Cycling UK Forum

Interesting. I can't think of failure in the dynamo hub that would cause a surge and overwhelm a front light. A break in the wire inside the hub, or a short circuit, tends to prevent the the light from receiving any current, not boosting it. Ditto if the light fails - the sudden change in load should not affect the dynamo in any way that it's not already subject to normally.

The only common mode failure I can think of is the contacts between the light and dynamo. Have they both become corroded together, such that neither can make an electrical contact any more?

The current Shimano description of the Alfine suggests it's intended for the 'sophisticated urban rider'.
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/ ... lfine.html

(Later on it refers to support for cross bike styles but I assume this refers to hybrids.)
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/ ... 0s700.html

Maybe my A8 is going to fail on me because I'm not fancy enough for it.

There are various oils seals in the A11. JB has posted on which ones to check on pg33 of this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=844561#p844561

There's a handy picture here with arrows pointing to the seals, thanks to rofan:
viewtopic.php?p=844793#p844793

NB Shimano has changed their techdocs website and the links to it no longer work. Here's the EV that JB had linked to:
https://si.shimano.com/en/pdfs/ev/SG-S7 ... -3092A.pdf

Edit: Here's the new techdocs website with a search filtered for EVs for all the A11 hub variants.
https://si.shimano.com/en/manual/search ... del=sg-s70

mjr wrote: ↑12 May 2023, 12:05pm

Sum wrote: ↑12 May 2023, 10:55am In that scenario I would hope considerately locking your bike somewhere would avoid the issue in the first place, or if offense was given somehow, you could de-escalate the situation by moving the bike elsewhere. I wouldn't expect in those circumstances to be accused of being a protestor and carted off under Public Order Act 2023.

Does anyone really feel that it is good to have a badly-written over-broad rushed-through law, just because you don't expect the police to use it as written? And how can you reasonably expect that when police have already used that law in what they call "regrettable" ways to arrest people?

It's a bad law. Repeal and try again.

I'm not defending the Public Order Act 2023, indeed I've already said what I think about it here. The guidance given for the Act by the CPS and College of Policing describes how it should be used for the policing of protests and events, so it's reasonable to think they would use it for that, and not for anything else. And so far they've seemed to have used (and abused) it for that purpose, albeit in "regrettable" ways as you say.

It's a bad law but it's here for now until it's repealed. We've already seen how it and other laws like it can be used on protestors and other folk caught up in protests within gatherings, but the OP has asked the question of whether the Public Order Act 2023 can be used in ways it was not designed for, and it's an interesting question.

As a known cycling enthusiast at work, I tend to get asked questions regarding cycle-related news, and the news is already reporting that "legal expert warns even cyclists could be detained under the new law." https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/17690 ... cy-warning. It's not clear if the article is referring to cyclists being detained in connection with protests and events, or whether it's referring to other contexts, such as going shopping as the OP has suggested. If the latter I'm bound to be asked whether its credible or simply fear mongering.

Those news articles that pete75 has linked to refer to the same scenario that Stevek76 linked to previously i.e. Alice Chambers' arrest for unwittingly standing next to protesters during the coronation. Whilst what happened to Chambers was shocking, it doesn't answer the question in the OP regarding whether the Public Order Act 2023 could be used outside of the context of a protest. The OP later gave a more specific example of "... maybe a local shopping centre landowners security are not happy where you have locked your bike, and call the police to get you arrested".

In that scenario I would hope considerately locking your bike somewhere would avoid the issue in the first place, or if offense was given somehow, you could de-escalate the situation by moving the bike elsewhere. I wouldn't expect in those circumstances to be accused of being a protestor and carted off under Public Order Act 2023.

No, what matters to me is understanding what can happen to me, the choice of phrasing doesn't matter to me at all (well except for the hyperbole .

For example, I now know from the latest example you've usefully provided, that if I attend a gathering and inadvertently stand next to protestors then I'm at risk of unwittingly getting caught up in the protest and getting arrested. It doesn't matter if I was protesting or not, or knew the protestors, what matters will be if the police go in heavy handed, and confuse me as being a protestor. I'd still get arrested sadly. I also understand that I'm at risk of getting arrested as a suspected protestor regardless if I'm a cyclist or have a bike lock. None of the examples you gave involved being a cyclist or bike locks, but they did involve gatherings and protestors and the police having broad powers to deal with protestors. These appear to be the key issues here, at least from what's been evidenced.

However, outside of a protest context, nothing you've said leads me to think I will be charged with the offence of 'locking on' or being 'being equipped for locking on' e.g. when I'm locking my bike up in the stands outside the local supermarket going about the normal business of shopping.

Yes, as you've already said no one is going to get arrested 'just' for having a bike lock on them. Or indeed whilst sensibly locking your bike when going to the shops. The incident in the news article has some shocking details, but you're conflating it with other things outside the protest context, which is again misleading.

I can see there potentially being credible scenarios where someone could unwittingly get caught up in a protest and be accused of going equipped for locking on, if they weren't aware of the law to avoid the situation. But I think this illustrates the importance of discussing and understanding matters, without resorting to hyperbole.

Stevek76 wrote: ↑9 May 2023, 6:15pm ... I'm really quite surprised at some of the willingness to defend these laws here.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not defending the Public Order Act. I don't like this new trend in legislation restricting people's freedom with regards to protest and strike. I don't like legislation that relies heavily on the reverse burden of proof principle, particularly one with a seemingly low bar, and that requires case law to sensibly define it. I don't like how it's been rushed into force by the Home Office with an apparant lack of guidance and misused by the police already. There are other concerns regarding the suspicionless stop and search powers within a protest context, and their disproportionate use against minorities, for example.

However, suggesting it's now illegal to carry a bike lock and you may get arrested whilst sensibly locking your bike when shopping feels both misleading and arguing in the weeds somehow.

Even so, and whilst that may be of a concern, it still seems unlikely that I will be charged with the offence of 'causing serious disruption whilst "locking on"' in the first place, when I'm locking my bike up in the stands outside the local supermarket going about the normal business of shopping.

I can’t see the new Public Order Act, as it has been put forward on this thread, significantly changing the probabilities of life's outcomes tbh.
However, you may be at risk of arrest anyway, depending upon the circumstances you may find yourself in or indeed encourage, regardless of the new Public Order Act.

Looks like the price of that product has been dropping steadily since it peaked around December time. It then dropped more rapidly over the last month. It's seemed to have shot up in price on Amazon now that there's only one left in stock:



Maybe they had some stock they needed to shift. Or someone else was selling cheaper so it forced a drop in price?

The OP said the collision occurred in October last year, after the offence of causing serious injury by careless driving (s 2C RTA 1988) came into force.

My understanding is that the meaning of GBH has been defined by case law e.g.:-
https://ipsaloquitur.com/criminal-law/gbh-and-wounding/
(Although I'm not* claiming this to be an authoritive source.)

Edit: One of the links on that webpage states that; "Grievous bodily harm is very serious harm, not just harm which seriously interferes with health or comfort." R v Metharam [1961] 3 All ER 200

I don't know if this has relevance to the OP's situation. I'd suggest the OP raises the matter with their solicitor.

*Edited again: I missed this word out.

I would put these questions to your solicitor, as we can only speculate which might not be helpful. I hope you do get some answers, and I'm sorry to hear of the pain and suffering you're experiencing.

Just for clarity; the Y1WD98050 chainring bolt is for the 10s outer chainring (i.e. not inner), as well as the 11s inner & outers.

Searching online, the online difference I can see between the Y1WD98050 and Y1LV98060 chainring bolts is the colour - black vs silver finish. Both seem to be made from stainless steel, take a 5mm Allen key and have the same number of threads.