Cycling UK Forum

Some statements in this thread are so oblique that it's hard to work out what's being argued. I think cycle tramp is now maintaining that an upright position decreases the chances of crashing, as well as reducing the chances of head impact. I'm not sure this line of argument is that helpful. It seems to be based on the not-uncommon, but entirely unproven, assumption that upright cycling gives better control. The issues with this include at least that:

• It's rather a marginal effect, as you can set up bars at any height (relative to the saddle) within reason, so there are no two clear groups of upright and "sports" riders, but rather a continuum - you can easily, for example, set the bars on a sports bike higher (again in relative terms) than those on a utility machine. So evidence is going to be really hard to come by.
• Many people, my teenage self included, may find dropped bars unfamiliar at first, but so was riding a bike - that's not good evidence that, once you've adapted, they are inherently dangerous.
• An overly-upright position reduces load on the front wheel, and therefore its traction and control.
• It's well known that we tend to over-estimate the risks of unfamiliar situations, and under-estimate the risks of familiar ones. So people who like dropped bars are going to think them safe, and those who don't will think the opposite, and neither tells us that much about the actual risks.

So basically this thread is all about supposition and no hard evidence. It's the first time I've heard someone seriously argue that a significant factor in the better safety record on the continent is the wider use of utility bikes. I don't even know, in percentage terms, whether that's true - I'm much more convinced by arguments around better provision and also safety in numbers - cycling is safer when there are lots of cyclists because, bluntly, motorists expect to see cyclists and get more practice at dealing with them properly.

I'm not sure this thread is contributing anything at all!

Fewer and fewer modern Android devices support Ant+. This is very frustrating for anyone who wants to use Zwift or whatever, and who has Ant+ sensors or power meter. So an Ant+ app would not be that useful.

But is the Ant+ Plugin Sampler any use, assuming that your phone is an exception?

I increasingly use the route planning in Garmin Connect on my desktop computer. Don't let a Garmin, and especially a Garmin device as opposed to on the PC, plan a route without supervision though - you'll regret it.

One of the issues is what is a ridable route. Route planners rely on the information they're given. That can come from "crowd sourcing" from what cyclists do, and/or what people have marked when compiling open source maps. So you always risk their idea of a ridable route not being the same as yours, excessive use of pavements where the road itself is really quiet, and so on.

And then you just get some really weird roundabout routes for no obvious reason. I believe that, occasionally, open-source maps have had microscopic gaps left where roads should meet up - so the routing software, not seeing a way through, can find some bizarre five-mile diversion using motorways. Or it doesn't know about permissive routes with really good surfaces - those can be hard to identify on any map, and you tend to need local knowledge.

Most route planners I've seen let you switch between automated routing, which works well most of the time, and direct-line routing. So you click every now and then on your intended route and let the automation join the dots. When you see it do something weird, or you just want to go a slightly different way, you either go back and add more dots, or switch to direct for a bit, draw a few straight lines (which could go through the grounds of Buckingham Palace for all the routing software will care in that mode), and then go back to automated when you've finished showing it who is boss. Certainly direct mode will jump imaginary gaps in perfectly-good cycle routes.

Don't forget the number of motor vehicles that have got stuck down narrow tracks in Devon through these things. This is just the world showing us that cyclists are not exempt from the madness.

We need to keep in mind that any connection with riding position is entirely speculative, and no evidence whatever has been offered. It would also be extremely hard to demonstrate.

I remember years ago being advised to duck rather than actually turn my head. I think that's the same as @531colin was describing.

I've picked up a Park Tools kit (the older version) quite cheaply on a certain large inlet (think about it). As I mentioned, I'm mostly interested in threading inners for cable brakes and gears, where the outers don't run through the frame. We'll see how it goes, but I'll use the tips here as well.

Has anyone come across this product? Does it work well? This review is quite positive.

My SiL would like to put a dynamo system on his commuting bike. It gets left at the station, so I'm not keen to set up a full hub system that would be worth more than the bike. I've had good results in the past with higher-end bottles, but they too cost a bit. The Reelight system seems to be affordable and, if its claims are true, likely to be reliable. And not to need a new wheel that would add further cost and be more to steal.

He's been using rechargeables but wants to move away from those.

Also high is a relative term. Hi-vis is at its most effective when no-one else is wearing it. It's similar to the reasons why you get lighting arms races on the road.

Edwards wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024, 6:00am Get a long gear inner cable with small nipple and thread it though the replacement outer cable.
Then thread it through the outer cable on the bike.
Then pull the inner cable while feeding the replacement outer cable into place. The new outer should be a little longer to allow for trimming to the correct length.
Hope this helps.

Doesn't this assume that the outer is going through the frame? On mine, it doesn't. So it's about threading just the inner. I'm still interested in finding a kit that's good for it (partly because I'm being pressured for ideas for modest presents), although the tricks and tips here are useful.

Blondie wrote: ↑1 Dec 2024, 1:55pm

ANTONISH wrote: ↑30 Nov 2024, 5:44pm I can see both but reflectives are visible at a longer distance.

Which may mean you’ve turned your attention to something else by the time you reach them.

I think this is at least worth asking. I'd quite like to see a study in which motorists drive normally, passing various cyclists, and are asked afterwards how many they saw. The point would be to test whether they noticed better the cyclists with or without lights. Certainly the number who have obviously seen plenty of lit cyclists on a trip, but seem genuinely to believe that all cyclists were unlit, suggests that something is going on. Whether it's possible to be seen too early (when there's just more time to forget you) would be the next stage.

It's obvious that cyclists with lights and reflectives are more visible, but the aim is not to be visible, but to be seen. Being seen involves both parties - the cyclists in making themselves available to be seen, and the motorists not only in seeing them, but in reacting to their presence. There have been many comments about occasions when road users appeared to see others, but then to dismiss them from mind and proceed as though they had not been there.

I've come across alarming statistics, suggesting that the proportion of unlit cyclists involved in accidents is very low. That suggests either that all the talk of ninja cyclists is rubbish, or that lit cyclists are disproportionately likely to be hit - because unlit cyclists are so annoying to motorists that being unlit guarantees getting a useful reaction that outweighs the fact that seeing them was harder in the first place.

To stick to the original topic, I still won't be wearing black, and I still use good lights at night, because I'm not going to act on supposition. But I do think that the long history of:

• Cyclists need to do this to be more visible
• It's not working
• Cyclists need to do this too be more visible

of which the rear lights business was just the start suggests that something more sophisticated is needed.

Fair point. Haven't looked too hard at the construction of others!

ANTONISH wrote: ↑30 Nov 2024, 10:51amIt's a long time since the CTC lost it's fight against compulsory rear lights arguing that it was the responsibility of the overtaker to ensure safety.

I don't believe that that's what they did argue, although I wasn't around at the time! Rather, they were concerned that, if lights were to become compulsory, the effect would be less to protect cyclists than to protect motorists, by raising the bar for what was considered a visible cyclist. In effect, therefore, it would be victim-blaming legislation.

There is some justification for this view, in that we've successively added brighter lights, reflective clothing, flashing lights, and so on, to the list.

Common sense says be visible. But these things are done for extra visibility. In principle, we're supposed to proceed if we can see the way to be clear, rather than to stop when we can see that it is not.

Silca sell pump lubricant. It's not obvious to me why you couldn't use it in other brands. Relatively expensive for the quantity, though.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑25 May 2024, 8:28amThe against (compulsory) helmets tend to use arguments drawn from statistics the Germany and the Netherlands.. those for (compulsory) helmets tend to draw statistics from other countries...

Just for the record, I would question this premise. Those questioning the case for helmets do point out that casualties are low in the Netherlands and, possibly, Germany. Those arguing for compulsory helmets do not obviously look at other countries for statistics. It's not really about where the figures come from.

A more accurate statement would, I think, say that the case for helmets is itself made more strongly in the Anglophone countries, reflecting a difference of approach to cycling and safety. Also, the case for helmets more often (though far from always) assumes that the statistics are bad without actually checking into the detail. But neither side is cherry-picking by country in quite the way that you imply.

jgurney wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024, 8:08pm... I am reluctant to do anything implying that it is my responsibility to make myself obvious, not theirs to keep a proper lookout.

I think this is an important point. I don't wear black - I've got one jersey that I never wear as a top layer for that reason. But, way back, when rear lights were introduced for visibility, the CTC (as it was then) had reservations. It's not about arguing against lights, hi-vis, bright colours, and so on - these are obviously sensible. But cyclists and pedestrians do these things for extra visibility. They are not introduced to raise the bar, so that there is an ever-increasing succession of extra things required before the law will protect vulnerable road users.

To be provocative, I would suggest that they are only providing extra visibility if the penalties for hitting people without them remain as they were, but hitting those who do have them results in a doubling. Hit a Christmas tree, and lose your licence for ten years on the spot.

Otherwise, the usual thing applies; any safety benefit will be consumed by road users in part as a performance benefit. Provide seat belts, and we go faster because we feel safer. Light cyclists up like Christmas trees, and we (when driving) go faster because we think we're more likely to spot them.