Cycling UK Forum

meic wrote:I think that we should embrace the new name wholeheartedly.

Hugbearfreak sounds so cuddly.

Was it Starsky & Hutch that had Huggy Bear in? Or is my memory playing tricks again?

Nigel

6 of one and half a dozen of the other comes to mind. She doesn't need to be able to cycle or drive to complain about cyclists jumping red lights.

I do think the attitude of some on here contributed to her over reacting on the language!

Nigel

Take a stick with you and shove it through the front spokes of their bikes. They wont do it again in a hurry!

Seriously though, all you can do is look as well as you can and only cross when everyone has stopped, let the idiots who are giving cycling a bad name go and have an accident with someone else.

(I know, easier said that done sometimes)

Nigel

Wonderful, love it!

Nigel

Try doing a google search. There are loads of entries for people that have done sponsored rides, perhaps they will give pointers of where they sourced the bike from. Perhaps, for a donation, they may be able to satisfy your desires (oo er missus!).

Nigel

As I understand it, a Bikeability course must be run by a National Standards Instructor under the banner of a Bikeability registered organisation. Hence I can do Bikeability training for Wiltshire Council, but only National Standards work for contracts I arrange myself.

Nigel

OK, once I get may fat a**e back in teh saddle I'll check out the club. I will want to get back into trying TT, I was quite chuffed when I broke the 30 minute barrier for a 10 mile tt. OK, OK, nowhere near some of the others, but I was pleased with it - doubt if I would come anywhere near it now!

Nigel

I used to belong to Swindon Road Club, but hardly cycle at all now apart from some Bikeability training.

Hopefully I will get more opportunity to commute by cycle again soon so will look to rejoin a club.

Why would Chippenham Wheelers be better? Are you more of a social club or do you also have time trialling each week too?

Nigel

Paul Power wrote:What you suggest in b, I find highly offensive...

Paul

Not sure how, but you may be interested to see that one person has actually voted for option b

I think you were right to ignore him Hector. WOuld have been interesting to have found out what he actually said though

Nigel

Tonyf33 wrote:I was annoyed with myself because i'm usually at the 30mph or maybe 1 or 2 over but also annoyed with the lack of clear signage. We had driven along a dual carriagway that was clearly marked at 40mph, crossed over a railway crossing and carried on, the road loses it's dividing section but is still 2 lanes either side. Now if this stretch is 30mph then should not a change in speed limit be marked as such especially on the same road?

Yes there should have been a change of speed limit sign. The only time a change from dual carriageway to single carriageway would signify a chnage of speed limit is when it is subject to the National Speed Limit.

Nigel

EdinburghFixed wrote:

adinigel wrote:I would have considered you were both innocent parties right up until the 'squirt of the brakes bit'.

Driving close behind someone and sounding your horn in impatience is innocent? I'm glad I don't have to ride near you

Where did I suggest the tailgater was an innocent party?

EdinburghFixed wrote:

adinigel wrote:

EdinburghFixed wrote:Protecting 'true' innocents is small consolation if we go under someone's wheels because they didn't give us enough room...

and reducing the space even further by 'giving a squirt on the brakes' makes you safer in what way? I would have thought that would make you less safe!

So if we sped up, could we increase the space and be safer? I think they will likely hold position either way.

I would agree with you...

EdinburghFixed wrote:My experience (in the car and on the bike) is that you can often make people drop back by slowing down, as they realise they aren't going to be able to bully past. If not, at least the speed of the confrontation has been reduced - wouldn't you rather be going at 10mph with someone six feet off your wheel, than at 25mph?

I would rather they passed me and involve someone else. In the car, the general advice is to increase the distance between yourself and the car in front to 4 seconds so that you don't have to brake hard thus minimising the likelihood of teh vehicle behind going into the back of you. Perhaps I interpreted your use of the words 'quick squirt' wrongly. I interpreted 'quick squirt' as more of a stab on the brakes.

EdinburghFixed wrote:
So in a sense, I'm saying I'd rather be hit on my own terms. Which does sound bizarre!

It does indeed. I'd rather not be hit at all.

EdinburghFixed wrote:My initial dilemma was more about motivation than deed though. I wanted him to back off but I didn't brake with saintly motives, part of it was anger at being placed in a vulnerable position and I wanted to strike back. So much of what is being said does apply.

It isn't easy, before I became involved in driver training I tried kicking a camper van that cut me up. Had slanging matches when drivers tried telling me a should be in a cycle lane on teh left when I wanted to go straight on. I still slip up occasionally (if I'm not in a liveried car), so I'm far from perfect myself. On these forums it is easier to think something through before posting (not that I always do!) so I can try and post without so much emotion....well on occasion anyway!

Nigel

EdinburghFixed wrote:....So are my girlfriend and I not innocent, just because we happen to be the targets?

Your suggestion, not mine. I would have considered you were both innocent parties right up until the 'squirt of the brakes bit'.

EdinburghFixed wrote:Protecting 'true' innocents is small consolation if we go under someone's wheels because they didn't give us enough room...

and reducing the space even further by 'giving a squirt on the brakes' makes you safer in what way? I would have thought that would make you less safe!

EdinburghFixed wrote:Horrible though it sounds, given the choice between being run down and someone else being run down, I know what I'd prefer!

Absolutely, but braking unnecessarily when someone is too close in teh first place is only going to put you in a less safe situation!

Nigel

EdinburghFixed wrote:....I gave a squirt of the brakes, as I would if someone was tailgating, and offered a sort of generalised wave of displeasure (not a rude sign!).....

Please don't do this, particularly to tailgaters. You could cause them to swerve and hit an innocent road user.

I try to be more tolerant than I ever used to be now that I am a Driving & Cycling Instructor. That said, it isn't easy and I do still slip up.

Nigel

EdinburghFixed wrote:Whenever I hear a story like this, I can't help but think, would you do the same in your car?....

I've often told someone they have a light out on their car. Usual response is appreciative.

Told one lorry driver he was ditching diesel all over the road. His response was a very off hand, couldn't care less 'oh I must have forgotten to put the caps back on'. I reported him!

Nigel

2Tubs wrote:And something to do with the leader of the Council being banned for 3 months after being caught by speed cameras.....

Is that one true? I have somehow missed that bit in the discussions that have been bandied about locally. OK, no need to answer this one, I found an article on the Independent's web site that mentioned it.

As many others are suggesting, I believe the decision to be largely political. If they can redirect the money they had to pay towards the speed cameras and make similar savings in road casualties then great, they may have come up with something quite revolutionary. If, however, casualties increase they are going to look extremely bad!

Will watch with interest how this all unfolds.

meic wrote:I think that young drivers are already subject to a similar set up.
They only get 6 points before a ban.

Not a ban as such. If any person (regardless of age) accumulates 6 points within 2 years of passing the practical test, their licence is withdrawn and they have to reapply for a provisional and retake both the theory & practical tests.

Tonyf33 wrote:I fully agree with removal of fixed speed cameras, totally indiscriminate, doesn't take into account road conditions, amount of traffic etc. In the wrong circumstances 20mph on a 30mph road is far more dangerous than 35-40 in others.
My last encounter was last Christmas day. Driving along a dual carriageway at 9:30am. Not another car, no pedestrians on the pavement, nothing.
2 other Dual Carriageways in the city are 40mph or so I thought I remembered(i was visiting my family'back home' & never drove a car before I left)
Anyway there was no speed limit signs & I got flashed doing 36. There wouldn't have even been a copper on that section at that time/date. I felt very aggrieved & let it be known at the speed seminar & letter to the local constabulary.

If there had been no speed limit signs at all you couldn't have been prosecuted, but there would have been speed signs somewhere. Since you attended one of the Speed awareness workshops you are probably aware how to work out the speed limit for when you aren't being very attentive to the signage the council install.

For those that are unsure....

Street Lights are the key!

If there are regularly spaced street lights (there are actual measurements laid down in the law, but regularly spaced will suffice for this) then, unless there are repeater signs, the speed limit is 30mph. Repeater signs have to be installed if it isn't 30mph.

If there are no street lights, then the default speed limit is National Speed Limit (60mph - single carriageway or 70mph for dual carriageways). Again, if it isn't nsl then there have to be repeater signs.

Note, that different classes of vehicle may be subject to lower limits!

How many of us have hired transit vans and assumed the speed limits were the same as cars? They're not!

Nigel