Iconic Cycling Events offer team road.cc members a 10% discount off of Bike Bath, Oxford & Chester sportives

Rapha Nadal wrote:

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN.

So you have nothing but a dull retort YAAAAAWN, yet again proving you can't enter into a debate about something that has a massive negative effect on cycling as a whole and its safety without dullards like you turning up and making a fool of themselves because they don't have the capacity to make a point without turning to insults and childish remarks.

Gotcha.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN.

So you have nothing but a dull retort YAAAAAWN, yet again proving you can't enter into a debate about something that has a massive negative effect on cycling as a whole and its safety without dullards like you turning up and making a fool of themselves because they don't have the capacity to make a point without turning to insults and childish remarks.

Gotcha.

 

A negative effect on cyclng?! What fucking planet do you live on?!  Go outside once in a while and see what's occurring.  Better still, ride your bike with other people instead of by yourself and see how "negative" the impact is of wearing a helmet. 

Sportives are regularly over subscribed but that's negative, right?  Cycling in the UK is at an all time high but that's negative, right?

If you choose not to wear a helmet and not ride in a group because you're socially retarded then fine, that's your choice, but to constantly bang on about it to a group who really couldn't give two fucks deserves a big old YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN.

I went over the bonnet of a car a while back and face first into the kerb on the other side.  You know what stopped my head being split open?  A helmet.  But you keep on about how they're useless.

Rapha Nadal wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN.

So you have nothing but a dull retort YAAAAAWN, yet again proving you can't enter into a debate about something that has a massive negative effect on cycling as a whole and its safety without dullards like you turning up and making a fool of themselves because they don't have the capacity to make a point without turning to insults and childish remarks.

Gotcha.

 

A negative effect on cyclng?! What fucking planet do you live on?!  Go outside once in a while and see what's occurring.  Better still, ride your bike with other people instead of by yourself and see how "negative" the impact is of wearing a helmet. 

Sportives are regularly over subscribed but that's negative, right?  Cycling in the UK is at an all time high but that's negative, right?

If you choose not to wear a helmet and not ride in a group because you're socially retarded then fine, that's your choice, but to constantly bang on about it to a group who really couldn't give two fucks deserves a big old YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN.

I went over the bonnet of a car a while back and face first into the kerb on the other side.  You know what stopped my head being split open?  A helmet.  But you keep on about how they're useless.

Clearly on your planet it doesn't look at facts regarding the damage that cycle helmets have done worldwide, not just in the increased danger on an indiidual basis but also for groups and cycling as a whole. Nope you and your planet ignore all of that or just call it false news, maybe you're related or indeed are Donald Trump?

I mean you spout shite all the time like that orange faced turnip so the similarities are scarily similar. Wearing helmets and the forcing of wearing have removed freedoms, pushed unlawful acts, criminalised cycling, put people off from cycling, increased obesity, increased motor travel, pushed responsibility for safety onto people on bikes and so on.

But your planet doesn't recognise any of that.

As I thought you are a fuckwit of epic proportions

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN.

So you have nothing but a dull retort YAAAAAWN, yet again proving you can't enter into a debate about something that has a massive negative effect on cycling as a whole and its safety without dullards like you turning up and making a fool of themselves because they don't have the capacity to make a point without turning to insults and childish remarks.

Gotcha.

 

A negative effect on cyclng?! What fucking planet do you live on?!  Go outside once in a while and see what's occurring.  Better still, ride your bike with other people instead of by yourself and see how "negative" the impact is of wearing a helmet. 

Sportives are regularly over subscribed but that's negative, right?  Cycling in the UK is at an all time high but that's negative, right?

If you choose not to wear a helmet and not ride in a group because you're socially retarded then fine, that's your choice, but to constantly bang on about it to a group who really couldn't give two fucks deserves a big old YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN.

I went over the bonnet of a car a while back and face first into the kerb on the other side.  You know what stopped my head being split open?  A helmet.  But you keep on about how they're useless.

Clearly on your planet it doesn't look at facts regarding the damage that cycle helmets have done worldwide, not just in the increased danger on an indiidual basis but also for groups and cycling as a whole. Nope you and your planet ignore all of that or just call it false news, maybe you're related or indeed are Donald Trump?

I mean you spout shite all the time like that orange faced turnip so the similarities are scarily similar. Wearing helmets and the forcing of wearing have removed freedoms, pushed unlawful acts, criminalised cycling, put people off from cycling, increased obesity, increased motor travel, pushed responsibility for safety onto people on bikes and so on.

But your planet doesn't recognise any of that.

As I thought you are a fuckwit of epic proportions

I'll assume that you know the meaning of irony...

Really, how has somebody as dense as you managed to live for so long yet alone pro-create?!  It defies both science & logic in all it's forms.  The repeated knocks to your head are clearly starting to have an effect.  A helmet would definitley help you out and I'm surprised your carer doesn't make you wear one.  Fuck off back to your cave you utter luddite.

Mr Agreeable wrote:

I'm one of the team behind these sportives, so allow me to clear a few things up.



1. British Cycling (who we insure through) definitely mandate helmets for sportives. From the terms of their insurance: "The wearing of hard shell helmets conforming to CE standards EN1078 is mandatory for all riders participating in British Cycling registered events. It is the organisers’ responsibility to notify all participants, prior to event day, that the wearing of helmets is a requirement of the event." (I'd link to this if I could, but the link on the BC site is broken).



The example Burt quoted was for Let's Ride, which are a different category of events (They're what used to be known as Sky Rides).



2. While there are insurers and events out there which don't require riders to have helmets, most of the riders on them still choose to wear one. We get over a thousand riders on some of our events, which indicates that for most people, it isn't an issue.



3. Even in countries with high levels of everyday cycling, it's completely standard for sportive organisers to have a mandatory helmet rule. e.g. the Amstel Gold sportive: https://www.amstel.nl/amstelgoldrace/belangrijke-informatie Rule 2.10 translates as "Wearing a crash helmet is mandatory during the entire tour."  So you'll have to forgive us if we look sceptically at claims that making helmets a mandatory requirement on a sportive suppresses everyday cycling.



While I'm here, the reason that Bike Bath isn't a 2-day event any more is that it wasn't financially viable to keep doing this. However it is something we'd like to reintroduce in the future. We got our highest ever number of riders last year and we're on track to break that this year; we also get a high proportion of novice and female riders. So we might be "incompetent", but we seem to be doing something right.

Burt, your dull retort please.

Mr Agreeable wrote:

I'm one of the team behind these sportives, so allow me to clear a few things up.

1. British Cycling (who we insure through) definitely mandate helmets for sportives. From the terms of their insurance: "The wearing of hard shell helmets conforming to CE standards EN1078 is mandatory for all riders participating in British Cycling registered events. It is the organisers’ responsibility to notify all participants, prior to event day, that the wearing of helmets is a requirement of the event." (I'd link to this if I could, but the link on the BC site is broken).

The example Burt quoted was for Let's Ride, which are a different category of events (They're what used to be known as Sky Rides).

2. While there are insurers and events out there which don't require riders to have helmets, most of the riders on them still choose to wear one. We get over a thousand riders on some of our events, which indicates that for most people, it isn't an issue.

3. Even in countries with high levels of everyday cycling, it's completely standard for sportive organisers to have a mandatory helmet rule. e.g. the Amstel Gold sportive: https://www.amstel.nl/amstelgoldrace/belangrijke-informatie Rule 2.10 translates as "Wearing a crash helmet is mandatory during the entire tour."  So you'll have to forgive us if we look sceptically at claims that making helmets a mandatory requirement on a sportive suppresses everyday cycling.

While I'm here, the reason that Bike Bath isn't a 2-day event any more is that it wasn't financially viable to keep doing this. However it is something we'd like to reintroduce in the future. We got our highest ever number of riders last year and we're on track to break that this year; we also get a high proportion of novice and female riders. So we might be "incompetent", but we seem to be doing something right.

So you don't offer freedom of choice for clothing for your rides and can't back up your stance with any good reason to be so firm in that, again without any indication that insurers would refuse insurance (you only state that others do it so we do to) so are happy to exclude people who wish to ride without being forced to wear certain attire have I got that correct?

If you have so many riders interested as you state why do you have to go through British Cycling for insurance or even be mandated/aligned with them when in fact that would make zero difference to your uptake (according to your thinking) and indeed if pro choice would potentially increases the numbers that events are attracted to them, it certainly wouldn't diminish would it otherwise your argument fails.

That you and others force, that's right FORCE people to wear certain clothing to take part or the only other option is total exclusion can you not see why people still take part, do you think if there was freedom to choose it would not affect your profit margin in any way?

As I said, you are about EXCLUSION (And like BC and UCI indoctrinating people on bikes) not inclusion unless you abide by excessive, needless and further and importantly, rules that increase danger. Why would you want to increase danger for cycling by enforcing rules to be allowed to take part? Why would you not want to offer freedom of choice that is acceptable the whole world over and is proven not to affect risk, quite the opposite in fact?

Rich_cb wrote:

To summarise: Burt contacted some events (he can't remember which events they were). He then contacted the insurers of said events (he can't remember which insurers they were). He asked some questions (he can't remember exactly what those questions were). Based on this incredibly detailed evidence Burt has decided he is definitely right.

To summarise:

lots of people make lots of assumptions about event insurance

none of them have actually checked anything

they can't prove what they say

unable to prove their case, they resort to rather tepid insults

burtthebike wrote:

To summarise:

lots of people make lots of assumptions about event insurance

none of them have actually checked anything

they can't prove what they say

unable to prove their case, they resort to rather tepid insults

I think you're the one who is unable to prove his case.

Your rather convenient amnesia has made it impossible to verify your claims.

As others have pointed out the fact that an insurance company will insure an event without helmets doesn't automatically mean that the policy for a specific event doesn't mandate helmets.

Without knowing exactly what the specific policy for an event requires and what the alternative polices cost you literally have no case to make.

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

To summarise:

lots of people make lots of assumptions about event insurance

none of them have actually checked anything

they can't prove what they say

unable to prove their case, they resort to rather tepid insults

I think you're the one who is unable to prove his case. Your rather convenient amnesia has made it impossible to verify your claims. As others have pointed out the fact that an insurance company will insure an event without helmets doesn't automatically mean that the policy for a specific event doesn't mandate helmets. Without knowing exactly what the specific policy for an event requires and what the alternative polices cost you literally have no case to make.

Anyone can make an enquiry about event insurance and easily prove or disprove my case, but it's rather strange that none of the event organisers have come on here and provided the clause from their insurance mandating helmets.

So we have two competing scenarios; I have said that I have checked with insurance companies and they have denied having a helmet rule.  Other people have speculated, assumed and guessed that they do.   Take your pick.

burtthebike wrote:

So we have two competing scenarios; I have said that I have checked with insurance companies and they have denied having a helmet rule.  Other people have speculated, assumed and guessed that they do.   Take your pick.

You've made a claim and provided absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Why don't you rack your brain for at least a shred of corroborating information before demanding things of other people.

You made the original claim, the onus is on you to provide supporting evidence.

If you don't provide any then it might be reasonable to assume that you've just made the whole thing up...

burtthebike wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

To summarise:

lots of people make lots of assumptions about event insurance

none of them have actually checked anything

they can't prove what they say

unable to prove their case, they resort to rather tepid insults

I think you're the one who is unable to prove his case. Your rather convenient amnesia has made it impossible to verify your claims. As others have pointed out the fact that an insurance company will insure an event without helmets doesn't automatically mean that the policy for a specific event doesn't mandate helmets. Without knowing exactly what the specific policy for an event requires and what the alternative polices cost you literally have no case to make.

Anyone can make an enquiry about event insurance and easily prove or disprove my case, but it's rather strange that none of the event organisers have come on here and provided the clause from their insurance mandating helmets.

So we have two competing scenarios; I have said that I have checked with insurance companies and they have denied having a helmet rule.  Other people have speculated, assumed and guessed that they do.   Take your pick.

Probably because they have got better things to do then pick over your posts. If you hadn't gone on a rant I would have asked some relevant people but now I can't be bothered.

Btw Some insurers regard sportives as bike "racing" simply because it's a mass participation event.

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

To summarise:

lots of people make lots of assumptions about event insurance

none of them have actually checked anything

they can't prove what they say

unable to prove their case, they resort to rather tepid insults

I think you're the one who is unable to prove his case. Your rather convenient amnesia has made it impossible to verify your claims. As others have pointed out the fact that an insurance company will insure an event without helmets doesn't automatically mean that the policy for a specific event doesn't mandate helmets. Without knowing exactly what the specific policy for an event requires and what the alternative polices cost you literally have no case to make.

Anyone can make an enquiry about event insurance and easily prove or disprove my case, but it's rather strange that none of the event organisers have come on here and provided the clause from their insurance mandating helmets.

So we have two competing scenarios; I have said that I have checked with insurance companies and they have denied having a helmet rule.  Other people have speculated, assumed and guessed that they do.   Take your pick.

[/quote]

I did enquire, and as I posted earlier, the insurance company I enquired with did not mention that it required helmet use but it did require H&S signoff from British Triathlon or British Cycling and their H&S checks require helmets. So in that situation it is not specifically mandated by the insurers but you wouldn't have the insurance without it.

I have done further research and discovered that there are insurers that mandate helmet use specifically, and those that do not. The question remains as to why the event organisers choose to use those insurers that do require extra restrictions. I am taking a complete guess here but I am willing to bet that it is a cost related issue

ClubSmed wrote:

I am taking a complete guess here but I am willing to bet that it is a cost related issue

Undoubtedly - that and the fact that most of us expect to wear a hat on a sportive and think nothing of it.

Some of us use SPDs on road bikes too (PS, it's hard to tell once you're clipped in...)

Rapha Nadal wrote:

Burt?  Are you there?  You've gone awfully quite and there are so many questions being asked of you.

Oh, how kind!  I didn't realise you were missing me.  If it's ok with you, I'll occasionally take some time to live my life and earn a crust, not spend all my time answering irrelevant questions.

burtthebike wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

Burt?  Are you there?  You've gone awfully quite and there are so many questions being asked of you.

Oh, how kind!  I didn't realise you were missing me.  If it's ok with you, I'll occasionally take some time to live my life and earn a crust, not spend all my time answering irrelevant questions.

Mate, you rang multiple insurers to ask if they require helmets to be worn.  That is some quality living, you fucking dullard.

missionsystem wrote:

Mind you, they should definately exclude the use of SPDs on road bikes on the grounds above.

I am now very much more interested in this statement. As the majority of people who attend these event are club riders/experience commuters/weekend warriors who would generally use cleats why exclude them? I would be a lot less safe if forced to go back to straps as I can remove my foot from the cleat instinctively. 

Sorry Burt, you are just a stuck record. I am glad you think you won this debate.

Leviathan wrote:

missionsystem wrote:

Mind you, they should definately exclude the use of SPDs on road bikes on the grounds above.

I am now very much more interested in this statement. As the majority of people who attend these event are club riders/experience commuters/weekend warriors who would generally use cleats why exclude them? I would be a lot less safe if forced to go back to straps as I can remove my foot from the cleat instinctively. 

 

Aw bless. Someone thinks 'SPDs' = 'cleats'.