What a to$$er

Mikey Mouse

bentmikey's name refers to his bike choice 'bent' refers to a recumbent bike.


No really?

BentMikey

smiorgan wrote:

You don't say. So you equate jumping red lights with homosexuality?

Maybe a generation gap there, but I don't get it.

Now I really don't get your comment!! My original comment had nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with the poor overtake followed by a red light jump. Methinks you're seeing a prejudice that isn't actually there.

BentMikey

Mikey Mouse, why the attitude towards some cyclists on here, as though they are holier than thou and think they are the best cyclists ever? At least that's what I'm perceiving.

I don't see that, and I've seen most people here admit to making mistakes whilst they cycle. For the most part the whole advice thing is because it's very hard to see your own mistakes until someone points them out, and as painful as that can be, it's the best way to improve quickly.

homercles

Bonno wrote:

While in Mallorca this year ,riding along the coast road out of Alcudia, had a guy sit on my wheel for 12 miles, :shock: he didn't say a word or come through once !!

Must be a European thing - I had a similar experience in the Algarve last year. Some guy with all the kit in the world just staring blankly through shades at my back wheel for a good 10 miles. Come to think of it, can Michael Rasmussen tell us where he was that week??

smiorgan

BentMikey wrote:

Methinks you're seeing a prejudice that isn't actually there.

Uh, yes, I was less than coherent. I'll spell it out.

I don't for a minute think you're prejudiced. OTOH you used a homophobic term of abuse. Now, you might argue that the etymology of "knob-jockey" refers to riding one's own knob, rather than someone elses, but to a lot of people it means the latter.

Anyone can say something homophobic, or mysogenistic, or racist as a term of abuse. Doesn't mean you're prejudiced. But it doesn't mean that it's cool to use that word either. I keep telling myself that every time the c--t word slips out. That may or may not matter to you, but I think if you're going to be right-on and decry violent thought and labeling, then this is the sort of thing you should give a damn about.

Now I usually respond that kind of figurative expression with a literal interpretation - peculiar habit, I know. Sometimes it defuses a situation that needs defusing. Sometimes it just confuses. Not everyone gets it.

Of course I was also being a bit flippant, but hey. As for the second reply - that was at the end of a long day, and I don't appreciate being called sunbeam (or sonny, or laddo) - it's patronising and passive-agressive.

(Now, if you want a good two-word, three-syllable term of abuse, you might try "pig-fluffer". Apparently that's the chap at the butchers who used spend all day pulling the bristles out of a side of pork, because he wasn't bright enough to be trusted near anything sharp. OTOH given what most people think of as a fluffer, you might want to steer clear. YMMV)

BentMikey

Don't tar me with the chip on your shoulder, that's something you need to deal with and not push onto others. From my point of view, knob jockey could refer to either a man or woman, and is about a lack of sexual ability and finesse and nothing to do with homo or hetero-phobia.

smiorgan

BentMikey wrote:

Don't tar me with the chip on your shoulder, that's something you need to deal with and not push onto others.

O rly?

You're content to wag your finger and tut at anyone mentioning violent behaviour or using elitist language, but I call you on your choice of cuss-words and it's suddenly my problem.

And that's one heck of a mixed metaphor.

BentMikey wrote:

From my point of view, knob jockey could refer to either a man or woman, and is about a lack of sexual ability and finesse and nothing to do with homo or hetero-phobia.

My apologies, I missed the footnote.

thedaffodilfish

With regards to RLJ

I was down in London recently and cycled from Kings X to a hotel in Gracechurch St, then the next day cycled out to the docklands for the triathlon. While in town I don't think I saw another cyclist wearing a helmet, just about everyone jumped red lights and most of them were wearing headphones, completely oblivious to other traffic on the road.

Is this common practice in London? While Edinburgh has its fair share of RLJ, most cyclists commuters/recreational alike all wear helmets now and most have reflective or bright cycling togs.

Stephen

BentMikey

Daffodil, but why would I want to wear a helmet or HiViz when cycling isn't particularly dangerous. Neither will add to my safety, and both encourage closer overtaking from cars. Fully accept that far too many cyclists jump red lights though. I'd love to see more traffic police out there issueing tickets to all RLJers, including particularly the many buses and cars I see doing this.

smiorgan wrote:

And that's one heck of a mixed metaphor.

Oops, you've certainly got me there!!

JustRidecp

Not sure if I agree about the hiviz there mikey. I reckon its probably the best value protection you can get. It allows you to be seen, thats why police/traffic wardens/ maintenance men wear them. A lot of motorcyclists wear them too and many motorbike leathers are in loud colours for this purpose - classic black and obvious exception.

I dont think you could say if drivers can see you more clearly there less likely to give you space. I'd imagine it would be more dangerous without as drivers might not notice you till the last minute and make jerky evasive movements. They're also less likely to pull out a junction on you if they can see you. This is what causes most motorcycle accidents and a lot of cycling accidents and they main reason is that the driver didn't see them.

I wear a hi viz reflective vest when the nights draw in and have to commute in the dark. I drive as well as cycle and I definatley find it easier to see cyclists in hi viz than those without when driving. Far easier at night as well when compared to those jet black ninja types you get. I also find it far easier to register bright flashes of colour across my rear/side mirrors than plain clothing so more likely to see these cyclists when they're weaving through traffic.

BTW, if you really want more space from cars passing you - wear a blonde wig with a long ponytail!

thedaffodilfish

BentMikey wrote:

Daffodil, but why would I want to wear a helmet or HiViz when cycling isn't particularly dangerous.

It's the squirrels! Kamikaze squirrels that try to jump through your spokes.

Well, It probably comes down to personal preference and what makes you comfortable and secure. I suppose cycling on an open country road isn't that dangerous compared to cycling on busy city streets that don't have many bike lanes, where most drivers are oblivious to cyclists and it gets quite claustropobic surrounded by double decker buses. I find cycling through the centre of Edinburgh quite aggressive and I frequently have to take evasive action to avoid collisions however minor. If I didn't have a helmet I may have a lot more bumps and bruises. But yes, I agree that if I was hit full on by a fast moving vehicle, my helmet wouldn't do very much for me. I feel a lot safer wearing it though.

"and both encourage closer overtaking from cars."

Don't quite get this. Cars overtake closer cos of helmets?

BentMikey

I would think fast country roads are more dangerous than central London, for example. In London there's significantly enhanced safety thanks to all the other cyclists around.

Fast A-road situations might be one of the few places I'd consider having my lights on or wearing hiviz. Hiviz isn't necessary in an urban environment, and indeed is called urban camoflage because that's about how much attention car drivers pay to it. Since I've stopped wearing Hiviz, I've noticed far fewer close calls from drivers, and I'm far from the only one.

A long blonde wig might help, but I bet it doesn't come close to the effect of riding a recumbent, or better still towing a child trailer.

Jacomus-rides-Gen

In a one man study, the author concluded this after obersving overtaking vehicles whilst wearing a blond wig no helmet, helmet no wig etc etc.

Supposedly it is because drivers percieve helmet wearing males in cycle specific gear to be most competant, and therefore feel that less space is needed.

His findings certainly make sense to me, although I am not about to give up my helmet for a couple of centimetres more room. Also judging by the experiences of the women on this forum, drivers overtake them too close constantly.

By far the best way to get given space is to control the cars behind you using assertive road positioning. The most crucial element is forcing drivers to break the centreline to overtake you, because then it turns into a "proper" overtake in their heads.

My ex did a lot of research into this as part of her dissertation, and also confirmed something my dad taught me - if you signal turns with your palm towards the cars behind they suddenly start behaving better, as people are conditioned that a parm held facing them means "stop" or "slow down", so they react instinctively, and if they then force their way past its because they have overcome that impulse to react and don't care about your safety.

BentMikey

It's not just that study though. This idea was mooted on uk.rec.cycling for some years now, I sometimes wonder whether that author didn't pick up on the idea there.

Jacomus-rides-Gen

Maybe so - its certainly a good idea wherever it came from.

I'm not convinced by the whole high-viz deal either way. I have had periods of not wearing it, and can't say I noticed any difference in driver behaviour to me.

The predominant reasons I wear mine:

a) Its is a very lightweight, ventilated singlet designed for runners, so it doesn't generate heat like a normal vest, and I don't really notice it.

b) I have heard numerous accounts that if a personal injury claim reaches court, the wearing of a high-viz vest adds strength to the argument that the driver was not paying enough attention to what they were doing

Mikey Mouse

What about the poor of eyesight?

Jacomus-rides-Gen

What about them troll?

formerlyknownasbonj

why when cars do it, it's called 'tailgating', but when a cyclist does it, it's called 'drafting'?

BentMikey

That's a fair point, but then it's accepted practice in cycling. It's dangerous to some degree, but mostly for the person drafting, rather than the draftee.

Jacomus-rides-Gen

Bonj, I make a difference between tailgating and slipstreaming, and maintain that both can happen to any mode of transport (discounting aircraft)

Tailgating
Following the vehicle in front too close for safety, but too far to gain aerodynamic advantage

Slipstreaming
Intentionally following the vehicle in front close enough to gain aerodynamic advantage

On a bicycle it is much easier to slipstream safely than in a car, yes there is still increased risk, but much less than in a car due to the relative speeds travelled at.

DavidTQ

Jacomus-rides-Gen wrote:

Maybe so - its certainly a good idea wherever it came from.

I'm not convinced by the whole high-viz deal either way. I have had periods of not wearing it, and can't say I noticed any difference in driver behaviour to me.

The predominant reasons I wear mine:

a) Its is a very lightweight, ventilated singlet designed for runners, so it doesn't generate heat like a normal vest, and I don't really notice it.

b) I have heard numerous accounts that if a personal injury claim reaches court, the wearing of a high-viz vest adds strength to the argument that the driver was not paying enough attention to what they were doing

I did wear my hi viz gear every day on the grounds of every little helps, and it might help if the worst comes to the worst in court. Then I got my panniers they have made far more difference to the space I get on the road and the treatment from drivers. I then decided that wearing a builders vest was doing nothing like as good a job and just feeling uncomfortable blowing around in the wing etc, so I leave it off.

When I buy my winter gear I will be making sure some of the tops are on the bright side, as every little helps but I have realised that its not drivers not seeing you that causes the most scares, its the drivers seeing you and misjudgeing things My rain jacket is hi viz, I appreciate the extra safety it MAY add in bad weather. I wont go out of my way now to add extra hi viz clothing, but I will when buying in cycling gear go for brighter colours where its available and as practical as gear in regular colours.

As for helmets I wear mine, only forgotten to once, mainly just in case I have a minor spill coming to a stop or whatever, although the one time I did forgot it I noticed just how good the front pad is for keeping sweat from dripping in my eyes... Ive got no issues with the helmet its not inconvenient to wear, and Im not at all worried about how it looks. Its something that I believe in certain circumstances could keep me looking good for longer

Jacomus-rides-Gen

To explain further what I mean

Cyclist
mph 20.00
km/h 32.43
m/s 9.01

Ave react sec 0.25
Dist react 2.25


Car
mph 60.00
km/h 97.28
m/s 27.02

Ave react sec 0.33
Dist react 8.92

So a cyclist travelling at 20mph will take about 2.25 meters to hit the brakes from when they see the incident, and the car at 60mph will take almost 9meters to start braking.*

So in terms of safety when cycling, you need to leave a minimum of 2.25m gap, as that is the distance you will cover before you can react to the changing situation. However, there is a very valuable point to be made here about the "situation".**

The "situation" is a continuous variable - Rider1 may simply start to frewheel, or drag the brakes lightly to slow gently for a junction. Or at the other end of the scale they may launch into a full emergency stop, or any deceleration between the two.

Assuming Rider1 and Rider2 are of equal weight including cycles, and have equal braking force available to them, and that force is used as a constant for the duration of the stop from speed to 0. Leaving a gap*** of 2.25m will prevent a crash (assuming no avoiding actions are taken to the course of either bike) up to 99% of maximum braking force.

So if you want to never hit a cyclist in front, you must leave a minimum of 2.25m between your font wheel and their rear, this does not change for inclement conditions, only braking distance does, and thus stopping distance. Obviously if they are riding a carbon superbike and weigh 60kgs, and you are on a heavy bike weighing in at85kgs you would need to leave a bigger gap.

In cycling terms 2.25m between bikes is a long way for normal speed flat cycling, and the riders do not gain any aerodynamic advantage. Cyclists have two main weapons at thier disposal, which allow them to ride much closer together, but still retain a high degree of safety.

1) It is very rare that a full emergency stop occurs. Most braking is done describing a bell shaped force curve, where brakes are applied gently and force in increased up to a point, then it is decreased until the bike has slowed sufficiently to navigate the braking event.

Rider2 will have to brake harder than Rider1 in order to avoid collision, creating a knock-on if there is a train of riders until a level is reached when braking force is 100% - this rider, and all following at the same distance will collide if they don't change course.

This is why large crashes in the peleton happen toward the rear, usually after a rider at the front enounters something which makes them brake. The closer to the rider that braked first, the smaller the % of your max braking force you need to use.

2) Avoidance - if you aren't quite going to stop, it is often possible to alter your course slightly to avoid ramming the cyclist in front.




*Car reaction times are slower than cycle / motorcycle as feet react around 0.6-0.9 sec slower than hands.

**Defining "situation" as a decelerating event

***Defining "gap" as the contantly changing free space between the rear wheel of Rider1 and the front wheel of Rider2

Mikey Mouse

Jacomus-rides-Gen wrote:

What about them troll?

Well apart from the fact they shouldn't be on the road but they are,they surely need all the assistance they can get.

Gambatte

Jacomus-rides-Gen wrote:

To explain further what I mean
Car reaction times are slower than cycle / motorcycle as feet react around 0.6-0.9 sec slower than hands.

Is there any account made for the fact that a car visibly indicates to anyone in the rear that braking has been initiated (brake lights)

With 2 cyclists the indications are less

Clever Pun

Jacomus-rides-Gen wrote:

By far the best way to get given space is to control the cars behind you using assertive road positioning. The most crucial element is forcing drivers to break the centreline to overtake you, because then it turns into a "proper" overtake in their heads.

In my experience it means they beep their horn at you

Gambatte

Mikey Mouse wrote:

What about the poor of eyesight?

Don't come complaining now, they told you you'd go blind!

Gambatte

Clever Pun wrote:

In my experience it means they beep their horn at you

I can live with that

Jacomus-rides-Gen

No, no account is taken for that Gambatte, those are not "real world" reactions. So the individuals in the test reacted to the same stimulus.

Thats a very good point, and one that I hadn't thought of. I wonder how much of an impact that would have on the cyclists reaction time... if I could find it I would be able to change my workings.

To explain further what I mean

I have clearly got distracted :roll: and never got round to saying that for the same % slipstream effect bikes and cars need to be going much faster at the same gap.

A cyclist in lycra on a roadbike, riding in the drops has a drag coefficient of 0.9(ish), and most cars have a drag coefficient of 0.2(ish). Put a small rucksack on them as many commuters like myself wear and it will push up to about 1.1(ish)

Clever Pun

Gambatte wrote:

Mikey Mouse wrote:

What about the poor of eyesight?

Don't come complaining now, they told you you'd go blind!

The Vapours had something to say about that

I've got your picture of me and you
You wrote "I love you" I wrote "me too"
I sit there staring and there's nothing else to do
Oh it's in color Your hair is brown
Your eyes are hazel And soft as clouds
I often kiss you when there's no one else around

I've got your picture, I've got your picture
I'd like a million of you all round my cell
I want a doctor to take your picture
So I can look at you from inside as well
You've got me turning up and turning down
And turning in and turning 'round

I'm turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so
Turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so
I'm turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so
Turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so

I've got your picture, I've got your picture
I'd like a million of them all round my cell
I want the doctor to take a picture
So I can look at you from inside as well
You've got me turning up and turning down and turning in and turning 'round

I'm turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so
Turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so
I'm turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so
Turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so

No sex, no drugs, no wine, no women
No fun, no sin, no you, no wonder it's dark
Everyone around me is a total stranger
Everyone avoids me like a cyclone ranger
That's why I'm turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so
Turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so
I'm turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so
Turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so

Turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so
Turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so
Turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so
(think so think so think so)
Turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so