Cyclists - your experiences on the road

[Techniquest]

Looking on Google Maps Streetview it looks like there is a shared use path on one side only. That does tend to be what would meet the Sustrans definition.

Thanks, I always forget Streetview exists *facepalm*. The map does suggest it's only on one side (the eastern side) of the 449, so that makes sense. I think that is the side of it that I would be using anyway, so that actually works out well. I can happily add it to the planned route!

 

[SCH117X]

The parked cars were the opposite side so no risk there, and it was a smooth road with no potholes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jul 2022 ==



It was perfectly safe and legal

No it was not - the Highway Code advises cyclists as a minimum to ride at least 0.5 from the kerb and passing (not approaching mortorists incidently) to leave at least 1.5m; throw in the width of the bike/rider and you are looking at a gap far wider than 1.5m to comply with the Highway Code

 

[Magdalia]

Can you quote the specific passage that says that, including the Rule number? I am not seeing it.

Rule 212
Give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians walking in the road (for example, where there is no pavement), at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 162 to 167). Drivers should take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad weather (including high winds) and at night. If the rider looks over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.

This goes alongside rules 162-167 about overtaking. In particular part of rule 163:

• give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road

 

[Ediswan]

Can you quote the specific passage that says that, including the Rule number? I am not seeing it.

Unlikely to happen. There is a lot of 'making rules up' in evidence here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

212 means that you shouldn't go closer to a cyclist than you would a car, not that you have to imagine a car with the bicycle at the centreline. If it did mean that, then riding two abreast would be banned as dangerous, because typically the "outside" cyclist will be quite near the centreline when riding two abreast.

163 just indicates priority. There are plenty of wide single carriageway roads, e.g. the A5 through mid Wales, where overtaking with oncoming traffic is accepted, and vehicles do move left to accommodate it - and this is the whole reason why the road is that wide, as otherwise it would be pointless. It isn't an ideal layout (though better than "suicide lanes"), that said, but it does prove that crossing the centreline with oncoming traffic is not necessarily bad in absolutely all cases.

 

[ABB125]

212 means that you shouldn't go closer to a cyclist than you would a car, not that you have to imagine a car with the bicycle at the centreline. If it did mean that, then riding two abreast would be banned as dangerous, because typically the "outside" cyclist will be quite near the centreline when riding two abreast.

163 just indicates priority. There are plenty of wide single carriageway roads, e.g. the A5 through mid Wales, where overtaking with oncoming traffic is accepted, and vehicles do move left to accommodate it - and this is the whole reason why the road is that wide, as otherwise it would be pointless. It isn't an ideal layout (though better than "suicide lanes"), that said, but it does prove that crossing the centreline with oncoming traffic is not necessarily bad in absolutely all cases.

And certainly one town which I'm familiar with would grind to a halt if crossing the centre line wasn't allowed when passing parked cars.

You can of course change the road markings, such that the "centre" line becomes the "two thirds" line, for example: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.099...4!1srlkifEY1ekroAX_guSytzw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

[Magdalia]

If it did mean that, then riding two abreast would be banned as dangerous, because typically the "outside" cyclist will be quite near the centreline when riding two abreast.

Cycling two abreast is not banned, because in many circumstances it is safe. But if it results in the outside cyclist being too close to the centre line, then it is unsafe, and doing it would be outwith the Highway Code. In such circumstances cyclists should proceed in single file.

163 just indicates priority. There are plenty of wide single carriageway roads, e.g. the A5 through mid Wales, where overtaking with oncoming traffic is accepted, and vehicles do move left to accommodate it

That priority means that it is the prerogative of the user with priority whether or not to make space for the traffic that does not have priority. We are talking about overtaking parked cars here, so the A5 in Mid Wales is a red herring.

Unlikely to happen. There is a lot of 'making rules up' in evidence here.

But there is some cut and paste from the Highway Code.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That priority means that it is the prerogative of the user with priority whether or not to make space for the traffic that does not have priority. We are talking about overtaking parked cars here, so the A5 in Mid Wales is a red herring.

It is, though if it would be safe to do so it is rather selfish and inconsiderate not to. But if a cyclist wishes not to, they need to choose their road positioning so as to prevent it, i.e. take the primary position in the centre of the lane. "Flashing"/waving to give up priority are not official signals.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I am retired and go cycling nearly every day for an hour or so. I do have a cycle with freewheel and gears, but that is gathering dust.

I ride fixed-wheel only, and recently realised that I have no pains or creaks in my joints any more!

So few people ride fixed, but I would not go back to gears now. There are a few hills here, over the railway bridge for instance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My knees can't handle fixed, unfortunately. Great if you can though!

 

[Haywain]

There are a few hills here, over the railway bridge for instance.

Elsewhere these won’t even register as anything more than speed humps.

 

[Bald Rick]

Fair play. I have two issues with a fixie, firstly hills (a mile at an average of 9% is surely a bit of a challenge), and second I always, always forget at some point it’s a foxy and start coasting…

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Going up is not so difficult, going down is more trouble. If you have ridden fixed a while you get used to it, a bit like driving an automatic or manual vehicle.

I am surprised that so few people ride fixed, one sees a lot of 'fixies' in big towns, but on examination nearly all have the back wheel the wrong way round.

An alternative is a single freewheel with back-pedal brake, I used that for a few years. One thing I do not fancy: complicated derailment gears.

 

[Bald Rick]

Going up is not so difficult

I guess that depends on the ratio you have, and what you regard as a hill!

One thing I do not fancy: complicated derailment gears.

I couldn’t contemplate ever riding without a full range of gear ratios. I need very different gears for doing a couple of km up a 7-12% hill at 10km/h and heading down a 10km downhill at an average of -1% with a stiff tailwind at 40km/h.

 

[Techniquest]

Single-speed/fixed gear machines are not for me either. Too many challenging sectors for me to even consider it. My commute to/from work, or to/from the railway station, they'd be fine, but for almost any other ride I want my gears!

 

[dazzler]

I tend to commute all year round on fixed, (unless I need the front wheel for the touring bike, where I use the audax bike - better dynamo lighting than the tourer!) but I do live in York, which is pretty much pan flat (apart from the pull up Siward's Howe on the way to work! )
I usually run a 68" gear on the fixed, unless I'm heading towards Leeds, when I drop it to 59".

I do get the "forget to keep pedalling" syndrome if I switch back to fixed after a period on gears, usually at the end of my road, and this is normally very effective at reminding me to keep pedalling! I also get the opposite problem when I switch back to gears after several months riding exclusively on fixed - drifting down to the end of the road, slowing down the pedalling and wondering why the heck I'm not slowing down, before making a mad grab at the brakes! That and trying to remember how the gears work...



(Photo shows my fixed gear bike, leaning on the fence adjacent to Whixley Level Crossing on the York - Knaresborough line)

 

[Techniquest]

It must be said you've got her in good condition Pan flat you say? I like the sound of that, I must make my way to York

 

[ChrisC]

I was going to start a new thread but as this one seems to cover a variety of topics about cycling I thought I would post my questions here.

I have not been on a bike since I was in my teens and I am now 65! When I was about 11 years old I had a new Raleigh RSW 16, and although I rode it around my home area regularly throughout my teens, I didn’t take it with me to college when I was 18, and never used it again. My mum then used it until it eventually wore out.

Since I was fortunate to be able to retire early from work 8 years ago I have tried to go in on at least one good walk of between 5 and 8 miles each week and most of my now regular short breaks away in the U.K. usually involve lots of walking. Although many of my walks take me along footpaths over fields I also regularly walk along trails, especially old railways, which have been developed as well surfaced cycle trails. Seeing so many people cycling has made me begin to consider whether I should consider investing in a bike which would allow me to travel longer distances along these trails and quiet country lanes than I am able to cover walking. Last week I spent a few days in South Yorkshire and walked a few nice stretches of the Trans Pennine Trail in the Don and Dearne Valleys. Seeing so many people cycling along this trail really made me think more seriously about it.

At the moment I am seriously thinking about investing in a folding e-bike. Although I live in a fairly rural area with some good cycle trails and quiet lanes close by, the main road through my village is a busy, winding, and in places, narrow B road which I would not want to cycle along at any time of day. I therefore want a bike that I could easily put in the boot of my small car or even take on the bus to reach quieter safer locations with less traffic. This would also fit in with taking the bike with me on holidays.

Most of the cycling I would plan to do would be on reasonably well surfaced cycle trails and quiet lanes. I do live fairly close to the Derbyshire Peak District which is quite hilly but I will not be cycling on rough mountain tracks! I’ve looked at a number of folding e-bikes, non of them cheap, but the one that I like the best, the Go Cycle G4 is extremely expensive at almost £4000 or even more for the G4i. Hopefully it will be something that I will get a good few years of enjoyment from so I am willing to pay that price if that is the right e-bike for me for the type of leisurely cycling I will want to do.

Does anyone have any advice?

 

[ashkeba]

Does anyone have any advice?

At that price, I would ride it before you buy and be aware what sort of ongoing maintenance it will require (can be as simple as replacing cables regularly, or can be as complicated as return to dealer so that the battery health can be checked and the hubs can have special oil baths).

 

[Haywain]

Does anyone have any advice?

I know nothing of eBikes but, at that price, try before you buy. Any reputable dealer will not have a problem with that as they will always have demo bikes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Consider whether you might prefer a rigid bike and a bike rack for your car (though generally it's fairly easy to pop the wheels off to put it in the boot of even a small car, most bikes have quick release wheels these days). Folders are a great idea but are always a massive compromise, and a folding e-bike will be very heavy and awkward to carry.

It might be preferable to have cycling lessons to improve your confidence on busy roads than faffing about taking one on the bus, while a rigid bike can be taken on a train.

And definitely take a test ride. You may be asked to make a deposit so you can't nick off with it, depending on the dealer, which is fair enough as they can't go with you unlike when test driving a car.

 

[ChrisC]

Thanks for the suggestions so far.
I’ve already done quite a bit of research and have made my mind up on some things but it’s always helpful to hear what other people with some experience have to suggest.

Having not been on a bike for nearly 50 years, taking into account my age, and the fact that some areas close to home where I would want to cycle are quite hilly, i think it has to be an e-bike.

I also know that folding bikes will always be a massive compromise but I don’t really want a bike rack. When I go away for a few days, and for days out locally, I would like a bike that could be kept in my car boot and just got out if and when I decided to use it. Quick release wheels could be a possibility. I didn’t even know they existed! However, I am not sure how practical they are with an e-bike. I want something that I can get out of my car boot and be away on in a few minutes without any complicated assembly or technical matters to deal with. Also the less space it takes up in the car boot and the house the better.

Taking a folding e-bike on a bus was just an idea in my head and not something I would do on a regular basis. Cycling on busy roads is not something that that I intend to do even following lessons. I did pass my cycling proficiency test about 55 years ago! There is no way that I’m going to cycle up the busy winding hill out of my village in one direction with no pavements or even grass verges as it goes between steep banks and under trees. I don’t even walk up that stretch of road as it’s not safe to do so.

I would certainly take a test ride on any bike I was considering buying, especially if it’s an expensive one. Although very expensive, I liked the look of the Go Cycle G4 because it appears a bit more substantial and comfortable for longer country rides than the average commuter folding bike, but it is still one of the lightest.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

€bikes are motor vehicles, expensive and heavy, dangerous to others because people driving them go at speeds they can not handle.

Please try a proper/conventional cycle! I am retired, I feared my health and strength might deteriorate but slowly realised that I am as and strong as ever, just weigh a bit more. Never want to get an €bike! That would be the beginning of the end.

Try a BWoM, bike without motor! You can get a decent one for a few hundred.

 

[Bald Rick]

€bikes are motor vehicles, expensive and heavy, dangerous to others because people driving them go at speeds they can not handle.

alternatively they provide an opportunity for some people to experience the joy of cycling who may otherwise not have been able to.

Expensive yet, but inherently not dangerous. At least no more dangerous than a conventional bike. It is the rider who is dangerous.

 

[cactustwirly]

alternatively they provide an opportunity for some people to experience the joy of cycling who may otherwise not have been able to.

Expensive yet, but inherently not dangerous. At least no more dangerous than a conventional bike.

And also completely illegal

 

[Bald Rick]

And also completely illegal

you might want to check that.

ebikes are permitted to be ridden in all places that a regular bike is, so long as pedals can be used for propulsion, the motor isn’t more than 250w, and that no electrical assistance is provided above 25km/h.

Riding an electric bike: the rules

Electric bikes meeting the EAPC regulations can be ridden on the road without being taxed, licensed or insured.

www.gov.uk

You can ride an electric bike if you’re 14 or over, as long as it meets certain requirements.

These electric bikes are known as ‘electrically assisted pedal cycles’ (EAPCs). You do not need a licence to ride one and it does not need to be registered, taxed or insured.

What counts as an EAPC​

An EAPC must have pedals that can be used to propel it.

It must show either:

• the power output
• the manufacturer of the motor

It must also show either:

• the battery’s voltage
• the maximum speed of the bike

Its electric motor:

• must have a maximum power output of 250 watts
• should not be able to propel the bike when it’s travelling more than 15.5mph

An EAPC can have more than 2 wheels (for example, a tricycle).

Where you can ride​

If a bike meets the EAPC requirements it’s classed as a normal pedal bike. This means you can ride it on cycle paths and anywhere else pedal bikes are allowed.

 

[cactustwirly]

you might want to check that.

ebikes are permitted to be ridden in all places that a regular bike is, so long as pedals can be used for propulsion, the motor isn’t more than 250w, and that no electrical assistance is provided above 25km/h.

Riding an electric bike: the rules

Electric bikes meeting the EAPC regulations can be ridden on the road without being taxed, licensed or insured.

www.gov.uk

A lot more the e bikes in use work without pedal assistance and work well beyond 25km/h. I thought we were discussing those

Some e-bikes meet the regulations and are road legal however

 

[Bald Rick]

A lot more the e bikes in use work without pedal assistance and work well beyond 25km/h. I thought we were discussing those

Some e-bikes meet the regulations and are road legal however

no we we’re discussing ebikes in general.

all ebikes can work without pedal assistance. That’s surely the point.

The law says that they must not have any electrical assistance above 25km/h. That’s it, in so far as speed is concerned. You can still ride one at 70km/h if you have powerful enough thighs and / or gravity assistance.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Thanks for the suggestions so far.
I’ve already done quite a bit of research and have made my mind up on some things but it’s always helpful to hear what other people with some experience have to suggest.

Having not been on a bike for nearly 50 years, taking into account my age, and the fact that some areas close to home where I would want to cycle are quite hilly, i think it has to be an e-bike.

I also know that folding bikes will always be a massive compromise but I don’t really want a bike rack. When I go away for a few days, and for days out locally, I would like a bike that could be kept in my car boot and just got out if and when I decided to use it. Quick release wheels could be a possibility. I didn’t even know they existed! However, I am not sure how practical they are with an e-bike. I want something that I can get out of my car boot and be away on in a few minutes without any complicated assembly or technical matters to deal with. Also the less space it takes up in the car boot and the house the better.

Taking a folding e-bike on a bus was just an idea in my head and not something I would do on a regular basis. Cycling on busy roads is not something that that I intend to do even following lessons. I did pass my cycling proficiency test about 55 years ago! There is no way that I’m going to cycle up the busy winding hill out of my village in one direction with no pavements or even grass verges as it goes between steep banks and under trees. I don’t even walk up that stretch of road as it’s not safe to do so.

I would certainly take a test ride on any bike I was considering buying, especially if it’s an expensive one. Although very expensive, I liked the look of the Go Cycle G4 because it appears a bit more substantial and comfortable for longer country rides than the average commuter folding bike, but it is still one of the lightest.

An ebike is a great choice as it means you can quickly get into enjoying the bike and you have the flexibility to increase or decrease the power assist depending on how you're feeling and evidence shows e-bikers still improve their fitness especially as they're likely to go cycling more regularly and for for longer.

Unfortunately I'm not very familiar with folding bikes and less so with folding e-bikes, I think it's worth spending a bit more money to get a bike you're going to use rather than get a cheaper one you don't. My concern looking at the spec is there seems to be a number of proprietary parts which may make it more difficult to repair the bike on the go. You may have read this already and it is the older model but it does given some good experience with the type of bike you're looking at:

Gocycle (G3+)

Reviewer: Paul Wrighton Purchased From: Fully Charged Purchase Price: £3,999 + £447.96 for accessories (Lights, mudguards, rear pannier rack) Time Owned: 2 weeks. Local Terrain: Very Hilly ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Strengths: Design, form and function ...

www.pedelecs.co.uk

The Pedelecs forum is usually recommended for advice on e-bikes but I've had mixed experiences when I was trying to get help with an e-bike I was considering for my Mum as I didn't get any useful responses to my request but instead received a number of spammy responses from vendors trying to push their bikes instead.

 

[JamesT]

no we we’re discussing ebikes in general.

all ebikes can work without pedal assistance. That’s surely the point.

The law says that they must not have any electrical assistance above 25km/h. That’s it, in so far as speed is concerned. You can still ride one at 70km/h if you have powerful enough thighs and / or gravity assistance.

Could you clarify what you mean by the bold?
I assume you mean without assistance when you're pedalling, in which case I think you're talking at cross-purposes. I believe @cactustwirly is talking about the 'twist-and-go' e-bikes, which don't require pedalling and have a throttle. Although these latter ones have to go through Type Approval and should be limited to 25km/h as you say, I've seen far too many people on ebikes that are clearly going faster than the limit where the rider isn't doing any pedalling.