Most recent activity
-
youramericanlover -
I can't comment on the other brands but - notwithstanding that slightly alarming photo above - the No Logo bike I rode, albeit briefly, felt pretty solidly put together and surprisingly fun. My personal view is that if a bargain price and some shiny colours tempts a non-cyclist into buying a bike, even if it turns out to be a big of a dog, more often than not this simply makes them want to go on to something better. I started out riding in London more years ago than I cared to mention riding a crazily heavy Raleigh MTB with knobbly tyres. It was utterly unsuitable, but it got me hooked.tibbly -
Are you always this grouchy? These sorts of bikes might be familiar to LFGSS regulars, but the Guardian blog is, very deliberately, aimed at a more general audience. It's perhaps not your place to decide what is or isn't interesting for them. I'm also not sure how precisely I've contributed to any "shitty stereotypes". The overriding message of the blog post was that anything which gets people riding is a good thing. How's that so controversial?cornelius blackfoot -
You quote my apology and then pick me up for precisely the fault for which I just apologised. That's just strange.More generally: yes, some of the comments under the blog are a bit mean-spirited and ignorant but don't think it's always that way. The Guardian bike blog readership is, in general, very well-informed and helpful. If slightly grumpy. But as this thread shows they don't have a monopoly on that.
-
Hello, this is Peter from the Guardian bike blog, venturing over into unfamiliar territory. I've just spotted this thread and thought I should correct one fallacy above: we don't get "targets" for page views or comments. In fact, the entire blog is run by a handful of people in whatever spare time we have during our main jobs (I'm a news reporter for example), on virtually no budget. We'd love to cover more subjects in greater depth but just don't have the time.
I should also add: in retrospect, maybe "ferociously snooty" was misjudged. Sorry. Comments like that only add to the endless, artificial and pointless sub-division of cyclists into competing tribes, something I criticise other people for doing.
Bothwell & OZ & nuknow & others:
You get me wrong. I'm not suggesting it benefits anyone to ride a dangerous bike. I'd certainly never recommend one. As I said before I can't speak for other brands, but on the evidence I saw the No Logo bikes aren't dangerous. If anything they seem engineered a bit on the side of solidity. That brake cable faux pas in the picture earlier in the thread is a bit alarming, but it could well have been a bike hastily assembled by a photographer, I don't know. The bulk of their bikes are sold via independent shops, so ultimately it would be up to them to make sure they're properly assembled. It's quite a strong statement to say, categorically, that a brand of bike is "dangerous". Is there any evidence to back this up, other than that they a/ cost £270 and b/ are made in China?
wiganwill: hypothetically, a good place to start is to email me - first name dot last name at guardian.co.uk