[mdavidford]

hawkinspeter wrote:

Duncann wrote:

alex.glenorchy wrote:

I recently did a 37 mile ride, 2100ft elevation change, 18mph average.

Switching to metric distances and speeds is one of the best free upgrades you can have as a cyclist.

Though keep the climbing measurements in feet.

I thought climbing measurements were given in Everests these days?

[mdavidford]

Emma Stone.

Emma Stone.

[mdavidford]

OnYerBike wrote:

I think we have to have some trust in the government, and the citizen must simply follow the rules.

If the government had made the effort to communicate the reasons and evidence behind their decisions, instead of trying to communicate everything through slogans, people might be more inclined to trust them and follow what they’re being asked to do. When they treat the public like children and tell them they should simply follow the rules ‘because we said so’ it’s no surprise when significant numbers of people don’t see the point and ignore them, particularly if they already have a less than charitable view of politicians in general, or of the governing party.

[mdavidford]

Well that’s different – I

Well that’s different – I thought it was the one getting barbecued.

[There’s a hotdog joke in there somewhere…]

[mdavidford]

You can’t just leave it there

You can’t just leave it there. You have to tell us which one you think is not equivalent.

[mdavidford]

Strangely, they don’t appear

Strangely, they don’t appear to be proposing to amend Rule 53, which gives the identical advice to horse riders.

[mdavidford]

nniff wrote:

Dog not to keen on the heat – seeks out quarry-tiled floors.  Worst case we reckoned barbecuing every day for two weeks

How would that help it?

[mdavidford]

Well a pavement is any hard

Well a pavement is any hard surfacing, so technically I think that means cars are banned from most roads.

Although, unfortunately, so are cycles.

[mdavidford]

They could just leave off the

They could just leave off the first couple of clauses of Rule 213 though:

Cyclists may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane…

[mdavidford]

CXR94Di2 wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Where is presumed liability, mass advertising campaign to public to drum it into stupid drivers that they need to stay clear of cyclists

Those would be separate things. If you’ve been tasked with reviewing the Highway Code, you can only reflect the current law and add surrounding advice. You can’t go around creating new law and policy – those are someone else’s responsibility.

[mdavidford]

I’m not sure the second part

I’m not sure the second part makes sense either. Whereas the previous text implied that two abreast was fine except on narrow lanes, busy roads, and bends, the revised text suggests that it’s only appropriate to ride two abreast when on narrow lanes and in a large group.

[mdavidford]

Quote:

It needs to be breathable so I don’t look like I rode to work underwater.

You’re going to be in the backpack while cycling?

[mdavidford]

I’ve just got replacement gel

I’ve just got replacement gel pads for a MET helmet from BikeInn (after the originals turned to goo). Bit of a wait, but not too bad (and actually down to waiting on another item in the order), and very reasonable price.

[mdavidford]

EddyBerckx wrote:

EddyBerckx wrote:

Isn’t cycling more about exploring new routes etc and so on?

I quite like the Heatmaps for this reason – I’m less interested in the ‘heat’ aspect, and more in the coverage (and gaps). Can’t say the Local Legends holds any particular appeal.

[mdavidford]

Conentricity? Is that a

Conentricity? Is that a measure of how barbaric they are?

[Author]

Replies