A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cycle Responders



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old November 15th 19, 07:34 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,516
Default Cycle Responders

On 15/11/2019 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:46, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 11:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 11:56, Bod wrote:

A cycle responder is a medically trained responder, such
as a paramedic or first aider that uses a bicycle to
respond to a medical emergency. They are used by
professional ambulance services to respond to emergency
calls and also by private and voluntary providers of
medical cover at events.

https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/c...cle-responder/

Â* Mr Pounder will respond with "utter ********".

And Nugent will say that TMS320 will say that it has
nothing to do with cycling.

You said without prompting:

"...it has nothing to do with cycling...".

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters) would be
better, faster and more capacious.
Â*
Â* I don't think that a motorbike responder would regard it
safe to do short cuts through pedestrian areas and shopping
centres like the cycle responders do.
Anyway, the average time for the cycle ones to arrive on the
scene is 6 mins. They are usually the first which can be
vital to saving a life.

As usual, you/Cheerless and Mr Pounder will find any pedantic
reason to diss cyclists.
You are the 3 SENILE MOANY OLD FARTS.

A cycle-riding "responder" (though much depends on the exact
meaning of that word - "paramedic" is what we look for these
days) is better than no "responder" at all.

A "responder" who gets there quicker and carries more
equipment and supplies is even better than a cycle-riding
"responder".

Is that better?

It's really all I said first time round, but you obviously
didn't understand it.
Â*
Â* Correct, I don't understand ********.

...or courtesy or grace, clearly...

Â*
Â*Â*Up until today I have tried that, but talking reasonably with
someone who is clearly obsessed with taking any opportunity to
diss any and every cycling post, has its limits.
I assume that you practice arguing in an empty room, because you
are an expert pedant.
Your argument against cycling first responders is typical of you,
even when shown the facts that they are usually first to arrive
on the scene and

They can only arrive first on the scene if they happen to be the
nearest. There is no way a cyclist can beat a motor-cyclist over
even a short distance, and for medium and long distances, there is
no contest.

To remark on those facts is not to "diss" anybody. It is a stright
statement of fact.

There is also the load-carrying issue.

"they resolve over 50 per cent of all incidents at the scene"

"Their average response time to calls is six minutes"

All very well, but they have to be very near to get there in six
minutes, never mind less than six minutes.

"Cycle responders are experienced frontline paramedics, fully
trained to work on their own and operate in busy areas that are
difficult to travel through in a car or ambulance. Staff on bikes
can get through narrow streets, pedestrian areas and shopping
centres very easily.They are able to reach patients quickly and
start to give life-saving treatment while an ambulance is on the
way"

Why not support them rather than pedantically bloody arguing over
trivial nothings.

A motor-bike is faster and better (particularly at load-carrying).

Why not just accept that obvious fact?

I should have added that your argument is clearly based on city
travel.

What about a county location where the distance to be covered to
get to an emergency might easily be ten or twenty miles?

Oh dear! it was clearly stated in the report I posted where they
were deployed:

"They respond to emergency calls in particularly congested areas of
the capital such as the West End, Heathrow Airport, Kingston town
centre, the City of London and St Pancras"

That makes some sense. A motor-bike would STILL be faster. Especially
since speed limits do not apply to emergency vehicles in genuine
cases of emergency. Have you ever noticed how motor bikes take off at
traffic lights (when the light has changed to green)?

It's hard to see what your objection to plain fact might be. You
surely can't argue that the bike is in any way faster or better than
a motor-bike?

If motorbikes are quicker, why do they use cycles?


That is the unanswered question.

Motor-cycles ARE faster. That is bleedin' obvious.

But of course, not everyone has the skill, confidence or licence to ride
a motor-bike.

Not me for a start (I rode on a provisional licence, back in the days of
yore, but never progressed to a motor-bike test, because an upgrade to a
car - actually, a van - beckoned.

How about you?

I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had about 5

different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at 17. Passed
both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a while.

--
Bod
Ads
  #32  
Old November 15th 19, 07:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,516
Default Cycle Responders

On 15/11/2019 18:34, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:46, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 11:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 11:56, Bod wrote:

A cycle responder is a medically trained responder, such
as a paramedic or first aider that uses a bicycle to
respond to a medical emergency. They are used by
professional ambulance services to respond to emergency
calls and also by private and voluntary providers of
medical cover at events.

https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/c...cle-responder/

Â* Mr Pounder will respond with "utter ********".

And Nugent will say that TMS320 will say that it has
nothing to do with cycling.

You said without prompting:

"...it has nothing to do with cycling...".

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters) would
be better, faster and more capacious.
Â*
Â* I don't think that a motorbike responder would regard it
safe to do short cuts through pedestrian areas and shopping
centres like the cycle responders do.
Anyway, the average time for the cycle ones to arrive on the
scene is 6 mins. They are usually the first which can be
vital to saving a life.

As usual, you/Cheerless and Mr Pounder will find any
pedantic reason to diss cyclists.
You are the 3 SENILE MOANY OLD FARTS.

A cycle-riding "responder" (though much depends on the exact
meaning of that word - "paramedic" is what we look for these
days) is better than no "responder" at all.

A "responder" who gets there quicker and carries more
equipment and supplies is even better than a cycle-riding
"responder".

Is that better?

It's really all I said first time round, but you obviously
didn't understand it.
Â*
Â* Correct, I don't understand ********.

...or courtesy or grace, clearly...

Â*
Â*Â*Up until today I have tried that, but talking reasonably with
someone who is clearly obsessed with taking any opportunity to
diss any and every cycling post, has its limits.
I assume that you practice arguing in an empty room, because you
are an expert pedant.
Your argument against cycling first responders is typical of
you, even when shown the facts that they are usually first to
arrive on the scene and

They can only arrive first on the scene if they happen to be the
nearest. There is no way a cyclist can beat a motor-cyclist over
even a short distance, and for medium and long distances, there
is no contest.

To remark on those facts is not to "diss" anybody. It is a
stright statement of fact.

There is also the load-carrying issue.

"they resolve over 50 per cent of all incidents at the scene"

"Their average response time to calls is six minutes"

All very well, but they have to be very near to get there in six
minutes, never mind less than six minutes.

"Cycle responders are experienced frontline paramedics, fully
trained to work on their own and operate in busy areas that are
difficult to travel through in a car or ambulance. Staff on
bikes can get through narrow streets, pedestrian areas and
shopping centres very easily.They are able to reach patients
quickly and start to give life-saving treatment while an
ambulance is on the way"

Why not support them rather than pedantically bloody arguing
over trivial nothings.

A motor-bike is faster and better (particularly at load-carrying).

Why not just accept that obvious fact?

I should have added that your argument is clearly based on city
travel.

What about a county location where the distance to be covered to
get to an emergency might easily be ten or twenty miles?

Oh dear! it was clearly stated in the report I posted where they
were deployed:

"They respond to emergency calls in particularly congested areas of
the capital such as the West End, Heathrow Airport, Kingston town
centre, the City of London and St Pancras"

That makes some sense. A motor-bike would STILL be faster.
Especially since speed limits do not apply to emergency vehicles in
genuine cases of emergency. Have you ever noticed how motor bikes
take off at traffic lights (when the light has changed to green)?

It's hard to see what your objection to plain fact might be. You
surely can't argue that the bike is in any way faster or better than
a motor-bike?

If motorbikes are quicker, why do they use cycles?


That is the unanswered question.

Motor-cycles ARE faster. That is bleedin' obvious.

But of course, not everyone has the skill, confidence or licence to
ride a motor-bike.

Not me for a start (I rode on a provisional licence, back in the days
of yore, but never progressed to a motor-bike test, because an upgrade
to a car - actually, a van - beckoned.

How about you?

I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had about 5

different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at 17. Passed
both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a while.

Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply in
congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush hour can be
as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.

--
Bod
  #33  
Old November 15th 19, 07:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Cycle Responders

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:30:36 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:03:19 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:46, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 11:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 11:56, Bod wrote:

A cycle responder is a medically trained responder, such as
a paramedic or first aider that uses a bicycle to respond to
a medical emergency. They are used by professional ambulance
services to respond to emergency calls and also by private
and voluntary providers of medical cover at events.

https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/c...cle-responder/

Â* Mr Pounder will respond with "utter ********".

And Nugent will say that TMS320 will say that it has nothing
to do with cycling.

You said without prompting:

"...it has nothing to do with cycling...".

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters) would be
better, faster and more capacious.
Â*
Â* I don't think that a motorbike responder would regard it safe
to do short cuts through pedestrian areas and shopping centres
like the cycle responders do.
Anyway, the average time for the cycle ones to arrive on the
scene is 6 mins. They are usually the first which can be vital
to saving a life.

As usual, you/Cheerless and Mr Pounder will find any pedantic
reason to diss cyclists.
You are the 3 SENILE MOANY OLD FARTS.

A cycle-riding "responder" (though much depends on the exact
meaning of that word - "paramedic" is what we look for these
days) is better than no "responder" at all.

A "responder" who gets there quicker and carries more equipment
and supplies is even better than a cycle-riding "responder".

Is that better?

It's really all I said first time round, but you obviously didn't
understand it.
Â*
Â* Correct, I don't understand ********.

...or courtesy or grace, clearly...

Â*
Â*Â*Up until today I have tried that, but talking reasonably with
someone who is clearly obsessed with taking any opportunity to diss
any and every cycling post, has its limits.
I assume that you practice arguing in an empty room, because you are
an expert pedant.
Your argument against cycling first responders is typical of you,
even when shown the facts that they are usually first to arrive on
the scene and

They can only arrive first on the scene if they happen to be the
nearest. There is no way a cyclist can beat a motor-cyclist over even
a short distance, and for medium and long distances, there is no
contest.

To remark on those facts is not to "diss" anybody. It is a stright
statement of fact.

There is also the load-carrying issue.

"they resolve over 50 per cent of all incidents at the scene"

"Their average response time to calls is six minutes"

All very well, but they have to be very near to get there in six
minutes, never mind less than six minutes.

"Cycle responders are experienced frontline paramedics, fully
trained to work on their own and operate in busy areas that are
difficult to travel through in a car or ambulance. Staff on bikes
can get through narrow streets, pedestrian areas and shopping
centres very easily.They are able to reach patients quickly and
start to give life-saving treatment while an ambulance is on the way"

Why not support them rather than pedantically bloody arguing over
trivial nothings.

A motor-bike is faster and better (particularly at load-carrying).

Why not just accept that obvious fact?

I should have added that your argument is clearly based on city travel.

What about a county location where the distance to be covered to get
to an emergency might easily be ten or twenty miles?

Oh dear! it was clearly stated in the report I posted where they were
deployed:

"They respond to emergency calls in particularly congested areas of the
capital such as the West End, Heathrow Airport, Kingston town centre,
the City of London and St Pancras"

That makes some sense. A motor-bike would STILL be faster. Especially
since speed limits do not apply to emergency vehicles in genuine cases
of emergency. Have you ever noticed how motor bikes take off at traffic
lights (when the light has changed to green)?

It's hard to see what your objection to plain fact might be. You surely
can't argue that the bike is in any way faster or better than a motor-bike?


Maybe you should write to the NHS and tell them they made a mistake in choosing pedal cycles over motor cycles.


"Responders" would need a licence for a motor-bike.



Do you have a licence for your goalposts?

  #34  
Old November 15th 19, 07:56 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Mason[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,244
Default Cycle Responders

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:34:14 PM UTC, Bod wrote:
I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had about 5
different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at 17. Passed
both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a while.


I believe that you could only ride mopeds of 49 cm3 and less at 16 and could only take a full m/c test at 17. I passed my m/c test at age 17.
  #35  
Old November 15th 19, 07:58 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Mason[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,244
Default Cycle Responders

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:37:45 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply in
congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush hour can be
as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.


Motorcycles are too wide to filter through traffic like a road bike can. I know, as I have ridden both.
  #36  
Old November 15th 19, 07:59 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,896
Default Cycle Responders

Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:30:36 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:03:19 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:46, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 11:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 11:56, Bod wrote:

A cycle responder is a medically trained responder,
such as a paramedic or first aider that uses a bicycle
to respond to a medical emergency. They are used by
professional ambulance services to respond to
emergency calls and also by private and voluntary
providers of medical cover at events.

https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/c...cle-responder/

Mr Pounder will respond with "utter ********".

And Nugent will say that TMS320 will say that it has
nothing to do with cycling.

You said without prompting:

"...it has nothing to do with cycling...".

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters) would
be better, faster and more capacious.

I don't think that a motorbike responder would regard
it safe to do short cuts through pedestrian areas and
shopping centres like the cycle responders do.
Anyway, the average time for the cycle ones to arrive on
the scene is 6 mins. They are usually the first which can
be vital to saving a life.

As usual, you/Cheerless and Mr Pounder will find any
pedantic reason to diss cyclists.
You are the 3 SENILE MOANY OLD FARTS.

A cycle-riding "responder" (though much depends on the exact
meaning of that word - "paramedic" is what we look for these
days) is better than no "responder" at all.

A "responder" who gets there quicker and carries more
equipment and supplies is even better than a cycle-riding
"responder".

Is that better?

It's really all I said first time round, but you obviously
didn't understand it.

Correct, I don't understand ********.

...or courtesy or grace, clearly...


Up until today I have tried that, but talking reasonably with
someone who is clearly obsessed with taking any opportunity to
diss any and every cycling post, has its limits.
I assume that you practice arguing in an empty room, because
you are an expert pedant.
Your argument against cycling first responders is typical of
you, even when shown the facts that they are usually first to
arrive on the scene and

They can only arrive first on the scene if they happen to be the
nearest. There is no way a cyclist can beat a motor-cyclist
over even a short distance, and for medium and long distances,
there is no contest.

To remark on those facts is not to "diss" anybody. It is a
stright statement of fact.

There is also the load-carrying issue.

"they resolve over 50 per cent of all incidents at the scene"

"Their average response time to calls is six minutes"

All very well, but they have to be very near to get there in six
minutes, never mind less than six minutes.

"Cycle responders are experienced frontline paramedics, fully
trained to work on their own and operate in busy areas that are
difficult to travel through in a car or ambulance. Staff on
bikes can get through narrow streets, pedestrian areas and
shopping centres very easily.They are able to reach patients
quickly and start to give life-saving treatment while an
ambulance is on the way"

Why not support them rather than pedantically bloody arguing
over trivial nothings.

A motor-bike is faster and better (particularly at
load-carrying).

Why not just accept that obvious fact?

I should have added that your argument is clearly based on city
travel.

What about a county location where the distance to be covered to
get to an emergency might easily be ten or twenty miles?

Oh dear! it was clearly stated in the report I posted where they
were deployed:

"They respond to emergency calls in particularly congested areas
of the capital such as the West End, Heathrow Airport, Kingston
town centre, the City of London and St Pancras"

That makes some sense. A motor-bike would STILL be faster.
Especially since speed limits do not apply to emergency vehicles
in genuine cases
of emergency. Have you ever noticed how motor bikes take off at
traffic lights (when the light has changed to green)?

It's hard to see what your objection to plain fact might be. You
surely can't argue that the bike is in any way faster or better
than a motor-bike?

Maybe you should write to the NHS and tell them they made a mistake
in choosing pedal cycles over motor cycles.


"Responders" would need a licence for a motor-bike.



Do you have a licence for your goalposts?


Every post you send gets more stupid.
But you are the clown of the group.


  #37  
Old November 15th 19, 08:09 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Cycle Responders

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:56:02 PM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:34:14 PM UTC, Bod wrote:
I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had about 5
different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at 17. Passed
both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a while.


I believe that you could only ride mopeds of 49 cm3 and less at 16 and could only take a full m/c test at 17. I passed my m/c test at age 17.


Me2. I had a 1977 Suzuki AP50, made just before the 30mph restriction came into affect.
Then a Honda 125 because the learner limit from 250 to 125 came into effect shortly after my 17th birthday and I had to take the 2 part test.
  #38  
Old November 15th 19, 08:15 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,516
Default Cycle Responders

On 15/11/2019 18:56, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:34:14 PM UTC, Bod wrote:
I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had about 5
different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at 17. Passed
both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a while.


I believe that you could only ride mopeds of 49 cm3 and less at 16 and could only take a full m/c test at 17. I passed my m/c test at age 17.

Not back in 1964 when I took my M/bike test. If I remember correctly,

it was provisional licence at 16 for bikes up to 250cc, when you passed
you could then ride any size.

I bought a brand new M/bike on my 16th birthday and passed my test about
3 months later. I started work at 15 years old and saved for a whole
year to get the bike on my b/day.
--
Bod
  #39  
Old November 15th 19, 08:20 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Mason[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,244
Default Cycle Responders

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 7:15:16 PM UTC, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:56, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:34:14 PM UTC, Bod wrote:
I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had about 5
different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at 17. Passed
both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a while.


I believe that you could only ride mopeds of 49 cm3 and less at 16 and could only take a full m/c test at 17. I passed my m/c test at age 17.

Not back in 1964 when I took my M/bike test. If I remember correctly,

it was provisional licence at 16 for bikes up to 250cc, when you passed
you could then ride any size.

I bought a brand new M/bike on my 16th birthday and passed my test about
3 months later. I started work at 15 years old and saved for a whole
year to get the bike on my b/day.
--
Bod


OK.
  #40  
Old November 15th 19, 08:21 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,516
Default Cycle Responders

On 15/11/2019 19:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:56, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:34:14 PM UTC, Bod wrote:
I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had about 5
different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at 17. Passed
both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a while.


I believe that you could only ride mopeds of 49 cm3 and less at 16 and
could only take a full m/c test at 17. I passed my m/c test at age 17.

Not back in 1964 when I took my M/bike test. If I remember correctly,

it was provisional licence at 16 for bikes up to 250cc, when you passed
you could then ride any size.

I bought a brand new M/bike on my 16th birthday and passed my test about
3 months later. I started work at 15 years old and saved for a whole
year to get the bike on my b/day.

Ah! found the law for 1964:


A brief history of the law changes that have effected learning to ride a
motorcycle since 1960
1960 - Learner laws introducedChanges to Motorcycle Learner Law

All new riders are limited to riding 250cc machines with L-plates

https://www.lightningpass.com/change...le-learner-law

--
Bod
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cycle Speed Limits on a normal Cycle Path? [email protected] UK 184 February 15th 07 08:59 PM
Cycle insurance that covers bikes locked to car mounted cycle rack? Curious_Orange UK 0 May 8th 06 07:38 PM
Idiot Vandeman & the His Idiot Responders Gary S. Mountain Biking 0 August 30th 05 03:15 AM
spin bikes (aka spinning cycle or group cycle) Chris Bastock Techniques 13 March 4th 05 11:10 PM
Which cycle computers do not use coaxial wires? [was: Tandem trike - How to mount cycle computer?] FLM Recumbent Biking 6 September 19th 04 08:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.