Search results for:

TfL are really pleased with the 'armadillos' on Royal College Street. Their view is that this light segregation means riders can easily move out of the bike bit onto the road. It is also easily tweaked and can be widened etc since it is not made of stone.

I think it's more than just the ability to "tweak". Rapid prototyping, which can be reversed or abandoned is increasingly seen as a really valuable tool in designing just about anything. It's really difficult to predict how people will respond to a design (especially in a highly interconnected system like London streets). So being able to just do it cheaply and quickly with a bit of paint and/or some moveable planters is a hugely valuable thing.

Forgive my cynicism, but unless Boris/TfL are actually planning to physically do something to those roads, how are they going to be any different to how they are now? I mean, does telling people "Back streets exist!" actually count as an achievement?

Speed limits are pretty meaningless without enforcement, and I've lost count of the number of times I've encountered HGVs on roads which are way too small for them (Drury Lane jct with Shaftesbury Ave for e.g.) The Mayor should be restricting more of the 'quietways' to through traffic (as per Hackney), installing good quality protected lanes on A-roads, and generally kicking councils like Westminster and K&C into shape.

That was really my impression as well. New cycling contraflows are a good idea, but it would really help these if the parked cars were moved over to create a proper, protected contraflow lane.

Remind me why I bother commuting by bike at this time of year?

Because you get to have a cathartic chat to the other people stopped at the light about how crap the weather is, and because for just a few hundred yards on my main drag home the wind suddenly switched and left me spinning along at 20mph in zero relative wind. It was all very zen.

Having said that, this morning was much much nicer (although my legs are looking forward to a christmas break).

Cheeky link to my take on idiots in power wittering on about helmets.

Yeah! I bet those guys kicked themselves when that 50" rolled on out!

Or, they got some socks when they expected to get nothing at all.

Christmas, 'tis the season to be slightly disappointed that the totally unexpected gift isn't as nice as they next guy's.

Police walked past me last night while I was having a pint and a fag outside the pub. One of them said "All right?" I said "Not bad."
Fuck you fucking pigs.

A real hero! Stick it to the man!

The Young Ones: The Peoples Poet - YouTube

The final level would in a sense be the legal remedies available after an incident.?

Nice! I like that.

Edit: althooouuuuugh... strict liability might be an administrative control?

Cheers Landslide, that's useful information. The idea was sparked by recollection of an extremely basic, fairly generic office/lab health and safety talk. The link I used was just the first one on google for "risk control hierarchy" and seemed to tie in with what I remembered. I think the generic advice gives the same order of priority as the construction-specific one except that it doesn't include "elimination" and adds a level at the end, so

• Substitution: try a less risky option (eg switch to using a less hazardous chemical);
  
• Engineering controls:prevent access to the hazard (eg by guarding);
  
• Administration controls: organise work to reduce exposure to the hazard (eg put barriers between pedestrians and traffic);
  
• PPE: issue personal protective equipment (eg clothing, footwear, goggles etc); and
  
• Additional (after-the-fact?): provide welfare facilities (eg first aid and washing facilities for removal of contamination).
  
  

I don't know what the final level would be for cycling. Hospital?

I think that post could be expanded into a very effective 'open letter' to the cycling safety MP's via a newspaper / opinion page, to highlight just how much the government ignore it's own guidelines on how to plan safely.

Thanks. Like I said, I'm surprised that this isn't used more often as a way of making the point that Vanneau laid out very neatly above. If you have any suggestions of where it should be sent or anyone who has more coverage and might be interested in picking this idea up and running with it, let me know.

Here are just three of the reasons why government is unlikely to do much for us:
**

1. Cycling goes against the spirit of the age**. It inevitably involves hard physical work and at least some immediate risk. ('immediate' that is: as opposed to the longer term risk of premature death through under exercising).
   
   

But cycling is green, local, sustainable, low-cost and very much emphasises the individual and their wellbeing, which seem fairly contemporary themes.

1. **Cycling tends towards economic contraction rather than economic growth. **Just consider the cost of a bike against the cost of a car, or a cycle path (even a really good one) against a motorway.
   Not entirely true, cycling increases revenue for local businesses.

2. **Motoring organisations have far more lobbying power than cyclists. **By 'motoring organisations' I mean to include: motor manufacturers, road haulage contractors, roadbuilders and all those with a financial interest.
   True, but that's because motoring is the norm and cycling is seen as a fringe activity even by those who do it occasionally. If the perception shifts so that everyone sees themselves as someone who just picks the most appropriate form of transport for each trip, that might change.

Sadly, some would interpret [Elimination] as 'ban cycling on roads.'

That did occur to me (and made me a bit sad), but it does say "Redesign the job or substitute a substance so that the hazard is removed or eliminated." Cyclists are not the hazard.

In recent discussions of how to improve road safety and increase cycling I’ve heard plenty of stupid suggestions from people in positions of power who really should know better. The Commons Transport Committee springs to mind (props to Chris Boardman for his excellent response). So I’m surprised that I haven’t seen the risk control hierarchy run out as an argument for investing in decent infrastructure, focussing on the source of risk and generally avoiding babbling on about helmets and hi-vis.

In short, it is the official HSE advice for dealing with hazards. Risk control should be attempted as follows (I’ve adapted it for cycling):

• Elimination: Redesign the job or substitute a substance so that the hazard is removed or eliminated. For example, reduce the number of motor vehicles on the road
  
• Substitution: Replace the material or process with a less hazardous one. For example, use vans instead of HGVs in cities
  
• Engineering controls: Use work equipment or other measures to prevent accidents where you cannot avoid having the hazard in the environment. For example, segregated cycle paths.
  
• Administrative controls: These are all about identifying and implementing the procedures you need to travel safely. For example, extra training for drivers and cyclists, enforcing bans on mobile phones while driving
  

• Personal protective clothes and equipment. For example, helmets and hi-vis.

  What’s most interesting is not these measures themselves, but the associated official advice on how they should be applied. For example,

Risks should be reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable level by taking preventative measures, in order of priority. The table below above sets out an ideal order to follow when planning to reduce risk from construction activities cycling. Consider the headings in the order shown, do not simply jump to the easiest control measure to implement.

...and from item #5...

Only after all the previous measures have been tried and found ineffective in controlling risks to a reasonably practicable level, must personal protective equipment (PPE) be used.
...and finally (rejigged for cycling)...

It is not necessary to implement every measure. For example, in the case of a fully boarded and guarded scaffold properly segregated bike lane, workers cyclists would not be expected to wear personal fall-arrest equipment helmets or hi-vis.

This is really unambiguous and has developed as the recognised best-practice for dealing with hazardous environments, and yet the vast majority of the talk, especially from politicians, skips clean over #1-3 and settles on #4 (training etc.) and #5 (helmets). I think it’s a straightforward indication of just how crap many authorities’ approach is to making cycling safer and more inviting that they are very clearly ignoring their own best-practice advice.

(obviously merge if this has been done, apologies for possibly the most boring thread title ever)

tl;dr: people in government ignoring government advice when it comes to cycling.

You're asking someone to part with a whole fiver here. I think you should be accurate with your facts.

You know the funny thing. If I'd just described it as a multitool with various allen keys and never mentioned the torx key, we wouldn't even be discussing this :)

…or a Campag groupset.

pffft! Keep your euro-trash!

You're assuming a lot there. Mainly that the motorist will clearly see and understand the numbers, then act in a reasonable manner.

I did say "if", so I'm really not assuming that it will make people act in a reasonable manner. The jacket does have "My speed" written above the numbers, which should make it clear what the numbers are.

What is a torx thingy? Sorry for stupid question.

It's a combined time machine and teleporter, Knog went all out on this one. But because I lost that bit down the back of the sofa I'm selling this on for just a fiver, rather than the original £256,538,595,122.78 rrp.

Edit to add serious response: torx is a star-shaped driver, a bit like an allen key. On bikes T25 (Torx size 25) is sometimes used to attach disc-brake rotors. So it's totally redundant if you don't have disc brakes. You can see the adaptor in place here on the left hand allen key.

Not a bad idea in some ways, if it makes motorists think twice about the need to overtake immediately.

Bindun, more video here
[URL="http://mykle.com/msl/?p=10"][/URL]

**SOLD **Bought this off flashandgrab recently, but it turns out to be surplus to requirements. Good condition, but missing the torx adaptor so it has...

• Screwdrivers Philips-head & Flat-head
  
• Hex Keys 2mm, 2.5mm, 3mm, 4mm, 5mm, 6mm, 8mm
  
• [strike]Torx Driver T25[/strike]
  
• Open Wrench 15mm
  
• Bottle Opener
  
• Anodised finish.
  
  

SOLD [strike]£5 collected, £6.50 posted (preference given to someone who can collect in London)[/strike]

/attachments/77915
/attachments/77916

Sub£10 present for a 9yo girly girl with a short attention span?

From memory likes singing and dancing.

Any ideas would be appreciated. No nail varnish.

Fabric pens (make sure you include pink) and a cheap white T-shirt/cotton shoulder bag.

Is the aim here to make your frame look like it's been built by a plumber?

^leaning?

Or he's hit a reinforcement bar inside the concrete.

I've blunted/killed a masonry drill biton one of those- really fast.

I thought it was a steel lintel he was drilling into.

Yeah... this didn't work. for some reason although was able to go in far enough at one end of the lintel, I'm still being stopped dead at about 20mm in the middle of it. Melted and bent the best quality titanium coated bit I could find. F*cking annoying.

Have dug out a plank of planed pine, bought a tube of No Nails and some wood screws. *prepares to bodge.

You shouldn't drill steel fast, you want the drill bit rotating slower with more pressure (obviously don't snap your drill though). Going fast just overheats and then melts drill bits (as you found out). It should be more like a chisel, gouging our material rather than grinding it off. Buy a new drill bit and try again.

S: Shimano top bar brake lever set £4

Are those standard flat-bar levers for V brakes? Dibs if so.

Also dibs:

Y – rear hub shims to adjust chainline x 2 new £1
solid rear axle F/C;

1. – Binoculars 8x22F, 126-1000m £2
   
   

Undibs these. Apologies for jumping the gun.