Cycling UK Forum

I decided to upgrade my winter bike from Claris to 10 speed 105.

I've put the deraileur, cassette and brifters on but now I've struck a problem. The brifters will not change gear. With the cable attached to the deraileur I get no clicks from either brighter and no movement of the chain, the gears change if I pull the cables so they're OK. I've tried releasing the cables and I am then able to get a maximum of 3 clicks on downward changes but non upwards.

I've checked the alignment of the cables and they appear to be correct and the cable tension appears fine.

Any ideas why new outofthebox brifters would act like this?

It's odd the Mr Loophole doesn't appear to know that a footpath, a path away from a road where the use of a bike is a civil trespass, and a footway, a path next to road where riding a bike can get you an FPN but advice from government is that it's to be ignored unless it's reckless or dangerous, are different things.

Don't think I'd use a "specialist"highway lawyer who didn't know that!

Pete Owens wrote:

sirmy wrote:

theflyingspanner wrote:...to include any cycling provision...could they?

http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=11314

If you look at the link you provide you'll see that cycling provision is either being maintain

Not true - If you look at the link you see that they are removing the bus lane - about the only redeeming feature of the current layout - unless you are a fan of crappy shared use pavements.

Note how they even count the increased delays to bus passengers as a "benefit".

or improvements are being planned.

Only if you count the increased delays at the multi-stage shared use crossings as an improvement!

Actually very true, just read it,cycling hasn't been overlooked or forgotten. It might not be up to the utopian ideals of too many north east campaigners but its there.

Ferdinand as I'he already pointed out the 1980 highways act gives a specific definition of a footway, foot path etc and it is theses definitions that would apply. I've read the rowip document before and would have to say your interpretation of it is flawed in as much as a rowip is independent of the1970 act. The 1970 act cannot be used to support the removal of the barriers shown in the earlier posts

theflyingspanner wrote:...to include any cycling provision...could they?

http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=11314

If you look at the link you provide you'll see that cycling provision is either being maintain or improvements are being planned.

Still nothing like a good moan is there?

".......although I'd always assumed, that like parking on the pavement, this was a legislative oversight"

There was a clause in the 1974 Highways Act (section 7) which made parking on a footway an offence -

"7Prohibition of parking of vehicles on verges, central reservations and footways

(1)After section 36A of the 1972 Act (prohibition of parking of heavy commercial vehicles on verges and footways) there shall be inserted the following section:— “Prohibition of parking of vehicles on verges, central reservations and footways.

36B(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, a person who parks a vehicle, other than a heavy commercial vehicle, within the meaning of section 36A of this Act, wholly or partly—

(a)on the verge of an urban road, or

(b)on any land which is situated between two carriageways of an urban road and which is not a footway, or

(c)on a footway comprised in an urban road,

shall be guilty of an offence."

Unfortunatley the police complained they didn't have the resources to enforce the clause so, rather than provide the resources, parliamnet repealed the clause without it ever being enacted ("Ss. 6–15, 20–22 repealed by Road Traffic (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988 (c. 54, SIF 107:1), ss. 3, 5, Sch. 1 Pt. I, Sch. 4 paras. 1–3")

Once again money trumps public safety

Clutch down and brake!!!!!!!

Brake then clutch as you come to a stop.

Absolutely useless

..... the most expensive cars

Bicycler the definition of a footway in the 1970 is irrelevaent as the Disabled and Chronically Sick Act specifies that the defintion of a footway to be used in conjunction with the act is the one given in the 1980 Highways Act via an ammendment to the act. So while the defintion of a footway may be broader in the 1970 act it would be a mistake to interpret the act in terms of this definition. The intention of this clause was not allow access to all paths accessible on foot to people in invalid carriages but to remove obstacles to the passage of invalid carriages along footways (which would have been illegal under the 1835 HA), next to carriagewas, on streets. To try to extend the term "footway" to include all paths accessible on foot is wrong. Your use of the term carriageway is also incorrect as to include a footway as part of the carriageway would mean it was legal to drive a vehicle along a footway which it isn't (1835 highways act sec 72) which prohibits a “carriage of any description” being used on a footway - hence this part of the 1970 act. They are not both parts of "a vehicular road" but are seperate entities running adjacent or paralelll to each other with very different access rights - you can drive a vehicle on a carriageway you cannot drive (except in certain specific instances) a vehicle on a footway (http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/1835highwayact/).

The upshot of this is that the 1970 act only applies to footways (paths alongside roads) and not to the types of paths identified in the original and subsequent postings and would not be applicable in an application to remove these barriers

Could be low pressure, I use Schwalbe marathons which I run at the lower end of the recommended pressure

This is probably something without an answer but I've had three inner tubes split at the valve on the same wheel within less than 300 miles.

I've tried ensuring the washer is screwed up to the rim to stop the valve moving when inflating, running very fine wet and dry around the valve hole to remove any defects, I even tried cutting a length of old innertube, putting a slit in it and passing it over the valve to ensure it didn't come into contact with the rim or the rim tape. Didn't work. I've now changed the rim tape, although I'm not sure if that will make a difference

Has anyone got any suggestions as I'm losing confidence in using this wheel and buying new tubes for it feel slike throwing good money after bad.

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/bus-driver-spared-jail-after-killing-cyclist-1-7398577

https://goo.gl/maps/mjTzb

No surprise here, unfortunately

Bicycler you miss the point of part of your own post - the definition of a footway for the 1970 disablity act is the one given by the 1980 Highway Act which I gave. As this definition specifically states that a footway is part of a carriageway - that is a path alongside a carriage not seperated from it by any fencing (a loose definition of the width of a carraigeway is that it covers all the land between adjacent fences or hedges), so a repurposed rail ine would not meet the definition required.

Tony f33 "The contractor was employed by the highways agency and the debris/stones are not detritus, ergo it is definitely the CC that is duty bound by law within 28 days to fix it."

If the work was carried ouy for the Highways Agency (or highways England as it is now) then that suggests the road is a trunk road, as they are responsible for maintenance of motorways and trunk roads, and wouldn't be the responsibility of the highway authority (unless you mistyped). In areas with a unitary authority or in area formerly covered by the artifical counties thought up in the 70's it may be the city or district council rather than the county who are the highway authority. It could also be that the contractor could be held responsible for debris lkeft in the carriageway, depending on how lng th ework has been completed. that would be for the highway authority to follow up on.

Ferdinand appears to be placing a lot of emphasis on the 1970 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act which says in section 20 para 1 (a) "no statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footways shall prohibit or restrict the use of that vehicle on a footway;" using the definition of a footway from the 1980 highways act. This states "footway " means a way comprised in a highway which
also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only ;" (para 328).

Using this definition most of the paths refered to, nd certainly those shown in pictures, in this thread would not be covered by this clause as they are not part of, or run paralell to (to pul in the section of the 1835 HA which prevents cycling on a footway) a carriageway. Most of these barriers would probably fall under the disability discrimation act which is wolly in places where outdoor access is concerned (uses terms like wher practicable).