• The Exodus - 4th & 5th August1 year 50 weeks agoAs it turns out, the

    As it turns out, the Channings were perfectly able to cope with hungry/thirsty cyclists on Saturday and Big Andy behind the bar looked after my overnight bag.

    The way I feel today I'm wondering if I should've sent my bag with someone and slept in the back office...

  • Helmet debate: Chairman of brain injury charity wants Welsh Assembly to debate compulsory wearing1 year 50 weeks agoOldRidgeback wrote:The real

    OldRidgeback wrote:
    The real issue here is bad driving.

    Mis-use of the phrase 'the real issue' here. This should read, 'another relevant issue'.

    Anti-helmet lobbyists traditionally deflect the attention away from helmet use to driver actions. These two are not mutually exclusive. It is, contrary to all the arguments, possible for a bad driver to be responsible for a collision and for a cyclist to fail to mitigate the damage resulting from that collision by failing to wear a helmet. In such circumstances, it is clear that liability may rest with the driver but compensation should be reduced because of the cyclist's failure to mitigate.

  • Anyone bought anything cool recently1 year 50 weeks agoI didn't buy it recently, but

    I didn't buy it recently, but last Sunday I got first proper chance to use my Rapha Rain Jacket (bought in the sample sale for £50, before anyone crows about it) as opposed to my lighter weight pak-a-jak. Awesome piece of kit.

  • Helmet debate: Chairman of brain injury charity wants Welsh Assembly to debate compulsory wearing1 year 50 weeks agoI can't believe he hasn't

    I can't believe he hasn't mentioned the simplest and most effective way to reduce cycling casualties - ban cycling.

    Why not? Understand that, and you'll probably understand why he's wrong.

  • John Humphrys asks: who's to blame for cycle safety?1 year 50 weeks agoProblem is DrH. It doesn't

    Problem is DrH. It doesn't matter how much we make ourselves visible. A significant percentage of drivers are either blissfully unaware or dont give a toss about other road users. They are a danger to themselves and others everytime they put that key in the ignition. Maybe I was fortunate when I was learning to drive my instructor drilled me in looking out for other road users and not just vehicles. This I hope has stood me in good stead over the years.

    I totally agree with you that personal responsibility and co-operation is the way forward.

    @uksportive -cheers!

  • Helmet debate: Chairman of brain injury charity wants Welsh Assembly to debate compulsory wearing1 year 50 weeks agomrpuncture wrote:I still

    mrpuncture wrote:
    I still don't understand why people are so passionate about not wearing a helmet. Came off yesterday over the top on the mountain bike(I should stick to road!) and helmet took a fair old wallop...I was fine, but would i have been without a helmet?? Obviously anecdotal evidence is no good, and I'm sure that "evidence" can be found to support any view...but to me I can't see any reason not to wear a helmet other than your hair gets a bit messy and you get a sweaty line. A small price to pay surely??

    Well riding on a challenging MTB track does somewhat increase your risk of going over the bars. You don't have to wear a helmet in that sort of riding, but it makes sense. The same goes for skate park riding on a BMX or competition BMX riding. I wear a helmet for all of those. But I rarely do for road riding, because the risks of going over the bars are lower. And in road riding, the greatest risk to cyclists come from high speed impacts or crush injuries. Neither of which scenario would mean helmet use would make a blind bit of difference. The CTC's analysis of cycle accidents say that in about 3% of them would helmet wearing make a difference as I remember. We might as well require all cyclists to wear body armour, leg and elbow and upper arm protection, as I wear for BMX competition. Arms and legs are the parts of the body most likely to be injured in a cycle accident on the road after all.

    I'd be curious to see the statistics the chairman of this brain injury group has to back up his claims.

    As many people have commented on this site recently, those campaigning for compulsory use of cycle helmets are looking in the wrong direction with regard to safety. The real issue here is bad driving.

  • Helmet debate: Chairman of brain injury charity wants Welsh Assembly to debate compulsory wearing1 year 50 weeks agodave_atkinson wrote:If I'm

    dave_atkinson wrote:
    If I'm walking past a building site and somebody drops a scaffold pole on my head, causing me a brain injury, am i then required to explain why i wasn't wearing head protection in order to receive full damages?

    the only differences between that scenario and one where a motorist hits a cyclist and is entirely at fault, so far as i can see, are:

    1) people (judges) think cycling is inherently dangerous
    2) cycling helmets are commonly available and walking helmets aren't.

    The truth is that cycling isn't really any more dangerous than being a pedestrian, or a bunch of other things where wearing a helmet wouldn't even be considered. Also, where does that argument stop? You can already buy body armour for downhilling - if i suffer a back injury in an accident that wasn't my fauly, am i negligent for not having bought armour that might have lessened the injuries? or knee and shin pads? if i am wearing a helmet and still suffer a brain injury, am i negligent because i wasn't wearing a full face helmet? or an MX helmet? where does my burden of responsibility end?

    We're dealing with a common (or judge-made) law system here in the UK, therefore much of the decision-making process is based on a combination of precedent and contemporaneous observation and opinion. That element of perception might, in this instance be guided by consideration of factors such as; the availability of cycling helmets (cf the limited availability of walking helmets), the wearing of helmets by professional road cyclists (cf the limited wearing of helmets by professional walkers), the growing body of opinion from medical professional in support of the contention that helmet-wearing might reduce the number/severity of head injuries sustained in cycling accidents (cf ... you get the point). The same goes for knee and elbow pads, full-face helmets, etc - they simply are not accepted into the consciousness as default safety attire, in the same way that helmets are. The measure is, as stated above, whether the party seeking damages, has done that which would be considered reasonable in all the circumstances to mitigate the damage. Most cyclists wear helmets (certainly in the public perception) and every cycling shop sells helmets.

  • USADA accuses UCI of self-interest as governing body insists it should handle Lance Armstrong case1 year 50 weeks agoMcQuaid says in his interview

    McQuaid says in his interview on this site that the whole attempt to form a breakaway league is dead and won't happen, but if this explodes in his face, I wonder if it might come back onto the agenda? Ultimately, I suppose it relies on the ASO changing allegiance.

  • Helmet debate: Chairman of brain injury charity wants Welsh Assembly to debate compulsory wearing1 year 50 weeks agodave_atkinson wrote:ermine

    dave_atkinson wrote:
    ermine wrote:
    drheaton wrote:
    Have to say that I wouldn't be astonished if courts started to take a lack of a helmet into account as mitigating factors should damages be sought for head injuries in collisions. It makes sense, if you could have reasonably done something to prevent some or all of your injuries and haven't then you're partly to blame for them.

    I'm not saying helmet's should be compulsory, just that if you don't wear one and suffer a head injury which a helmet would have prevented (or where a helmet may have lessened the damage) surely you have to take some responsibility for it?

    This is (pardon the pun) a no-brainer. Claimants in civil damages claims are always required to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable measures to mitigate the damage sustained and claimed. A court that fails to take such matters into account would be negligent and its decision would surely be subject to appeal.

    If I'm walking past a building site and somebody drops a scaffold pole on my head, causing me a brain injury, am i then required to explain why i wasn't wearing head protection in order to receive full damages?

    the only differences between that scenario and one where a motorist hits a cyclist and is entirely at fault, so far as i can see, are:

    1) people (judges) think cycling is inherently dangerous
    2) cycling helmets are commonly available and walking helmets aren't.

    The truth is that cycling isn't really any more dangerous than being a pedestrian, or a bunch of other things where wearing a helmet wouldn't even be considered. Also, where does that argument stop? You can already buy body armour for downhilling - if i suffer a back injury in an accident that wasn't my fauly, am i negligent for not having bought armour that might have lessened the injuries? or knee and shin pads? if i am wearing a helmet and still suffer a brain injury, am i negligent because i wasn't wearing a full face helmet? or an MX helmet? where does my burden of responsibility end?

    I don't have any statistics (and let's face it, stats will tell you anything you like) but I'd bet that accidents per journey made by bike are considerably higher than accidents per journey made on foot.

    Likewise the rate of head injuries per cycling accident is probably considerably higher than head injuries per pedestrian accident (assuming you include trips and falls, and other self caused accidents as you would include coming off the bike unaided or crashing into a wall etc...)

    Finally, I would expect the seriousness of head injuries sustained in cycling accidents to be more serious, on average, than head injuries received in pedestrian accidents.

    Would you say all of those are sensible guesses? Obviously without looking into the actual statistics I couldn't be certain but common sense would say all of the above would probably be true.

    In that case cycling is more dangerous than walking (just saying that there are X accidents for cyclists and a similar number for pedestrians doesn't take into account the vastly higher volume of pedestrian journeys, likewise injury per distance isn't a fair representation as walking journeys tend to be shorter but slower, injuries per hour of walking/cycling could be a better stat to use).

    By that extremely fuzzy logic based on wildly unverified foundations I'd say that wearing a walking helmet would not be deemed to be a reasonable precaution to take whereas a helmet when cycling may be.

  • Southampton Cycling Campaign calls for presumption in favour of cyclists involved in collisions1 year 50 weeks agoRoadPeace have a good article

    RoadPeace have a good article about stricter liability:
    http://www.roadpeace.org/change/safer_streets/stricter_liability/

    Wiggins' colleague, Mark Cavendish, spoke out on this subject in June:
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3451896.ece

  • Southampton Cycling Campaign calls for presumption in favour of cyclists involved in collisions1 year 50 weeks agoI agree it would be great to

    I agree it would be great to introduce this however in the meantime

    Write to your MP and if you can persuade all your friend etc. to do the same.

    Dear MP

    With the cycling successes of Bradley Wiggins and Victoria Pendleton cycling stories are very much in the news. Unfortunately that includes the death of a cyclist at the Olympic park. Surrey police have started a CycleSMART campaign because of the number of cyclists wanting to ride the Olympic Route.

    Wiggins appealed for more pro-safety cycling policies following the death of a 8-year-old man who was hit by an official London 2012 Olympics bus not long after Wiggins latest gold medal victory.

    As a cyclist I suffer from aggressive drivers and those who just seem ignorant of the dangers to cyclists so I echo Wiggins' appeal.

    Perhaps you could persuade the relevant powers to include a flyer highlighting the problems of cyclists with say the next 12 months of DVLA road fund tax reminders sent out just before licenses expire

    Perhaps a photo and message from Bradley Wiggins?

    I'm sure he would oblige and it would be a great initiative by the Government that I’m sure would attract lots of favourable publicity.

  • ENECO Tour Stage 11 year 50 weeks agochrisdstripes wrote:I don't

    chrisdstripes wrote:
    I don't really know what to expect, so I've gone mainly sprinty for today, primarily from teams that should do OK in the TTT, and then have 4 transfers for stage 3 once I've seen who's in form.

    Haussler
    Roelandts
    Boonen
    Bos
    Blythe (probably silly but feeling patriotic at the mo!)
    Kristoff
    Demare
    Guarnieri
    Rosseler

    Blythe has good form from Paris-Correze and BMC should do well in the TTT so not a bad pick at all.

  • ENECO Tour Stage 11 year 50 weeks agoYes i'm aware it's the other

    Yes i'm aware it's the other one. Gorka did me proud in Le Tour Big Grin

  • Anyone bought anything cool recently1 year 50 weeks agoMy Ribble Stealth - a De Rosa

    My Ribble Stealth - a De Rosa R838 with Athena for half the price

    Milltag and HBB are doing some cool Wiggo shirts and t's

  • ENECO Tour Stage 11 year 50 weeks agoNope, thats the other one,

    Nope, thats the other one, Its normally Gorka Wink

    But Jon has been doing quite well, just not going in the breaks Devil

  • ENECO Tour Stage 11 year 50 weeks agoNice Gkam got your compulsory

    Nice Gkam got your compulsory Izagirre pick Wink

  • Helmet debate: Chairman of brain injury charity wants Welsh Assembly to debate compulsory wearing1 year 51 weeks agoermine wrote:drheaton

    ermine wrote:
    drheaton wrote:
    Have to say that I wouldn't be astonished if courts started to take a lack of a helmet into account as mitigating factors should damages be sought for head injuries in collisions. It makes sense, if you could have reasonably done something to prevent some or all of your injuries and haven't then you're partly to blame for them.

    I'm not saying helmet's should be compulsory, just that if you don't wear one and suffer a head injury which a helmet would have prevented (or where a helmet may have lessened the damage) surely you have to take some responsibility for it?

    This is (pardon the pun) a no-brainer. Claimants in civil damages claims are always required to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable measures to mitigate the damage sustained and claimed. A court that fails to take such matters into account would be negligent and its decision would surely be subject to appeal.

    If I'm walking past a building site and somebody drops a scaffold pole on my head, causing me a brain injury, am i then required to explain why i wasn't wearing head protection in order to receive full damages?

    the only differences between that scenario and one where a motorist hits a cyclist and is entirely at fault, so far as i can see, are:

    1) people (judges) think cycling is inherently dangerous
    2) cycling helmets are commonly available and walking helmets aren't.

    The truth is that cycling isn't really any more dangerous than being a pedestrian, or a bunch of other things where wearing a helmet wouldn't even be considered. Also, where does that argument stop? You can already buy body armour for downhilling - if i suffer a back injury in an accident that wasn't my fauly, am i negligent for not having bought armour that might have lessened the injuries? or knee and shin pads? if i am wearing a helmet and still suffer a brain injury, am i negligent because i wasn't wearing a full face helmet? or an MX helmet? where does my burden of responsibility end?

  • Helmet debate: Chairman of brain injury charity wants Welsh Assembly to debate compulsory wearing1 year 51 weeks agoI still don't understand why

    I still don't understand why people are so passionate about not wearing a helmet. Came off yesterday over the top on the mountain bike(I should stick to road!) and helmet took a fair old wallop...I was fine, but would i have been without a helmet?? Obviously anecdotal evidence is no good, and I'm sure that "evidence" can be found to support any view...but to me I can't see any reason not to wear a helmet other than your hair gets a bit messy and you get a sweaty line. A small price to pay surely??

  • USADA accuses UCI of self-interest as governing body insists it should handle Lance Armstrong case1 year 51 weeks agoI have to say - much as I

    I have to say - much as I dislike the Armstrong cult and the cheating it personified, what REALLY gets me is the UCI.

    Is it any wonder that cleaning up cycling has been so very hard? The governing body is a cesspit of grasping hands and corrupt self-interest. We need a new organisation to oversee the sport - this could be the best possible legacy of the tainted Armstrong years!

    The only good thing about this is that the people at the UCI have no idea of how bad this makes them look - if they were to stay quiet and keep their heads under the parapet they might slip through relatively unscathed...instead they seem keen to advertise their corruption (along with their stupidity). To be fair though, camp Armstrong is probably twisting some arms over there: help protect me or i'll take you down with me!

    Well it's a lot more interesting than Eastenders...

  • Helmet debate: Chairman of brain injury charity wants Welsh Assembly to debate compulsory wearing1 year 51 weeks agoClaimants in civil damages

    Claimants in civil damages claims are always required to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable measures to mitigate the damage sustained and claimed.

    You also have to show that the helmet would have prevented the injuries sustained in order to have any compensation reduced. Since helmets were never designed for accidents involving cars, and all tests so far are from riding at 12mph, that's going to be quite difficult without carrying out some additional research.

    Also, if the likelihood of a head injury is similar to say, walking, is it negligent to ride without one? What if you wore a helmet, but had no driving license, bikeability or other such training? In fact, i wonder if a lack of formal cycle training or test could be classed as negligent too? or fluorescent jacket?

  • Proper Century Chat1 year 51 weeks agoI'm still in. August done

    I'm still in.

    August done with a nice 120 miler to Littlehampton on Saturday with not too much rain.

    http://app.strava.com/rides/august-century-16450207?ref=1MT1yaWRlX3NoYXJ...

  • ENECO Tour Stage 11 year 51 weeks agoMy team and most likely

    My team and most likely purist Wink

    Jose Joaquin Rojas (MOV)
    Marcel Kittel (ARG)
    Heinrich Haussler (GRM)
    Mark Renshaw (RAB)
    Adam Blythe (BMC)
    Kris Boeckmans (VCD)
    Andrey Amador (MOV)
    Jon Izagirre (EUS)
    Alexander Kristoff (KAT)

  • John Humphrys asks: who's to blame for cycle safety?1 year 51 weeks ago@giff77 Well said and great

    @giff77

    Well said and great constructive comments..

  • Helmet debate: Chairman of brain injury charity wants Welsh Assembly to debate compulsory wearing1 year 51 weeks agoWithout compensation culture,

    Without compensation culture, there wouldn't be a problem. The only people that benefit from compensation culture are lawyers, so make lawyers illegal Smile

  • Surrey Police issue safety warning to road cyclists after injury1 year 51 weeks agoGkam and Drheaton - + 1 from

    Gkam and Drheaton - + 1 from me - as a cyclist, driver and pedestrian (baulked when it came to trying a yacht on a road), I aim to be a responsible road user in all guises. I am pleased to see both sides treated equally in the Surrey Police message.