Cycling UK Forum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... enade.html

What a waste of time. If any cyclists are riding recklessly target them. Don't penalise an entire group. As the justification for this operation seems to be an injury to a child last year I think a look at injury rates for the prom versus surrounding roads would suggest getting the speed trap on the roads.

On second thoughts some of those nasty joggers also exceed 10mph. Where's my radar gun?

Edwards wrote:we are using nearly all towpaths by invitation that can be withdrawn at any time.

Except in Scotland of course where cycling is legal anywhere there is public access. Which is almost everywhere under the Land Reform Act.

At firsts glance the thing that jumped out was the photo of a "good" road layout at a roundabout. Cyclists going straight through are guided round a green lane on the outer edge of the roundabout. This means cars going left need to safely cross the bike lane at the very point when drivers are looking the other was to see a gap in the traffic.

Definitely a case for ignoring the paint and taking the lane.

It may be worth thinking about one of these.

http://www.dalescycles.com/SQ_Labs_610_ ... /sq610.htm

I've tried a couple of Brooks saddles but didn't get on with them. As I have wider than average sit bones and sit fairly upright (bars level withsaddle) I didn't find many saddles that worked. Most saddles were either too narrow or if wide enough were over padded which isn't comfortable for distance cycling. I've just got the 610 so it's early days but it feels good so far. Firm so that you are on the saddle not in the saddle and as the nose is narrow and stepped lower than the rear no pressure on the bits you don't want it.

unclebaldie wrote:Hi Chris,
You're right on the weight. I did a bit more digging around. Looks like the forks add about 3-4kg to the weight, maybe more - a hell of a lot.

It might be more like a 3lb saving. Still worth it.

This thread quotes your fork at around 5.5lbs
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=496508
This Surly fork is quoted as 1030g, maybe 2.3lbs
http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/ ... +Fork.aspx

Still the cheapest way of getting that much weight off your bike.

PS The Surly fork was only quoted as an example of rigid fork weight. I've no idea if it would be suitable for your bike.

drjones wrote: And as for your suggestion that because most people would not attempt to PCoJ they therefore have higher moral standards, I will have to disagree because I do not see morality as being synonymous with the law or its course thereof.

Like anything else there are no absolutes. Take Maya Evans, the activist who was charged the "crime" of reading out the names of war dead at the cenotaph. In that case , no question IMO the law is wrong and I take my hat off to her.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4507446.stm

Most laws however are intended for the general good of the community, even road traffic laws, and I think in general it is better if laws are obeyed. More importantly it is vital that they can, where required, be enforced. That is why I think PCoJ should be treated extremely seriously. I accept others have a different opinion. Perhaps a presumption in favour of a jail sentence for PCoJ is necessary to make them think twice.

The difference with Maya Evans was that although she broke the law she was honest and truthful in her stance. I admire those qualities and I think being honest is right and lying is wrong. But we'll just need to disagree on that one.

drjones wrote:For all we know the poor guy could have been caught doing just 70 in a 60 zone. Petit. So what's his crime? To do exactly what I suspect most other people would do [not what they say they'd do] and simply to try and minimise the impact of the law. Perfectly understandable; ESPECIALLY considering his livelihood was on the line. No big deal.

If the guy was caught doing 70 in a 60 then that is his crime. If it was me I'd be annoyed (at myself) but I'd take the points. His subsequent actions were not perfectly understandable. I'm amazed that anyone can think they are.

You seem to be saying that it is acceptable to pervert the course of justice or as you put "minimise the impact of the law" to avoid 3 points on the licence or a ban under totting up and that most people would do it. In my experience most people have higher moral standards.

If it is OK for speeding when does lying to the police and courts become wrong? After failing to stop at the scene of an accident? After killing a pedestrian?

drjones wrote:It's not the speed that's the danger; it's the inapproriate use of speed and a lack of control over it that are the real problems.

IMO it's better to focus on pushing for reform and more provisions for cyclists than getting worked-up over minor motoring offenses and PCoJ court cases.

Nobody in this thread is saying speeding is a problem in itself. Of course it isn't. On the other hand if a drivers can't see speed cameras which are mostly in big yellow boxes these days what else is he missing? If all drivers could judge an appropriate speed for the road and weather conditions we'd have no need for speed limits. In the real world we are stuck with them.
The best provision for cyclists is being able to use the existing road system safely. This is most likely to be achieved if the law deals robustly with those drivers who ignore the law and have an attitude that it is OK when caught to scheme, lie, and complain rather than accept the penalty.

drjones wrote:Well, with this in mind the only rather tenuous link I can see to cycling is that the case happened to involve another road user: a motorist.

I don't see anything tenuous about it. It is in the best interests of all vulnerable road users that road traffic laws are enforced. This is made more difficult if the penalties for being caught out in a serious of blatant lies and fabrications are little worse than having been prosecuted for speeding. I would be of the same opinion if it was a cyclist had attempted to pervert the course of justice over a sustained time period.

drjones wrote:Any attempt at trying to change human nature is likely to prove futile

It's not about changing human nature. It's human nature to weigh up consciously and sub consciously the odds of being caught and the consequences. Take drink driving. It was vastly reduced (IMO) by several things. Among them publicity campaigns which warned of the penalties and helped re-shape public attitudes. Just as important though was almost automatic driving bans for anyone convicted.

If we think a mixture of fines, disqualifications and prison have no effect on behaviour we'd be as well just abandoning the whole criminal justice system.

So for somebody who on the spur of the moment attempts to pervert the course of justice by giving a false name then prison may be overkill. For this pair who reported their plates stolen, swapped points and lied over a weeks or months then prison might have been appropriate.

I've got to agree with Thirdcrank here. The issue isn't about speeding. The issue is that a conspiracy to attempt to pervert the course of justice should be treated more seriously than a fine and community service. In this case the defendant went to the extent of having her story in the local press complaining about the police stating

"I just think it is a money-making exercise and they are wasting taxpayers' money on all this process when there is no need. If I had committed the offence I would have paid the fine, or told them who had done it, but it is the principle."

http://www.keighleynews.co.uk/search/23 ... ed_camera/

It is indeed the principle.

Regarding the LHT. I got a LHT and had it built up with various bits including a strong rear wheel from Spa.
I'd second the comments that it is a full on tourer. For credit card touring something a bit lighter might be better. Mine (62cm) weighs around 35lb with back and front Tubus racks, mudguards and LED lights fitted.
Compared to my old 531ST Galaxy the frame feels far stiffer. though not uncomfortable. The Galaxy would flex under hard pedalling, the LHT feels rock solid. It is much more stable in a straight line. I'm about 200lbs and I bought it for carrying full camping kit. I'm happy with it for that use. It feels more sluggish than the Galaxy when unloaded though.

Watch the frame sizing as well on the LHT. The seat tube angle seems quite relaxed which has the side effect of putting the saddle further back. I'm using a seat post with no layback and still have the saddle fully forward to get more or less KOPS fitting.

For anyone whose bodyweight was light and who wasn't doing fully loaded touring the LHT frame may be too stiff.

PW wrote:Ordnance Survey do a series of 8 maps in 1/250,000 called Road Travel Maps. Green & silver cover. The scale is the same as a cheap road atlas but the design is far better giving a good idea of the topography as well as the road layout.

Seconded. Three or four of these maps would do the job, depending on your route.

https://www.dash4it.co.uk/store/index.php?cPath=1_44_7

PBA wrote:

irc wrote:No. I still use the route.

Sorry if my comment sounded glib (it does to me on re-reading). That looks like a nasty bit of road. You are correct to have reported your concerns to the authorities.

If it was me I would be looking for an alternative route! I'm guessing that there is not one readily available. This is one of those (not infrequent)occasions where the cycle lane actually makes matters worse. Given the relative danger of a car fast approaching from behind compared to the possibility of being doored, I think I'd go with the "slight" chance of being doored and use the cycle lane. Of course I don't know the road.

From the photograph the footway seems wide enough to support segregated use. This is far from ideal and never suitable at the speeds you describe but if they were then to remove the cycle lane from the road, cyclists riding in the road would be less inclined to pass so close to the parked cars and might even get more space from the overtaking motorists!

Thanks, but I didn't read your comment as glib. No apology necessary.

Changing route is sometimes a reasonable solution to problems of various kinds. I've changed my route for late night commuting due to a high risk of being assaulted at one point (a slow uphill past a scheme in the east end of Glasgow). There is no reasonable alternative for the route pictured though. My commute is 10 miles each way. Overall I believe riding on the footway would increase danger, (whatever the legal position). At the point in the photo I'd have a junction to cross which would involve giving way and braking every time.

Removing the cycle lane was one solution I suggested. The other was removing the right turn lane. At about 6 feet it isn't wide enough and cars waiting to turn right mean cars going straight ahead have to encroach on the cycle lane anyway.

The basic problem is the the "planners" put 2 traffic lanes, two cycle lanes, a right turn lane, and a parking lane in a road that wasn't wide enough. The proper solution would be to widen the road by 3 feet by narrowing the footway. This won't get done as it costs more than putting a bit of paint down.

PBA wrote:

irc wrote:Meanwhile I've given up trying to persuade my local council that a marked cycle lane within the doorzone of a line of parked cars on a downhill stretch of road is a bad idea. At least if a cyclist is injured there they can sue the council as well as the council has been well warned.

Well done. I trust you have found an alternative route yourself?

No. I still use the route. I ride outside the lane. It gets me the odd bit of hassle from drivers who don't understand why I'm not using the facility. But I'll take a few peeps on a horn instead of a dooring any day.

The following photo is a bit deceptive. At the point where the car door is open the road is flat or slightly uphill. This is after a downhill though so even slow cyclists like me are typically doing 18-22mph.