linnega

Bikemax, we will have to agree to disagree. I see your point if you believe that aggressive (I would refer to call it assertive, but call it what you will) behaviour somehow negatively influences driver behaviour towards cyclists. I don't buy it and have seen no evidence to convince me that standing up for my rights and getting pissed when these are infringed has any negative impact on cyclists and cycling. I have tried the be nice and move out the way method. All that happened was that motorists put my life at more risk. I certainly wouldn't call it inflammatory unless the barrage that followed at the next traffic lights included expletives - which it sometimes does but again it depends on the context. Basically my point is the only way to get respect on the road is to take back the road. Don't go out of your way to piss motorists off but be bloody sure they know you are there and that you believe you have a right to be there.

Nellie - I understand your frustration and agree it is difficult to let go of your mother tongue when it seems English is taking over. Much like the Americanisation of everything. However, your example is a bad one as speaking in English on an Afrikaans channel to a presenter that understands and converses regularly in English is quite different from answering questions in Afrikaans when the person does not understand the language at all. Your example is a case of convenience, Cyclemania's point (and I agree with his opinion) is that Marissa's case was just rude.

If what ewep posted is true then the entire story was very poorly reported and a formal complaint should be lodged with the source of the report. Its been so many pages that I can't remember who originally published the story - wasn't it Naspers through News24?

I disagree - I think people that run over innocent cyclists deliberately either have a bone to pick with that specific cyclist or they are mentally unstable. The former overreacts to something specific done by the specific cyclist (press reports may have some impact on this but the fact of the matter is these idiots don't believe cyclists should be on the road so adverse/positive press reports don't change that) or the latter just cracks at any impulse. It is for this same reason that the turn the other cheek that some of you propose (or make way for the guy in the biggest vehicle attitude), I believe, is misguided. If a motorists infringes on your rights let him know. Preferably discuss the matter in a rational manner, but obviously that doesn't work when the guy is speeding off so a middle finger salute is a good option.

There is never justification for resorting to violence to solve a problem. However there are a few obvious missing pieces to the story. Konafan is right - you cannot hoot politely. Secondly, if he passed the cyclists by moving across, then there was no need to hoot. He just had to pass as it was clearly safe to do so (he did it). The cyclists would then have no reason, need or cause to move over. I imagine it went more like - motorist sits behind bunch of cyclists and hoots, cyclists indicate that it is safe to pass in the other lane, motorist hoots again, cyclists respond with a F* you and a middle finger salute, motorist races past hurling abuse, cyclists hurl abuse back, motorist continues to hurl abuse after having parked his car, cyclists take it a bit far, motorist doesn't back down, cyclists act irresponsibly. Up to the point that the cyclists actually started physically assaulting the guy, I have no problem with their behaviour. Delgado - that attitude does no favours for anyone. Motorists cannot justify assault with their vehicles as payback for perceived actions of cyclists. That same motorist is just as likely to run over an innocent cyclist for any other reason as he clearly is mentally unstable. You cannot guard your actions because of the possibility of retribution from people lack in basic human decency with mental instability.

The criteria are funny for the races. A large weighting is given to "atmosphere". How that gets measured is beyond me. Would have thought the Sani2C would be a good bet for MTB race of the year given the rave reviews despite the ridiculously difficult conditions.

I would go with the SRAM simply because not many people have it. Nice to ride on something different (coming from a guy with 3 Giants in the house).

The logic is that most climbs in a race are faster than when you are training on your own due to the benefit you get from riding in a bunch so you are less likely to use the 25. Personally I ride 12-25 on both and use 50-34 upfront. Use that gearing to claim I can't chase on the downhills/fast flats so i get more time to recover while someone else does the work.

My new Anthem frame with most of my favourite bits - Manitou R7 Platinum fork, RaceFace Deus II cranks, Gobi saddle, SRAM X9 bits, BBB bling seatpost (carbon effect), Juicy7 brakes. Excuse the commuter wheels - normally sports XC717 rims with Larsen TT tyres.

Ones I have that are worth something: l'Etape du Tour 2005 1-day GABRAN - 320km 2005 Jock 2004 Sani Pass Transfrontier Epic 2005 9 Amashova/National Classic medals Missing ones: Cape Epic Sani 2C Giants Challenge Comrades Marathon Paris-Brest-Paris (not this time!)

There is no separate rule list for cars. A pedal cycle is a vehicle and therefore all laws relating to vehicles apply to pedal cycles. In there you will read that all lights are to be solid beam. In the UK they have been fighting that law for years and only seem to be winning now - here we just ignore the rule and do what is safest.

It is also against the law to ride inside the yellow line, or not have a bell, or reflectors, or the fact that it is illegal to have flashing red lights on your bike. Or perhaps what about the rule about vehicles not being allowed to pass another in the same lane (no car may therefore pass a cyclist unless it changes lanes!). Should I go on? Based on the rules of the road, it seems that 53 people that voted on this forum are either ignorant of the rules or are lieing. As for my recommendation, I can't think of anything more responsible than recommending that cyclists do what improves their safety on the road as first priority. If that means contravening the laws then so be it.

Depends how many races, how many riders, whether your sponsor can get kit cheaper (eg Anatomic sponsoring a team would pay less for kit). Work it out from there. Maybe include some travel cost to push for a bit more.

That is the nature of equity - if a white rider has the same talent then he/she will be passed over for the black rider. It is fair in that most (not all) black riders have had less opportunity to develop into good riders than the white rider. What is unfair is that the failure of teams to address this problem earlier has meant that now lesser talented riders will have to be selected as quota riders. Not fair on the riders that get passed over nor on the lower ability rider that is selected purely because of his race.

Perhaps my flippancy about this issue is taken the wrong way. I choose how to approach every traffic situation in order of what is safest for me, what would interfere with other road users the least and then what is convenient to me. My consideration of the traffic rules comes in when I am considering convenience, up to then they unfortunately are inadequate. However, I am strongly of the belief that anyone attempting to follow the rules of the road to ensure motorists respect cyclists is misguided at best, but more probably foolish. Motorists do not have respect for cyclists in general and this is not going to change through respect of traffic rules. There is no need to befriend motorists - simply make it clear what your intentions are through eye-contact and hand signals, and for the most part you will get sufficient, if a little begrudging, respect from motorists.

Get a coach and structure your training towards specific goals. Contact Bikemax (either on here or through there website) and see what options are available.

I doubt that more practice is required as I have spent most of the last 23 years commuting by bike. There is always a higher risk when clipping in and accelerating as in both cases you use up more road and motorists do not allow the additional room that may be required in the 1 in 1000 times that the clip-in isn't perfect. As a result' date=' there if there is no reason to stop, you won't see me stopping. A badly designed stop is one that should be a yield as I said in my original post, and yes I do apply it when I am in a car as the same reasoning applies. Usually however, stops are there for a reason and I treat them with the respect they deserve.

That is the problem with all administrators in SA (and business too) - transformation is only given consideration when it is legislated. Otherwise it is by and large ignored and we have the situation where in many respects cycling is less transformed in 2006 than it was in 1996. I understand the frustration that people feel when the top teams are forced to include PDI's. Sadly it is the only way to force transformation at all levels in this country. The comment about having teams with 4 to solve the problem is typical of the attitude in this country. I see the same in many business that stay under the limit (40 I think) of number of employees required to be required to conform to the employment equity legislation. It is sad that South Africans appear unwilling to act as citizens in a larger community.