NO HELMET = NO RIDE

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by gaz »

Graham wrote:Ghetto material methinks ?

As the snow flies ...
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by meic »

The post two before Gaz's did bring in the sort of comment that gets things sent to the Ghetto, it could be separated off there and the rest continued in the ghetto. If the Mods feel like the extra effort.
The original thread would probably want locking or they will be doing it for ever.

There is a slight problem with having the ghetto that any issue of which helmets is a part can always be sent to the ghetto by starting along the same old lines.

As an example if somebody posted a warning post about a government bill to make helmets compulsory, it would, if the rule was maintained inevitably have to be sent to the ghetto where nobody would see it!
Yma o Hyd
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by gaz »

meic wrote:There is a slight problem with having the ghetto that any issue of which helmets is a part can always be sent to the ghetto by starting along the same old lines.

The ghetto paradox :mrgreen: .

If the ghetto was a full forum board, rather than a sub-board as it is at present, it would at least be visible on the board index.

Should the ghetto wear hi-vis :wink: ?
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by meic »

Ibbo68's post does very much illustrate the point that I was trying to make in a health and fitness forum.
That when somebody wants to do a bit of gentle exercise the available options have been almost exclusively "sportified" and the conditions for attending a high risk MTB ride in the extreme wild spots of the country are extrapolated back to apply to a gentle summer activity in Carmarthen swimming pool, along the town's river bank and a road ride to Llansteffan beach and back!
Yma o Hyd
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by gaz »

I agree and I would be disappointed (although not surprised) if this thread does find its way to the ghetto.

Locally the council run cycle rides for adults under "health" and cycle events for all ages under "sport".

"Sport" sub-contract out the bigger events, sportives and MTB races to the usual providers who insist on mandatory helmet wearing. However "sport" also organise an annual mass participation family ride on closed roads and childrens "races" on a closed running track. Helmets are mandatory for both.

"Health" on the other hand organise helmet optional rides. My understanding is that they would love to make them helmet compulsory but at least part of their funding is from CTC and is conditional on helmet choice for riders.

A few years ago "health" organised a family treasure hunt on public roads starting from the site of a "sport" event. They were having kittens as they discovered some parents were not only happy for their unhelmeted children to take part but to do so unaccompanied.

Edit: Policy change, now mandatory helmets. I've told them I have no further interest in the group.
Last edited by gaz on 24 May 2018, 9:34am, edited 1 time in total.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
100%JR
Posts: 1138
Joined: 31 May 2016, 10:47pm
Location: High Green,Sheffield.

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by 100%JR »

mjr wrote:
ibbo68 wrote:Wearing a helmet is personal preference,I always do Road,CX or MTB but if you're out MTBing with us you wear one or you don't join us.

If you're imposing it on others, how is that personal preference?

I'm not imposing anything.If you don't want to wear a helmet don't.If you don't you're not riding with us.You have a choice :wink:

ibbo68 wrote:Simple.
I don't want or need the responsibility and certainly don't want to have to explain to Mountain Rescue/Emergency Services why someones head is broken halfway down Snowden/Helvellyn/Ben Lomond etc :|

Typical road helmets aren't tested for MTB situations.


I didn't mention Road helmets!If someone turned up with a Road helmet I'd point out that it probably isn't suitable but generally MTBers will turn up with MTB helmets!

I ride with two CCs and nobody rides without a helmet.IIRC any CC affiliated with British Cycling has to ensure Helmets are worn.Informal MTB meets via Forums aren't affiliated with anyone so we can't force anyone to wear one.If they want to turn up and ride without one they're more than welcome to do so but not with our group.
I've lead dozens and dozens of MTB rides over the years and so far there's only two or three people that have turned up without a lid.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by mjr »

ibbo68 wrote:I ride with two CCs and nobody rides without a helmet.IIRC any CC affiliated with British Cycling has to ensure Helmets are worn.

I'm pretty sure that's still not true outside of mass-start races and crits (not even for time trials, although there has been yet another survey recently which seems likely to be used as evidence for ending freedom of choice), but of course because helmet use is required for races and most events now (including BC non-competitive ones), most BC club members will use them and that means there's probably a majority of users in the club so many clubs will force all riders at every ride... and so the non-using majority of cyclists can't ride with them. This is a huge opportunity for relaxed riding / easy-riding / freewheeling groups IMO.

gaz wrote:Locally the council run cycle rides for adults under "health" and cycle events for all ages under "sport".

"Sport" sub-contract out the bigger events, sportives and MTB races to the usual providers who insist on mandatory helmet wearing. However "sport" also organise an annual mass participation family ride on closed roads and childrens "races" on a closed running track. Helmets are mandatory for both.

"Health" on the other hand organise helmet optional rides. My understanding is that they would love to make them helmet compulsory but at least part of their funding is from CTC and is conditional on helmet choice for riders.

A few years ago "health" organised a family treasure hunt on public roads starting from the site of a "sport" event. They were having kittens as they discovered some parents were not only happy for their unhelmeted children to take part but to do so unaccompanied.

That's cool, but it does illustrate why "sport" must not be allowed to take over CTC or cycling in general. I've read that Chancellor Phillip Hammond tried to get cycling shoved out of Transport into Culture, Media and Sport when he was Transport Minister, so I fear there may be more attempts to do this by manipulating national funding.

I can't seem to get the "Health" bit of Norfolk interested in cycling yet. "Out and about" do some helmet-optional rides, but only a handful a year. I'm trying to get our local rides (which happen anyway) listed, although I've no idea whether it'll bring any more people to them.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by gaz »

I've been on a couple of the local health promotion rides, very genteel affairs on flat shared trails. IMO that is a scenario where no helmet = no ride would be creating an unnecessary barrier.

The ride leaders are volunteers. Formal training is arranged free by the local authority through the Sky Ride Leader programme, in return for a commitment to lead one ride a month in the following year. They'll also accept CTC Ride Manager (and at a guess MIAS level 2) but AFAIK not the CTC's recent "in house" courses for MGs and AGs. The ride leaders are also supplied with council branded jackets and I believe first aid kits and relevant training. Once in a while a Council officer attends as Ride Leader.

Medical history is discussed before your first ride, some of those participating find out about the groups via GP referral. A simple record is kept of who is out and if they did/did not wear a helmet.

The bumpf says that if you develop your interest in cycling beyond the relatively short and gentle rides they offer they will guide you to local clubs. I've no idea which local clubs those might be.

Edit: Policy change, now mandatory helmets. I've told them I have no further interest in the group.
Last edited by gaz on 24 May 2018, 9:32am, edited 1 time in total.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by Vorpal »

ibbo68 wrote:I ride with two CCs and nobody rides without a helmet.IIRC any CC affiliated with British Cycling has to ensure Helmets are worn.


I've been on two rides with BC affiliated clubs in the last year. I was visiting & riding a borrowed bike. I didn't wear a helmet and nobody said boo about it. In both cases, although the majority wore helmets, there was at least one other person along who wasn't wearing a helmet.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about ... icy-0?c=EN
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
Heltor Chasca
Posts: 3016
Joined: 30 Aug 2014, 8:18pm
Location: Near Bath & The Mendips in Somerset

NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by Heltor Chasca »

I have been digesting all this and trying to justify my values in my own head. Interesting process for me. These are my thoughts:

*I choose not to wear a helmet while touring, Audaxing and utility cycling.

* I used to wear one commuting in London. I wouldn't now. A lid won't save me from a ton of metal.

*My head torch is more comfortable on my helmet than on my head. I haven't done any Audaxing over-night yet, so this needs some experimenting and experience.

* I do wear one on trickier MTB rides.

* If there was an event I REALLY wanted to do where you had to wear a helmet. I would.

* The stats overseas suggest that making wearing a helmet mandatory has resulted in a decrease in riding . I simply won't accept that. If someone REALLY needs or wants to be on a bike they will wear one. Someone has manipulated these figures surely.

* I am very tolerant and adaptable. I would never judge someone on their choice to wear or not to wear. That doesn't make you any different to me. It's when strangers get evangelist with MY choice that I take exception.

* If, in my lifetime, neutral, third party statistics on the benefits of wearing a helmet came out suggesting it was safer, then I would wear one.

For now, I think helmet campaigning is a waste of time, money and energy that could be used for more feasible issues. For me that is INFRASTRUCTURE and policing. Cycling IS safe. The road design is not. The level to which the HC is disregarded is ridiculous. I want our traffic police and beat bobbies back. I think once those two areas are tidied up, then maybe fuss about helmets. Funnily enough, helmets seem to have fallen out of the bucket list in the Netherlands. Funny that.

To the OP. I think the choice is entirely yours and the decision isn't difficult. I admire you for being proactive in getting motivated. Good health to you.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by Vorpal »

I agree about the 'sportificiation' of cycling. I do think it gets in the way of getting bums on bikes.

I do think that organisations like Cycling UK, Sustrans, Cyclenation, and the various local groups need to be careful not to sportify cycling.

With cycling clubs, and things like triahtlons (even a mini one) the distinction is blurred and many participants are likely to be interested to some extent or another in cycling sport.

CJ was always quick to point out sportification and the associated disbenefits (is that a word?), and we have had a couple of other threads on here with similar themes, or at least ones that wandered that way. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=80453 is one example.

Part of the problem is that people are so sedentary these days, walking to school is practically 'sport', so doing anything as crazy as riding a bike 23 km is definitely sport, and therefor deserves all the trappings, like wearing special clothes :?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by meic »

If someone REALLY needs or wants to be on a bike they will wear one. Someone has manipulated these figures surely.

The first sentence is true*. But why should any obstacle exist. If I really wanted to ride a cycle path I would lift my bike over the barriers, instead I just choose to ride somewhere else instead.
Others may be just choosing not to cycle instead.

* apart from those who might defy the law or go somewhere the law doesnt apply.
Yma o Hyd
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by mjr »

meic wrote:
If someone REALLY needs or wants to be on a bike they will wear one. Someone has manipulated these figures surely.

The first sentence is true*. But why should any obstacle exist. If I really wanted to ride a cycle path I would lift my bike over the barriers, instead I just choose to ride somewhere else instead.
Others may be just choosing not to cycle instead.

^^ This. Do we (as in members, cycling groups or society in general) only care about those who really really really want to be on a bike?

Also, even among those who really want to be cycling, making it easier helps. In my case, most cycling-related changes I've made in the last decade have been about making it even easier for me to cycle (more practical bikes, better lights, moving to a home on the cycle track network, campaigning for network improvements) and the result is that I cycle more now than I ever did and I seem to be in better health than I have been since I was at school (which reminds me that I need to look for my routine blood test forms... :lol: ).

I doubt the figures will have been manipulated. Around King's Lynn, where cycling is generally easier than driving for short trips, there's a heck of a lot of people riding bikes to get from A to B and I suspect lots of them would switch to driving cars if motoring was made easier or cycling was made fiddlier. Each extra bit of specialist kit, including a fairly fragile heavy hat, makes cycling fiddlier and cycling organisations should be very cautious about promoting it.

It's a bit like the toolkit threads... yes, I like to carry enough stuff that I can fix problems and complete 99.9% of trips on the bike, but for most people, 99% is good enough and they only need a pump, levers and stickers, plus a lock for the 1% when it's too far to finish by walking, so they can come back with the right tools or a way to lug the bike to a shop.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by irc »

Heltor Chasca wrote:* The stats overseas suggest that making wearing a helmet mandatory has resulted in a decrease in riding . I simply won't accept that. If someone REALLY needs or wants to be on a bike they will wear one. Someone has manipulated these figures surely.



Sure. But there are plenty people on the margins who may find the need for a helmet tips the balance against cycling.


MBS-Barriers-Graph.jpg


Over 60% of respondents cite helmet restrictions as being the main reason stopping them from using bike share.

http://www.freestylecyclists.org/study- ... ike-share/
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: NO HELMET = NO RIDE

Post by Cunobelin »

I used to organise sponsored cycle rides for the Scouts and cubs.

Then they insisted on helmets and we were having to exclude people who wanted to take part.
Equally we were forced to exclude children from cyclist badges on teh same grounds.

I stopped and the Scouts lost half their annual income, resulting in financial problems

There is a cost to these rules
Post Reply