Cycling UK Forum

To get back to the main point, I'm pleased at the very real progress, but I have to admit that I am somewhat confused by the wording of rule 61. It does still effectively say that facilities should be used unless there is a pressing reason to the contrary. Then it says facilities can make journeys safer, which must be true in some individual cases, but doesn't appear to be in a general sense.

I'm left wondering whether the conclusions of John Franklin are in dispute (I have never seen a serious research-based counter-argument)? If not, is the DfT really working on the basis of wishful thinking, and are there any other parts of the Highway Code that are based on the same? We know, for example, that it has taken years to get removed the dangerous advice about going around the outside of a roundabout to turn right.

I say this from the perspective of someone who believes that following the Code is important because cyclists have more to gain than most from predictable and considerate road behaviour. I also use cycle paths daily, but not necessarily for safety reasons.

Bananaman wrote:I am not a lawyer and have to admit that my first reaction to the word practicable was that it was an americanisation of practical.

No, it's not an Americanism. Practical is often used where practicable is meant. Practical is the opposite of theoretical, whereas practicable has a meaning somewhere between feasible and reasonable.

For example, in determining the height of a building, stacking up sugar cubes of known size to reach the roof-top, and counting the number of cubes, would be a practical approach, because it involves doing something rather than theorising.

However, it would not be practicable because, among other things, the pile would tend to fall over

Using a cycle facility is always practical, because cycling is a practical activity. The issue is whether it is practicable in a particular context.

There's an awful lot of places where the signposting is only good enough if you either already know where you are going or don't have to operate a vehicle at the same time as reading it.

The only time I cycled through Swindon, it wasn't that roundabout I encountered, it was this one on the way to Wootton Bassett. Not much fun either. Neither was the miserable signposting in the town that got us lost.

I've cycled the Magic Roundabout in Hemel and don't find it a problem, because you just treat it as one roundabout at a time. On the other hand double-roundabouts, where you get a figure-of-eight effect and cars can come through the middle of the 8, are more confusing the first time you encounter one.

Peter, 1909 is in the evening, or do you mean when the roundabout was first installed?

47-42 is quite narrow at the front. What make is the chainset? Could you just fit a smaller inside ring, say a 36 or 34?

However, this would increase considerably the range (of effective chain lengths) to which the rear mech has to adapt, so you'd have to check whether it had the range. You would certainly need a long-arm mech.

This would save changing the bottom bracket.

The roundabout in question is rather a small one on a not-too-buy road and tastefully decorated with sponsored vegetation, so not the obvious object of cyclists' invective

Yes, but don't overdo it. Looking from the front of the bike, tighten the nut clockwise. There's a special spanner, though you can manage without.

Yes, I knew that

Cunobelin wrote:I realise that this was the Scout badge, I am the"group cycllist" so do theirs as well.

I personally feel that the badges should be a measure of the capability and not assume prior knowledge.

I was puzzled by the references to broken spokes. Actually those requirements are being phased out and, for Scouts, punctures, gears, brakes and lights are back in the maintenance section. I hadn't noticed they had ever gone, so I'm not sure how long the spoke bit has been around.

I think the challenge for the Association is to ensure that some badges are suitable for new Scouts at 10 and others for older ones at 14. That would affect what you expected both in terms of maintenance and of expeditions. The cyclist badge therefore has probably moved around in target audience.

If you want to avoid going through Stevenage, another option is the B656 between Hitchin and Welwyn.

I should mention that my uncle did a cycle tour from London to the Scottish islands as a Scout (presumably a Rover Scout) in the 1950s. I'm not clear on the details or whether there was some train assistance, but I'd have to accept that we are less ambitious these days. Another Scout cycled from Hertfordshire to Lochearnhead north of Callander (taking a week) to celebrate the opening of our Scout station there in 1962. He carried the County pennant but got by without, if the photo is to be believed, that much personal kit. I gather he was a cycling enthusiast already though

Assuming you don't have time to do a grand tour to the west, I'd try the Great North Cycle Way into London. Then across London using the TfL journey planner (set cycling options first), or the London cycle maps.

Apparently there is a Sustrans route from London to Dover, although it's not my area and I have no idea how practicable it is.

Tallis is being a little unfair.

As a Scout myself, I had to do 50 miles in a weekend for the then cyclist badge requirements. That was a challenge at the time, especially as I was expected to carry all my (camping) kit. We cheated a bit and cycled to and from camp, but left the tents on site during a day ride. 25 miles is a lot in a day for a kid.

Since then, like Cunobelin I have been a leader for over 25 years, and I'm due to take some Scouts for an off-road ride this term. It'll be less than 20 miles but still a challenge. In practice the Association is flexible about exact distances - it's the challenge that matters.

I have taken boys youth hostelling over those years. Maybe it's old age and cynicism, but I do tend to think that they are less experienced and therefore less capable, both physically and in bike control, these days, and I am less inclined to take them on-road. Mind you, it was years ago that I noticed how cycling proficiency trained them to look both ways at junctions, but not actually to wait if they saw traffic, because there never is a lorry coming when you practise it in the playground.

The helmets business is the rules. I'm insured as a leader, but expected to follow them. So whilst my personal opinion may be that helmets are not necessarily helpful, I enforce the rules because I also know that the benefits of cycling far outweigh any effects of helmets, good or bad.

But I can't see that the Cub cyclist badge requires helmet ownership - like the bike, it can be borrowed.

Well the hub has been to the LBS and they can't shift it either. Given the unlikelihood of finding a spare freehub to fit, we are now onto looking at writing off the hub and building a Shimano one into the rim.

This is a friend's son's bike, but I've got some Gipiemme wheels on one of my own. I know Gipiemme models have been criticised, but they win hands-down here. I had a pawl spring problem and (eventually) the shop got me a replacement spring. The freehub securing ring was held on by a grub screw. Take that off and renewing the pawl spring was a doddle. From what I have read looking into this, I'd far rather have that than a can't-take-it-to-bits genuine Shimano freehub. I'd rather have Shimano than an obscure no-name won't-come-apart-no-matter-how-hard-you-lean-on-it thing though