AGM motions 16 and 17

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.
Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby Steady rider » 28 Apr 2016, 11:07am

16)
All CTC rides and events promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets.
Proposers note: The CTC helmet policy is to allow choice in helmet use and the motion adds support to the policy.
Proposer CC, seconder John Robson


Council response: Council opposes this motion because:
(i) it would be contrary to CTC’s policy of allowing choice in helmet use to interfere with members’ freedom to participate in events where helmets are required;

(ii) it would interfere with our desire to encourage people of all ages, backgrounds and abilities to cycle; and

(iii) the decision of event organisers to require helmet use is often driven by external requirements such as the stipulations of insurers.


http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/vi ... le-helmets

Cycle helmets by Cycling UK/CTC states;
Schools, employers and the organisers of non-sporting cycling events (e.g. sponsored rides) should not seek to impose helmet rules for their pupils, staff and participants respectively
.

Cycling UK/CTC
is opposed to both cycle helmet laws and to helmet promotion campaigns, as these are almost certainly detrimental to public health
.

Events where helmets are required interfere with members’ freedom to participate if they do not wear helmets, and the CTC advisers against such requirements.

CTC is supposed to promote cycling for all, advertising events that insist on helmet use is not promoting cycling for all. Any event that insists on a requirement not supported by law is removing a civil liberty of personal choice and CTC states;
‘should not seek to impose helmet rules’
.

CTC Council's says;
the decision of event organisers to require helmet use is often driven by external requirements such as the stipulations of insurers

Each CTC members has insurance as part of their membership, so are already covered. The CTC can also organise similar events to those advertised and raise funds if they wish and not insist on helmet use.

The CTC can specify that rides and events promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets because it is against their stated advice, not in keeping with the UK law and not required by CTC members for insurance purposes, as they are already covered. Council’s reasons for opposing this motion are not consistence and are invalid. For these reasons the motion should be supported.


17)
Editorial priority for ‘Cycle’ is to provide a balance of pictures showing cyclists with and without helmets.
Proposer’s note: CTC policy is to oppose helmet legislation and not to promote helmets. Cycle tends to include more pictures of helmeted cyclists and a greater effort to provide a balance is required. Failure to provide a balance could be a form of promotion.
Proposer CC, seconder John Robson


Council response: Council opposes this motion as unnecessary. While the editor of Cycle aims to shows a variety of people in a range of cycling contexts, the editorial priority of Cycle is to share the joy of cycling. Focusing on the narrow issue of helmet-use would be a distraction from that aim.


Council’s reply does not state ‘a balance of pictures showing cyclists with and without helmets is acceptable. They refer to ‘
shows a variety of people in a range of cycling contexts
, all these could be helmeted. The motion does not request that ‘a balance of picture’ should be the top priority, as Council response tends to infer.
Cycle provides several opportunities to inform and influence cycling issues. It has political aspects, safety issues, various cycling and touring aspects, legal issues, technical issues, adverts etc.

To convey the joys of cycling a balance of pictures helps by relating to riders who wear helmets and those that do not, so that no one feels left out. This helps to convey the joys of cycling to all readers. Having a balance of pictures helps to convey a wider legal message that it is acceptable not to wear a helmet. The CDF reporting on ‘Cycle Helmets and the Law’ mentions;
The evidence is, to put it mildly, conflicting. Parliament has, as yet, refused to legislate on the issue. But experience shows that the Courts can move faster than legislation when it comes to recognising risk and accounting for it in terms of damages and contributory negligence
.

Courts are subject to general attitudes and in publishing a balance of pictures it illustrates a general acceptance of personal choice. Adverts on TV showing none helmeted have been subject to challenges. Postal workers have been subject to dismissal threats if refusing to wear helmets. Children have been expelled from school in the UK for refusing to wear helmets. Councils reply is inadequate, and the motion is valid and should be supported.

Psamathe
Posts: 9791
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby Psamathe » 28 Apr 2016, 11:26am

Steady rider wrote:16)
All CTC rides and events promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets.
Proposers note: The CTC helmet policy is to allow choice in helmet use and the motion adds support to the policy.
Proposer CC, seconder John Robson


Council response: Council opposes this motion because:
(i) it would be contrary to CTC’s policy of allowing choice in helmet use to interfere with members’ freedom to participate in events where helmets are required;

(ii) it would interfere with our desire to encourage people of all ages, backgrounds and abilities to cycle; and

(iii) the decision of event organisers to require helmet use is often driven by external requirements such as the stipulations of insurers.


http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/vi ... le-helmets

...
The CTC can specify that rides and events promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets because it is against their stated advice, not in keeping with the UK law and not required by CTC members for insurance purposes, as they are already covered. Council’s reasons for opposing this motion are not consistence and are invalid. For these reasons the motion should be supported.
...

I think "the Council" have not read the motion properly (or have misunderstood it). To me the motion says nothing about stopping CTC members participating in events requiring helmet wearing. It is concerned only with promoting of such events. All the reasons they give for wanting the motion rejected are irrelevant.

I remember at school with exam advice again and again "read the question". CTC failed on that one.

Ian

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3665
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby pjclinch » 28 Apr 2016, 1:34pm

I've supported both in my proxy vote. I did have to give it a good think, with the issues raised by council as the things causing pause for thought, but in an environment where helmets are presupposed to be Good you can't be "neutral" without some effort; you have to row against the current to stand still.

Given that we're reasonably sure helmets discourage cycling we need the Bigger Picture in focus and get the message across it isn't right to assume helmets should get the benefit of the doubt.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2611
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby Bmblbzzz » 28 Apr 2016, 3:11pm

I guess the problem is that if Cycle and the website stopped taking ads from holidays and events that require helmets to be worn, they'd lose quite a bit of revenue. It would also adversely (unfairly?) affect certain countries, such as Spain, Australia, NZ, Slovakia, certain US states.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3665
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby pjclinch » 28 Apr 2016, 4:18pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:I guess the problem is that if Cycle and the website stopped taking ads from holidays and events that require helmets to be worn, they'd lose quite a bit of revenue. It would also adversely (unfairly?) affect certain countries, such as Spain, Australia, NZ, Slovakia, certain US states.


It's arguable, but by my reading "All CTC rides and events promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets" doesn't cover ads for foreign holidays.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

Psamathe
Posts: 9791
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby Psamathe » 28 Apr 2016, 4:33pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:I guess the problem is that if Cycle and the website stopped taking ads from holidays and events that require helmets to be worn, they'd lose quite a bit of revenue. It would also adversely (unfairly?) affect certain countries, such as Spain, Australia, NZ, Slovakia, certain US states.

If that were the reason then I'd have expected the Council to publish their reason for being against it is that they would lose income from having to refuse adverts for such events and they don't want to lose that income.

And for countries where helmet laws were in force then they could have discussed a modification to the proposed motion to add an "except there government laws/legislation requires the wearing of helmets". I would doubt the proposer would have objected to that as the Suckers (sorry CUKers) cannot be expected to require people to break the law or rather to refuse adverts where government/nations.state laws requires helmet use.

Members deserve to be told the truth and I would hope that the Council would give their real reasons.

Ian

User avatar
Lance Dopestrong
Posts: 1227
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 1:52pm

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby Lance Dopestrong » 28 Apr 2016, 5:56pm

Steady rider wrote:16)
All CTC rides and events promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets.
Proposers note: The CTC helmet policy is to allow choice in helmet use and the motion adds support to the policy.
Proposer CC, seconder John Robson


Council response: Council opposes this motion because:
(i) it would be contrary to CTC’s policy of allowing choice in helmet use to interfere with members’ freedom to participate in events where helmets are required;

(ii) it would interfere with our desire to encourage people of all ages, backgrounds and abilities to cycle; and

(iii) the decision of event organisers to require helmet use is often driven by external requirements such as the stipulations of insurers.


http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/vi ... le-helmets

Cycle helmets by Cycling UK/CTC states;
Schools, employers and the organisers of non-sporting cycling events (e.g. sponsored rides) should not seek to impose helmet rules for their pupils, staff and participants respectively
.

Cycling UK/CTC
is opposed to both cycle helmet laws and to helmet promotion campaigns, as these are almost certainly detrimental to public health
.

Events where helmets are required interfere with members’ freedom to participate if they do not wear helmets, and the CTC advisers against such requirements.

CTC is supposed to promote cycling for all, advertising events that insist on helmet use is not promoting cycling for all. Any event that insists on a requirement not supported by law is removing a civil liberty of personal choice and CTC states;
‘should not seek to impose helmet rules’
.

CTC Council's says;
the decision of event organisers to require helmet use is often driven by external requirements such as the stipulations of insurers

Each CTC members has insurance as part of their membership, so are already covered. The CTC can also organise similar events to those advertised and raise funds if they wish and not insist on helmet use.

The CTC can specify that rides and events promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets because it is against their stated advice, not in keeping with the UK law and not required by CTC members for insurance purposes, as they are already covered. Council’s reasons for opposing this motion are not consistence and are invalid. For these reasons the motion should be supported.


17)
Editorial priority for ‘Cycle’ is to provide a balance of pictures showing cyclists with and without helmets.
Proposer’s note: CTC policy is to oppose helmet legislation and not to promote helmets. Cycle tends to include more pictures of helmeted cyclists and a greater effort to provide a balance is required. Failure to provide a balance could be a form of promotion.
Proposer CC, seconder John Robson


Council response: Council opposes this motion as unnecessary. While the editor of Cycle aims to shows a variety of people in a range of cycling contexts, the editorial priority of Cycle is to share the joy of cycling. Focusing on the narrow issue of helmet-use would be a distraction from that aim.


Council’s reply does not state ‘a balance of pictures showing cyclists with and without helmets is acceptable. They refer to ‘
shows a variety of people in a range of cycling contexts
, all these could be helmeted. The motion does not request that ‘a balance of picture’ should be the top priority, as Council response tends to infer.
Cycle provides several opportunities to inform and influence cycling issues. It has political aspects, safety issues, various cycling and touring aspects, legal issues, technical issues, adverts etc.

To convey the joys of cycling a balance of pictures helps by relating to riders who wear helmets and those that do not, so that no one feels left out. This helps to convey the joys of cycling to all readers. Having a balance of pictures helps to convey a wider legal message that it is acceptable not to wear a helmet. The CDF reporting on ‘Cycle Helmets and the Law’ mentions;
The evidence is, to put it mildly, conflicting. Parliament has, as yet, refused to legislate on the issue. But experience shows that the Courts can move faster than legislation when it comes to recognising risk and accounting for it in terms of damages and contributory negligence
.

Courts are subject to general attitudes and in publishing a balance of pictures it illustrates a general acceptance of personal choice. Adverts on TV showing none helmeted have been subject to challenges. Postal workers have been subject to dismissal threats if refusing to wear helmets. Children have been expelled from school in the UK for refusing to wear helmets. Councils reply is inadequate, and the motion is valid and should be supported.


Someone has far too much time on their hands! :roll:
https://themediocrecyclist.home.blog
Self employed MIAS L5.B Instructor.
Warwickshire Lowland Rescue Bike lead.
IPMBA certified member.
Cyctech C2 hammer and crowbar bodger.
Lapsed CTC Ride Leader, amateur hour stuff from the fun old days.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13575
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby gaz » 28 Apr 2016, 8:46pm

Steady rider wrote:16)
All CTC rides and events promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets.
Proposers note: The CTC helmet policy is to allow choice in helmet use and the motion adds support to the policy.
Proposer CC, seconder John Robson


Council response: Council opposes this motion because:
...
(iii) the decision of event organisers to require helmet use is often driven by external requirements such as the stipulations of insurers.


Each CTC members has insurance as part of their membership, so are already covered. The CTC can also organise similar events to those advertised and raise funds if they wish and not insist on helmet use.

The CTC can specify that rides and events promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets because it is against their stated advice, not in keeping with the UK law and not required by CTC members for insurance purposes, as they are already covered. ...

You appear to have misunderstood the insurance issue.

The issue is one of organisers liability insurance, not personal liability cover for riders. The insurer is setting terms to provide cover to the organiser of the event. I've no reason to doubt the claim that some insurers insist that "all participancts must wear a helmet" as a condition of providing cover to organisers.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby Steady rider » 29 Apr 2016, 10:07am

(iii) the decision of event organisers to require helmet use is often driven by external requirements such as the stipulations of insurers.

'often driven' may infer the condition stems from the organiser in some events.

The precise details of insurance conditions is probably confidential. Whatever policy is involved, if the end result insists on riders wearing helmets for non competitive rides they are additional requirements to law, that does not require helmets to be worn. Perhaps one option is for insurance conditions only to include requirements prescribed in law when it comes to safety equipment. Otherwise any insurance provider may think X or Y should be included, without approval from Parliament. This may be a safeguard because Parliament examines issues in details and is open to scrutiny.

Psamathe
Posts: 9791
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby Psamathe » 29 Apr 2016, 10:31am

Steady rider wrote:
(iii) the decision of event organisers to require helmet use is often driven by external requirements such as the stipulations of insurers.

'often driven' may infer the condition stems from the organiser in some events.

The precise details of insurance conditions is probably confidential. Whatever policy is involved, if the end result insists on riders wearing helmets for non competitive rides they are additional requirements to law, that does not require helmets to be worn. Perhaps one option is for insurance conditions only to include requirements prescribed in law when it comes to safety equipment. Otherwise any insurance provider may think X or Y should be included, without approval from Parliament. This may be a safeguard because Parliament examines issues in details and is open to scrutiny.

My impression is that you chose what insurance cover your purchase and the premiums depend on what the insurance cover perceives the risk to be. For example, my house/contents cover requires that I am not away from the house for more than 1 month at a time. But, if I want to go away for 2 months (increased risk) then I tell the insurance company and pay a bit more money. You can also "negotiate" with companies where you believe they are including constraints that do not affect risks. I depends on how "motivated" the insured person is to get an "appropriate" deal and how much they just go along with the constraint because it fits their unsupported prejudice anyway.

As I see it, not all liability insurance requires use of helmet so that some claim to suggests it would not be difficult/expensive to have such constraints removed (and maybe broaden participation).

I do sometimes wonder (without any evidence) if the "Insurance Requirement" argument/justification is used as nobody can question it (easily) - a bit like people use "Health and Safety" as a reason for something daft and unjustified when in practice there would be no such Health & Safety requirement. Just people say "Health & Safety" and everybody goes "oh, yea, again, daft Health & Safety rules, jobsworth ..." because it has become part of our culture to just accept the phrase.

Ian

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby Steady rider » 29 Apr 2016, 12:14pm

A Health & Safety perspective

The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) does not require employees to wear cycle helmets.

Cycle helmets used on the public highway are specifically excluded from the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at work regulations.


Since there is no requirement on cyclists generally to wear cycle helmets when on the road, HSE does not advise that employers insist that helmets be used under health and safety law.


http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1061.html

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby Steady rider » 10 Sep 2017, 10:52am

Interesting reading the discussion last year, now we have Nationwide making it a condition to wear helmets and the old MP stirring it up again. Cycling UK failed again to do the right thing.

PH
Posts: 7129
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby PH » 10 Sep 2017, 11:01am

Steady rider wrote:Interesting reading the discussion last year, now we have Nationwide making it a condition to wear helmets and the old MP stirring it up again. Cycling UK failed again to do the right thing.

If you want a discussion your contribution to it needs to be a bit less cryptic that this one! As in all MPs are old and I have no idea what Nationwide are doing in the context of this thread.

Edit - typo, wrote "odd" instead of "old" though it's no less true
Last edited by PH on 10 Sep 2017, 11:33am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13575
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby gaz » 10 Sep 2017, 11:23am

Nationwide "wear a cycle helmet travel insurance clause" thread. MP "mandatory cycle helmets for children" thread.
Steady rider wrote:Cycling UK failed again to do the right thing.

Daily Mail link to Cycling UK apparently getting it wrong:
Roger Geffen, policy director at CyclingUK, said: 'This is clearly not an evidence- based change. It is far from clear if helmets provide a benefit for safety when cycling, in some cases they can help and in others they can be counterproductive.

'In certain countries such as the Netherlands, wearing a helmet is completely unheard of. The message that helmets must be worn is out of kilter with reality as it assumes cycling is a dangerous thing to do.

'By enforcing this rule it will also put people off cycling and the health benefits of getting on a bike are far greater than the safety a helmet provides.'


As for the MP who is stirring up mandatory cycle helmet legislation, do you really think that's a result of seeing too many pictures of helmeted riders in Cycle? Do you really think Cycling UK will not be campaigning against such legislation?
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby Steady rider » 10 Sep 2017, 11:43am

Getting it wrong was referring to the 2016 motions in opposing the helmet motions.

Roger is doing a good job of opposing Nationwide's unsuitable policy and I believe Cycling UK will also be opposing the proposed legislation.