Slime time

25 June 2011 | 0:00 - By The Broom Wagon

PassageduGois_640_aap_1717338331

The peloton crossing the Passage du Gois during the second stage of the 1999 Tour de France (AAP)

There you are, a long-suffering cycling fan whiling away the weeks since the Giro, tweeting or perhaps crying tears of betrayal into your manga comic after discovering your latest pop idol is a computer-generated animation. And suddenly bang, it's the last week in June and you are days away from the best three weeks of the year.

Robbie McEwen is out. Richie Porte is in. Cameron Wurf is out. Adam Hansen is out. Mark Renshaw is in. Michael Rogers is out. Gerro is in.

In a break from tradition for this year's Tour, Cadel Evans is racing alongside riders wholly picked to support him. This is sure to disappoint fans who have come to expect Evans to look increasingly shattered while riding alone for two and a half weeks. It's also sure to cause head-scratching among the tactical gurus over at Omega Pharma-Lotto.

If you are lucky enough to be heading over to France, Cyclingnews has helpfully recommended a number of spots to set yourself up with your inflatable kangaroo/devil costume/mankini and watch the bikes go past.

First on the list is the Passage du Gois, a tidal causeway serving as a prelude to the opening stage, because why roll out the red carpet when you can have your riders begin a three-week race by negotiating 4.5km of cobbled slime?

The clip below from the 1999 Tour describes the Passage as the Wimbledon of local access roads. There is not as much Sue Barker and Cliff Richard as you might expect, so perhaps the reference is to the Pimms-induced carnage in the car park.





This year the peloton will be passaging through at low speeds and at low tide. Which is probably for the best.





Helmet heads

Emotive and irrational are words the Broom Wagon has read with quiet resignation on any number of SBS performance reviews.

They were also used by Professor Max Cameron this week to describe criticism of Australia's compulsory helmet laws.

The words also featured in the headline when the Age online reported the story – totally because this is the news angle, and not at all to set up the cyclist/anti-cyclist dogfight in the comments that lets Age readers know it is a day ending in 'Y'.

Prof Cameron, whose research helped set up the current helmet laws in Victoria, has labelled a new study by the University of New South Wales the definitive word on the subject, possibly making him Australia's biggest optimist.

The study looked at cyclists admitted to hospital before and after the helmet laws were introduced in NSW. It found a 29 per cent decline in the rate of head injuries relative to leg and arm injuries, while figures for pedestrians showed no such decline.

The findings, say the study's authors, support the mandatory helmet laws. They also contradict last year's study by University of Sydney professor Chris Rissel, which credited the decline to other factors such as better roads. Rissel's paper was later retracted after critics (academic, not the hotheaded anti-helmet kind) pointed out mathematical errors.

Of course, what the findings do not address any more than Rissel's study is the extent to which the helmet laws have reduced the number of cyclists on the roads. And whether having the lower number of cyclists has reduced cyclist safety, and whether overall community health has been affected.

This is what the emotional/irrational critics of helmet laws generally argue, and is why hailing a study which confirms your previous opinion on helmet laws as the definitive word on the subject remains a teensy bit premature.

Ride of the week

Noemi Cantele rode a 90km breakaway, much of it solo, before winning a sprint finish in Sicily during the week. (And according to Bridie O'Donnell on Twitter, it was hot). She is now Italy's new road race champion.

Shakespearean tweet of the week

London! Where is your summer ??? - @JohanBruyneel (London: "It's behind you!")

Dispatches from the Twitterverse


Rippin into NRL supercoach lately, Cannot wait to live back in Aus after 15 years OS!!!!! - @ allandavis27

Happy to hear @simongerrans will be joining me for a 3 week holiday in France this July, Lots of free food and real good hotels. - @Mark_Renshaw

I just sneezed twice. Which served as a HORRIBLE reminder that my ribs are broken. - @iamtedking

Just made the lunchboxes for the boys. - @stevendejongh

Share article: 
top

Comments (13)

Display: 20 | 40 | All comments per page
Previous 10 | Page 1 | 2 | Next 10

02 Jul 2011 10:38 AEST

Rob JM

From: melb

Bike share + no helmet + melbourne tram tracks = brain damage. Do you really think putting inexperienced riders on dangerous roads with no helmets is a good idea?

Agree (0 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

27 Jun 2011 20:45 AEST

Adam

From: Aussie Abroad

Mexico has compulsory helmet laws but made an exception to get their bikeshare scheme running. Obviously they felt it was a barrier. I'm all for wearing helmets, but maybe make an exception for bikeshares - it's not reasonable to drag a helmet around with you all the time; you'd jump on a tram instead. Alternatively, make helmets optional and punish anyone injured without one by not honouring their health insurance, etc. Let grown-ups make their own decisions and live with the consequences.

Agree (3 people agree)    Disagree (3 people disagree) Report this
 

27 Jun 2011 19:35 AEST

JObbi

From: Galston

As someone who has watched a bike rider being choppered out of a forest after going head first into a tree will attest, helmets are the only thing between life and a skull resembling a split coconut. Get a grip people! What's next, no seatbelts? Maybe seatbelts increase the likelihood of large gutted people not being able to drink their quota at night through impact related injuries to their abdomen? Maybe no child restraints? How about no harnesses for people working on roofs. The list goes on.

Agree (6 people agree)    Disagree (2 people disagree) Report this
 

27 Jun 2011 16:00 AEST

BoredAtWork

From: Melbourne

We need to separate the issues of where this applies. If you're riding in a bunch clad in your favourite lycra along at 50km/hr, and you're not wearing a helmet, you're asking for brain damage. However this isn't the reason to make helmets compulsory. Helmets shouldn't be compulsory for the average commuter and more people would ride if they didn't have to wear helmets.

Agree (5 people agree)    Disagree (4 people disagree) Report this
 

27 Jun 2011 13:13 AEST

jas

From: bissytown

What kind of idiot argues about not wearing a lid anyways. Is it more important to look cool, not that I think not wearing one looks cool. Wearing a helmet is part and parcel of cycling. the road and track stars all wear them without grumbling about it. If you don't want to wear a helmet you probably aren't too smart anyway and its best you stay off the roads and out of my way! While the study may not be definative and as Stan Kekovich says "It makes sense"

Agree (5 people agree)    Disagree (1 people disagree) Report this
 

27 Jun 2011 11:07 AEST

Rachel

From: Sydney

Those surveyed in latest CPF study put helmet way down the list as a barrier to regular riding. let's say helmet laws are made non compulsory right now - will we really see a dramatic magical increase in those who don't care about riding a bike? what are the strategies to get people riding then,when that doesn't happen? how will they get them to ride when their crutch has gone? When we have infrastructure like in many European cities, then yes, let's reconsider compulsory helmet laws.

Agree (6 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

27 Jun 2011 10:14 AEST

Khalid

From: Sydney

Obviously David has never had a crash on a bicycle.

Agree (10 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

27 Jun 2011 10:10 AEST

ben

From: melbourne

@City Rider: I wouldn't be surprised that 'cycling numbers declined significantly after the laws came in', but I would lay bets that there was a rebound in numbers very soon after that. Same thing happens with the introduction of most new things. Very simplistic and disingenuous of you to link that to a claim of longer-term effects.

Agree (4 people agree)    Disagree (1 people disagree) Report this
 

26 Jun 2011 19:01 AEST

City Rider

From: Brisbane

It is widely acknowledged that cycling numbers declined significantly after the laws came in by anywhere up to 40%. Even those generally very supportive of helmet laws will admit this, as do the authors of this paper (somewhat, however they chose to simply ignore it in their analysis). Have a look at the following site for a response to this recent helmet law paper: http://helmetfreedom.org/762/emotive-irrational-experts-claim-victory/

Agree (1 people agree)    Disagree (2 people disagree) Report this
 

26 Jun 2011 15:34 AEST

David

From: Sydney

HELMET LAWS HURT CYCLING! That slogan is attached to every bike rack in the university of Sydney and I couldn't agree more with it. Compulsory helmet laws are ridiculous in Australia. And it's little wonder why the bike sharing scheme is not working in Melbourne. Helmets are largely to blame. If we want to get serious about bicycle commuting, helmet laws have to go. Just ask Amsterdam why they don't introduce helmet laws.

Agree (4 people agree)    Disagree (19 people disagree) Report this
 
Display: 20 | 40 | All comments per page
Previous 10 | Page 1 | 2 | Next 10

Join the discussion

You have characters remaining.
Validation (
) :
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

PLEASE NOTE: All submitted comments become the property of SBS. We reserve the right to edit and/or amend submitted comments. HTML tags other than paragraph, line break, bold or italics will be removed from your comment.