[Closed] Road riding...

I just ride around the potholes. its just a part of commuting for me.

I think you need better lights. A proper road beam with a cut-off top will help you see whilst avoiding blinding oncoming traffic. If you ride the roads in the daylight, make a mental note of the worst areas and avoid or slow down a bit.

On my daily commute, I love the smug feeling of watching roadies in front of me swerve round potholes or sunken manhole covers, whilst I just plough over them on my full sus and barely feel them.

But yes, the state of the roads in cities is awful. I had a road bike for about a year, but stopped riding it and sold it mainly due to this (and the fact I didn't like the handling and general feel of it either).

Swap the road bike for a rigid 29er with bigger tyres.

I’m a roadie, mtber and commuter.
It’s a case of having good lights positioned correctly and also for night training rides only riding roads I know well. I tend to know where the potholes are.
Guys swerving around potholes are probably inexperienced riders, it’s no different than mountain biking, look ahead and plan ahead. If they’re swerving around potholes I’d also guess they’re not always checking over their shoulders before they move.

If you fit your light on your helmet you will have trouble spotting potholes because you can't see the shadows it casts. Put it on the bars and it will light up the contours of the road and you've a much better chance of spotting shadows.

As above, good lights are unsurprisingly beneficial. A proper (StVZO) road beam is best, and where you mount the light has a major effect on how well you can see road imperfections: helmet is no good, bars better, fork crown better still, and you can even get mounts for the fork leg or QR, but by then you're getting to the point where the low height is causing other issues. Most StVZO lights have reflectors designed to be crown mounted, but bar mounts work ok.

It helps to ride well away from the kerb or verge: normally no further left than the left hand tyre track left by cars and lorries. The main reason being that if you do encounter a pothole you'll be able to swerve left, away from passing vehicles, rather than having to swerve towards the centre of the road. It also often helps discourage people from squeezing through gaps that they really shouldn't… but of course the few proper bell ends will always find a way to do something stupid.

Why not just ride the Full-Susser on the roads then ? The speed doesn't actually matter.

It helps to ride well away from the kerb or verge: normally no further left than the left hand tyre track left by cars and lorries.

This. For me secondary is 1m or so from the kerb or about where the cars left hand wheels are and primary is where the cars right hand wheels are or 3m from kerb. This keeps you out of the worst of the potholes anyway and allows you to pass on the inside of them. I also chack behind me every 10 seconds and at EVERY hazard

The roads are pretty bad for road bikes in places - on my commute I know where all the bits to avoid are and just plan ahead so my lines are round them (not swerving).

I did get clobbered by a new one last winter that must have formed within a day or so of me not riding and I didn’t see it until the last minute and ruined a brand new rear wheel - had to get s new rim put on it was so bad.

But generally I don’t see a huge problem night or daytime - just look where you’re going....

You only have to ride a few miles from Camberley and you're on quieter country roads where traffic density is far less and therefore you're not forced to ride in the gutter. As said, decent lights plus once you're riding on familiar roads, you get to know where the potholes are and can position yourself accordingly. Don't, as suggested, put a helmet light when riding on the road as you'll annoy oncoming drivers, particularly on unlit roads.

All good advice above, night riding on a road bike is fine but you need good enough lights to cope with the speed, and ideally a road-specific beam.

I actually bought Stan rims and hope hubs for my full suss for off road use. I then put continental double fighters on the old set of wheels and used them for commuting. Got some strange looks but as an interim measure it was great.

Got bored off the faff of changing the wheels and the associated wear and tear on my bike and bought a genesis longitude for commuting duties. Maxis crossmark that roll well at 45psi and no need to worry about the pot holes.

The commute is 5km longer than it needs to be so I avoid the worse roads and I get some nicer scenery.

As for lights I use my Diablo on the helmet and race on the bars, although I'm aware some oncoming drivers don't appreciate it.

I'll always ride in the left hand wheel space but I'm pretty defensive so not worried about using the whole lane.

Is this why people have gravel bikes with 35c+ tyres?

Yes, in many cases. Gravel, Randonneur, whatever you call it - just road bikes with bigger tyres.

I did a road trip years ago on 2" Big Apples, inc riding in the dark and rain over potholed roads. A revelation. Haven't ridden below 1.9" / 47mm (on 650B mainly) on road much since. The whole Road Plus thing was great - the bigger tyres that were always tricky to find or expensive and with benefits of tubeless.

700 x 25mm on my 'winter bike' feels fine on good roads but rattly and risky on majority of them. Always did, I was just used to compensating for it. Bigger tyres now mean not having to worry about whether I have space to steer round a minor hole as a car begins to overtake, etc. It just gives me more options to stay safe as well as the added comfort and ability to take tracks as shortcuts. 700 x 25 really does feel like a race spec to me now - fine if you do race but otherwise not so practical.

where traffic density is far less and therefore you’re not forced to ride in the gutter.

NEVER ride in the gutter. It puts you at risk.

As @jameso says the bigger width/volume tyres have the same effect on-road as they have off-road. It's not that long ago that 1.9" and less tyres were the norm for mountain bikes - just checked a tyre hanging up: Schwalbe Land Cruiser 26" x 1.75", minimum pressure 80psi 😮 Now with Road Plus those sizes are being used on road.

My winter hack bike is an old On-One Pompetamine set up singlespeed with WTB Riddler 37c tyres. It's great as it'll deal with rough potholed roads and if I want to nip along a (dry) track I can do so without too much worry - the bike's a bit skittish in mud though. It's definitely slower on road, about 10% slower than if I'd 28c road tyres, but I can live with that.

I’m constantly scanning the road ahead like a hawk

Just made me think of:

As for your nighttime road cycling issues?

I'm afraid it's mostly a case of MTFU round town, and go find some quieter roads to ride, our local roads are destroyed (Reading) but that's due to the volume and weight of local traffic, 5 minutes out of town the tarmac smooths out as the rural traffic volumes decrease, so break out the map...

I still have a road bike with 23c. You just have to watch where you're going, same as on an MTB. I don't think about it any more, but I do avoid roads I know are bad.

Remember that as a mountain biker, you also have the skills to hop over potholes as well as swerve round them...

It's not just the odd pot hole round here, or just a few roads, it's all the roads are knackered! There's entire stretches where the whole surface is like riding over a Lego base plate. And there's not so much serving round pot holes as picking a route through a maze. Road riding is an uncomfortable experience, and I'm using 32c tyres.

So I’ve had a road bike (well almost, it’s a gravel bike with 28c tyres)

Sorry to be blunt, but is that not the answer right there...? If you're got a gravel bike with skinny tyres on it can you not just set it up with 40mm tyres (tubeless) and drop the pressure to 30-40psi or something?

Having just bought a bike with 650b x 47 byways on it I am blown away by the comfort on the road.

Pretty useful for mild offroad so far too.

I've tried road riding. Sadly it's crap due to potholes and ****s in cars/trucks/vans etc.

I reckon it's more dangerous than riding my mountain bike. Im left with eeking out a ride early morning Sunday on quiet back roads in nice weather. But then of course, I'd rather be on my mountain bike.

The infrastructure just doesn't work in the UK for commuting by bike.

I reckon it’s more dangerous than riding my mountain bike.

Depends where you go. Some people are a bit stuck with shite roads to be fair, but in most places there are quiet roads.

The infrastructure just doesn’t work in the UK for commuting by bike.

funny - I thought I lived in the UK and I have commuted by bike for 40 years

On of the reasons I commute the same route day in day out. you get to know the potholes and avoid them. Its rare they just appear.

Depends, you learn to navigate around potholes, riding in the primary position helps as 90% are on the kerb side of where a car's wheel would be.

I now commute on a gravel bike, not for the potholes but because it gives me a few options to skip the worst sections of busy road (especially the semi-rural a-roads with no safe passing opportunities e.g. 9 mile ride past Swinley). Also 35-40mm tyres smooth out the less than billiard table smooth tarmac that some roads consist of.

The solution is MTFU, technique and bike choice, pick (at least) two. Or find nicer roads, surrey is full of nice back roads once you get off the busy routes. Most of my non-commuting road miles are with a club which is much more fun.

jameso

I did a road trip years ago on 2″ Big Apples, inc riding in the dark and rain over potholed roads. A revelation. Haven’t ridden below 1.9″ / 47mm (on 650B mainly) on road much since...

I can second that. I've been using big tyres for years.

It's more comfortable, it's safer.

An unexpected benefit was how fast I could take wet negative camber downhill corners compared to the sketchy feel of skinny road tyres, so they're also skill compensators.

They may not appeal to the racers or the macho men, but I've found on a day ride of around 120 miles or so, my average isn't affected and I'm in better condition at the end of it.

And the even better thing is

[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/5104/5662722100_2446664561_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/5104/5662722100_2446664561_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

...the big volume means you can still take them just about anywhere on singletrack.

I think the op is being a bit......wet. i regularly road ride at and even with cheap lights its pretty straight forward as long as you dont ride like a sack of spuds. Yeah wider tyres will be more comfortable but 28's at 80-90 psi are fine.

Better lights and don't ride in the gutter. You'll probably find yourself riding the same roads, so you'll soon know where the potholes are anyway.

Cycling infrastructure on the road is generally pretty useless, derived from box-ticking exercises by people with no experience of cycling (at least since jumping over a couple of their friends on a Raleigh Grifter at the age of 9).

Choose your roads wisely. Some are delightful. Others are nothing but stressful.

as long as you dont ride like a sack of spuds

I think it's the opposite, be a sack of spuds, not a brick! Like skiing or snowboarding, if you're all tense and rigid and hit an obstacle, you'll feel it and maybe go over, but if your body is relaxed you can absorb the shock, it'd take a big sudden jolt to actually knock you off (like a soft top Beemer coming at you)

My simple rule is don't descend hills you've not ridden in the past couple of months at breakneck speed during daylight.

I rarely ride in the dark after sunset, but when I do, I much more cautious. For one, I usually ride without my mild prescription glasses and go for wraparound cycling glasses for protection, plus up in the South Downs you can can all sorts of animals including adult deer dart across the roads/lanes.

Due to early work starts, I commute in darkness during most of the winter, where I'll use anything from 35-100mm tyres on my fatbike, but shortly I'll be fitting some 28mm to the 29er wheelset for summer.

@epicyclo - nice photo. Given where you live my first thought was of the Beinn Dearg and Seana Braigh group taken from somewhere between Garve and Loch Glascarnoch but something didn't look right.

Are those the eastern Fannaichs?

The infrastructure just doesn’t work in the UK for commuting by bike.

funny – I thought I lived in the UK and I have commuted by bike for 40 years

It doesn't work for people who aren't stubbornly determined to put up with its many problems. You know, the sort of people who will…

I think the op is being a bit……wet

…tell you that if you perceive the problems and haven't yet worked out how you can mitigate them (or in many cases that you can't) then you need to toughen up, ie to be stubbornly determined to put up with them.

its pretty straight forward as long as you dont ride like a sack of spuds

Slightly ironic given that that was the phrase memorably used by a driver who drove into someone from behind having failed to see him even when he was on her bonnet during the collision: just one way in which UK infrastucture quite clearly doesn't work for commuting by bike, and one which you can't do anything about, you just have to be stubbornly determined to accept the risk.

whitestone

@epicyclo – nice photo. Given where you live my first thought was of the Beinn Dearg and Seana Braigh group taken from somewhere between Garve and Loch Glascarnoch but something didn’t look right.

Nearly right. 🙂

I was crossing from the Garve side to the Loch Luichart side and the along to the dam. Bike is pointing roughly West, and at the top of the wee bealach between Cnoc na h-Iolaire and Carn Fair nan Con - roughly NH 39669 60339. It was hard work.

Track was a bit rough and not much used, but there's been a lot of work up there lately so I must take another look.

I don't ride on the road much but I'm doing a 75 mile ride soon with work / for charity. My hardtail currently looks like this, and does pretty well on the road (apart from running out of high gears).

[url= https://i.ibb.co/31Y9zBQ/IMG-0071.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/31Y9zBQ/IMG-0071.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

[url= https://i.ibb.co/NjrDY4f/IMG-0072.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/NjrDY4f/IMG-0072.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Bez - I would say its about peoples perception of risk not what it really is. I ain't a "roadie" really - most of my road riding is commuting or utility cycling. However given that cyclists live longer than non cyclists the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risk.

I do ride on the edge of assertiveness and aggressiveness and am hyperalert the whole time checking behind me at least every 10 seconds and at EVERY hazard. I never ride in the gutter

Bez – I would say its about peoples perception of risk not what it really is.

That's true to a fair extent, but also kind of irrelevant. It's perfectly safe, and some argue beneficial, to drink your own urine, but that's not people's perception of it—which is why you probably don't do it.

If people don't perceive it as safe they won't do it and therefore it's not unreasonable to say that "the infrastructure just doesn’t work in the UK for commuting by bike".

My kids face the same risks on the road as I do. But when we ride to school we ride on pavements and shared paths. As does my wife, who doesn't like riding on the road. It doesn't matter how great the risk is; our behaviour is determined by how we perceive it. And in our family it's only me who's stubbornly determined to put up with it.

Demonstrating the point from the other side of the fence, my son would happily ride on the road, but that's largely because he doesn't perceive the risk. But then on the tandem a couple of weeks ago he had his first encounter of a driver not looking, and he was pretty shaken up. So that's him taking his first step along the road of choosing either to avoid the perceived risks, or to stubbornly put up with them. Same as we all do, regardless of how we rationalise that decision after the fact.

(Fortunately it was on a sunny day, our would-be assailant was in a convertible, and I can shout quite loudly.)

Bez, wtaf are you talking about. I thought the discussion was about bumpy roads. Maybe you should stop drinking piss?

It’s perfectly safe, and some argue beneficial, to drink your own urine, but that’s not people’s perception of it—which is why you probably don’t do it.

Why would it be beneficial to drink waste products your body has excreted and more oddly whats it got to do with riding a bike?

stubbornly determined to put up with it.

I just do not see it as that. I think its more " has a understanding of the real risk not the perceived risk"

whats it got to do with riding a bike?

Nothing, that's why it's an analogy. But yes, a rubbish one, I was in a rush. Let's move on.

I just do not see it as that. I think its more ” has a understanding of the real risk not the perceived risk”

Yes, there's a difference, but when it comes to the population at large you can't treat this like a mathematical problem of multiplying probabilities by some sort of valuation of the outcome. Humans are not fully rational, and even if they were this isn't a matter that can be simplified to numbers with any semblance of accuracy. Perception of, and reaction to, risk varies wildly between people, and between contexts for the same person.

You can't deny that if you cycle on the roads there's a non-zero risk of some tool driving into you and killing you. The probability of that happening might be very small, but it's not zero. If I'm on my own, riding round town, I perceive that risk as vanishingly low—but I still won't expose my kids to it. If I'm on a busy rural road I perceive it as a bit higher. If I've just been close-passed at speed by several people in rapid succession I perceive it quite acutely: on more than one occasion I've been left physically shaking as a result of exactly that.

Last time I was in London I was waiting at a red light when someone behind me drove through it at speed, somehow squeezing through the only-just-car-sized gap between me (in the middle of the lane) and the traffic island to my right. That wasn't the first close call I'd had in London that day, but it was the closest by some margin; one of the closest I've had. The risk to me, statistically, was exactly the same as it had been when I set off that morning, but by the time I'd finished the ride I'd had enough. I told the others I was with that I wasn't cycling in London again, and I meant it, and even now I haven't changed my mind about that. Statistics be damned: the perceived risk became too much.

Yes, there’s a difference, but when it comes to the population at large you can’t treat this like a mathematical problem of multiplying probabilities by some sort of valuation of the outcome. Humans are not fully rational, and even if they were this isn’t a matter that can be simplified to numbers with any semblance of accuracy. Perception of, and reaction to, risk varies wildly between people, and between contexts for the same person.

But that is because humans might be good at perceiving risk but not very good at reacting to it and making changes to reduce risks. So many threads on here about helmets and high vis clothing and lights and those who argue they're not required proves that some people just don't know how to take into account of risks and take steps and measures to reduce risks. I think you can reduce the risk of some tool driving into you...not to zero of course, but to a level where it is so low it is practically zero. But some people are not willing to take the necessary steps because though they recognise the risks they think that they are the small percentage of the population that will fall into the 'get away with it' category. How do you explain gambling...nobody wins at gambling...have you ever seen a poor bookie?....but people gamble because they think or are convinced they will beat the odds and win. That is where people fail. the mathematics of risk and probabilities are true and proven and completely rational....the reaction and actions of individual people are not rational and don't conform to the mathematical principles of probability. People generally don't act on perceived risk because they think they will get away with it...they play the odds and often end up worse off.

Thanks chaps. My light does have an elliptical beam for road use. It's only 450 lumens though (unlike the 8000 on my mountain bike). https://www.knog.com.au/pwr-rider.html?___store=knogcomau
It came with the bike. Trouble is, when I aim it high enough to see further than 4ft in front of me, i get flashed by cars. Obviously the cutoff isn't great. Need to find something better. Riding at 30mph+ down a hill in the dark is scary when you cant see too well.

I'll probably try some bigger tyres/lower pressures. How people get around on 23c with 100psi+ in them I don't know. I'm beginning to learn where some of the potholes are but there's so many.. Anyone know what size tyres I can squeeze on a specialized diverge A1 sport 2017?

I don't ride in the gutter, every dipped drain cover soon stops that and like you say better to have another way to turn than into the traffic. I've bunny hopped a few potholes when I catch them late.

I don't remember the roads being like this when I had a "racer" as a kid!

I don’t remember the roads being like this when I had a “racer” as a kid!

Maybe more of the councils (higher budget) was put towards road maintenance? I can't actually remember what the roads were like 40 years ago on my first racer (a tacky Raleigh Record Sprint with gold coloured parts) but I expect they were actually not that different.

So many threads on here about helmets and high vis clothing and lights and those who argue they’re not required proves that some people just don’t know how to take into account of risks and take steps and measures to reduce risks

Or some people understand that the risk reduction of wearing a helmet and hi viz is quite small compared to riding in a a defensive/assertive manner and taking steps to be seen and extend views by adjusting road position etc rather than buying a yellow tabard and riding like a tool

Never take a swig from Bez's bidon on a road ride.

Risk management:

You're riding along a narrow potholed rough country road. The edges of the tarmac are carved into ruts from vehicles putting wheels off the side to squeeze past each other leaving a sharp edge rut, there's a heavily vegetated small raised verge, and a few feet off it a barbed wire fence, or a ditch, or a wall, or a combination.

You're in the recommended position. Coming towards you is one vehicle, and behind judging from the Doppler effect is another coming up fast and obviously not slowing down for you.

Three arriving simultaneously at the same spot in the road will not go.

What do you do?

Rely on your hi-vis jacket, dominant road position, and driving skill of Hot-rod Harry behind you - who is now even closer?

Or rely on your large volume tyres to be like a mtb and take to the verge where you are guaranteed safety?

Oh, and welcome to the NC500 in peak season. 🙂

450 lumens isn’t much especially if you’re pointing it ahead. I’m probably over cautious as i have two lights, 750 Bontrager ion is used to point left and ahead, 450 lumen is pointing in front and ahead.
My commute is very dark, I think my biggest risk is from animals coming out of the hedgerows.

Todays ride was a new one on me, was a different group to mine so its a second hand account. Car overtakes group on descent, gets halfway past and runs out of road pulls into group so close to front riders the car does an automatic emergency stop. Those behind pile into back, one goes through rear window. Luckily every seems to be basically OK.

Trouble is, when I aim it high enough to see further than 4ft in front of me, i get flashed by cars. Obviously the cutoff isn’t great.

Elliptical beams aren't cut off, they're just stretched, and you'll always have that problem with an elliptical or circular beam. Look for StVZO approved beams; they not only keep the light in the right place, they send more into the distance than the nearfield, which means that this…

450 lumens isn’t much especially if you’re pointing it ahead.

…isn't entirely true. The Lezyne Pro Lite puts out 290 lumens in an StVZO beam and it's plenty bright enough; brighter than numerous dynamo lights I've used extensively and at decent speed. If the light's in the right place you need far less of it.

But that is because humans might be good at perceiving risk but not very good at reacting to it and making changes to reduce risks.

See, I think your post is kind of evidence of that: it's rather self-contradictory:

So many threads on here about helmets and high vis clothing and lights and those who argue they’re not required proves that some people just don’t know how to take into account of risks and take steps and measures to reduce risks.

I take it you're saying "people who don't use helmets and hi-viz are not very good at reacting to risk", but I'd suggest that often it's the exact reverse: people often see them as a talisman. The people who put a helmet on their kids (or themelves) with it hanging off the back of their heads with loose straps and thus more likely to worsen injury than reduce it; the people who wear green hi-viz on sunny days on tree-lined roads and thus camouflaging themselves more than standing out. Which isn't to say that helmets and hi-viz are always a daft idea, it's to say that being dogmatic about needing them is no less daft than being dogmatic about them being useless.

In any case there are two separate parts of risk: probability and consequence. I don't wish to turn this into a helmet thread by any means, but they're a classic are where people fail to distinguish the two. Large amounts of research point clearly to two things: helmets tend to reduce the consequence of an event, but by affecting the behaviour of both the wearer and those around them they increase the risk of a consequence occurring.

FWIW I've just been out on the tandem with my son. Neither of us wore helmets or hi-viz. We reduced our risk by riding in a calm manner and mostly on a disused railway line. Generally I'd far rather do that than expose myself—let alone him—to risks with much greater consequences and put my faith in a polystyrene hat to deal with them. The risk we faced was to all intents and purposes greater than for walking: would you say that people crossing the street fail to take risks into account and don't take measures to reduce them?

I think you can reduce the risk of some tool driving into you…not to zero of course, but to a level where it is so low it is practically zero.

To an extent I agree. There are some types of event for which you can usefully reduce risk (in some cases by way of a degree of inconvenience, and in many cases only through experience—which doesn't help novices) and there are some—primarily being driven into from behind by a distracted driver—for which you essentially cannot.

(By the way, I notice you don't say that "you can reduce the risk of making use of a helmet… not to zero of course, but to a level where it is so low it is practically zero". Yet you have far more control over that probability than you do over someone driving into you.)

But I can't square that argument with your next one:

But some people are not willing to take the necessary steps because though they recognise the risks they think that they are the small percentage of the population that will fall into the ‘get away with it’ category.

Your post is a response to my argument that people quite normally and reasonably (whether rationally or irrationally) react to risk in different ways, and many will simply not cycle as a result. Your previous argument was that by being awesome you can make your risk really small and therefore you can get away with it, but then you imply that people are daft for thinking that they're part of the population who can get away with it. Which is it? Risk is never zero, so if you do anything you're accepting whatever risk you perceive, regardless of the extent to which you've acted to minimise it, and thus thinking you'll "get away with it" (or that you won't but you're fine with the consequences).

People generally don’t act on perceived risk because they think they will get away with it…they play the odds and often end up worse off.

I disagree, at least within the context of this thread. My wife perceives risk on the road and she acts on it by not riding on the road. Again, you seem to be arguing against my point that people do this by saying that people under-react to risk. That doesn't make sense.

There's lumens and lumens. I have a Light and Motion Urban 500 and I can ride on it in low, which is 150lm (so they say) in the countryside. It's a bit dim for a fast downhill but it's still manageable. On medium which is I think 300lm, not sure - it's fine. But this is because it's a spot. I also have a Lezyne Macro 800XL which is more flood, and I need many more lumens to see where I'm going because so many of the lumens are sprayed all over the hedgerows instead of the road where I need them.