First week

On Jan 15, 7:11*am, Justin wrote:
On 15 jan, 05:46, The Weasel wrote:



On 14/01/2012 17:00, Ian Smith wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012, spoke *wrote:

* Well, i've cycled to owrk& *back every day this week.

Excellent.

* legs hurt like hell for the first 3 days, but by friday they were not
* too bad. *The muscles have really tightened up now.

Even the first day back after a break (eg at Christmas) the journey
feels much longer than it should to me, so this is no surprise.

* Few things to get used to though. *Some cars wizz past really close
* which scares me a bit.

Yes, that happens. *I get an occasional scare, even having cycled to
work for decades. *There are things you can do - don't hog the kerb,
if there's a particular point on the route where drivers seem to take
chances move out into the lane for that, a tactical wobble discourages
overtaking, looking over your shoulder at them seems to encourage it.

Interesting point

Highway Code Rule 212 states:
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see
Rules 162-167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they
intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and
space to do so.

But I have noticed the same as you have, that by looking over your
shoulder seems to have the opposite effect in that the driver will
assume that you have seen them coming and can overtake regardless.

I have noticed a big difference with a mirror fitted to the down tube so
I can keep an eye on the traffic behind without keeping looking over the
shoulder. And while the driver behind thinks that I am completely
oblivious to their presence, a slight erratic wobble makes them think
that they need to take extra care too. And they do.

I have also lately been experimenting with distance from the kerb.
Anything less than about a metre (which in my case is the height of the
bike) away from the kerb will often encourage them to overtake too
closely. If the road is wide enough to allow them to pass, then a metre
away from the kerb is fine but certainly no less.

If the road is not wide enough to be overtaken with a safe clearance or
the overtaking traffic is tending to poorly judge gaps, then a third to
halfway into the lane (or that side of the road) is better.

--
The Weasel

In Holland, close to the village in which I live, there is a very
narrow stretch of single carriageway *(in the middle of the road there
is a barrier to separate the two opposing traffic flows): it is narrow
because of extensive repair works to the whole infrastructure in the
town concerned.

There is a sign from the Highways Department advising cyclists to ride
in the middle of the lane. Another sign forbids motorists from
overtaking cyclists in the narrowed section.

There is a similar sign on the banks of the Amstel, it may as well not
be there judging by the amount of notice take of it.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:28:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

They are only designed to protect in falls from a
stationary or slow-moving bike

I am not convinced even that is a claim of manafaturers or designers
of cycle helemts.

The basic claim seems to be that, if fitted correctly, they, will more
likely than not, reduce the severity of any impact to the head. Some
have claimed a reduction of up to 88%. That claim has dubious
scientific backing.

On 15/01/2012 14:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:28:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

They are only designed to protect in falls from a
stationary or slow-moving bike

I am not convinced even that is a claim of manafaturers or designers
of cycle helemts.

The basic claim seems to be that, if fitted correctly, they, will more
likely than not, reduce the severity of any impact to the head. Some
have claimed a reduction of up to 88%. That claim has dubious
scientific backing.

A helmet (or better described as a hat) will always offer some
protection if the cyclist falls off. Even a woolly hat will offer some
protection, even a full head of hair will offer some protection.

But to claim that cycling without a hat is ‘far too dangerous’ is rather
like claiming that driving without a seat belt is ‘far too dangerous’,
if the cycling or driving is really that bad, they may have a point, but
it would be better to cycle safely and competently, avoid ‘falling off’
(OK we’ve all done it) and more importantly learn to use proper road
behaviour and cycling techniques than to hope that a helmet will save
them when they eventually fall off.


--
The Weasel

"The Weasel" wrote in message ...

On 15/01/2012 14:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:28:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

They are only designed to protect in falls from a
stationary or slow-moving bike

I am not convinced even that is a claim of manafaturers or designers
of cycle helemts.

The basic claim seems to be that, if fitted correctly, they, will more
likely than not, reduce the severity of any impact to the head. Some
have claimed a reduction of up to 88%. That claim has dubious
scientific backing.

A helmet (or better described as a hat) will always offer some
protection if the cyclist falls off. Even a woolly hat will offer some
protection, even a full head of hair will offer some protection.

But to claim that cycling without a hat is ‘far too dangerous’ is rather
like claiming that driving without a seat belt is ‘far too dangerous’,
if the cycling or driving is really that bad, they may have a point, but
it would be better to cycle safely and competently, avoid ‘falling off’
(OK we’ve all done it) and more importantly learn to use proper road
behaviour and cycling techniques than to hope that a helmet will save
them when they eventually fall off.
===================================

I agree but simple safety precautions like protective headgear make sense,
especially for someone inexperienced.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:51:14 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:28:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

They are only designed to protect in falls from a
stationary or slow-moving bike

I am not convinced even that is a claim of manafaturers or designers
of cycle helemts.

True, none of them I have seen even claim that much, but it is a
reasonable inference from the test standards, at least for informal
use. In reality the tests are so unrealistic that they are pretty much
valueless other than as a basic test that the manufacturer has at
least tried to make something better than a wooly balaclava.

The basic claim seems to be that, if fitted correctly, they, will more
likely than not, reduce the severity of any impact to the head. Some
have claimed a reduction of up to 88%. That claim has dubious
scientific backing.

That figure is not even supported by its original source any more.
That is, they admit is cannot be supported from the data, though they
still assert that they believe it. The source in question was already
lobbying for compulsion when they published the study, which was
designed to remedy the fact that there was no evidence on which to
base their campaign; make of that what you will.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On 15/01/2012 18:39, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Bertie wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

They are only designed to protect in falls from a
stationary or slow-moving bike

I am not convinced even that is a claim of manafaturers or designers
of cycle helemts.

True, none of them I have seen even claim that much, but it is a
reasonable inference from the test standards, at least for informal
use. In reality the tests are so unrealistic that they are pretty much
valueless other than as a basic test that the manufacturer has at
least tried to make something better than a wooly balaclava.

The basic claim seems to be that, if fitted correctly, they, will more
likely than not, reduce the severity of any impact to the head. Some
have claimed a reduction of up to 88%. That claim has dubious
scientific backing.

That figure is not even supported by its original source any more.
That is, they admit is cannot be supported from the data, though they
still assert that they believe it. The source in question was already
lobbying for compulsion when they published the study, which was
designed to remedy the fact that there was no evidence on which to
base their campaign; make of that what you will.

And they look so uncool as well, don't they? What was it that that hapless
newby poster said they make you look like.... AWas it a robin? No... A finch?
A sparrow, maybe? A lark...?

On Jan 15, 9:54*am, spoke mon wrote:
On Jan 14, 6:10*pm, "Mr. Benn" wrote:









"thirty-six" *wrote in message

....

I find a woolly hat comfortable at this time of year. *I suggest you
get a helmet that fits or stick to a wooly hat, a warm head will do
more to help your safety right now.
================================================== ==

FRUITCAKE ALERT!!! *FRUITCAKE ALERT!!! *FRUITCAKE ALERT!!!

Spokemom, please ignore any advice from thirty-six. *A wooly hat will give
you head no protection if you fall off. *Please continue to wear a helmet.

Next he'll be advising you to take kelp tablets and a pinch of sea salt.. *If
he does, ignore that as well.

I've been raeding a lot of the old messages to get a feel for the
group. I already worked out he is a bit weird.

Spokemon

Thank you..

On Jan 15, 3:07*pm, "Mr. Benn" wrote:
"The Weasel" *wrote in ...

On 15/01/2012 14:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:28:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
*wrote:

They are only designed to protect in falls from a
stationary or slow-moving bike

I am not convinced even that is a claim of manafaturers or designers
of cycle helemts.

The basic claim seems to be that, if fitted correctly, they, will more
likely than not, reduce the severity of any impact to the head. Some
have claimed a reduction of up to 88%. That claim has dubious
scientific backing.

A helmet (or better described as a hat) will always offer some
protection if the cyclist falls off. Even a woolly hat will offer some
protection, even a full head of hair will offer some protection.

But to claim that cycling without a hat is ‘far too dangerous’ is rather
like claiming that driving without a seat belt is ‘far too dangerous’,
if the cycling or driving is really that bad, they may have a point, but
it would be better to cycle safely and competently, avoid ‘falling off’
(OK we’ve all done it) and more importantly learn to use proper road
behaviour and cycling techniques than to hope that a helmet will save
them when they eventually fall off.
===================================

I agree but simple safety precautions like protective headgear make sense,
especially for someone inexperienced.

Protecting against the cold using a wooly hat is a primary safety aid,
meant to reduce the incidence of a fall in the first place. A skimpy
cap with holes in it is not going to regulate cranial temperature in
the winter as well as a woolly hat. A cold brain makes poor decisions.

On 15/01/2012 19:01, JNugent wrote:
On 15/01/2012 18:39, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Bertie wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

They are only designed to protect in falls from a
stationary or slow-moving bike

I am not convinced even that is a claim of manafaturers or designers
of cycle helemts.

True, none of them I have seen even claim that much, but it is a
reasonable inference from the test standards, at least for informal
use. In reality the tests are so unrealistic that they are pretty much
valueless other than as a basic test that the manufacturer has at
least tried to make something better than a wooly balaclava.

The basic claim seems to be that, if fitted correctly, they, will more
likely than not, reduce the severity of any impact to the head. Some
have claimed a reduction of up to 88%. That claim has dubious
scientific backing.

That figure is not even supported by its original source any more.
That is, they admit is cannot be supported from the data, though they
still assert that they believe it. The source in question was already
lobbying for compulsion when they published the study, which was
designed to remedy the fact that there was no evidence on which to
base their campaign; make of that what you will.

And they look so uncool as well, don't they? What was it that that
hapless newby poster said they make you look like.... AWas it a robin?
No... A finch? A sparrow, maybe? A lark...?

Dunno about that.

I use one of these:
http://www.k38italia.it/images/casco_gedi2.jpg

I’d say that’s pretty cool and it gives me somewhere to mount a video
camera.


--
The Weasel

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...

Protecting against the cold using a wooly hat is a primary safety aid,
meant to reduce the incidence of a fall in the first place. A skimpy
cap with holes in it is not going to regulate cranial temperature in
the winter as well as a woolly hat. A cold brain makes poor decisions.
================================================== =

I suggest you put your woolly hat on right now. And put a pinch of sea salt
on your head. That will help to combat the cold.

Oh, and a seaweed tablet as well. Almost forgot that.