Search results for:

The splines of that pulley don't look as square as a standard toothed cog (or the ones I use anyway) which may not have helped and maybe less suited to using fixed?

how do you strip a Fix-G hub? Is the belt drive sprocket particularly thin?

(I have been using a Fix G for a year, brakeless, with a 7mm base cog and it still looks like new)

that's fine but let's see those stats for running deaths so we can make a stat based decision.

especially those on the autistic spectrum.

Everyone is on the autistic spectrum, some of us just higher than others...

Is it easier to spot people in hi vis, care to produce some clear evidence for that?

Using my own eyes as a test (driving around New Forest, tree laden roads with lots of shadow even in the day) yes high vis is much easier for me to see than a rider wearing all black.
Yes I can see the rider dressed in black but not until I am nearer and it helps if I can see the rider well in advance so if it helps me it will help less observant drivers too. I also notice different behaviour from drivers - but that is too much anecdotal.

And to keep on helmet topic, I don't wear a helmet.

or just drive slower and be constantly on the lookout for other road users. it's annoying but what are the alternatives?

That's assuming other drivers give a shit or even bother trying to see you/looking out for you. I personally make it as easy for them to see me as possible and don't go for the current trend in black jerseys.
Yes, I shouldn't need to take that stance but reducing the chance of not being seen is my choice.

you think they don't have kerbs on the track

I am 5 10 and 32 inside leg and a 54 fits me very well. All depends on arm/torso length but 56 could be a stretch on the top tube.

Well I thought about that but after a lot of sums I realized that a new bike would cost me more than a set of new handlebars. When you think about it for a while, it's not really that surprising that a bicycle component costs a bit less than a whole new bike. Obviously you are a government economist.

I am a government economist and this is what you should do;

• Sell bike that is too small for you at a profit, hopefully screwing someone poor at the same time.
  
• Buy a properly fitting bike for less that the sale price of the bike that was too small making yet more money (and hopefully screwing a second poor person by taking advantage of their need to sell)
  

started lookin for the magic number

Does this help -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magicnumber(programming)

You seem to be going to extremes of gearing 50x16 to 44x22 and shouldn't nee to go that wild. Start off with around 70" and go up or down from there in 1 tooth increments after a couple of rides on the new gearing maybe.

Cars, vans, bikes, all have to have two independent braking mechanisms in case the first one fails.

You sure. I hope you are not referring to the handbrake as the second braking mechanism?

Surely it is your responsibility to drive safely even if you need to be doing half the speed limit to do so?

Of course there is a big difference between the following two statements, both of which are 100% true.

**"The speed limit is 40mph but driving over 20mph is illegal as it is dangerous to do so".
**
and

"So long as you are not drunk and don't exceed 45mph you'll be fine if you take out a ped or cyclist as accidents happen"

Apart from the fact that is not 100% true, in fact it is 0% true.

You leave safety up to the responsibility of drivers by all means, I would rather take some of that responsibility away and put correct limits in place to guide them. What is the point and where is the sense in having a 40mph limit if it is never safe, in any conditions, to drive more than 20?

Passed my test at 18 and was a maniac before passing (when driving around with my mate in the passenger side) and was a maniac straight after for many years.
I would say I should not have been driving at 18.

The only factor about my driving that was better than average was around cyclists as I have ridden on the roads since about 5 years old. Even at 18 and as a self confessed maniac I treated cyclists better than 99% of drivers treat me on the road.

This is where I agree with Jeez' point around driving being seen as a right. If you are so careless that firstly you hit a cyclist and secondly don't even notice when you do, should you ever drive again. I would say no you shouldn't.
The likelihood is that the majority of drivers are probably just as careless but it only becomes a problem when they hit something.

We need a massive change in this country. IMHO driving is a privilege, not a right, or if it is a right it comes with massive responsibilities. Mandatory satellite tracking and cameras / black box recorders with massive punishments for drivers who hit cyclists unless proven without dout that the cyclist was at fault.

Don't disagree but you are missing the perspective of the countries problems, by a lot.

If this perception needs to be changed, how does one go about it? Or do non-helmet wearing cyclists just ignore it and continue as normal? Or will this helmet debate rageon for aanother 107 pages with no answers and no solutions?

If that is the perception, and that is a big if, then not sure it can be changed as minds have been made up.
And I don't think there really are answers or solutions which is why the debate goes on with no ending. Bringing a law in for compulsory helmet wearing is not a solution but it may happen anyway. A law I will happily break but it may be difficult not to be clearly breaking that particular law while laws such as phone use while driving continually get ignored and the offenders never caught. The law is an ass and so on.

Whose to know without the same happening with a picture of someone without a helmet.
The Daily Mail site is not the best place for clear open minded thinking so even the same story could get a different response if those immigrants has been winding up the readers.

I am sorry but common sense is a damn good starting point IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO OVER-RULE COMMON SENSE. FFS is it really unreasonable of me to say that common sense says a bike helmet is better than a paper bag in a crash therefore I will choose the helmet until such time as the evidence tells me my common sense is wrong?

So your common sense tells you you should wear a helmet, my common sense say I shouldn't. Whose common sense is right and why?

Ok so why not wear a down hill helmet or motorcycle helmet as they are tested to higher levels?

Good question. If your assessment is that cycling is very risky and you feel you are very likely to hit your head then a motorcycle helmet would be best (in lieu of the fact it is hot and uncomfortable as the risk is high enough to warrant it)
Or a downhill helmet if needing better facial protection, reduce knock out from chin etc,.

It is all about where you draw the line. My risk assessment leads me to not wear one but why do those whose assessment leads them to wear a helmet always stop at a standard bike helmet?

(well apart from the guy that rides around my way with a motorbike helmet on but we don't like to ask about that)

Can you help me out with a better one to help me learn, or are you all about non-constructive criticism?

I am mostly about non-constructive criticism. And no I won't be looking for an analogy as it doesn't need one as everyone understands what you are saying, they just don't agree with it.

I think it would be a good idea to stop trying to find an analogy as you suck at it.

ie some car drivers may see a helmetted rider in hi viz as a safe experienced riders and occaisionally give them less road space or drive less cautiously around them, increasing the risk of a collision and therefore injury.

I think it is the opposite. Drivers take more care around hi-viz riders (possibly sub consciously thinking they could hardly pull the "sorry didn't see you" card) but also because they see a hi-viz rider as less competent that a roadie.

to boot>>>>>>>>>>

If you wore a full helmet in a pub you would clearly make yourself a target thus massively increasing you chances of being attacked.

Evidence? I have academically verified evidence for every single thing I write on the internet. You don't. That is the difference between us.

.

Cycling on the roads in the New Forest is probably more hazardous than cycling in London. There have been three fatalities in four years, all helmeted, all on roads with the 40mph general speed limit.

It is a different sort of hazard. Rather than heavy traffic and people not paying attention it seems to be people with absolutely no patience who cannot wait 10 seconds until a clear road can be seen.
The roads are narrow and twisty and many have 40mph limits which is a pretty bad mix when adding impatient drivers to it.

Not sure what is worse - drivers not concentrating or drivers not caring...