Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Effectively allowing an interpretation that leads to a game of chicken.
It’s not really a game of chicken, it’s ensuring that you give priority to the right to vehicles on the roundabout AND don’t crash into any vehicles already ahead of you on the roundabout.
That effectively means you need to be prepared to deal with traffic coming from the right AND emerging from the left before you reach the roundabout. Which is what any competent driver would do.
The trouble is, the highway code doesn’t emphasise this enough, ‘look forward before moving off’ sounds like you only need to look forward if you had stopped!
yep, it’s possible the ‘tenon
yep, it’s possible the ‘tenon’ bit is too fat. Are the surfaces of the toothed adjustment ring painted? A bit too much paint there would account for the tolerance issue. It’s also worth having a look at those mating surfaces for any debris that could be trapped in there. I’d also try adjusting the stem to a different angle, to change those mating surfaces a bit and see if that has any effect on the clamp bolt gap.
Having a look at the drawings
Having a look at the drawings for this stem, it looks like it is split at the front as well as the rear. So with that in mind, perhaps the order with which the front and rear bolts are tightened matters?
I’d try slackening off the clamp bolts, then torque the raise adjustment bolt first followed by the clamp bolts.
Totally agree, but it’s a
Totally agree, but it’s a bike lane that puts cyclists in greater danger than if it wasn’t there. I would not use it and take the lane instead.
Yep, it’s past the point of
Yep, it’s past the point of being able to report. That bus doesn’t normally do the 156 service, but it did a couple of trips on the 12th of September. Although the bus dot matrix sign looks to say 56, perhaps strobing effect of the camera has dropped the 1 off.
Anyway, point is, she *could* have reported it, as the white number in the windscreen (10844) uniquely identifies the bus.
She didn’t report it as she didn’t get the registration plateShe got the bus number though (10844), which thanks to that great website bustimes.org, you can then deduce the registration! Plus, get a photo of it…
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aswans1234567/52029435165/
I think this incident happened quite a while ago though. According to bustimes, the 56 service was withdrawn in July and replaced with the 156 service.
This is a terrible bike lane.
This is a terrible bike lane. Not only is it not wide enough, it disappears without warning.
Not that this excuses the bus driver. Unless it was their first run on that route, they surely must have known the bike lane would end as the road narrows.
Yes, it’s considered a
Yes, it’s considered a junction.
I did think the scenario where a very slow cyclist was using the outside lane of the roundabout to turn right is quite similar to a pedestrian crossing an entry/exit. Cars are supposed to slow/stop on the roundabout and allow a cyclist to cross their path.
The highway code has always said to ‘watch out’ for pedestrians crossing the entry/exits. Just like it says drivers joining the roundabout should look forwards and ‘watch out’ for vehicles already ahead of them on the roundabout. But it makes it sound like you’re ‘watching out’ for a rule breaker!
ooh, and page 87! Which
ooh, and page 87! Which describes the carriageway of a roundabout as circulatory and exiting as ‘leaving the junction’…
I refer you to page 119 of
I refer you to page 119 of the ‘Manual for Streets‘*; a junction is still a junction even if there are no road markings…
*(it’s redacted, but it explicitly states that there is no statutory requirement to mark a road junction)
100% you were within your
100% you were within your rights to stop for the pedestrian. A roundabout is considered to be its own circular carriageway, distinct from the adjoining roads and each entry/exit is a junction.
However, this has been poorly communicated in the recent highway code updates and people have different opinions on this. Whenever something can be debated, it usually means the rules are not clear enough.
So, with this in mind, I would say next time make the pedestrian wait. You are a vulnerable road user too, plus you do not have the mass nor the width to offer any protection to a pedestrian should a motorist fail to stop.
I’m just going off the wheels
I’m just going off the wheels I’ve had in the past, most rims have had a lower rating than the tyres. But I suspect there’s a healthly safety margin in there.
edit: here’s a good spec sheet from DT Swiss, definately rims less than tyres I’d say from that. 28mm contis reckon 120psi max, the swiss rims are 113 for hooked and 73 for hookless with a tube.
https://www.dtswiss.com/pmt/00/00/00/00/00/00/00/10/00/00/00/86/6/MAN_WXD10000000866S_WEB_ZZ_001.pdf
lol, clearly needed more
lol, clearly needed more sleep (or should have waited until the first coffee had taken effect)!
But the key is the max pressure the rim can take will vary depending on tyre width.
I’d first check what the max
I’d first check what the max pressure limit is on your carbon rims. It will vary depending on tyre width.
Generally, tyres tend to have a higher max than the rims can take.
The only downside is you
The only downside is you could have one tyre lose grip before the other if cornering very hard, but the difference will be marginal and only when riding on the limit. Other factors such as tyre pressure, tread condition and road debris will have far greater effect than 3mm in tyre width.
Come to think of it, most motorbikes have a rear tyre way bigger than the front, so it can’t be much of an issue.
