Perthshire Challenge - Sunday 17th June

[Rob Burke]

My Rotary club is organising a charity walk/cycling challenge from Perth on
Sunday 17th June. It's for teams of three, walking 13 miles and cycling 17
miles. It should be an enjoyable day out, and if you think you might like to
do it, see www.perthshire.co.uk/challenge

Rob Burke
Rotary Club of Perth St Johns

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:22:02 +0100 someone who may be "Rob Burke"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>My Rotary club is organising a charity walk/cycling challenge from Perth on
>Sunday 17th June. It's for teams of three, walking 13 miles and cycling 17
>miles. It should be an enjoyable day out, and if you think you might like to
>do it, see www.perthshire.co.uk/challenge

Having read this bit, "Cycle helmets must be worn for the cycling
section of the Perthshire Challenge", I have a two word answer to
your rotary club. The second word is off and you may decide for
yourself what the first word is.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[vernon]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:22:02 +0100 someone who may be "Rob Burke"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>My Rotary club is organising a charity walk/cycling challenge from Perth
>>on
>>Sunday 17th June. It's for teams of three, walking 13 miles and cycling 17
>>miles. It should be an enjoyable day out, and if you think you might like
>>to
>>do it, see www.perthshire.co.uk/challenge
>
> Having read this bit, "Cycle helmets must be worn for the cycling
> section of the Perthshire Challenge", I have a two word answer to
> your rotary club. The second word is off and you may decide for
> yourself what the first word is.
>
lowest?
molot?

What was wrong with a polite refusal or even silence?

The insistance on helmets might be that of an insurane company covering the
event.

 

[Ziggy]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:18:35 +0100, "vernon" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:22:02 +0100 someone who may be "Rob Burke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>>>My Rotary club is organising a charity walk/cycling challenge from Perth
>>>on
>>>Sunday 17th June. It's for teams of three, walking 13 miles and cycling 17
>>>miles. It should be an enjoyable day out, and if you think you might like
>>>to
>>>do it, see www.perthshire.co.uk/challenge
>>
>> Having read this bit, "Cycle helmets must be worn for the cycling
>> section of the Perthshire Challenge", I have a two word answer to
>> your rotary club. The second word is off and you may decide for
>> yourself what the first word is.
>>
>lowest?
>molot?
>
>What was wrong with a polite refusal or even silence?

If everyone who objects to having their right to decide on their own level of
protection simply boycots the event, then the organisers may not appreciate that
they are getting a lower than optimal turnout because of their interfering
rules.

Better that they should be made aware of just *why* people may not be joining
in.

>The insistance on helmets might be that of an insurane company covering the
>event.

Irrelevant really. It doesn't alter the fact that someone is poking their nose
into something that is none of their concern, and in a matter where there is
considerable informed opinion that believes their dictats may lead to a greater
chance of death or injury of a rider.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:18:35 +0100, "vernon" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The insistance on helmets might be that of an insurane company covering the
>event.

Highly unlikely.


I note that while they insist on helmet use for the cycling section,
walking boots are a mere recommendation for the mountain section. I'd
have thought the priorities should be reversed.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Rob Burke
('[email protected]') wrote:

> My Rotary club is organising a charity walk/cycling challenge from Perth
> on Sunday 17th June. It's for teams of three, walking 13 miles and
> cycling 17 miles. It should be an enjoyable day out, and if you think you
> might like to do it, see www.perthshire.co.uk/challenge

On the 16th/17th June I'm organising a cycling challenge across southern
Scotland. Mine's only 250 miles, or 400Km - so I don't think we're in
competition!

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and
;; it isn't furry.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, vernon
('[email protected]') wrote:

> The insistance on helmets might be that of an insurane company covering
> the event.

Wrong insurance company, then. British Cycling don't require helmets for
events they insure, unless they're races.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"

 

[Chris Malcolm]

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:22:02 +0100 someone who may be "Rob Burke"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>My Rotary club is organising a charity walk/cycling challenge from Perth on
>>Sunday 17th June. It's for teams of three, walking 13 miles and cycling 17
>>miles. It should be an enjoyable day out, and if you think you might like to
>>do it, see www.perthshire.co.uk/challenge

> Having read this bit, "Cycle helmets must be worn for the cycling
> section of the Perthshire Challenge", I have a two word answer to
> your rotary club. The second word is off and you may decide for
> yourself what the first word is.

As a nearby emigrant who learned his cycling and hillwalking skills in
and around Perth I was rather interested in this, until I saw your
remark. I echo your sentiments with at least equal vehemence.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:18:35 +0100, "vernon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:

>>The insistance on helmets might be that of an insurane company covering the
>>event.

> Highly unlikely.

> I note that while they insist on helmet use for the cycling section,
> walking boots are a mere recommendation for the mountain section. I'd
> have thought the priorities should be reversed.

I see nothing in the proposed route to make a good pair of mountain
sandals such as Tevas inappropriate, unless of course you have weak
ankles.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Tony Raven]

vernon wrote on 25/03/2007 19:18 +0100:
>
> What was wrong with a polite refusal or even silence?
>

Because if no-one tells them they will never know that they missed out
on a number of participants. I certainly will not join any event that
mandates helmets.

> The insistance on helmets might be that of an insurane company covering the
> event.
>

I doubt it - it will be some uninformed do-gooder(s) making it up.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[Don Whybrow]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:22:02 +0100 someone who may be "Rob Burke"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>My Rotary club is organising a charity walk/cycling challenge from Perth on
>>Sunday 17th June. It's for teams of three, walking 13 miles and cycling 17
>>miles. It should be an enjoyable day out, and if you think you might like to
>>do it, see www.perthshire.co.uk/challenge
>
>
> Having read this bit, "Cycle helmets must be worn for the cycling
> section of the Perthshire Challenge", I have a two word answer to
> your rotary club. The second word is off and you may decide for
> yourself what the first word is.

And what is more, it is a 'thon

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"To communicate with Mars, converse with spirits, To report the
behaviour of the sea monster, Describe the horoscope,
haruspicate or scry, Observe disease in signatures." (T.S.Eliot)

 

[the.Mark]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e says...
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:18:35 +0100, "vernon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >The insistance on helmets might be that of an insurane company covering the
> >event.
>
> Highly unlikely.
>
>
> I note that while they insist on helmet use for the cycling section,
> walking boots are a mere recommendation for the mountain section. I'd
> have thought the priorities should be reversed.
>
If I'm out hill walking in dry weather then I'd rather do it in
walking shoes. Boots are fine if you don't have strong ankles
and the terrain is rough but someone that walks a lot should
have no problem with good shoes and if there is a good path even
sandals.
--
Cheers
the.Mark

 

[Rob Burke]

Oops. As a walker and non-cyclist myself I didn't realise that part might be
controversial!

The advice about footwear is intended to be helpful to people who might not
be familiar with the terrain. I've walked in that area fairly often myself
and most people I see wear boots. If you are used to walking in sandals or
running then it's no different to most Scottish moorland. And I suppose a
twisted or broken ankle is unlikely to be life threatening

Is the requirement for cycling helmets unusual for organised events of this
sort, or is David's view a minority one? I know we took advice from
organisers of other similar events. Our club's liability is covered by a
general insurance from the national organisation (www.rotary-ribi.org) but I
suspect it requires us to act responsibly and take advice, rather than
imposing specific rules. If someone really would like to take part but is
put off by the helmet restriction please send me an email and I'll challenge
it.

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:22:02 +0100 someone who may be "Rob Burke"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>My Rotary club is organising a charity walk/cycling challenge from Perth
>>on
>>Sunday 17th June. It's for teams of three, walking 13 miles and cycling 17
>>miles. It should be an enjoyable day out, and if you think you might like
>>to
>>do it, see www.perthshire.co.uk/challenge
>
> Having read this bit, "Cycle helmets must be worn for the cycling
> section of the Perthshire Challenge", I have a two word answer to
> your rotary club. The second word is off and you may decide for
> yourself what the first word is.
>
>
>
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
>

 

[Rob Burke]

Indeed. If you are a keen cyclist, then 17 miles isn't much of a challenge.
But the walking part might be!

The event is for teams of three, so we thought it might be a good
opportunity for a day out with friends or family who might find it more of
an a achievement.

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, Rob Burke
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> My Rotary club is organising a charity walk/cycling challenge from Perth
>> on Sunday 17th June. It's for teams of three, walking 13 miles and
>> cycling 17 miles. It should be an enjoyable day out, and if you think you
>> might like to do it, see www.perthshire.co.uk/challenge
>
> On the 16th/17th June I'm organising a cycling challenge across southern
> Scotland. Mine's only 250 miles, or 400Km - so I don't think we're in
> competition!
>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> ;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and
> ;; it isn't furry.
>
>

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:50:48 +0100, "Rob Burke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Oops. As a walker and non-cyclist myself I didn't realise that part might be
>controversial!
>
>The advice about footwear is intended to be helpful to people who might not
>be familiar with the terrain. I've walked in that area fairly often myself
>and most people I see wear boots. If you are used to walking in sandals or
>running then it's no different to most Scottish moorland. And I suppose a
>twisted or broken ankle is unlikely to be life threatening

Neither is a spill from a bicycle.

>
>Is the requirement for cycling helmets unusual for organised events of this
>sort,

Yes - and if it is not, it should be very unusual - or rather, it
should be absent.

>or is David's view a minority one?

No.

See www.cyclehelmets.org

 

[Tony Raven]

Rob Burke wrote on 25/03/2007 22:50 +0100:
>
> Is the requirement for cycling helmets unusual for organised events of this
> sort, or is David's view a minority one?

It is not a minority view among cyclists but it is a minority view among
well meaning but misguided non-cyclists who think they are doing it in
our best interests.

There is no good evidence that helmets do any good and some good
evidence that they may do more harm. Which is why the cycling
organisations such as the CTC and the National Cycling Strategy (when it
was in existence) were very clear that helmets should be a matter for
personal choice.

Have a peruse of http://www.cyclehelmets.org for more information on the
subject.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:52:48 +0100, the.Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:18:35 +0100, "vernon" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The insistance on helmets might be that of an insurane company covering the
>> >event.
>>
>> Highly unlikely.
>>
>>
>> I note that while they insist on helmet use for the cycling section,
>> walking boots are a mere recommendation for the mountain section. I'd
>> have thought the priorities should be reversed.
>>
>If I'm out hill walking in dry weather then I'd rather do it in
>walking shoes. Boots are fine if you don't have strong ankles
>and the terrain is rough but someone that walks a lot should
>have no problem with good shoes and if there is a good path even
>sandals.

I have no problem walking in sandals.

My question is this...

Is an ankle injury more likely when not wearing boots walking in
mountain terrain than a head injury when not wearing a helmet cycling
on the road?

 

[Tony Raven]

Tom Crispin wrote on 25/03/2007 23:22 +0100:
>
> My question is this...
>
> Is an ankle injury more likely when not wearing boots walking in
> mountain terrain than a head injury when not wearing a helmet cycling
> on the road?

Of course if you injured your ankle you probably fell while doing so and
should be wearing a walking helmet to protect yourself from head
injuries. If just one life...(cont. p93)

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Rob Burke
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Oops. As a walker and non-cyclist myself I didn't realise that part might
> be controversial!
>
> The advice about footwear is intended to be helpful to people who might
> not be familiar with the terrain. I've walked in that area fairly often
> myself and most people I see wear boots. If you are used to walking in
> sandals or running then it's no different to most Scottish moorland. And
> I suppose a twisted or broken ankle is unlikely to be life threatening
>
>
> Is the requirement for cycling helmets unusual for organised events of
> this sort, or is David's view a minority one? I know we took advice from
> organisers of other similar events. Our club's liability is covered by a
> general insurance from the national organisation (www.rotary-ribi.org)
> but I suspect it requires us to act responsibly and take advice, rather
> than imposing specific rules. If someone really would like to take part
> but is put off by the helmet restriction please send me an email and I'll
> challenge it.

Use of helmets is now required when racing, under UCI rules. Even this is
controversial - there has been no measured change in the rate of serious
accidents to racers since the rule was introduced (but that's partly
because no-one has studied the data). Use of helmets is not normally
required for audax or reliability rides in Britain.

As a lay person you probably assume that cycling helmets increase rider
safety. There's no uncontroversial evidence of this. In no country in
which compulsory cycling helmet laws have been introduced has the number
of cyclists killed or seriously injured per billion cyclist kilometers
gone down. No-one is really sure why, but it certainly seems that helmets
aggravate at least as many serious injuries as they ameliorate.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:50:48 +0100 someone who may be "Rob Burke"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Oops. As a walker and non-cyclist myself I didn't realise that part might be
>controversial!

I think it is revealing that in the bit which you do know something
about you have only recommended particular footwear, but in the bit
which you know little or nothing about you have made an item of
clothing compulsory.

Had you bothered to ask those who know something about cycling they
would probably have said to recommend people wear cycling gloves
(and appropriate footwear perhaps) and say nothing about cycle
helmets.

You go on to say, "It is your responsibility to ensure your own
safety." but that is at odds with your earlier patronising
insistence that people must wear cycle helmets. If people are to be
responsible for their own safety then why cannot they decide whether
to wear a cycle helmet or not?

Cycling helmets are less useful than walking helmets, but I note
that you have not insisted on walking helmets.

>And I suppose a
>twisted or broken ankle is unlikely to be life threatening

So is falling off a bike, even in Perthshire.

Note also that wearing helmets increases the frequency at which
people fall off bikes, due to risk compensation.





--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54