***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 17 *****
More pedal power chat.
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post and remember to change the default subject header.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 21 Nov 14 at 01:34
|
|
Is it possible to copy over last few posts from old volume when adding a new one to these running threads?
|
|
Yes, it is possible, but not as easy on my iPad as it is my desktop. Just copy and paste from the last volume anything you wish to reply to.
|
When wearing my Lidl helmet I have full periphal vision with one exception. Whether on my mountain bike or Brompton I 'hunch' forward and if I look directly up the visor limits my view of the sky and planes flying overhead. But then it is detachable if I want to see them fully. So, no vision problems whatsoever.
The straps miss my ears completely, and no part of my ears are covered in any way. So no hearing restrictions either.
It has a built in light in the back which can be constant or strobe. I forget the price, but I am sure it was less than £20 - £13.99 springs to mind. In Halfords the other day, some of their (cycling) helmets were £60!!!
|
Similarly I don't get the vision or hearing objections to helmets. No such problems for me even on my old and rather crude one that was - at the time - all I could find that would fit my head.
That has a crack in the shell now (probably from being packed in the car - it's had no mishaps in use) so I ought to shop for a new one. Paid £40+ for Giro helmets for the Beestlings last spring, but they fit nicely and they wear them without complaint, so no regrets on that. I think a light-coloured helmet aids conspicuity on the country roads we mainly ride, which also does no harm.
|
Clearly this is YMMV territory.
I own a helmet, a Raleigh branded item in fetching buttercup yellow. The AA were giving them away free at an exhibition a few years ago. The edges of the thing are in my peripheral vision as are bits of the straps. For whatever reason it also has a subliminal effect on my hearing - probably because of effect on airflow. The chin strap is an irritant; a spot that forever needs scratching. It's well ventilated on the move but the scalp gets uncomfortably warm just stopped at lights.
My starting point though is the statistically remote possibility of being in a head/solid object type accident at all. The vast majority of 'serious' cycle injuries are collar bones, wrists and hip/pelvic injuries. I add to that doubts about efficacy and the potential risk of rotational injury. There is NO evidence other then annecdata about helmets having a significant impact on outcome of accidents. Where compulsion has been tried (Oz, NZ and some US States) the only effect has been to reduce numbers on bikes. The proportion/severity of head injuries in cycling accidents has not changed even with compulsion.
The fact that it's uncomfortable and inconvenient is just another factor.
If better models and/or new statistics show some real efficacy in reduction of casualties I might change my tune. But until then I prefer the wind in my hair.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 7 Nov 14 at 12:24
|
|
They also make you look like a complete dork which suggest is not an insignificant reason why they are not worn by all cyclists.
|
>> If better models and/or new statistics show some real efficacy in reduction of casualties I
>> might change my tune. But until then I prefer the wind in my hair.
>>
Its your head, good luck, I hope you don't get taken out by a motorist and become one of your statistics.
|
>> I own a helmet ... in fetching buttercup yellow.
>>
Ah, now I completely understand your objection to wearing helmets. If only you had made this point earlier on, we could have a saved a lot of time arguing about the things. ;-)
|
Never mind the colour, complaining about the fit is a bit like saying the shoes you found in a skip pinch your bunions. (Even if they smell better than Bobby's on a Friday.)
}:---)
|
>> There is NO evidence other then annecdata about helmets having a significant impact
>> on outcome of accidents.
>>
You are a hard man to convince. At the end of the day it is your choice at the moment.
In my personal view, if it might make a difference, to me it is worth doing.
My son had a major cycle accident off road which wrecked his front wheel, front forks and his helmet where it hit a tree, he and I are convinced it saved him severe head injury.
My father in law, in his youth had a cycle accident, I don't know the details, which resulted in 2 weeks hospital and several further weeks recuperation at home. He was convinced a helmet would have at least lessened the extent of the injury.
While that is "anecdotal" evidence it is enough for our family, adults and children, to be pro helmet wearing.
In any event, as I said in the other thread, I expect it to become compulsory within 10 years so enjoy it while you can.
|
>> www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/cycling/info/cycling_accidents_factsheet.pdf
A useful summary on causation but the paragraph on injury patterns poses far more questions than it answers.
OK, so 70% of London fatalities and 80% of those on rural roads had head injuries.
How do those break down between cuts, minor concussion and life changing/fatal?
Were head injuries the sole incapacitation or the cause of death? Given the number of lorries in the London cases almost certainly not.
Trauma, internal bleeding and shock are more likely to have killed. Same if hit by a car at speed on a rural road.
More generally, until UK statistics unbundle killed (dead forever) from seriously injured (everything requiring hospital admission - maybe no more than a broken wrist) it's going to be difficult to make sense of them. A knock to the head - helmeted or not - might reasonably require a scan and 24 hours observation for bleeding etc so becomes a 'serious' injury.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 7 Nov 14 at 14:49
|
From Zeddo's link:
Head Injuries
Head injuries, ranging from fatal skull fractures and brain damage to minor concussion and
cuts, are very common injuries to cyclists. Hospital data shows that over 40% of cyclists, and
45% of child cyclists, suffer head injuries. A study of 116 fatal cyclist accidents in London
and rural areas found over 70% of the cyclist fatalities in London had moderate or serious
head injuries in London, and over 80% of those killed in collisions on rural roads.
|
>> From Zeddo's link:
>>
>> Head Injuries
>> Head injuries, ranging from fatal skull fractures and brain damage to minor concussion and
>> cuts, are very common injuries to cyclists.
See my 14:46 post for a comment on those statistics (which don't differentiate for helmet use).
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 7 Nov 14 at 14:51
|
>> You are a hard man to convince. At the end of the day it is
>> your choice at the moment.
>>
>> In my personal view, if it might make a difference, to me it is worth
>> doing.
And that's a conclusion you're perfectly entitled to come to. I don't condemn or ridicule you for it.
My different conclusion wasn't picked out of the ether.
Start point is a quick risk assessment - consequence*probability. The consequence scores very high - possible death or life changing injury. The probability though is very low, even before mitigations.
Agree with Boardman that a helmet isn't in top ten things you can do to mitigate. Properly maintained bike with lights etc, use of the positioning techniques taught at formal training and detailed in John Franklin's 'Cyclecraft', keen observation - including looking for eye contact, clear signals/decisive manouvres, route planning so danger points on regular commute are identified and avoided/mitigated all seem way more important to me.
As to your son's accident, off road is a different proposition to my experience which is commuter and leisure on roads or prepared tracks. Downhill on black routes I'd wear a helmet too.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 8 Nov 14 at 14:45
|
>>
>> Properly maintained bike with lights etc, use of the positioning techniques taught at formal
>> training and detailed in John Franklin's 'Cyclecraft', keen observation - including looking for eye contact,
>> clear signals/decisive manouvres, route planning so danger points on regular commute are identified and avoided/mitigated
>> all seem way more important to me.
How about 'slowing down if danger presents itself'?
|
>> How about 'slowing down if danger presents itself'?
List was not exhaustive and I've no argument with principle although it's not an absolute. Covering brakes would be a start.
Do you have a scenario in mind?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 9 Nov 14 at 21:11
|
>> Do you have a scenario in mind?
>>
Yes.
It is my perception, that many cyclists consider that hard earned momentum is more important than common sense .... and that backing off is not an option, despite the fact it should be as they are usually the more vulnerable.
The specific scenario is my front gate.
Imagine a drive way that allows you to merge onto a small country lane at an approximate 45 degree angle...so if you wish to travel West (left), you merge at a 45 degree angle. Conversely, if you wish to travel East (right) you have a 135 degree angle to negotiate.
So to travel East, you have to poke your nose out into the lane and keep inching forward until you have enough vision, whereas going West you can have a good gander in your offside mirror.
So I put a damned great mirror on the hedge opposite, (with the blessing of the landowner) which usually works very well.
However, trouble is, under the trees in the summer, a cyclist in dark clothing cannot be seen in the mirror..... yet when you come the other way, the driveway and garden is bathed in light, you can easily see a vehicle in the driveway trying to pull out.
So Mr Tit cycling along at a rate of knots whilst I was trying to pull out...didn't slow down one iota.. just shouted at me and got all indignant when I damned near knocked him off. It was very close. Yet why did he not slow down when the nose of a car was appearing out of a driveway and/or he could see a car on the mirror appearing from his nearside?
O.K. if I knocked him off it would be my fault... but... he'd be the one injured.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 10 Nov 14 at 20:04
|
>> It is my perception, that many cyclists consider that hard earned momentum is more important
>> than common sense .... and that backing off is not an option, despite the fact
>> it should be as they are usually the more vulnerable.
I think you're wrong about that but......
>> The specific scenario is my front gate.
You bought the place and potentially hazardous access/egress was or should have been part of the buy/move on equation.
A down slope is, generally speaking, free energy. If there's a concealed entrance one might hope it was signed. Given such signage I'd be on qv for exactly where it was and, exit spotted, emerging vehicles. Equally, if I saw a vehicle emerging tentatively, I'd have brakes covered in case driver didn't see me.
But none of that justifies riding down every gradient with brakes on just 'cos I'm the vulnerable one.
|
>> >> It is my perception, that many cyclists consider that hard earned momentum is more
>> important
>> >> than common sense .... and that backing off is not an option, despite the
>> fact
>> >> it should be as they are usually the more vulnerable.
>>
>> I think you're wrong about that but......
Do explain then.
>> >> The specific scenario is my front gate.
>>
>> You bought the place and potentially hazardous access/egress was or should have been part of
>> the buy/move on equation.
..and the point you are making? I bought a house with a slightly sight limited egress because the driveway is angled and has limited sight into the road if you wish to turn right... so you take care...and I bought a huge great mirror for the opposite hedge....what else would you suggest?
Are you hinting I shouldn't have bought it..in case some tit on a bicycle wants to hurtle along and not give a cuss for his own safety when a hazard is presenting itself?
>>
>> A down slope is, generally speaking, free energy. If there's a concealed entrance one might
>> hope it was signed.
Not sure where you've got that from, it's dead flat...and is in a small country lane... and there's a number of houses in that road, none of them signed, if there was there'd be signs everywhere.
>> But none of that justifies riding down every gradient with brakes on just 'cos I'm
>> the vulnerable one.
I didn't say or suggest or hint at that, it would be clearly unreasonable and I cannot fathom why you've mentioned it.
I think in the circumstances I've described he should have significantly braked and slowed down when he saw me, I was his hazard and could have caused him harm, if not great harm. The fact that he did not, when he was the vulnerable one, makes him a pillock.
|
@ WP
Sorry, unlike some times, my post yesterday didn't set out to confront.
On the general momentum point I'm simply saying, from a cyclist's perspective, I think you give it too much weight. Of course a cyclist wants to avoid having to unnecessarily gear down, unclip and re-start but it's not the 'momentum is all' stuff of the smoky cannot re-start on a hill HGV's in our childhood.
Not suggesting for a minute you shouldn't have bought place but surely the potential hazards were obvious at viewing and to some extent go with territory of living where you do.
Something in you post, perhaps use of words 'rate of knots' lead me to think the road was on a gradient. Not exactly a rarity on the Devon/Dartmoor landscape is it?. [tic]Level is an exception I thought you'd have pointed out![/tic]
What's the average speed for motor vehicles on the lane concerned and how fast was cyclist going? If you're driving along and somebody, who perhaps ought to be aware of situation, emerges unexpectedly in front of you are you sure you'd (a) brake hard and (b) avoid all temptation to resort to sweariness?
At end of day though you and I have radically different views on risk.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 11 Nov 14 at 19:30
|
As one who spends much of his working life on narrow country lanes, with a large and highly visible vehicle, I've lost count of the number of times I've encountered cyclists going much too fast to deal with an unexpected hazard; thankfully none (so far) has ended up any worse than a somewhat undignified skid and wobble.
On one occasion, approaching a sharp left-hand bend prior to climbing a hill, I saw a cyclist coming down at speed so waited till he had passed me, it being a certainty that he would cut the corner and there wasn't much room. If I could see him it goes without saying that he could see a 32-ton lorry, yet he plainly hadn't and very nearly lost control of the bike when he did look up; I was at a standstill some 50 yards from the bend, and I confess I really wish I'd had a video camera. No verbals but he did pedal off rather sheepishly.
As we are all well aware, you can have the world's finest brakes but the main governing factor of braking efficiency is the amount of rubber actually in contact with the road surface, and on a pushbike that ain't much, which tells me that they should ride accordingly.
Car, lorry and motorbike drivers are frequently exhorted to slow down when approaching hazards; I'm sure sensible cyclists do too but regrettably some do not seem to think that they have to.
|
>> Car, lorry and motorbike drivers are frequently exhorted to slow down when approaching hazards; I'm
>> sure sensible cyclists do too but regrettably some do not seem to think that they
>> have to.
As Runfer repeatedly points out whether peds, cyclists, car drivers or LCV/PSV drivers we're all human; a proportion will have s*** for brains.
|
What I do notice is that no matter how many times, over however long a period, anyone presents a point of view on an Internet forum, it pretty much never causes or influences the people with an opposing point of view to change their minds.
Makes me wonder whether it's worth bothering. The whingers will continue to whinge on whatever their chosen subject is. It's their hobby. The defenders will continue to defend because that's theirs.
I haven't the energy or the stomach to play that game anymore on the subject of cycling.
In my ideal scenario, we'd have two cycling corners here, one for moaning about cyclists and one for those who enjoy cycling. That way those who just want to whine about stuff to do with it could carry on and stroke each other's prejudices undisturbed and those who want to share the positive experiences of the pastime could do so without having to sift through all the vitriol.
Won't ever happen of course, people like to find something to target and deride.
Carry on, as you were. Pretend it's discussion or something.
|
>What I do notice is that no matter how many times, over however long a period, anyone presents a point of view
>on an Internet forum, it pretty much never causes or influences the people with an opposing point of view to
>change their minds.
For Glub's sake Humph, will you shut up FFS?
The company I work for has bet the farm on trying to convince punters that their businesses won't survive unless they are analysing 'social media' and using 'Big Data' to influence decision making.
If you carry on spreading those rumours we'll have to sell the Gulfstream IV, Falcon 2000's and the Sikorsky S76's.
|
>>it pretty much never causes or influences the people with an opposing point of view to change their minds.
Entirely agreed.
However, and I speak from personal experience, its amazing how the voicing of two opposing views can influence the "non-involved" who are watching from the sidelines.
And that would often be my reason for arguing; not to convince the person I am arguing with, which as you say pretty much never happens, but to make sure that the bystanders and spectators are being shown both sides.
|
including looking for eye contact
Did that while I was going round a roundabout. Car then thought he could cross in front of me and having mis-estimated my speed, proceeded to knock me off my bike. Didn't stop and speed off.
Bike had no damage and I was quite lucky in that I just had bruised knees. Helmet did nothing - but didn't have to either as I didn't hit my head.
|
>> I was quite lucky in that I just had bruised
>> knees. Helmet did nothing - but didn't have to either as I didn't hit my
>> head.
And that's a fairly typical outcome in traffic or on forestry tracks, Sustrans type routes etc.
My bad fall was heavy enough to break my collar bone and neck of my left femur. If my head contacted the ground at all I didn't notice. Even if you go over the bars it's still upper body that takes majority of impacts.
Not saying a helmet will never help, just that both the incidence of head knocks and the efficacy of helmets when they happen are vastly overestimated.
|
I have never agreed quite so wholeheartedly with Brompton before.
There is no evidence that helmets make any difference. Cycle (or skiing) helmets are designed for impacts of up to - is it - 15 mph. At that level they make virtually no difference at all. To obtain a significant reduction in risk they'd have to be the thickness of motorcycle helmets.
Helmets are very fragile things. And then people hire them... as they've probably already been dropped by a previous customer they're no use at all.
I'm surprised that Brompton is so libertarian on this one.
|
You see, for me "it's uncomfortable and inconvenient" and "I prefer the wind in my hair" are perfectly sound reasons for choosing not to wear a crash helmet. Its your head, and its your choice and I have no right to argue with your preferences.
I don't even really see why people should be forced to wear a helmet even if it can be shown they improve safety. I remains a personal choice IMO.
But quoting unlikely impacts on hearing and vision seem just like poor excuses, which in my own experience are not even accurate.
I wear one when I am cycling with the children, because I insist that they do. I do not wear one when I cycle on my own.
|
|
For all I know Bromp may not have been on a bike in his life, maybe he is just a wind up merchant. :)
|
>> For all I know Bromp may not have been on a bike in his life, maybe he is just a wind up merchant. :)
INTERNET CYCLING GURU 'DRIVES MODIFIED PINK HUMMER AND SECRETLY HATES CYCLISTS', COURT TOLD
Elderly matelot maimed again. 'It just came out of nowhere', victim number eleven claims from hospital bed.
'The silly thing is I was only riding that bike to try it out,' Mr Navy told reporters. 'I had been thinking of taking up cycling for my health. Normally I drive to the shops in my tomato-red Mercedes 300SLR,' the old liar, 64, added, searching the room for some Marines to entertain.
A Mr Naut was in police custody late last night chatting amiably to detectives (contd p. 94)
|
>> But quoting unlikely impacts on hearing and vision seem just like poor excuses, which in
>> my own experience are not even accurate.
As I've already said that's YMMV territory. My experience and that of at least one other forummer, Runfer in the Boardman thread, is that both occur.
Hearing and vision are in effect part of the comfort/convenience thing.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 7 Nov 14 at 14:55
|
>>that's YMMV territory<<
Translation please?
Reading Mapmakers post makes me wonder if there is a case for developing a motorcycle crash helmet for cyclists and also making it compulsory to wear one.
Pat
|
Your Mileage May Vary
or
Your personal experience may differ from mine.
Entered the language via a standard disclaimer added to American car ads that referenced fuel economy ('gas mileage') figures.
|
>>if there is a case for developing a motorcycle crash helmet for cyclists and also making it compulsory to wear one.
Why is there a case for making a law about a behaviour which is part of someone's free choice with no particular impact on society at large?
Because there is a far greater case for making smoking illegal anywhere on the planet than there is crash helmets. And I wouldn't support that either.
I think everyone on a motorbike should wear a crash helmet. I think it is wrong to compel them to do so using the law.
I dislike the way that legal control is becoming the first default for anything we don't like or agree with.
|
>> I think everyone on a motorbike should wear a crash helmet. I think it is
>> wrong to compel them to do so using the law.
>>
That, as I'm sure you are very much aware, is also the official view of MAG; the Motorcycle Action Group. It certainly isn't mine, and that is one reason why I do not support MAG .
You could use exactly the same argument for not wearing a seat belt but I bet you wouldn't. Sometimes people have to be protected from their own stupidity. The difference with your argument is that the first cigarette will not kill you and nobody forces you to smoke it; where crash protection is concerned that first impact of head on tarmac or face through windscreen can kill you and it might not be anything you did wrong.
My view, based on riding motorbikes on the roads for 38 years now, is that they should be compulsory just as seat belts are for cars. I've seen the results of someone nutting tarmac without a decent lid, that bloke's dead as mutton and it wasn't pretty to see. I also went to his funeral (in fact I was a pall-bearer) and saw the utter despair on his parents' faces. If you want to pretend you're Dennis Hopper or Peter Fonda go live in the USA and dream your libertarian Easy Rider dream there. Life is not like the movies.
For the record I don't like being forced by law to do it either, but I'm smart enough to know that sometimes things are done for good reasons and you just have to live with it.
|
>>
>> For the record I don't like being forced by law to do it either, but
>> I'm smart enough to know that sometimes things are done for good reasons and you
>> just have to live with it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
No state body should have the right to compel you to look after your own safety. All laws should only concern themselves with making sure you don't endanger others.
|
>>You could use exactly the same argument for not wearing a seat belt but I bet you wouldn't.
I bet I would.
- I think riding a motorbike without a helmet is almost always dumb.*
- I think everybody riding a motorcycle should wear one, and I think they're dumb if the don't
- I am quite happy to stump up my share of whatever the public broadcasts cost to try to convince everybody to wear them.
I still don't think it should be compulsory. It is my right to be dumb. It is my right to ruin my own life.
* or seatbelt / car or freefall / secondary parachute or climbing / safety rope etc. etc.
|
>> I still don't think it should be compulsory. It is my right to be dumb.
>> It is my right to ruin my own life.
>>
Indeed it is. Unfortunately those dumb actions often ruin the lives of others; parents, children , spouses, . That is not only dumb but profoundly selfish.
One other thing. As far as seat belts and motorcycle crash helmets are concerned, the genie is now well and truly out of the bottle and no amount of wishful thinking, whether it be motivated by a dislike of governmental interference or simply a desire for "freedom", is ever going to get those laws rescinded. Time to move on.
My gripe with MAG, which I referred to earlier, is that they waste a lot of valuable time and funds wittering on about this lost cause; time and money which could be much better spent in campaigning for more practical safety measures like the abolition of those appalling steel wire central reservation barriers. Keeping on about the helmet laws simply undermines their credibility with the general public, and indeed with the very ministers in government whom they seek to influence.
It's a bit like those dimwits who keep rattling on about bringing back hanging; however much they might wish for it it simply is not going to happen, so get over it and campaign for something which you can achieve.
|
>>That is not only dumb but profoundly selfish.
You are absolutely correct. But is someone's selfishness really something that the law should address?
And you're right, the laws will never be rescinded. What worries me more is the incessant clamouring for more laws.
And again I agree, the people who rattle on about the death penalty are indeed dimwits. Partly because it will never come back, and partly because they don't really understand why they want it.
|
From The Guardian:
tinyurl.com/owus2v7
|
|
Saw that on CTC newsfeed yesterday. Will be interesting to see how it catches on.
|
|
Demo on a single speed bike. Wonder if it copes with gears?
|
|
Must add a fair bit of weight to the bike? Will be interested to see more.
|
Looks like my kind of bike. But you have to have a smartphone to work the damn thing. That excludes me for a start.
Surely there's a manual version with everything but the smartphone? Tchah!
|
Hardly a bicycle though; it's a powered two-wheeler.
As much resemblance to a bicycle as one of those 1970's sports mopeds has; mind you he's French so we expect a modicum of cheating I suppose. ;-)
|
>> As much resemblance to a bicycle as one of those 1970's sports mopeds has; mind you he's French so we expect a modicum of cheating I suppose. ;-)
As much resemblance as this one, but he's not going for a record:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKHz7wOjb9w&list=PLGjbAdaOBLBnIoUrJqPAuRe38kvcQ9_V7
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30003674
"It only took him 4.8 seconds to reach the record speed [207mph]" !!
|
I can remember when this would have made any parent or grandparent a Christmas hero! Anyway, it's back...
;-)
www.discountcyclesdirect.co.uk/catalog/product.php?CI_ID=18624
|
|
But it hasn't got the gear lever on the centre bar!
|
|
It's not a bicycle, it's a childs toy. Hideous heap of crap that badly damaged the Raleigh brand long term.
|
|
Pffttssss Raspberry you old fart
|
>> But it hasn't got the gear lever on the centre bar!
>>
Abso F lootley. Its fundamentally flawed
|
|
Lots of skips are orange. It should be in one of them.
|
|
That ain't a chopper till it's got a goddamned proper long seat so your little sister can sit behind you. Damned health and safety.
|
When we were kids, ( I've maybe mentioned this before along with the Westfield I think, if I haven't I'm more than happy to provide details ) anyway, when we were kids we used to build what we called "tracker" bikes which were coincidentally quite like primitive mountain bikes. Smaller wheels with knobbly tyres, straight bars and stripped of anything which wasn't functional to keep weight down.
They were used off road on forest and riverside trails and we also used them to perform, minor by today's standards, little bike skills stunts like jumping over small logs and wee streams etc.
So one Saturday, a guy from school who'd heard about our weekend shenanigans asked if he could join in and it was arranged that we'd set off from my house to tackle an off road trail the rest of us knew quite well.
What we weren't expecting was for him to turn up on a Chopper. I offered to loan him a spare "tracker" but he was pretty proud of his bike and refused. Well, he was fine until we got to a fairly tricky section which involved a fairly fast slither down a muddy riverbank, catching a natural bump in the ground and hopping the bike over a fast flowing ice cold stream about 4' wide.
Choppers are not ideal for this. The result wasn't pretty but it was damn funny. His mother wouldn't let him play with us after that...
He went on later in life to a quite senior job in the car industry as it happens.
|
>> He went on later in life to a quite senior job in the car industry
>> as it happens.
Now you know why he designed FWD cars
|
Actually, it was Rovers. And yes indeed, he was fairly instrumental or at least heavily involved in the launch of the 800 series, crickey, how did we get here?
;-)
|
>> And it should be orange
>>
Mine was purple !
|
You had a purple chopper? Hope it got better...
;-)
|
I wanted one but my Dad said No. at age 11 I was too small (and wrong side of growth spurt) for a 'racer' and ended up with one of these:
memberfiles.freewebs.com/99/37/53823799/photos/Phillip-2/Spacemaster.jpg
While it got me endless stick from 'mates' it was actually a damn good bike for utility stuff like going to swimming lessons or my endless plane spotting trips to Leeds Bradford Airport. Later I even used it for leisure rides around Wharfedale.
In fact it was so good that after upgrading to a cheap tourer I bought another, and a matching twin for Mrs B, second-hand to as station bikes when we lived in Watford. It survived three or four years chained all day to railings outside Junction station.
Still see the odd one today used by London students - not remotely nickable.
|
That story about your bike and your dad makes me think of something Bromp. You know that Johnny Cash song "My name is Sue" ?
;-))
|
|
I suspect the gear lever fell prey to health and safety. Must have presented a threat to the wedding vegetables in an upset.
|
It would seem so Manatee. Read all about it...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raleigh_Chopper
|
That new Chopper is all wrong: no cross-bar gear shift, rear mud guard is far too sensible, but worst of all the seat position is further forward from the rear axle meaning that it won't be inherently unstable like a proper Chopper should.
The only good thing is the price - original Choppers go for more than £250 these days.
|
www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/cyclist-injured-denbighshire-crash-dies-8117165
The lesson here is to carry some ID of sorts when you're out riding. This young woman died of her injuries. It took the Police some considerable time to identify the poor woman
|
>> The lesson here is to carry some ID of sorts when you're out riding. This
>> young woman died of her injuries. It took the Police some considerable time to identify
>> the poor woman
>>
Oh I dunno.
Once I've pegged it I doubt I'll worry about how long they take to identify me ;-)
|
>>The lesson here is to carry some ID of sorts when you're out riding
In my phone, the first contact is; ...Nnnnn (Wife).
And in hers; ...Mark (Husband).
And similar in the girls'.
A policeman in Dallas once told me that phone were routinely checked when seeking ID.
|
|
Do you have a security PIN on your phone?
|
No. There are PINs on individual programs or data files, but not on the phone itself. Contacts for example, is open.
I find it too irritating to have to keep entering a PIN every time I wish to use the phone, however neither do I wish to leave some data casually open.
I am not worried about losing anything, everything is backed up. There are some things I prefer to remain confidential. There is nothing that *must* be secret.
|
I have work email on my phone via exchange which means that under our security measures, it must be PIN secured and they can also wipe the whole phone remotely apparently!
My b-I-l works for a company where the only phones allowed within the factory site must have some sort of app on them which disables the function of the camera.
|
You can secure email without securing the entire phone. although our company may not account for that.
Alternatively, put the contact names on the lock screen.
|
I thought the standard was to have ICE (In Case of Emergency) in the phone-book.
Mine has.
|
It is - but no use if phone is locked with a PIN.
Must try Mark's idea re the locking screen
|
|
Lock screen now changed to include my name and dob and the ICE numbers.
|
|
I might give the DOB a miss. But otherwise it seems a good idea.
|
|
I was pondering over that - would help the police to trace me quicker but "could" prove to be detrimental if someone pinches my phone but not really sure what they could do with the detail without address, postcode etc?
|
Paranoia is easy these days, and a difficult line.
I tend to resort to a position where I don't mind giving any information if I think it'll help, but I give pretty much no information without reasons.
Make a call based on the rarity of your name, I guess.
|
I see that Jeremy Vine has got tugged over speeding on his bike in Hyde Park. 16mph in a 5 mph zone. Without even going into the legalities of it (I guess there is a bye-law somewhere) this raises many questions:
1. I cycle there (indeed I have seen the man himself a couple of times) and was completely unaware that there was a speed limit. There are no visible signs.
2. How is a cyclist supposed to know how fast they are going? Speedometers not being a legal requirement on a bike?
3. Do runners get the same treatment (most people run faster than 5mph)
4. Haven't Parks Police got better things to do. Every morning the cycle path on South Carriage Drive (also a double yellow) is full of parked cars - none of them get ticketed?
5. The offence was reportedly 'speeding' not 'cycling furiously' (which is an offence - although does that apply in a Royal Park?)
|
|
Vine was probably done under a By-Law and it's possible that the laws applying to Hyde Park do include a specific offence of speeding.
|
>> Vine was probably done under a By-Law and it's possible that the laws applying to
>> Hyde Park do include a specific offence of speeding.
Royal Parks have lots of bylaws, at one time they even had their own police force.
|
Take a tip Bromp and jump off that bandwagon,
If you handle this as well as JV did on his lunchtime show on R2, when it was in the news bulletin before he started, you will gain a lot of respect as he did from us all.
In short, he held his hands up, apologised and treated it with the humour it deserved.
Pat
|
|
I don't think Bromtonaut has jumped on the bandwagon. Are you getting your retaliation in first?
|
Not at al CG, and don't try and read into my post something which isn't there.
There's no retaliation required as far as I'm concerned, just admiration for the way a cyclist in the public eye handled the situation when put on the spot.
Something we could all do better I think, don't you?
Pat
|
Just to add....it is my own personal feeling that it would be nice for once, if there wasn't the automatic 'defence' from the cycling community.
In my words....we all make cock ups, so hands up and I'm sorry is a pleasant conclusion for once.
...and that was from the man himself.
Pat
|
What on earth are you on about Pat? No one in their right mind would give a fish's tit for being pulled for exceeding 5mph on a bike in a park. It isn't dangerous or offensive to the citizenry, it's just a silly little obsolete regulation being enforced by a goddam jobsworth. You're presenting this minor media celeb as some sort of example to us all, just because he 'apologises' for doing nothing much.
All the royal parks have the makings of quite decent race circuits already in place.
5mph indeed... honestly!
|
PAt,
He may have been polite to the coppers; attitude test and all that.
He's subsequently been on Titter making the valid point that preventing cyclists moving faster than walking pace in the park gives the an incentive to mix it with lorries on the road instead.
road.cc/content/news/136571-radio-twos-jeremy-vine-busted-speeding-hyde-park-his-bike
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 20 Nov 14 at 17:31
|
I listened to him at lunchtime, he had the opportunity to make a meal of it and didn't.
I admired the way he handled it with humour, and not jumping on the band wagon of dare I say 'the poor hard done by cyclist'.
That's my opinion of how to gain respect for what it's worth, and made a very pleasant change.
At least he didn't do an Andrew Mitchell.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 20 Nov 14 at 17:37
|
|
If it's illegal to go faster than 5mph in this park... shouldn't they just ban cycling? And skateboarding, roller blading, running, etc.? Maybe all of these things are banned. But to cover everything they have a speed limit?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 20 Nov 14 at 17:41
|
>> he had the opportunity to make a meal of it and didn't.
What kind of meal? Screaming the place down and claiming to have been unfairly treated? That would have made him look a real tit. People would have accused him of wanting special privileges.
What you do when that sort of PITA thing happens is 'apologise' politely, 'put your hands up', pay your fine if any and carry on as before, ignoring damn silly walking-pace 'speed limits'.
Surely?
|
Exactly AC, and I applauded him for doing just that.
Would be nice to see it stay that way with the whole cycling community instead of them all being 'offended' on JV's behalf.
BTW, did we get out of the wrong side of the bed today? :)
|
>> BTW, did we get out of the wrong side of the bed today? :)
No more than usual. I hope I haven't seemed rude Pat. I'm sure JV is a fine fellow in his way, but if he has ever impinged on my consciousness it wasn't by name.
|
>> He's subsequently been on Titter making the valid point that preventing cyclists moving faster than
>> walking pace in the park gives the an incentive to mix it with lorries on
>> the road instead.
"We will get squashed by lorries because we can't cycle at any speed we want in a park full of people"
Thats a ridiculous assertion.
Entirely typical reaction from the "we are always blameless" cycling faction.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 20 Nov 14 at 17:40
|
SQ
>> Entirely typical reaction from the "we are always blameless" cycling faction.
If there needs to be al limit make it sensible.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 21 Nov 14 at 01:32
|
I believe that "Parus Major" is the preferred term.
Unless you need to refer to Bill Oddie, in which case its "Panurus Biarmicus"
EDIT: Bromp!! You edited your post!
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 20 Nov 14 at 17:45
|
>> I believe that "Parus Major" is the preferred term.
This responds to my initial reaction which was to call Zero a tit.
I subsequently (god knows why) regretted the assertion.
|
Since Z and I seem to feel the same about this one may I assume you called me a tit too before you edited your post?
Pat
|
>> Since Z and I seem to feel the same about this one may I assume
>> you called me a tit too before you edited your post?
>>
>> Pat
If you agree with idea that objection (by the lauded Mr Vine's rather than me) that being booked for exceeding an unknown speed limit might drive cyclists to an alternative route is saying We will get squashed by lorries because we can't cycle at any speed we want in a park full of people then feel free to be a tit.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 20 Nov 14 at 19:24
|
>> If you agree with idea that objection (by the lauded Mr Vine's rather than me)
>> that being booked for exceeding an unknown speed limit might drive cyclists to an alternative
>> route is saying We will get squashed by lorries because we can't cycle at any
>> speed we want in a park full of people then feel free to be a
>> tit.
I quote YOUR post
He's subsequently been on Titter making the valid point that preventing cyclists moving faster than walking pace in the park gives the an incentive to mix it with lorries on the road instead.
As far as being a tit about cycling, you my old mate are a complete udder.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 20 Nov 14 at 20:59
|
>> I believe that "Parus Major" is the preferred term.
>>
>> Unless you need to refer to Bill Oddie, in which case its "Panurus Biarmicus"
>>
>> EDIT: Bromp!! You edited your post!
And you edited yours. It no longer makes sense.
|
>>Not at al CG
I think CGN's point was probably that it wasn't Bromp you were replying to :)
|
|
Shouldn't you be directing your post to Boxterboy rather than Bromptonaut then? :-)
|
|
This in response to CGN. Ditto. Conditioned reflex I think.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Thu 20 Nov 14 at 21:03
|
Cycling Corner - Volume 16 - Bromptonaut
