Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
davel wrote:
I’ve been similarly dismissive about plastic lids not so much about them as a piece of safety equipment, but as a distraction from the real issue. They can be debated as a piece of safety equipment. Even in the discipline, it looks to me as though full-face mtb-style helmets are superior. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they don’t help in certain circumstances, but criticisms on their effectiveness and the deterrent factor – they’re not the realm of flat earthers. But the main reason I disparage them is because they don’t stop what kills cyclists, which is being driven into. Pushing a helmet agenda right now is like standing in 1939’s Poland and being offended by the invading Nazis’ uniforms (there’s the Godwin, if anyone wants it 🙂 ).So you’ve said there is a problem, and you have told us what doesn’t work. Are you going to enlighten us, or is this just a random “we must do something” without defining something?
davel wrote:
Superpython’s already made this point, but do you wear a helmet to use a ladder, put shelves up, walk down the stairs in the morning, walk on the pavement in winter, go into a kebab shop at midnight…. drive a car? If not, I assume you’ve performed a risk assessment and know the probability of head injuries in all of the other scenarios that you don’t wear a helmet, and are happy with the lack of insurance in those?Time for SuperPython59 to go back to school and learn how to compose a sentence without the need for so many swear words.
On the way, stop off at your local A&e and ask them to show you what happens to people with head injuries.
Helmets are are like insurance, you hope you never need one, but if you hit the road the wrong way you will definitely be better off wearing one than without.
No 3rd party is going to come into my garden and knock my ladder away, interfere with my shelf installation or push me down the stairs, all of these are within my control. As for driving a car, drivers are already very well protected, with a combination of design, interior materials and airbags make a crash helmet all but unnecessary except in the unlikely event of rolling the car. Not sure if I understand the kebab shop argument. None of your examples come close to cycling on busy roads with stressed out drivers texting, looking at girls in mini skirts, and thinking its OK to overtake acyclist when there is oncoming traffic.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Are you referring to the ones involving, and mostly caused by, motorised vehicles? They show the danger in driving, not in cycling. I think that’s where your reasoning falls down, as you are shifting those numbers into the wrong column. And again there’s that mantra about ‘education’, which has never worked, never will work, and ends up just being a means of avoiding doing anything. Not to mention the inaccurate implication the situation is symmetrical with drivers and cyclists having ‘equal’ responsibility.Yes, those same cases, but to say that the danger is in driving not in cycling is ludicrous. There is no danger whatsoever to a driver in running me down on my bike, he will walk away unscathed, probably without so much as a triggered airbag. The “equal responsibility” argument is of no comfort to me when I am lying in A&E.
davel wrote:
The danger differs, depending on the type, so is difficult to quantify, isn’t it?But the bulk of the risk faced by cyclists comes from being driven into by vehicles. A helmet doesn’t prevent that – I’d like to see much more effort and resources spent effectively on stuff that does.
Yep. Risk is different in each case, which is precisely why people need to accept it and quantify it. I thought I’d answered your other question but here goes: Drivers and cyclists both need to be educated to the fact there is risk, and how to minimise it. Pussy footing around telling people there is no danger in cycling when we have regular incidents which prove otherwise does nobody any good.The helmet debate is a distraction, at best.Cyclists die in the uk. If that’s a problem worth adressing, why does it happen
Davel, your second sentence here says much. If people are dying, does that not suggest that there is danger? Yet some, and indeed yourself in your later post, suggest that we should not put newcomers off by suggesting cycling is dangerous. Don’t you see the ambiguity?
I have noticed a tendency here for people to say cycling is different to everything else, therefore the experience gained in other sports is irrelevant, however I have been involved in a number of other “hazardous” activities where they do exactly the opposite of what people here are doing. In one sport I was very active in we talked about the importance of having a “mature sense of risk”. In other words, the safe guys were the ones who understood, assessed, and managed, the risks, which sometimes mean’t packing up and going home for the day. The brave ones who said there is no risk, were the ones who got hurt. Back to my previous example, I would happily cycle without helmet on the B roads round my area, but they are sadly, linked by A roads. Anybody who says it is not dangerous cycling on an A road being overtaken by 30ft trailers at 60mph, which first disrupt your airflow, and then close the gap as they return to the left hand side due to oncoming traffic, is not cycling the same roads as me.
But back to my question. You say yourself thay cyclists are dying (not to mention being disabled). How then can we justify saying to newcomers :”don’t worry about about a helmet, cycling is not dangerous”?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Compulsory seat-belts are in no way the same thing as compulsory cycle helmets. Is it really necessary to yet again explain the obvious? (That they are totally different issues, both in terms of practicalities and morality). Also that you have trouble taking seriously things that are pretty obviously likely to be true (and supported by what data there is available) suggests your position is largely faith-based. PS – do skiers often get run over by trucks or side-swiped by texting drivers? The reason why the debate never ends is that there is a never-ending supply of compulsory helmet law advocates who keep presenting the same, already-answered, arguments as if they are new, without bothering to read the opposing arguments first. They seem a bit like climate-change deniers in that regard.Sadly I am old enough to remember when the wearing of seatbelts in cars was made mandatory in the UK. Those suffering from testosterone overdose argued that seatbelts increased certain risks such as drowning or fire due to the victim being trapped in the car by the seatbelt. Slightly more recently, there were the arguments against anti lock brakes on cars, suggesting that safer brakes just increased tailgating. Skiing went through the same anti-helmet arguments as cycling, and I have to say in this case I was a late adopter, and only bought a helmet when I saw the damage inflicted on a non-helmet wearer by the hard shell of somebody else’s helmet in a crash. In my working life I have heard similar resistance to safety measures such as the wearing of safety goggles impeding visibility, and the wearing of ear defenders impeding hearing. Sadly there will always be people who look for reasons to justify the ignoring of common sense.
With regard to statements in the article that the wearing of cycle helmets reduces entry to cycling by conveying the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity, I can’t believe anyone would take such a statement seriously.
Where did I mention anything about compulsory helmet wearing in my post? If you’re going to shoot down another poster, at least show him the respect of reading his post and understanding what he is saying first.
As for your question about skiers being hit by texting drivers, no they don’t but they regularly receive injury due to being hit by 3rd parties who are out of control. I am quite happy cycling on a quiet country lane without helmet, and quite happy skiing off piste without helmet as landing in the hedge or in deep snow is unlikely to be fatal. In both activities however, it is the increase in traffic which materially affects the risk, and whether I am going be hit by somebody else’s ski hardware, or land on the bonnet of a car, I’d rather be wearing a helmet. As I suspect would the majority of cyclists, as borne out by the fact that the vast majority wear helmets.
Sadly I am old enough to
Sadly I am old enough to remember when the wearing of seatbelts in cars was made mandatory in the UK. Those suffering from testosterone overdose argued that seatbelts increased certain risks such as drowning or fire due to the victim being trapped in the car by the seatbelt. Slightly more recently, there were the arguments against anti lock brakes on cars, suggesting that safer brakes just increased tailgating. Skiing went through the same anti-helmet arguments as cycling, and I have to say in this case I was a late adopter, and only bought a helmet when I saw the damage inflicted on a non-helmet wearer by the hard shell of somebody else’s helmet in a crash. In my working life I have heard similar resistance to safety measures such as the wearing of safety goggles impeding visibility, and the wearing of ear defenders impeding hearing. Sadly there will always be people who look for reasons to justify the ignoring of common sense.
With regard to statements in the article that the wearing of cycle helmets reduces entry to cycling by conveying the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity, I can’t believe anyone would take such a statement seriously.
The other difference is
The other difference is stiffness. On hills, or under acceleration, you can see and feel, the flex of an alloy frame. Pedal harder on a hill, more flex, and that twisting of the bottom bracket which you see, saps power that should be going to the back wheel. On any half decent carbon frame, there is no flex, and when you push harder, the bike responds instantly. Carbon bikes are just way more responsive.
If you want anything more specific, as Lincolndave says, your subject heading with no message doesn’t provide much information!
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
I have to say, as much as the stats look terrible, I don’t think its as bleak a picture as painted.
If I was asked the same questions, I’d have had to answer yes as well. Doesn’t mean I’ve used a mobile in a car for a long period of time… i.e. habits have changed… nor does it take into account that someone might send a rare text when stuck in stationary traffic, or take a call on a deserted motorway… which means they are an offender… but not a regular abuser.
Not saying its right, but just differentiating between caning your phone whilst driving, and being a rare as hen’s teeth, occasional reader of a text.
What scare me a bit, is the definition of using a mobile. I will use my mobile as a GPS system (mounted on the dashboard), just like you’d use a garmin or tom tom. Officially I could be held accountable as a mobile user…
Very fair comment. Sadly, we all criticise others for using mobile in the car, but few of us are totally without sin!
The Rose is undoubtedly cheap and light. 6 months ago I found myself torn between the cdx and Focus Cayo Disc, which also offers good value. I eventually went a different route and bought a rim braked Addict, and with Ultegra brakes I personally don’t need discs. I love the Addict to bits, and for 2017 there is a disc version for those who don’t mind the extra weight and money, also a disc frameset. Being a Rose owner I sense you like something outwith the big 4, so I suggest you check out the Cayo and Addict.I went for Rose because the quality of bike I was able to get for the money just seemed so much better than I was able to get elsewhere. Given that I’m just looking for a new frameset now I’m a bit more open to other options.
I have my reservations over the Scott – a couple of friends who have tried it have said that it is no where near as good as its rim braked counterpart (which they both loved).
The Focus Cayo is definitely on the list. although finding a dealer who is prepared to sell just the frameset isn’t as easy as one would think.
Fair comment on the Rose. The main reason I went elsewhere was that living in Scotland, I asked the UK rep whether he ever did demos North of Watford. I was told that he knew of no bikes in the North, and if I wanted to see one my best bet was to fly to Germany.
Disappointed to hear your feedback on the Scott disc, because like your friends, I love my rim braked Addict. After a period of total confusion before buying it, with 3 or 4 bikes on the agenda, now I wouldn’t swap it for anything. In addition to the ride, it is nice having a quality brand which is the only one of its kind parked outside the cake shop! I guess your friends aren’t comfusing the new road disc variant with the 2016 gravel disc Addict? These are different animals.
Hooked on cycling, Bathgate.
Hooked on cycling, Bathgate. Nick, a real enthusiast, takes time to get to know what you need, rather than making assumptions with setup etc. He will end up your friend, and not a salesman trying to maximise his revenue. His main brands are Cube and Scott, but he will do bike fits for anything, and custom builds with components of your choice.
He also rides a lot of bikes. Whilst this might sound an obvious qualification, I have found most LBS struggle to compare their own brands with the competition! Nick at LBS was able to give a first hand comparison between the 3 bikes I was considering, only one of which he supplies.
The Rose is undoubtedly cheap
The Rose is undoubtedly cheap and light. 6 months ago I found myself torn between the cdx and Focus Cayo Disc, which also offers good value. I eventually went a different route and bought a rim braked Addict, and with Ultegra brakes I personally don’t need discs. I love the Addict to bits, and for 2017 there is a disc version for those who don’t mind the extra weight and money, also a disc frameset. Being a Rose owner I sense you like something outwith the big 4, so I suggest you check out the Cayo and Addict.
I bought my first proper road
I bought my first proper road bike 3 years ago at the age of 55. Although it had a race frame, the bike shop set it up quite relaxed, with stem inverted. I bought my second proper road bike this year at the age of 57. Race geometry again, very aggressive setup, with the bars 7cm lower than my other bike. My first few rides caused a bit of back pain after 45 minutes, but this soon disappeared. I incurred a lower back disc injury nearly 20 years ago which used to cause me problems until 3 years ago when I took up road cycling, now no problems. Fitter now than I’ve been for 25 years and in the top 25 % this year up Talla Steep Section (half a mile at 13%). My advice: Go for it. Set it up relaxed and move the bars down as you become more comfortable.
Smaller helmet/bike cameras
Smaller helmet/bike cameras with at least 10 hours record time. Some of those around seem to only record for 2 or 3 hours, and I sometimes have visions of the accident being over recorded by pictures of the inside of an ambulance! I think the time is coming when cameras will be standard, but they need to be less obtrusive than anything I’ve seen to date.Back to the OP, KMC advise
Back to the OP, KMC advise only wiping the outside of the chain with a dry rag (looks like I have been doing something right), never using an aggressive cleaning agent, never completely degreasing, and never immersing the chain or using a chain bath ( which I suspect also means don’t liberally spray the chain with degreaser). The logic, which some here have already alluded to, is that it is easier to remove lube from the rollers using any of these means, than it is to get new lube in, especially if there is solvent residue in there. There is also no guarantee that breaking down and flushing out old lube, will get any abrasive wear particles out.
I have even swapped between oil based and wax based lubes without degreasing on the basis that if the chain is dry, the new lube will find its way in, or if there is lube already on the rollers, then I’m not too worried about getting new lube in. Before anyone hurls abuse, I wipe and relube every day I ride (no smartass comments please), I check the chain stretch regularly, and change the chain as soon as the .75 wear point is reached.
Why make this more difficult than it needs to be?
