:

rualexander wrote:

Absolutely. If the ASL area can only legally be entered by a cyclist using the cycle filter lane, which as I said is often blocked by traffic, and in any case is actually quite dangerous (a favourite place for drivers to drop off passengers!), then the law is patently ridiculous. I will continue my campaign of civil disobedience!

And if you want to be in the right hand lane for turning right, the chances of being able to get along the cycle lane on the left, into the ASL box and position yourself well into the right hand lane are minimal. I have no qualms about crossing the first line at a red light. Motorists don't seem to know they shouldn't do it so I doubt they know I shouldn't!

ANTONISH wrote:Last year I did a charity ride. I have recently received an entry form for this year's ride which carries a disclaimer asking me to agree that "cycling can be dangerous".

Cross out "dangerous" and write "fun, and good for you," sign it, and send it back.

EF, I showed the video to a friend of mine who also cycles that path, and he emailed me today to say he noticed the flattened patch of nettles!

mercurykev wrote:As previously mentioned, the cobbles are mainly in the New Town and most self-respecting Edinburgers will try to steer clear from that area because it's a bit of a home counties ghetto, meaning it isn't really a problem for most Edinburgh cyclists

Are ye callin' me a jakey?

My street's cobbled, but they don't worry me nearly so much as the big holes in the road.

Most of Edinburgh's roads are in such a bad state that you have to pay attention to where you're cycling anyway. The cobbles just add a bit of extra excitement. I find the hills, the wind and the traffice more annoying. Cobbles are only really a problem when it's wet - and for girls they can be fun .

The Pleasance is a pain though, even though it's not cobbled. Coming up it is just horrible, and going down is no fun cos you can't just let loose and tear down at the speed of light because there's no guarantee the lights'll be green at the bottom.

EdinburghFixed wrote:
I wonder whether we ever see each other without realising.

Now I have my recumbent I will probably be fairly easy to spot (heading away from Haymarket between 7:30 and 7:45 and towards it around 17:45 - 18:15).

Wave if you see me (of course, you probably won't as I don't wear high-viz )

Unlikely as my commute is between St Leonards and Craigmillar via the Innocent, nowhere near Haymarket. Maybe if I went and stood on the top of Arthur's Seat (in hi-viz) we would see each other.

This morning I was whizzing along the Innocent path, which has trees, bushes, undergrowthy stuff at either side, all in full leaf just now. It's a beautiful day and the sun was full in my eyes so I had sunglasses on . A cyclist dressed in a hi-viz fluorescent green jacket was crouching at the side of the path; I think he was taking pictures. The green of his jacket blended right in to the green of the surroundings and I could really only see he was there because of the black parts of his clothing.

kwackers wrote:
It would only require a small change to add a slot meter to a pedestrian crossing - 20p for a 30 second green man. Pay per use seems much fairer than a blanket charge.

Excellent idea. Either pedestrians would spend so long arguing about who was going to pay that they'd never cross, or they could all queue up, first person pays, waits for lights to change to red, crosses, lights turn green, next person pays, waits for red light, crosses... It could take four or five hours for 100 cars to get through!

I don't think I'm missing the point. I'm just saying that you can make yourself as visible as you like, ride as visibly as you like, position yourself to be as visible as possible and do everything you can do to increase your chances of being seen, but you can't make people see you if they're not paying attention.

hondated wrote:So lets get this right its ok for cyclists to take up as much road as they want to.And it does not matter whether I have to go across the road to avoid them.I am guilty of using my horn at the wrong time. The speed limit on the road is 60mph.

My moan was really just about their attitude, by their inconsiderate riding in just assuming that they can do whatever they want to and shame on all of you that support that attitude because it is due to your inconsideration to other road users that cyclists get physically and verbally attacked.

If your a member of the CTC why !

Why are you so convinced that overtaking them on the other side of the road is a problem? It's much safer for the cyclists. There is nothing inconsiderate about riding to encourage wider overtaking by motorists; it's the sensible thing to do. Cyclists are attacked by motorists because of motorists, not because of cyclists. Consideration for other road users does not involve hugging the gutter and encouraging people to overtake me with inches to spare. I value my life far above your wish to overtake me too closely. Pull out, go round me properly and safely, or sell your car and give up driving.

EdinburghFixed wrote:Leaving aside the bit about 'ordinary users' (which is controversial enough for a whole topic in itself), I'd like to announce that I deliberately impede motorists every day.

There are probably hundreds of cars every week who have to manouvre or at least slow down for varying distances due to my presence. This is an inevitable side-effect of being a cyclist (it's all just a question of degree - how much of a gutter crawler you are, or how bold - whether misguided or craven).

So fundamentally, being on a bike inconveniences and/or stresses motorists (even, and often especially, if our average speed around town is higher than theirs). Let's not get twisted up in the Clarkson-centric obsession that any delay in pedal-to-the-metal is unacceptable.

I deliberately impeded motorists today by taking the middle of the right hand lane on the approach to a junction where I intended to turn right. Two motorists were so impeded that they whizzed past me on the left too fast and too close, so that they could get to the traffic lights ahead of me and sit at the red light for a bit longer. I don't know how they felt when I filtered past them and positioned myself in the ASL in front of them. Last week I deliberately impeded a motorist by being in a left hand lane (bus lane, actually) when a motorist wanted to move into it. Unfortunately, I hadn't switched my mind-reading on that day or I would have made sure I wasn't where he wanted to be, and as he didn't bother to look to check that his way was clear, he nearly hit me. Obviously, that's my fault for being so inconsiderate as to be in his way. I think from now on I will just ride my bike round and round the off-road paths, regardless of where I actually want to go, so as to be sure my presence doesn't impede anyone else, or force a poor harassed motorist to have to overtake me widely. Those few extra degrees of steering wheel rotation really takes it out of them.

rbrian wrote:Yes, but what a car driver will see is stay 1.5m from the curb, reasoning that a bike is narrow and doesn't need more than 1.5m.

It would have to be a particularly stupid driver who would see that sign and think it meant stay 1.5m from the kerb. There's no kerb in the picture. It's very clear that it means leave at least 5ft between the vehicle and the cyclist when overtaking.

drossall wrote:
This has always seemed fundamental to me. I am not in the least interested in merely being visible, which is like being employable - available, but not necessarily actually observed. I'm not sure why we spend so long talking about such a passive thing, when what matters is actually evoking a response to our presence.

Because we can't do anything about drivers' behaviour or responses. All we can do is do what we can to make ourselves visible and hope the drivers are paying attention. When I was hit by a van in the dark last year I was wearing hi-viz vest, reflective wrist and ankle bands and had two front lights on the bike (one flashing) and three on the back (one flashing) and the van driver still said he hadn't seen me - because he wasn't looking.