Cycling UK Forum

gbnz

Bice wrote: ↑21 Jan 2025, 9:30pm I have just acquired a bit of right knee pain, at the front under the patella: which seems to be the commonest type for cyclists.

The pain is mild, and does not affect me walking. Just a bit of a twinge on the stairs.

I was due to do a 80kms today with the club, but gave it a miss as they would be a bit faster than me on the whole, and I did not want to strain it.

It has been hurting for more than a week, but then I have also been cycling as I use the bike daily, for shopping etc.

I have not paid much attention to it, TBH. I suppose on tour I have had a bit of knee sensitivity, if I think about it, but I just ignored it and the next day was fine. This is the first time I have had soreness of this sort lasting more than a week.

I am now resting it until Sunday, when I have to lead a slower ride.

Not sure what has caused this. Straining seems to be the most frequently cited cause.

I have a weak left hip owing to Perthes disease and my left leg is nearly 20mm less than my right, which is very much dominant. So that is not going to help, when it comes to straining the right leg.

I use SPDs on road bikes; the bike set up has been the same for years (more that 15 in the case of one bike), so I don't think that is relevant.

Any tips, apart from just rest it a bit?

Avoid pushing the ride on the hill's (Nb. Climbs)

@ 52yr's, past two years have been the only period I've ever walked the steep bits'. Primarily due to a leg smashed up, two years back, but with a knee itself becoming the dominant issue, the past several months. Cycling 1100' up on a moderate gradient, hasn't been an issue, but have walked all those super steep 100' sections, for two years now, probably 1st time I've ever worked a steep bit

Have been using the secondary bike the past fortnight, had the full gear range of 24 gears, as opposed to 8 gears due to knackered front derailleur. Even cycled those steep bits, secondary bike was literally just gliding up the climb, no effort required. Somehow, even with a super low gear, half walking speed climb, doing a steep bit 3-4 occasions in a fortnight, has knackered the knee

And past fortnight, has reinforced how important not to cycle those steep bits ! Main bike put into storage, secondary bike had full range of 24 gears, was incredible, bike simply glided up those 100' steep bits, no effort required. Absolutely wrecked the knee, been limping on one leg, as the steep bits were simply easy beyond belief with gears properly set up - still has wrecked the knee, the past fortnight !

gbnz

Nearholmer wrote: ↑23 Jan 2025, 1:06pm At the moment, personal car use is price-rationed, the more skint you are, the less of it you can afford to do, so even leaving aside the generally bizarre nature of the proposal, it would be a truly rubbish way to begin a reduction in car use ….. it would target those who already use cars the least, those who either don’t have one, or drive very few miles.

To get big benefits in terms of reducing car use, any sane approach would bear most heavily on those who drive the most miles, or make the most trips, which almost certainly means the more well-off, rather than the poorest.

(The overall average mileage per car in the UK is c7400 each year; the average miles driven for a license holder >70yo are c1600, so even if a couple share driving equally, their car will only accumulate c3200 miles)

Perhaps, but the genuine issue does exist that those doing a high mileage, tend to be those in a productive role, effectively generating the countries wealth. And in a highly focused motor vehicle economy, those who are productive, may have little choice but to do a high mileage, in order to generate that GDP

In contrast, those who have no need to drive, are generating vast costs, with no benefit to anyone, other than themselves. Relatively speaking, the actual costs to society are far higher, for each mile driven down the road by an OAP. Perhaps a better approach would be to charge OAP's and benefit claimants who insist on driving, an additional surcharge on their road tax, as "non essential motorists"

Such could even generate the revenue to give benefit claimants et al who don't drive whilst not working, a premium "green transport premium". Always seem ironic to have given FOC bus passes to the wealthiest section of society, but deny such to those who'll have a fraction of the wealth and perhaps are trying get to that interview, employment a bus ride away, or whatever

FOC bus travel, or a financial award for travelling by foot, bicycle, bus or train ?

gbnz

roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑23 Jan 2025, 12:31pm

Seems irrelevant as to whether making license withdrawal a special punishment for benefits recipients is a good idea or not.
[/quote]

Well, think I said earlier, perhaps claimants should have their right to drive, removed as part of being a benefit claimant (Nb. Other than for work related activities). Driving may be essential to those in productive roles, but can't really be claimed as such, for those who haven't a productive role, whether an OAP, unemployed, disabled or whatever.

And given that driving and it's effects are an incredibly damaging & expensive process, perhaps a general idea of a "right to drive", needs to be reversed (Nb. Perhaps cash awards should be given to those who live without driving, additional benefit payments for claimants who voluntarily hand in their licence, or tax rebates for those in employment)

gbnz

roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑23 Jan 2025, 12:15pm
gbnz wrote: ↑23 Jan 2025, 12:06pm
PH wrote: ↑23 Jan 2025, 9:36am
If you need to question what entitlement to drive means, try Google. Entitlements are listed on the back of a driving license and referred to as entitlements on all the Government websites.

That may be your experience of being on benefits, I'll suggest it isn't most peoples. If car use was to be restricted, it would need to be in a way that wasn't discriminatory, targeting benefit claimants isn't that way. Most of the reasons people require a car, or don't, won't change if their circumstances lead them to claim a benefit.
Most people don't "NEED" car's they choose to have to them and pollute, main & injure, inflicting huge costs on society

Only have to look at my nearest neighbours
- Retired, only uses the car to take the dog for a walk. Drives to the beach to walk a dog. Could easily walk to the beach, a flat, level, well surfaced, country path, but drives. Routinely complains about the traffic on the road, the lack of parking near the beach. Of course I walk to the beach, other than normally using the same route to get to the station

- Works. Nurse. Approximately a 5-7 minute walk to work. Could easily walk to work, but drives (Nb. I know, because we routinely leave flats at the same time, heading to precisely the same junction on the road, though I normally turn right to a bakers, the hospital requires a turn to the left.

- OAP. Happily able to & walks up mountains, lives 3-4 minutes from the main bus stop, FOC bus pass the past 24yr's, the main bus goes to the precise location being travelled to, the bus station being immediately adjacent to the destination. Claims she loves buses, has a FOC bus pass, travelled on a bus once in 1981 and perhaps again in 2018. But drives, though loves buses

- Another OAP. Also happily able to & walks up mountains. Obviously he drives to buy a newspaper, we left at the same time last Friday, exchanged "morning" 4-5 minutes later as he was getting out of his car, to buy a newspaper. Checking on bike / hike, it's a 233 metre walk to buy a newspaper, but a 1.01 mile drive

Always found it amusing at County Hall several years back, all the green warriors (females) would drive to the bakers. They were always ecstatic, even shocked that I would walk. A 6-7 minute walk across an absolutely level, well surfaced, tarmac path, crossing open area of grass & tree's, hardly demanding. Don't think I ever met more than 1-2 others who'd walk. Why would anyone, never mind self declared eco warriors chose to spend 4-5 minutes walking to the car, in the car park, followed by the 2-3 minute drive to the bakers?

But just as using 5yr olds to clean chimneys used to be the norm, many seem unable to comprehend using their feet, to do that drive
Not sure what any of that has to do with singling out benefits recipients for a special punishment.

Merely illustrating that the majority don't NEED to drive, and therefore having measures in place to ensure those who don't need to drive, seems a perfectly rational approach. Perhaps having withdrawal of the right to drive, needs to be applied to wider parts of society who have no NEED to drive.

Suppose when the driving generation die out, will seem bizarre in future that many thought they could drive, as a "right" (Nb. Bit like cigarette users, deeply offended that they're no longer allowed to indulge their right to smoke in shops, on the bus or train, down the gym or wherever. The concept that everyone should accept being adversely effected by the toxic effects of their choice, is dying away, will happen with driving at some stage)

gbnz

PH wrote: ↑23 Jan 2025, 9:36am
gbnz wrote: ↑23 Jan 2025, 12:27am
PH wrote: ↑22 Jan 2025, 10:53pm
A large proportion of people on benefits are in work, about 40% of Universal Benefit claimants, I don't know the figures for other benefits.
Of those unlucky enough to have lost their employment, the vast majority are back in work withing 12 months (78%) with over half of those back in work within six months.

Those on benefits are not some sort of under class, they're just people who mostly have the same lives to live as the rest of us. The idea that they might have removed their entitlement to drive I find absurd in the extreme.
"Their entitlement to drive" ?
If you need to question what entitlement to drive means, try Google. Entitlements are listed on the back of a driving license and referred to as entitlements on all the Government websites.
But why should someone with 24 Hr's free a day, be allowed to drive?
That may be your experience of being on benefits, I'll suggest it isn't most peoples. If car use was to be restricted, it would need to be in a way that wasn't discriminatory, targeting benefit claimants isn't that way. Most of the reasons people require a car, or don't, won't change if their circumstances lead them to claim a benefit.

Most people don't "NEED" car's they choose to have to them and pollute, main & injure, inflicting huge costs on society

Only have to look at my nearest neighbours
- Retired, only uses the car to take the dog for a walk. Drives to the beach to walk a dog. Could easily walk to the beach, a flat, level, well surfaced, country path, but drives. Routinely complains about the traffic on the road, the lack of parking near the beach. Of course I walk to the beach, other than normally using the same route to get to the station

- Works. Nurse. Approximately a 5-7 minute walk to work. Could easily walk to work, but drives (Nb. I know, because we routinely leave flats at the same time, heading to precisely the same junction on the road, though I normally turn right to a bakers, the hospital requires a turn to the left.

- OAP. Happily able to & walks up mountains, lives 3-4 minutes from the main bus stop, FOC bus pass the past 24yr's, the main bus goes to the precise location being travelled to, the bus station being immediately adjacent to the destination. Claims she loves buses, has a FOC bus pass, travelled on a bus once in 1981 and perhaps again in 2018. But drives, though loves buses

- Another OAP. Also happily able to & walks up mountains. Obviously he drives to buy a newspaper, we left at the same time last Friday, exchanged "morning" 4-5 minutes later as he was getting out of his car, to buy a newspaper. Checking on bike / hike, it's a 233 metre walk to buy a newspaper, but a 1.01 mile drive

Always found it amusing at County Hall several years back, all the green warriors (females) would drive to the bakers. They were always ecstatic, even shocked that I would walk. A 6-7 minute walk across an absolutely level, well surfaced, tarmac path, crossing open area of grass & tree's, hardly demanding. Don't think I ever met more than 1-2 others who'd walk. Why would anyone, never mind self declared eco warriors chose to spend 4-5 minutes walking to the car, in the car park, followed by the 2-3 minute drive to the bakers?

But just as using 5yr olds to clean chimneys used to be the norm, many seem unable to comprehend using their feet, to do that drive

gbnz

PH wrote: ↑22 Jan 2025, 10:53pm
gbnz wrote: ↑22 Jan 2025, 3:58pm Suppose those groups who don't need to drive, such as benefit claimants and OAP's, should have their driving licences removed anyway

Perhaps on moving back into work, benefit claimants (Nb. Excepting OAP's) could have their licence returned.
A large proportion of people on benefits are in work, about 40% of Universal Benefit claimants, I don't know the figures for other benefits.
Of those unlucky enough to have lost their employment, the vast majority are back in work withing 12 months (78%) with over half of those back in work within six months.

Those on benefits are not some sort of under class, they're just people who mostly have the same lives to live as the rest of us. The idea that they might have removed their entitlement to drive I find absurd in the extreme.

"Their entitlement to drive" ? Thought we faced an environmental emergency, climate change and all that, with huge costs attached ? Merely seems bizarre that those who have no need to drive, contribute nothing via their own endeavours & create vast quantities of pollution in driving, should in any case be allowed to drive (Nb. Like most, couldn't really give a damn about all that climate change stuff)

Have been a benefit claimant for 6.5yr's (60+ emergency ambulance rides & hospital admissions, several presumed deaths, two dozen broken bones, drowning, one off temporary paralysis of left side, last presumed dead when carried off a hi speed train in November, am effectively "not allowed to work". NHS have threatened me, some Dr I've never spoken to, stated + 6yr's back, that I couldn't walk. Have found light walking boots tend to last 10-12 months max, before being knackered).

But why should someone with 24 Hr's free a day, be allowed to drive? Vast costs of pollution, so such can buy another donut, down at Tescos. Or visit an aged parent, easily visited on foot, bicycle, bus or train ? And whilst haven't had to visit the DWP for five years (Nb. Occasionally drop in to chat to staff, one even secretly gave me details of an employer last summer), the number of obese who don't work, is astonishing. Perhaps they and society would be supported, via enforced walking?

gbnz

djnotts wrote: ↑22 Jan 2025, 7:34pm ^ I could possibly walk 2 miles, my gf maybe 0.25. Has to be taxis!

Know the feeling, a knees been knackered all autumn ! Definitely need to spend that £50 on a scrap bike, for those bus stop lock ups
(Nb. So annoying to have scrapped 3 bicycles in 15 years - space/storage required scrapping, parts saved from two)

gbnz

djnotts wrote: ↑22 Jan 2025, 6:40pm ^
As an OAP with no car, but who does sometimes drive the gf's modest motor, I actually pretty much agree. But then, unlike many, public transport is good AND we can afford taxis for hospital visits etc.

+ 1. Live in a small place, it's only a 8 mile round walk to the station, normally walk at least one way. Buses are fairly decent, at worst can catch one of the last buses stopping 11.75 miles away, it's an easy enough walk back (Nb. Do need to sort out a knackered old bike for leaving near the bus stop, am happy enough leaving a half decent bike one at the unmanned rail station, c/w decent locks, but a bus stop ?)

Fortunate, am only partially disabled, haven't had a leg temporarily paralysed for a full 2 yr's now, leg shortened 2.25yr's back tends to be a nuisance on longer walks (Nb. Have only had to do a 19 - 25 mile walk after last bus, three times the past 16-17 months, can be a nuisance. And motorists always stop to offer / insist on a lift between 1am - 5am, sometimes a couple of hours either side

gbnz

[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑22 Jan 2025, 6:03pm
gbnz wrote: ↑22 Jan 2025, 3:58pm Suppose those groups who don't need to drive, such as benefit claimants and OAP's, should have their driving licences removed anyway

Perhaps on moving back into work, benefit claimants (Nb. Excepting OAP's) could have their licence returned.
I really hope you're trying to say something other than what you've written.

Hmm........given that people who are motorists, generate a huge, environmental impact, yes I am serious. Why should individuals living without contributing via work, be allowed to create vast quantities of pollution, when they don't can't justify a vehicle?

Given we have a car dominated society, it's more than possible that the administrative overload of only allowing benefit claimants to drive for interviews or when back in employment, would be too much. Who knows, a pool of cars needed for interview needs, a "ticket" system? But OAP's ? Seems absurd that a non productive welfare dependent grouping, should be allowed to drive

gbnz

Suppose those groups who don't need to drive, such as benefit claimants and OAP's, should have their driving licences removed anyway

Perhaps on moving back into work, benefit claimants (Nb. Excepting OAP's) could have their licence returned.

gbnz

simonineaston wrote: ↑21 Jan 2025, 12:12pm I spent a sizeable chunk of my working life in hospitals. Several colleagues who worked in A&Es often chipped in to the helmet debate by agreeing that the sort of serious head injuries they dealt with wouldn't have been helped much by the sort of helmet cyclists wore. (They had different opinions with respect to motorcyclists & their heavier and better helmets.)
Some of them were cyclists, some weren't. But like a lot of folk who have to clean up the real-world mess, they pretty much all of them didn't have an axe to grind re the helmet debate. Instead they took a more pragmatic view, saying "wear one if you want, but don't expect it to help much if a 10 ton artic wheel goes over your head!"...

+ 1. Have trained/ served as a real life safety person, along with a short period training as one of HM Inspe..........

Would be absurd to suggest that a bit of expanded plastic material, would protect against much. On a par with the morbidly obese eating their "low fat chips", a helmet doesn't really compensate. Skulls are fairly easily broken and the soft material inside, does tend to splatter. Better if it's outside, as other than pavements, there's not the need for intense cleaning

That said, had the brain split in two, work accident 21 yr's back. In the two times I've come off the bike past 6yr's, head didn't even have a graze, whilst wearing a cycle helmet, obviously blacked out and/or whatever. Quite different from the accident whilst asleep in bed, 2yr's back, lifelong scars to forehead. Wearing a cycle helmet in bed, would actually have offered considerable protection

Tend to use a cycle helmet, bit like having cycling gloves, reflective material, lights, such are irrelevant in comparison with protective measures such as not cycling that busy/crowded road, as the sun's going down, or whatever. But just as gloves may prevent heavy grazing to the hands, a helmet does offer some protection. Though utterly irrelevant in a high impact incident, offers as much protection, as low fat chips do, to the morbidly obese

gbnz

Mike Sales wrote: ↑19 Jan 2025, 11:12am prevented the possibility of a Midelfart-Trump dynasty)

Stewart Lee.
[/quote]

One must remember, that Trump will be our "saviour", "a powerful hand of peace", "making the world a safer place, the worlds going to benefit", "God bless Trump", bringing in "peace and stability on a global basis", in the words of true Americans, Radio 4 this morning

Obviously mass deportations, global tariffs, who knows even invading Greenland or Canada , will assist with this vision by the saviour

Surely the Trump dynasty has to be extended, whether by Midelfart of whoever?

gbnz

cycle tramp wrote: ↑17 Jan 2025, 10:01pm

Yeah, right.. SWEP isn't an issue? Seriously doubt you were a housing officer. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs-n-rtd-PI (motorhead: I don't believe a word)
[/quote]

This middle class charade., of mythical social housing, providing housing for those unlucky enough to require support

It's of no relevance whether you believe I have worked as a housing officer or not. I have, but's its a cycling forum

gbnz

cycle tramp wrote: ↑17 Jan 2025, 8:11pm
Really? How did you find SWEP situations?

It's not really an issue, the critical factors were to ensure they didn't leave needles in doorways, or in neighbours doors/gates, keep their faeces in their bathroom area, was cheaper to keep the offspring in the "family".

Suppose a benefit of social housing, is the fact that such can be kept in their estates

(Nb. Coroners was always the best, quick, no questions, whereas bizarrely, even County, had a question once)

gbnz

cycle tramp wrote: ↑17 Jan 2025, 10:46am

Are you prepared to say what your role was and in which department?
I'd be surprised if it was anything to do with housing, housing allocations or dealing with the homeless... likewise I'd be surprised if was anything to do with planning.. I doubt whether you were in either adult or child social services, because the last I heard they were drowning under their work load...
Unless you were working with the NHS or Highways England, I'm guessing you had an i.t or policy/performance or personnel or even perhaps finance role? Or perhaps democratic services?
[/quote]

Oh yes, I was working within Housing, dealing with homeless people and allocations of social housing within my area, to those in need, regularly meeting with adult & child social services, in addition to the police. Obviously the police preferred coroners, as it's quick & easy

Obviously as social housing hasn't been built as such, for decades, individuals not on the housing list or who are homeless, aren't relevant. Just as systems are set up to ensure that well to do OAP's, living in property they own, get or complain about not getting cold weather payments, social housing groupings are very much that part of the population, who have something and are therefore worth something to established authorities.

That part of the population, who increasingly found it impossible to even rent a room in a shared house, aren't relevant, as they aren't an established grouping. A bizarre reality that such a huge proportion of the population, are effectively homeless, but have no voice ? Suppose riots must happen someday, hope the homeless riot after I've moved on

Cycling UK Forum

Search found 2827 matches

Re: Knee pain for first time

Re: UK Politics

Re: UK Politics

Re: UK Politics

Re: UK Politics

Re: UK Politics

Re: UK Politics

Re: UK Politics

Re: UK Politics

Re: UK Politics

Re: Why I am amazed by people being put off by helmets

Re: What Has Made You Laugh Today ?

Re: A.i in public services

Re: A.i in public services

Re: A.i in public services