Cycling UK Forum

John Adams's latest blog has some bearing on this topic, though not directly relevant.

http://john-adams.co.uk/

It's about police moving bikes because they are supposed to be a security risk, as they may have a bomb concealed in the frame. In spite of this the bikes are taken into the police station!

The crazy, illogical paranoia reminded me irresistibly of this thread.

Much good stuff on other cycling subjects, including h*lm*ts and seat belts.

John Hunter wrote:What really annoyed me was that I was so flustered I didn't hold my own in the argument. Kept me awake last night thinking of blindingly brilliant verbal responses which would completely leave him speechless ..... either that or reaching through his passenger window and ripping his windpipe out! I think I need help

stoobs wrote:Ah yes, the pensees d'escalier, as the Germans would say, if they could speak French.

Occasionally the right words spring to mind. A moton stopped fifty yards after cutting me up badly by overtaking on a (one lane) roundabout. I stopped to tell him that overtaking on a roundabout is against the Highway Code.

Him, "Did you write it then?"

Me, "No, but I've read it, unlike you."

tooley92 wrote:

loiner wrote:Why not do it yourself, it`s not rocket science.

I tried it a few times years ago on cheap tubs (wolber strada 80's iirc) and they always ended up with a lump in them where the patch was as the inner tubes seem to be made of thinner rubber than tubes for clinchers, also I could never get the stitching right

Substitute "because" for "also". I would guess that the stitching repair is what caused the bulge. I had this problem on my first attempt.
Start (and finish) stitching a few stitches into the intact seam. Take the thread through the old holes, in one, and out the adjacent on the other edge. This should look like a zigzag, with the hidden thread at right angles to the edge, and the exposed thread at an angle. Carry on until well into the uncut original stitching. Now, this is the important bit to avoid a bulge, come back through the same holes in the reverse direction, of course finishing back in the intact seam. The result should be a series of "Xs" in the thread. Finish by securing the end of the thread. The seam now needs flattening to match the rest. I used a wallpaper seam roller, but a rolling pin might do. I used contact adhesive to restick the base tape.
I hope this is clear.

"Bafoon" is a good portmanteau word, combining very appropriately "baboon" and "buffoon".

I found these findings interesting:-

Extracts from Guardian item on DfT report on " Collisions involving pedal
cyclists on Britain's roads: establishing the causes."

"With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about
60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

"A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders
jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility
clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.

"The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2%
of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road
users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was
a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a
potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was
mentioned 2% of the time.

Full report at
http://www.trl.co.uk/library/reports_pu ... lications/

I've been ground down in that mill too, TC. The best Inquiry I attended was for FoE at Dolwyddelan about the straightening of the A470 north from the Crimea Pass. For three days I rode from Bangor, along the A5 to Bettws and up the Lledr valley.
One woman told us how she had managed to drive off the road twice at the same spot, giving this as evidence that the road was at fault, and needed straightening! I also got a laugh at the expense of a WO Highways Dept. witness.
The road was built of course. The highlight of my activist career was our defeat of the A5/Bethesda Bypass. I suspect though, that budget constraints deserve more of the credit than Mon ac Arfon FoE.

Simon L6 wrote:sort of - http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/ltn208.pdf table 1.3 is instructive if only because it's so vague...

the wonder is that, as mentioned above, £140million was spent on LCN+ before the penny dropped that people were ambling down the main roads.

I think we find ourselves in interesting times. There is no effective guidance for promoting cycling, and, one imagines, the money is going to dry up. It might just be that the DfT will stop finding new and interesting ways to find money and take a look at what works. I live in hope.

I would be please if the money for farcilities did dry up. Nearly all are worse than nothing.

Wheel building machines used to be poor, but perhaps they have improved.

Mick F wrote:I really tried getting the spokes to the same tension on a front wheel once. I imagined that if the nipples were screwed to the end of the threads all round, then all the spokes tightened quarter turn each repeatedly, eventually the wheel would be evenly tight and evenly "toned" on each spoke.

No such luck!

After turning two or three times a quarter turn, the wheel was going out of true, and I had to 'select' the spokes to keep the wheel true. Eventually, the wheel was right, but the tones were not even.

This must have something to do with the fact that rims are not perfect, even though they may be "flat" originally, or maybe it's to do with only being able to tighten one spoke at a time so you end up chasing your tail.

Perhaps we need to invent a multi-spoke key to tighten all the spokes simultaneously!

With a perfect rim all spokes should make the same note. Few rims are perfect, so you have a choice between a true wheel and one which is musically perfect. A true wheel is usually preferred.

Too blooming true, meic.

Movement of cable outer end stop on chainstay? Could be loose pop rivet or a clamp-on one sliding.

meic wrote:It is begining to sound more and more as if we should be criticising the CTC for not opposing this closure and for not asking for a judicial review of the decision.

I was the local RTR rep. at the time and I opposed the closure.

Let Me Die a Youngman's Death




Let me die a youngman's death
not a clean and inbetween
the sheets holywater death
not a famous-last-words
peaceful out of breath death

When I'm 73
and in constant good tumour
may I be mown down at dawn
by a bright red sports car
on my way home
from an allnight party

Or when I'm 91
with silver hair
and sitting in a barber's chair
may rival gangsters
with hamfisted tommyguns burst in
and give me a short back and insides

Or when I'm 104
and banned from the Cavern
may my mistress
catching me in bed with her daughter
and fearing for her son
cut me up into little pieces
and throw away every piece but one

Let me die a youngman's death
not a free from sin tiptoe in
candle wax and waning death
not a curtains drawn by angels borne
'what a nice way to go' death

Roger McGough

Or when I'm 112
and suspended from racing for using cocaine
may.....

Anyone like to provide a suitable last verse?

I don't think that I'm confused. I am feeling a bit bored though. "someone is boring me and I think its me." So I won't go on anymore. I agree completely with your text and the pictures on the link show what I used to ride. Except for the new bridge of course. That is as I thought it might be. I don't think I had said anything which was not consistent with what you say in this last message. Obviously cross purposes or something. I'm going to stop boring everyone.

Edwards wrote:First all the tunnels around Conway have always had cycle bans. This is a new road totally. The very old original road has been down graded. I rode this from Conway to Colwyn Bay last summer. Not a bad ride.
The tunnel at Penmaenmawr was built to relieve congestion on to 2 lane road going further around the headland. This section has double white lines down the middle.
If the tunnel is closed it is still used for both east and west traffic. As far as I can remember this change of traffic direction was the reason for the cycle ban.
There was not cycle provision at this point.
The local council and Sustrans campaigned for the original Thomas Telford road to be opened for pedestrians and cyclists (they do not represent just cyclists but all forms of sustainable transport)
So there is now a link around that section were the new roads were built.
I have not ridden the section around Penmaenmawr but hope to do it soon. I have spoken to local riders who say it has spectacular views.
In recent months I have driven on the A55 a lot around the Banger area towards Conway. I can honestly say I have not seen any no cycling signs until the tunnel section is reached by Llanfairfechan.

This is confused. The A55 from Conwy to Colwyn Bay is not the section under discussion, that was Richard Fairhurst's red herring. There is an on road alternative to it, which is not the "very old road" and which only became the old road when the dual carriageway was built. Put simply, in the headlands section you are wrong. All the tunnels have not always had bans. It is not a new road totally. The very old road was unused for many years and, as you say, part is the best bit of the cycle route. West of Conwy the less old two lane road, with its short tunnels, is now one carriageway of the dualled road, which is, as you say, used contraflow when the new tunnel is closed. It is, and always was, avoidable on a section of the very old road, but was freely used by cyclists before the dualling.
The new tunnels on the westbound carriageway always have had a cycle ban. Since the old road became the other carriageway it is (usually) one way, eastbound. The road consists of two carriageways, and so a ban from using the westbound tunnel, at the same time as the other becomes a one way carriageway is effectively banning bikes, never mind whether we could ever use the new tunnel.
As far as I can remember the old eastbound road was legally rideable for a while after dualling, before we were banned. Whichever way you gloss it, we once had the use of a road along this coast. Now we have a poor quality farcility.

meic wrote:It does appear that Sustrans have concentrated on meeting their aims of making a route for the newcommer, less confident, dual carriageway hating, leisure cyclist. Whilst ommiting to make a campaign for the established, confident, ride anywhere serious cyclist.

Maybee as part of the latter group we should not look to Sustrans for our salvation and find another group to campaign on our behalf.
A large group with a membership of all types of cyclists, who would have campaigned on our behalf and made protests, possibly even gone for Judicial review as the alternative route is not suitable.
If such an organisation failed to stand up for its members about this issue it could be held to account by its membership.

What would we call it though?

You are quite right meic.
The reason I am so worked up about this particular case is that there is no alternative to the NCN5 along this bit of coast. We have lost the road, in order to make driving easier.

Richard Fairhurst wrote:Mike - we are utterly at cross-purposes here. My sole concern is with your suggestions that Sustrans believe providing alternatives justifies banning cyclists from the roads.

This is completely at odds with my experience of the organisation, and I am increasingly exasperated with people's willingness to blame Sustrans for dumb decisions by local councils or central Government. My personal belief is that all roads should be available for confident cyclists to use, but that no journey should be impossible or forbidding for newcomer cyclists.

I have never seen anything in the work I do that suggests Sustrans think otherwise. (As a very rough approximation, CTC appears to concentrate on campaigning for the former, Sustrans for the latter.) Of course, no organisation is perfect; no doubt there have been cases elsewhere where this hasn't been followed; and indeed I think thirdcrank and meic have made some excellent points in this thread.

But in this particular case, I am interested only in whether a decision taken by Sustrans to approve a particular route caused a bike ban to be instituted on the A55. I am not really interested in "questions of the rideability" of the alternative. That's an issue you've introduced, though I do take enough of a general interest in general cycling matters to know about the much publicised new Pen-y-Clip bridges, and given your clear interest in this subject I'm a little surprised that you appeared not to! You are, however, quite right that I have not cycled NCN 5 along the North Wales Coast - it's one of two long-distance NCN routes in Wales which I haven't cycled (the other being NCN 82 along the Teifi valley). I know the A55 passably well from a car driver's point of view.

When you spoke of a bike ban on "the A55 between Conwy and Bangor" which was "a motorway in all but name", I assumed that you were talking about the special road section, around Conwy, which is indeed a motorway in all but name and has a clear bike ban in statute. I clearly misunderstood you and for that I apologise. As I said in the last posting, I am interested to see a source for this bike ban between Conwy and Bangor.

There is plenty of misunderstanding here.
For the record I do not believe, that "Sustrans believe providing alternatives justifies banning cyclists from the roads." If this is what you understood from my posts I apologise for unclear writing. I do believe that Sustrans insistence on the need for facilities and its purpose in providing them are contributing to a climate of opinion that cyclists have no place on the roads. It is almost a reflex amongst green types and well meaning motorists to mention the need for more facilities when cyclists' problems on the roads are mentioned. What we need first are measures from the hierarchy which has been discussed recently on this forum. Segregation comes last. Given Sustrans talent for attracting publicity and public money, its no wonder that the need for better road conditions is so little emphasised, in spite of Sustrans's intentions. Sustrans's agenda fits well with national and local government's desire to be seen to do something for a green cause, but without discommoding motorists.
I believe that our position on the roads is under threat. As far as I can see many casual cyclists have abandoned the idea that we can use the road as of right. They seem to ride as outlaws, on pavements etc, and often not taking the priority even when they have it. The most important thing one needs to ride properly on the road is a belief that to do so this is ones right.
"I am increasingly exasperated with people's willingness to blame Sustrans for dumb decisions by local councils or central Government." You should understand that the large amount of publicity and of public money Sustrans so expertly gather does lead people to identlfy Sustrans promoted facilities as being Sustrans's responsibility. When Sustrans endorses "dumb decisions" made by others as cycle tracks a bit of flak is bound to come its way. If the routes are not up to Sustrans's standards, then say so, or at least don't claim credit. If credit is claimed for decent stuff, then blame for duff stuff will arrive too.
In the case of the A55 I hope I did not say that Sustrans caused the bike ban. I certainly did not intend to say that. I do think that Sustrans's endorsement of a severely substandard compulsory cycle route made it harder to campaign for an acceptable route. You, and Sustrans really ought to be interested in "questions of the rideability" of the alternative. If the road builders can stick in any old tat for cyclists and Sustrans will call it part of the National Cycle Route Network something is wrong. Prior to the dualling of the A55 we had the right to use it freely. After the tunnel bans we have been fobbed off with a dangerous and inconvenient mess. Now it turns out that "special road" status was a red herring brought in by you. The tunnels are perfectly rideable. I have done it without problems. The only difficulty is that dual carriageways are intimidating, as they are elsewhere, whether in or out of the tunnels.
There is no way driving on the A55 can tell you what the cycle route is like.
Publicity for the new bridge(s) has not reached me. I have not ridden this road for about five years. I was very interested in the question while living and riding there, nowadays I live and ride elswhere. Here, NCN 1(?) uses quiet roads in the country, which add miles to a journey, or the usual substandard stuff in the town, which contribute to the idea we should not be on the road. I have been shouted at several times for sticking to the road.
"When you spoke of a bike ban on "the A55 between Conwy and Bangor" which was "a motorway in all but name", I assumed that you were talking about the special road section, around Conwy, which is indeed a motorway in all but name and has a clear bike ban in statute. I clearly misunderstood you and for that I apologise. As I said in the last posting, I am interested to see a source for this bike ban between Conwy and Bangor."
Again, I apologise if my slipshod writing has confused. I thought that it was clear I was talking about the tunnels through the headlands section (which is between Bangor and Conwy) I was locating the length of road in general. I did not mean to imply that the ban was for the whole length, just that it was on this length. My source for the ban I WAS talking about is riding along the road and seeing "no cycling" signs.
Since the dualling we have had years of a very poor route. You have not been able to inform me whether the bridges have made the route a reasonable recompense for what we have lost. To have Sustrans calling this mess a cycle route rubs salt into the wounds.