It came out of nowhere 2

[Mrcheerful]

Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the
side of a double decker.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bus-driver-defends-cyclist-who-9323343

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0OJ8x.760242$X95.3...@fx10.am4...

> Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the side
> of a double decker.
>
> http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bus-driver-defends-cyclist-who-9323343

Let's hope that the passengers were not delayed for too long.

[TMS320]

"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

> Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the side
> of a double decker.

A broken brake cable really can come from nowhere.

[Mrcheerful]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bus-driver-defends-cyclist-who-9323343

Brake cables only break through neglect of maintenance.
He deliberately went through the red light, he could have slowed using
his other brake, or even laid the bike down once he realised his
mistake, but as usual, pig headed selfishness lead to a crash. I am
surprised you are not blaming the bus.

[Peter Keller]

"But since the MEN featured the footage, the bus driver has commented on
our Facebook page saying he stopped and went back to check the cyclist,
who was ‘very lucky’.

"He also confirmed that the cyclist couldn’t stop as his brake cable
snapped."
Most bikes I have ridden seem two have two independent brake cables
operating two independent brakes.
With one brake cable operating he would not have "glided through the red
light", unless he intended to.

[Peter Keller]

But two broken cables at the same time?

[RJH]

On 26/05/2015 10:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 26/05/2015 10:00, TMS320 wrote:
>> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>
>>> Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the
>>> side
>>> of a double decker.
>>
>> A broken brake cable really can come from nowhere.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bus-driver-defends-cyclist-who-9323343
>
>
> Brake cables only break through neglect of maintenance.

Not 'only' maintenance. On a new cable I've had a nipple fail, just
popped out (obvious guffaws allowed). The bus driver confirmed the
snapped cable. I'd have thought a cable could snap - but you're saying
the only way a cable can snap is because of poor maintenance? I rarely
replace brake cables unless visual inspection calls for it.

> He deliberately went through the red light,

Agreed - a good 10 yards out when it turned red. He says he was 'trying
to break the light' - a very bad attempt to turn back time.

he could have slowed using
> his other brake,

He does explain, quite well, that that wasn't possible due the
conditions and the brakes on his bike (fixed wheel).

or even laid the bike down once he realised his
> mistake,

Must admit, 'laying the bike down' is one technique I'm not familiar
with. I take the point it would likely lessen the impact, but the risk
of going under the bus doesn't bear much thinking about. Is laying a
bike down an advanced cycling technique?

but as usual, pig headed selfishness lead to a crash. I am
> surprised you are not blaming the bus.

He does more of less admit liability. No mention of blaming the bus -
until now.

--
Cheers, Rob

[RJH]

It's a fixed wheel, so no back brake as such. I think he left his
braking decision far too late - and suspect he does too. The braking
situation has very little to do with the accident - he tried to jump a
light, and got off lightly.

--
Cheers, Rob

[Roger Merriman]

it was a fixie, so he had a brake and half, braking though the fixed
rear hub, even if low geared and dry is poor, with a high gearing on wet
roads...

he is rightly unconviced most people that this was not a mistake of his
making.

Roger Merriman

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mk1cn1$ng$1...@dont-email.me...

You make a very sound case for compulsory MOT testing for bicycles.
Well done, you're starting to get the picture.

[Tarcap]

"Roger Merriman" wrote in message
news:1m510ib.u7plgt137fgqaN%ro...@sarlet.com...

I did try putting this through Google Translate, but that couldn't make any
sense of it either.

[TMS320]

"Peter Keller" <muzh...@centrum.sk> wrote

I thought you were a regular bicycle user and would know about the
effect of losing front brake.

[TMS320]

"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

> On 26/05/2015 10:00, TMS320 wrote:
>> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>
>>> Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the
>>> side
>>> of a double decker.
>>
>> A broken brake cable really can come from nowhere.
>

> Brake cables only break through neglect of maintenance.

"Only" is incorrect. Unless maintenance is so badly neglected that the wire
is frayed and left hanging by a few threads, the actual wire does not break.
The expression "broken cable" more likely means the wire pulling out of the
nipple. (Something a supposed "bicycle MOT" would never be able to pick up.)

> He deliberately went through the red light, he could have slowed using his
> other brake,

It's possible his intention was to beat the light, relying on a delay before
crossing traffic came through. The critical aspect is the point in the
proceedings where the tried to brake. How do you know he didn't use his
other brake?

> or even laid the bike down once he realised his mistake,

Please provide a youtube link of you giving a personal demonstration of
this trick. On the other hand, it might have resulted in him sliding under a
back wheel. Brilliant plan.

[TMS320]

"Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote

> "TMS320" wrote in message news:mk1cn1$ng$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>
>> Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the
>> side
>> of a double decker.
>
> A broken brake cable really can come from nowhere.
>
> You make a very sound case for compulsory MOT testing for bicycles.

Why, have they reached the stage where the car MOT can predict future
failures? I must be behind the times because the last time I checked it
could only find things that had already failed.

[Mrcheerful]

Cyclists appear to be capable of falling off at the slightest thing, so
jumping off or sliding sideways when you see danger is perfectly
feasible, merely locking up the back wheel will put the bike sideways
with little effort.
The appearance is that he just kept going without making any attempt to
stop before the lights or impact.
There is every likelihood that the brake cable fault (if such there is)
was pre-existing, many cyclists consider brakes to be an option rather
than the requirement that they actually are.

Squeezing / operating each brake to your maximum ability before you move
off each day is quite a good plan, along with regular visual inspection
and lubrication.

[Mrcheerful]

A car mot does inspect things for fraying or rusting, even if the item
still works it can be failure, a good example by comparison is the
handbrake cable, I have had to replace handbrake cables for being frayed
or stiff, likewise cracked brake hoses, rusty brake pipes, very thin
brake pads etc. All when the brakes were still operating efficiently.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mk1ofr$eh2$1...@dont-email.me...

You are very, very behind the times. MOT tests regularly pick out things
like fraying handbrake cables, corroding brake pipes, etc. which mean they
are replaced well before failure. It's called preventative maintenance, and
the MOT test ensures that it is done at least yearly, even if the
recommended servicing is overlooked.
If cyclists are as clueless as you then it would appear that MOT testing for
bicycles is well overdue.

[JNugent]

Still, remember that cyclists know better than anyone else how to
anticipate and avoid danger. It's all done for safety. Apparently, it's
safer to go through a red light than to wait your turn, so something
dangerous must have been coming up behind him (though it's funny it
never went through the red light).

Additionally, drivers, as we were once assured here, should anticipate
red0-light running by cyclists and should therefore not proceed on a
green light. In fact, it's better if drivers never allow their vehicles
to move at all.

[JNugent]

On 26/05/2015 10:19, Mrcheerful wrote:

Be fair... that was just his first post in the thread... give him a CHANCE!

[JNugent]

On 26/05/2015 13:09, TMS320 wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> On 26/05/2015 10:00, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>>
>>>> Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the
>>>> side
>>>> of a double decker.
>>>
>>> A broken brake cable really can come from nowhere.
>>
>> Brake cables only break through neglect of maintenance.
>
> "Only" is incorrect. Unless maintenance is so badly neglected that the wire
> is frayed and left hanging by a few threads, the actual wire does not break.
> The expression "broken cable" more likely means the wire pulling out of the
> nipple. (Something a supposed "bicycle MOT" would never be able to pick up.)

In the best part of a million miles (yes, really) at the wheel(s) of
various motor vehicles, I have never had a brake cable snap or any other
catastrophic brake failure analogous to a brake cable failure.

Clearly, either the braking systems of bicycles are severely
under-engineered and dangerously unreliable, or that cyclist was just
the anti-social turd he looked like.

>> He deliberately went through the red light, he could have slowed using his
>> other brake,
>
> It's possible his intention was to beat the light, relying on a delay before
> crossing traffic came through.

You mean through a red light, but before the other side went green?

Yes, it is possible that that was his intention.

Does that make him any less anti-social?

[JNugent]

On 26/05/2015 10:32, Peter Keller wrote:

And apparently (according to TMS320, at least), if your brakes fail,
it's best to just proceed through a red light as though you didn't even
need to stop.

Not sure whether that advice also applies to the ends of jetties, etc.
More information needed for those.

[TMS320]

I wait for your personal demonstration.

> The appearance is that he just kept going without making any attempt to
> stop before the lights or impact.

The view from the video is so long it provides no good clues either way.

> There is every likelihood that the brake cable fault (if such there is)
> was pre-existing, many cyclists consider brakes to be an option rather
> than the requirement that they actually are.

The person that rides with brakes in genuinely poor condition is less
likely to be caught out than the one that has sudden failure, wouldn't you
suppose?

> Squeezing / operating each brake to your maximum ability before you move
> off each day is quite a good plan, along with regular visual inspection
> and lubrication.

Stressing the cable with a weak nipple more frequently would
likely mean the cyclist just catches an earlier bus.

[TMS320]

"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

> On 26/05/2015 13:21, TMS320 wrote:
>> "Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote
>>> "TMS320" wrote in message news:mk1cn1$ng$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>>
>>>> Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the
>>>> side
>>>> of a double decker.
>>>
>>> A broken brake cable really can come from nowhere.
>>>
>>> You make a very sound case for compulsory MOT testing for bicycles.
>>
>> Why, have they reached the stage where the car MOT can predict future
>> failures? I must be behind the times because the last time I checked it
>> could only find things that had already failed.
>
> A car mot does inspect things for fraying or rusting,

Indeed. And what about things that show no visible sign now but will
deteriorate before the next MOT? Do cars never need fixing between times?

[TMS320]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:csjh5a...@mid.individual.net...

> On 26/05/2015 13:09, TMS320 wrote:
>> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>> On 26/05/2015 10:00, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the
>>>>> side
>>>>> of a double decker.
>>>>
>>>> A broken brake cable really can come from nowhere.
>>>
>>> Brake cables only break through neglect of maintenance.
>>
>> "Only" is incorrect. Unless maintenance is so badly neglected that the
>> wire
>> is frayed and left hanging by a few threads, the actual wire does not
>> break.
>> The expression "broken cable" more likely means the wire pulling out of
>> the
>> nipple. (Something a supposed "bicycle MOT" would never be able to pick
>> up.)
>
> In the best part of a million miles (yes, really) at the wheel(s) of
> various motor vehicles, I have never had a brake cable snap or any other
> catastrophic brake failure analogous to a brake cable failure.

How is that supposed to be a useful statistic?

My last cable failure due to pulling through the nipple was in 1986. Had I
started riding in 1987, I would never have experienced this. Not having
happened for nearly 30 years doesn't mean it won't happen again.

> Clearly, either the braking systems of bicycles are severely
> under-engineered and dangerously unreliable,

Just like car parts, bicycle parts are manufactured in factories and small
percentage will inevitably fail for various reasons - a design issue, the
production process, a batch of raw materials, an assembly line worker... If
the failure rate gets too high the manufacturer usually tries to improve the
process before they get sued. Sometimes they still get sued. Have you never
heard of a car manufacturer issuing recalls?

> or that cyclist was just the
> anti-social turd he looked like.

>>> He deliberately went through the red light, he could have slowed using
>>> his other brake,
>>
>> It's possible his intention was to beat the light, relying on a delay
>> before crossing traffic came through.
>
> You mean through a red light, but before the other side went green?
>
> Yes, it is possible that that was his intention.
>
> Does that make him any less anti-social?

Mr Cheerful made two propositions. One I agreed with to make sure that
disagreement with the second wasn't misconstrued. How much spittle did you
need to wipe off your screen?

[Mrcheerful]

No system is perfect, but the complete lack of any control over bicycles
used as road vehicles means that even more things are missed.

[TMS320]

"Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:csj8li...@mid.individual.net...

>
>
> "TMS320" wrote in message news:mk1ofr$eh2$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> "Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote
>> "TMS320" wrote in message news:mk1cn1$ng$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>
>>> Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the
>>> side
>>> of a double decker.
>>
>> A broken brake cable really can come from nowhere.
>>
>> You make a very sound case for compulsory MOT testing for bicycles.
>
> Why, have they reached the stage where the car MOT can predict future
> failures? I must be behind the times because the last time I checked it
> could only find things that had already failed.
>
> You are very, very behind the times. MOT tests regularly pick out things
> like fraying handbrake cables, corroding brake pipes, etc. which mean they
> are replaced well before failure.

Engineers have determined conditions where vehicle technicians should fail a
part. Notice the word "fail"?

> It's called preventative maintenance,

Replacing failed items is reactive maintenance.

Preventative maintenance is replacing things under a schedule. Such as
engine oil and filters. Or such as I do when I replace front brake cables
even though they show no visible indication of weakness.

> and the MOT test ensures that it is
> done at least yearly, even if the recommended servicing is overlooked.

Then do cars never need fixing between MOTs?

> If cyclists are as clueless as you then it would appear that MOT testing
> for bicycles is well overdue.

Most people are completely clueless about technical matters. The difference
between cars and bicycles is that people can more easily identify when a
bicycle has gone wrong without needing a technician to tell them.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote

> And apparently (according to TMS320, at least), if your brakes fail, it's
> best to just proceed through a red light as though you didn't even need to
> stop.

Oh I see, the brakes that are supplied with a bicycle are actually redundant
because there is a way of stopping effectively that doesn't require them.
Please
advise. Does it resemble Cheerless's method by any chance?

[JNugent]

I'd have bet real money that you would defend him.

Any minute now, you'll be defending the pillock who ran over the
3-yr-old on the footway as well.

[Mrcheerful]

On 26/05/2015 22:46, TMS320 wrote:
The difference
> between cars and bicycles is that people can more easily identify when a
> bicycle has gone wrong without needing a technician to tell them.
>
>
>

Such as when they pile in to the side of a bus.

[Mrcheerful]

So you are riding your bicycle, heading towards the edge of a cliff at
15mph. You try to slow but your brakes have failed completely, you will
just sit on the saddle till you plunge over the edge. There are no
other ways at all to slow the bicycle, alter your course or get off it
?? Even you cannot possibly be as stupid as that, or can you?

[RJH]

On 26/05/2015 22:46, TMS320 wrote:

snip

>
> Preventative maintenance is replacing things under a schedule. Such as
> engine oil and filters. Or such as I do when I replace front brake cables
> even though they show no visible indication of weakness.
>

Wasn't aware of this - how often should brake cables be replaced?


--
Cheers, Rob

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mk2pi5$qqo$1...@dont-email.me...

"Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:csj8li...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "TMS320" wrote in message news:mk1ofr$eh2$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> "Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote
>> "TMS320" wrote in message news:mk1cn1$ng$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>
>>> Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the
>>> side
>>> of a double decker.
>>
>> A broken brake cable really can come from nowhere.
>>
>> You make a very sound case for compulsory MOT testing for bicycles.
>
> Why, have they reached the stage where the car MOT can predict future
> failures? I must be behind the times because the last time I checked it
> could only find things that had already failed.
>
> You are very, very behind the times. MOT tests regularly pick out things
> like fraying handbrake cables, corroding brake pipes, etc. which mean they
> are replaced well before failure.

Engineers have determined conditions where vehicle technicians should fail a
part. Notice the word "fail"?

Yes, a car would fail an MOT if there were signs of impending failure or
wear, not just when an item has actually broken.

It's called preventative maintenance, regular servicing between MOTs also
helps. achieve the same

Replacing failed items is reactive maintenance.

Yes, that's right. That's why it's better to do it before it fails - it
saves people from crashing into buses when say, a cable breaks, as in this
case.

Preventative maintenance is replacing things under a schedule. Such as
engine oil and filters. Or such as I do when I replace front brake cables
even though they show no visible indication of weakness.

And checking for any signs of impending failure, as per the servicing
schedule. If you think that servicing just entails oil and filters then you
are very wrong, and would be advised to leave any maintenance to a
professional - they, unlike you, actually know what they are doing.

> and the MOT test ensures that it is
> done at least yearly, even if the recommended servicing is overlooked.

Then do cars never need fixing between MOTs?

Yes, it's called servicing, as have already said. I have never in all my
years driven into the side of a bus because my brakes have failed - come to
think of it, my brakes have never failed at all. That's because any worn
parts are replaced long before they are anywhere near failing.

> If cyclists are as clueless as you then it would appear that MOT testing
> for bicycles is well overdue.

Most people are completely clueless about technical matters. The difference
between cars and bicycles is that people can more easily identify when a
bicycle has gone wrong without needing a technician to tell them.

Obviously the cyclist in this case could not identify when something has
gone wrong, otherwise he wouldn't have ended up riding into the side of a
bus.
Compulsory MOT testing would have at least ensured that the bicycle was safe
once a year. Are you suggesting that the interval for compulsory MOT testing
for bicycles should be a lot less than a year - say monthly, perhaps? Maybe
you're on to something there. When cyclists are as clueless as you and the
rider in the posting, I would say you need any help you can get.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mk2qcs$tmp$1...@dont-email.me...

No, it resembles the Psycholist's method, which is stopping with the help of
a bus.

[Tarcap]

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message news:YQd9x.612957$UV7....@fx27.am4...

Undoubtedly.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mk2hma$q6r$2...@dont-email.me...

Yes, it's called servicing. Hope this helps.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mk2hma$q6r$1...@dont-email.me...

But not catching the side of a bus, as in this case.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mk2hmb$q6r$3...@dont-email.me...

None. We have working screenwashing equipment, which is compulsory tested at
least once a year.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote

> I'd have bet real money that you would defend him.

I choose mainly to argue over circumstances involving physical laws and
technical issues (eg, brake performance). I have much less
interest in argument over man made laws. Do not believe that arguing about
one necessarily offers opinions over the other.

> Any minute now, you'll be defending the pillock who ran over the 3-yr-old
> on the footway as well.

Your screen must be disgusting. Perhaps this is why you can't read it
properly. There are plenty of cleaning materials on the market.

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 13:05:10 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

> "Peter Keller" <muzh...@centrum.sk> wrote

>> On Tue, 26 May 2015 10:00:47 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>>
>>>> Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the
>>>> side of a double decker.
>>>
>>> A broken brake cable really can come from nowhere.
>>

>> But two broken cables at the same time?
>
> I thought you were a regular bicycle user and would know about the
> effect of losing front brake.

The back brake would still work, although agreed not as effectively. I
would have thought that if he "glided through" the red light the back
brake would have been enough to stop this.

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 11:34:22 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

> "Roger Merriman" wrote in message
> news:1m510ib.u7plgt137fgqaN%ro...@sarlet.com...
>
> Peter Keller <muzh...@centrum.sk> wrote:

>
>> On Mon, 25 May 2015 19:25:19 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>> > Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the
>> > side of a double decker.
>> >

>> > http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/

bus-
>> driver-defends-cyclist-who-9323343
>>
>> "But since the MEN featured the footage, the bus driver has commented
>> on our Facebook page saying he stopped and went back to check the
>> cyclist, who was 'very lucky'.
>>
>> "He also confirmed that the cyclist couldn't stop as his brake cable
>> snapped."
>> Most bikes I have ridden seem two have two independent brake cables
>> operating two independent brakes.
>> With one brake cable operating he would not have "glided through the
>> red light", unless he intended to.
>

> it was a fixie, so he had a brake and half, braking though the fixed
> rear hub, even if low geared and dry is poor, with a high gearing on wet
> roads...
>
> he is rightly unconviced most people that this was not a mistake of his
> making.
>
> I did try putting this through Google Translate, but that couldn't make
> any sense of it either.

Shows how bad Google Translate is.

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 27 May 2015 08:28:57 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

> Fuckwit's

Thank you very much great sir for that grand accolade.
Now I am working towards the higher honour from you of being mendacious,
meretricious, loathsome, and despicable.
After all I am a bicyclist.

[Tarcap]

"Peter Keller" wrote in message news:mk43cd$guc$5...@dont-email.me...

Why do people insist on calling themselves fuckwits?

Could it be because they are right?

[TMS320]

"RJH" <patch...@gmx.com> wrote

It's entirely up to you. I don't count time or mileage or keep a record when
last done, I just think "hmm, it's probably about time".

However, in the days I had cable breaks, I had Weinman side pulls. V and
dual pivot brakes need less cable tension. I don't know whether the
cable/nipple connection has improved over time.

It probably also depends on what sort of rider you are. Some people start
slowing down a long way from junctions. I like to let it roll and brake
late.

[TMS320]

"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

One difference between you and I is that I am able to apply maths to various
problems.

If the edge of a cliff was approached at 15mph and braking was left to the
last moment because it was anticipated that full braking was going to be
available but which turns out to not be available there is just 1 second in
which to think "oh bugger" and to...

You have also to bear in mind that so long as brakes work, applying them 1
second before a drop dead point means that 2 seconds eventually elapse
before arrival (time to arrival is related to average speed, not starting
speed). So seeing someone taking a certain time to stop with working brakes
and assuming that that would be the time available to make alternative
arrangements doesn't follow.

> Even you cannot possibly be as stupid as that, or can you?

I wouldn't be so stupid to play chicken that close to a cliff edge.

[Mrcheerful]

and once again the psycholist slips and slithers to avoid answering the
question.

[TMS320]

"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

To your first sentence ending with a question mark. No, not possible.

To the second sentence. Also no.

Reasons given.

I forgot, though it is superfluous. When falling off it takes about half a
second to travel the distance between bike and ground.

If you did your demonstration you could also try to prove the maths is
wrong.

[Rob Morley]

Just before they fail. :-)
Actually on a properly maintained bike cable replacement is more often
for convenience than safety - if you remove the cable to clean and
lubricate it, and it's too crushed or frayed to put back in the casing,
you replace it.
A common cause of failure (or near-failure) is when a barrel nipple
seizes in the lever - it should be free to rotate slightly as the lever
is pulled, otherwise it gets stressed where it enters the nipple. But
these days many levers with barrel nipples have a different design (the
bit the nipple slots into is hinged) where this isn't a factor.
Likewise where the cable is clamped to the brake arm, if it's free to
pivot slightly (or the angle of movement is minimal) there shouldn't be
a problem, although the clamped part will inevitably act as a stress
raiser to some degree. Poor fit between the cable and clamping
mechanism will cause more damage, as will over-tightening, but
occasional inspection should easily spot a cable that's started to fail.
Another thing to watch out for if you're not using stainless steel
cables is electrolytic corrosion where the cable contacts a dissimilar
metal (pinch-bolt or nipple). This can usually be mitigated with the
occasional squirt of WD40 to reduce the ingress of moisture.

[Mrcheerful]

I will repeat the question for you. If you are heading toward the edge
of a cliff at 15 miles an hour, on your bicycle and find that both your
brakes have failed, will you coast on (pun intended) over the edge, or
use another method (other than braking) to avoid your demise?

[TMS320]

"Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote
> "TMS320" wrote in message news:mk2hma$q6r$2...@dont-email.me...
> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

>>
>> A car mot does inspect things for fraying or rusting,
>
> Indeed. And what about things that show no visible sign now but will
> deteriorate before the next MOT? Do cars never need fixing between times?

> Yes, it's called servicing. Hope this helps.

People usually take their cars for a service at the same time as the MOT.
So. Do cars never need fixing between the MOT and service?

[TMS320]

This is ridulous. I gave an answer. So I repeat. One second from the edge is
no time for another method.

OK, it's my assumption that my brakes failed one second before the cliff
edge because that is when the pull is most likely to cause them to fail. How
much earlier and under what circumstances did you envisage them failing?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"TMS320" <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mk54c5$qvq$1...@dont-email.me...

Yes. But very rarely for major brake failure.

>
>

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"TMS320" <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:mk55st$1jf$1...@dont-email.me...

You could always do the usual cyclist thing and grasp at a few straws.

>
>
>

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mk54c5$qvq$1...@dont-email.me...

I've already answered this. The vehicles are serviced at the recommended
service intervals, which may or may not coincide with an MOT.
So cars are serviced between MOT's, yes. This service includes, as I've
already explained to you but you seem to be unable to grasp, checking on
items for any sign of wear which might in the future fail.
Which if the idiot cyclist in the original post had done, a fraying or stiff
brake cable or one that had unduly stretched would have been replaced long
before failure.
Which is what happens with cars. It's called preventative maintenance, and
as a result in the last twenty years or so I've never had to have any of my
cars fixed outside of the service or MOT times, apart from the odd light
bulb or tyre which has been spotted on a quick walk round the car.
Which is why, as cyclists seem to be too tight or stupid or both to maintain
their bicycles, a monthly compulsory MOT would appear to be appropriate in
the case of cyclists..
You can only do so much to counteract stupidity.

[JNugent]

You are incapable of standing your ground and arguing on-topic, aren't you?

[JNugent]

Not mine.

It's far too new for that.

HTH.

[Mrcheerful]

So you would roll on over the cliff. Good.

[TMS320]

"Peter Keller" <muzh...@centrum.sk> wrote in message
news:mk431d$guc$3...@dont-email.me...

It all depends, doesn't it? It's difficult to translate the view in the
video to the overhead in Google Earth.

[TMS320]

"Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote
> "TMS320" wrote in message news:mk54c5$qvq$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote
>> "TMS320" wrote in message news:mk2hma$q6r$2...@dont-email.me...
>> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>>
>>> A car mot does inspect things for fraying or rusting,
>>
>> Indeed. And what about things that show no visible sign now but will
>> deteriorate before the next MOT? Do cars never need fixing between times?
>
>> Yes, it's called servicing. Hope this helps.
>
> People usually take their cars for a service at the same time as the MOT.
> So. Do cars never need fixing between the MOT and service?
>
> I've already answered this.

Apart from getting confused between service and repair.

> The vehicles are serviced at the recommended service intervals, which may
> or may not coincide with an MOT.
> So cars are serviced between MOT's, yes. This service includes, as I've
> already explained to you but you seem to be unable to grasp, checking on
> items for any sign of wear which might in the future fail.

The reality being that a so called "service" is a duplication of many things
covered in the MOT and is an expensive way to buy a gallon of oil. The main
purpose is to keep the manufacturer's warranty in the early years.

> Which if the idiot cyclist in the original post had done, a fraying or
> stiff brake cable or one that had unduly stretched would have been
> replaced long before failure.

You're assuming that everything that can fail gives notice some time before
it finally gives up. Only in fantasy worlds.

> Which is what happens with cars. It's called preventative maintenance, and
> as a result in the last twenty years or so I've never had to have any of
> my cars fixed outside of the service or MOT times,

I wasn't asking about your car in particular. The word I used was "cars".

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mk5egp$63f$1...@dont-email.me...

I can see that you're struggling with the concept of preventative
maintenance, so I'll try to make it very simple for you.
If you noticed a fraying lead on your kettle, would you replace it
immediately, or would you wait for a member of your family to be
electrocuted before replacing it?

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:51:07 +0100, Tarcap wrote:


>
> Could it be because they are right?

Thank you greatly kind sir for vomiting to me from you that great honour!
Now please ejaculate to me the further accolades of being despicable,
belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, and contemptible.
Please? that would be lovely coming from you.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mk5egp$63f$1...@dont-email.me...

And I wasn't talking about car in particular. I was talking about my car*s*
over the last twenty years or so, which has been quite a lot.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:vvpemadraqi8i42g9...@4ax.com...
> "Mr Pounder Esquire" <MrPo...@RationalThought.com> considered Wed,

> I've had the wheel cylinder of an hydraulic drum brake fail
> catastrophically. by cracking in half right through the middle.
> Inspection afterwards showed a bubble inside the casting, which would
> have been a weak spot. Nothing short of x-rays would have found it
> before failure though, and I've never seen an x-ray machine at an MOT
> test centre.
> When it failed, brake pressure (obviously) dropped to zero, and I was
> left with just the handbrake. I wasn't even braking hard. The only
> event that I can think of which may have been the trigger was a
> pothole jolting the whole wheel assembly.
>
> As I was just slowing fairly gently for a bend on a country lane,
> there were no nasty consequences - I was just forced to take the
> corner faster than I'd intended, and using more of the width of the
> road.
> If I'd been approaching a traffic light in a town or city, it might
> have been a very different matter.
>
> In this bicycle front brake failure, as always with any failure event,
> it's impossible to know if the failure could have been predicted
> without actually seeing (or at least having a description of) the
> failed part.
> Without that, anything is pure speculation.
>
> And even so-called preventive maintenance doesn't necessarily help.
>
> Unless the parts can be absolutely guaranteed to have been produced
> and fitted to the very highest standards, you might just be swapping a
> perfectly good part for one with a manufacturing fault, or introducing
> a failure risk by poor fitting.
> Even aircraft suffer from that on occasion, and I doubt if anyone
> would expect all vehicle parts to be produced or installed the same
> very exacting (and expensive) standards as parts for transport
> category aircraft.

[TMS320]

"Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cso0v1...@mid.individual.net...

Bad example. Think of the product specification; there will be other
requirements as well as the one that requires it to pass electricity from
plug to kettle. It has failed when if it can't meet all its requirements
even though the kettle can still boil the water.

Continuing on. Lets say it meets all additional requirements but one day it
stops passing electricity from plug to kettle; a conductor has broken. How
were you able to predict that?

The key phrases below are "regularly performed" and "required resources are
available". A kettle lead is replaced when broken, not by routine: you buy a
new lead after it has broken.

http://www.maintenanceassistant.com/preventative-maintenance/

"Preventative maintenance is maintenance that is regularly performed on a
piece of equipment to lessen the likelihood of it failing. Preventative
maintenance is performed while the equipment is still working, so that it
does not break down unexpectedly.

Preventative maintenance is planned so that any required resources are
available.

The maintenance is scheduled based on a time or usage trigger. A typical
example of an asset with a time based preventative maintenance schedule is
an air-conditioner which is serviced every year, before summer. A typical
example of an asset with a usage based preventative maintenance schedule is
a motor-vehicle which might be scheduled for service every 10,000km."

[TMS320]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote

Dialogue doesn't have to be a continuous argument (besides, what you do
isn't even arguing). Nor I am required to reply to every post. I won't allow
you the pleasure of giving you my opinions about those two cases. You either
keep your prejudices to yourself or you get a reply in kind.

[David Lang]

On 28/05/2015 20:30, Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Mr Pounder Esquire" <MrPo...@RationalThought.com> considered Wed,
> 27 May 2015 21:08:31 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>

Almost a sane reply M'Lud.

Except that cars & planes are complex pieces of machinery and push bikes
are children's toys.

[Peter Keller]

On Thu, 28 May 2015 21:48:52 +0100, David Lang wrote:

> children's toys.

And very useful convenient delightful economical viable children's toys.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mk7tj5$82b$1...@dont-email.me...

Oh, you are living in the past, aren't you? :

http://www.pattesters.co.uk/pat-testing-faqs/how-to-PAT-Test-a-Kettle

It's called preventative maintenance. But then again, being a cyclist you
wouldn't want to spend any money on new fangled things like that, would you?

[Tarcap]

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
news:vvpemadraqi8i42g9...@4ax.com...

"Mr Pounder Esquire" <MrPo...@RationalThought.com> considered Wed,
27 May 2015 21:08:31 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>

You appear to be suggesting that worn out or broken parts should never be
replaced, due to the highly unlikely scenario that the new part might be
faulty.
More pearls of wisdom from Lord Justice Phil W Lee, perhaps?

[TMS320]

"Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote
> "TMS320" wrote in message news:mk7tj5$82b$1...@dont-email.me...

On the contrary. I'm being realistic.

> http://www.pattesters.co.uk/pat-testing-faqs/how-to-PAT-Test-a-Kettle
>
> It's called preventative maintenance. But then again, being a cyclist you
> wouldn't want to spend any money on new fangled things like that, would
> you?

I would love to know how much money you spend on testing kettle leads. Is it
more than £0.00?

Besides, PAT is mostly done to give some jobsworths a nice warm feeling that
they have a purpose in the world. And when it involves electrically testing
class 2 equipment, it is a particularly bad joke.

I asked you to tell me how to identify a conductor in the process of going
open circuit (particularly the earth lead of class 1 equipment as this is
the most critical for safety). You avoided giving an answer. Give it a try.

[Tarcap]

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message

news:0ofkmat5o1a8ften3...@4ax.com...

"Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> considered Fri, 29 May 2015 11:29:32

As you well know, that is not what I am suggesting.

Parts which are clearly worn out or damaged should always be replaced.
That is called repair, not preventive maintenance.

Nonsense, as usual. Replacing a part that is showing signs of wear but far
from broken *IS* preventative maintenance. For instance, replacing a cam
belt before the scheduled mileage, as you are about to embark on a long
continental journey is not only sensible but can save shed loads of money
too.
Were the old "still in date" cam belt to prematurely fail whilst in Albania,
then that would entail a repair. And a big expensive one at that.

Maybe you should pay more attention in your remedial English
comprehension classes.

Maybe you should have turned up at school once in a while, instead of riding
your child's toy all day long.

[Tarcap]

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message

news:g7gkma9jh0rqkhnkd...@4ax.com...

"Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> considered Fri, 29 May 2015 11:26:05

+0100 the perfect time to write:

>
>

Did you somehow fail to read or understand the following text, cut and
pasted directly from that link?

"To test your kettle's power cord, start by checking the cord for
obvious signs of damage by subjecting it to a visual inspection.
You're looking for exposed wires, breaks in the insulation, poor
connection to the plug socket etc. If you do spot anything, fail the
cable immediately."

Wow, clearly and obviously visible damage is a reason for instant
failure - who'd have thunk?
And replacing something which has failed, is not preventative - it's
remedial.

BTW, in a former job I had to assemble and test electrical connections
for submersible 3-phase borehole water pumps, where there is no margin
at all for error. If the insulation on the cable or it's jointing are
anything less than perfect, it WILL fail, which in many cases means
boring a new well (you can't very often get the old pump out of the
borehole once it's failed). So you ain't gonna tell me much about
electrical cable safety that I don't already know.

Well done - you have described preventative maintenance by testing down to a
"T".
Thanks for that.

[Mrcheerful]

The description implies a pre 1960 car with single circuit brakes, not
exactly regular transport these days.

[Peter Keller]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:50:44 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

> child's toy

My child's toy is a very delightful economical convenient viable form of
transport for many things.

[Tarcap]

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message

news:3vvpmadiat32v0cvv...@4ax.com...

"Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> considered Sun, 31 May 2015 13:52:53

Wrong. If you just replaced it on a schedule, without testing, that
would be preventative.
Once you test it and it fails, it is a FAILED PART, and it's
replacement is no longer preventative, but remedial.

But I give up - you are clearly ineducable.

If you find the part to be fail whist under testing, but before it has been
re-introduced into service, then that is preventative maintenance.
Yes, I would give up if I were you, you are clearly out of sync with the
real world.
But then again, you are a psycholist, so perhaps that's understandable.

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 09:10:23 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

> fuckwit

Thanks very much for that great compliment coming from you.
Now please ejaculate towards me from you the further honour of being
dogmatic and idolatrous.

[TMS320]

"Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote

> "Phil W Lee" wrote in message

> Wrong. If you just replaced it on a schedule, without testing, that
> would be preventative.
> Once you test it and it fails, it is a FAILED PART, and it's
> replacement is no longer preventative, but remedial.
>
> But I give up - you are clearly ineducable.
>
> If you find the part to be fail whist under testing, but before it has
> been re-introduced into service, then that is preventative maintenance.

Typos like that are the result of inadequate testing before introducing the
sentence to service. Fortunately it is not a life threatening fault.

> Yes, I would give up if I were you, you are clearly out of sync with the
> real world.

You still haven't told me whether you spend more than £0.00 on testing your
kettle lead. And have you worked out how to spot a failing earth
conductor yet?

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mkjs0e$2n6$2...@dont-email.me...

1). I spend nothing on PAT testing my kettle lead.
2). Yes, many many years ago, thank you.

[TMS320]

"Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote

Right. So let's remind ourselves of your quote that prompted me to ask the
question first time round:-

"> It's called preventative maintenance. But then again, being a cyclist you
> wouldn't want to spend any money on new fangled things like that, would
> you?"

> 2). Yes, many many years ago, thank you.

Then you should know that PAT doesn't do it. And by extension, that
superficial testing (eg, the MOT, visual on brake cables) always has limits
on what developing faults can be found. And btw, it is just PAT, not "PAT
testing".

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mkka10$is5$1...@dont-email.me...

Yes, I spent any money many years ago when I first purchased the three part
set of equipment which was needed then, before the all-in-one equipment
became available.
Obviously, it is not as quick or efficient as the new stuff, but just as
effective. Some say even more so.

> 2). Yes, many many years ago, thank you.

Then you should know that PAT doesn't do it.

But I do know that PAT can and does do it it. A higher than normal
resistance between both ends of the earth cable, or a leakeage between earth
and live or neutral will forecast impending failure, as you should well
know.

And by extension, that superficial testing (eg, the MOT, visual on brake
cables) always has limits
on what developing faults can be found.

Wrong yet again. It's not just visual. The handbrake, along with the
hydraulic braking system is tested on a rolling road device which measures
handbrake efficiency together with main brake efficiency.
Any underperforming handbrake will result in a failure, which would then
prompt a closer inspection, which should include looking for binding or
stiffness in the cable, among other things. Or if it's a newer electrical
handbrake, a check of the system to find out why.

And btw, it is just PAT, not "PAT
testing".

Thanks for that, I just fell into the normal and usual usage of the term. If
someone asks another " can you do some PAT testing for me", it makes much
more sense than " can you do some PAT for me"?
But hey, splitting hairs is the norm among the psycholists on this NG, so I
happily stand corrected on that one.

[TMS320]

"Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message

So you have spent money on equipment that can test your kettle. OK. But what
has "[not] spending any money on new fangled like that" got to do with
cyclists in particular?

I don't need to buy anything because I can cobble up resistance and
insulation tests with bits and pieces I have lying around.

>> 2). Yes, many many years ago, thank you.
>
> Then you should know that PAT doesn't do it.
>
> But I do know that PAT can and does do it it. A higher than normal
> resistance between both ends of the earth cable,

My observation of PAT is that it only does continuity. If it does a
resistance, I am willing to be corrected. However, it is no good someone
saying it measures resistance unless they can show they understand the
difference.

> or a leakeage between earth and live or neutral will forecast impending
> failure, as you should well know.

It wasn't part of the question but never mind.

> And by extension, that superficial testing (eg, the MOT, visual on brake
> cables) always has limits
> on what developing faults can be found.
>
> Wrong yet again. It's not just visual. The handbrake, along with the
> hydraulic braking system is tested on a rolling road device which measures
> handbrake efficiency together with main brake efficiency.

It only measures performance at the time of the test.

> Any underperforming handbrake will result in a failure, which would then
> prompt a closer inspection, which should include looking for binding or
> stiffness in the cable, among other things. Or if it's a newer electrical
> handbrake, a check of the system to find out why.

> And btw, it is just PAT, not "PAT testing".
>
> Thanks for that, I just fell into the normal and usual usage of the term.
> If someone asks another " can you do some PAT testing for me", it makes
> much more sense than " can you do some PAT for me"?

Yes, when ordinary people are conversing...

> But hey, splitting hairs is the norm among the psycholists on this NG, so
> I happily stand corrected on that one.

... but when but when you try to claim some sort of superiority you have to
get things right.

[JNugent]

That last bit is strictly correct, but you achieve nothing by insisting
upon it. Every electrical professional I know says "PAT testing". You
might just as well throw a fit when you hear someone say "PIN number".

[Mrcheerful]

and if you walk up to an electrician and say: "can I have a pat" you may
well regret it.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <ct6e74...@mid.individual.net>, jenni...@fastmail.fm

(JNugent) wrote:

> Every electrical professional I know says "PAT testing".

Every electrical professional I know also says its a legal requirement.

That's wrong as well.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

[JNugent]

On 02/06/2015 21:55, Paul Cummins wrote:

> In article <ct6e74...@mid.individual.net>, jenni...@fastmail.fm
> (JNugent) wrote:

>> Every electrical professional I know says "PAT testing".

> Every electrical professional I know also says its a legal requirement.
> That's wrong as well.

And?

[TMS320]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote

Times must be hard when electrical professionals have to have sidelines
carrying out PAT and giving language instruction.

> You might just as well throw a fit when you hear someone say "PIN number".

It depends on what attitude they're giving from the other words they're
throwing around.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mkkvft$b62$1...@dont-email.me...

Then your observance of PAT testing is wrong. Again:

http://www.pat.org.uk/what-does-pat-testing-involve/

> or a leakeage between earth and live or neutral will forecast impending
> failure, as you should well know.

It wasn't part of the question but never mind.

You can't cherry pick questions. If part of the answer is unpalatable to the
questioner but nevertheless very relevant, then so be it.

> And by extension, that superficial testing (eg, the MOT, visual on brake
> cables) always has limits
> on what developing faults can be found.
>
> Wrong yet again. It's not just visual. The handbrake, along with the
> hydraulic braking system is tested on a rolling road device which measures
> handbrake efficiency together with main brake efficiency.

It only measures performance at the time of the test.

Exactly - Preventative maintenance, exactly like I said.

> Any underperforming handbrake will result in a failure, which would then
> prompt a closer inspection, which should include looking for binding or
> stiffness in the cable, among other things. Or if it's a newer electrical
> handbrake, a check of the system to find out why.

> And btw, it is just PAT, not "PAT testing".
>
> Thanks for that, I just fell into the normal and usual usage of the term.
> If someone asks another " can you do some PAT testing for me", it makes
> much more sense than " can you do some PAT for me"?

Yes, when ordinary people are conversing...

> But hey, splitting hairs is the norm among the psycholists on this NG, so
> I happily stand corrected on that one.

... but when but when you try to claim some sort of superiority you have to
get things right.

But on the other hand, pedantry is still just as irritating as your
continual denial.

[TMS320]

Ah yes, thanks for that. It says continuity.

>> or a leakeage between earth and live or neutral will forecast impending
>> failure, as you should well know.
>
> It wasn't part of the question but never mind.
>
> You can't cherry pick questions. If part of the answer is unpalatable to
> the questioner but nevertheless very relevant, then so be it.

If you gave the answer as an aside, that's up to you. I only pointed it out.
But if you provided the answer because you think insulation is relevant to
conductor resistance, well...

>> And by extension, that superficial testing (eg, the MOT, visual on brake
>> cables) always has limits
>> on what developing faults can be found.
>>
>> Wrong yet again. It's not just visual. The handbrake, along with the
>> hydraulic braking system is tested on a rolling road device which
>> measures
>> handbrake efficiency together with main brake efficiency.
>
> It only measures performance at the time of the test.
>
> Exactly - Preventative maintenance, exactly like I said.

You should read the small print.

>> Any underperforming handbrake will result in a failure, which would then
>> prompt a closer inspection, which should include looking for binding or
>> stiffness in the cable, among other things. Or if it's a newer electrical
>> handbrake, a check of the system to find out why.
>
>> And btw, it is just PAT, not "PAT testing".
>>
>> Thanks for that, I just fell into the normal and usual usage of the term.
>> If someone asks another " can you do some PAT testing for me", it makes
>> much more sense than " can you do some PAT for me"?
>
> Yes, when ordinary people are conversing...
>
>> But hey, splitting hairs is the norm among the psycholists on this NG, so
>> I happily stand corrected on that one.
>
> ... but when but when you try to claim some sort of superiority you have
> to
> get things right.
>
> But on the other hand, pedantry is still just as irritating as your
> continual denial.

Denial of what? That when a bicycle brake cable failed it must have been
because basic checks for smoothness and lack of fraying can't have been
done. You seem to want to cling on an idea that a partial test of a
system on a schedule casts some sort of magic spell on the whole system
remaining reliable until the next scheduled partial test.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:mkmc29$j6o$1...@dont-email.me...

Denial in that you seem to think that waiting for things to fail, is far
better than regular servicing and testing of such things.
Which of course it is not, no matter how many times you say it.
I rather think that you should be put forward for some sort of special
Darwin award.

[Judith]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 10:00:47 +0100, "TMS320" <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>
>> Cyclist ignores red light and after quite a distance ploughs into the side
>> of a double decker.
>
>A broken brake cable really can come from nowhere.

He was at least four seconds away from the lights when they changed to red.

He was going too fast.

He was a cyclist.

[Judith]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 13:30:26 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>

>Squeezing / operating each brake to your maximum ability before you move
>off each day is quite a good plan, along with regular visual inspection
>and lubrication.


But that requires the cyclist to have common sense.