Search results for:

Is it more realistic to say to people 'wear a helmet if you are going to ride fast' or 'leave 20 minutes earlier for work every day and ride at half your normal speed'.

Well, half speed is a misunderstanding on your part, it's more like 2/3 speed. But I get what you are asking and my answer is the latter, exactly as I would advise any driver who claimed he "had" to drive fast to get to work. If your "normal" speed is dangerous it should not be your normal speed. (And if it's not dangerous you don't need a helmet, do you?)

I don't think saying "wear a helmet if you are going to ride too fast" is good advice, because the person choosing to ride fast is also increasing risks which as you have already acknowledged a helmet doesn't help with. To imply a cyclist can increase their speed beyond their safety zone, slam on a helmet and have no net increase in risk is just wrong.

So I didn't say I wear a helmet if I want to ride fast. I don't want to ride fast in London. I wear a helmet on an unfamiliar bike with aggressive (faster) geometry because I think the combination of unfamiliar bike, poorer visibility, handlebar-mounted brakes and compromised handling at low speeds makes me more likely to fall. Not more likely to be hit - I don't think a helmet is going to help there - but to fall due to a misjudgment.

I think helmets have their place in sports and racing where people push themselves and ride right at the top end of their ability and accidents are less likely to involve a motor vehicle. I think anyone riding right at the top of their ability just for transport is (a) a fool, and (b) exposed to risks for the majority of which a helmet adds no protection at all.

I haven't noticed any overheating or fade, but I tend to slow on hills with the rear coaster brake not the front

I've got the the SA front brake with dynamo. It's heavier than a basic hub plus rim brake but you don't really put one on a bike you want to be lightweight.

I like it. It stops the bike, it keeps the rims clean. It's had about half a year's use so far with no problems. I used the original brake lever on the bike (90s Raleigh) which is a bit slack but does the job.

I have an SA coaster hub on rear, and I had a dutch bike with the same setup so yes, it's ok. I guess you need to make sure the forks and stays are strong enough for the reaction arms, but again for the sort of bike you'd use drum brakes on it's probably not a concern.

Has to brown paper soaked in vinegar to get the full benefit

No no no, that's only good after the accident. This is one of the big problems with paper bags - they do have a benefit when used correctly but most people only hear about wrapping your head, they don't know about the going to bed bit first. We need education not just thicker paper.

(1) I suggest that you avoid heels where there are marble floors, don't lean out of the shower, avoid running on wet steps etc etc.

Or I could move into a padded cell with no sharp objects, breathe and eat liquidised food in case I choke. I mean, if there's even a tiny risk it's just not worth it, right?

Come on, life includes risk. Adults manage them sensibly. The question is not just "what if the worst happened?". A rational decision should consider the whole range of outcomes, the likelihood of them happening, the cost of reducing the risk, the cost of not doing an activity at all and the benefits of doing it. Most importantly of all, it includes recognising that everyones, including your own, "common sense" about things they are not an expert in is going to be flawed, and therefore considering evidence, research and expert opinion even if it contradicts your knee jerk assumptions or "what everyone knows".

In other words, a "rational" decision for the real world cannot be made by reducing the world to simple black and white.

(2) "riding a more aggressive / faster bike" - that makes you sound quite unrepresentative. My experience of this site and cycling in London would suggest that a fair proportion of cyclists spend their lives on aggressive / fast bikes and trying to get where they are going as fast as possible as a matter of principle. Should these people be wearing a helmet in your opinion (would you recommend that they do - obviously you would not tell them to)?

No, they should stop being dicks and ride like grown ups. If they decide they want to be dicks because it's more fun a helmet might make a trivial difference, but frankly I'd rather they didn't wear it because as I said a great many posts ago, putting a helmet on top of bad cycling creates a misleading picture of what is safe cycling which leads inexperienced cyclists into dangerous practices, and I care far about about the safety of people who want to be safe than people who want to ride like dicks.

Is your priority for dealing with dangerous drivers to make sure they have airbags?

It did make me think something though. I think that there are quite a few people on this thread who are quite convinced about helmets not being of any real benefit and who don't wear helmets as a result. If you fall into this category may I ask you a question or few? To what extent do you wonder whether evidence will come to light in the future that shows helmets to be beneficial (obviously they will never be proven to be perfect, or the most important factor in cyclist safety)? Would you wear a helmet if the evidence was solid? What is the likelihood of such evidence coming to light, in your opinion (over say the next 10 or 20 years)? How much stronger would the evidence need to be convince you to be pro-compulsion as well as a wearer? I am not assuming that such evidence will come to light by the way, especially on the question of compulsion.

In my case I don't make my decision based on the effectiveness of the helmet. My decision is based on the likeliness of my having the type of fall in which a helmet would be beneficial. I simply do not believe that given my style of cycling I am at more risk of hitting my head falling from a bike than I am walking across the marble floors at work in heels, running up the station steps in the rain, reaching out of the shower to get the soap I left beside the sink, or countless other things I do regularly without a helmet.

In fact, there are activities I do where I do choose to wear a helmet because I judge the risk of hitting my head to be quite high: snowboarding, some DIY, test rides after doing some work on the bike, riding a more aggressive / faster bike. So I certainly do think helmets offer protection. I just don't think when it comes to my day to day cycling the risk is enough to justify it, and it does nothing to address the things I consider to be genuine risks. Drunks and keys again.

If evidence came to light that helmets were somehow effective in repelling cars, avoiding potholes or protecting more of me than just than my head then I would be more likely to wear one as it would address more of the risks I am likely to face. If evidence came to light that my 5+ years of avoiding a head injury are a crazy fluke and on average someone who cycles like me will hit their head hard (but not too hard) at least annually I would reconsider.

Chance of either of those happening in the next 10-20 years? Tending to zero.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/746940-1932-Loop-frame-Raleigh-tourist-(pic-heavy)

But I am sorry, anyone with any decency will make it damn clear that despite this helmets are 100% a symptom of the problem and 0% part of the problem. The closest parallel I can think of is that anyone with any decency will say that a young women who wears little clothing, gets blind drunk and gets into an illegal minicab late at night and ends up a victim of a sexual assault is 0% to blame despite the fact that with hindsight we can all make suggestions to her as to how she might have behaved differently to reduce her chances of becoming a victim.

Logic 101 says you can't prove anything by analogy. It's a poor analogy anyway: you are trying to show the difference between cause and symptom but your analogy actually demonstrates the difference between causation and negligence. It's not wrong but it doesn't illustrate your symptom/cause dichotomy. (And that in itself is a false dichotomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback)

Also, that's the second time you have used a rape analogy. It's pretty gross that this is your go-to image, and hideously ironic that you started that paragraph with the phrase "anyone with any decency"

If helmet wearing is a "symptom" of the problems caused by cars, the analogous "symptom" in your little rape scenario is not the woman's choices but the rape itself. You are apparently saying having to wear a helmet is analogous to being raped by cars. It's a brave position, I'll give you that.

We have a duty to accept the reality - that fewer helmets would reduce 3rd parties impression of cycling being dangerous [edit - and it might well be good !overall if fewer people wore them]. But as important if not more important is that we have a duty to remember that people wearing helmets is not the problem on any level whatsoever - bad drivers, bad cyclists and ignorance are the problems.

The reality is that humans learn from other humans, so in the absense of more formal information about safe cycling they will look at the cyclists in helmets, see that the majority choose to wear them, assume they must therefore be necessary and follow their lead. So because it is the most visible step a cyclist can take towards safety, the perception grows that a helmet is the most important step towards cycling safely. And this is compounded by the well meaning advice of those who say "well it must do something" or "if it makes even a tiny difference", and by the less well meaning advice of organisations like the AA who choose to promote helmet use rather than address much more significant risks to cyclists.

Now you will undoubtably say the problem is not the helmet but the ignorance and assumptions being made. And in principle you would be right. But that is basically staying the problem is we have the wrong sort of people, because humans are wired to learn by example. And trying to solve a problem by changing the people to meet the principle never works.

So here's a better analogy. Wearing a helmet is very often like the drunk looking for his door keys under the lampost instead of by the door where he dropped them. It makes him feel like he's addressing the problem but he isn't, and it's stopping him doing anything to solve the real problem. Initial cause: dropping keys. Ongoing cause: trying to solve dropped keys with the wrong method.

Reading cyclehelmets.org. All v interesting.

What has stood out so far is that helmeted riders are more likely to get injured when cycling than non helmeted riders. Wonder if that is because they are more likely to be novice riders and make themselves more vulnerable or that they take more risks because they feel protected?

I think it's probably because some of the helmet wearers were engaged in sports riding (mtb, racing, bmx).

This is one of the crimes of cycle helmet promotion.... ** The perception of helmet effectiveness is so far from the reality that masses of time and resources are wasted on pursuing the least effective intervention for reducing death and injury.**

This, +10000

You are implying if not saying that helmet wearers contribute to the confusion / ignorance. Sorry, that is bullshit. I wear a helmet because I want to. Fuck you [Sorry, but I feel it is appropriate]. If people are ignorant then that is their fault and the fault of the media and pro-helmet campaigners who don't stick to the facts. It is not my fault for wearing a helmet.

I am saying that people who wear helmets then cycle like dicks are adding to the problem. If that is not you then chill, I am not blaming you and your helmet for anything.

If it is you then yes, you are a problem and fuck you right back. No offense like.

some people seem to think helmet-wearers are part of the problem.

The problem is when non-helmet-wearing gets equated with irresponsible cycling, like by your neighbour.

I ride a sit up and beg, hardly ever bother to filter, and indicate like Brown Owl demonstrating semaphore. Yet because a helmet is such a visible signal of "I care about my safety", and the limitations of that safety so poorly understood, many would judge me as a less safe, less responsible cyclist than the hordes of lemmings that flow past me every day taking far higher risks but wearing a helmet.

So to me, those helmet wearers, the ones who protect against the low risk of a specific low-speed head injury but not the high risk of undertaking a left turning vehicle, are a problem because they confuse the picture of what a responsible, safe cyclist looks like. And that confusion becomes a real problem when questions of accident liability and contributory negligence have to be considered.

The injured man's grandson has written a detailed description of the accident and charges: http://tracksideviews.com/2013/08/06/responsibilities/

Would anyone like the following old snowboard kit? It's free to collect from Seven Sisters.

Clothes: Roxy Ivanna one piece suit in black with fur collar and pink leopard-print lining, worn a few times only, size 12ish. So ironic it hurts.
Burton turquoise pants, a bit grubby on the cuffs because I am short but otherwise in good shape, size 14ish
O Neil beige jacket, crumpled and needs a clean but otherwise in good shape for either boarding or a winter walking jacket.

Board: Scott Alturis snowboard 150cm. Nice all mountain board, it's done everything with me from thigh deep powder to summer freestyle camp.

The clothes would suit someone going for the first or second time who doesn't want to commit to buying their own kit yet

The board will suit someone who needs a 150 board.

Does it feel sort of notchy as you rotate it? That's normal at low speeds, you won't notice as you ride.

It's not going to be constant drag as the magnetic field has to rise and fall relative to the coil(? or whatever it's called) to induce a current. I have a feeling the hub has a ring of magnets rather than a single ring magnet, so the coil goes through north-south-north-south etc as the wheel turns.

(This explanation is probably wrong in all details but the right general idea)

The area between Chestnuts Park and Green Lanes has got a lot smarter over the past few years. The area between Chestnuts Park and the High Road (my bit) is lagging that, probably because the houses are smaller and it's benefitting less from the changes around Green Lanes. But it is noticably tidier than a few years ago.

One thing I didn't say and should have - prices are definitely rising throughout the area, and it's showing up in sold prices so not just optimistic asking prices. I don't expect Seven Sisters to get cheaper again unless there is an overall housing slowdown/slump.

am I nuts for considering to buy a place in seven sisters?

Perhaps.
You are nuts to consider it if

• you want a choice of places (or even one place!) for a pleasant drink or evening meal within 5 minutes walk
  
• you won't be able to live with litter, flytipping and adult men urinating against trees or walls in broad daylight
  
• groups of men hanging around makes you feel unsafe
  
  

you are not nuts if

• you want a lot of home for your money
  
• you want to be cycling distance from the centre of London but also have good public transport connections
  
• you want plenty of local shops and everyday chains within walking distance
  
• you want somewhere you will be on at least "good morning" terms with your neighbours
  
• you don't mind walking 20 mins or so to find a decent pub/meal, or get a bus
  
• you want to be close to Dalston/Stokie/Hackney but can't afford it
  
• you don't mind people hanging around as long as they don't bother you
  
  

You might be nuts if you have kids and need to consider schools. I don't have kids so can't say, but I do know that both our neighbours raised kids here and they seem pretty sucessful.

I've lived here for seven years and it has changed a lot in the last two years or so. There are artists' communities East and West of here and we are seeing more people and events coming out from that. But it's gone up and down in the past as well. I would not recommend anyone moving here planning to hang in with gritted teeth until it becomes the next Church Street. You must be confident you will be happy here as it is.

Seven Sisters suits us. We wanted a house with a garden not a flat, and decided that living somewhere too small for us would make us more miserable than living somewhere down at heel. We have good friends and neighbours here, we use the local shops, we enjoy having a choice of local parks and we don't eat out every week so we don't mind having to wakl/bike/bus it a bit when we do. But the lack of care some people have for the place they live does depress us sometimes. We have to remind ourselves that we only see the effects from the ignorant minority because the results hang around.

We moved from a rented flat in Finsbury Park a few years before FP took a lurch up the social scale. At the time, our budget would have bought a non-garden 2 bed or a garden 1 bed flat in FP, or a house in Seven Sisters. We didn't think FP was significantly nicer than Seven Sisters enough to justify the lack of space.

If you 've got any specific questions feel free to ask.

I have two unused silver 155 cranksets, Miche Young or origin-8. You can have either for £10 collected from Seven Sisters or St Paul's. The Miche Young is a full chainset (a double, but you could run with one chainring), the origin-8 is just the cranks.

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/miche-young-chainset/
http://www.roadbikeoutlet.com/origin8-165mm-crankset-gunmetal-grey-with-silver-46t-chainring.html

...
the only thing that i've not really decided on is whether or not to keep the chainguard. personally i would prefer to keep it off and have full access to the chain, but it does rather add to the aesthetics. it's such a mad ballache to have to remove the cotter pins and chainset just to get the guard off the bike.

You shouldn't have to remove the chain guard completely to change or reseat the chain, just the round plate and the little segment behind the axle. Top tip: a net curtain wire with a hook on the end makes feeding the chain through much easier

Something I have done on another 3 speed is change from caliper brakes to a modern coaster rear brake and drum front brake. Vintage rod-operated hub brakes are hard to get but if you aren't worried about a period look (and can lace a wheel) a modern cable-operated hub brake might be the easiest solution, and avoids having to drill for caliper bolts.

That's a lovely bike, I love the riding position on the older bicycles. Out of interest, was it rideable when you got it or are you still waiting to find out how it rides?

This is a thread about my 1932 ladies Raleigh: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/746940-1932-Loop-frame-Raleigh-tourist-(pic-heavy)

Unlike you I kept the rod brakes, but swapped to alloy rims (yes, you can get them for rod brakes!) and salmon kool-stops. I also swapped the front hub for a dynohub. Though if I did it again I'd probably go for a coaster rear brake, really prefer coasters these days.

Best tip I have for old bikes is to clean old rusty chrome with aluminium foil and white vinegar or diet coke. It is amazing how well it cleans up. rust is much bulkier than metal so what looks like a lump of rust can often turn out to be mostly chrome still underneath.

Thank you Dave. I wouldn't have thought of Northumberland Street - I think it was peds only when I lived in Newcastle. Good to know, much nicer than either Percy or John Dobson street. (Unless it's been turned into a 3 lane dual carriageway or something, like happened to the road where the Broken Doll used to be!)

Yes, that's Newcastle. Lots of possible routes through town. Which do you find most bike-friendly, especially round Haymarket to the top of the Great North Road?

Perfect from the start of the moor, but what's the best route through the town? All I can remember is the flyovers and dual carriage ways round Haymarket and Barras Bridge, pretty sure it's not bike able.

I'm bringing a bike home to mum on Friday. I'll have to ride from Central Station to Gosforth at about 11pm. It's about 10 years since I lived in Newcastle and they keep changing the roads. What do you think is the best route? It's a 3 speed Gazelle so not nippy, but the old-lady-go-to-church effect means people tend to give me space :)