Cycling UK Forum

Wrong link?

I'm guessing you meant to post this one?

https://www.briancookson.com/blog/2023/ ... rt-of-2023

hamish wrote:Watch out for tacks/drawing pins on the cycle path in Swansea around Blackpill on Route 4

Two of us punctured this morning and other people I know had problems yesterday.

Nobody knows who is doing it and why but it is irritating.

Were you one of the tandemists repairing between Blackpill and the university?

They are at it again. I was nailed (well... pinned) near West Cross yesterday. http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Swansea-cycle-path-drawing-pin-menace-widened-net/story-29032901-detail/story.html

JohnChell wrote:It's not a horrible commute, most days a really enjoy it, but the urban sections can be busy in places, and I have to be there on time, I'm affraid its not touring or leisure cycling for me most days of the week (wish it was), and I admit that after a day working with teenagers I can be exaperated by their actions, but I also know they can behave well an be polite which is perhaps why I get so frustrated with those few who are not.

OK - sorry. I shouldn't be so flippant. I am lucky/smug enough to have a (mostly)very nice route to work, so I am trying not to judge everyone's commute by mine.

I didn't mean to imply that I am wrapped in zen-like calm all the time or do not get narked by annoying behaviour, pedestrian or otherwise. I am a great believer in extremely colourful and venomous swearing inside the head or under the breath, which doesn't actually offend anyone and seems to be enough to calm me down in most situations...

Hey Glueman. Just seen your photos on the Tea Shop board. Nice. Perhaps that is why you are so chilled out. Maybe JohnChell has a horrible commute...

Si wrote:

Granted pedestrians may not technically have the right to use the cycle path, it still strikes me as an attitude and approach that will make few friends for cyclists.

Again, I'd question this....does anyone have proof that peds are not allowed to walk on cycle paths that are not part of the road (thus making them cyclelanes)?

I don't know about this and I think it's a bit of a distraction. Even if John turns out to be technically in the right his attitude is still problematic. For the record, John, I wouldn't automatically conclude that you are a thug, but I really do think you need to be less angry with people who are merely bimbling about. Why the hostility towards "ignorant groups of teenage kids"? They're teenagers, for Christ's sake - it's their prerogative to be infuriating. I tend to charge about purposefully (on foot) on a Saturday morning in a busy village to get stuff done - this makes all the slow old people who live there fairly annoying as they amble along pavements and get in the way - so what? It's called sharing the planet.

I hope no one will mind me saying that there are sometimes a few too many hang-ups about rules and rights on these boards. The rules of the road are rightly regarded as important because they are about the control of dangerous machines. I am all for vehicular cycling in order to hold my own in traffic, but in other circumstances I don't think every human space should become subject to such rules. Whatever happened to the normality and freedom of walking (and cycling)? It's bad enough that people's movements are so terribly constrained by the dominance of motorised traffic without trying to instil lane discipline on lovers strolling by the seaside or harmless whippersnappers on skateboards.

Those dogs on extending things do get my goat though...

Viveslesalpes has the best strategy on this one, I think. There's a lack of understanding on both sides, so dialogue is clearly called for. Pedestrians can, of course, be extremely annoying, but we must get a grip on our fury. They are just pedestrians after all, and are essentially harmless to cyclists. I think they should be indulged a bit in their tendency to wander off the beaten track, and shouldn't be expected to spend their walk in a state of vigilance. Walking is not just transport, and people should not be treated like vehicles. The flip side is that cyclists (contrary to the apparent beliefs of some pedestrians) are perfectly capable of getting from A to B without hurting anyone, even if it requires a fair bit of dodging, slowing down, ringing bells or shouting "scuse me!" or "coming through!" or whatever.

In other words, we need less worrying about who is on whose side of the painted line, and for cyclists to behave in a way that is neither apologetic nor aggressive. If a pedestrian gets in your way then apologises (a very frequent occurrence), smile and make it clear that you are not annoyed, rather than leaning on your airhorn and cutting them up to teach them a lesson. When you do get unjustified abuse, stop and ask what the problem is, and save your annoyance for the few people who really deserve it. If a path is really popular with pedestrians, it will be a less attractive/convenient place to cycle. Never mind - just be glad you are a CTC member and stand by your right to cycle on the road as well...

Si wrote:

If I use spacers can I put a 7-speed cassette on the wheel?

Yes. The 8spd mech will be fine with it too (use a 7 or 8spd chain).

Great. Thanks Si.

I think I will do that. Seems a shame to turn my nose up at the FREE components I was given, and if seasoned roadies are happy with 7 speeds, I don't see why I shouldn't be...

No pun intended.

Looking for advice please, from people who know about road bikes.

I am a mountain biker/commuter-on-a-mountain bike, but a friend very kindly gave me a road bike frame and quite a few usable components, and I'm delighted at the prospect of joining the skinny-wheels-and-scared-of-potholes brigade. I've got to get some more stuff to finish the build, and don't know what to get.

I bought (perhaps hastily) some Shimano tiagra wheels, which take an 8 or 9-speed cassette, and I have some downtube shifters that seem to be 7-speed. I have a rear mech that I think is meant for 8-speed systems, and an old but unused front mech. I had thought initially that I'd just buy some new shifters and a new rear mech, and run a 9-speed cassette and a double chainring. Then I saw the price of this stuff and decided to rethink. So I just want to get it running with however-many-gears for as little money as possible. If I use spacers can I put a 7-speed cassette on the wheel? Is it worth spending lots for 9-speed components instead? This is further complicated by the fact that I don't know a lot about gear ratios etc for road bikes, so don't really know what I need...

Sorry if it's rambling and confused. Any advice appreciated!

Mick F wrote:
Actually, a cheese omelette with blackcurrant jam is great too.

(What I like about all these sandwich ideas, is that nobody's said "YUK!" yet.)

Well - I admit to being slightly alarmed by the cheese omelette and jam combo, but I think this is essentially the kind of subject on which all opinions are valid. It's your lunch, after all! I'm quite a fan of omelette sandwiches (minus the jam for me, but anything goes in theory).

I'm hungry again. Is it long til dinner?

You are all making me very hungry, and it's a long time til lunch.

Ham and potato is a winner for the hungry cyclist: thick sliced (preferably home-cooked) ham, sliced cooked potatoes (leftovers are perfect), a sprinkling of salt, some green things of your choice, and perhaps a bit of chutney. On good thick wholemeal (with butter of course).

The best posh sandwich has got to be roast pork with chargrilled artichokes and wholegrain mustard (or a mixture of mustard and mayonnaise). The artichoke bit sounds fancy, but you just need to buy a couple of tins of the cooked hearts, drain them and throw them on one of those ridged grill pans with a bit of thyme and garlic, then dress them in a bit of lemon juice and olive oil and keep them in the fridge til needed. They go with everything.

I've got poppy seed rolls with emmental, pastrami, gherkins, lettuce and mustard for lunch. But will they survive til 1'oclock, or will I cave in at 11:30?

ianr1950 wrote:I just do not agree with adults who cycle on the pavement as it is as antisocial as people making a public nuisance of themselves in other ways.

These are the same people who sream blue murder if a motorist jumps a red light even though a cyclist jumping a red light can cause as much collateral damage and injury as a motorist.

I appreciate that hurtling through and scattering a crowd of pedestrians is antisocial, but please explain to me what is antisocial about cycling slowly on a wide empty pavement. Most roads are designed without the needs of cyclists in mind, so it is hardly surprising that pavements sometimes fit those needs better - if it doesn't harm pedestrians, I don't see why it would upset anyone if cyclists use them. A large number of cycle "facilities" are merely pavements with white lines painted on them, after all - this does not make them miraculously more suitable, just officially sanctioned.

I don't know whether you have thought about what people are actually doing when they "jump" a red light. In the case of most motorists, they are proceeding without stopping after a light has turned red, either by following an "amber gambler" or because they are driving too fast and don't fancy stopping. I have rarely seen a cyclist behave in this way. Most cases of "jumping" involve stopping first then going through. If this is done, for example, on a purely pedestrian phase and does not get in the way of pedestrians, then it is functionally equivalent to stopping and pushing across, but less silly. Drivers hate it because they can't do it. It does not interfere with anyone else's phase or hinder anyone's progress.

The logical conclusion of all this moralising about "RLJers" is that you should be foaming at the mouth when pedestrians cross without waiting for the little green man, as this, by the same standards, is surely a form of "RLJing". As far as I'm concerned, I think it's great that pedestrians have not let themselves become entirely subject to the tyranny of traffic lights. I think that the day when we are all waiting obediently for cars to do their thing before we dare move a muscle will be a very sad one. I fear we are heading in that direction.

I'm with Sares on this one. The whole excitement about cycling on pavements and disobeying red lights seems to me a distraction from more important issues, and is pandering to those who simply seek justification for their hostility to cyclists.

The arguments against these practices do make some sense to those who like their arguments black and white, and even those of us who disagree might well be prepared in the end to sacrifice the additional freedoms we indulge in, if it were to bring us respect and proper treatment. Until then I think those who advocate rigid adherence to the law at all costs are inevitably going to be upset by those of us who think that not only is some illegal cycling behaviour entirely harmless, but that for a discriminated-against group there is an inherent value in disobedience. No one ever won freedom without it.

Has no one noticed that cars and bicycles are quite simply not the same thing? There is therefore no reason why they should be subject to all the same constraints. Pavements exist because of the need to separate people from the dangers of motor vehicles, and traffic lights exist to regulate and facilitate the progress of motor vehicles.

So - whilst I prefer as a general rule to cycle on the road, and generally obey red lights, I will risk annoying people by not being red-faced or apologetic when, for one reason and another, I do otherwise. I do not attempt to justify my behaviour by pretending the cause for pavement cycling is always to escape near and present danger. Indeed, there is one short stretch of pavement that I quite often cycle on, simply because it is wide, it is the most obvious route to where I am going, it cuts out an unpleasant roundabout on a very strenuous hill-climb, it lets me avoid an extremely inconvenient one-way system, and my using it harms no-one. There is rarely anyone on it - probably because those who could be using it are driving to work instead. When they get out of their cars and turn into pedestrians, I will gladly get out of the way...

Just twigged the real benefit of cycling with a child on your shoulders (and other such chancy behaviour). Motorists miraculously acknowledge that they can see you. This is an effect, it seems, that cannot be achieved by lighting oneself like a christmas tree and cycling in a good prominent road position, so I suggest that we should forget about such things and simply wear children on our heads whenever possible...

Like Si, I'm intrigued by all these bikes without tyres! More desperate than dangerous, I think - and inevitably they won't be riding tyreless for long.

Cyclists tend to be perceived as transgressive and dangerous by motorists irrespective of whether their behaviour actually is irresponsible. That's why I've no time for news articles of this sort. Particularly despicable is the editor playing up to the myth of a country overrun with loony cyclists by soliciting more stories from disgruntled motorists. I certainly wouldn't endorse this method of child transportation, but I bet it's enormous fun for the kid (!) Risky, but then a large proportion of that risk comes from motor traffic - on grass this would be good clean family fun.

Stoobs is right - this is not really about what the cyclist is doing and what level of danger it actually presents - it is merely an opportunity for certain motorists to feel justified in the assumptions they already hold. If I were biblically inclined I'd go on about motes, beams, eyes and all that.

mhara wrote:The analogy with 'harm through passive smoking' is quite compelling.

I think so too. There was also a recent George Monbiot article which made the same analogy:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/11 ... e-driving/