it's amazing how quickly people have forgotten quite how bad British Rail were…

Well – that's just it. People haven't forgotten how BR ran the network. And most seam to take the view that they ran a pretty good network given the decades of chronic underfunding by succesive Governments.

BR was the ongoing butt of jokes and jibes from a largely Tory media with a road transport agenda.

It sounds like a spitfire

Don't you mean a Messerschmitt?

That would be more like it. MBs normally have that distinctive supercharger whine.

In terms of dullness stakes…

F1 > MotoGP > IoM TT

Oh, and camp a long way – sorry, a very long way, from the owners of this forum…..

I'm currently running 2.25 Schwalbe Smart Sams – and there is plenty of room (prob about 8mm).

One thing worth considering is tyre height rather than width – the gap to the seatstay bridge is probably closer than the gap to the seatstays

Of the years that I have done MM…. and based on fallible memory

2004 – Disastrously wet. I'd argue the worst at Eastnor
2005 – Not too bad, but some very heavy showers?
2006 – I seem to remember that this was the (only) dry and quick year
2007 – wet, but drying out & faster on Sunday
2008 – wet, but again, drying out & faster on Sunday
2009 – Dryish – but with a few big heavy showers that turned everything to gloop for a few hours – and with a very wet woods section that never dried.

The only years I didn't use mud tyres were 2004 – numpty MM virgin, and 2006

(it will be dry at mayhem this year won;t it?)

Yes, I believe it will be. Glastonbury is the following weekend.

I've had events 'ruined' both by people throwing absolute paddys when someone missed a changeover by 10 minutes,

I've seen some pretty big blow ups at MM, including someone packing up and oing home in the middle of the night due to a combo of rain, mud and a late handover – although thankfully not in any team I've been in.

DO NOT, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, have anything for Sunday breakfast that contains BACON.

You are camping, so there will be a HUGE TEMPTATION to have a bacon butty or full camp fry up for brekkie.

You will be having it for seconds on the first climb, and for thirds on the second climb….

If Wales can actually play a full 80 minutes, I would say that Wales are marginally the better of the two sides at the moment

Unforunately, Wales seem to need to play for about 84 minutes at the mo.

Just managed to get tickets for Wales Italy though, so looking forward to that one.

TJ – your second example bothers me…

Out on the shared use path. Ring the bell – owner sees me and does not call the dog. I assume dog is OK around cycles. Slow to a reasonable pace and attempt to go past. Dog panics and darts about on the path. I have to stop hard to avoid hitting it. The owner knew I was there but didn't get the dog under control so the dog nearly caused me to crash. a less experienced rider might have either crashed or hit the dog – this was a little yappy thing that could have been killed by being run over.

Because it is a very frustrating circumsatnce that I come across every day that I commute by bike. Dogs in a Cardiff park where the main path is also Cardiff's main cycle artery. Most dog owners (and walkers) take the view that the council's signs for cyclists to give way applies carte blanche. It is a daily occurence for walkers to walk 2,3,4 or more abreast along the trail, eyeball you and still not move – becasue cyclists have to give way, right? Add a dog / dogs into the mix, and as you say, it's cover the brakes and expect an emergency stop at any moment.

As a rider I am very unsure about where liability would sit. My view in these sort of shared environments is that the dog should be on a lead to be in control – too much traffic, and it is a designated cycle commute trail. But as a cyclist I am under an obligation to give way (to the person, if not the dog). I had some very aggressive threatening behaviour aimed at me when I have narrowly avoided an off-lead Jack Russell.

The law may make no distinction, but for practical purposes this is a very different environment to, say, foresty. I ride and dog walk in a local FC forest – good DH and XC trails, and the dog can be off the lead. As a rider and a walker I expect to come across dogs that are not on a lead – and I expect both riders and dog owners to anticipate the same.

Ahhh, yes – MM virgins you said….

… Did I mention the Eastnor mud 😈

Never quite got my head round the "double night laps" bit. When we've rtied this in the past our times have suffered slightly for the night laps – but were our sunday am laps better for the sleep – no idea.

We were going to try pairs last year – 2 on / 2 sleeping then swap. As it was we just kept going as a 4.

Depends on the conditions too – a double night lap in the eastnor mud takes some willpower

This from the NFU website:

If your dog misbehaves you may be liable for a fine, and in some cases your dog may be destroyed, says Christen Mulingani from Roythorne and Co, an NFU Legal Panel firm.

Dogs play an integral part in country life, whether as family pets or members of a working team. We are familiar with the financial and moral responsibilities that dog ownership entails, but what are the legal obligations?

Damage or injury caused by a dog is indirect. As such, liability is based on the law of negligence, that is, the failure to prevent damage that was reasonably foreseeable. In terms of injury to humans, dogs (other than specific breeds named in the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991) are categorised as a non-dangerous species. This means the starting point in law is that any injury they cause is unexpected and not foreseeable. Therefore, for an owner to be negligent, he must be aware that either the dog has specific behavioural characteristics or that particular circumstances exist that make it likely to behave aggressively.

The principles of negligence allow, however, that where a person has contributed to his own injury, by provoking the dog for example, then the negligence of the owner is reduced. Liability is also reduced where the victim, in full knowledge of the circumstances, voluntarily accepts the risk of injury. This does not extend to employees, where the risk of injury is incidental to their employment. A groom bitten by the yard's dog is not taken as having voluntarily assumed the risk.

These principles are well illustrated by considering a dog owner's obligations towards a stranger. If the dog is not characteristically aggressive and not kept specifically for protection of property or persons, then the owner is unlikely to be held liable for any injury caused to a stranger on the grounds that such damage could not reasonably have been foreseen.

Contrast this with injury caused by a guard dog, in which case the owner should be aware of the dog's heightened level of aggression towards any stranger. As the potential for injury can be foreseen, this owner is expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that he has sufficient control over his dog so its ability to cause damage is limited. He may be found liable for any injury caused, unless the person can reasonably expect a guard dog to be present on the land and the level of injury inflicted by the dog is proportionate to the circumstances. The owner should certainly warn people of the dog's presence, but this in itself will not release him from liability if the level of aggression is excessive. The Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 allows dogs that appear to be dangerous and not kept under proper control to be destroyed, and this extends to dogs on private property.

Appropriate control is the key to responsible dog ownership. In the countryside, it is reasonable to expect owners to be aware of the presence of livestock and of the heightened risk posed by their dog when not on their own land. There is specific legislation centred around the worrying of cattle and sheep. This is where a dog is at large (ie, not on a lead or under close control) in a field or enclosure and is running among livestock so as to alarm them. Actual pursuit need not be proved.

The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act of 1953 provides that the owner or person in charge of a dog that worries livestock is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000. The court may also order the dog to be destroyed and the owner disqualified from having a dog for a specified period. Owners should also be aware that where their dog trespasses onto another's land and poses a threat to his livestock, that person will have justification to kill, shoot or injure the dog. Interestingly, whereas one cannot shoot a dog for an attack on a human once that attack has ceased, it is a defence to shoot a dog that has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity, is not under the control of any person and where there is no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.

So what are our obligations as dog owners?
We should be aware of our dog's characteristics and any specific circumstances that could incite its natural aggression. If we have, or should have, reason to believe that our dog is a danger to others, we have the responsibility to prevent, as far as possible, such danger from occurring.

Your dog should always be kept under appropriate control. You are expected to have regard for the type of damage your dog might inflict and its seriousness. A collar with your details inscribed is required in public places, and will prevent your dog being treated as a stray and seized, should it be caught trespassing.

Essentially, all the law requires is that we undertake to be responsible dog owners, and exercise awareness, foresight and common sense.

rkk01

It seems to me fairly clear that under control is on a lead OR at heel – or coming to heel/ stopping on command. A well trained dog does this

I don't want them on a lead at all times – but I do want that when I ring my bell the owner calls the dog and the dog responds to the call. I don't want the dog running up to me – friendly or not. I don't want it "playing" and chasing the bike – I want it to leave me alone as I leave it alone.

Agreed. I got distracted, but I was going to add that as long as your expectation for the dog owners exercise for control is matched by your own exercise of control of your vehicle, then everyone will be happy…

And I agree a lot of dog owners are irresponsible and don't control their animals. But, at the end of the day, they are animals, and startled by a bike, the bike could be a major factor in the owners ability to control the dog – as per the references to horses further up the thread.

Unfortunately, for as many dog owners we meet who don't exercise control, we meet as many mtbers who would prefer to continue down a trail rather than give way, slow down or accomodate other users. (and I know that you said you slow down etc.)

You may not want to believe it but you have a clear legal obligation to keep your dog under control

I don't believe that anyone disputes the legal obligation for dog owners to keep their animals under control – the debate seems to be around what consitutes being "under control".

The undisputable state of "under control" is on a lead, and this is often what judges will consider. However, whilst that might be entirely appropriate in an urban park, circumstances on farmland, woodland, moor or mountain would be different, in practice, if not under the law.

It seems to me that some of the posters on here have a very strong liking for a self serving definition of what consitutes "under control".

TJ, are you making up your own laws here?

Actually, TJ's posts have been very enlightening – I interpret them thus…

…should TJ* be riding down a footpath across my land, it would be entirely appropriate for my large and defensive farm dog to be large and defensive towards him 😉

* aware that this would require a southwards border transgression….

So what speed do you consider is not "flying" speed?

I would love to know just in case

The same as for any other circumstance that you might meet – a speed at which you can stop under control. Anything else and you are not in control of the bike…

…. and for all the legalistic macho posturing on this thread about dogs being under control, I am sure that there are a lot of riders who are not in control of their bikes when they are riding on public trails – and therefore have an obligation to be able to give way. 👿

contaminated land remediation contractor

contaminated land consultant

I'll sit back and watch this thread with interest….

Animal cruelty issues aside, people are under no obligation to show any consideration for others people's dogs

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Under the legislative framework that I use in my work, all domesticated animals are regarded as property. Damage to property is a criminal act.

the height of the land is relative to sea level?

No, it's not. It is measured relative to Ordnance Datum. Historically this used to be an empirical measurement against mean low water spring tide level at Newlyn – but hasn't been for a very long time…

Depends how many satellites it can see. It needs 4 to give height as well as location but I've seen my GPS accurate to within 1m of the quoted heights on OS maps.

That would be luck. I wouldn't bank on much better than 30m accuracy for elevation (based on GPS alone) – hence why many units have a baro function.

it seems to me to be avoiding tackling the issue of whether we should accommodate people's phobias; dogs now, then what – cyclists, immigrants, black people?

I have an irrational phobia of urban folks coming out to the countryside to play with their shiny toys and knowing **** all about countryside stuff….

I agree that all dogs should be chipped, and would guess that many / all responsible owners will have done this anyway.

Not keen on the extra tax / registration / licensing bit that would easily be linked to compulsory chipping though.

Regarding insurance, and changing the law to apply to private property – this is an area where problems would quickly arise. IIRC most "pet" insuarnce covers vet bills etc, rather than 3rd party damages (although household insurance should provide 3rd party liability cover). A specific "dog injury damages insurance", combined with extending legislation to cover private property would provide intruders with carte blanche for suing owners. Any owner should quite rightly expect a dog to defend it's home territory against an uninvited intruder

how ridiculous

Only ridiculous as you appear to have not read my post…

I will alert the owners and slow as I would for anyone

So your actions already match what I have said – so how am I being ridiculous???

My statement was slow down or stop – and it was preceded by a point about reading a dogs body language to choose the best course of action. I know damn well that there are a number of farms where I purposelfully speed up to get past the collies as quickly as possible!

Anyone want a free Daily Mail??

Like many have said:

– Pass a dog as if you would a horse or any other livestock. It's an animal, not a human, what do you expect if you startle it?

– Expect to give way on trails. Ignorance on the part of both parties doesn't help anyone…

– Learn to read the dog's "body language", are they being inquisitive, friendly, protective etc. This may seem unnecessary, but you more likely to respond in an appropriate manner.

– Having a dog bite you is totally unacceptable, and a fend off with a foot, or a kick might be the best defence – but will likely reinforce in the dog's mind that bikes aren't to be trusted…

Regarding "bikes aren't to be trusted" is a key point. Animals may not see you as a human when on a bike, which is why slowing down / stopping and making yourself recognisable is a useful approach. I find the same with horses. If I'm on the bike and moving they are more spooked than if if was in a car / motorbike. Stopped and they are fine.

Collies are notorious for chasing / biting bikes – and from my experience it is normally the rotating parts that they go for, tyres, cranks, pedals. My farming cousins have had problems with their collies doing this in the past – with cars…. something about the tyre rotation that short circuits their brain!!!

Excellent bike – I'd recommend a test ride to anyone.

For me my Anthem X3 directly replaced a Reign, which was more travel (and weight) than I wanted. I sold the Reign before getting the Anthem, but I'm now riding my XC race hardtail very rarely as well 🙁

An anthem is a very different bike to an orange 5 though isn't it?

So what would be my response….. somewhat cheekily!

The Anthem is a replacement for a Giant Reign. The Reign was great downhill, but more than I needed – and too heavy for all day or for comfortable climbing.

The Anthem X3 is amazingly quick downhill for a 4" bike, but also devours the twisties, and is quick and comfortable pretty much everywhere. After all, the Orange 5 is still a trail bike, rather than a "big" bike

Why spend £2k??

This is absolutely fantastic at 1750

I largely agree with the OP's proposition… certainly those that make the most noise about cheap public transport seem to be young urban professionals (or those that have remained in that mode)

Regarding public transport pricing, I had to work in Milan a few years ago – excellent public transport system (based on my experience of it). The trams were frequent, easy to use, and what's more, at 1€ per journey, priced to make it the only way to get around.

We work with some of the big oil industry clients. The "downstream" end of the business (refining, distribution, retail sales)is very low margin and costs are very tightly controlled.

Oil companies make their large profits in the "upstream" operations, exploration, development and production. Cash is made through crude production, and exploration might be seen purely as a cost – but if you pay attention to their annual statements, a large basis of the companies values are based on their stated reserves, and that's down to exploration.

Normo Tebbs told my generation to get on our bikes.

He didn't. He said that his father's generation had done that.

With the clear implication that we should do the same….. and the bike merely being a metaphor for us to get off our @rse and move to find work…

But my rather long winded rant still boils down to the facts that:

a) Labour market flexibility makes it much more difficult to live / work in the same area – job changes are potentially just too frequent to move homes to suit each job change…

b) Employment (ie in significant numbers and for many of the specialist skill areas / disciplines) is now highly concentrated in urban centres.

c) There are chronic shortages of good quality affordable housing – both in cities and in rural locations.

Personally speaking – as a young couple with no kids we enjoyed city living. Friends, bars, amenities and work all within walking distance etc. Small house suited us perfectly.

That changed with the arrival of kids – we simply could not afford to buy a larger house in the city we then lived and worked in. Career progresion was certainly one driver, but the main reason we moved "onwards and upwards" (if you can call it that) was the need to finance a larger house suitable for a family – and that necessitated living out of town and commuting to work. Precious little choice to be honest.

I don't regard myself as politically left or right leaning – political dogma from either side hacks me off…

… But, as someone who left school in 1983 I have rather bitter memories of the job prospects etc from that time. The social fabric that had prevailed was largely dismantled in the early 80s. I was discussing this with some friends recently. Our school year was the first where going on to the major local engineering employer (Navy Dockyard) or into the Armed Forces, was in the minority. Of the school years above mine, most boys ended up working locally or in the services. Many girls still chose to get married and have families etc. Only a very few went on to further eductaion etc. In 83 we didn't have those choices. Apprenticeships in the Dockyard were suddenly very rare – services, dole, FE or HE were the main options…

Poverty of ambition? – perhaps: but prior to the early 80s, people from all over the UK had the ability to live and work locally. Normo Tebbs told my generation to get on our bikes. I have done so (well my mtb…)not through choice, but through necessity. like many, I now live and work away from the countryside where I was brought up (and which is still strongly my spiritual home), away from my parents – so no support for childcare emergencies etc, and in a place where both me and my wife need to travel to work.

Should I move closer to work? – well where is work?? The required flexibility in the job market means that jobs aren't fixed at one geographical location anymore. In the last 12 months my wife has worked on short term contracts in Bridgend, Caerphilly and Newport – Should we move house each time??? Or should we fix our home address and expect to be able to afford to commute to work?

Ok, Ok, someone has to say it…

… Thatch is to blame.

There,

Done.

The changing room analogy is different – public space and children involved.

telephone calls are allowed to be recorded if you are one of the parties on the call – remember the taped Gordon Brown / bereaved soldier's mother's call…

My post was typed off fairly quickly and is a bit muddled for it….

… but in a society where surveillance is so pervasive, could it be argued that the norms become blurred?

About as morally wrong as having hidden CCTV cameras everywhere – in public and private spaces. I have no idea whether friends and acquaintances have CCTV in or around their homes…..

What we have here appears to be a case of double standards. Certainly what he did was morally dubious, but how different is it to having surveillance cameras everywhere?

Is it safe to assume (for legal purposes) that the bedroom is camera free, but the entrance lobby might have a security camera??? – no quickies on the stairs then…

TS – I entirely agree, but more a case of making the system fit for purpose.

Yes, but were they happier than we are today?

They probably were – my parents just can't get their head around the stresses / work life balance issues that we deal with: they think we've got our priorities all wrong.

But then, high property prices dictate the priorities for all those who have to pay for their houses through a mortgage rather than pay cash or inherit them 👿 Ohh, and where did all the affordable rented sector housing go??

My point was, that we all live with the benefits of previous socialist governments' reforms, and don't really see them for what they are – huge benefits, to us as individuals and to society in general

Could you please explain how socialism has improved the lives of anybody in the UK

**** me, you must be having a laugh???? (or are you just blind to it??)

In my grandparents and parents generations – work all the hours the master made available, and be thankfull for it and tip your hat. No running hot water, baths in the back yard with the water boiled in a copper. No sick pay. My father started work as a shipwright in Devonport Royal Navy Dockyard in 1946. He retired at 56 years old – Out of a 1946 intake of several hundred apprentices he was the only one he knew of still alive to to take early retirement. And his generation benefitted from the newly introduced NHS and pension provisions… all socialist ideas, which presumably you haven't benefitted from??

My brother in law has emigrated to the US, and I also work with a lot of US clients – and frankly the US attitude to welfare provision, greed and not giving a sh!t about anyone else is just absolutely despicable. Healthcare reforms anyone? No thanks we'll let the poor die young

I've used the gaffer / duct tape on the inside approach for small tears. Works ok as it spreads the load from the tube over the undamaged carcass.

HAHA – I put down "mud – 'cause there's always lots of it around….!)

It'll just be market research… under past sponsorships there was "when do you next plan to change your bike / car / kecks etc etc"