Your rants here.

timothyw

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31478073

If it's just 3 cyclists out of 29 deaths on London roads, why does the article (and presumably the Police action) centre on hassling cyclists at major junctions? :x

desweller

TimothyW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31478073

If it's just 3 cyclists out of 29 deaths on London roads, why does the article (and presumably the Police action) centre on hassling cyclists at major junctions? :x

Does it? You're reading it very differently to me!

Ian.B

TimothyW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31478073

If it's just 3 cyclists out of 29 deaths on London roads, why does the article (and presumably the Police action) centre on hassling cyclists at major junctions? :x

BBC wrote:

The force said it would specifically focus on people using mobile phones whilst driving, speeding, failing to wear seat belts and on vehicle defects.

veronese68

TimothyW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31478073

If it's just 3 cyclists out of 29 deaths on London roads, why does the article (and presumably the Police action) centre on hassling cyclists at major junctions? :x

Looking at that and noticed this in the local news feed:

Lordship Lane in East Dulwich is closed and there is queuing traffic in both directions between Goose Green Roundabout and the A2214 East Dulwich Grove junction, because of a serious accident involving a lorry and a cyclist.

Hope it's not too serious.

timothyw

DesWeller wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31478073

If it's just 3 cyclists out of 29 deaths on London roads, why does the article (and presumably the Police action) centre on hassling cyclists at major junctions? :x

Does it? You're reading it very differently to me!

I was looking at the pictures. Still, don't expect coherence in the rant thread.

anonymousblackfg

Hmmm, they needed do something, 16 drivers dicking about on their phones from sutton to the city one day last week... This morning some driver in a piece of junk was text messageing for at leaset 1km, his illegal tint on his piece of sh!t car was so dark, all you could see was the creen of his phone, will he get pulled? will he boll0cks.

Manc33

"due to new Royal Mail restrictions we cannot ship Aerosols"

Just one question - how do the aerosols get to the shop that won't sell them to you? Oh yeah, on the back of a truck along with hundreds or even thousands of other aerosols. Then it drops off a few dozen cans of it at a shop... that then isn't "allowed" to send you one can.

desweller

TimothyW wrote:

DesWeller wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31478073

If it's just 3 cyclists out of 29 deaths on London roads, why does the article (and presumably the Police action) centre on hassling cyclists at major junctions? :x

Does it? You're reading it very differently to me!

I was looking at the pictures. Still, don't expect coherence in the rant thread.

Ha ha fair enough

prhymeate

I've been cycling regularly for the last 3 years or so, usually alone and personally I feel like the whole cars vs cyclists war is down to a 50/50 split of bad cyclists and impatient motorists. However, yesterday I was out with a friend who I hadn't seen in a while so where possible we rode side by side. It was like a whole new experience, I couldn't believe the amount of beeping, people overtaking at speed on the wrong side of the road, one guy went around a traffic island just to get past us and someone else on a moped was going crazy whilst trying to overtake us at the same time as we passed a stationary bus. I think I might need to revise my 50/50 split slightly.

gingaman

Prhymeate wrote:

I think I might need to revise my 50/50 split slightly.

I was out yesterday with some friends on an MTB jaunt, we were tailgated by an ambulance minibus, then the ambulance car that was following him tried to run me off the road! Touting for business or what?! At least they would have been able to patch me up after they f**ked me up! :twisted:

Manc33

Prhymeate wrote:

I've been cycling regularly for the last 3 years or so, usually alone and personally I feel like the whole cars vs cyclists war is down to a 50/50 split of bad cyclists and impatient motorists. However, yesterday I was out with a friend who I hadn't seen in a while so where possible we rode side by side. It was like a whole new experience, I couldn't believe the amount of beeping, people overtaking at speed on the wrong side of the road, one guy went around a traffic island just to get past us and someone else on a moped was going crazy whilst trying to overtake us at the same time as we passed a stationary bus. I think I might need to revise my 50/50 split slightly.

All motorists will say to that is "You don't have to ride side by side".

I don't really understand it myself though I mean it does seem to put cyclists at a far greater risk riding that way or that is, insisting on it. Whenever I am on my bike I get over to the left as much as I possibly can, because I know cars want to get past me. Doesn't matter about my rights as much as it matters about staying alive in the real world!

"Simply put, it's safer for cyclists to ride two abreast, it means that motorists usually have to overtake in a proper manner rather than overtaking in the same lane as the cyclists"

That is a complete reversal of the reality. :shock:

If you're further out in the road there's more chance of being hit. Anyone claiming the opposite is the case is either insane or they want more fatalities.

Kieran_Burns

Manc33 wrote:

Prhymeate wrote:

I've been cycling regularly for the last 3 years or so, usually alone and personally I feel like the whole cars vs cyclists war is down to a 50/50 split of bad cyclists and impatient motorists. However, yesterday I was out with a friend who I hadn't seen in a while so where possible we rode side by side. It was like a whole new experience, I couldn't believe the amount of beeping, people overtaking at speed on the wrong side of the road, one guy went around a traffic island just to get past us and someone else on a moped was going crazy whilst trying to overtake us at the same time as we passed a stationary bus. I think I might need to revise my 50/50 split slightly.

All motorists will say to that is "You don't have to ride side by side".

I don't really understand it myself though I mean it does seem to put cyclists at a far greater risk riding that way or that is, insisting on it. Whenever I am on my bike I get over to the left as much as I possibly can, because I know cars want to get past me. Doesn't matter about my rights as much as it matters about staying alive in the real world!

GiantDance

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Prhymeate wrote:

I've been cycling regularly for the last 3 years or so, usually alone and personally I feel like the whole cars vs cyclists war is down to a 50/50 split of bad cyclists and impatient motorists. However, yesterday I was out with a friend who I hadn't seen in a while so where possible we rode side by side. It was like a whole new experience, I couldn't believe the amount of beeping, people overtaking at speed on the wrong side of the road, one guy went around a traffic island just to get past us and someone else on a moped was going crazy whilst trying to overtake us at the same time as we passed a stationary bus. I think I might need to revise my 50/50 split slightly.

All motorists will say to that is "You don't have to ride side by side".

I don't really understand it myself though I mean it does seem to put cyclists at a far greater risk riding that way or that is, insisting on it. Whenever I am on my bike I get over to the left as much as I possibly can, because I know cars want to get past me. Doesn't matter about my rights as much as it matters about staying alive in the real world!

Interesting choice of wording 'Vulnerable'

Manc33

I don't agree with the riding two abreast thing. You can quote a 50,000 word essay on why its safer, it doesn't matter, it isn't safer. God knows what logic they are using to come to these conclusions. Doesn't fit in with reality. Even as a cyclist I think some cyclists should be a bit more accommodating to cars, like that asshat that was riding 3 feet away from the kerb the other night for absolutely no reason, get the hell out of the way! Why wouldn't you budge over, honestly.

If people don't like all the nails and glass there, they should slap some M+ on, I have.

Before anyone says "What about tractors" a tractor cannot reduce its width.

The legislation contradicts itself if they are saying to motorists on the one hand "Leave as much space as you would overtaking a car" then saying to cyclists on the other hand "Take up more room than you need to" aka two abreast. All I can understand from that is let's cause more inconvenience to both cyclists and motorists at the same time. Forcing cars to go right over into the other lane seems absurd to me. Cyclists not tucking in when they know a car wants (maybe even needs) to get past, is ignorant.

dhope

Manc33 wrote:

"Simply put, it's safer for cyclists to ride two abreast, it means that motorists usually have to overtake in a proper manner rather than overtaking in the same lane as the cyclists"

That is a complete reversal of the reality. :shock:

If you're further out in the road there's more chance of being hit. Anyone claiming the opposite is the case is either insane or they want more fatalities.

Not in my experience.
The rationale goes along the lines of.

Cyclist 1/2 foot from kerb: Motorist doesn't need to move at all to not hit them. Motorist continues on their existing course and passes half a foot from cyclist.

Cyclist 2 feet from kerb: Motorist has to move to not hit them. Having taken the conscious decision to move they end up giving the cyclist another couple of feet of space.

The act of forcing someone to acknowledge an obstacle is enough to kick them into a thought process that they might not otherwise have considered (i.e. have I left this person enough room or am I going to squeeze them into the kerb)

Manc33

I agree with that if you're talking about a single rider, but there's oddball cyclists about that think "Its my right" and don't deviate from it. I am not being funny but if a cyclist never drove a car in his life... those are probably the cyclists doing this. :roll:

gingaman

Manc33 wrote:

I don't agree with [most things]

Before anyone says "What about tractors" a tractor cannot reduce its width... Forcing cars to go right over into the other lane seems absurd to me

So what about horses? Or children riding along? Or an OAP-mobile? Or if it was someone you know? Or your parents? Or your children?

Is it fine to pass any of them as close as possible? No, it is not.

Either way, rule 163 gives the right information.

highway code rule 163 wrote:

"As much space as you would a car"

Kieran_Burns

Manc33 wrote:

I agree with that if you're talking about a single rider, but there's oddball cyclists about that think "Its my right" and don't deviate from it. I am not being funny but if a cyclist never drove a car in his life... those are probably the cyclists doing this. :roll:

It seems you like to argue for the sake of it.

It's a legal requirement to give cyclists room, and it's a cyclist right to use the road. It is legal to cycle two abreast and I do so. I've been driving over 27 years now, so I think yet another point of yours is disappearing down a plughole.

veronese68

Manc33 wrote:

... Cyclists not tucking in when they know a car wants (maybe even needs) to get past, is ignorant.

Not ignorant, defensive. What possible 'need' could there be for someone to get passed so urgently that they should force their way through possibly endangering a persons life as they do so? Traffic is variable a person should leave enough time to complete their journey safely and have time in hand for any possible delays. waiting a few seconds until it's safe to pass a bicycle will have virtually no impact on total journey time. The ignorance here is only being shown by you, again.

martincroxall

First Aspect wrote:

martincroxall wrote:

Thought I heard the sound of something plastic falling off my bike. Quick check found nothing untoward so off I continue. 20 minutes later my LH crank falls off. It would appear the crank bolt (plastic bolts, surely not) was the piece falling off the bike.

The crank is fixed on a bit like a stem. With your stem, the top cap is screwed down to preload the headset bearing, but the stem is held on by the bolts around the steerer tube.

That plastic cap from your cranks merely helps you to get the crank arm on the splines. The crank arm is then held to the spline on by bolts on the crank arm itself. If those aren't tight enough, the crank will eventually fall off.

Sorry, but I'm guessing that this is a fettling error.

When you were cycling along, didn't something feel wrong? I've had cranks come loose in the past and it feels like the bike has a broken bone. Its about as hard to miss as a flat.

I agree, was totally my error, the rant was somewhat directed at myself. Oddly enough though the crank did seem totally fine for that 20 minutes and then went very wobbly (didn't actually fall off). Fortunately managed to fix it and ride home perfectly fine by a bit of a thump and tightening up the bolts.

bendertherobot

Without wishing to enter into a manufacturer debate I can say that the SRAM method is very good. Thread the right hand side crank through, attach left hand crank, tighten allen bolt to self tighten arm onto crank. Hardly ever (if ever) comes loose.

Widgey

On the two abreast thing - Its a sensible idea for any amount of riders more than 2!

Simply because it cuts the distance literally by half - 10 riders strung out is difficult for a driver to get around within parameters of speed limits and time spent going into the other lane, whilst giving room to the cyclists.

Its just safer. It may annoy drivers but they always seem annoyed anyway so hardly makes a difference.

My rant - cleaned bike on Saturday - why bother as the roads are wet and now looks like the same!

Ian.B

BR made a nice choice of banner ad to stick across the bottom of Kieran's pic!

menthel

Why when I have porridge for breakfast do I end up with a feeling at some time before lunch with a feeling like I haven't eaten in a week? Perhaps I need to increase from 40g per serving.

dhope

menthel wrote:

Why when I have porridge for breakfast do I end up with a feeling at some time before lunch with a feeling like I haven't eaten in a week? Perhaps I need to increase from 40g per serving.

Nah, just have another breakfast.
Same with me, 60g bowl of porridge and a banana for breakfast, another banana and a bowl of cereal at 10.30.

Kieran_Burns

dhope wrote:

menthel wrote:

Why when I have porridge for breakfast do I end up with a feeling at some time before lunch with a feeling like I haven't eaten in a week? Perhaps I need to increase from 40g per serving.

Nah, just have another breakfast.
Same with me, 60g bowl of porridge and a banana for breakfast, another banana and a bowl of cereal at 10.30.

You're a Hobbit?

dhope

Kieran_Burns wrote:

dhope wrote:

menthel wrote:

Why when I have porridge for breakfast do I end up with a feeling at some time before lunch with a feeling like I haven't eaten in a week? Perhaps I need to increase from 40g per serving.

Nah, just have another breakfast.
Same with me, 60g bowl of porridge and a banana for breakfast, another banana and a bowl of cereal at 10.30.

You're a Hobbit?

One day my metabolism will slow and I'll quickly start to look like one...

menthel

dhope wrote:

menthel wrote:

Why when I have porridge for breakfast do I end up with a feeling at some time before lunch with a feeling like I haven't eaten in a week? Perhaps I need to increase from 40g per serving.

Nah, just have another breakfast.
Same with me, 60g bowl of porridge and a banana for breakfast, another banana and a bowl of cereal at 10.30.

I'd end up the size of a house if I ate like that! Just had an apple and it didn't help. Will up the oats next time I think. May chuck in a scoop of whey protein as well.

dhope

menthel wrote:

May chuck in a scoop of whey protein as well.

Doesn't help, I do that too

menthel

dhope wrote:

menthel wrote:

May chuck in a scoop of whey protein as well.

Doesn't help, I do that too

Arse. May as well just convert to full English at the cafe then.