johno1066 wrote:
Incidentally, what do you think about ingear's idea to have a cycling section on the site? Personally I think it would be useful, as long as Paul agrees that is.
It's a good idea IG and Johno, but I think Paul may have a point...
I just thought it might be an idea to make cycling issues easier to find - especially if we touch on something of specific cycling interest - especially where something is very specific to two wheely transport - such as best road position at approach to pinch point, dealing with long vehilce or bendy bus and so on. Also as Mad Doc's pointed out - an awful lot of people buy a bike with 24 gears and have no idea as to how to use them or get the best performance out of the bicycle. It's like ABS and the safety gadgets - people do not know how to use effectively and are embarrassed to ask in case someone laughs at them.
I certainly think we should integrate but the cycling/bike forum would be somewhere to discuss cycling specifics - safety issues which are specific to all bikes, techniques and fitness as they also impact on road safety for all, saddles and equipment - if you get the wrong saddle and are uncomfortable this compromises safety as well as enjoyment. Then there's the minefield of lights - some budget lights are just not worth the packaging and some are just as good as Lupines. I never see this discussed on C+ or on a lurk on acf either.
Helmets? I know there is a general reluctance to wear on this issue. But when you have seen as many head injuries I have and seen that the injury appears less scary when helmet was worn - I tend to lean on the side of "wear one" on that basis.
Also - those wearing helmets seem to survive and those without - let's just say less return to full health on aggregate - but as with all incidents - fate, circumstances, point of the impact, and yes - admit - the speed at which impact occurred will all have their say in an outcome - but speed may be on part of cyclists just as much as driver in some cases and two wrongs do not make rights!
SafeSpeed wrote:
I'd rather the whole site was for all road users. I don't much like segregation. But I recognise that cyclists tend to be under-represented, and if creating a cycling section would improve that then I'd be happy to accept a segregated forum. But I suspect it wouldn't work...
Other views welcome...
We could see how it went. My point was simply to place all cycling topics in one little section so that the cyclists and drivers who cycle, could find something of interest which they could comment very knowledgeably and informatively upon, feel "involved", and then perhaps explore a little further and realise this site is not made up of "rebels" who want to drive as they please but a sanctuary of common sense and genuine concerns to improve safety for all.
Peyote wrote:
I'm always very sceptical of segregation (hence my dislike of cycle lanes) we (cyclists) are, after all, just another form of traffic.
My gripe with these is the
poor planning. For all the acrimony with a certain camera personality, I get the impression that he also disapproves of the crass consideration given to cyclists in this provision. He supplied Mad Doc with a contact name to complain about the "cycle lanes from hell"
Co Durham has some questionable lanes and part of this, Peyote, is due to some target. I would urge all to do an FOI on dodgy cyle lanes to get to the bottom of why planning was granted.
Myself? I use the ones I know to be safe.
I use them abroad and can recommend the foot of Italy for some excellent rides.
But yes - cyclists are part of the traffic - and a "hazard" to consider under COAST
for drivers and cyclists themsleves have to apply the same COAST principles to be aware of motorists.
Peyote wrote:
The whole speed camera debate does impact on us to a certain extent, but not in the same way as it does motorists, i.e. directly. I mean it can affect the Motorists livelihoods with the racking up of points on licences, financial problems with fines, in some cases it seems the bad placing of cameras can cause accidents and fatalities etc... Whereas the impact on cyclists is more indirect, the placing of cameras on urban lower speed roads (30/40mph limits) can and, in my experience, does make cycling safer. Though I recognise this is just a personal opinion.
Ah... but does it. JJ Steve once passed comment on "manipulators" to justify his double whammy. To be fair to him, I see his point to some extent and to me it only highlights where automation fails and a pull by BiB impacts and message is taken by offender.
We all know drivers slow for camera and speed up afterwards - thus rendering said camera ineffective. JJ Steve came up with the idea of a second van to cop the "manipulator" as he sees them. He got a little upset when realists like Mad Doc and self on here and I think Wildy (PH ) in reply to his "destroyer alias" and one other PH Swiss - maybe Mike or Andreas - pointed out that an astute driver would slow and remain alert until passing the second van and then drive to 85th percentile
which may not be per lollipop!
On the other hand - in our patch we find that because we lark around a bit - driver do not know where we may appear and this induces a closer compliance to the lollipop. By "closer compliance" - I guess I mean most drive at 10% +2/3
Peyote, I joined the force as uni graduate and made it my career. I would say that there was more compliance when people knew we could be larking around anywhere and trustedo our professional judgement - whereas today they know location of speed traps om local roads and slow for cameras - causing tailbacks, panic brakes and minot shunts up the backside.
peyote wrote:
But this is just concerning the speed camera angle. As far as the whole road safety objective is concerned the cyclist and motorists viewpoints are more similar, the road positioning, the treatment of other road users, intepretation of the Highway Code, deployment of Traffic Police and the ilk, can often be identical when seen through the eyes of either road user.
So in short, I don't know if a separate forum is a good idea or not! I guess it could be a case of "try it and see"?
I think there is a case for trying it and seeing who bites. Certainly I'm looking at "easy reference" on some specific issues and hoping to build a bridge as well.
Automation is not a solution and should be supported by VAS where deployed. As for instructing and improving standards - traffic poice should offer professional judgement and benefit of theisr enhanced training and skills. I am sure this is why we have maintained a high standard of contol here.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
prefers a :yike: motorbike - but can get her riding with her purring "so long as there are no biggest hills Liebchen!" 
Mad Doc is fully conversant with Shap 
and the Swiss felines naturally know Appenzell and the Lechtaler Alps like the back of their hands.
