Cycling UK Forum

Some ideas on this site

http://www.nordicgroup.us/cageboss/

Going via Glen Coe gives the best mountain scenery on the usual E2E routes. As discussed else where on this forum though the A82 as the main route from Glasgow to the west highlands carries heavy traffic. The Tyndrum to Glen Coe section is narrow with no shoulder/verge and has many long straights where if the traffic isn't heavy then it will be fast - up to 80 mph. South of Tyndrum the A82 is either wider or twisty enough that traffic speeds are low.

The A83 as the main route to Arygll also carries heavy traffic as far as Inveraray, though slightly less than the A82. Between Arrochar and Inveraray is narrow like the Tyndum to Glen Coe section of the A82.

For a west coast LEJOG where time/distance isn't critical I would suggest going via Arran - Oban - then Ballachuilish or even better Arran - Oban - Oban - Craignure on Mull Craignure to Lochaline - Mallaig - Skye - back to the mainland at Kyle of Lochalsh for a choice of routes north.

But that's not what you asked. If I had to choose between your two options I would take the scenery of the Glen Coe option and put up with the traffic. I avoid cycling that bit of the A82 but everyone has different comfort zones for traffic.

kwackers wrote:I think a lot depends on the road.

Absolutely. A road I used to regularly commute on involved me using the centre of the lane to prevent unsafe overtakes for about a 1/2 mile as the road was only about 16 feet wide (for two lanes). After a certain point the road widened by a few feet and I could then ride a couple of feet from the kerb and following cars could overtake me safely by putting their offside wheels on the centre line.

At a certain lane width it's not safe for drivers to overtake a cyclist riding a couple of feet from the kerb. Most will hold back but a few will squeeze past dangerously close. So while I don't like holding up following traffic if I can avoid it I will if I have to.

Sometimes I'll ride to the nearside but make a point of looking back for a gap and moving almost to the centre line to prevent overtakes when I'm approaching a blind bend.

Some roads of awkward widths and fast traffic are best avoided if at all possible. While I think cyclists should use the roads I'll use a pavement if I think the road is dangerous. I rarely do this in my local area where I know all the suitable routes but find myself on the occasional pavement while on tour. Places like the A74 south of Gretna. If there had been a pavement there I'd have been on it in an instant.

It's been discussed in another recent thread but the A82 between Tyndrum and Glencoe carries quite a high volume of traffic (for the highlands) and has many long straights where traffic speeds can exceed 70mph if not slowed down by HGVs. The road is also relatively narrow as it was built in the 1950s or earlier.

A better option might be to get to Ballachuillish via the A828 north of Oban. It's some time since I used that road but I think it would be more cycle friendly and have nice coastal scenery. No doubt someone else here can give a second opinion.

Other alu parts breaking? Yep they do. I had an alu frame fail after only a couple of thousand miles commuting. A frame cracking though is less likely IMO to lead to a crash than a stem or bar snapping. My frame failure was a crack on the seat tube near the weld with the top tube. After I noticed it the bike was still usable with care.

Being a bit of a fattie at 17 stone or so I'm conscious of being at the upper end of the range of weights that standard bikes are designed for. I recently got a new frame which I got built up with a mixture of old and new parts. I ditched the old bars from my last bike. For £20 or £30 I'll look on it as an acceptable price for peace of mind.

"If anyone can point to a post or a source or a summary that'd be helpful"

I would suggest reading through cyclehelmets.org. It is IMO a fairly good presentation of the arguments and has links to many studies. I've not seen any studies anywhere however that attempt to put a percentage figure on what protection a helmet gives in a fall where the head strikes the road.

Of interest at cyclehelmets.org is a paper which has opinions of Brian Walker, one of the leading experts on the mechanics of helmets, and whose company Head Protection Evaluations is the principal UK test laboratory for helmets and head protection systems of all kinds

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1081.html

Things like "1. The manufacturers of all forms of safety helmet have to sell their goods in a brutally competitive global market. With very few exceptions, safety helmets are made down to the lowest standard permitted within a given 'local' market.
2. Due in the main to the introduction of the weak harmonised EN1078 European standard, present day cycle helmets generally offer a lower level of protection than those sold in the early 1990s. "

"In a recent Court case, a respected materials specialist argued that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in full agreement). The court found in favour of his argument. "

"My purpose is not to dissuade people who wish to, from wearing cycle helmets. They do, I promise, work a little better against a flat surface, than the Court decided in the case I cited above. ................... Rather my purpose is to illustrate that the whole cycle helmet issue contains many hidden issues of which most researchers are quite unaware"


From this I would draw the conclusion that helmets provide some protection but that even in an ideal scenario where an accident is at low speed without any other vehicles involved they will not necessarily prevent a head injury.
And to repeat what has already been said, other than technical off road riding or racing, the chance of being involved in a serious cycle accident is rare.

To put the risk in perspective, in Scotland there were 114 murders in 2007-2008. The average number of cyclists killed in Scotland annually is around 11. I don't worry about either risk.

The reason I am discussing this is because the stated position of the UK government is that enforcement of a helmet law would prove difficult at present wearing rates. This suggests that if wearing rates increase we could see a helmet law in the UK. In one sense therefore wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion. I wouldn't ask anyone not to wear one, it's a personal choice, but the limitations of helmets should be understood.

"Roads minister David Jamieson recently told ministers of parliament that enforcement via a mandatory helmet ruling would be too tough: "Our position on compulsion has been that at current wearing rates, it would cause enforcement difficulties and could have an effect on cycling levels," Jamieson said. "But the Government will keep their policies in this as in all areas under review in the light of discussion in Parliament and elsewhere."

http://www.bike-zone.com/news.php?id=ne ... /apr19news

It seems to me that the speed at which helmet makers claim helmets are effective up to - 12mph - falls well within the envelope where evolution will have ensured that the skull itself provides sufficient protection, along with the instinct to protect the head during a fall. We all instinctively put our hands out when we fall etc.

Obviously there are times when the dice fall the wrong way and a low speed fall where the head strikes a solid object in the wrong way causes serious injury but in general we don't expect to kill ourselves when we fall at typical speeds we've been running and falling at for millions of years. For arguments sake up to 20mph. For a slow commuter and touring cyclist like me up to 20 mph covers the vast majority of my mileage.

What evolution has not equipped us for is collisions with metal boxes weighing a ton or more travelling at typical speeds of 40 - 70 mph except in urban areas where the volume of traffic is large enough to slow them down. I've no statistics for it but my impression of the cycling fatalities I read about is that they usually involve either the slow speed urban left hook by a bus or HGV or a high speed impact. A helmet is unlikely to help in either of these situations.

A helmet may help in a certain number of cycle only accidents but these are rare enough that I don't see why I should be compelled to wear a helmet. In 25 years of on and off cycle commuting I've have never had an accident. A couple of years ago a middle aged friend was killed after he fell down a flight of stairs. A helmet might have saved his life. I don't advocate helmets be worn going down stairs.

The risk of an accident whether cycling or walking downstairs is low enough that a helmet is not necessary.

Crazyguyonabike has categories for journals. No LEJOG though it has a UK End to End category,

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/cate ... pe=journal

As we don't know the full fact about the OPs accident I think any comment about the justification for litigation is unwise.

Sometimes local councils can be grossly negligent. My own council for example were once warned - in writing - by my father about 2 dangerous mature beech trees. Youths had lit fires against them burning much of the base away. The trees, though on private land, overhung a public footpath leading to a school.
The councils tree officer (or whatever his title is) examined them, agreed they were dangerous and notified the Roads Dept who can either require the landowner to deal with a danger or do it themselves and bill the landowner.

Nothing was done. For a year or so. Then, as predicted, there was a high wind and one of the trees came down on top of a group of school children. Hospital treatment was required but luckily nobody was killed. A stone wall beside the path took much of the impact. Just an accident then?

Likewise I agree we can not expect perfect roads in winter but I can see circumstances where a council might do much less then is reasonable. Does this apply to the OP. I don't know.

Worth a read is

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page ... =95209&v=z

At the risk of being pedantic S34 RTA does not make it an offence to drive on a footway. If it did it would say "footway". In Scotland it is sec 129 of the Roads Scotland Act 1984 which forbids driving on a footway.

This act does not appear to be online but there are references to this section ie

"Driving on the footway contrary to section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 or section 129 (5) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"

as per http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 9w0052.htm

360fix wrote:It is against the law to ride on footpaths or pavements by the roadside. Magistrates can fine £1000.
A £200 fine is set for furious cycling.

The Licensing Act 1872 makes it an offence to be drunk in charge of a bicycle (or any other vehicle or carriage) on a highway or in a public place.

Magistrates can hand down a 1 month prison sentence and a £200 fine.


It is an offence to ride a bicycle whilst unfit through drink or drugs.

Magistrates can set a maximum fine of £1000.

http://www.criminal-solicitors.com/bicycles.htm

I would suggest a better link for traffic law for bikes is
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/uk ... -pb7-l1g30
Sections 28-30 cover reckless, careless and drunk cycling.

I would also say that in Scotland while it is illegal to cycle on footways (a pavement alongside a road)(except if designated as a cyclepath) I would argue that the provisions of the Land Reform Scotland Act mean that it is legal to cycle on footpaths (pavements/paths not alongside a road).
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scot ... 30002_en_1
as stated by the Scottish Outdoor Access Code
http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/d ... ontentID=0
"Cycling Access rights extend to cycling. Cycling on hard surfaces, such as wide paths and tracks, causes few problems. On narrow routes, cycling may cause problems for other people, such as walkers and horse riders. If this occurs, dismount and walk until the path becomes suitable again. Do not endanger walkers and horse riders: give other users advance warning of your presence and give way to them on a narrow path. Take care not to alarm farm animals, horses and wildlife. If you are cycling off-path, particularly in winter, avoid:
# going onto wet, boggy or soft ground; and
# churning up the surface"

EdinburghFixed wrote:Ok, (almost) my last question to the board

Would I really be chancing my arm if I plan to find accommodation en-route, given that I am starting on Easter Saturday?
!

I'm usually in the don't book, stay flexible camp but for Easter week,end that's asking for problems. I'd suggest booking the Saturday and Sunday nights. This can also stop you overdoing it the first two days.

After that have a list of contact tel numbers for hostels, B&Bs etc along your route and sort it out as you go. When I did my E2E (in late April/early May) I sometimes just turned up at hostels, if I would be there be early evening. This meant if the hostel was full (never happened) I could have found somewhere else before dark.
Once or twice when I was aiming to reach a hostel fairly late I phoned a couple of hours ahead just to confirm they had beds.

eileithyia wrote:Rather like the time I reported a driver using a mobile, the policeman just behind the incident did not "witness" it himself and they have to witness it to be able say categorically "yes it happened".
I doubt your rlj will be prosecuted.

Mobile phone prosecutions are not as straightforward as might be thought.

www.express.co.uk/posts/view/42511/Lega ... le-driving