Recent comments

> Boris Bikes

You have to feel sorry for Barclays Bank: I guess they hoped they would be known as "Barclay Bikes".
No, wait: they are a bank. Ha Ha Ha !!

I rode my first sportive last year after re-starting road cycling after a long lay off. I agree with "ilovemytinbred" but would add discover the pace you are comfortable with and can maintain from your "sunday rides". A bike computer or simple log helps here.
When it comes to groups you may well find that their pace is a little too hot for you and although it can be tempting to try and keep up you could find yourself burnt up before you get round. I think this particularly so in the first miles so don't go off too fast, better to start slower and finish strong i think. Most of all enjoy yourself.

Thanks Bazzarch, that makes sense to me - it's been nagging away at me ever since I wrote the original story about the mini-drome and couldn't find anything out about kloides anywhere.

Oh Christ here we go again - "wearing a helmet saved my life"!

Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. There is a wealth of studies on both sides of the debate but the studies which support helmet use are almost all "case control studies" - comparing helmet users with a control group which is inherently difficult to find and involves selection methodologies which can introduce bias. Studies which cast doubt on the real benefit of helmets are whole-population studies - they compare incidence of head injury in entire populations such as Autralia, New Zealand and the USA as helmet use increases, (due to copulsion in Oz and NZ but not in other countries) so for example in the USA helmet use trebled and cycling did not increase but head injuries increased by 10% anyway.

Actually, simliar methodologies to teh case-cintrol studies which support cycle helmets also indicate that pedestrians and motorists would benefit from wearing them. Indeed, I have heard that pub-goers would also benefit - not a measure they would get through parliament in Oz!

So many options with rollers but try programmes that vary, good warm up then thirty minutes at eighty five % of max followed by a good roll down. Try five minutes at twenty seconds spinning, ten seconds easy, forget those who say rollers are too easy, this one will get you in a lather, ten minutes easy then another five minutes if you feel like it. Variation is key, be inventive and look to find repeatable excercises that show improvements. Get a fan, a big one. Enjoy.

leopard trek, garmin-cervelo and sky all in very similar jerseys. I dont envy being Phil Liggett trying to pick 2nd place and down at all the major sprint finishes this year.

Hi,

Check out www.easycycling.com it's full of advice and is run by a true cycling enthusiast. There is a sportive training guide on the site.

AL

We have to accept that there are always risks present in life and there will never be a way to completely eliminate tragedies from happening. But I think it is important to keep things in perspective and not make knee jerk decisions based on tragic but infrequent events. I completely understand how a tragedy would have a fundamental impact on one's thinking. Cycling however remains a safe activity.

As pointed out, very many pedestrians suffer serious head injuries and DFT data shows that pedestrians (and drivers) suffer proportionately more head injuries than cyclists. However there is no call for pedestrians to wear helmets despite the fact that it would save hundreds of lives per year. Indeed my grand mother was hospitalized from head injuries when she fell walking to the shops. When she was treated in hospital the doctor did not suggest that she should have been wearing a helmet despite the fact that it would have certainly prevented the injuries. However when I was taken to hospital with a wrist injury after being knocked off by a car (drivers fault) the doctor asked why I wasn't wearing a helmet despite the fact that it would have made no difference to the injuries she was treating me for.

I put my case not to wear a helmet cycling to the shops the same as I put my case not to wear a helmet walking to the shops - the risks are pretty much the same, not zero but low enough. However I actively choose to wear a helmet when I am riding off road and riding fast in a group on road because the risks are demonstrably greater.

I have worn a helmet for a LONG time, 87/88ish. I am all for helmet use but not compulsion.

I have to say I feel the comment that it was only Australia's compulsory laws that saved JC's life to be somewhat disingenuous. He's basically admitting that if he hadn't been forced to wear one he hasn't the common sense to decide to wear one. I think this says more about him than it does about the helmet compulsion debate.

Whilst agreeing that a case hasn't been made for the overall benefits of compulsory cycle helmets don't think that "an old dear pedaling half a mile to the shops" isn't at increased risk without a helmet. I watched my girlfriend cycle less than a hundred yards up the road at around five miles per hour, turn awkwardly despite being a relatively experienced cyclist and die from the resulting brain injuries. The coroner was sure a helmet would have saved her life.

Feel free to make your own choice but don't think that low speed and even a complete absence of surrounding traffic don't merit any protection. A pedestrian falling backwards onto their head could suffer similar injuries and several street and even one supermarket queue fight recently ended up the same way. No we shouldn't wear helmets permanently, but on a bicycle even the simplest of mistakes or unexpected situations can cause your loved ones to wish you had taken that simple extra precaution.

Very pleased to hear of James' continued recovery. However the incident is really no case for compulsory helmet laws. If the driver was at fault why is the response to force the cyclist to protect himself from the mistakes of drivers? Evidence shows that in the majority of vehicle-cyclist collision the driver is mainly to blame. Plus the cycle helmet was not designed for this collision with a motor vehicle, if the onus is on the cyclist to protect themselves from cars by wearing helmets then surely they should be motorcycle type. If James had been wearing a motorcycle helmet I suspect he would have had less serious injuries.

Surely it should be a choice based on risk. If you are undertaking a grueling event across a continent where you are likely to be tired and pushing yourself, then the risk of accident is elevated therefore it makes sense to wear a helmet. However the thought that an old dear pedaling half a mile to the shops should be forced to wear one not based on any sense or evidence and is wrong.

So glad to hear a sensible comment on helmets. There was a news story a few years back saying that helmets made no difference - based on quoting medical statistics that showed that in the worst vehicle versus cyclists fatalities the helmet wouldn't have saved the cyclist -rather than analysing the thousands of cases where it did. Akin to not bothering with a lifejacket ad the ship goes down 'as it looks silly and won't save me anyway'. From personal experience of being extremely lucky and getting away with three days concussion after a helmetless crash in 1992 I have always worn a helmet since. To my mind there are two sorts if cyclist who don't wear them: those that haven't crashed without one yet - and those that have landed on their head too much...