Our live blog can sometimes be slow to load, so please give it some time and if necessary refresh your browser or, if you’re on a mobile device, switch to the classic version of the site.
Live blog: Vuelta highlights, Team Wiggins replace Aqua Blue at Tour of Britain, Thomas’s view on helmets “largely irrelevant” says cycling PR boss + more
All the news from the site and beyond as we start a new (and short) working week
Tue, Aug 28, 2018 14:35
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
43 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Tradescant 3 hours ago
@jackcycles I'm not sure my grandchildren got that memo. Cycling should not be just for hardened road warriors.
DS2025 4 hours ago
Chrisonabike There are a number of police forces in England and Wales that are using portable testing equipment already... How effective it is another matter, I haven't looked into the results of failing (I would hope they just seize and crush the motorbike without any faff but I am sure there are appeal processes, promises not to use them on public roads etc).
KiwiMike 4 hours ago
Woah there - a precision-engineered European-made product, with unparalleled adaptability, is somehow a ‘rip off’? Compared to what - Temu? As per the article, most quality through-axles go for £50-60+, but aren’t adaptable and don’t provide any stand or trailer capability. If you want to balance your £3-4-5k suspension or carbon bike, or bikepacking setup on a budget product subject to highly focused stresses, fair play. Cycling’s a broad church.
Dnnnnnn 4 hours ago
@eburtthebike I've found Spanish drivers to be almost entirely excellent around cyclists.
neilmck 5 hours ago
I agree, the study was made after cycle paths that had been introduced in Berlin during the 70’s and 80’s caused a big increase in cycling deaths. It is an interesting study for cyclists to read in order to know what dangers exist at badly designed junctions. Here in Paris we have very few bi-directional paths. The ones I have cycled on have no building entrances or courtyards (so no cars crossing the path) and every junction is traffic lights to prevent accidents.
thrawed 5 hours ago
We have enough regulation. They're running a motorbike without insurance/registration and possibly without a licence, and the punishment for being caught with all that is pretty severe already. The problem is lack of enforcement.
chrisonabike 5 hours ago
In my experience with anything less than one of those serious mid-bike two-foot kickstands, a wall / tree / hedge is the better option, or the bike will sometimes show you the alternative and lie down by itself. Maybe I've got panniers that are just too large and the wrong balance of (too much) cargo though? And of course Edinburgh streets are great at funneling gusts of wind...
chrisonabike 6 hours ago
I agree there's a clear legal line * but I do see something here. Like much tech it's entirely opaque from the outside (without even invoking things like the VW emissions cheating).** I know in NL they have trialled semi-portable "test stations" to check max motor speeds. However with the latest "but there's no money" crisis I can't see that over here. Indeed it's hard to see the police being motivated to do any more roads policing, with this even further down the priority list. Hope I'm wrong... While I guess many of us *would* be fine with EAPCs as a means to attract "non-cyclists" ... perhaps there's an "attractive nuisance" element to this? We're ushering people into an apparently effortless, easy and minimal consequence mobility mode without the "learning experience" of managing a lighter, unpowered machine on roads. And it's still (busy) *roads* where the new power-assisted riders will often find themselves. Not like in more advanced countries where people usually cycle in much safer and more controlled environments. OTOH we should always balance such concerns against "but cars and full-power ICE motorbikes now" though! Number plates, licences and insurance aren't necessarily mitigating that well... * As soon as there are laws games will be played. How long can you be above the "continuous rate power" for? Can we have *multiple* legal motors on one machine? ** Is the power / speed actually regulated by software, and how long will that keep a child armed with the internet from unlocking it?
Zazz53 6 hours ago
And maybe a planning obligation to have traffic Marshalls controlling access out of the site not obstructing the path and restricting it if cyclists are likely to be obstructed …one can hope
Bob Sprocket 6 hours ago
I'll stick to my low rider with Karrimor Kalahari dry bag panniers and Karrimor Kalahari barbag thanks.
43 thoughts on “Live blog: Vuelta highlights, Team Wiggins replace Aqua Blue at Tour of Britain, Thomas’s view on helmets “largely irrelevant” says cycling PR boss + more”
I love the way that wheel
I love the way that wheel rolls out of the crash like it always does in cartoons
.
The HuffPost article by Adam
The HuffPost article by Adam Tranter is a good read, although it ends with this:
Using data? It will never work 🙁
CygnusX1 wrote:
You’re so right. Especially when the media, the BBC in particular, point blank refuses to look at it, let alone broadcast anything that shows cycling in a positive light.
burtthebike wrote:
That’s because theyrth based in the city, mainly London, with its high levels of polutionp, which as the Chinese study of air pollution showed it affected the brains ability to function correctly. It explains everything, including government thinking of lack of it!
maviczap wrote:
You’re so right. Especially when the media, the BBC in particular, point blank refuses to look at it, let alone broadcast anything that shows cycling in a positive light.
[/quote]
That’s because theyrth based in the city, mainly London, with its high levels of polutionp, which as the Chinese study of air pollution showed it affected the brains ability to function correctly. It explains everything, including government thinking of lack of it!
[/quote]
And they drive cars, and the pollution level in cars is higher than outside.
CygnusX1 wrote:
just having this debate on the CUK forum, one pro helmet person has written this.
“I don’t put much faith in any statistics on this topic. I don’t think anyone puts enough care and effort into the collection of data, meaning all the processing of that data is based on rubbish. None of it is collected consistently enough, now or in the past, to make it useful for fine analysis. You’d be just as well off waving a bit of vee shaped hazel around. I’d apply that equally to both sides of the helmet debate.”
The tyre pump is just a
The tyre pump is just a cordless air compressor (e.g. Airman air gun), so dunno why it is making the news.
Oh nonsense…
Oh nonsense…
Keep clapping yourself on the
Keep clapping yourself on the back in your little echo chamber – fact is, the phrase “the BBC in particular, point blank refuses to look at it, let alone broadcast anything that shows cycling in a positive light” is just bullshit. Go and type ‘cycling’ into the search bar on the BBC website. They have stories which look pro- and anti-cycling, same as with many subject matters, but to suggest they never have anything positive is nonsense.
fukawitribe wrote:
Possibly they have, but I’ve never seen or heard anything. There have been innumerable reports, research and studies which show that cycling is overwhelmingly the best answer to the modern diseases of lack of exercise and obesity, but I haven’t seen or heard a single BBC bulletin reporting them. They will have large segments on the possible benefits of a new drug that won’t get to the public in the next five years, they will have seemingly endless stories about food and health, but simply won’t mention, in my experience, the single most effective step for individual and societal health. They never mention the benefits in congestion, pollution and health terms of a switch from driving to cycling.
In my opinion and experience the BBC has an agenda, and that doesn’t include mentioning the overwhelming benefits of cycling, but they frequently mention cycle helmets and the dangers of cycling and they frequently break their own rules and editorial guidelines doing so.
Tell me, do you think BBC coverage is fair and balanced?
“Possibly they have, but I’ve
“Possibly they have, but I’ve never seen or heard anything.”
So you’ve not actually looked at the BBC website or their programs I take it ?
fukawitribe wrote:
Last time I submitted a complaint about their helmet coverage, I included links to over 80 BBC website articles, so, no, you can’t take it.
So why are you missing the
So why are you missing the non-negative coverage ? Try going to the news page and do the search I suggested. Tell me what the second hit is.
fukawitribe wrote:
I think that there’s more to the negative bias from the BBC on the subject of cycling than numbers of articles. They will headline negative aspects and tuck health benefits in obscure pages. They would appear to have a negative bias in that they point out the dangers each time a pro rider crashes, for example.
don simon wrote:
There certainly are articles which show a shocking level of understanding and lack of knowledge – they’re far from angels. The comment that I replied to is that they don’t – that is ever – consider the evidence and don’t broadcast anything positive. That’s patently false.
They don’t though.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bbc
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bbc+cycling+health
fukawitribe wrote:
That’s not patronising, is it?
Well come on… just proving
Well come on… just proving that the assertion was false.
fukawitribe wrote:
If you are referring to my assertion that I’ve never seen or heard anything in BBC coverage about the overwhelming benefits, individually and societally, of cycling, then you’re wrong and it’s still true.
burtthebike wrote:
It may be true for you in that you’ve not sseen or heard – but not only is it not true in general, if you performed either of the two searches (one done for you) you would find that it’s no longer true for you either.
fukawitribe wrote:
I don’t see why I should have to search for information that should be in every BBC bulletin about obesity, health, pollution, congestion, climate change etc; but it is in none that I, as I go through my regular routine, see or hear because they don’t mention it. I mainly listen to R4, which has had hundreds, if not thousands of news articles and programmes about those subjects, but cycling is almost never mentioned, and even if it is, just fleetingly in an aside, which is bizarre given that cycling is the best, most efficient, most economic answer to all of them.
Explain to me why the BBC completely ignores the overwhelming benefits of cycling in normal, everyday broadcasting, and why you should have to search for absolutely relevant details in what is frankly, much of the news? Much of which is specifically about those subjects? How can you not mention cycling every time those subjects are discussed unless you have an agenda not to mention it. As I’ve said, there are probably hundreds of reports about the benefits of cycling, but they are never mentioned on the BBC news in my sight/hearing. How is this possible with a broadcaster which has strict rules about fairness and balance? Cycle helmets and pedestrians being killed in collision with a cyclist on the other hand, they are all over like a very nasty rash, and ignore their own rules as they do it.
Sorry, but on the evidence of my own ears and eyes, the BBC is masssively biased against cycling.
And I bet it is true in general, that people who rely on the BBC for news and facts, are utterly ignorant of the overwhelming benefits of cycling, because the BBC doesn’t mention them in the news and they, like me, don’t go looking for them.
burtthebike wrote:
I reckon it’s all down to their elitism.
The top people at the BBC are extremely well paid and consider themselves to be a world apart from the plebs. They’d much rather that “ordinary people” should be working hard to be able to afford a gym membership to get exercise; to afford the payments on their latest shiny car that only travels at an average of 20mph due to the road congestion; to pay for holistic treatments to deal with all the air pollution that is trashing their health and to pay taxes to give loads of money to the road and car park builders.
Cycling? That’s some kind of socialist clap-trap that’s not really aligned with the BBC’s message.
burtthebike wrote:
They do mention it, you don’t need to search either, I gave you a link to click. There may well be bias in the coverage the BBC has (I think so) and they could have better coverage of that and many other issues but that doens’t mean they never have information about the positive aspects available, which is what you originally said. Given you can’t even be bother to flex one finger to be presented with a counter to your assertion I don’t hold much hope of you acknowledging any of that. I’m off.
fukawitribe wrote:
They do mention it, you don’t need to search either, I gave you a link to click. There may well be bias in the coverage the BBC has (I think so) and they could have better coverage of that and many other issues but that doens’t mean they never have information about the positive aspects available, which is what you originally said. Given you can’t even be bother to flex one finger to be presented with a counter to your assertion I don’t hold much hope of you acknowledging any of that. I’m off.
[/quote]
I hear maybe 5 or 6 BBC news bulletins a day, and they have mentioned obesity, health, pollution, congestion, climate change, diabetes, heart disease, depression almost constantly; number of times the most effective, economical treatment for all these is mentioned? Zero.
I repeat; if I have to go searching for it, I’m not going to find out, especially if I don’t know what I’m supposed to be looking for because they haven’t mentioned it. Please explain how it is possible for the BBC to continually mention all these subjects without once referring to the simplest, quickest, easiest, cheapest method of treating them in the same programmes without being biased?
fukawitribe wrote:
The fact is, the BBC, like most news media, react to events. Somebody gets killed on a bike, that’s an event, gets reported, and helmet or no, death of cyclist is the message. I suspect that there is not a lot of positive coverage because there are not many events which would trigger such, rather than any specific bias.
Griff500 wrote:
A valid point, but they have had hundreds of articles about pollution, congestion, obesity, diabetes etc, none of which is particularly immediate news, but not in one of them do they mention the cheapest, quickest, most effective, economic method of tackling them, but they do go into great detail about other, less effective, more expensive methods. I don’t see how that can be anything but bias, especially as it isn’t just a one off, it has been the case for the past twenty years at least.
burtthebike wrote:
Again, a valid point, but most of those you mention are triggered by the latest University report, or last week, the one from China. The last one I recall promoting cycling was the one 6 months or so ago showing that endurance cycling negates the adverse effects of alcohol. Then again, maybe I just recall that one as the two topics are close to my heart.
OT I know, but I have little confidence in academic studies as they almost invariably prove exactly what the author needs in order to get his PhD or his next round of funding! Take the one last week showing that any alcohol at all increases risk of death. This was a study of 100,000 people, comparing alcohol consumption with health. Where were all the other lifestyle factors, eg do teatotallers eat more green veg (known to reduce cancer), do many teatotallers smoke, and closer to us, what was the exercise profile of the 100,000. This of course is much too difficult, lets just plot alcohol consumption against cancer rate and call it the most significant study ever!
Griff500 wrote:
There have been many reports about the benefits of cycling, probably in three figures, so why don’t the BBC feature them? They happily feature drugs which might come on stream in five years time and might have a beneficial effect. They obsessively feature stories about obesity, health and food, when that is less effective than cycling. They have regular features about pollution and global warming and heavily feature things like electric cars, but never mention cycling.
The bias is clear and obvious.
burtthebike wrote:
… Yet here we are on a cycling site, and if you click today’s news tab, just like the BBC, you will see a shedload of items covering accidents and none covering health benefits. One of our most popular topics is “near miss of the day”. Does this portray the image we want? While we might criticise the pro helmet lobby and the BBC for conveying a poor image of cycling safety, what will potential newbys make of our own news page?
Griff500]
I think you’ll find that this website, and every other cycling website, features all the reports about cycling being incredibly beneficial and the overwhemingly, blinding obvious answer to many modern problems, which the BBC totally refuses to do. And when I say refuses, that’s exactly what I mean, as I must have sent their news programmes dozens of emails detailing the benefits when they’ve had yet another article about obesity, health, congestion, pollution, climate change without mentioning cycling, with absolutely zero result.
If anything else had half the benefits of a mass change to cycling, the BBC would be all over it 24/7/365.
He could have just done the
He could have just done the search on the site in the first place and seen that, but he has a different axe to grind by the look of it, and one i’m not talking about.
Oddly enough, some of that
Oddly enough, some of that sounds rather similar to what Ben Goldacre was saying on the subject..
fukawitribe wrote:
it would really help if you learned to use the quote button so that we had the vaguest idea of what you were responding to.
burtthebike wrote:
Fair enough, however it’s fine until people edit their posts and the order gets screwed. This was the way it was – sometimes I revert.
“And yet the data is ignored
“And yet the data is ignored/dismissed when it comes to saying helmets are a load of bunk but are taken as an absolute when it states that helmets will save your life/offer significant safety increases.”
That’s rather missing the point Goldacre was making – but yeah, that happens and on both sides of the debate. In addition, confirmation bias and a fundamental lack of understanding of what the figures and statistics mean and how they were taken is rife, as is parroting second-hand summaries and out-of-context data. The biggest single issue, or at least one of the largest, I feel is the unwillingness to critically assess the data and analyses we do have, and are getting, and to possibly alter ones point of view – the vast majority seem to have their opinion already set in stone and pity the person who would dare to ask them to consider re-evaluating what they thought that was based upon. Hey ho….
fukawitribe wrote:
But Goldacre himself says that further research and analysis is pointless – there’s not going to be a Big Win on either side.
So… It isn’t a ‘both sides need to’ argument. There is a movement, marketing campaigns, voices who would mandate helmets – and the burden of proof needs to lie with it. Cycling helmets have only become A Thing during most of our lifetimes. Imagine if Pedestrian Helmets became A Thing now. That wouldn’t be a ‘both sides need to’ argument. Put up or stop trying to get peds to wear foam hats.
The ‘anti’ movement is only A Thing to counter that, just like atheists have only been A Thing since people started creating gods.
davel]
Indeed, beyond preventing myths on both sides from gaining traction.
The ‘anti’ movement is only A Thing to counter that, just like atheists have only been A Thing since people started creating gods.— davel
I agree that there is an urgent need for the counter to the compulsion threat but that is not always what is being discussed. I’ve only personally seen on here two occassions when someone has called for or agreed with mandatory helmet legislation in the UK – that is significantly less than e.g. the number of people who have argued that helmets can be effective personal protection equipment but often the two get conflated, or national stats are used to ‘prove’ helmets as PPE are ineffective and so on. In those cases the ‘anti’ movement , as you put it, is not A Thing to counter anything beyond some belief in the ‘correctness’ of their opinion.
fukawitribe wrote:
I agree that there is an urgent need for the counter to the compulsion threat but that is not always what is being discussed. I’ve only personally seen on here two occassions when someone has called for or agreed with mandatory helmet legislation in the UK – that is significantly less than e.g. the number of people who have argued that helmets can be effective personal protection equipment but often the two get conflated, or national stats are used to ‘prove’ helmets as PPE are ineffective and so on. In those cases the ‘anti’ movement , as you put it, is not A Thing to counter anything beyond some belief in the ‘correctness’ of their opinion. — fukawitribe
I disagree a bit. I think sometimes it gets lost in the noise, as you say.
My own stance probably isn’t far from Lord Sir St Chris’s in that I think they’re way down the list in what we should be giving attention – but I accept that they prevent injuries in certain situations.
It’s difficult to get across an argument about giving them the appropriate attention without following a fairly vehement anti/discredit/rant line, on a forum… Which then has the unintended consequence of generating even more time and attention to the topic…!
I feel like I’ve become an evangelist for the ‘anti’ camp in response to evangelical pro stances. I’ve not got so much against the ‘a helmet saved my life’ stuff – but I’m vehemently against compulsion, and lawyers and police questioning whether victims were wearing a helmet etc – and feel they’re sides of the same coin.
davel wrote:
Same here.
Yeah – that’s unfortunately true and a large part of the problem IMO.
I’m pretty much in agreement with all of that – although I see no conceptual link between the PPE idea and compulsion, which is often cited as some weird sort of natural consequence. However I have no time any more for the lack of knowledge of physics and testing that some seem to display, nor the inability to understand how to read and take-in data and conclusions in papers, which may make me seem in the ‘pro’ camp – but the only ‘pro’ I am is ‘choice’.
fukawitribe wrote:
I’m pretty much in agreement with all of that – although I see no conceptual link between the PPE idea and compulsion, which is often cited as some weird sort of natural consequence. However I have no time any more for the lack of knowledge of physics and testing that some seem to display, nor the inability to understand how to read and take-in data and conclusions in papers, which may make me seem in the ‘pro’ camp – but the only ‘pro’ I am is ‘choice’.— davel
I see it as some sort of slippery slope… The more helmets become ‘normalised’, the more it is accepted that cyclists are responsible for their own safety, and the more attention is drawn away from the major causes of cyclist KSIs (the big metal things driven into them by other people).
I see evidence for that ‘slippery slope’ in us being dodgy risk-takers disproportionately responsible for our own safety in how police, courts, defence lawyers and BTLers comment on what cyclists are wearing when they’ve been KSId. I totally accept that is massively subject to my confirmation bias and the echo chamber I’ve created for myself, and I don’t know how pronounced a trend, if any, there is.
There’s also my distrust of PPE, ingrained during 10 years of working for an engineering firm. A reliance on PPE suggests the fight for a safe environment is lost, or, rather, isn’t even being fought properly.
I think the evidence suggests that if we had 100% helmet uptake, we’d have similar KSI rates as to now (assuming cyclist numbers stayed the same; I know the evidence suggests they would fall significantly as uptake approached 100%). Even if Rich_cb’s assertion of a statistically significant drop in KSIs were accepted, the KSI numbers would still be in the current ‘ballpark’ to today.
Whereas if we could stop people driving metal things into us, there’d be tiny numbers of cyclist KSIs compared to now. I’d just like the factors that result in us being driven into to be given proportionate attention.
davel wrote:
Hear, hear.
And yet the data is ignored
And yet the data is ignored/dismissed when it comes to saying helmets are a load of bunk but are taken as an absolute when it states that helmets will save your life/offer significant safety increases. Why is that? Uncomfortable truths or simply unable/unwilling to accept that data blows apart their way of thinking in a massive way so don’t want to come across as being wrong?
This applies to governments, cycling orgs, police, BHIT/HEADWAY type groups (who are frankly a dangerous bunch) as well as individuals both those that cycle and those that don’t.
In fact it goes further than that, some ‘facts’ are used in a deliberately misleading way that are worded to say one thing which was never said at all or simply fabricating figures completely which is what Angela Lee from BHIT did. Misusing the dental associations figures for potential injuries of cyclists on their web pages and also telling the government via their sham of an MP backer that one child was being killed cycling a week and that cycle helmets for kids would save 20,000 head injuries
I don’t normally do the
I don’t normally do the twitter thing but the basket stuff by Hackney Cyhclist is rather good. My favorite quote “I think they should have sensible pedals so they can wear their normal shoes if they need to stop to pop into the shop for a baguette or something.”