Cyclist displaying high standards

"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:34:59 +0100, Bertie Wooster

wrote:

snip


The lights went green and we all pulled off. At the moment of pulling
off my bicycle handlebars broke, and there was nothing for me to do
but end up in a heap on the tarmac.


"The handle-bars broke" - what was it - instantaneous metal fatigue?

Or was the bike poorly maintained?

Probably trying too hard to make a quick getaway, cyclists tend to do that
after they've shouted at someone.

Sounds like he must have been "controlling the lane" to punish the coach
driver, instead of keeping to the left and out of everyone's way.

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:57:08 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:34:59 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip


The lights went green and we all pulled off. At the moment of pulling
off my bicycle handlebars broke, and there was nothing for me to do
but end up in a heap on the tarmac.


"The handle-bars broke" - what was it - instantaneous metal fatigue?

Or was the bike poorly maintained?

It was a serious flaw in the handlebar design.

Enjoying a bit of bike bling, I bought what I thought were carbon
handlebars. Infact they were aluminium handlebars encased with a
carbon sleeve. Over the five or so years I had the bike, water had
ingressed between the sleeve and the aluminium causing the metal to
corrode, eventually leading to the catastrophic failure (to the
handlebars) and near catastrophic failure (to my arse) mentioned
above.

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:57:08 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:34:59 +0100, Bertie Wooster

wrote:

snip


The lights went green and we all pulled off. At the moment of pulling
off my bicycle handlebars broke, and there was nothing for me to do
but end up in a heap on the tarmac.


"The handle-bars broke" - what was it - instantaneous metal fatigue?

Or was the bike poorly maintained?

It was a serious flaw in the handlebar design.

Enjoying a bit of bike bling, I bought what I thought were carbon
handlebars. Infact they were aluminium handlebars encased with a
carbon sleeve. Over the five or so years I had the bike, water had
ingressed between the sleeve and the aluminium causing the metal to
corrode, eventually leading to the catastrophic failure (to the
handlebars) and near catastrophic failure (to my arse) mentioned
above.

Perhaps a compulsory yearly mechanical condition test might ensure that
cheap components of poor quality are not fitted to these dangerous machines.
The tyres, wheels, bells and lights could also be examined at the same time,
together with mudguards and other fitments, too.
Perhaps it could be carried out by an approved government body who would
licence competent service stations to do the work on their behalf.
A yearly fee would obviously have to be charged, too. And the bicycles would
have to be registered to ensure compliance.
As you cyclists always say - if it could save just one life, it would
outweigh all the inconvenience.

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:48:19 +0100, "Partac"
wrote:



"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
.. .

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:57:08 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:34:59 +0100, Bertie Wooster

wrote:

snip


The lights went green and we all pulled off. At the moment of pulling
off my bicycle handlebars broke, and there was nothing for me to do
but end up in a heap on the tarmac.


"The handle-bars broke" - what was it - instantaneous metal fatigue?

Or was the bike poorly maintained?

It was a serious flaw in the handlebar design.

Enjoying a bit of bike bling, I bought what I thought were carbon
handlebars. Infact they were aluminium handlebars encased with a
carbon sleeve. Over the five or so years I had the bike, water had
ingressed between the sleeve and the aluminium causing the metal to
corrode, eventually leading to the catastrophic failure (to the
handlebars) and near catastrophic failure (to my arse) mentioned
above.

Perhaps a compulsory yearly mechanical condition test might ensure that
cheap components of poor quality are not fitted to these dangerous machines.
The tyres, wheels, bells and lights could also be examined at the same time,
together with mudguards and other fitments, too.
Perhaps it could be carried out by an approved government body who would
licence competent service stations to do the work on their behalf.
A yearly fee would obviously have to be charged, too. And the bicycles would
have to be registered to ensure compliance.
As you cyclists always say - if it could save just one life, it would
outweigh all the inconvenience.

The handlebars were an expensive component of poor quality, not a
cheap component of poor quality.

Don't forget, no lives were lost in this incident.

On 18/07/2013 23:00, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:48:19 +0100, "Partac"
wrote:



"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:57:08 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:34:59 +0100, Bertie Wooster

wrote:

snip


The lights went green and we all pulled off. At the moment of pulling
off my bicycle handlebars broke, and there was nothing for me to do
but end up in a heap on the tarmac.


"The handle-bars broke" - what was it - instantaneous metal fatigue?

Or was the bike poorly maintained?

It was a serious flaw in the handlebar design.

Enjoying a bit of bike bling, I bought what I thought were carbon
handlebars. Infact they were aluminium handlebars encased with a
carbon sleeve. Over the five or so years I had the bike, water had
ingressed between the sleeve and the aluminium causing the metal to
corrode, eventually leading to the catastrophic failure (to the
handlebars) and near catastrophic failure (to my arse) mentioned
above.

Perhaps a compulsory yearly mechanical condition test might ensure that
cheap components of poor quality are not fitted to these dangerous machines.
The tyres, wheels, bells and lights could also be examined at the same time,
together with mudguards and other fitments, too.
Perhaps it could be carried out by an approved government body who would
licence competent service stations to do the work on their behalf.
A yearly fee would obviously have to be charged, too. And the bicycles would
have to be registered to ensure compliance.
As you cyclists always say - if it could save just one life, it would
outweigh all the inconvenience.

The handlebars were an expensive component of poor quality, not a
cheap component of poor quality.

Proof of the need for a British Standard (or, alternatively, a set of
construction and use regulations) and of the need to ensure that no
significant components which fail to meet it are fitted to road-going
vehicles.

Don't forget, no lives were lost in this incident.

Luckily.

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:34:31 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

The handlebars were an expensive component of poor quality, not a
cheap component of poor quality.

Proof of the need for a British Standard (or, alternatively, a set of
construction and use regulations) and of the need to ensure that no
significant components which fail to meet it are fitted to road-going
vehicles.

I agree with you. There are too many bicycles on the road which are
made of poor quality components. I have written to trading standards
about this in the past in relation to vee brakes on children's bikes.

Don't forget, no lives were lost in this incident.

Luckily.

I don't put it down to luck. I put it down to the skill of the
criminal National Express coach driver who I had earlier berated for
illegally encroaching into the bike box.

I note that Boris Johnson wants to decriminalise bike box encroachment
in London so that TfL can enforce compliance with bike box cameras.

On 19/07/2013 07:49, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:

The handlebars were an expensive component of poor quality, not a
cheap component of poor quality.

Proof of the need for a British Standard (or, alternatively, a set of
construction and use regulations) and of the need to ensure that no
significant components which fail to meet it are fitted to road-going
vehicles.

I agree with you. There are too many bicycles on the road which are
made of poor quality components. I have written to trading standards
about this in the past in relation to vee brakes on children's bikes.

Don't forget, no lives were lost in this incident.

Luckily.

I don't put it down to luck. I put it down to the skill of the
criminal National Express coach driver who I had earlier berated for
illegally encroaching into the bike box.

Well, that's very reasonable, but on your account, had the driver simply
been looking in a different direction (perhaps at one of the battery of
mirrors with which large vehicles are expected to be fitted these days)
just as your incident occurred (thereby changing the point at which he
saw your predicament by a mere second or two), things might have turned
out differently. There was a certain amount of good fortune involved for
both of you.

I note that Boris Johnson wants to decriminalise bike box encroachment
in London so that TfL can enforce compliance with bike box cameras.

That does not augur well. Other "de-criminalisation", which sounds so
innocuous and helpful in its raw terms, has been used to create
financial rip-off conditions, especially in parking, with LAs
artificially restricting parking facilities in order to create
"offences" out of nothing in order simply that they can raise scandalous
amounts of money.

More widely, we now have a system of local government which lends itself
to such corruption and oppression.

Highway authorities and transport authorities need to be separated and
given targets which are in tension with each other in the interests of
checks and balances (where there are currently none). PT authorities
should have no right to pre-empt other road users' requirements and
should simply compete for road-space along with everyone else.
Additionally, highway authorities need to be incentivised to promote
traffic throughput and strongly de-incentivised against the promotion of
congestion - like it used to be. Dismissal and prison and/or
disqualification from office for officers and councillors conspiring
against the travelling public would concentrate their minds.

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 23:00:33 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip


The handlebars were an expensive component of poor quality, not a
cheap component of poor quality.



So did they settle out of court with you?

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 07:49:01 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip


I note that Boris Johnson wants to decriminalise bike box encroachment
in London so that TfL can enforce compliance with bike box cameras.


Oh - he wants to make another source of money from motorists.

What a surprise.

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:12:48 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/07/2013 07:49, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:

The handlebars were an expensive component of poor quality, not a
cheap component of poor quality.

Proof of the need for a British Standard (or, alternatively, a set of
construction and use regulations) and of the need to ensure that no
significant components which fail to meet it are fitted to road-going
vehicles.

I agree with you. There are too many bicycles on the road which are
made of poor quality components. I have written to trading standards
about this in the past in relation to vee brakes on children's bikes.

Don't forget, no lives were lost in this incident.

Luckily.

I don't put it down to luck. I put it down to the skill of the
criminal National Express coach driver who I had earlier berated for
illegally encroaching into the bike box.

Well, that's very reasonable, but on your account, had the driver simply
been looking in a different direction (perhaps at one of the battery of
mirrors with which large vehicles are expected to be fitted these days)
just as your incident occurred (thereby changing the point at which he
saw your predicament by a mere second or two), things might have turned
out differently. There was a certain amount of good fortune involved for
both of you.

I note that Boris Johnson wants to decriminalise bike box encroachment
in London so that TfL can enforce compliance with bike box cameras.

That does not augur well. Other "de-criminalisation", which sounds so
innocuous and helpful in its raw terms, has been used to create
financial rip-off conditions, especially in parking, with LAs
artificially restricting parking facilities in order to create
"offences" out of nothing in order simply that they can raise scandalous
amounts of money.

More widely, we now have a system of local government which lends itself
to such corruption and oppression.

Highway authorities and transport authorities need to be separated and
given targets which are in tension with each other in the interests of
checks and balances (where there are currently none). PT authorities
should have no right to pre-empt other road users' requirements and
should simply compete for road-space along with everyone else.
Additionally, highway authorities need to be incentivised to promote
traffic throughput and strongly de-incentivised against the promotion of
congestion - like it used to be. Dismissal and prison and/or
disqualification from office for officers and councillors conspiring
against the travelling public would concentrate their minds.

Nice rant!