Search results for:

Not the coolest bike I'll ever own, but you can't deny they're practical.

I think it will ultimately mean I cycle more, which has got to outweigh the fact that I'm going to look like all those other ridiculous suits around London, at least I'll have got mine cheap!!

#clutchingatstraws #whoamitryingtokid!
They are super practical and even fun to ride. I wouldn't do 100km on one unless I had to, but they're great for the city!

1. Basha
   
2. Valurot
   
3. gizmond
   
4. BRM
   
5. Tommy Mac
   
6. Howard
   
7. Stonehedge x 2
   

i thought this was a warning of a fleet of nodderengers on folders, should have paid attention to the section of the forum the thread was in
Ha, you provide the fleet of nodderengers, I'll provide the fleet of folders.

Good idea...I'll add the pm dibsers -- sorry for outing you as closet folder-riders, guys.

1. Basha
   
2. Valurot
   
3. gizmond
   
4. BRM
   
5. Tommy Mac
   
6. Howard
   

OK, they are 2010 models, not 2009 models! So they are in fact even more of a bargain.

Trying to find a friendly shipper and get some photos up.

Like this:

but blue.

They are 2010 Dahon Vitesse 7s.

There are more than fifty of them. They were the tour bikes for a hugely popular tour run by a couple of friends here in Paris. They have euro cabling, i.e. front brake on the left.

The bikes, I am told, are in great condition. They have kickstands, mudguards and bells. They were always stored unfolded, so they don't have a huge amount of scratches all over them.

They have puncture proof tyres with reflective sidewalls. They could probably do with a clean and a tweaking of the gears -- so flat on the tour route that the gears basically don't get used. Some may require brake blocks.

If people are after one it's 200€ + shipping from Paris. There might be some flexibility on price. I'm waiting on pics of the actual bikes, and when I get some, I'll ask about prices.

If you wanted more than one, I imagine there would be some discount. If you want the lot, PM me and I'm sure we can come to some arrangement!

If the boys make sales through here then there will be some forum donation action.

EDIT:

They are 2010 models (I haven't updated the photo, it looks the same!)

They also have half a dozen Jack d7s for sale -- that's dahon's 26in folder. **RE EDIT -- JACKS ARE 125€ + shipping. **Gears will need setting up, possibly a cable too.

In black, big fat slick tyres. I guess 2010 models, to be confirmed. Might need tubes or brake blocks.

[ame="http://www.viddler.com/explore/failblog/videos/1142/"]"Bike Cop FAIL" - Videos - Viddler@@AMEPARAM@@http://www.viddler.com/player/d8342c55@@AMEPARAM@@d8342c55[/ame] bindun?

fuuuuuuck me that's fast ^^

just tested at work 36.82 down and 21.5 up ping = 0ms.

Surely this last one is wrong.

I had to forego the little black protectors on the ends of the stays on my sks mudguards. Couldn't get them to fit for love nor money. fit and forget, best 35 notes I ever spent on my bike, and now hate riding with non-mud-guard people when it's wet.

omg that upload/download difference is catastrophic!

I had fibre optic until recently, had 20megs downlaod and 18meg upload...ahhh and I used to play quake over a dialup line...

it's only karma though, when I was in SW20 talktalk were utter shite. No internet, crossed line on the phone and no tv at all. I got other people's phone calls and they took six visits to sort it out...

I had to get all "lawyer" on them and say that their total failure to provide a functional service was a breach of contract...wrote to the CEO, cancelled the DD, stopped paying, moved out, never looked back.

Rip :(

Yikes, bit harsh then, that's only a shade over the limit.

82 in breath or blood? If the latter,most police forces wouldn't prosecute. If the former, you were well over double the limit, which strikes me as difficult for a morning after type thing.

Would reducing the drink drive limit to zero be the best use of time and resources in terms of accident prevention? How would it stop those who knowingly drink and drive now?
Time and resources? Piece of piss to tack on an amendment to whatever's trundling through right now. Political will is what's missing.

It wouldn't stop those who deliberately think "i'm over the limit, but balls to that" but it WOULD stop those who wouldn't deliberately drive and just drink a bit to try and stay under. At a wildly unstatistical guess the latter category vastly outnumber the former.

You're welcome, you have options of choosing different colour led flashing (if you have that on your phone) the format of the messages, background so on...
Also gives you an option to block numbers apparently.

I've been using it for a few months now. Glad you like it too.
i'm blacklisting advert numbers all over the place. I'm also loving that my desire recommended links between my facebook contacts and phone contacts so people's profile pics are in my phone book along with recent updates, same for texts and things. Win.

Plus will we move ban anything that has a similar level of effect such as tiredness, headaches, conversations, deep thinking about that last kiss...
driving without due care and attention, I think it's called ;)

tricky enforcement = no point in a specific ban. Easy to read level on handy road-side machine = lots of point in a specific ban.

Wayward drunken cyclist wobbling all over road, gets hit by car/falls off bike.
is that a downside for society resulting from a ban on drink cycling? I don't geddit.

What I am saying is that you would be battling perception - it is widely accepted that the current limit is fair, I think people would view a total ban as unfair.

All of that aside it will have zero effect on the people who currently flout the limit.
alright dammit, based on the stats posted by Blue Quinn (and assuming that they reflect reality and are reliable etc), can you think of any arguments to justify not lowering the limit in light of the risk that it poses to road users?

Just so we know the facts:
from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/460/m37.htm

Drivers with a BAC of between 0.02 and 0.05 have at least a three times greater risk of dying in a vehicle crash than drivers with no alcohol in their blood. This risk increases to at least six times with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08, and to 11 times with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10.
the limit is currently 0.08. Food for thought.

Or cyclists.
The risk of killing or maiming someone on a bike is pretty low. But OK, what's the downside to society of banning drink-cycling?

The arguments in favour are eliminating the rare pedestrian deaths due to drink-cycling, and saving the cost of scraping people up (same argument for motorbike helmets).

I'm saying that, if any amount of alcohol affects ability to drive, then surely alcohol consumption in drivers should not be allowed.
yup. that's exactly it.

That's pretty much the case for pilots. If you add up road deaths due to alcohol, there'll be a shite sight more than alcohol-caused plane deaths. So the one that causes less harm is treated more strictly than the one that causes the most in absolute terms...

Good question - and the one I am noe asking you, in a way.

Let me put it like this, as this is how I suspect the majority would view it:

Why is it fair to stop people having an amount to drink that does not (legally, currently) effect their ability to drive?

I.e if it has no effect, why are you banning it?
Well to infringe on people's liberties to impair their bodily functions and risk lives I agree that I need some evidence. That is solidly medical territory, and I can only offer a quick google-survey...there are studies demonstrating impairment at levels below the current limit and studies demonstrating no impairment.

Assume that it is impossible for alcohol to impair driving performance at concentrations lower than the legal limit (which I don't think is the case).

The only argument in favour of allowing people to drink is that it allows people to drink, which raises revenue and avoids infringing on personal liberties.

There is still an argument in favour of banning it to be made -- the people who can't count, miscount, are lighter than they think. They have a glass or three, and without deliberately flouting the law, they drive with an illegal level of alcohol in their blood.

If a total ban was made, all of those cases would be eliminated if people had a basic respect for the law (which most do, I think). The idea is that people would no longer be able to try to drink up to the limit.

Now, if you assume that there is a non-zero effect on driving skill below the current limit, the argument gets stronger.

The issue would be then that people tend to rebel against laws that seem unfair, and disobey them.

It is important for the credibility of the drink drive law that it is seen to be reasonable - which broadly speaking it is at the moment.

Zero tolerance would possibly just create angry criminals out of previously reasonable people- the person who had two pints of weak lager shandy over a six hour evening out say.
And here we go again...why is it unfair to ask people to choose between consumption of alcohol, which affects your motor skills and reaction times, even at lower concentrations than the current limits, and the operation of heavy machinery on the public roads?

Indeed, the deaths caused by people having between 20 and 80 microgrammes of alcohol in 100ml of blood (the ones who would be covered by a rule change) might be minimal, but the current culture is that X is OK but Y is not, where X and Y vary wildly between people.

So you have idiots necking five pints, and then thinking that because they've had a meal to 'soak it up', they can drive home. The zero limit reinforces the fact that there should be a choice between consuming alcohol and driving.

I think a lot of people don't understand the 'society-wide deification of alcohol' (least of all me) and this make me worry about moves to ban things, as the countryside drinker earlier pointed out - centuries old traditions often have far reaching influences.

I too was being facetious - but i can't help but think that in human history cars will be a blip that, when suitibly inebriated, will be easily bypassed in the future.

We need a proper study! Or a referendum. Held at 11.15 on a friday night...
in the interests of a scientific trial i will volunteer to drink. I think I had better be the control group, on single malt. I do look forward to the day when all cars have alco-locks and autopilot. Science will save us once again ;)