Full details of the Vélo Birmingham route have been revealed. On September 24, around 15,000 cyclists will pass through Herefordshire and Worcestershire via Sandwell, Dudley and Staffordshire before finishing their ride on Broad Street. An interactive map of the whole route can now be found on the official website.
Riders will encounter the official King and Queen of the Mountain climb, Stanford Bank, after about 30 miles. It’s just under a mile long with an average gradient of 8%.
Later, in the final quarter of the route, they will tackle St Kenelm’s pass, which is 1.5 miles at 5.2% – although it hits 10% in places.
Upon crossing the finish line, riders will be directed to the Barclaycard Arena (NIA), which is Vélo Birmingham’s official finish venue.
General entries for the event sold out within just four days of going on sale. However, it is still possible to enter via one of Vélo Birmingham’s official charity partners. These are the Alzheimer’s Society, Cure Leukaemia, the NSPCC and Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham.
There are also places on the Business 100 ‘VIP participation experience’ which includes a training ride with David Millar and former England rugby captain, Martin Johnson – plus an evening drinks reception with Millar and Johnson which will include a Q&A hosted by the cycling journalist and author, David Walsh.
Those not riding can also register their interest in being a volunteer on the day.
Jon Ridgeon, Executive Chairman of organisers CSM Active said: “This route has been a long time in planning and we are delighted to be able to finally unveil it. We believe it shows off the very best of Birmingham and the West Midlands and we are confident participants are going to be blown away with how spectacular the route is.”
54 thoughts on “Vélo Birmingham announces full details of 100-mile closed road route”
While I’m sure that this will
While I’m sure that this will be a great event, I can’t help thinking that it’s yet another fake race with a helmet rule “6.1 safety approved cycle helmets conforming to British Cycling standards are worn at all times during the Event;” Leaving aside the fact that there is no such thing as a “safety approved cycle helmet” this rule is absurd and dangerous.
If you really want to emphasise and advertise the fact that cycling is really, really dangerous, make sure that you have a helmet rule. The event is on closed roads, so no motor vehicle involvement, but you still have to have a helmet rule? Using rules from professional racing hardly seem appropriate for a very amateur event.
Perhaps these rules might be justified if the helmet rule for professionals had proven to be effective, but the death rate of professional cyclists has doubled since the helmet rule was implemented. In the 12 years before the rule, five professional cyclists died in competition, and ten have died in the 12 years since the rule.
Any competent organiser would be reviewing this data as a matter of urgency and considering implementing a helmet ban, otherwise they could be open to claims of negligence.
burtthebike wrote:
I guess it’s internet access day at the special needs school today.
SingleSpeed wrote:
I guess it’s uncivil comment day on road.cc
SingleSpeed wrote:
I do so appreciate constructive, factual and thoughtful criticism, especially that which states a premise and then goes on using logic and sense to prove it. Even better when such hilarious wit is used as well.
Thanks again, I’ll consider your so cogently argued case and ruminate for many hours until I have constructed a solid case with which to confound your arguments.
Meanwhile, perhaps you could stay away from the keyboard unless you have something useful, intelligent and constructive to say? Perhaps you could even check the facts, or would that be going too far?
burtthebike wrote:
Meanwhile, perhaps you could stay away from the keyboard unless you have something useful, intelligent and constructive to say? Perhaps you could even check the facts, or would that be going too far?
[/quote]
Well that rules out the vast majority of posters when it comes to the helmet or Sky debate lol – me included before anyone comes up with a witty reply
burtthebike wrote:
Well; you clearly like the sound of your own keyboard don’t you poppet. However, your choice of words carefully plucked from your trusty ladybird thesaurus don’t make you sound quite as clever as you think they do.
SingleSpeed wrote:
“Poppet” How quaint. Which thesaurus did you find that in? Mills and Boon perhaps?
burtthebike wrote:
I don’t think it is unreasonable for organisers to have a helmet rule for these type of events.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m very much against mandatory helmet laws for everyday cycle use. You only have to look at places like Australia to see the very negative effects these have on general cycling rates (with knock-on consequences on population health, obesity levels etc). I usually wear a helmet myself (except for quick trips to the local shops), but that is my choice. I don’t have any issue with people who prefer not to use one.
However, I have taken part in a number of closed road events over the years (RideLondon – repeatedly, Cardiff Velothon – twice, Tour of Cambridgeshire), and on nearly every occasion, I have seen participants injured in crashes, principally with road furniture, though sometimes with other riders.
People will ride fast at these types of events, and their skill levels will vary, and certainly not be up there with the pros. It may not be true of everyone (there will be people taking it much more slowly, for whom helmet use may be less important), but I think mandatory helmet use for this type of event is an acceptable principle. I suspect the organisers’ liability insurance will require it in any case.
Mystery Machine wrote:
I have been in touch with many organisers of these events, and have been told many times that this rule is imposed by the insurers. However, I have also many times contacted those very insurers who tell me they make no such imposition, presumably because they have access to the epidemiological data and are aware that at best helmets make no difference and do not reduce risk. Personally, I don’t have much faith in organisers who lie to me and don’t understand risk.
burtthebike wrote:
Just so I can put this in to context for my own personal evaluation of this scenario (as I cannot find the stats myself), over those 12 year periods what has happened to the numbers of professional race events, entry volumes and the fastest speeds?
ClubSmed wrote:
Just so I can put this in to context for my own personal evaluation of this scenario (as I cannot find the stats myself), over those 12 year periods what has happened to the numbers of professional race events, entry volumes and the fastest speeds?— burtthebike
Sorry, but I’m not your research worker. The information I have provided is correct and verifiable, but if you wish to do further research, may I humbly suggest that you do it your effing self?
burtthebike wrote:
He’s got you there, I believe this is the standard statement printed in all peer-reviewed scientific journals.
burtthebike wrote:
Fair enough, I did try and find out but was unable to do so and thought that as you managed to obtain the original figures you may have insight into where to find the rest (or at least point me in the right direction). As you refuse to do so (which is of course your right) I am forced to just dismiss that statement as half a fact.
There may have been double the numbers of fatalities but if the number of events or entrants (or combination of the two) have quadrupled then in real terms they have actually fallen. I do not know if the numbers have gone up or down but without those figures the fatalities numbers are pretty pointless in my humble opinion.
burtthebike wrote:
This is the only list of cyclists killed in cycle race incidents so I used this for the basis of my research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cyclists_with_a_cycling_related_death
It lists 6 deaths in the 12 years preceding the introduction of helmets to cycle racing. Of those 5 are head related and 1 is a collision with a motor vehicle.
Since the introduction of the helmet to cycle racing the following 12 years shows 21 deaths. Of those 5 are head related, 4 from collision with a motor vehicle, 7 Heart related, 1 internal bleeding and 4 not specifically reported.
So from these figures without the added data of increase/decrease of numbers of competitions/competitors all that it shows is helmets made no difference to the numbers killed as a result of head trauma.
ClubSmed wrote:
Thank you ClubSmed, my information was clearly incomplete, but your figures still show that helmets have made bugger all difference at best, and at worst, a significant increase. If there has been an increase in risk, it woudn’t just be from head related injuries, as other injuries would be expected to rise because of risk compensation, so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets.
burtthebike wrote:
Deaths of car drivers from cancer has risen since the introduction of the seatbelt too. That must be down to the seatbelt, can’t be anything to do with the increase in driver numbers or other factors 😉
ClubSmed wrote:
Fuck me. That’s so obvious I can’t believe no one has thought to look at that before. They must all be morons if they can’t come up with that like you did based upon your 15 minutes of intense thinking.
ClubSmed wrote:
— ClubSmed Deaths of car drivers from cancer has risen since the introduction of the seatbelt too. That must be down to the seatbelt, can’t be anything to do with the increase in driver numbers or other factors 😉— burtthebike
Quite the most bizarre, irrelevant and ridiculous response to a serious point that I’ve ever seen. Congratulations, you must be so proud.
burtthebike wrote:
Very closely followed by Ush’ comment
“Genuine question for you Leviathan: would you go up and down stairs every day without wearing a helmet? Seriously?”
burtthebike wrote:
Do you not think that the rise in deaths in professional cycling involving heart issues is more likely to be as a result of the rise of drugs in the sport rather than the use of a helmet?
I think that your suggestion that helmets cause heart attacks is just as irrelevent and rediculous which is why I made that mock statement.
ClubSmed wrote:
Just for the hell of it, could you please post a quote from me suggesting that helmets cause heart attacks?
You’re getting more than slightly desperate ClubSmed.
burtthebike wrote:
I’m not getting desperate, I’m not in the camp of pro helmets, nor am I in the camp of anti helmets.
I am in the camp of disliking when half formed statistics are offered as verifying facts.
You offered such a statistic with your professional cyclists killed pre and post the helmet rule. I pointed out the flaw and you told me to find the missing data myself.
I didn’t manage to find any data on the increase (or not) of cycling events or entrants. I did manage to break down the details of the cycling fatalities to show cause of death. This showed that there was not seen increase in head injury related deaths post the helmet rule. There was an increase of other causes, with the biggest one being heart attacks.
You then said:
So from that I draw that you are saying that helmets somehow cause heart attacks. Or were you suggesting that they cause internal bleeding or support/reporting vehicles to lose control?
ClubSmed wrote:
Just for the hell of it, could you please post a quote from me suggesting that helmets cause heart attacks?
You’re getting more than slightly desperate ClubSmed.
— burtthebike I’m not getting desperate, I’m not in the camp of pro helmets, nor am I in the camp of anti helmets. I am in the camp of disliking when half formed statistics are offered as verifying facts. You offered such a statistic with your professional cyclists killed pre and post the helmet rule. I pointed out the flaw and you told me to find the missing data myself. I didn’t manage to find any data on the increase (or not) of cycling events or entrants. I did manage to break down the details of the cycling fatalities to show cause of death. This showed that there was not seen increase in head injury related deaths post the helmet rule. There was an increase of other causes, with the biggest one being heart attacks. You then said:
So from that I draw that you are saying that helmets somehow cause heart attacks. Or were you suggesting that they cause internal bleeding or support/reporting vehicles to lose control?— ClubSmed
So no quote then? Might be time to stop digging ClubSmed.
burtthebike wrote:
I apologise if I mistook your statement as referring to heart attacks and you were referring to another of the causes of fatalities.
Just to clear all this up, which of the other causes of fatalities where you referring to when you said “so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets”?
The reported causes were Heart attack (5) and Head injury (3) but we are talking about non head injury deaths and you’ve already denied it being heart attacks. So that leaves loss of control from support/reporting vehicle (2) and Internal Bleading (1). As you stated that helmets cause the other deaths through additional risk taking I’ll rule out drivers losing control as these two incidents were not caused by cyclist manoeuvres which leaves internal bleeding…..
ClubSmed wrote:
So no quote then? Might be time to stop digging ClubSmed.
— ClubSmed I apologise if I mistook your statement as referring to heart attacks and you were referring to another of the causes of fatalities. Just to clear all this up, which of the other causes of fatalities where you referring to when you said “so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets”? The reported causes were Heart attack (5) and Head injury (3) but we are talking about non head injury deaths and you’ve already denied it being heart attacks. So that leaves loss of control from support/reporting vehicle (2) and Internal Bleading (1). As you stated that helmets cause the other deaths through additional risk taking I’ll rule out drivers losing control as these two incidents were not caused by cyclist manoeuvres which leaves internal bleeding…..— burtthebike
Definitely time to stop digging.
burtthebike wrote:
Just to be clear, neither I nor the article brought up the topic of helmets, you did!
I didn’t bring up the cyclists killed pre and post the helmet rule, you did.
I didn’t claim that other injuries than head ones were attributable to helmet use, you did.
All I have done is question your statistics and statements. If you are not willing to have your views questioned I suggest you find another outlet
ClubSmed wrote:
My mistake, I apologise. I had listed the deaths for the following 14 years which skewed the stats somewhat.
The deaths for the 12 years following the helmet inclusion total 14 and break down as follows:
Motor: 2
Heart: 5
Head: 3
Motor: 2
Internal Bleading: 1
Unspecified injury:2
burtthebike wrote:
Behave yourself: at a speed that they’re incapable of holding for 20 minutes, and a wind speed and yaw that would blow them into the nearest field, an aero helmet saves your average fat-headed sportive racer 2W.
Without that energy being expended via standing at the cake counter, the entire countryside café industry would collapse.
Be careful what you wish for…
‘I guess it’s internet access
‘I guess it’s internet access day at the special needs school today.’
I guess, if it wasn’t such a cheap jibe at those with special needs, that you’ve just proved yourself correct.
“It shows the best of
“It shows the best of Birmingham”
Yep, by not spending much time in Birmingham.
It’s also eye wateringly expensive
keirik wrote:
Cant seem to see any entry price listed. Care to share what you know?
zanf wrote:
Cant seem to see any entry price listed. Care to share what you know?— keirik
The individual entries have been sold out but you can enter as a charity entrant which is £40 for the NSPCC with a £400 minimum sponsorship commitment.
Seriously people are arguing
Seriously people are arguing over helmet use in a sportive when every single one home or abroad says the same thing ?
Dont like it then dont take part and do the route on open roads.
As someone who has travelled many of these roads many times, can not wait to do it on a closed road circuit and that is why it is expensive. Basic price was 75, I took the option of the 105 deal which included early starting pen, no need to register etc which is great as I can simply cycle from home to the start.
BTW sold out easy so the demand is there like the velothon, ride London etc.
Can not wait to try and break 6 and half hours for it.
I had to register for this.
I had to register for this. Some reasons why the original comments is moot:
Aside from that like Ianrobo I am looking forward to riding on my usual roads without any cars / vans / HGVs! ALthough I expect I will not be close to 6.5 hours
nuclear_didds wrote:
you watch how many will go off very fast down the Hagley road then burn up St Kenelm’s pass when they see that last 200M of 10% plus !!
ianrobo wrote:
It’s a killer place to have that climb and it can be a bit of a slog from Belbroughton before you even get to Vine Lane. Oh well it’ll be fun!
nuclear_didds wrote:
Welcome.
But that old chestnut really wasn’t worth registration.
http://cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
They did not sell out in four
They did not sell out in four days.. They will still trying to get me to buy 2 months later. An event that is more expensive than London, run by a private company for profit. A training ride with a former rugby player… I think I shall skip this event. Over priced.
FrogBucket wrote:
skip it then.. …FFS. No one is forcing you to enter. Why the need to tell us about something your not going to do?
Python, genuine question for
Python, genuine question for you: Would you go white water rafting without a helmet?
Leviathan wrote:
Genuine question for you Leviathan: would you go up and down stairs every day without wearing a helmet? Seriously?
Leviathan wrote:
Not a great comparison : white water is such because of the rocks beneath – and often close to/projecting from – the surface. A raft is continously changing attitude and it’s not exactly unusual for people to be ejected, at which point their head is bobbing along at rock- level, whether they’ve hit rocks on the way out/under or not.
I doubt many mtbers would go without a helmet on more challenging trails for similar reasons. On the other hand, for a leisurely ride on yer average bridleway, I probably wouldn’t bother other than out of habit.
“Velo Birmingham spends
“Velo Birmingham spends almost no time in Birmingham” would be a better headline. If there’s a faster route to get the cyclists out of the city (and out of the way of all those car drivers who would be inconvenienced by one day of road closures) I can’t think of it. Except perhaps by putting the cyclists onto the M6.
…and they’re different
…and they’re different helmets.
The comparison is entirely
The comparison is entirely valid. You would go rowing or fishing without a helmet, but not white water. You might go for a leisurely ride or to the shop without a helmet, but you wouldn’t go down a closed road course downhill at 50+ kph without one, or shouldn’t. Unless you want to impose a maximum speed limit on this type of event then helmets are necessary. I’ve seen the people getting helicoptered out of events in London and the Etape Cymru. 1/50,000 is going to hit a curb at speed.
Anyone suggesting helmets have ‘zero’ effect has never hit their head of anything hard, be it on a rock or a road, and/or are facetious liars.
Leviathan wrote:
I am inclined to think if it’s a private event on closed-roads, the organisers can impose what rules they want. And if it’s a ‘sport’, and even slightly ‘competitive’, then the helmet issue is a different argument from if when it’s just a utilitarian activity.
I suppose the slight grey-area is that even if its a private event it’s still using a public asset in the form of the roads. But that’s a different argument in itself really (never been entirely clear what the moral/legal basis is for using public space in that way, just as when they close bits of commons to hold private events on them).
(Obviously I always wear a life-jacket when cycling.)
Leviathan wrote:
Well, I reckon one of us has had a bang on the head…
Might it not be that people who disagree with you have maybe read some stuff that discriminates about the effectiveness of cycle helmets in different circumstances, written by people who know more about the subject than your or me?
Your stance makes a massive assumption: that cycle helmets are effective in the majority of cases that they’re likely to be required. I dispute that, or at least remain unconvinced by the evidence.
You surely must be able to grasp the distinction between different helmets for different purposes, and that they might be tested in different scenarios? You can surely understand that some people have read how cycle helmets are tested and concluded that it’s a bit shit?
Top quality trolling guys,
Top quality trolling guys, well done. When will disc brakes make an appearance?
I backed the wrong thread!
I backed the wrong thread! damnit…
*moves deckchair from ‘Football woman not in tracksuit appointed to fix Britain’.. and sits here instead.
For all those arguing about
For all those arguing about the number of deaths due to head injuries in professional cycling, picking at numbers, comparing one arbitarily selected 12 year period (arbitary because it could have been 10, 8 or any other number of years) with another I’d just like to make the point that the sample sizes are far too small to have any statistical relevance.
Even if the sample sizes were large enough to be relevant that wouldn’t demonstrate a causal relationship.
Basically what I’m saying, as is usually said at some stage of this argument, is that there is no evidence that the use of bicycle helmets reduces rates of head injury or death in cyclists.
Yes, that’s right; no evidence.
shay cycles wrote:
The 12 year period was chosen because the data is available for the 12 years since the helmet rule was instigated, and it seems at least reasonably logical to compare that to the previous 12 years. Nothing arbitrary about it at all, perfectly logical and reaonable.
Your argument about sample sizes has some validity, but if the helmet rule was effective, then it would be expected for the death rate to fall, not to increase, but as you say, small sample sizes so difficult to be conclusive. However, the trend is clearly not downwards.
You are not quite right about there being no evidence that cycle helmets reduces risk to cyclists, there are many studies showing massive reductions in cyclist deaths, but this is small scale, short term, unreliable research from blatantly biased researchers. The studies showing no benefit, or even an increase in risk are large scale, long term, reliable research from objective researchers. Unfortunately, most people prefer to believe the unreliable studies rather than the reliable ones because it fits their beliefs. It is much more a matter of belief than fact, rather like religion.
burtthebike wrote:
The death rate attributable to head injury has fallen in the 12 year period! Deaths attributable to other injuries may nave risen but how is that relevant?
Like ones who would quote cyclist death statistics without the context of difference in the number of events, entrants or causes of death? You mean biased like that?
And some like to not take things on face value and dig a little further only to be dismissed
This event is causing
This event is causing ructions locally. Not in terms of the need for road closures but the excessive period enveloping either side of the event. This has annoyed cyclists and local residents alike.
Instead of operating a rolling road closure, Velobirmingham have sought to close roads excessively early or late. At one point, cyclists will be required at over 60mph average in order to achieve the commencement of the closure order. This is the source of the problem. Velobirmingham could have been more sensible in their approach and gained local support for the event. Instead, they are seeking alienation. Whereas people could easily cope with the disruption of road closures, Velorbirmingham are seeking to maximise disruption through unwarrented closure periods that start excessively early and finishing very late.
When seeking a Traffic Regulation Order, consultation is required with relevant principal and local councils. This has not occured. When contacting my parish council to alert them to the event in order alleviate future problems, they were completely unaware of any order being served. As a result, the lead local authority serving the TRO will have failed in its statutory duty.
A TRO under the Road Traffic Regulationn Act requires the applicant to alleviate inconvenience for non-motorised users including cyclists. The road closure is going to be as useful as a chocolate teapot for Velobirmingham for preventing non-entrants using the road. This renders the TRO as useful as a chocolate teapot for Velobirmingham as any prohibition cannot discrimate between either paying or non-paying entrants to the event. I am already aware of local cyclists preparing to ride the route without entering.
Philip Whiteman wrote:
Wow! I wouldn’t enter this event anyway because of the stupid, unjustied helmet rule, but now the organisers sound as if they are lacking in all competence. Definitely an even to avoid.