Signalling downhill

In message <[email hidden]>, David Damerell
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Michael MacClancy said:

<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

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.

You do like to accuse people of lying, don't you? Very childish. We have had several exchanges on
urc to my recollection and I have also read things of yours that I have not commented on. I can't be
bothered to go and google them up but, as I've said to you on several occasions, at least by
implication, your writing sometimes lacks explicitness.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Not proof, just opinion based on the information presented. I might be wrong, he might have
distorted the facts, but I don't see any point in doubting his depiction of events which seemed
quite plausible to me. You, on the other hand, seemed quite intent on ramming your equally
uninformed opinions into his head.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

No, this isn't my contention. My opinion is that it's possible that other things may have been going
on that meant that the cyclist momentarily failed to recognise that the doors were opening. I don't
think anyone would pass a bus and focus on the doors constantly. You might ride into a pedestrian or
something. The purpose of the thread was to ascertain who was to blame for the incident. There were
three parties (bus driver, passenger and cyclist) each of which has to accept some responsibility.
It was your attempt to place the whole blame on the cyclist that I found unacceptable.

--
Michael MacClancy

In message <[email hidden]>, David Damerell
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Sheldon Brown said:

David Damerell said:

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.

I know I shouldn't do this but I just have this uncontrollable urge. I am sure that no one but David
Damerell would interpret Sheldon's word's as meaning anything other than "most people would be
surprised at how hard they can brake with only one hand on the bars". Even though David used the
words "full force" it must be clear that Sheldon isn't referring to full force braking. He says
"sudden hard braking ..... is risky". Come on David, Sheldon's words make perfectly good sense and
don't contradict your point about full force braking so lay off.

But perhaps that's not the point? Your original comments follow:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

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

Not David Damerell said:

Having read an article by The Oracle, I am not convinced that using both brakes is the most
effective way of braking.

David Damerell said:

Tell me something I don't know already.

Quoted message said:

I don't mean "use both brakes"; I mean that it is extremely difficult

to >brake full force with one hand off the bars.

Your original words didn't refer to "full force braking" only "most effective braking". The
conversation is as much about one-handed braking as about one-handed full force braking. What most
effective braking is is open to discussion but it's not always going to be full force.

First you get annoyed because someone dares to read your words in the way the vast majority would
interpret them (i.e. you need to use both brakes). Then you get peeved with Sheldon because he dares
to address the matter of 'less than full force braking' when his advice makes perfectly good sense.
Why can't you just accept the facts that different people get different things out of Usenet,
particularly when your writing is capable of misinterpretation? You're responsible for ensuring that
your message isn't capable of misinterpretation, not the reader.

The world doesn't revolve around you, David. Lighten up and stop pissing people off.
--
Michael MacClancy

Michael MacClancy said:

<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Michael MacClancy said:

<[email hidden]> 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.

You do like to accuse people of lying, don't you?

I do in this case, because you quite blatantly ignored what I was actually saying and decided to
claim I was saying something entirely different because that latter thing happened to be easy to
argue with.

If you don't like to be accused of lying, confine yourself to the truth.

Quoted message said:

Not proof, just opinion based on the information presented. I might be wrong, he might have
distorted the facts, but I don't see any point in doubting his depiction of events which seemed
quite plausible to me.

What, that while proceeding at what we deduce from his claimed stopping distance was 3-4 mph, he
simultaneously hit this guy head on and was hit by him broadside on, and at this slow speed buckled
his front wheel? Sure, that's really plausible.

[I don't doubt the basic elements - undertaking bus, hit pedestrian - but my contention that he
should have been watching the doors does not contradict that sequence of events.]

Quoted message said:

You, on the other hand, seemed quite intent on ramming your equally uninformed opinions into
his head.

My opinion is not uninformed; I am quite well aware of the capabilities of eyes, since I possess a
pair, and the size of bus doors, since I regularly look at them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

No, this isn't my contention. My opinion is that it's possible that other things may have been
going on that meant that the cyclist momentarily failed to recognise that the doors were opening.

If he couldn't watch the doors adequately, he should have been slowing down.

Quoted message said:

I don't think anyone would pass a bus and focus on the doors constantly.

It is fortunate that even peripheral vision is suited for the task of alerting us to large objects
in motion.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

David Damerell said:

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.

Until two weeks' ago, I was happily cycling about with the assumption that braking with both brakes
was the most effective method of slowing in normal circumstances. It wasn't until someone posted a
link to Sheldon's excellent article that I learnt otherwise.

Quoted message said:

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.

My interpretation of what you wrote is the same interpretation any reasonable cyclist would make. I
can, of course, now see what you were trying to say, but your language was, at best, ambiguous.

Quoted message said:

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

To avoid the need for this, perhaps it would help if, in future, you replied to my message directly.
--
remove remove to reply

Michael MacClancy said:

In message <[email hidden]>, David Damerell
<[email hidden]> writes

a> I am sure that no one but David Damerell would interpret Sheldon's

Quoted message said:

word's as meaning anything other than "most people would be surprised at how hard they can brake
with only one hand on the bars".

You think so? While reading Sheldon's article it didn't even occur to me that he was suggesting that
you should brake with only one hand on the bars.

In fact, given this part of the article:

'Jobst Brandt has a quite plausible theory that the typical "over-the-bars" crash is caused, not so
much by braking too hard, but by braking hard without using the rider's arms to brace against the
deceleration: The bike stops, the rider keeps going until the rider's thighs bump into the
handlebars, and the bike, which is no longer supporting the weight of the rider, flips.'[1]

would imply to me that under hard braking you would want to have both hands on the bars, as firmly
as possible.

Quoted message said:

First you get annoyed because someone dares to read your words in the way the vast majority would
interpret them (i.e. you need to use both brakes).

Are you sure you are not making a mistake in assuming that the way the original respondat to David's
post interpreted his words as how 'the vast majority' would.

Quoted message said:

You're responsible for ensuring that your message isn't capable of misinterpretation, not
the reader.

I can't see anything in David's message that implys which brakes are in use. The assumption that he
was suggesting using both was made by the original respondant.

[1] sheldonbrown.combrakturn.htmlOpen ↗

--
Mike Quin <[email hidden]

In message <[email hidden]>, Mike Quin
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Michael MacClancy said:

In message <[email hidden]>, David Damerell
<[email hidden]> writes

a> I am sure that no one but David Damerell would interpret Sheldon's

Quoted message said:

word's as meaning anything other than "most people would be surprised at how hard they can brake
with only one hand on the bars".

You think so? While reading Sheldon's article it didn't even occur to me that he was suggesting
that you should brake with only one hand on the bars.

In fact, given this part of the article:

Wrong article Mike. This discussion has been about Sheldon's contribution to this very thread.
See below.

Quoted message said:

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 sheldonbrown.comharrisOpen ↗ Hard-to-find parts shipped
Worldwide

In message <[email hidden]>, Mike Quin
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Are you sure you are not making a mistake in assuming that the way the original respondat to
David's post interpreted his words as how 'the vast majority' would.

Quoted message said:

You're responsible for ensuring that your message isn't capable of misinterpretation, not the
reader.

I can't see anything in David's message that implys which brakes are in use. The assumption that he
was suggesting using both was made by the original respondant.

I'm only trying to say that David shouldn't get so upset (and rude) when someone interprets his
ambiguous words in a way that he didn't intend. Neither is his dogmatism conducive to harmonious
discussions on Usenet (see thread 'The dangers of a fixed wheel'😉.
--
Michael MacClancy

Michael MacClancy said:

Wrong article Mike. This discussion has been about Sheldon's contribution to this very thread.
See below.

Oops. 🙂

I should probably refrain from posting before coffee.

Quoted message said:

I'm only trying to say that David shouldn't get so upset (and rude) when someone interprets his
ambiguous words in a way that he didn't intend. Neither is his dogmatism conducive to harmonious
discussions on Usenet (see thread 'The dangers of a fixed wheel'😉.

Usenet would probably be more harmonious if everyone was calm all the time, but I doubt it would be
anywhere near as entertaining.

--
Mike Quin <[email hidden]

Gonzalez said:

David Damerell said:

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.

Until two weeks' ago, I was happily cycling about with the assumption that braking with both brakes
was the most effective method of slowing in normal circumstances. It wasn't until someone posted a
link to Sheldon's excellent article that I learnt otherwise.

Yes, but most urc readers are aware of Sheldon's (excellent) Website and, I speculate, have
therefore taken the time to read it - and knowledge of correct braking technique is available from
plenty of other people, of course.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

My interpretation of what you wrote is the same interpretation any reasonable cyclist would make.

Unless they had actually bothered to develop and test correct braking technique.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

To avoid the need for this, perhaps it would help if, in future, you replied to my message
directly.

I see you are also unaware of good news posting practices, which include not posting 2 articles
where one will do.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

In article said:

Yes, but most urc readers are aware of Sheldon's (excellent) Website and, I speculate, have
therefore taken the time to read it - and knowledge of correct braking technique is available from
plenty of other people, of course.

I would be suspicious about taking braking advice from someone who can't tell the difference between
a drivetrain and a brake. Perhaps he should join the group of "most urc readers".

warmest regards my "(oxy)moron" friend,

daniel

Daniel Parry said:

In article said:

Yes, but most urc readers are aware of Sheldon's (excellent) Website and, I speculate, have
therefore taken the time to read it - and knowledge of correct braking technique is available from
plenty of other people, of course.

I would be suspicious about taking braking advice from someone who can't tell the difference
between a drivetrain and a brake.

[I, of course, said no such thing, as you know perfectly well.]

Ah, you are a liar as well as an idiot - I presume you are modelling yourself on Michael "economical
with the truth"? It certainly is much more convenient to argue with what might have been said...
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

In message <[email hidden]>, David Damerell
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Daniel Parry said:

In article said:

Yes, but most urc readers are aware of Sheldon's (excellent) Website and, I speculate, have
therefore taken the time to read it - and knowledge of correct braking technique is available
from plenty of other people, of course.

I would be suspicious about taking braking advice from someone who can't tell the difference
between a drivetrain and a brake.

[I, of course, said no such thing, as you know perfectly well.]

Ah, you are a liar as well as an idiot - I presume you are modelling yourself on Michael
"economical with the truth"? It certainly is much more convenient to argue with what might have
been said...

Oh Daniel, please accept my commiserations for having been called a liar by David Damerell. You will
shortly descend into eternal damnation. You must be quaking in your boots!

Funny how he accuses you of modelling yourself on me and accuses me of modelling myself on j-p.s.
Excepting the Damerell we must all be clones.

:-)
--
Michael MacClancy

In article said:

Quoted message said:

I would be suspicious about taking braking advice from someone who can't tell the difference
between a drivetrain and a brake.

[I, of course, said no such thing, as you know perfectly well.]

You said: "a fixed gear has a brake"

If you weren't calling the drivetrain a brake then what brake were you referring to[0]?

Quoted message said:

Ah, you are a liar as well as an idiot

Isn't it a bit soon to be resorting to insults before constructing a coherent argument ^_-

Quoted message said:

- I presume

Don't. Stick to the facts ^_^

cheers

daniel

[] This has rapidly gone OT I'll not post any more on fixed gear brakes to this particular thread,
promise ^_^

David Damerell said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Piece of cake, David - you must be riding one of those funny uprighty things :-D

Well, I figure you chaps go so slowly, you don't need to brake very hard anyway. :-)

Quote. I hardly ever exceed 40mph, so braking is pretty much a non-issue ;-)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (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.

Steve McGinty stephenmcginty@ntlworld_DOT_.com said:

I was taking a drink when somebody went down in front of me.

My mum warned me about entering such establishments.

Quoted message said:

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.

Glad you survived OK though.

Tim
--

fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.

David Damerell said:

I see you are also unaware of good news posting practices, which include not posting 2 articles
where one will do.

Clearly, in the case in question, one was not sufficient, as you felt the need to clarify
(unprompted) to whom you were replying.
--
remove remove to reply

Tim Hall said:

Steve McGinty stephenmcginty@ntlworld_DOT_.com said:

I was taking a drink when somebody went down in front of me.

My mum warned me about entering such establishments.

Glad you survived OK though.

Thanks - I was a bit shaken up , so I went to the pub afterwards. I asked the barmaid for a double
entendre - so she gave me one...

Regards! Stephen

Steve McGinty stephenmcginty@ntlworld_DOT_.com said:

Thanks - I was a bit shaken up , so I went to the pub afterwards. I asked the barmaid for a double
entendre - so she gave me one...

You are Finbarr Saunders & ICMFP :-)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (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.

Michael MacClancy said:

Oh Daniel, please accept my commiserations for having been called a liar by David Damerell. You
will shortly descend into eternal damnation.

And don't forget to brake *properly* on the way down...

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

Dave Larrington said:

And don't forget to brake *properly* on the way down...

No problem - there is, after all, no requirement to signal on that particular journey.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (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.