Signalling downhill

[Marc]

Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

> I do have automated signalling on one bike: "Turning LEFT" and Michael sticks his fist out

IIRC Clint Eastwood had the same technique

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

 

[Gonzalez]

David Damerell wrote:

>But this is not written with cyclists in mind, who need both hands on the bars to brake most
>effectively.

Having read an article by The Oracle, I am not convinced that using both brakes is the most
effective way of braking. Using the front brake alone is most effective method in the majority of
circumstances.
--
remove remove to reply

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Tue, 13 May 2003 18:45:42 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:
>
>>But this is not written with cyclists in mind, who need both hands on the bars to brake most
>>effectively.
>
> Having read an article by The Oracle, I am not convinced that using both brakes is the most
> effective way of braking. Using the front brake alone is most effective method in the majority of
> circumstances.

I'm not sure that using both brakes was what David meant. But when you are braking hard it helps to
have the other hand steadying the handlebars as well. Even small stones on the road can make the
bars jerk considerably if you are unlucky enough to hit them when braking hard.

Regards,

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Pete Biggs]

Tim Woodall wrote:

>>> But this is not written with cyclists in mind, who need both hands on the bars to brake most
>>> effectively.
>>
>> Having read an article by The Oracle, I am not convinced that using both brakes is the most
>> effective way of braking. Using the front brake alone is most effective method in the majority of
>> circumstances.
>
> I'm not sure that using both brakes was what David meant. But when you are braking hard it helps
> to have the other hand steadying the handlebars as well. Even small stones on the road can make
> the bars jerk considerably if you are unlucky enough to hit them when braking hard.

...Also, and more importantly, the other hand should be on the bars when braking hard to brace
against the braking force (by pushing forwards), otherwise it's all to easy to go A over T's.

~PB

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Tue, 13 May 2003 00:01:57 +0100, "Sky Fly" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Am I correct in saying that this is your child strapped to a child seat at the back of your bike?

No chance! I make the little blighter work!

<http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/me-n-u2>

For children of the smaller sizes I recommend a trailer bike (tag-along or Trail-A-Bike, for
example). For tinies, a bike trailer is a Good Thing unless you happen to be in Hull on the
wrong day.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On 13 May 2003 00:12:34 -0700, [email protected] (MarkyP) wrote:

>right turns sound a bit ropey! Simply have the front brake on the left...makes more sense.

Unless of course your left hand is 30% weaker and only half as agile, due to childhood burns...

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[John B]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

> On Tue, 13 May 2003 00:01:57 +0100, "Sky Fly" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Am I correct in saying that this is your child strapped to a child seat at the back of your bike?
>
> No chance! I make the little blighter work!
>
> <http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/me-n-u2>
>
> For children of the smaller sizes I recommend a trailer bike (tag-along or Trail-A-Bike, for
> example).

I would always recommend a tandem with kiddiecranks in preference to trailer bikes as they *do* make
the kiddie work - unless you have a very rare freewheel set up, they are forced to pedal. However, I
appreciate cost can be a major consideration :-(

John B

 

[David Damerell]

Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>But this is not written with cyclists in mind, who need both hands on the bars to brake most
>>effectively.
>Having read an article by The Oracle, I am not convinced that using both brakes is the most
>effective way of braking.

Tell me something I don't know already.

I don't mean "use both brakes"; I mean that it is extremely difficult to brake full force with one
hand off the bars.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!

 

[Peter Clinch]

David Damerell wrote:

> I don't mean "use both brakes"; I mean that it is extremely difficult to brake full force with one
> hand off the bars.

... at least if you intend remaining connected to the bike in some way other than possibly
underneath it immediately afterwards! ;-/

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

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <c-m*[email protected]>, David Damerell
<[email protected]> writes
>Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
>>David Damerell wrote:
>>>But this is not written with cyclists in mind, who need both hands on the bars to brake most
>>>effectively.
>>Having read an article by The Oracle, I am not convinced that using both brakes is the most
>>effective way of braking.
>
>Tell me something I don't know already.
>
>I don't mean "use both brakes"; I mean that it is extremely difficult to brake full force with one
>hand off the bars.

No need to be so rude. Even you have to agree that what you wrote is ambiguous at the very least.
The problem is, David, that on Usenet we don't know what you know and what you don't know. We only
know what you write. If you were less obtuse with some of your comments you would leave less room
for misunderstanding of your views.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Sheldon Brown]

David Damerell wrote:

> I don't mean "use both brakes"; I mean that it is extremely difficult to brake full force with one
> hand off the bars.

You might be surprised. It is true that _sudden_ hard braking with only one hand on the bar is
risky, but if you ramp the braking up fairly gradually, you can actually brake rather forcefully
one-handed.

When braking one handed, you will instinctively shift your upper body to the side opposite that
hand. The forward force on the braking hand resulting from the braking action will be exactly
counterbalanced by this weight shift. You'll wind up with the bike leaning one way, your upper body
leaning the other way, and the bike going straight and remaining balanced.

I regularly brake whilst signalling, as as I have to make a left turn (I'm a Yank) from a major
street to get to my street on the way home from work. I signal for the benefit of vehicles coming
from behind me, and sometimes have to simultaneously brake while waiting for a break in the
oncoming traffic.

I certainly don't recommend making panic stops one handed, but controlled deceleration, or
maintaining a steady speed on a downgrade are quite possible one-handed.

Sheldon "Easier Than You Might Think" Brown Newtonville, Massachusetts USA
+--------------------------------------+
| Truth, like a torch, | the more it's shook it shines. | --Sir Wm. Hamilton |
+--------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone
617-244-1040 FAX 617-244-1041 http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris Hard-to-find parts
shipped Worldwide

 

[Gonzalez]

David Damerell wrote:

>I call that poor reading comprehension; they should have read what it said, not what they thought
>it might have said. You suffer from this problem as well, as I recall.

"But this is not written with cyclists in mind, who need both hands on the bars to brake most
effectively."

There is barely a person alive who would interpret this to mean that it is most effective to brake
with the front brake only, but with both hands on the handlebars.
--
remove remove to reply

 

[Gonzalez]

Sheldon Brown wrote:

>You might be surprised. It is true that _sudden_ hard braking with only one hand on the bar is
>risky, but if you ramp the braking up fairly gradually, you can actually brake rather forcefully
>one-handed.
>
>When braking one handed, you will instinctively shift your upper body to the side opposite that
>hand. The forward force on the braking hand resulting from the braking action will be exactly
>counterbalanced by this weight shift. You'll wind up with the bike leaning one way, your upper body
>leaning the other way, and the bike going straight and remaining balanced.
>
>I regularly brake whilst signalling, as as I have to make a left turn (I'm a Yank) from a major
>street to get to my street on the way home from work. I signal for the benefit of vehicles coming
>from behind me, and sometimes have to simultaneously brake while waiting for a break in the
>oncoming traffic.
>
>I certainly don't recommend making panic stops one handed, but controlled deceleration, or
>maintaining a steady speed on a downgrade are quite possible one-handed.

The Oracle has spoken. His judgement is above mortal argument.
--
remove remove to reply

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <[email protected]>, Gonzalez
<[email protected]> writes
>David Damerell wrote:
>
>>I call that poor reading comprehension; they should have read what it said, not what they thought
>>it might have said. You suffer from this problem as well, as I recall.
>
>"But this is not written with cyclists in mind, who need both hands on the bars to brake most
>effectively."
>
>There is barely a person alive who would interpret this to mean that it is most effective to brake
>with the front brake only, but with both hands on the handlebars.
>--
>remove remove to reply

I agree. But you and I and the rest of the world are stupid in David's estimation.

Anyone who took responsibility for their communication would have written something like:-

[cyclists] need both hands on the bars in order to stabilise the bike when braking hard.

The reader is much less likely to misinterpret this than the original message.

I firmly believe that the responsibility for clear communication lies predominantly with the sender,
particularly when writing. Having read many of David's words over the past few months I suspect that
he somewhat delights in deliberately writing comments that are open to misinterpretation so that he
can later 'prove' that everyone who failed to understand him must be a nincompoop. Of course, my
suspicion may be misplaced and the explanation might be as simple as David not being able or not
being bothered to write clearly.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Jeremy Parker]

> I try to arm signal whenever I can, but I feel at risk doing this while hitting nearly 30mph
> downhill

It seems to me that, if you choose the correct position in the road, your whole body-bike
combination makes a 200 pound, six foot tall, hand signal, which solves the problem.

The "negotiation" techniques, as described in John Franklin's "Cyclecraft", or John Forester's
"Effective Cycling", or other books, involves much more than hand signals, and if you don't know how
to do it, mere hand signals will not do you much good.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Steve McGinty]

On 14 May 2003 21:35:32 -0700, [email protected] (Sheldon Brown) wrote:

>David Damerell wrote:
>
>> I don't mean "use both brakes"; I mean that it is extremely difficult to brake full force with
>> one hand off the bars.
>
>You might be surprised. It is true that _sudden_ hard braking with only one hand on the bar is
>risky, but if you ramp the braking up fairly gradually, you can actually brake rather forcefully
>one-handed.
>
>When braking one handed, you will instinctively shift your upper body to the side opposite that
>hand. The forward force on the braking hand resulting from the braking action will be exactly
>counterbalanced by this weight shift. You'll wind up with the bike leaning one way, your upper body
>leaning the other way, and the bike going straight and remaining balanced.
>
I've had "experience" of this. Racing at 30mph+ in a strong tailwind I was taking a drink when
somebody went down in front of me. My involuntary action was to put the death-grip on the one brake,
which totally locked the rear wheel. I stayed upright and avoided the carnage, but when I finished
found a six inch strip of rubber missing from my best Clement Crit tub.

Regards! Stephen

 

[David Damerell]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> writes
>>David Damerell wrote:
>>>I call that poor reading comprehension; they should have read what it said, not what they thought
>>>it might have said. You suffer from this problem as well, as I recall.
>>"But this is not written with cyclists in mind, who need both hands on the bars to brake most
>>effectively." There is barely a person alive who would interpret this to mean that it is most
>>effective to brake with the front brake only, but with both hands on the handlebars.

You are assuming that most people have not taken the time to investigate and develop correct braking
technique. I suspect most urc readers have, and so are perfectly well aware that on-road one
ordinarily brakes hard with the front brake alone, but with both hands on the handlebars.

If you had read what it said, not what you thought I might have meant, this problem would not have
arisen. Hell, if you'd bothered to try out what you'd read on Sheldon's site before correcting me
over something I didn't say, you wouldn't have had this problem. As I say, a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing.

[Before I get another confused reply, note that "you" in these two paragraphs is Gonzalez.]

>predominantly with the sender, particularly when writing. Having read many of David's words over
>the past few months I suspect that he somewhat delights in deliberately writing comments that are
>open to misinterpretation

Are you going to claim, then, that my many uses of words like "see", "vision" and "eyesight" in the
bus undertaking thread were open to misinterpretation, and in fact any reasonable person might
conclude as you did that I was advocating the use of the ears, not the eyes? I must say that it
seems to me that those words are not open to misinterpretation.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[David Damerell]

Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>I don't mean "use both brakes"; I mean that it is extremely difficult to brake full force with one
>>hand off the bars.
>You might be surprised. It is true that _sudden_ hard braking with only one hand on the bar is
>risky, but if you ramp the braking up fairly gradually, you can actually brake rather forcefully
>one-handed.

I'm not quite sure about this - if I'm going to spend a while ramping up the braking fairly
gradually, I won't be going fast enough to need to brake forcefully one-handed. I can certainly
brake harder one-handed as part of an extended operation than by just clamping down, but I don't
think I can actually brake full-force - in particular, it would be hard to control the bike if the
back wheel comes close to lifting.

Also, if I extend the braking part of the maneuver, it increases the length of time I'm in the
middle of the road moving slowly, and hence inviting a banzai overtaking maneuver.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <55z*[email protected]>, David Damerell
<[email protected]> writes
>Are you going to claim, then, that my many uses of words like "see", "vision" and "eyesight" in the
>bus undertaking thread were open to misinterpretation, and in fact any reasonable person might
>conclude as you did that I was advocating the use of the ears, not the eyes? I must say that it
>seems to me that those words are not open to misinterpretation.

No, I wasn't referring to that conversation. That conversation concerned a guy who collided with a
passenger getting off a bus in circumstances that many, if not most (but according to you, certainly
not you), would not have been able to avoid. A further example of your inability to concede that
there is a difference between reality and the fiction that you hold up to be reality.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[David Damerell]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> writes
>>Are you going to claim, then, that my many uses of words like "see", "vision" and "eyesight" in
>>the bus undertaking thread were open to misinterpretation, and in fact any reasonable person might
>>conclude as you did that I was advocating the use of the ears, not the eyes? I must say that it
>>seems to me that those words are not open to misinterpretation.
>No, I wasn't referring to that conversation.

Ah, so if that wasn't open to misinterpretation, you were in fact lying about what I said? Thanks
for clearing that up.

>That conversation concerned a guy who collided with a passenger getting off a bus in
>circumstances that many, if not most (but according to you, certainly not you), would not have
>been able to avoid.

Proof by blatant assertion, I see.

>A further example of your inability to concede that there is a difference between reality and the
>fiction that you hold up to be reality.

If you contend that it is a fiction that bus doors are large objects that may easily been seen in
motion, perhaps I'm not the one with the problem?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?