Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
@Davel – excuse my ignorance,
@Davel – excuse my ignorance, but what has Robert Winston to do with this?
I just spotted that London
I just spotted that London has drastically improved from 17 down to 11. That’s very encouraging as it shows that we can clean up our air if we really want to (or alternatively it shows that the measurements aren’t accurate or have been politicised).
fukawitribe – my
fukawitribe – my generalisations were in response to guinom8’s generalisations about ‘respect’ that I don’t think are true. I certainly don’t believe that all motorists have respect for any particular group as, like you say, they are artificial groupings that don’t have a singular mindset.
And yes, I will take you up on that bet about motorists frothing at the mouth. 50p too rich for you?
Specialized Venge.
Specialized Venge.
davel wrote:
Imagine the next time a driver does something to you, when you’re walking, say. Something like not stopping for you at a pelican crossing. Imagine you then blame all drivers and act a bit more belligerently towards them, and ‘take revenge’ on others in minor ways that you can. Think of how stupid, petty and antisocial you’d have to be to do that. And that’s what you’re talking about – you’re excusing, or suggesting accommodating, that level of stupidity and narrow-mindedness. Bollocks to that – you change the scenario you describe by challenging that stupidity and bias, not by accepting it and taking on responsibility for other members of a group which doesn’t exist.First point – cyclists don’t form a cohesive group, so other cyclists are not responsible for my behaviour and I am not responsible for other cyclists’ behaviour either.Agreed you are not responsible for other cyclists’ behaviour and vice-versa, altough other cyclists’ behaviour or your behaviour may influence what other people think of cyclists in general and that can go back straight back to you, unfortunately.
Collective responsibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_responsibility
which leads to Collective Punishment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_responsibility
which is a violation of the Geneva Convention.
@tommyraleigh86 – you’ve just
@tommyraleigh86 – you’ve just lit the blue touch paper and walked away, haven’t you?
Usually, when I’m choosing to go through a red light, it’s.. because you’re a hypocritical twat.
Depends on how you frame it.
In terms of following law, then yes, absolutely.
In terms of safety and consideration of other people, then the question becomes a bit more murky.
oooh, goodie, false equivalence time!Is the answer… because they’re nothing like each other in terms of power, weight, risk, danger, damage, death and shoe size?
No it’s because anyone who thinks it’s OK to go through a red light is a twat, whoever they are.
How about ambulances? I’d prefer them to go and help someone than be waiting at a red light.
Drivers from the U.S. are a large group who thing that it’s OK to go through a red light when turning right and the coast is clear.
(For the record, I will also go through a red light when turning left and it is safe to do so. Maybe one day that will become allowable in the UK).
hawkinspeterI understand where you coming from, but I also understand that I will always be more vulnerable than a car.
If a lunatic decides to release his/her anger by pushing me off road and driving away, I will be the one to deal with the consequences of either get injured (if not get killed) or damage my bike. The driver can simply spin off and there I will be left on the ground. And everything will happen so fast that I won’t even have a chance to memorise his/her car reg.
I ain’t apologising to no one. I just came to realisation that anger doesn’t solve the problem but make it worse. and I won’t be giving any driver reason to go after me or scare me off.
You can disagree with some of my points or anything I say, I couldn’t care less.
@tommyraleigh86 asked for peoples’ opinions and I provided mine.
Fair enough. Like you say, these are just opinions (like assholes – everyone’s got one and they all stink).
Personally, I use a couple of Cycliq cameras so if I do get murdered by an irate driver, then at least there’s a chance that he might get caught and banned for 6 months or similar.
First point – cyclists don’t form a cohesive group, so other cyclists are not responsible for my behaviour and I am not responsible for other cyclists’ behaviour either.Second point – my safety takes precedence over the law. Usually, when I’m choosing to go through a red light, it’s so that I can cross a junction before the motorised vehicles can i.e. I cross as soon as I spot that the cross traffic has stopped.
Third point – cycling efficiently means keeping your momentum when feasible. This is another reason that I may choose to go through a red light. Usually this is only done when I have a clear view of the traffic (or lack of) and can see that it is safe to do so.
Fourth point – with the sheer number of traffic laws not being followed by 95% of motorised traffic (e.g. speed limits; not overtaking at pinch points; lack of indication; crossing double solid white lines etc), it just seems ridiculous to be waiting at an empty crossing on the very slim chance that there’s a policeman anywhere at all.
If you blithely disregard traffic laws that don’t suit you personally, how can you possibly criticise car drivers for doing exactly the same thing?
No man is an island and behaviour like yours does other cyclists no favours however much you think it’s not your problem.
The whole point of following traffic laws is to enhance road safety. The figures would suggest that cyclists are not a major cause of road incidents and loss of life, whereas motorists are.
I criticise the car drivers who are dangerous and I would similarly criticise myself if I were putting other people’s lives in danger.
@Guinom8 – I disagree with
@Guinom8 – I disagree with some of your points.
“Supposed cyclists” is a strange term to use. A cyclist is someone riding a bike. How do you “supposedly” ride a bike?
You mention that “proper” cyclists get abuse from angry motorists for no reason and then try to blame the angry motorists on “city” cyclists. To me, it makes more sense to blame the angry motorists for their own rage. In my experience, their rage is actually fuelled by a piss-poor understanding of the actual road rules and a tendency to read the Daily Mail. Also, a nearby cycle path tends to incense the hard-of-thinking motons.
I don’t care about “respect” and I think that is a complete strawman argument as motorists don’t “respect” other motorists and yet they don’t have the same frothing at the mouth reaction to motorists going through red lights. Also, I don’t care if motorists respect me or not – I just don’t want them to run over me because they’re not paying attention to the road.
To be honest, when reading your comment, it sounds like an apology to motorists.
Most pedestrians don’t seem to give two hoots about any sort of crossing etiquette anyway looking at this. Nearly all those people wouldn’t have done the same with a car approaching.I personally like to cut a lot of slack for pedestrians crossing the road, but the one thing that does wind me up is pedestrians not looking before crossing. Usually shouting “Oi” at them gets a suitable reaction, but by then you’ve had to slow/change road position.
First point – cyclists don’t
First point – cyclists don’t form a cohesive group, so other cyclists are not responsible for my behaviour and I am not responsible for other cyclists’ behaviour either.
Second point – my safety takes precedence over the law. Usually, when I’m choosing to go through a red light, it’s so that I can cross a junction before the motorised vehicles can i.e. I cross as soon as I spot that the cross traffic has stopped.
Third point – cycling efficiently means keeping your momentum when feasible. This is another reason that I may choose to go through a red light. Usually this is only done when I have a clear view of the traffic (or lack of) and can see that it is safe to do so.
Fourth point – with the sheer number of traffic laws not being followed by 95% of motorised traffic (e.g. speed limits; not overtaking at pinch points; lack of indication; crossing double solid white lines etc), it just seems ridiculous to be waiting at an empty crossing on the very slim chance that there’s a policeman anywhere at all.
Cannondale Synapse would be
Cannondale Synapse would be excellent for a first road bike. They’re considered to be a “comfort” geometry, but they’re at the more racy end of that category.
I’d agree with guinom8 about the usefullness of a bike fit, but I think it’d be more worthwhile to go for a bikefit after getting a bit more experience. Ideally, you could have a cheap (£50?) basic bike fit with an expert just eyeballing your position and giving you sizing recommendations, but it won’t be that useful as you wouldn’t have settled into your cycling position at that point. If you ride your bike for a month or two until you feel settled, a bike fit would then highlight more detailed changes such as saddle position etc.
With brakes, my preference would be for hydraulic disks first, rim brakes second and cable disks last. I’m a big fan of hydraulic disks and I think they’re absolutely brilliant although can be very squeaky in the rain (as opposed to rim brakes that don’t work in the rain until you get the water off the rim – typically one revolution of the wheel). I haven’t tried cable disk brakes, but they seem to need more adjustment and care.
I agree with Simon E – change the cassette, but the jockeys look fine (although a bit hairy).That is what happens when you park the bike for the winter and you have a indoor cat.
LIttle correction.. my chainrings are 52/38 and not 52/39. And using 11/25 cassette on a short cage Dura Ace rear derailleur..
If I also change the cassette to a 11/28 to rung with my 52/38 in a short cage dura ace rear derailluer… Will the length of the chain increase?
You shouldn’t need to change the chain length for that – it’s only a small change.
The other thing to consider is whether your short cage derailleur has the capacity.
From https://guides.wiggle.co.uk/rear-derailleurs-buying-guide:
Your current capacity is (52-38) + (25-11) = 28
Your new capacity is (52-38) + (28-11) = 31
So, your derailleur wouldn’t have the capacity for that, and you’d also run into problems with the largest rear cog hitting the derailleur as the “Max cassette size” is listed as 27. You’ll need to go for a medium cage derailleur for a 11-28 cassette.
And shave those jockey wheels.