BS: On your bike

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 09:49 PM

This last trip to Cambridge (Mass. US), I kept thinking there were lines of cars waiting for lights, but never moving... Turns out they have put the bike lanes between the parked cars and the sidewalks. Thus bikes are not next to moving cars, and drivers do not open car doors into bike lanes. Brill, I thought. Excellent markings at intersections.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: DaveRo
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 03:09 PM

MaJoC the Filk wrote: ...pedestrians hog the cycle lane);

In my town in Kent, cycle lanes are only carved out of pavements, not roads. But the council doesn't maintain the combined cycle/pedestrian path at the full width: the pedestrian side is always furthest from the road and the hedges are not cut back. So we pedestrians have to walk on the bicycle side, and get abused by cyclists for doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 02:44 PM

> special cycle lanes

Hear, Hear. The English approach to producing cycle lanes in towns appears (from bitter experience with the result) to be "let's use paint on the existing road or pavement" for cheapness, with two effects:

* Car space gets squeezed, and cars inevitably encroach on cycle space (resp, pedestrians hog the cycle lane);
* Cycle lanes tend to disappear just when they would be most useful ("we've done the easy bit for you --- now you're on your own, sunshine").

An especially gratuitous example of the latter appears in Station Road in Witney. For most of its length, the cycle lane is on the pavement, but there's a short and narrow flat bridge (a leftover from the railways). At this point, rather than widen the bridge, the cycle lane abruptly jinks sideways into the road for several yards, with no obvious warning to the car traffic. Cyclists have a straight choice between illegally using the pavement, and courting suicide by inattentive driver (who may not wish to play chicken with cars coming the other way).

We now return you to your normal programming. Apologies for the rant: that head of steam's been building up for a decade.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 02:17 PM

Mrs Backwoodsperson spends a fair bit of time working in The Netherlands. She’s a big admirer of their way of handling the considerable amount of cycle-traffic, and believes an investment in this country in their system would do much to improve the situation for all road and footpath users.

I do agree with Steve that it’s a minority of inconsiderate, reckless cyclists who give the majority of good, sensible cyclists a bad name. Very much the same way that a minority of dog-owners who don’t pick their dog’s shit up and dispose of it properly give the vast majority who, like me, are fastidious about clearing up after their dogs, a bad name.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 12:51 PM

Having looked it up, I realise I meant 'mankini', not 'tankini'. And Steve, why not try one of those eh? Nice and cool in this rather hot weather.
Actually, I think the best solution to protect cyclists and also pedestrians etc is to have special cycle lanes along each road. I think they have these in Holland? No other vehicle would be allowed on them, and thus cars/cyclists would be separated for their own safety.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 12:22 PM

Well I don't need Lycra to stand out and get me all sweaty, thanks. I have a day-glo yellow helmet that does the standing-out for me. In the old days I had a Sam Browne belt in fluorescent yellow.

For anything other than short hops I have some nice, loose cycling shorts with a chamois insert. At one time I used to buy shorts made by Bellwether, but I haven't seen them for sale for years. I'm thinking of getting a Brooks B17 saddle. For years I wouldn't settle for anything less. As I like to walk normally upon dismounting I've never had cleats, preferring toe clips with adjustable straps. Can't do either on a Brompton, it seems, but I'm sure I'll adapt.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 11:10 AM

> And ditch the Lycra.

Lycra's functional: it says "here's someone who doesn't want to blend into the background". Vastly better than das blinkenlights some cyclists insist on using during the day, which have the "look at me! look at me!" nature; they don't so much attract attention as insist on monopolising it. I get distracted by them, even as a pedestrian. End of rant.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 09:52 AM

As for wobbling, an experienced cyclist can launch off with minimal wobble. If you're prone to wobbling on takeoff, you should refrain from cycling in traffic until you've practised and gained confidence.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 07:43 AM

Just don't cycle through red lights. It's against the law and it gives cyclists a bad name, and there are aggressive motorists watching. Get off your bike and push it across the junction pedestrian-style if you're that desperate. And ditch the Lycra.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 07:41 AM

Stanron, could you point us to the section in the Highway Code where it says that cyclists may disregard red traffic lights when they judge it to be in their own best interests to do so and sod other road-users and pedestrians, please? I’ve searched my copy but I’ve been unable to find that piece.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: DaveRo
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 07:29 AM

Stanron wrote: Finally, if a cyclist can see that there are no oncoming cars, or pedestrians crossing, then it is perfectly safe to go through the red light...

That might be true if there are no pedestrians anywhere near, who might cross the road unexpectedly - or just walk on it for a few metres to get round something on the pavement. That includes pedestrians the cyclist cannot see - they might be out of his sight. Pedestrians should be able to assume that all vehicles stop at red lights.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 06:32 AM

There used to be a traffic-safety poster around in England, showing a child on a cycle; the child wore a T-shirt with "WARNING: soft vehicle" on the back. Sadly, said child was standing on the pedals, which guarantees that the bike will wobble dangerously: completely the wrong message for the cyclists, but mebbe the right one for the motorist.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Stanron
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 06:18 AM

Cyclists are unique in the transport world by being unstable at zero or low speeds. Stability is only achieved by adjusting weight position and direction. The faster you go, the more stable you become but at very low speeds a cyclist has to wobble from one side to side to another until stability from speed is achieved.

Sat at red lights, with a car dangerously close, the cyclist has three options for when the lights turn to green. First, start and risk bumping into the car, second wait until the car has gone and risk not moving at all if a long queue of cars is behind the first car, and third, move as far forward as possible so that when the lights change he or she can start and get to a stable speed before the car overtakes.

The third option is by far the most sensible. Apart from the stability issue there are two added bonuses. Fist, the driver of car that was alongside can now actually see the cyclist and be knowingly responsible for safety when passing. Second, the cyclist is able to see, which the motorist is not, whether there is any traffic coming in either direction.

Finally, if a cyclist can see that there are no oncoming cars, or pedestrians crossing, then it is perfectly safe to go through the red light. OK it is annoying to the motorists. who can't see what the cyclist can see. They have to wait.

The cyclist has to think of their own safety first because there is no guarantee that motorists will.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 04:43 AM

It's amazing how cyclists are excoriated by car drivers, especially when you consider that cyclists are not emitting poisonous fumes or deadly particulates and are not refuelling with fossil fuel. Well I cycled through heavy rush-hour traffic, including many a jam, and I weaved in and out cautiously. I never jumped a red light or rode on the pavement (or wore Lycra) and if I felt it too dangerous I'd get off and push my bike across busy crossroads. A bike at the front of a queue at traffic lights can easily outrun a car across a junction when the lights change, so no cause of hold-ups there. Things must have changed since the mid-90s, because in thousands of miles of cycling in London I was never once shouted at or threatened by a motorist.

Cyclists are, arguably, far more virtuous road-users than car drivers. The sense of entitlement displayed by so many of the latter is staggering. There may be a few bad cyclists, but come and drive around Bude in the holiday season and I'll show you a damn sight more bad motorists.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 03:40 AM

Just think how much longer that line would be if they rode in single file.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Aug 22 - 02:45 AM

There has been much discussion recently about the possibility of cyclists having to display registration numbers, to pay Road Tax, Insurance etc. This is in order to monitor their transgressions (cycling gaily through red lights, whizzing along on the pavements and so on.)
I don't much mind if they wear Lycra, fur coats or tankinis (!) but when driving my Fiesta I'm very wary of safeguarding them when overtaking a long line of the idiots, two abreast, wobbling about in the middle of a lane etc.
So many times they totally ignore traffic lights, and it's so dangerous.
I used to love my robust, trundly Raleigh bike when I was in my early teens. I called it 'Lucky'. It had a shamrock logo on the bell, and we children used to whizz about everywhere. But there were no cars on the roads then - I knew no family who owned a car! (early Fifties).

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 22 - 06:34 PM

I hesitate to open ancient and neglected threads (I don't want Jeri telling me off...), but this one has just the right title...

Until the mid-90s I was a rabid cyclist. For years I'd cycled to work every day, to start with a seven-mile ride (each way!) through Epping Forest followed by a hairy stretch of the North Circular to Walthamstow. More latterly, from Widemouth Bay to Holsworthy, 22 miles and 1400 feet of climbing every day in all weathers. In 1993 I cycled 6000 miles. All that stopped abruptly in late 1994 when I sustained a knee injury. I still have my hybrid bike (now 33 years old) and can do gentle rides on trails that aren't too hilly.

I'm now 70+ and my knee and my back are nothing to write home about (I've had surgery on both). Mrs Steve has been just as keen a cyclist and she also has knee trouble.

So we've bitten the bullet. Having not spent money on holidays for three years, we've bought electric bikes. Folding ones. Bromptons. I can get them both in the boot of my Focus without letting the seats down. It's fun learning to fold and unfold them, but we're getting good...

So far we've just had a couple of runs. Here are some observations that blew my anti-electric sentiment out of the water. First, you can set the level of assist, or not have it at all. Second, the assist kicks in only after you've pedalled a couple of turns. Thirdly, this is not a motor bike. You don't pedal, you don't get the assist. Fourth, once you get up to 15 mph, there's no more assist (you don't need it!). Now here's the biggie for those with bad knees: the most important part of the assist comes when you launch off and try to get going, or when you need to speed up, or pedal up a hill. That's what puts strain on the knees and that's what the electric bike wipes out. Your knees are looked after.

I'm a total convert and as an ould chap I'm going to be out there riding a bike again - and getting exercise (you don't get away without getting that!)

The bikes were expensive (I've insured them) and the last thing I want to do is show off. We used the money we haven't been spending on holidays. But they are going to be just the ticket for us to carry on getting out and about without sitting in a tin overcoat all the time.

And I never wear Lycra...

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Thompson
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 01:07 AM

Britain is taking action, pouring £1.2bn ($1.54, €1.42) into "cycling and walking" by 2020/21

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/apr/26/the-government-just-announced-a-gamechanger-for-cycling-in-england?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Thompson
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 06:14 PM

Tut, tut, he shouldn't be reading his paper while in control of a vehicle.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 12:45 PM

so would a fit 25 year old emit more co2 cycling fast [roads / rugged terrain]
or having a vigorous shag / wank...

what if combining the activities.. solo / tandem...??? 😜


Maybe then calculate and compare emission for the same activities performed by the over 70s...

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 12:35 PM

CO2
Raggytash, You'll need to read the articles yourself to decide just how skewed and substantiated are the figures and " if the same criteria had been used ". They are ballparky enough for me to find them believable though.
From links in thread.cfm?threadid=161931&messages=131#3852444 

Human cycling....
"Kilograms of CO2 exhaled per minute = (1.98 g/L x 3.12 L) x 0.001 kg = 0.0062 kg" ...
" A 30 minute commute will then involve 0.186 kg of expired CO2, "
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/how-much-co2-do-you-exhale-while.html 

This blog calculated human at rest as
"900g/day"
so say 15g in 30 minutes
https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archived-posts/sciblog/index.html_p=183.html 

(changing the google search to ......Cars)

"In 2014, the average combined CO2 emissions for a new light vehicle sold in Australia was 188 grams per kilometre (g/km)."
so say 1,500 for 8km(5 miles)
http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/pages/Information/VehicleEmissions

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So for a 5mile/8km commute that's
186g,( let's say 200g)
v
1,500g ( + 15g for the driver sitting in his car then reading the paper waiting for the cyclist to catch him up.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the buggers riding their bike for fun, yes, they are adding ~330g co2 per hour.

Could someone please check my maths. I must say I struggle to see where that 330g is coming from, it seems a heck of a weight.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 08:46 AM

If a car emits x amount of CO2 to cover a given distance does a cyclist emit the same amount of CO2, less CO2 or more CO2 to cover the same distance.

In order to give any credence to the first figure we need to know the answer to the second part.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 08:39 AM

all this theorizing about breathing reminds me...

about 15 years ago I was out on my bike cycling lanes surrounded by farmland,
when I suddenly developed a severe allergic reaction that knocked the stuffing out of me.
I was housebound and ill for days...

So long ago i can't remember the symptoms or duration of illness...

What was that then... crop spraying...??? pollen...???

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 08:23 AM

Raggytash. Yes, me too about " cynicism when faced with unsupported figures like this".*
But that's why I'm asking what you picture in your own head.
Can you describe it?

*though I'm not sure how 'unsupported' they are and I would have thought that amongst those google links might be some unbiased university based calculations and I think I would trust them.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 08:03 AM

Freddy, When I read that using a car creating X times CO2 for a given journey I wondered if the same criteria had been used to measure the CO2 emitted by a cyclist. Forgive me but I tend towards cynicism when faced with unsupported figures like this.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 06:42 AM

I can't quite get my head round what you are picturing Raggytash.

Do you picture moving one bicycle plus one person(~80kg?) five miles
creates only slightly less CO2 than
moving one car plus one person(~800kg?) five miles?

I'm picturing it as burning
about four digestive biscuits(200kcal)
v
0.3 litres of petrol(3,000kcal)

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Senoufou
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 06:35 AM

By the way, far from 'enjoying the lovely weather', we've just had golf-ball sized hailstones thundering down from above. I was worried they'd damage my car and the conservatory roof. The noise was like an automatic machine gun. I couldn't imagine being on a bike in that; one would be covered in bruises!

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Senoufou
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 05:53 AM

Well, I do toddle round Norfolk's lanes and byways on foot, in the summer. I adore the countryside, the fresh air and all the wildlife. One doesn't enjoy any of that from inside a car.

When my husband and I went to that gym a few years ago, we did the hard work bit, but always ended up in the steam room, followed by the sauna and ending up in the boiling hot jaccuzzi. (We both need lots of heat) I must say, we might not have improved our muscle tone all that much, but we always came home very, very clean!

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Thompson
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 05:36 AM

That sounds lovely, Senoufou (sorry, I've been spelling your nick Senofou!)

Though it's even lovelier when you're out in God's good air and looking at the fields and houses and flowers and vegetable gardens and watching the flow of the river.

If you're as lucky as me, you'll have a river not far off with a riverside path where you can cycle safely away from cars and trucks and fumes.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Senoufou
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 04:38 AM

Poor Thompson, I don't think you should have to be justifying blooming breathing! You can breathe heavily if you want or need to. Surely saving the planet doesn't involve trying not to breathe too much!!!

Re the eating butter not being bad for us after all, all I can say to that is......YIPPPPPPEEEEEEEEE!!!!! I must be in the Guinness Book of Records for the person who consumes the most cholesterol on Earth. (As most people on here probably know, I adore butter, cream, full milk and cheese) My general health is quite good for my age, and I would never accept that these good foods are harmful. What isn't good for one's health is processed stuff, additives, too much sugar an not enough fruit and veg.
Thanks to your thread, Thompson, I'm considering getting my husband and me joint gym membership. He's very keen on sport, and I could go on the exercise bikes and the rowing machine, and gently swim in the pool etc.We used to go a few years back, and it might do us good to try again, I'll speak to him when he gets back from Ivory Coast. You've encouraged me, so thank you!

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Thompson
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 04:19 AM

Depends on the cyclist. In my usual daily cycle, I'm not panting or heaving big breaths; I'm sailing along breathing in the good air (I avoid car-heavy roads) as I sit and pedal gently.

Occasionally, being a wimp, I have to get off and wheel my bike up a hill; mostly I can get up hills by using lower gears, though, and it doesn't require any great deep lungsful of air. In fact, the only difference in my breathing when I cycle is that it is probably closer to meditation breathing.

By the way, the latest news is that we were all wasting out time avoiding butter and pizza (assuming we were eating healthily generally and taking exercise) https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/cutting-saturated-fat-does-not-reduce-heart-disease-experts-say-1.3061769

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 04:07 AM

Not so Thompson, the person in the car is sedentary, no exertion required, the person on the bike is taking exercise and I would have thought breathing heavily and faster. There must therefore be an increase in the amount of CO2 exhaled.

I am always cautious of figures that make such claims as "saves half a ton of CO2 a year - which is 5% of the average person's carbon footprint" Frequently such figures are skewed to strengthen a particular argument.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Mr Red
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 03:59 AM

or the drop in CO2 from that used by a car and its single occupant (even if he doesn't smoke).

And the CO2 emitted making the car v the bike? e.g. there are those that think that manufacturing CO2 is significant relative to "scrapping & buying new eco-better cars"

if you want precision, think of all the aspects.

Of course, on a sample of millions, the cyclist is going to live longer and thus exhale more lifetime CO2 but on the plus side we exhale Oxygen as well, our lungs are not as efficient as the infernal combustion engine.

Simple answers? Life ain'ta like that.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Thompson
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 03:55 AM

I don't know, Raggytash; I would imagine that someone cycling will breathe about as much as someone driving, though!

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 03:24 AM

That doesn't really answer my question Thompson, you put forward the statement:

"By the way, a little figure for those here who might be green-ish - switching one person's commute of four miles (6.5km), which is the average length of a commute, from a car to a bicycle saves half a ton of CO2 a year - which is 5% of the average person's carbon footprint. Add in lots of cycling to the shops and to meet buddies in the cafe, etc, and you can really cut down that carbon use"

Does this figure take into account the volume of CO2 emitted by a human being taking exercise on a cycle over the same distance, or is it merely the drop in CO2 used by a motor vehicle.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Mr Red
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 03:24 AM

what about the CO2 consumed by sitting in the car?

30 years ago my boss had a new car with an average speed computer display, and we drove from central London, which boasted an average of 11mph for cars. We did 6mph for the first hour! Which I am told is about what it is now!

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Thompson
Date: 26 Apr 17 - 02:24 AM

Raggytash asks Has anyone ever measured the volume of CO2 emitted by people exercising?

Naturally, they have, Raggytash. There's been a couple of studies. In general, the finding is that sitting in a car in traffic is worse for your lungs than cycling past it - its one of the reasons that cyclists go to the front of traffic and wait in the bicycle box and take off instantly when the lights change. In my case, it's the reason why I'll usually find a way through quieter streets when possible.

Benefits of cycling and walking 'outweigh air pollution risk' in cities https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/05/benefits-cycling-walking-outweigh-air-pollution-risk-cities
Cyclists and fumes https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/feb/20/air-pollution-cyclists-bike-blog
Cyclists exposed to five times less air pollution than those in cars, experiment suggests http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/cyclists-exposed-five-times-less-air-pollution-cars-experiment-suggests-133129#JoWRmJqpBJAspqdl.99

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Apr 17 - 08:13 PM

What about cattle?

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 25 Apr 17 - 07:51 PM

Has anyone ever measured the volume of CO2 emitted by people exercising?
Oh yes!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=volume+of+CO2+emitted+by+people+exercising

Raggytash it'd be interesting to come back with figures for us
Pedestrian
Cyclist @ 8mph
Cyclist @ 20mph
Electric car
Petrol car
Diesel car
Bus

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Apr 17 - 05:56 PM

Question for you Thompson....... seriously.

If a person exercise they consume oxygen, they exhale Carbon Dioxide.

Has anyone ever measured the volume of CO2 emitted by people exercising?

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Apr 17 - 04:29 PM

Another study: driving to work is six times more expensive (for society - obviously way more expensive for individual) than cycling
http://cycling.today/traveling-by-car-six-times-more-expensive-than-by-bicycle-study-finds/

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Apr 17 - 08:33 AM

Bikers (motorcyclists) or cyclists? Very big difference in the speed and danger. In fact, a friend of mine who got one of those fancy e-bikes that can go up to 30km/h without any pedalling hit a patch of gravel and broke his wrist last summer. He's cycled all his life, at similar speeds, but when you're pedalling you know your speed and act according to it; just sitting still on an e-bike doesn't give you the same control.

By the way, a little figure for those here who might be green-ish - switching one person's commute of four miles (6.5km), which is the average length of a commute, from a car to a bicycle saves half a ton of CO2 a year - which is 5% of the average person's carbon footprint. Add in lots of cycling to the shops and to meet buddies in the cafe, etc, and you can really cut down that carbon use.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 Apr 17 - 08:22 AM

I taught a girlfriend to ride a bike when she was 18..

Despite falling off on tarmac and scraping and bruising her protruding bits,
she was determined to conquer it, and learned successfully in one day...

She was a very ambitious and motivated young woman [top A level and degree grades],
and soon progressed to buying her own powerful fast motorbike..

Not for me, I've never risked getting on one because I wouldn't trust myself at such speeds,
and I was working in an artificial limbs clinic with bikers my age..

...Of course she eventually left me behind to meet and settle down
with my much calmer mrs who is as undriven and laid back as me...

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Apr 17 - 08:20 AM

Yeah, you mostly lean rather than turning the handlebars to turn, though there is a small turning action. If you fish around YouTube, there's a fascinating video by someone who got a mechanic to adjust the handlebars so they'd turn the opposite way. It took him at least a day, if memory serves, to be able to cycle like that. Then he had to relearn the normal way of cycling. What I wonder is, if he kept alternating them, would his mind automatically separate the two skills and use them at need, the way it does when you speak a few different languages.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 25 Apr 17 - 08:13 AM

On a bike I thought I leaned in to the curve I wanted to make and the steering instinct followed.
Is that wrong?
Thanks for the prod.
I'm going to have to clear the garage now and dust off my trouser clips.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Senoufou
Date: 25 Apr 17 - 07:39 AM

Hahaha Mr Red, this reminds me of when our eldest Siamese cat used to love riding in our large one-wheeled wheelbarrow. The garden was enormous in that house (nearly an acre), and he used to jump in and howl for me to propel him at breakneck speed around the entire place. What made everyone laugh was the way he sat upright and leaned in to the turns. He really understood the principle. I would be gasping for breath after fifteen minutes of this, but he always wanted more.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Apr 17 - 07:10 AM

Balanced view:
the way we turn on a bike is counter-intuitive. That is, we actually give the bike a little counter-steering and the bike naturally falls to the other side - bingo we have lean.
It is why learning is so difficult relative to your intuition.
And watching racing motorcyclists gives a clue to counter-steering, they need to turn quickly. Mind you you have to see it on slo-mo.
It is all to do with the position of the front axle relative to the line of the steering head joint. Have a look at regular bikes, then look at a mountain bike. The amount the axle is forward is less on the mountain bike because fast turns are needed and suspension dictates forces are fairly direct. But is harder to ride. Certainly to learn on.

I was observing a girl learning recently and her kiddies bike was not conducive to her learning, the front axle was not far enough forward. And when she turned left she invariably fell over right, because she wasn't counter-steering, she was "I want to go left, I need to turn left".

Simply put, because even those that study this can't fully explain it:
the front wheel contact point with the ground (relative to the line of the headstock) is modified by turning the handlebars which tends to cause lean.

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 17 - 05:25 AM

"I frequently see pedestrians plugged into a squawk box while walking along narrow rural roads. "
Somewhat different problem Iains
Listening to music does not impair your ability to walk and, as any sensible walker knows, you should face the traffic and rely on your vision, not your hearing when road walking
You might as well address your question to people with hearing problems.
Any careless act committed by anybody gives no right to motorists to do anything other than obey the rules of the road.
I ha'e ma doots about the sanity of those are unable to go through life without the accompaniment of ethereal voices in their ear, but that's something else altogether.
I don't believe it is a question of "Hive Minds" T
It's alwas an aggressively thoughtless minority who spoil it for the few.
The worrying point is when people start justifying the minority by pointing at the minority of motorists who do stupid things
Two idiots don't make a genius
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Apr 17 - 04:24 AM

So have you taken to the bike yet, Leenia? Anyone else? Enjoying the lovely weather?

Subject: RE: BS: On your bike
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Apr 17 - 06:16 PM

Unfortunately, there are also gobshites who imagine that all drivers are part of a hive mind, and what one does represents what all do. This is not so.

Quite.