thirdcrank wrote:At least, one thing I've learned today is how to start a helmet thread outside the helmet sub-forum and keep it out.
Sorry - it is in the Helmet Sub-Forum
Mike Sales wrote:This ignorance of current standards really goes to show that helmets are a totem, a symbol of submission to the motor orthodoxy.
Mike Sales wrote:This ignorance of current standards really goes to show that helmets are a totem, a symbol of submission to the motor orthodoxy. Just as helmet ads and reviews never mention how effective the helmet is. They are about looks, ventilation and comfort.
Cunobelin wrote:thirdcrank wrote:At least, one thing I've learned today is how to start a helmet thread outside the helmet sub-forum and keep it out.
Sorry - it is in the Helmet Sub-Forum
mjr wrote:It makes no sense to me. You would be covered by the third-party insurance they've arranged but they'd come after you for all the costs? I guess it's great that the third parties presumably get their money sooner but that insurance is basically worthless to the covered except that it changes who chases you for money.
The only people who enter such events are those who don't read the terms and conditions or don't understand them - but you can tell that by them citing "ANSI Z90/4" as an acceptable standard. The correct name was Z90.4 but, more importantly, its standard was withdrawn in 1994 so any helmet conforming to it is about 25 years old and likely to no longer pass even a withdrawn standard.
This bullplop and totemic clinging to clothing which offers basically no significant measurable improvement seems widespread among event organisers. It's shocking that insurers keep letting them get away with it instead of recognising it for the misdirection that it is, but that may be because even dangerous cycling is pretty safe compared to lots of other events.
Are there many event organisers other than those covered by CUK who take safety seriously?
RickH wrote:A reply just received from the organisers of the event from my other topic says that ISO 4210 has superseded EN 1078....
The ISO 4210 specifies safety and performance requirements for the design, assembly, and testing of bicycles and sub-assemblies.
The new standard includes an all new category called ‘young adult bicycles’ with a maximum saddle height of 635 mm or more and less than 750 mm. The ISO 4210 does not apply to specialized types of bicycle, such as delivery bicycles, recumbent bicycles, tandems, BMX bicycles, and bicycles designed and equipped for use in severe applications such as sanctioned competition events, stunting, or aerobatic manoeuvres.
According to the CEN-CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organizations of the following countries are bound to implement this European Standard: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
RickH wrote:A reply just received from the organisers of the event from my other topic says that ISO 4210 has superseded EN 1078. Google hasn't given me any evidence from a quick search to support this.
Is this more bluff & bluster or can anyone shed any further light?
Cunobelin wrote:Except that ISO 4210 is for bicycles!!!...
Wanlock Dod wrote:Cunobelin wrote:Except that ISO 4210 is for bicycles!!!...
I'm not sure that little detail should excuse them from having a thoroughly good look through the document trying to find something that isn't in it, perhaps they could do it in the style of a police officer looking through the highway code for the bit that says cyclists must not ride two abreast.
Cunobelin wrote: . . . . . I forced Cycling Events to change their wording