Cycling UK Forum

reohn2 wrote:Which reminds me of another occasion ,whilst stopped at a junction, I reached into my back pocket just Mrs R2 was reaching down for her bottle from the cage and caught her squarely in the face with my elbow,a pure accident but it did hurt her at the time,we were on the S/G with the short rear t/tube,its perhaps something that wouldn't happen with a shorter team or stoker.but Mrs R2 is 5ft 9in and I'm 6ft.

Well at least you did'nt make the single dismount mistake and land a flying kick to her head

boblo wrote:Tut tut TonyR, surely you#re not advocating small/small or big/big combos...?
.

Yep . All's fair in hills and tandeming.

Have you spoken to the CTC Helpline? They get involved in this all the time so will know what the norms are. That's one of the benefits of membership

Vorpal wrote:On a tandem, as it seems you've begun to discover, you need to be in the correct gear before you start up a hill. And you've got to keep going. The minimum speed on a tandem is higher than on a solo bike (as you seem to have found out by stalling ) At other times, the cadence is probably less important; you can probably find a compromise. But going up a hill, it's better to be in too low a gear than too high because you can't down shift part way up. Learning the best gearing for hills (and putting it in the correct gear before I got there) was the hardest part of learning to ride a tandem for me.

The way I was taught to solve that was two-fold. You can't change down on the front on the hill but you can on the back so Rule 1 is to get it in the right front ring before the start of the hill then work your way up the rear block as needed on the hill. Second put it in the smallest rear cog and the small ring on the flat and note your speed at a comfortable cadence on your cycle computer. On the hills put it in that gear combination before the start of the hill then using any downhill speed you have, coast until you drop to the noted speed then start pedalling and change down on the rear as necessary as the hill progresses. So Rule 2 is start in small-small and know you pedalling speed for that combination.

HTH

Father Jack wrote:Can easily change canti's with V's, and a worthwhile upgrade.

Magura hydraulic rim brakes are even better.

Steady rider wrote:You ask first post

Which are the best designed studies on this subject?

The following is useful as it shows an outcome on a population level, this reflects all cyclists. It also relates to a good change in helmet use over a short time period and provides an indication of risk level.

Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf

Clarke CF, The Case against bicycle helmets and legislation, VeloCity, Munich 2007.. http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuai ... helmet.pdf

Comparing impacts for helmeted and non-helmeted
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/head-helmet.doc

It appears that helmets may offer protection in the range of 10-16% but they may increase the accident rate by 14-20-30%.

From a personal point of view you should try to enjoy your cycling and not rely on helmets.

And [url="http://youtu.be/07o-TASvIxY"]Mikael Colville-Andersen[/url] puts it all in perspective.

I've had similar (but not the footballer part) happen twice. We booked a really cheap offer family room plus parking at Heathrow the night before a flight. When we got to the room it only had one double bed so back to reception to much head scratching with a very full hotel. The next room had beds for four but the heating was broken and the room was sweltering despite a fan having been placed at an open window. And open windows at Heathrow are not good news for sleeping. So back to reception and after much discussion they finally gave us the only rooms left - the presidential suite with two bedrooms, two bathrooms with jacuzzis each, a dressing room, dining room and lounge. Pity we had a flight to catch.

The second was arriving late to a rather exclusive New York hotel to be told that our rooms had gone but if it was alright with us we could have the penthouse suite instead. Fabulous views from high over New York in a suite rooms that normally cost $5,000+ a night.

petzl wrote:For a particular application I want to replace cantilever brakes with disc brakes on a 700c wheel frameset. Can anyone make a recommendation, cheap and cheerful is what I am looking for. A simple bolt on job with brackets rather than braze-ons, I will be using dropped handlebars, the brakes will not have to be powerful as the bike will be used in slippy conditions and I will be looking well ahead in order to avoid attempting a quick stop.
Thanks.

My advice is don't. The normal fork legs will not be designed for the different load a disc brake places on them ( which tries to fold the fork leg in two). If you are going to do it get some disc specific forks which will have the tabs on anyway.

Ellieb wrote: I personally, on an individual basis think it is worth wearing a helmet, because I can see it does provide a form of protection.

Whereas I don't because I estimate it would take at least 25,000 years on average cycling twice a day every day before I got a fatal injury cycling in which a helmet might have helped. That level of risk really doesn't justify for me the day in day out hassle of using a helmet.

irc wrote:
They suggest helmets would prevent 10-16% of fatalities not accidents.

You are correct.

While I agree their assumption of 50% effectiveness is open to question it is a reasonable ballpark figure.

Why is 50% a reasonable ballpark figure? Why not 0% or -10%? The report itself admits the effectiveness is unknown. The only basis for assuming 50% is that it fits with their preconceptions.

Actually the TRL report didn't claim 50% overall effectiveness - that 50% assuption was for ground impacts. They assumed 10-30% for vehicle impacts.

I was trying to keep it simple but you are correct that they do assume two different effectiveness rates.

alicej wrote:People on here would be likely to know things like interesting stats and studies, maybe suggesting things like which journeys or which kinds of roads it would be most useful for me to wear a helmet on, and when it might be counterproductive.

...............

Which are the best designed studies on this subject? Which are the ones that could help me think about my own personal risk, or does evidence only really exist on a population-wide basis? Is it possible to have a sensible, helpful conversation about helmets?

The good news is that the risk from cycling is so low that whatever you choose won't really matter in practice. So go with what you feel most comfortable with but heed the advice of an expert on ski helmets who said if you do choose to wear one, act as if you weren't wearing one.

Because of the rarity of events, its very unlikely that we will ever have the evidence at other than the population level. For the UK context though the best designed studies on the subject are the two by Paul Hewson looking at the UK population data and which are very open about their limitations.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389580590931590
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.03.020

Also in your consideration think about what you are worried about. A cycle helmet is designed to protect against simple falls at speeds up to 12.5mph. It is not designed to protect against being hit by a motor vehicle. The impact effect goes as the square of the speed so being hit at even just 20mph will exceed the helmet design specification by two and a half times. For those types of accidents your best bet, whether you wear a helmet or not, is to get cycle training to avoid the accident in the first place. So either go on a training course or read Cyclecraft.

Good luck.

irc wrote:The fairly recent TRL review of helmets, how they work, helmets studies, and protection given is worth a read.

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/repor ... idence.htm

My take on the subject is that helmets do give some protection. Possibly more from minor injuries than serious or fatal. One stat in the report is that helmets would have prevented 10-16% of a sample of closely studied fatal accidents. In other words they will make cycling safer but are not a pancea. Things like route choice and rider skill are far more important.

That TRL report and 10-16% statistic has a serious problem. The report basically says after reviewing the evidence that the effectiveness of helmets is unknown. They then say but lets assume anyway they are 50% effective and if they were, they would prevent 10-16% of accidents. They then headline that figure. So a conclusion which is not based on any evidence whatsoever.

david. h wrote:has anyone worked out a way of sealing brake and gear cable ends so they dont unravell and become impossible to thread through the outer. i know you can get alloy end caps that crimp onto the cable to stop this happening but they have to be snipped off to dismantle during maintainance. i am thinking solder or some kind of adesive to seal the ends together so it can still be threaded through the outer. has anyone done this and what is the technique

I always wick a bit of superglue into the cable end which hold it all together and stops it fraying. Even better wick it into the cable before you cut it to stop those occasional strands spiralling off. Solder is difficult to get to stick and tends to blob on the end. With superglue you can crimp the ferrule on and it won't fray when you take it off either.

mark barker wrote:I doubt any non cyclist would spend £1k on a new bike, so the only people that benefit from this are existing cyclists (as in the case of the op), and surely they're not the people that need to be targeted.

I know quite a few people that have taken the plunge thanks to CfW and mostly at the higher end, particularly with Bromptons. But there is nothing that says you have to spend £1k on the bike. It works for all price levels providing only that they do not exceed £1k.

Si wrote:
Sure, it is less than perfect - many people are excluded and IIUC the benefits of it have been reduced. This being the case: we, including this MP, ought to be fighting to get it improved rather than discarded.

The benefits have not been reduced, you just need to adjust the way you do it to get them. In fact they are better in that the residual market value is now certain and with the right structure, less than you might have paid before.