Cycling UK Forum

I need multiple prescription glasses (i.e. varifocals). I wear contact lenses most of the time - multiple prescription ones. They're excellent but take some getting used to. I very rarely have trouble with watering eyes or grit in the eye - no different to when I'm not wearing lenses.

Riding your bike is a political act whether you want it to be or not. Other people make it political e.g. the Driving Standards Agency will tell you in the Highway Code how you may or may not do it.

The figures are very interesting and cause a lot of speculation. But we lack all the other data to be able to draw any conclusions - you can't normalise the data to get a comparison between similar numbers of riders doing similar journeys lit and unlit. Even the number of accidents is unknown - you can only measure reported accidents. It does seem likely though that unlit riding isn't as risky as lots of people (including me!) intuitively think.

Even with old 6 and 7 speed stuff Simplex levers moved a long way. But they were the bees knees for smoothness. They always used to be advertised as 'Retrofriction' levers so I guess it was the official name.

I've got a Trek 520 Touring bike, about a year old. It came with Avid V brakes and Dia Compe 287V levers. Transmission is 9 speed Shimano with Bar Ends.

I've got some 9 speed 105 STI's that I want to fit. Don't take it expedition touring so happy to lose the Bar Ends. To me the 287V levers aren't ideal - cable routing in the levers isn't too clever in my book. I'll have to change the brakes to make this work so looking for some opinions on the choices. Primary concern is the quality of braking but maintenance (pad clearance, cables, etc) matter too.

1. Put Travel Agents on the V brakes. This'll mean some bodging at the rear 'cos they'll interfere with the rack mounts.

2. Use some Tektro Oryx cantis I've got lying unused in the shed.

3. Get some better cantis - Froglegs, new Tektro non low profile, etc.

Also what's the best approach for hangers? There isn't one on the frame at the rear and no room in the seat clamp to fit one.

1. At the front I can get a hanger with a cable adjuster to fit in the headset stack. Reports suggest that the ones that attach to the fork crown avoid brake chatter but these would make light fitting problematical and need an in line adjuster in the cable. Any thoughts?

2. At the rear I could use a bell crank (SJS) - does anyone have any experience of these? Jagwire make an adjuster that fits in a cable stop but I can't find anywhere in the UK to supply this - Harris won't do an international order for less than $100.

Anyway I'd appreciate any thoughts or opinions anyone will share.

I use bikes with clips, SPD's and Look and don't find it a problem. Clips are good because you can use all sorts of shoes. SPD/plain combinations pedals are useful but without cleats you aren't able to pick up a pedal when you're stopped - you need to out your foot under and lift it up. This is a nuisance in traffic. I also don't feel in total control of the bike when my feet are loose.

In my experience 531 DB used a 27.2 post and 531 Plain Gauge a 26.8.

Chris, Mr Campag might be thinking you'd be using his mini V brakes for Audax,

Because getting wound up is the driver's choice and it's always good to see people exercising the right to choose.

I can understand the guy's annoyance and I wouldn't condone the other road user's (cyclist) behaviour - it's anti-social.

However. It needs to be put it into context. Many pedestrians, cyclists and drivers are killed and injured by cars. Because of the potential damage they can cause drivers have to be trained, licensed and insured. Pedestrians and cyclist have far less potential to injure and cause damage - not none but far, far less.

Arguing that other (than motor vehicle) users should be controlled in the same way is an over-reaction. It's part of the mind set that believes all public spaces are owned by motor vehicle users and all others should behave by their rules.

I always find other people's experience of dynamos puzzling. I've never had a problem with slipping on either BB or sidewall dynamos. I had one of those Soubitez dynamos for years - totally reliable. I don't think it can be the set up - I'm sure really competent people have had the problem. It's just strange - some of us seem to be lucky, different bikes, different dynamos but all OK. Does anyone have any theories as to why this is?

I had exactly the same problem with an SKS pump. I emailed SKS - they told me the part number and that the LBS could order it from Chicken. Went to Cheltenham Cycles - they ordered it and it was there in a couple of days.

GeoffL Thanks for the clarification. That's much more interesting. You're right cyclist's perceptions are complex and maybe slightly contradictory.

Some thoughts to try and start to untangle it bit.

The general assertion that cycling is too dangerous to be undertaken is clearly rejected by cyclists because they still do it.

Equally clearly many of us have very real concerns about the dangers imposed on us (we don't create them). I think we're much more aware of the benefits - and enjoyment - that maybe more than compensate for these. These dangers become very apparent to people who begin cycling - that was echoed in your original post. As we carry on getting more experienced we learn ways to mitigate some of these dangers. However to me they are still very real and the fact that most of them are caused by poor driving (impatience, arrogance, callousness, ignorance, etc.) inevitably make me angry and detract from the pleasure of riding my bike. They also pose a real, not just perceived, danger.

Discussing these risks and incidents on the forums is useful. People learn and also get a chance to let off steam amongst others who understand the problems. There is a real danger in concentrating too much on the negatives - it's depressing.

I think to try and summarise the cyclist's view it's that road cycling isn't too dangerous to be done but that it's far more dangerous than it should be. To try and change the public perception of this must be two fold.

The road environment must be made safer for cyclists (and other vulnerable road users). This means challenging the car lobby and their apologists continually - look at the stink they put up when someone suggests something a straightforward and uncontroversial (in civilised countries) as strict liability for car insurance.

The other thing to be done is challenge the perception. All the hype about cycle lanes, helmets and hi vis really doesn't help here. Cycling offers help to people trying to solve transport and public health problems and we should try and exploit this common interest.

This thread began with the proposition that 'scaremongering' on cycling forums was putting people off cycling.

I think that there's a general consensus amongst cyclists that the dangers (risks?) of cycling are exaggerated by the media and the general population. There's also an acute awareness of how poor behavior by drivers creates a great deal of unnecessary risk.

However, arguing that discussing these issues on cycling forums is having an effect on potential cyclists is specious and contrived. The audience for these discussions are cyclists already. This looks like a whinge about discussion of topics the original poster doesn't like.

I'm sure someone's said it already. If you're going that slow that the light is dim then you aren't going fast enough to need much light so it's generally not a problem. The converse isn't true, going downhill you may need more light because of your speed but the dynamo output will be limited.