Re: Scary

[Adrian Boliston]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...

> "The Conservatives - today holding a transport conference which they hope
> will win them a reputation as "the party of the motorist" - have voiced
> concerns about traffic calming measures."

Surely a lot of traffic calming annoys both cyclists and motorists alike.

[Dave Kahn]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:20:43 +0100, "Adrian Boliston"
> wrote:

>"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
>
>> "The Conservatives - today holding a transport conference which they hope
>> will win them a reputation as "the party of the motorist" - have voiced
>> concerns about traffic calming measures."
>
>Surely a lot of traffic calming annoys both cyclists and motorists alike.

I agree. A lot of traffic calming measures are not just inconvenient
but actively dangerous for cyclists.

--
Dave...

[Rory]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message >...
> From BBC News:
>
> "The Conservatives - today holding a transport conference which they hope
> will win them a reputation as "the party of the motorist" - have voiced
> concerns about traffic calming measures."

What's the concerns being voiced? Traffic is too calm? We need to
lively it up a bit: abolish speed limits - lets see what the NHS can
do when really given some work...

> I find this disturbing.

Yeah, cuz where are they going if that ruse doesn't get them into
power?
The Party of the Paedophiles? The Party of the raving Axe Murderers?

[Richard Goodman]

"Dave Kahn" > wrote in message
...

>
> I agree. A lot of traffic calming measures are not just inconvenient
> but actively dangerous for cyclists.
>

Me too. I should be very happy to see speed bumps and other
cyclist-endangering 'traffic-calming' measures got rid of. This doesn't
mean that I am against traffic-calming per se, just that most of it I see is
worse than the problem it is intended to solve.

Rich

[Velvet]

Richard Goodman wrote:
> "Dave Kahn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>I agree. A lot of traffic calming measures are not just inconvenient
>>but actively dangerous for cyclists.
>>
>
>
> Me too. I should be very happy to see speed bumps and other
> cyclist-endangering 'traffic-calming' measures got rid of. This doesn't
> mean that I am against traffic-calming per se, just that most of it I see is
> worse than the problem it is intended to solve.
>
> Rich
>
>
I have to admit until yesterday I didn't realise how speedhumps could
adversely affect cyclists (apart from being a mild annoyance). I'm
talking about the rounded ones, not those vicious triangular types in
private estates. Came down a steep hill, which has speed humps on.
Braking is a bit hit and miss as it is still on my bike (this is me, not
the bike, that's the problem). Discover that

a) hill looks even scarier over the front of the now nearly non-existant
bars/wheel,

b) speed humps mean I have to go down at a fairly sedate speed,

c) hands aren't up to applying brakes hard enough to keep speed down
without complaining lots,

d) the whole thing is scary beyond belief.

I can't help thinking that whilst scary, it might have been a little
more manageable if I'd been able to ride down a bit faster, and have to
slow at the bottom, rather than negotiating all these speed humps as
well as the downhill-ness of it all.

Am I deluding myself? (the hill doesn't flatten out at the bottom, but
bends around sharply to the right, necessitating application of brakes
strongly at some or all points of the hill!)

Velvet

PS. Any tips on how to deal with the downhill issue? My body is saying
the bars feel like they're at knee height compared to my bum when going
downhill, but they're actually level with the saddle (dropped bars, in
case that makes a difference).

[Velvet]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:28:45 +0100, Dave Kahn > wrote:
>
>
>> To go really fast put your hands close together on the tops, put your
>> feet so the cranks are horizontal, lie right down on the top tube,
>> raise your bottom and move it behind the saddle. Make sure your face
>> is far enough away from the bars that they won't bang it if you hit a
>> bump. Wheee!
>
>
> No, no, no.
>
> To go really fast put your hands either together in your lap or tight
> to your sides, put your feet so the cranks and your legs are near
> horizontal and lie right down backwards. Lower your bottom into a
> nice comfy seat.
>
> The only thing you need to worry about face-wise is that it doesn't
> ache from the grinning.
>
> In this position rounded speed-bumps aren't a great issue either -
> just let them launch you into teh air - the ground comes back to you
> eventually.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

Yerrrrs. At some point I will be paying a trip to a certain not-so-LBS
in forest row to take a recumbent trike out ;) I have a feeling I'd
really like one of those - of course, once I've tried one I'll *really*
want one. Personally I blame my other half, cos I'd never heard of or
seen them before I met him... and was quite happy as a non-cyclist, too,
come to that :-)

Only thing that does make me think though, is where I live it's very
hilly. Very very hilly. Can't avoid them. And I'm not sure how much I
fancy lugging one of those up the hills. Nice for flat and downhill
yes, but it's hard enough work getting me and existing fairly light bike
up the hills!

Velvet

[Arthur Clune]

Velvet > wrote:

: I was reading all that with interest (my bike's a roadie by the way),
: until I got to the last paragraph.... Suspect that's not something I'll
: be trying any time soon!! :-) Regular speed humps are no prob - just
: that coupled with steep downhill it all looked far too hairy!

It takes practice, like everything else.

Sounds like you need to improve your hand strength - riding the hill
regularly if that's an option will probably do that. Otherwise you
could look at some of those squishy-ball type hand exercisers and try
using one while walking/watching TV/whatever.

Arthur

[Dave Larrington]

Velvet wrote:

> Only thing that does make me think though, is where I live it's very
> hilly. Very very hilly. Can't avoid them. And I'm not sure how
> much I fancy lugging one of those up the hills. Nice for flat and
> downhill
> yes, but it's hard enough work getting me and existing fairly light
> bike
> up the hills!

*That* is what gears are for... Had a recent bottom bracket swap not cured
the 'orrible clicking from the Speedmachine's front end, the next move might
well have been a 58/94 PCD chainset, enabling the use of a 20 tooth
chainring...

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Velvet]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> Velvet wrote:
>
>
>>Only thing that does make me think though, is where I live it's very
>>hilly. Very very hilly. Can't avoid them. And I'm not sure how
>>much I fancy lugging one of those up the hills. Nice for flat and
>>downhill
>>yes, but it's hard enough work getting me and existing fairly light
>>bike
>>up the hills!
>
>
> *That* is what gears are for... Had a recent bottom bracket swap not cured
> the 'orrible clicking from the Speedmachine's front end, the next move might
> well have been a 58/94 PCD chainset, enabling the use of a 20 tooth
> chainring...
>
> Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
> ================================================== =========
> Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
> http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
> ================================================== =========
>
>

Um, yes... I run out of gears at the moment though! And this on a 27?
speed! It's granny ring and lowest all around for me ;-) Mind you,
would love to find out what gradient the hills are around here.
Guestimating from contour lines on maps is only a very rough idea.

Velvet