Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Boardman sparks helmet row after Pedal Me bike taxi ride; Arsonists destroy popular Longleat MTB trail; Israel Cycling Academy to step up to WorldTour with Katusha takeover; Mason frames stolen; Cycling UK slams GWR train bike storage +more on the live bl

All today's news from the site and beyond.....
02 October 2019, 18:58
Israel Cycling Academy to step up to WorldTour after completing Katusha deal

Israel Cycling Academy, which has recruited Dan Martin on a two-year contract, is set to step up to the UCI WorldTour next season after completing the takeover of Katusha, subject to UCI approval.

Israel Cycling Academy at 2018 Giro d'Italia (picture RCS Sport, LaPresse).JPG

The news was confirmed by the team in a post on its Facebook page.

02 October 2019, 15:20
Chris Boardman takes a ride in a Pedal Me cab, threatens to spark a helmet row...

Pedal Me offer a taxi service and e-cargo deliveries throughout London, and Mr. Boardman decided to take advantage of Pedal Me to get a quick and eco-friendly lift across the city. 

He makes the point that cultural norms deem that it isn't at all alarming he is not wearing a helmet in this photo as a cab passenger, even though he is just as exposed and travelling the same speed as he would be if he was piloting the bike. An interesting and/or true observation from Manchester's walking and cycling commissioner?

02 October 2019, 14:50
Nacer Bouhanni joins Team Arkéa Samsic

It's Greipel out, Bouhanni in as the French sprinter is set to depart Cofidis to ride for Arkéa Samsic  in 2020. 

02 October 2019, 14:32
Windhill Bikepark set on fire by vandals overnight
windhill bikepark fire

off.road.cc report that a popular mountain bike park on the Longleat Estate in Wiltshire was set on fire overnight on the 30th September - Windmill Bikepark have this afternoon took to Facebook to highlight the scale of the devastation. An excerpt from the post says: "It's hard to describe the sinking feeling I felt seeing the pictures forwarded ..... Our iconic Start Cabin, the start point of hundreds of thousands of minutes of fun for riders from around the world and a cosy rest point between runs was gone.

"Hundreds of hours from the team and volunteers and tens of thousands of pounds was gone. Awash with a range of emotions, rage, upset, sorrow, I sat numbed and not ashamed to say some tears flowed." 

off.road.cc have reached out to Windmill Bikepark for further details: full story here.  

02 October 2019, 14:08
Another reason to love segregated infrastructure
02 October 2019, 11:42
Cycling UK slam GWR bike provision on high-speed trains

Cycling UK have headed off to Cardiff today to take part in the Cycle on the Sennedd ride to call for more money to be spent on active travel in Wales ... but encountered a problem trying to stow their bikes on the rail operator's latest generation of high-speed trains, made by Hitachi.

The same model of train has been introduced by LNER on the East Coast Main Line, and cyclists attempting to take their bikes on train there are encountering the same issue.

Look out for the full story on road.cc later.

02 October 2019, 11:25
Our thoughts on Shimano's new groupset

Dave shares his first ride impressions on the latest groupset to come from Shimano, the GRX.

 

02 October 2019, 11:03
STOLEN BIKE ALERT - 13 Mason frames stolen in transit to UK

Mason Cycles has had a consignment of 13 of frames of its In Search Of model, also known as the ISO, stolen while en route from Italy to the UK. The adventure bike  model was introduced last year.

In a statement published on its website, the West Sussex-based company said: 

It is with sadness that we must alert you of a stolen import of InSearchOf frames from Italy to our HQ in the UK. Please be vigilant and on the lookout for frame-only sales not through our webshop. The InSearchOf frame is not on the second hand market yet, so any sales are most likely a stolen frame. Please alert us and spread the word if you do see anything suspicious.

A huge amount of time and work goes into every frame. The lead time is around 3 months per batch and every frame is crafted with care and attention. We are saddened and severly disappointed that this has happened.

A batch of 13 frames went missing on its way from Italy to UK on a TNT shipment.

Each frame will have a serial number stamped under the BB in the format: B (Size) 07

The boxes will not have any Mason branding on them and they look like this, behind the ISO frame:

Mason ISO

 

02 October 2019, 10:50
Rapha launches Transfer off-the-bike clothing

Rapha has released a new collection of relaxed Transfer clothing that's designed for off-the-bike use.

Rapha Pro Team Transfer Hoodie.jpg

Check it out here.

02 October 2019, 10:06
Knees up for another year with Team Ineos

Yes we've just posted this for the pun, but if you're interested Christian Knees will ride for Ineos again in 2020... 

02 October 2019, 08:12
Reports reveal that Alberto Salazar downfall was in part due to association with 'suspicious athletes'... including none other than Lance Armstrong

If you haven't seen the news this week, Salazar, coach to Mo Farah and GM of the hugely successful Nike Oregon Project, has been banned from coaching for four years after the U.S Anti-Doping agency said that he trafficked testosterone, infused a prohibited amount of L-carnitine and tried to tamper with doping controls. The large USADA report takes an unexpected turn when a certain Lance Armstrong pops up; as it turns out Salazar emailed him excitedly when he discovered the performance-enhancing effect of the controversial supplement L-carnitine. On December 1st 2011, Salazar emailed Armstrong, who was training for Ironman triathlon at the time, saying: "Lance, call me ASAP! We have tested it and it's amazing! You are the only athlete I am going to tell the actually numbers to other than Galen Rupp. It's too incredible. All completely legal and natural. You will finish the Ironman in about 16 minutes less while taking this." 

The report goes on to explain how much L-carnitine his doctors were administering to athletes, which the USADA say far exceeded permitted levels. It's unclear if Armstrong ever actually took the supplement; his own cheating was finally outed to the world a little over a year after this email was sent. 

02 October 2019, 08:03
A nice wide pass, to make up for a terrible one

Maybe this driver spotted the camera when they came to making the second pass...

02 October 2019, 07:52
Andre Greipel has Arkéa Samsic contract terminated at his request
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

André Greipel and team Arkéa Samsic - dissolution of the contract 31.12.19 ————————————- About 4 weeks ago I asked the management of @arkeasamsic to terminate the contract towards the end of the year. Emmanuel Hubert and the team management have agreed to this request. I am very grateful for the cooperation we had in 2019. I would have liked to have extended the season statistics, but I was not optimally prepared for my season highlights. In the first half of the season I had to fight several months with a bacterial disease and once 100% healed, unfortunately, this was only two weeks before the Tour de France. The Sparkassen Münsterland Giro on 03.10.2019 will be my last race in the 2019 season and also my last race for the Team Arkéa Samsic. Being at the start in Germany is always a special event for a German rider. Of course, we will prepare very well and work towards a top result in this final race. After this, I will start my recovery and a family vacation. Until the beginning of November, I will leave my social media accounts silent and am not
available for requests from the media. In the week of 4.-10. November I will inform you about the 2020 cycling season. Dear cycling friends, dear fans : i cannot thank you enough for your understanding and your ongoing support. Emmanuel Hubert - General Manager:
"I am obviously disappointed by Andre’s performances this season even if I know he is the first affected. Our results together are far from satisfying. Getting out to the contract was an option, we are not opposed. It doesn’t take away anything from his human qualities which were greatly appreciated within the team or from the experience he brought to the squad. Personally, I met a great champion and a good person. I wish him good luck in his future endeavors." Full PR: http://bit.ly/AG19_http://bit.ly/AG19_PRD http://bit.ly/AG19_PRF

A post shared by Andre Greipel (@andregreipel) on

The German sprinter's manager said he has been 'disappointed' with results this season, and Greipel will go on a family holiday to begin his recovery from this season. He also says he will be shutting down his social accounts and won't be taking requests from the media during that time. 

Arriving at road.cc in 2017 via 220 Triathlon Magazine, Jack dipped his toe in most jobs on the site and over at eBikeTips before being named the new editor of road.cc in 2020, much to his surprise. His cycling life began during his students days, when he cobbled together a few hundred quid off the back of a hard winter selling hats (long story) and bought his first road bike - a Trek 1.1 that was quickly relegated to winter steed, before it was sadly pinched a few years later. Creatively replacing it with a Trek 1.2, Jack mostly rides this bike around local cycle paths nowadays, but when he wants to get the racer out and be competitive his preferred events are time trials, sportives, triathlons and pogo sticking - the latter being another long story.  

Add new comment

34 comments

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism | 5 years ago
1 like

So the below = Shares in Helmet companies, everyone must wear one. 

 

We believe that it is a personal choice whether to wear a cycle helmet or not, and for parents to make that choice for their children.

Improved safety records in the most cycling-friendly countries are greatly attributed to a network of well-connected and high quality dedicated infrastructure, public awareness and understanding of cycling, and a culture where most people cycle regularly rather than helmet use.

Countries with the highest levels of cycling, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, record the lowest levels of helmet use in the world. For example, the Netherlands has 5% helmet use and the lowest incident of head injuries in the world.

Legislating to make cycle helmets compulsory can discourage people from cycling. Evidence from Australia and New Zealand, for example, suggests that large numbers of cyclists are deterred from cycling by helmet legislation. In the year following the introduction of legislation for compulsory helmets in New South Wales (Australia) there was a 36% reduction in cycling levels.

It is estimated that a total of 136,000 adults and children in New Zealand – nearly 4% of the total population – stopped cycling immediately after the introduction of cycle helmet legislation in 1994.

This reduction in cycling is associated with a reduction in physical activity which could lead to negative health impacts overall. Coupled with this is the fact that cycling safety improves when more people cycle – the ‘safety in numbers effect’. It is thought that the increased frequency of motorist-cyclist interaction creates more aware motorists.

Cycling has many health, social and environmental benefits. If we are to make the most of these benefits, we need to increase, and, therefore, normalise cycling.

This means putting solutions that are based on the evidence and the experiences of most cycling-friendly countries and cities into practice. We need to invest in and deliver a network of dedicated cycling routes and car-free public space so that cycling is a viable option for everyday journeys.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 5 years ago
0 likes
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

So the below = Shares in Helmet companies, everyone must wear one. 

 

We believe that it is a personal choice whether to wear a cycle helmet or not, and for parents to make that choice for their children.

Improved safety records in the most cycling-friendly countries are greatly attributed to a network of well-connected and high quality dedicated infrastructure, public awareness and understanding of cycling, and a culture where most people cycle regularly rather than helmet use.

Countries with the highest levels of cycling, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, record the lowest levels of helmet use in the world. For example, the Netherlands has 5% helmet use and the lowest incident of head injuries in the world.

Legislating to make cycle helmets compulsory can discourage people from cycling. Evidence from Australia and New Zealand, for example, suggests that large numbers of cyclists are deterred from cycling by helmet legislation. In the year following the introduction of legislation for compulsory helmets in New South Wales (Australia) there was a 36% reduction in cycling levels.

It is estimated that a total of 136,000 adults and children in New Zealand – nearly 4% of the total population – stopped cycling immediately after the introduction of cycle helmet legislation in 1994.

This reduction in cycling is associated with a reduction in physical activity which could lead to negative health impacts overall. Coupled with this is the fact that cycling safety improves when more people cycle – the ‘safety in numbers effect’. It is thought that the increased frequency of motorist-cyclist interaction creates more aware motorists.

Cycling has many health, social and environmental benefits. If we are to make the most of these benefits, we need to increase, and, therefore, normalise cycling.

This means putting solutions that are based on the evidence and the experiences of most cycling-friendly countries and cities into practice. We need to invest in and deliver a network of dedicated cycling routes and car-free public space so that cycling is a viable option for everyday journeys.

You somehow missed the rather more relevant bits which appeared just before your quote.  Note the overwhelming bias of research showing helmets to be extremely effective, including some which has been proved wrong, and the total lack of anything balancing it.

"Recent studies have found that cycle helmets can offer protection to the head, but not in every scenario.

For example, a recent academic study showed cycle helmets offer "effective protection at low speeds of less than 50km/h (31 mph)".

The same study also concluded cycle helmets offer protection against secondary impacts against the ground after the initial collision, but that helmets became less protective the faster cars are travelling, and were of "minimal" use in crashes with cars travelling at more than 50km/h (31 mph).

A French study found that helmets contributed to a 24%-31% reduction in head injury overall and a 70% reduction in head injuries categorised as moderate injury (defined as loss of consciousness for between 15 minutes and 6 hours or a period of post-traumatic amnesia of up to 24 hours).

A Cochrane review of five case-control studies found helmets provide a 63% to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of people cycling.

Helmets provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Injuries to the upper and mid facial areas are also reduced 65%. However, the review did acknowledge that little to no protection is offered to the lower face and jaw."

So after proving that helmets are incredibly effective, they put in some hogwash about it being your decision.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
2 likes
burtthebike wrote:

So after proving that helmets are incredibly effective, they put in some hogwash about it being your decision.

So may I ask - are you arguing that all of those studies are wrong, and so mis-information, that some are/some aren't but they're not balanced by studies that show no benefit or physical harm caused by helmet use, or something else ? They appear to repeatedly mention they are not a panacea, not required in many places to social and infrastructural differences, and it's personal choice - all this is reasonably far from what I have unfortunately been exposed to from the Mail and others.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to fukawitribe | 5 years ago
0 likes
fukawitribe wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

So after proving that helmets are incredibly effective, they put in some hogwash about it being your decision.

So may I ask - are you arguing that all of those studies are wrong, and so mis-information, that some are/some aren't but they're not balanced by studies that show no benefit or physical harm caused by helmet use, or something else ? They appear to repeatedly mention they are not a panacea, not required in many places to social and infrastructural differences, and it's personal choice - all this is reasonably far from what I have unfortunately been exposed to from the Mail and others.

As I've said, they only reference studies showing massive benefits from helmet wearing, some at least of which have been totally trashed, and don't reference any of the rather more reliable studies showing no benefits.  If they are supposed to be promoting cycling and are trying to be balanced, why is the evidence all one way and of the type that discourages cycling by portraying it as dangerous?  If this isn't biased, why do they only reference one type of evidence and ignore the more reliable stuff?

Having continually referred to evidence showing that helmets are effective, they then move on to suggest that you make up your own mind.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
2 likes
burtthebike wrote:
fukawitribe wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

So after proving that helmets are incredibly effective, they put in some hogwash about it being your decision.

So may I ask - are you arguing that all of those studies are wrong, and so mis-information, that some are/some aren't but they're not balanced by studies that show no benefit or physical harm caused by helmet use, or something else ? They appear to repeatedly mention they are not a panacea, not required in many places to social and infrastructural differences, and it's personal choice - all this is reasonably far from what I have unfortunately been exposed to from the Mail and others.

As I've said, they only reference studies showing massive benefits from helmet wearing, some at least of which have been totally trashed, and don't reference any of the rather more reliable studies showing no benefits.  If they are supposed to be promoting cycling and are trying to be balanced, why is the evidence all one way and of the type that discourages cycling by portraying it as dangerous?  If this isn't biased, why do they only reference one type of evidence and ignore the more reliable stuff?

Having continually referred to evidence showing that helmets are effective, they then move on to suggest that you make up your own mind.

I have no problem with people presenting data showing efficacy or harm, that's surely just more information to use to make that personal decision, as long as that data is reliable. At least one of the quote analyses there has been picked apart a number of times - and shouldn't have been used IMO - but at least one appears to be a decent piece of work.. so why not. Data is data, if it goes contrary to our beliefs then so be it, that's science - i've had views about seemingly established physics, along with others, which have then turned out to be incorrect or at least only partially true.. that's part of the enjoyment for me. The same here. They have mentioned studies which show the negative effects of helmet mandation, and the data from other countries which have low helmet use - so i'm not undestanding your question "why is the evidence all one way " ?

Your use of phrases like "continually referred to evidence ", "massive benefits" and "all one way" don't really point to an objective viewpoint, at least to me and perhaps a number of others who  have also read the article... if it's balance you're after, perhaps you could also address that along with any short-comings in the piece.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to fukawitribe | 5 years ago
1 like
fukawitribe wrote:

Your use of phrases like "continually referred to evidence ", "massive benefits" and "all one way" don't really point to an objective viewpoint,

OK, so show me any referenced study that shows no benefit?   There are later mentions of counter arguments, but all the hard science, with figures, shows massive benefits, when that is at least questionable.  If they acknowledge later that the studies they quote aren't the whole story, why do they only reference studies showing massive benefits when there are plenty of more reliable studies which show the opposite?

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
1 like
burtthebike wrote:
fukawitribe wrote:

Your use of phrases like "continually referred to evidence ", "massive benefits" and "all one way" don't really point to an objective viewpoint,

OK, so show me any referenced study that shows no benefit?  

Well there I agree with you to a certain extent (could be more explicit) -  however if you go and look at the links in that piece there are a number either dealing with that directly, e.g.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/why-cities-should-watch-t...

or with references to studies that show lack of benefits, alongside their caveating of the actual role of helmets in 'safety' considersations.

 

burtthebike wrote:

There are later mentions of counter arguments, but all the hard science, with figures, shows massive benefits, when that is at least questionable.  If they acknowledge later that the studies they quote aren't the whole story, why do they only reference studies showing massive benefits when there are plenty of more reliable studies which show the opposite?

But they do acknowledge that the studies aren't the whole story, and that there are other - arguably more important - issues to consider than the PPE aspect of things. The studies they quote may also have useful information in them and be reliable - if that shows circumstances where helmets are effective (or not) that should be considered, not dismissed because it runs counter to any particular belief system.

As for the "plenty of more reliable studies which show the opposite" - we could get into a another long discussion about that, but as far as a meta-analyses of things go, i'll go with Ben Goldacre and his opinion on the papers and studies he saw. 

Avatar
Rapha Nadal | 5 years ago
3 likes

Oh yay; the weekly helmet debate is back!!  Boy, I've missed it.

Avatar
Vlad the Impailer | 5 years ago
0 likes

So here is another question then - If its law that when riding a motorbike that you wear a helmet, how come you dont have to wear one if you are using a 3 or 4 wheel trike or quad bike.

They go the same speeds and therefore the impact on the noggin will be the same.   Result of the impact will be squashed tomato or just a broken helmet and concussion. 

So therefore the rules for a biki taxi - using 3 or 4 wheels must be covered by the same laws as a trike or quad bike - helmet not required as it dont fall over when stationary.

Avatar
Hirsute | 5 years ago
0 likes

I traveled up the west coast intercity a few years ago
There were 2 slots for a bike, although only one could fit. The floor space was also full of company magazines and I had to move some to fit my bike in !

Avatar
xerxes | 5 years ago
0 likes

I have a bike with a Shimano 105 R7020 groupset, 50-34 chainest up front and a long cage rear mech, which is only supposed to work with a cassette with a maximum of 34 teeth. However, I'm running a SunRace 11-40 cassette with no problems, I tweaked the B tension screw a bit, but that's it, it all works.

I imagine Shimano has been equally conservative with the GRX components and that it would be possible to run a cassette with more teeth with the 2x chainsets without any issues.

Avatar
Bungle73 | 5 years ago
1 like

What's the point of comparing UK train bike storage, with that from unspecified country that has a ton more space to play with? Trains in the UK are rammed. Do you think that Commuter X would be happy to give up his seat in favour of someone's bike? I don't think so. Trains do not have unlimited space to play with.   Most people want that space primarily used for seats.  

Avatar
Gus T replied to Bungle73 | 5 years ago
3 likes
Bungle73 wrote:

What's the point of comparing UK train bike storage, with that from unspecified country that has a ton more space to play with? Trains in the UK are rammed. Do you think that Commuter X would be happy to give up his seat in favour of someone's bike? I don't think so. Trains do not have unlimited space to play with.   Most people want that space primarily used for seats.  

Rubbish, train companies are deliberately putting people, bikes and luggage in smaller spaces to optimise profits, having recently travelled on Austrian, Dutch and German railways one could see how catering for cyclists and disabled people in Europe is far more advanced than in the UK. I used to regularly travel on TPE to Leeds and can't remember one occasion where the contractually obliged number of carriages was provided. It's not a space issue, it's a greed issue.

 

Avatar
Nick T | 5 years ago
0 likes

Pedal Me founder Ben is quite a militant anti helmet-er

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
0 likes

The great CB points out the double standards and stupidity of most people's view of helmets, cycling and safety.

I wonder if he's seen Sustrans latest staggeringly awful contribution?  So biased it could easily be from the Daily Mail.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/policy-positions/all/all/our-positi...

Avatar
oceandweller replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
7 likes
burtthebike wrote:

The great CB points out the double standards and stupidity of most people's view of helmets, cycling and safety.

I wonder if he's seen Sustrans latest staggeringly awful contribution?  So biased it could easily be from the Daily Mail.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/policy-positions/all/all/our-positi...

Not sure what's so terrible about the Sustrans policy. I read it & it's basically "it's up to you whether you wear one or not but the evidence suggests they can help, in some cases". Can't really argue with that surely? It's more or less in line with my practice - I wear one for club rides (moving fast, risk of collisions) & real off-road (I'm not very good, so high chance of coming off) but not for going to the shops or pootling along a canal towpath or whatever (low risk, moving slowly, mostly on pavements & cycle paths).

Avatar
Pilot Pete replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
8 likes
burtthebike wrote:

The great CB points out the double standards and stupidity of most people's view of helmets, cycling and safety.

I wonder if he's seen Sustrans latest staggeringly awful contribution?  So biased it could easily be from the Daily Mail.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/policy-positions/all/all/our-positi...

Go on then, I’ll bite, what’s so staggeringly awful about their contribution? And please point out the bias that you think makes is worthy of being a Daily Mail article?

I read it simply for what it is - a comment saying people have free choice, it can help protect the head in certain incidents, isn’t a silver bullet and the countries with the most cyclists and best segregation also have the fewest helmet wearers and head injuries, pointing out that the helmet isn’t the solution that the average car driver thinks it is and indeed making it compulsory has huge detrimental effects on numbers taking up cycling.

My god, what a fascist rant those black shirted journos at Sustrans are...

PP

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Pilot Pete | 5 years ago
1 like
Pilot Pete wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

The great CB points out the double standards and stupidity of most people's view of helmets, cycling and safety.

I wonder if he's seen Sustrans latest staggeringly awful contribution?  So biased it could easily be from the Daily Mail.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/policy-positions/all/all/our-positi...

Go on then, I’ll bite, what’s so staggeringly awful about their contribution? And please point out the bias that you think makes is worthy of being a Daily Mail article?

I read it simply for what it is - a comment saying people have free choice, it can help protect the head in certain incidents, isn’t a silver bullet and the countries with the most cyclists and best segregation also have the fewest helmet wearers and head injuries, pointing out that the helmet isn’t the solution that the average car driver thinks it is and indeed making it compulsory has huge detrimental effects on numbers taking up cycling.

My god, what a fascist rant those black shirted journos at Sustrans are...

PP

In response to you and oceandweller, did you actually read it?  They only reference pro-helmet research, they ignore the much more reliable research showing no benefit, and one of the papers they reference is the second worst helmet study ever: the Cochrane Review which broke every rule of Cochrane Reviews.  They give figures for the protective effect of helmets which even the original researchers, Thompson, Rivara and Thompson don't support any more.  It really couldn't be any more one-sided, and either the person who compiled it is a helmet zealot or they are blissfully ignorant.

So they tell you time after time that helmets are fantastically effective, then tell you "but it's your decision" when they have clearly selected their evidence to support their position that helmets are great, implying that if you don't wear one, you're ignoring the evidence.

If you don't understand why something so utterly, blatantly one-sided and biased is wrong, perhaps you are DM readers.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
0 likes
burtthebike wrote:
Pilot Pete wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

The great CB points out the double standards and stupidity of most people's view of helmets, cycling and safety.

I wonder if he's seen Sustrans latest staggeringly awful contribution?  So biased it could easily be from the Daily Mail.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/policy-positions/all/all/our-positi...

Go on then, I’ll bite, what’s so staggeringly awful about their contribution? And please point out the bias that you think makes is worthy of being a Daily Mail article?

I read it simply for what it is - a comment saying people have free choice, it can help protect the head in certain incidents, isn’t a silver bullet and the countries with the most cyclists and best segregation also have the fewest helmet wearers and head injuries, pointing out that the helmet isn’t the solution that the average car driver thinks it is and indeed making it compulsory has huge detrimental effects on numbers taking up cycling.

My god, what a fascist rant those black shirted journos at Sustrans are...

PP

In response to you and oceandweller, did you actually read it?  They only reference pro-helmet research, they ignore the much more reliable research showing no benefit, and one of the papers they reference is the second worst helmet study ever: the Cochrane Review which broke every rule of Cochrane Reviews.  They give figures for the protective effect of helmets which even the original researchers, Thompson, Rivara and Thompson don't support any more.  It really couldn't be any more one-sided, and either the person who compiled it is a helmet zealot or they are blissfully ignorant.

So they tell you time after time that helmets are fantastically effective, then tell you "but it's your decision" when they have clearly selected their evidence to support their position that helmets are great, implying that if you don't wear one, you're ignoring the evidence.

If you don't understand why something so utterly, blatantly one-sided and biased is wrong, perhaps you are DM readers.

And yet their opinion is that helmet use reduces cycling pickup and their benefits and the Netherlands has the lowest use of helmets and the lowest injury rates so better to have safe infrastructure then helmets. 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 5 years ago
0 likes
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
Pilot Pete wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

The great CB points out the double standards and stupidity of most people's view of helmets, cycling and safety.

I wonder if he's seen Sustrans latest staggeringly awful contribution?  So biased it could easily be from the Daily Mail.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/policy-positions/all/all/our-positi...

Go on then, I’ll bite, what’s so staggeringly awful about their contribution? And please point out the bias that you think makes is worthy of being a Daily Mail article?

I read it simply for what it is - a comment saying people have free choice, it can help protect the head in certain incidents, isn’t a silver bullet and the countries with the most cyclists and best segregation also have the fewest helmet wearers and head injuries, pointing out that the helmet isn’t the solution that the average car driver thinks it is and indeed making it compulsory has huge detrimental effects on numbers taking up cycling.

My god, what a fascist rant those black shirted journos at Sustrans are...

PP

In response to you and oceandweller, did you actually read it?  They only reference pro-helmet research, they ignore the much more reliable research showing no benefit, and one of the papers they reference is the second worst helmet study ever: the Cochrane Review which broke every rule of Cochrane Reviews.  They give figures for the protective effect of helmets which even the original researchers, Thompson, Rivara and Thompson don't support any more.  It really couldn't be any more one-sided, and either the person who compiled it is a helmet zealot or they are blissfully ignorant.

So they tell you time after time that helmets are fantastically effective, then tell you "but it's your decision" when they have clearly selected their evidence to support their position that helmets are great, implying that if you don't wear one, you're ignoring the evidence.

If you don't understand why something so utterly, blatantly one-sided and biased is wrong, perhaps you are DM readers.

And yet their opinion is that helmet use reduces cycling pickup and their benefits and the Netherlands has the lowest use of helmets and the lowest injury rates so better to have safe infrastructure then helmets. 

A bit of pretend balance after they've spent the rest of the article telling you to wear a helmet because they are fantastically effective.  Nowhere do they quote any of the reliable evidence showing no benefit from helmet wearing, but they do quote quite a few much less reliable studies which show fantastic benefits.

Anybody reading it would inevitably conclude that helmets were effective, which is at the very least, questionable.  Does Sustrans have shares in helmet companies?

Avatar
kamoshika replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
4 likes
burtthebike wrote:

So they tell you time after time that helmets are fantastically effective

Sustrans wrote:

Recent studies have found that cycle helmets can offer protection to the head, but not in every scenario

Avatar
burtthebike replied to kamoshika | 5 years ago
0 likes
kamoshika wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

So they tell you time after time that helmets are fantastically effective

Sustrans wrote:

Recent studies have found that cycle helmets can offer protection to the head, but not in every scenario

Your quote implies that helmets are effective in the vast majority of collisions, but the data doesn't show that, so I'm not quite sure why you used it, unless you're agreeing with me?

Later they say this "A Cochrane review of five case-control studies found helmets provide a 63% to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of people cycling."  Those figures have been disproved many times, and anyone still quoting them is either utterly ignorant or a helmet zealot who is quite prepared to use propaganda to promote helmets.

Does Sustrans have shares in helmet makers?

 

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
1 like
burtthebike wrote:
kamoshika wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

So they tell you time after time that helmets are fantastically effective

Sustrans wrote:

Recent studies have found that cycle helmets can offer protection to the head, but not in every scenario

Your quote implies that helmets are effective in the vast majority of collisions

No it doesn't, even if you had defined precisely what 'effective' is meant to mean.

Avatar
kamoshika replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
3 likes
burtthebike wrote:

Your quote implies that helmets are effective in the vast majority of collisions, but the data doesn't show that, so I'm not quite sure why you used it, unless you're agreeing with me?

I'm sorry, but your reading and understanding of it must be completely different to mine if you think that "cycle helmets can offer protection to the head, but not in every scenario" implies that "helmets are effective in the vast majority of collisions". To me they have very different meanings.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism | 5 years ago
0 likes

Cross Country seems to be the only good long haul train company for bikes closely foillowed by Chiltern.

Virgin needs a prior booking and only on non peak trains. They have space for 5-6 bikes in the engine storage but will only take two. And when I last used it, the guard buggered off and left my bike locked away. I was lucky the train was terminating at the station and the driver was in that cabin. And we saw the RCC story where someone who had booked wasn't allowed on as the train had been overbooked for spaces and he couldn't do the Whitton. 

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
3 likes

Trying to get anything to burn must have required some determination given the amount of rain over the past week.  Nasty.

Good luck rebuilding Windmill Bikepark.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
1 like

Those GWR bike hooks are useless. They don't fit anything with non-skinny tyres and/or rims, so fat-tyred mountain bikes are no-go as are deep section aero rims. Never mind that there's no chance of them fitting in a tandem, tricycle or recumbent.

What's annoying is that they could so easily have been designed better. If the hooks were pivoted, then they would fit more wheels, or even better, replace them with velcro straps and it would get around most of the issues.

Avatar
mingmong | 5 years ago
4 likes

I've heard of dodgy beef, but now quorn as well?!

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
2 likes

Hey, it's a positive story on the BBC news site about cycling, sort of...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-49661730

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
0 likes

Was there anyone else who "never failed a drugs test"?

Pages

Latest Comments