Cycling UK Forum

jackt wrote: ↑30 Aug 2023, 2:43pm
On the face of it PBP goes against everything I like about cycling. It's way too far for a comfortable bike ride, there's constant time pressure and not enough time to stop to enjoy the places along the way. The sleep deprivation is real. But it's such an astonishing spectacle and a unique tradition to be a part of. What made it utterly unforgettable for me is the support and encouragement along the way - not just the big crowds at the controls like Villaines but the ones and twos by the roadside in the middle of nowhere, the kids offering to refill your water bottles, people cooking crepes in their front yards, and the constant echo of 'allez, courage, bravo' from what must have been tens of thousands of well-wishers. As cyclists we get used to feeling unloved - I've never felt so encouraged, cherished, and appreciated as over those three and half days.

Yes, that sums up a lot of what makes PBP special. I've done it twice now, first time was an experiment just to see if I could do it. Second time was to see how quickly I can do it (without taking undue risk). If I do it a third time I'd like it to be simply to enjoy the experience, stopping by the roadside as often as possible to interact with the locals and sample whatever culinary delights are on offer.

Jdsk wrote: ↑9 Jun 2022, 3:00pm

Liz_W wrote: ↑9 Jun 2022, 2:14pm You cannot see a dark moving object ( either car or cyclist) that is going through dappled shade whether you are approaching it from behind or if it coming towards you.

But you might be able to see the same object when it's illuminated by a street light or a car's headlamps.

Could it be the case that when an object travels through dappled shade, i.e. light and dark patches, it makes little difference whether the object itself is light or dark? I'd have thought the problem here is the human eyes inability to cope with extreme high contrast. How many of us have it a pothole in such conditions? Was it in a light patch or a dark patch? Equally difficult to spot IMO. If it was marked with white paint would it help? I think not.

I would contest that when approaching such conditions the only sure fire way of reducing risk is to slow down, hence maximising the opportunity of spotting an obstacle and avoiding it, also reducing stopping distance.

Liz_W wrote: ↑9 Jun 2022, 2:14pm Front and rear lights and luminous clothing should be a legal requirement.

Liz

In the daytime? Up until a few years ago this would have been seen as absolute lunacy. (I'm sure I can hear my father spinning in his grave). Everyone was just expected to drive to the conditions. I can't help feeling the desire not to slow down whatever the conditions feeds the expectation others should make themselves more visible. Will we end up safer?

I too would like to say my thoughts are with Pokatos. I have some Ukrainian heritage and have watched his videos with interest. I truly hope to visit at ride my bike in a free and safe Ukraine one day.

On what constitutes a 'Dangerous Road': The example given in the program was the A82, the contention being that this road is becoming increasingly dangerous in that it's not been improved to keep pace with 'modern' traffic. Specifically they mentioned or alluded to larger vehicles, increase in volume, higher speeds, and carriageway width/proximity of 'scenery'(cliffs).

Has the road itself become more dangerous? Hard to say without specific local knowledge. eg surface condition/potholes, drainage etc. However, it appears that the only significant things that have changed are the number and type of vehicle using the road, and the way they are driven (higher speeds).

As has been pointed out by others. Blaming the road itself for being dangerous risks diverting attention and blame away from the root causes of the problem. Perhaps building larger, 'safer' roads is the price we have to pay to accommodate greater numbers of larger vehicles travelling at higher speeds. Even if it were the answer in some cases, it can't happen everywhere: Motorway past Loch Lomond? Tunnel under Stonehenge? etc. Yet the government permit ever large HGV's and too many drivers expect to be able to drive above speed limits.

drossall wrote: ↑13 Apr 2021, 11:00pm True, but lighting remains an arms race. A significant part of the benefits of better cycle lighting have been lost to ever-brighter car lights......

I keep posting on these sort of discussions the observation that once we're all lit up (day and night), including pedestrians, domestic and wild animals, trees, park benches, potholes?? etc, we'll effectively be back to where we started, just left with a degraded environment. And quite possibly more dangerous too as people take greater risks (higher speeds, less attention) since they 'know' that 'everything' is 'obviously' more visible.
I feel the old adage "only proceed at speed where you can stop in the space that you can SEE to be clear" effectively takes a hit every time we're encouraged to 'be more visible'.
Perhaps it's worth it to shave a % off journey times, but I remain to be convinced it will save lives. For me, it certainly increases the sense of hostility in our built environment.

agent4125 wrote:Hey all, first time poster. I cycle a few times a week for an hour at a time, usually just around town, occasionally off-road but not down the side of a mountain or anything. I currently have a 15 year old heavy "Minerva" mountain bike that I bought for around £150 I think, and I'm looking to upgrade.

I've been looking at hybrid/gravel bikes as mostly I'll be on the road, but occasionally down country paths etc.

I have a budget around £500-£1000. There seems to be a fair bit of choice and I never know who to trust with online reviews as the pessimist in me assumes some of them will have been paid/incentivised to write good reviews or promote some bikes over others.

Can anyone recommend some good/suitable bikes for me to look at?

Thanks - James.

Yes, there's an awful lot of choice out there. I think answering a few questions may help to narrow the search:

Do you want/need mudguards?
Would you like/need to carry luggage?
What sort of terrain (hills) do you cycle over? i.e. What sort of gear range do you need?
How rough are the trails you intend to ride? i.e. how robust bike/tyres need to be.
How fast do you want to cycle? (Weight of bike, type of tyres)
How comfortable does the bike need to be? (Suspension/tyres/rider position/geometry etc)
Do you like cleaning and tinkering/fettling bikes? (If not, perhaps worth considering hub gears?)

A good course of action might be to think about all these aspects, do a bit of research, and then visit a good bike shop for a chat and view bikes you're interested in 'in the flesh'.

Bmblbzzz wrote:

peetee wrote: Cars are so cosseting these days that I don’t think the average driver has any idea how their presence, speed and positioning affects other un-cocooned road users. Most of the situations that appear threatening to us as cyclists (and, largely for pedestrians too) ie speed, speed of approach, proximity, tyre and engine noise are being filtered and diluted by the vehicle so when challenged the driver considers themselves without fault. “I gave you loads of room” “What you moaning about? I didn’t hit you, did I?” Excessive speed is commonplace. Not just in absolute terms such as speed limits, but such that the dynamics of vehicles create the expectation that higher average speed is possible in most situations and when delays and obstructions occur drivers are less inclined to deal with them in a calm, measured and considerate manner; cars are getting faster but horses and cyclist are not.

I very much agree with this. The 'cosseting effect' is all the more serious for having crept up in degrees and for seeming desirable. Who wants an uncomfy car?

I've recently got an old car I've owned for 22 years back on the road. I'd not driven it for 10 years. It's was made in 1988 but it's design dates to the late '60s/ early '70s. It's very noisy, there's no power/servo assisted anything, it's very low to the ground, it's very small, you feel every bump, undulation and change in the road surface, changing gear can be described as 'an effort', but the seats and driving position are actually not that bad (Although at 6'1'' I'm at the upper limit of what's possible; anyone taller simply wouldn't fit.)

I can thrash the little engine to what feels like an inch of its life. It feels incredibly fast, it's an absolute hoot to drive. Yet this is all done at legal speeds... to go any faster would simply feel too dangerous! I also wonder that, because it takes so much effort to get up to speed that, subconsciously, I think it'll take a similar effort to slow down again. Easy come, easy go...

But I repeat, it's and absolute hoot to drive. I'd wager much more fun than most modern cars. But then I guess most people just use cars as tools to get to places as quickly, easily, in as much comfort and least effort as possible.

Most people are drivers of cars, whereas I'm a proper Motorist! Motoring should be for enthusiasts and experts!

I've had ETA cover for a few years now. Not needed to use it so far but gives me peace of mind on my cycling adventures knowing there's a 24 hour helpline to call if I breakdown deep in the countryside, 100s of miles from home, in the middle of the night..... Much better than calling your Husband/Wife/partner/friend for help at 3 o'clock in the morning!!!!

From their website:

"The ETA was the first company to offer a cycle rescue service tailored for cyclists and we have 29 years’ experience providing breakdown services. If you suffer a breakdown of your bicycle (including punctures) whilst out cycling or are unable to continue due to an injury, our 24-hour recovery team is on hand to arrange transport for you and your bicycle back to a safe location. If you would prefer to arrange a taxi for yourself, simply send us your receipts and we will reimburse you for the costs, subject to the terms and conditions being met.

We will not attempt to fix any faults with your bike; however, we will ensure you are taken to a safe location."

Having a breakdown recovery service is the reason for being married isn't it?

She doesn't drive

Sjistew wrote:Thank you all again.

I can't say I have anyone that would be able to come with me to check, new to the area and haven't met many people yet! What's a basic check list aside from the afformentioned wheel check and test ride? Can a test ride and going with my gut feeling suffice given my inexperience?

Well, the only question mark I have is that this bike has poor tyre clearance. From reading its hard to get 25s on it, better with 23s. Are these too thin for a winter bike in your own opinions? Would there be the potential that I would regret the purchase in the future based on this limitation? I wouldn't want to have to buy another due to a single potential issue!

Thank you all again so much for your amazing help!

Are 25s adequate?
I'd say it depends on what winter riding you have in mind. Plenty in my club are happy with such tyres for (daylight) club runs when the weather is reasonable. If you're intending to commute, or other riding when it's dark, or venturing out when the weather is 'iffy', then something with more robust/wider tyres that can be run at lower pressure is advisable. I use two 'winter type' bikes. One with 32mm tyres (and space for 35mm studded tyres for when the weather gets cold) for commuting and a second on 25mm tyres for weekend clubruns.
The advantage with the Ribble is it's reasonably light and, as such, usable all year round (You stand some sort of a chance of keeping up with club-mates on racing bikes). If you only have one bike for 'fair weather' rides, then you could do a lot worse IMO.
An alternative might be to purchase a 'drop handlebar hybrid', AKA a 'Gravel Bike'. These bridge the gap between racing, touring and light offroading bikes. However, this would probably mean buying 'new' rather than second hand.

Jdsk wrote:

fastpedaller wrote:So is your opinion hjd10, that pedestrians should wear lights in daytime? because that's what we'll be heading towards with your logic!

That would be logical if pedestrians were causing as much harm to others as drivers of motor vehicles. They aren't. It isn't.

Jonathan

???? I thought the alleged benefits of DRLs are twofold: 1. To be more visible, so hopefully people in more dangerous vehicles don't crash into you. And 2. To get people to see you coming so they get the F out of your way. (Think Mondeo man doing 90mph in the outside lane of the motorway 20+ years ago).

So No.1 would apply to a pedestrian walking along, or crossing, a road as much as to a cyclist.

My opinion, for what it's worth (i.e. very little), is that No.2 is probably the reason for the normalisation of DRLs and the 'logic' of No.1 is the consequence of this new thinking. The million dollar question is are we all actually safer with all these daytime lights? My suspicion has always been that once everything has a light on it we'll be back pretty much to where we started.... after all visibility to the human eye/mind/consciousness is a relative thing.

IanH wrote:Update on my wasp sting.
Sympathetic GP has advised me to continue as usual. Any further problems should be reported asap for further consideration.
Note to self: Don't get stung!

I had, what sounds like, a very similar reaction to a wasp sting about 12 years ago. Stung on the neck that after about 30 minutes resulted in an itchy rash across my whole upper body which took a couple of hours to disappear.
Went to GP, was given a couple of epipens and made an appointment to see a specialist at the county hospital. Was subjected to repeated testing where I was exposed to increasing strength of 'sting'. Result showed that I was sensitive, but not dangerously so, was told that on balance of probabilities I didn't need to carry epipens in future.... although to be aware sensitivity can and will change. But advised it's wise to carry antihistamine to "knock any symptoms on the head".

BTW I had not been stung by a wasp before, and haven't since.

Syd wrote:You have to ask why pedestrian safety appears to have increased significantly.

How do pedestrian numbers in 2020 relate to figures in 2000? Taking it further how does pedestrian time and distance traveled compare? How has road infrastructure changed in the past 20 years that offers no benefits to other road users? e.g underpasses, barriers between pavement and road near junctions etc.

It is easy to fling statements about but without in depth analysis is like comparing apples with budgerigars.

The improved safety design standards for vehicles with regard impact with pedestrian probably has helped immensely... also more than likely improved survivability for cyclist too to a certain extent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestria ... cle_design
Unfortunately these advances are at risk now due to the growing menace of SUVs.

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
How would you know when to use your studded tires?

I can sympathise with what you say... In 'normal times' I commute to work each weekday all year round. I also have more than one bike so can have one shod with studs all through the winter... Well from the first frost through to the end of March. If the forecast says overnight temps drop to less than +3 I'll not take the risk and ride the 'tank'. The real difficulty comes at weekends as I lead club rides... It seems a bit rude if I'm on studs and the rest are on normal tyres! Not to mention hard for me to keep up! So I sometimes I still on occasion find myself out on regular tyres in marginal weather.... I don't like it though.

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:I fell off on black ice and hit the side of my head on a relatively solid ground.
I reckon I suffered mild concussion for several days.
This is the first time in 52 years riding.
The helmet was damaged, the argument goes that if I was not wearing a helmet my head wouldn't have come anywhere near the ground.

These sort of things are for once-in-a-lifetime experience not your every day one.
You pays your money and takes your choice.
Incidentally I landed on my hip too after a few minutes I struggled to stand and was a real challenge to get home using just one leg powering. Several x-rays and couldn't walk for several weeks without crutches.
Without the helmet I probably would've needed and ambulance, this is just my opinion, my head collision Was not recorded anywhere, how many are actually recorded when someone damages their helmet?

I've fallen due to ice several times, mostly helmetless. On one occasion my head did strike the ground resulting in mild concussion and the need for a couple of stitches. I now mostly use studded tyres if there's a risk of ice as it's much better not to fall in the first place! (Whether wearing a helmet or not).
i.e. If there's a risk of ice, protect your brain by using studded tyres.... for me this has proved to be a far more effective strategy than wearing/not wearing a helmet!

The way I've rationalised not wearing one:

UK DfT research report (2009) claimed that between 10% and 16% of fatal injuries might be prevented by the wearing of a helmet. In the UK, according to published figures there are typically 100 to 110 cyclists are killed annually. The total annual distance covered by bicycle in the UK is claimed to be roughly 3.33 billion miles (Cycling UK 2018). i.e. Statistically typically one death per 30.3 million to 33.3 million miles covered. So, with a benefit of 10% to 16% you might expect helmet might save a life once every 189 million to 333 million miles.

Now, I'm currently a relatively high mileage cyclist... If I do 10,000 miles a year, using the DfT estimate I can expect a helmet might save my life once every 18,940 to 33,300 years.... For me, that's a long time to be wearing a helmet.... and a lot of helmets (assuming I replace once every 10 years).

I know that a good proportion of cyclists do wear helmets and that this will distort the figures used and calculated above; and my basic numeracy doesn't extend to taking this into account. However, since the benefit effect of helmet wearing is relatively low (10% to 16%), I don't think it will alter the overall picture too much. (I still would have had to be cycling 10,000 miles a year, every year, since when you could still walk to France (and most of Britain was covered in ice) and many millennia before the Egyptian pyramids were built.)

This does make me wonder about all those "My cycle helmet saved my life" stories.