# Any cyclists here?



## ByronBlack (10 Apr 2009)

I'm going to be shopping for a new bike soon after selling some rubbish on ebay, and wondered if there were any cycle enthusiasts who can could give me a few tips on what to look for?

I have currently an old Ammaco 5000 (was given to me in return for a favor) which I refurbished today and took for a spin, let's just say it confirmed that I need a new bike, it was horrendous!

I went over to Decathlon this morning and liked the look of some of their bikes, basically, I'm after a hybrid as I'll mostly be on paths, tracks and the very occasional rough ground, but very occasionally if at all on most cycles.

I have about £250 to spend - are there specific brands, gearing or other features that I should look for?


----------



## Ironballs (10 Apr 2009)

I've been known to do the odd bit of biking....

Firstly I would up your budget by about 200 quid, that will allow you to get a frame that isn't made out of boat anchors and also allows some higher spec components to be added, the key ones being disc brakes and reasonable suspension forks.

Not a big fan of hybrids as they tend to be compromises and don't one thing or the other too well, but may be a good fit for what you want. Certainly if you want a wider choice then go for a MTB and have a good look at Specialised and Cube


----------



## StevieB (10 Apr 2009)

Yup, just got myself a new specialized sirrus and am doing a 50 mile cycle ride on Sunday  

First thing you need to decide is what you think you mean by hybrid. This is a huge range between drop bar carbon race bikes at one end and full on double suspension at the other. Anything in between will be called a hybrid by someone! From your description I would say you want something without suspension (you are not off-roading) and probably with knobbly tyres - the more lumpy the paths the more knobbly the tyres. The reason for avoiding suspension is also because it puts effort into going up and down rather than along. Thus if you will mainly ride on roads you want to go for the road bike end of hybrid, if you want to ride on lumpy paths or stones/mud you want the mountain bike end.

Not sure how far your budget will go, but two reputable makes will be Trek http://www.trekbikes.com and specialized http://www.specialized.com I would look there to start with but if they are too expensive then SOME of the halfords range are OK but they have an awful reputation for set-up, you will want to check it over yourself. The Chris Boardman hybrids sold only through Halfords are superb http://www.boardmanbikes.com. 

Your best bet, rather than go to a department store such as Decathlon or Halfords would be to find a local bike shop and have a chat with them. Evans Cycles have branches in alot of places also and know their stuff. Finally, you can also ask at http://www.cyclechat.co.uk or have a search of their forums, they have some good info and advice there.

Steve.


----------



## jasonB (10 Apr 2009)

The cheaper end bikes do tend to be a bit on the heavy side so spending a bit more will make it lighter and the components are likely to be better quality.

You don't really need suspension, I was riding rigid forks on my mountain bike several years before Rockshocks were invented. If you do want the comfort then just go for front forks, a fully suspended bike in the lower price bracket will be a downhill lookalike which will have high bars and a low seat which don't make for a comfy or efficient riding position.

As you seem not to be doing much road riding then a mountain bike will give you more choice, just fit some less aggresive tyres to get the rolling resistance down a bit.

Jason


----------



## ByronBlack (10 Apr 2009)

Hey chaps, thanks for the quick replies!

Damian - I wish I could up my budget, but unfortunatly it's all I can spare, but I intend to find a bike that I can upgrade in the future as and when my requirements demand it.

The one I'm looking at currently is the Rockrider 5.2 it weighs just under 14kg - is that very heavy? They class is it as a sport MTB - only front-suspension.

I'm not sure I even want suspension. I bought a giant bike a few years back with all the suspenesion sold to me by my local shop. I hated it, it felt like i was cycling through thick treacle 

The rockrider has pre-load adjustment on its front-shock, so I'm assuming it can be stiffened up to provide a bit more 'feel'?

Stevie, when I say hyrbid, I just mean something that can handle a track or light trail and have the ability to swap over the tires for road cycling down the line..

Thanks for the links so far, I'll extend my research.. how do I size a bike?


----------



## stookie (10 Apr 2009)

I am a ex pro down hill moutain biker i would try the internet for old model bikes ie trek, kona , gaint,garyfisher,cannondale,GT, depending where u live an other option is wilson poilce auctions , i just paid £200 for a clock work orange bike RRP£1600. most hardtail bikes at the moment are not all that bad as long as you dont buy a motor crosser without the engine aviod kiddy on disc brakes and front and rear suspension bikes .


----------



## Night Train (10 Apr 2009)

Try this forum, Cycle Chat.
I'm a member there too and it is a really friendly place. They will give you some good advice.


----------



## Dave S (10 Apr 2009)

I have the Trek 7200 (but the 2004 model). My riding is mostly road, towpath, flatish woodland trail, that kind of thing, and I find the bike ideal.

Sounds like your needs are similar, so if you can find something like this within your budget, I reckon you'd be sorted.

Secondhand might be an option if you know what you are looking at - but buy something that needs some work and it could quickly blow your budget.

Dave


----------



## StevieB (10 Apr 2009)

These days you cannot size a bike without sitting on it. Frame geometry varies radically with make and style and you simply cannot say 58cm is what I need for example. You should also try a test ride if at all possible, even if its only round a carpark.

Regarding upgrading, if you only have £250 to spend then I wouldnt even think of upgrading at a later date - the frame you get will not be worth upgrading. You can change tyres to suit the riding you are doing, but thats about it. Much better off saving and getting a second more expensive bike than lashing out cash on a dud frame. 

As a general rule of thumb anything over £400 will be a bike that is for some serious miles, much under this is a bike for recreation only. Anything from about £800 is serious kit and only a dedicated rider will notice the difference in performance as you go above this level - for the average person you are likely to be the limiting factor, not the bike. A bit like festool will not make you a better woodworker, but a B&Q special will limit you.

Steve.


----------



## ByronBlack (10 Apr 2009)

Dave - I'll make a note of that bike and see what the shops have.

Steve - fair point about the upgrading, the main reason I mentioned that was that the rockrider has facilities to upgrade to disc brakes - not sure if that is worth it or not?

I would love to extend my budget and go for a £400 bike, but its just not possible at this time, so I wil take on board all the advice and try out a few bikes in my buget and find one that feels the best.

I was looking at the boardman hardtail mountain bikes in halfords earlier today and they looked very nice, just a shame its out of bugdet.

In terms of miles, its doubtful i'll be doing more than 30 a week.


----------



## Ironballs (10 Apr 2009)

Steve is right, you really do need to go and try one out for size - but if you do, make sure you buy it from that shop and don't go and buy off the net. Good bike shops are like good tool dealers, a valuable and scarce resource operating in a tough market.

I have 3 bikes, 2 full sus 1 hardtail and each has very different geometry and riding positions, I ride each one for different circumstances, bit like how you use a plane.

Stookie - who are you and who did you use to ride for and when? Bloke I worked with until recently was the brother of Tracy Moseley, sadly he was a roadie, no hope for him :wink: 

And before any smart alec comments, I used to work with him until recently, he hasn't recently un-become her brother


----------



## StevieB (10 Apr 2009)

Disc brakes are a mountain bike phenomenon that are coming more and more onto hybrid bikes. While their stopping power is good, they are more complicated to run, particularly if they are the hydraulic type (although in your budget that will not be a problem). Personally I have always shied away from them, but then I have tended to go for the more road oriented bikes. I switched from a Trek road bike to the Specialized Sirrus Comp for a slightly more upright flat bar riding style. Having said that, the first thing I did when I got it was flip the head stem to a 15 degree down angle from its setup upward angle  

Any bike will do you 30 miles a week, and if its mainly flat paths/roads then you will be fine. Cycling is like woodworking - shiny things cost alot of money! Does your place of work subscribe to one of the cycle schemes? This is a system whereby you get the tax off and pay for the bike through your salary in 12 monthly installments. Worth checking if you have a big employer, as its a good benefit to take advantage of.

Steve.


----------



## ByronBlack (10 Apr 2009)

Steve, unfortunatly I work for a tight-pineappled small company with zero benefits (not even a pension scheme).

I see what you mean about shiny things -- just looking on the various websites and the stores today makes me want to bust the budget and go for an expensive all singing one, but it would be overkill.

I'm off to the local shops tomorrow, so hopefully i'll find something suitable.


----------



## TrimTheKing (10 Apr 2009)

BB

I am by no means an expert, in fact I'm a biking silly person, but I went to Evans in Manchester when me and the missus wanted bikes last summer and after talking to the guys in there came away with a KONA Smoke. It is a hybrid, no suspension, decent gearing and a saddle that in now way resembles a razor blade 

HTH

Cheers

Mark


----------



## Ironballs (10 Apr 2009)

Steve - try some discs, the stopping power is awesome and they have tremendous feel, not affected by wet and they require far less maintenance than V brakes. I used to hate setting up Vs every time the pads needed replacing, you get stronger wheels and your wheels last longer as you're not abrading the rim every time you brake.

I was a major sceptic until I tried them but am now a big convert. And they erm, still work even when there is no pad material left - Mary Townley Loop, July 07, non-stop rain, mental scars still healing

Colin - have a good think about what you want from the bike and what you might want in the future, bikes are like tools, buy cheap and buy twice, but if you only want a knock about circular saw you use 4 times a year then buy cheap. If your bike is only going to do simple things and will often be in a garage then buy a cheaper one


----------



## woodbloke (11 Apr 2009)

BB - I'm no expert but I went for a hybrid Trek7.5FX, ali framed, Bontrager kit including wheels with kevlar slicks (not superslicks though), full mudguards: 







essential if you ride all through the year as I do. All my riding is on the roads so knobblies of any sort are a waste of time for me. I've got mine fitted out with a rack and a pair of Altura panniers. It's now my preferred form of transport in town (much quicker than the car) and just a tad easier to park up than the Landy. Pic taken in Switzerland in 07 at Lake Lausanne...don't forget the Hiviz gear at helmet (not a Tilly hat  ) and bike clips, best worn back to front  don't tuck trousers into socks...very uncool  - Rob


----------



## ByronBlack (11 Apr 2009)

Hi Rob, thanks for the tips, I used to always tuck my trouser into my socks  But then I was a teenager and could somewhat get away with it..

I'm about to leave for the bike shop, so fingers crossed, i'll be bringing home a new shiny object


----------



## matt (11 Apr 2009)

Just in case you get back without purchase...

I second the Sirrus (from Specialized). My wife has one which I use too, in addition to my full susp Specialized. 

I don't ride as much these days but used to mountain bike almost every weekend throughout the summer (yes, I'm a fair weather cyclist).

It's worth bearing in mind that steel frames benefit from a small amount of flex in the frame giving some suspension to the ride without having to use suspension etc (i.e. cheap steel will be better than cheap alu with suspension - the latter will weigh a lot more). However... The Sirrus is alu without suspension forks and it's fine.


----------



## ByronBlack (11 Apr 2009)

Well, I got one .. two actually, the mrs' managed to get a decent bike.

I went to my local bikeshop, I thought it would be good to see a range of manufacturers rather than relying just on the decathlon or halfords own range.

I was a little surprised, I got a lot more bike for my money than I was expecting. I went in with a budget of £250 expecting something basic like the decathlon range, but managed to get a good deal on a better bike.

I bought this:





A diamondback Sorrento. I haggled him down to £260 - they rrp for £349 so I'm pleased with the deal as its only just over my budget. Here are the specs:

- Hydroformed 6061 heat-treated alluminium frame
- Suntour adjustable front shock
- Shimano alivio derailluers and gears
- quick shift gear and brake levers
- 8 speed hub
- disc brakes all round
- Sram crankset
- quick release all round
- A seat that should be a medieval torture device (will be replaced soon).

The mrs was originally looking for something cheap, around the £150 mark, but the bikes were horrible. So, she went for this:





A claud butler Ravana, also 8 speed, front disc brake, adjustable shock, and a very comfy seat.. We got £20 knocked of that, for a final price of £199. 

We took them for a quick blast around the block when we got home before it started chucking it down with rain, and I have to say it's a world of difference to the crappy bikes i've had before.

The gear change is smooth, the front-shock is nice and firm and doesn't nose-dive when standing on the pedals, the frame geometry is really comfortable and it's feels nice and light and responsive. Just need to change the seat and I'm sorted!

Thanks everyone for your tips and advice, it's much appreciated. Just got to wait for it to stop raining!


----------



## Night Train (11 Apr 2009)

Well done on getting the bikes and supporting yout local bike shop. Now get over to Cycle Chat and talk about lycra and shaving your legs. :wink:


----------



## ByronBlack (11 Apr 2009)

Night Train":4tcsepc1 said:


> Well done on getting the bikes and supporting yout local bike shop. Now get over to Cycle Chat and talk about lycra and shaving your legs. :wink:



No one wants to see my hams in lycra - that would be scare small children and some old ladies!


----------



## Ironballs (11 Apr 2009)

Very good, Diamond Back are now owned by Raleigh who sell them as their premium brand. Give that saddle a go, it looks like a WTB and all WTBs are a very similar design, I have a WTB Rocket V on each of my bikes as they are that comfortable. Trust me. And get some padded shorts, if you don't it feels like your buttocks has been beaten by a cricket bat with a cheese grater on it


----------



## StevieB (11 Apr 2009)

Congratulations - glad you are happy with you purchases  Lycra is indeed optional, but if you get a pair of lycra shorts with a chamois insert they will make that seat a bit more bearable on anything over an hour or so's ride. Wear them under a pair of normal shorts or track suit trousers and nobody need ever know!

Steve.


----------



## Night Train (11 Apr 2009)

I have a Marin Hawkhill from 1999. Nice bike to ride but not for any great distance. I've been thinking of getting a recumbent trike but I need to sell some more furniture first.

My 'old' bike collection is gaining on me so I am going to move one on and sort the rest into usable spares and scrap metal for weighing in.


----------



## ByronBlack (11 Apr 2009)

Damian - It is indeed a WTB rocket seat, if it's comfortable I hate to think what an uncomfortable seat feels like, just got back from another quick 3 mile ride and my ass-bones are protesting something cronic! I used to have a real nice gel seat on my old MTB I could ride for hours on that. But i'll give it a month or so and see how it develops. It's been many years since I've been on a bike, and I weigh much more than I should so i'll give it some time for my ass-bones to toughen up a bit.

Steve - good suggestion with the shorts. I'll indeed pick up a pair and wear them under joggers.

Just got back from a quick ride, and I'm glad I decided for the MTB rather than a hybrid, my old routes are much less smooth than I remember them, and there's a lot more off-road dirt-tracks than I remember, so it was nice to have the front-shock.


----------



## Paul Chapman (11 Apr 2009)

ByronBlack":6q38vfr3 said:


> just got back from another quick 3 mile ride and my ass-bones are protesting something cronic!.............. It's been many years since I've been on a bike



If you've not cycled for several years, you will suffer from saddle-soreness for a while, whatever saddle you have. DAMHIKT

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## matt (11 Apr 2009)

Yep - definitely go for the padded shorts. Makes a lot of difference.


----------



## ByronBlack (13 Apr 2009)

Okay, despite many people telling me that I had an excellent saddle in the WTB Rocket V, I could barely ride 100 yards this morning on it, my sit-bones were killing me, and it wasn't just uncomfortable, it was painful.

So, out of interest, I tried SWMBO's bike which had its own branded claud butler saddle, and it was completely different, so much better I couldn't believe it. SWMBO tried mine and loved the WTB Rocket, so we swapped them around, went out for a 6 miler this morning and loved every minute of it, the change was amazing, I can now cycle with more comfort and don't have spend more wedge on another saddle.

Although now that I've raised the saddle post (it was way too low before) I need to increase the height of my handlebars as too much weight is now on my arms and hands, but at least my a*rse isn't painfull anymore!


----------



## StevieB (13 Apr 2009)

Good stuff! If you get pins and needles from too much weight on your hands then I can recommend using a pair of cycling gloves - go for ones with padding or gel in the palm to reduce vibration. They really helped me.

Steve.


----------



## dickm (13 Apr 2009)

StevieB":xp4wywnr said:


> Good stuff! If you get pins and needles from too much weight on your hands then I can recommend using a pair of cycling gloves - go for ones with padding or gel in the palm to reduce vibration. They really helped me.
> 
> Steve.


Strongly support that suggestion. Especially if there is any history of Dupuytrens contraction (fingers bending into the palm of your hand) in the family, as vibration is supposed to increase the chances of it showing.


----------



## Ironballs (13 Apr 2009)

I've picked enough gravel and dirt out of the palms of my hands to ensure that I always go riding with gloves!


----------



## RogerS (23 Apr 2009)

On the Roman Road (A4103) in Hereford, there is a very long, very suitable cycle lane. Please can any of you cyclists please tell me why some pillocks still insist on cycling in the road?


----------



## StevieB (23 Apr 2009)

Generally its because all the c**p, broken glass, stones etc get pushed by vehicles into the cycle lanes. If it is rarely swept by the sweeper lorries then its tyre suicide to cycle down them. 

I did a 30 mile ride last weekend and part of that was down the A20 from Leeds Castle to Charing. There is a lovely 3 ft wide strip of the road outside a solid white line of the road edge that would be perfect for cycling down if it wasn't for broken glass, coke cans, broken bungee straps and anything else that can be thrown from or fall off a moving vehicle :evil: Contrary to popular belief most cyclists don't sit in the road just to annoy car drivers, but we wouldnt get 500 yards with the current state of most cycle routes, irrespective of their length or width. In these credit crunch times road sweeping is very low down on the list of council priorities - much lower than potholes and they are leaving those as a method of cutting speeding!

Steve.


----------



## MikeG. (23 Apr 2009)

Well said Steve!!

I recently had 5 punctures, all in different places on the wheels, on one 25 mile ride..........sort of takes the fun out of it after a while. I also had a whole load of abuse from a car full of oiks who patently thought I ought to be riding in the ploughed field instead of on the Public Highway.

Mike


----------



## Ironballs (23 Apr 2009)

Roger try riding in a cycle lane, especially one in a city where it tends to run for about 5ft before stopping and pitching you into the middle of a dangerous junction when you would have been safer on the road.

And yes they are often full of glass, rubbish and holes. I'll agree with anyone that cyclists jumping red lights is idiotic and should be punished with fines, but I will often deliberately ignore cycle lanes as they are dangerous.

And on the subject of punctures, got one last night just before the last fast descent on Saddleworth Moor last night. Spoiled the end of my ride and Saddleworth in the pitch black with only your headtorch for company can be a lonely place


----------



## RogerS (24 Apr 2009)

Sorry should have been clearer.

This cycle lane is separated from the road and elevated. Totally dedicated cycle lane. So just to be absolutely clear...it is road then raised kerbstone then about 2 metres of grass then a very wide two lane cycle lane. So no chance of road debris.

It is also a couple of miles long. Not a 5ft town version. So in this instance I see absolutely no justification for these pillocks to ride in the road.


----------



## woodbloke (24 Apr 2009)

Mike Garnham":1kauddyz said:


> Well said Steve!!
> 
> I recently had 5 punctures, all in different places on the wheels, on one 25 mile ride..........sort of takes the fun out of it after a while. I also had a whole load of abuse from a car full of oiks who patently thought I ought to be riding in the ploughed field instead of on the Public Highway.
> 
> Mike


I ride the 'Blokebike' for work each day and it's now my preferred method of getting around the city. The roads around Wilton and Salisbury are no better or any worse that anywhere else, but I've not had a puncture in nearly two years of constant riding...something to do with kevlar reinforced tyres? (Bontrager) - Rob


----------



## Jake (24 Apr 2009)

RogerS":29i59rog said:


> Sorry should have been clearer.
> 
> This cycle lane is separated from the road and elevated. Totally dedicated cycle lane. So just to be absolutely clear...it is road then raised kerbstone then about 2 metres of grass then a very wide two lane cycle lane. So no chance of road debris.
> 
> It is also a couple of miles long. Not a 5ft town version. So in this instance I see absolutely no justification for these pillocks to ride in the road.



You do like your road rage, don't you.

Get over it - they are as much entitled to use the public highway as you are.


----------



## Soulfly (24 Apr 2009)

For £250 I would go for a front suspension mountain bike for all round general use. I have a Trek which cost about £200 and a lightweight Italian hand built steel racing bike with Columbus tubing which I bought from a bike shop for £40. Great cycling forums are CTC, cyclechat, bikeforums, bike radar. As woodworkers it is great to get out on our bikes for inspiration and to have thinking time for our next blockbuster project.


----------



## RogerS (24 Apr 2009)

Jake":3340ulj8 said:


> RogerS":3340ulj8 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry should have been clearer.
> ...



So does that mean I can drive in their cycle lane?

Seriously it's plain dumb. The main road is not that wide and is also a 60mph limit. So by insisting on their 'right' they make life more dangerous for everyone. Not road rage. Just annoyed at selfish behaviour.

Does that mean I can use their cycle lane then :wink:


----------



## RogerS (24 Apr 2009)

Something screwed up there with the edit.

The initial responses raise valid points as it would appear that cycle lanes have failed because cyclists don't use them. So let's get rid of them.


----------



## matt (24 Apr 2009)

I also find myself wondering why other cyclists don't use the cycle lanes. I understand the road debris argument but in my area that problem doesn't really exist. We also have the raised pavement cycle lanes too. In one place the pavement was extended to provide a safe passage through a particularly tricky strip of road, including a crossing. The idea being to avoid motorists having to navigate around cyclists on the approach to a pedestrian crossing. I don't think it is a case of road-rage - that's quite a leap from commenting on cyclists using the road when there are specific lanes for good reason.

I don't think cyclists are setting out to be selfish, I think some want to assert their right to use the road, albeit at the expense of safety (in some cases the safety of other road users), whereas others are just more than a little unaware. There is also the sense that when on a pavement cycle lane I feel inclined to slow down and some cyclists don't want to do that.

I get annoyed, I get over it. Same as cyclists do when they perceive motorists to be inconsiderate without all the facts of any given situation.


----------



## Jake (24 Apr 2009)

The reason I was pulling Roger's leg about road rage is that isn't uncommon for Rog to start a thread fulminating about other road users...


----------



## RogerS (24 Apr 2009)

Jake":16e400nl said:


> The reason I was pulling Roger's leg about road rage is that isn't uncommon for Rog to start a thread fulminating about other road users...



Moi?


----------



## Jake (24 Apr 2009)

You want me to prove the point?


----------



## RogerS (25 Apr 2009)

Jake":2v9gqzw5 said:


> You want me to prove the point?




No, I've learnt through experience that it is extremely hard to win an argument with you, Jake, although in this instance I make a valid point.


----------



## woodbloke (25 Apr 2009)

RogerS":3flqmvwz said:


> The initial responses raise valid points as it would appear that cycle lanes have failed because cyclists don't use them. So let's get rid of them.


I disagree...there ought to be *more* cycle lanes, not fewer. You only need to see what provision there is for cyclists in certain places on the Continent to see how it should be done properly. Cycling is the best, quickest, cheapest and healthiest way of getting around town...as proven by the 'hamster' in TG a while back - Rob


----------



## StevieB (25 Apr 2009)

It really depends on who you envisage on using cycle lanes. To a motorist all cyclists are the same ie slower than them. However there are vast differences in cyclists, from the lycra clad road ninja who can maintain a 25mph speed for hours on end to the stereotypical vicars wife with a bell and a basket pootling down to the vicarage. For the former a cycle lane is a major pain and no advantage whatsoever. For the slow pootler its great as it keeps them free to pootle. When walking - how annoyed do you get when stuck behind a pensioner, or a window shopper blocking the pavement. Its the same on a bike - you can overtake on the road but generally not on a cycle lane. This is doubly so when they keep stopping and starting in towns etc.

If cycling is to be encouraged then thats great, but do not place restrictions on where the cycles can then be ridden just to pacify motorists!

Steve.


----------



## MikeG. (25 Apr 2009)

RogerS":33cs6lno said:


> it would appear that cycle lanes have failed because cyclists don't use them. So let's get rid of them.



By "them" I suspect you meant cycle lanes, but that you harbor a desire to be rid of the cyclists.....



> So does that mean I can drive in their cycle lane?
> 
> ........by insisting on their 'right' they make life more dangerous for everyone. Not road rage. Just annoyed at selfish behaviour.
> 
> Does that mean I can use their cycle lane then



Roger,

have you ever ridden a bike?

Mike


----------



## Ironballs (25 Apr 2009)

Whatever method of transport I'm using I like it to be as fast as possible and I hate doing something slower than I could eg, why walk when I could run instead, but then cycling is faster than running and let's ride as fast as I can, but I'm on a road so why not get in the car and so on. However, if I'm walking up the side of Great Gable the fastest I can go is a head down trudge on my own 2 feet cause my body can't power me any faster.

I only own MTBs so generally just ride on the roads to link up bits of offroad, but when I am on the road I'll go at the fastest pace I can maintain and am painfully aware of other road users.

I never do anything on the road to put myself in the way of harm, but even doing that I still have more near death experiences on the road on my bike than doing anything else. A few months ago I had to drop my car off for an MoT and decided to ride the last few miles into work. Unfortunately this takes me through a place called Harehills in Leeds in which all laws and rules of the road cease to exist, I hate driving through it never mind riding.

I was almost through it and congratulating myself on a successful negotiation with just one tricky bit left to do. Coming up to a set of lights the road curves to the right with a spur carrying on straight ahead, I know this is a dangerous section for a cyclist and for the 50m heading up to it I spent most of time riding looking back over my shoulder. Having got halfway across and convinced myself I wasn't going to be mown down I looked ahead and about 3 seconds later heard the dreaded screeching of rubber on tarmac and saw a shape appear in my peripheral vision before being collected on my rear quarter. Managed a bit of oversteer before coming to a halt in front of a Metro.

To cut the rest of the story/altercation short it was clear he didn't understand the layout of the road and probably hadn't seen me (though the helpful chap in the car behind him had and backed me up). Not only that it was my fault for being a stupid pillock apparently.

In that instance, short of stopping at the side of the road before the turn and crossing it like a pedestrian there was little more I could have done to safeguard myself and I still nearly got wiped out. And yes I was ready to stick one on him as I only have one life, a point I somehow managed to make to him without violence which he seemed to accept in the end


----------



## RogerS (26 Apr 2009)

Mike Garnham":giv5llor said:


> RogerS":giv5llor said:
> 
> 
> > it would appear that cycle lanes have failed because cyclists don't use them. So let's get rid of them.
> ...



Did it not occur to you that perhaps my comment was tongue-in-cheek? I'm not anti-cyclists but I am anti-'anti-social'-cyclists such as those who insist on riding on pavements. Whether or not I ride a bike is irrelevant.

In an ideal world, we'd have a cycle lane for pootlers, a faster cycle lane for intermediate ninjas and a cycle lane for ninjas cycling on ultra thin tyres - the latter lane swept every day so that their ridiculously this tyres don't get punctured. Then we'd have a couple of car lanes for old ladies at 30mph, another for those who want to maintain a steady safe speed and another for those who like to drive at breakneck speed, overtake o double white lines and drive inches behind the bumper of the car in front.

But we're a small island and we don't have the space. So we must accommodate the interests of all parties as much as possible. This applies equally to cyclists views of motorists as it does the other way round. Cyclists need to be just as tolerant towards other road users as they would hope tolerance was shown to them.

So when a council goes to great length and expense (your money and my money) to hive off a chunk of the road to provide a dedicated, separate and safer lane for cyclists, is it not that unreasonable for the other road users using the now narrower main road to expect cyclists to use that which has been dedicated for their exclusive use?


----------



## andrewm (28 Apr 2009)

StevieB":2nvelql1 said:


> It really depends on who you envisage on using cycle lanes. To a motorist all cyclists are the same ie slower than them. However there are vast differences in cyclists, from the lycra clad road ninja who can maintain a 25mph speed for hours on end to the stereotypical vicars wife with a bell and a basket pootling down to the vicarage. For the former a cycle lane is a major pain and no advantage whatsoever. For the slow pootler its great as it keeps them free to pootle. When walking - how annoyed do you get when stuck behind a pensioner, or a window shopper blocking the pavement. Its the same on a bike - you can overtake on the road but generally not on a cycle lane. This is doubly so when they keep stopping and starting in towns etc.
> 
> If cycling is to be encouraged then thats great, but do not place restrictions on where the cycles can then be ridden just to pacify motorists!
> 
> Steve.



Sorry, coming a bit late to this one but I can’t resist. 

The Department of Transport lays down guidelines for the construction of cycle lanes. The lanes they describe are probably quite good and I suspect that many cyclists would use them. However what gets implemented is usually not the same thing. Even in Cambridge which has just received £5m of government funding as a "Cycling Demonstration Town" local councillors cannot point to one cycle facility that complies with these DOT guidelines. 

Imagine if the same slapdash approach were applied to motorways, a facility solely for use of motor vehicles. There are similar guidelines for their construction and they are vigorously adhered to. If they built motorway that had lanes only six feet wide, perhaps with a zebra crossing every half-mile, and where you had to give way to traffic joining the road at each junction. Would you use it if there was a nice fast road running parallel to it?

I thought not.

Andrew


----------



## RogerS (28 Apr 2009)

But that's my point, Andrew. In this particular instance there is a nice fast two lane dedicated cycle track. No bumps, no crossings, nothing to impede the progress of either the vicars' wife or the flying ninja.


----------



## andrewm (28 Apr 2009)

RogerS":2ee808fl said:


> But that's my point, Andrew. In this particular instance there is a nice fast two lane dedicated cycle track. No bumps, no crossings, nothing to impede the progress of either the vicars' wife or the flying ninja.



Is this a dedicated cycle path or a dual-use cycle/pedestrian path. If the latter then I can certainly understand a reasonably fast cyclist avoiding it because pedestrians can be highly unpredicatable when on 'their pavement'.

I thought perhaps this was a path that I had used. But looking at the map I think I was thinking of one coming out of Worcester. Not as wide (perhaps only 1.2m) but inthe country so no peds and no driveways crossing it either.

Can you point to this one on Google maps (it it is wide enough to show up)

Andrew


----------



## RogerS (28 Apr 2009)

You can't see anything as the hedge obscures it. Search for Roman Road Hereford and scroll west.


----------



## andrewm (29 Apr 2009)

RogerS":340jl0ko said:


> You can't see anything as the hedge obscures it. Search for Roman Road Hereford and scroll west.



You're right I can't see anything on Google. Are you talking about the bit in Hereford or out in the country. And you didn't answer my question as to whether it was a dedicated cycle lane or dual use with pedestrians.

Andrew


----------



## bugbear (29 Apr 2009)

RogerS":2xww693l said:


> You can't see anything as the hedge obscures it. Search for Roman Road Hereford and scroll west.



Microsoft live map might have a different POV.

BugBear


----------



## andrewm (29 Apr 2009)

bugbear":3jbbuxx3 said:


> Microsoft live map might have a different POV.



It does indeed. Is this the cycle lane you are talking about Roger?

Looks quite nice. Wide, separated from the carriageway by a verge and marked in both directions. Certainly one of the better examples. BUT note that there are Give Way signs (and possibly cyclists dismount signs too) at the entrance to every farm track. This puts the onus on the cyclist to slow down at every junction. Now this lane is not in the middle of the city but in the country so it is likely that the cyclist will not be pootling along. Slowing down is one thing that you do not want to do unnecessarily when on a bike. It's not like a car where you just press the accelerator to speed up again. I would hazard a guess that the planners who designed this were not regular cyclists. 

Put it another way. Suppose they built a shiny new motorway next to you favourite A road, six lanes, hard shoulder, nice surface but rather than building bridges over it put Give Way signs every mile or so when another road crossed so that you had to slow down just in case someone was coming the other way. And this arrangement meant that if you did hit someone it was your fault and not theirs. Would you use it? I thought not. Why should it be different for cyclists?

Andrew


----------



## RogerS (29 Apr 2009)

Andrew, your link insists I use Microsoft Explorer IE7 which is a tad difficult on a Mac!

EDIT: Re-reading your post, it seems that it all boils down to the ninjas, that they take a calculated risk in that the infinitessimally small chance of them having to actually stop at a give way sign for farm tracks or risk being run down by the non-existent tractor is higher than the risk they run to both themselves and other road users by NOT cycling in the cycle lane?

Fair game then :wink:


----------



## andrewm (30 Apr 2009)

RogerS":244z9h6f said:


> Andrew, your link insists I use Microsoft Explorer IE7 which is a tad difficult on a Mac!



Doesn’t work with Opera either. I had to fire up IE for the first time in a long time. But it is the only site which shows the path in question in any detail so is better than nothing.




RogerS":244z9h6f said:


> EDIT: Re-reading your post, it seems that it all boils down to the ninjas, that they take a calculated risk in that the infinitessimally small chance of them having to actually stop at a give way sign for farm tracks or risk being run down by the non-existent tractor is higher than the risk they run to both themselves and other road users by NOT cycling in the cycle lane?



Not quite. An old biddy pootling home with the shopping is likely to be able to cross these paths without slowing down. But a reasonably confident cyclist doing say, a 15 mile commute to work is likely to be travelling at perhaps 18-20mph. It is not possible to see over the hedge to see if there is an approaching tractor so the only thing is to slow down at each turning even though the chance of meeting a tractor is very small. Remember, if a tractor hits you it is your fault. Its down to the planners. If they painted the white lines the other way so that turning traffic has to give way (as they do on the continent) then perhaps more cyclists would use it. As it is each cyclist will make their own assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. Their decisions will be based on their own particular risk assessment. 

It’s the same for all road users. If I am driving I will look at a route and decide whether it is worth, for example, going through town rather than around on the motorway even though the motorway has been proved to be the safer road. It depends on traffic conditions, where I am going, how long the comparative journeys will take and my assessment of the risk. Others might come to a different conclusion given the same set of circumstances.

So this ‘pillock’ as you put it has made an assessment and decided that all things considered the road is the better option.

Andrew


----------

