Cycling UK Forum

Cyril Haearn wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:I read that as an awful conjunction of two seemingly unconnected events. An oncoming motorist flashing, the driver in question flashing back, and the gentleman who was killed seeing this as a signal to step out into the road.

A better and more attentive driver might have realised the potential implications of their flashing, but I think they would be in a small minority.

When driving on single-carriageway roads I flash my lights to 'warn' oncoming drivers of cyclists ('hazards'?), I think this is allowed by the hc
One wonders whether they think I am warning them of safety cameras (I would never do that)*
If I saw someone going the other way flash I would pay special attention and slow down

* no thread drift please %)

Thread drift warning.

One kind of behaviour I detest amongst possibly well-meaning drivers is the ad hoc invention of strange little "communications" (which include light flashes, arm waves and even facial gurns) meant to represent some "I just invented a new driving procedure which is against the normal rules but think it will be a good idea just now so I'm inviting you to guess what it is, probably incorrectly, then do it".

Often they believe themselves to be kind, accommodating, well-mannered in inventing these ad hoc notions. In practice, this invitation to ignore the usual rules and do something else is an invitation to a potential disaster. They wave you through a blind (to you) junction but suddenly a car appears from "nowhere" as you foolishly accept the wave then drive into it's path. They decide to ignore the usual rules about priorities at junctions, roundabouts and elsewhere in favour of "letting" you join with them in some other queer driving dervish dance, generally ignored by those still doing the traditional waltzes and quadrilles.

The potential for misunderstanding and for failure of the ad hoc procedure to deal with the unforeseen (perhaps all too foreseeable, in fact) consequences is immense. Rules of the road were invented and are promulgated in law and the highway code, for very good reasons - a common understanding and shared set of procedures. Why go all Babel?

Cugel

Cyril Haearn wrote: .......
Do most 'drivers who kill'* suffer permanent psychological problems?

* suggestions for alternative terms welcome

Heavy-duty shame.
Indelible guilt.
Persistent regret.
Self-loathing.

Despite the rabid individualism and solipsism recommended by the current producer-consumer zeitgeist, many of us dread these potential feelings far more than we do a fine or other formal punishment. I never speed in a car and try very, very hard to drive with full attention and consideration. I don't do so to avoid the fines or penalty points; nor because I am Mr Nice (I am Mr Annoying Git, especially to those behind me not agreeing with the speed limit).

I'd like to once more be car-less (I was until aged 38) but only manage to leave it on the drive for a few weeks at a time. They are inherently lethal, in so many ways.

But perhaps I am merely a pink-livered lilyman too fond of Atlee attitude and so unfit for the vicious jousts of post-modern life?

I'm not alone albeit, these days, sadly, in a minority - or so it seems when out on the bike (or in a car, for that matter). Mr Toad is alive & well; and has been breeding prolifically.

Cugel

mjr wrote:

Cugel wrote:..... all cyclist are not equal therefore we should cater, with cycling infrastructure, to the lowest common demoninator (inexperienced children, the physically weak, the inept, et al) to encourage them to cycle. But if cycling infrastructure is all designed specifically to cater to a physically weak and inept 12 year old, it won't suit the other 99% of cyclists, of all types and abilities.

Not necessarily. The design can include the 12 year old without excluding the other 99%. It's like how we can design streets so that articulated delivery lorries can turn without excluding cars with smaller turning circles or buses with rigid bodies. Until recently, most UK cycle route designs managed to exclude both the 12 year old who wouldn't "take the lane" through difficult junctions and the fast cyclist wanting to cruise on straight sections at 20mph, as well as the average cyclist who just didn't want to spend the entire time getting seasick bumping over driveway accesses and slowing for twistier blinder junctions than the roads had to deal with - such good-for-no-one designs could almost be seen as a perverse achievement! Thankfully some recent stuff is bolder and actually works for most.

Cugel wrote:What would suit all cyclists? Well, the existing roads, since they are tried and tested ... as long as the more obvious dangers are reduced by the perfectly reasonable application of already extant laws to the hunderds of thousands of motorists who routinely break them and get away with it - even if they maim or kill someone, in some cases.

Tried, tested and failed - we must design for the people who we want to get cycling, not only for all cyclists willing to tolerate the current awful designs, else we will remain a car-sick country facing a public health crisis.

Virtually all the cycling infrastructure I've come across (of the recent ilk, at least) is very badly designed. Separate (from roads) paths are often made as shared paths for cyclists and pedestrians. Typically they're narrow, full of blind bends and with a high chance of collision if one is either an inattentive pedestrian (and/or dog-walker) or a cyclist doing more than 8mph. Road areas marked for cyclists are often too-narrow gutterways full of detritus, parked cars, lampposts, sudden stops and other features that make them either dangerous or unusable.

I'm sure there will be a modicum of decent cycling infrastructure somewhere in Blighty. I know about 2 miles worth in West Wales and perhaps 1/2 mile in North Lancashire. I don't count old railway lines that go from nowhere much to nowhere much else via a convoluted route, even if they are without significant hills.

Of course, my inadequate infrastructure definition might well suit that inept, weak 12 year-old.

As to the roads being designed primarily for motorists ... that may be true for motorway-style dual carriageways of the modern ilk but the vast majority of British roads were designed initially for slow traffic - bicycles, carts and so forth. They are of themselves very adequate for all travelling purposes (not least because they go to and from places you too wish to depart from and go to). What makes them less-ideal is the presence of Mr Toad. Remove Toadish behaviour and they will once more be a very good infrastructure not just for all varieties of cyclist but every other wheeled (or four-legged) traveller.

Cugel

Mike Sales wrote:Cugel, I am as sceptical as anyone about the silly vagaries of fashion. I see the latest "new" old idea is marketed as gravel bikes. We used to have rough stuff, and then mountain bikes.
But I think you attribute too much power to Evans's advertising, and perhaps to the coordination between the various commercial interests. It is surely a symbiotic relationship between the fickle desire of the public for novelty and the desire of the trade to make money out of it.
Look at the vogue, fading now I think, for "fixies". I don't detect that this was instigated by the manufacturers, though they hurried to cash in.
I don't think the public is quite as sheep like, nor the advertisers so powerful that we can be led around so easily.
The public likes novelties, and I am sure you can give us a time line. I used to sell bikes, and I can assure you that it is nigh on impossible to make money trying to sell against the trend of fashion.

Your last sentence says it all. If "selling against the trend of fashion" is "nigh on impossible" then I feel that is a sure & certain sign that many of the customers involved are indeed "sheep like" and unable to decide for themselves.

You try to salvage the reputation of these customers as free-choosing humans rather than herded baa-baas by suggesting that fashions emerge spontaneously from the flock rather than from the nips at their egos by advertising-collies. That certainly used to be true some decades ago; but the Svengalis of producer-consumer land have long ago learnt how to trigger "the public desire for novelty" simply by designing the novel then surrounding it with the various glamours so attractive to we humans.

Fixies as a fashion, as I recall, were initially a bit "edgy" as they were ridden by courier-warriors in The City. Before that they were used for decades by small sections of the cycling public, mostly daft old racing pharts like me. The Svengalis noted the "edgy-courier-warrior" appeal and so began their campaign to make the things widely popular........

Currently we still have the MAMIL and it's variants, Svengalied into thinking they are in some sort of race and therefore a Wiggo or even a Saga. All they have to do is buy the right bike, clothes, gizmos and virtual reality app. Baaaaaaa!

Cugel, sliding from sceptic into cynic.

pjclinch wrote:.......

Cugel wrote:If such infrastructure is seen as "the solution" to cyclists being in danger on the roads, we'll eventually end up being banned from the roads, with very little replacement cycling infrastructure provided, which will anyway be inadequate because shared with pedestrians and/or not properly designed or maintained. Look about and see what there is now in the way of such infrastructure... 90% poor and/or inadequate. Much of it is lethal (e.g. painted left hand strips in towns inviting us to be doored, kerb-squashed or left-hooked).

The danger to cyclists from road traffic, even now, is not that great. The mass media (including that put out by Cycling UK) amplifies the seeming danger by going on about every incident. It's more risky to do things in your garden with tools or to go up and down stairs every day. The roads, even now, are best kept as a shared resource for all users, including cyclists, horses, tractors and everything else.

The problem with the above is it takes "roads" and "cyclists" as rather singular in nature. ....... but aside from the roads themselves the people riding on them are very different. I can tackle pretty much anything in Dundee on a bike but the fact is that a typical school child or octogenarian isn't nearly as well equipped to do it as me, and this is why the recent Manchester plans use a 12 year old cyclist as a benchmark. And crucially it's not that a typical 12 year old can use it, it's that they'd choose to use it. Because it's not just about absolute danger, it's about pleasantness (which folds back in to perceived danger) and just having a rubbish time is a good reason not to do something, however safe it may be.

........ Saying we shouldn't bother trying to get life better for folk beyond Enthusiasts is defeatist and perhaps a bit selfish too, though I'd agree we've got to be very careful in benchmarking what goes in. .......

.......

Pete.

On your first point - that some cycling infrastructure can be beneficial and so is worthy of pursuing - I agree, although the type and degree of such infrastructure is not so settled, I think. There are a number of reasons that the difference between "good" and "poor" cycling infrastructure is not yet clear. One reason pertains to your next point, that....

..... all cyclist are not equal therefore we should cater, with cycling infrastructure, to the lowest common demoninator (inexperienced children, the physically weak, the inept, et al) to encourage them to cycle. But if cycling infrastructure is all designed specifically to cater to a physically weak and inept 12 year old, it won't suit the other 99% of cyclists, of all types and abilities.

What would suit all cyclists? Well, the existing roads, since they are tried and tested ... as long as the more obvious dangers are reduced by the perfectly reasonable application of already extant laws to the hunderds of thousands of motorists who routinely break them and get away with it - even if they maim or kill someone, in some cases. Hills or poor surfaces on these roads? Get the technology to cope, even including the electric bike (although I prefer 30X36 ring/sprocket myself).

Of course, I may be exceptional (ha!) but, like every other child in my neighbourhood, I learnt to ride a bike on the ordinary roads and became adept at it with practice, whether the skill was going up and down hills, around corners, on naughty surfaces or dealing with traffic. Call me a reactionary old fool but I have this idea that humans can adapt to the world rather than adapting the world to them; and that this is a valuable skill.

On the other hand, there is certainly a case for adapting the world to the humans in some scenarios. WHo would do without central heating, eh!? Or tarmac roads. But at some point we need to recognise that the world, even the human-constructed world, cannot be ideal and convenient for everyone, particularly those who don't care to adapt. (Let them stay on their sofas gawping at the tele, says I).

Cugel

mjr wrote:Why the pessimism about infrastructure? Why will only "very little" infrastructure be provided and why will it be inadequate? Why can the Netherlands and Denmark, now Flanders and increasingly more of France do it but the UK generally can't? Why can't we generalise the few places building some decent stuff and spread the good practice nationwide?
......

The pessimism is based in realism. I might quote your own remark from the same post: "Ah, should, should, should... if wishes were horses. How are you going to make it so? By appealing to the powerful cycling lobby which doesn't actually exist - and never will unless we do things to get more people cycling from the current pretty awful starting point"?

If you agree that cycling is no more dangerous than a bit of gardening (probably less so) perhaps you will also agree that it's less dangerous than being a pedestrian on a street or ... a motorist? The statistics seem unequivocal, after all. This being so, why spend zillions (not that a UK government ever will) on needless cycling infrastructure that may reduce your chance of a serious accident by 0.01% (or even increase it) even if it does cater to the otherwise inept who can't learn to ride a bike in traffic (or, more accurately, won't learn because the mass media, helmet fanatics and other doomsayers frighten their horse)?

Perhaps the zillions could be spent on policing the aggressive antics of Mr Toad, as this will reduce not only cycling deaths & injuries but also those of pedestrians and Toads, probably in great numbers. Yes, I know "should, should, should...., horse-wishes, etc.". But the Toad-catching laws already exist, they merely need to be applied by rozzer & beak.

Cugel

Mike Sales wrote:.........
You and I might have our ideas of what sort of bike their customers ought to buy, but trying to sell people what you think they should have, not what they think they want, is a short cut to the bankruptcy court.
Advertising has to go with the grain.

Ha ha - very droll. In fact, the grain is created by the advertising, as any fule no.

And it's advertising that keeps purveyors of this & that in business. Their purpose is precisely to tell customers what they ought to buy, including all the expensive paraphernalia required to achieve a purported desirable fashionable image. As we know, image has long triumphed over substance, except in those domains where the sceptic tribe live, treating those adverts with the distain they deserve and instead relying on the evolution of traditions with their preference for the gradual enhancement of functional abilities designed for specific practical purposes.

Mind, the landfillers will continue to see a brisk business - and they don't even have to advertise!

Of course, many post-modern folk do like to promenade in their latest frock, including the bike-shaped frock but also the jerseys and tights with the adverts written on them. So pro! Tee hee hee.

Cugel, often a-titter at the fashion cycle.

My own preference is for no dedicated cycling infrastructure except for a full-width cycle path running parallel to a fast/busy main road where the route would be useful to cyclists that need it (i.e. commuters not leisure cyclists). I'm against the cycling infrastructure approach for these reasons:

1. If such infrastructure is seen as "the solution" to cyclists being in danger on the roads, we'll eventually end up being banned from the roads, with very little replacement cycling infrastructure provided, which will anyway be inadequate because shared with pedestrians and/or not properly designed or maintained. Look about and see what there is now in the way of such infrastructure... 90% poor and/or inadequate. Much of it is lethal (e.g. painted left hand strips in towns inviting us to be doored, kerb-squashed or left-hooked).

The danger to cyclists from road traffic, even now, is not that great. The mass media (including that put out by Cycling UK) amplifies the seeming danger by going on about every incident. It's more risky to do things in your garden with tools or to go up and down stairs every day. The roads, even now, are best kept as a shared resource for all users, including cyclists, horses, tractors and everything else.

There's a tendency in Western Europe, particularly the UK and the USA (and Oz) to promote motorist "freedoms" at the expense of everyone elses' freedoms. Motorists should not be privileged over everyone else. Rather, they should be forced to be more dutiful and caring by means of proper application of traffic laws that already exist. If money needs to be spent to improve safety, it should be spent on more policemen.

****

I've spent 60 years cycling British (and other) roads with no problems. I've been knocked off once by a car in tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of miles. I like the freedom of the roads as much as any Clarkson ... and I'm more responsible when using them, damage them far less and am not a danger to others. I want to keep on being able to be a road cyclist, not reliant on rubbish cycling infrastructure or the odd nice farmer who will tell me to get on his land (most won't, believe me).

Cugel

Cunobelin wrote: .....
So lets assume for a moment that a helmet works ...........

Do you study their effectiveness for the 61% of head injuries that feature alcohol?

Do you study their effectiveness in the 43% of head injuries that are simple falls?

Do you study their effectiveness in the 34% that were assaults?



Not at all, you accept all these injuries and spend millions studying the effectiveness in a small group, and the worst sin of all, do not apply any of teh "findings" to the majority of victims, and dismiss helmets for the at risk groups as "silly"

........

I gave this thread the title: "Decide for yourself". This is meant to be read as an ironic remark because I believe that we humans within current consumer societies are dissuaded from doing any such thing. Immense pressures of both the commercial and the ideological ilk twist our minds up behind our backs until we give in and buy-wear the pointless article, an ineffective and spurious polystyrene helmet, in this instance.

Your post illustrates the illogic of this "free market". It isn't populated with rational buyers making decisions in their own interest but with people pressurised by every psychological trick in the book into buying and behaving as various cabals and syndicates prefer - cabals and syndicates such as: helmet manufactures & purveyors; lobbies of motoring organisations looking for a whataboutism to distract from their own lethal practices; mass media seeking pariahs and scapegoats; little-hitlers in various cycling organisations; even holier-than-thou cyclists!

Of course, these same cabals and syndicates may well come to see an opportunity to perform their trick in some other domain. There must surely be as yet huge untapped markets for "safety equipment" in many other sports - perhaps even for everyday activities such as being a pedestrian or doing the garden?

The gutter press is also adept at creating new pariah groups on a regular basis. Who will be next, when they have tired of persecuting their usual groups? What other innocent behavioural lack will be deemed proto-criminal?

Cugel

This thread is an interesting resurrection, especially since there are current discussions concerning the supposed safety increase provided by helmets and high-viz.

I know dozens cyclists, having being involved in cycling clubs and various cycling activities for decades now. I personally know none who have suffered a serious head injury. I know a few who've been knocked off by cars (even though some were wearing high viz). I know a lot who have fallen off and received serious hip damage, especially amongst those who are getting on a bit.

In the club I belong to there are two with artificial hips, installed after cycling accidents which broke them. Neither of these accidents involved anyone else - they fell off due to slippery stuff, both at low speed. Happily they still manage to go along quite well. One is 80, the other is 73. They both still keep up on club runs.

I know others in my wider circle of cycling acquaintances who have not fared so well. A fall and a broken hip has stopped their cycling and much else. A broken hip needs fixing or replacing fast if it's to recover function, apparently. These lads have not recovered well due to complications or delays in replacement with an artificial item.

As we get older, hip fracture is a an ever-greater possibility for we cyclists. We get brittle, so crack when once we would have bounced. I suspect there is a far greater case for hip protection devices than there is for head protection devices, in cycling.

I'm trying to think of a cyclist I know who has fallen off and suffered a serious head injury. I can't think of one. I can immediately think of seven who've cracked their hip due to a fall from a bike.

Cugel

mattsccm wrote:Just changed a tyre after 18 months. Sealant (Joes) still liquid.

That is very interesting. I did suspect that the recommended frequency for changing the stuff would be based on a worst-case scenario: long-stored latex liquid already old when it goes in; hot conditions for the bike in store; rim brakes heating up the tyres on Alpine descents; and so forth.

I might leave mine another month or two. I might see what it's like now and try that supposedly everlasting Kevlar fibre-laden stuff......

As I haven't had a puncture in tubed tyres (just one snakebite) in the last 8 years and tens of thousands of miles, perhaps I'll not bother with the sealant at all. After all, I carry an inner tube and a rip-mending reinforcement patch anyway. These things have also proved useful to my less lucky cycling pals, from time to time.

Cugel

The utility cyclist wrote:

Mick F wrote:isn't this a cyclical problem and made even worse in higher risk activities, those in competition push to the limit, feel more protected push even more and then have more incidents. This is replicated in many sports

.......

I'm most definitely in the anti-helmet camp

Although I baulk at being entirely anti-helmet, I find myself agreeing with all you've ranted (I mean said) in your post. I really do.

I can see a case for cycling helmets in some inherently hang-banging aspects of cycling, such as BMX tricky-riding or charging along trails in forests full of overhanging branches. However, such helmets would need to be far superior in their protective abilities to the 7Nm (at best) absorbing polystyrene hats typically worn by road cyclists. The fact is that, even if the risk of head-bang justified a helmet (and that risk seems low, even when increased by the inclination to take more risks when wearing one) such helmets would need to perform far better than they do.

The advertising gives away the whole charade. They are sold as being lightweight, highly ventilated and pretty, with safety function never mentioned or tested-for by sellers or reviewers. In fact, being lightweight and well-ventilated greatly decreases their ability to protect your head if it does get banged.

Cycling helmets are a swizz, on many levels. I'm coming to believe, after reading posts here along with various references quoted, that Cycling UK should indeed be campaigning against what is a poor product, which doesn't work to provide it's supposed function and which detracts from the real safety issues whilst actually increasing the risk of an "accident".

Cugel

tatanab wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:Back to facts and price calculation? How is the selling price of a frame calculated?
% material, labour, overheads, profit

I'd say that is impossible to quantify. Example 1 - a frame building business with several builders, painters etc primarily building simple lugged frames. Example 2 - Fred in a shed building frames with intricate polished stainless steel lugs, sending frames out for painting. The first is quick and cheap but with larger overheads because of the staff involved, whereas the second has much reduced overheads but much higher labour costs in hours per frame.
To see material costs, which are not high, take your pick from http://ceeway.com/

In reality there are two models of deriving a price.

The dominant model just now is "a thing is worth what someone is willing to pay for it". In modern business mass production, the seller seeks a price which will be born by all those within the fat bit of the bell curve describing those in the market and what they will be willing to pay. Advertising is a means to fatten that bell curve more, even with the price hikes.

There's a second, now old-fashioned, model of fixing a price, which measures the actual costs of production, including the overheads of selling it and the overheads of making a living. Of course the added part of "making a living" will vary with the style of living the seller aspires to; and the efficiency of the production overheads. If the required standard of living is high and/or the production overheads large, the first model of setting a price may take over, along with increased Svengali advertising efforts straining to achieve the status of "fashionable" in what is being sold.

Examples: you can get a very good leather saddle and much else from Spa Cycles for not that much. They are just making a living whilst enjoying the pleasures of providing a good service. Alternatively you can allow yourself to be hypnotised by fashion and buy some Raphoss clothing or a top-of-the-range £12,000 bike from one of the various big manufacturers. Despite the advertising claims, the latter are not 10X better than something made of the same stuffs from Spa Cycles. Those firms are only just making things as their true love is making money.

On the other hand, many believe a bike to be a frock and will therefore pay the premium for it being fashionable, to impress (and depress) the many other fashionistas, as they promenade, pose and preen on the consumer catwalks.

***
I'm just off out on the Sunday run now, aboard a £1000 bike, dressed in PlanetX and Aldi merino of low price and high function.

Cugel

JohnW wrote:

pwa wrote:

JohnW wrote:Absolutely: +1 to that.

But if you live several thousand miles away and the frame builder has taken your money and become evasive about delivery you have good reason to ask people who live closer what is happening.

Oh -yes - true - it's not the question, it's some of the answers......................I think that what Neilob posts is very reasonable, without being personal.

"Personal"? What does that mean? No one has said anything unreasonable or nasty, have they?

Personally I think the internet complaint horn can be useful. I remember the days when it was very easy for a business to badly disappoint a customer with no practical comeback for that customer, unless they were rich enough to afford the courts.

Of course, any internet complaining should remain based in facts and actual events. The OP related some. Of course, the facts he related to us are from his point of view; but the subject of the complain can easily answer if he feels the facts are other than as stated.

No one has dismissed Mr Goff out of hand or named him villain. On the other hand, perhaps I may look elsewhere for a frame just now. Would that be unreasonable?

****
One hopes the OP can find a form of communication to stimulate Mr Goff in supplying the frame, returning the deposit .... or offering a different version of the facts. Meanwhile, I for one am grateful to those who point out potential financial pitfalls in the minefield of remote shopping, whatever the causes or justifications of the glitches.

Cugel

JohnW wrote:

Cugel wrote:.........................."Delayed gratification" is a necessary process (and mental pleasure) if one is to deal successfully with Blighters. I know that delayed gratification is not a thing widely appreciated or practiced in the USA. :->

You voted Trump in though - didn't you..............?

Vote for that *****!? Aaaaargh!!

Happily I am not a Yank but a Limey, so feel little responsibility for the creature having attained power.

Of course we have plenty eejits of our own in British politics, many of whom have also attained a power they wield ever so badly. Is there some sort of alien ploy afoot to soften us up before they invade? Perhaps it's all some kind of Russian joke arranged by Vlad?

Personally I am old-fashioned and would revive Clement Atlee, if I had the technology. One only hopes that the Mad Scientists of California don't invent such a technology since Trump will surely use it to perpetuate hisself.

Cugel