Well I have been occupied doing other things for the past few weeks. Some related to velomobiles and some not related, and consequently, I have some catching up to do. An update to the blog is long overdue! Mid-summer is a quiet period news-wise but, none the less, there are some items that have been reported elsewhere, which I expect to comment on shortly.

More generally the current Olympic fever and the achievements of team GB in the cycling events is serving to heighten the British public interest in cycling generally, both for practical transport as well as for sport. Anything which helps improve the status of transport cycling can only be a good thing. Looking beyond the olympics the question of what to spend the Olympic Legacy on has been raised. Bike Biz reported that the BBC radio 4 program You and Yours was asking this question of it’s listeners. Bike Biz were strongly advocating it be spent on quality cycle infrastructure a-la the Dutch model. This has been essentially seconded by SUSTRANS who are calling for investment to encourage cycling to school.  A view with which we heartily concur.

There would also seem to be some increase not only in the profile but also in political support for the installation of better cycle infrastructure. The Times’ #cyclesafe campaign together with a high profile fatality connected with the London Olympic venue has served to raise public awareness, and political support, for serious improvement. Regrettably in the reporting of the fatality there were distracting comments about “wearing helmets,” raised by UK champion Bradley Wiggins and seconded by several shrill voices. The debate on helmet wearing and compulsion is largely removed from the world of rational scientific enquiry; and completely misses the point of how a 70 kg human and their 20 kg bike is able to stand up to a vehicle with a mass from 800 kg to upward of 3000 Kg. It should be obvious that these fatal “accidents” usually involve forces, and levels of energy, far exceeding that which a cycle helmet is capable of absorbing. Indeed, it was the writer’s own experience that, a healthy human skull is perfectly capable of exceeding the rather limited performance required of cycle helmets*. (If it helps, consider how easy it is to break a cycle helmet with your arms versus breaking a human skull!) I might write a post describing my own experience in detail, together with my observations, on the limited value and potential risks, of helmet wearing in everyday cycling, at some other time. I also intend to write a post about the protective benefit provided by a velomobile body when involved in a collision.

Continuing the theme of infrastructure, I had the opportunity to attend my local government Cycle-Forum, which I found very interesting. The Forum meets quarterly and serves to try and coordinate efforts to promote cycling and invest in better cycle provision locally. A promising activity which needs support, and can only get better, with consequent beneficial results for all pedal powered transport.

However I will return to velomobiles with my next post.

* Vertical impact at 11-15 mph assumed to be equivalent to falling over from a stationary bike and landing on your head. See the section on Standards on cyclehelmets.org