njee20

I've no issue with the offers thing on auctions - it just formalises the "how much to end the auction" chancers, although it's not something I ever use. I'm consistently surprised by people not using the offer on Buy Now items. I sell most stuff that way these days, unless it's just something I'm getting rid of in a clearout - in which case it goes on at 99p in an auction. I reckon about 50% of the time people just pay the full price. I tend to price in a bit of fat in a listing and will accept sensible offers, so I'm always surprised by it. Average item price is £150 - £200, so not super cheap stuff.

I'm really reluctant to perpetuate the grossly OT thread-within-a-thread, but as price setting is entirely their choice, and if they want to charge 'lots' (whatever that is) that's their prerogative, then it is a stupid question. You can appraise the model and decide if it's worth it. Asking the business owner "oi mate, why is your stuff so expensive?" is pointless. What, conceivably, would be the right (or indeed any) answer there, given "expensive" is wholly subjective? After all, a Bratchell EMU is really cheap compared to a CJM loco, or a car, or a house. I think I'd be pretty dejected if someone found it good sport to criticise my models purely because they didn't like an aspect of it (in this case the price). Don't like it, don't buy it, simple. Luckily purchase is optional. Now - can you create a Bratchell Models 321 thread to moan in please and leave this one alone :-)

Well it’s a question which is both stupid and rude in equal measures IMO, not sure what response you expect. Also, as said previously, shouldn’t this be in a separate OO gauge thread, as we’ve now got more posts about the Bratchell Models one than the forthcoming Revolution model in N!

But it's not an auction, it's buy now, it's just a classified advert. You're right, that wouldn't really work for an auction, where people would be bidding for different items. It's very common to find multiple drop downs for items though; sheet materials where you can choose size for example.

So where did the mk3a operate? Photos I've found show the SLE/SLEPs with the central vent, as above, plus Chiltern, the 442 mk3s, One/West Anglia ones all having a central vent, and thus presumably being mk3bs? Were the 3as converted to 3bs?

Haha, excellent!

Allusion or allision? An allusion alludes to something, surely it's allision? It's a great word, I like that very much. If it had been stationery then I doubt it would have been standing, just a soggy papery mess

It's possible the container got lost, happens reasonably often in stormy seas, struggling to think of too many legitimate reasons they'd release them in other countries. They're hardly in a position to wait for the cash! I want to see the Swallow one, it was looking superb!

Probably. Didn’t have time to get new suits made up, so just cover the logo of the (ir)relevant sponsor!

Submit good photos and a decent description listing the contents of the packet. It's a comparatively low value item and I'd assume everyone purchasing would do so on merit of your description, rather than because "a Carr's C1550 pack must contain x, y and z". I'd not get into whether it's factory sealed or not. Maybe you could swap it for a working Caps Lock key too?

Yeah I meant to take that photo out when I found the second one, but meh, you have to give way 50 yards further on to a side road too, with more bollards. It introduces conflict which doesn't need to exist. It's still not a cycle path I'd choose to use. I couldn't agree more that the roads are for all, that's precisely what I'm saying. Doesn't that mean that cyclists should be free to use them with everyone else, rather than being told that by doing so they are being arrogant? As a cyclist I don't want special treatment, the exact opposite in fact. Putting cyclists on a poor quality segregated path where they have to give way to cars and pedestrians doesn't achieve this. Yet planners are telling us that it's inconsiderate of cyclists not to use infrastructure, no matter how poor it may be. I'm not defending bad riding, or bad driving, or bad walking. We established long ago on this thread that a small minority of people, regardless of vehicle (including shoes as a vehicle) are idiots, but that's not what I'm talking about, and is irrelevant to my point.

I'm saddened, disappointed and terrified in equal measures by your stance. Segregation can work fantastically in certain instances, but it's not a panacea for cycle infrastructure. Segregated paths are often full of debris, pedestrians, dogs, the routes can be circuitous, and you have to give way frequently at side roads, with the added fun of drivers coming from behind and turning across the path without consideration of anyone using it. None of these things are conducive to them being a pleasant or safe place to cycle. This isn't anything to do with being inconsiderate, antisocial or wanting to race or whatever tripe you've come up with, it's about making your way from A-B in the safest, most pleasant way possible. Some are, of course, excellent, many are not. It's not a one size fits all solution. Would you use this? Segregated routes where adjacent to a main carriageway often simply end, leaving you needing to re-join the road, with no easy way to do so. If they're heavily used then they can easily become congested, and then are less safe. Look at London's Cycle Superhighways, they're not segregated in the main, but they're extremely well utilised, usually with at least 2 lanes of bikes (shock horror), and empower riders to ride in a primary position, where cars are then forced to treat cyclists as traffic, rather than relegating people to an ill-conceived segregated route where cars can make their important journeys without silly cyclists getting in the way. This is nothing to do with arrogance. Our infrastructure has improved massively in the last 10 years, cycling is a huge benefit for all sorts of reasons, and not just to the participants. Imagine if every cyclist was in a single-occupancy car, do you think that would be better? That we have planners lambasting people for wanting to ride their bikes, whilst showing how little they truly understand about it is a real shame. Your job should be to be disinterested, not to be writing off some of the most vulnerable users as arrogant, and flatly dismissing explanations for why they may adopt a certain position. Thank goodness you're retired.

Very interesting indeed! Stroll has been largely anonymous this year, but I don’t rate him as a driver. Kubica in the Williams would be good, be a shame for Vandoorne and Ocon if one was dropped and one was ‘demoted’ to McLaren!

You evidence spectacularly that you don’t. Not least because you’re dismissing what one says, on behalf of an entire, very vulnerable group, because he has a “vested interest”. Yes. In his own survival.

Some points are so far beyond “logical rebuttal” it’s not worth trying. A Smart ForTwo is 2.7m long and 1.7m wide. A road bike has a wheelbase of about 1m, and a width of c60cm, allowing for space around the rider. Therefore a bunch of cyclists 2x2 still take up less space than a single Smart ForTwo. Suggesting that cyclists riding side by side is akin to saying small cars should be able to drive side by side is crazy. Two cyclists side by side take up less than half a single lane. If two Smart cars also took up half a lane I’d be equally happy for them to drive two abreast, but they don’t. You see it with motorbikes quite regularly, particularly in urban environments. I really don’t think I can say anything else.

Nice to know the sense of entitlement isn’t just the participants. It’s great more people cycle, but sportives epitomise all sorts of things that are wrong with cycling IMO.

Sorry, the suggestion that 4 bikes is the same as 4 Smart cars is total idiocy, a strawman of spectacular irrelevance. The rest of your post appears to be a poorly conceived rant of similar merit. That you had anything to do with cycling in a professional career is slightly terrifying, but explains quite a bit! Do you mean lux, or lumens? I’ve not consciously seen lux quoted, but lumens regularly is. The actual brightness isn’t as significant as where it’s directed, as you’ll well know. The advancement in LED technology has led to an arms race in output, which on the one hand is great, but is a huge pain at the same time! My main light, which I never use on the road is 2,600 lumens, which is more than enough to light the entire road, but short of pointing it 3” from your front wheel it wouldn’t be appropriate on the road.

People die on all sorts of roads sadly, overwhelmingly when hit by a car or other vehicle. A cyclist dying is not, in isolation, proof the road was unsuitable, not least because I’d bet my hat that another vehicle actually killed him, not the road. Cycling events take all forms, true road races are rare, and are held with a rolling road block (or full closed roads). Racers must still obey the Highway Code though if a rolling block is used, and are disqualified for crossing a solid white line under such conditions. The vast majority of events are ‘sportives’ - which are non-competitive and effectively unregulated, riders can ride in bunches or dribs and drabs. I find them very irritating as a driver frankly, because the standard of riding is usually very poor. There’s usually a gross sense of entitlement by the participants too. Why do you stop for a horse, but not a bike? You are more inconvenienced by the horse, yet you afford them more courtesy.

Yes, that’s a huge pain in London on some of the bi-directional cyclepaths - people who feel the need the mount the sun on their handlebars and point it straight into your eyes. Wholly counterproductive given drivers will be blinded by it!

Because they take up far less width than any other vehicle... As said as well, a group of 6 is better arranged 3x2, it’s half the length and discourages stupid, unsafe overtakes Good to see we’ve now reduced to the usual “everything that’s wrong with cyclists” nonsense after some useful debate.

Rule 66 is “should”, ie it’s guidance, not law. Groups of riders are often better two abreast than single file, as they're half the length. I did preface my point by saying I wasn’t defending bad riding. I’m sure it wasn’t the intention, but the post could easily be read as “the infernal cyclist hampered my progress in my car”, by doing something they’re completely entitled to, even if you consider it discourteous. It’s not in the cyclist’s interest to get run over, so one should assume he didn’t do it to punish you as a driver. Something which seems frequently to be overlooked.

Yep, walking is great, but no use for larger distances, so it’s far from ‘the answer’. I cycle a 55 mile round trip to London from Dorking twice a week. It’s quicker than driving and cheaper than the train. I daren't think how long walking would take! In fact in London if it’s any more than about 10 minutes walk I usually take a Boris bike anyway!

I certainly don't disagree, but I do think the attitude toward cyclists would be different if everyone had spent time cycling on the roads. It'll never happen, for all sorts of reasons,. but I think it would definitely help certain behaviours, I'm always bemused by the not insignificant proportion of people who must get past a cyclist at all costs, even though they're approaching a stationary line of traffic. It's not uncommon to be overtaken by a driver already braking for traffic. At which point I simply pull around them, and have usually re-passed them before they've even stopped. Madness. I wholly agree that a bit of courtesy and understanding both ways would help no end. For me the difference is that some cyclists do things which annoy car drivers, some car drivers do things which endanger cyclists. How many car drivers have been killed by cyclists?

Not wishing to defend bad riding, but they're fully entitled to do that. Your intention to overtake doesn't take precedent over their right to occupy the space in front of you, and whilst it may be courteous to make your overtake easier, they're under no obligation to do so, even if you are indicating already. You say it was lucky you could see around the bend, but obviously you wouldn't be attempting an overtake in any capacity if it was a blind bend, and of course you were leaving at least 1.5m, so the fact they suddenly doubled up made no difference to you whatsoever... I do agree that making car drivers spend time on a bike (and motorbike) would be highly beneficial!

That is a huge issue - cyclists won’t use them because theyre rubbish. Drivers are annoyed because cyclists don’t use the infrastructure. Everyone loses.