Cycling UK Forum

hubgearfreak wrote:

I have approved this first post after some consideration - in the hope that any responses will be rational and diplomatic, rather than

i think you've done the wrong thing. what sort of way to introduce yourself into a community is that? imagine a forum as a pub, we come in, we chat about things, we go out.
disgruntled/ashamed wouldn't enter a pub and go straight into a monologue like that, and nor should (s)he do it here. as a virtual bouncer you should have prevented their entry.

I appreciate the lack of censorship in the spirit of free speech and all that. But I thought that Disgruntled Cyclist just posted to wind us all up, and declined to take up the challenge.

Dairy milk

Writtle Tea Rooms

They are just off NCN1 at Writtle College. They have ample bike parking, CTC sign on the door, indoor & outdoor seating, good tea & coffee, and lovely cakes

Have you done this yet?

I heard recently from fellow cyclists in the area that the silly anti-motorcycle things around Chelmsford have been moved further apart so that the large tricycles ridden by disabled adults can go through. I was in Writtle today & saw that they were, indeed, much farther apart than the last time I was there. I haven't verified this everywhere, but maybe the folks at Sustrans know?

Anyway, I thought I'd post the update.

If the event occurred in a place where there are often events there may be some general benefit to a positive response, especially if the complainant is a resident there. I marshal for events in a couple of places where the locals have gradually become anti-cyclist partly because of thoughtless and even rude behavior on the part of participants.

When I am confronted by someone who wants to register a complaint (even if it's just 'too many of these stupid *&^% races'), if I apologize for any inconvenience we've caused, and assure them that the cyclists have to follow the rules of the road, incidents will be investigated, cyclists may be disqualified, etc. They usually go away content that someone has listened to them, understands the problem, and that action will be taken, if necessary. If they wish to complain about a specific incident, I request a description of the cyclist, rider number, etc.; any of the sort of information that could be helpful in identifying who the person was. Many people are not observant enough to provide sufficient detail for an investigation, at which point all I can do is apologize again.

In this case, invite discussion. The driver/letter writer is obviously unaware of some aspects of sharing the road. Perhaps a mutual discussion would benefit everyone.

The outgoing chief constable of Cambrideshire Police bashed the move to remove speed cameras and said that speeding was the worst kind of anti-social behavior. She criticized the hypocrisy of motorists who think they can get away with lawbreaking, but won't tolerate lawbreaking by others. This was discussed on the BBC this morning, and in several papers...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... rists.html

New cars already have 'black boxes'. For the most part, data about speed, braking, etc. are either not recorded, or not retained because of privacy concerns.

However, it's common in the USA for companies to install their own data recorders. They've gotten good results, using a combination of training and black boxes to substantially reduce accident rates (and therefore insurance rates) among their fleet drivers.

Black boxes have also been used in the US to convict reckless drivers. See http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/06/09/b ... et-safety/

Road safety advocates in the USA have lobbied for federal requirements to record data in cars, following the Toyota recalls.

It can't be far behind, here; whatever the concerns about privacy.

There is an interesting look at this issue on Which? Conversation.

http://conversation.which.co.uk/transpo ... d-cameras/

reasons to keep your MTB:
- you like the gearing (road bikes typically have a narrower range of gears)
- it's bombproof
- you occasionally ride muddy (but not necessarily off-road) places where the bigger tyres and tyre clearance are advantageous

reasons to change:
- the MTB is slow and heavy
- a bike with narrower tyres and mudguards will get you & your stuff less wet in the rain

Make a list of your criteria and prioritize them. If 'bombproof' is at the top of the list, I think you've answered your own question. Otherwise, don't dismiss a tourer out of hand. You may find that it will come closer to one-bike-does-it-all than most others. However, I will add to your confusion by suggesting that you consider an Audax bike. Many people find them a good compromise between 'full-on tourer' and road bike.

You can check the CTC site at http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3788 where they explain the differences between different bike and associated types of cycling. I think you'll find the information there helpful.

But, the best thing you can do is ride some bikes. Try bikes at the bike stores near you. Hire bikes so you can ride them a bit longer. Don't make a decision until you've evaluated the alternatives as more than a picture in a catalogue. If you find one you like, look for a similar used one. If you don't, invest in a second set of wheels for the one you've got.

I would avoid new road bikes in your price range. The cost compromise is generally in shifters, drivetrain, and wheels. While the cheaper gears and chains are usually okay, the wheels won't take much abuse (like potholes and kerbs) and the shifters require frequent maintenance.

Good luck!

Although I haven't done any long distance touring in the last few years (for family reasons), when I did so, I mostly stayed in bunk houses and hostels in various countries. There, I met people from all over the world touring places by bicycle. I cycled in Scotland with people from the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, and Scotland. I've cycled in Germany with Americans, Belgians and Italians. I don't remember all of the people I've met who were cycle touring, or with whom I rode while our routes coincided. And yes, I met a French student, touring Scotland by bicycle. He was riding a rather tatty-looking 70's racing bike. With panniers on it.

The bikes they rode were as varied as the people, but they had some traits in common. They have to for touring. They were equipped with luggage carrying solutions of one sort and another (mostly panniers on racks). They had handlebars that allowed multiple hand positions for comfort. Other than that... well, they were bikes. People were touring on them. Doesn't that make them touring bikes?

I have a Cateye Strada, which retails for under £40. I use it on two bikes.

BikeRadar reviewed it a while back http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/ ... less-13137

It does two different tyre sizes, but not more than that. The magnetic pick-ups for other bikes are easy to come by. Lots of bike shops stock them.

Good luck

Guy951 wrote:I'd make 'em use their own *%*()!^^%}~)(# useless "cycling facilities" for a whole WINTER - dark mornings and evenings, ice, snow, no gritting or ploughing, or ploughs piling snow onto the cycle lane, on top of the usual dangerous junctions, narrow gutter-lanes etc. That's when they'll find out just how crap they really are.

Guy951: I'll concede that point. Though, I'd be happy enough just to see them on bikes, acquiring the new perspective.

A crap map would be more help to us than councils. Councils don't care. Their engineers are not cyclists, and don't have any understanding of good facilities. They need training, and defined minimum criteria. I recently complained to Essex county council about a cycle lane that is not only narrow and places the cyclist too close to the edge of the carriageway, but also goes through the door zone of parking bays placed between the cycle lane and kerb. The response I received was (paraphrased): we don't have much space, there; when the road is impoved we'll put in a shared use facility, but the road improvements aren't currently scheduled.

In other words, 'we get funding for cycle facilities, so any facility is better than nothing'. This attitude won't change without external stimuli.

Let's start by making the engineers and planners read Cyclecraft, then ride their bikes to work for a summer. They'll soon acquire new perspectives.

Whether minimum standards are established nationally or at a European level, they must include the sort of criteria I mentioned. Facilities on the mainland may, on the whole, be better than here, but there are poor facilities there, as well.

I would suggest that cycle facilities need to meet some other minimum standards in order to receive funding or count towards targets for increasing available cycle facilities. Criteria should be established at a national level, using DFT guidelines, good cycling practise (i.e. Cyclecraft) and/or consultation with groups such at the CTC. They should include things like:
-for cycle lanes
*length and width for cycle lanes
*whether other facilities are available when a contraflow lane ends
*whether lanes encourage, or at least permit, the use of good road positioning
(i.e. primary position at junctions, etc.)
-for shared use facilities
*numbers of junctions and driveways (including car park entrances) per mile
*numbers of locations where cyclists must dismount (per mile)
*width for pedestrians & width for cyclists
*demarcation method
*signs, hedges, bus stops, etc. causing narrowing of facilities (numbers per mile?)

I think it would be good to include some form of generic risk assessment, based on things like whether junctions are controlled, on trunk roads, etc.

When authorities can no longer receive funding and/or achieve targets for providing a shared use facility that has 'cyclist dismount' signs every 20 metres, or a half-metre-wide kerbside lane, they might rethink their strategies.

Many bicycle trailers have a max speed that a scooter is likely to exceed.