Cycling UK Forum

paul: thank you for responding calmly and intelligently to my sarcasm.

Actually, I do want to and should have made the more serious point that there may be value in those cyclists riding as they did (having agreed with you that good manners are vital):

although the cars were inconvenienced, they would have been in any case by a single cyclist, that is, they should have waited to pass and not tried to get by. It could be that on the road you described there would have been ample room to pass one (or even two) cyclists but not three. But on many roads here in Cornwall and elsewhere, cars cannot pass even one without going onto the other side of the road. Drivers therefore need to be more accepting that cyclists will impede their progress from time to time, whether it be one, two, three, a trike or whatever. The advantage of this interruption is that it may slow them down and make them more aware of cyclists in general on the road ahead. There is a proven road safety effect from this.

Otherwise we might as well be talking about Telford. Thank you again for your response.

sharpy: I felt so sorry for those poor motorists that I had to cry. 7 mph is ridiculous - everyone must be able to travel at least at 30 mph to get to those places they used to go to (e.g. shops, work, school, relatives) that were round the corner but are now 15 miles away (Tesco, work, Mum etc). And using all that petrol is their birthright. And, after all, the roads do belong to the motorists. And, oh, the few seconds they had to queue before lustily and justly putting their foot down again, oh, oh. And how right they are to assume that they must be able to drive everywhere. And how right that cyclists should be condemned for slowing them down and thus making the road safer for the next cyclist along that road. Oh, oh, the shame of it all.

And BTW, I wish I could start a thread, get 15 replies and still describe it as "some" interest!

thirdcrank: I have a useful piece of software (called My Brain) that quickly spots references to puncture repair, cotton tents, handlebar height, steel v alu frames, low gears and panniers. In this case, it quickly homed in on your topic title: "Puncture repairs - does anyone care?" and the rest followed. So was your post, which BTW made an excellent point, about the obviously useless video or the frustration of getting something done about it? In either case, "This Message Board" may have been a better section to put it on. In the event, the pleasure was all ours.

andrew s: I am not sure I agree with you about cotton soaking it up: the breathability of cotton ensures that moisture passes through and away, the cotton providing a much more pleasant environment than nylon. Where I would agree is that there are no cotton tents that provide the latest design advantages of nylon as they simply haven't been produced. Nylon hits weight and price targets and as long as the customer keeps quiet and doesn't question the lack of choice everyone is happy. So while I didn't answer Andy's question about a better style of tent, he did mention condensation (which got me going!).

BTW, Mrs Horizon and I used our old two person Vango all-nylon dome on a trip in the summer. I carried it without noticing any weight penalty and the space was great - much better than a ridge. The nylon inner was also acceptable and I could be persuaded, though I think if the choice was there I would still choose a cotton inner.

rower40: I often have this problem in Cornwall with panniers (i.e. slow up the hills, narrow roads). I've always reckoned that the slower I go, the easier it is for them to overtake provided that they stop first and wait for a space - my only concern is that they don't try to squeeze through at speed. I achieve this by moving out to the middle of the road (either cycling or walking) and also if appropriate moving in again as they pass. This way, the cars are only delayed slightly and accidents are avoided. I also thank them as they get under way again. It is usually quite easy for a car to pass a very slow or stationary vehicle even if the sightlines are poor.

If I am going at a slow or moderate speed on a single lane road I look for a passing place and wave them on as I zig-zag in and out - they are usually very appreciative of this.

The problem arises from how they perceive you: if they see you as a mobile lamp post they will try to drive by at normal speed and cause an accident. If they perceive you as a parked car they will take the appropriate action and pass you safely, although it is a shame that drivers cannot see cyclists simply as cyclists.

BTW if I am cycling with another person, we walk up steep narrow hills about 25 yards apart on opposite sides of the road and flag drivers to stop or pass - it works a treat.

I think this whole problem is caused by the "keep to the left rule": this has always encouraged drivers to believe that they do not have to slow down/pull up/wait behind cyclists - a complete and dangerous fallacy.

Has anyone got any info on "inconsiderate cycling", which law it is enshrined in, what it means, whether it applies to car drivers and who interprets it. After all, if it is taken to mean (as it was in the original case), using a bicycle on a road while cars were present, then it has a fairly wide remit. I wondered too whether it had been applied to cyclists in relation to pedestrians.

Thanks for that Graham. Yes, I had a inkling they did from looking at their site a few years back so should have checked. It varies from £26 - £53 (and you can also get European cover) depending on puncture cover and membership. I think I would save my money and spend it on some spares etc but at less than £1 per week I would definitely think about it and would recommend it. However they also appear to include it automatically in their cycle insurance so that may be a very good deal. How does this compare with CTC insurance?

jimbo you are quite right. Regular users of this MB will know that I pass my time making comments about the height of drop handlebars. Many people complain that drops are too low - it's not the drops but the stem. It's a shame because I think they then get involved in a wholly peculiar way of choosing a bike based on their perception of what makes a bike comfortable i.e. any bike other than a tourer that has the possibility of getting the saddle lower than the bars.

I still use an old Aquatite (1.5 man) with nylon flysheet and cotton inner. I cannot believe that it isn't possible to design a very light cotton inner with very little weight penalty for cycling. Cyclists don't carry their tents on their backs so there is scope for some weight gain.

Cotton inners get rid of the problem of condensation with lightness assured with a nylon flysheet. Frankly I think we have been sold a pup - yes, nylon is cheaper and lighter but then so is sleeping in a ditch. I think Robert Saunders used to do a cotton inner option but no longer do so. Why go back to nature just to sleep in something as unnatural as nylon?

BTW if you think that nylon tents were invented with weight minimisation in mind, you would have quite a lot of explaining to do when people arrive in their 4x4s at campsites with enormous nylon dome tents.

My Aquatite (about 15 years old) is ready for replacing now - the nylon groundsheet is shot - but the cotton inner is as good as new. I've no idea what to replace it with. I might see if the inner fits inside a Robert Saunders.

It strikes me that there may be four perfectly reasonable responses to the helmet issue:

1. I believe the evidence so I shall wear one.

2. I don't believe the evidence so I shan't wear one.

3. Even if it cannot be proven conclusively that it would help, anything that might reduce the risk is a good thing so I shall wear one anyway.

4. Even if it can be proven conclusively that it would help, the disadvantages of wearing one outweigh any perceived benefit (as the risk is remote rather than immediate) so I shall not wear one.

(All these statements rely on the assumptions that helmets are relatively unpleasant to wear, are not compulsory and do not increase the risk of injury.)

The point I'm trying to make is that it really doesn't matter whether helmets can be proven to be a safety aid or not as, as thirdcrank said, the individual must still decide whether to wear one or not.

Deciding that someone else should wear one is a completely different issue as the discomfort is experienced by the wearer not the legislator. The irritation experienced by the anti-helmet brigade (of which I suppose I am one) is probably due to the assumption by so many people that helmets must de facto be a good thing. Hence this long running but nevertheless interesting debate.

For those who read Matt Seaton's column in the Guardian yesterday (25.01.07), this news will have come not a moment too soon.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/travel/story/0,,1998120,00.html

thirdcrank: I agree. I once found a link to some London research that discovered that the main reason people didn't cycle was fear of punctures. I am not sure I believe it (laziness might be more believable) but nevertheless.

The problem with punctures is that not only are they tricky for a beginner (especially those without mechanics' hands) but they are the most likely cause of breakdown on a newish bike. When my 17 year old daughter went on a tour with her equally young and inexperienced friend, we addressed the problem by making sure she had a spare tube, levers and repair kit and, for her friend, a wheel spanner. The strategy in the event of a puncture was for her to ask a friendly cyclist or likely looking passer-by for assistance - having the bits ready would facilitate this and their young fair looks would do the rest.

Given that we don't have a cycling equivalent of the AA (why not?), I would like to see bike shops put large posters in their windows advertising immediate puncture repairs.

BTW, tubes are now so cheap that getting the wheel/tyre on and off is really the only problem (in the rain, the dark, the cold, in clean clothes, being watched by shady looking people, losing the valve cap and not being able to wash your hands afterwards. Hmm).

Given the age range of people using this MB in the recent poll, there must be lots of us worried about our waistline!

Apart from eating less and cycling more there are two other factors to consider: what you eat and how you exercise. Sugar and carbohydrate apparently accumulate on the stomach area and an expanding waistline is an indicator of a tendency to diabetes (i.e. the sugar is not being absorbed and used sufficiently).

So the answer to this is to change to a diet with less sugar and more complete carbohydrates such as wholemeal bread, grains etc. (If I'm beginning to sound like Gillian McKeith I apologise.)

The second factor is the type of exercise. I am not sure which muscles cycling really exercises but I don't think the stomach area is the main one. So a second type of exercise should be considered - anything from swimming and walking to sit ups and press ups. The trouble is that our weakest muscles are probably the ones that we are least inclined to exercise so this could present a challenge! A gentle triathlon perhaps?

I would be very interested to hear other views and experiences on this.

There was a thread about bike theft and the best way to secure a bike on the old message board. I was of the opinion then and still am that you shouldn't lock your bike. Having said that, I do lock it occasionally but with great reluctance and first having thought about leaving it unlocked - then, and only then, I lock it.