Cycling UK Forum

Cugel wrote:Have you shared-path riders tried the roads? They seem so much safer.

Not sure if that was irony, but I think you might be right. The roads around where I am are fairly safe with low-level traffic. I've noticed that a lot of road-bike people deliberately ignore cycle-paths when they run alongside a road.

I think that a large part of the problem with the shared-use paths is they are treated as general shared spaces, beyond the purpose of exercise and travel. Some people go there (often driving in their cars) and they just mingle and mooch about and chat to other people. They do so actually on the path, blocking it, taking photos etc. As far as I'm concerned the path is for movement and if you want to do other activities there is usually plenty of space nearby where you can do those activities. All it comes down to is some people being inconsiderate and not having a reasonable sense of health and safety.

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Did you whip out your video camera?

No. But I should have done, and posted it on Youtube.

gaz wrote:Any court judgement or out of court insurance settlement will be determined by the facts of the individual case.

I agree, but the only facts that I could see were that she had four dogs off the lead, and there were witnesses to that effect. She might have claimed I was going too fast, but I wasn't and she could not have proved that I was if she claimed that.

Recently I ALWAYS drive with my tailgate open. I have one of the new Polo GTIs. For some reason VW don't put a Polo badge on the back, just a GTI badge. It's probably to make other drivers think it's a Golf. The problem is I have never had so many BMW drivers tailgating me (normally 1 car length at 60mph) to see what the car is. So by driving with the gate open they can't see the lack of the Polo badge and they leave at least 1.5 car lengths at 60mph.

I'm really good at fixing complex problems like that.

Stradageek wrote:Please don't get upset by fractious dog owners, there are nutters among dog owners as there are within the whole population.

I am careful to avoid confrontations but some seem unavoidable.

1) I complained to a dog owner whose dog kept leaping up at me and was told that "if I didn't like dogs I shouldn't walk on beaches", ironically on a beach that bans dogs for most of the year

2) On a fast dual use cycle path (a one-in-six hill section) I was confronted by a man who made sure that he and his dogs were completely blocking the path at the bottom of the hill (i.e. he was standing in the middle of the path and moving to block me with legs akimbo, arms folded) yelling "slow down SLOW DOWN, you're too fast" despite the fact I was down to walking pace.

Most dog owners are much more chatty, helpful and friendly - though I still think that dogs are generally a complete waste of space.

I'd welcome others knowledge, but I believe that controlling a dogs is the owners legal responsibility. If it runs in front of you and you hit it, it is the owners fault, not yours. However, as we've seen with the latest 'woman on phone hit by cyclist' incident, I'm sure an expensive enough lawyer could overturn this precedent on a technicality.

In the pseudo-american litigious society we seem to be morphing into, such risks will always exist whatever activity you are engaging in. Best just continue to act reasonably and forget about them, life is too short and sunny cycling days too scarce.

There is good advice there, and I agree with most of it. Most dog owners, as you say, are very good, because they know that their dog could cause an accident, and obviously they don't want their dog hurt.

Some of these mixed use paths are getting very busy, especially at weekends. My main point is that I think it completely unreasonable for a dog-owner to have four dogs, all off-lead on a busy mixed-use path where there are cyclists, mobility scooters, young children, and distracted adults. Is there anyone here who thinks that would be a reasonable action? Is there any way that it could be explained and even justified? I'm willing to listen. Any dog-owners like to make a comment?

hemo wrote:Probably against your instinct and not bird like, you should have given them the finger back. You never know it might have surprised them.

That really isn't a good idea. People who drive like that have a problem. They could be drunk, on illegal drugs, have a mental health problem etc. On top of that the chances are they are mentally weak, have some sort of personality disorder, have a sense of grievance or social injustice, are stupid with a low IQ , a lack of rationality, be poorly educated, and God knows what else. They could (and some have) just get out of the car and physically hurt you, even put you in hospital. Better to say and do nothing and take comfort that you are a superior being.

skyhawk wrote:... and I prefer animals to humans, it is the moron human to blame not the dogs

I am with you there 100%. Humans are destroying the planet, and have been for a very long time.

yes, I did read your post from last month earlier. The stickybottle thing is interesting case.

Cycling this morning near my house. An off-road purpose built shared use path of tarmac and grit. Approaching a visitor centre I slowed down as I know there are often distracted people about. Went to make a left turn at about 8mph to leave the path and skirt around the centre when I saw a group of four dogs off-lead with the owner behind with a further dog on a lead. The dogs were excited and frisky but stayed together. So I slowed even more, applying the brakes. As I did so one of the dogs darted across my path and I had to do an emergency stop. I was almost at a stop when I made contact with the still moving dog. Caught it on the rear quarter and it gave out a great yelp and ran off. I started to fall having lost my balance and nearly came off.

The owner immediately started screaming at me and these are some of the things she said

"Didn't you see my dog, what if it had been a child?"

"you shouldn't be wearing sunglasses"

"This is not a cycle path" (It is and there are lots of signs for bikes and pedestrians)

The woman just ranted and ranted then marched off.

Had I killed the dog, who would have been to blame in law?

Had I been injured, as I nearly was, what redress would I have had?

It was impossible to talk to her as she just ranted, so I kept quiet. As far as I know there are no by-laws that require a lead on the path, but there might be. Assume there isn't.

I am always extremely careful when kids and dogs, and horses are on a path/road, and I am very safety conscious. I'm 66 years old.

¿¿¿¿¿

peetee wrote:

rob_wales wrote: there are many new cyclists on the road these days and I wondered how they made a decision about pricing versus quality and needs.

For those who are in to cycling as the new trendy must-do, they work out what they can afford, double it and then buy the bike on credit.

Wrong thread. Surely you refer to the Audi/BMW/Mercedes purchases?

ket wrote:I am thinking of getting one, having been told by my cardiologist to keep a regular check on the old BP. There's a variety of ones for home use and I understand some are not very accurate. Does anyone have recommendations for ones to consider, not too expensive, and without a multitude of features. Priorities being accuracy and ease of use.

I've had one for years. I don't have a problem, but I just bought it I think out of vanity/reassurance. I do a lot of exercise and always have done, so I just wanted to check my vital stats are OK. Heart rate is normally 60bpm at resting, and blood-pressure is normally 120/80, which is normal. The problem is I can get a bit indulgent with these things. I also have a blood-sugar testing kit which I use, and our bathroom scales also measure body fat percentage, hydration levels, muscle percentage and probably other things as well!

Did your cardiologist suggest exactly how you should keep a check on your pressure? Did he not recommend any type of equipment?

You might find this useful http://www.bloodpressureuk.org/BloodPressureandyou/Homemonitoring/Choosingyourmonitor

peetee wrote:The vast majority of people new to cycling (and a large proportion of old hands) will gain nothing from spending more than £1000 on a bike.

I agree (I'm the OP). One of my bikes (the Raleigh) was £1,100 and I think it matches my needs perfectly https://www.tredz.co.uk/.Raleigh-Mustang-Elite-2019-Road-Bike_111337.htm. It seems to be well-built, has quite good components, is comfortable, youngsters stop and admire the bike, it rides well, it's fast and responsive. What more can a rider who cycles about 4-5k miles a year ask for? I partly started this thread because there are many new cyclists on the road these days and I wondered how they made a decision about pricing versus quality and needs. I think, if you can afford it, that £1,000 is a good bench-mark figure to go for. Even if you only keep the bike for 10 years then that is just £100 a year capital cost for many hours of happy and healthy cycling.

And on that subject, and taking into account the comments below about consumerism and marketing, you can always re-cycle your old bikes to a good home, as I did last year with my old bikes. I used Re-Cycle in Swansea. They repair and make road-worthy all donated bikes and they go to people who are on a tight budget. There are no doubt similar organisations in your own area. https://recyclesouthwales.wordpress.com/

¿¿¿?

Airsporter1st wrote:

Airsporter1st wrote:Sorry too to the OP for contributing to the derailment of the thread.

No problem. Allow me to bring it back on track another way. Where I live in West Wales there are a lot of cyclists as the off-road stuff in particular is very good. I've seen a big increase in numbers over the past couple of years, and having spoken to a few cyclist who are obviously new to the game and have gone out and bought a bike, which is good. I've spoken to a few bike shop owners too, and they all report increasing bike sales, despite austerity. But how does a newcomer know how much to spend? I was not a newcomer, but the last time I bought a bike was in 1996 in Cambridge - it was a Trek and cost £650. My new Voodoo that I bought a few months ago was also £650 (although I got a discount). Comparing the two bikes there are differences but overall I'd say there isn't much in it in terms of perception of riding experience and utility, but 22 years of inflation has passed. I didn't think a £650 bike at today's value would buy a bike that was as good as one back in 1996.

I always feel after making a purchase that more expensive ones might be better and perhaps I should have spent more. But I guess under capitalist consumerism that is exactly what I am meant to think! My mobile phone is a Huawei P20 Lite which cost £320. I see one of the latest iPhones is about £1,100. Can that really be 4 times better than my excellent phone? Is a £3,000 bike really 3 times better than my Raleigh Mustang Elite which cost £1,100? I could have bought an iPhone instead, but you can't ride that!

Jeemy wrote:For my £0.02 I paid £500 for a second hand carbon roubaix 105, which included helmet, glasses lights and some clothes. All I had to buy was shoes. So much better value second hand.


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my stupid phone.

Second-hand is good for a lot of things. I do a lot of photography and have purchased several used DSLR lenses at considerably reduced costs. Funnily enough though I've never had a used car.