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
.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.
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 ‘
, 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.shows a variety of people in a range of cycling contexts
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.