***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 7 *****
More pedal power chat.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 7 Nov 13 at 12:56
|
Something like this should solve Runfer's lighting problems:
tinyurl.com/oz8jjnl
CREE XML XM-L T6 1200 LM LED Cycling Bike Bicycle Front HeadLamp
|
|
That appears to be a very good buy Biggles. Thanks ! Might look into that. To be truthful, in the past when off road in the dark I've just used 3 cheapo lamps. 2 on the bars and a head torch. It's ok but can get fairly sphincter twitching if you're on a fast descent on rough stuff !
|
|
There is a three LED version giving a nominal 3600 lumen (to be taken with a pinch of salt) compared with a cheapo light which will be 10 lumen if you are lucky. A battery with a bigger capacity is advisable if being used at high power.
|
|
To continue the Mrs A dodgy Brompton saga, she has received a reply form the supplying dealer who are surprised and disappointed to hear of a fault, and think they know which part it is that has failed. They have spares in stock and are confident of a while-u-wait fix on Saturday. Well done so far to Berkshire Cycles, of Wokingham Road, Reading. Let's hope they deliver on the promise.
|
The cynic in me wonders why they should have spares in stock if failure is *that* rare.
Nonetheless, they do seem to be doing the right thing so far.
|
|
Brompton gear selector fixed. 5 minute job at the shop, the levers had broken free of the cable, it's working well now. Was obviously a dodgy job on the production line.
|
>> Brompton gear selector fixed. 5 minute job at the shop, the levers had broken free
>> of the cable, it's working well now. Was obviously a dodgy job on the production
>> line.
There's a discussion at the moment in the BromptonTalk Yahoo group about using a classic trigger www.sturmey-archer.com/products/shifters/cid/3/id/12.html with a BWR hub. Consensus seems to be that it can.
It seems the current plastic 'bunny ears' type on Mrs A's machine was designed by Brompton after some of SA's own triggers were withdrawn.
Simon Koorn , the Benelux dealer I mentioned earlier, reports that he's seen quite a number of the the plastic ones deform. OTOH, other users, me included, have found them to work fine over extended periods of time.
|
As the earlier dark nights come upon us, Darwinism seems to be coming ever more apparent.
Small groups of young lads around here wearing dark clothes, nothing reflective, and no lights. Their parents must be as thick as them letting them go out like that.
And I steadfastly refuse to step into the road for them when they are cycling en masse on the pavement. Especially whilst dog walking. At least they can see me in my fluorescent tarmac laying jacket and matching canine attire with flashing collar.
|
>>you are waaaaay more likely to die or become maimed not wearing a helmet
( stolen from another thread )
Ok, I'll start, I'm not convinced that cycle helmet wearing is necessarily a good thing. It splits opinion in the cycling community but oddly enough, you may be surprised to learn, mostly among the mountain bikers.
Odd, primarily because we fall off rather more than any other category of cyclist. We fall off more because we're asking our bikes and ourselves to cope with more extreme conditions on a regular basis.
I've been offroading all my life, sometimes ( quite often actually ) in fairly challenging scenarios and I really can't count the number of times I've parted company with the bike without intending to. I have never on any of those occasions despite various angles of involuntary dismount, ever managed to land on my head. It's just not the way a bike spits you off. normally any injury is to the lower leg or elbows / wrists but almost never to the head.
Secondly, there is quite a strong feeling among many regular MTB riders that helmets can and do contribute to neck rotation injuries, in effect increasing the twisting motion and thus injury to the neck when things get too up close and personal with terra firma.
Thirdly, MTB riding is by definition a high energy use activity when heat build up / exhaustion has to be kept under control and that is not helped by having a helmet on.
In fairness I do possess a helmet, and when tackling steep downhill courses with hard rocky surfaces I do now wear it due to some nagging feeling that "it's maybe a good idea" but I'm not sure I quite believe the hype attached to cycle helmet wearing.
In countries which have a much higher bike usage per capita ( Netherlands for example ) you rarely see helmets being worn.
Is there any published evidence anywhere which supports either viewpoint?
Interested to hear the opinions, informed or otherwise, of others on this.
|
My opinion is most certainly ill informed. However, riding on the roads it seems to me that a smack to the head is reasonably likely either from a motor vehicle or from a kerb or road furniture.
It would appear to me that accidents on the road are mostly collision related, whereas perhaps for MTB they are somewhat more loss of control/balance related and the crash more carthwheely / twisty / tumbly rather than a sudden stop into a bus.
If I'm on my own I never wear a helmet. If the girls are with me I always do and so do they.
Like I said, uninformed.
|
|
Well, I guess that's why I'm interested to hear people's opinions. I'm not "anti-helmets" in any way and if people choose to wear them they'll not hear any scoffing from me, far from it, but I am curious to know if there is any proof of their absolute effectiveness and necessity or is it just another piece of urban myth which sounds like it should be a good idea.
|
Ride as a London commuter (folding bike, station to office and v.v.) and on local or more distant main roads and tracks/lanes on folder, MTB or trad tourer. Never wear a helmet.
While the consequence of head injury might be life changing I regard the probability o acquiring such an injury as very low. I've fallen off bikes dozens of times and suffered grazes to knees/legs, elbows, bum and shoulders. In my one serious accident I broke my collarbone and hip - result of a short and stupid expedition over wet steel decking.
I've never found a helmet that fits well. Straps and bits of helmet affect peripheral vision and, at least subliminally, my hearing. The chin strap irritates and I end up fiddling with it constantly. Donning and removing the helmet require removal of my glasses. And I'd end up leaving it on the train at least twice a year.
Too much faff and discomfort for no measurable gain.
YMMV
|
>>Secondly, there is quite a strong feeling among many regular MTB riders that helmets can and do contribute to neck rotation injuries, in effect increasing the twisting motion and thus injury to the neck when things get too up close and personal with terra firma.
>> I am a little surprised at that.
Re use on the road
My son took up cycling recently and is in quite serious training. He called round last week with his latest KASK helmet as used by the top professionals and I was amazed how incredibly light it was. IIRC it was £150+ and weighed something just over 250gms.
I would not expect that to contribute much to injuries but I am not a doc.
Normal range helmets as used by most "normal" cyclist are obviously much heavier.
|
Helmets don't stop you crashing.
They don't prevent non-head injuries.
IF your head strikes something hard (eg. a kerb, a tree, a wall) at 30mph they greatly reduce the risk of a depressed skull fracture and consequent brain damage.
Helmets do little to prevent concussion, but their effectiveness at saving lives has been proven, according to research by the Cochrane Collaboration. "Helmets provide a 63 to 88 per cent reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists," its paper on the subject said. Other research shows a lower reduction rate of between 58 and 60 per cent. - Independent 04.08.13
I've seen plenty of cyclists in A&E carrying smashed cycle helmets.
Humans are designed to protect their heads as a matter of reflex - if you are thrown from your bike, or go over a car bonnet, you'll tuck in your head/throw out your arms/do a judo roll depending upon training, skill and luck.
The anecdotes you read from cyclists who have fallen 'dozens of times and never hit my head' are in part due to the likelihood of seriously head-injured cyclists not being able to tell us their anecdotes.
Helmet use is not a public health measure - it's an individual choice.
Evidence is abundant but weak, as there has never been a randomised trial (ie. 1000 cyclists are randomly split into 2 groups - half to wear helmets all the time and half never to wear them - follow the groups up for, say, 20 years and see if there is a statistical difference in life expectancy, head injuries, etc etc)
.*********
|
|
Certainly around where I live,about half the helmets worn,are worn in a way likely to cause more injury than they save.Perched on the back of the head(might affect my hair-do) or not fastened.And I was a motorcyclist and knew people who just wore a beret-one of them spent three months in hospital-he always wore a helmet after that.
Last edited by: jc2 on Mon 21 Oct 13 at 10:26
|
I never wear a cycle helmet on or off road. I ride with great care and defensively on quieter roads so would say the overall risk increase compared to the potential accidents when my life is taken as a whole is negligible.
In the village I so often see mums and primary school age children riding about with their shiny cycle helmets... yet their standard of road awareness is appalling.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Mon 21 Oct 13 at 10:32
|
>>I've seen plenty of cyclists in A&E carrying smashed cycle helmets.
I wear one and that comment will ensure I always do.
Similarly, when I first rode motorbikes, I was on a bus with a motorcyclist who was carrying a smashed helmet. He explained he was on his way back from hospital after being checked over. I always wore a helmet, even before they were compulsory.
When I first stated wearing a helmet on a pushbike it seemed I got more respect from other road users. Not measurable, but enough to make me feel a little safer.
|
>> The anecdotes you read from cyclists who have fallen 'dozens of times and never hit
>> my head' are in part due to the likelihood of seriously head-injured cyclists not being
>> able to tell us their anecdotes.
Survivor bias.
In a survey of one million people, we did not find a single person who claimed to have been murdered. We can, therefore, only conclude that murder is a myth.
|
Same applies with skiing. I know some seriously good skiers and they always wear a helmet.
As do I. Now.
Thirty years ago I didn't and shudder at what I got away with. Brings me out in a cold sweat just thinking of the dangerous & irresponsible off piste skiing I did thirty years ago.
|
>> Survivor bias.
>>
True, but OTOH there are lots of 'helmet saved my life' tales based on a smashed helmet after a tumble. The helmet is designed to absorb impact by break up of first the outer shell and then the styro foam inner. They're really not very strong at all and possession of a wrecked one is not evidence of cheating death or even serious injury.
The problem with discussion of helmet's contribution to cycling safety is that there's little real data either way.
|
Some info /opinion here
www.cyclehelmets.org/1039.html
cyclehelmets.org/pdfgen.php?PageNo=1183
Not saying I agree, just flagging it...
|
>> My son took up cycling recently and is in quite serious training. He called round
>> last week with his latest KASK helmet as used by the top professionals and I was amazed
>> how incredibly light it was. IIRC it was £150+ and weighed something just over 250gms.
>> I would not expect that to contribute much to injuries but I am not a doc.
>> Normal range helmets as used by most "normal" cyclist are obviously much heavier.
Out of interest I just weighed my helmets.
The first I bought in 1996 with my mountain bike weighs 310g.
The second, bought a few months ago in the Evans sale for £15, weighs 350g.
So not too much heavier than the expensive helmets. And I have never felt weight to be an issue.
|
More here - Lots to read ( but there is a pretty picture - but explicit so careful if you're at work ! )
sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/
|
Erm, might have, sort of, slightly, ordered a new one, maybe, ish... ( Lygo's fault ) ;-)
tinyurl.com/ptottfd
|
>>The helmet is designed to absorb impact by break up of first the outer shell and then the styro foam inner. They're really not very strong at all and possession of a wrecked one is not evidence of cheating death or even serious injury.
Very weak argument, Bromp - the helmet reduces the energy being dumped on the skull - imagine the skull is like an egg - bop it to just below the fracture point and all is well - bop it just above and a large crack appears - bop it a little harder and the innards get mashed.
Even with a non-depressed fracture there is a risk of bleeding/haematoma causing brain damage.
It's not about stopping your head being hit (skin and skull will ultimately heal): it's about stopping the brain being damaged (which heals very badly if at all).
Also, it is not unusual to be KO'd by an initial impact to the head and then suffer one or more subsequent head injuries as you continue to roll/flop/be hit by a vehicle - head injuries when unconcious are even more likely to lead to death as the protective reflexes are gone.
When I was a medical student in the early 90s as part of a project one of my friends (who was a keen cyclist) was wanting to show the impact protection offered by cycle helmets - he dropped a water melon on the pavement, then another 'wearing' a helmet from about 12 feet - one became mince'n'chunks and the other remained intact.
However....
I tend not to wear a helmet as I find the chin strap uncomfortable too. I rarely ride on roads with cars though, and if I did more I would find a comfier helmet.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcYD80QBD7Y
|
>>I tend not to wear a helmet...
Aw jeez now you tell me ! Fifty quid I'm down now !
Doctors !
Sheesh !
;-)
|
>> Aw jeez now you tell me ! Fifty quid I'm down now !
Looks like something left keeping the lenses in place when a Terminators clock goes up in flames, street cred alone worth a monkey, bargain indeed.
Maybe rub down the MB later with some 1200 wet 'n dry to match the matt black finish?
:-))
|
Aw shaddup will ya ! I'm going to get enough stick from my mtb mates when I turn up with that on !
;-)
|
|
My mate 'fell' off his bike at Uni - OK, it was on the way back from his finals and he was 'well oiled' - he doesn't know what happened, or even where he was. He managed to flag down a passing car when he came round, and got a lift back to the house we shared. The impact was sufficient to snap the forks off the bike - he suffered a rather nasty gash on his upper lip - his helmet was well mashed, split back to front. I hate to think how long he would have spent in hospital had he not been wearing it. I always wear one now, and it feels rather odd to ride the bike without it - rather like driving a car without a seatbelt! Why take the risk for the sake of £30?
|
The trouble I see with helmets is that many wearers think they are indestructible while they have one on, most helmets are only rated for impacts up to 12 mph plus they have a limited life-span, exposure to UV means that they should be replaced lot more often than they are (riders are reluctant to throw away a perfectly looking helmet). I still have an issue with the way they are (or aren't!) tested, the tests don't seem to be equal across manufactures and I'm not convinced that you're getting the same protection from a £15 helmet as you are a £150 one.
Like Bromp I've never got on with them.
|
I've posted this before, but here we go again.
Number of deaths or serious head injuries among professional cyclists in the 100+ years before helmets were worn - so small they statistically come up as zero. And any pro whose crash total per season is in single figures took half the year off.
Number of deaths or serious head injuries among the hundreds of cyclists I rode and raced with for decades before anyone wore helmets - 0.
Cycle helmets were introduced by Bell in the late eighties in the face of falling sales to motorcyclists, accompanied by all these diagrams of how fragile the brain is and what would happen to it in even a minor fall. Mass panic ensued and almost overnight the safety Nazis were telling everyone they'd be mad to go out without one. As for helmet damage after a fall, well if you've increased the diameter of your head by four inches and added leverage to your neck (no matter how light the thing is) you're bound to touch down, aren't you? And as the thing is designed to shatter it is going to look a bit of a mess.
One of the twentieth century's greatest cons, along with bottled water.
|
>>Number of deaths or serious head injuries among professional cyclists in the 100+ years before helmets were worn <<
In those 100 years traffic volume was a lot less, a lot lighter and a lot slower.
Pat
|
>>
>> In those 100 years traffic volume was a lot less, a lot lighter and a
>> lot slower.
>>
>> Pat
>>
As professionals race on closed roads that hardly applies.
|
>>As professionals race on closed roads that hardly applies<<
As the discussion is an open one about cyclists wearing helmets, I think it does,
Pat
|
>>As the discussion is an open one about cyclists wearing helmets, I think it does,
To a degree, but the biggest risk factor for a fatal head injury for a cyclist is the involvement of a motor vehicle.
Also professional races have medical supervision, and professional cyclists know how to fall (or they don't manage to become professionals in the first place)
|
>
>> Also professional races have medical supervision, and professional cyclists know how to fall (or they
>> don't manage to become professionals in the first place)
>>
Medical supervision was patchy or non existent for most of the sports history. Professional cyclists don't "Know how to fall" any better than the rest of us. You fall because you've lost control and you end up where gravity takes you.
Head injuries were no issue in any branch of the sport, pro, low level amateur or leisure riding.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 22 Oct 13 at 10:56
|
|
Indeed, the most common injury being a broken collar bone (apart from cuts/grazes), it wasn't that long ago when helmets were just coming into the Pro sport that riders would rapidly discard their helmets (a bit like when they chuck used water bottles) at bottom of a hill before they started the last climb of the day.
|
>>riders would rapidly discard their helmets
Quite believable. I know for sure on the odd occasions I've done a long steep offroad climb in a helmet on a hot day the heat build up is almost unbearable. I'm afraid on those occasions my lid ( if I've got one with me at all ) stays firmly in my backpack until I'm on the tricky downhill bits or looking to get temporarily airborne ! Most MTB riders do the same in my experience. Heat exhaustion isn't funny. I pour water over my head quite regularly in those circs.
|
Broken collar bones are the result of putting your arms out to protect your....... head.
Discarding helmets at a point where you'll be unlikely to exceed 8 mph on an empty road seems eminently sensible to me.
Falling off a bike will very rarely result in a head injury - being knocked off one or going headfirst over a bonnet/into a windscreen may well lead to one.
How many pro cyclists hits cars while racing?
|
>> Falling off a bike will very rarely result in a head injury - being knocked
>> off one or going headfirst over a bonnet/into a windscreen may well lead to one.
>>
>> How many pro cyclists hits cars while racing?
>>
Lygonos,
Cycle helmets are designed to offer protection at impact speeds of up to 12mph. That is the limitation of a lightweight composite helmet that is wearable on a bike. Even the manufacturers recognise this and do not make any claims about helmets offering protection in a collision with a motor vehicle, it is widely understood by everyone involved that they are useless in those circcumstances.
Helmets are worn to mitigate the effects of a fall to the ground at relatively low speed, and in countless offs over the years I have suffered all sorts of injury but never one to the head, because in a fall from a bike it is the shoulder if you keep hold of the bars or the outstretched arm if you don't that will take the impact.
|
There are some things difficult to quantify, most significantly the difference in behaviour between someone wearing a helmet and someone not, level and demographic of cycling participation and type of cycling.
However, In 2002 there were 2,183 cyclists admitted to hospital with head injuries (admitted, not just treated in A&E). A further 10 died from head injuries.
Interestingly cyclist head injuries fell from 3,514 in 1995 to this level and death dropped form 31 to 10 where helmet wearing, particularly amongst children, declined in the same period.
It is also worthy of note that in 2002 4,564 pedestrians were admitted with head injuries, around double the number of cyclists. Although clearly the participation levels are significantly different.
This study seems worthy of a read, although it is 10 years old;
www.cyclehelmets.org/1148.html
and their conclusion was....
"We find no basis for the idea that cycling is dangerous or especially productive of head injuries. Our study has shown that the greatest influence on the likelihood of serious head injury is motor vehicle involvement, independent of whether a child is cycling, walking or a car passenger. We conclude that improving the safety of the cycling environment is likely to be more effective in reducing head injuries than the promotion of helmets, and it would also benefit child pedestrians who outnumber cyclists 5 to 1 in receiving head injuries. Increasing walking and cycling to gain the wider health benefits is complementary to this, for it has been shown to be the most effective way to reduce the risk of all kinds of injury to those involved"
Just this year the bmj Group in Canada concluded that whilst head injuries in areas with compulsory helmets reduced they could not prove it was related to the helmet itself and seems more likely to be linked to an increased danger awareness in those areas.
www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2674
Even New York concluded that behaviour was more significant than a helmet.
www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
However, no study detected any note of increased risk from wearing a helmet.
|
Well, I've spent the 50 notes and I'll give it a go but I'm still not convinced. Never thought I'd see the day. Like I said. I do possess an old one but that was mainly for wearing at the start of some privately owned mtb courses where there is a house rule insisting on it. Most people at one such facility I could name (but won't) have taken them off fairly early in the proceedings of the steep 5 mile climb to the downhill section due to massive overheating of their heads !
One could also reasonably suspect that it's also a sociological pressure not to be seen as a "bad parent" by allowing one's children to cycle helmetless rather than a reaction to any strong evidence of their necessity or efficacy.
Anyway, as stated, I'll give it a go. Maybe if I wear one then my wife and son will wear their's too.
Last winter, I managed to involuntarily cartwheel end over end down a steep gulley without parting company with my bike. Didn't hurt my head but my lower back was in bits for weeks. I still slightly suspect that a helmet would've twisted my neck.
Oh I dunno anymore. Tough ( and fairly tiring ) to argue with the hi-viz brigade !
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Mon 21 Oct 13 at 18:50
|
|
I'm just waiting for someone to champion the the dangers of "Passive non helmet wearing". It's the children, innit. Think of the children.
|
|
Tee Hee ! It could happen RR, indeed it could happen. Nothing should surprise us anymore. Still, I'll be dead before they can ban absolutely everything.
|
>> I'm just waiting for someone to champion the the dangers of "Passive non helmet wearing".
>> It's the children, innit. Think of the children.
The less cyclists that wear lifesaving kit the better. carry on old chap.
|
>>
>> The less cyclists that wear lifesaving kit the better. carry on old chap.
>>
Life saving kit for cyclists?
The eyes on the front of your head and the brain between your ears.
|
>>The less cyclists that wear lifesaving kit the better.
I'm not going to hide behind a "gong" Z but that was unnecessary.
|
>>I'm not going to hide behind a "gong" Z but that was unnecessary.
Let's see if you still feel the same when you or a loved one are needing a kidney.
Gong on ;-)
|
Don't you start. You've just cost me fifty quid ! ( and potentially a massive loss of self respect )
;-)
|
"Let's see if you still feel the same when you or a loved one are needing a kidney."
I had 8 steak and kidney puddings and 6kg of bacon in my hand luggage when I landed in Warsaw last week and my loved ones have a cat in hell's in chance of having any of it. It's all mine mine mine. They can keep their rotten cabbages for all I care, the pudding and bacon is under lock and key.
|
>> >>The less cyclists that wear lifesaving kit the better.
>>
>> I'm not going to hide behind a "gong" Z but that was unnecessary.
Well I am kinda peed off with people on two pedalled wheels moaning about everyone else on the road killing them, and how they should get special facilities, lanes and lorries banned, and when someone suggests a bit of self preservation aka helmets and hi vis, might be prudent, they come over all stroppy and refuse "on principle"
So who am I to stand in the way of their quest for a vegetative state in hospital.
And no, when I cycle I don't wear a helmet, but then I don't demand cycle lanes either.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 21 Oct 13 at 22:27
|
|
When I replaced my first helmet (a yellow 'custard bowl') I made sure the new one had a visor - great for keeping a 'low sun' out of your eyes and rain off the spec's.
|
>> Well I am kinda peed off with people on two pedalled wheels moaning about everyone
>> else on the road killing them, and how they should get special facilities, lanes and
>> lorries banned, and when someone suggests a bit of self preservation aka helmets and hi
>> vis, might be prudent, they come over all stroppy and refuse "on principle"
>>
>> So who am I to stand in the way of their quest for a vegetative
>> state in hospital.
>>
>>
>> And no, when I cycle I don't wear a helmet, but then I don't demand
>> cycle lanes either.
Zero, you're comitting the usual felony of assuming cyclists to be a homogeneous bloc.
In practice (amongst those with a view of any type) there are some who press for Dutch/Danish style provision and others who regard bike lanes as more trouble and even danger than they are worth. The latter group, amongst whom I count myself, will press for safer junctions, ASLs etc but regard roads as perfectly good provision, particularly in city centres.
The former set recently staged a coup in the London Cycling Campaign meaning that it's recanted much of what it stood for over the years and has launched a wild and largely impractical 'Go Dutch' campaign for seperate lanes etc.
The other issue with lanes is around the agenda of getting more people cycling. If you ask people why they don't cycle answers like 'I'm too fat and lazy' or 'Don't want to get sweaty and/or muss up hair/make-up' tend not to appear. Instead they adopt 'It's to dangerous' as a proxy. This is then interpreted as them saying they'd use a bike if there was better provision - lanes, off road routes etc. which the Councils build.
This one on Edgar Mobbs Way in Northampton goo.gl/maps/UE5QY is a case in point. It's actualy better than some but it's shared with walkers (including those with dogs going to parkland) and bounces up and down over minor roads, entrances to sports ground P&D parking etc. I'd rather the relatively sparsely trafficked road, on which I ride anyway, were wider with just a footpath.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 22 Oct 13 at 11:15
|
>> Zero, you're comitting the usual felony of assuming cyclists to be a homogeneous bloc.
No Felony just basing it on the cyclists on here. You mainly.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 22 Oct 13 at 11:16
|
>> Very weak argument, Bromp - the helmet reduces the energy being dumped on the skull
>> - imagine the skull is like an egg - bop it to just below the
>> fracture point and all is well - bop it just above and a large crack
>> appears - bop it a little harder and the innards get mashed.
TBH I wasn't so much making an argument that they were useless as countering the survivor bias point. A helmet cracks pretty easily and possession of one is not, as often asserted proof certain of life saved or PVS averted.
For me it comes down to probability and the chance of a life ending/changing head injury is, notwithstanding the worst case consequence, being low enough to ignore.
Ten tears of my CS career were spent working in/around the Court of Protection where I was exposed to a significant number of traumatic brain injury cases. Driver or passenger in cars and industrial accidents were most common causes. Walking home while under influence of alcohol is surprisingly risky too.
I can only recall one cyclist case and alcohol was involved there too - riding home after a 'sesh'.
|
|
Well, the new helmet arrived at lunchtime. I'm wearing it now to see if I can live with keeping it on for extended periods of time. My wife would quite like me to take it off...
|
>> My wife would quite like me to take it off...
>>
Hidden agenda ?
You do not have to wear it in bed :-)
|
>> >> My wife would quite like me to take it off...
>> >>
>> Hidden agenda ?
>>
>> You do not have to wear it in bed :-)
well i suppose he looks like a knob wearing it....
|
|
Funnily enough that was one of the words she used. Taken it off now.
|
>> Funnily enough that was one of the words she used. Taken it off now.
>>
You can go to bed now :-)
|
We're going trail riding this afternoon if the weather holds off enough. Be interesting to see if it felt like it was safer with lids on. I suspect all it will feel in reality is hotter.
;-)
|
I suspect the Terminator Helmet will be pronounced as having more negatives than benefits and then conveniently shelved... one might think its having a test run to avoid weekend mates comments.
:-))
its what i would do.
|
Just got back actually. Well, half an hour or so ago. You'll like this next bit GB it's about tyres...
Wife's bike has been running on summer weight trail tyres ( Maxxis Sphinx for anyone interested ! ) and apparently she wouldn't have lost grip on a steep muddy climb and fallen off getting herself really muddy today if I'd had the foresight/sense to put her winter treads on ( Maxxis Ignites if you're still reading ! )
Suffice it to say they're on now... ;-)
Just trying to decide if I should invite her to help me clean out the car where she's been sitting...
As for the 'elmet, well, it was hot but after a while I forgot about it which might be a good sign. I was more concentrating on being able to see. In the excitement of trialling "new kit" I forgot my yellow lensed wrap around glasses and had to use a pair of dark tinted Ray Bans which were in the car.
In the forest it can be quite dark under the canopy and the yellow lenses don't reduce your vision much but dark glasses do quite badly. However, it's tough to do without some form of eye protection when there's all manner of carp flying up at your face from the front tyre.
Off this week so going again tomorrow ( different venue )
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Wed 23 Oct 13 at 17:19
|
Runf, how do you stay fit enough? Its a constant battle of mine just for windsurfing & snowboarding, and mountain biking must place higher demands than they do?
Or am I just loads older than you?
|
|
No I'm older than most people I know ! Just refuse to accept it really.
|
>> Wife's bike has been running on summer weight trail tyres ( Maxxis Sphincter for anyone
>> interested ! ) and apparently she wouldn't have lost grip on a steep muddy climb
>> and fallen off getting herself really muddy today if I'd had the foresight/sense to put
>> her winter treads on ( Maxxis Israelites if you're still reading ! )
Good Lord man, you fit Chinese ditchfinders to The Lady D'Hills' bicyclette, dear me.
Captain Hastings (aka MJW1994) mature beyond his youthful years knows a thing or two about wooing and pampering the fairer sex, i'd beat a door to his gaff if i were you for some quick retraining.
:-))
|
>
>> Wife's bike has been running on summer weight trail tyres ( Maxxis Sphinx for anyone
>> interested ! ) and apparently she wouldn't have lost grip on a steep muddy climb
>> and fallen off getting herself really muddy today if I'd had the foresight/sense to put
>> her winter treads on ( Maxxis Ignites if you're still reading ! )
>>
>>
You didn't laugh, did you? Please don't say you laughed...
|
Might have, a bit...
Thing is, she has a reasonably fancy bike and to make it worse had been messing in the car park pulling wheelies and stuff and the involuntary dismount took place still in full sight of there when we'd not gone a 100 yards. Loads of people saw it.
It is of course my fault.
;-))
|
>>>she wouldn't have lost grip on a steep muddy climb and fallen off getting herself really muddy today if I'd had the foresight/sense to put her winter treads on...
Of course she's right... and that's why I ride knobblies all year round just in case it cuts up rough on the way to the village post office.
|
Very wise Fenlander !
;-)
|
>>
>> Wife's bike has been running on summer weight trail tyres ( Maxxis Sphinx for anyone
>> interested ! ) and apparently she wouldn't have lost grip on a steep muddy climb
>> and fallen off getting herself really muddy today if I'd had the foresight/sense to put
>> her winter treads on ( Maxxis Ignites if you're still reading ! )
>>
Winter tyres for bikes?!? I've heard it all now!
Surely time for a new 'winter tyres' thread?
|
>>you are waaaaay more likely to die or become maimed not wearing a helmet [than for your child to catch botulism through eating honey]
I'm not a helmet believer. However I thought Lygonos's statement was true as there are most definitely circumstances under which not wearing a helmet will increase your chances of death/maiming. Just as there are most definitely circumstances under which it will reduce it.
|
Went here today for the first time. Highly recommended if you like this sort of thing ( we do )
Only had time to do the "Cyflym Coch" trail today but we'll definitely go back and try some of the others. Superb facility, fantastic scenery, and for once this week the weather was lovely !
www.mbwales.com/en/content/cms/Centres/Coed_y_Brenin/Coed_y_Brenin.aspx
|
Modern MTBs usually have disc brakes these days. Rim brakes, while perfectly ok for road use, don't work so well in muddy and wet conditions.
They are available in two basic configurations, cable operated or hydraulic with different rotor ( brake disc ) sizes available depending on preference and budget.
To use a motoring analogy, the advent of disc brakes is as significant as it was on motor vehicles in providing a genuine improvement over drums.
Unlike a road bike or even a motorcycle, the rear brake on an MTB is the one most needed, it's never a splendid idea to be using too much front brake on loose surfaces and on extreme descents it's sometimes advantageous to "drag" the back wheel.
We spent a day or three tackling one or two of the more angular parts of Wales during the school holidays and those more challenging trails really showed up any maintenance issues on the bikes.
In particular with reference to the brakes. The brake pads can eventually become contaminated and performance drops right off. Mud and water isn't too much of an issue as it can usually be "burnt" off by a few short sharp stops but oil is the killer if it gets on the pads.
It can be cleaned off (if not too bad) by removing them and cleaning them with washing up liquid or meths if they are really manky and a quick rub over with some fine sandpaper. However, oil can in the worst cases actually soak into the pad material in which case there is no alternative but to replace them.
The pads are normally available in "organic" or sintered options. The organic pads certainly grip/stop better but they wear out quite quickly and are more vulnerable to contamination. The sintered pads are harder and need a good bedding in before they work as well as they need to but don't have the same ultimate stopping power.
To that end, yesterday I cleaned up the ones which were saveable and replaced the ones which weren't and today what a difference ! We've not long returned from a trail ride which perhaps not surprisingly, given recent weather, involved a fair bit of mud. Throw in some shallow stream crossings etc and a few steep climbs and descents and the difference was markedly noticeable.
All of the above is a very long, quite probably boring way of getting to my question which is, do car/motorbike brake pads get contaminated? Or does the additional heat which must be generated by decelerating things whose weight can be measured in tons burn it off?
|
I can't recall brake pads getting contaminated, but have often come across drum linings completely soaked in (usually) brake fluid. They need to be replaced, but the important thing of course is to replace seals, pistons or perhaps the whole slave cylinder.
Brakes (drum brakes especially) are horrid to work on. Pity they're so important.
|
Maybe wrong comparison?
Road bikes and road cars tend not to get contaminated friction materials (only time I've had to replace shoes due to contamination was after a wheel cylinder popped and saturated them with fluid).
Off-road cars running axle-deep in water and crud are a very different animal and perhaps more analagous to off-road biking.
Except for rallying, however, off-road driving isn't hugely demanding on the performance of the brakes.
|
>>drum linings completely soaked in (usually) brake fluid.
Who hasn't boiled them up in a pan of water and re-fitted them?
|
>> Who hasn't boiled them up in a pan of water and re-fitted them?
I haven't. I seem to remember that complete shoes cost very little. I do remember once trying to rivet or otherwise fasten linings to shoes, but can't remember whether I succeeded.
I hated doing brakes. Seldom escaped without injury, and hands filthy for days. But it was necessary.
|
>> >> Who hasn't boiled them up in a pan of water and re-fitted them?
>>
A penniless youth the rear hub seals failed on my Hillman Minx, shoes contaminated with oil.
Soaked in petrol for half an hour then set light to them, sorted that out.
If you want to teach your neighbours an alternative vocabulary, fit a set of parking brake shoes to an MB without the luxury of the correct tool for removing the hold down springs...never again, still bear the scars.
|
Still got a complete set of 8 shoes and a bag of copper rivets for the Jowett. They don't wear much but on the odd occasion of contamination, I just use the gas welder to dry them out......works ok.
Ted
|
|
Cool ! ( but if my son did that to my car, and he probably could, he'd not be able to sit on anything comfortably for quite some time afterwards ! )
|
Hmm, bonnet looks amazingly clean and undamaged which i wouldn't expect unless this was the one and only time, anyone else think there was a ramp involved.
Is that a matt black old shape C5?, quite taken by that.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24823771
>>
Thanks for the hedzup GB. I'd missed that but I assume it will be all over CycleChat when I get a chance to pop in there.
Tipper yet again and at least the third, possibly fourth on CS2. I always feel slightly more vulnerable on the first few nights of GMT - and I have good lights and high-viz.
Still trying to decide if I'm willing to go around Trafalgar Sq at night or leave the bike at home form now and let my Oyster carry the load (I've only got three more weeks before my redundancy kicks in).
Never given up before in winter but better a live chicken then a dead lion.
|
Another near fatal last night in Holborn, junction of Vernon Place/Theobalds Road with Southampton Row. Detail and more about the Mile End accident on ES website.
tinyurl.com/lot7e32
Looks like a coach, going left from Vernon Place into S'oton Row, either turned over the cyclist or he/she was creeping up its nearside.
I used the junction daily while working in Lincoln's Inn. On face of it not too dangerous but that's at least the third fatal there. Student Dorothy Elder was killed by a bus there, I came on aftermath of a fatal there five or six years ago and also one other, of unknown outcome, where a bike was under an HGV.
|
I don't like banning things. And I don't like penalising the majority for the sake of an ill-mannered minority.
But really. On a crowded commuter train (I had the joy of one this morning) on a filthy wet Surrey morning, your average city worker does not want to stand or sit next to a filthy and wet folded bike (and non-Bromptons don't exactly fold up small) nor a filthy and wet cyclist in his waterproofs. At least take your waterproof off before squeezing in next to somebody else!
|
Much as I defend cyclists I wouldn't die in a ditch for right to bring a gatefold Dahon MTB on a busy train. Indeed some ToCs (C2C?) are working in that direction.
A Brompton or similar however is only slightly outside the criteria for airline hand baggage and way smaller than the dimensions specified in the rail industry's National Conditions of Carriage.
On the weather thing is a cyclist really any wetter or dirtier than somebody who's walked to the station or stood on an exposed platform for ten minutes until Worst Capital Connect deign to turn up? Taking the waterproof off is no answer as then it drips on people and their feet.
I often see people getting a bit huffy about someone in wet clothing joining a train. They need, as The Lad says, to man in an upwards direction.
Which bit of it's raining outside is that hard to grasp.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 6 Nov 13 at 12:30
|
Which bit of "You're wearing machine-washable polyester that you're not going to spend the day meeting clients in; I'm in a suit so please be so courteous as to think of me." is so hard to grasp.
Typical cyclist arrogance.
|
>> Which bit of "You're wearing machine-washable polyester that you're not going to spend the day
>> meeting clients in; I'm in a suit so please be so courteous as to think
>> of me." is so hard to grasp.
>>
>> Typical cyclist arrogance.
Not really a cycling point Mapmaker more a general one about people who've been out in the rain boarding busy trains.
I'm still trying to undertand the difference in quality between cyclist wet and walked in streets/stood on open platform wet.
Wet people on crowded trains seem to me to be part of London life. Can you not meet clients in shirtsleeves or slacks and a sports jacket? A migration to that mode has been very noticeable in formal meetings over last ten years.
In days when I really had to be suited/booted (eg in and out of courts and tribunals) I kept a smart suit at the office as did many colleagues. That was before I got the folding bike.
|
But wet & muddy people are not a staple of crowded trains. And yellow polyester really shows how muddy you are after you've got off your bike. The only other people who seem to catch public transport when muddy from top to toe have been fox hunting; one occasionally sees them on the tube in the quieter hours.
And no, what a ridiculous statement. People are even wearing ties with their suits again. Can't speak for the civil service, of course.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 6 Nov 13 at 14:53
|
Trains are filthy things full of filthy and occasionally wet people, not all of them cyclists.
Anybody who wants to travel on them and remain unsullied needs some suitable outerwear to fend them off. I have a raincoat.
|
>> But wet & muddy people are not a staple of crowded trains. And yellow polyester
>> really shows how muddy you are after you've got off your bike. The only other
>> people who seem to catch public transport when muddy from top to toe have been
>> fox hunting; one occasionally sees them on the tube in the quieter hours.
>>
>> And no, what a ridiculous statement. People are even wearing ties with their suits again.
>> Can't speak for the civil service, of course.
There are twonks in all walks of life and maybe the one you met cycles on the towpath or something. Whenever I ride on wet roads, and I do it in same clothes I would wear on foot, ie work attire plus a raincoat, all I seem to get is wet. The clothes - usually Rohan in one style or another - dry out pretty quickly.
The odd bit of mud from contact with another passenger's clothing will brush out, even from the best quality worsted - though I accept it might be a problem if you dress like Martin Bell.
Recent experience, and the mores have changed since around 2000, is that if jackets are worn at all they tend to come off and go on the back of the chair or a hanger at start of meeting. That's senior civil servants, the great and good of the quangocracy, one minister and the odd puisne judge or Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal. Observation over a number of years.
|
Cycling Corner - Volume 6 - Biggles
