"Gone in fixie seconds": Opinion split over minimalist bike lock set-up... but is it actually that bad?; Tom Pidcock insists "training won't change" and talks of mental fatigue; Merida revenue up but profits down + more on the live blog

I still just ride.

No head unit, no power meter, no electronic shifting, no electronic pump, no radar (though, admittedly, living in The Netherlands with its good infrastructure, that is way more viable).
Just lights when needed, charged weekly.
No electrical gloves either, though my hands get painfully cold, but for me pogies solved that wonderfully.

Sredlums wrote:

No electrical gloves either, though my hands get painfully cold, but for me pogies solved that wonderfully.

Unfortunately such is the state of my circulation that I use electric heated gloves and pogies and it's still painful – though bearable – when the temperature hits minus figures.

Richard Emel on Facebook wrote:

"Remember when we just rode"

[checks Strava] ...nope... it's not here: didn't happen.

Remember when we just rode with these battery-munching bricks? They were deeply shite.

God yes, awful in every way, feeble light, gobbled batteries and so un-weatherproof that you had to take the batteries out and wipe out the innards after a wet ride if you wanted them to last the winter! Oh and the battery springs were so weak that after a ride over rough ground you'd have to open the back up and stretch them by hand to maintain contact! I switched to Wonderlights in my later childhood, probably still awful by today's standards but felt better at the time and were defintitely cooler...

The batteries were not the easiest to find, and the brackets broke easily. The switch was far better than the D cell quick release ever readys that I replaced them with.

Lights have gotten so much better.

I have a visual memory from childhood of one of this species of bricks popping loose from a bracket on a downhill section and flying away to smash (even though the plastic was pretty heavy as well).

Probably worth an extra 10 watts up the next hill.

lesterama wrote:

Remember when we just rode with these battery-munching bricks? They were deeply shite.

I used to cycle to school in the suburbs with those. They were useless.
When I found myself cycling to university on unlit rural roads I upgraded to a dynamo. Initially a bottle type which was noisy, trashed tyre walls and made cycling hard work. Later upgraded to a bottom bracket one running on the tread which was excellent - I discovered my front light was bright enough to flick upwards and "flash" oncoming drivers who hadn' dipped their lights.
Now my main commuter has a hub dynamo now so I can still "just ride". Though for some reason I seem to have aquired a crazy number of lights (including indicators - don't ask).

To be fair unless "proper cycling infrastructure" means everyone having a segregated cycle lane directly outside their front door, you would still need lights to reach it, and actually I am finding people riding on segregated cycle lanes without lights on, particularly around Hyde Park, quite a hazard, so I don't think you could/should really dispense with them however good the infra becomes.

Proper Dutch cycling infra will be (for the majority of the distance) traffic-evaporated streets, so people will definitely be needing lights.  Riding without lights in the dark is not good for several reasons of course.  (And the Dutch police are quite happy to stop and fine you apparently!)

Dutch cyclist here.

We have good cycling infrastructure - especially compared to most other places - but the typical trip is far from 'traffic-evaporated'. We have bike lanes, yes, but that's always just a portion of the trip.
What makes cycling safe(r) here is, more than anything, the fact that most people ride a bike at least now and then. That means that even when driving in a car, cyclists are not dehumanized lycra clad weirdo's, but actual people, who could be anybody. Family, friends, neighbours, collegues.
That simple fact means people drive more considerately.

Also, I can't even remember myself or anybody I know got fined for not running lights. There's a shortage of police officers to spend enough time on that.

Sredlums wrote:

We have good cycling infrastructure - especially compared to most other places to anywhere else in the world *, even more so if you consider it covers the entire country - but the typical trip is far from 'traffic-evaporated' except when compared to just about every other country and especially the UK. We have bike lanes (but more usually separate cycle paths), yes, but that's always just a portion of the trip.

Hope you don't mind some small corrections?  Unless it's got much worse since I was last travelling there (over a decade ago now).

My point was just that by UK standards much of the places where cyclists share with motor traffic in NL seem to be a) quieter places - e.g. residential and/or where through traffic has been removed and b) while car use is still going up in NL I believe compared to the UK traffic is generally less.

In the UK where there is through traffic (which is many places) speed limits tend to be 48km/h (which means over 50 because UK drivers struggle to "go slow").  Or more, for arterial routes.

* Apparently Copehagen is not good enough - although still light years - or a generation - ahead of the UK [1] [2] [3].  I haven't been but have heard reports that seem to confirm this.

Sredlums wrote:

What makes cycling safe(r) here is, more than anything, the fact that most people ride a bike at least now and then. [...]

Also, I can't even remember myself or anybody I know got fined for not running lights. There's a shortage of police officers to spend enough time on that.

Thanks for the note on policing.  I would imagine that, but I have heard they will bust people.

Putting the rest out for comment if you will.  I haven't lived in NL, I've just been cycle touring there and stayed a few weeks for work - but sometimes a foreign perspective can pick up things that locals just take for granted because "that's how it is."  OTOH foreigners have their own biases and misunderstandings.

I would agree that "they could be my family and friends" is likely one of the motivators for slightly more careful or considerate driving (or at least tolerance for cyclists).  I'm not sure just how much impact that has on safety though - humans everywhere are fallible and lazy (not to insult Dutch drivers, but they are human too...)

I think it's many factors; but from a UK perspective what stands out is the whole philosophy.  What do we want from "transport" and from our public spaces?  In the UK it often comes down to the maximum safe capacity for motor vehicle throughput and/or storage.  As Chris Boardman points out, the government "machine" (which lawmakers command, but will often take the advice of since they're the "experts") revolves around what we measure.  So anything that reduces that "score" won't get support even when people think it might fix problems or be "nicer"!

Meanwhile in NL you have the Sustainable Safety principles / philosphy - taking a subtly different starting point.

So I think it ends up being as much to do with bigger, more "political" things, which then influence the planning of the built environment, where responsibility for provision of that rests.  (That includes operation/maintenance of that and management of "services".  Notably the UK highways suffer from being regularly damaged by poor work by utilities and other private "works").  Included in that is who exactly is responsible for safety and "healthy places" and how they're held accountable.

I think that also then feeds down to more "tactical" things like the design of infra and the "rules of the road".

Sredlums wrote:

What makes cycling safe(r) here is, more than anything, the fact that most people ride a bike at least now and then. That means that even when driving in a car, cyclists are not dehumanized lycra clad weirdo's, but actual people, who could be anybody. Family, friends, neighbours, collegues.

That simple fact means people drive more considerately.

And presumably you don't have as much media over there stoking the divisions and encouraging the view of cyclists as "other"?

brooksby wrote:

Sredlums wrote:

What makes cycling safe(r) here is, more than anything, the fact that most people ride a bike at least now and then. That means that even when driving in a car, cyclists are not dehumanized lycra clad weirdo's, but actual people, who could be anybody. Family, friends, neighbours, collegues.

That simple fact means people drive more considerately.

And presumably you don't have as much media over there stoking the divisions and encouraging the view of cyclists as "other"?

Maybe one and the same thing though. They're not exactly short of populists over there, any more than we are. I'm sure if those people thought they could use cycling as a wedge issue, they'd be more than happy to. But it's harder to get any traction with that when it's normalised to start with.

mdavidford wrote:

Maybe one and the same thing though. They're not exactly short of populists over there, any more than we are. I'm sure if those people thought they could use cycling as a wedge issue, they'd be more than happy to. But it's harder to get any traction with that when it's normalised to start with.

Yup - although as a more "distributed" / low cost kind of "good" (which the public purse pays towards) cycling will likely always be susceptible to being elbowed out by people out to make a big chunk of money quickly.

I'd imagine the Dutch have many of the same "bad'uns" as in the UK as you say.  But interestingly there's quite a number of "people on bikes" who are pointing at ... petrol-engined scooter riders! (Who are also possibly members of certain other demographics people might not like e.g. immigrants, poorer people trying to get ahead, yoof trying to impress, "criminal types" etc.)  David Hembrow has a slightly contrary look at this one in his article.

"I am finding people riding on segregated cycle lanes without lights on,"

Have a big problem with these people. Dangerous on narrow 2 way lanes and shows huge disrespect for other riders and their safety.

Dynamo lights?  That can do 2 of those lights (unless you're wanting e.g. particularly fast rides in completely unlit countryside, and/or off-road)?

... and in fact you'd still want those with proper cycling infra.

I don't choose to run the bottom 3 and currently all my bikes have dynamo lighting so I'm a bit closer to "just ride".  (Always carry a lock though and make sure I've got my basic tools with so there are still some extras).

Nice articles about these lights here and more here [1] [2] about why a boring "slow and heavy" Dutch-style bike is ideal for mass cycling.  Same reason as 99+% of cars people buy are not F1 racers, or jeeps - people just want something they can get on and go, day or night, without spending every evening / weekend on maintenance.  And that works at night, keeps you clean, carries things and is secure "out of the box" without needing to buy extra accessories.

The 3 lights are what I have for cycling in daylight - 800 lumens at the front, 300 at the rear, helmet light is 100 front and 100 rear. All of them set to flashing.

I've recently aquired a 4th light for night cycling - 1100 lumens with a dip function.

Tom_77 wrote:

The 3 lights are what I have for cycling in daylight - 800 lumens at the front, 300 at the rear, helmet light is 100 front and 100 rear. All of them set to flashing.

This is an expression of the problem right there.  And we'd be embracing a hopeless arms race if more people get the idea.  Doubly so if more people start cycling - which of course they won't while such conditions prevail (except for brief "transition periods" like e.g. in a few parts of London).

Of course, people wanting to feel safe is partly why we have massive cars which are unsafe for everyone on the outside.  Life is full of entirely wasteful and often harmful arms races.  But ... meanwhile in NL...

(Some of those bikes probably have lights on but that is likely because in NL bikes come with "batteries included" including dynamo lights.  Because people aren't racing, the drag when running is pretty low and the LEDs last forever having a switch to turn them on and off may be an anti-feature.  But flashing lights are a distraction to everyone...).

Tom_77 wrote:

The 3 lights are what I have for cycling in daylight - 800 lumens at the front, 300 at the rear, helmet light is 100 front and 100 rear. All of them set to flashing.

I've recently aquired a 4th light for night cycling - 1100 lumens with a dip function.

My front light is a Cateye AMPP 800, which does the job for me.

But it always irritates me when I get headlight-flashed.

There's one particular section it happens - I'm riding uphill on a shared-use path with the road to my left, so the oncoming traffic is coming right at me.  I put the light on full beam, because anything less doesn't actually help me in seeing anything, given all of the oncoming car headlights, and yet I've been flashed (presumably for having a bright light on?).

I just wonder whether these people have considered that their car headlights are far bigger and far brighter than anything I can put on the front of my bike… 

But I think car headlights (at least the older ones) are in part brighter because they have light being emitted over a much bigger area.  At least - some of the bike front lights around now appear to be one LED and sear a hole in my retina...

Or perhaps it's a psychological / contrast thing?  I've got a < 3W front light (dynamo powered, German light law compliant) but have had a few quite angry complaints from pedestrians - I was a bit baffled about this but of course this occurred on shared-use spaces, which are probably less well lit than the roads and where they would likely have been looking out from the light part into the darkness.  So my light seemed very bright (whether or not they should be is another matter...)

Or perhaps we just stare at them in a way we don't with car lights?  That could be because a single light is harder to gague speed and distance from than the "separated by a known distance" pair of a motor vehicle?

Maybe there's a "moths to flame" effect - "look at that really bright light!" ?

wot no radar?

good job they're on a black friday special at the mo...

Read that article yesterday, the bit that struck me was 

He collects bikes from all over Scotland and takes them to UK-based charities, who have their pick.

The remaining bicycles are returned to Nigel, who then offers them to other organisations that distribute them to people in Africa for as little as £3.

So basically the UK charities get to pick off the good stuff and the tat is then offloaded. He has a container full of bike shaped objects that he is sending to Sudan - not 'other organisations'...

Worth it for the pun though...

OnYerBike wrote:

So I think I'm with Dan - sure, it's better than nothing and probably fine if you're away for a few minutes, but if you've gone to the trouble of bringing a d-lock with you, it seems dumb not to put it through the frame - it's not exactly any more effort. 

Agreed.  If there was some reason why this was the only/easiest way to lock it I could see it being ok for a few minutes; but surely it would be no harder to lock through the frame.

Steve K wrote:

OnYerBike wrote:

So I think I'm with Dan - sure, it's better than nothing and probably fine if you're away for a few minutes, but if you've gone to the trouble of bringing a d-lock with you, it seems dumb not to put it through the frame - it's not exactly any more effort. 

Agreed.  If there was some reason why this was the only/easiest way to lock it I could see it being ok for a few minutes; but surely it would be no harder to lock through the frame.

Maybe they just missed?