Cycling UK Forum

And remember, GCHQ probably also know that same information (and more). But not being so helpful, they don't provide so informative a home page - even though you actually pay for GCHQ but don't pay for Google.
...

Ian

Prof I Etsen wrote:Why is it so difficult to buy a bike in the UK that is not permanently equipped with lights?

As a novice who has recently resumed cycling in retirement (so no expertise here), if bikes came with lights permanently fitted, what sort of light would they use. My own investigations seemed to show several different "categories" of lights: "see" or "be seen" (i.e. cycling roads with streetlights where the main purpose was to ensure others saw you or for on unlight roads where in addition to being visible, you also need to see where you are going. And for the "see where you are going" there seemed to be a wide range of options. If cycling fast on potholed bendy roads you need more lighting than on straight good roads, etc.

So what sort of lights would a manufacturer fit and how would those needing something different feel about paying for those lights when buying the bike only to have to remove them and buy something better?

Just my thoughts on it.

Ian

I'll be complaining about: Quorn Ad broadcast 25 Jan 2014 23:46 on Pick TV Freeview Channel 11
Showed Mo Farah and others people running down the centre white lines of the road, followed by a group (7 or 8 people) running down the middle and both lanes of a single carriageway road on a bend with poor visibility with no special safety measured shown.

Clearly showing unsafe pedestrian practice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjt2DCigu6o

Breaks Rules For Pedestrians Highway Code
1. General guidance (1 to 6)
...
2 If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and
◦ be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light
◦ keep close to the side of the road.

Ian

Most/many phones (even older non-Smartphones) will have the facility often buried in menus somewhere to scan for other networks and will then give you a list of which networks it can "hear" (irrespective of the provider and coverage on the SIM card in the phone).

So if you are concerned about coverage at particular locations (e.g. at home, in workshop, etc.) then get somebody with a phone to do such a scan and see which networks it can hear (thereby allowing you to eliminate some). However, don't just do a single one-off scan as results vary when coverage is less than ideal, so try as often as you can and with as many different phones as you can in different rooms, etc.

When I was going through network providers I made sure each contract had a "cooling-off" period. However, that is not as useful as it sounds. Depending on contract T&Cs you could use a "cooling-off" clause but it is a real nuisance (stopping Direct debits, changing mobile number or trying to keep mobile number changing networks, etc.) and the network you then switch to might be no better.

However, my experience is only with Pay Monthly contracts and I know nothing about Pay-As-You-Go which might be far easier ...

Ian

Without wanting to advertise but ... I live in a rural location with poor mobile coverage. Only network that stands any chance is O2. However, that only really works outdoors. In the house coverage "oscillates" between "just works" to "forget it" as quickly as in 30 secs (long enough to make a call and then line drops when answered (annoying the person you called).

O2 have this smartphone app (on pay monthly contracts only, non-business) called TuGo that uses your house WiFi and allows you to make/receive calls to/from your mobile contract (i.e. when you have bad coverage you use their app instead of the normal phone and the call is made over WiFi/Internet rather than through the air to the GSM mast). But only on paid monthly contracts.

One thing I have found is that the network coverage maps/checks can be somewhat "optimistic" or "inaccurate. When I moved to when I now live I went through pretty well every network before sticking on O2. People do comment that O2 tend to have the most extensive coverage but only for "low-tech". If you need 4G then different networks are at different stages in roll-out/coverage/sharing agreements so it gets more complex.

But also remember that there are not as many true networks as there might appear. Many mobile contract providers are actually based on somebody else's network. e.g. Tesco Mobile is actually using O2 - so go with Tesco Mobile and you are actually getting O2 coverage. Many others are the same.

Ian

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jan/31/bike-blog-cycling-campaign-asa

From the Guardian report, I read it as the ASS is reviewing their finding about road position but NOT reconsidering their helmet required decision. So maybe time to continue the complaints (or have I read it incorrectly).

Ian

reohn2 wrote:

.........accept that a nearly 60 year old body takes time to acclimatise to saddles ?

My 2d's worth.
IMO acclimatization is the key,it's bound to hurt initially as it's a whole new thing for an old body.
If there's anything I've realised as I've got older(I'm fast approaching 61 )is quicker muscle loss in those I no longer use much,and a lack of elasticity of the soft tissue.
Compared with the younger me I have a very boney arris covered by the same amount of skin(it's not a pretty sight,in fact I avoid full length mirrors when naked at all costs ),which means unless the riding position is right and clothing is right I suffer.
I'm also a pretty beat up individual,Osteo Arthritis,
...

Fast muscle loss is something that has really surprised me. After retiring (early) I did loads of walking (out round the fields/paths,etc.) until a pair of boots damaged my feet which the doctors ignored until being pushed when they discovered arthritis in the feet where they were damaged by the boots !! But my after having to stop walking for a year+ I was shocked by the muscle loss; and then how hard it is to get back!

reohn2 wrote:

.........accept that a nearly 60 year old body takes time to acclimatise to saddles ?

You don't mention what type of bike you're riding or tyre size 23/25 high pressure tyres can be a menace on mixture of bad tarmac and old bones especially if the rider is heavy(?)

I have Genesis Croix de Fer - selected mainly as it seems lively and capable of touring (although described as a Cyclocross bike - everybody says good at many thing). Purchased new in a shop which had different sizes to try and establish the correct size. I have been thinking about lowering the saddle very slightly so maybe I'll experiment a bit. I'm generally comfortable (and love the bike), just after a couple of hours (no breaks) that ache starts (though nothing debilitating).

(700c) Came with 35 tyres which I have changed down to New Schwalbe Marathon 32C though probably at around 90psi (so I'll check your link - I'd been thinking about letting some air out).

reohn2 wrote:I've had numerous different shorts over the years and have come to the conclusion that expensive doesn't equate to comfort,neither does the word Gel IMO,in fact I've been more comprtable with no insert than I have with some of the inserts I've worn in the past.

I've two pairs of shorts, one Halfords, other Specialized [sic?] and whilst the "padding" looks and feels similar, one pair is definitely more comfortable than the other pair. I experimentation will have to depend on how long they take to wear out.

Many thanks
Ian

I can only comment on what I have fitted (that is the limit of my experience)

Mudguards: Initially fitted SKS Bluemells but thought they seemed a bit flimsy and "rattly". So changing for SKS Chromoplastics [sic?]. Fitted Chromoplastics to rear and much better. Still to fit to front (got to get a stand-off post made to clear the disk brakes).

Racks: Tried Tubus Logo Evo which was fine except stood rather high on my particular bike so changed to Tubus Cargo Evo. Impressed with the build quality of the Tubus racks (compared to other racks I saw in LBS). Some Tubus racks are both 700c and 26" whilst others come in different variants for the different wheels. I actually ended up with 26" variant on my 770c to keep the top lower (still a decent clearance between mudguard and rack).

But I am a novice so above is very limited experience.

Ian

I would have thought that a Council could post a sign by cycle racks along the lines of "Any locks left not securing bikes between <date 4 weeks away> and <date 5 weeks away> will be removed and disposed of". That should mean that anybody regularly using their locks will be aware and will temporarily remove their locks between the specified dates and only those locks not used for more than 4 weeks (abandoned) will cleared away. Maybe longer/shorter dates/intervals but the principle that allows regular users to keep leaving locks without abandoned locks building up year after year.

Lots of variants e.g. Permanent notice "locks left not securing bikes will be removed last Thurs and Fri of each month", etc., etc.

Ian

Many thanks to everybody for all the suggestions and aspects to consider.

Basically I've not really cycled since studying many 40 odd years ago. Generally fit'ish, but I have lost muscle over time. Interestingly, last year I had to replace my bathroom scales and the ones I now have also give muscle and fat body weights ... and I do seem to be slowly building muscle mass (slow though). Add to that that I am still building up distance.

So I suspect it might be best to continue with my existing saddle whilst building muscle and distance; maybe taking a break before any aches start (or maybe a morning then and afternoon ride subject to weather). I will look around to see which local shops can do measuring and what saddles they supply and on what basis (e.g. trials). I had considered Brooks saddles but have been unsure due to the extra care needed (my bike is often left rather muddy so even more to look after might not work so well). I like the idea of Brooks in that if I get on well I am sorted for years whereas finding a plastic one would probably wear out sooner meaning the search needs to start again.

It is certainly not a "damaging" issue as, even after aching on the saddle, when I get home it is seconds before all if forgotten and I'm walking and sitting as though I had not even been on the bike.

Again, many thanks for the comment and time and for a subject I imagine comes up on a regular basis.

Ian

Geriatrix wrote:

patricktaylor wrote:It's a bit of a worry but to be fair, something was done about it in this case.

Ah yes I see that have withdrawn their ruling "pending an independent review". No information on who is doing the independent review though.

Cynic that I am, I expect a massive face-saving exercise now. The final review will raise several (mostly irrelevant) aspects where the ASA consider they were correct and will (at great length) expound the reasons for their justifications on these issues. It will then probably comment "The wearing of helmets is controversial and available data inconclusive so ASA took a precautionary approach", and maybe "In the portrayed circumstances there are justifications for the cyclist to position themselves closer to the kerb" and a conclusion "We find the ASA substantially correct, though there are elements to their explanations that may be subject to mis-interpretation". I cannot see them admitting they were wrong (even though they are).

But I am a cynic.

Ian

When I took-up cycling (age nearly 60) again last Nov it took some time for my body to get used to saddle. Nothing too painful but it took some time.

Now, as I build-up my mileage, I'm regularly finding after 30 miles I am "suffering". Nothing horrendous and as soon as I get home/off the bike the discomfort goes away. Around the 30'ish miles (maybe starts a bit before that) I find myself standing on the pedals or relief very regularly. Not numbness just aches starting on sit bones.

I've never felt "I love my saddle" and always had a nagging feeling that I don't get on well with it. But I'm reserved about launching into changing things if I should be just building distance and allowing my body to continue to acclimatise (maybe trying different saddles later).

I do touring round local country lanes - which are generally in poor condition. Current saddle is the one that came with the bike, has a central and is probably 12 cm wide (a Madison Prime http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/components/saddles/product/review-madison-prime-saddle-12-37485/) - which others find comfortable. I do wear proper gel padded shorts. I am moderately confidant my saddle is positioned right height and level. Weather is main limiting factor at the moment so some days I will ride several days in a row, then a break. Averaging 10+ miles per day, typical ride length 25+ miles.

So should I plough on for the moment and accept that a nearly 60 year old body takes time to acclimatise to saddles ?

Many thanks
Ian

ambodach wrote:Complaint sent to enquiries@asa.org.uk. Bombard them.If they reply,which I doubt it should keep them busy for weeks.

I had a reply:
"Thank you for contacting the Advertising Standards Authority and providing us with feedback on our ruling for an ad by Cycling Scotland.

The ASA is responsible for ensuring UK ads stick to the rules which require that they don't contain anything likely to be misleading, harmful or offensive. Further to this, the Advertising Codes place a particular emphasis on making sure that ads are socially responsible. This rule gives the ASA scope to apply the Codes, to ads, beyond what is required in law if we consider that an ad is depicting a behaviour or activity that is potentially harmful or irresponsible.

It's important to note that our ruling applies to advertisers only and should not be read as general advice to the public. There are lots of things that are not permitted to be shown in adverts that are perfectly acceptable and legal in real life - for example it is considered irresponsible to show someone buying a repeat round of drinks in an alcohol ad.

Both the advertiser and complainant party to the original investigation can seek an Independent Review of our decision, should they wish to."

Looks like a standard "off-the-shelf" cut and paste response ... so I replied to it and wrote to somebody else (head honcho) at the ASS.

Ian

Excellent. Amazing how the largish dog then climbs up and balances on the rack when they cycle off.

Ian

The Mechanic wrote:Another issue I have is that, reviewed kit is never rated. Rarely does the review say whether the kit is any good or not but just consists of a description, sometimes with good and bad points but never buy/don't buy recommendation or marks out of ten.

I never trust a "good" or highly rated review of an item from anywhere that requires income (advertisers). I'm sure most mags/organisations would never rate some rubbish highly just to keep advertising income (and I'm not accusing CTC or anything untoward), but there is always the risk of "rounding-up" or the reviewer giving something "the benefit of the doubt". Where an article rates something highly (or for something I might buy) I read any user comments submitted below any review or separately on personal websites/forums. And then I pay more attention to the "I used one for x months/miles and ..." than the "Looks a bit ... to me" comments (i.e. personal experience rather than opinion). Same reason as I never bother looking as the "reviews" links on a manufacturers web site (or even the comments they have approved (are they really going to link to a web site or approve a comment that says "Complete rubbish product ...".

Ian