Cycling UK Forum

I find the Tiagra 9-sp on my 'road' bike changes much more smoothly than the Deore 8-sp on the mtb. I don't know quite why this is but it could be connected with the hyperglide system, where the chain starts to wrap around the next cog before it's completely left the previous one.

Si wrote:

They don't seem to have covered indicating while moving, either

It's not Bikeability then - Bikeability is based upon delivering a set of National Standards which includes being able to signal (if appropriate) while moving. Of course, there is often a difference between what the trainers tell the kids to do and what the kids later claim they have been told to do

Yeah, looking at the 'report' there are two areas for improvement ticked — lifesavers and taking primary approaching a junction — and that tallies with what I see. I reckon he just doesn't like indicating, cos he feels a bit unsure maybe when doing it, but he can — so something to carry on practising for sure.

As for helmets, it seems to have been the class teacher who said they needed helmets — though I've seen her cycling through town with no helmet! There's nothing like a good bit of teachers' double standards!

It's clear from this thread that there are big variations in how Bikeability is delivered in different places. My child's just done it at school in Y6. This seems a sensible time as it's just after SATs, so all the stuff that gets measured has finished. They did it in one playground and four road sessions of about 90 minutes each, with two trainers, their class teacher and I think one other staff member from school, for a group of 10 kids. Helmets seem to have been compulsory for kids during the road sessions, though some of the trainers didn't wear them. I don't think they had the same trainers every day, seems odd.

Incidents included, apparently, one child riding into the back of a parked car and bending the forks of his bike (which I think was a borrowed one — the trainers bring some) on the first road session. He was ok though. He was only awarded L1 at the end of the course. They don't seem to have covered indicating while moving, either — they seem to have done it as "stop at the give way line, then indicate".

Meanwhile, there are plans to allow driverless vehicles to travel at 15mph on pavements. This is reported on the Times, unfortunately it's behind a paywall so you can only read the beginning of it here: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/moto ... 447548.ece
The key para is this:
[quote}Forty two-seat pods will be developed by engineeers and scientists, travelling at up to 15mph on footpaths. Mr Armitage [project director] said they would provide a "completely new and revolutionary, inner-urban transport system", carrying people across town centres. The three-year trial will start next month, with pods in Milton Keynes within the year.[/quote]
This probably deserves a thread of its own, but I'm not sure where to put it. IMO the main implications are probably not (at least not directly) safety but public health — I can only see these replacing walking, not driving. Like golf carts for the shopping centres.

Slowroad wrote:I'm never quite sure how to 'give way' to pedestrians - if they are going your way you tinkle your bell cheerfully and say hello, and they move over so you can overtake saying 'thanks!' If they are going the opposite way they see you and stand or walk to one side so you can cycle past. I've sometimes stopped to let pedestrians walk past but have been beckoned to cycle on as they stand to one side. That's if it all goes well! I do stop and let people walk past if I'm on a path where I'm not sure I'm supposed to be cycling though!

I think by saying 'give way to pedestrians' they have not used quite the right phrase. Probably giving them priority is closer to what the people behind the leaflet intended. This is pretty much what you are doing — slowing down, taking care, letting them know you are there in a courteous and non-demanding way, being prepared to stop in order that they can continue walking. Generally, treating others as more important than yourself. Politeness and consideration.

This thread prompted me to get my old rucksack out of the cupboard. I bought it for a year's backpacking round NZ back in '96 and haven't used it seriously since about 2000. I could remember it was a Karrimor but not the model — turns out to be a Jaguar GR. It's 65 litres and it looks huge! It is also very heavy, even when empty. I don't know whether this is the material or maybe the 'back system' (two flat bars which a heavily padded lumbar section and hip belt can slide up and down on).

The most comfortable rucksack I ever used was an old one of my brother-in-law's, which had an external, rigid frame. I don't know the make but I think it was of Soviet block manufacture.

flat cap

loving cup

Tortec is a possibility. http://road.cc/content/review/58637-tor ... front-rack Comes with clamps to subsitute for low-rider bosses, and you can use P-clamps in place of eyelets at the bottom. Retails at £40.

I thought you were supposed to avoid puncturing them precisely due to the residual gas even when 'empty'?

Interesting thread. I have a little gas cannister-top stove which I bought almost 20 years ago when backpacking round NZ. It just screws on to the top of the cannister. It was great for backpacking because it's so light and small (the arms fold parallel so it's even smaller) but the disadvantage is it really suffers in winds. I ought to get a windshield! Preferably before next weekend...

However, I do sometimes feel that gas cannisters are "philosophically" unsatisfactory. They're easily available in most places I'm likely to go, and not even expensive if you catch them cheap at Wilko's, but they run out unpredictably and then there's the problem of disposing of the empty cannister. I'm pretty sure they're not recyclable.

I'd go for miles, with a time range if there's space.

iviehoff wrote:

Mick F wrote:This is one in Manchester. I took the photo some years ago.
Signs don't show km or m because that would be illegal in the UK. Bangs head against wall.

Really? I've seen m to junctions and other hazards on warning signs in Wales, and km on footpath signs in Glos and Cuba (the Cuba near Glos, as already mentioned, not the Caribbean!)

Keezx wrote:Obvious the main reason is that 700C wheels are too big for really small people.
An obvious you don't disagree:
1- Frame must be short for the dwarfs, so keep the top tube short and force them to move forward on the bike.
2-With a steep seat angle the chainstays can be shorter, so this correlates with short wheelbase (front side is limited too)
3-Small sloping frame with slack seat angle> no space for the rear brake...........what's there not to understand.

Sorry, I don't get point 3 at all. The rear brake is usually mounted to the seat stays, which obviously have to cross the rim at some point, or the brake bridge immediately above that point. Are you suggesting a frame so small there is no room between tyre and seat stay / seat tube junction that there is no room for a brake bridge? Or what? I'd be grateful if you could explain! Thanks.

privy council

stomach churning