Cycling UK Forum

Just to note that I don't think high viz makes you invulnerable.

I just think that all other things being equal ( a given driver with given abilities on a given day etc.) a high viz top might get you noticed slightly before average or low viz clothing.

So just a shading of the odds in my favour assuming that the motorist doesn't view cyclists as a target.

Cheers

LGC

[XAP]Bob wrote:<snip>
On a "normal" road the speeds are lower and the stopping distances are laughably short - assuming a motorist actually reacts. There is no need to be identified at massive range. I can spot a pedestrian, a cyclist, a motorcyclist, a horse from at least a hundred yards - which is the stopping distance from 70mph. That would be a bit tight though - certainly hard to decide on an emergency stop from there.
If you can't identify a "vulnerable road user" from 23m (official stopping distance from 30mph) without them in high viz then I suggest that your eyesight isn't sufficient to be in control of a motor vehicle - and the DVLA would agree: "You must be able to read a car number plate made after 1 September 2001 from 20 metres."
<snip>

I think the main point is the inattentive driver.

I like to think that I drive attentively - always looking ahead for potential hazards.
On that basis I like it when potential hazards are identified early.

However there are some drivers who drive inattentively for a variety of reasons.
They may well have 20/20 vision and the ability to identify a vulnerable road user at a significant distance if they are actively looking but if they are distracted then something that draws the attention may be of benefit.

Your point about vision standards - there are probably a load of people driving now who are not fit to drive judged solely on eyesight.
Passed the test at 20, now 60, never seen the need to have an eye test.
This leaves out all those who drive without taking a test or insuring/taxing a vehicle.

So the real question is about practical not theoretical benefit.

I wonder if there has been a study of inattentive drivers with marginal (or even outside the DVLA rules) eyesight to see if high viz items are identified more swiftly.

Cheers

LGC

Please not that this question, although serious, is not completely serious.

Cycling is still something of a niche activity, so must have a certain camaraderie (I think).

Caravanners wave to other caravanners.
Motor homers wave to other motor homers.
When I was a motor cyclist you tended to wave to others.
You don't tend to wave to other car drivers (apart from the occasional single or double digit or suggestive flexing of the wrist depending on circumstances) because there are so many of them.
O.K. if you are driving a vintage Bentley you may distantly acknowledge a similar vehicle.

However with motor cycles, there were sometimes sub-groups.
For example, sometimes people riding classic European bikes (mainly Brit and Italian) wouldn't wave to riders of new, shiny, fast, reliable Jap bikes.

So, I enjoy cycling and like to encourage others on the road and I generally wave to other cyclists coming towards me or say "Hi" to cyclists I pass (or more often pass me).

Some wave back, some 'blank' me and some may not even notice.

Are there any hard and fast rules for these interactions?

Let us say we split cyclists into a few groups:

(1) Hardened pros who are banging in the Ks and pushing the pain barriers ever further.
(2) Club cyclists who are on their usual 50k-100k just to loosen up.
(3) Enthusiastic cyclists who are out for 20k because it is such a nice day (more on this later)
(4) Commuters
(5) Shoppers
(6) Lardy people who ride sub-£100 Halfords full suspension mountain bikes with low saddles, knees very bent and splayed out and pedal with the instep and move very slowly.
(7) Little old ladies on the bikes they were given as a young girl and which they have always used
(8) Black yoof in black clothes on a black bike with no lights after dark (not meant to be racist - just the most stealthed thing I have seen on a cycle).
(9)...well, you probably get an idea by now

Should the thoughtful cyclist acknowledge all other cyclists, regardless of niche?
Or are there limits?

If you qualify as (1) you probably are too driven to acknowledge anyone else, but may share a moment of pain with others in categories (1) and (2).
However how do you tell the category?
Category (3) can look just like (1) and (2) if they buy a (mock?) racer and wear team colours.
Head on can be confusing - however if you pass at a high closing speed from behind this may be a clue.

If you are category (3) you might wave to (1) and (2) - respect - and (4) and (5) - similar background and interchangeable with (3) perhaps - but do you have enough in common with (6) and (7) to bond?

You may never see (8).

Within that, do you act differently if it is a sunny day or persisting with rain?
Anyone else out in a down pour must be a dedicated cyclist and worthy of acknowledgement.
Anyone out on a leisure ride in the sun should have something in common worthy of acknowledgement.


So, what are the rules?
I assume they are different in big cities from in rural areas, and may also be different sarf of Lunnun from in t'North.

Cheers

LGC

mjr wrote:

LittleGreyCat wrote:I'm a little puzzled as to why people seem so anti wearing high viz.
[...]
Is fashion more important than survival?

I sometimes wear hi-vis but more because my jacket looks misleadlingly official and just happens to be hi-vis. I dislike the day-glo colours but some of my other jackets have more subtle reflective triangles or stripes.

Anyway, I think it's not about fashion and hi-vis is unlikely to help your survival. It may improve your chances of being seen slightly, but how many crashes are "SMIDSY" (more like Sorry Mate I Didn't Look) where it probably won't help?

However if I am involved in a SMIDSY then should it come to court, showing a bright yellow top to the court and asking "The victim was wearing high visibility clothing and you claim you DIDN'T SEE THEM" may carry more weight than if you were wearing normal every day wear.

mjr wrote:It also helps to give non-riders the impression that riding bikes is a dangerous activity that requires special safety equipment, contributing to the sense of cyclists as an outlier group. Finally, there's things like Ian Walker's research that seems to suggest that you get less room if you look more competent, so it's not even a definite safety improvement for you yourself.

I think we are drifting into well worn territory here - all the various counter intuitive arguments which say that an apparent safety improvement really reduces your personal safety.

The same type of arguments used about crash helmets on motor bikes, seat belts in cars for example.

I am merely stating that my personal experience as a driver is that high viz yellow jerseys stand out in urban, suburban, main and secondary roads.
They are especially effective for me personally on sunny days where there is shade from trees.
[There may also be some scientific reason that road workers (amongst may others) have to wear high viz clothing.]

So if I see these tops more easily, I assume that other drivers may see these tops more easily.

So I wear the tops.

mjr wrote:Is a debatable improvement in your personal visibility more important than promoting cycling as accessible and easy?

I certainly don't think I should make myself less visible, presumably to put myself in harms way so that near misses, injury or death may serve as a warning to motorists and my noble sacrifice may some day benefit other cyclists.

I also don't think that me wearing bright yellow Lycra should scare others away from cycling (umm....perhaps an attack of nausea and "Mummy my eyes!! I can't see!!").

However as I said above we seem to be drifting firmly into areas of faith which don't always respond to rational argument.

Stay safe.

Cheers

LGC

I'm a little puzzled as to why people seem so anti wearing high viz.

When I'm driving in my car (hmm...song title?) I find I notice yellow high viz clothing much more than normal street clothes or branded racing colours.

Given that I want to be noticed and avoided I always wear bright yellow tops.

Is fashion more important than survival?

Cheers

LGC

P.S. Aldi, here I come

I've only skimmed the middle pages of this thread so I may have missed it, but from your photographs you have a quick release skewer with the lever on the opposite side from where the grease comes out.

I can't see any particular reason why this would make a difference, but have you tried reversing the skewer so the fixed and moving bits are on the opposite sides?

When you reversed the bearing (put the wheel in the other way round) did you keep your quick release on the same side of the bike?

I assume that your tire is directional and because of that you are not just flipping the wheel back and forth during a ride to see if you can make both sides of one build leak during the same ride.

Cheers

LGC

LollyKat wrote:

LittleGreyCat wrote:(2) I snapped a link on the chain on my venerable Dawes Galaxy (how do you tell a bike's age when it is bought 2/3/4th hand?) so I ordered a new chain.
Now on checking the chain length it seems to be a bit worn but not stretched enough to qualify for replacement (apart from the broken link).
So is this a candidate for cleaning up for a spare chain, or is one snapped link enough warning?

Is it a Shimano chain? If so it may be the special joining pin which has given way - I believe it is less strong or more prone to wear than the standard pins.

How worn is 'a bit worn' - how are you measuring it? You could:
a) buy some joining pins (if it is Shimano) and mend it
b) buy a SRAM or KMC quicklink and mend it (they come in packs of three so you could carry the other two as spares)
c) replace the chain altogether with a SRAM or whatever that comes with a quicklink, rather than a Shimano.

Personally I would do b) or c), probably the latter.

It isn't the pin - I have a broken link and there are no bits missing.

{Pause for grubby interlude scrubbing at a manky chain}

It is an SRAM PC 90 or PC 98 - hard to read the last character.

Can't see any special link, but then I don't really know what to look for and the chain is well mucky.

I am measuring it using a steel rule as in the Haynes manual.

I have an SRAM PC 850 to replace it.

I think I will clean it up then review it - if it looks O.K. clean then I can get a power link to replace the broken link and keep it as a spare.
If it still looks manky then I will recycle it.

Cheers

LGC

MisterTea wrote:I'd be inclined to replace the rear mech. And replace the Chain

As asked above, how r u measuring the chain for stretch? R u using a chain gauge?

I'm following the Haynes manual and using a 12" steel rule.
With one end of the rule dead centre on a pin and the chain under tension, the 12" mark is not dead centre on the other pin (as for a new chain) but is still within the area of the pin instead of being over the rest of the link.

By the way, I am now regretting asking two questions about two bikes in one thread.
I don't know if you are recommending changing the chain on the Univega or the Dawes.

Cheers

LGC

Valbrona wrote:1/ Something like a Shimano Tourney would be okay. However, you might need to fit a new gear cable and housing with a more modern pattern of RD like a Tourney.

I have recently (last couple of years) fitted new Alivio changers complete with new cables so I would be reluctant to change these at the moment.

Valbrona wrote:2/ If you buy and fit a new chain it might well slip on worn sprockets. And rather than buying new sprockets it might be just as well to switch back to the old chain ... so don't be quick to throw it away.

For the speed readers in previous responses I should note that I have already ordered a new chain - and it has been delivered. An SRAM PC 850.

I have also ordered a new big ring because the old one looks more like the 'worn' picture than the 'new' picture.

I have had a new cartridge bottom bracket in stock for some time waiting for me to fit, so a fairly comprehensive overhaul is on the cards.

I think I will clean and lube the chain and keep it as an emergency spare - once I get another link (or find one in my spares box).

Cheers

LGC

A couple of quick questions about two different bikes.

(1) My 1995(ish) Univega Rover 3.5 MTB has an original 7 speed Alivio rear mech. Shifting is a bit off, and on checking it over for play there seems to be a lot of movement around the mech fixing bolt. Certainly more than on another Alivio of the same model age, and on a much newer 8 speed Alivio.

I am assuming (but asking here to confirm) that if the whole mech is wobbly because of play around the mech fixing bolt then this could make accurate shifting quite difficult.

So is it a problem to be solved?
If so is it user serviceable, or is it time for a new rear mech?

If so again, what 7 speed rear mech should I be looking at to replace a '90s Alivio?
I ask because of Shimano range name drift.
Alivio was at the time a good mid range mech but I don't know where it sits in the model range today.
I also don't know if 15-20 years of development mean that the cheapest rear mech now is better than mid range then.

(2) I snapped a link on the chain on my venerable Dawes Galaxy (how do you tell a bike's age when it is bought 2/3/4th hand?) so I ordered a new chain.

Now on checking the chain length it seems to be a bit worn but not stretched enough to qualify for replacement (apart from the broken link).

So is this a candidate for cleaning up for a spare chain, or is one snapped link enough warning?


Cheers

LGC

horizon wrote:

LittleGreyCat wrote:
I am not at all sure why you think that 20p per mile is a charge rather than a cost when you cycle. As far as I know the HMRC rates reflect the average cost of using that mode of transport. There are obvious costs in cycling; buying, maintaining and insuring the bike, depreciation, plus provision of suitable cycling clothing for all weathers including fair wear and tear. Cycling doesn't come free. I wish it did! NO! It is an expense, not a charge!!!!

Because I am self-employed what I "claim" for expenses is up to me, so it's simply a charge. I could charge for other things but they are included in the fee. My client doesn't have to pay me expenses.

<snip>

Sorry LittleGreycat, I hadn't made it clear. I've added in the annotations in red. What you have said is all very plain and simple - as it should be. But I still cannot wriggle out of taking a taxi (but I am going to give it a try).

I think we will have to differ on this, and refer it to my good friend Phil O'Sophical.

I have also worked for a time as self employed - well, for tax purposes I was a limited company, so slightly different rules, but much the same thing.

I always regarded costs as three categories, which governed the way I charged the client/employer.

Firstly, there was my constantly undervalued expertise and experience.

Secondly, there were the overheads of running the business including tools of the trade, accounting, clothing etc. I would include travel to any location close to my home office.

Both these were included in my daily rate.

Thirdly there were the costs associated with travel and accomodation.
These were subject to negotiation, for example if I was to be based in another part of the country for several months this could either be reflected in my daily rate or the client/employer could pick up the tab directly.
Beyond this was travel away from the client's "home base" to attend meetings on the client's behalf.
These were always regarded as additional expenses and usually charged in line with the way the client reimbursed permanent staff - easiest for the client to understand and also easy for HMRC to understand.

So for me the expense we are discussing were always kept separate from the main fee - probably a way of thinking developed as a wage slave of many years.
I think that I would have had difficulty in presenting a blanket charge for 'expenses' without invoices, because that is the way companies think - as demonstrated by quite a few comments in this thread.

So - back to the original question.
If you charge for cycling then either go for the [60p] 20p per mile, or charge whatever the traffic will bear but remember to charge your 60p per mile to expenses when doing your tax return.

Cheers

LGC

Thanks for all the info - given the many (and often bewildering) functions on my current computer I now wonder if it should allow the entry of gear inches (or similar) of a chosen gear so you can get it to calculate your cadence for you. Then again they would probably rather sell you a more expensive model with a sensor.

Cheers

LGC

Urticaria wrote:Take a £5 Aldi/Lidl cycle computer, but put magnet on your inner chainring, and the reed switch on your seat tube or a chain stay. With a carefully chosen fictitious wheel size stored in the computer, you can get the MPH or km/hr setting to display your cadence, but you often need to ignore the decimal point.

Nice idea

Only problem is I use a Lidl wireless cycle computer at the moment, and putting another on the chain set would lead to loads of confusion.

However the message I am getting is that there is not any non-computer method - either measure directly, or compute from a test ride in a chosen gear.

Anyone got a translation table strapped to the handlebars so that you know what your cadence is if you are doing 15 mph in 5th on the big ring?

Or alternatively, don't change up if you are doing less then 15 mph in 5th on the big ring?

Cheers

LGC

horizon wrote:Over the course of my self employed work I have had clients that pay expenses and those that don't (i.e. travelling expenses etc are my affair and included in the overall fee. It's then between me and HMRC as to what is allowable). So far so good. There are of course complications: some clients offer less than the HMRC rate for mileage for example. And in particular, the vexed question as to what to charge for cycle mileage comes up. I could of course simply put in for the 20p per mile that the HMRC thinks is reasonable. However this is not really a cost but a charge - remember that this is for self-employed work. And it is in relation to the following circumstance that that the problem arises (I hope I haven't lost you so far):

I am not at all sure why you think that 20p per mile is a charge rather than a cost when you cycle. As far as I know the HMRC rates reflect the average cost of using that mode of transport. There are obvious costs in cycling; buying, maintaining and insuring the bike, depreciation, plus provision of suitable cycling clothing for all weathers including fair wear and tear. Cycling doesn't come free. I wish it did!

horizon wrote:Let's say I take train to London and it costs £90. On arrival at Paddington, I need to travel a further three miles to my client. I could either take a taxi (cost £6.00 let's say) or cycle, cost to my client of 60p and a bit of effort on my part in my own time. Why shouldn't I charge the client £1.00 per mile for my cycling? After all, I could just as easily take the taxi (this is acceptable to the client). I am not sure that charging to convey myself would be. Remember again that this is a charge to the client, not an expense.

NO! It is an expense, not a charge!!!!

If you cycle and charge 60p per mile to cover your travel expenses then this reflects the average costs, and as such does not make a profit which would be liable to tax.

If you take a taxi for £6 and reclaim your costs, again you have not made a profit.

If you bill your client for £1.00 per mile then you are charging more than the cost of the journey, and making a profit from that journey. That profit is liable for tax.

Just as if you paid a £6 taxi fare then charged your client £10 - you make £4 profit which is liable for tax.

So if I were employing you I would be happy to pay 60p per mile for you to cycle, and give you brownie points for being environmentally friendly and keeping fit.

However if you wanted to charge £1 per mile I would view it as you having fun at my expense.

Reminds me of an old joke where someone was told to run behind the bus to get fit and save the bus fare, and he decided to run behind a taxi and save loads more money.

What you are very close to suggesting is that if your employer was willing to pay the taxi fare, then you could charge the taxi fare but use a cheaper form of transport and make a profit.
Which would probably be fraud.

What you seem to be suggesting is that you could charge a portion of the taxi fare and use a cheaper form of transport, and thus make a profit.
As long as this was made clear to your employer then it would not be fraudulent, but any profit would be liable for tax.

A lot of employers would be quite happy if you said "I could charge you £6 for a taxi - what say you we do a deal and I charge you £3 and cycle?".
Quite a few would have a problem because their accounting system could not cope with this - if cycling was not a category they could include.

So either charge a flat rate for your day and include all travel expense, or charge travel expenses as an extra and account for them accurately and agree them with your employer.

If your employer is not willing to cover the cost of you cycling (and save money) then either absorb the cost yourself or use some other form of transport.

You should probably be able to claim the 60p per mile back against tax as an expense if you do decide to cycle.

For reliable advice, ask your accountant.

Cheers

LGC

I have seen loads of posts talking about cadence.

I assume that cadence is the number of pedal strokes for one leg per minute - or number of complete revolutions of the crank which should be the same thing.
I do wonder if some are counting 'left leg right leg' and counting that as 2.

So counting, starting with the right leg, one (right leg)-and(left leg)-two(right leg)-and(left leg) etc. should give your cadence.

However you presumably need to be watching a stop watch to know when you hit 30 seconds, or a minute.

So how do you go about measuring cadence, especially when you are out on a ride and using both hands to control the bike and change gears?

I have no idea what cadence I am riding at, just re-learning that you can ride at the same speed in a lower gear if you spin your legs faster and it sometimes feels easier (until your legs complain about spinning fast).

Cheers

LGC