Cycling UK Forum

I would try a small intense heat source on the bolt first, something like a `jet` cigarette lighter or mini gas torch flame

Not keen on that idea - the glued joints are not far away.

After soaking for a day with plusgas I tried to remove the grub screw with a torx bit hammered into place. it was very firmly in and took a fair bit of torque before it gave up and rounded the hole. also, now the 'hex' hole is a bit larger i tried my 7mm extractor but it's still too big.

.... bonded aluminium frame please.

Pretty sure it isn't the regular Vitus - it is quite different the the Duralinox.
I thought it might be a Peugeot Comete but the detailing is all wrong.

I should have said that i have stud extractors but one is a 5mm start and the other is 7mm and I need 6mm!
Yes it has been well soaked in plus gas first.

Nice timing this. I need a front bulb for the same. What wattage do i need?

Got this in today for attention.
French alloy frame from the 80's with a grubscrew holding the seatpin in place. The seatpin wobbles but wont come out so I need to remove it and check it all out. Someone has run the allen key recess ragged and the thread shows signs of loctite. Can I get this out without resorting to drilling and re-tapping?

No it wasn't weighed. they trust customers who use online payment to pay for the correct weight of parcel. It is almost inviting fraud in so much as you could pay a lot less for a delivery and/or claim something was removed en-route when in fact the parcel was empty when it left your hands. He handed it to a Post office employee. How difficult or time consuming is it to look at the price on the label and see if it roughly matches the weight as they are holding it. In the case of this package it would have been blindingly obvious if he was pulling a fast one.
As far as I am concerned, even without insurance, he has paid for a service which he hasn't recieved. That came about not because of an accidental loss or damage to the item but because an employee of the courier has stolen the contents of the parcel and resealed the package to hide the evidence. That's devious and criminal and Parcel Force should admit fault, compensate the customer first and investigate afterwards or accept that their system is flawed and payouts, legitimate or otherwise, are inevitable.

Here's the story:
My son sent something valuable by Parcel Force back to his digs at uni. In his misguided wisdom he didn't insure it (It had been sent home a few weeks earlier with no issue whatsoever). He took it to a post office and collected it from a post office so the entire time it was in reciept of the delivering company who at some point had opened the parcel, removed the contents and carefully resealed it. It was not weighed for the entirety of the journey so it cannot be established where this happened or proven (they say) that there was anything in there to start with. When it was handed to him by an employee he immediately pointed out how light it was and in their presence opened the parcel - which was empty. The matter has been in the hands of the local police and Parcel Force local sorting office and nothing has been heard from them for several weeks. I have suggested to him it should be looked at from a central office to cover the whole journey.

Can anyone here suggest a route into Parcel Force investigation that is likely to resove this? I have done some online investigation and come up with two departments, locations and phone numbers which doesn't suggest a very thorough or watertight approach to me.
Cheers

If you look at the signs on the lampposts, the pavement on the other side of the road is a shared path.
So that bit of path is so you can cross the road at the pinch point before rejoining the road just before the roundabout.

You have a keen eye indeed. I might add that one cyclist clearly thought submission was the best course of action and took alternative transport into town just before he got to the lane. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.92734 ... 312!8i6656

It's runs it close but your example is part of a longer route, divided into sections to cross the main road. The one i pointed out is on it's own. Nothing before it or after.

And the most pointless lane ever?
Here's a view - it starts where the dark car is with no prioir indication to cyclists using the road.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.92736 ... 312!8i6656
And to put the icing on the cake, a view the other way showing the potential hazard that a better designed lane could do to avoid.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.92736 ... 312!8i6656

Those examples in Rownhams lane are familiar to me being local. I have driven the road but not cycled it. The fist two would be a lot clearer if the cyclist was presented with give way markings either side of the access.
As for the cycle lane shown in the last photo, it was very apparent when it was first marked out 5 or so years ago. It uses a greater percentage of the width of the highway than any other I have ever seen. You really did feel like you should be driving in the middle of the road. However, what is very apparent in the intervening years is the wear to the road markings and a "what the heck am I supposed to do here?" feeling. But maybe that's the prime driver in it's design. Doubtful, confused motorists tend to slow down.
This driver here would clearly loose a wing mirror to a passing vehicle if he avoided the cycle lane altogether. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.97092 ... 312!8i6656

I noticed this drivers road Tax has expired so ive reported them too.

Ah, things may not be what they seem here. It 's no longer an offence to fail to show a valid licence disc. Renewals are now electronically managed and the police have up-to-date info on all vehicles so the old tax disc is obsolete. The one displayed in our car is 3 years old. I really must remove it.......later - it's raining.

Fair enough you could argue it's been poorly worded, but it's got nothing to do with turning right, it's about giving way to those going straight on when you're turning left across their path.

It comes back to the post I made previously relating to the markings and/or road signage. In all cases the poor/threatening manouever is by a road user that has crossed lanes and/or moved into another road thereby invoking the rule that they no longer have right of way and should yield to ANY road user that had occupation before them.
To split that rule up to apply to some situations and not others, some users and not others and some times/days not others is ludicrous.
The 'times/days' reference is not relevant to what we are discussing but it has happened so include it. I refer to the periodic use of the hard shoulder on motorways for regular traffic which I feel is equally barmy and a disaster wating to happen.

That proposal statement on the Biritsh Cycling site is very vague. what does "going ahead" mean? Dont all road users do that? As opposed to sideways or backwards that is. Sorry if that sounds frivilous, it's not meant to but I thought it was a very basic wide-ranging rule that, if you proceed along a highway you have right of way within a marked lane unless road signage, markings, obstructions or an official person (Police Officer or acting highway operative) instructs you otherwise. When you turn left or right it's either within a lane or into another road or lane in which case the road markings indicate that and you HAVE to give way to ANY road user or pedestrian already using that road REGARDLESS of which side of the road they are.

This is a classic case
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@50.9 ... h,1.05p,1z
The view is from a vehice which has right of way turning to the right.
If proceeding straight ahead it has to give way to the pedestrian crossing and also any vehicles manoeuvering in the road. It is effectively another road even though the majority of traffic proceeds in that direction. The biggest issue at this junction however is the unwillingness of traffic coming down this road (towards the camera) to give way to approaching traffic turning to the right despite the VERY Clear road markings, signage and raised kerb sets.