Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Sriracha wrote:
I’d second that ? Once set I find the cateye great for keeping an eye on what’s happening behind. But it is very small, which means the angle has to be spot on. It holds its position once set, but is a little prone to being knocked when you lean the bike against a wall. Then it takes bit of finessing to get it right again.I try to avoid it getting knocked by positioning it on the inner side of the handlebar, but it does get moved every so often (I can clip it with my knee if I’m not careful). Takes just a few seconds to nudge it back into position usually.
That’s the one Ian’s just mentioned. We reviewed it here: https://road.cc/content/review/28706-bike-eye-bike-mirrorWow – 0g weight? The one I tried was definitely made of matter, but the view behind is quite narrow and constrained by the bike frame and a leg.
Also, it looked quite ugly when fitted.
I’ve been thinking recently that the utility of a mirror probably outweighs its uncool factor. Very tempted by one of these:https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m2b0s192p3918/GILLES-BERTHOUD-Bar-End-Mirror
Never seen that one before, but I’m going to stick with my CatEye.
Also on that site is https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m2b0s192p1810/BIKE-EYE-The-Bicycle-Mirror which is a non-bar-end mirror. I’ve tried one (on my MTB, might have been a different brand) and it didn’t work well for me as you had to move your leg out of the way to get a decent view.
I’ve tried a couple of
I’ve tried a couple of different ones:
Italian Road Bike Mirror: https://www.italianroadbikemirror.com/ItalianRoadBikeMirrorWorldwide.html
Sprintech: https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/accessories/sprintech-racing-road-mirrors-black/
They both had a similar issue of not being easy to adjust to be in the perfect position and not retaining their position. The Italian RBM is held in place by handlebar tape, which is awkward for making adjustments – maybe someone more skiled than me would get them to work well.
I’ve been using the CatEye BM-45 for a few years and it’s great as it holds its position well and can be adjusted whilst riding (choose a clear bit of road though). It can be tricky getting it just right for switching between tops and drops, but it works well for me.
Taxes are how we purchase civilisationThat needs to go on a poster or a banner 🙂
It’s an old saying that is often attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
I’d love a bit of techno-anarchism – like a free-market of societal systems. Open source government if you will.Whereas what we’ve got is an open sauce government.
Mmmmm! Jellied Eels!
Taxes are part of how we bond everyone into a state (humans are inherent cooperators). Or if you don’t subscribe to that how we make it worth everyone’s while / bribe them into complicity with a state (saves having to beat them to do so). Or if you’re really “red in tooth and claw” how we rob them to fund the repressive apparatus.Least worst system etc. Anarchism is attractive – why not simply opt out of the taxes that don’t suit us? Or become entirely self-reliant? However such systems have tended not to be as stable. If only because all the other ogliarchies, dictatorships, kleptocratic democracies or global corporations may decide to oppose or fight us.
I’d love a bit of techno-anarchism – like a free-market of societal systems. Open source government if you will.
If I thought the government would use more tax to build better infra for cycling, better hospitals or just generally improve people lives I’d be happy to pay more tax, but it’s hard to stomach when you know it’ll just be wasted.The problem isn’t the tax paying – it’s the electing of self-serving sociopaths.
I don’t want to be ‘penalised’ with taxes generally, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be.Taxes are how we purchase civilisation
lonpfrb wrote:
In London TfL have delegated the bus service to profit making companies because their experience with a union workforce e.g. Underground has been so bad. Thus the outsourcing of tube maintenance and the new Elizabeth Line trains being a service provided by the train owner who employ the drivers, not TfL. So the long and short of it is that TfL will not employ a single person more than they have to, so default to outsourcing for all services that they can. TfL design the service, routes and licence the operators so that a public service is delivered. More employees and their pensions they do not want, can’t afford.Personally, I don’t see the problem with providing workers with a suitable pension. Unions can be a problem, but profiteers have historically been a far greater problem and we’re now starting to reap the results of people seeking short term profits over long term sustainability.
When I visit London, I usually get the train from Bristol Paddington and then either walk or get the tube – I’ve found the tube to be quite effective. Not as nice as undergrounds in other cities (e.g. Paris, Berlin, Madrid etc), but reasonably short waits for the trains. The biggest problem I saw was the popularity of the underground – trains get seriously packed.
“A picture containing person, indoor, marketplace, clothes”What more do you want !
Princess Anne holding a squirrel?
Is this copy-pasted? I can’t
Is this copy-pasted? I can’t see any pictures, though people have had difficulty in adding pics to forum posts – it’s easier to add them in the comments.
hirsute wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60806993 Two teenage girls aged 15 and 16 are being held in custody after a car reversed into a shop front. Why are they being held responsible for the software of the autonomous vehicle?And why did they bother taking an aggravated vehicle? I’d go for a nice calm one instead.
Rich_cb wrote:
My issue with that approach is that if you can’t afford new tyres or brake pads you can still drive. You’ll just be even more dangerous than normal. If you can’t afford fuel then you’re going nowhere. I do agree that we should find a way of including vehicle size and weight in the taxation system though.Good points – I agree that tyres and brake pads aren’t a good choice for taxation. Maybe adding some kind of MOT surcharge for vehicle weight although we don’t want to dissuade people from keeping vehicles road-worthy.
Rich_cb wrote:
The alternative viewpoint is that cyclists are being given additional space on trains free of charge. If that space could be used more profitably then cyclists are effectively being subsidised.Well, I certainly don’t have any issue with cyclists being subsidised. Meanwhile, push-chairs are also taking up extra room, despite most train companies specifying that push-chairs should be folded up for travel whilst on the train (and I don’t have an issue with that as long as they’re not hogging cycle specific space). This is the problem with for-profit transport – they are keen to optimise for the majority of passengers and are less inclined to allow for more flexibility e.g. tandems, hand-cycles etc.
In terms of mass transit, we should enable people to use public transport for part of the journey and cycle for some parts as that encourages active transport. However, that’s a societial benefit rather than increasing shareholder profits for a minority.