Mirrors and Trailers

Graeme said:

which meant I could
look down through my legs at the mirror.

Erm, but, being as it's a mirror you're looking at, wouldn't that mean you'd end
up looking _forwards_?

When I started cycling again, about 12-13 years ago, I was very surprised that I
couldn't find a frame mounted mirror in any shop or bike catalogue.

Then I wondered if there wasn't a problem with vibration with the one I had on
my bike as a boy - I can't remember for sure.

I'd certainly like to find a workable rear view 'solution', as I think knowing
what's happening behind you without the drift inducing head turning is a
definite benefit to safe road usage.

On 5/5/05 4:48 am, in article
[email hidden], "Graeme"

Quoted message said:

And now for a bit of thread merging...

All this talk of mirrors and of child trailers reminded me that on my first
trailer laden trip at the weekend I needed (or more likely wanted) to keep
looking back to check and see how my son was. This induced a little bit of
sideways drift, which isn't a good idea.

I thought at the time that, in this instance, a glasses/helmet mounted
mirror would not be ideal but perhaps some sort of frame mounted mirror
would work. Maybe one on the down tube or seat tube which meant I could
look down through my legs at the mirror.

Has anyone else tried to address this problem before and have any thoughts
on this?

I used a bar end mirror mounted on the side to which the trailer was offset.
That worked fine on MTB bars. I did go through two of them and haven't
bothered replacing them since.

...d

Graeme said:

perhaps some sort of frame mounted mirror
would work. Maybe one on the down tube or seat tube which meant I

could

Quoted message said:

look down through my legs at the mirror.

Has anyone else tried to address this problem before and have any

thoughts

Quoted message said:

on this?

Graeme

There was a down tube mountedone reviewed in Cycling Plus last year (or
the year before). Verdict was (IIRC) fine but view of traffic behind
too restricted. Sounds ideal for you though. If you don't find one,
drop me an e-mail and I'll trawl thtough the box on top of the wardrobe

Cheers

PhilO

Graeme said:

<snip - what about mirrors to monitor a child trailer>

You are right that a head mounted mirror is not satisfactory. CTC
Cycle (and possibly velovision) reviewed a frame mounted mirror that
went somewhere around the head tube and might be helpful.

I would think that a bar end (or brake hood) mounted mirror might do
the job. The Hideaway bar end mirror addresses the issue of what to do
with it when parking (eg at http://www.velotique.com/mirrors.htm). It
was reviewd in VV16 so presumably there is a UK supplier.

I find that the tint on the front cover of my trailer makes it hard to
see much in a mirror anyway plus my 3-y-o acts as advocate for the
1-y-o and shouts when there is a problem. I tend to check at every
junction and sometimes with my glasses mirror (not easy, but possible)

best wishes
james

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All this talk of mirrors and of child trailers reminded me that on my first
trailer laden trip at the weekend I needed (or more likely wanted) to keep
looking back to check and see how my son was.

Heh. My mother was telling me she was stopped at red traffic lights
behind a trailer bike with small child and presumed parent onboard.
The child hopped off and wandered over to do some window shopping, at
which point the lights turned green and the oblivious father started
cycling off... :-)

R.

"Richard" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All this talk of mirrors and of child trailers reminded me that on my
first
trailer laden trip at the weekend I needed (or more likely wanted) to
keep
looking back to check and see how my son was.

Heh. My mother was telling me she was stopped at red traffic lights
behind a trailer bike with small child and presumed parent onboard. The
child hopped off and wandered over to do some window shopping, at which
point the lights turned green and the oblivious father started cycling
off... :-)

R.

LOL, that's excellent!

PhilO said:

Graeme said:

perhaps some sort of frame mounted mirror
would work. Maybe one on the down tube or seat tube which meant I

could look down through my legs at the mirror.

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else tried to address this problem before and have any

thoughts

Quoted message said:

on this?

Graeme

There was a down tube mounted one reviewed ...

Cheers

PhilO

Found it! Is what you're looking for a Bike Eye?
http://www.bike-eye.co.uk

They say:
"Bike Eye is a uniquely designed bicycle rear view mirror that gives a
cyclist a fixed and virtually vibration-free view of traffic
approaching from the rear, similar to motorcar rear view mirrors. It's
fitted to the cycle frame in seconds and has a simple friction tilting
mechanism for adjusting the mirror to the correct angle of view for
different riding positions. Bike Eye is supplied in left and right
fitting and is easily adapatable for use on either side of the frame."

That's the one I remember anyway

HTH

PhilO

in message <[email hidden]>, Graeme

(') said:

And now for a bit of thread merging...

All this talk of mirrors and of child trailers reminded me that on my
first trailer laden trip at the weekend I needed (or more likely
wanted) to keep looking back to check and see how my son was. This
induced a little bit of sideways drift, which isn't a good idea.

I thought at the time that, in this instance, a glasses/helmet mounted
mirror would not be ideal but perhaps some sort of frame mounted
mirror would work. Maybe one on the down tube or seat tube which meant
I could look down through my legs at the mirror.

Topeak do a mirror that folds into a bar end. It might be worth
considering.

<URL:http://www.wiggle.co.uk/Default.aspx?Main=ProductDetail.aspx&W=0&Manufacturer=&UberCatName=&Cat=cycle&CategoryName=Mirrors&ProdID=5360006674&UberCat=0>
or
<URL:http://qurl.com/i5rcr>

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Anagram: I'm soon broke.

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else tried to address this problem before and have any
thoughts on this?

Solved the problem by reversing the saddle, although I now swerve a bit
when looking forwards.

Yes this solution has been solved,there is a frame mounted mirror on the
market called Bike-Eye it would be Ideal for your needs, it locks to the
head and down tube which makes it almost vibration free, and unlike other
mirrors it's in a position that reduces the risk of snaging or damage, it
has a clear flat silvered mirror for brilliant clarity much easier to judge
the distance of approaching traffic. There are some retailers stocking the
mirror but should you have trouble finding one you can get all the
information and buy direct from www.bike-eye.com.

Tony

TONY McGUINNESS wrote:

You wouldn't be the Tony of "The team at Bike Eye
From left to right, Tony, Lesley and Daren." by any chance would you
and this wouldn't be spam would it?

--
Tony

"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought" Lord
Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

TONY McGUINNESS wrote:

You wouldn't be the Tony of "The team at Bike Eye
From left to right, Tony, Lesley and Daren." by any chance would you
and this wouldn't be spam would it?

A single response to a single question can't be spam, by definition. It
could be off-charter, but I don't think it is, particularly. Obviously
if it is from the manufacturers then saying so frankly would have been
polite.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

TONY McGUINNESS wrote:

You wouldn't be the Tony of "The team at Bike Eye
From left to right, Tony, Lesley and Daren." by any chance would you
and this wouldn't be spam would it?

A single response to a single question can't be spam, by definition. It
could be off-charter, but I don't think it is, particularly. Obviously
if it is from the manufacturers then saying so frankly would have been
polite.

It depends how you define Spam. Its unsolicited, its commercial and its
e-mail which means it fits a common definition of spam. Worse it
pretends to be a genuine post while hiding the fact that its promoting
the posters own product. And it was posted twice to two different threads.

--
Tony

"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought" Lord
Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)

In article said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

TONY McGUINNESS wrote:

You wouldn't be the Tony of "The team at Bike Eye
From left to right, Tony, Lesley and Daren." by any chance would you
and this wouldn't be spam would it?

A single response to a single question can't be spam, by definition. It
could be off-charter, but I don't think it is, particularly. Obviously
if it is from the manufacturers then saying so frankly would have been
polite.

It depends how you define Spam. Its unsolicited, its commercial and its
e-mail which means it fits a common definition of spam.

Except it's not unsolicited email, it's a reasonably on topic Usenet post.
If he'd posted it once, and made his commercial connection with the product
clear, I don't think it would be objectional.

Tony Raven said:

Simon Brooke said:

A single response to a single question can't be spam, by definition. It
could be off-charter, but I don't think it is, particularly. Obviously
if it is from the manufacturers then saying so frankly would have been
polite.

It depends how you define Spam.

I thought your reaction was a bit on the strong side. It was obvious
enough who he was, and it was potentially relevant to the OP.

OTOH, if he persists, Thornbury[1]-style, I'll be right with you in
flaming him.

[1] known as "campervan john" on urc.

--
Nick Kew

Nick Kew said:

I thought your reaction was a bit on the strong side. It was obvious
enough who he was, and it was potentially relevant to the OP.

If he had posted that his company made a mirror that might be suitable I
would have given him a lot more leeway. But he deliberately set out to
disguise his links with the product and pretend he was making an
independent user recommendation. That deception needs attention drawing
to it.

Campervan John makes it clear that its him selling his stuff so I have
no problems there.

--
Tony

"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought" Lord
Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

TONY McGUINNESS wrote:

You wouldn't be the Tony of "The team at Bike Eye
From left to right, Tony, Lesley and Daren." by any chance would you
and this wouldn't be spam would it?

A single response to a single question can't be spam, by definition.
It could be off-charter, but I don't think it is, particularly.
Obviously if it is from the manufacturers then saying so frankly
would have been polite.

It depends how you define Spam. Its unsolicited, its commercial and
its
e-mail which means it fits a common definition of spam.

(i) The definition of spam is any post with a breidbart index greater
than 20.

(ii) The above was a usenet post, so it clearly isn't an email. Nor is
it unsolicited, because it's a civil and relevant answer to a question.
So on two out of three counts you're wrong anyway.

Quoted message said:

Worse it
pretends to be a genuine post while hiding the fact that its promoting
the posters own product. And it was posted twice to two different
threads.

That, of course, is a real - and reasonable - complaint. If the poster
had been honest about his connection with the product, though, I there
would have been nothing to complain about.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit you,
; in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am nocht
; acquyntit with your Southeron
;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563

Simon Brooke said:

(i) The definition of spam is any post with a breidbart index greater
than 20.

That is but one of many definitions.
See for example
http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html
http://www.mail-abuse.com/spam_def.html
http://www.monkeys.com/spam-defined/
http://www.cauce.org/about/faq.shtml#how

--
Tony

"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought" Lord
Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)