There will be no Red Hook Criterium this year. The fixed gear race, which takes its name from the Red Hook area of Brooklyn and which is known for its crashes, has been cancelled because sponsorship hasn’t covered the overheads.
Founded by David Trimble, the race has taken place each year since 2008. In recent years, it expanded into a series with additional events held in Milan, Barcelona and London – although it was back down to just Brooklyn and Milan last year.
Jo Burt went and took a look at the 2017 London event. You can read about it here.
A statement from the organisers reads:
“After careful consideration of our options, we will be taking 2019 off. Instead, our efforts will be focused on raising support and developing plans for the continuation of the Red Hook Criterium Championship Series in the years to come.
“We appreciate every athlete, sponsor, volunteer, photographer, videographer, staff member, and fan who helped us build the Crit into what it is today and look forward to the next time we can bring everyone back together at the RHC.”
Add new comment
17 comments
I wear a helmet offroad coz I crash a lot - I'm rubbish - & on at least 2 occasions the helmet has saved me from serious head injury. I know this from the damage to the helmet - if that'd been my head instead there'd have been a *lot* of blood & a monstrous headache afterwards...
I wear a helmet on serious (as in, going as fast as I can for as long as I can) road rides coz the lanes in east Berkshire are covered in loose gravel, wet leaves, mud & other stuff the pros don't normally have to contend with, & the chances of sliding out are good (hasn't happened yet but a few near misses). Again, I'm not very good, so when (not if) I slide into a barn wall I'll likely be doing no more than 15mph, fast enough to cause nasty head injuries but probably not enough to kill me.
I often don't bother when going to the shops coz there're kids running in & out from side paths & mum's chatting on their phones while looking nowhere in particular so I'm doing no more than 8mph tops & at that speed I can get a foot down in plenty of time.
I also wear a helmet in cold or wet weather as the helmet holds my nice warm merino beanie in place. Without the helmet the beanie would just fall off.
I *don't* wear a helmet to protect me from cars. It would be pointless - all the evidence suggests if a car hits me at normal car speeds (5 - 10mph over the speed limit IME) I'm toast.
Is that sensible?
I wear a helmet for BMX racing or off-road riding, but only then. My BMX lid is actually a road legal MX one, so it's rather more protective than a cycle helmet. I've had a few crashes over the years and wearing a proper lid for BMX racing is just good sense. It's a requirement also. On one crash in particular, when I broke my wrist, a bunch of us crashed together and I hit a fallen bike then went right over my bars and hit the deck headfirst. The lid took the impact and I was bit dazed, but otherwise ok. I must have put my hand out at the same time, which was how I broke my wrist.
I've used my BMX lid for MTB riding too.
I don't bother with a helmet when I'm cycling on the road.
I wear a helmet while cycling for one reason only, that is following a collision, when it comes to any insurance payout, I don't want the amount reduced because it is perceived that I did not do everythng possible to "protect" myself, however erroneous that perception might be. And it's a good place to mount 2 cameras
Sorry, but your reason is not valid. There is a single case, in unique circumstances, where not wearing a cycle helmet was found to be contributory negligence, which is the only reason an insurance company could reduce compensation.
Many insurance companies have, and probably still do, try to claim that not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence, but they always withdraw this claim if you refuse to accept it, because they know that it is wrong. They have shareholders to support and reducing payouts by such underhand means is dishonest, and I changed my insurer because of a case where they did this.
Some dodgy solicitors put up articles like this, very convincing, but without a single case being quoted, because, apart from the unique one, there aren't any https://www.hja.net/does-not-wearing-a-helmet-affect-a-personal-injury-c...
But I prefer Martin Porter QC's opinion https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/search?q=helmet
I understand what you're saying but actually the law is on your side and there is precendence already on this in many cases. With a decent brief you (or your family) should be able to make even a thick judge see that that would be discriminatory, especially given the actual lack of hard evidence with respect to the forces that a helmet are (in the lab) able to withstand. If your helmet broke it showed that it failed and barely absorbed any of the impact forces, if the incident was with a motor vehicle, helmet not designed for such impacts and so on.
If one is going to reduce payouts for people on bikes fir not wearing a helmet then same should be for pedestrians and motorists, if not then it's discriminatory. If the criminal had not struck you then you would not be in that situation in the first instance, to apply partial negligence for not wearing something that not only is no one else required to but would equally aid them (if we are to believe the bullshit) and that statisitcally is unproven to work at population levels then this would again be wrong.
Also by wearing you're adding to the problem as a whole and also increasing your chances of having an incident at all as well as increasing your chances of a head strike significantly if you did come off/were struck ... hence why in countries with MHL and large uptakes of wearing (UK for instance) we see no decrease in injury rates and in fact comparaive to pedestrians we see a marked differential in injury reductions, that being ped injury rates have gone down by a LOT more over the same period since helmets became a big thing in the mid 2000s.
Your choice to wear but you and everyone else wearing a helmet are making matters worse for everyone as it changes the foocus, it's now on the vulnerable/those harmed to change and act/dress diiffrently when the criminal/those presenting the harm is not.
A bit like saying if a woman gets raped she should be partially responsibile for walking down the wrong street wearing certain alluring clothing and not wearing an anti rape device to try to prevent the rape from occuring, it would be preposterous right, that's precisely what is happening to people on bikes!
"Man appears to admit to an assault on a cyclist via his Twitter account" -why do people keep posting incriminating stuff on Twitter? It's a public medium. Like the (IIRC) Emma Way incident a few years ago, what leads people to brag about committing a crime somewhere that anyone can take incriminating screenshots?
How is a helmet going to help if you are going fast? They are only rated for low speed.
Wearing a helmet around town makes some sense due to traffic density and street furniture, so I'm curious as to know why a couple of posters here say they would not wear one in those circumstances.
I remember going to a conference about twenty years ago, where another cycle campaigner told me that he didn't wear his helmet on the shared use path on his daily journey, but put it on for the faster, on road section. He wasn't very receptive when I pointed out that he'd got things the wrong way around, and that on a shared use path, the helmet might, and only might, be of some use, but in collision with a motor vehicle travelling at 40mph it was useless.
The helmet study has lots of interesting lines.
This paradoxical observation has also been discovered by Kett et al. who found helmets do not actually reduce bicycle injuries.
This data found that 70% of all injured patients were involved in a collision with a motor vehicle.
It seems to back up the Dutch model - don't bother with helmets, but keep bike riders safe from vehicles.
I'm like the other commenters here - wear a helmet if I'm going to go quite fast, but not if I'm riding the Norco Multisport* into town.
(*I mainly use it for cycling)
problem is that wearing a helmet for 'going fast' is actually the worst thing you can do. Not only is the helmet even less likely to protect you, it's more likely to induce greater risk taking than wothout, it's also got more kinetic energy at those higher speeds thus adversely influencing things not to mention the added circumference which is significant so again increases chances of head strike.
A study done not that long agao showed that pro road racers from the 80s/early 90s had 50% fewer traumatic injuries than those from the mid 2000s onward. More pro road racers have died and at a greater rate post MHL in the ranks. More helmet wearing has equalled greater injury rates in the UK where we have a lot of club and 'racer' going fast type riding.
There's a huge misunderstanding with regards to the 'I'm taking greater risks ergo I need to protect myself' thinking, it's actually making matters worse as we see in virtually every scenario including non sports related.
A friend of mine had a major off a few years back, stuffed his knee and smacked his head into a stone wall in Spain taking a bend off a descent too fast. I asked him if he'd have not been wearing a helmet would he have gone at the same speed ' Of course not' he said ...
iBut I'll just throw out there the gridiron compared to rugby comparison for a start off.
From that helmet report:
"The prevalence of significant head trauma was 35% in the group of patients with helmet and 34% in the group without helmets (p-value=0.84). It should also be noted that the prevalence of all significant trauma was 26% in the group of patients with helmet and 20% in the group without helmets (p-value=0.048). The overall mortality was 1%. There was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted patients."
But according to the Australian professor last week, anyone pointing out that helmets are a waste of time is the same as a climate change denier. Well, pardon me professor, but that data looks a lot more robust than your sham of a report which had blatant methodological flaws.
my helmet debate opinion = everyone should be free to choose and not be forced or emotionally blackmailed to do one thing over the other.
from someone who wears a helmet all the time on his road bikes but would prefer not to on his brompton 'cept 'er indoors has been brainwashed to believe they make a difference...
This. It’s up to the user to choose the risks. I always wear one on my MTB and on my road bike out cycling, because both have higher speeds (thanks to hills, not my legs) and long periods on the bike.
When cycling round town I don’t as it is uncomfortable and more likely for me to drop it when going in the shop or to a meeting. Yet work freek our about this because “insurance”, which I don’t believe. I just ignore them. I did once ask if I had to wear one walking to a meeting, but got a confused look and could not be bothered to explain.
This. It’s up to the user to choose the risks. I always wear one on my MTB and on my road bike out cycling, because both have higher speeds (thanks to hills, not my legs) and long periods on the bike.
When cycling round town I don’t as it is uncomfortable and more likely for me to drop it when going in the shop or to a meeting. Yet work freek our about this because “insurance”, which I don’t believe. I just ignore them. I did once ask if I had to wear one walking to a meeting, but got a confused look and could not be bothered to explain.
Take on a trip to Holland and get her to see any rush hour commute in a city, or just visit Amsterdam
Even riders of low powered mopeds or scooters don't wear helmets
The logo on that blue bike is really small, I can't read it. Can anyone help?
'Pining for a Rolo' I think it says?
I do like that Battaglin - looks absolutely stunning.