Want cycle touring without the politics? This club might be for you...

brooksby wrote:

OK, I'll bite:

Nooooo!!!

You've really opened the floodgates now

Seriously, I'm right with you re. anecdote not equalling evidence. Unfortunately the helmet & hi-viz complusionists don't care, they just want to pummel you into submission with their ignorance.

I suspect it makes them feel better about themselves instead of stopping to ask whether something is genuinely effective.

Not sure whether this People's Touring Front has anything to offer disaffected CTC/CUK members but I'd rather my money help support the lobbying power and history of CUK, not to mention the Cyclists' Defence Fund. At first glance it just seems just another club (nothing wrong with that, of course).

brooksby wrote:

drosco wrote:

You know what, interpret it whatever way you want, I could not be less interested in your opinion on my accident. I just hope any person who is unfortunate to be involved in a similar accident has read this and will have the common sense to be wearing a helmet too.  If you choose not to that's your doing.

Enough. 

OK, I'll bite: so what *were* the exact circumstances of your collision, that the helmet demonstrably saved you from greater head injury and that "any person who is unfortunate to be involved in a similar accident ... will have the common sense to be wearing a helmet too."?

I just think if you're going to use your anecdote as evidence in your argument then we need to know the circumstances.  You never know: it might be the data that tips someone from anti- to pro-helmet

Come on, drosco: we need to know your perfect piece of anecdotal data. I am genuinely interested.

drosco wrote:

You know precisely nothing about the circumstances of my accident so you'd do well not to speculate.

One thing is perfectly clear, that is, that a helmet saved me from much greater injury.

You do realise these two sentences contradict each other? How can it be 'perfectly clear' when we don't know the circumstances?

Why are helmet-pushers so obnoxious about it, insisting that anyone who challenges their One True Faith must be 'insane'?

As it happens, the 'dooring' issue is one reason why I usually wear a helmet. It's the one case where I could imagine having an impact at low enough speed that a helmet might make a difference.

But I don't think its nearly a strong enough reason to condemn those who make a different choice. I'd rather condemn those who allow on-street parking where there isn't enough space, which is what creates the dooring risk in the first place. It's those guys that seem 'insane' to me.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

drosco wrote:

You know precisely nothing about the circumstances of my accident so you'd do well not to speculate.

One thing is perfectly clear, that is, that a helmet saved me from much greater injury.

You do realise these two sentences contradict each other? How can it be 'perfectly clear' when we don't know the circumstances?

Why are helmet-pushers so obnoxious about it, insisting that anyone who challenges their One True Faith must be 'insane'?

As it happens, the 'dooring' issue is one reason why I usually wear a helmet. It's the one case where I could imagine having an impact at low enough speed that a helmet might make a difference.

But I don't think its nearly a strong enough reason to condemn those who make a different choice. I'd rather condemn those who allow on-street parking where there isn't enough space, which is what creates the dooring risk in the first place. It's those guys that seem 'insane' to me.

And the ones that paint/allow to be painted cycles lanes in the door zone. If anyone should be ashamed it is them.

On the cases where helmets may help add collision with other cyclist and slippery metalwork in road junction. The only time my lid ever hit the floor was washing out on a drain cover placed right in the wheel path at a roundabout. I was going so slowly too. Reckon it saved me a possible concussion as well as grazing of the ear. Pretty much what is is designed for, falling from head height to floor. Not impact with object at high closing speed.

drosco wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

drosco wrote:

After going into a car door this weekend, anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet must be insane.

People who ride in the door zone must be insane. Not wearing s helmet is a small increase in risk. Riding in thr door zone is much bigger. Wearing a plastic helmet will not save you if you are knocked down in front of a cat or bus.

You know precisely nothing about the circumstances of my accident so you'd do well not to speculate.

One thing is perfectly clear, that is, that a helmet saved me from much greater injury. If you seek to convince yourself otherwise then you're an idiot. If you try to convince others then you should be ashamed.

I never said don't wear helmet. If you read again you will see I said they offer a small risk reduction.
Head injuries to pedestrians involved on RTCs outnumber cyclists head injuries 11 to 1. Are pedestrians insane not to wear them? Your assertion completely over states the risk.
However much your helmet reduced the injury not being door ed would have been better.
As chris Boardman says there are many issues that need a dressing to improve cyclist safety before mandating helmets. PPE should be the last measure taken, but in cycling it seems to be the first/only measure people consider.
No country that has introduced a helmet law has seen a corresponding drop in rates of cyclist head injuries, but they have seen drops in cyclist numbers.
Stop obsessing on magic hats and look at real stuff that can save lives.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Wearing a plastic helmet will not save you if you are knocked down in front of a cat or bus.

If you were knocked down in front of my cat you'd be at very serious risk of being shouted at until you fed him.

burtthebike wrote:

Anybody with any sense who wants to know about cycle touring is already a member of Cycling UK, previously the Cyclists' Touring Club, and has access to everything the new club proposes to supply, and a lot more besides.  There are plenty, the majority in fact, of CUK members who take no part in cycle campaigning and are none the worse off for that, so what exactly is the point of this new club?

to embrace to open road, it would appear. 

burtthebike wrote:

Anybody with any sense who wants to know about cycle touring is already a member of Cycling UK, previously the Cyclists' Touring Club, and has access to everything the new club proposes to supply, and a lot more besides.  There are plenty, the majority in fact, of CUK members who take no part in cycle campaigning and are none the worse off for that, so what exactly is the point of this new club?

Because the newly rebadged CTC has upset an awful lot of its membership in various ways and possibly behaved a bit iffily with regard to voting such things in.
I'm not a CTC member myself, but I pay attention to most of the cycling groups and boy are there some pissed off folk in the CTC.

imajez wrote:

Because the newly rebadged CTC has upset an awful lot of its membership in various ways and possibly behaved a bit iffily with regard to voting such things in.
I'm not a CTC member myself, but I pay attention to most of the cycling groups and boy are there some pissed off folk in the CTC.

Can someone try give an objective summary of what happened?

At the moment, readers here are left guessing, but it sounds like helmets were somehow a factor in this?

Paul J wrote:

Can someone try give an objective summary of what happened? At the moment, readers here are left guessing, but it sounds like helmets were somehow a factor in this?

Sam_Smith summed it up pretty well here:

The Cycling Touring Club (CTC) is an old organisation (over a 100 years old) and the top brass of this formidiable organisation decided they wanted to become a broader church (nothing wrong with that). However in trying to appeal to a wider range of people they abandoned the organisation's name and it's very ethos and reason for being becoming "Cycling UK". They did this without consulting the membership instead using focus groups who seemed to think that the Touring bit put people joining the CTC because they don't tour themselves (I don't tour but I'm a CTC member). Also the Cycling UK name is likely to get the organisation confused with British Cycling which is another kind of cycling group altogether (they're into the sport side of cycling)

Consequently this Touring Cyclist Club has formed for those who feel that the CTC/Cycling UK have moved away from the original organisation's remit. I wish them luck

The helmet thing was brought up by drosco, probably because of a mis-quote in the original article where the word "discussing" was omitted before "wearing of helmets".

psling wrote:

Paul J wrote:

Can someone try give an objective summary of what happened? At the moment, readers here are left guessing, but it sounds like helmets were somehow a factor in this?

 

Sam_Smith summed it up pretty well here:

The Cycling Touring Club (CTC) is an old organisation (over a 100 years old) and the top brass of this formidiable organisation decided they wanted to become a broader church (nothing wrong with that). However in trying to appeal to a wider range of people they abandoned the organisation's name and it's very ethos and reason for being becoming "Cycling UK". They did this without consulting the membership instead using focus groups who seemed to think that the Touring bit put people joining the CTC because they don't tour themselves (I don't tour but I'm a CTC member). Also the Cycling UK name is likely to get the organisation confused with British Cycling which is another kind of cycling group altogether (they're into the sport side of cycling)

Consequently this Touring Cyclist Club has formed for those who feel that the CTC/Cycling UK have moved away from the original organisation's remit. I wish them luck

 

The helmet thing was brought up by drosco, probably because of a mis-quote in the original article where the word "discussing" was omitted before "wearing of helmets".

Quite so.  (Although to be fair to the writer of this road.cc article, it would seem she had simply copied that part of TCC's earlier - unfortunate - press release word for word in good faith.  It's still on TCC's 'News' page now. )

PaulJ wrote:

At the moment, readers here are left guessing, but it sounds like helmets were somehow a factor in this?

Actually, as both Cycling UK and - I'm fairly sure - Touring Cyclist Club have a sort of a pro-choice approach to the wearing of helmets (TCC folk just appear to be tired of people endlessly rehashing the same old discussion) I would say it's a topic on which they are in something like agreement.

burtthebike wrote:

take no part in cycle campaigning and are none the worse off for that

The new non-campaigning club charges £39 less. I suppose some people might prefer to fund other cycle campaigning groups, or none. Logic dictates that they cannot all be equally effective.

brooksby wrote:

Popular People's Front of Judea, anyone...?

Splitter!

Leviathan wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Popular People's Front of Judea, anyone...?

Splitter!

"Listen. The only people we hate more than Addison Lee are the f#cking Cyclists Touring Club."

"Splitters"

"And the Bike Touring Club."

"Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters..."

"And the Touring Cyclists Club."

"Yeah. Splitters. Splitters..."

"What?

"The Touring Cyclists Club. Splitters."

"We're the Touring Cyclists Club!"

"Oh. I thought we were the Bicyclists Touring Club."

"Cyclists Club!"

"Whatever happened to the Bicyclists Touring Club?"

"He's over there.  Splitter!"