Cycling UK Forum

drossall wrote:hubgearfreak has a point. Cycle facilities in general have a poor statistical record in increasing safety, and lanes of that width are well-known to make drivers pass closer; with no lane, the distance is judged from the cyclist, but with, the focus moves to just keeping out of the (very narrow) lane.
.

If there is space for parked cars there must be space for a full width cycle lane. OTOH if the nearside 2m of the road is to be used as a car park then the road edge should be a doors width further out. What is not fun or safe is to have to to pull in to allow overtaking then back out again to pass the next parked vehicle.

Agree with the OP that the attitude of the police is a disgrace.

Thanks all for your help. I found the Black Horse on another site after posting but it is good to have reassurance.
I am dangling the lure of cream tea at Mapledurham on the way back into Reading.

I organise rides for my local LCC group and a major problem is finding a pub that will do Pint and Ploughmans or similar on a Sunday lunchtime. The problem is presumably of economics - country pubs making more out of roast lunches or as smart restaurants. - not really suitable for a mid-ride snack.
In June we will be doing a circuit from Reading via Wallingford and will be around about Stoke Row when hunger strikes. Can anyone suggest a suitable hostelry ? I had pencilled in the 4 Horseshoes at Checkendon but they only do roasts on Sunday.

vorsprung wrote:http://www.viamichelin.com with the "by bike" option is better

Not for my test (Teddington to Clapham Junction). Michelin did not know that you can cut off quite a bit by pushing across a Thames footbridge. CycleStreets came up quite well.

In a way the "give it a trial ride" is probably unfair to the Brompton. The first few times you ride it WILL feel strange and the handlebars positively floppy. As you get used to it it just feels relaxed.

Presumably the "Shared Road" sign which should exist but doesn't. Actually by analogy with the situation on shared paths it should go with a " give way to cyclists " sign.

glueman wrote:A large rack top bag makes more sense than panniers on a folder, surely? Bike in one hand, RTB over shoulder, spare hand for tickets, wallet, keys, etc.

The Brompton front bag must be the ideal here - carrying the bike , which automatically semi-folds, with the bag in place. I know it is pricier but for compact folding with the oily parts inside it can't be beat.

I don't know the area but am impressed by the general attitude in these plans - wide inside lanes, CONNECTIONS !
Agreeing with the general negative attitude to shared use of footway but I wonder if these sections, which don't have the side road problems, might these be welcomed by less confident riders in accessing quiet lane.

EdinburghFixed wrote:
However we now have an unfortunate situation on my way to work where I cannot ride on the road, and the Sustrans "route" is very poorly maintained - or not maintained at all.

If a road was in a similar state (untreated, overgrown, broken and potholed surface with inadequate sight-lines at several points) you would have a good case to sue the local authority in the event of an accident.

Who should I sue - Sustrans? Or are you telling me that Sustrans should have responsibility for planning transport provision but not for the consequences of that planning?
.

Surely if the local council have decreed that cyclist must use the Sustrans route rather than the road then they have a stronger duty to maintain it to an equivalent standard. In the event of an accident you should still sue the local authority.

thirdcrank wrote:This is a battle I fought years ago.


. It's probably unrealistic to expect the local highway authority to have people out when the traffic is light testing the lights so it's really a matter of persistant reporting and not being fobbed off.

Should it really be unrealistic that the people who put the detectors in check that they actually work -including with a bike ?

paulah wrote:If you're looking for nominations in NE Cheshire, I would have to put the National Trust right at the top of the list, it's far worse than the local supermarkets. For example:-

- I'm pretty sure one NT place in the area has wooden cycle rack, possibly Lyme park.

I am afraid that the National Trust generally does not do well in this matter. There should always be a feedback form so a chance to complain. There are wooden stands at Osterley but they are substantial post with holes for locks so should be safe as they are in too conspicuous a location for thieves to operate a saw.

GeoffL wrote:As diapason wrote, 'tis hilly! Nonetheless, there are some good rides to be had if you have a hybrid or MTB. The Clay Trails are the main ones around St Austell - with the Wheal Martyn trail being one of my favourites.

We rode most of the Clay Trails on touring bikes with no problems.
If you follow the trail to Bugle then a few miles through lanes takes you to the Screech Owl Centre which makes an interesting target.

thirdcrank wrote:A very good solution, I'm sure, on the assumption that a cyclist can easily rejoin the running lane at the other end, but the standard theme from highwaymen is that these things are all well and good when there is plenty of room but there generally isn't and even where you can create more, that is normally at the expense ( usually considerable as they claim) of buying land adjacent to the highway.

Not quite certain where but somewhere authoritative says in that case to use zebras in place of the islands.

Cycle Friendly Infrastructure has this advice :
5.7.2 TAL 15/99 Cyclists at Roadworks (DETR, 1999a) advises that gaps of between 2.75 metres and 3.25 metres over any distance should be avoided, as car drivers may attempt to overtake even though there is insufficient room to do so safely. However, conditions at roadworks are not necessarily the same as those at localised pinchpoints.
While it remains true that widths within this range should be especially avoided, cyclists can benefit from still wider clearances between physical features. In view of this (and in the absence of a cycle bypass) a minimum gap of 4 metres is recommended unless additional features to significantly reduce motor vehicle speeds are incorporated. If significant numbers of HGVs or buses are expected, it is worth considering increasing this minimum further.

Alas failing to follow this will not lead to the sacking of the engineer responsible.

Vigilies wrote:I think that the big problem with congestion charging is that very little or no improvement to public transport is made before the charge is put in place.
I also think that it is in effect another tax as goods and services will increase in price as companies seek to recoup their outlay for charges incurred by business vehicles.

I believe that the Manchester scheme did have public transport improvements BEFORE the implementation of the charge. There is the problem of the PT being stuck in the congestion though.

Also if business vehicles spend less time stuck in jams that could reduce costs. 5£ per day is worth it to save half an hour of drivers time.

Actually I reckon the rejection shows that motorists are irredeemably stupid.