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.
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.