audrey said: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.