SSAFA Ride to the Somme helmet policy

[firestarter]

I'm not missing the point I just fail to see the problem, if you want to do it wear a helmet if you don't want to wear a helmet do a different event.

[Cunobelin]

The response

"Thank you for your message the second I have received this weekend.

I completely understand your sentiments and have spoken to many people over the years regarding this subject. Both myself and my colleague who organise this event have in excess of 20 years each of experience in organising cycle rides.

The safety of any rider is paramount and certainly accept that the wearing of a helmet does not make up for other behaviours likely to compromise their safety.

Whilst the cycling community generally takes a view that this should be
left to individual choice the governing body for competitive cycling
requires the wearing of helmets in sanctioned events. The BMA recommends their wearing. The Highway Code recommends their wearing.

My own personal experience of seeing the outcome of head injuries that
could have been prevented by the wearing of a helmet places me firmly in the helmet wearing camp. I have also seen a number of accidents, several involving children, where the helmet has clearly reduced the impact of a fall.

Of course as the organisers we support your right not to wear a helmet when riding as an individual when cycling independently but we stand by our Conditions of Entry.

Thank you for taking the time to sebd a message and appreciate that our
view differs from your own"

Sanctioned event for competitive cycling, what laughable drivel.

Their view also differs from the support they quote, or should I point out........misquote

Neither of the two bodies supports compulsory use, and the BMA is actively against compulsory helmet use

[Cunobelin]

I'm not missing the point I just fail to see the problem, if you want to do it wear a helmet if you don't want to wear a helmet do a different event.

As an ex- serviceman I would support SSAFA, but the petty lies and this decision prevent participation

What is needed is a couple of hundred declarations of withdrawal of interest to highlight the issue

[firestarter]

I'm ex army and can see why people would like to raise money for ssafa. maybe its because I wear a helmet anyway that this seems like a non issue to me. I'm nor pro or anti helmet tbh having received a fractured skull whilst wearing one I can see arguments both ways though I'm sure I was protected from lacerations if nothing else as I slid but I still finished up in icu so swings and roundabouts

[Bonefishblues]

I'm not missing the point I just fail to see the problem, if you want to do it wear a helmet if you don't want to wear a helmet do a different event.

As an ex- serviceman I would support SSAFA, but the petty lies and this decision prevent participation

What is needed is a couple of hundred declarations of withdrawal of interest to highlight the issue

No it isn't needed. When does a cause become a crusade?

I agree with the poster above tbh. If one really wants to ride to support, then swallow some pride and wear a helmet. If that principle is more important, do as suggested and find something else to do to support what seems a worthy charity. If that's unacceptable, find something else to support, but come on, petty lies...methinks sir is seeking something to be outraged about.

[profpointy]

mmm, the view that non wearers/skeptics should simply swallow their pride and being "on a crusade" is a bit rich. The organisers of this are using an unrelated charitable to push a political agenda. It's not as if the skeptics are refusing to ride with anyone else choosing to wear a helmet is it? Yet it is the skeptics you're portraying as unreasonable

[Bonefishblues]

mmm, the view that non wearers/skeptics should simply swallow their pride and being "on a crusade" is a bit rich. The organisers of this are using an unrelated charitable to push a political agenda. It's not as if the skeptics are refusing to ride with anyone else choosing to wear a helmet is it? Yet it is the skeptics you're portraying as unreasonable

It's their event. They can require everyone to ride in pink tu-tus if they so pleased. I doubt for a moment that they have the slightest iota of political intent in what they are doing.

The Crusaders were earnest believers in what they did, but we know what happened, as it was always destined to. The poster has put their point of view, the charity has replied very politely, and are now labelled as liars, playing politics, and writing laughable drivel. Sometimes it's time just to walk away.

[mjr]

I agree with the poster above tbh. If one really wants to ride to support, then swallow some pride and wear a helmet. If that principle is more important, do as suggested and find something else to do to support what seems a worthy charity. If that's unacceptable, find something else to support, but come on, petty lies...methinks sir is seeking something to be outraged about.

It ain't about pride. Are you being glib for some sort of comic effect that I'm not seeing, or have you really misunderstood our public safety and public health concerns about crash helmet compulsion that badly?

[The utility cyclist]

Swallow some pride, are you having a laugh, it's got naff all to do with pride , zero. I've never ridden with a helmet and after 34 years of road riding not having nearly lost my life due to not wearing one I'm not going to start now.
I'm not about to start any 'cause' either but pointing out the sheer lunacy of what is becoming an oppressive situation within cycling circles often involving bullying, ridicule and as with this situation exclusion, which is what I've done and I'm leaving it at that.

What I will be doing next year is riding to the Somme Baie area and paying my respects to one of my rugby clubs most well known players, John 'Jack' Harrison V.C. Hull Rugby League Football Club, 11th Bttn E.Yorks Regiment (AKA 2nd City of Hull Bttn) and I will raise funds for my own charities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-28405119

[Bonefishblues]

I agree with the poster above tbh. If one really wants to ride to support, then swallow some pride and wear a helmet. If that principle is more important, do as suggested and find something else to do to support what seems a worthy charity. If that's unacceptable, find something else to support, but come on, petty lies...methinks sir is seeking something to be outraged about.

It ain't about pride. Are you being glib for some sort of comic effect that I'm not seeing, or have you really misunderstood our public safety and public health concerns about crash helmet compulsion that badly?

No I haven't. I'm saying that this isn't a fight to pick.

[Bonefishblues]

Swallow some pride, are you having a laugh, it's got naff all to do with pride , zero. I've never ridden with a helmet and after 34 years of road riding not having nearly lost my life due to not wearing one I'm not going to start now.
I'm not about to start any 'cause' either but pointing out the sheer lunacy of what is becoming an oppressive situation within cycling circles often involving bullying, ridicule and as with this situation exclusion, which is what I've done and I'm leaving it at that.

What I will be doing next year is riding to the Somme Baie area and paying my respects to one of my rugby clubs most well known players, John 'Jack' Harrison V.C. Hull Rugby League Football Club, 11th Bttn E.Yorks Regiment (AKA 2nd City of Hull Bttn) and I will raise funds for my own charities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-28405119

Excellent.

[profpointy]

for those OK with the organiser's stance, would it equally be OK if they'd banned helmets? And in this event would someone who habitually wore a helmet be unreasonable to make a stand on the issue

[firestarter]

I always wear a helmet and if an event said I couldn't Wear it I wouldn't do the event. I also wouldnt be particularly bothered by it either tbh

[Cunobelin]

mmm, the view that non wearers/skeptics should simply swallow their pride and being "on a crusade" is a bit rich. The organisers of this are using an unrelated charitable to push a political agenda. It's not as if the skeptics are refusing to ride with anyone else choosing to wear a helmet is it? Yet it is the skeptics you're portraying as unreasonable

It's their event. They can require everyone to ride in pink tu-tus if they so pleased. I doubt for a moment that they have the slightest iota of political intent in what they are doing.

The Crusaders were earnest believers in what they did, but we know what happened, as it was always destined to. The poster has put their point of view, the charity has replied very politely, and are now labelled as liars, playing politics, and writing laughable drivel. Sometimes it's time just to walk away.

They made two untrue, incorrect and unsubstantiated statements to justify their stance... it simply shows a lack of integrity

[Cunobelin]

I always wear a helmet and if an event said I couldn't Wear it I wouldn't do the event. I also wouldnt be particularly bothered by it either tbh

Exactly the choice others are being forced to make