Failing friendship over helmet wearing

[Cunobelin]

Safety rules are not set by AGMs

There's a consultation process, under which working activity leaders are invited to comment on proposed rule changes, but the safety rules are then set centrally and not democratically. The Scout Association is always going to follow perceived best practice, and is not necessarily going to sit down and analyse actual accident statistics. Persuade society and the Scouts will follow.

In the meantime, I think it's better to offer the opportunity to ride, with or without helmet.

There is no choice... it is wear a helmet or no activity

[drossall]

I know that. What I meant was that riding with helmet was better than not riding without.

Not sure about the not liking non-conformity bit. Apart from the double negative I think there's a fair old range. And uniform is generally worn on appropriate occasions. On camps, you'll see hardly any except at formal openings and the like.

[Steady rider]

It seems like sheepy scouts, follow the leader approach. Uniform and image makers with a good social interaction. Head figure to follow. They have a long way to go.

[pjclinch]

There's a consultation process, under which working activity leaders are invited to comment on proposed rule changes, but the safety rules are then set centrally and not democratically. The Scout Association is always going to follow perceived best practice, and is not necessarily going to sit down and analyse actual accident statistics. Persuade society and the Scouts will follow.

Sustrans have made the jump at policy level, so it's not all going the wrong way...

Pete.

[drossall]

It seems like sheepy scouts, follow the leader approach. Uniform and image makers with a good social interaction. Head figure to follow. They have a long way to go.

This seems like a lack of proportion to me. Scouts is about the cycling, walking, team work or social awareness, and you're focussing on something they just put on first.

[MartinC]

BC have gone mad on elf'n'safety since a couple of people got killed in their events.

Which were those then?

Afraid I don't know.

http://road.cc/content/news/111186-deat ... ident-says

[MartinC]

BC have gone mad on elf'n'safety since a couple of people got killed in their events.

Which were those then?

Afraid I don't know.

and http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ity-125497

[mjr]

Thanks for the crash details. If BC have reacted to a track crash and a collision with a motorist by requiring a different type of helmet for charity fundraisers, then I feel they've rather lost the plot.

I know that. What I meant was that riding with helmet was better than not riding without.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether encouraging children to think that riding is an activity with must-do special-clothing belief rituals is better than not doing so.

[pjclinch]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether encouraging children to think that riding is an activity with must-do special-clothing belief rituals is better than not doing so.

Last year's Bikeability Scotland class in the school I "do" had a couple of holes. Enquiring, parents considered cycling on the roads too dangerous and they wouldn't let their children do it. So if they don't do it, don't assume they'll not get a message about the horrible dangers of cycling.

And taking kids who have to wear according to LA/Scouts policy gives an excellent opportunity to let them see the realities. To start with I make it clear that they're wearing helmets as a policy decision of the folk in charge rather than there is any conclusive evidence it makes them safer, which isn't something they'll hear if I'm not there. It's quite likely there'll be a minor fall or two, and they'll very probably be taken on the hands, which gives an excellent opportunity to point out that (a) gloves are more useful against minor injuries than helmets and (b) despite what just happened, they're basically okay.

Pete.

[MartinC]

Thanks for the crash details. If BC have reacted to a track crash and a collision with a motorist by requiring a different type of helmet for charity fundraisers, then I feel they've rather lost the plot.....................

I think the OP about the deaths was just to make the point that BC may be, or feel to be, under a lot of public scrutiny off the back of these unfortunate incidents. I'm not grinding any axe, just wanted fill in the missing information. I don't agree with BCs helmet policy but their core interest is cycle sport so realistically I'd expect them to be doing whatever they think helps them promote that. They haven't lost their plot, they just don't share ours.

[pjclinch]

I don't agree with BCs helmet policy but their core interest is cycle sport so realistically I'd expect them to be doing whatever they think helps them promote that. They haven't lost their plot, they just don't share ours.

They seem to be a bit schizophrenic about what their plot actually is. Trawling around BC-Land we have the characteristically Clueful Chris Boardman opining Cluefully at https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/20141103-campaigning-news-Boardman--Why-I-didn-t-wear-a-helmet-on-BBC-Breakfast-0, while over at Campaigns and Policies we get https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/20150113-campaigning-General-policies-0.

The latter I find quite bizarre, with

We recommend people wear helmets but recognise their limitations at keeping people safe. That’s why we believe it should be down to personal choice and oppose any form of compulsion away from organised events. Cycling is safe and if we applied the same philosophy we’d all be encouraged to wear helmets when in the bathroom, driving a car or walking down the street. What would make cycling much safer is if we implement the policies in #ChooseCycling such as redesigning roads and junctions with cycling in mind. This is what countries like Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands do and they have a much better safety record than us despite hardly anyone wearing helmets.

making a lot more sense if you omit words 2-6. In fact most of it looks like something CB might say on TV, only with "We recommend people wear helmets" stuck rather incongruously on the front.

It seems to remain the case that talking to anyone in BC about helmets is a bit of a game. I did query the above with the campaigns team but they didn't acknowledge my email (which was (I'd like to think) polite, generally supportive and from a BC member who gives up his time to coach Go-Ride). Last time I did manage to get my foot stuck in the door it was pretty clear they didn't want to be talking to me, but it was a coaching query (as a Go-Ride coach, how am I meant to sensibly risk assess participation of turbaned Sikhs if they don't give any information about the actual capabilities of helmets?, and that I resented the implication in their L1 coaching manual that I'd be out of order as a role model doing my shopping without a lid and formally requesting they remove that) and that rather obliged them to stutter through the motions and eventually admit it was mainly down to insurance.

One, maybe two cheers are due though: a decade ago helmets were "essential" for everything and they wouldn't picture a rider without one. Hopefully CB will continue to drag them towards the light.

Pete.