-
-
Still no luck, and the pedal wrench is getting more and more bent. I'm just holding the bike up at the same time as I don't have a stand. The way I got the other one off was by balancing the bike against the wall, squeezing the brake levers real hard so the bike didn't move and the standing on the pedal wrench. Which eventually worked. The same method is not working on the other side. It seems that, unless there is any special method I don't know about, there is no way of getting it off - the wrench is deforming and the pedal is not moving. Amused by the suggestion of the gas hob, but I've got induction. No way that's gonna work. Petrol? Aaaaaargh
-
Cheers for the picture freezing, is that the same for every bike? So the left hand pedal (non drive side) should be turned clockwise? I will have another go although like I said couldn't get it to move in either direction. Is there any chance of fucking up the threading on the cranks by trying too hard?
-
Are you turning it the right way, i.e. the opposite way to the other one?
Yeah I think I'm turning it the right way! Tried both ways as I got unsure of myself as it wasn't working. The first one, that worked, I turned anti-clockwise. The second one I was mostly also trying to turn anti-clockwise, but that meant the opposite direction to the other as it's on the other side of course. But yeah couldn't get it to budge in either direction.
-
So I'm changing my pedals. I got a cheap (although well reviewed) pedal wrench off wiggle for the job. The first one was super tough to get off, and required me to use what seemed like too much strength, but then it worked fine. New pedal went on, and I took it off and put it back on just to check, and it moved nice and easily. So something was a bit dodgy about the old pedals, or some fool (second hand bike) had waaay overtightened them. Now for the second one - it won't budge at all, and I've put loads of force into it and bent the pedal wrench, it won't turn a bloody milimetre. What am I doing wrong? Any tips for how to fix this? I am loathe to go to my LBS and pay somebody to do it for me! Thanks
-
Lock it somewhere else
yeah i do lock it elsewhere, meaning a longer walk and also that ive got to lock it on a public street rather than in the uni, but it's just annoying that they've gone to the effort and cost of putting up a huge amount of completely useless cycle stands - why is there a whole industry producing insecure cycle security?
-
Some prick overtaking on a bend in the narrow, segregated cycle lane on Torrington Place and nearly running me (cycling opposite direction) into the curb. That stretch is bad enough with cars trying to turn across the cycle lane without having to deal with pillocks overtaking in the most inappropriate spots along there.
sympathise, this has happened several times to me in exactly this spot
-
-
well this doesn't apply to the particular bit i was talking about, but actually lots of the highway code is law. anything that says you 'should' do something is not the law (but i didn't say anything about whether or not he was breaking the law, just said he was doing something wrong). but any part of the highway code that says you 'must' do something is a law. that's why it quotes the relevant laws, eg the bit immediately after what i quoted:
You MUST NOT use your horn
while stationary on the road when driving in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 am
except when another road user poses a danger.
[Law CUR reg 99] -
I gave a little toot on horn to make a point and the riders towards the back decided to flick the Vs at me as though I had done something wrong.
you: i used the horn to make a point
highway code:
112The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively.
(http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070289)so maybe he flicked the vs at you as if you had done something wrong because you did do something wrong
also that RED find made me do a big lol
-
Oh come on, that's not nearly equivalent to scraping a guy across trees and street furniture with your car. The baseball bat could be interpreted as self-defence. Dragging a man to his death while you're locked safely in a big metal box is the act of an animal.
The entire sorry story makes me feel ashamed to be the same species as this guy.
just trying to justify what i said, so again from wikipedia:
On May 25, 2010, prosecutor Richard Peck withdrew all charges against Bryant stemming from the incident, noting there was "no reasonable prospect of conviction."[3] Peck said that "[Bryant] was attacked by a man who unfortunately was in a rage. [Bryant] was legally justified in his attempt to get away"
so the prosecutor at least clearly did interpret it as self-defence.
also it says it was a convertible car - not sure if the top was down or not but you can see how you might feel threatened, and how you wouldn't be protected by a big metal box, if it was.
not going to say any more on this other than that it is a terrible tragedy, and i'm in support of the petition.
peace
-
I disagree - I don't see using a car as a weapon any differently to using a gun or a knife.
'I didn't mean to kill him, I just meant to run him over...' doesn't really work for me.
well this is what it says on wikipedia: (i'm aware that's not a great source but the best i have)
"The fatality occurred when Bryant drove away and Sheppard grabbed hold of the side of the vehicle.[21][24][25] The car veered into the opposite lanes, Sheppard's body struck a fire hydrant knocking him off the car and his head hit the pavement.[22] There were witnesses who said it appeared Bryant had attempted to knock Sheppard off the car by striking him against trees and mailboxes."
so it's not really the same as if he shot or stabbed him, where it is obvious that there is intent to kill. not to mention the fact that of course just having a gun or a knife shows you are out to cause harm - which is of course not true of driving a car. it's also not the same as if he deliberately ran him down and then reversed over him or something, which would also obviously show an intent to kill. the guy apparently claimed that he was just trying to get the cyclist off his car - so if this is true (i understand that is a huge if), then it is more like the following situation: you were walking back from cricket practice and accidentally trod on someone's toe, this caused an argument and as you walked away they ran after you, you got worried and hit them with your cricket bat, and they hit their head on a lampost and died. also a tragedy but not murder.
anyway not wanting to cause an argument just saying that it's easy to judge but impossible to know what the guy was actually thinking or what he intended.
-
I've added my name to the petition.
I really don't know what to say about the case - it's frightening to think he wasn't even charged with murder in the first place....
well it would never be murder - extremely unlikely that there actually was, let alone could be proved, any intent to kill the cyclist (as opposed to simply to harm him). so manslaughter at worst.
also, whilst i think it's absolutely revolting that the guy is trying to make money out of it with his book, and i have signed the petition, the guy should still be considered innocent until proven guilty. it is at least possible that there is no conspiracy, and the prosecutors genuinely did not think they had a good enough case to bring it to trial (it is very common for this to happen). it is also seems possible (although i've only read the wikipedia article so admit to not being the best informed) that it might be true that he accidentally bumped the cyclist's rear wheel, and then when his car was grabbed he felt threatened and was just trying to get the guy off his car.
i'm genuinely not trying to play devil's advocate, and my heart goes out to the family and friends of the cyclist, it is undoubtedly a terrible tragedy - but in my opinion we ought to think twice. just because he is a horrible human being and trying to make money out of the situation doesn't mean we ought to call him a murderer.
-
I saw someone do exactly this a few months ago next to me as we were both locking up and said "Sorry to be rude but can I show you something?" and undid the quick release and un hooked the v brake in under 10 seconds, thakfully they took it the right way and were appreciative of the impromptu demo
what are you meant to do with a stand like that tho?! unless the others are empty and you can take up several at once by putting it sideways.
we have loads of stands like that at my uni and it's so annoying cos there's no way of locking properly to them
-
is there any reason why i shouldnt get this stem?
http://www.planet-x-bikes.co.uk/i/q/ST3T4GX/3ttt-4gx-stem
it is so cheap it has made me suspicious
ugliness related reasons not relevant!
-
-
Here's how I usually lock my (*) aluminium hybrid, although it doesn't have fat tyres.
(*) Describe as you see fit
is that a particularly enormous lock? i've tried and not been able to fit my kryptonite new york like that, but then you've managed to do it with a bloody helmet, crank and pedal all in too, making a mockery of my locking efforts.
- bows to locking master -
- bows to locking master -
-
Or 'Sheldon' it. (Round wheel rim in rear triangle).
But the ideal if poss is obviously to do rim and frame. Guess it depends on what you are locking too?
i'm locking it to the standard n shaped stands (separate question, are these the ones people call sheffield stands?)
i thought - and others seem to agree- the sheldon method was discredited as a method of locking the frame, as if they chop the wheel to bits then the frame is completely free.
so would it be:
rim and frame > frame in the rear triangle but no rim > sheldon
?
i cant fit the rim and frame as well because i ride a disgusting aluminium hybrid with humoungous clearances and fat tyres :(
-
-
-
Hello,
...Also I would say the glory days of private sector companies 'looking after' you when you are ill, pregnant, retiring are fading away and the public sector is looking like it will follow suit slowly, but surely...wonder if anybody's going to take up the offer of working for someone who's on a mission to destroy the welfare state and decent workers' rights
whilst pretending that he's not actually your boss so that he doesnt have to provide the bare minimum of social security
WAC
-
-
Still, thanks for all your help guys