Cycling UK Forum

gaz wrote:thelawnet's example is a different LMG. I don't know whether they are actually claiming the handbook allows it or are simply choosing to ignore/being ignorant of Cycling UK policy.

I had a quick look.

Firstly and rather incidentally I came across this

https://www.fleetcycling.org.uk/wp-cont ... iefing.pdf

This is the 'Fleet Flyer' by member group 'Fleet Cycling', which has a strict 'no helmet no ride' policy. I am not sure if there are sportive/British Cycling/insurance concerns that pertain to the validity or otherwise of this policy.

This is a different group

https://www.westsurreyctc.co.uk/ride-guidelines/ - 2013 guidelines

"We recommend you heed the advice of Highway Code Rule 59 which suggests you wear a helmet and striking/contrasting colours and/or Hi Viz/ reflective clothing "

(which is only a recommendation)

On the mailing list a dicussion between ride leaders:

"You may think that you are the best rider in the world, but particularly when riding in a group, it would be naive to think that you are immune from the possibility of a touch and a fall. Then, whilst simply wearing a helmet will not necessarily save you from injury, it should be blindingly obvious that you stand a better chance if you are. Even if you do not value your own life, I would urge you to show consideration to your ride leader who is responsible for all, and your fellow riders who might well be traumatised by witnessing a serious accident involving one of their riding friends.

I acknowledge that such respect and consideration is present within the grade 4's, where I am one of the ride leaders, and where it is the expectation of all that fellow riders will wear helmets at all times. Until we apply the simple mantra of "no helmet, no ride", which applies in so many other cycling clubs, I would sincerely hope that everyone would show similar respect to all ride leaders.
"

and reply from another ride leader in a different group

"Mandatory helmet wearing is against Cycling UK policy, a policy which goes back to long before the re-branding of the CTC."

and from a second from the first group

"You offer no cogent argument for not protecting yourself by using a helmet; the argument about primary or secondary safety is irrelevant. I see the UK Cycling stance as political rather than safety related. My personal experience has shown the value of a helmet and the experience of others has reinforced that value. Do what you want but don't ride with me."

The point in this case was that while there were other views expressed, at least 2 of 5 ride leaders in the 'fast' group expressed sentiments that their group is helmet-compelled, so it does become so de facto; if members of the larger groups expressed such sentiments then it is perhaps more of a matter of debate rather than a 'consensus' within a smaller group.

This discussion (mid-2018) was followed by a change:

2019 rides list:

https://www.westsurreyctc.co.uk/wp-cont ... -v1.1-.pdf

"The use of helmets is strongly recommended."

2018 rides list

https://westsurreyctc.co.uk/wp-content/ ... -final.pdf

finds said sentence absent.

thelawnet wrote:I had a quick look. <SNIP>

Thanks for those links thelawnet.
I am surprised that a MG could be so out of step with Cycling UK policy and don't think it should be permitted.

PH wrote:

thelawnet wrote:I had a quick look. <SNIP>

Thanks for those links thelawnet.
I am surprised that a MG could be so out of step with Cycling UK policy and don't think it should be permitted.

I believe someone hit a pothole on a ride last yea and had an accident. I think they were wearing a helmet, and perhaps the helmet was not relevant; however this was the source of the discussion, it's the perennial 'I was wearing a helmet and didn't die, therefore everyone needs a helmet'-type of argument.

I believe that a good proportion of group members are convinced of the merits of helmets and aren't interested in policies, not withstanding that it is I think the 'home' CTC group.

thelawnet wrote:I believe someone hit a pothole on a ride last yea and had an accident. I think they were wearing a helmet, and perhaps the helmet was not relevant; however this was the source of the discussion, it's the perennial 'I was wearing a helmet and didn't die, therefore everyone needs a helmet'-type of argument.

It remains fascinating how the helmeteers seem to crash so much more often - including myself when I used one. I am probably tempting fate, but the last ride I hit the deck was the last ride I wore one - and I've been hit by a car since then, but managed to keep the bike up! It's almost like there's something about wrapping one's head in cavity wall insulation that might dull your thinking or reactions...

Anyway, the problem to me isn't so much that it disagrees with national CUK policy as that HQ is losing the argument even with its own local leaders - simply because it isn't even trying to argue for its policy as far as I can tell. It feels like it's only a matter of time before a zealot takes a position of power at HQ and the policy gets changed with overwhelming support of foolish local leaders.

BTW: gaz, yes, I have real examples, but I'm not going to name them and risk getting myself yet more abuse from helmet-zealot clubs! I'll try to pick my battles for once...