Cycle Chic

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5479
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby Comedian » Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:37 pm

The thing that bugs me most about this is the headlight. Every time. :shock:

Image

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19075
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:20 pm

Image
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19075
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:32 pm

Image
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4111
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby Thoglette » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:28 pm

outnabike wrote:It amazes me the lack of knowledge of the post title of "chic" and yet the presentation of mainly chicks in the pics..... :)

At least most are lycra-free, which for me is part of the essence of "chic". It's about using a bike while still being chic. Hard to do in lycra and a stackhat.

But I'll plead guilty to using a source that has waaay more XX than XY photo subjects.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4111
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Your Monthly Scott Schuman

Postby Thoglette » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:34 pm

On the Street…Fourth Ave. summer, New York
Image
Not as "chic" as I'd expect but it's NYC in summer. But the outfit works and the suit for work is on the rack.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
WyvernRH
Posts: 2353
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby WyvernRH » Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:03 pm

Thoglette wrote:
outnabike wrote:It amazes me the lack of knowledge of the post title of "chic" and yet the presentation of mainly chicks in the pics..... :)

At least most are lycra-free, which for me is part of the essence of "chic". It's about using a bike while still being chic. Hard to do in lycra and a stackhat.

But I'll plead guilty to using a source that has waaay more XX than XY photo subjects.


Maybe cos (ahem) female persons tend to show more style, class and taste in dress than most of there male brethren?
Which tends to be my experience... (as a male admittedly)

Richard

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5332
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby Ross » Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:58 am

May need to be a Twittter user to see this

Image

RobertL
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:08 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby RobertL » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:56 am

Ross wrote:May need to be a Twittter user to see this

Image



Is her name Daisy?
Image

Arbuckle23
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:07 pm
Location: Mornington Peninsula

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby Arbuckle23 » Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:35 am

[Image

User avatar
Aushiker
Posts: 22218
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby Aushiker » Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:46 am


User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4111
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby Thoglette » Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:02 pm

Arbuckle23 wrote:Image

A lovely pair. But I was just wondering how much this'd cost if you did that today on a footpath in Sydney, after dark.

In WA there's about a dozen "penalty units" in that photo. It's all for our own protection, you know.

Some bureaucratic gnome wrote:212. Carrying people on bicycle
(1) A person shall not use a bicycle to carry, at any one time, more persons than the number for which it is designed and equipped.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
(3) A passenger on a bicycle that is moving, or is stationary but not parked, shall sit on a fitted seat designed for a passenger.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
(4) The rider of a bicycle shall not ride with a passenger unless the passenger complies with subregulation (3).
Modified penalty: 1 PU

222. Protective helmets to be worn
(2) Except as provided in this regulation, a person shall not ride a
bicycle on a road or any path unless —
(a) that person is wearing a protective helmet securely fastened on his or her head; and
(b) where any other person is being carried on that bicycle, that other person is wearing a protective helmet securely fastened on his or her head.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
223A. Passengers to wear protective helmets
(1) In this regulation — protective helmet has the meaning given in regulation 222(1).
(2) A person must wear a protective helmet securely fastened on his or her head when being carried as a passenger on a bicycle.
Modified penalty: 1 PU

224. Lights and other equipment on bicycles
(1) A person shall not ride a bicycle during the hours of darkness, or in hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility, unless the bicycle, or the rider, displays —
(a) a flashing or steady white light that is clearly visible for at least 200 m from the front of the bicycle; and
(b) a flashing or steady red light that is clearly visible for at least 200 m from the rear of the bicycle; and
(c) a red reflector that is clearly visible for at least 50 m from the rear of the bicycle when light is projected onto it by a vehicle’s headlight on low-beam.
Modified penalty: 2 PU
(2A) A person shall not ride a bicycle during the hours of darkness, or in hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility, unless the bicycle has affixed, to each wheel, 2 yellow side
reflectors complying with the requirements for reflectors in Australian Standard AS 1927-1998 (Pedal Bicycle-Safety Requirements) and Australian Standard AS 2142-1978 (Specification for Reflectors for Pedal Bicycles).
Modified penalty: 1 PU
(2B) A person shall not ride a bicycle during the hours of darkness, or in hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility, unless the bicycle has affixed, to both sides of each pedal,
yellow pedal reflectors complying with the requirements for reflectors in Australian Standard AS 2142-1978 (Specification for Reflectors for Pedal Bicycles).
Modified penalty: 1 PU
(2C) A person shall not ride a bicycle that has affixed a reflector capable of reflecting red light in the forward direction.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
225
(2) A person shall not ride a bicycle that does not have —
(a) at least one effective brake; and
(b) a bell, horn, or similar warning device, in working order.
Modified penalty: 2 PU
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5332
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby Ross » Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:19 pm

Image

Scintilla
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby Scintilla » Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:16 pm


dontazame
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:09 pm

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby dontazame » Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:43 pm

[quote="Scintilla"][/quote

Nice. Guessed it was from late 60's mainly by the vehicles/houses, but end credits said 1971. Lot fewer cars (including parked) on the roads. And simpler times / no helmets (or seat belts).

uart
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby uart » Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:57 pm

dontazame wrote:credits said 1971. Lot fewer cars (including parked) on the roads. And simpler times / no helmets (or seat belts).

Great video Scintilla. I was 11 y.o. in 1971, so very similar age group to those kids, and also rode my 3 speed "Speedwell" to school each day. Watching that was very nostalgic for me. :D

Yeah I loved those simpler times, lots of freedom, very little fear of "stranger danger" (or anything else for that matter), and almost every kid a healthy weight. :)

longbody1
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:24 pm

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby longbody1 » Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:16 pm

Image

The elegantly attired Che Guevara, in a former life as a bicycle tourist

fishwop
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:20 pm
Location: St Marys NSW

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby fishwop » Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:55 am

Clip-on engines for bicycles were very popular immediately post WW2, with motorcycle giants Ducati and Suzuki, among others, making their start this way. Seems somehow incongruous that someone like Che would ride such a thing though.

fishwop
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:20 pm
Location: St Marys NSW

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby fishwop » Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:11 am

dontazame wrote:
Nice. Guessed it was from late 60's mainly by the vehicles/houses, but end credits said 1971. Lot fewer cars (including parked) on the roads. And simpler times / no helmets (or seat belts).


Seat belts were mandatory in all vehicles sold new from 1965 on IIRC (in NSW).

This film was made around Kingsgrove-Bexley North in Sydney. Seems to me a good deterrent to kids cycling, given the behaviour of some of the drivers.

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7789
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby find_bruce » Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:53 pm

dontazame wrote:Nice. Guessed it was from late 60's mainly by the vehicles/houses, but end credits said 1971. Lot fewer cars (including parked) on the roads. And simpler times / no helmets (or seat belts).
fishwop wrote:Seat belts were mandatory in all vehicles sold new from 1965 on IIRC (in NSW).

Good memory, but not quite - front outboard mounting points were mandatory from 1965, but not seat belts themselves. There was no requirement to fit seat belts let alone wear them & while fitting front seat belts, even if it was just a lap belt, was common by 1971, wearing them wasn't. Wearing did not become mandatory until 1973.

duncanm
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby duncanm » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:28 pm

fishwop wrote:Clip-on engines for bicycles were very popular immediately post WW2, with motorcycle giants Ducati and Suzuki, among others, making their start this way. Seems somehow incongruous that someone like Che would ride such a thing though.


all the better to get to your next political roundup / torture / murder session as fast as possible.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19075
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby mikesbytes » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:59 am

find_bruce wrote:
dontazame wrote:Nice. Guessed it was from late 60's mainly by the vehicles/houses, but end credits said 1971. Lot fewer cars (including parked) on the roads. And simpler times / no helmets (or seat belts).
fishwop wrote:Seat belts were mandatory in all vehicles sold new from 1965 on IIRC (in NSW).

Good memory, but not quite - front outboard mounting points were mandatory from 1965, but not seat belts themselves. There was no requirement to fit seat belts let alone wear them & while fitting front seat belts, even if it was just a lap belt, was common by 1971, wearing them wasn't. Wearing did not become mandatory until 1973.

Is that front seat laws, or did it also apply to the back seat?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

fat and old
Posts: 3533
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby fat and old » Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:20 am

duncanm wrote:
fishwop wrote:Clip-on engines for bicycles were very popular immediately post WW2, with motorcycle giants Ducati and Suzuki, among others, making their start this way. Seems somehow incongruous that someone like Che would ride such a thing though.


all the better to get to your next political roundup / torture / murder session as fast as possible.


Not at that stage of his life; although his experiences on that and other journeys formed his outlook on life.....which in early '50's South America was pretty sad for anyone other than the wealthy elite (of which Che was one in fact).

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7789
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby find_bruce » Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:03 pm

mikesbytes wrote:
find_bruce wrote:
dontazame wrote:Nice. Guessed it was from late 60's mainly by the vehicles/houses, but end credits said 1971. Lot fewer cars (including parked) on the roads. And simpler times / no helmets (or seat belts).
fishwop wrote:Seat belts were mandatory in all vehicles sold new from 1965 on IIRC (in NSW).

Good memory, but not quite - front outboard mounting points were mandatory from 1965, but not seat belts themselves. There was no requirement to fit seat belts let alone wear them & while fitting front seat belts, even if it was just a lap belt, was common by 1971, wearing them wasn't. Wearing did not become mandatory until 1973.

Is that front seat laws, or did it also apply to the back seat?

Jeez you're testing me here - I oversimplified things in the above as it changed fairly rapidly - front lap belts were replaced with lap-sash belts in 1969, outboard rear seatbelts were required to be fitted by 1971, but as I said, no requirement to wear them until 73. Not sure when inner seatbelts were required, think it was late 70s, but could be mistaken.

One of the most peculiar aspects was that the laws only required you to wear a seatbelt if available - ie if your car had 4 seatbelts, the first 4 people had to wear one, the next 6 (or more) didn't. This didn't change until the late 90s, about the time they outlawed riding in the back of a ute.

duncanm
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby duncanm » Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:35 pm

find_bruce wrote:One of the most peculiar aspects was that the laws only required you to wear a seatbelt if available - ie if your car had 4 seatbelts, the first 4 people had to wear one, the next 6 (or more) didn't. This didn't change until the late 90s, about the time they outlawed riding in the back of a ute.


its called phasing things in. How can you insist everyone wear a seatbelt on day #1 if the car has none?

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7789
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Cycle Chic

Postby find_bruce » Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:35 pm

duncanm wrote:
find_bruce wrote:One of the most peculiar aspects was that the laws only required you to wear a seatbelt if available - ie if your car had 4 seatbelts, the first 4 people had to wear one, the next 6 (or more) didn't. This didn't change until the late 90s, about the time they outlawed riding in the back of a ute.


its called phasing things in. How can you insist everyone wear a seatbelt on day #1 if the car has none?

I agree - plenty of pre 69 cars still don't have seatbelts & in many cases cannot safely be retrofitted with a lap/sash belt. The point I was trying to make, was that until the late 90s a car with 5 seats and 5 seat belts could lawfully carry 11 people, as long as 5 were wearing seatbelts - it didn't matter if the extras were sitting on laps or stuffed in the boot. Since then a car with 5 seats can only carry 5 people.

Sorry for drifting away from the far more interesting topic of cycle chic. In an attempt to get it back on topic, here are 2 casually elegant people on a bike
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 10speedsemiracer, Ancientflatulence, ft_critical, jasonc, tomness, vitellan