Cycling UK Forum

But ronyrash, unless I'm much mistaken, has dropped handlebars, in which case hydraulic is no longer an option. For whilst Magura used to make hydraulic levers for drops and Hope a cable-to-hydraulic converter, neither product is any longer available.

this isn't easy, and whenever you deviate from the A3 you add both miles and hills to the route. I do ride on the A3, but I presume that you're not keen.
The 'old A3', now the A307 is a pleasant road, and, when you get to Cobham you take a left at the mini-roundabout in the centre of town and then a right at the church, and then a right at a restaurant called 'L'Auberge'. Continue over the M25, keep right at the 'Hautboy' and go on to East Clandon, thence into Guildford - but bear in mind the A246 is not much fun, and there's a hill to climb.
From Guildford take the A3100 to Godalming (passing the CTC HQ), and then on to Milford and on to the A286 - a pleasant road, but not flat. Just before Haslemere you can branch right on to a B road that heads toward Liss, thence on to the 'old A3' again which is the B2070. You then have to endure a bit of the A3 proper before it splits into the motorway and the A road.
Alternatively you can persist with the A286 into Chichester, go through the centre of town and turn right on the A259. Neither of these roads are unpleasant to cycle on, and the A286 sports my favourite hill, just north of Midhurst, succeeded by a wonderful descent which is best taken with care first time, as there is a (sign-posted) S-bend that can put you in harms way.
Good luck

It is Secondary schools where the problem of insistence of a 'test' seems to be more widespread. I do wonder if it is because there is a greater emphasis on publishing school prospectuses (-ii?), which include travel matters. Todays rule and regulation culture cannot help either, and a parent reading the 'requirement' may assume that a test is required before their child can cycle on ANY road, not just to school.
I do come across an increasing number of children who are riding on pavements because their parent has said they must pass a test before they can ride on the road.

Junior schools seem less prone to the 'insistence', perhaps as parents are more likely to accompany their children to school, and it is also in these schools that LAs are more likely (if the school's lucky) to be providing some form of training scheme.

The worst cases are where the Secondary School sets the rule for a 'test' yet neither it, nor the supplying Junior school offer ANY kind of training.

It creates a dead end for the child if the parent believes a test is essential before any road riding is permitted.

Next step? - the 'obligatory' car at 17

John B

Any bike can be used for audax events, but most "audax specific" machines are light tourers. Frame materials are to personal choice.
Wheels are usually narrow clinchers with 23/25 mm section tyres although some people use 28's or even 32's. (I know one rider who uses 35mm tyres on fixed)
Some people use road bikes with very narrow 'guards.
Look at the Chas Roberts website, and check out his audax machine. This is the stereotypical audax bike, but it really boils down to what you feel comfortable riding,over a set distance with a max/min kph.
Some people use modified MTB's, others ride fixed, most use a triple chainset but I have used 3 speed S.A., double and triple set ups depending on the terrain and distance.
My dedicated audax machine is set up thus:
Reynolds 631 frame (not the lightest, but neither am I), Mavic narrow rims with 25mm tyres, triple chainset, Flite titaniun saddle, Shimano side-pull brakes, lightweight rear rack and narrow 'guards.
The hubs are 9 speed Deore.
The frame angles are 73 degree parallel.

You could ask what is worse, cycling without lights or driving at 35 in a 30 zone? Is it worse for a cyclist to ignore a red light when it is safe or for a motorist to move off on red and amber? What is worse, parking on a pavement or cycling on a pavement? For me someone providing the risk of instant death or maiming is doing something a lot worse by breaking road laws. If the cyclist screws up and goes through the wrong red light it's usually them who pays.

Rules broken on the road have different degrees of wrongness don't they? Speeding rules and those about giving way to pedestrians at side roads and not occupying cyclist advanced stop areas are broken routinely by motorists. One motoring organisation was honest enough to recently admit that the majority of drivers broke the law on the majority of trips.

I ride through a city to work every day and regularly break at least 3 rules; an illegal right turn, riding through a subway and riding on a pavement for 100m that leads to a cycle route. My alternative is a 3 lane motorway roundabout with traffic whizzing around at 40mph... and I want to see my children grow up. I am better at obeying the red light laws now but have healthy respect for those free spirits (especially the teenagers) who cruise through. If it pisses off the motorists great. And when i see the students cycling home without lights I think 'good, at least they are on a bike'. It should be entirely the motorists responsibility to watch for them, they provide the risk, the onus should be on them to lessen the danger.

Neither cyclists or motorists are suddenly going to become all responsible and law abiding. Try cycling in Holland or Denmark, the cycling capitals of the World and you'll see people wobbling through red lights, going the wrong way up one way streets just like here.

gar, I have spent over 70 nights a year camping for the last 3 years. In fact if I attend the either of the FC December meets it will be 78 this year.
I thought the only bragging on this forum was about computer skills (or lack of). Some seem to act in the manner of 5 year old child, (please Miss look what I've done)when the find out what a button on a keyboard can do.

mel. Sorry to dissapoint you but the Jetpacker has not been made in the UK for sometime. Neither has most of the Saunders range.

PW. Kerks is still the official camp site and is holding a December meet, details on the website, although some changes are a foot with regard to Club Officers.

There is also a December Lake District meet.

funnily enough neither falling off's were SPD related, both were shallow tree roots, front wheel one side rear wheel t'other. i should have learnt first time, but in my defense i wasn't the only one to get caught out by the second set of roots.
on the plus side i didn't fall off at all last week, but then it was mostly on the road and the canal towpath, don't usually wear my helmet unless i'm doing proper off road anyway.

No they don't. You can't be guilty of exceeding a speed limit if your vehicle has no means to warn you; and a bicycle is not required to have a speedometer. But the law does allow the offence of riding furiously I believe. So they could try that one.

I have actually seen cases in the tabloids of points being put on the driver's licence of a cyclist. Clearly the cyclist did not get proper legal advice, and neither did the magistrate: My understanding is that points are only applicable for offences relating to motor vehicles, so the penalty was clearly faulty, as were the local magistrates procedures.

FYI that rule also applies to the "Breathalyser", and if a cyclist is tested in this way, the evidence is inadmissable as it was introduced under a road traffic act. If you are riding a bike, all the old rules still apply, so they may still take the pi**!

That's what I meant ...

Glad to hear it.

Sorry I couldn't think of a less confusing way of telling it like it really is, but I'm afraid that neither could I accept that 18 degrees was only a few.

Reason is: if it's at all possible for the lamp to be tested against BS6102/3, the DfT would prefer the lamp to be so tested. And if a lamp also has a steady mode, that's possible.

But as we see: most manufacturers simply cannot be bothered to have their lamps tested. Neither do they want to clutter their product with the required approval marks of Britain, France, Holland, Denmark, Austria, Germany ...

Neither.

The stem angles quoted in catalogues etc. are usually measured relative to a perpendicular to the steering axis.

So a 0° stem is at right-angles to the head-tube and actually slopes upwards by something like 18° when fitted to the bike.

Stems with a small angle, 5° to 15°, can be flipped to adjust handlebar height. Stems with a large angle, typically 40° are used to give a more upright riding position and stems described as having a negative angle such as –17°, are intended to be fitted horizontally.

Interesting site Brake.

I notice that there is no charge for a 'hit and run' accident resulting in death. Presumably that is why the manslaughter charge was based on the amount of time taken for medical assistance to reach the victim, and not purely the fact that Mr Cottrell left the scene. If a charge does not exist, then we have to accept that, there are many examples of holes in the British legal system.

I can't see how you come to your choice of Causing death by dangerous driving, the definition is quite clear, there has to be proof that the manor of driving directly lead to the victims death, which could not be proven in this case. Leaving the scene cannot automatically lead to the assumption of a driving offence having been committed.

Equally, stating that the driver was under the influence as being the reason he left the scene is rather presumptuous. There must be many reasons that someone would do this. I admit that trying protect ones self from prosecution is one reason, but not wanting to face the consequences of ones actions and panic are others. Punishment for all of these reasons is clearly desirable, but does a long prison sentence apply to all of them equally?

A lot of the argument for a long prison sentence in this forum is based on the assumption that a driving offence lead to the victims death, but there does not appear to be any evidence of this from what I have seen. Do we not have to balance our opinion and look at this from the point of view that an accident caused the injuries leading to death, not the negligence of either party.

Let us take a hypothetical scenario for a moment. The victim was driving a car on a narrow lane, unsighted by either driver they hit head on around a blind bend, both below the speed limit and as far to their side of the road as space allows. The victim dies, and the other driver being in shock and unable to face what he has just witnessed, panics and leaves the scene.

Now you could say that neither driver was cautious enough approaching the blind bend, but does that mean that the surviving driver should face a serious charge or long prison sentence?

This is why I think the charges of failing to stop and failing to report are more relevant to this case.

Scott free? We have yet to see.

Have better things to do with my time, especially considering I neither like riding slowly nor breathing exhaust fumes.

Never met a club cyclists who's ever admitted to being on one.

From your description: double-wired, everything worked with the lamps off the bike but not on it, my prime suspect would be that you have got the live wire connected to the earth terminal (and vice-versa) on one or both lamps. This would cause a short-circuit as soon as the wrongly wired lamp is attached to the bicycle, since the earth terminals on most cycle lamps and dynamos are internally connected to their respective mounting brackets or bolts. So the electricity would come out the dynamo, along the live wire and then directly back via the frame – without passing Go or giving any useful light!

To discover which light is wrongly wired, it's easiest to unbolt the front lamp first. If both lights now work again it's that one. If neither, reverse the connections on the rear lamp. Both lights should now work. If they stop working after you've re-attached the front lamp, that lamp is also wrongly wired. If neither lamp works throughout this process, you have a short circuit somewhere else.

I recommend the Schmidt Koaxial cable that used to be available from the CTC shop. It's tough as old (rubber insulated) boots, with the earth wires surrounding and giving extra protection to the live conductor. When wiring up it is always easy to tell one from the other, and any subsequent chafing of the cable merely brings earth into contact with earth. I think you can probably still get this cable and a connections kit from Bike-Plus or maybe SJSC.

I was being a bit sarchastic in what I said. No, we produce no exhaust emissions and negligible material emissions. Thus we pay no road tax. Neither do pedestrians or horse riders for the same reason.