# Speed cushions causing problems, watch out around them.



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

We have a rash of these where I live, and are now becoming a real hazard.
The road is breaking up around many of them, and in a few instances where the vehicles have straddled them, there are now large deep potholes in the tyre tracks...usually just before one where they have jumped on the brakes.
the big ones have only popped up in the last few weeks, but will have anyone on 2 wheels off in the blink of an eye. They aren't that easy to spot in the dark either...


----------



## albion (10 Jan 2014)

Exact same up north. Swinging round them you have to look very careful. 
The holes are all in the logical path most cyclists would take.


----------



## Doc333 (10 Jan 2014)

In cases like this I think it would be wise for this site to use its clout. By this I mean that the site owner/administrator should appeal to any of its membership who are lawyers or specialists and ask them to compose a template letter that any member could use. We could then add/amend the template by filling in the details about the potential hazard etc, and any photographic evidence and put in the post by registered delivery.

Just a thought?


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

I will try and get some pics of the ones around my area later.


----------



## DCLane (10 Jan 2014)

Doc333 said:


> In cases like this I think it would be wise for this site to use its clout. By this I mean that the site owner/administrator should appeal to any of its membership who are lawyers or specialists and ask them to compose a template letter that any member could use. We could then add/amend the template by filling in the details about the potential hazard etc, and any photographic evidence and put in the post by registered delivery.
> 
> Just a thought?


 
http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/ - it already exists and communicates directly to councils.


----------



## Doc333 (10 Jan 2014)

DCLane said:


> http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/ - it already exists and communicates directly to councils.


 
Nice one DC, good old Yorkshiremen


----------



## cd365 (10 Jan 2014)

I always think that fillthathole.org.UK sounds like a porn website!


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Jan 2014)

... just think if the morons had actually driven at a sensible speed in the first place, there wouldn't have been any humps and there wouldn't be a problem


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> ... just think if the morons had actually driven at a sensible speed in the first place, there wouldn't have been any humps and there wouldn't be a problem



They were put there for a school which stopped being a school about 4 years ago, and was knocked down shortly afterwards. Now the school has gone, these cushions damage vehicles at speeds well below the posted limit, have been a danger to motorcyclists since they went in, and are now a significant risk to cyclists in the dark. Before they went in, there was a chicane in the road, with raised a kerb...it was poorly lit, and someone hit it in the dark on a motorbike and lost their life.
So that is 1 death caused by 'traffic calming', and 0 deaths caused by the traffic itself.....They ought to come and scrape the things off the road now the school has gone!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (10 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> ... just think if the morons had actually driven at a sensible speed in the first place, there wouldn't have been any humps and there wouldn't be a problem


True, and it's true for all those pinch points that are supposed to calm traffic. And the overkill with traffic lights. When the lights go out of action, many of those junctions work very effectively and jams disappear (not all, but many). Drivers are jolted out of the curious queue-dash way of getting from A to B and, jolted out of their habitual ways, even have to look around. Heck, they even have to slow down!


----------



## oldfatfool (10 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2864757, member: 45"]Anyone who can't manage speed humps without damaging their car/the road surface is an idiot. An idiot. It results in us having to sort out the problem.
![/quote]

Really?? even when the height of the hump is greater than the clearance from the sump? Or indeed the sills?


----------



## User33236 (10 Jan 2014)

DCLane said:


> http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/ - it already exists and communicates directly to councils.



Cheers for that. Used to report the new pothole I hit hard on my way home tonight.


----------



## oldfatfool (10 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2864806, member: 45"]I wouldn't know. I've never been daft enough to buy a car which I know I'm going to use in urban areas which is too low to clear speed humps. There aren't many.[/quote]
Yes there are, I have caught the sump crawling over one in a bleeding Fabia ffs, not to mention scraping the chin spoiler on the Octy! The MX-5 was a mare as well. Speed humps do not only appear in urban areas, they are in just about every city, town, village and rural track. Not to mention my bloody local golf club


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2864757, member: 45"]Anyone who can't manage speed humps without damaging their car/the road surface is an idiot. An idiot. It results in us having to sort out the problem.

And the way to sort out the problem is very easy indeed. Your local authority will have a reporting form on their website, or there is fillthathole. Report it to them. If give the depth of the hole and state that it's a danger to life (which it will be if you're not just exaggerating and the depth is sufficient) they have a duty to inspect in a very short timescale. I've noticed road faults on the ride into work, reported them and found them repaired on the ride home.

Next![/quote]

So what happens when someone on 2 wheels comes a cropper because of the way they are designed, or that the vehicles passing over them put a huge amount of wear and tear on both them, and the roads directly around them (as well as the vehicle itself unless done at walking pace). That is the cars fault as well ?

The reason why they put speed cushions in is because these roads are used as bus routes and it is apparently less stressful for bus drivers to go over these than full width humps. The down side is that these heavy vehicles do a lot more damage to the road surface due to the high loading from the axle weights in comparison to cars.

I am noticing the damage around them as a cyclist as a significant risk, but they have been a site of increased risk for years for bikers as the sloping sides deflect the wider motorbike tyres and want to send the bike in to the kerb, or the oncoming traffic. The choice for bikers now is to risk the deflection of the sloping sides, or the potholes on either side of the cushion....Hobsons Choice!


----------



## classic33 (11 Jan 2014)

Doc333 said:


> Nice one DC, good old Yorkshiremen


Whats thee after?


----------



## DRHysted (11 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2864901, member: 45"]I've never come across a speed cushion not easily manageable on two wheels.

As I said, the only irritation is the damage caused by idiots who can't drive properly.[/quote]

I must hand over my license. My old Escort used to ground on the humps in Asda, and I wrecked the jockey wheel on the folding camper when I didn't notice an oversized hump (although even if I'd noticed it was oversized, I still had to go over it because it was on the only exit). 
We've had issues with HGVs at work grounding when a new bund was built, and the ramp was too steep. 

My point is sometimes the builders can get it wrong. Just because you have not experienced something, does not mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## Linford (11 Jan 2014)

DRHysted said:


> I must hand over my license. My old Escort used to ground on the humps in Asda, and I wrecked the jockey wheel on the folding camper when I didn't notice an oversized hump (although even if I'd noticed it was oversized, I still had to go over it because it was on the only exit).
> We've had issues with HGVs at work grounding when a new bund was built, and the ramp was too steep.
> 
> My point is sometimes the builders can get it wrong. Just because you have not experienced something, does not mean it doesn't exist.


MisterP has a favourite saying.. I see no ships !


----------



## Markymark (11 Jan 2014)

But haven't I read plenty of times here re drivers that if you can't stop within the distance you can see then you're going too fast. Does that only apply to drivers?


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> MisterP has a favourite saying.. I see no ships !



Methinks we need a new award - the "Linf"

It can be awarded for bizarre deviations to the topic

Introducing ships into a thread on land based road humps would be a good example


----------



## Linford (11 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2865384, member: 45"]That's the key. There's guidance on traffic calming and if it's not done properly then of course problems are possible. And if they have not been done properly then you have the option of taking it up with the 'owner' and getting it sorted out. Often the dodgy ones are off the public highway where guidance is less likely to be followed.

The OP is describing speed humps which have been installed correctly. You can guarantee that any damage around them is caused by drivers' incorrect actions when negotiating them. Unfortunately the challenge for many is to dart at them in an attempt to find a line which isn't going to slow them down. This can result in bouncing, scraping and uneven wear.[/quote]

Well you can see the damage to them in these pics...note the pothole is 'after' the cushion, and the surface is 'distressed' on the lead in to them.








Damage to the cushion itself on both sides..hit this edge on a bicycle or motorcycle at 20mph and it will be 'interesting' (10mph under the posted speed limit)..is there any 'good way of getting over these without either driving on the apex of the road, or not driving along it at all as they are supposed to be made to accommodate the axle width of a bus but not a car ? The buses never hit them 100% right anyway and most of the damage in these roads comes from these and other heavy vehicles.





And another one...note the damage is more pronounced 'after the cushion






And this one...the proximity of the cushion to the access cover...what muppet would put them so close to something as sensitive as this in the road
That trench to the left of it is at least 4" deep...where would a 2 wheeler naturally want to position when riding....in the trench.






Don't blame cars for the weight damage inflicted on these roads...I've seen similar in many bus only lanes...good to see that they and the damage they cause is very heavily subsidised by all the other VED payers....this is aside from the significant wear and tear which is put on vehicles without a bus axle track width .

In summary, these devices have very little redeeming features whichever mode one traverses them with.


----------



## Booyaa (11 Jan 2014)

DCLane said:


> http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/ - it already exists and communicates directly to councils.


Utterly pointless, I have raised an issue with a road over 40 times via the website and directly to the councilers/MPs and roads department. Still nothing done and the road is worse than ever. Good to hear there are some examples oft his working.


----------



## Linford (11 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Methinks we need a new award - the "Linf"
> 
> It can be awarded for bizarre deviations to the topic
> 
> Introducing ships into a thread on land based road humps would be a good example



Coming from Gosport, you better than most should know the phrase attributed (truly or falsely) to Horatio Nelson who's ship is displayed no more than a couple of miles from you


----------



## Linford (11 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2865711, member: 45"]Linf, you're coming across as a bleedin' idiot. You ask if there's a good way of negotiating the humps. Of course there is. You slow down. That's their purpose . None of those in your picture present a danger to a two-wheeler if handled competently.

Of course the fact that this kind of traffic calming focusses more load on certain parts of the carriageway will speed up wear, and then it becomes a maintainance issue. I'm staggered that you've wasted a morning traipsing around with a camera. All you've presented is appropriate but poorly maintained speed cushions. You can speak to the council but given current budgets I doubt they'll be repaired. Saying that though one of your pictures shows one sprayed up for repair.

Just slow down. They're not dangerous.[/quote]

I was out and about anyway Paul. It took a lot less time to get the pics than it took you to type this 

How long do you think that paint has been on it..2 months...3 months ?

A cyclist is required by law to have a headlight...that isn't necessarily a 'see with' light.

When you go over speed cushions in the dark on your cycle, do you always go right over the top, or do you go around them ?

The only idiot displaying on this thread is the one who is in constant denial of anything dangerous which they haven't personally flagged up themselves......


----------



## GrasB (11 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2865711, member: 45"]Just slow down. They're not dangerous.[/quote]
They reduce the amount of margin for error & correction given to a 2 wheeled vehicle if they actually need to do something in adverse conditions.
They also cause conflict between wide & narrow track vehicles. A narrow track vehicle may need to slow down to ludicrously low speed (5mph) & even then due to the dramatically reduced engine clearance may make sump splitting contact with the speed cushions. However wider track vehicles can continue over them with no speed reduction. 
Due to the ground clearance reducing effect of speed cushion they encourage drivers to drive down the centre of the road so that centre of the car goes over the void between them rather than the hump.

IMO all speed cushions should be ripped up & replaced with conventional speed bumps which provide far fewer problems.


----------



## GrasB (11 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2865384, member: 45"]The OP is describing speed humps which have been installed correctly. You can guarantee that any damage around them is caused by drivers' incorrect actions when negotiating them. Unfortunately the challenge for many is to dart at them in an attempt to find a line which isn't going to slow them down. This can result in bouncing, scraping and uneven wear.[/quote]
Road wear as shown by Linf's post is typical of not only speed cushions but also junctions in general, it is known that the area before/after junctions, traffic lights or large speed limit changes always subject to a far higher wear rate due to the increased loads causes by even light breaking or accelerating. So is the correct behaviour to carry on at the speed you were going all the time?


----------



## Alien8 (11 Jan 2014)

I think they should be ripped up and replaced with flat tarmac.


----------



## Linford (11 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2865745, member: 45"]Are you advocating cycling blind? That's a bit dangerous isn't it?[/quote]

What is the minimum level of lighting you might suggest for a bicycle ?


----------



## GrasB (11 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2865747, member: 45"]That's a fair view. It doesn't change the face though that it's entirely possible to negotiate them safely.[/quote]
I'd disagree with that. I've had the front or rear wheel of my bike step out without warning when going over the various speed cushions in cold & wet conditions, never had that with speed bumps. I've been balancing the bike against the kerb as someone has decided to drive down the centre of the road & I've had to take avoiding action & the speed cushions has cause the bike to slide sideways. To me that makes them dangerous. Like most dangerous things, you get away with it most times but it dramatically increases the risk of something really bad happening.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Jan 2014)

Still back to the basics

If the muppets drove responsibly there would be no speed humps


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2865894, member: 45"]Does it? How injured were you? What are the stats of injuries involving traffic calming? When approaching a speed cushion do you not consider that approaching traffic might take the centre of the road?[/quote]
You mean the authorities installing them instigating surveys which injured parties can use as evidence when suing these same authorities. ?. Ah yes that makes perfect sense


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2865782, member: 45"]Are you advocating cycling despite not being able to see the road ahead of you?[/quote]
That is not the answe to the very pertinent question I asked. Can you try answering again without the evasion please ?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


>




Kittens do NOT make good speed bumps..........


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> You mean the authorities installing them instigating surveys which injured parties can use as evidence when suing these same authorities. ?. Ah yes that makes perfect sense



It is what happens in real life!

Any reported accident is recorded and can be used to evidence 

Also use "Fill that Hole"

After a period of a year - point out that road is "out of repair" and could they comment before you proceed to a Section 56 process

Amazing how quickly repairs will happen


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Jan 2014)

Booyaa said:


> Utterly pointless, I have raised an issue with a road over 40 times via the website and directly to the councilers/MPs and roads department. Still nothing done and the road is worse than ever. Good to hear there are some examples oft his working.



If you find the council's taking longer than reasonable to fix a hole, drop them an email telling them you've come off your bike after hitting it and have a bruised thigh and sprained wrist, and could they please send you a claim form. The hole will be fixed very quickly after that.

GC


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2867541, member: 45"]It's not pertinent, it's a trollishly ignorant attempt to drag things down a blind alley.

You should never drive or ride any road where you can't see well enough to be able to respond appropriately to the environment. You've only got yourself to blame if you don't take steps to avoid this.[/quote]

So what you are saying is that a 'to be seen with' headlight is inadequate like these






Or low powered white ones like these are no good either ?






The lower one emits 4 candle power...this is the legal minimum for cycles. It is a 'to be seen with' lamp. Now you, I and everyone else knows that they are not going to light the road in front of you.

Are you suggesting that the law needs to be changed to exclude this type of tokenism as it is inadequate on the understanding that laws being put in place to protect people are not up to scratch, and these lights are not fit for purpose 'where you can't see well enough to be able to respond appropriately to the environment' ) ?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> So what you are saying is that a 'to be seen with' headlight is inadequate like these
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually - adequate does not come into it as the green ones are actually illegal - the legal requirement is for white. Green lights are allowable for Doctors or others attending an emergency. It does not confer the same "rights of passage" as a blue light however.

The statement I think was that you should be able to see the road environment.

That is up to the individual to establish. If the road is well lit then these "be seen" lights are adequate, if the road is not well lit then they are inadequate - simples


----------



## oldfatfool (12 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2864855, member: 45"]I've never grounded my Fabia on a speed hump.[/quote]
May have been lowered ever so slightly on FSD's but the Octy was std.


----------



## oldfatfool (12 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2865711, member: 45"]Linf, you're coming across as a bleedin' idiot. You ask if there's a good way of negotiating the humps. Of course there is. You slow down. That's their purpose . They're not dangerous.[/quote]
User demonstrating is biking skills negotiating traffic calming measures in urban uk:


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Actually - adequate does not come into it as the green ones are actually illegal - the legal requirement is for white. Green lights are allowable for Doctors or others attending an emergency. It does not confer the same "rights of passage" as a blue light however.
> 
> The statement I think was that you should be able to see the road environment.
> 
> That is up to the individual to establish. If the road is well lit then these "be seen" lights are adequate, if the road is not well lit then they are inadequate - simples



The legal minimum is 4 lumens or 4 candle power. That is realistically not enough to illuminate the road (or see the road environment) , just to warn others that you are there. I would suggest that the legal minimum is reviewed in light of the deteriorating state of the roads (excuse the pun). 
Also the new LED street lights are great for the immediate area, but inadequate for the gaps between them in comparision to the sodium ones.

What also of people using strobes on the front of their bike? ...still legal, but certainly not suitable to see by for any duration of time


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2867638, member: 45"]No, I'm saying that you're responsible for being able to see where you're going. Now grow up.[/quote]

You appear to be implying that the state of the roads is irrelevant and it is your own lookout when negotiating these poorly thought out and maintained 'hazards'
What about partially sighted pedestrians crossing the roads....should they be responsible for being able to see where they are going ? ...who's fault would it be if a visually impaired pedestrian tripped over the uneven surface...the highways dept, or the pedestrian for being partially sighted ?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> The legal minimum is 4 lumens or 4 candle power. That is realistically not enough to illuminate the road (or see the road environment) , just to warn others that you are there. I would suggest that the legal minimum is reviewed in light of the deteriorating state of the roads (excuse the pun).
> Also the new LED street lights are great for the immediate area, but inadequate for the gaps between them in comparision to the sodium ones.
> 
> What also of people using strobes on the front of their bike? ...still legal, but certainly not suitable to see by for any duration of time



Did you actually read my post before replying.?



Linford said:


> The legal minimum is 4 lumens or 4 candle power. That is realistically not enough to illuminate the road (or see the road environment) , just to warn others that you are there.



Covered in my post....


> If the road is well lit then these "be seen" lights are adequate, if the road is not well lit then they are inadequate - simples






Linford said:


> I would suggest that the legal minimum is reviewed in light of the deteriorating state of the roads (excuse the pun).
> Also the new LED street lights are great for the immediate area, but inadequate for the gaps between them in comparision to the sodium ones.



Again covered in my post:



> If the road is well lit then these "be seen" lights are adequate, if the road is not well lit then they are inadequate - simples






Linford said:


> What also of people using strobes on the front of their bike? ...still legal, but certainly not suitable to see by for any duration of time



Again see above.....


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> You appear to be implying that the state of the roads is irrelevant and it is your own lookout when negotiating these poorly thought out and maintained 'hazards'
> What about partially sighted pedestrians crossing the roads....should they be responsible for being able to see where they are going ? ...who's fault would it be if a visually impaired pedestrian tripped over the uneven surface...the highways dept, or the pedestrian for being partially sighted ?



A visually impaired person is a complete red herring when it comes to speed humps...... of course it is a convenient way of not recognising the valid point that sighted people do have a responsibility


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Did you actually read my post before replying.?
> 
> Covered in my post....
> 
> ...



Your post just evaded..how about a sensible answer ...why should it be up to an individual to define that standard ?

If the law states a light is required, then it should be fit for purpose ... 4 lumens isn't fit for purpose. 
Are you suggesting that cyclists should carry 2 different sets of lights, one for using on lit roads, and one for unlit roads ? ...how utterly ridiculous is that !


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> I do!
> 
> Cree T6 for unlit - LED Flasher for lit.



You turn your CREE light off in the dark when you get into lit area's ?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> Your post just evaded..how about a sensible answer ...why should it be up to an individual to define that standard ?



Obviously not simple enough.

If a person is sighted and able to see then they have a responsibility to use that vision to cycle safely and to ensure that with the aid of adequate lights to either see the road ahead, or to travel at a speed where they can.

For someone who is partially sighted then there are issues, but not in this context. If you are going to argue that speed hupps should be removed because they are a hazard to those with poor sight, then you will also need to remove:
Kerbs
Streetsigns
Trees
Illegally parked cars
Buildings
Houses
Shops





> If the law states a light is required, then it should be fit for purpose ... 4 lumens isn't fit for purpose.



The law is about visibility - not seeing.



> Are you suggesting that cyclists should carry 2 different sets of lights, one for using on lit roads, and one for unlit roads ? ...how utterly ridiculous is that !



Not only suggesting it but actually doing it!


.. and I am not the only one. Most experienced cyclists on a mixed commute will have lighting systems that can offer high power when required or lower power when not. It enables us to see the road ahead of us


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Obviously not simple enough.
> 
> If a person is sighted and able to see then they have a responsibility to use that vision to cycle safely and to ensure that with the aid of adequate lights to either see the road ahead, or to travel at a speed where they can.
> 
> ...



The CREE T6 offers 3 different levels of brightness, there is no need to use another light if in possession of one of these in either lit or unlit area's....only as a fail safe backup. If anything, the lower powered light should be better used in unlit areas as your eyes adjust to the lower light levels...the reality is though that our eyes function better with higher light levels, and so the lamps sold should conform to a minimum standard which is much higher than the current 4 lumens

The fact that you are using a CREE lamp yourself is testament than you don't consider the minimum standard to provide adequate performance....Next!

@Smeggers II has just agreed with me in his edit


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> I know its got different settings but LEDs last sooo much longer...
> 
> So lets address this "Things Linford is Scared of whilst Cycling (or driving)" List...
> 
> ...




Why do you have to worry about how long a T6 CREE lamp lasts for on low setting (about 6 hours) ? ....these units are rechargeable

Lorries...yup, had a punishment pass a few months ago..lorries are a primary cause of cycling deaths in London so fear is a healthy emotion around them
Speed bumps...badly maintained ones...I'm not the only one who sees them as a problem, so it isn't in my head,and you shouldn't trivialise them.
Potholes....Yes, see above with badly maintained speed cushions or am I stating the obvious
The dark, no problem with that..I've got a CREE T6 and a 160 lumen backup light if the battery fails on the CREE light 
Narrow Roads .... that particular road has been the site of a few cycling fatalities over the years...it is heavily used by lorries and impatient drivers..It spoils the commute to use it.
Being overtaken ...punishment passes because I held someone up for a few seconds....no thanks, sensible passes with good timing, no problem at all !
Not wearing a Helmet....you tell me Smeggers, you still insist on wearing yours when cycling


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

2868416 said:


> Ridicule is nothing to be scared of.



Don't sit on the fence Adrian


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

160 lumens (not 4) on an unlit lane 






The same lane but with my T6 CREE lamp with 'a few more lumens'













No problem seeing the road surface with the CREE lamp...but with the lower powered one...just as well it is still a good road as you are all but riding blind in relation to the surface quality with lower powered lamps....that is why every man and his dog on this forum is banging on about how good the CREEs are.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (12 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> View attachment 36174



Is this changing from a road hump to a cats eye thread now?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (12 Jan 2014)

These road humps are effective. Many's the time I've pootled along nice and slow and nearly been rear ended by the speeding bus tailgating me


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2868445, member: 45"]I'm not questioning your claim, but I'd be interested to see some links...[/quote]

Last death was a few years ago on Hyde Lane (at least 2 cyclist deaths in my memory) . They rarely publish inquest results, and the papers online archives generally only go back a couple of years.

http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/...olice-appeal/story-15481706-detail/story.html

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/dead-fight-life-crashes/story-16128018-detail/story.html

http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/...lance-called/story-11858598-detail/story.html

http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/cut-cars-crash/story-14332469-detail/story.html

This is the road...would you believe that some cyclists put their tyres between the grass verge and the solid white lines so the vehicles can and do pass them at the NSL ..so much for giving a cyclist a metre. The only way to ride this rod is in the primary. I do ride it if I see other cyclists on it as we get strength in numbers, but no, I take a detour on a dead quiet road...cycling to me is about enjoyment....this road gives an adrenaline rush but for all the wrong reasons.

http://goo.gl/maps/7FooJ

I've no doubt that you have driven this road many times to visit your sister when living in Brum. It is one of the busiest roads into Cheltenham during rush hour.


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2868532, member: 45"]Thanks. Yeah I've cycled it a few times.[/quote]

You appreciate why many cyclists avoid it if you have ridden it yourself. The worst direction is from Swindon village as there is a gradient up to the dairy which zaps my legs. Cruising along at 20mph, is not so bad if you can maintain it, but when you are down to 12mph, you get a lot of irate motorists up your chuff.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jan 2014)

Another answer avoiding the relevant points and making assumptions -



Linford said:


> The CREE T6 offers 3 different levels of brightness, there is no need to use another light if in possession of one of these in either lit or unlit area's....only as a fail safe backup.



What about the decision to use two lights because there is evidence to show that a flashing light aids visbility and the steady beam gives better vision and prevents a strobe effect?



> If anything, the lower powered light should be better used in unlit areas as your eyes adjust to the lower light levels...the reality is though that our eyes function better with higher light levels, and so the lamps sold should conform to a minimum standard which is much higher than the current 4 lumens



As pointed out before - really rather irrelevant as the law is about being seen. This is what has been shown to a be reasonable intensity


Which again shows your poor knowledge of lighting. The Cree and it's likes are actually not legal in their own right. TO conform, you need a light that meets the RVLR



> The fact that you are using a CREE lamp yourself is testament than you don't consider the minimum standard to provide adequate performance....Next!



You have no idea what lights I use and your posts show that ignorance clearly[/quote][/quote]


----------



## Linford (12 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Another answer avoiding the relevant points and making assumptions -
> 
> 
> *What about the decision to use two lights because there is evidence to show that a flashing light aids visbility* and the steady beam gives better vision and prevents a strobe effect?



Aids visibility for who, the cyclist or other vehicles ? because a CREE T6 on high is easily as bright to others as my HID bulbed motorbike (probably because the reflector pattern of the T6 is not shaped like that required by an MOT tested vehicle, and does dazzle oncoming traffic with impunity if set high). Make no mistake that everyone else on the road/pavement/passing planes etc knows that a T6 user is there when the beam is on high!


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jan 2014)

Lets simplify it

1. There is evidence that flashing lights increase the visibility of the vehicle upon which the lights are fixed to any oberver thatis looking at that aforementioned light
2. As above (but obviously not read by you) a flashing light can give astrobe effect, which a second fixed beam light will decrease


I note that you have avoided the two points on the legal matters and how you can claim to know what lights `I use and gone off on a tangent instead

but that was only to be expected as that would have proven the point about your lack of knowledge


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Lets simplify it
> 
> 1. There is evidence that flashing lights increase the visibility of the vehicle upon which the lights are fixed to any oberver thatis looking at that aforementioned light
> 2. As above (but obviously not read by you) a flashing light can give astrobe effect, which a second fixed beam light will decrease
> ...



This is easy enough to prove. Put a 4 lumen light on strobe 5ft away from a 1600 lumen CREE light on constant and see which draws the eye more from 100ft


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> This is easy enough to prove. Put a 4 lumen light on strobe 5ft away from a 1600 lumen CREE light on constant and see which draws the eye more from 100ft



Again an answer totaly devoid of any connection with the original post

I could burn a 4x4 on the middle lane of a motorway and it would be visible, and have as much relevance as your reply


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Again an answer totaly devoid of any connection with the original post
> 
> I could burn a 4x4 on the middle lane of a motorway and it would be visible, and have as much relevance as your reply



What relevance do 4x4's have to this debate ?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (13 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> What relevance do 4x4's have to this debate ?



Burn one in the middle of a motorway and half the drivers on the road wouldn't notice it


----------



## Dan B (13 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> What relevance do 4x4's have to this debate ?


About as much relevance as legal requirements for bike lights.

Now, about those horse riders...


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Burn one in the middle of a motorway and half the drivers on the road wouldn't notice it



Perhaps we could burn a thudguard on the hard shoulder and make a direct comparison


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

Dan B said:


> About as much relevance as legal requirements for bike lights.
> 
> Now, about those horse riders...




People will struggle to see the hazard from badly maintained speed cushions during the day let alone with the legal minimum which the law thinks cyclists should manage with...could you imagine trying to get a car through an MOT with a 4 lumen headlight !


----------



## Christopher (13 Jan 2014)

:troll:....


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2869462, member: 45"]
Who are these people you keep talking about who carry on driving/riding despite not being able to see the road in front of them? They need to be reported for driving without due care and attention
The regs are for "be seen by lights", not headlights. 
[/quote]

The people you want to prosecute for driving/riding without due care and attention appear to be the same people conforming to the 'be seen by lights'...don't you feel that the law needs to be revised for these road users so they are served properly by it ?


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2869586, member: 45"]The lighting regs aren't there to serve the rider, they're there to make it easier for others to see him. 

I'm not suggesting prosecuting anyone. I'm pointing out that you're trying to form a ridiculous argument that it's someone else's fault if a rider doesn't ride at a speed that he can see what's in front of him or doesn't look where he's going. 

"These people" are created just for your argument.[/quote]

Light regs are to do 2 things in motorised vehicles...to be seen and to see with, and this has been done to improve the safety of both the vehicle users and those around them. Why are you keen for cyclists to be treated like second class citizens using vehicles which is governed by antiquated and irrelevant laws. 

2 cyclists riding down the road, one leading with 4 lumens, one following with 1600 lumens. Car waiting to pull out from a side turning, doesn't register the following cyclist because theCREE user is so bright in comparison.

'Sorry Mate, I (honestly) didn't see you'...the cars and your mates headlight were all I could focus on....

We have seen this argument before, and now much more relevant with most new cars running with super bright LED DRL's

Cyclists need better protecting from the inadequacy of the current laws, and the march of technology making other road users more visible on the road.


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> I've bolded the clue to this conundrum for you.
> 
> Your giving a cycling a bad name Linf, stop, just stop.




You are seeing it all wrong Smeggers. Unifying standards is the way forward as it levels theplaying field....treating cyclists as if we are spethial gives us no credit at all. There is no reasona at all why the standards should not be across the board..Itwould help to reduce the SMIDSY for a start.


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2869693, member: 45"]Linf, can I assume that you don't need a law or regulation to force your actions for everything that you do? Would you blame the state if you were burgled because there's no law to make you lock your front door?[/quote]

We are discussing vehicles on the highway...public spaces where all vehicles are expected to conform to road law. I can't see the relevance in this at all to road law.


----------



## ShipHill (13 Jan 2014)

Speed cushions. Is that what those things are called...


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2869752, member: 45"]You seem to be going down the bizarre road that means that cyclists can't make it easier for themselves to see the road ahead without being told to.

The lighting regulations stipulate minimum power of lights for what is considered enough to be seen with. It's nothing to do with lighting up the road ahead. For that, you make your own choice.

Or you slow down if you can't see a speed cushion well enough to be able to negotiate it safely. And funnily enough they're designed to limit your speed.[/quote]

It wasn't the speed cushion I was primarily concerned about, it was the potholes around them which are a danger to cyclists....you have managed to argue both sides of the fence...you appear very confused with this one..


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> What relevance do 4x4's have to this debate ?



The same relevance as yur comparison of a 4 candela flashing light to a Cree T6 - absolutely none 

The clue was in the words!



Linford said:


> This is easy enough to prove. Put a 4 lumen light on strobe 5ft away from a 1600 lumen CREE light on constant and see which draws the eye more from 100ft





> Again an answer totaly devoid of any connection with the original post
> 
> I could burn a 4x4 on the middle lane of a motorway and it would be visible,_* and have as much relevance as your reply*_


----------



## thom (13 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Still back to the basics
> 
> If the muppets drove responsibly there would be no speed humps


Aye, Muppets don't need speed when it comes to chase scenes:


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2869932, member: 45"]Speed cushions are there to slow traffic. Deteriorated Road surfaces are only a danger to incompetent road users. They don't have to be.

Drivers/riders are responsible for their safe progress on the road, and this includes being adequately placed to safely negotiate everything that they come across. Whether they choose to slow down, buy better lights or whatever else to help them with this is up to them. Some of the roads around here are in very poor condition. They've never been a risk to me on however many wheels I'm on, nor to my neighbours.

I'm sorry, there's not much else I can say.[/quote]

There you go again...you try and impose your own personal attributes onto the rest of the population.

The councils have a code of practice for road repairs. This is dictated by central government.....here is some reading for you

http://www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/...cfm?docid=C7214A5B-66E1-4994-AA7FBAC360DC5CC7

If they breach it, then they are liable. 

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't maintain the roads to a minimum standard and everyone using that road should just take pot luck ?

Before we know it, road cycling will be a thing of the past, and sales of 4x4 will go through the roof


----------



## theclaud (13 Jan 2014)




----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2870112, member: 45"]I don't know how you've come to that conclusion but as usual you're incorrect.

As I said up thread there are mechanisms for reporting. In the mean time, given the current financial climate, LAs won't be fixing everything overnight and we've got what we've got. You certainly don't need a 4x4 to safely negotiate our roads. Just a bit of care and responsibility.

I'd hope that as you're making such a fuss you've already reported the sites you posted photos of...[/quote]

What 'current climate' ?...without decent roads, industry grinds to a halt. They get more in taxes from road users than they spend on the roads. There really is no excuse, and unless you have missed it.



> Government is taking a long-term approach to infrastructure, to overcome decades of short-term decision making and uncertainty in funding, financing and failures in delivery.
> 
> Plans include over £70 billion of investment in transport, over £20 billion in schools and £10 billion in science, housing and flood defences.
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ng-term-investment-in-infrastructure-spending



They have recognised that sticking ones head in the sand does not get the job done, and we as a nation must have a minimum standard of road quality, for cyclists, for car drivers, for delivery vehicles and any others which use the road.

Our population is growing and the UK will be the most heavily populated country in Europe by 2050....Do you expect everyone to walk because you feel the money spent on the roads should be instead spent on something else more worthy ?

Cycling will only grow as a mode if the infrastructure is improved to meet the standard required. Cycling in the uk now is something done despite the gov's efforts, not because of them.


----------



## theclaud (13 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2870145, member: 45"]Pass me the pliers...[/quote]
Bypass the pliers and go straight for this:


----------



## theclaud (13 Jan 2014)

2870151 said:


> That is reserved for extreme puncturees.


I thought that was this one?


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2870145, member: 45"]Pass me the pliers...[/quote]

You just have to accept that you aren't always right......a good start would be by having the legislation on your side for a kick off in regard to the state of the roads....it isn't....No wonder the NHS is in such a shocking state when there are so many people in the management saying 'That will do'


----------



## theclaud (13 Jan 2014)

2870171 said:


> That would be better.


I think so. This would be a pain to carry, after all:


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2870165, member: 45"]Who works in the NHS?

When we were in Brum I was in first name terms with the Highways bods, such was my input into reporting and chasing repairs.

Did you report your tired roads yet?...[/quote]

Worked..I know you have got a real job now..they allow you to hire 4x4's when the roads are too bad to drive on


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2870193, member: 45"]I worked as an unqualified bank nurse in a psychiatric hospital for a while in the early nineties. What are you wittering on about?

Bored now Linf.[/quote]

Was that before or after the social work ?


----------



## Shaun (13 Jan 2014)

@Adrian and @theclaud - please stop now and either take a proper part in the conversation, or leave it.

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## theclaud (13 Jan 2014)

OK in that case leaving it is the probably the preferable option...


----------



## Linford (13 Jan 2014)

About time....so far under the bridge etc..


----------

