• Feel the pain of overweight cyclists1 day 2 hours agoAt 90kg and with a fondness

    At 90kg and with a fondness for pies and ale, hills are never going to be my friend.

    However I personally think it's a mental thing. You're not going to go so slowly that you fall off, and no matter how it feels, you're still going faster than walking. So just slot it in the bottom gear, put your hands on the tops (it opens your chest and lets more lovely oxygen in), and winch your way up.

  • Tour de France Stage 18: Vincenzo Nibali rides away to fourth stage win1 day 2 hours agoNibali is on a club run

    Nibali is on a club run social by the looks of the Tour, not seen him struggle once.

  • Three cyclists hospitalised in hit-and-run on Kent A2 — police appeal1 day 2 hours agotruffy wrote:Housecathst

    truffy wrote:
    Housecathst wrote:
    truffy wrote:
    dp24 wrote:
    truffy wrote:

    I guess because 'attempted murder' indicates intent, which is unknown. Possibly?

    Which is why I said "whilst we don't know the circumstances of this incident".


    Innocent until proved guilty. Think about it!

    (although drivers seem to be guilty until proven innocent on road.cc)

    Well, there guilty of leaving the seen of an accident at the very least.


    Whilst true, leaving the scene of an accident is not proof of intent to kill (i.e. murder, which was the subject of the discussion).

    And nobody, as far as I can see, claimed that whoever it was was definitely guilty of any particular offence, certainly not attempted murder. So I'm not sure what you are arguing with or what the purpose of mentioning 'innocent till proven guilty' is.

    Speculating about the exact offence is completely pointless of course. But I'm not sure that was even what the original comment was doing anyway.

  • Video: Cyclist's lucky escape as driver turns across him1 day 2 hours agoJoeinpoole wrote:7thGalaxy

    Joeinpoole wrote:
    7thGalaxy wrote:

    If you watch the video there was exactly 2 seconds between the point where the driver clearly moved right ... and the time of impact. Not ideal but still enough time to take some evasive action. He didn't even begin to slow down or slam a left turn to minimise the collision. Mind you, maybe that's what saved him worse injuries in the end.

    What a ridiculous load of waffle you've produced here. His speed is perfectly safe for that road, you can't really go everywhere assuming that people (over whom you have right of way) are going to direct their cars at you without warning. I don't slow down for junctions where I have right of way - it's just asking for people to try and squeeze past you. Also it reinforces the 'bicycle is second class on the road' mentality in both the rider and the driver's head.

    The car that hits him barely indicates, and clearly isn't looking. There's much less than two seconds, and even in those two seconds, there's not really anywhere to go - turn left you'd still get hit, turn right you'd be in the oncoming traffic + more chance you'd slide and get run over, which would be a lot worse.

    You are *so* wrong and your view is so breathtakingly idiotic, if that's how you *really* conduct yourself on the road, that I'm fully expecting your good self to be a personal contributor to the KSI statistics within the next couple of years.

    Rule 126 of the Highway Code provides the following advice;

    "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."

    That's excellent advice and, believe it or not, it applies to cyclists too. In the video Cyclejack bizarrely maintains his fast pace even though it was apparent that his way could quite predictably be blocked by either of TWO vehicles. At 22mph. On a wet road. Fucking madness in my view.

    As a car driver I am legally 'entitled' to drive on a minor road at 60mph. After all, I have the 'right of way' and everything. Do I maintain my speed around a blind bend at that speed? Not a chance. There might be a tractor or a broken-down vehicle in the road. I'm even more cautious when riding my bike because I don't have the protection of a metal cage with air-bags. Truth is, Cyclejack did NOT have a clear road in front of him when 200 yards from the point of collision ... although in his view and yours, he did. Wrong judgement.

    Writing my previous post on this subject last night made me slightly late to meet the boys in the pub. When I got there I explained this incident, and my view of it, to my mate Jim, a local taxi driver. His view immediately was that not only should a cyclist have backed off ... but he would have done the same in his taxi (a huge 9-seater Citroen Dispatch). That vehicle is his livelihood and there's no way he is going to risk it being off the road due to "the crap driving of some silly tart" if he can help it. He would very happily 'concede ground' to a smaller vehicle, without the right-of-way, if it enabled him to continue earning a living. It amazes me that you *are* prepared to risk life and limb protecting what you believe to be your 'right of way' ... especially when you know that the only real difference you are ever likely to make will be an addition to the KSI statistics.

    If you watch the video there really *was* fully 2 seconds in which to react. Time it yourself. I have done several times. I know that if I had been riding that bike from say 10 seconds before the collision then I know I would have had a least 3-4 seconds to take avoiding action ... from a significantly lower speed. There's no way that car would have hit me because I'd have been able to avoid it. Easily. Yes, I'm 'conceding ground' if you like to the bigger vehicle, but at least I'm alive to report it.

    I've never worn a 'cycling helmet' in my life ... because I'd already been cycling perfectly safely for 20 years before the bloody things were invented (worse thing that ever happened to cycling in the UK IMHO). I'll bet that *you* wear one all the time though ... whilst cycling like a reckless dickhead with absolutley no ability to judge the appropriate speed for the conditions. Heigh-ho.

    The cyclist's way ahead is clear, he is able to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. This is in no way altered by the fact that the car driver fails to yield at the junction.

    As you point out the rider has two seconds (nearer 1.5seconds) from car turning to impact. If you take out the 'is she; isn't she' factor he probably has less than a second.
    Overall stopping distance is based on thinking distance plus breaking distance.
    So lets use your beloved Rule 126 (15th Edition 2007 - i.e. the current one).
    On a dry road at 20mph the OSD is 40ft (20ft TD + 20ft BD).
    On a dry road at 22mph the OSD is 44ft (22ft TD + 22ft BD).

    On a wet road the TD will remain the same but the BD can be doubled so from 22mph the OSD is 66ft (22ft TD + 44ft BD).

    Going back to Rule 126 the gap you are recommended to leave between yourself and the vehicle in front is 2 seconds in the dry and 4+ in adverse weather conditions.

    From the moment the car driver failed to yield the collision was inevitable. The cyclist has no option but to break as hard as possible and hope that either
    1) the car travels across his path quick enough to pass, or
    2) that he has scrubbed enough speed off before collision to avoid serious injury.

    I can find no fault in the cyclist's actions.

    As a couple of side points.
    1) Something to consider is that the cycle is fitted with rim-brakes and so there is the added complication of time taken for the brake-pads to cut through the water/dirt film before effective breaking. Even an MTB fitted with hydraulic disc-brakes and treaded tyres would probably not have been able to stop in time from 22mph.
    2) Are you saying that on a cycle you would concede right of way at every junction you came to if there was a car waiting to turn or pull out? The vehicle behind is going to wipe you out!

  • TDF - Stage 191 day 2 hours agoSprint for me too....plus a

    Sprint for me too....plus a little prep for the ITT as I have 5 transfers

    Coquard,Kristoff,Renshaw,Roy,Bauer in joining Nibs,Peraud,Pinot,Bardet

    Schlck,Konig,Majka,Nieve,TenDam out

  • Feel the pain of overweight cyclists1 day 2 hours agoNot intentionally. But I

    Not intentionally. But I guess once you start any proper exercise in earnest you tend to be a *little* more careful about what you drink/eat. So only five pints on a night out, not six Smile

  • Feel the pain of overweight cyclists1 day 2 hours agoSheer bloody mindedness and

    Sheer bloody mindedness and the ability to suffer. Also convince yourself that something awful will happen in your life if you climb off. I often wear my Alp d'Huez top, which would mean untold amounts of shame if I baled out!

  • Southwark backs down on 20mph cycling limit1 day 2 hours agoThe most troubling thing ,

    The most troubling thing , and least surprising frankly, is the basic lack of knowledge from council officers.
    If they dont even bother to check out the legality of imposing a pretty fundamental piece of policy how can we expect them to trusted with building any decent cycling infrastructure?
    In my experience local councils are inhabited by well meaning but useless officers hamstrung by clueless and myopic elected members. A perfect environment for incompetence and inactivity.

  • TDF - Stage 191 day 2 hours agoI made 3 changes and have

    I made 3 changes and have gone for the stronger climbing sprinters ie Sagan, Coquard and Benatti. No idea why.

  • Tour De France stage 181 day 2 hours ago255pts....my best tally ever

    255pts....my best tally ever Big Grin ...full house...top10 on the stage....forum's scorum's stage win(day late for the queen stage though!!).....green arrows across the board......sometimes a stage like that reaffirms your faith in the game after what has been a distinctly average tour for me.

    Team was:Nibali,Majka,Nieve,TenDam,Schleck,Bardet,Pinot,Peraud,Konig

  • TDF - Stage 191 day 2 hours agoGone for a sprint Kristoff,

    Gone for a sprint

    Kristoff, Kittell, Coqurad and Renshaw in (maybe I should have looked closer at the profile but didn't really have the time)

  • Three cyclists hospitalised in hit-and-run on Kent A2 — police appeal1 day 2 hours agoSimonS wrote:cryocon wrote:I

    SimonS wrote:
    cryocon wrote:
    I am no way condoning the drivers actions, but you do have to question why the cyclists were on this road in the first place. I am very familiar with this road and at that location it temporarily turns into a 3 lane dual carriage way, with a slip road coming on then off. Also at 10.10pm it would be pretty much dark. I don't like that stretch of road driving a car when it' s light, so on a bike when it's dark is just crazy.

    Like you I suspect the road is a horrible place to be but......

    They're not local riders (all from North of UK) and riding late at night. Making a few sweeping assumptions I'd say likely this was the English leg of a on a long distance tour, probably heading to Dover to catch a Ferry. Looking at the map there don't seem to be a great number of alternatives.

    They wouldn't have known what the road was like in advance and A roads vary from country lanes (http://tinyurl.com/o2qhcz7 in Yorkshire) to 3 lane roads that are indistinguishable from motorways.

    It's quite possible there is a 'cycle route' along the road that will be shown on a map - such as there is on the A3 from London to Guildford where it is signposted down a narrow 'hard shoulder' with unprotected crossings across slip roads.

    http://tinyurl.com/otslwdn. This http://tinyurl.com/nznvv39 is the point where you run across the slip road at 90 degrees, remount your bike and join what is then 5 lanes of traffic on a cycle lane that is shown on that sign but doesn't actually seem to exist on the ground.

    Even sections of Sustrans 'national cycle network' run on major A roads....

    I'd second your thoughts on this. If I were planning a long-distance ride on unknown roads I would certainly use A roads as the basis. B roads also vary considerably and some of them are little more than single-lane tracks with very poor surfaces; not ideal if you want to make good progress. A roads also tend to be the most direct route to the places that people want to get to.

  • TDF - Stage 191 day 2 hours agoNo sprinters for me, just

    No sprinters for me, just taking the GC points and concentrating on the last 2 stages. A nice random breakaway going all the way would be nice...

  • Feel the pain of overweight cyclists1 day 2 hours agoJust saw you've already lost

    Just saw you've already lost a stone, that's great work. Have you altered your diet at all too?

  • Southwark can’t impose speed limits on cyclists, says CTC1 day 2 hours ago700c wrote:Depressing how

    700c wrote:
    Depressing how most people have totally missed the point, judging by the comments on here.

    If we're more outraged by the 'illegal' injustice to cyclists of an enforced 20mph limit and can only see this as another 'excuse to harass cyclists', then it undermines the important arguments we can - and should - make about road safety.

    20mph limits are a good thing for vulnerable road users.

    What's irritating is that so much of Road cc's content is really good but then you get controversy-seeking articles like this which pander to 'them-and-us' ideals, for those who believe motorists and society are at war with cyclists

    But its not so much 'outrage' as weariness at, and suspicion of, the constant need to take a swipe at cyclists when doing any little thing to try and deal with the real problem of motorist behaviour. Not 'outrageous' - its just a bit tiresome, is all.

    Plus, as others have pointed out, there are (were) quite a few practical problems with this idea (e.g. sudden changes of the rules as you cross the invisible boundary of the borough).

    If there's any real evidence that super-fast cyclists (exceeding 20mph plus the usual leeway motorists get, so, maybe, 25mph?) are a serious problem in Southwark the council doesn’t seem to have presented it (how fast do you lycra-roadie-types actually _go_?)

    Also, as a pedestrian and lifelong inner Londoner, I don't personally see 20mph limits as a huge benefit. I mean, they are better than nothing, but nowhere near enough, especially when not enforced by the police. Personally I want to see more roads actually bollarded off or even pedestrianised.

  • Feel the pain of overweight cyclists1 day 2 hours agoClimb them more often? Ride

    Climb them more often? Ride in 34-32?
    Strength to weight is what dictates hill climbing though, and it's a lot quicker to lose weight than it is to build enough muscle to push the guts and extra muscles uphill.

  • TDF - Stage 191 day 2 hours agoDidn't really want to take

    Didn't really want to take pens so 2 transfers dropping tommy v and ten dam for Renshaw and feillu. Kept my GC guys

  • Beginner's advice on pedals & shoes?1 day 2 hours agoSuffolk Cycling wrote:I've

    Suffolk Cycling wrote:
    I've not had a clip-in fall yet, so it can be done. Been one or two near misses, though, including when crossing the finishing line at a sportive in front of dozens of people Smile

    Only time I've ever gone down stationary is when I got dominoed by a clip out failure to my left. He took three of us down at a feed station on a sportive. Poor bloke was mortified!

  • Southwark plans crackdown on 20+mph cyclists1 day 2 hours agohampstead_bandit wrote:We've

    hampstead_bandit wrote:
    We've had a 20mph limit in LB Camden for over a year. Is it enforced?

    Of course not. The local Police commander admitted in Camden New Journal newspaper the Police does not have resources to enforce 20mph limit in Camden. If you cycle in Camden every day you'll see a lack of enforcement with prevalence of speeding, red light jumping, asl infringing, mobile texting motorists...as well as cyclists doing whatever the hell they like and pedestrians walking willy-nilly all over the place

    I find it quite interersting that the police admit that they don't have resource to enforce a 20mph limit. This would suggest that enforcing a 30mph is less resouce-hungry but for the life of me I can't understand why this would be. To my mind they either have the resouce to enforce speed limits (regardless of the actual limit) or they don't. Why is 20 more difficult than 30?

  • Southwark backs down on 20mph cycling limit1 day 2 hours agocrazy-legs wrote: At every

    crazy-legs wrote:

    At every single turn, there are politicians mouthing platitudes, groups coming up with (usually fairly rubbish) "safety" or "awareness" campaigns but behind the scenes it's the same depressing rubbish designed to make it look like they're doing something.

    At the same time we have us lot with our views, ideas and experiences but I bet most of us spend more time moaning to each other on the internet than actual campaigning or constructive action.
    Maybe we should all get some spray cans and go out riding our bikes and painting circles round pot holes or something, or try to bring these issues to a wider audience.

  • Three cyclists hospitalised in hit-and-run on Kent A2 — police appeal1 day 2 hours agoHousecathst wrote:truffy

    Housecathst wrote:
    truffy wrote:
    dp24 wrote:
    truffy wrote:

    I guess because 'attempted murder' indicates intent, which is unknown. Possibly?

    Which is why I said "whilst we don't know the circumstances of this incident".


    Innocent until proved guilty. Think about it!

    (although drivers seem to be guilty until proven innocent on road.cc)

    Well, there guilty of leaving the seen of an accident at the very least.


    Whilst true, leaving the scene of an accident is not proof of intent to kill (i.e. murder, which was the subject of the discussion).

  • Recommend me a... jersey1 day 2 hours agoI got several of

    I got several of these..

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00HDCZNG4/ref=twister_B00DWY1RYO

    They are not skin tight, which helps in my case Wink

  • Video: Cyclist's lucky escape as driver turns across him1 day 2 hours agoJoeinpoole wrote:You are *so*

    Joeinpoole wrote:
    You are *so* wrong and your view is so breathtakingly idiotic, if that's how you *really* conduct yourself on the road, that I'm fully expecting your good self to be a personal contributor to the KSI statistics within the next couple of years.

    Rule 126 of the Highway Code provides the following advice;

    "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."

    That's excellent advice and, believe it or not, it applies to cyclists too. In the video Cyclejack bizarrely maintains his fast pace even though it was apparent that his way could quite predictably be blocked by either of TWO vehicles. At 22mph. On a wet road. Fucking madness in my view.

    As a car driver I am legally 'entitled' to drive on a minor road at 60mph. After all, I have the 'right of way' and everything. Do I maintain my speed around a blind bend at that speed? Not a chance. There might be a tractor or a broken-down vehicle in the road. I'm even more cautious when riding my bike because I don't have the protection of a metal cage with air-bags. Truth is, Cyclejack did NOT have a clear road in front of him when 200 yards from the point of collision ... although in his view and yours, he did. Wrong judgement.

    Writing my previous post on this subject last night made me slightly late to meet the boys in the pub. When I got there I explained this incident, and my view of it, to my mate Jim, a local taxi driver. His view immediately was that not only should a cyclist have backed off ... but he would have done the same in his taxi (a huge 9-seater Citroen Dispatch). That vehicle is his livelihood and there's no way he is going to risk it being off the road due to "the crap driving of some silly tart" if he can help it. He would very happily 'concede ground' to a smaller vehicle, without the right-of-way, if it enabled him to continue earning a living. It amazes me that you *are* prepared to risk life and limb protecting what you believe to be your 'right of way' ... especially when you know that the only real difference you are ever likely to make will be an addition to the KSI statistics.

    If you watch the video there really *was* fully 2 seconds in which to react. Time it yourself. I have done several times. I know that if I had been riding that bike from say 10 seconds before the collision then I know I would have had a least 3-4 seconds to take avoiding action ... from a significantly lower speed. There's no way that car would have hit me because I'd have been able to avoid it. Easily. Yes, I'm 'conceding ground' if you like to the bigger vehicle, but at least I'm alive to report it.

    I've never worn a 'cycling helmet' in my life ... because I'd already been cycling perfectly safely for 20 years before the bloody things were invented (worse thing that ever happened to cycling in the UK IMHO). I'll bet that *you* wear one all the time though ... whilst cycling like a reckless dickhead with absolutley no ability to judge the appropriate speed for the conditions. Heigh-ho.

    I'm sorry but I think you are well off the mark here. While its true that the road wasn't clear (there were other vehicles on it), his route certainly was and that's my interpretation of the part of the highway code you have quoted. It's good advice to generaly take care at junctions like this, to cover the brakes and be ready to react if someone does something stupid but to slow down substantially should not be neccesary and in many cases would not be the safest approach. Your pub conversation with a group of friends who have not seen the video doesn't carry much weight but I wonder how fast your taxi driver friend would have been going in the first place and what 'backing off' would consist of. If he was driving at 30mph and took his foot off the gas on approach to the junction his speed might easily have been similar to the cyclist's. Would he really have braked down to sub-20mph just in case someone ignored the way that the roads operate and drove right into him? For a cyclist to slow down like this for no apparent reason would be even worse due to the risk of being rear-ended. A following driver might also assume that the cyclist was turning left and move to overtake (not a wise move but there are a lot of poor drivers on the roads) which could have resulted in a much more serious collision.

    Sure, the guy could have been a bit more careful, he could have taken it a bit slower etc., he could have dawdled along on the pavement instead of using the road but it's clear that the cyclist is not really the problem here.

  • Hampshire cyclist recovers stolen bike after spotting it on eBay1 day 3 hours agoWhat i don't get about this

    What i don't get about this country is how everyone else has money stopped at source i.e. Tax, NIC, Child support etc. Yet the courts have no power to access benefits paid to these scumbags. Even if it were £2 a week at least this action would perturb thieves and gets the victim some sort of result...

    They already have criminal records and they won't have any money....so what does a court order actually achieve apart from costing the taxpayer more money?? hiring bailiffs to go and collect second hand tat which is probably stolen is a joke...

  • Beginner's advice on pedals & shoes?1 day 3 hours agoI've not had a clip-in fall

    I've not had a clip-in fall yet, so it can be done. Been one or two near misses, though, including when crossing the finishing line at a sportive in front of dozens of people Smile