Penny Farthings, Legality and responsibility.

magicbastarder

so it's just that it's not street legal in the US? the 959 was the first car boris becker ever owned. not a bad first car to have, for a teenager.

breezy1985

magicbastarder wrote: »

and on that note, i think i'd be more nervous in a recumbent than on a penny farthing, in an urban context.

Ide be terrified going through traffic at that height. Must be a strange way to view moving cars

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

so it's just that it's not street legal in the US? the 959 was the first car boris becker ever owned. not a bad first car to have, for a teenager.

Yeah, that would tie in with the Germans getting all the models for testing.

magicbastarder

breezy1985 wrote: »

Ide be terrified going through traffic at that height. Must be a strange way to view moving cars

yeah, at least on my bike i can see over/be seen over most saloon cars. on a recumbent you'd be hidden behind any car.

breezy1985

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, at least on my bike i can see over/be seen over most saloon cars. on a recumbent you'd be hidden behind any car.

I know they have little flags so cars can see them but the view from down there must be a hard thing to get used to

tomasrojo

breezy1985 wrote: »

Ide be terrified going through traffic at that height. Must be a strange way to view moving cars

Richard Ballantine (of dog-strangling fame) favoured a recumbent. He reckoned he had no trouble being seen, and in fact got rather more attention than most people would like. I got the impression he enjoyed the attention. I guess you take your thrills when strangling dogs is no longer publicly acceptable.

breezy1985

tomasrojo wrote: »

Richard Ballantine (of dog-strangling fame) favoured a recumbent. He reckoned he had no trouble being seen, and in fact got rather more attention than most people would like. I got the impression he enjoyed the attention. I guess you take your thrills when strangling dogs is no longer publicly acceptable.

After reading that I'm not sure he is a good advocate to have on your side. Probably best to do the opposite of what he does.

Unless of course you are someone who actually needs to cycle a recumbent

tomasrojo

His books are very good actually. Wouldn't agree with everything he ever wrote -- certainly not the dog-killing -- but he had some good advice too.

I did seriously consider buying a recumbent at one stage, for one quite long journey I had to do fairly frequently that was taking too long, but it just seemed overkill in the end. I think I lost my job about the time anyway.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wow! That's some cringy sh1te! Even worse you had to lift it from someone else.

Lots more "cringe material" for you at

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/

For me, the only cringe here is the Pavlovian dragging up of tired old canards of helmets and hi-vis where entirely irrelevant.

Gerry T

Some polar views on this thread. I've watched that video a number of times and yes van driver at fault, no question.

A separate issue, if the cyclist was on a more 'standard' road bike would he have missed the collision, I think he would. But that's debatable and I don't think some here would be convinced of that or want to entertain discussing that possibility.

Slightly off topic but it asks a question, should you be allowed on a public road cycling anything you care to, of course all cyclists should wear a helmet and their bike should be suitable & road worthy. I appreciate it's impracticable to have a bike annual safety checked, but I can see it happening in the future. Would that not remove the problem, like cars have a test that checks safety. Your average scrote would ignore it but they prob end up driving without insurance on bald tyres anyway.

beauf

Gerry T wrote: »

Some polar views on this thread. I've watched that video a number of times and yes van driver at fault, no question.

A separate issue, if the cyclist was on a more 'standard' road bike would he have missed the collision, I think he would. But that's debatable and I don't think some here would be convinced of that or want to entertain discussing that possibility.

Slightly off topic but it asks a question, should you be allowed on a public road cycling anything you care to, of course all cyclists should wear a helmet and their bike should be suitable & road worthy. I appreciate it's impracticable to have a bike annual safety checked, but I can see it happening in the future. Would that not remove the problem, like cars have a test that checks safety. Your average scrote would ignore it but they prob end up driving without insurance on bald tyres anyway.

Remove what problem.

07Lapierre

I fail to see how a bike safety check would make a van driver a better driver?

Maybe a Garda pulling the van driver over and issue a fine would help?

magicbastarder

Gerry T wrote: »

Would that not remove the problem

what problem, though? as in, how do we quantify it?
all bikes *should* have a regular safety check, i agree; in an informal sense. most people here (and the average poster on this forum are not 'the average cyclist, i'd hazard) would easily be able to stay on top of issues with brakes, etc., but yes there are people cycling under-maintained bikes. i'd suggest an informal approach first.
e.g. before the virus hit, the rediscovery centre in ballymun was providing (IIRC) at cost bike maintenance to DCU students.

CramCycle

gctest50 wrote: »

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

I presume you are being sarcastic, having watched the video as carefully as you miust have, you know that he seen the driver goign for it with a metre left and tried to avoid it, hence turning in. Contrary to popular belief, this is the reaction many people would have, I have seen it many times as I am sure most cyclists in urban areas will have.

Gerry T wrote: »

A separate issue, if the cyclist was on a more 'standard' road bike would he have missed the collision, I think he would. But that's debatable and I don't think some here would be convinced of that or want to entertain discussing that possibility.

Its not a case of they wouldn't, it's a case of there are two many variables but in reality, if you were on any type of bike, if you had less than a second and a little over a metre to avoid an obstacle that appeared unannounced, most would be hard pressed too. Any motorised vehicle would have went straight through the side of the van.

Slightly off topic but it asks a question, should you be allowed on a public road cycling anything you care to, of course all cyclists should wear a helmet and their bike should be suitable & road worthy. I appreciate it's impracticable to have a bike annual safety checked, but I can see it happening in the future. Would that not remove the problem, like cars have a test that checks safety. Your average scrote would ignore it but they prob end up driving without insurance on bald tyres anyway.

This is highly off topic. There is nothing in the video to suggest the bike was not road worthy. People can talk about whether a PF is appropriate for cycling on the road, my experience of people who cycle unusual bicycles is that most tend to be far more observant and aware of whats going on than the typical cyclist or motorist and rarely present any danger to themselves or others. Personally while fascinated by them, I don't think I would ever get up on one.

beauf

I think he means the Van should have better brakes to improve his judgement.

tomasrojo

Gerry T wrote: »

Slightly off topic but it asks a question, should you be allowed on a public road cycling anything you care to, of course all cyclists should wear a helmet

Like many things that are mentioned in passing with "of course" it is in fact famously a tedious and bitterly contested debate, to the extent it has its own megathread.

tomasrojo

I used to look at other people's bikes, at the request of those people, in one of the places I worked, and virtually none of them had properly working brakes, apart from the ones that had been recently bought. I was usually just patching punctures and untangling chains and things like that. Most of them weren't really interested in the brakes.

I'm not sure how much difference it made. In most cases, the most obvious effect was that they were wrecking the rims.

AndrewJRenko

Gerry T wrote: »

Slightly off topic but it asks a question, should you be allowed on a public road cycling anything you care to, of course all cyclists should wear a helmet and their bike should be suitable & road worthy. I appreciate it's impracticable to have a bike annual safety checked, but I can see it happening in the future. Would that not remove the problem, like cars have a test that checks safety. Your average scrote would ignore it but they prob end up driving without insurance on bald tyres anyway.

I'll avoid the temptation to get into the helmet issue, given that there is a seperate thread with loads of reasons why mandatory helmet laws would not be a good idea.

On the question of mandatory bike maintenance checks, can you clarify what problem you're trying to solve here, and where it comes in priority of things we need to fix on the road.

magicbastarder

jeremy vine getting the full gamut of responses on this tweet:

https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1348241980510367745

Gerry T

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'll avoid the temptation to get into the helmet issue, given that there is a seperate thread with loads of reasons why mandatory helmet laws would not be a good idea.

On the question of mandatory bike maintenance checks, can you clarify what problem you're trying to solve here, and where it comes in priority of things we need to fix on the road.

If your going onto a road with cars/vans/busses then whatever you use should be road worthy. For a push bike the most important item would be working brakes, secure pedals and nothing about to fall off. A very simple and quick test. Tyre pressure would be important but how relevant would it really be as that can change daily. Going onto a road without working brakes is dangerous to yourself and others. It's crazy when you think a person can get straight on a bike and go, he/she doesn't need to know any rules of the road, how to check their bike isn't a death trap, how to cycle safely, this will change it's only a matter of time.
I know walkers have to use roads but that's not the same as a mechanically propelled bike.
It comes behind other priorities but that's no excuse to not do this. If we used that logic in all walks of life we could ignore doing most everything.

This is not an anti cycling post, I'm very pro cycling, my wife cycles everywhere and so do my kids, I get out when I can.

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

jeremy vine getting the full gamut of responses on this tweet:
...

Most seem to be commenting on his Xmas tree still being up.

beauf

Gerry T wrote: »

.... For a push bike the most important item would be working brakes, secure pedals and nothing about to fall off. A very simple and quick test. Tyre pressure would be important but how relevant would it really be as that can change daily. Going onto a road without working brakes is dangerous to yourself and others. ....

I'm curious how do you check that on a bike that has solid tyres, and mechanical braking using the pedals not hand operated brakes and adheres to the law as it relates to those.

cletus

Gerry T wrote: »

If your going onto a road with cars/vans/busses then whatever you use should be road worthy. For a push bike the most important item would be working brakes, secure pedals and nothing about to fall off. A very simple and quick test. Tyre pressure would be important but how relevant would it really be as that can change daily. Going onto a road without working brakes is dangerous to yourself and others. It's crazy when you think a person can get straight on a bike and go, he/she doesn't need to know any rules of the road, how to check their bike isn't a death trap, how to cycle safely, this will change it's only a matter of time.
I know walkers have to use roads but that's not the same as a mechanically propelled bike.
It comes behind other priorities but that's no excuse to not do this. If we used that logic in all walks of life we could ignore doing most everything.

This is not an anti cycling post, I'm very pro cycling, my wife cycles everywhere and so do my kids, I get out when I can.

Are you suggesting a sort of NCT for bikes? Would this be run by the government? Would you have your bike impounded for not displaying the disc? Would new bikes be exempt for a period? Would older bikes be tested more frequently than newer bikes?

Seth Brundle

Gerry T wrote: »

If your going onto a road with cars/vans/busses then whatever you use should be road worthy. For a push bike the most important item would be working brakes, secure pedals and nothing about to fall off. A very simple and quick test. Tyre pressure would be important but how relevant would it really be as that can change daily. Going onto a road without working brakes is dangerous to yourself and others. It's crazy when you think a person can get straight on a bike and go, he/she doesn't need to know any rules of the road, how to check their bike isn't a death trap, how to cycle safely, this will change it's only a matter of time.
I know walkers have to use roads but that's not the same as a mechanically propelled bike.
It comes behind other priorities but that's no excuse to not do this. If we used that logic in all walks of life we could ignore doing most everything.

This is not an anti cycling post, I'm very pro cycling, my wife cycles everywhere and so do my kids, I get out when I can.

For the four years between 2016 and 2019, less than half of vehicles passed the NCT on the first attempt.
Only about a third passed without an advisory note.
Out of curiosity, how many times have you had a conversation like the above in the motors forum?

cletus

magicbastarder wrote: »

jeremy vine getting the full gamut of responses on this tweet:

https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1348241980510367745

Where's W4? Also, his use of the word "bae" has irrationally annoyed me

o1s1n

Seth Brundle wrote: »

For the four years between 2016 and 2019, less than half of vehicles passed the NCT on the first attempt.
Only about a third passed without an advisory note.
Out of curiosity, how many times have you had a conversation like the above in the motors forum?

Pure whataboutery, the thread is about penny farthings, not cars passing the NCT.

cletus

o1s1n wrote: »

Pure whataboutery, the thread is about penny farthings, not cars passing the NCT.

So do you think bikes should have an annual NCT?

Gerry T

beauf wrote:

I'm curious how do you check that on a bike that has solid tyres, and mechanical braking using the pedals not hand operated brakes and adheres to the law as it relates to those.

Very very very simple, set a standard and if the bike doesnt meet that then its not allowed on the road.
Dont see how a solid tyre affects braking
If fixed wheel braking meets the standard then great if not then fit a break to the bike. Do you think pedal braking is safe

cletus

Gerry T wrote: »

Very very very simple, set a standard and if the bike doesnt meet that then its not allowed on the road.
Dont see how a solid tyre affects braking
If fixed wheel braking meets the standard then great if not then fit a break to the bike. Do you think pedal braking is safe

Who sets the standard? Who tests the standard? What bikes are tested? Do you have to display a cert showing the bike is roadworthy?

Seth Brundle

o1s1n wrote: »

Pure whataboutery, the thread is about penny farthings, not cars passing the NCT.

It's not really. The line of questioning was originally from allegations that the PF was unsafe (with no actual evidence to this) when combined with vehicular traffic.
It was also claimed that a bike or car should be safe for use on the roads. I've shown that over half of cars tested can be deemed to be unsafe so it is a fair question to pose.