My first thought would have been 'I hope no one saw that'!magnatom said:My first though, having got up from the tarmac was: I hope I got that on camera!!
I should point out it is a one way tunnel (there is another tunnel going the other way). There is no way no matter how slow I was going that I would have seen the glass and know that it was a slip hazard. Sure I wouldn't have came off, but if I was to cycle slow enough to ensure that I could never come off, I would be better walking. It's a risk/benefit balancing act.Tynan said:seen loads of people saying it makes them look slow
and to me that tunnel is plain unsafe, there's no vision around the corners and the surface looks unsafe and there's a great deal to hurt yourself on, that rail looks awful
hence too fast, he's wrecked because he hit something he couldn't see coming and then lost control, too fast for the conditions
from what I can see, I'm not sure I'd use it, my limited experience of specialised cycle routes is that they're full of rubbish and other obstructions
Oh contre. I think if they saw how easily a reasonable competent cyclist can go down, they would give us extra room on the road!Dayvo said:My first thought would have been 'I hope no one saw that'!
As much as I admire your crusade against bad and dangerous driving, I can't help thinking that if some of the motorists you have berated saw that, they would now feel more than a little aggrieved if they knew you just fell down at the drop of a hat!
Glad you weren't injured (except for your pride, of course).
Fair enough. I do find though that because of the poor surface I can often hear other cyclists before I can see them. I suppose that helps!Tynan said:it's your risk, your call natch
you mentioned being lucky you didn't fall onto the railing?
last time honest, for the reasons of bad sight lines, crap on the surface and not much room to fall into, I'd be reluctant to use that from what I can see
Also on where the footage is - tunnels look faster, railings look fast, etc.magnatom said:Also with regards to cameras and apparent speed. My ATC2000 with the narrow field of view did make me look slower. This camera with a wider field of view makes me look faster. It is a variable of the camera.
It goes under the River Clyde... it is easier than cycling on water...neslon said:It looks horrible. I would loath having to ride down nasty wet rubbish & glass strewn windy tunnels. Don't they have roads in Glasgow? I would go miles out of my way to have a picturesque ride, rather than scrat about down dirty little rat holes like that.
Mind you, it looks nicer than riding in London
I actually quite enjoy riding down it. Down the straight I get up to about 30mph by the bottom (any more would be reckless! and it is a good workout up the other side. It takes about 15mins off my journey which is more time with the kids and wife at night.neslon said:No bridges either? Dear God, no wonder they need the oil revenues. (not that they would get spent in Glasgow...)
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Strange happening whilst cleaning bike||General Cycling Discussions||15|
|Erm... What happened to the post with the BBC News Quiz for the 18th October?||CC Cafe - General Chat||3|
|Property prices - what’s happening and predictions?||CC Cafe - General Chat||53|
|Next of Kin - What Happens if You Don’t Have Any?||Personal Matters||34|