"World class cycling city": Cyclists urge council to clear "appalling" bike lane filled with gravel and leaves; Has Chris Froome found a solution to the supertuck ban?; Pothole warnings; Meltdown over free lights for cyclists + more on the live blog

That spot on Queensferry Road is always thus at the end of the year.  It looks quite pretty for a day or two as the leaves fall, then they turn into sludge (retained by the "light segregation") and it's somewhere to avoid.

The problem with all these "cosmetic" / "grubby" issues is what lies beneath.  In the case of Edinburgh's roads (like elsewhere) that is a variety of rim-breaking potholes (or the edges of metal access covers revealed by same), often sharp bits that have come off motor vehicles and enough gravel to necessitate a gravel bike.

Of course it's also less fun having to clean off not just the usual salt and grime but half a compost heap also.

But that generates revenue for them. Although my local paper's online website have hidden most of their articles behind a subscription paywall. Fair to say I have stopped visiting that site.

I meant more the police posting about it on Twitter etc.. which in turn gets picked up by the media.

But they have to show that they're doing something, not just scoffing doughnuts.

And cyclists riding around without lights are 'a problem' say drivers so it's a winner.

Perhaps they'll then turn their attention to the numerous cars with a headlamp not working, drivers phone-fiddling and various other hazardous activities that are witnessed all the time.

DoomeFrog wrote:

Roads around South Cambridgeshire and into Cambridge itself are terrible.  Most of the "quiet" routes road surfaces have been this way for years.  In and around Shepreth/Barrington/Foxton you are lucky to find a smooth stretch of road.

Even Dr Hutch has penned articles on the potholes in the area over the last few years.

If you know of anywhere in the UK where the roads are actually good, please let me know!

There's a roundabout near me that is perfect smooth new tarmac but for some reason feels nice and quick. It is an unjarring reminder of how pleasant cycling on a good surface is. Sometimes I do a few laps of it just to get the benefit before heading off done the road.

Lucky you, they've resurfaced a bit of road near us, and it's been done so badly I actually go around it now completely, potholes or a rough road surface would be as good as the shoddy work whoever put it down did. 

The roads in Pembrokeshire and Camarthenshire are in much better condition than I have found anywhere else in the UK, maybe not quite up to French standards but not far off.

Must be good in the south of Wales!  IIRC Cugel formerly of this parish said they were some kind of paradise (Ceredigion in their case), with few drivers to boot.

There's a couple of roads out by Wrexham that are really nice. I suspect it might be something to do with the Tour of Britain visiting there ?

Here we go again with the false driver and cyclist equivalence. 

A cyclist without lights is putting themselves at risk.

A driver who's vehicle isn't safe is putting others at risk. 

They are not the same thing. 

It's not an equivalence thing, it's simply breaking the law.  If we expect drivers to obey the HC and obey the laws we must hold cyclists (and all other road users) to the same standards.

tigersnapper wrote:

It's not an equivalence thing, it's simply breaking the law.  If we expect drivers to obey the HC and obey the laws we must hold cyclists (and all other road users) to the same standards.

You literally just made it into an "equivalence thing" and expect to hold cyclists to the same standards as drivers.

Drivers have to be held to a more stringent standard due to the extreme danger they pose to other people (and walls, shop-fronts etc) and that is why drivers need to pass a test (or at least be supervised by a trained driver) before being allowed to drive on public roads. We don't hold cyclists to that same standard because that would be stupid and not at all proportionate to the harm that cyclists can cause to other people.

However, police will often not care about minor driving infractions (e.g. crossing a solid white line whilst overtaking) and so it would seem consistent for them to not worry about handing out fines etc. for cyclists who don't have working lights and handing out a few freebies may well be a cost effective way of dealing with the problem.

Yeah, but you suppose @tigersnapper to not (deliberately) ignore that the highway code only exists because of motorists. Cyclists were around and fine for 70 years beforehand...

And the 'equivalence thing' is now a major part of the problem.
I read somewhere that, when compulsory rear lights for bikes were first proposed, the CTC campaigned strenuously against the idea, on the grounds that it was the thin edge of a long wedge. Since then, although we've never quite reached the point some 'loopy' folk would like, with full reg, MOT etc., it could be argued that even the relatively small number of regs encourage a view of cyclists as slow/inferior motorcars rather than mechanically enhanced pedestrians. Which might explain some of the hostility and/or misunderstanding from some quarters.

CyclingGardener wrote:

And the 'equivalence thing' is now a major part of the problem. I read somewhere that, when compulsory rear lights for bikes were first proposed, the CTC campaigned strenuously against the idea, on the grounds that it was the thin edge of a long wedge. Since then, although we've never quite reached the point some 'loopy' folk would like, with full reg, MOT etc., it could be argued that even the relatively small number of regs encourage a view of cyclists as slow/inferior motorcars rather than mechanically enhanced pedestrians. Which might explain some of the hostility and/or misunderstanding from some quarters.

I think the case for bike lights is a lot stronger these days, now that we have extremely bright, efficient, lightweight and cheap LED lights. Certainly, the old Ever Ready (they were seldom "ready") lights were a pox upon cyclists.

Yes... but what's happened is a light arms-race.  Great for me to *see* by, but for being seen?  I'm not convinced that brighter is all that much better.  It might fix "there's something out there".  However a) individual bike lights have a very small area of light compared to those on a vehicle and b) unlike a motor vehicle almost no cycles have a pair separated by some distance horizontally - which in motor vehicles can help estimate distance / speed.  So you've got the astronomer's problem - is that a larger/brighter light far away or a smaller/dimmer light up close?

Flashing lights can also be more salient - but are harder to identify "where exactly?"  In a better world they'd be best left for emergency vehicles IMHO.

Also (a) means that the lights are more likely to dazzle than vehicle lights and again most cycles aren't dipped (because we want "full beam" sometimes and the lights are not set up to be dipped easily).

End state is that everyone on the road is wearing reflectives, hi-vis, flashing big lumens ... and you can't clearly see them amongst all the other road users doing the same.

I don't miss the Ever Ready lights though!

The twitchiest part of my commute home is a 500m section of road with no street lighting, fields both sides and motorists coming in the opposite direction with their stupidly bright headlights and wondering wether any motorists coming up behind me can see me through the dazzle of the oncoming lights.

[quote=chrisonabike

what's happened is a light arms-race.

[/quote]

Or survival of the fittest - if you don't take part you get out competed and that is not nice.

(a) My front light has a lens about the size of a 50p coin compared with a saucer for a typical motor vehicle, if they were both the same luminance then I would be invisible riding next to a car 50 meters up the road.

(b) Back to the astronomer's problem. Two horizontal lights could be a car a long way off or a bike close to.

Circular arguments

Cycloid wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

what's happened is a light arms-race.

Or survival of the fittest - if you don't take part you get out competed and that is not nice.

Maybe - but actually how many lives are saved by having cycle lights brighter than (insert measure here)?  Going forward we have governments and can regulate.  And in fact we do already have road traffic law, vehicle and bike construction / sale regulations ... They have actually regulated bike lights in e.g. Germany.  Like everything I'm sure it's not perfect but seems sensible.  I've actually got some (at least one of my dynamo lights) and they're perfectly adequate in most situations and certainly in urban areas - and that's at no more than 3 watts, front and back combined.

Recreational use?  Different thing (and also only a tiny fraction of the population, a little of the time).

As a cyclist you are always competing with your backbround and other road users to get noticed. You can choose what you wear and your lights but you cannot choose your background. I'm not sure I would be happy riding on this type of road with a 1970s 3 watt dynamo. From what I remember, of the basic models, they did not get up to full brightness until you got going at a reasonable speed, the lights went out when you stopped at traffic lights and they slipped when it was wet. (Except Dydnhubs). You reckon the dynamo is "adequate for most urban areas" - You rely on your lights to save your life in ALL situations. I don't want to dazzle anyone, but if it's that or my life... 

Unfortunately we are in an arms race, you can take the altruistic approach, but reluctantly I choose to compete.

Yep - I've also moved on from the 70s and 80s and I'm not campaigning for the return of the EverReady light!  If that's the way you're thinking however you'll be even more horrified - of the 3W only between 0.3 - 0.5 W goes out the rear light (e.g. I've one of these)!

...however technology having advanced massively, I find that is indeed plenty* because modern efficient LEDs (plus capacitors to keep the lights on for say 5 minutes when stopped).  (FWIW I run hub dynamos so no slipping, they're pretty much full-bright at around 10mph I would guess.  I believe even the bottle dynamos have improved a lot also.)

Your picture - I'm not sure I'd be happy riding on that type of road full stop - and I'm not a shrinking violet (or perhaps I am by your standards?).  Looks like 5-6 lanes across the whole road there... If you're riding on what seems an (urban?) motorway there then good luck to you!

It's not altruism.  I just don't think - above a reasonable minimum (brighter than my youth of course) - another X lumens will make me safer**.  Same as I think the "Clarkson model of motor safety***" certainly has a grain of truth (being a joke) but is missing so much about humans.

"Background" as you say and in urban areas aside from the cars you're competing with all kinds of static and moving lights anyway.  Our cities are bright places.

* Yes - overnight in the countryside (recreation) I'd likely take battery lights as well to see by better - so I can go a faster pace in unlit areas more easily.

** Particularly as I'm wearing reflective things, some of which are moving.  So why add the risk of irritating or distracting others for minimal benefit to myself?

*** You have to drive a massive SUV because otherwise your kids will die horribly when your car is crushed by someone else's SUV.

Cycloid wrote:

(a) My front light has a lens about the size of a 50p coin compared with a saucer for a typical motor vehicle, if they were both the same luminance then I would be invisible riding next to a car 50 meters up the road.

(b) Back to the astronomer's problem. Two horizontal lights could be a car a long way off or a bike close to.

Circular arguments

Not quite sure what you mean here?  My point was simply that I increasingly understand the complaint "your light's too bright!" which I used to hear from pedestrians. (And would reply "but it's not as bright as a car's...").  Because of the small area for a bright-long reaching beam they will be potentially more dazzling than vehicle lights.  My point was just "we're all losing here" (and it's possible for humans to avoid arms races sometimes).  Solutions are not easy obviously*.

Your (b) - again not sure what you mean here.  In the UK we can safely assume two lights - spaced horizontally - will be a car / other motor vehicle until we have more information (e.g. if we're riding on a car-free path, if I'm on a bike and the lights move slowly relative to me).  Yes - it could be two cyclists side-by-side but the occurrence of cyclists is *much* lower and I find in practice I can often distinguish vehicle and cycle lights anyway as they're different types of light.  Obviously that one would be lost on most drivers (another reason to keep them separate from cyclists)...

* Without any changes I expect cycle lights to keep getting brighter because "look - this one goes up to 11!" and more electric bikes (more power on hand).  I do not think this is a good thing in general.  I'm not a believer in population level fixes which rely on self-discipline (either on the part of cyclists in deploying sensible lights, or motorists in getting better at spotting cyclists).  Aside from purely recreational off-roading more brightness isn't needed in urban areas and especially if we get more separation of cycle and motor traffic (without which we won't see many more cyclists anyway, barring the food delivery businesses expanding to deliver everything...).