![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#16 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"sean" <waneslash@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dd8669f3.0412290441.7ce00962@posting.google.com... > > I have asked people who I have passed if they 'felt' me approaching > before they heard me and often they said yes........how do we (people) > do that? We don't. The horse can see behind itself (cos its got eyes in the side of its head). he horse sees you, twitches and the rider becomes aware. T |
|
|
#17 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Danny Colyer wrote:
> sean wrote: > >> I have asked people who I have passed if they 'felt' me approaching >> before they heard me and often they said yes........how do we (people) >> do that? > > > Bikes with derailleur gears aren't particularly quiet. It's quite > likely that they heard you coming, but didn't consciously register the > sound. > > Of course, if you ride a fixie then that explanation won't work. > Stop pedalling a derailluer equiped bike and it is pretty quiet UNLESS you have those noisy Campag hubs. |
|
|
#18 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Mike Gayler wrote:
> "bob watkinson" <bob@bobwatkinson.wanadoo.co.uk> writed in news:cqufth$596 > $1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk: > > >>might be an idea to post this to a horsey type group to get a wider >>consensus, then report the result back here. >> > > Nice idea, but when I've asked this amongst horsey people I've nearly > started a riot, as they disagree with each other, and then end up > disagreeing with the point they started making. > Much better - in my opinion - to ask the horses - you'll get more sense. > what was that talking horse called on that TV show ? |
|
|
#19 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"MSeries" <skankmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:33i4t4F3shoquU1@individual.net... > > > > Stop pedalling a derailluer equiped bike and it is pretty quiet UNLESS > you have those noisy Campag hubs. Or knobbly 'banshee' tyres |
|
|
#20 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"MSeries" <skankmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:33i4vsF3shoquU2@individual.net... > Mike Gayler wrote: >> "bob watkinson" <bob@bobwatkinson.wanadoo.co.uk> writed in >> news:cqufth$596 >> $1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk: >> >> >>>might be an idea to post this to a horsey type group to get a wider >>>consensus, then report the result back here. >> >> Nice idea, but when I've asked this amongst horsey people I've nearly >> started a riot, as they disagree with each other, and then end up >> disagreeing with the point they started making. >> Much better - in my opinion - to ask the horses - you'll get more sense. > > what was that talking horse called on that TV show ? The one with the long face? Mr Ed. |
|
|
#21 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"Mike Gayler" <gaylers@atclara.co.dotuk> wrote in message news:Xns95CECBCB2287Agaylersifrancecom@195.8.68.206... > "bob watkinson" <bob@bobwatkinson.wanadoo.co.uk> writed in news:cqufth$596 > $1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk: > >> >> might be an idea to post this to a horsey type group to get a wider >> consensus, then report the result back here. >> > Nice idea, but when I've asked this amongst horsey people I've nearly > started a riot, as they disagree with each other, and then end up > disagreeing with the point they started making. > Much better - in my opinion - to ask the horses - you'll get more sense. LOL. I like it. It's not just us cyclists then ![]() > |
|
|
#22 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I should of said --- "people (including those not on a horse)". Sorry.
The Open University some years ago did an experiment to see if people could tell if someone who was behind them was looking at them. It was a very simple experiment that could be repeated anywhere. Conventional wisdom would expect about a 50/50 correctness. The outcome was that people were correct......60% of the time! Sean. |