Cycling UK Forum

I think you mean Frank Patterson.

My email came from Richard Bates, who is apparently an SE Councillor. It's quite obscurely-written, to the point where it's not clear at all why he thinks we should all vote Yes. Phrases like "to match cycling in the 21st century", and "an organisation that matches cycling aspirations" don't actually mean anything. My favourite line is: "Charity Status sends out the message to the public of what we are about." Right. And the message the public sends back will be: "Yeah, whatever."

Personally I'm all for proper charitable status for the club, but if my Councillor can't make a coherent case for it then I do have to wonder.

I don't mind my regional Councillors having access to my email address provided they're going to use it responsibly. I'm not impressed if this is the first time they've seen fit to use the facility. Richard is supposed to represent the interests of members in the south east: if he wanted to do something constructive with email he could have canvassed our views on the subject before he voted in Council, rather than lecturing us after the event.

When I was looking into this a few months ago, I found this website very handy for shortlisting:
http://www.ricability.org.uk/consumer_reports/mobility_reports/car_measurement_guide/
It's actually aimed at disabled people looking to choose a car they can fit their wheelchair in, but that means that the chairty concerned has measured the inside dimensions of over 500 models of car, including figures for boot height, width, length with rear seats up and down, size of the aperture, height of any sill... It's no guarantee that your bike will fit, but it does help in ruling out the obvious no-hopers.

Jonty wrote:Thanks for all you help. I was very courageous, took the wheel off and tried it again. This time it went on without even using tyre levers!
I've no idea what's going on.
jonty

This happened to me with the Panaracer on the back of my mountain bike. Sometimes it'd go on easily, other times it would take minutes of struggling and swearing. Eventually I realised that the bead on one side of the tyre was significantly slacker than on the other side, so it was easier to put the slacker side on last. A bit worrying, but I guess it was within the manufacturing tolerances. So all I had to do was remember always to re-fit from the same side.

(Actually, all I had to do was remember to buy a different brand of tyre that didn't puncture every single ride.)

NUKe wrote:DHB merston from theCTC shop

The description says these are "fleece lined" and they look close-fitting. For me, the two great things about the Ronhill Bikesters were that they were made from a thinner, non-fleecy material (same as Ronhill's famous Tracksters) and were slightly looser than tights - so ideal for chucking into a bag as an extra layer when touring in spring/autumn.
I'd also be interested in finding a Bikester replacement as mine have worn out and Ronhill don't seem to make then any more.

I've never bought one of their bikes but I've always found their other cycling kit and clothing to be good value for money.
At that price point, though, I'd recommend you also look at the Specialized Hardrock - a vaguely similar spec to the B'Twin at the same price, and I always say you can't go wrong buying Specialized. (And they don't even pay me to say it. )

grw wrote:Portsmouth has the highest population density of anywhere in the UK? Wow. I would never have guessed at Portsmouth. I would have plumped for somwhere in London with lots of high rose development. (Its a few years since I visited Portsmouth so excuse my ignorance if recently there has been lots of building!)
grw

Just to set the record straight, in the ONS population density report of 2003, Greater London just pips Portsmouth to the post with 4,679 people per square km, as opposed to Pompey's 4,671. Some individual London boroughs are much higher (e.g. Ken & Chelsea at 13,609!). Outside of London, though, Portsmouth and Southampton (4,438) easily have the densest population in the country. [Insert 'dense population' joke here.] Up north, only Blackpool breaks the 4,000 mark.

I see the forum server is sticking defiantly to Summer Time...

I used to have half-shares in a Pashley Picador with twin child seats. The Picador frame has a kind of built-in platform at the rear onto which you can fix the child seats, a huge wicker basket or whatever else takes your fancy. So even if you could get Pashley child seats, your trike's frame wouldn't be suitable for fitting them. Kids used to love travelling on the Picador, by the way - it was a great trike apart from the ludicrously over-geared 3-speed Sturmey Archer. Fortunately we lived in a flat part of the Cotswolds!

The web page you point to shows (I think) a bog-standard Hamax child seat, probably the Siesta. You can buy it substantially cheaper than that if you shop around online (Google for hamax siesta child seat). Several Hamax models use a similar fixing bracket attached to the seat tube, so any of them might be suitable; see the Hamax website for the range. It is possible that your trike's wide seatstays will interfere with the footrests, though, so the best option would be to find a local bike shop that stocks Hamax seats and take the trike along there.

And if your local bike shop doesn't stock Hamax child seats, your local H*lf*rds almost certainly does. [Ducks to avoid incoming flames]

thirdcrank wrote:FWIW I think local byelaws are generally available for inspection at least by anybody who turns up at the Town Hall etc and asks. Although ignorance of the law is no excuse, the law can hardly be kept secret.

True, but that would have meant taking half a day off work to go during office hours! Personally I think all byelaws should be available for inspection on a council's website, but this is still very rare.

The great thing about Freedom of Information is that the only research you have to do is to find the form on the council's website and write the request. A couple of minutes' work. I recommend it.

(On the other hand, my day job is at a council so I see first-hand how much staff time gets diverted into dealing with FOI requests. Use wisely, folks.)

Meanwhile, back on topic...

The Legal Services team at Bournemouth Borough Council replied to my FOI request today, and included a scan of the relevant byelaws. I've just tried to upload the byelaws document, but I get an error saying "The extension pdf is not allowed." Can a moderator help me here?

The Byelaws came into effect in July 1986. The relevant sections are:

12. VEHICLES ETC.
(1) A person shall not, except in pursuance of a lawful agreement with the Council or otherwise in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege, bring or cause to be brought onto the Seashore, Promenades or Cliffs any barrow, truck, machine or motorised or other vehicle other than:-

• (a) a wheeled bicycle, tricycle or other similar machine;
• (b) a wheelchair or perambulator [...snip stuff about prams and wheelchairs, and about vehicle access to certain places]

(2) A person shall not, except in pursuance of a lawful agreement with the Council or otherwise in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege, ride any bicycle, tricycle or other similar machine on any part of the Seashore, Promenades or Cliffs.

[...]

16. PENALTY
Any person who shall offend against any of the foregoing Byelaws shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.

So... As of 1986, you were allowed to "bring" a bike onto the Prom, but not ride it. At all.
But the plot thickens. The covering email from the council adds the following snippets:

...Additionally, it would also be worth mentioning that restrictions for cycling along the promenade were introduced following a cabinet decision in February 2000, where cycling was restricted from 10am to 5pm during the period May to September. A subsequent cabinet decision was made in 2005 to revise the restrictions from 10am to 6pm during the period July to August.
If found to be cycling during these restricted times, cyclists can face a fine of up to £1,000. Whilst there is an advisory speed limit of 10mph in place, Council officers can only advise and educate cyclists about this speed.

So this confirms that the speed limit is only advisory and you can't be fined for exceeding it - but I'm puzzled by the rest of it. I can see how the Cabinet can decide to allow bikes onto the Prom at certain times (effectively a blanket "lawful agreement" with cyclists). But I don't see how they can arbitrarily raise the fine for offences from £100 to £1000. The Byelaws don't give them the authority to change that. I've asked for clarification of these points.

Note that the Byelaws and email extract are copyright Bournemouth Council, but the email gives me permission to re-use the text for non-commercial purposes.

Yes I do have recommendations, but stop calling me a crank.



Stronglight are generally good value, well made, and provide plenty of choice. See the Spa Cycles website.

It does, but not a very clear one. They've only just started taking reviews, and they obviously started by emailing everyone who'd bought from them in the last few months. I got two emails inviting me to review products I bought several months ago. I responded to both 'cos there's a prize to be won! So the level will die off after the initial rush.

Even so, that's a pretty impressive level of response. What other website gives you 42 different reviews of SKS Chromoplastic Mudguards? Allowing for the traditionally low levels of response to surveys, that must mean that Wiggle has sold hundreds of those mudguards this year.

thirdcrank wrote:The general reason why cyclists cannot be prosecuted for speeding is that the regulations only apply to motor vehicles.

... Except that in this case the threat of prosecution is nothing to do with vehicle regulations or the Road Traffic Act, it's based on a Bournemouth Council byelaw specifically written to apply to bicycles.

I was curious about this so I've put in a FOI request to Bournemouth for the full text of the relevant byelaw(s). We shall see...