Cyclists wanted : any age, no experience necessary!

[Andy2166]

Sky and British Cycling have teamed up to apparently get one million
more people cycling regularly by 2013. There are lots of rides to
choose from! You can ride city streets, traffic free or be guided
through the Countryside. Sky Ride is the cycling experience for all
ages and abilities! And it’s free!

You can choose to participate in a Sky Ride City event, or a free Sky
Ride Local event across the country, taking in scenic countryside and
local sights.

Sky Ride Local events are small group cycle rides designed to get
everyone cycling regularly in a fun and informal way. These are free
rides, led by British Cycling trained ride leaders, who will guide
participants along the route, and provide tips ad advice on cycle
safety and skills.

Rides vary in levels, from beginners to more experienced cyclists, so
you can pick a level to suit your skills and enjoyment. Whatever level
you choose, you’ll be riding on safe routes, with your ride leaders.

Personally, I think it’s a brilliant concept! Especially for beginners
like me! I havn’t got the confidence to cycle on the roads as yet, due
t traffic. But with this, I don’t have to worry abut whether I’m going
to be knocked off my bike or not. Plus, I’ll get to learn new tips and
advice on cycle safety and skills from a professional!

Some of the local rides I have seen look beautiful and also start and
end at a pub, which is always a good way t finish an enjoyable cycle
ride in my opinion! What a great way to also meet new friends and
socialise in a fun way that also keeps you fit and healthy!

So what are you waiting for? Signing up couldn’t be easier – you enter
your postcode at www.goskyride.com to find your nearest Sky Ride
events, and simply register your details.

I’d be interested to hear from anyone who has actually been on a Sky
Ride event!

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

On 27/06/2010 17:17, Andy2166 wrote:

> I’d be interested to hear from anyone who has actually been on a Sky
> Ride event!

I like this idea, but went on the site to find the closest local ride to
DN3 (Doncaster)
............................
You searched for DN3
Sky Ride City rides near you
18 July 2010, 10.00 am Mayor of London Sky Ride Ealing FIND OUT MORE
25 July 2010, 10.00 am Sky Ride Southampton FIND OUT MORE
25 July 2010, 10.00 am Sky Ride Bath FIND OUT MORE
1 August 2010, 10.00 am Sky Ride Manchester FIND OUT MORE
15 August 2010, 10.00 am Sky Ride Middlesbrough FIND OUT MORE
15 August 2010, 10.00 am Mayor of London Sky Ride Redbridge FIND OUT MORE
22 August 2010, 10.00 am Sky Ride Glasgow FIND OUT MORE
29 August 2010, 10.00 am Sky Ride Leicester FIND OUT MORE
29 August 2010, 10.00 am Sky Ride Bradford FIND OUT MORE
5 September 2010, 10.00 am Mayor of London's Sky Ride FIND OUT MORE
12 September 2010, 10.00 am Sky Ride Birmingham FIND OUT MORE
Filter by ride level:
Sky Ride local rides near you
4 July 2010, 2.00 pm Portwood to Reddish Vale Nature Trail Ride
Easy 44.1 miles away FIND OUT MORE
11 July 2010, 10.00 am Medlock Valley Discovery Ride Ride Well 42.5
miles away FIND OUT MORE
4 July 2010, 2.00 pm Tameside Trail Ride Steady 45.4 miles away
FIND OUT MORE
11 July 2010, 2.00 pm Discover The Fallowfield Loop Ride Steady 45.7
miles away FIND OUT MORE
18 July 2010, 2.00 pm Debdale Park to Manchester Velodrome Ride
Easy 45.7 miles away FIND OUT MORE
4 July 2010, 10.00 am Trans Pennine Trail - Route to Lymm Ride
Strong 51.4 miles away FIND OUT MORE
11 July 2010, 2.00 pm Two Water Parks Ride Easy 50.3 miles away
FIND OUT MORE
18 July 2010, 10.00 am Heaton Park Wanderer Ride Well 49.2 miles
away FIND OUT MORE
25 July 2010, 2.00 pm Tranquil ride to Cringle Park Ride Steady 45.7
miles away FIND OUT MORE
18 July 2010, 2.00 pm Manchester Airport Orbital Cycleway Ride
Steady 50.9 miles away FIND OUT MORE
25 July 2010, 10.00 am The Big Tour Ride Strong 48.5 miles away
FIND OUT MORE
25 July 2010, 2.00 pm Discover the Beauty of Heaton Park Ride Easy
49.2 miles away FIND OUT MORE
25 July 2010, 10.00 am A Tale of Two Trails Ride Well 51.4 miles
away FIND OUT MORE
18 July 2010, 10.00 am Dunham That Trail Ride Steady 56.6 miles
away FIND OUT MORE
8 August 2010, 2.00 pm Debdale Park Picnic Ride Ride Easy 45.7 miles
away FIND OUT MORE
8 August 2010, 10.00 am Pennine Escape Ride Strong 47 miles away
FIND OUT MORE
4 July 2010, 2.00 pm Abbey Park and Wolsey Island Ride Easy 62.7
miles away FIND OUT MORE
8 August 2010, 10.00 am Manchester City Green Route Ride Steady 49.2
miles away FIND OUT MORE
11 July 2010, 2.00 pm Blue Plaques Ride Steady 63.2 miles away FIND
OUT MORE
11 July 2010, 10.00 am Lost Villages Ride Strong 63.7 miles away
FIND OUT MORE
....................................

Just a pity the events aren't easily accessible ... the closest to me is
42.5 miles away ...

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Colin McKenzie]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:17:22 +0100, Andy2166
> wrote:
> Sky and British Cycling have teamed up to apparently get one million
> more people cycling regularly by 2013. There are lots of rides to
> choose from! You can ride city streets, traffic free or be guided
> through the Countryside. Sky Ride is the cycling experience for all
> ages and abilities! And it’s free.

They should be a fun day out, and attract people who don't cycle on road
much, if at all. But the conversion rate of those to regular cyclists will
not be high. One reason for this is that the Skyride publicity does
nothing to challenge the 'cycling is dangerous' myth. The mere existence
of the rides suggests that normal roads are not fit for cycling, and they
turn the screw more by doling out hi-vis and strongly recommending helmets
for the event. People may go away wanting to cycle more, but most will
remain convinced that in normal conditions it's too dangerous.

> Sky Ride Local events are small group cycle rides designed to get
> everyone cycling regularly in a fun and informal way.

Not small. We expect thousands in Ealing.

> These are free rides, led by British Cycling trained ride leaders,
> who will guide participants along the route, and provide tips andadvice
> on cycle safety and skills.

Tips and advice worth about what you pay for them, I should think. Far
better to get bikeability cycle training, in real traffic.

> Personally, I think it’s a brilliant concept! Especially for beginners
> like me! I havn’t got the confidence to cycle on the roads as yet, due
> to traffic.

You have been brainwashed. As long as you don't get so close in front of a
driver who hasn't seen you, that he/she can't stop in the distance between
you, you'll be fine. The worst that can happen is that you'll have to stop
from time to time because you've got out of position. Bikeability training
will teach you how to avoid this.

> I’d be interested to hear from anyone who has actually been on a Sky
> Ride event!

Never been on one, helping to organise one.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Andy2166 wrote:
> Sky and British Cycling have teamed up to apparently get one million
> more people cycling regularly by 2013. There are lots of rides to
> choose from! You can ride city streets, traffic free or be guided
> through the Countryside. Sky Ride is the cycling experience for all
> ages and abilities! And it’s free!

No it isn't free you ****wit. Its probably paid for by taxpayers or Sky
subscribers, the majority of whom don't give a **** about your whacko ideas.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Colin McKenzie wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:17:22 +0100, Andy2166
> > wrote:
>> Sky and British Cycling have teamed up to apparently get one million
>> more people cycling regularly by 2013. There are lots of rides to
>> choose from! You can ride city streets, traffic free or be guided
>> through the Countryside. Sky Ride is the cycling experience for all
>> ages and abilities! And it's free.
>
> They should be a fun day out, and attract people who don't cycle on
> road much, if at all. But the conversion rate of those to regular
> cyclists will not be high.

Thank **** for that. We have enough of the ******s already.


> One reason for this is that the Skyride
> publicity does nothing to challenge the 'cycling is dangerous' myth.
> The mere existence of the rides suggests that normal roads are not
> fit for cycling, and they turn the screw more by doling out hi-vis
> and strongly recommending helmets for the event. People may go away
> wanting to cycle more, but most will remain convinced that in normal
> conditions it's too dangerous.

No ****ing **** Sherlock. Roads are dangerous for cyclists. Push bikes are
simply not a viable form of transport in todays world.

>> Sky Ride Local events are small group cycle rides designed to get
>> everyone cycling regularly in a fun and informal way.
>
> Not small. We expect thousands in Ealing.

I hope they don't get in the way of tax paying motorists.


>> These are free rides, led by British Cycling trained ride leaders,
>> who will guide participants along the route, and provide tips
>> andadvice on cycle safety and skills.

Free? Bollox. I'm paying for you ******s out of my Sky subscription.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[PhilO]

On Jun 27, 10:48*pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Free? *Bollox. *I'm paying for you ******s out of my Sky subscription..
>
Ooh! I'll have to go along to one. Thanks for the freebie Dave!

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

PhilO wrote:
> On Jun 27, 10:48 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Free? Bollox. I'm paying for you ******s out of my Sky subscription.
>>
> Ooh! I'll have to go along to one. Thanks for the freebie Dave!

Send me a cheque you sponging git.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Derek C]

On Jun 27, 9:53*pm, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:
>
> They should be a fun day out, and attract people who don't cycle on road *
> much, if at all. But the conversion rate of those to regular cyclists will *
> not be high. One reason for this is that the Skyride publicity does *
> nothing to challenge the 'cycling is dangerous' myth. The mere existence *
> of the rides suggests that normal roads are not fit for cycling, and they *
> turn the screw more by doling out hi-vis and strongly recommending helmets *
> for the event. People may go away wanting to cycle more, but most will *
> remain convinced that in normal conditions it's too dangerous.
>

Er, cycling is moderately dangerous! Statistically you are about 20
times more likely to become a casualty on a pedal cycle than in a car,
per km travelled. Things like decent training, common sense and
wearing cycle helmets make it less dangerous. Therefore I applaud Sky
for their cycling initiative.

Due to the appalling state the last Labour Governments left the UK
economy in, it is quite likely that many more people will have to
start cycling, as a means of keeping their costs down and to balance
their household budgets.

Derek C

[Peter Clinch]

Derek C wrote:

> Er, cycling is moderately dangerous! Statistically you are about 20
> times more likely to become a casualty on a pedal cycle than in a car,
> per km travelled.

I cycle a lot. I drive relatively little. But I still do a lot more
distance in a car over the course of a typical year, so that's a bit of
a bogus number to underpin "cycling is moderately dangerous".

> Due to the appalling state the last Labour Governments left the UK
> economy in,

Not that I'm saying they did a Great Job, but ITYM something more like
"unsecured sub prime lending by commercial banking interests". Since
looking beyond the UK's borders shows plenty of other financial
disasters going on.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Gwyn Oakley[_2_]]

In message >
Derek C > wrote:

>On Jun 27, 9:53*pm, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:
>>
>> They should be a fun day out, and attract people who don't cycle on road *
>> much, if at all. But the conversion rate of those to regular cyclists will *
>> not be high. One reason for this is that the Skyride publicity does *
>> nothing to challenge the 'cycling is dangerous' myth. The mere existence *
>> of the rides suggests that normal roads are not fit for cycling, and they *
>> turn the screw more by doling out hi-vis and strongly recommending helmets *
>> for the event. People may go away wanting to cycle more, but most will *
>> remain convinced that in normal conditions it's too dangerous.
>>
>
>Er, cycling is moderately dangerous! Statistically you are about 20
>times more likely to become a casualty on a pedal cycle than in a car,
>per km travelled.

Per distance travelled is an "easy" measure and in many cases relevant
BUT in some instance misleading. For instance on a commute where the
distance is the same whether cycling or driving then per mile travelled
is a reasonable measure; however when out on a weekend leisure ride
compared to a w/e drive the distance travelled will generally be much
less than in the motor vehicle, therefore, in this scenarioo, hours of
exposure is a more relevant figure. The difficulty is in arriving at an
exposure figure which takes in both exposure measures and this
difficulty is compounded by the different usage patterns of cyclists

> Things like decent training, common sense and
>wearing cycle helmets make it less dangerous. Therefore I applaud Sky
>for their cycling initiative.

I accept decent traing will make a difference but helmets? For me, I
have come off my bike twice in th last 30 years and not hit my head.
When I did try a helmet I did not like the reduced visibility that I
found although I admit this may be a personal factor arising from my
reduced mobility in neck and upper body.


[snip]



--
Gwyn

[Derek C]

On Jun 28, 12:19*pm, Gwyn Oakley >
wrote:
> In message >
> * * * * * Derek C > wrote:
>
> >On Jun 27, 9:53 pm, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:
>
> >> They should be a fun day out, and attract people who don't cycle on road
> >> much, if at all. But the conversion rate of those to regular cyclists will
> >> not be high. One reason for this is that the Skyride publicity does
> >> nothing to challenge the 'cycling is dangerous' myth. The mere existence
> >> of the rides suggests that normal roads are not fit for cycling, and they
> >> turn the screw more by doling out hi-vis and strongly recommending helmets
> >> for the event. People may go away wanting to cycle more, but most will
> >> remain convinced that in normal conditions it's too dangerous.
>
> >Er, cycling is moderately dangerous! Statistically you are about 20
> >times more likely to become a casualty on a pedal cycle than in a car,
> >per km travelled.
>
> Per distance travelled is an "easy" measure and in many cases relevant
> BUT in some instance misleading. For instance on a commute where the
> distance is the same whether cycling or driving then per mile travelled
> is a reasonable measure; however when out on a weekend leisure ride
> compared to a w/e drive the distance travelled will generally be much
> less than in the motor vehicle, therefore, in this scenarioo, hours of
> exposure is a more relevant figure. The difficulty is in arriving at an
> exposure figure which takes in both exposure measures and this
> difficulty is compounded by the different usage patterns of cyclists
>
> > Things like decent training, common sense and
> >wearing cycle helmets make it less dangerous. Therefore I applaud Sky
> >for their cycling initiative.
>
> I accept decent traing will make a difference but helmets? For me, I
> have come off my bike twice in th last 30 years and not hit my head.
> When I did try a helmet I did not like the reduced visibility that I
> found although I admit this may be a personal factor arising from my
> reduced mobility in neck and upper body.
>

I have come off my bike four times in my life and suffered one serious
head injury as a result. That accident was just a simple low sider
after my front wheel skidded on some dog sh*t, but my head just
happened to hit the edge of a kerbstone as I fell off. 38% of cyclists
treated in hospital have some form of head injury (sorces DfT), so
because you have got away with it a few times, doesn't mean that you
always will.

I am surprised that a cycle helmet affected your visibility. Did you
try any other different types? Incidentally I always remove the
plastic peak (if fitted) from mine in case it catches on anything, and
because it can reduce your forward vision when you have your head
down.

Derek C

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 04:36:59 -0700 (PDT), Derek C > wrote:
> On Jun 28, 12:19*pm, Gwyn Oakley >
> wrote:
> >
> > I accept decent traing will make a difference but helmets?
>
> I have come off my bike four times in my life and suffered one
> serious head injury as a result. That accident was just a simple
> low sider after my front wheel skidded on some dog sh*t, but my
> head just happened to hit the edge of a kerbstone as I fell off.
> 38% of cyclists treated in hospital have some form of head injury
> (sorces DfT), so because you have got away with it a few times,
> doesn't mean that you always will.

Derek had a bicycle crash when he wasn't wearing a helmet and didn't
die. This proves you must always wear a helmet, obviously.


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Derek C]

On Jun 28, 1:42*pm, Ian Smith > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 04:36:59 -0700 (PDT), Derek C > wrote:
> > *On Jun 28, 12:19 pm, Gwyn Oakley >
> > *wrote:
>
> > > I accept decent traing will make a difference but helmets?
>
> > *I have come off my bike four times in my life and suffered one
> > *serious head injury as a result. That accident was just a simple
> > *low sider after my front wheel skidded on some dog sh*t, but my
> > *head just happened to hit the edge of a kerbstone as I fell off.
> > *38% of cyclists treated in hospital have some form of head injury
> > *(source DfT), so because you have got away with it a few times,
> > *doesn't mean that you always will.
>
> Derek had a bicycle crash when he wasn't wearing a helmet and didn't
> die. *This proves you must always wear a helmet, obviously.
>
> --
Thank you for your kind sympathy Ian! It is probable that I would have
suffered a less serious injury, or no injury at all, if I had have
been wearing a helmet.

Derek C

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jun 28, 1:42*pm, Ian Smith > wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 04:36:59 -0700 (PDT), Derek C > wrote:
> > > *On Jun 28, 12:19 pm, Gwyn Oakley >
> > > *wrote:
> >
> > > > I accept decent traing will make a difference but helmets?
> >
> > > *I have come off my bike four times in my life and suffered one
> > > *serious head injury as a result. That accident was just a simple
> > > *low sider after my front wheel skidded on some dog sh*t, but my
> > > *head just happened to hit the edge of a kerbstone as I fell off.
> > > *38% of cyclists treated in hospital have some form of head injury
> > > *(source DfT), so because you have got away with it a few times,
> > > *doesn't mean that you always will.
> >
> > Derek had a bicycle crash when he wasn't wearing a helmet and didn't
> > die. This proves you must always wear a helmet, obviously.
>
> Thank you for your kind sympathy Ian! It is probable that I would have
> suffered a less serious injury, or no injury at all, if I had have
> been wearing a helmet.

You speculate.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Colin McKenzie]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:25:18 +0100, Derek C >
wrote:

> On Jun 27, 9:53*pm, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:
>>
>> They should be a fun day out, and attract people who don't cycle on
>> road *
>> much, if at all. But the conversion rate of those to regular cyclists
>> will *
>> not be high. One reason for this is that the Skyride publicity does *
>> nothing to challenge the 'cycling is dangerous' myth. The mere
>> existence *
>> of the rides suggests that normal roads are not fit for cycling, and
>> they *
>> turn the screw more by doling out hi-vis and strongly recommending
>> helmets *
>> for the event. People may go away wanting to cycle more, but most will *
>> remain convinced that in normal conditions it's too dangerous.
>
> Er, cycling is moderately dangerous! Statistically you are about 20
> times more likely to become a casualty on a pedal cycle than in a car,
> per km travelled.

You don't give up, do you? Cycling is not dangerous, in the sense that it
is no more risky than many other activities, and considerably safer than
some, which people routinely do with no protective headgear. Arbitrarily,
you choose to compare it with driving in Britain, on a per mile basis. On
the same basis, walking is similarly far more dangerous than driving, so
it's astonishing how few walking helmets are sold. And as for football, or
rugby, or running, or driving in many other countries, or hillwalking...

> Things like decent training, common sense and
> wearing cycle helmets make it less dangerous.

As you know, there's no valid evidence that helmets make it safer. I agree
with you on common sense and training, and would add proper maintenance of
the bike.

> Therefore I applaud Sky for their cycling initiative.

Which could have been so much better.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Phil W Lee wrote:

>>
> The population studies show no benefit from helmets, unless you regard
> a reduction in cycling as a benefit.

That would be a major benefit.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[DavidR[_2_]]

"Gwyn Oakley" > wrote
> Derek C > wrote:

>>Er, cycling is moderately dangerous! Statistically you are about 20
>>times more likely to become a casualty on a pedal cycle than in a car,
>>per km travelled.
>
> Per distance travelled is an "easy" measure and in many cases relevant
> BUT in some instance misleading. For instance on a commute where the
> distance is the same whether cycling or driving then per mile travelled
> is a reasonable measure; however when out on a weekend leisure ride
> compared to a w/e drive the distance travelled will generally be much
> less than in the motor vehicle, therefore, in this scenarioo, hours of
> exposure is a more relevant figure.

There is also the factor that if some hobby bike journeys are made instead
of doing something else at home; so not all bike journeys, were they not
performed, would be replaced by a car journey.

This leaves us with some journeys that have a measure of risk that can't be
compared to a car. Overall, a time exposure rate is probably the best
measure since most car/bike short utility trips are generally of similar
average speed.

[Derek C]

On Jun 28, 10:44*pm, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:25:18 +0100, Derek C > *
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 9:53 pm, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:
>
> >> They should be a fun day out, and attract people who don't cycle on *
> >> road
> >> much, if at all. But the conversion rate of those to regular cyclists *
> >> will
> >> not be high. One reason for this is that the Skyride publicity does
> >> nothing to challenge the 'cycling is dangerous' myth. The mere *
> >> existence
> >> of the rides suggests that normal roads are not fit for cycling, and *
> >> they
> >> turn the screw more by doling out hi-vis and strongly recommending *
> >> helmets
> >> for the event. People may go away wanting to cycle more, but most will
> >> remain convinced that in normal conditions it's too dangerous.
>
> > Er, cycling is moderately dangerous! Statistically you are about 20
> > times more likely to become a casualty on a pedal cycle than in a car,
> > per km travelled.
>
> You don't give up, do you? Cycling is not dangerous, in the sense that it *
> is no more risky than many other activities, and considerably safer than *
> some, which people routinely do with no protective headgear. Arbitrarily, *
> you choose to compare it with driving in Britain, on a per mile basis. On *
> the same basis, walking is similarly far more dangerous than driving, so *
> it's astonishing how few walking helmets are sold. And as for football, or *
> rugby, or running, or driving in many other countries, or hillwalking...
>
> > Things like decent training, common sense and
> > wearing cycle helmets make it less dangerous.
>
> As you know, there's no valid evidence that helmets make it safer. I agree *
> with you on common sense and training, and would add proper maintenance of *
> the bike.
>
> > Therefore I applaud Sky for their cycling initiative.
>
> Which could have been so much better.
>
> Colin McKenzie
>
> --
> No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the *
> population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking..
> Make an informed choice - visitwww.cyclehelmets.org.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

However well trained and careful you are, you can still get knocked
off you bike by some other dozy road user! That's the time when you
need a crash helmet.

BTW, I don't buy the 'you can protect your head with your arms
argument' In the two accidents I have had when I banged my head
against something (one on a bicycle, one on a motorbike) everything
happened so quickly that I didn't have time to react, even
instinctively.

Derek C

[Colin McKenzie]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:07:12 +0100, Derek C >
wrote:

> BTW, I don't buy the 'you can protect your head with your arms
> argument' In the two accidents I have had when I banged my head
> against something (one on a bicycle, one on a motorbike) everything
> happened so quickly that I didn't have time to react, even
> instinctively.

You left out the proviso, which is that the speed of the collision is
within the design limits of cycle helmets. In faster collisions you may
well hit your head, but then you can't rely on a helmet to protect it.
Happily, as the Mk.1 skull is stronger than a cycle helmet, many of these
collisions are perfectly survivable.

Once you accept this, you can stop arguing endlessly about the merits of a
hot and inconvenient lump of plastic, and concentrate on refining your
skills and campaigning for better road user behaviour, with the aim of
minimising the chance of hitting your head in the first place.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:
>
> However well trained and careful you are, you can still get knocked
> off you bike by some other dozy road user! That's the time when you
> need a crash helmet.
>
> BTW, I don't buy the 'you can protect your head with your arms
> argument' In the two accidents I have had when I banged my head
> against something (one on a bicycle, one on a motorbike) everything
> happened so quickly that I didn't have time to react, even
> instinctively.

It's interesting to note that somone who has a history of coming off bikes,
is an advocate of cycle helmets.

Several people have said to me "Shouldn't you be wearing a helmet?" and
"What if you fall off?", but since I have never fallen off or had a cycling
accident I guess that I don't really appreciate how important a helmet might
be in those circumstances (although I do wear one for faster, longer, out of
town rides). ISTM those of us in the habit of fallling off and having
accidents, should really be wearing helmets, for those of us who don't, then
it does not really matter that much.

[Derek C]

On Jun 29, 9:13*am, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:07:12 +0100, Derek C > *
> wrote:
>
> > BTW, I don't buy the 'you can protect your head with your arms
> > argument' In the two accidents I have had when I banged my head
> > against something (one on a bicycle, one on a motorbike) everything
> > happened so quickly that I didn't have time to react, even
> > instinctively.
>
> You left out the proviso, which is that the speed of the collision is *
> within the design limits of cycle helmets. In faster collisions you may *
> well hit your head, but then you can't rely on a helmet to protect it. *
> Happily, as the Mk.1 skull is stronger than a cycle helmet, many of these *
> collisions are perfectly survivable.
>
> Once you accept this, you can stop arguing endlessly about the merits of a *
> hot and inconvenient lump of plastic, and concentrate on refining your *
> skills and campaigning for better road user behaviour, with the aim of *
> minimising the chance of hitting your head in the first place.
>
> Colin McKenzie
>

In the case of the motorcycle accident, I was rear ended by a drunken
driver doing about 40 mph who totally failed to stop for some red
traffic lights, where I was waiting at the back of the queue. I was in
what would be regarded as the 'primary position' in the centre of my
lane. I was shunted at that sort of speed into the car in front, went
straight over the handlebars, did a graceful somersault over that
vehicle and landed in a heap in front of it. From the marks on my
crash helmet and on the car I hit my head twice, once on the edge of
the car roof just above the rear window and once on the road.
Remarkably I was more or less uninjured apart from a badly bruised
shin, which I put down to the crash helmet and the heavy waterproof m/
c suit and boots I was wearing.

I fail to see what I could have done to prevent that accident! Also
motor cycle helmets are only really designed to take 17 mph direct
hits, but I hit my head against the back of the car in front at close
to 40 mph and survived without even a headache. I very much doubt that
would have been the case if I had not been wearing a crash helmet!

Derek C

[Derek C]

On Jun 29, 9:16*am, "mileburner" > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>
> > However well trained and careful you are, you can still get knocked
> > off you bike by some other dozy road user! That's the time when you
> > need a crash helmet.
>
> > BTW, I don't buy the 'you can protect your head with your arms
> > argument' In the two accidents I have had when I banged my head
> > against something (one on a bicycle, one on a motorbike) everything
> > happened so quickly that I didn't have time to react, even
> > instinctively.
>
> It's interesting to note that somone who has a history of coming off bikes,
> is an advocate of cycle helmets.
>
> Several people have said to me "Shouldn't you be wearing a helmet?" and
> "What if you fall off?", but since I have never fallen off or had a cycling
> accident I guess that I don't really appreciate how important a helmet might
> be in those circumstances (although I do wear one for faster, longer, out of
> town rides). ISTM those of us in the habit of fallling off and having
> accidents, should really be wearing helmets, for those of us who don't, then
> it does not really matter that much.

Correction. You haven't fallen off or had a cycling accident yet! BTW
you are statistically much more likely to have an accident in a town
where there are lots of junctions and other road users than out in the
countryside.

Some people, particularly those who ride mountain bikes, seem to fall
off on an almost weekly basis. I played golf with a guy last week, who
said that it was the first round he had played for over a month, due
to wrist injury picked up falling off his mountain bike. He still had
the remains of a black eye and had required stitches in several head
and face wounds.

Derek C

[David[_11_]]

"Derek C" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 29, 9:16 am, "mileburner" > wrote:
> BTW
> you are statistically much more likely to have an accident in a town
> where there are lots of junctions and other road users than out in the
> countryside.

Statistically, maybe but actually, no way! See next sentence :

> Some people, particularly those who ride mountain bikes, seem to fall
> off on an almost weekly basis.

Most of which go undocumented and therefore not in the statistics.
If you don't stack it when mountain biking you're not pushing hard enough!
;o)

D

[Derek C]

On Jun 29, 11:38*am, "David" > wrote:
> "Derek C" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jun 29, 9:16 am, "mileburner" > wrote:
>
> > BTW
> > you are statistically much more likely to have an accident in a town
> > where there are lots of junctions and other road users than out in the
> > countryside.
>
> Statistically, maybe but actually, no way! See next sentence :
>
> > Some people, particularly those who ride mountain bikes, seem to fall
> > off on an almost weekly basis.
>
> Most of which go undocumented and therefore not in the statistics.
> If you don't stack it when mountain biking you're not pushing hard enough!
> ;o)
>

The statistics are for reported road accidents. Generally speaking you
are safer riding on country roads than on urban roads.

I agree with your point about falling off mountain bikes ridden off
road. I have fallen off mine quite a few times, but since I wear a
helmet and gloves, I have never been injured enough to require
hospital treatment.

Derek C

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:

> The statistics are for reported road accidents. Generally speaking you
> are safer riding on country roads than on urban roads.

While that may be the case, I take considerably more care, and ride at
considerably lower speeds, where there is conflict with other traffic and
people.

However, since the vast majority of cycling journeys appear to be made on
urban roads the statistics are likely to be skewed.

The safest type of road to ride a bike on (statisticly that is), are
Motorways. The amount of cycling accidents on Motorways are virtually nil.

[Clive George]

On 29/06/2010 11:57, Derek C wrote:

> I agree with your point about falling off mountain bikes ridden off
> road. I have fallen off mine quite a few times, but since I wear a
> helmet and gloves, I have never been injured enough to require
> hospital treatment.

That's a bit different from

"I have fallen off a bike for various reasons about 4 times in my life"

isn't it?

Are you lying now or in your earlier post?

[Derek C]

On Jun 29, 1:07*pm, Clive George > wrote:
> On 29/06/2010 11:57, Derek C wrote:
>
> > I agree with your point about falling off mountain bikes ridden off
> > road. I have fallen off mine quite a few times, but since I wear a
> > helmet and gloves, I have never been injured enough to require
> > hospital treatment.
>
> That's a bit different from
>
> "I have fallen off a bike for various reasons about 4 times in my life"
>
> isn't it?
>
> Are you lying now or in your earlier post?

No, I just don't count falling off a mountain bike on a muddy off-road
track as being a road accident. I haven't fallen off that often
anyway, and earth is normally much softer than vehicle bodies, tarmac,
kerb stones or paving stones.

Derek C

[Clive George]

On 29/06/2010 13:44, Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 29, 1:07 pm, Clive > wrote:
>> On 29/06/2010 11:57, Derek C wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with your point about falling off mountain bikes ridden off
>>> road. I have fallen off mine quite a few times, but since I wear a
>>> helmet and gloves, I have never been injured enough to require
>>> hospital treatment.
>>
>> That's a bit different from
>>
>> "I have fallen off a bike for various reasons about 4 times in my life"
>>
>> isn't it?
>>
>> Are you lying now or in your earlier post?
>
> No, I just don't count falling off a mountain bike on a muddy off-road
> track as being a road accident.

In the bit I quoted, where does it say anything about road accidents?

In that thread there were several people mentioning mountain biking, yet
you never once managed to point out that somehow that didn't count in
what you were talking about.

[Derek C]

On Jun 29, 1:49*pm, Clive George > wrote:
> On 29/06/2010 13:44, Derek C wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 1:07 pm, Clive > *wrote:
> >> On 29/06/2010 11:57, Derek C wrote:
>
> >>> I agree with your point about falling off mountain bikes ridden off
> >>> road. I have fallen off mine quite a few times, but since I wear a
> >>> helmet and gloves, I have never been injured enough to require
> >>> hospital treatment.
>
> >> That's a bit different from
>
> >> "I have fallen off a bike for various reasons about 4 times in my life"
>
> >> isn't it?
>
> >> Are you lying now or in your earlier post?
>
> > No, I just don't count falling off a mountain bike on a muddy off-road
> > track as being a road accident.
>
> In the bit I quoted, where does it say anything about road accidents?
>
> In that thread there were several people mentioning mountain biking, yet
> you never once managed to point out that somehow that didn't count in
> what you were talking about.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think it is accepted that you don't go running to the local Police
Station just to report that you have just fallen off your mountain
bike on a muddy countryside track and not significantly injured
yourself. They would probably tell where to go anyway, because they
don't want to fill in all that paperwork, so you won't appear in the
statistics. However if you were killed or received a serious injury
you would probably would be included.

Derek C

[Clive George]

On 29/06/2010 14:16, Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 29, 1:49 pm, Clive > wrote:
>> On 29/06/2010 13:44, Derek C wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 29, 1:07 pm, Clive > wrote:
>>>> On 29/06/2010 11:57, Derek C wrote:
>>
>>>>> I agree with your point about falling off mountain bikes ridden off
>>>>> road. I have fallen off mine quite a few times, but since I wear a
>>>>> helmet and gloves, I have never been injured enough to require
>>>>> hospital treatment.
>>
>>>> That's a bit different from
>>
>>>> "I have fallen off a bike for various reasons about 4 times in my life"
>>
>>>> isn't it?
>>
>>>> Are you lying now or in your earlier post?
>>
>>> No, I just don't count falling off a mountain bike on a muddy off-road
>>> track as being a road accident.
>>
>> In the bit I quoted, where does it say anything about road accidents?
>>
>> In that thread there were several people mentioning mountain biking, yet
>> you never once managed to point out that somehow that didn't count in
>> what you were talking about.
>>
>
> I think it is accepted that you don't go running to the local Police
> Station just to report that you have just fallen off your mountain
> bike on a muddy countryside track and not significantly injured
> yourself. They would probably tell where to go anyway, because they
> don't want to fill in all that paperwork, so you won't appear in the
> statistics. However if you were killed or received a serious injury
> you would probably would be included.

And what's that got to do with your inability to remember how many times
you've fallen off?

[Derek C]

On Jun 29, 2:26*pm, Clive George > wrote:
> On 29/06/2010 14:16, Derek C wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 1:49 pm, Clive > *wrote:
> >> On 29/06/2010 13:44, Derek C wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 29, 1:07 pm, Clive > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 29/06/2010 11:57, Derek C wrote:
>
> >>>>> I agree with your point about falling off mountain bikes ridden off
> >>>>> road. I have fallen off mine quite a few times, but since I wear a
> >>>>> helmet and gloves, I have never been injured enough to require
> >>>>> hospital treatment.
>
> >>>> That's a bit different from
>
> >>>> "I have fallen off a bike for various reasons about 4 times in my life"
>
> >>>> isn't it?
>
> >>>> Are you lying now or in your earlier post?
>
> >>> No, I just don't count falling off a mountain bike on a muddy off-road
> >>> track as being a road accident.
>
> >> In the bit I quoted, where does it say anything about road accidents?
>
> >> In that thread there were several people mentioning mountain biking, yet
> >> you never once managed to point out that somehow that didn't count in
> >> what you were talking about.
>
> > I think it is accepted that you don't go running to the local Police
> > Station just to report that you have just fallen off your mountain
> > bike on a muddy countryside track and not significantly injured
> > yourself. They would probably tell where to go anyway, because they
> > don't want to fill in all that paperwork, so you won't appear in the
> > statistics. However if you were killed or received a serious injury
> > you would probably would be included.
>
> And what's that got to do with your inability to remember how many times
> you've fallen off?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On the road my falls were:

1) Skidded, fell off low side and banged my head on a kerbstone. Head
injury.

2) Had brake failure at the bottom of a steep hill, hit low wall and
went over the handlebars. No significant injuries apart from to my
wallet for repairing the bike.

3) Skidded on ice. Mainly bruises

4) Knocked over by overtaking lorry passing too close. Bruising to
right hand and left arm and thigh.

Most of the mountain bikes ones have been of the lost balance while
cycling very slowly up a steep slope variety, but I have come off once
going quite fast downhill. None of these caused any significant
injuries.

Derek C

[Gwyn[_3_]]

In message >
Derek C > wrote:


[snip]


>
>I am surprised that a cycle helmet affected your visibility. Did you
>try any other different types? Incidentally I always remove the
>plastic peak (if fitted) from mine in case it catches on anything, and
>because it can reduce your forward vision when you have your head
>down.


Head down is the key, I have ankylosing spondylitis and this has left me
with curvature of the spine and restricted neck and upper body movement
such that when riding I look forward just past my eyebrows. Also means I
don't wear glasses because I have yet to find any where the upper rim
doesn't get in the way. I did try flat bars but gave up because of
severe problems with wrist pain, although, interestingly I don't get
this problem on my Brompton due, I suspect, to the very short sadd to
bar reach. If I lived somewhere less hilly I would probably try a Dutch
style bike.


>
>Derek C


--
Gwyn

[Derek C]

On Jun 30, 11:57*pm, Gwyn > wrote:
> In message >
> * * * * * Derek C > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> >I am surprised that a cycle helmet affected your visibility. Did you
> >try any other different types? Incidentally I always remove the
> >plastic peak (if fitted) from mine in case it catches on anything, and
> >because it can reduce your forward vision when you have your head
> >down.
>
> Head down is the key, I have ankylosing spondylitis and this has left me
> with curvature of the spine and restricted neck and upper body movement
> such that when riding I look forward just past my eyebrows. Also means I
> don't wear glasses because I have yet to find any where the upper rim
> doesn't get in the way. I did try flat bars but gave up because of
> severe problems with wrist pain, although, interestingly I don't get
> this problem on my Brompton due, I suspect, to the very short sadd to
> bar reach. If I lived somewhere less hilly I would probably try a Dutch
> style bike. *
>

Have you tried Dennis Taylor (snooker player) style glasses?
Interesting point about wrist pain. Riding my Raleigh mountain bike
makes my wrists ache, but I don't get this problem on my other bikes.
I have always assumed that this is because the frame and bars of this
bike are stiffer than the others.

Derek C

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:57:15 +0100, Gwyn
> wrote:

>Head down is the key, I have ankylosing spondylitis and this has left me
>with curvature of the spine and restricted neck and upper body movement
>such that when riding I look forward just past my eyebrows. Also means I
>don't wear glasses because I have yet to find any where the upper rim
>doesn't get in the way.

I had (still have, somewhere) a pair of Rudy Project Kerosene cycling
glasses with interchangeable lenses and a prescription insert, which
worked quite well for me on dropped bar bikes.

The best solution, of course, is to yield to the Dark Side :-)

Unfortunately (and it is unfortunate since AS is real and painful) I
cannot read "ankylosing spondulitis" without thinking of "Geodermic
Grantitis", aka Cobbles, on "Look Around You".

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Adam Lea[_3_]]

On 28/06/2010 22:44, Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
> You don't give up, do you? Cycling is not dangerous
<snip>

Oh yes it is, take a look at this :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX6MtWRGW3M

[Gwyn[_3_]]

In message >
Derek C > wrote:

>On Jun 30, 11:57*pm, Gwyn > wrote:
>> In message >
>> * * * * * Derek C > wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>
>> >I am surprised that a cycle helmet affected your visibility. Did you
>> >try any other different types? Incidentally I always remove the
>> >plastic peak (if fitted) from mine in case it catches on anything, and
>> >because it can reduce your forward vision when you have your head
>> >down.
>>
>> Head down is the key, I have ankylosing spondylitis and this has left me
>> with curvature of the spine and restricted neck and upper body movement
>> such that when riding I look forward just past my eyebrows. Also means I
>> don't wear glasses because I have yet to find any where the upper rim
>> doesn't get in the way. I did try flat bars but gave up because of
>> severe problems with wrist pain, although, interestingly I don't get
>> this problem on my Brompton due, I suspect, to the very short sadd to
>> bar reach. If I lived somewhere less hilly I would probably try a Dutch
>> style bike. *
>>
>
>Have you tried Dennis Taylor (snooker player) style glasses?

Not tried such glasses and I can't recall seeing any at the opticians.
Good idea though and if anyone knows a source please let me know.

>Interesting point about wrist pain. Riding my Raleigh mountain bike
>makes my wrists ache, but I don't get this problem on my other bikes.
>I have always assumed that this is because the frame and bars of this
>bike are stiffer than the others.

Not sure why but I have two possible theories:

1. I tended to grip the bars harder with straight bars and
2. The angle of bend at the wrist with flat bars was more backward

I am more inclined to 2 but can't really say.

Gwyn




>
>Derek C
>


--
Gwyn