Ain’t got no desk, or locker. I should have said for going to uni with campus locations spread out all over the place.

Specialized Recon 2.0 could be a better pick..Wonder if the toebox is too wide for me

leaning a toward the fzik terra x2 ergolace.. had the x5 terra before btw, too stiff for everyday.

Don’t think they are stiff or durable..

The bag is quite stiff and rectangular so wont flop much, figure two top hooks will do.

I’m wanting to try out kevlar pads too.

Think most kevlar pads are simply organics with some kevlar fibers so I wouldn’t expect them to be much better than regular organics re noise.

Curious to hear how the ceramics work out! EBC reds are organic? not surprised it doesn’t take much to make them squeal.

Hey there!

In the end I stopped riding in the rain and switched to shimano organic pads which are quieter and have better initial bite – not a lot of long descent here. I decontaminate them once in a while removing some pad material with sand paper (no need to use any solvents or clean the rotor).

When I did commute in the rain, I found sintered pads squealed a bit initially, but within a second or two it went away and they are much less prone to getting contaminated = less faff with sandpaper.

Ceramic pads MAY be worth a try, haven’t gotten around to testing mine.

Not at all – just want to see your preferred clown costume :o)

There is your study with it’s very questionable methodology and a bunch of other studies that contradict it

Stupid danes doing such a totally useless study, you should suggest an improved methodology for them! Or perhaps Aarhus university was paid of by the Danish motoring lobby and/or hi-vis manufacturers?!

So what clown costume do you want to wear?

It would be a strawman argument if you didn’t imply we should only focus on motorist attitudes and infrastructure.

Yes, there are pluses and minuses in all processes but your prefered process is so biased it’s results are pretty much useless.

Yes the study is useless because you linked to two observational studies that fit what you believe better? Keep in mind I didn’t believe / want to belive the result of the Danish study.

The 60% number is likely ballpark correct compared to wearing muted everyday clothing like most danes do (black, earth colors), it very well may be less in London where hi-vis is more normal, but I wouldn’t be my life that this negates a 40-60% effect. So yes, you should wear something high visibility in daylight (and something reflective at night), at least until we have totally separate bike lanes (danish drivers are well behaved, but even there they saw a > 2% bodily injury accident rate / year in normal clothes). The end.

Not the right data.

What you mean is that this is the study tells you what you want to hear. It’s not the only study out there and certainly not the best.

You’re comparing two observational studies with a randomized controlled one and claim they are “better”.

Cyclist safety will only improve with better infrastructure and a change in driver’s attitudes, not a magic bullet.

You’re claiming a ridiculous dichotomy, cycling safety will improve with both. This is like saying that a RCT study showing 50% reduction in cancer rates from eating a broccoli a day should be ignored because it’s shifting responsibility onto the individual to eat healthier, and will make drug companies not invent better cancer drugs.

Maybe the UK is some sort of dystopia full of evil drivers, but your claims seem so excessive they border on paranoid. I’m pretty sure drivers also want better infrastructure to keep cyclist out of “their way”. I guess drivers in Denmark will now start driving like maniacs after this study came out, only they didn’t, so much for the attitude point.

I actually didn’t “want” this result to be as strong as I’d prefer to keep riding in my black outfit and detest hi-vis.

bigger problem is that the test was performed in Denmark and doesn’t take account of the novelty factor. It is far less common to wear High-vis, helmets, etc than it is other places.

Data please.

In theory so could wearing a non-High-vis clown costume.

Yes, probably not a bad idea. Even better, a hi-vis reflective one.

They also have to repeat it somewhere where high-vis is less of a novelty. Or perhaps a third group should be included with some sort of visually distinctive feature (it might be difficult to get people to ride in a clown costume for a year) in order to account for the novelty factor in the ‘look but not see’ issue.

They don’t have to, but great if someone else does, this is so far the best study we have on the topic.

In order for this study to be valid they have to do something about the inherent bias in the selection of participants and the reporting.

Doesn’t invalidate the findings whatsoever. In fact is should relate more to the crowd here on STW which I assume is somewhat safety minded.

I find it extremely suspicious when someone funds a study that seems to be pushing the idea that cyclists should bear more responsibility for their own safety. Especially when they seem to have found the magic bullet. They always seem to be pushed by people who are trying to sell something or who are trying to get people off their bikes and into their cars.

Finally, it’s very irresponsible to go around saying that this study proves that high-vis reduces your likely-hood of an accident by 47% and maybe as high as 60%. You are basically giving drivers yet another excuse when they hit someone (drivers have plenty of excuses already).

Please stop pushing this as fact until more studies have been performed that address the issues in this one. You’re making the roads more dangerous for all of us.

No, they don’t claim it’s a magical bullet, they found using highly visible colors really help drivers see you in daylight. Not that shocking, but interesting the effect size was as big as it was and not say in the 10-30% range which some (incl me) may assume. To think drivers will a) read this study and b) use it as excuse to drive more recklessly is frankly so paranoid I needn’t argue against it. You’re making the road more dangerous for yourself by not wearing something hi-vis, I suggest a clown costume.

Furthermore, comparing personal injury accidents with motorized counterparts only, the total number of accidents was 66 (0.9%). Here the hi-vis group saw a 56% reduction in accidents compared to the control group.

I also found the number of reported accidents surprising for one of safest countries in the world for cycling.

Not that surprising, Danish people cycle a LOT. If only looking at accidents involving personal injury, the total number of accidents was 126 or 1.85% of the 6800 cyclists that year. The hi-vis group saw 48% less personal injury accidents, adjusting for adherence hi-vis could theoretically lead to as high as a 60% reduction.

And I don’t see anything in the study (I can read Danish) that tries to shift responsibility over to the cyclist, to me that’s a strawman argument against a good faith study.

Time of day really matters though (and the time of year). Nipping out for a spin on a day off midday doesn’t necessarily benefit from, or require, the same visibility “fixes” as commuting in the early mornings and the evenings.

That’s the interesting thing, hi-vis did more during the day then at dusk/dawn (perhaps surprisingly) and not so surprisingly than at night.

Indeed, was a study really needed to show that people wanting to be noticed should wear bright clothes?

Yes, as a 40% reduction is HUGE (more like 50% if adjusting for adherence), I don’t think many expected that magnitude of effects in daylight. I certainly didn’t expect the number of accidents to be cut in half.

BTW at night I usually wear something like this, very effective imo.

If you’re commuting all in black, in September, change that. Get flashing lights on as well.

I’m not, but I have been training during the day in all black.

One can nitpick on the study day long, but AFAIK there are no better studies on the topic and it’s abundantly clear that hi-vis works well in the day, not so well at night – logical.

For me this makes me reconsider wearing all black on the road in the daytime.

Obvs you can’t double blind a study like this, unless you’re only recruiting blind cyclists. But randomization with a large number of people takes care of averages such as mileage helping ensure that the two groups on avg have near identical habits.

The study as done by Aalborg university, not don’t know where the motorway building company sponsorship theory comes from, in any case it wouldn’t invalidate the result.

Those were all accidents including minor ones.

Yeah read those now, nothing invalidating the results there. Also note the accident reduction would likely be higher with higher adherence.

Does the study being sponsored by a company making hi vis clothing invalidate it? No.
Does the study move the onus onto the cyclist and not the drivers to maintain traffic safety? Also no.

Take homes for moi: hi-vis helps a lot in the day at least in Denmark and likely everywhere else, at night you likely want more reflective clothing – something that half reflective half hi-vis seems like a good idea to me.

Think I’ll order the Grandurance RD3 in “silver” for £860, since my only gripe is mechanical disc brakes which can be remedied by getting TRP Spyres or Hybrids.

are you using un-worn single-release (not multi-release) cleats? I’ve never had mine clip out (but I have with old multi-release)

I was using single-release, new ones.

e Funn Mambas

Look very nice, bit expensive only

Nah xt touring do have a lighter disengagement . I have them on my commuter/winter bike.

Pedalling circles they have never come undone. Pedaling squares they may well do. The a500s on my propel are much more solid.

Sweet, will look for some A530s then.

At least I want to steer away from light engagement models which I think eh500 is.

Those may be the ticket, seems like they’re perhaps stronger engagement than the eh500s?

Which genesis did you get?

Hehe, rides better.. depends what you’re after.. the audaux is very nice, but it’s not for my riding style, and there are none to be bought here.

A €999 bike isn’t exactly cheap, but it’s decent value (+entry lvl models keep their value best) and with insurance + the option to just replace it with the same model w very little faff it’s not the end of the world if it gets stolen. Usually harder to replace a second hand vintage bike, find what you want in the right size etc.

Aah, well shimano mechanical disc brakes are plenty strong – in fact stronger can mean less safe with narrow(er) tyres, so i wouldnt call it skimping. But hydros are more fun and a bit less faff once setup (again trp hybrids can be a good upgr for mechanical groupsets).

One reason why i don’t want a very expensive bike is that it has to be parked on the street a lot during the day, plus resale value is relatively better. Grx looks tempting though, but not for 105 money.

singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/all-year-commuter-gravel-bike-w-mudguardsracks-under-1000/#post-12050946

Want drop bars to train for sprints hehe.

GRX should be a bit stronger than 105 I believe? Another pure mechanical option is TRP Spyre, but like you say, for commuting the brakes should be plenty, only need strong brakes for longer descents imo, and there are none here.

Guess one could upgrade to TRP HY/RD

Darn good value that RC520 with full 105, my main gripe is lack of dynamo hub, guess you could buy it all, but it’s out of stock here in krakow and online unfortunately.

Also, dynamos like the Bergamont are a game changer for commuting, add that to your list of requirements.

This has been said more than once now, so ok, dynamo is a requirement, and minimal faff, I want a complete bike with rack, mudguards (ideally ones that go further down than the bergamot..) and dynamo lights.

Another option, Cube nuroad fe..

Need a 61 cm frame..

C. Brown British hillclimb champ says 740W for 2 min :D

Seen better (on Strava)?