Safe Speed Forums

Appear to want the word MUST in relation to helmets, high viz etc - and using cycle paths if provided...

I will risk being fined if ever riding in Ambleside then as I think £30 is a small price to pay for staying alive...

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/content.asp?id=13014

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303


Comments guys? Personally have no beef over the helmet/lights/clothing issues as do this anyway.

I do use cycle paths if I judge them safe - and as said - some I would not even consider - and if we are going down an obligation traack on this one - then I expect the debris to be cleared and the council fined for every dodgy paint job they do to meet a target

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

is this RTA ? or highway code ?

whats the legal standing of the black text in highway code?

From the links given they look like "should" rather than "MUST".

The issue is one of contributory negligence in the case of an accident.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

so i guess we have to start carrying cameras in case of incident to prove the state of the cycle path, or logging the state of cycle paths along regular routes to justify not using them.

Nothing wrong with carrying a camera... we use 'em all the time

But it's common sense - you have photo of pot hole - backs your claim for compo!

I have a cam in kit anyway.

As for wearing helmets and wearing nice colourful gear instead of drab boring black or grey.. - I really see no real problem or ground for complaint.


And have no problem using a decent cycle path either - and have no hesitation in reporting debris and negligence either.

On the other hand - there are those paths .... ...the "target pee-cee ones.." - built by "road engineers" - without consultation with user who knows what he's on about

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

It should not be enough to say "use cycle path if provided".

There should also be a no-cycling sign on the adjoining road.

Because there is a route that takes me from A to B should not mean by law that I have to use that route - I can use a different route if I choose unless there are signs indicating otherwise.

So in my opinion, such a sign should be required by law.

If they start obligating then they are effectively signalling the end of cycling as a sensible method of transport.

Er - why?

I am obligated to follow stringent rules in my car. and in my chosen career - we abide by "codes of practice" which are more or less "obligatory"




If I visit my wife's country - I have to wear high viz and use the lanes provided. Mind youwith the jobsworthy oik over the nonsense here

Why on earth would a legal requirement to wear appropriate clothing and use a decent lane if (and only if provided ) be a sign of the end being nigh ... Only thing likely to be doomed - doomed Cycliust B is a bank balance through fines for some

Sure - I would risk getting done for not using the lane - but I would challenge in court because the only reason I would not use would be if the lane meant a greater danger. If, on the other hand the lane is a better and safer option - then of course I use it

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

'decent' is the problem there. The code only says use the lane if provided, it doesn't say use the lane if it's decent. Even worse is that I've yet to see a decent cycling facility so if obliged to use what's provided what are people supposed to do? Many will just give up riding as it will be entirely pointless if you have to spend half your day walking across roads to get to the next cycling 'facility' and then dodging pedestrians while on the so-called cycling facility.

Do your rules put you onto roads that disappear? That make you drive on the wrong side, without getting you there? Roads on which you have to give way at every junction? Roads that are cleaned twice a year? Roads that get showered with sharp tyre shredders? Roads that pedestrians do not realise are roads? Roads that are actually dog loos?

It's all a bit Animal Farm.

Ah.. but the lanes in Switzerland,. Germany and Holland etc are often shared with pedestrians. Must be part of their psyche - each appear to respect the other...

But it says "if provided" - thus if none is there... [i] we use the road in secondary and primary as condition dictates at the time...

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

There are few funny roads up here ... There was one very interesting road I used once on the way to Appenzell when I first met Wildy ... - well - started as tarmac and ... it went to a rocky steep sheer drop .. I don;t like heights that much...




Judging from drivers seen lately - most of them are driving on the wrong side ..

But I agree - we need a good networking like they have in Holland, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, France and parts of Italy. The Swiss ones. in particular, are just superb - they have 12 established routes and in theory you can ride all over the country - and get in a few good passes and scenic landscapes...

We do need something like ... Cumbria has some possibles - but jobs:censored: in't council offices just won't listen to reason. He even thinks his handiwork in Ambleside is perefectly safe despite complaints from the locals, the local riding clubs, and even our pratter pals agree ... "stupidity at its finest example of crassness"

Manchester has some good ones - around the Castlelfield area and around the canals - and the Velodrome - but they merge into the main road eventually. (Cannot vouch for the student trek from the usual digs in Didsbury and Chorlton-cum-Hardy to Oxford Road though ... was a bit dicey when I used to do it though. It also has some "Wheely Bad Ones" as I reported in the past from their local paper... ones that go.... nowhere and you are dodging pillars as well





All the junctions I meet in my car have "Halt Lines" and one or two a "solid" and a big red sign sayng S T O P !!!!!! All this is explained in Highway Code 146-166

By the way - these apply to cyclists as well

And you are supposed to stop and look and be extra vigilant at unmarked crossroads too. (rule 124)



Then complain to the council and use a digital or chuck away camera to prove there is a problem there. Have heard Machester and Salford have a fornightly sweeper doing the rounds on teh main roads - my sister lives down there and tells me the sweeper is on her road every other Wednesday in the summer and every month in the winter... and they get the occasional grit thrown in as well. There is another case which would contradict this laudable claim though - and this merits a topic of its own in "Chat"



Er - pedestrians seem to think main roads are pavements too. ...amazing how once some leave they wheels - they become this odd confused creature ....

I blame that advert... Bounce back to life .. indeed if hit at "right legal" speed...

But that's another rant - currently in full swing elsewhere




Ah... where are those litter wardens when you need 'em - you are supposed to clear the dog's doo-dahs...Mind you France is worse ... too many poo- dles!

But you wanna try here We have sheep droppings, horsey and cow pats.... Not nice if it rains...



Whole country is mate... A good many in politics remind me of "Napoleon Pig"

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

really? Every junction? Maybe if you're in the US or Canada but round these parts there aren't any 4 way stop signs.


so for 1 day every 2 weeks the roads are free from crap. How reassuring.

Well - all the junctions I seem to come across - apart from the seriously rural - have the broken "Give Way" and sometimes either a triangle or a paint job as well. Some have the solid white and the big red octagon....too.


The cycle ones have the same marks as well at these "Give Way" bits and where they cross other roads - usually find the main road meets these junctions too - the only difference being that the cyclist should stop and use Green Cross like the pedestrian - but a car driver must give way if they have already started their crossing.



Ah- but they are draconian about fining 12 year olds who rip up their homework and detention letters on the way home from school - per a story in the "MEN" last year....

Have to say last time I visited the town - admit - it looked a lot cleaner.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Brockhole National Park Visitor Centre has a Give way and dismount sign.

Not many cyclists take a blind bit of notice - or need to - the junction is wide, clear and any potential car crossing the path is easily seen before it reaches the kerb.

We dont seem to get many cyclists in Cumbria travelling at more than 20 mph.
Maybe they are more interested in the scenery, than getting head down and making quicker progress?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

are you deliberately being daft or are we not explaining ourselves properly?
Let's say you're travelling down, for the sake of argument, the A123. You are approaching the junction with the B456. The give way or stop signs are ONLY ON THE B456. THEY ARE NOT ON THE A123 as well. However when they stick a separated bike lane by the side of the A123 then, UNLIKE the main carriageway, the bike lane WILL have a give way/stop sign AT the junction with the B456.
Is that clear now?

Yeah - but the separated lane is not a part of the A road and is loosely not a road - at best a C road.

It then meets the B road - but the B road is a ROAD and the separate lane is passing through it. The lane is not a part of the A whatever either. I would think that if the lane was a green paint job on the carriageway itself - it is part of the A road - and thus you would be pedalling along as normal - (as we do! ) but if separated by a verge or kerbing - it ceases to be classified and thus is a "lower status" than the B road and would have to give way to traffic already manoevering their way. It the traffic is not there and you are when they turn - you and the pedestrain take the precedence.

No - not being deliberately daft - just pointing out the way it appears to be...

Besides as Ern says - you are never really in an 'urry up here. It's too beautiful to be in an 'urry! You are just gob smacked by every Tarn, view, Lake....and today in the snow - cold - but very very pretty.

Yeah - John - I live in a rural area - and we are leisurely souls around here really - and I rarely ride in Carlisle or Penrith or Keswick centre or Kendal if down there (tis a bit far to ride and Wildy uses the car as there's a farm shop there where she buys a few sheep and cows for the dinner table...

Used to ride in Manchester when studying down there though..but that was before bike lanes ...

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

are we there yet ?

so yes in the situation jonsher describes any cyclist wanting to make progress, especially when traffic is heavy.... will be on the road where they dont have to give way at regular intervals.

the proposed legislation implies it is wrong to choose this option.... which clearly shouldn't be the case.

Per CW - it seems the cyclists have upset the government over this ...

In their thousands they e-mailed in protest over "Use cycle paths where provided and cycle route where praticable".

The issue for the CTC is that this will impact on cyclists seeking damages from motorists in the event of a collsion - as the driver will turn round a s=and say

"But they were not using the path provided"

Well - that happens to be so at present. Insurance companies will always seek to minimise costs and will go for a partial liablity if they can and when they can regardless. If it goes to court - Highway Code is looked to and the current format (rule 47) already provides. Insurance companies still pounce on this with some glee

Sure the problem is debris, parked cars and plain daft ones. The get out clause is "where pracitcable" - and I would simply make good use of the disposable camera. Even if you are not well enough to take a photo after an"off" - your later shots after the event would still show some evidence to back... especially if you take photos of the parked cars on different days and show this to be "normal". The difference in this kind of evidence to mosis is that you are not using to try to incriminate another person - but staiing a normal circumstance.

The trick is to give enough backing but not too much.

Apparently a person who claims to work for a Labour MP told the CTC that the e-mail werre "clogging the system and a waste of time."

But let's get things straight here - the new Highway Code is not stating anything much different than the current one.

To protest that and state that cyclists want all wording which lead to counter allegations of "contributory negligence" removed would result in the withdrawal of rules 45-66 as they now stand.

Get REAL - this will not happen. Those rules are for your safety, my safety and everyone else's safety and I will campaign that they STAY!

Blimey - Paul does not campaign for the abolition of rule 103

But by campaigning for this - is not the CTC campaigning for zero rules for cyclists? As police officer - I do not need dangerous cyclists creating mayhem - and claiming no respsonsiblity - on top of those other "criminals in cars"

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

On the letters page - reader writes about his concerns over the changes to "two abreast"

Per Rule 51 - (equivalent of Drivers Rule 121 -124 - the "courtesy ones" as it stands - cyclists are told to show consideration for other road users - keep both feet on pedals, both hands on the bar (gear change/singal apart ), not to ride too close to another vehicle, not carry anything which will affect balance, or get tangled in wheels. pedals, chain , and to be vigilant of other road users

It also advises not to ride more than two abreast and to ride in single file on narrow and on busy roads

This is the rule as it stands at the moment.

The proopsed change? FIVE words!

[quote]

ride in single file on narrow roads and on busy roads and when riding around bends

The person writing into CW clearly thinks that this undermines his freedom on the roads and urges "protest"..

Er WHY

Makes sense to me on the basis that cyclists have come croppers on tight rural twisties in particular - so why create more hazards on the road? Some of these bends may require a primary for a good view anyway - some may even serve you better if closer to the left.

Perhaps a better and more in depth read on Cycle Craft - page 138 may enlighten as to why the DSA wishes to change the wording here.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.