Road Surface's ruining bikes?

[DSK]

I have been enjoying my back to biking year but but found myself leaving the bike at home for commuting and just going out for pleasure rides simply beacuse I could go alogn routes with a half decent surface (at least when I have to ride in the gutter) as I do not fancy taking chances on wrecking the wheels of the bike.

I was just wandering if anyone's bike has ever suffered any damage as a result of the road surface and if they took up the issue with the council etc what was the outcome?

 

[Simonb]

DSK wrote:
> I have been enjoying my back to biking year but but found myself
> leaving the bike at home for commuting and just going out for
> pleasure rides simply beacuse I could go alogn routes with a half
> decent surface (at least when I have to ride in the gutter) as I do
> not fancy taking chances on wrecking the wheels of the bike.

Simple answer: don't ride in the gutter (ride postively and you'll never
have to) and avoid the potholes (report them if you wish).

 

[Velvet]

Simonb wrote:

> DSK wrote:
>
>>I have been enjoying my back to biking year but but found myself
>>leaving the bike at home for commuting and just going out for
>>pleasure rides simply beacuse I could go alogn routes with a half
>>decent surface (at least when I have to ride in the gutter) as I do
>>not fancy taking chances on wrecking the wheels of the bike.
>
>
> Simple answer: don't ride in the gutter (ride postively and you'll never
> have to) and avoid the potholes (report them if you wish).
>
>

Possibly not that simple - the roads we were on in kent on sunday were
appallingly badly maintained, and this was across the entire surface,
not just close to the gutter. Potholes and cracks, not to mention a
50/50 mix of the upper layer having worn through completely in small
repeating patches etc made for a bloody difficult ride on my Audax bike!

And in some places, potholes/cracks extend from the kerb virtually to
the centre line, depending on the way the road was originally put down
(sections rather than long stretches, or trenches dug into it subsequently).

I agree with 'dont ride in the gutter' though!

--


Velvet

 

[Pete Biggs]

DSK wrote:
> I have been enjoying my back to biking year but but found myself
> leaving the bike at home for commuting and just going out for
> pleasure rides simply beacuse I could go alogn routes with a half
> decent surface (at least when I have to ride in the gutter) as I do
> not fancy taking chances on wrecking the wheels of the bike.

It has to be a really serious pothole or bump to wreck your wheels, if the
wheels are any good that is. You can either avoid the worst bumps or
"ride light" over them, or fit fatter tyres. More air = more protection
for rims & bike, as well as more suspension and traction for you.

> I was just wandering if anyone's bike has ever suffered any damage as
> a result of the road surface and if they took up the issue with the
> council etc what was the outcome?

Yes but I didn't pursue the claim.

~PB

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 21 Jul, DSK <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> (at least when I have to ride in the gutter)

You never have to ride in teh gutter.

> I was just wandering if anyone's bike has ever suffered any damage as a
> result of the road surface and if they took up the issue with the
> council etc what was the outcome?

Sent them photo of hole, photo of bent wheel, estimate from bike shop
for new rim, spokes & building and received cheque in the post.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Peter Clinch]

DSK wrote:
> I have been enjoying my back to biking year but but found myself leaving
> the bike at home for commuting and just going out for pleasure rides
> simply because I could go along routes with a half decent surface (at
> least when I have to ride in the gutter) as I do not fancy taking
> chances on wrecking the wheels of the bike.

If you hit a /big/ hole at speed and your wheels aren't as well
tensioned as they might be you *might* damage them. But note that's a
"might". I've trashed one wheel that way in ca. 30 years of active
cycling, and that includes time as a kid on lots of bumpy surfaces with
pretty tatty bikes and the last few years where the last 100m to my
house is downhill at speed on a rough track. I've been off-road on all
my bikes except the freight bike on rough stuff and the wheels are okay.

You never have to ride in the gutter, and you shouldn't as a rule: it
puts you in far more danger than riding further out. Have a look at
John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" (Amazon have it) for improving your safety
on the road.

Good wheels are strong: think of what mountain bikes used seriously hit
on a regular basis...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[audrey]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:21:37 +1000, DSK
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I have been enjoying my back to biking year but but found myself leaving
>the bike at home for commuting and just going out for pleasure rides
>simply beacuse I could go alogn routes with a half decent surface (at
>least when I have to ride in the gutter) as I do not fancy taking
>chances on wrecking the wheels of the bike.
>
I know I'm a philistine but I don't see the point of having so
good/expensive a bike that you are afraid to ride it for fear of
damaging the wheels. If you want to commute and it's only the road
surfaces stopping you, why not use different (sturdier or cheaper)
wheels for your commute?
--

email = audmacd aaatttt hhhottt mmmaailll dddoottt ccccoommm

 

[Simonb]

Abbey Engineers wrote:

> I damaged a rear rim in a submerged pothole. Sent claim and photos to
> local authority.
> Outcome. No compensation as they are making monthly inspections and
> cannot be done for negligence.

So the hole was fixed wihin the month, then? Which is, presumably, partly
the result you wanted.

 

[Dave Larrington]

DSK wrote:

> I was just wandering if anyone's bike has ever suffered any damage as
> a result of the road surface and if they took up the issue with the
> council etc what was the outcome?

Not personally, but I believe that the late Steve Donaldson made more than
one successful claim against the council in Aberdeen.

Many years ago, just down the road from the Nut Mines, a hole of truly
gargantuan proportions appeared. Southwark Council seemed disinclined to do
anything about it, even though there were reliable reports of guys in skims
at the bottom, attacking a woolly mammoth. Until, that is, an FLJS from a
motoring comic ran into one dark and stormy night in a Delta Integrale. A
bill for four expensive Pirellis and three even more expensive alloys was
presented to the council in short order, and by the end of the day, so the
story goes, the hole was gone...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Abbey Engineers]

snip
> I was just wandering if anyone's bike has ever suffered any damage as a
> result of the road surface and if they took up the issue with the
> council etc what was the outcome?

I damaged a rear rim in a submerged pothole. Sent claim and photos to local
authority.
Outcome. No compensation as they are making monthly inspections and cannot
be done for negligence.

KC.

 

[Dave Larrington]

/skims/skins/, Obv.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[John Hearns]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:40:20 +0100, audrey wrote:

> I know I'm a philistine but I don't see the point of having so
> good/expensive a bike that you are afraid to ride it for fear of
> damaging the wheels. If you want to commute and it's only the road
> surfaces stopping you, why not use different (sturdier or cheaper)
> wheels for your commute?


Errr.... no-one says the same about cars.
(well, maybe soft-tops left parked in backstreets.)
You should be able to enjoy your pride and joy, car or bike.
I'll be a bit agressive here, but still smile.
Why wouldn't you write to Top Gear and say to Jeremy Clarkson
that he should not drive his GT40 to work, as the roads of Birmingham
might damage it?


Which gets me onto one of my hobby-horses.
Motor traffic expects to have a smooth surface, from one end of
the land till the next, so (quite reasonably) a car can drive.
(Speed humps excepted - let's not get sidetracked into suspension damage.)

Why then should pedestrians be presented with kerbs, broken paving stones,
steps? I'll include people with prams and wheelchairs here.

Same goes for cycle lanes - why do councils think that expensive (or cheap!)
bike wheels can cope with three inch drop-offs?

Nobody in their right minds says "everyone needs to drive a 4x4 and we'll
just have steps on the road when two roads meet at different levels"


I honestly don't see why kerbs exist in the modern age.
In London look at the streetscapes of Lower Ground (South Bank)
and Brick Lane.
Road surface and pavement identical, so drivers don't think 'this is
my patch' and there is uncertainty over who has 'right of way'.
Level surfaces, with drains but no kerbs.
Metal posts to deter parking - and effort made to make said posts look
nice. No pedestrian barriers.

IMHO, it is a pleasure to cycle along Lower Ground and Brick Lane.

 

[Peter Amey]

Abbey Engineers wrote:
> snip
>
>>I was just wandering if anyone's bike has ever suffered any damage as a
>>result of the road surface and if they took up the issue with the
>>council etc what was the outcome?
>
>
> I damaged a rear rim in a submerged pothole. Sent claim and photos to local
> authority.
> Outcome. No compensation as they are making monthly inspections and cannot
> be done for negligence.
>

Bath council tried that defence on me. I asked to see their inspection
records and these clearly showed they had known about the offending hole
for ages and done nothing about it. They still refused to pay until the
small claims court papers arrived on their desk and then had to pay
the extra costs of halting the court proceedings as well as my original
claim.

One word of advice - get a photo of the hole /before/ you report it -
they came and filled mine in less than a day after I first made the
claim and then tried to deny it had ever been there.

Peter

P.S. I agree with most of the other posters that direct damage from the
road surface is not very likely. The damage in my case was from being
launched into the air on the Brompton, which allowed the rear wheel to
fold under while I was airborne, which made the landing "interesting".

 

[Peter Clinch]

Peter Amey wrote:

> P.S. I agree with most of the other posters that direct damage from th=
e=20
> road surface is not very likely. The damage in my case was from being =

> launched into the air on the Brompton, which allowed the rear wheel to =

> fold under while I was airborne, which made the landing "interesting".

Did that on a fairly vicious speed bump last year, and put a nasty graze =

on my chin :-( Basic problem was I wasn't really looking where I was=20
going though, so I didn't try to claim it was an excessively nasty bump=20
and they owed my =A3=A3=A3s.

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, audrey
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:21:37 +1000, DSK
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I have been enjoying my back to biking year but but found myself
>>leaving the bike at home for commuting and just going out for pleasure
>>rides simply beacuse I could go alogn routes with a half decent
>>surface (at least when I have to ride in the gutter) as I do not fancy
>>taking chances on wrecking the wheels of the bike.
>>
> I know I'm a philistine but I don't see the point of having so
> good/expensive a bike that you are afraid to ride it for fear of
> damaging the wheels. If you want to commute and it's only the road
> surfaces stopping you, why not use different (sturdier or cheaper)
> wheels for your commute?

Just to bring a datapoint into this discussion, in forty-something years
of cycling and many tens of thousands of miles both on road and off,
I've never broken a spoke, I've never buckled a wheel so badly it
wouldn't turn, and the only times I've damaged rims were one tyre
blowout on a fast downhill and a few instances of user error
(under-inflated tyre, meet kerb. Kerb, meet under-inflated tyre).

And this hasn't been on specially strong wheels. Quite the opposite, in
fact - I like my wheels light. Bike wheels are *incredibly* strong.

Of course, having said that, I'll bugger one at the weekend for sure!

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If God does not write LISP, God writes some code so similar to
;; LISP as to make no difference.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 21 Jul, Peter Amey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> One word of advice - get a photo of the hole /before/ you report it -
> they came and filled mine in less than a day after I first made the
> claim and then tried to deny it had ever been there.

Same for my case - I reported that I was going to be seeking
compensation for the damage in the morning, and on teh commute home
that same day the hole had been filled in.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[AndyMorris]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> Just to bring a datapoint into this discussion, in forty-something
> years of cycling and many tens of thousands of miles both on road and
> off, I've never broken a spoke, I've never buckled a wheel so badly it
> wouldn't turn, and the only times I've damaged rims were one tyre
> blowout on a fast downhill and a few instances of user error
> (under-inflated tyre, meet kerb. Kerb, meet under-inflated tyre).
>
> And this hasn't been on specially strong wheels. Quite the opposite,
> in fact - I like my wheels light. Bike wheels are *incredibly* strong.
>

Are you a skinny *******?



--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK


Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, AndyMorris
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> Just to bring a datapoint into this discussion, in forty-something
>> years of cycling and many tens of thousands of miles both on road and
>> off, I've never broken a spoke, I've never buckled a wheel so badly
>> it wouldn't turn, and the only times I've damaged rims were one tyre
>> blowout on a fast downhill and a few instances of user error
>> (under-inflated tyre, meet kerb. Kerb, meet under-inflated tyre).
>>
>> And this hasn't been on specially strong wheels. Quite the opposite,
>> in fact - I like my wheels light. Bike wheels are *incredibly*
>> strong.
>
> Are you a skinny *******?

I used to be. I'm thirteen stone now, but I was under ten stone for most
of my twenties and under eleven for most of my thirties.

I do not _like_ being thirteen stone. I know it isn't fat by other
people's standards but it's fat by _my_ standards.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

 

[CloseSupport]

I placed a claim with the council after breaking my ankle on a training run,
i asked for them to repair the surface thats alli wanted them to do the main
reason being that i new i wasn't the only runner that used that route and i
didn't what anyone else to have to suffer the same fate as I. running used
to make me feel great i used to love to run.................... BooHoo!

The reply i got was no they would rather pay me compensation, when i asked
why. They said simply it is cheeper to pay out for a persons claim than it
would to repair and maintain the surface.


"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 21 Jul, Peter Amey <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > One word of advice - get a photo of the hole /before/ you report it -
> > they came and filled mine in less than a day after I first made the
> > claim and then tried to deny it had ever been there.
>
> Same for my case - I reported that I was going to be seeking
> compensation for the damage in the morning, and on teh commute home
> that same day the hole had been filled in.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:23:30 +0100, John Hearns <[email protected]>
wrote (more or less):

>On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:40:20 +0100, audrey wrote:
>
>> I know I'm a philistine but I don't see the point of having so
>> good/expensive a bike that you are afraid to ride it for fear of
>> damaging the wheels. If you want to commute and it's only the road
>> surfaces stopping you, why not use different (sturdier or cheaper)
>> wheels for your commute?
>
>
>Errr.... no-one says the same about cars.
>(well, maybe soft-tops left parked in backstreets.)

And in reviews of track-day specials, Caterhams, etc...


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk