Cycling UK Forum

Thinking about the "Collided" discussed earlier in the thread (and as used by the BBC again), where the different objects are arranged is significant to interpretation. For example, you might say a "a cyclist collided with a brick wall" but you would not say "a brick wall collided with a cyclist". The object before the "collided" suggests it was the one doing the colliding. So when the BBc says "...after his bike collided with a car near Ipswich." the implication (to me) was that the cyclist was moving and without thinking I assumed the car was parked/stationary.

But, I doubt the BBC will admit it is anything less than perfect. As somebody earlier in the thread pointed out, if there is uncertainty about blame (which the BBC will always assume until after the court hearing) then it should be "A car and a cyclist collided ..." or "A cyclist and a car collided ...".

Checked in my dictionary
"Collide - hit by accident when moving: she collided with someone | two suburban trains collided."

Ian

Valbrona wrote:

Psamathe wrote:The PCT is a footpath and bikes are not allowed on it.

**** ~~~ excellent

It's actually somewhat broader "control" as in fact it is not only what is not allowed on it but more what is allowed on it (basically hikers and horses). But given that those groups are the ones who made it and maintain it ... Different sections of the trail are controlled by different bodies (remembering it is 2500 odd miles long). The northbound Mexican border departure late april is not too flexible as, any later and you will not survive the desert sections (too hot/dry) and any earlier and the snow after the desert sections will be too deep (as it is you still have to cross quite a bit of deepish snow and cross quite a few nasty rivers (freezing from snow melt). The desert sections are only really doable as "trail angels" maintain water caches around the time people hike through (based on the late april start) and outside the main body of hikers there will be no water caches (which makes like "challenging").

But, to OP, there are other long distance trails in the US that are open to bikes. You could check-out the CDT (which I believe allows bikes). It is not really as "complete" as the PCT. It is complete in that it is all made (it is one of the Triple Crown), but not as complete in that the path is not so well established, marked, etc. For hikers, some say it is harder than the CDT. But none of these are things you go and do for "a week". They are significant challenges. And as I understand it bikes are pretty well banned from wilderness in the US (my understanding). And in the National Parks, if you are caught breaking the rules you will get a significant fine and will be escorted out of the park ...

(I'm talking from my own research here as I was going to hike the PCT until I had foot problems which was finally diagnosed as arthritis ->no long distance hikes as you need to be 110% to even think about doing such things; not long ago (and probably still the case), more people had climbed Everest that had managed to complete the PCT thru' hike).

Ian

Having only started cycling again recently (again being last time was a University and I'm 57 now !!), I'm still building up the milage. And when my legs are tired after "yesterday" I say I'll go out but only for a short ride today ... and once out legs are not as bad as I thought, and being outside (not in rain) is so great that I just ride and end-up going a lot further than originally intended (and next day legs feel bad).

I can't see myself managing 10 miles per day. So far this year I am at marginally over 10 miles per day. But I guess a lot depends on what happens over the summer. Nice to have a "target" to motivate you on those days when weather/muscles/etc. are not so encouraging.

Ian

The PCT is a footpath and bikes are not allowed on it. The US MTB group are trying to force a review by the Parks but that will be a longer term thing and consultations/legal arguments, etc. have to be heard/considered. But any changes to allow bikes are unlikely given that in Dec 2013 the US Forestry Service (who are responsible for the "reviews") has upheld the 1988 order closing the trail to bikes (meaning the "review" is over before it even started).

It is a great path to walk but it takes quite a bit of preparation (not talking about fitness here - though that helps given you want to be doing 25 miles per day (on foot) carrying all your gear/food/water for up to 10 days away from resupply at times, through mountains (the Pacific Crest)). You have to start close to late April which means finishing Sept/oct (depending on speed/weather) Most people do it northbound which means leaving late April ) though not everybody starts "Artificial Day Zero"; many travel back to Morena for the "party" (though space is limited these days). Loads to sort out (visas for 5-6 months in US, permits, special permission to cross into Canada (to complete it), bear canisters, etc., etc.). Most US people start preparing way before sept (for April start) and things are easier for them as they can organise mail drops - which gets much harder from e.g. UK..

(Assuming you are talking about a "thru-hike").

Ian

If you listen to podcasts or want to try http://www.jodcast.net/rss.xml is done by a group from Jodrell Bank. It is quite technical (Astrophysics) but towards the end (e.g. after the 30 mins point) there is a longish discussion about what is interesting to observe in the sky at the moment (i.e. current month) e.g. this months episode (Jan 2014) the "What to observe" starts around the 30 mins point. There tend to be two episodes per month and the observation bit is normally split into Northern and Southern hemisphere. It can be interesting as it goes through what is best depending on the time of year (as different bits of the sky are visible at different times of year).

Ian

Mick F wrote:

Ayesha wrote:( Do not get too hung up on GPS distances. None agree with reality )

Having cycled up to the A30 dual carriageway and checked my Garmin 705 against the 100m marker posts for 12Km, I feel you are wrong with that statement.

My own experience is that it depends on your route/tracking setup. Whereas a cycle computer counts turns of a wheel (and thus calculates distance you have travelled over the ground), a GPS system (in my experience) records a number of points and then measures the distance between points and sums those distances. If your route is full of bends (e.g. country lanes) then often the line between two GPS points will cut the corner a bit thereby reducing the GPS measured distance (and on a bendy ride this can accumulate). How might this impacts the distance also depends on how frequently your GPS is recording points. By mistake once I set my GPS to record in a power save mode which recorded points far less frequently and the effect was dramatic *(i.e. GPS measured far shorted that cycle computer). when I switched back to a higher power more frequent recording mode so the difference reduced - but the GPS always records shorter distances. But I am always riding round bendy roads, frequent changes of direction. On a long straight road I would expect the distance differences to be minimal and the calibration of the cycle computer might become more critical (when considering sources of error).

(But I am no expert)
Ian

iandriver wrote:How's about renaming vat on cycling goods to cycling road tax. We pay enough and are talked to like we collectively pay nothing. Big sums involved too http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14610857

Or, just make bikes and accessories/maintenance stuff zero rated for VAT. I'm new here but I'm sure this must have come up 101 times before. Not sure if EU would allow it but given how VAT exemptions are not hard to get through I suspect it would not be too hard - loads of justification for such a move and would probably end-up saving the country money (lower NHS bills, lower imports of oil, etc.). But that is maybe going somewhat "off-topic".

Ian

ferrit worrier wrote:Psamathe,
I've downloaded Stellarium looks quite good for the couple of minutes that I've managed so far, I used Google earth to get my co-ordinates. one Q, how do you close the program down it comes up full screen but there isn't an "exit" I've had to go to task manager and close it that way, am I missing something?

Afraid I'm Mac based. On the Mac there is a pop-up toolbar across the bottom with an On?off button (circle with a short vertical bar breaking the circle at the top). If you play around with the config file (documented online buried in their web site) you can change the settings so it runs as a windowed application (at least you can on a Mac so should work under Windows). As with so many things, takes a bit of time to get used to it. There is an online manual/Wiki somewhere on their web site.

Ian

661-Pete wrote:What to look at? Well, Jupiter is splendidly placed at the moment (weather permitting) - you can't miss it - just above and to the left of Orion and the brightest thing in the night sky apart from the moon (and street lights and aircraft ). See if you can home in on it with a low power eyepiece, then switch to a high power (or use your Barlow) when you've got it centred. But if you haven't got a driven mount you'll have to be quick - the Earth is turning all the time....

And when looking at it, notice the line of 4 moons circling it (there are actually far more than 4 but the 4 Galilean moons are the ones you will see. Not where they are and look again several hours later (or tomorrow). Occasionally you might see less than 4 as they do pass in front and behind the planet. If you see less than 4 then wait a bit and check again. When doing one of my distance learning courses we had to do an observational project to measure the mass of Jupiter using the Galilean Moons (repeated observations ->calculating their orbits ...). But just observing the moons, thinking about the planet orbiting the Sun and the moons orbiting Jupiter ... I found it amazing.

Ian

You could join your local astronomy club.
You could even do a distance learning course (even build to a degree). There are some good more general courses which can add a lot to your general observing (e.g. why different start are different colours, what are nebulae, why a planetary nebula has nothing to do with planets, absolute and apparent magnitudes etc.).

Much depends on what aspects take your interest. I am fascinated by galaxies and love observing globular clusters. If you have no already, go for M13 (Hercules Cluster), not difficult to observe but quite amazing.

If you have not already done so, download some planetarium software. There are free ones or you can pay out for some. Stellarium is free and generally highly regarded. With such software you can check what you will be able to see and when you get outside you can know where to look for the interesting stuff. There is also some pretty good software available for smartphones. (I can provide links if you need them).

etc.

Ian

Mick F wrote:As R2 says, it simple to just put the cost onto the fuel. No problem, just do it, it makes sense.

BUT there will be winners and losers as in any change to taxation. What Mr Taxman has to do is steer a fine line and not upset the voters too much. The high mileage rural person is going to lose out here. Ditto Mr Scotsman up in the highlands. Also the posh lady down the road with the gas guzzler 4x4.

In many cases (not all but most) people make choices. Some people chose to live in a rural situation (I do, others don't) and that does make life that bit more expensive - but my choice and I can always change that decision by moving. People select their car. Some people chose gas guzzlers whilst others chose smaller and more economical cars. People can always sell their car and make a different choice.

It would seem wrong for people to object to a fairer taxation system because they will lose out based on choices they have and continue to make.

In the case of vehicle use, seems to me like a lot of good reasons to move the revenue generation to fuel. Discourages vehicle use so we save on road wear, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, imports/balance of payments, saving a limited resource, etc. People can walk/cycle to nearby shops or make fewer trips to the supermarket and do bigger shops - if they so chose. Cheaper to collect the tax as we no longer need all the admin and enforcement that is required for the existing tax. etc. Need to spend less of building new roads (as there will not be the same growth in car use).

Things can be done to offset the impact on deliveries (if this is really necessary) e.g. registered delivery operations being able to reclaim some of the tax. However it might just discourage the supermarkets from needlessly shipping goods all over the country and switching to more local produce, lowering food miles.

Ian

tim-b wrote:VED will be administered electronically ... Not after October 2014, when we'll need more, expensive, electronic road checks.

EDIT: (What) should CTC be contributing to help The Treasury "consider whether to reform VED over the medium term", and maybe encourage cycling. Thoughts on a forum post(card) please.

Re: Enforcement: I understood (though unsure from where) that being totally electronic all enforcement was through the computer systems where the registered owner of a vehicle is responsible for paying the tax or declaring the vehicle off-road. (When you are no longer the owner you need to send in the sale/destruction/theft/whatever paperwork). So if the vehicle (needing tax) has no renewed tax and no declared reason you are fined - no need for anybody to see the car on the road. Maybe I got this wrong ?

Re: Encouraging Cycling: Difficult one as for many cycling will not replace a car but rather mean it gets used less. And it would mean more riding and less driving which is a difficult one to measure. Certainly, moving the tax from being vehicle based to fuel based would indirectly encourage cycling, but there would need to be some campaign to point out that cycling is an alternative. And it would never happen anyway as Clarkson would pop-round to his Cotswold mates (a.k.a. "Call Me Dave") and that would be the end of such plans. So, if you as basing a tax reduction on cycle use you would need some means to measure it - and I can think of anything practical in that regard. There are many ways the government could encourage cycling unrelated to vehicle tax but they don't seem too interested. Oh, they will make out how they love cycling, etc. (particularly round election time), but action seems lacking and when it does happen if is rather unimpressive.

Ian

al_yrpal wrote:The problem with phones is battery life....
Al

With my iPhone 5 recording a track using the ViewRanger app in pretty high resolution, over a two hour ride the battery might drop from 97% to e.g. 85%. However, through that ride I hardly use the screen at all. Maybe stop and photograph/record a couple of potholes and check my route briefly a couple of times - basically screen off.

When I had an Android phone, there was a nice feature in the power settings that would tell you how much power each phone sub-system was using and invariable the screen was one of the biggest users (even though off much of the time).

Ian

I use ViewRanger (Android and iPhone/iOS and free). Not really a replacement for a cycle computer as it is more of a general mapping/route/track recording/POI application (using the free Open Street/Cycle Map) or you can buy premium maps (OS for UK, IGN for France, etc.).

So I tend to record my track and run my cycle computer. One thing I have noticed is that the phone app tends to measure the distances slightly shorter. when you look at the recorded track in detail on the computer (e.g. on GoogleEarth or on the phone zoomed in using the app itself) you can see why - the GPS recording cannot be continuous so it records pretty frequently. However, when turning a sharp corner at decent speed, you might get one point just before the bend and the next part way round/after the bend and the track is just a line between the two points. Thus the GPS based recorder is often "cutting corners" whereas the cycle computer is measuring turns of the wheel and thus even records a drunken zig zag down the road. I've not measured the difference but there is always one and the GPS based recorded is always shorter. Of course the effect depends on how straight your route is. For me I tour round bends country lanes so probably a more noticeable effect.

The other thing I have noticed is that if I stop for anything the cycle computer seems to quickly decide I have stopped and the stationary time does not seem to affect my average speed. However, the GPS based ViewRanger app still keeps averaging distance by time and seems to count time spent on breaks thereby reducing your average speed.

But it does give you nice altitude plots (based on either GPS altitude or map altitude (if available from the maps you are using)), distance plots and speed plots (and you can export your track to gpx, etc., etc.)

I appreciate that some phone apps can talk bluetooth to on bike sensors and that these will operate just as per a true cycle computer - I was thinking above about GPS based systems.

Malaconotus wrote:

skicat wrote: I'm slightly confused by 3A - " Clip in the 4 black plastic caps into the fixed bridges on the mudguard". I can't see how they could clip in. They seem to be retained there by the stays, and if the stay is removed the black bit falls out.

It looks like you have the most recent version, but have fitted the black caps 'inside-out'. They do clip on when fitted the right way round and end up looking like this... http://www.slanecycles.com/images/mgs190910.jpg

I found mine a right fiddle to get on (the black caps). Had I not already known how they fit I would have never got it right. As it was I spent quite a few minutes playing/wondering before I checked and established the way they fit.

Ian