Too many vehicles!!!

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
jan19
Posts: 1606
Joined: 3 Jan 2008, 9:26pm
Location: Orpington, Kent

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by jan19 »

York Hill is a monster.WAY beyond me. Hubby has done it (once) with the Catfords and says its at the limit of his ability. Kent/Surrey can surprise you with their hills.

Jan
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by MikeF »

jan19 wrote:York Hill is a monster.WAY beyond me. Hubby has done it (once) with the Catfords and says its at the limit of his ability. Kent/Surrey can surprise you with their hills.

Jan
It may have well been beyond me, but with the problem of cars on my tail I never had a chance to try. OS marks it as 1 in 7, but I think OS is not very consistent in gradient marking.
Same problem with Chalkpit Lane just north of Oxted, but with so many vehicles going up and down a fairly narrow road there's absolutely no room to "wobble" which makes cycling very difficult at low speeds. I think I would have been able to climb that, but with traffic trying to squeeze round me I've walked it rather than cycled. Coping with motor traffic on hill can be more of a problem than the hill itself.

I know the Downs and sandstone ridges of Surrey/Kent and also Sussex have many hills. I can climb most even if only at a slow speed, but there are one or two I don't. Cycling in the Low Weald is relatively easy. :)
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
brooksby
Posts: 495
Joined: 21 Aug 2014, 9:02am
Location: Bristol

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by brooksby »

pwa wrote:Sat Nav. That's the reason. I'm as bad as anyone for driving on lanes because the Sat Nav sends me that way. You don't really have much choice if you don't know the alternatives and you are relying on Sofia (or whatever voice you have chosen) to get you to your destination. Ideally you would want your Sat Nav to exercise a bit more discretion and avoid tight lanes as much as possible, sticking to wider roads except where that would greatly lengthen the journey. Lanes that were once the domain of those with local knowledge are now less quiet. Sad, really.


Does anyone else remember these low tech sat-nav alternatives. They had a very good zoomed-out overview interface, and they folded up into a handy pocket-sized package. What were they called?... "Maps", that's it - maps. Bl**dy reliable, too - I never had one spontaneously reboot on me.
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by pwa »

brooksby wrote:
pwa wrote:Sat Nav. That's the reason. I'm as bad as anyone for driving on lanes because the Sat Nav sends me that way. You don't really have much choice if you don't know the alternatives and you are relying on Sofia (or whatever voice you have chosen) to get you to your destination. Ideally you would want your Sat Nav to exercise a bit more discretion and avoid tight lanes as much as possible, sticking to wider roads except where that would greatly lengthen the journey. Lanes that were once the domain of those with local knowledge are now less quiet. Sad, really.


Does anyone else remember these low tech sat-nav alternatives. They had a very good zoomed-out overview interface, and they folded up into a handy pocket-sized package. What were they called?... "Maps", that's it - maps. Bl**dy reliable, too - I never had one spontaneously reboot on me.


Not so handy in a car, though. Not unless you have a good mapreader as a passenger to tell you which way to go at the next junction.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by TonyR »

brooksby wrote:Does anyone else remember these low tech sat-nav alternatives. They had a very good zoomed-out overview interface, and they folded up into a handy pocket-sized package. What were they called?... "Maps", that's it - maps. Bl**dy reliable, too - I never had one spontaneously reboot on me.


They had lots of display problems on a windy day though. Sometimes it proved impossible to scroll the display on a windy day without risking wrecking the whole thing :wink:
brooksby
Posts: 495
Joined: 21 Aug 2014, 9:02am
Location: Bristol

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by brooksby »

TonyR wrote:
brooksby wrote:Does anyone else remember these low tech sat-nav alternatives. They had a very good zoomed-out overview interface, and they folded up into a handy pocket-sized package. What were they called?... "Maps", that's it - maps. Bl**dy reliable, too - I never had one spontaneously reboot on me.


They had lots of display problems on a windy day though. Sometimes it proved impossible to scroll the display on a windy day without risking wrecking the whole thing :wink:


Did you never use the scroll-lock feature? You would put a heavy object on each corner. :wink:
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6258
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by Bmblbzzz »

I agree with the comments about unreliability of gradient chevrons on OS maps.
MikeF wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:Don't forget that vehicles going up hill have priority over those descending!
I was going uphill - the same direction as them. Surprisingly nothing came down the hill. Seemed like a pointless route for a rat run.

Ah, that's different. My original comment was fairly tongue in cheek anyway; not sure whether I thought you or the drivers were going uphill, but I had assumed you were going in opposite directions. So now it becomes clear you were first squeezing into the side then getting off and walking to allow cars to overtake you. That seems very... generous of you! It's difficult to judge the situation without being there but I would probably have made them crawl along behind me if there was no room to overtake, until the point at which I could no longer ride it.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by mjr »

brooksby wrote:Does anyone else remember these low tech sat-nav alternatives. They had a very good zoomed-out overview interface, and they folded up into a handy pocket-sized package. What were they called?... "Maps", that's it - maps. Bl**dy reliable, too - I never had one spontaneously reboot on me.

But they never showed more detail when you zoomed in, unless you forked out for a series of expensive upgrades ;)
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by MikeF »

Bmblbzzz wrote:I agree with the comments about unreliability of gradient chevrons on OS maps.
MikeF wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:Don't forget that vehicles going up hill have priority over those descending!
I was going uphill - the same direction as them. Surprisingly nothing came down the hill. Seemed like a pointless route for a rat run.

Ah, that's different. My original comment was fairly tongue in cheek anyway; not sure whether I thought you or the drivers were going uphill, but I had assumed you were going in opposite directions. So now it becomes clear you were first squeezing into the side then getting off and walking to allow cars to overtake you. That seems very... generous of you! It's difficult to judge the situation without being there but I would probably have made them crawl along behind me if there was no room to overtake, until the point at which I could no longer ride it.
Yes I realised it was tongue in cheek. Yes I admit I have to take my own time on a steep hill and not be "harassed" by vehicles stuck behind me. But shouldn't that Royal Mail Postman be on a bicycle too, rather than in a van? :wink: :mrgreen:
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Rob Archer
Posts: 297
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 8:25pm
Location: King's Lynn, Norfolk

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by Rob Archer »

ambodach wrote:There are sadly fairly frequent collisions on the A85 between Connel and Oban. There is a back road ( a cycle route incidentally) from Connel to Oban. Once police have been alerted one of their early moves is to close this back road to all motor traffic. Otherwise being single track it very quickly becomes a very long car park. At least it leaves it free for bikes and emergency vehicles. Generally it does not carry too much traffic so is reasonable to cycle on. Mind you anything would be better than the A85.

I was once shouted at by a driver on this road, who had to wait for me to get to a passing-place (I was riding uphill) "why can't you cyclists use the cyclepaths?". My response "why don't you drivers use the motorways?". A frequent exchange for many I know but I've never had it in such a location! :-D

I've no idea where the nearest cyclepath or motorway to Oban is!
jollytiddlywink
Posts: 31
Joined: 23 Jan 2015, 5:11pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by jollytiddlywink »

TonyR wrote:
cycleruk wrote:It could be a local "rat run"?
The normal main road way could have hold ups so those in the know take the lane.


Those in the know are unlikely to take a lane so narrow that a cyclist and a car can't pass each other. The first time they meet another car is going to create an impasse with somebody having to reverse up.


My suggestion for any road too narrow for a car and a bicycle to pass each other is to ban cars from it. Cycling both ways and people who want to motor can find a different route!
karlt
Posts: 2244
Joined: 15 Jul 2011, 2:07pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by karlt »

Rob Archer wrote:
ambodach wrote:There are sadly fairly frequent collisions on the A85 between Connel and Oban. There is a back road ( a cycle route incidentally) from Connel to Oban. Once police have been alerted one of their early moves is to close this back road to all motor traffic. Otherwise being single track it very quickly becomes a very long car park. At least it leaves it free for bikes and emergency vehicles. Generally it does not carry too much traffic so is reasonable to cycle on. Mind you anything would be better than the A85.

I was once shouted at by a driver on this road, who had to wait for me to get to a passing-place (I was riding uphill) "why can't you cyclists use the cyclepaths?". My response "why don't you drivers use the motorways?". A frequent exchange for many I know but I've never had it in such a location! :-D

I've no idea where the nearest cyclepath or motorway to Oban is!


These are the people who see cycling purely as an occasional leisure activity so don't understand why you don't ride somewhere where there are paths instead of where you are. They don't grasp the concepts of utility or touring cycling.
karlt
Posts: 2244
Joined: 15 Jul 2011, 2:07pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by karlt »

jollytiddlywink wrote:
TonyR wrote:
cycleruk wrote:It could be a local "rat run"?
The normal main road way could have hold ups so those in the know take the lane.


Those in the know are unlikely to take a lane so narrow that a cyclist and a car can't pass each other. The first time they meet another car is going to create an impasse with somebody having to reverse up.


My suggestion for any road too narrow for a car and a bicycle to pass each other is to ban cars from it. Cycling both ways and people who want to motor can find a different route!


I concur. My candidate is this one: https://goo.gl/maps/CC9Ya5JrpAn - used as a short cut by drivers between Chesterfield and the villages of Calow and Brimington; absolutely terrible after dark for people who think they'll be able to overtake or indeed get past coming the other way. You really, really, do not want to lose momentum going up this bugger.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by reohn2 »

jollytiddlywink wrote:My suggestion for any road too narrow for a car and a bicycle to pass each other is to ban cars from it. Cycling both ways and people who want to motor can find a different route!


That makes perfect sense to me.
If two cars can't pass each other comfortably then it should be 'unsuitable for motors' or an 'access only' road with a 20mph limit.
In a sane a sensible society that would be the norm,however this is the UK :?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by reohn2 »

karlt wrote:These are the people who see cycling purely as an occasional leisure activity so don't understand why you don't ride somewhere where there are paths instead of where you are. They don't grasp the concepts of utility or touring cycling.


No,these people can't see why cyclist don't ride where they aren't,the thought process goes no further than that,and their belligerence knows no bounds!
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Post Reply