Penny Farthings, Legality and responsibility.

beauf

It's a bit like normalising dangerous driving.

tomasrojo

I kind of want a go on a penny farthing now

magicbastarder

did you see GCN's attempt at setting the world penny farthing indoor hour record?
one of the issues is that you can't stand out of the seat, which led to one of the presenters being in agony for the last ten minutes or so.

tomasrojo

I read somewhere that the middle gearing of a modern utility bike is about the equivalent in gear-inches or whatever of the largest-wheel p-far. I presume that means some pretty rapid spinning to beat any existing records?

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

The penny farthing aspect of this is *extremely* marginal though. I just mean I'm not going to engage very deeply with that aspect of it.

Now I think about it, the penny farthing aspect of this is *all* I've engaged with. I am legit besotted with them now.

magicbastarder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyqDOra2T3I

i'd forgotten the saddle had actually cracked. but he kept at it. from about 10 minutes in is toe curling to watch.

anyway, he mentioned a cadence of 130RPM.

CramCycle

CramCycle wrote: »

Dear lord the replies, my eyes, they burn`. Taking victim blaming to a new extreme.

Why is he driving a penny farthing?

Large bottle small glass

https://pedalchile.com/blog/high-wheeler

A little on their history

http://www.standardhighwheels.se/?page_id=163#:~:text=The%20unique%20penny%20farthing%20tyres,in%20a%20five%20cross%20pattern.

A new one for circa €1500.

The brake kit is an extra.

The size of bike is the front wheel size in inches.(the wheel size/rider diagram with inches and cm simultaneously displayed is delicious and not just an Irish thing it seems!) I think 64 spokes laced 5 cross, I don't know what the hub width is but you would want to have a lot of trust in your wheelbuilder!

They are lighter than I though at 12-13kg

beauf

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, as a user of a heavy bike with roller brakes, I don't hold with every bike needing to have high-performance brakes or all modern appurtenances.

The penny farthing aspect of this is *extremely* marginal though. I just mean I'm not going to engage very deeply with that aspect of it.

Yeah it's hardly an ideal choice for going out to get a coffee is it.

I've had issues with braking heavily loaded with panniers on road with a bit of debris. Even with water or dirt on rim or in the pads. Stopping hard with discs can make you a missile. I'm not convinced lots of people wouldn't have hit the van and come off on a regular bike.

But the PF really lit a fire under people.

beauf

tomasrojo wrote: »

Now I think about it, the penny farthing aspect of this is *all* I've engaged with. I am legit besotted with them now.

A neighbour had a modern one. Took it out rarely. Haven't seen him or it in years.

07Lapierre

stoneill wrote: »

Looked like 2 stupid people involved.

Maybe, but only one drove recklessly.

tomasrojo

My sympathies lie more with the eccentric exhibitionist than the inconsiderate corner-cutting driver alright

07Lapierre

beauf wrote: »

A neighbour had a modern one. Took it out rarely. Haven't seen him or it in years.

Maybe he does ride it, but You can’t see it due to the human brain not recognizing it as a bicycle?

tomasrojo

They're the original bicycle, the "ordinary"!

Apparently cycling on country lanes is quite nice on them, because you get a nice view, and they're even quieter than a "safety".

CramCycle

beauf wrote: »

A neighbour had a modern one. Took it out rarely. Haven't seen him or it in years.

Probably hit any a Fastway van, driver threw him in the back and like most things in the back of a Fastway van, he will never be seen again.

Kaybaykwah

CramCycle wrote: »

Probably hit any a Fastway van, driver threw him in the back and like most things in the back of a Fastway van, he will never be seen again.

Yes, that is the most plausible outcome.

AutoTuning

beauf wrote: »

This make no sense.

The reason drivers don't see cyclists and other cars for that matter is not because of the visibility of the other vehicle. But because of the poor driving habits of the driver. Especially with regard to visual scan and checking mirrors and such. Also taking risks and bullying other road users.

They don't care to improve this, as due to a lack of enforcement of poor and/or dangerous driving they do not fear they will be punished for it.

This is especially true of poor/dangerous driving near cyclists. This video was posted in a thread full of near misses.

Trying to make a safety point on this forum is pointless anyway. Always someone else’s fault. Always.

The cycling infrastructure in that context isn’t there. Cycling a penny farthing at speed through a busy complex urban area is just not a great idea for any other road users - two wheeled, four wheeled or pedestrians.

tomasrojo

AutoTuning wrote: »

The cycling infrastructure in that context isn’t there. Cycling a penny farthing at speed through a busy complex urban area is just not a great idea for any other road users - two wheeled, four wheeled or pedestrians.

Setting aside my new and to me surprising infatuation with penny farthings (they are indeed not well-suited to utility cycling), why do you say it's a complex urban area and that the p-far dude is cycling at speed? I don't think either is true, on the evidence of the video.

Given that the "gearing" of a p-far, as already mentioned, is equivalent to the middle gearing of a modern utility bike, the rate at which he's turning his legs doesn't suggest great speed at all.

CramCycle

AutoTuning wrote: »

Trying to make a safety point on this forum is pointless anyway. Always someone else’s fault. Always.
.

That's blatantly untrue if you spent any amount of time on the forum. What alot of people who swing in don't like is, that when you make a point it is a reasonable expectation to back it up, provide some proof other than your feelings. A lot of people don't seem to like this idea that if you make an unequivocal statement, someone is entitled to ask you to back it up. You are more than welcome to say, that's just my opinion or that is my observation but be prepared to have people say that they have evidence to the contrary or that your idea may not be as valid as you think it is. It's happened to me plenty of times here and part of being a grown up is learning to accept these things.

beauf

AutoTuning wrote: »

Trying to make a safety point on this forum is pointless anyway. Always someone else’s fault. Always.

The cycling infrastructure in that context isn’t there. Cycling a penny farthing at speed through a busy complex urban area is just not a great idea for any other road users - two wheeled, four wheeled or pedestrians.

I like the way this is about...

Cycling a Penny Farthing never a good idea.
Cycling too fast,
No Cycling infrastructure,
Cycling unsuited to urban area, (complex, busy yadda yadda).

When none of those things caused this accident.

I think when you look objectively at this video, it's clear that the van driver is in the wrong. But I think the reason people are turning on the cyclist is due to the sheer absurdity of the device he's pedalling in a crowded, urban setting. It seems inevitable that one would crash these things.

If this video was just a dude on a regular bike it would be an open and shut case, driver is wrong.

tomasrojo

Deleted User wrote: »

I think when you look objectively at this video, it's clear that the van driver is in the wrong. But I think the reason people are turning on the cyclist is due to the sheer absurdity of the device he's pedalling in a crowded, urban setting. It seems inevitable that one would crash these things.

If this video was just a dude on a regular bike it would be an open and shut case, driver is wrong.

They are comically unsuited to utility cycling, compared to just about any other type of bike. Except maybe the Sinclair A-bike.

meeeeh

Driver definitely at fault. I'm sure that will be great comfort to attention seeker while he is being spoon fed or collecting his teeth of the pavement.

This more compares to people wearing converse or flip flops climbing mountains. Yes you are wearing shoes but if a rock rolls over your foot and fractures it there is a chance result would be a bit less painful if you were wearing hiking boots.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

I think when you look objectively at this video, it's clear that the van driver is in the wrong. But I think the reason people are turning on the cyclist is due to the sheer absurdity of the device he's pedalling in a crowded, urban setting. It seems inevitable that one would crash these things.

If this video was just a dude on a regular bike it would be an open and shut case, driver is wrong.

I think this thread proved beyond doubt that people will roll out the usual drivel regardless of the situation.

We've had the cyclist wasn't visible, and stuck out like a circus act.
Was too visible that brain couldn't deal with it and made him invisible
We've had too slow and too fast, should have turned left, right, not turned.
We've had cycling is dangerous, unsuitable for urban environment's.
All bikes should have disc brakes.
Should have been on a faster or slower bike.
Looks like a circus act, needs to dress like a clown.

Even if you had a protected cycle lane, and the mythical perfect bicycle. Its all pointless if someone is going ignore all of it and drive at you at speed, last minute, across on coming traffic, and against the right of way.

beauf

meeeeh wrote: »

Driver definitely at fault. I'm sure that will be great comfort to attention seeker while he is being spoon fed or collecting his teeth of the pavement.

This more compares to people wearing converse or flip flops climbing mountains. Yes you are wearing shoes but if a rock rolls over your foot and fractures it there is a chance result would be a bit less painful if you were wearing hiking boots.

You actually mean you should be wearing steel toe caps. and construction boots while climbing. You don't use hiking books to "climb" mountains. You them to hike. Any rock that is going to crush your foot isn't going to be stopped by a hiking boot. Climbers wear helmets if there is a risk from rocks. Do you hike with a helmet

Climbing shoes...

https://www.google.com/search?q=climbing+shoes&safe=strict&rlz=1C1GCEB_enIE863IE863&sxsrf=ALeKk00Cv198pRpRzhIrtJWYueDZhtMh_w:1609945337465&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi62MnfyYfuAhWMunEKHVyYA6cQ_AUoAXoECAMQAw&biw=1280&bih=578

Climbing helmet...

https://www.google.com/search?q=climbing+helmet&safe=strict&rlz=1C1GCEB_enIE863IE863&sxsrf=ALeKk016nKIgkceGX28STV_gr-bjhQnyKw:1609945503996&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJgf6uyofuAhXTasAKHQOTDNgQ_AUoAXoECAUQAw&biw=1280&bih=578

beauf

So now we need full face helmets for cycling, to the coffee shop.

https://www.google.com/search?q=full+face+mtb+helmet&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwifv8-wyofuAhW_XRUIHbu5DB8Q2-cCegQIABAA&oq=Full+face+MTV&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgYIABAKEBg6BAgAEEM6BQgAELEDOgIIADoICAAQsQMQgwFQ2bcHWNLPB2Dy2wdoAHAAeACAAVGIAfIFkgECMTOYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&sclient=img&ei=o9H1X9_hGb-71fAPu_Oy-AE&bih=578&biw=1280&rlz=1C1GCEB_enIE863IE863&safe=strict

Guess we should have them for pedestrians also. Since they might also help if hit by a high speed van.

gctest50

meeeeh wrote: »

Driver definitely at fault. .............

The PF rider cycled into the van, if missed the tail end of the van he would have cycled into the wall

The van is passed the line of the footpath when the PF rider crashes into the van

Look at how far left he is


https://imgur.com/Fqu57L5

.

meeeeh

beauf wrote: »

You actually mean you should be wearing steel toe caps. and construction boots while climbing. You don't use hiking books to "climb" mountains. You them to hike. Any rock that is going to crush your foot isn't going to be stopped by a hiking boot. Climbers wear helmets if there is a risk from rocks. Do you hike with a helmet

Climbing shoes...

https://www.google.com/search?q=climbing+shoes&safe=strict&rlz=1C1GCEB_enIE863IE863&sxsrf=ALeKk00Cv198pRpRzhIrtJWYueDZhtMh_w:1609945337465&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi62MnfyYfuAhWMunEKHVyYA6cQ_AUoAXoECAMQAw&biw=1280&bih=578

Climbing helmet...

https://www.google.com/search?q=climbing+helmet&safe=strict&rlz=1C1GCEB_enIE863IE863&sxsrf=ALeKk016nKIgkceGX28STV_gr-bjhQnyKw:1609945503996&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJgf6uyofuAhXTasAKHQOTDNgQ_AUoAXoECAUQAw&biw=1280&bih=578

That's when they clim a rock wall. Most mountains you climb are not just one climbing wall. However knock yourself out on semantics if you want to. And no you don't use steel toe cap boots and as far as I know I didn't mention them anywhere.

beauf

tomasrojo wrote: »

They are comically unsuited to utility cycling, compared to just about any other type of bike. Except maybe the Sinclair A-bike.

I raise you another "A" framer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBk8Yc0hI6k&ab_channel=%E3%81%A8%E3%81%8A%E3%81%BE%E3%82%8F%E3%82%8ATomawari

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7cxg4lsEVM&ab_channel=StridaMinsk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7VY9tQhxEU&ab_channel=StridaPolska

beauf

meeeeh wrote: »

That's when they clim a rock wall. Most mountains you climb are not just one climbing wall. However knock yourself out on semantics if you want to.

Do you go on many hikes where you avoid rocks so often you need helmets and steel toe boots. Maybe mountains should be off limits to hikers with all the rock falls. Maybe they should be restricted to hard paths in parks. Bit like the way urban environments are too dangerous for cycling.