Cycling UK Forum

Mick F wrote:

Gearoidmuar wrote:....... I rode Lejog last year with the CTC and got 4 (2 front and 2 rear, all due to glass), the next worst number of one of the participants being three......

I think that has more to do with the route you chose.

I rode LE to JOG and back again and had zero punctures!

Respect!

I had 4 same as Gearoimuar, all in the rear. One even exploded when I was off the bike sitting in a cafe. I felt I had really upset the Puncture God - but on reflection I think that in fact I had one genuine puncture and the others were down to my refitting the tyre/tube ham-fistedly and nipping the tube which deflated at a later time of it's own choosing. I also reduced the rear pressure from 120 to 100 as suggested by Continental (23mm Gatorskins) - no reduction in performance and same comfort. No further punctures to date.

squeaker wrote:Yawn

Poor heretical soul!

Thanks Troll - explained in a clear and easy to follow style. I'll print your info and put it in a safe place, probably never to see it again!

Cunobelin wrote:

mw3230 wrote:Are helmets compulsory in races, on and off road, or is it that the riders/teams choose to wear them? If the wearing is enforced by the sporting regulatory bodies what has led them to this decision? Could it be the perceived safety benefits or is it simply a 'belt and braces' attempt to minimise possible liability? Anyone know?

They are also compulsory in all motorbike and car races - even for truck racing, does that imply that we should take the logic that because they are mandatory for racing they should be mandatory for general everyday road use?

I don't think that is a logical progression - there are a number of safety devices on motor vehicles which it is not practical or possible to fit to a bike

mark rice wrote:"Tell me you're joking pleeeease"

Wouldn't wear one myself, but have a look at this guy.

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/?o=RrzKj&page_id=36087&v=hl&part=2

Hardcore or what?

Eccentricity is obviously alive and well!

chris667 wrote:I LOVE ebikes.

They allow all the benefits of cycling, but they mean you don't have to work too hard when you're not up for it. What could be better?

Chapeau to the young man for the independent thought. If I had a commute that warranted it and I had reliable access to mains I'd have one, no question.

Agreed. When I read the OP it put me in mind of the disabled parking badge. There is a tendency to look at users and wonder just what is wrong with them, their infirmity not always being apparent. Similarly here - I thought it possible that the lad with the electric bike may not have been as fit and well as he appeared. Give him the benefit of the doubt. He may have been the one who deserved to be smug having got out on a bike at all!

Is there a bike equivalent to the Range Rover, very expensive to purchase, used by people for whom appearance seems to be more important than utility and dismissive of others?. Based on observations as recent as Sunday morning I'm tempted to suggest the time trialler or the triathlete - they seem to think they are a cut above the tourer and they demonstrate this by having silly bars on the front of their bikes and not acknowledging others who don't have the same silly bars

Well spotted

When I was a young PC in the outskirts of Gateshead there was a crossroads controlled by traffic lights (adjacent to Heworth Golf Club if anyone knows the area). After a certain time in the evening the lights automatically changed from being time operated to being pad operated. This meant that in off peak times a car approaching the junction would drive over a pressure strip in the road and trigger the lights to change in that car's favour.

I discovered that if I parked my panda with the front wheels on the strip then the lights stayed on green for me and obviously red for traffic travelling across the junction at 90 degrees to me. You'll have already worked out that anything moving in the said way had gone through a red light!

Oh what fun I had putting the blue light on and chasing after naughty cars. It helped to pass the night shift and nabbed me not a few drink drivers and criminals.


Fortunately for all of us, young bobbies these days don't seem to be as keen or devious and yes, before anyone says it, my parents weren't married when I was born.

james01 wrote:http://cgi.ebay.com/Soft-British-Army-PITH-HELMET-Safari-Explorer-costume-/120370563326?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c06a508fe

Tell me you're joking pleeeease

kwackers wrote:

mw3230 wrote:So cyclists get to choose the regulations they adhere to? Why not other categories of people, perhaps the work-shy should be allowed to feign a disability and claim, or perhaps rich people should be allowed to park wherever they want to ..... come to think of it they DO. Let cyclist jump lights if they want, what the hell. Anarchy probably has something to recommend it other than discordant music!

I chose not to obey the law when I bolted my first flashing LED to my bike. A certain degree of anarchy is actually necessary for democracy to function - squeaky wheels etc...

What a rebel, flashing LED indeed - you're right of course but who makes the rules that determine when it is ok to beak or ignore the rules? Disorder needs a bit of order

mark rice wrote:The argument that cyclists should stop at every red light simply because the law requires is a pretty stupid argument that does not stand up to scrutiny.

There are many reasons why ignoring red lights is a good thing (and I am not talking about racing through pedestrian crossings narrowly missing people, or taking suicidal risks!), here are a few:

1, RLJing lets the cyclist get clear of HGV's thus avioding the chronic dangers they present.

2, RLJing lets the cyclist get clear of much of the rank pollution (diesel) as vehicles accelerate up to speed.

3, It makes the your average speed far higher = faster A-B times = less time spent breathing diesel filth.

4, Sitting at a red light when it would be perfectly safe to proceed is an act of extreme subservience.

5, Bicycles don't have number plates and are thus more labour intensive to trace.

6, It is fun!

Does ignoring laws make the law more likely to be changed? YES of course it does, how about the mass tresspass movement? If those people had simply obeyed the law would we really have as many rights of way?

So cyclists get to choose the regulations they adhere to? Why not other categories of people, perhaps the work-shy should be allowed to feign a disability and claim, or perhaps rich people should be allowed to park wherever they want to ..... come to think of it they DO. Let cyclist jump lights if they want, what the hell. Anarchy probably has something to recommend it other than discordant music!

A slight change of tack I know ... but I've seen deer several times recently whilst out walking the dog in the woodland close to my home. Not uncommon in the countryside but I live 'twixt town and country and I am pleased and surprised to see them so close to popular dog walking territory.

On the bird front I'm being driven to distraction by the song of the Great Tit - at first a joyful song but it goes on and on and starts outside our bedroom window about 0530 each morning ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/birdsong.shtml

For those touring, packing light and wishing to wash overnight, nothing beats the technical fabrics for quick drying. Wash a cotton shirt and it's likely not to dry in time to pack again, but a man made will. Comfort is a subjective thing but I have discovered over the years that it is simply not possible to decide upon the correct combination of clothing to suit the changing weather and at times we have to put up with being a little too hot or too cold.

Are helmets compulsory in races, on and off road, or is it that the riders/teams choose to wear them? If the wearing is enforced by the sporting regulatory bodies what has led them to this decision? Could it be the perceived safety benefits or is it simply a 'belt and braces' attempt to minimise possible liability? Anyone know?