CUK dropping the ball with MTB advice

[dmrcycle]

way.

That depends where you look. If you look in Angry Places like website comment sections and social media you'd quite possibly think that, but that's not a representative view.

Problem is I don’t have to look that far, or even on social media. I have been spat at, had deliberate close passes, cans of drink thrown at me and shouted at. And it seems to be getting worse.

[pjclinch]

way.

That depends where you look. If you look in Angry Places like website comment sections and social media you'd quite possibly think that, but that's not a representative view.

Problem is I don’t have to look that far, or even on social media. I have been spat at, had deliberate close passes, cans of drink thrown at me and shouted at. And it seems to be getting worse.

While not trying to suggest this isn't a problem, it's important to realise that anecdotes are not necessarily representative. I know people it happens to, I know people it doesn't happen to. Just about all the anger I've attracted for some time now is eejits incensed that I'm not wearing a helmet!

And none of this is particularly relevant off-road, of course, or to whether one shouldn't think of going without a lid while you're there.

Pete.

[mattheus]

Just about all the anger I've attracted for some time now is eejits incensed that I'm not wearing a helmet!

Certainly this is the only reason other cyclists have yelled at me. Several times over recent years!

[Steady rider]

https://rcaforum.org.nz/wp-content/uplo ... d-2017.pdf
provides some information of relative risk. Abstract reads

We compared the injury risks of typical exposures to road cycling for transport with other
common activities including do-it-yourself repairs (DIY) at home, horse riding, quad bike
riding, rugby union and snow sports in New Zealand. Cycling on the road half an hour
three times a week was similar to DIY twice a month and safer than horse riding 1.5 h
twice a week (5-fold difference in injury claims), skiing half a day for 4–5 times per year
(140-fold), and playing rugby once every 3 weeks (530-fold difference). In statistical
terms, based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many recreational and
every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling in car-dependent New Zealand arises
mainly from other causes than risk of injury, associated with the marginal status of cyclists on the public road.

There data probably includes BTM.

[pjclinch]

In statistical terms, based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many recreational and
every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling in car-dependent New Zealand arises
mainly from other causes than risk of injury, associated with the marginal status of cyclists on the public road.

This is none too surprising as we all know there's a difference between perceived danger and actual risk. The obvious case in point is the close pass, which creates very few injuries (it might be close but it's still a pass and not an impact) but feels quite horrible and is genuinely off-putting to those who haven't normalised it through experience. Survey after survey in the UK has fear as a leading cause of not cycling.

The "marginal status" noted above is what goes away with safety in numbers. I'm sure there are Dutch drivers who wish cyclists had a marginal status, but the numbers on the ground make that a non-starter.

Again, we have drifted away from whether helmets are a "no-brainer" for off-road.

Pete.

[squeaker]

Maybe the degree to which I'm not generally in a hurry and wear normal clothes for most riding contributes to that, but if so it'd be very hard to quantify.

Didn't Walker do that (in terms of passing distance) some years back in his 'blonde wig' paper?

[squeaker]

Maybe the degree to which I'm not generally in a hurry and wear normal clothes for most riding contributes to that, but if so it'd be very hard to quantify.

Didn't Walker do that (in terms of passing distance) some years back in his 'blonde wig' paper?

[pjclinch]

Maybe the degree to which I'm not generally in a hurry and wear normal clothes for most riding contributes to that, but if so it'd be very hard to quantify.

Didn't Walker do that (in terms of passing distance) some years back in his 'blonde wig' paper?

That quantified passing distance which is one aspect of "noticed" and "treated better", but only one. One of those things where you measure what you can measure and some measurement is better than none but that doesn't give all the information you really need.

Pete.

[thirdcrank]

CUK are generally pretty good on lids, but they have a "How to" for MTB at https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/how-g ... ad-cycling that contains...

Invest in a good helmet. Mountain biking is a challenging and sometimes dangerous sport, and you want to make sure your head is protected. Knee pads can also reduce the likelihood of injury.

Shane advises: “A helmet is vital! Don’t even think about riding off road without a helmet. Even the smallest of crashes can cause significant head injuries, so before anything, get yourself a decent helmet.”

Oh dear.
Perhaps worth noting that the article is a general one covering everything from easy Landy tracks at a leisurely pace to bonkers downhill, so quite a broad range of contexts.
I've sent in a moan, if you're not a fan of advice given bereft of context and nuance like the above I'd suggest you might too.

Pete.

Congratulations on ploughing through all that guff. As this thread has dragged on, I eventually looked back at the article in question, apparently written by somebody described as a "digital officer". The advice quoted above seems to originate with one Shane Giddings of Swinley Bike Hub, some sort of off-road trail centre. One of the services they market is bike hire which includes this

ALL BIKES COME WITH HELMET HIRE INCLUDED. ALTERNATIVELY, YOU ARE WELCOME TO USE YOUR OWN

https://www.swinleybikehub.com/hire

In the lingo, I think this is called advertorial.

With apologies for quoting myself (how sad can somebody get?) but perhaps the entire forum membership has me on their foe list.

IMO, the big danger here is that some lazy hack looking to stir up a bit of controversy will quote the article mentioned in the OP as being CyclingUK policy when it's just stuff cobbled together to fill space.

[pjclinch]

IMO, the big danger here is that some lazy hack looking to stir up a bit of controversy will quote the article mentioned in the OP as being CyclingUK policy when it's just stuff cobbled together to fill space.

Fair comment.
Current state of play is the CUK person who put it up got back to me saying they can't change quotes (as then they wouldn't be quotes), but they could clarify CUK helmet policy and I could say something myself to add.
I've suggested in response that they'd be better off having Roger Geffen say something than me (i.e., someone with some CUK heft who is known to know the subject well, rather than what amounts to Some Random with a Bonnet-Bee off the Interweb) and it would be worth running the whole thing past him anyway. I also said that while you can't change quotes you can simply remove them...

Pete.

[thirdcrank]

IMO, the big danger here is that some lazy hack looking to stir up a bit of controversy will quote the article mentioned in the OP as being CyclingUK policy when it's just stuff cobbled together to fill space.

Fair comment.
Current state of play is the CUK person who put it up got back to me saying they can't change quotes (as then they wouldn't be quotes), but they could clarify CUK helmet policy and I could say something myself to add.
I've suggested in response that they'd be better off having Roger Geffen say something than me (i.e., someone with some CUK heft who is known to know the subject well, rather than what amounts to Some Random with a Bonnet-Bee off the Interweb) and it would be worth running the whole thing past him anyway. I also said that while you can't change quotes you can simply remove them...

Thanks. There does seem to be a lot of good stuff in the thread, but quoting and requoting can lead to all manner of myths. Older readers may remember that when Paul Boateng was David Blunkett's gopher he gave a parliamentary answer about the extension of fixed penalties to cycling on a footway. A fob off answer about police discretion was so distorted by sloppy quoting that it was being advanced as a government ban on the offence being enforced.

===========================================
PS Forgot to say

IIRC when Kevin Mayne was IC the CTC, he refused to take a position on helmets because of the divided views of the membership. ie Nothing based on scientific research

[pjclinch]

IIRC when Kevin Mayne was IC the CTC, he refused to take a position on helmets because of the divided views of the membership. ie Nothing based on scientific research

Oooh, maybe CUK can repeal the force of gravity on a few hills using nothing but The Power of Democracy!

[thirdcrank]

IIRC when Kevin Mayne was IC the CTC, he refused to take a position on helmets because of the divided views of the membership. ie Nothing based on scientific research

Oooh, maybe CUK can repeal the force of gravity on a few hills using nothing but The Power of Democracy!

That's not what I meant. Somebody with a better memory than mine may confirm what I was saying, which was that KM took the line that the CTC as a membership organisation should be agnostic (?) on compulsory helmets because of the strongly divided view of the membership. There's no reason IMO why CUK - as a charity committed to promoting cycling - should not be involved in helmet research etc. Indeed the results might identify eg barriers to cycling. But I do feel that as an organisation likely to be quoted, then it should be more cautious about the guff you quoted in your OP

[pjclinch]

IIRC when Kevin Mayne was IC the CTC, he refused to take a position on helmets because of the divided views of the membership. ie Nothing based on scientific research

Oooh, maybe CUK can repeal the force of gravity on a few hills using nothing but The Power of Democracy!

That's not what I meant.

Sorry, I was just having a sarcastic aside about how peoples' opinions in the face of actual evidence can be given far too much weight. I think we are in Furious Agreement.

[tim-b]

Survey after survey in the UK has fear as a leading cause of not cycling.

Very few cyclists and potential cyclists care about the helmet debate. Wear one if you want to, don't if you don't

Just about all the anger I've attracted for some time now is eejits incensed that I'm not wearing a helmet!

These'll be the same ones that really ought to be concentrating on their driving/riding rather than on what someone is or isn't wearing