This helmet thing.

[Mick F]

This is interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectiv ... ts#Cycling

[al_yrpal]

I remember queuing up in an over the counter Sports Shop in my yoof. There was a woman serving. I asked to see a man. She turned round and hollered out the back. "Oi Fred, theres a bloke out here wants to buy a Jock Strap!"

Al

[bigjim]

The thread doesn't need to close, but it's soon off to the ghetto, which is not, I'm sure, what the OP wanted.

I was trying to say that this club although very worthy by starting up in an area where there are, AFAIA, no cycling clubs, have excluded many people from enjoying that group aspect of cycling. They, although, as I said, seem to be a bit on the performance side of things, do feature a social ride. Social IMO is an easy, chatty, non intimidating run which could attract beginners and the more casually clothed, sit up and beg type of young or maybe older rider. I think it is a pity that this insistance on a piece of riding gear should result in people being put off a [I don't want to say sport] nice way of spending a day out.
I tend to hurt my hands more when I, rarely, take a tumble but there is no insistance on gloves or maybe more important, glasses.

[pete75]

It's not a British cycling thing https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/stati ... y-Points-0

There attitude is somewhat ambiguous to say the least. They say "British Cycling recommends wearing a correctly fitted helmet while cycling, however we also recognise the right of each individual to choose whether or not to accept this recommendation " but where they can enforce helmet wearing they do "Please note that while taking part in a British Cycling sanctioned race or Sportive, the use of a helmet conforming to a recognised safety standard is mandatory."

This helmet thing seems to be very British thing - just count how few wearers in this Copenhagen video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYGL80qx71g

[Vorpal]

It's not just British. Many more organisations in the USA require helmets. I've never come across an event or club that doesn't require them in the US. Also, most cycle campaigners there accept their efficacy and will not even permit discussion to the contrary.

[mattsccm]

"The middle P seems a bit unproven." I agree with that!

"deleted . More inflammatory than the forum needs
Off for a ride in the sun

[Vorpal]

"The middle P seems a bit unproven." I agree with that!

"Actually the Health and Safety Executive have specifically excluded bicycle helmets from their list of Personal Protective Equipment."
Irrelevant. . That's just hiding behind some organisation that has an official name and the statement above has no bearing on the real world in this context.
PPE i s a set of letters and nothing more.
I am going for a ride.

No bearing? The HSE is the organisation in the UK that oversees and enforces the use of PPE. It is significant that they have specifically excluded bicycle helmets because many people cycle for work. When Royal Mail implemented a requirement for employees to wear them whilst delivering mail by bicycle, the employees appealed to the HSE. The HSE indicated that bicycle helmets are specifically excluded from the list, and Royal Mail could not, on those grounds, require employees to wear helmets.

[Si]

While we’re at it, does anyone know of a club that doesn’t require its members to bring a bicycle on rides?

Yep, we don't require people to bring a bike to many of our rides, we let them borrow our free hire bikes. That way people can try out cycling before having to make a big and confusing investment.....and thus we get a fair number of people from deprived areas and areas where there is no cycling tradition.

[Bicycler]

You are right about the entitlement idea Bicycler. It's so often the way that those who preach equality are the least tolerant of opposing views.

There's a huge difference between tolerating others' ideas and agreeing with them. Nobody's views are beyond criticism and I fully expect mine to be robustly criticised. A free, equal and tolerant society is not one with an absence of passionate debate. Opinions are one thing, coercion is another. Whilst criticising others' opinions on helmets I respect their right to hold them. I don't tolerate their attempts to force helmets upon others who hold different opinions. Freedom of thought and speech ought to be near absolute, likewise the freedom of the individual in personal matters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle#Definition

[nez]

I remember queuing up in an over the counter Sports Shop in my yoof. There was a woman serving. I asked to see a man. She turned round and hollered out the back. "Oi Fred, theres a bloke out here wants to buy a Jock Strap!"

Al

What had you gone to buy?

[Grandad]

A sllght diversion from the topic.

My club has just under 500 members covering everything from top class racing to 9 regular clubruns, including social rides down to 20 mile rides for beginners and oldies. A newly imposed condition of membership is that from next renewal everyone must be a member of CTC or BC so that they have personal liability insurance regardless of possible cover under a Household Contents insurance policy. Club officials are already covered through the club's affiliation to CTC.

Membership renewals are due next month and it will be interesting to see how this impacts. Do any other clubs do this?

Helmets are recommended but not compulsory and the "serious" riders are trying to persuade everyone to wear club kit if something suitable in non lycra can be designed for the social riders. Currently a keenly discussed topic

[Bicycler]

Strikes me that enforced club kit is likely to have a similar discouraging effect to enforced helmets. A mixture of peoples, bikes and attire really does give the impression that a group is open to all. Really you want people to look at social rides and think "they're just like me... I could do that... it looks like fun... might give it a try..." and enforcing uniforms just inserts a barrier in there. I'm also assuming the kit isn't supplied for free. Cycling togs are not known for being cheap. With that and the insurance requirement it could effectively treble the annual cost of membership.

I can understand why groups might like to go down the insurance route but I don't see why it should be necessary if people are already covered elsewhere. It is understandable that they might like to see written proof (ie. that section of the insurance policy). If going down the route of BC/CTC membership I'd suggest that a lot might depend upon how people are guided through the process. "You need to sort out your own insurance to ride with us" sounds like a lot of work to somebody who just wants to ride a bike. "fill in this form and follow the instructions" sounds better. "I'll register you. Just give me the extra money with your subs" sounds ideal, though I don't know whether affiliate groups can register their members for affiliate membership or whether it has to be done by the member.

On the plus side, it does sound like your club has a nice setup offering beginners and those less "serious" a way into club cycling. It's refreshing in a world of 'beginner', 'easy' or 'slower' rides set at 50+ miles!

[whoof]

A sllght diversion from the topic.

A newly imposed condition of membership is that from next renewal everyone must be a member of CTC or BC so that they have personal liability insurance regardless of possible cover under a Household Contents insurance policy. Do any other clubs do this?
"serious" riders are trying to persuade everyone to wear club kit if something suitable in non lycra can be designed for the social riders. Currently a keenly discussed topic

Yes other clubs do this (CTC/BC membership). Some also insist you wear club kit on their club-run. It's exactly the same as the original post, it's a club, a decision has been made to apply a rule and you can either join or find a another club.
Does it exclude those who do not wish to have CTC/BC membership from that club, yes.

Some clubs insist that you ride with mudguards in winter, this excludes those who don't want to put mudguards on their bike.
I've just had a look at the local CTC rides for this month and the shortest is 30 miles, for some this is a very long way to cycle and may exclude them.
If your club-run has a café stop this may exclude those on low incomes, please don't reply saying you can sit in the café and not have anything, many would be put off by this.
Some clubs insist you help out at events marshalling time-trials etc even if you have never taken part in one in your life and have no intension to.
Any rule stating that you must or must not do something or limit (high or low) whether it's distance or speed may act to exclude someone.

[Bicycler]

Having a cycle club excludes non-cyclists The issue in the OP is not whether clubs should make rules to enable the efficient running of their club it is whether they ought to interfere in an inherently personal decision on a contentious subject.

I concede that they are slightly different subjects, but the issues of how cycling and cyclists are perceived and how so many people come to be put off joining clubs are important ones for the future if we have aspirations toward wider participation.

Like it or go elsewhere is a fair enough defence of the status quo but it's painfully clear that the somewhere else often does not exist or involves doing something other than riding a bike. All I'm saying is that we ought to put a bit more effort into making our groups more inclusive. Preferably not by excluding part of our existing or potential membership because they don't share a particular view on their personal headwear.

[mjr]

Membership renewals are due next month and it will be interesting to see how this impacts. Do any other clubs do this?

Yes. It has deterred me from joining or advertising the "open" rides of certain clubs (including London FNRttC) because I believe it's wrong to tell people they must buy more insurance from a particular supplier.

Even requiring people to prove they have third-party insurance seems bordering on daft because an incident on a public-road ride could quite easily be caused by another uninsured road user. If it's the sort of club that encourages risky riding like not leaving stopping distance between riders (common among BC clubs), then it's just absurd.

I'm against wearing of crash helmets by cyclists because I believe they encourage riskier riding (for reasons not really understood - risk compensation, brain heating, balance/sizing problems, whatever), but I have no intention of asking my group to ban them until the evidence is clearer.

Helmets are recommended but not compulsory and the "serious" riders are trying to persuade everyone to wear club kit if something suitable in non lycra can be designed for the social riders. Currently a keenly discussed topic

I'd be asking who's liable if a rider was wearing a helmet only because it was recommended and was injured more badly because of it.

But really, it sounds like that club has jumped the shark... helmet rules are bad but sadly not rare, but a dress code?