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

burtthebike wrote:

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?

[/quote]

Well that rules out the vast majority of posters when it comes to the helmet or Sky debate lol - me included before anyone comes up with a witty reply  

burtthebike wrote:

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?

Well; you clearly like the sound of your own keyboard don't you poppet. However, your choice of words carefully plucked from your trusty ladybird thesaurus don't make you sound quite as clever as you think they do.

SingleSpeed wrote:

Well; you clearly like the sound of your own keyboard don't you poppet. However, your choice of words carefully plucked from your trusty ladybird thesaurus don't make you sound quite as clever as you think they do.

"Poppet" How quaint.  Which thesaurus did you find that in?  Mills and Boon perhaps?

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 don't think it is unreasonable for organisers to have a helmet rule for these type of events.

Don't get me wrong - I'm very much against mandatory helmet laws for everyday cycle use. You only have to look at places like Australia to see the very negative effects these have on general cycling rates (with knock-on consequences on population health, obesity levels etc). I usually wear a helmet myself (except for quick trips to the local shops), but that is my choice. I don't have any issue with people who prefer not to use one.

However, I have taken part in a number of closed road events over the years (RideLondon - repeatedly, Cardiff Velothon - twice, Tour of Cambridgeshire), and on nearly every occasion, I have seen participants injured in crashes, principally with road furniture, though sometimes with other riders.

People will ride fast at these types of events, and their skill levels will vary, and certainly not be up there with the pros. It may not be true of everyone (there will be people taking it much more slowly, for whom helmet use may be less important), but I think mandatory helmet use for this type of event is an acceptable principle. I suspect the organisers' liability insurance will require it in any case.

Mystery Machine wrote:

.........but I think mandatory helmet use for this type of event is an acceptable principle. I suspect the organisers' liability insurance will require it in any case.

I have been in touch with many organisers of these events, and have been told many times that this rule is imposed by the insurers.  However, I have also many times contacted those very insurers who tell me they make no such imposition, presumably because they have access to the epidemiological data and are aware that at best helmets make no difference and do not reduce risk.   Personally, I don't have much faith in organisers who lie to me and don't understand risk.

burtthebike wrote:

In the 12 years before the rule, five professional cyclists died in competition, and ten have died in the 12 years since the rule.

Just so I can put this in to context for my own personal evaluation of this scenario (as I cannot find the stats myself), over those 12 year periods what has happened to the numbers of professional race events, entry volumes and the fastest speeds?

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

In the 12 years before the rule, five professional cyclists died in competition, and ten have died in the 12 years since the rule.

Just so I can put this in to context for my own personal evaluation of this scenario (as I cannot find the stats myself), over those 12 year periods what has happened to the numbers of professional race events, entry volumes and the fastest speeds?

Sorry, but I'm not your research worker.  The information I have provided is correct and verifiable, but if you wish to do further research, may I humbly suggest that you do it your effing self?

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

In the 12 years before the rule, five professional cyclists died in competition, and ten have died in the 12 years since the rule.

Just so I can put this in to context for my own personal evaluation of this scenario (as I cannot find the stats myself), over those 12 year periods what has happened to the numbers of professional race events, entry volumes and the fastest speeds?

Sorry, but I'm not your research worker.  The information I have provided is correct and verifiable, but if you wish to do further research, may I humbly suggest that you do it your effing self?

He's got you there, I believe this is the standard statement printed in all peer-reviewed scientific journals. 

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

In the 12 years before the rule, five professional cyclists died in competition, and ten have died in the 12 years since the rule.

Just so I can put this in to context for my own personal evaluation of this scenario (as I cannot find the stats myself), over those 12 year periods what has happened to the numbers of professional race events, entry volumes and the fastest speeds?

Sorry, but I'm not your research worker.  The information I have provided is correct and verifiable, but if you wish to do further research, may I humbly suggest that you do it your effing self?

Fair enough, I did try and find out but was unable to do so and thought that as you managed to obtain the original figures you may have insight into where to find the rest (or at least point me in the right direction). As you refuse to do so (which is of course your right) I am forced to just dismiss that statement as half a fact.

There may have been double the numbers of fatalities but if the number of events or entrants (or combination of the two) have quadrupled then in real terms they have actually fallen. I do not know if the numbers have gone up or down but without those figures the fatalities numbers are pretty pointless in my humble opinion.

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

In the 12 years before the rule, five professional cyclists died in competition, and ten have died in the 12 years since the rule.

Just so I can put this in to context for my own personal evaluation of this scenario (as I cannot find the stats myself), over those 12 year periods what has happened to the numbers of professional race events, entry volumes and the fastest speeds?

Sorry, but I'm not your research worker.  The information I have provided is correct and verifiable, but if you wish to do further research, may I humbly suggest that you do it your effing self?

This is the only list of cyclists killed in cycle race incidents so I used this for the basis of my research:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cyclists_with_a_cycling_related_death

It lists 6 deaths in the 12 years preceding the introduction of helmets to cycle racing. Of those 5 are head related and 1 is a collision with a motor vehicle.

Since the introduction of the helmet to cycle racing the following 12 years shows 21 deaths. Of those 5 are head related, 4 from collision with a motor vehicle, 7 Heart related, 1 internal bleeding and 4 not specifically reported.

So from these figures without the added data of increase/decrease of numbers of competitions/competitors all that it shows is helmets made no difference to the numbers killed as a result of head trauma.

ClubSmed wrote:

This is the only list of cyclists killed in cycle race incidents so I used this for the basis of my research:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cyclists_with_a_cycling_related_death

It lists 6 deaths in the 12 years preceding the introduction of helmets to cycle racing. Of those 5 are head related and 1 is a collision with a motor vehicle.

Since the introduction of the helmet to cycle racing the following 12 years shows 21 deaths. Of those 5 are head related, 4 from collision with a motor vehicle, 7 Heart related, 1 internal bleeding and 4 not specifically reported.

So from these figures without the added data of increase/decrease of numbers of competitions/competitors all that it shows is helmets made no difference to the numbers killed as a result of head trauma.

Thank you ClubSmed, my information was clearly incomplete, but your figures still show that helmets have made bugger all difference at best, and at worst, a significant increase.  If there has been an increase in risk, it woudn't just be from head related injuries, as other injuries would be expected to rise because of risk compensation, so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets.

burtthebike wrote:

If there has been an increase in risk, it woudn't just be from head related injuries, as other injuries would be expected to rise because of risk compensation, so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets.

Deaths of car drivers from cancer has risen since the introduction of the seatbelt too. That must be down to the seatbelt, can't be anything to do with the increase in driver numbers or other factors

ClubSmed wrote:

Deaths of car drivers from cancer has risen since the introduction of the seatbelt too. That must be down to the seatbelt, can't be anything to do with the increase in driver numbers or other factors

Fuck me.  That's so obvious I can't believe no one has thought to look at that before.  They must all be morons if they can't come up with that like you did based upon your 15 minutes of intense thinking.

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

If there has been an increase in risk, it woudn't just be from head related injuries, as other injuries would be expected to rise because of risk compensation, so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets.

 

Deaths of car drivers from cancer has risen since the introduction of the seatbelt too. That must be down to the seatbelt, can't be anything to do with the increase in driver numbers or other factors

Quite the most bizarre, irrelevant and ridiculous response to a serious point that I've ever seen.  Congratulations, you must be so proud.

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

If there has been an increase in risk, it woudn't just be from head related injuries, as other injuries would be expected to rise because of risk compensation, so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets.

 

Deaths of car drivers from cancer has risen since the introduction of the seatbelt too. That must be down to the seatbelt, can't be anything to do with the increase in driver numbers or other factors

Quite the most bizarre, irrelevant and ridiculous response to a serious point that I've ever seen.  Congratulations, you must be so proud.

Very closely followed by Ush' comment

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

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

If there has been an increase in risk, it woudn't just be from head related injuries, as other injuries would be expected to rise because of risk compensation, so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets.

 

Deaths of car drivers from cancer has risen since the introduction of the seatbelt too. That must be down to the seatbelt, can't be anything to do with the increase in driver numbers or other factors

Quite the most bizarre, irrelevant and ridiculous response to a serious point that I've ever seen.  Congratulations, you must be so proud.

Do you not think that the rise in deaths in professional cycling involving heart issues is more likely to be as a result of the rise of drugs in the sport rather than the use of a helmet?

I think that your suggestion that helmets cause heart attacks is just as irrelevent and rediculous which is why I made that mock statement.

ClubSmed wrote:

I think that your suggestion that helmets cause heart attacks is just as irrelevent and rediculous which is why I made that mock statement.

Just for the hell of it, could you please post a quote from me suggesting that helmets cause heart attacks?

You're getting more than slightly desperate ClubSmed.

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

I think that your suggestion that helmets cause heart attacks is just as irrelevent and rediculous which is why I made that mock statement.

Just for the hell of it, could you please post a quote from me suggesting that helmets cause heart attacks?

You're getting more than slightly desperate ClubSmed.

I'm not getting desperate, I'm not in the camp of pro helmets, nor am I in the camp of anti helmets.
I am in the camp of disliking when half formed statistics are offered as verifying facts.
You offered such a statistic with your professional cyclists killed pre and post the helmet rule. I pointed out the flaw and you told me to find the missing data myself.
I didn't manage to find any data on the increase (or not) of cycling events or entrants. I did manage to break down the details of the cycling fatalities to show cause of death. This showed that there was not seen increase in head injury related deaths post the helmet rule. There was an increase of other causes, with the biggest one being heart attacks.
You then said:

burtthebike wrote:

so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets.

So from that I draw that you are saying that helmets somehow cause heart attacks. Or were you suggesting that they cause internal bleeding or support/reporting vehicles to lose control?

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

I think that your suggestion that helmets cause heart attacks is just as irrelevent and rediculous which is why I made that mock statement.

Just for the hell of it, could you please post a quote from me suggesting that helmets cause heart attacks?

You're getting more than slightly desperate ClubSmed.

I'm not getting desperate, I'm not in the camp of pro helmets, nor am I in the camp of anti helmets. I am in the camp of disliking when half formed statistics are offered as verifying facts. You offered such a statistic with your professional cyclists killed pre and post the helmet rule. I pointed out the flaw and you told me to find the missing data myself. I didn't manage to find any data on the increase (or not) of cycling events or entrants. I did manage to break down the details of the cycling fatalities to show cause of death. This showed that there was not seen increase in head injury related deaths post the helmet rule. There was an increase of other causes, with the biggest one being heart attacks. You then said:

burtthebike wrote:

so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets.

So from that I draw that you are saying that helmets somehow cause heart attacks. Or were you suggesting that they cause internal bleeding or support/reporting vehicles to lose control?

So no quote then?  Might be time to stop digging ClubSmed.

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

I think that your suggestion that helmets cause heart attacks is just as irrelevent and rediculous which is why I made that mock statement.

Just for the hell of it, could you please post a quote from me suggesting that helmets cause heart attacks?

You're getting more than slightly desperate ClubSmed.

I'm not getting desperate, I'm not in the camp of pro helmets, nor am I in the camp of anti helmets. I am in the camp of disliking when half formed statistics are offered as verifying facts. You offered such a statistic with your professional cyclists killed pre and post the helmet rule. I pointed out the flaw and you told me to find the missing data myself. I didn't manage to find any data on the increase (or not) of cycling events or entrants. I did manage to break down the details of the cycling fatalities to show cause of death. This showed that there was not seen increase in head injury related deaths post the helmet rule. There was an increase of other causes, with the biggest one being heart attacks. You then said:

burtthebike wrote:

so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets.

So from that I draw that you are saying that helmets somehow cause heart attacks. Or were you suggesting that they cause internal bleeding or support/reporting vehicles to lose control?

So no quote then?  Might be time to stop digging ClubSmed.

I apologise if I mistook your statement as referring to heart attacks and you were referring to another of the causes of fatalities.
Just to clear all this up, which of the other causes of fatalities where you referring to when you said "so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets"?
The reported causes were Heart attack (5) and Head injury (3) but we are talking about non head injury deaths and you've already denied it being heart attacks. So that leaves loss of control from support/reporting vehicle (2) and Internal Bleading (1). As you stated that helmets cause the other deaths through additional risk taking I'll rule out drivers losing control as these two incidents were not caused by cyclist manoeuvres which leaves internal bleeding.....

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

So no quote then?  Might be time to stop digging ClubSmed.

I apologise if I mistook your statement as referring to heart attacks and you were referring to another of the causes of fatalities. Just to clear all this up, which of the other causes of fatalities where you referring to when you said "so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets"? The reported causes were Heart attack (5) and Head injury (3) but we are talking about non head injury deaths and you've already denied it being heart attacks. So that leaves loss of control from support/reporting vehicle (2) and Internal Bleading (1). As you stated that helmets cause the other deaths through additional risk taking I'll rule out drivers losing control as these two incidents were not caused by cyclist manoeuvres which leaves internal bleeding.....

Definitely time to stop digging.

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

So no quote then?  Might be time to stop digging ClubSmed.

I apologise if I mistook your statement as referring to heart attacks and you were referring to another of the causes of fatalities. Just to clear all this up, which of the other causes of fatalities where you referring to when you said "so it is likely that some of the other deaths, non-head related, were due to the helmets"? The reported causes were Heart attack (5) and Head injury (3) but we are talking about non head injury deaths and you've already denied it being heart attacks. So that leaves loss of control from support/reporting vehicle (2) and Internal Bleading (1). As you stated that helmets cause the other deaths through additional risk taking I'll rule out drivers losing control as these two incidents were not caused by cyclist manoeuvres which leaves internal bleeding.....

Definitely time to stop digging.

Just to be clear, neither I nor the article brought up the topic of helmets, you did!
I didn't bring up the cyclists killed pre and post the helmet rule, you did.
I didn't claim that other injuries than head ones were attributable to helmet use, you did.
All I have done is question your statistics and statements. If you are not willing to have your views questioned I suggest you find another outlet

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

In the 12 years before the rule, five professional cyclists died in competition, and ten have died in the 12 years since the rule.

Just so I can put this in to context for my own personal evaluation of this scenario (as I cannot find the stats myself), over those 12 year periods what has happened to the numbers of professional race events, entry volumes and the fastest speeds?

Sorry, but I'm not your research worker.  The information I have provided is correct and verifiable, but if you wish to do further research, may I humbly suggest that you do it your effing self?

 

This is the only list of cyclists killed in cycle race incidents so I used this for the basis of my research:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cyclists_with_a_cycling_related_death

 

It lists 6 deaths in the 12 years preceding the introduction of helmets to cycle racing. Of those 5 are head related and 1 is a collision with a motor vehicle.

 

Since the introduction of the helmet to cycle racing the following 12 years shows 21 deaths. Of those 5 are head related, 4 from collision with a motor vehicle, 7 Heart related, 1 internal bleeding and 4 not specifically reported.

 

So from these figures without the added data of increase/decrease of numbers of competitions/competitors all that it shows is helmets made no difference to the numbers killed as a result of head trauma.

My mistake, I apologise. I had listed the deaths for the following 14 years which skewed the stats somewhat.

The deaths for the 12 years following the helmet inclusion total 14 and break down as follows:

Motor: 2

Heart: 5

Head: 3

Motor: 2

Internal Bleading: 1

Unspecified injury:2

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.

Behave yourself: at a speed that they're incapable of holding for 20 minutes, and a wind speed and yaw that would blow them into the nearest field, an aero helmet saves your average fat-headed sportive racer 2W.

Without that energy being expended via standing at the cake counter, the entire countryside café industry would collapse.

Be careful what you wish for...