Vélo Birmingham announces full details of 100-mile closed road route

Philip Whiteman wrote:

This event is causing ructions locally.  Not in terms of the need for road closures but the excessive period enveloping either side of the event.  This has annoyed cyclists and local residents alike.  

Instead of operating a rolling road closure, Velobirmingham have sought to close roads excessively early or late.  At one point, cyclists will be required at over 60mph average in order to achieve the commencement of the closure order.  This is the source of the problem. Velobirmingham could have been more sensible in their approach and gained local support for the event. Instead, they are seeking alienation.  Whereas people could easily cope with the disruption of road closures, Velorbirmingham are seeking to maximise disruption through unwarrented closure periods that start excessively early and finishing very late.

When seeking a Traffic Regulation Order, consultation is required with relevant principal and local councils. This has not occured.  When contacting my parish council to alert them to the event in order alleviate future problems, they were completely unaware of any order being served.  As a result, the lead local authority serving the TRO will have failed in its statutory duty. 

A TRO under the Road Traffic Regulationn Act requires the applicant to alleviate inconvenience for non-motorised users including cyclists.   The road closure is going to be as useful as a chocolate teapot for Velobirmingham for preventing non-entrants using the road.  This renders the TRO as useful as a chocolate teapot for Velobirmingham as any prohibition cannot discrimate between either paying or non-paying entrants to the event.  I am already aware of local cyclists preparing to ride the route without entering.

Wow!  I wouldn't enter this event anyway because of the stupid, unjustied helmet rule, but now the organisers sound as if they are lacking in all competence.  Definitely an even to avoid.

shay cycles wrote:

For all those arguing about the number of deaths due to head injuries in professional cycling, picking at numbers, comparing one arbitarily selected 12 year period (arbitary because it could have been 10, 8 or any other number of years) with another I'd just like to make the point that the sample sizes are far too small to have any statistical relevance.

Even if the sample sizes were large enough to be relevant that wouldn't demonstrate a causal relationship.

Basically what I'm saying, as is usually said at some stage of this argument, is that there is no evidence that the use of bicycle helmets reduces rates of head injury or death in cyclists.

Yes, that's right; no evidence.

The 12 year period was chosen because the data is available for the 12 years since the helmet rule was instigated, and it seems at least reasonably logical to compare that to the previous 12 years.  Nothing arbitrary about it at all, perfectly logical and reaonable.

Your argument about sample sizes has some validity, but if the helmet rule was effective, then it would be expected for the death rate to fall, not to increase, but as you say, small sample sizes so difficult to be conclusive.  However, the trend is clearly not downwards.

You are not quite right about there being no evidence that cycle helmets reduces risk to cyclists, there are many studies showing massive reductions in cyclist deaths, but this is small scale, short term, unreliable research from blatantly biased researchers.  The studies showing no benefit, or even an increase in risk are large scale, long term, reliable research from objective researchers.  Unfortunately, most people prefer to believe the unreliable studies rather than the reliable ones because it fits their beliefs.  It is much more a matter of belief than fact, rather like religion.

burtthebike wrote:

if the helmet rule was effective, then it would be expected for the death rate to fall, not to increase,

The death rate attributable to head injury has fallen in the 12 year period! Deaths attributable to other injuries may nave risen but how is that relevant?

burtthebike wrote:

small scale, short term, unreliable research from blatantly biased researchers.

Like ones who would quote cyclist death statistics without the context of difference in the number of events, entrants or causes of death? You mean biased like that?

burtthebike wrote:

Unfortunately, most people prefer to believe the unreliable studies rather than the reliable ones because it fits their beliefs.  It is much more a matter of belief than fact, rather like religion.

And some like to not take things on face value and dig a little further only to be dismissed

Leviathan wrote:

The comparison is entirely valid. You would go rowing or fishing without a helmet, but not white water. You might go for a leisurely ride or to the shop without a helmet, but you wouldn't go down a closed road course downhill at 50+ kph without one, or shouldn't. Unless you want to impose a maximum speed limit on this type of event then helmets are necessary. I've seen the people getting helicoptered out of events in London and the Etape Cymru. 1/50,000 is going to hit a curb at speed.

Anyone suggesting helmets have 'zero' effect has never hit their head of anything hard, be it on a rock or a road, and/or are facetious liars.

I am inclined to think if it's a private event on closed-roads, the organisers can impose what rules they want. And if it's a 'sport', and even slightly 'competitive', then the helmet issue is a different argument from if when it's just a utilitarian activity.

I suppose the slight grey-area is that even if its a private event it's still using a public asset in the form of the roads. But that's a different argument in itself really (never been entirely clear what the moral/legal basis is for using public space in that way, just as when they close bits of commons to hold private events on them).

(Obviously I always wear a life-jacket when cycling.)

Leviathan wrote:

Anyone suggesting helmets have 'zero' effect has never hit their head of anything hard, be it on a rock or a road, and/or are facetious liars.

Well, I reckon one of us has had a bang on the head...

Might it not be that people who disagree with you have maybe read some stuff that discriminates about the effectiveness of cycle helmets in different circumstances, written by people who know more about the subject than your or me?

Your stance makes a massive assumption: that cycle helmets are effective in the majority of cases that they're likely to be required. I dispute that, or at least remain unconvinced by the evidence.

You surely must be able to grasp the distinction between different helmets for different purposes, and that they might be tested in different scenarios? You can surely understand that some people have read how cycle helmets are tested and concluded that it's a bit shit?

Leviathan wrote:

Python, genuine question for you: Would you go white water rafting without a helmet?

Genuine question for you Leviathan:  would you go up and down stairs every day without wearing a helmet?   Seriously?

Leviathan wrote:

Python, genuine question for you: Would you go white water rafting without a helmet?

Not a great comparison : white water is such because of the rocks beneath - and often close to/projecting from - the surface. A raft is continously changing attitude and it's not exactly unusual for people to be ejected, at which point their head is bobbing along at rock- level, whether they've hit rocks on the way out/under or not.

I doubt many mtbers would go without a helmet on more challenging trails for similar reasons. On the other hand, for a leisurely ride on yer average bridleway, I probably wouldn't bother other than out of habit.

FrogBucket wrote:

They did not sell out in four days.. They will still trying to get me to buy 2 months later. An event that is more expensive than London, run by a private company for profit. A training ride with a former rugby player... I think I shall skip this event. Over priced.

skip it then.. ...FFS. No one is forcing you to enter. Why the need to tell us about something your not going to do?

nuclear_didds wrote:

 

Aside from that like Ianrobo I am looking forward to riding on my usual roads without any cars / vans / HGVs! ALthough I expect I will not be close to 6.5 hours 

 

you watch how many will go off very fast down the Hagley road then burn up St Kenelm's pass when they see that last 200M of 10% plus !! 

ianrobo wrote:

nuclear_didds wrote:

 

Aside from that like Ianrobo I am looking forward to riding on my usual roads without any cars / vans / HGVs! ALthough I expect I will not be close to 6.5 hours 

 

you watch how many will go off very fast down the Hagley road then burn up St Kenelm's pass when they see that last 200M of 10% plus !! 

It's a killer place to have that climb and it can be a bit of a slog from Belbroughton before you even get to Vine Lane. Oh well it'll be fun!

nuclear_didds wrote:

I had to register for this.

...
He was lucky in that he was wearing a helmet and the crash left him dazed, a headache for a week and in need of a new helmet (the impact had dented his old one). I dread to think what his head would've been like without a helmet.

Welcome.

But that old chestnut really wasn't worth registration.

http://cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

keirik wrote:

It's also eye wateringly expensive

Cant seem to see any entry price listed. Care to share what you know?

zanf wrote:

keirik wrote:

It's also eye wateringly expensive

Cant seem to see any entry price listed. Care to share what you know?

The individual entries have been sold out but you can enter as a charity entrant which is £40 for the NSPCC with a £400 minimum sponsorship commitment.

burtthebike wrote:

While I'm sure that this will be a great event, I can't help thinking that it's yet another fake race with a helmet rule "6.1 safety approved cycle helmets conforming to British Cycling standards are worn at all times during the Event;"  Leaving aside the fact that there is no such thing as a "safety approved cycle helmet" this rule is absurd and dangerous.

If you really want to emphasise and advertise the fact that cycling is really, really dangerous, make sure that you have a helmet rule.  The event is on closed roads, so no motor vehicle involvement, but you still have to have a helmet rule?  Using rules from professional racing hardly seem appropriate for a very amateur event.

Perhaps these rules might be justified if the helmet rule for professionals had proven to be effective, but the death rate of professional cyclists has doubled since the helmet rule was implemented.  In the 12 years before the rule, five professional cyclists died in competition, and ten have died in the 12 years since the rule.

Any competent organiser would be reviewing this data as a matter of urgency and considering implementing a helmet ban, otherwise they could be open to claims of negligence.

I guess it's internet access day at the special needs school today.

SingleSpeed wrote:

I guess it's internet access day at the special needs school today.

I guess it's uncivil comment day on road.cc

SingleSpeed wrote:

I guess it's internet access day at the special needs school today.

I do so appreciate constructive, factual and thoughtful criticism, especially that which states a premise and then goes on using logic and sense to prove it.  Even better when such hilarious wit is used as well.

Thanks again, I'll consider your so cogently argued case and ruminate for many hours until I have constructed a solid case with which to confound your arguments.

Meanwhile, perhaps you could stay away from the keyboard unless you have something useful, intelligent and constructive to say?  Perhaps you could even check the facts, or would that be going too far?