ThuRANTSday

[John K]

4 hours ago, Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Secretary said:

 And what was that little boy with the preachy cat

Pretty sure the cat was Charlie 

Remember the adverts well. As well as not playing the frisbee near substations. 

Back to the thread, if cyclists and drivers were taught about each other it would be a start.

Unfortunately you cannot educate for the nadgers on both sides. Then you have to legislate and we go back as to how to identify the cyclists...

What is the max range on RFID or NFC, could the riders helmet be chipped in some way and captured at trafffic lights or something. We need to be able to identify  the eedyeets on both sides.

[DonPeffers]

Charlie Alliston has been found guilty of wanton and furious driving and will be sentenced on 18 Sep with the judge warning a custodial sentence is inevitable.

Interesting Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge suggests a motorist would not have faced the same charge and alleges that double standards are at play.

Surely a motorist with a knowingly defective or missing braking system would be charged with dangerous driving.

Maybe the standards of cycling in London amongst couriers etc have reached such a level that an example is being made. Also to stop others using the same type of illegal (for the road) bicycle.

Alliston's allegation that Mrs Briggs, who sadly died, was looking at her mobile phone when she crossed the road without looking don't seem to have been checked by his defence Counsel as no reports of her telephone records being checked. Also a pedestrian crossing was only 10 meters away.

The widower Matthew Briggs is calling for the Road Traffic Act to be updated to include causing death by dangerous or careless cycling.

Honolulu will in Oct 2017 introduce   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/15/honolulu-plans-fines-looking-mobile-phone-crossing-road/

Sadly a lady unnecessarily lost her life.

Should jaywalking be made illegal in the UK given that most of the population cannot take their eyes off their phones?

[Blatman]

19 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

was looking at her mobile phone when she crossed the road without looking don't seem to have been checked by his defence Counsel as no reports of her telephone records being checked. Also a pedestrian crossing was only 10 meters away.

Any death on the roads is a tradegy but I fear we have lost sight of contributory factors in these days of PC-ness where it is always assumed the motorist is at fault when a cyclist or ped gets in the way.

For me if there was a crossing 10 meters away then it should have been used and I would certainly ask the defence team to raise this during the proceedings and cite contributory negligence. Same goes for mobile phone navel gazers. Plenty of those in London. The sport is getting as close as possible and sounding the horn. One woman threw her phone ten feet in the air, dropped her handbag then asked us to wait whilst she recovered the internals of her phone from the carriageway. Cruel? Maybe, but if the worst that happened was she lost her blower then that's fine by me. Hopefully she will remember next time...  

[Olliebeak]

The majority of cyclists are arrogant ******s , I hope he gets five years , you cannot ride in a busy city in that manner. I was out yesterday in the Westie and had to cross a single carriageway bridge controlled by lights at each end. The approach to the bridge is via a 90 degree bend so you cannot see whats coming from the opposite direction. I was in a small queue of three cars, the lights turned to green and we set of to cross the bridge only to find three lycra louts coming in the opposite direction over the bridge against the lights, you could not see them until you we on the bridge and it is very narrow. here was lots of horn blowing , gesticulating etc but the cyclists just carried out in their merry way oblivious to the danger.

They are a menace and should be taxed,tested for competance and common sense, and licenced.

Rant over but this sort of cyclist behaviour is becoming a regular occurence,  horses have more road sense.

   

[jeff oakley]

This case is sad for the woman and has brought out the worst in some people on both sides. The thing with this one is that the cyclist has shown no remorse at all throughout the whole proceedings, telling expert witnesses that he was fine on the bike and could stop easily, they disagreed.

He also appeared to have time to shout warnings but made no attempt to stop before hitting her. He claimed she was on the phone, but his own barrister said that was no true as the first time he saw the phone was on the floor as she laid unconscious whilst he was shouting obscenities at her. On everything I have heard and read, he deserves a stiff sentence, he will not get one. 

I am not a fan of banning things but perhaps Fixed wheel bikes on the road are one of them?

[Thrustyjust]

3 hours ago, Olliebeak said:

The majority of cyclists are arrogant ******s , I hope he gets five years , you cannot ride in a busy city in that manner. I was out yesterday in the Westie and had to cross a single carriageway bridge controlled by lights at each end. The approach to the bridge is via a 90 degree bend so you cannot see whats coming from the opposite direction. I was in a small queue of three cars, the lights turned to green and we set of to cross the bridge only to find three lycra louts coming in the opposite direction over the bridge against the lights, you could not see them until you we on the bridge and it is very narrow. here was lots of horn blowing , gesticulating etc but the cyclists just carried out in their merry way oblivious to the danger.

They are a menace and should be taxed,tested for competance and common sense, and licenced.

Rant over but this sort of cyclist behaviour is becoming a regular occurence,  horses have more road sense.

   

I cant argue with the fact that the cyclists crossing the bridge were wrong, but so are people who drive through red lights, park in disabled bays at shopping places, do donuts while I try to sleep at night, drive the wrong way up motorways, brake test you, pull out across you at a junction.............. I could list far more things car drivers do than cyclists. To be honest , tar and brush comes to mind with certain types on bikes and you have wiped a brush across me with the statement Ollie, which I find a little offensive. I pay over a grand in VED  for the vehicles I use , yet I cycle to work , to save a car length for others, less enviromental damage, healthier option ( see new builds now getting free bikes) and I dont get wound up by monkeys in cars.

With regards to the prat who killed the lady, I hope he goes down. I see no need for him on the streets on a bike that he shouldnt be riding. Sadly the courts are quite soft on this kind of offence and will probably give him a suspended sentence sadly. 

[Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman]

Well done on the restrained response Justin.

Another emotive topic being discussed here, please, let's not descend to the mentality of the playground.

No matter how strongly you feel, outright abuse will not be tolerated under the rules we all agreed to when we signed up, whether or not it's targeted at an individual or a group.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

There's nothing wrong with fixed wheel bikes provided that they are fitted with the legal minimum of a front brake. I rode a fixed wheel track iron (as it was then known) fitted with Mafac centre-pull brakes front and rear for years prior to passing my driving test for my first car (lost interest overnight then, funnily enough!). It was very controllable and could stop very quickly indeed. As a derailleur gear was not an option on the frame in question, I chose to use a fixed wheel instead in the spirit of its heritage*. So manageable was it that it was possible to turn it around with feet strapped firmly to the pedals (with shoe plates) in approximately its own length. This is very difficult with any kind of free-wheel. The most dangerous part of the bike in question in the current case was the nut holding the handlebars!

Had this rider had a road legal machine I suspect that he would have not even been prosecuted, despite his arrogance. Whether the woman was on her phone or not is uncertain and unproven but she certainly should have availed herself of the crossing if it really was a mere thirty three feet away. Nevertheless it seems that some blame can be apportioned to the cyclist for riding in a manner inappropriate for the conditions but also to the pedestrian for not paying sufficient attention when crossing the road - phone or no phone. Bicycles are silent and present a narrow image which, along with motorcycles, seem to become invisible to the careless observer all too often. The error she made turned out to be fatal, sadly, and an experienced rider should/would have been alive to the developing hazard. Sorry, but while I deplore the behaviour of many cyclists - this one included - but the blame is not totally one-sided IMHO. The real offence here is the illegal machine for which he should be punished. Custodial sentence? I don't know.

[Thrustyjust]

29 minutes ago, Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Secretary said:

Well done on the restrained response Justin.

Another emotive topic being discussed here, please, let's not descend to the mentality of the playground.

No matter how strongly you feel, outright abuse will not be tolerated under the rules we all agreed to when we signed up, whether or not it's targeted at an individual or a group.

Thanks Dave. I do find that we do, as a whole get 'beaten up' but all and sundry when I ride my bikes. Hell, I even get abuse from people walking their dogs in the park, while I meander to work on a cycle lane, while their dogs poo all over it, the owners have leads stretched for miles and have a whole sodding park to walk in, yet use the cycle way . This country has never ever been cycle friendly and to change this believe that we are all the same and dont pay VED is something that boils a certain fluid I regulary dispose of.  I have no intention of putting my case across anymore

 

[Kit Car Electronics]

Any idea of the stopping distance with a front brake vs a back brake? Why does a track bike have a back brake- presume it's safer on banking or something?

[Thrustyjust]

6 minutes ago, Kit Car Electronics said:

Any idea of the stopping distance with a front brake vs a back brake? Why does a track bike have a back brake- presume it's safer on banking or something?

Track bike doesnt 'exactly have a back brake. With fixed wheel , the inertia of trying to back pedal wont really slow, but will eject you over the bars . Voice of experience from group riding on a track with fixed wheel !! I used to train with some bird called Pedelton for my sins.............. stroppy kid......... hey ho 

[Ian Podmore]

8 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

Should jaywalking be made illegal in the UK given that most of the population cannot take their eyes off their phones?

I hope not, I can't stand waiting for the lights overseas when i could 'safely' manage to cross the road myself anyway.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

The best you can hope to do with a back brake only, or by retarding the rear wheel by resisting/stopping pedalling a fixed wheel (if your gear is low enough to give you the leverage) is to drag the rear wheel. I always had a fairly low ratio so with strapped in plated shoes I could lock up the rear. With a front brake you can pull it as hard as you like, as long as you're not braking so hard you are lifting the rear wheel, and it won't lock up. In the wet is another story altogether... As in any vehicle with two or four wheels, the front does the lion's share of the braking. On a wet surface I would never brake with the front except very, very gently and only in a dead straight line. I still have scars from losing the front wheel on a wet road! Wet roads are deadly on two wheels...

These are the modern equivalent of shoe plates such as I used:

[Yanto]

6 hours ago, Olliebeak said:

The majority of cyclists are arrogant ******s , I hope he gets five years , you cannot ride in a busy city in that manner. I was out yesterday in the Westie and had to cross a single carriageway bridge controlled by lights at each end. The approach to the bridge is via a 90 degree bend so you cannot see whats coming from the opposite direction. I was in a small queue of three cars, the lights turned to green and we set of to cross the bridge only to find three lycra louts coming in the opposite direction over the bridge against the lights, you could not see them until you we on the bridge and it is very narrow. here was lots of horn blowing , gesticulating etc but the cyclists just carried out in their merry way oblivious to the danger.

They are a menace and should be taxed,tested for competance and common sense, and licenced.

Rant over but this sort of cyclist behaviour is becoming a regular occurence,  horses have more road sense.

   

That is really offensive, I cycle between 6 and 10k miles a year, I am polite, i obey all required laws and signs, I am repeatedly cut up by arrogant motorists who think they are more important, who think that pushing me into the gutter is sport, use their vehicle as a weapon, i've had a van driver coming towards me swerve across the road head on to my side of the road missing me by less than a foot whilst laughing his head off, I've been spat on, had cigarattes thrown at me, sandwiches, drinks etc etc. The latest craze appears to be diesels without DPFs where the driver intentionally boots it to make clouds of soot after just passing, so I know who the real ******s of the road are.

Your example of cyclists on a bridge, have you even considered that they might have gone through a amber/green light, but because they are slower the lights changed on your side before they could pass? It does happen!

As for taxing etc, you will find it's a pollution charge, road tax was abolished a looooooooooong time ago, there are 3 "modes of transport" that have an absolute right to be on a road, pedestrians, horses and cyclists, all other forms of transportation require licences, insurance and usually taxation and so can be removed from the road.

 

[DonPeffers]

On 8/24/2017 at 14:37, Olliebeak said:

I hope he gets five years

Maximum sentence is 2 years.

 

18 hours ago, Kit Car Electronics said:

Any idea of the stopping distance with a front brake vs a back brake? 

Too many variables such as bike and rider weight, grip coefficient of road and tyre, braking system efficiency but the front brake will be able to generate at least twice the deceleration G force compared to the rear.

The Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge  in paragraph eleven reads as follows:-

Studies in David Wilson’s seminal work Bicycling Science demonstrate that a deceleration of 0.5g is the maximum that a seated rider can risk before he goes over the handlebars. Unlike a car driver, a cyclist cannot safely achieve the limit of adhesion of the tyre to the road, which in the dry is typically about 0.8g. Braking with the rear wheel alone can achieve only 0.256g before the rear wheel locks up and skids.