Cycling UK Forum

Having read many posts my Mick F regarding LEJoG routes (and much else besides) I was wondering if he could cast an eye over the route outlined on this site - http://www.lejog06.co.uk/ - I'd really welcome his input. The daily ride reports are to be found on the "Latest News" page.

I'm planning a 7-day unsupported solo b&b LEJoG in May and this seems to be fairly direct. The only tweak I've pencilled in so far is going directly north from Inverness through Altnaharra and hitting the north coast at Coldbachie (instead of the A9/99), then going east (this is basically to get a bit of sightseeing in on the last day, and it's reckoned to be a bit flatter than the coast route). Also I'd like the stopover at the end of day 6 to be a bit further than Inverness to even out the mileages of days 6 & 7 so I've earmarked a b&b in Alness.

I'll be traveling light and 140+ on a couple of the days shouldn't be a problem as I am in serious training! Cheers.

No-one ever seems to mention Hutchinson tyres in these discussions (available from Decathlon). Having tried most of the above mentioned with varying degrees os success (and failure!) I tried the Hutchinson 700 x 22 "touring" tyre with Kevlar belt last year. 3,500 so far without a p******e, and look like having plenty of life left. In fact I've just swapped front/rear to extend wear.

andymiller wrote:

And no stupid list of approved locks

For most people the lists of approved locks are anything but stupid.

I was looking at the approved list of one insurance company, and for my bike (over £1600) I would need a "gold" standard lock. I checked the list and they all weigh a ton - really heavy shackles or chains and padlocks.

Now why would I spend a small fortune on a light bike, only to be told by an insurer that I had to drag a half-ton lock the length of the country just to safeguard their money?

No way. Mine's on the household insurance. Cheaper and less restrictive.

BTW, I'm sensible about where my best bike gets left (i.e. never out of my sight)

essexman wrote:I just got a deal from norwhich union. 4 bikes, top value £1200, £32 !!

I was well chuffed, worldwide cover and just needs locking up

Is this part of your home contents insurance?

That makes their sub-£2 cable cycle locks seem like less of a bargain

Just come back from a visit to my parents. I was telling my dad about my planned 7-day LEJoG this May and how I was taking out CTC membership for the routes and 3rd-party insurance. He said he used to be a member in the 1920's & 30's. I always knew he was keen on cycling in his youth but didn't know about the CTC connection.

He then went up to the loft and re-appeared with his CTC membership badge from the early 1930's (he thinks). I've now inherited it! Apparently he also had a white CTC blazer with the emblem on.

Kal wrote:Especially as the 42% drop in collisions included collisions with other two wheeled road users - powered and unpowered.

Comments please?

Talking of statistics, how about the fact that 40% of motorcycles on the road are currently un-taxed.

thirdcrank wrote: A bigger problem comes when they invade ordinary cycle lanes, ASL's etc. I think that most motorcyclists would use their speed and manoeuvrability to go down the outside of queueing traffic to get to the front (ASL or no ASL) but having had a learner scooter rider try to overtake me in a substandard width ASL approach lane, I know the experience can be unsettling. The present bus lane experiment is presumably nothing to do with cycle facilities generally but not everybody will read the small print.

That was precisely my point. If motorcyclists get used to legally using bus lanes they will assume they can filter up the inside of traffic in other situations - i.e. cycle lanes

Was this considered in they study? - bet your bottom dollar it wasn't.

Therefore, it is absolutely right that the final political judgement be made not simply on the apparent conclusions of a single study, but also takes into account wider considerations.

Ben Lovejoy wrote:My money is on:

3) Ken agreed to the pilot to play for time as he doesn't want to do it

Why would he be against motorcycles in bus lanes?

Let's all bear in mind 40% of motorbikes (probably more in London) shouldn't be on the road at all, let alone in bus lanes.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7200066.stm

andymiller wrote:Best to wait for the final report?

Report or no report, we can still discuss the issues as they appear to us from our experience.

My betting is the report in the article was sat on because either:

1) It's methodology was questionable

2) The use of bus lanes by motorcycles could have consequences not envisaged by the authors of the report

... or both.

There's another thread on this: http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t ... highlight=

Can a mod combine these?

What a limited study like this can never predict is how the mass legalising of motorcycles using bus lanes would affect motorcyclist's behavior in the long term.

At the moment they tentatively creep down bus lanes. In the limited study I'm sure their behavior was also mitigated by the time/geographical restraints of the study.

My worry is that, if there was full legalisation, they would soon start behaving in bus lanes as they behave everywhere else - i.e. seeing how fast they can accellerate in any given situation. As an experienced taxi driver you will know what I'm talking about.

Also, they will start to dominate the ASL areas, which are often extensions of the bus and cycle lanes. In fact they'd have to use the ASL area, otherwise they would block cyclists from entering it. So the thousands of ASL areas nationwide would be rendered potentially worthless.

At the moment the law is clear. Buses, taxis and (usually) cycles can use bus lanes. Everyone knows (or should know) where they stand. Start allowing motorbikes into the bus lanes and it's all up for grabs, including cycle lanes, as motorbikes would get into the habit of filtering up the inside of traffic.

BTW, I'm talking about London specifically. You say you don't cycle there so you may not be aware of the particular problems due to density of cabs, cycles and motorbikes/scooters/mopeds.

I'm sure you are a responsible cabbie, no doubt informed by your cycling. If you don't believe my tales of bullying taxis then don't take my word for it - check any of the more populated cycling forums and hear the stories (or even watch the videos). There are taxi drivers in London who believe cyclists shouldn't be on the road full stop, let alone in "their" bus lanes.

jmaccyd wrote:However, I have always argued that the main weapon in the road safety argument is the FACTS provided by research.

My point was that there are no statistics in this article (don't know about the report), let alone FACTS. Faced with actual statistics I would make a considered judgement. Bear in mind the methodology of this particular report is in question, and the article is full of vague claims, not FACTS.

As for disputing my experience of bullying cabbies, either you don't cycle regularly in central London as I do, or you spend more time in your cab than you do on your bike.

There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently the methodology of the study is also in question.

I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze into cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches) bullying cyclists in these.

I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break the speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in a bus lane thanks.