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.
hufty
Posts: 521
Joined: 28 Jan 2011, 7:24pm

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby hufty » 12 Sep 2017, 6:24pm

pjclinch wrote:
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.


If it's arguable, it's badly written. Did the proposer mean (I've added some commas)
(A) All CTC rides, and events promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets ...or...
(B) All CTC rides and events, promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets

I read it as (A) at first, only after Pete's message above did I reread it and see how it could be (B).
If the proposer had (A) in mind then I can see why CUK are against it as it would stop them having adverts for third party events eg charity rides that people might be interested in. But then there will be no pressure to change.
If the proposer had (B) in mind then the bit about "promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle" is surely just redundant. But even then there's problems if it was a CUK mountain biking event at a trail centre or a CUK holiday in Spain NZ Slovakia etc
Please do not use this post in Cycle magazine

Steady rider
Posts: 2187
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM motions 16 and 17

Postby Steady rider » 13 Sep 2017, 7:07pm

All CTC rides and events promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets.


The motion was intended to discourage the requirement to wear a helmet and promote for full choice by the individual. It had in mind touring or distance rides type events. Overseas events where helmets are required by law could have been rejected if the motion had been passed as worded. CTC could have requested a revision to take account of places with laws requiring helmet use, such places have a policy opposed by the CTC, so they may have missed out in advertising in Cycle. Mountain biking event do normally insist on helmet use but often such events illustrates how riders will take more risks when helmeted. If overall accidents and injuries would reduce if riders had a choice and courses were designed for lower risks is open to speculation. If passed there could have been benefits and some disadvantages or even some loss of advertising or even some gains by members knowing they had taken a very firm stance in opposing requirements to wear helmets.

it may have been better but without changing the meaning to have;
All CTC rides and events promoted by the CTC, or advertised in Cycle, do not insist on riders wearing helmets.