Event helmet cobblers

[Cunobelin]

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

[Graham]

This ignorance of current standards really goes to show that helmets are a totem, a symbol of submission to the motor orthodoxy.

Yes, this thought has been sticking in my mind recently.

Either one submits to the symbols of subordination ( helmet & hiviz ) or risks additional scorn.

[Mike Sales]

Either one submits to the symbols of subordination ( helmet & hiviz ) or risks additional scorn.

Nicely put.

[pjclinch]

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.

But they will Save Your Life!™

Any suggestion that a helmet does more than conform to a certain standard would have the vendor's marketing folk rounded up and given a very stern talking to by the legal folk in pretty short order, I'd think. Besides, why bother going out on a creaky limb like that when so many people are doing your work for you?

Pete.

[thirdcrank]

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

(With apologies to K Wolstenholme) It is now!

[RickH]

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 The correct name was Z90.4 but, more importantly, its standard was withdrawn in 1994 so any helmet conforming to it is about 25 years old and likely to no longer pass even a withdrawn standard.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?

Some organisers also appear to make up imaginary standards that your helmet needs to conform to! (ISO 4210 - see my recent topic on this)

[RickH]

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?

[squeaker]

Is this more bluff & bluster or can anyone shed any further light?

ISO 4210 doesn't seem to mention plastic hats...

[Wanlock Dod]

A reply just received from the organisers of the event from my other topic says that ISO 4210 has superseded EN 1078....

Perhaps the best bet would be to ask them to provide you with the relevant wording from the standard document so that you can confirm whether or not your helmet will comply with their requirements. They should at least be able to refer you to the number of the relevant paragraph or section even if they can't provide you with the text itself.

[Cunobelin]

Except that ISO 4210 is for bicycles!!!

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.

It really is the sort of ignorance that shows just how ill-informed these organisers are

[Cunobelin]

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?

I would send them the link from Squeaker's post and ask them outright why they are making such an outrageous statement

Local Press might just be interested as well

[Wanlock Dod]

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]

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.

Seriously it is a challenge that needs to be made, and exposing such ignorance as publicly as possible is the way forward

I forced Cycling Events to change their wording

[Nigel]

. . . . . I forced Cycling Events to change their wording

Unless you force an organiser to adopt the views of both Cycling UK (ex CTC) and British Cycling, namely that helmets for non-racing events are matters for the individual rider to decide, then very little has been achieved.

The few who frequent these pages might have a giggle at the organisers ignorance over specific standards, but nobody else notices.

[Mick F]

Our elder daughter is taking part in a half marathon this weekend at the Eden Project.
https://www.edenproject.com/visit/whats ... f-marathon

Perusing the Eden website, I found they're doing cycle Eden Classic next year.
https://www.edenproject.com/visit/whats ... ling-event
I took a look at the routes etc and found the FAQ section.

Feeling a bit argumentative this afternoon.
I've emailed them.

I see one of your FAQs asks,”Do I have to wear a helmet?”
The answer is, "Yes you do – helmets are mandatory at the Eden Classic.”
Can I ask why?
I am a keen life-long cyclist in my mid 60s and I do not own a helmet, nor have I any intention of wearing one.
Am I therefore excluded from entering one of your rides?
Mick.

Let's see what they say in reply!