Live blog: Yet another helmet study; Friday Leave V Remain poll – helmets, Gold jockey wheel, New £12K Pinarello Dogma F10, Helmets make no difference to head trauma rates- study, Glasgow car free zones + more
SUMMARY
Officina Battaglin launches new paint scheme
Italian bike company Officina Battaglin, founded in 1981 by Giro-Vuelta winner Giovanni Battaglin, has added a new two colour paint scheme.
The Portofino was first introduced in 2017 and is a steel frame constructed from Columbus HSS steel with proprietary lug castings to create a modern take on a classic frame building process. It’s now available in a new paint job that combines dark mocha brown base colour and a dark amber for the engraved and painted details, with chrome lugs and chainstay.
“We worked on the Portofino and on the proprietary lug castings for more than a year,” says Giovanni Battaglin.“The idea was to create a contemporary lugged frame from today’s lightweight oversize tubing. We love lugs. I rode lugged bikes for all my career as a pro. And when I started building my eponymous frames, they were all made from steel tubing and lugs.
“But when we started the Portofino project, there were no standard lugs that could fit oversize tubing and tapered steerer. That’s why we had to make our own molds for the lugs, for the bottom bracket shell and the dropouts. And then in the foundry, we made the castings.The result is a unique design, which no builder has ever done.”
More at http://officinabattaglin.com/
Round-the-world cyclist fined for riding his bike through Bedford town centre
This is his “£75!? For riding a bike!?” face.
Pinarello’s £12k Dogma F10 with SRAM Red eTap AXS
Pinarello has added a new Dogma F10 to its 2019 range featuring the brand new SRAM Red eTap AXS groupset unveiled a couple of weeks ago. Combined with Zipp 303 wheels the bike costs the princely sum of £12,000, the groupset adding £3,500 to the disc-equipped Dogma frameset. A power meter can be added for an additional £445.
And to make sure people spot you riding it around Richmond Park, it’s painted in a lairy/lurid paint scheme that the company tells us is a special edition Spring colourway.
Glasgow Council trialling car-free zones outside of schools
School car free zones are to be trialled in Glasgow to help improve road safety for children. Roads around seven primary schools to be closed to traffic at start & end of school day as part of 18 month pilot. More detail in our story here https://t.co/7eXDxAHAkG pic.twitter.com/9z6CgUnJgF
— Glasgow City Council (@GlasgowCC) February 13, 2019
Some will say about time, as the 18 month pilot scheme will see roads closed to motor traffic at the start and end of the day in seven schools.
No Red Hook Crit in 2019
There will be no Red Hook Criterium this year. The fixed gear race, which takes its name from the Red Hook area of Brooklyn and which is known for its crashes, has been cancelled because sponsorship hasn’t covered the overheads.
Founded by David Trimble, the race has taken place each year since 2008. In recent years, it expanded into a series with additional events held in Milan, Barcelona and London – although it was back down to just Brooklyn and Milan last year.
Jo Burt went and took a look at the 2017 London event. You can read about it here.
A statement from the organisers reads:
“After careful consideration of our options, we will be taking 2019 off. Instead, our efforts will be focused on raising support and developing plans for the continuation of the Red Hook Criterium Championship Series in the years to come.
“We appreciate every athlete, sponsor, volunteer, photographer, videographer, staff member, and fan who helped us build the Crit into what it is today and look forward to the next time we can bring everyone back together at the RHC.”
New U23 CX world champ Tom Pidcock gets 24 carat gold CeramicSpeed pulley wheels for his efforts
Those folks at CeramicSpeed decided their definitely-not-cheap Oversized Pulley Wheel System just isn’t quite expensive enough for a world champion, so they have presented Tom Pidcock with a solid gold verison at their HQ in Denmark. It’s a one-of-a-kind piece and we’re guessing not useable, but a nice addition to his mantelpiece no doubt.
Partially-blind 82-year-old back on her bike
Alice Wilson, 82, became partially blind four years ago and stopped cycling.
The BBC reports that she has now started cycling on a tandem provided by the Yorkshire Bank Bike Library.
“I never drove a car and I used to cycle everywhere,” she said. “I didn’t want to give my bike up, but I had to.
“It’s wonderful to be back on a bike and we went to Leeds and did about 20 miles on one of my first rides. It felt like I had my freedom back and just being able to hold the handle bars again was great.”
Set up after the 2014 Tour de France visit, the bike library charity takes unwanted bikes, repairs them and then loans them out for free at “libraries” across the county.
Since the scheme started more than 6,000 bikes have been recycled.
Birmingham blue routes get blue response from drivers
The designs mean motorists will have to give way to cyclists at central reservations and after turning into side roads. Motorists’ responses on social media has been predictably robust.
Prendas Ciclismo celebrates forgotten races with new clothing collection
Purveyors or fine cycle clothing with a penchant for retro jerseys, caps and socks, Prendas Ciclismo’s new clothing collection remembers forgotten races such as the Milk Race, Bordeaux Paris, Peace Race and others.
For our younger readers, the Milk Race is the precursor to the Tour of Britain. It began life in 1958 and ran for 35 years and got its name by being sponsored by the Milk Marketing Board. There are two jerseys and a cotton cap in this collection and we think the coloured stripes looks just fantastic.
“With a huge archive of old books such as ones from the Kennedy Brothers and magazines like Winning, it struck us recently how many races are no longer on the calendar. So our Forgotten Races collection is here to pay tribute to races that were once at the pinnacle of our sport and enjoyed by many,” says the company.
You can view the full collection at www.prendas.co.uk/collections/the-forgotten-races
Man appears to admit to an assault on a cyclist via his Twitter account
Are you a cyclist assaulted in the Birmingham area today? Was it this man? Might be worth getting in touch with the police re this tweet. Please retweet and help twitter find the victim. @ImmyKaur @WMPRHRT @theJeremyVine @peterwalker99 @roadcc @Cyclingnewsfeed @Chris_Boardman pic.twitter.com/DX1DAAkY1p
— CyclingMikey Camera Cyclist (@CyclingMikey) February 15, 2019
Needless to say, the account has now been deleted…
Anyone up for a heated debate?
There’s been another cycle helmet study.
Last week we had the professor who likened opponents of compulsory cycle helmet laws to climate change deniers; this week we’ve got The Prevalence of Bicycle Injuries in a Large Urban Hospital.
The researchers found that the prevalence of significant head trauma was 35% in the group of patients who wore a helmet and 34% in the group that didn’t.
Discuss.
Friday Leave or Remain poll: This week it's… helmets
Who wants to discuss something as divisive as Brexit on a Friday afternoon so to take our minds off all that division let’s have a poll about the latest study with something to say about cycle helmets… oh, hang on
Could you keep up?
Daan Sote and his Pauwels Sauzen-Vastgoedservice teammates showed off some serious skills. We’d have hit a tree within seconds!
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 £2.49. 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.
17 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@Rendel Harris "Perhaps lethality should be measured as drivers/cyclists found guilty of causing death per chosen metric, rather than simply numbers killed?" Given the filter of the court system that would a) likely only introduce another source of bias and b) mean the cycling numbers had dubious statistical meaning relative to the motoring ones since after removing e-motorbikes (unless we didn't? But even then...) that is ... one or two in the last 5+ years?
@mdavidford You've made me curious so checked: in Devon and Torbay (in common with many councils, apparently), any project under £500,000 can be internally approved by the Corporate Director for Strategy, Performance, and Sustainability, whereas any project costing in excess of £500,000 needs a full cabinet vote. So it looks suspiciously as though there's been a bit of jiggery-pokery with the numbers to avoid full cabinet scrutiny.
From the screenshots, the software looks very similar to the Coospo CS600. I used it for a tour in Ireland and on the first day, I realised that the map of Ireland wasn't loaded by default. I could see my route as breadcrumbs but not the road or anything else around me. It looked very similar to what you saw when you went off-route. Are you sure you had the map of Scotland in your unit? Luckily for me, at the end of the first day, after tons of searches, trials and errors, I managed to download the map of Ireland into my phone, connect the Coospo to my phone as an external drive and upload the map. Not an easy task but that solved the problem. For the next five days I had a proper map to navigate. Regardless of that, I sent it back. Loading routes into it was a real PITA, the routes the app plotted were terrible compared to Komoot's and it didn't have re-routing.
@Rendel Harris I'm not sure why trips made is a better metric than miles travelled, but yes, that does yield a 9x difference for cars vs bicycles in pedestrian deaths. The real anomaly using that basis, though, are motorcyclists, who are a staggering 72x more likely to kill a pedestrian per trip than a cyclist. That suggests that speed, more than mass, is the real danger. And that young men are the greatest danger of all.
@chrisonabike Indeed, you put your finger on another problem with the fatality statistics in that we don't know in how many of the fatal incidents the driver/cyclist was to blame. If the two cyclist-caused-pedestrian fatalities the pedestrian was drunk and fell off the pavement into the path of the cyclist that could obviously change the lethality ratio considerably if factored in. Perhaps lethality should be measured as drivers/cyclists found guilty of causing death per chosen metric, rather than simply numbers killed?
Finally (on cyclists and junctions) cyclists may not be as observant themselves there. While junctions are high-mental-workload spaces (or should be...) for all road users I suspect cyclists - mixing with the motor traffic - are going to be focusing strongly on that for obvious reasons. Which is again why in places which are more advanced in this respect not only are junctions given better designs *, but network-level thought goes in to routes for each mode, the better to minimise the need for interactions. Especially when speeds might be higher. * Separation in space and/or time when modes cross, explicit space for different modes so it's clear who goes where / what to expect...
I'm not sure about the "60% of pedestrians killed at junctions are killed by cyclists" number, but i *could* believe it's relatively high. Why? Other "qualitative differences" - "noticeability" and "expectation". In the simplest sense cyclists are smaller and quieter than motor vehicles. (There's a lot of "looking with our ears" when eg. crossing roads believe). But more: in the UK we *expect* cars. We've learned to deal with cars both by formal teaching and daily experience. We know "how drivers behave" - where to expect them. I strongly suspect it's not just drivers "only looking for the motor vehicles". We don't *expect* cyclists. And (if taken at face value) there's a lot of quote anecdata that people are genuinely surprised by them / completely unfamiliar with cyclist behaviour on roads (except "they all jump red lights"...) - "came out of nowhere" / "never saw them" / " they were down the road, then suddenly they were right there" / wasn't expecting them to"...
A key one is "speed" as obviously injury is strongly related to that, and the 20-30mph region is where IIRC "mostly injured" crosses over to "mostly killed". Cars would be expected to be at higher speeds, for more of the time. That may be reduced in some places however eg. congested rush hours, and where "mixing" may be most likely the environment may cue lower speeds (narrow streets).
Stepping back, given that humans operate both cars and bikes maybe a *qualitative* "what differs" might be instructive? (Putting to one side for a moment what may be mostly a motornormative prejudice: that drivers are in some way "more responsible". Variations "more to lose because they've paid for a car" / "but trained and licenced" / "more accountable because number plates" / "only (man)children and crims who can't afford cars cycle" etc).
@AidanR I wonder how it would change the stats if one looked at deaths per trip? According to the NTS the average person makes 15 cycle trips a year and 357 as a car driver, so 23x more driving trips than cycling ones but 182x the pedestrian deaths so by that calculation cars are 8x more lethal. Take out the 20% of car trips on motorways and you have one death per 51M trips motoring and one death per 487M trips cycling, so motoring becomes almost 10x more lethal. I know one can make statistics do anything one wishes by changing the metrics but that figure seems a more realistic approximation of relative lethality to me. All this of course is before we count all the other deaths caused by motorists that cyclists almost never cause, i.e. motorcycle riders, car passengers etc, almost five times the pedestrian numbers, cars then become 50x more lethal than bikes...
17 thoughts on “Live blog: Yet another helmet study; Friday Leave V Remain poll – helmets, Gold jockey wheel, New £12K Pinarello Dogma F10, Helmets make no difference to head trauma rates- study, Glasgow car free zones + more”
The logo on that blue bike is
The logo on that blue bike is really small, I can’t read it. Can anyone help?
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
‘Pining for a Rolo’ I think it says?
I do like that Battaglin – looks absolutely stunning.
my helmet debate opinion =
my helmet debate opinion = everyone should be free to choose and not be forced or emotionally blackmailed to do one thing over the other.
from someone who wears a helmet all the time on his road bikes but would prefer not to on his brompton ‘cept ‘er indoors has been brainwashed to believe they make a difference…
StoopidUserName wrote:
This. It’s up to the user to choose the risks. I always wear one on my MTB and on my road bike out cycling, because both have higher speeds (thanks to hills, not my legs) and long periods on the bike.
When cycling round town I don’t as it is uncomfortable and more likely for me to drop it when going in the shop or to a meeting. Yet work freek our about this because “insurance”, which I don’t believe. I just ignore them. I did once ask if I had to wear one walking to a meeting, but got a confused look and could not be bothered to explain.
StoopidUserName wrote:
This. It’s up to the user to choose the risks. I always wear one on my MTB and on my road bike out cycling, because both have higher speeds (thanks to hills, not my legs) and long periods on the bike.
When cycling round town I don’t as it is uncomfortable and more likely for me to drop it when going in the shop or to a meeting. Yet work freek our about this because “insurance”, which I don’t believe. I just ignore them. I did once ask if I had to wear one walking to a meeting, but got a confused look and could not be bothered to explain.
StoopidUserName wrote:
Take on a trip to Holland and get her to see any rush hour commute in a city, or just visit Amsterdam
Even riders of low powered mopeds or scooters don’t wear helmets
From that helmet report:
From that helmet report:
“The prevalence of significant head trauma was 35% in the group of patients with helmet and 34% in the group without helmets (p-value=0.84). It should also be noted that the prevalence of all significant trauma was 26% in the group of patients with helmet and 20% in the group without helmets (p-value=0.048). The overall mortality was 1%. There was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted patients.”
But according to the Australian professor last week, anyone pointing out that helmets are a waste of time is the same as a climate change denier. Well, pardon me professor, but that data looks a lot more robust than your sham of a report which had blatant methodological flaws.
The helmet study has lots of
The helmet study has lots of interesting lines.
This paradoxical observation has also been discovered by Kett et al. who found helmets do not actually reduce bicycle injuries.
This data found that 70% of all injured patients were involved in a collision with a motor vehicle.
It seems to back up the Dutch model – don’t bother with helmets, but keep bike riders safe from vehicles.
I’m like the other commenters here – wear a helmet if I’m going to go quite fast, but not if I’m riding the Norco Multisport* into town.
(*I mainly use it for cycling)
HarrogateSpa wrote:
problem is that wearing a helmet for ‘going fast’ is actually the worst thing you can do. Not only is the helmet even less likely to protect you, it’s more likely to induce greater risk taking than wothout, it’s also got more kinetic energy at those higher speeds thus adversely influencing things not to mention the added circumference which is significant so again increases chances of head strike.
A study done not that long agao showed that pro road racers from the 80s/early 90s had 50% fewer traumatic injuries than those from the mid 2000s onward. More pro road racers have died and at a greater rate post MHL in the ranks. More helmet wearing has equalled greater injury rates in the UK where we have a lot of club and ‘racer’ going fast type riding.
There’s a huge misunderstanding with regards to the ‘I’m taking greater risks ergo I need to protect myself’ thinking, it’s actually making matters worse as we see in virtually every scenario including non sports related.
A friend of mine had a major off a few years back, stuffed his knee and smacked his head into a stone wall in Spain taking a bend off a descent too fast. I asked him if he’d have not been wearing a helmet would he have gone at the same speed ‘ Of course not’ he said …
iBut I’ll just throw out there the gridiron compared to rugby comparison for a start off.
How is a helmet going to help
How is a helmet going to help if you are going fast? They are only rated for low speed.
Wearing a helmet around town makes some sense due to traffic density and street furniture, so I’m curious as to know why a couple of posters here say they would not wear one in those circumstances.
hirsute wrote:
I remember going to a conference about twenty years ago, where another cycle campaigner told me that he didn’t wear his helmet on the shared use path on his daily journey, but put it on for the faster, on road section. He wasn’t very receptive when I pointed out that he’d got things the wrong way around, and that on a shared use path, the helmet might, and only might, be of some use, but in collision with a motor vehicle travelling at 40mph it was useless.
“Man appears to admit to an
“Man appears to admit to an assault on a cyclist via his Twitter account” -why do people keep posting incriminating stuff on Twitter? It’s a public medium. Like the (IIRC) Emma Way incident a few years ago, what leads people to brag about committing a crime somewhere that anyone can take incriminating screenshots?
I wear a helmet while cycling
I wear a helmet while cycling for one reason only, that is following a collision, when it comes to any insurance payout, I don’t want the amount reduced because it is perceived that I did not do everythng possible to “protect” myself, however erroneous that perception might be. And it’s a good place to mount 2 cameras
cbrndc wrote:
Sorry, but your reason is not valid. There is a single case, in unique circumstances, where not wearing a cycle helmet was found to be contributory negligence, which is the only reason an insurance company could reduce compensation.
Many insurance companies have, and probably still do, try to claim that not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence, but they always withdraw this claim if you refuse to accept it, because they know that it is wrong. They have shareholders to support and reducing payouts by such underhand means is dishonest, and I changed my insurer because of a case where they did this.
Some dodgy solicitors put up articles like this, very convincing, but without a single case being quoted, because, apart from the unique one, there aren’t any https://www.hja.net/does-not-wearing-a-helmet-affect-a-personal-injury-claim-if-i-am-involved-in-an-accident/
But I prefer Martin Porter QC’s opinion https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/search?q=helmet
cbrndc wrote:
I understand what you’re saying but actually the law is on your side and there is precendence already on this in many cases. With a decent brief you (or your family) should be able to make even a thick judge see that that would be discriminatory, especially given the actual lack of hard evidence with respect to the forces that a helmet are (in the lab) able to withstand. If your helmet broke it showed that it failed and barely absorbed any of the impact forces, if the incident was with a motor vehicle, helmet not designed for such impacts and so on.
If one is going to reduce payouts for people on bikes fir not wearing a helmet then same should be for pedestrians and motorists, if not then it’s discriminatory. If the criminal had not struck you then you would not be in that situation in the first instance, to apply partial negligence for not wearing something that not only is no one else required to but would equally aid them (if we are to believe the bullshit) and that statisitcally is unproven to work at population levels then this would again be wrong.
Also by wearing you’re adding to the problem as a whole and also increasing your chances of having an incident at all as well as increasing your chances of a head strike significantly if you did come off/were struck … hence why in countries with MHL and large uptakes of wearing (UK for instance) we see no decrease in injury rates and in fact comparaive to pedestrians we see a marked differential in injury reductions, that being ped injury rates have gone down by a LOT more over the same period since helmets became a big thing in the mid 2000s.
Your choice to wear but you and everyone else wearing a helmet are making matters worse for everyone as it changes the foocus, it’s now on the vulnerable/those harmed to change and act/dress diiffrently when the criminal/those presenting the harm is not.
A bit like saying if a woman gets raped she should be partially responsibile for walking down the wrong street wearing certain alluring clothing and not wearing an anti rape device to try to prevent the rape from occuring, it would be preposterous right, that’s precisely what is happening to people on bikes!
I wear a helmet for BMX
I wear a helmet for BMX racing or off-road riding, but only then. My BMX lid is actually a road legal MX one, so it’s rather more protective than a cycle helmet. I’ve had a few crashes over the years and wearing a proper lid for BMX racing is just good sense. It’s a requirement also. On one crash in particular, when I broke my wrist, a bunch of us crashed together and I hit a fallen bike then went right over my bars and hit the deck headfirst. The lid took the impact and I was bit dazed, but otherwise ok. I must have put my hand out at the same time, which was how I broke my wrist.
I’ve used my BMX lid for MTB riding too.
I don’t bother with a helmet when I’m cycling on the road.
I wear a helmet offroad coz I
I wear a helmet offroad coz I crash a lot – I’m rubbish – & on at least 2 occasions the helmet has saved me from serious head injury. I know this from the damage to the helmet – if that’d been my head instead there’d have been a *lot* of blood & a monstrous headache afterwards…
I wear a helmet on serious (as in, going as fast as I can for as long as I can) road rides coz the lanes in east Berkshire are covered in loose gravel, wet leaves, mud & other stuff the pros don’t normally have to contend with, & the chances of sliding out are good (hasn’t happened yet but a few near misses). Again, I’m not very good, so when (not if) I slide into a barn wall I’ll likely be doing no more than 15mph, fast enough to cause nasty head injuries but probably not enough to kill me.
I often don’t bother when going to the shops coz there’re kids running in & out from side paths & mum’s chatting on their phones while looking nowhere in particular so I’m doing no more than 8mph tops & at that speed I can get a foot down in plenty of time.
I also wear a helmet in cold or wet weather as the helmet holds my nice warm merino beanie in place. Without the helmet the beanie would just fall off.
I *don’t* wear a helmet to protect me from cars. It would be pointless – all the evidence suggests if a car hits me at normal car speeds (5 – 10mph over the speed limit IME) I’m toast.
Is that sensible?