Part of the look?!

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
reohn2
Posts: 37928
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby reohn2 » 18 Jan 2016, 7:33pm

Bicycler wrote: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 :shock:

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
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
Graham
Moderator
Posts: 6116
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:48pm

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby Graham » 18 Jan 2016, 7:36pm

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
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby Steady rider » 18 Jan 2016, 7:49pm

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.
Last edited by Steady rider on 18 Jan 2016, 8:29pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4505
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby Mike Sales » 18 Jan 2016, 7:58pm

Graham wrote: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
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Feb 2014, 11:18am

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby fishfright » 18 Jan 2016, 8:01pm

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
Posts: 4505
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby Mike Sales » 18 Jan 2016, 8:05pm

fishfright wrote: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
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby Bicycler » 18 Jan 2016, 9:00pm

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
Posts: 4505
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby Mike Sales » 18 Jan 2016, 9:32pm

reohn2 wrote:
Bicycler wrote: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 :shock:

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
Posts: 37928
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby reohn2 » 18 Jan 2016, 9:42pm

Mike Sales wrote: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. :shock:

It's indeed a topsy turvy world :?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby mjr » 18 Jan 2016, 10:31pm

Mike Sales wrote: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.
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.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby TonyR » 18 Jan 2016, 10:36pm

Mike Sales wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
Bicycler wrote: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 :shock:

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".
Image Attachments
ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1453156581.318793.jpg

Mike Sales
Posts: 4505
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby Mike Sales » 18 Jan 2016, 10:41pm

mjr wrote: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
Posts: 64
Joined: 23 Aug 2009, 2:19am
Location: South Shields

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby Chiz » 19 Jan 2016, 12:10am

Graham wrote: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
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby Steady rider » 19 Jan 2016, 8:11pm

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
Posts: 64
Joined: 23 Aug 2009, 2:19am
Location: South Shields

Re: Part of the look?!

Postby Chiz » 20 Jan 2016, 12:37am

Steady rider wrote:
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.