# Is it me or are they a funny lot in the commuting section



## bjellys (13 Jul 2012)

*Reporting mobile use *

Is it me or are they a funny lot in the commuting section as I get the feeling that they want to hang me up by my goolies for posting my views . I basically said that i think they are over zealous in reporting every person they film , using a mobile while driving and that I wouldn't grass my mum up for doing it ( I would have a word with her ) Also they seem to have the view that driving and answering the phone when you drive is as bad as drinking ten pints of lager and a few shots.If you read from page 16 back you might get a feel of what I mean, 
Feel free to tell me I'm wrong if you think I am.
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/reporting-mobile-use-while-driving.50122/page-16


----------



## black'n'yellow (13 Jul 2012)

zzzzzzzz


----------



## LosingFocus (13 Jul 2012)

"Whhhahhh, Mummy they no be nice to me...."


----------



## Powely (13 Jul 2012)

In my limited experience the point of the cameras is to record events from a cyclists vantage? I think if more drivers saw such videos it would be safer on the roads for cyclists. Merely about education. I know I am a better driver for taking up cycling.

Reporting drivers for mobile phone use after the event is pointless though as the police won't be able to do anything about it. 

I also feel your posts where made to get a reaction too. So I won't be responding to any replies on this subject you post.


----------



## Sittingduck (13 Jul 2012)

Powely said:


> So I won't be responding to any replies on this subject you post.


 
Looks like you just did


----------



## Pottsy (13 Jul 2012)

I find the commuting section to be full of bad news and angry people so I don't go there. If you don't like it then I suggest doing the same.


----------



## bjellys (13 Jul 2012)

> I find the commuting section to be full of bad news and angry people so I don't go there. If you don't like it then I suggest doing the same.


Thanks I won't be any more.


----------



## mickle (13 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> *Reporting mobile use *
> 
> Is it me or are they a funny lot in the commuting section as I get the feeling that they want to hang me up by my goolies for posting my views . I basically said that i think they are over zealous in reporting every person they film , using a mobile while driving and that I wouldn't grass my mum up for doing it ( I would have a word with her ) Also they seem to have the view that driving and answering the phone when you drive is as bad as drinking ten pints of lager and a few shots.If you read from page 16 back you might get a feel of what I mean,
> Feel free to tell me I'm wrong if you think I am.
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/reporting-mobile-use-while-driving.50122/page-16


 
You know, of course, that 3000+ people are killed on British roads every year and tens of thousands seriously injured in collisions involving automotive carriages. You'll also be aware I'm sure, that vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists are disproportionately affected by this carnage.

Mobile phone use whilst in charge of a motor vehicle is illegal and for good reason, it has the same negative effect on driver's abilities as the consumption of alcohol in excess of the drink/driving limit. But many thousands of driver's still insist on doing it every day - because they are ignorant and/or stupid and/or selfish. They make our roads less save.

Which bit of the above do you have a problem with?


----------



## redcard (13 Jul 2012)

They may be over-zealous, but that attitude compensates for those of us that are apathetic. You, for example.

Every mobile user reported improves your safety, and you should appreciate the people that report because it's those people that effect change.

Now, stop trolling.


----------



## compo (13 Jul 2012)

Pottsy said:


> I find the commuting section to be full of bad news and angry people so I don't go there.


 
I don't commute, but the few times I have ridden in London and seen first hand what those guys (and girls) put up with twice daily I am not surprised they become a bit bad tempered. I think I would end up in prison within a week.


----------



## bjellys (13 Jul 2012)

> Mobile phone use whilst in charge of a motor vehicle is illegal and for good reason, it has the same negative effect on driver's abilities as the consumption of alcohol in excess of the drink/driving limit. But many thousands of driver's still insist on doing it every day - because they are ignorant and/or stupid and/or selfish. They make our roads less save.


 
I am not advocating either drink driving or mobile use but I would stop a drunk from driving their car but not grass up a person for being on their mobile

Also do you think you could drive a car after drinking 10 pints of lager and some shorts I know I couldn't but I could answer my mobile.

Why is the penalty so different then ?
Answer -- Because they are in a different league .


----------



## Silver Fox (13 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> I am not advocating either drink driving or mobile use but I would stop a drunk from driving their car but not grass up a person for being on their mobile
> 
> Why is the penalty so different then ?
> Answer -- Because they are in a different league .


 
Is it really.

Imagine this scenario. The police knock on your door to tell you a loved one has been killed in an RTC. You would no doubt have many questions such as:

Was the driver speeding.
Was the driver under the influence of alcohol/drugs.
Was the driver using a mobile phone.

The officer informs you the driver was within the speed limit and stone cold sober but was texting and making calls on his mobile at the time of the collision.

You may _think _using a mobile phone whilst driving is in a different league to drink/driving but the consequences can be equally devastating.


----------



## mickle (13 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> I am not advocating either drink driving or mobile use but I would stop a drunk from driving their car but not grass up a person for being on their mobile
> 
> Also do you think you could drive a car after drinking 10 pints of lager and some shorts I know I couldn't but I could answer my mobile.
> 
> ...



Answer -- Because the research which proved that mobile phone use had the same effect on driver's abilities as drink driving came after they passed the legislation. 

You're arguing that driver mobile phone use isn't a big issue. On a cycling forum. And you wonder why you're being shot down?

Yours is just the kind of ignorance that needs wiping out.


----------



## GetAGrip (13 Jul 2012)

mickle said:


> Answer -- Because the research which proved that mobile phone use had the same effect on driver's abilities as drink driving came after they passed the legislation.
> 
> You're arguing that driver mobile phone use isn't a big issue. On a cycling forum. And you wonder why you're being shot down?
> 
> *Yours is just the kind of ignorance that needs wiping out*.


Wipe ignorance not lives!


----------



## Cubist (13 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> *Reporting mobile use *
> 
> Is it me or are they a funny lot in the commuting section as I get the feeling that they want to hang me up by my goolies for posting my views . I basically said that i think they are over zealous in reporting every person they film , using a mobile while driving and that I wouldn't grass my mum up for doing it ( I would have a word with her ) Also they seem to have the view that driving and answering the phone when you drive is as bad as drinking ten pints of lager and a few shots.If you read from page 16 back you might get a feel of what I mean,
> Feel free to tell me I'm wrong if you think I am.
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/reporting-mobile-use-while-driving.50122/page-16


Yes, you are wrong. 

Mobile phone use is an absolute scourge. People don't concentrate when they're on the phone, and more vulnerable road users are at risk from their stupid, selfish and often arrogant behaviour.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> *Reporting mobile use *
> 
> Is it me or are they a funny lot in the commuting section...


 
It's you.


GC


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2012)

I think the simplified reasons you give are a little disingenuous, perhaps it was the posts such as:



> The cycling community(snip) pays F### All towards the roads if it wasn't for the motorists revenue income tax and vat would be astronomical.


 


> so please don't try and tell me that the cyclists pays equal amounts into the proverbial pot they don't ! I would like to know how many members think they should pay road tax for their bike ?


 
When it was pointed out that Cyclist do contibute, and that On average, cyclists pay MORE towards the roads. Not only do most cyclists own cars, but cyclists are over-represented by high earners. Cyclists subsidise your road use.

Your opinion was :



> Do you subsidise the lorry's as well ? I have never heard such a load of nonsense as this in all my life Ha Ha


 

A little less trolling on both these threads would gain you a more reasoned response?


----------



## subaqua (13 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> *Reporting mobile use *
> 
> Is it me or are they a funny lot in the commuting section as I get the feeling that they want to hang me up by my goolies for posting my views . I basically said that i think they are over zealous in reporting every person they film , using a mobile while driving and that I wouldn't grass my mum up for doing it ( I would have a word with her ) Also they seem to have the view that driving and answering the phone when you drive is as bad as drinking ten pints of lager and a few shots.If you read from page 16 back you might get a feel of what I mean,
> Feel free to tell me I'm wrong if you think I am.
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/reporting-mobile-use-while-driving.50122/page-16


 

you are Linf and ICMFP


----------



## growingvegetables (13 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> Feel free to tell me I'm wrong if you think I am.


With pleasure - you're wrong.

And not very bright with your arguments either - you appear to be suggesting that driving is only impaired after the consumption of "ten pints of lager and a few shots"?


----------



## bjellys (14 Jul 2012)

> And not very bright with your arguments either - you appear to be suggesting that driving is only impaired after the consumption of "ten pints of lager and a few shots"?


 
No No it's not just me it's the law that has decided that drink driving is more dangerous than using a mobile while driving just look at the penalties . If the government and the law say that there is a difference, well that is good enough for me. All the lame biased studies in the world won't convince me.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Jul 2012)

The point that is missed totally is that poor drivers exhibit a range of behaviours that are linked.

Problem mobile phone use has been linked with risk taking

Drivers who ignore the simple rules such as mobile phone use are the same ones who ignore seed limits, and take other risks. High risk taking such as tailgating, aggressive overtaking and inappropriate behaviour at junctions are other features of the pyschological profile of those who use mobile phones whilst driving
The question is how much anger you are willing to allow others to endanger you and other road users. Lets look at the problems..




> Roger Vincent of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents......
> 
> 
> "The problem is you actually get sucked into the telephone conversation, and the conversation starts to take precedence over the driving task," he told BBC News.
> ...


 
If you really wish to hide your head in the sand and deny this "lame biased research" because it does not fit your agenda then please feel free to do so.

Also if you feel that the driver behind you is entitled to be less able to stop, less able to judge safe distances and less able to make judgements and react simply because they are too stupid or arrogant to wait a few minutes and take a call safely then it is up to you, but for anyone with a degree of common sense it is a little bizzarre


----------



## redcard (14 Jul 2012)

This kid has just discovered internet trolling?

Wow. Does he know it's 2012?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Jul 2012)

redcard said:


> This kid has just discovered internet trolling?



Indeed, I think it's time to end his food supply.


GC


----------



## Berties (14 Jul 2012)

Let's see if we can get to a conclusion,commute riding can become a daily time trial,got to go faster increase my cadence do the hill split quicker and then you tend to blame drivers for their slowing of your time,any law that helps increase a drivers reaction time gets my vote,even hands free effects your reaction,just because you see people do it every day does not make it right,am not going to throw facts and figures in the pot,and am sure all riders break rules every day and take chances


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Jul 2012)

Which is the problem....

The only way that the road system works is if people stick to the rules.

Next time you pass a junction, think about how you have just trusted a complete stranger to actually stop!

Next time you are cycling along, think about how you are trusting the person behind to be aware that you are there, will keep a safe distance and react accordingly to what you are doing.

Where it goes wrong is when people act outside this box, and fail to abide by the simple roles.


----------



## gaz (14 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> I am not advocating either drink driving or mobile use but I would stop a drunk from driving their car but not grass up a person for being on their mobile
> 
> Also do you think you could drive a car after drinking 10 pints of lager and some shorts I know I couldn't but I could answer my mobile.
> 
> ...


When did anyone compare mobile phone use to drinking 10 pints of larger and some shots?


----------



## Norm (14 Jul 2012)

In the thread which the OP is whining about, I think. 

I do find it strange that they should feel they've lost the discussion in one part of CC, so they started the same discussion here as if they'd find more support here or they thought those who proved them inadequate previously wouldn't find them.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> I am not advocating either drink driving or mobile use but I would stop a drunk from driving their car but not grass up a person for being on their mobile
> 
> Also do you think you could drive a car after drinking 10 pints of lager and some shorts I know I couldn't but I could answer my mobile.
> 
> ...


 
I was going to ignore this, but it has become apparent that the root of Bjelly's problem is a lack of understanding.

Lets make it simple....

It is illegal to carry a knife in your local pub

It is illegal to carry a shotgun in the same pub

Now the penalties are different with the latter being far more severe (4 years for a knife, and 6 years for the gun)

Now does that mean I should not report the lesser crime?

Does it make carrying the knife acceptable or justifiable?

Should we not report the knfie because the penalty is less?


Then lets move back tho the roads. 

Should we not "grass up" careless driving, speeding,driving without insurance etc which all have lesser penalties than drink driving?


The claim that because the sentence is less we should accept the risks they have decided to to take with MY life, and allow these muppets to endanger ME and other road users by carrying out an illegal act is really one of the stupidest arguments I have seen here for a long time.

If someone decides to break the law and gets reported then it is a consequence of their own stupidity and arrogance - don't bleat when you get caught!


----------



## subaqua (14 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> No No it's not just me it's the law that has decided that drink driving is more dangerous than using a mobile while driving just look at the penalties . If the government and the law say that there is a difference, well that is good enough for me. All the lame biased studies in the world won't convince me.


 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRL_Limited

http://www.trl.co.uk/facilities/dri...studies/Dangers_of_Texting_Whilst_Driving.htm

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r...e?_benchmarking_the_impairment_to_alcohol.htm

so a car centric organisation such as the RAC ( thats Royal AUTOMOBILE Club for the young troll) commissions a study and gets a result showing is dangerous. How is that a biased study. biased study would come back with the results saying its fine to drive texting - which it isn't. . A biased study would be one commisioned by a mobile phone handset or network operator company that said it is safe.

Iassume that as you are still at school and have to do science as a core subject you understand the " fair testing" criteria. that is the tests will have been repeated many times to show the result isn't just a fluke.

I also assume you understand the meaning of the word independent.



TRL said:


> Driving performance under the influence of alcohol was significantly worse than normal driving, yet better than driving while using a phone. Drivers also reported that it was easier to drive drunk than to drive while using a phone. It is concluded that driving behaviour is impaired more during a phone conversation than by having a blood alcohol level at the UK legal limit (80mg / 100ml). (A)


----------



## Mugshot (14 Jul 2012)

I post quite often in the commuting section and I'm hilarious, some others however are just blooming annoying and hardle worth a titter.
So in answer to your question, some of us are very funny, others not so much. If you'd put this thread into the commuting section I'm afraid you'd fall very firmly in the latter group


----------



## Thomk (14 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> *Reporting mobile use *
> 
> Is it me or are they a funny lot in the commuting section as I get the feeling that they want to hang me up by my goolies for posting my views . I basically said that i think they are over zealous in reporting every person they film , using a mobile while driving and that I wouldn't grass my mum up for doing it ( I would have a word with her ) Also they seem to have the view that driving and answering the phone when you drive is as bad as drinking ten pints of lager and a few shots.If you read from page 16 back you might get a feel of what I mean,
> Feel free to tell me I'm wrong if you think I am.
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/reporting-mobile-use-while-driving.50122/page-16


This doesn't seem to be working out so well here in the good old Mountain Biking and Off Road section. Still, chin up, all is not lost as you could try the Classified section and if you have no joy there perhaps the Stolen Bikes section.


----------



## bjellys (14 Jul 2012)

*That's it I know when I'm beaten I am going to lie down in a darkened room to get over it.*
Also I don't think it would be a good idea to buy one of the CycleChat Jerseys with my username on it at the present time.
I will just say I have held a driving licence for 40 years and never had as much as a parking ticket, so all of you just try and enjoy every day and don't be too sensitive about what others say or do just try to lead by example a be a nice person who loves life. 
Thanks for the lively debate I must go my head is hurting.

PS before you post them I have heard all the comments about me being an old git.


----------



## redcard (14 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> *That's it I know when I'm beaten I am going to lie down in a darkened room to get over it.*
> Also I don't think it would be a good idea to buy one of the CycleChat Jerseys with my username on it at the present time.
> I will just say I have held a driving licence for 40 years and never had as much as a parking ticket, so all of you just try and enjoy every day and don't be too sensitive about what others say or do just try to lead by example a be a nice person who loves life.
> Thanks for the lively debate I must go my head is hurting.
> ...


 
Mid-life crisis?


----------



## growingvegetables (14 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> All the lame biased studies in the world won't convince me.


The technical name for this condition is "Never-let-facts-stand-in-the-way-of-my-prejudices;-I've-had-them-for-40-years,-and-I-won't-be-changing-them-soon-itis".


----------



## MissTillyFlop (14 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> Also I don't think it would be a good idea to buy one of the CycleChat Jerseys with my username on it at the present time.


You know, just because people vehemently disagree with you in a discussion on the internet doesn't mean you would come to blows in real life should you meet.

As far as the original question, I am all for "shopping" people using phones whilst driving. My brother (a pedestrian) was almost killed by someone using their phone and driving. (They ran a red light at a pedestrian crossing, so engrossed were they. They weren't an evil monster and they were devastated by what they had done, but the consequences were the same for my brother.

IMO if you are in charge of any vehicle on the road (bicycle included) then you should be fully focused on operating that vehicle. Life's too short and precious to take needless risks.


----------



## subaqua (14 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> *That's it I know when I'm beaten I am going to lie down in a darkened room to get over it.*
> Also I don't think it would be a good idea to buy one of the CycleChat Jerseys with my username on it at the present time.
> I will just say* I have held a driving licence for 40 years and never had as much as a parking ticket*, so all of you just try and enjoy every day and don't be too sensitive about what others say or do just try to lead by example a be a nice person who loves life.
> Thanks for the lively debate I must go my head is hurting.
> ...


 

that just means you haven't been caught . doesn't mean you didn't do it


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (14 Jul 2012)

Defending the commuting section, as well as possible weekend rides on relatively quieter roads, commuters ride probably on average 9 journeys a week putting up with very heavy traffic carrying a good proportion of people already stressed out headings work or carrying their work stress back home and frequently take it out on or have very low road respect for others - especially cyclists.
Add to this they very frequently use handheld phones knowing it is both illegal and proven as dangerous to do so.
As a regular cycle commuter, I don't as often see how dangerous they are but have many times when driving so if anyone feels they should be grassed up, good for them.

Regarding your opinion that use of a mobile telephone s a lesser crime, they are blatantly in everyones face flouting the law, are fully aware of what they are doing and happy in the knowledge that they will not get a huge fine, lose their license and not be penalised very heavily by their insurance company.
In addition, if a drunk driver causes an accident, it's almost impossible to wriggle out of it, when it's a mobile user, unless here is a witness, video evidence or clear evidence from their mobile records, then they go un- punished in relative terms.

Damn well report them.


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (14 Jul 2012)

subaqua said:


> that just means you haven't been caught . doesn't mean you didn't do it


You beat me to that one subaqua


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 Jul 2012)

I see them regularly. I also see (as we all do from our cycle saddles) drivers in cars either reading or typing text messages.

This is often done on laps, too low for another driver to spot.

I don't report them and I imagine I never will.

For me, it is not a big issue. I realise it is for others and that some people will have a stack of statistics to support their case about how it tears young lives from this mortal coil.

I have a built-in Give-a-Damn-Ometer. Using a hand-held mobile while driving doesn't twitch the needle.

I respect the views of others in this, but that is where I am.


----------



## Friz (15 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> *Reporting mobile use *
> 
> Is it me or are they a funny lot in the commuting section as I get the feeling that they want to hang me up by my goolies for posting my views . I basically said that i think they are over zealous in reporting every person they film , using a mobile while driving and that I wouldn't grass my mum up for doing it ( I would have a word with her ) Also they seem to have the view that driving and answering the phone when you drive is as bad as drinking ten pints of lager and a few shots.If you read from page 16 back you might get a feel of what I mean,
> Feel free to tell me I'm wrong if you think I am.
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/reporting-mobile-use-while-driving.50122/page-16


 
-grins-

at the risk of being sent to the bold corner....

I agree with ye.


----------



## mickle (16 Jul 2012)

Friz said:


> -grins-
> 
> at the risk of being sent to the bold corner....
> 
> I agree with ye.


 
You a little hard of thinking too?


----------



## Friz (16 Jul 2012)

mickle said:


> You a little hard of thinking too?


 
Not at all.

I spend my time on the road observing, assessing and evading obstacles.
I have not got the time nor inclination to be perving on the drivers of said obstacles.
I cannot afford to be holier than thou (or them) because I have my faults too. 
I am not a role model or even a good example.
I am me.


----------



## mickle (16 Jul 2012)

Friz said:


> Not at all.
> 
> I spend my time on the road observing, assessing and evading obstacles.
> I have not got the time nor inclination to be perving on the drivers of said obstacles.
> ...


So yes then.


----------



## Linford (16 Jul 2012)

mickle said:


> You know, of course, that 3000+ people are killed on British roads every year and tens of thousands seriously injured in collisions involving automotive carriages. You'll also be aware I'm sure, that vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists are disproportionately affected by this carnage.
> 
> Mobile phone use whilst in charge of a motor vehicle is illegal and for good reason, it has the same negative effect on driver's abilities as the consumption of alcohol in excess of the drink/driving limit. But many thousands of driver's still insist on doing it every day - because they are ignorant and/or stupid and/or selfish. They make our roads less save.
> 
> Which bit of the above do you have a problem with?


 

Would you call your mother, father or sibling in if they took a call whilst driving, or would you have a word in their shell, and tell them to get a hands free kit ?

I've seen loads of people taking calls whilst riding cycles. Wouldn't you agree that they need punishing also ?


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (16 Jul 2012)

Great, Linford's here.


----------



## Friz (16 Jul 2012)

mickle said:


> So yes then.


 
If you say so.


----------



## mickle (16 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Would you call your mother, father or sibling in if they took a call whilst driving, or would you have a word in their shell, and tell them to get a hands free kit ?
> 
> I've seen loads of people taking calls whilst riding cycles. Wouldn't you agree that they need punishing also ?


 
My mother and father died you heartless bastard. But yes, I am just as likely to report a member of my immediate family as anyone else. But then, since everyone who knows me knows my position they wouldn't do it in my presence, so the point is moot.

There's a reason that it's not illegal to ride a bicycle whilst using a mobile phone and that is that the people who write legislation recognized the _obvious_, (der!) that the danger posed by cyclists is miniscule compared to the danger posed by drivers. A concept, I might add, which you'd have a much better grasp of if you ever rode a fricking bike! Which you don't. Because you don't have one.


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (16 Jul 2012)

Erm....is that a real response or are you guys pals?


----------



## Linford (16 Jul 2012)

mickle said:


> My mother and father died you heartless bastard. But yes, I am just as likely to report a member of my immediate family as anyone else. But then, since everyone who knows me knows my position they wouldn't do it in my presence, so the point is moot.
> 
> There's a reason that it's not illegal to ride a bicycle whilst using a mobile phone and that is that the people who write legislation recognized the _obvious_, (der!) that the danger posed by cyclists is miniscule compared to the danger posed by drivers. A concept, I might add, which you'd have a much better grasp of if you ever rode a fricking bike! Which you don't. Because you don't have one.


 

Same old, same old Mickle. If you ride a cycle and use a phone, it could be argued that you are recklessly endangering yourself, and risking the welfare of others (a bit like RLJ'ing). As you have a duty of care to protect yourself, it is a fairly stupid thing to do, and by the tone of your post sound like it is something you would not be adverse to doing.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jul 2012)

Oi you lot take you re argument somwhere else and get the F**k out of Mtbing, go on sling yer hooks


----------



## redcard (16 Jul 2012)

TonyEnjoyD said:


> Erm....is that a real response or are you guys pals?



Lover's tiff


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (16 Jul 2012)

Love a stiff?
So does the wife, but at my age...

drink, that is


----------



## mickle (16 Jul 2012)

It could be argued? If you'll address the points i raised in my post: that the danger posed by cyclists is miniscule compared to the danger posed by cars then you can join me in an argument. Writing 'same old same old' is not really a valid argument.


----------



## Linford (16 Jul 2012)

I'm in agreement with Lukesdad. Mickle should stay out of the MTB section - especially as that is all I have now (even if it is a shyte one). Go play with the commuters cyclops


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jul 2012)

Of course the OP didn t know that Mickle lurked in the depths of the mtb board < bet he wished he'd stayed in commuting >


----------



## mickle (16 Jul 2012)

This thread has what to do with mtbing exacly?


----------



## mickle (16 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> I'm in agreement with Lukesdad. Mickle should stay out of the MTB section - especially as that is all I have now (even if it is a shyte one). Go play with the commuters cyclops


But you don't have a mountain bike. Since a mountain bike is something which might feasably be ridden up and or down a mountain. Comprende?


----------



## Linford (16 Jul 2012)

We call them mountain bikes as a descriptive term Mickle. As there aren't any mountains in England, It is rather a silly argument you are trying to make, as the construction cannot realistically match the use on home ground.

However, there are plenty of big hills where I live and I've used mine on them on quite a few occasions - it is however still a shyte bike and that is why I've tried not to make a habit of it


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> We call them mountain bikes as a descriptive term Mickle. As there aren't any mountains in England...


While the defintion of a mountain is a tricky one to pin down I would argue these cannot be described as hills either and so England does indeed have its share of, albeit modest, mountains.


----------



## Linford (16 Jul 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> While the defintion of a mountain is a tricky one to pin down I would argue these cannot be described as hills either and so England does indeed have its share of, albeit modest, mountains.


 
Do you mind !!!! This is a titanic battle between hobbyist and anorak. Pride is at stake in this momentous willy waiving contest 

Some may have forgotten that I have tremendous staying power (just ask MrP), whilst Mickle just goes for the aggressive thrusting style in the hope he will beat his opposition into flacid submission 

We might need to bring in a fluffer for him in a bit as I can see he is already beginning to wilt...


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> We call them mountain bikes as a descriptive term Mickle. As there aren't any mountains in England, It is rather a silly argument you are trying to make, as the construction cannot realistically match the use on home ground.
> 
> However, there are plenty of big hills where I live and I've used mine on them on quite a few occasions - it is however still a shyte bike and that is why I've tried not to make a habit of it


 "Big hill bike" doesn t quite have the same ring to it does it ?


----------



## Linford (16 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> "Big hill bike" doesn t quite have the same ring to it does it ?


 
Quite so. Isn't it a similar reason why the yanks call 4x4's 'Sport Utility Vehicles' ('sport' being the operative word)


----------



## MissTillyFlop (16 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Do you mind !!!! This is a titanic battle between hobbyist and anorak. Pride is at stake in this momentous *willy waiving* contest



Willy waiving? Surely this belongs in the circumcision thread?


----------



## classic33 (17 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Do you mind !!!! This is a *titanic1* battle between *hobbyist and anorak2*. Pride is at stake in this momentous willy waiving contest
> quote]
> 
> 1.Titanic sank.
> 2. Define the difference between the two.


----------



## GrasB (17 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> I've seen loads of people taking calls whilst riding cycles. Wouldn't you agree that they need punishing also ?


IMO the police force is under staffed & over burdened by red tape. So for the moment I think it's a waste of time for the police, & thus the law, to be dealing with the relatively low risk situations when there are people bringing much higher risk factors to the roads.


----------



## Francesca (17 Jul 2012)

willy waiving ????? WHERE??


----------



## Pat "5mph" (17 Jul 2012)

Francesca said:


> willy waiving ????? WHERE??


I think they mean a sort of "virtual willy", Francesca: all image, no substance


----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

One of them picks and choses when they want to partake in the activity, the other is a bit anal about the whole thing, and considers anyone else who does't share their level of enthusiasm to be a fraud.

I also consider myself to be a driver, biker, and a horse rider also as I also own them, but I actually spend more time on foot as a pedestrian than all the others put together (so that makes me and everyone else a pedestrian then doesn't it by Mickles reasoning)

I guess that you can only truly be a 'cyclist' when you are actually in the saddle, and not siting at a desk banging buttons on the interweb....


----------



## lukesdad (17 Jul 2012)

Sort of all rounder then


----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I think they mean a sort of "virtual willy", Francesca: all image, no substance


 
It would deserve a ban if it were anything else wouldn't it


----------



## classic33 (17 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Sort of all rounder then


More "Jack of All & Master of Non"



Linford said:


> One of them picks and choses when they want to partake in the activity, the other is a bit anal about the whole thing, and considers anyone else who does't share their level of enthusiasm to be a fraud.


 
As for being anal, does that mean being a bit of an ar5ehole about things?


----------



## mickle (17 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> One of them picks and choses when they want to partake in the activity, the other is a bit anal about the whole thing, and considers anyone else who does't share their level of enthusiasm to be a fraud.
> 
> I also consider myself to be a driver, biker, and a horse rider also as I also own them, but I actually spend more time on foot as a pedestrian than all the others put together (so that makes me and everyone else a pedestrian then doesn't it by Mickles reasoning)
> 
> I guess that you can only truly be a 'cyclist' when you are actually in the saddle, and not siting at a desk banging buttons on the interweb....


 
You're throwing up a rather pathetic smoke screen in an attempt to hide the real point. Which is this: You never start or participate in threads which have anything whatsoever to do with cycling and you don't own a bike. One of these facts would be unusual in a person who so regularly frequents a forum called *CycleChat*, but both? On the rare occasions you do talk about cycling it's clearly from the point of view of a 4x4 driving motorist, such as your latest der brained comment on motorists vs cyclists with mobile phones.

So why are you here?


----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

classic33 said:


> More "Jack of All & Master of Non"


 
How do you quantify the term 'master' ?



classic33 said:


> As for being anal, does that mean being a bit of an ar5ehole about things?


 
It might be construed that way in a given circumstance...


----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

mickle said:


> You're throwing up a rather pathetic smoke screen in an attempt to hide the real point. Which is this: You never start or participate in threads which have anything whatsoever to do with cycling and you don't own a bike. One of these facts would be unusual in a person who so regularly frequents a forum called *CycleChat*, but both? On the rare occasions you do talk about cycling it's clearly from the point of view of a 4x4 driving motorist, such as your latest der brained comment on motorists vs cyclists with mobile phones.
> 
> So why are you here?


 
Your charming company is irresistable Mickle


----------



## mickle (17 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Your charming company is irresistable Mickle


 
Evasion. You never start or participate in threads which have anything whatsoever to do with cycling and you don't own a bike. What brings you to Cyclechat?

I might be able to be persuaded that you work at GCHQ and are keeping an eye on us cyclist activists on behalf of a paranoid secret service, what with living in Cheltenham and all. Except that I understand that they tend to recruit folks with a capacity for rational thought.


----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

mickle said:


> Evasion. You never start or participate in threads which have anything whatsoever to do with cycling and you don't own a bike. What brings you to Cyclechat?
> 
> I might be able to be persuaded that you work at GCHQ and are keeping an eye on us cyclist activists on behalf of a paranoid secret service, what with living in Cheltenham and all. Except that I understand that they tend to recruit folks with a capacity for rational thought.


 

You aren't looking hard enough.

While all I see from you is sarcasm, and bile spitting at all and sundry, I have no doubt you might possibly have a nicer side to you...well I live in hope anyway


----------



## lukesdad (17 Jul 2012)

....anybody else like to add anything as it's compliment time


----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> ....anybody else like to add anything as it's compliment time


 
I always look for the good in people, I don't always find it though.......


----------



## mickle (17 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> You aren't looking hard enough.
> 
> While all I see from you is sarcasm, and bile spitting at all and sundry, I have no doubt you might possibly have a nicer side to you...well I live in hope anyway


 
You know, if you'd answered this question the first time I asked it we wouldn't be where we are now. Go on, show me a thread which you started which has an aspect of cycling as it's subject matter. And then show me a picture of your bicycle.


----------



## mickle (17 Jul 2012)

A fun and friendly online _cycling_ community! See?!


----------



## HovR (17 Jul 2012)

Geez.. If you don't like Linf's threads/posts, ignore them and they'll sink to the bottom, or report them. No need to start a 2 page attack whilst hi-jacking another thread.


----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

mickle said:


> You know, if you'd answered this question the first time I asked it we wouldn't be where we are now. Go on, show me a thread which you started which has an aspect of cycling as it's subject matter. And then show me a picture of your bicycle.


 
Go look yourself, You know where the search function is.


----------



## 4F (17 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> ....anybody else like to add anything as it's compliment time


 
Could I add pepper and salt then please


----------



## mickle (17 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Go look yourself, You know where the search function is.


 
I win. Yess.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Jul 2012)

mickle said:


> So why are you here?


 
Maybe because he enjoys yanking your chain and you take the bait so well.

GC


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> "Big hill bike" doesn t quite have the same ring to it does it ?


 
Johnny Frog goes with VTT, which I think is closer to the true function of the MTB.

I spend a fair amount of time off-road, but I'm not sure I've ever cycled on a mountain.


----------



## CopperCyclist (17 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Johnny Frog goes with VTT, which I think is closer to the true function of the MTB.
> 
> I spend a fair amount of time off-road, but I'm not sure I've ever cycled on a mountain.



VTT standing for what?


----------



## Cubist (17 Jul 2012)

Velo Tous Terrain... All terrain cycle


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Jul 2012)

Cubist said:


> Velo Tous Terrain... All terrain cycle


*I knew a French woman called Véronique. I used to call her Véro Tout Terrain. And got away with it!*


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jul 2012)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Willy waiving? Surely this belongs in the circumcision thread?


 
Don't you thing that that remark was a little cutting?


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> I guess that you can only truly be a 'cyclist' when you are actually in the saddle, and not siting at a desk banging buttons on the interweb....


 
You're making assumptions.....

You could be touring round the world on you recumbent and using the laser pointer on your helmet to enter text.........


----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

mickle said:


> I win. Yess.


 
I told you it was a clunker 







This was the one which was nicked


----------



## HovR (17 Jul 2012)




----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> You're making assumptions.....
> 
> You could be touring round the world on you recumbent and using the laser pointer on your helmet to enter text.........


 
Jeez, and to think that the OP was torn off a strip over a distraction like a mobile phone when on the road


----------



## Pat "5mph" (17 Jul 2012)

Linford, what big lights you have  
Only kidding (again). Nothing wrong by the looks with your MB, go, ride it, on and onward up the hill! You know you can do it! 
I am starting to support you in the "battle of the willies"


----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Linford, what big lights you have
> Only kidding (again). Nothing wrong by the looks with your MB, go, ride it, on and onward up the hill! You know you can do it!
> I am starting to support you in the "battle of the willies"


 

Ha ha, It is fairly hateful to ride after owning a decent bike, and the bottom bracket has a lot of play in it right now. Its not really a bike you want to do more than about 5 miles on 

Well Mickle did do the 'put up or shut up' didn't he


----------



## Norm (17 Jul 2012)

Linfy, does that bike have Trial Sex written on its frame? Or does it just look like it has Trial Sex written on its frame?


----------



## Mugshot (17 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


>




BTW is it me or are they a funny lot in the Mountain Biking and Off-Road section?


----------



## mickle (17 Jul 2012)

Is that a 'Trial Sex' or a 'Sex Trial' ?!? I nearly pooped myself laughing. 

Fair's fair, it is a actual bicycle. If it's yours. Have you got a receipt for it by way of proof of ownership?


----------



## mickle (17 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> I told you it was a clunker
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do like a large gusset!


----------



## theclaud (17 Jul 2012)

Norm said:


> Linfy, does that bike have Trial Sex written on its frame? Or does it just look like it has Trial Sex written on its frame?


 
Hahahahahahahahahaha! It's one of those moments when the Boys With the Big Ignore Lists are really missing out.


----------



## Norm (17 Jul 2012)

theclaud said:


> It's one of those moments when the Boys With the Big Ignore Lists are really missing out.


I'd quote Linfy's original post, but I fear that would be a fruitless exercise as we share positions on Ignore Lists.


----------



## theclaud (17 Jul 2012)

Norm said:


> I'd quote Linfy's original post, but I fear that would be a fruitless exercise as we share positions on Ignore Lists.


 
I doubt that, but I don't think it works any more - Ignorers can no longer see the quoted content of the Ignoree...


----------



## Mugshot (17 Jul 2012)

Is it possible to know if you're on someones ignore list if you're not told?


----------



## Norm (17 Jul 2012)

theclaud said:


> but I don't think it works any more - Ignorers can no longer see the quoted content of the Ignoree...


How about if I did something like this? It might work...


Mugshot said:


> Is it possible to know if you're on someones ignore list if you're not told?


No, happily.


----------



## theclaud (17 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> Is it possible to know if you're on someones ignore list if you're not told?


 
Did somebody say something?


----------



## Mugshot (17 Jul 2012)




----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Jeez, and to think that the OP was torn off a strip over a distraction like a mobile phone when on the road


 
No... the OP was torn of a strip because he was trolling!


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Jeez, and to think that the OP was torn off a strip over a distraction like a mobile phone when on the road


The clue is in the picture?

He stops his vehicle and then uses the equipment - one of the options that seems to escape so many muppets on our roads!


----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

mickle said:


> Is that a 'Trial Sex' or a 'Sex Trial' ?!? I nearly pooped myself laughing.
> 
> Fair's fair, it is a actual bicycle. If it's yours. Have you got a receipt for it by way of proof of ownership?


 
You don't want to see what was moderated out of my answer to Norms question 

I've had it about 10 years and no I don't keep receipts that long - it isn't realistically worth anything of value and this is what it actually says on the frame






Well when I do manage to replace the stolen roadie, I'll have a use for these (worn) bits which didn't get pinched with it won't I (and no I'm not modelling the rest of my road kit for anyone)






What, I'm still lying ???????? - Mickle, if you can't accept that I actually do have an interest in cycling, but don't feel the need to broadcast it at every opportunity, or feel the need to go out on a bicycle every night to re enforce that notion in my head, then that is your problem.

I think I've provided enough 'evidence' and have put my money and time where my interest is, and if you can't accept that, then tough shyte, . You really do have issues which I can't help you with.

Go get a life.


----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The clue is in the picture?
> 
> He stops his vehicle and then uses the equipment - one of the options that seems to escape so many muppets on our roads!


 
So why has he got a computer screen right in front of him, and mics and cams on his lid.

Come one Mister, it is set up for mobile use. You are just kidding yourself if you think different.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> So why has he got a computer screen right in front of him, and mics and cams on his lid.
> 
> Come one Mister, it is set up for mobile use. You are just kidding yourself if you think different.


 
Once again the hint is in the pictures......


----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Once again the hint is in the pictures......


 


> *Winnebiko II*
> 
> _*The second system, though not too imaginatively named, was a huge step forward in that it integrated a wide range of computer and communication systems in such a way that they could be effectively be used while riding, including a chord keyboard in the handlebars that never failed to enchant reporters. *_
> 
> The bike itself was rebuilt from the frame up, with new components (and a bit later, the addition of an Equinox trailer). But there were huge changes in electronics, including an aircraft-like control console and a number of remote-control features. This was launched in 1986 and was on the road until 1988, covering about 6,000 miles on both coasts of the US... leading to the _Miles with Maggie_ series of stories (there's a PDF available for $5.95 over here, although all the chapters are slowly being added to the site here). Also, I unearthed a technical article about the _Winnebiko II_, written back in 1987 when it was new. There are also a few rare posters of this version available.


 
http://microship.com/resources/winnebiko-behemoth.html

Come on now Cunobelin, You really are trying to teach me how to suck eggs


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jul 2012)

Absolutely not - simply making sure that you are confirming that this is questionable?


----------



## Linford (17 Jul 2012)

If it is unacceptable for one road vehicle operator to use distracting devices in shared spaces, then it is unacceptable for all to use them. Mickle was trying to argue that because legislation was not in place for cyclists and mobile use that it was OK. Are you now arguing for or against his standpoint as you run the risk of contradicting him.

I think you along with Mickle are going to have to give up on this thread. You have both been hoisted by your own petards....


----------



## classic33 (18 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> *How do you quantify the term 'master' ?*
> 
> It might be construed that way in a given circumstance...


 
If you're not familiar with the saying
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none
&
http://michael.lustfield.net/content/jack-all-trades-master-none

But as meant, you don't appear to know what you are supposed to be talking about, little less what you are actualy talking about.

Handheld radios are exempt from the mobile phone regulations. Helmet mounted ones are quite common amongst motorbike riders. Some are not even radios, just a two-way link between the two on the bike.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> If it is unacceptable for one road vehicle operator to use distracting devices in shared spaces, then it is unacceptable for all to use them. Mickle was trying to argue that because legislation was not in place for cyclists and mobile use that it was OK. Are you now arguing for or against his standpoint as you run the risk of contradicting him.
> 
> I think you along with Mickle are going to have to give up on this thread. You have both been hoisted by your own petards....


 
You really need to stop jumping to conclusions...

My next question is if the video and computer on Behemoth is unacceptable then surely this is also unacceptable:











Both of which are available on cars in the UK


Now is this acceptable?


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> If it is unacceptable for one road vehicle operator to use distracting devices in shared spaces, then it is unacceptable for all to use them.


 
Where do you stand on cyclists hearing being reduced by Ipods?


----------



## Linford (18 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> You really need to stop jumping to conclusions...
> 
> My next question is if the video and computer on Behemoth is unacceptable then surely this is also unacceptable:
> 
> ...


 

You are missing the point about these car mounted devices. They are designed to deliver information, and not for interaction whilst on the move. There is an important distinction between the two, and that is why phone use was banned. The recumbent contraption was clearly made for surfing the net whislt on the go.

Two way radio's fall in the same category if a button or series of buttons have to be pushed.. That recumbent bike has millions of them on the dash as well as a handlebar mounted keyboard. Is it any wonder it didn't take off ?


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> I told you it was a clunker


 

I'm about to make a colossal fool of myself, but not for the first or last time. If in no other area, I am at least consistent in this one. 

I rode (and raced) motorcycles many decades ago, so my limited knowledge is trapped in the age of flares...

But the front tyre of that black, motorised roadburner looks like a directional one and appears to be mounted the wrong way round.

I may be wrong and usually am. My knowledge is so dated that it looks wide even for a rear tyre to me....

But do enlighten me; is it a directional tyre and is it mounted backwards? The grooves seem to be set up to squeeze surface water back to the centre of the contact patch.

If I'm wrong, I make no apologies for my ignorance. It is a congenital condition.


----------



## Linford (18 Jul 2012)

classic33 said:


> If you're not familiar with the saying
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none
> &
> http://michael.lustfield.net/content/jack-all-trades-master-none
> ...


 

Erm, I've been riding and servicing larger cc motorbikes regularly on the road since the beginning of the 80's (as well as a bit of track riding - see pic, I ride at intermediate level).







I've also got an array of Autocom headsets and control gear for rider to rider, and rider to pillion in my posession (gifted). I do all servicing on the motorbikes including engine stripping, and have authored practical (simplified) guides to help other people who want to have a go at such things as valve clearances on multi cylinder bikes but are boggled by the depth of unneccessary detail in the manuals.












I'll PM you the link if you want to see the whole guide on the other forum.

There are plenty of people out there who are better/quicker at these things than I, but that doesn't mean I've not managed to master them.

I am not afraid to put myself up for scrutiny if I believe I have a valid case - Not everyone on here is a bull$hitter.

Now how about yourself. Do you really want to go there as I find what you just did to me as fairly offensive ?


----------



## theclaud (18 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> it isn't realistically worth anything of value and* this is what it actually says on the frame*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
My disappointment knows no bounds...


----------



## Linford (18 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I'm about to make a colossal fool of myself, but not for the first or last time. If in no other area, I am at least consistent in this one.
> 
> I rode (and raced) motorcycles many decades ago, so my limited knowledge is trapped in the age of flares...
> 
> ...


 
I'm on it today, and it is peeing down, so I hope you are wrong

The tyre and wheel have directional markers on both of them, and they 'are' pointing in the right direction (fitter got it wrong as they are the only indicaors, but thankfully spotted it as he was tightening the spindle)

Yes there is also a risk of delamination if it goes on the wrong way

What did you used to race ?


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> What did you used to race ?


 
Apologies for my presumptuous and incorrect post.

I'm not telling what I raced because I still have most of it (waiting for one of my children to fix up if interested) and I enjoy the anonymity of this forum.

It was slow and I was slower.


----------



## Linford (18 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Apologies for my presumptuous and incorrect post.
> 
> I'm not telling what I raced because I still have most of it (waiting for one of my children to fix up if interested) and I enjoy the anonymity of this forum.
> 
> It was slow and I was slower.


 

If you like older stuff, you will like this bike owned and raced by my local bike mechanic 


















Yes it is a BSA Bantam 125

Don't be ashamed. If I were to go racing, it would probably be on an MZ. I appreciate that competitive racing on supersports or above is prohibitively expensive for a privateer


----------



## Linford (18 Jul 2012)

User13710 said:


> This thread was funny yesterday, what's happened? If there's one thing worse than cyclists going on about gear ratios, it's motorcyclists going on about valve clearances


 

Just proving a point on being challenged User13710


----------



## MissTillyFlop (18 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> You really need to stop jumping to conclusions...
> 
> My next question is if the video and computer on Behemoth is unacceptable then surely this is also unacceptable:
> 
> ...



This is a big part of my non acting job - car manufacturers are desperate to work out ways do the driver Ian's distracted by pushing buttons as it's only a matter of time before one of them gets sued for playing a part Inman accident. 

They are building their units so that certain functions cannot be accessed with the engine turned on.


----------



## theclaud (18 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> I'm on it today, and it is peeing down, so I hope you are wrong
> 
> The tyre and wheel have directional markers on both of them, and they 'are' pointing in the right direction (fitter got it wrong as they are the only indicaors, but thankfully spotted it as he was tightening the spindle)
> 
> ...


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> You are missing the point about these car mounted devices. They are designed to deliver information, and not for interaction whilst on the move. There is an important distinction between the two, and that is why phone use was banned. The recumbent contraption was clearly made for surfing the net whislt on the go.
> 
> Two way radio's fall in the same category if a button or series of buttons have to be pushed.. That recumbent bike has millions of them on the dash as well as a handlebar mounted keyboard. Is it any wonder it didn't take off ?


 

Sorry - can you explain that for me?

Item sits in dashboard.....

Item has information.......

This information magically appears inside the driver's head with no interaction?

You need to interact with these devices to gain the information!
So there is actually no difference whatsoever, taking your eyes off the read to read a screen is a distraction, whether you care to admit it or not.

That is the reason why BEHEMOTH was chosen because although it is old technology it was at the time a concept that showed where the information age would go.

The fact that we now have cars that have large numbers of unnecessary electronic devices to distract the driver. All the driver really needs is a speedometer and a fuel guage, everything else is non-essential


----------



## Linford (18 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Sorry - can you explain that for me?
> 
> Item sits in dashboard.....
> 
> ...


 

You mean like a speedometer ? I used that excuse when I got stopped speeding and it worked 

Officer - Do you know how fast you were going ?

Me - No idea, I was too focused on what was in front of me on the road. I only glanced down to see the change light on the redline.

Officer - Fair doo's....


----------



## mickle (18 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


>


 
You are so going to chafe your knee riding like that.


----------



## Linford (18 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1939694, member: 45"]Can you fix up a cheap moped for me?[/quote]

A serious (on the level) question ?


----------



## Linford (18 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1939735, member: 45"]Semi-serious. I'm toying with the idea of a moped (you can use the cycle path over the Avonmouth bridge if you're up to 50cc but not over), but second-hand is a minefield of boyracing, teenage, single-pot wreckers.[/quote]

I'd steer clear of the cheap chinese bikes, and look at something like Peugeot Speedfight (sp) or anything out of the big 4 Japanese if your budget will stretch to it.

As long as it is unmodified as a starting point, go for anything with a graze on it, and get it repainted (I know a sensibly priced co in Cirencester who can and has done wonders for me and many mates bikes). Consider the salvage co's in Brizzle behind Temple Meads) who get them in as falling off the stand can write a bike off if enough panels are damaged.(which isn't a big deal) There is also a salvage co in Gloucester by the docks which has a lot of this stuff in.all the time

http://www.ukmotorbikesalvage.co.uk/



Plenty of options available as most kids only have them for a year or so.

Edit, lookingon that salvage site, it might be worth taking a punt on a chinese bike for a couple of hundred quid.


----------



## mickle (18 Jul 2012)

Best thread ever.


----------



## Linford (18 Jul 2012)

mickle said:


> You are so going to chafe your knee riding like that.


 
It isn't something I make a habit of on the road. You (I) have to be pushing on to get to that point. It is used as a lean indicator on the track, as well as an indicator of how quickly you are taking the corner in relaion to previous passes


----------



## mickle (18 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> It isn't something I make a habit of on the road. You (I) have to be pushing on to get to that point. It is used as a lean indicator on the track, as well as an indicator of how quickly you are taking the corner in relaion to previous passes


 
Yes I know.


----------



## Linford (18 Jul 2012)

mickle said:


> Yes I know.


 
You ride a motorbike as well 

I have actually been toying with the notion of a single speed (freewheeling hub), but the hills are a killer, and my cycle fitness isn't what iit was. You reckon I could get a steel framed one in the interim as I really don't like riding that orange thing ?


----------



## Linford (18 Jul 2012)

Tum te tum, I dunno, talk about other stuff, get moaned at, talk about cycle stuff, and then get met with a wall of silence. Just no pleasing some people........


----------



## theclaud (18 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Tum te tum, I dunno, talk about other stuff, get moaned at, talk about cycle stuff, and then get met with a wall of silence. Just no pleasing some people........


 


Linford said:


> I have actually been toying with the notion of a single speed (freewheeling hub), but the hills are a killer, and my cycle fitness isn't what iit was. You reckon I could get a steel framed one in the interim as I really don't like riding that orange thing ?


 
I think everyone is just stunned into silence that you are talking about bicycles. Anyway, the way to get better at hills is to get the bicycle and get out there...


----------



## classic33 (18 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Erm, I've been riding and servicing larger cc motorbikes regularly on the road since the beginning of the 80's (as well as a bit of track riding - see pic, I ride at intermediate level).
> 
> I've also got an array of Autocom headsets and control gear for rider to rider, and rider to pillion in my pos*s*ession (gifted). I do all servicing on the motorbikes including engine stripping, and have authored practical (simplified) guides to help other people who want to have a go at such things as valve clearances on multi cylinder bikes but are boggled by the depth of unneccessary detail in the manuals.
> 
> ...


 
I stand by what I said.
What you have been doing to others is just as offensive.


----------



## HovR (18 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> You ride a motorbike as well
> 
> I have actually been toying with the notion of a single speed (freewheeling hub), but the hills are a killer, and my cycle fitness isn't what iit was. You reckon I could get a steel framed one in the interim as I really don't like riding that orange thing ?


 
I'd go with getting a steel racer personally, affordable yet still a joy to ride, and can easily be under 10 kilos - Although watch out, as they can go for some silly prices on eBay.

Saw an ad for an old Peugot in a shop window (Gloucester) a while back, and they only wanted £25, but the frame was pretty huge at 25".


----------



## Linford (19 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1940686, member: 45"]Thanks for the tips. I'd be too scared of the risk with buying from a breaker though.[/quote]

I bought this Triumph 900 as a cat C from Cleeve salvage in Gloucester 12-14 years ago (when it was about 18 months old) A car had pulled out on it, The forks were bent and the front wheel shot. I replaced the damaged bits and then rode it around for about 18 months before selling it on. The owner lives locally, and I saw the bike a couple of years ago being ridden.







If you mend your own cycles, then this isn't so scary. I was actually thinking of sommething which hadn't been down the road, but perhaps been stolen & recovered and perhaps needed a new ignition barrel, or maybe one of the panels blowing over. I'd seriously consider it for myself if I were chasing it.

If you saw something up this way (salvage or not), and wanted a second pair of eyes on something up this way (ish), I'm sure I could sort something out. many of the bikes in the salvage co's don't have a mark on them. If you need something cheap, don't dismiss it out of hand. You could same a good few bob.


----------



## Francesca (21 Jul 2012)

What has this got to do with MTB???


----------



## Linford (21 Jul 2012)

Francesca said:


> What has this got to do with MTB???


 
Not a lot, but I am easily lead, and am a broad church of interests. Wanna talk about horses as well ?


----------



## Francesca (21 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Not a lot, but I am easily lead, and am a broad church of interests. Wanna talk about horses as well ?


 no.just MTB please..nutter!


----------



## Linford (21 Jul 2012)

Well, My mate has a very nice full sus downhill cannondale bike which he never goes out on and is happy for me to borrow. I have a brilliant downhill course on a nearby hill (Leckhampton Hill) which I've used before and which I really fancy a go on with his. The downside of this is that I've actually ridden this downhill bike and it weighs more than my 600cc motorbike, so it is only ever going to be good for throwing oneself off a hill with, and rather rubbish for getting back up to the top again as it is a very steep hill.

Do I need to employ the services of a small child to push it back to the top to keep the fun in my day ?


----------



## User16625 (21 Jul 2012)

Should be ok if its got 3.


----------



## Psycolist (28 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> *Reporting mobile use *
> 
> Is it me or are they a funny lot in the commuting section as I get the feeling that they want to hang me up by my goolies for posting my views . I basically said that i think they are over zealous in reporting every person they film , using a mobile while driving and that I wouldn't grass my mum up for doing it ( I would have a word with her ) Also they seem to have the view that driving and answering the phone when you drive is as bad as drinking ten pints of lager and a few shots.If you read from page 16 back you might get a feel of what I mean,
> Feel free to tell me I'm wrong if you think I am.
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/reporting-mobile-use-while-driving.50122/page-16


 I'd like to think that you caught the wrong group of riders at the wrong time about the wrong subject.....I have found that there is a small minority of forum members that have VERY strong oppinions about specific subjects, possibly from bad experiences, or possibly from being highly moral and unbending citizens who once had a paper clip stolen. But I do think that we should all be able to post our opinions without being verbally keel-hauled, hung , drawn and quartered. Each to thier own, and if you disagree, do so with good manners, supportable facts and sensible arguments. Not wishing to fall off either side of this fence, i'll leave it there.


----------



## GilesM (7 Aug 2012)

Francesca said:


> What has this got to do with MTB???


 
Absolutely nothing, and those that want to have a pointless argument really should feck off to one of the pointless argument sections, there's enough of them on this forum, however, just to make it clear as to what this section is for, I've posted a few pics:


----------



## Cyclopathic (7 Aug 2012)

Mugshot said:


> I post quite often in the commuting section and I'm hilarious, some others however are just blooming annoying and hardle worth a titter.
> So in answer to your question, some of us are very funny, others not so much. If you'd put this thread into the commuting section I'm afraid you'd fall very firmly in the latter group


I too post in "commuting" and I crack myself right up and I can be incredibly tetchy so am both funny and funny. I noticed a couple of folk saying that they avoid the thread for whatever reason but that doesn't stop us over on "commuting" coming over here and being all tetchy and serious and cross.


----------



## User482 (9 Aug 2012)

GilesM said:


> Absolutely nothing, and those that want to have a pointless argument really should feck off to one of the pointless argument sections, there's enough of them on this forum, however, just to make it clear as to what this section is for, I've posted a few pics:


 

Giles, this section isn't for pictures of filing cabinets.


----------



## GilesM (4 Sep 2012)

User482 said:


> Giles, this section isn't for pictures of filing cabinets.


 
You can look at the background if you can't appreciate pure simplistic brilliance


----------



## User482 (4 Sep 2012)

GilesM said:


> You can look at the background if you can't appreciate pure simplistic brilliance


Sadly, the background is spoilt by the office furniture in the foreground...


----------



## Drago (17 Sep 2012)

I must be schizophrenic cos I sometimes commute to work on my Trance X, off road almost all the way.


----------

