Anyone suggesting half life needs to give themselves a stern talking to!

Icy in manchester too, attempted a left hand corner a bit too fast and am now hobbling about with a very bruised knee…

So is it, or isn’t it?

It isn’t. The license fee doesn’t work morally, that’s the point I was making.

morally, if not actually legally

It’s not a moral question, the BBC aren’t a charity and the rules are very clear about what you need to pay for and what you don’t. Morally there is no justification for the requirement to pay a fee to watch non-BBC TV.

The burden of proof is on them, you aren’t obliged to let them in but if you do and can demonstrate you don’t need a licence they will stop hassling you (for a while).

Personal choice though, of course.

This is correct, all the major brake manufacturers make brakes that work and that thousands of people use perfectly happily.

Personally I have 4 sets of hope brakes that all work well with minimal maintenance, while out of 3 shimano brakes two went back under warranty and one is still functioning so far, but needed a bleed straight out of the box. No doubt they are fine if you get a working set.

A surprising u-turn from Andy “snitches get stitches” Murray…

I don’t take a great interest in this

You’re right, it looks like you don’t.

You’ll almost certainly die, best not risk it.

Cheers for the replies, will have another go with the velcro, failing that cable ties it is.

Just received mine, not used it yet but the light itself is impressively tiny!

Does anyone have any tips for attaching the helmet mount? With just a velcro strap it seems like it is very wobbly?

I one bragged on a thread

Don’t sell yourself short, you have bragged on lots of threads…

Yes but risk compensation means that helmeted riders are more likely to crash cancelling out any benefit.

I’d be very suspicious if it exactly cancelled out!

To force walkers off the path is not acceptable. You have to give way to them.

I didn’t realise that in England and Wales we are allowed to mow down walkers as we please…

therefore you will never get a fair competition until it’s easier for everyone to have access.

It still wouldn’t be a fair competition in that case, so what’s the point of bringing it up. A drugs free for all would be neither fair nor desirable for any number of other reasons.

If you can’t catch everyone who is using doping and we know you can’t then you can only come to one logical conclusion if you want a so called level playing field and that is to allow athletes to use whatever methods they see fit to achieve results.

That wouldn’t produce a level playing field though.

Aside from the whole Lance thing, I’d say it still matters now as it demonstrates that you stand a good chance of being caught for doping, even if only retrospectively.

which suggest that junctions, lit or unlit, are a contributing factor

Well yes, junctions are clearly a hazard, I would say unlit ones are currently far more of one though, specifically side roads.

Well yes they would do, I can’t see this making much of a difference though.

Not sure I really see the benefits from a cyclists point of view. Traffic lit junctions are rarely a problem, people not seeing you / not paying attention to their driving / passing too close and too fast are more pressing concerns.

Started drinking early did we?

There you go…

Halls fell ridge would surely be a massive amount of carrying even if you were seriously good?

gender encoding in fluid mechanics

Heh.

Why can’t we do the same here?

We can, but the point is that the fuel would be in space, lifting anything that weighs a significant amount out of Earth’s gravity well is very expensive.

I think they can, I have a set that I’m going to attempt it on soon. Have a look on the mtbr forums, there are some people on there that have done it.

Standing in a queue @ Whinlatter

If you are faster up the first climb you don’t have to queue!

My personal view is if you consume any BBC output (website, TV, Radio, iPlayer etc) then you should have a licence. Why should you not contribute towards the BBC?

That’s not how the system works though, it’s quite possible to legally be required to have a licence even though you don’t consume any BBC output.

Technically you aren’t supposed to, but I’d have thought lots of places would be ok with it if you asked nicely…

Amalgamating into general taxation would lose this transparency

There is no reason why this should be the case. A directly taxed system would be far less regressive, and scrapping the licensing system would obviously save some cash into the bargain.

I had an early one (SG 500), the cup and cone bearings were knacked in just under a year, although the shifting mechanism still seems ok. Not in a rush to get another one…

bump…

I have used 24″ tubes successfully, I suspect a 20″ might be too small. You could always give it a go…?

Not just me, the board and the delegates of the International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics. But I’m sure you think you are better placed to judege.

By engage with it I mean look further instead of dismissing it.

What do you mean by look further? You have already decided that I’m not competent to assess the validity of the statistics, so what further examination do you suggest?

Are you suggesting that anyone who “engages” with this research and doesn’t conclude that ESP exists is closed minded, because that seems an absurd view to take.

but there is credible evidence from a credible source, and you are refusing to engage with it.

What do you mean by engage with? That you personally find this evidence credible or compelling is not sufficient reason for anyone else to come to the same conclusion.

Hence those who claim they would believe in god if there was evidence also refuse to believe in psychic reading/ESP/telepathy,

Evidence isn’t a binary condition. Just because people come to a different conclusion to yourself doesn’t mean they are not coming to an evidence based conclusion.

If you want to react in such a defensive way then I suppose you can.

I’m not being defensive. You are moaning about the direction of the thread, which is due to the language you chose to use in the OP!

Yes, but I find it interesting (and possibly telling) that in comparison virtually everyone (99% plus at a guess) in Berlin was wearing normal clothes.

I would say that this is due to lots more people cycling, it isn’t a question of getting existing cyclists to wear normal clothes, it’s just a statistical effect of getting more normal people on bikes.

we are constantly in a rush to be somewhere.

Yes, of course nobody in continental europe is ever in a rush to get anywhere.

BTW this thread wasn’t meant to be about slagging off people who wear bike specific clothes

Other than implying they have an “unhealthy” attitude to cycling you mean?

About half the people I see on bikes just seem to be wearing normal clothes, I’d say that the weather, bike theft, safety and laziness are all vastly more important factors on cycling than any perception about required clothing.

It is interesting the vehemence with which some theists state their position and argue against the beliefs of others. It makes me wonder why theists are so angry. Does anyone have a link or something that might explain it?

Probably, in this case, because science has been unable to prove there is no God.

I’d be very surprised if anyone was frustrated about that!