Part of the look?!

[reohn2]

For some they are in danger of becoming a religion!

I would seem so.
I've read of people even been asked by motorists why they're not wearing one

I often wonder what a motorist reaction would be if I asked them why they're using a mobile phone whilst driving or why they're speeding,etc,etc

[Graham]

The number of people cycling in my area has increased massively over the last ten years or so.

The vast majority are sporty, road, cyclists and they (nearly) all wear helmets.

As a woolly hat wearer I'm obviously in a minority.

I'm beginning to get worried about some historic quote stating that parliament would move towards a compulsory helmet law when the voluntary wearing rate reached 80% .

Another worry is that such a compulsory helmet law would be policed by vigilante motorists . . punishment passes, abuse, possible violence. . . . even more than now.

The simplistic NORM is a big effort to refute :- i.e. helmets should be worn to remove/reduce head injury. It's just obvious innit !!!

Chiz : you need to find a different group. You are a heretic. No amount of rational argument, research papers, whatever will change their beliefs. Why bother ?

[Steady rider]

Tony stated

You should read http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/site ... chaska.pdf on the definition of a belief in Article 9. I don't think cycle helmets either for or against come anywhere near a "belief"

The document seems to be focused on employment aspects and a few aspects are accepted as beliefs.

Parents belief in corporal punishment for their children was protected by Article 9.The House of Lords also accepted that pacficism, vegetarianism and total abstinence from alcohol were protected by Article 9.

It states;

In general, the UK courts have found that most beliefs qualify for protection (see table below) and the courts have exhibited a reluctance to question the legitimacy or worth of a person’s genuinely held belief unless it is incompatible with human dignity.

Cases can be quoted of people going to prison due to not wearing helmets, thousands of fines issued when legislation has been introduced, children being expelled for not complying with a school requirement to wear them, individuals not cycling due to helmet requirements. With there being evidence for and against helmets, imposing a requirement to wear helmets without a legal requirement, is in my view going too far, taking away the human right of personal choice.

The Court found that ‘convictions’ and ‘beliefs’ under Article 9 were similar

.

A court could decide if a cycling club can insist or if the individual should have the right to decide on helmet wearing. The cost and time for a cycling club to defend its position on insisting may also be a factor and could result in dropping a requirement.

[Mike Sales]

The number of people cycling in my area has increased massively over the last ten years or so.

The vast majority are sporty, road, cyclists and they (nearly) all wear helmets.

As a woolly hat wearer I'm obviously in a minority.

I'm beginning to get worried about some historic quote stating that parliament would move towards a compulsory helmet law when the voluntary wearing rate reached 80% .

Another worry is that such a compulsory helmet law would be policed by vigilante motorists . . punishment passes, abuse, possible violence. . . . even more than now.

I think that a high proportion of helmet wearing cyclists is a sign of a cyclist hating country.
Australia and New Zealand are good examples. The anti cyclist vituperation from Australians I have read in on-line forums is shocking. They have a cyclist casualty rate two or three times ours, in spite of near 100% fooam wearing.

[fishfright]

Wear one or don't , is there need for a daily repeat of the pro/anti brigades unchanging opinions?

FYI I wear one because i'm better than you so have more to protect.

[Mike Sales]

Wear one or don't , is there need for a daily repeat of the pro/anti brigades unchanging opinions?

FYI I wear one because i'm better than you so have more to protect.

Long may it remain a matter of personal preference. However, those who are stupid enough to not want to wear one fear that choice may cease. That is what motivates us.

[Bicycler]

Yep, generally the "anti-brigade" aren't trying to persuade people not to wear helmets. If the "pro-brigade" could accept "wear one or don't" instead of trying to coerce others into wearing them then we wouldn't be wasting our time discussing the issue.

[Mike Sales]

For some they are in danger of becoming a religion!

I would seem so.
I've read of people even been asked by motorists why they're not wearing one

I often wonder what a motorist reaction would be if I asked them why they're using a mobile phone whilst driving or why they're speeding,etc,etc

They would say (its happened to me ), "Where is your helmet?" or "You should be wearing hiviz". Or even "Cyclists ignore red lights".

[reohn2]

They would say (its happened to me ), "Where is your helmet?" or "You should be wearing hiviz". Or even "Cyclists ignore red lights".

Which proves those particular motorist's perception is that they can do no wrong,even if it's against the law.
Whilst cyclists who aren't breaking any laws can do no right.

It's indeed a topsy turvy world

[mjr]

I think that a high proportion of helmet wearing cyclists is a sign of a cyclist hating country.
Australia and New Zealand are good examples. The anti cyclist vituperation from Australians I have read in on-line forums is shocking. They have a cyclist casualty rate two or three times ours, in spite of near 100% fooam wearing.

Actually, due to a few exemptions (such as Sikhs) and disobedience, NZ remains stubbornly in the low 90s% according to Transport NZ. They're trumpeting 94% as a statistically significant increase but we won't know if it's a one-off blip until 2018 because they only survey every three years now!

I agree that NZ drivers do not mix well with cycling, no matter what that tourism bod said over in another thread.

[TonyR]

For some they are in danger of becoming a religion!

I would seem so.
I've read of people even been asked by motorists why they're not wearing one

I often wonder what a motorist reaction would be if I asked them why they're using a mobile phone whilst driving or why they're speeding,etc,etc

They would say (its happened to me ), "Where is your helmet?" or "You should be wearing hiviz". Or even "Cyclists ignore red lights".

[Mike Sales]

Actually, due to a few exemptions (such as Sikhs) and disobedience, NZ remains stubbornly in the low 90s% according to Transport NZ. They're trumpeting 94% as a statistically significant increase but we won't know if it's a one-off blip until 2018 because they only survey every three years now!

I was referring to Oz actually, but in my book over 90% is pretty close to 100%. Compared to our wearing rate one is forced to wonder why, if helmets are effective, they have a casualty rate a multiple of ours.

Here is some stuff on NZ's law.

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law-the-evidence-and-what-it-means/

[Chiz]

Chiz : you need to find a different group. You are a heretic. No amount of rational argument, research papers, whatever will change their beliefs. Why bother ?

I think that's the only option for me, it's no great loss for either party.

[Steady rider]

I think that's the only option for me, it's no great loss for either party

Understandable.

In general terms could the following be useful or similar worded motions?
CTC AGM motion
The AGM requests the CTC to ask its legal advisors to provide a document that can be used to support individuals who prefer to ride without a helmet and take part in events that may insist on wearing a helmet.

another option
The AGM requests the CTC to ensure that all rides and events that the CTC promotes or are involved with does not insist on or are conditional on helmet wearing to take part in.

A proposer and seconder are required for CTC AGM motions.

[Chiz]

I think that's the only option for me, it's no great loss for either party

Understandable.

In general terms could the following be useful or similar worded motions?
CTC AGM motion
The AGM requests the CTC to ask its legal advisors to provide a document that can be used to support individuals who prefer to ride without a helmet and take part in events that may insist on wearing a helmet.

another option
The AGM requests the CTC to ensure that all rides and events that the CTC promotes or are involved with does not insist on or are conditional on helmet wearing to take part in.

A proposer and seconder are required for CTC AGM motions.

In my particular case it may be a case of flogging a dead horse, the club have made it fairly clear how little they value the opinion of the CTC (to their disadvantage as far as I'm concerned).

I'm hoping to take part in a few organised events this year, I will be dismayed to find any 'helmet rules' whether I intend to wear one or not (I'm very much a fan of having a choice in the matter). Sportives are popular, but by their very nature tend to be of a sporting nature (I think there may be a clue in the title), so are likely to be mostly 'helmets to be worn' type affairs.