London Fixed-gear and Single-speed SJS Cycles

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/...ack_bikes.html

Just saying

this has to be a wind up

Ignoring the title of this thread, and without watching the video... the written article didn't seem so bad and does highlight the quality and safety questions surrounding BSO's.

Written article is near identical to the content of the video tbh.

and it makes a good point in that if something is that cheap, how can you feel safe putting it together yourself, without having a professional look over it. christ, i'm scared that anyone could be willing to use a bike that cheap and not have concerns about it.

a massive false economy, and the sad thing is that these bikes give a poor impression of what cycling is like, and is more likely to put people off in the long run. 2nd hand ftw

aren't pretty much every bike you buy off the internets "flat pack". i guess the difference is someone dropping more than £1000 on a bike knows how to put it together. or should do.

The bigger issue is where / who these bikes parts are made by. Most likely Indian or Chinese children I assume at that price.

Another reason to licence, MOT and insure cyclists - How do you work that out?
Penalizing the majority of cyclists because of the actions of a few large companies and some mechanically clueless customers..

Anybody attempting to put together a bike with scant knowledge to their workings and without the requisite tools brings this upon themselves.
That said, bikes should not be supplied with faulty parts or buckled wheels.

Yea, I was wondering that... You got some explanin' to do fella...

londonfgss = daily mail of the cycling world?

"Another reason to licence, MOT and insure cyclists " who have bought a 'flat pack' bike 'cos its only a bike' - Toys R Us ffs ! .

My employer has banned me from saying anything about this...

:O

sounds like you need a new job then

Create a thread in the 'Private' section of the forum?

The BBC are very late to the party in pointing out the failings of BSOs, but there is a seemingly unbridgeable divide between what the great unwashed think a bike should cost and the actual cost of something a reputable bike shop will stand behind. I gather the war is all but won by the time people actually get to proper bike shops looking to spend £300+, with average new bike sales closing nearer the £500 mark when people have even the questionable expertise of a typical LBS salesman to point out the benefits of going a little up market. The tragedy of the BSO is the uneducated punters' expectation of multiple gears and even suspension and disc brakes at the £70 - £150 end of the market. Given how much crap you can hang on one of these things for £150, it seems like it should be possible to make a well constructed and reliable single speed shopping bike for the same price if you could only get the idiots who buy the current product to be that sensible.

I read the article, it's simply debunking the myth of cheap bike, or am I missing something?

There are far too many cyclists on the road without any idea on how to cycle safely, RLJ, riding on pavements, no lights etc. All road users should have to have a licence. We are all road users and, as the most vulnerable, we are the only group not required to have any prior knowledge of the law and safety.

These unsafe bikes are making an already increasing majority less able to ride. Asda has sold 50,000 of these kind of bikes. I realise people buy to their budget (except here), but, as per the article, 5 out of 5 people were unable to assemble the bikes properly and needed someone trained to finish the job. All goods bought should be fit for purpose. This is why I think all bikes should have to have a MOT type servicing. It's for everyone's benefit.

Can't be arsed watching/reading it. Aren't there minimum British safety standards for these bikes? After that, if your brakes don't work and you choose to do nothing then you are just gunning for a Darwin award, same as anyone else doing something dumb.

Fixed. Pedestrians and equestrians are road users too. Your point, idiotically made, is also idiotically formed. It is, despite your foolish contention, right that the greatest amount of regulation is applied to the road users with the greatest capacity to harm innocent bystanders. That's why lorry drivers have tachos and regular medical checks, but car drivers don't.

I already posted this aggges ago. Tsk. http://www.londonfgss.com/thread32505.html

I think that you rather missed the point of the BBC item. The bikes are so useless that they fall apart quickly and are inoperable on the roads. Darwinism comes to bikes.

Which I had already posted about here:
http://www.londonfgss.com/post1037023-370.html

Tsk.

crimsonape is Harriet Harman and I claim my £5

I couldn't be bothered to read it because it was written in the style of a Watchdog report

I hate Watchdog

shut it, anne is back its great

My sincerest apologies for making the idiotic point that greater safety for all was a good thing. I concede that I forgot to add pedestrians into the road equation. I consider them an infrequent and brief visitor with their own code taught to them by a responsible adult at an early age. Unless you mean when people cycle on the pavement illegally? They should definitely be taught how to avoid an almost silent speeding menace approaching. I neglected horses as, apart from the odd police horse, I haven't come into contact with them on the roads in London. Again, I am sorry.

A cyclist with no knowledge of road rules on a badly assembled and or maintained bike is as real a danger to the innocent bystander as any other form of transport (pedestrians excluded).

I had thought a cycling forum would have been in favour of better safety awareness, training and equipment for all? I now see the flaw in my draconian logic. I bow down to your superior opinion on structuring my thoughts into a coherent sentence and hang my head in shame. I will ask a teacher to check my work before posting next time.

Did my avatar give it away?

Sorry. I try to read everything here, but missed your post.

Darwinism is fine if said winner is in a field and unable to harm others. It's not quite so funny for the driver who kills someone because the bike brakes which were working when they left home fail. I imagine a fair number of these bikes are used in public places and the potential for harm is quite real.

Again, I am sorry. I will try harder to curb my youthful exuberance and check before posting.

Your under use of comma's is also deplorable.

Shit. I will flog my self at once.

@harriet

i think you might be in the wrong place...

Note: When commenting on others' use of punctuation, it is best to avoid the greengrocers' apostrophe.

Improved safety does not mean more regulation. Grater availability of cheap training would be a wonderful thing but the idea of compulsory licensing and registration is disproportionate to the risks. B

greengrocer's. i'll leave you to work out why.

I thought more than one greengrocer was guilty of this particular punctuation faux pas

At my age, one is often confused as to the precise location one finds oneself at.

Hopefully this sentence contains no mistakes. I have checked with Judy, and all seems well.

First sentence ends with preposition, second contains deprecated use of "hopefully".

See
http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=g...ed=0CCsQrQQwAw

My education was clearly a waste of money.

So this article is saying that a £70 bicycle from a fucking supermarket is a bit shit.

Fuck me sideways

The fucking 'BBC Watchdog'.... Thank fuck for them!

have you actually ridden in London? The fuckers are everywhere...

It's a wonder I've only hit four this year!

Every weekday. They are not supposed to be on the road , just crossing it was the point I was making. They have special crossings which they ignore. Fortunately, I haven't hit a person in 16 years of cycling in London. A few car doors in Stratford and 2 buses near Mile End, but not real people. Hi-fived a wanker in Canary Wharf who stepped in front of me to hail a cab a couple of weeks ago, but that doesn't count. Can you recommend any good pedestrian mowing spots? I must really try harder.

speak to multigroves

Tooting and the city.

Tooting heading south from tooting bec, I recommend getting up as much speed as possible coming down the hill and then close your eyes when you get to primark... You're bound to hit someone.

Didn't read the article, get the idea though. You're a dumb feck if you buy them and then don't put it together properly. Meh.
BUT on the point of insuring, MOT etc. for bikes there's no need for that but a I personally wouldn't mind paying say £30 – £50 a year Registration fee*. It would at once get rid of any abuse about not paying to be on the roads ra rararara...

* This is with an overly idealistic view that all monies raised would go into improving the roads for cyclist, improving cycle parking and creating an all round better environment for urban cycling.

Anyway, some flames might be useful today, it's kinda chilly.

it is a watchdog report.

Lowpug- I see where you are coming from, not sure that I agree entirely.

I already pay for the upkeep of the roads and so forth in my income tax and council tax, etc etc.

The suggestion you are making is that I pay some additional tax, however using VED as a guideline it would not be spent on making the roads better for cyclists.

Also taxing five bikes each year at £40 (averaging your figs) would be an annoying £200, £15 more that it costs to tax the car.

I would expect (going on how efficient the gov is normally) for this to turn into a nightmare- coppers stopping people checking their licence, fines handed out willy nilly, and the system growing to be a ziggurat of bureaucratic incompetance that ends up pissing away hundreds of thousands of pounds per year.

@Dammit - Good points and I agree totally but it was written in my typically idealistic (unrealistic?) view.

Good point about multiple bikes too, that would be a killer.

I just have to remember my days as a driver and grumbling at the fuel tax that was meant for better roads. That turned out well!

Spot on...

Making people fit little registration plates to their bikes, paying for a bike MOT and taking tests is ridiculous.

If people buy a bike, put it together incorrectly and aren't worried about the possibility of the brakes not working, then they'll get hurt. They won't cause a mass pile-up and kill hundreds of people.

It's the freedom of cycling that makes people's spirits soar when they jump on a bike. The reason so many people on this forum reacted negatively to the legislation idea is because it would destroy that freedom.

(Apologies in advance for any grammatical errors.)

my thoughts exactly. I love beign able to get a load of bits from somewhere and build yourself a bike and ride, without having to worry about legality of it. would be ludicrous to try any other way