It’s certainly an interesting case.

If the behaviour of the pedestrian is as alleged by the cyclist, i.e. stepping into the road without paying attention to the traffic, possibly using a phone, and moving erratically/unpredictably backwards back into the path of the cyclist, then I can sympathise with him. Most of us have probably been in a situation where a pedestrian steps into the road in front of us and then there is a panicked stalemate as neither the cyclist nor the pedestrian knows what to do because they don’t know in which direction the other will go (or they simultaneously both move in the same direction to try to avoid each other, remaining on a collision path as a result).

However, that does not excuse the illegal lack of a front brake. I know that when I have been in similar situations I have instinctively covered the brake when a pedestrian steps into the road in front of me, even if I know that providing they continue walking they will have walked far enough towards the middle of the road to be out of my path by the time that I am level with them. If they have stopped/hestitated/stepped backwards(possibly in panic as a result of seeing me rapidly approach them) then I will have braked as well as trying to swerve to avoid them.

However, it sounds like the injuries the woman suffered were not dependent upon the speed of the collision, and could have occurred with the impact of being knocked over by even the lowest speed collision. If so, it could only be said with certainty that brakes would have made a difference if the braking distance was sufficient for the cyclist to come to a stop, rather than just reduce his speed on impact.

If it is accepted by the court where a bike had brakes and in such a situation the cyclist had a choice of braking or swerving, that it would not be unreasonable for the cyclist to do either (even if it is subsequently determined with 20:20 hindsight and testing that he made the wrong choice in swerving, and that braking would have prevented the collision), then it does seem that the culpability of the cyclist in this case where he lacked brakes and swerved is lower than what might be expected to justify a conviction for manslaughter. In such circumstances I would have thought that careless cycling would be the appropriate charge (but in a perverse paradox, maybe the bike would need to have had a brake fitted that he could choose not to use as it were, in order for him to be charged with careless cycling, and because it didn’t have a brake, he was not guilty of careless cycling in taking the only option available to him and attempting to swerve).

If he is not convicted of manslaughter, then I can imagine that the family of the women who was killed may be very disappointed, in the same way that cyclists were disappointed that the Rhyl accident was not considered manslaughter, because the defective tyres had no bearing on the accident.

It’s understandable that we want to be able to find a simple cause to blame and someone to punish fairly harshly in these circumstances. It’s disconcerting to be forced to conclude that things are much less clear cut and that the consequence of an easily made simple error of judgement can result in a cyclist or a pedestrian being killed, and that we ourselves might just as easily be a victim or the guilty party.

The outcome of this case is probably less important than whether the attention it has attracted prompts some changes by London cyclists (not riding track bikes on the road without brakes), the police (a campaign to seize and destroy such bikes), and pedestrians (when crossing the road paying attention and not using a phone).

Try this recipe.

Slowster- Are all TA rings aluminium or is there a steel section on the Spa Cycles site I missed?

TA rings are almost all aluminium. I was only suggesting that they would be a good choice if you needed a pattern, as they were/are reckoned to be the some of the best chainrings (pro teams reportedly used to swap the Shimano rings for TA on their Dura Ace chainsets).

Stronglight offer some steel rings with various BCDs which Spa sell here, which I think are all aftermarket replacements for the inner rings of triples (TA also do one), but I’m guessing that would not be a market in which you would be very interested.

I’ve actually already got some 110mm and 130mm 46t stainless singlespeed rings on the shelf but not advertised because I haven’t been able to test them – any volunteers?

I suspect a 46t ring with 130mm BCD would probably only be of interest to a fixed gear road rider, and I would have thought that for a ring of that size there is much less advantage to using a harder wearing material like stainless over a bog standard aluminium ring if not used off road.

kayla1, it might be worth reviewing Surly’s various offerings here and considering both what their biggest sellers might probably be (identify the biggest market and then compete with them for it by offering a superior UK equivalent) and also gaps in their range (such as the ‘assymetric’ rings as you describe them).

I suspect that it might pay to offer 110mm BCD 5 arm rings (e.g. 36t-44t), since that is probably going to appeal to Rohloff users. It might be worth asking SJS Cycles if they are interested in stocking rings, but if it’s not financially viable to sell them through a reseller like SJS, then I would find someone with a Thorn Rohloff and give them a ring to test (and ask them to post their comments/review on the Thorn forum website if that is permitted).

TA rings are supposed to be amongst the best, so it might be worth buying one or more of those to use as a pattern. You can get them from Spa Cycles.

he’s got facial piercings – that’s good enouogh for me – he’s guilty…

Imagine what it would be like if the jury was composed of STWers. They would probably still be arguing even now with the police witness, both barristers and the judge about what tyres were used to measure stopping distance and whether discs would have made a difference, arguing amongst themelves about whether it was OK to punch a hipster, and if ninfin was on the jury then the verdict would always be an 11-1 majority decision.

We’ve all been in the “Oh Shit” situation, and normally I shout before I’ve even registered – faster than a bell or horn. Same with swerving – these are instincts not conscious acts.

I agree, I think all of them – shouting and/or swerving and/or braking (provided you have brakes fitted) – are instinctive in an emergency.

TiRed, can you recall when and under what circumstances you’ve instinctively swerved vs. braked?

My own perception is that the further away I am from the hazard, the more I am likely to rely (at least initially) on braking, but that if I am so close that collision is almost inevitable then the more I am likely to try to take extreme evasive action (which would probably mean crashing into the pavement or a parked car or similar).

That said, swerving and braking simutaneously are not completely mutually exclusive. The last time I emergency braked was on my fixed Pompino with two V brakes going downhill on a narrow road where an oncoming 4×4 was driving in the middle of the road. I can recall that on that occasion I both emergency (panicked) braked, causing the rear wheel to momentarily lock up, and at the same time steered closer to the very edge of the left hand side of the road.

Aracer, I think I follow your reasoning, i.e it made no difference to the outcome whether or not he had brakes, because in such a situation he was always going to make the snap decision to swerve rather than brake, and that that was a reasonable decision.

However, I still think that what you describe is the difference between careless cycling (having brakes which would have stopped him safely, but mistakenly choosing to swerve rather than use them) and manslaughter (swerving because he didn’t have brakes which if they had been fitted and used would have stopped him safely).

It matters not whether he could have stopped with a front brake if the prosecution can’t prove that he would have tried to stop with a front brake.

I think you’ve gone slightly down the rabbit hole there. I would have expected that the criterion would probably be something like whether a reasonably competent cyclist should have braked or swerved. I think if the defence can get a cycling safety expert to testify that they would recommend swerving rather than braking in such circumstances (or that either course of action is equally appropriate), then I agree the defence may have done enough to break the causal link between the unlawful act and the death. I don’t think the defendant’s own assertion that he would always swerve rather than brake in such circumstances would be enough (he cannot be his own expert witness).

I think legally he doesn’t even have to show that swerving was the best option, simply that it would be possible for a reasonable person to think that (remember the law requires all reasonable people to see the obvious danger in his actions).

You are conflating the snapshot decision to swerve with the pre-meditated decision to ride a bike without a front brake. I don’t think the prosecution will find it difficult to get the jury to agree that all reasonable people would see the obvious danger in choosing to ride a fixed gear bike in London that lacked a front brake as required by law. There is no need to envisage in advance the particular circumstances of the death, merely to see that the illegal act would result in obvious danger in generally riding around London on that bike without brakes.

The decision to swerve is irrelevant (although I imagine the defence is trying to muddy the waters and present that as an acceptable alternative to braking). The issue is simply that the cyclist denied himself the option of braking with a front brake, and the only question is therefore whether braking using a front brake would have resulted in a different outcome.

To stop him going to jail the defence has to throw reasonable doubt on them being connected by:
1) Proving that swerving to avoid the pedestrian instead of trying to stop was a reasonable and appropriate course of action even if brakes had been fitted

I don’t think that that is correct. It’s an absolute question of whether if the bike had been fitted with a front brake, it could have stopped before the collision (or possibly slowed sufficiently that the likely consequences would have been much less worse, something much harder to prove). The fact that he swerved is irrelevant. It’s ‘simply’ a hypothetical question of whether having brakes and using them would probably have resulted in a different outcome.

Alternatively consider it this way: his bike could have been fitted with brakes which could have stopped him in time, but in the heat of the moment he could have made a snap decision to swerve rather than brake, and the outcome would again have been that the woman was killed, but then the criminal act would have been one of misjudgement (making the wrong choice), and maybe a charge of careless cycling instead.

A possible defence is that if he had chosen to brake instead of swerve, there would have been no significant (given the circumstances of this incident) difference between the stopping distance using a track bike fitted with a front brake and just using leg braking on one without a front brake.

Regarding the testing of braking distances, I’m wondering whether the defence hasn’t argued much (or at all) with that because it’s not important to their defence, and they don’t want the jury to get interested in the idea that the stopping distances might be relevant.

The reporting in the Guardian of the defence lawyer’s cross examination of the expert witness does seem to indicate that he was trying to raise doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the evidence relating to both speed and stopping distance (as well as just generally trying to muddy the waters, e.g. pointing out the existence of a pedestrian crossing nearby):

The defendant had been travelling at an average of 18mph before he noticed Briggs step into the road, jurors heard. He was a minimum of 6.65 metres (21.8ft) away when he swerved and tried to take evasive action.

Tests on a conventional mountain bike found a stopping distance of about three metres, but Alliston’s model had a stopping distance of about 12 metres, the court heard.

Cross-examining, Mark Wyeth QC asked Small whether there could be a margin of error in his calculations of Alliston’s average speed before he saw Briggs. The expert replied that any difference would only have been a “fraction of a mile per hour”.

Wyeth suggested to Small that Alliston had the right of way as the lights on the stretch of Old Street were green. He said Briggs could have avoided danger by using a pedestrian crossing less than 10 metres away. Small agreed.

Referring to Alliston’s previous work, his lawyer posed a hypothetical question: “I’m an experienced courier. I’ve got two years’ experience as a courier running around central London. I’ve been riding fixed-wheel bikes since 2014 and, whilst the bike is new to me, I’m very familiar with road bikes without front brakes. Would that put me in a better position to navigate hazards than a serving police officer?”

Small said there would not be much difference without brakes.

Wyeth said: “We have seen velodromes and seasoned athletes. One way the fixed-wheel bikes can be brought to a stop involves getting up out of the seat and [putting] down pressure on pedals to get that kinetic energy to come to a sharper halt than just a free wheel.”

He asked whether Alliston could be seen doing just that, and Small said he did not recall the defendant rising from his saddle.

Reading the above article again, it indicates that the prosecution are suggesting that because he was 6.65m from the woman when he started to swerve, that is the relevant distance when assessing stopping distance. There is no need to consider the reaction time, because that had already elapsed at that point (evident from the fact that he started to swerve).

I think the arguments go something like this:

– Right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution
– They are exercising that right. If they cannot exercise that right, then clearly they no longer have the right to bear arms
– In the act of exercising the right, they are defending the Constitution and preventing it being undermined and chipped away by government/politicians
– Attempts by previous US Presidents and other politicians to impose restrictions on military style semi-automatic rifles in the wake of various massacres using those types of weapon, have made the right to bear precisely those types of weapons a touchstone for those for whom the right to bear arms is so important.

I wonder if the manslaughter charge would have been brought if there were not a CCTV recording that could be examined. Without that recording, reliable scientific analysis of the accident sufficient to determine speeds and stopping distances etc. would probably have been impossible.

With regard to the reaction time, a decision would also be need to be taken by the investigator (and accepted by the jury) as to what action the cyclist should have taken and when. It may not be so simple as stating that the cyclist should have slammed the brakes on (or rather been able to slam his front brake on) as soon as the woman stepped into the road. It’s been reported that she stepped into the road (and presumably started to walk across the road) and then stopped/stepped back, possibly triggered by the warning shout from the cyclist. An assessment would need to be made of the precise point at which a reasonably competent cyclist should/would have realised that a collision was likely and performed an emergency stop, but possibly even before then a reasonably competent cyclist would already have begun to brake as a precaution to reduce speed (rather than stop) in response to the hazard that existed the moment she stepped into the road, even if no collision would have occurred if she carried on walking across the road.

As for the question of comparison with a mountain bike, disc brakes, front and rear brakes, knobblies vs slick mountain bike tyres, all these potential variables must throw a big question mark over any stopping distance with brakes given by the police expert witness. It just sounds incredibly unscientific and amateurish to go to trial with technical evidence which the defence could so easily pick apart to create reasonable doubt. They would not even need their own testing, just to ask the police witness what the consequences on the tests were:

– of using a bike with front and rear brakes (as opposed to a fixed bike with a front brake)
– of using a bike with V or disc brakes (as opposed to a fixed bike with a front calliper brake)
– of using a bike with completely different tyres (width, contact patch, tyre pressure etc.)

The defendant is in the witness box today according to the media, but there has been no reporting of yesterday’s evidence/proceedings.

I am puzzled that there has apparently been no further challenging of the prosecution’s technical evidence from the police crash investigator/expert, some aspects of which sound highly questionable, e.g. the use of a mountain bike for comparison of braking performance with the track bike, and its reported 3m stopping distance.

Maybe the defence will be producing its own technical expert witness and test results after the defendant’s own testimony, but I would have thought it would be better to rebut the prosecution’s expert witness without delay. Also the reporting of the defendant’s lawyer’s cross examination of the police expert witness did not seem to suggest that the defence would be producing its own expert witness evidence and testing which would contradict and undermine the prosecution evidence. However, we are only getting very limited second hand – and possibly inaccurate – snippets from the press.

asks you if you’ve read the bible?

I’ve read most of that too, and the Koran, and the communist manifesto

I didn’t walk away that the impression that any of them particularly promoted actual mass murder [/quote]

The inhabitants of Jericho might not have agreed with you on that one.

The extent to which a large number of posters on this thread are making it about ninfan, rather than the events in Charlottesville and USA is depressing.

I find some of ninfan’s posts irritating in that he constantly uses the same debating technique of turning around people’s own statements against them, which done repeatedly just becomes wearing and destroys meaningful debate. Howevever, there is only one of him, and he is responding to a lot of people on this thread posting some fairly stupid/poorly thought out remarks, e.g. “it’s OK to punch Nazis”. That sort of statement is just pathetic internet keyboard warrior ‘virtue signalling’.

A lot of people who have criticised ninfan for his absolutist approach to the right to freedom of speech and freedom of protest probably need to ask themselves some hard questions about what it is that they really believe in, rather than keep asking ninfan what he believes in and calling him a Nazi apologist etc.

Many people on this thread probably like to think of themselves as being fairly liberal, but in reality they are showing themselves as being quite authoritarian, and there is a long history of the left wing believing it has a moral superiority and that that justifies it taking action ‘for the greater good’ to restrict people’s freedoms in ways that would never be accepted from right wing governments, e.g. the Blair Labour government’s attempts to extend the police power to detain suspects for up to 90 days without charge and to introduce ID cards.

I get a feeling from some of the comments on this thread, that some people do feel morally superior in being able to call someone else a Nazi or a Nazi apologist. If so they are incredibly shallow.

I doubt Bernard Kenny wasted his time arguing on internet forums, and for all I know he was a UKIP voter who wanted to deport all immigrants, but when it really mattered he showed that he was a far better man than probably most of us.

I would be wary of focusing on just one measurement, such as reach. The Canyon has a 73.5 degree seat angle, but the 60cm Tripster is 73 and the 63cm is 72.5.

Based on my own experience, I would also look closely at your current saddle to bars drop and how that might translate to a Tripster, given its head tube length, stack, bottom bracket height, and given the limits of adjustability of stems on carbon steerers, i.e. no more than 30mm of spacers.

In my case, I had to fit a 17 degree rise stem upside down (so it is virtually horizontal) to get the bars at the right height. That suggests to me that I could probably get away with the next size smaller Tripster with the standard 5 degree rise stem, even though I am 4cm taller than the maximum suggested height for that smaller frame size (and that’s based on Kinesis’ new higher suggested heights for the Tripster frame sizes).

It seems to say n experienced cyclist how rides fixie will be better at stopping than a copper who does not ride bikes never mind fixies

Fair comment – I was (somewhat intentionally) missing the lawyer’s point. It does surprise me that the testing was not more rigorous and scientific, including comparing the bike involved in the accident with the same or similar bike fitted with the legal minimum front brake (as opposed to a mountain bike) and also getting one or two experienced fixed riders who were used to leg braking to perform the test.

I thought the Guardian report contained a couple of interesting points

Firstly the bike which was used to determine the stopping distance with brakes was not the same or a similar fixed gear bike fitted with a front brake, but a mountain bike, presumably fitted with front and rear (disc?) brakes.

Secondly, the hypothetical argument posed by the defence lawyer to the expert Police witness:

“I’m an experienced courier. I’ve got two years’ experience as a courier running around central London. I’ve been riding fixed-wheel bikes since 2014 and, whilst the bike is new to me, I’m very familiar with road bikes without front brakes. Would that put me in a better position to navigate hazards than a serving police officer?”

That line of argument overlooks the fact that his client failed to navigate the hazard posed by the woman who died, and seems to suggest that if you’ve got skillz, then the rules don’t apply to you.

Though if you’re making that argument, then an emergency stop is equally (or more) likely to cause issues with a car behind you – the only possible issue with a car behind when swerving is if that car is attempting to overtake you, and given the circumstances of a pedestrian having entered the road the bets are off regarding the behaviour of any driver still overtaking.

A driver is is unlikely to position his car directly behind a cyclist, since he/she will probably be looking to overtake at the first opportunity (unless the road is extremely narrow and/or the cyclist is in primary position). Swerving suddenly into the middle of the lane is going to be inherently dangerous: it is likely to put the cyclist directly in front of the middle of the car, and make it much more difficult/impossible for the driver to likewise take avoiding action and swerve to miss the cyclist.

A driver probably has a better chance of avoiding a cyclist who comes to a sudden stop in a straight line, and I would hope that if I took any kind of evasive manoeuvre in those circumstances, it would be instinctively to bail out/crash to the left (over the kerb and onto the pavement).

Obviously reaction/thinking time is a factor before anyone could begin to apply brakes (providing they have them), but to state the obvious there is no substitute for good roadcraft and awareness. Flat bars are better for riding in traffic, but if you are going to ride a drop barred bike [edit – in a busy city centre type environment], then you should be able to brake without moving your hands on the bars, e.g. hands on the hoods rather than the tops of the bars.

Purely hypothetically, it can sometimes feel safer to steer around an unexpected obstacle than to perform an emergency stop.

This requires very good awareness of what is happening all around you, i.e. constantly checking, otherwise you risk swerving into the path of a car behind you.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Load of bollocks. Especially this:

The best lack all conviction

I refer you again to the likes of Bernard Kenny. The best are all around us, living ordinary boring lives. The fact that some pretentious poet had his head so far up his own posterior that he didn’t recognise that was his loss.

Ninfan’s point is that freedom of speech and the other freedoms associated with modern democracy are worthless if the freedom is limited to expressing views that other people don’t find offensive (“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”). If you try to argue with that and make exceptions, then you will twist yourselves into knots justifying the indefensible, and if Ninfan winds you up by exposing such double standards, you have only yourself to blame.

The issue for governments and societies is how they respond to such hate speech etc. In the case of governments, they can pass legislation prohibiting incitement to violence/terrorism, but the key test is probably how wider society responds.

Some elements of the extreme left and extreme right probably relish the opportunities for confrontation, aggression and actual violence, and they are little more than football hooligans who are looking for a fight, with the match (or the politics) just being an excuse. Take a look at the photographs of both sides: both predominantly young men looking for a confontation. Football hooligans are at least more honest: they don’t tell themselves that they are better people fighting against evil, they just want a scrap.

I am not familiar in detail with the rise of the Nazis in the 1920s and 1930s, but I think that Hitler and the other Nazi leaders postively welcomed violent confrontations between their followers and the communists: it brought publicity, more followers, it polarised politics in Germany and left the centre/moderates looking weak and irrelevant.

So I agree with Ninfan that violent counter protests against the Nazis/white supremacists in Charlottesville are wrong both for the absolutist reason that it’s a free democracy and they are exercising their freedoms, but also because it’s counter-productive and exactly what extremists want.

What the extremists probably fear the most is ridicule and shunning, and being exposed as a bunch of socially inadequate losers. Nick Broomfield’s documentary ‘The Leader, His Driver and the Driver’s Wife’ was far more effective in damaging Eugene TerreBlanche than any violent protest.

The other important part of society’s response is the action and statements of its leaders, and Trump has shown himself to be weak and lacking in the moral authority that the USA expects in its Presidents.

Interestingly, it’s said that Hillary Clinton lost the election because not enough of the historically Democrat voting groups and minorities, like black people, voted for her, and instead cast no vote. In other words, they did not feel that Hillary Clinton offered them a sufficiently positive message to get out and vote. I wonder how many of those non-voters regret their action, because in failing to vote for her, they failed to vote against Trump.

On a sad but positive note, let us remember and salute Bernard Kenny, the pensioner who fought the man who murdered Jo Cox, and was himself stabbed. According to the BBC he died peacefully today.

I believe that there are many more decent brave men and women like Bernard Kenny than there are empty, hate filled individuals like the one who murdered Jo Cox and like those we have seen in Charlottesville.

I realise it’s an anodyne sentiment, but we should devote more time acknowledging, recognising and praising the deeds of people like Bernard Kenny, because they are an important counterweight to the depressingly appalling actions of those in Charlottesville and elsewhere. It helps us to keep in perspective that those extremists and their apologists are only a tiny minority of rather pathetic and inadequate men.

You mean like people calling it a premeditated terrorist attack

I do not know to what extent it was or was not premeditated, although I suspect that the perpetrator went to Charlottesville seeking a confrontation of some kind. As for ‘terrorist attack’, there seems to me to be little difference between this and other deliberate attacks using vehicles, e.g. like the one in Nice.

EXploiting the circumstances? You mean like…criticising Trump for failing to condemn one side more than the other?

Take a look at who has been criticising Trump: Orrin Hatch, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio etc. These are not hand wringing lefties – they are right wing Republicans and they and others are speaking out because they recognise that the situation is extremely serious and the need to make it clear that all American leaders and politicians condemn the actions of the white supremacists transcends party political interest.

Ninfan, a young woman was killed – murdered – by that driver.

I don’t know what kind of satisfaction you derive from what you are posting, but try imagining it was one of your daughters, and think about how you and your family might feel about other people trivialising and exploiting the circumstances of her death on a public internet forum.

Ninfan, I know you like play devil’s advocate, and sometimes it does serve a purpose in questioning and challenging lazy assumptions and ‘groupthink’, but in this case? Read what you have written – you yourself can see the gaping flaws in your counter arguments.

Counter argument, the only reason the white supremacists are marching is the removal of a statue of General Lee…such deliberate actions have been prosecuted by the ICC as war crimes and acts of genocide.

I realise it may have been amusing for you to construct that Alice in Wonderland justification, but remember this is about real people’s lives, and not just something for your entertainment and diversion. Imagine what it must be like being a black person living in Charlottesville and seeing that statue everyday, and the implicit message its continuing existence and presence communicates to every black person in the South. The status quo argument is absurd.

Do you really think it would reflect better on America if lawfully authorised expressions of freedom of speech were prevented from being held due to the risk of violence by people who oppose it?

No, which is why I did not say that.

Why not let them protest in peace? Isn’t acceptance of others right to hold different opinions part of freedom of speech and democracy?

They have the right to hold those opinions. They do not have the right to have the expression and promotion of those opinions go unchallenged. Again imagine if you were a black person and that was happened, and people instead told you that you should not make a fuss and just let the march pass off without any objection/protest/counter argument.

Ah, right, violence is acceptable when it’s in support of a cause you believe is righteous?

No, I said nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out the origins of the militant anti-fascist campaigners, i.e. they came into being as a campaign against some of the worst actions in human history (the Nazis/WW2 and slavery in the USA), and to say they are as bad as each other is a ridiculous statement when you consider what the white supremacists etc. stand for.

With a bit of luck the alt right and antifa will wipe each other out.

While I’d rather no one else suffered, or worse, died, this is about right. [/quote]

No it isn’t about right, and to pontificate like that while sitting comfortably thousands of miles away is shallow and arrogant.

I don’t like the aggressive and violent nature of the militant anti-fascists, but to see them as just the left wing equivalent of the self-styled Nazis and white supremacists, and to say that they are no better than each other is very simplistic narrow thinking.

As far as I am aware the anti-fascists only exist and are only present in Charlottesville as a response to the white supremacists march. Do you really think it would reflect better on America and the American people if there were no protests against the white supremacists? I think it would be much worse to see a march like that passing off without any protest or objection.

Part of the left has a long tradition of aggressive and even violent opposition to Nazi and racist movements, e.g. the Anti-Nazi League protests against the National Front, but to say that they are no better than the extreme right wing that they oppose is absurd when you consider the origins of the motivation for their protests, e.g. slavery and racism/racial discrimination in the USA and World War 2 in Europe.

Unfortunately, moderates don’t seem to want to take up the baton to object to the white supremacists (maybe they are scared, I certainly would be), but for moderates to sit at home and denounce those who have the courage of their beliefs to oppose fascist behaviour is pretty pathetic, and suggests that the quote of Martin Luther King posted by deadlydarcy above was absolutely on the money.

The main advantage of most of the thin wire cable locks linked to above is their very light weight, but better coil cable locks take up very little more space and provide much better security (although not obviously high security).

I’ve got one like this which coils up much smaller than the photograph, and the Abus versions like this,this and this[/url] are a bit better (especially the ones where you can change the combination to a number you can more easily remember).

Sod queuing for the ferry in summer. Just drive round

That is not a particularly good option either.

Most tourists in Purbeck and Swanage are day trippers, and consequently during the holiday season the road into Purbeck (the A351 starting from the A35, through Corfe and on to Swanage) is very busy southbound in the morning and similarly northbound in the evening. It’s not a fast road, and various choke points such as roundabouts and traffic lights can result in pretty low average speeds (maybe little more than 20mph or even less?) along that entire stretch.

Because of this, and the awful peak time queues to get on the ferry, parking in Sandbanks/Poole (free or otherwise) and cycling a short distance to the ferry is a no brainer, and is actually a very pleasant ride in itself and a great way to start the day.

Que?

the council have introduced parking meters on all the side roads on the peninsula this summer, so you’ll have to pay if you stay on sandbanks side wherever you park

Including roads inland, e.g. Lilliput Road?

Even if it was cheaper to take the ferry and park on the other side, I would not do it: the queues are worst going over from Sandbanks in the morning and coming back in the evening. On a hot day having to queue in the car after a long ride is not nice (cogglepin, if you do take your car over the ferry, then take a cool box with some cans of coke and some food: you’ll need the refreshment after the ride and it will make the wait to get on the ferry more bearable).

I would also make one other suggestion regarding the route you choose:

If this is going to be your only opportunity to ride in Purbeck while you are down in the area, and you won’t be back again for a while, then in your shoes I would want to make the very best of the opportunity.

For me, that would mean starting with the first bit of the Medium Route from Shell Bay to Corfe Castle via Studland and the Nine Barrow Down Ridge, and then following the Big Route from Corfe Castle to Kimmeridge, Kingston etc. etc.

Doing this would mean riding the same bit at the start and finish, but that is no bad thing: the views from Ballard Down are fabulous.

If you take up this suggestion, then it probably doesn’t matter much whether you go clockwise or anti-clockwise, since you will get fantastic views throughout the ride.

Would you leave your car at Sandybanks Sandbanks or take it across on the ferry and park at that side?

I’m tight, so there’s no way I would pay to transport a car over the ferry just to park it on the other side. More importantly, there can be large queues of cars to get on the ferry in both directions, especially at peak times (e.g. weekends, good weather, early morning from Sandbanks, late afternoon from Shell Bay). With a bike you can just ride past the queue.

I don’t know how much all day parking is in the car parks at Sandbanks, but a bike means that you could park further inland and ride along the spit/around the harbour to get to the ferry, which is very pleasant (and if there’s a large traffic queue, you can feel extra smug).

If you are referring to the ‘big route’, I would want to do the coastal section last, because of the great views. That is providing the weather is good, the wind is not a strong easterly (i.e. not a headwind), and is subject to wherever you want to get to stop for lunch (Square & Compass only serves pies, so if that doesn’t take your fancy, you might want to look at some of the other pubs, e.g. Scott Arms in Kingston).

With regard to the Big Route, I would give the off road section between Worth Matravers and Langton Matravers (‘Priest’s Way’) a miss: there are so many gates – possibly as many as one every 200 metres – that it is a tedious stop start ride.

I would also avoid the suggested route from Ballard Down going from/to Swanage. Although it’s bridleway, it is a narrow path traversing a very steep slope, and the large number of walkers you are likely to encounter on it means that it’s not practical to ride down it (or up it for that matter). I have not tried it, but I suspect that the better option is to use the ‘medium route’ suggestion at that point to climb up or descend Ballard Down.

Not my understanding. He had more thread that the nut wouldn’t thread down so he’s used spacers

Thank you, I evidently misread the OP.

So you’ve removed a bracket which should result in there being more thread exposed at the top of the steerer, and instead there is now insufficient thread to fit the locking nut?

It sounds like you’ve made a mistake reassembling the headset (something fitted upside down maybe?). I would take it all apart and reassemble again.

Need some isopropyl alcohol today…where on high street can I get it? I’m in a small town so limited options.

Invisiframe recommend Autoglym Tar Remover instead, which you can get from the likes of Halfords.

Brakes – is there a big difference in power between a reasonable set of shimanos and the standard issue ones on the Kona which I think are basic TRP?

According to the Kona website, the brakes are Tektro 359. I’ve got other Tektro brakes on one of my bikes and have not noticed any difference between them and Shimano 650 medium drops, but this thread on the CTC forum suggests that you might find that the Shimano 650s would be a noticeable improvement.

I also find the hoods quite uncomfortable compared to my TRP hydro ones

You might find it’s a case of adaptation/what you are used to (I prefer the narrower hoods that were the norm prior to the introduction of STI and Ergo shifters). Changing the position of the hoods on the bars can change the effective profile of the hoods where your hand comes into contact with them, and you could experiment with that.

Otherwise there are levers which are wider, like these[/url], which look like they have the same profile as second generation Ergo levers.

Congratulations on your new bike. I hope it will give you many years of enjoyable riding.

If anyone has any recommendations for 46cm wide bars I would appreciate it, struggling to find any online.

What brand and model are your existing 46cm bars?

Most manufacturers measure road bars from centre to centre, but one or two measure from outside to outside. I think it’s very possible that you have the latter, and if you measure the bars you will find that their c-c measurement is close to 44cm.

As for leg braking, why? I don’t like doing it myself, I don’t think it offers any significant fitness/strength benefit, and as far as I am concerned the whole point of having two brakes on a fixed is to use them and not need to leg brake.

Not going down the Invisiframe route as seems crazy covering the entire bike in it.

Want to do top of top tube, down tube, chain and seat stays, BB area, head tube and back of seat tube

Exactly what else does an Invisiframe kit cover over and above what you want, because what you want sounds very much like an Invisiframe kit?

Either you buy some vinyl rolls and spend a lot of time and trouble measuring and cutting it as you did previously, which was, in your words, a PITA and the results of which you were not very satisfied with, or you buy an Invisframe kit if they make one for your frame, accepting that care is still needed when applying to get a good result.

Whether you buy rolls of tape or an Invisiframe kit, matt finishes vary and so your frame and the vinyl are unlikely to be a perfect match, if that matters to you.