What does all that mean? Does it comply? What happens if I remove the label, can I still take part? Will they check?
I guess it's a marking showing it's been tested against some 2005 version of the standard - it sucks that these markings don't seem to be easy to decipher, with no good online guides that I found.
Yes, it complies. If you remove the label, it would still comply but I don't see how they'd be able to tell. No, they won't check and that's part of how you can tell that this is a pantomime rather than a useful safety measure.
In reality, does any helmet meet the standard on it's label or in it's product description? As far as I know, only a very few are actually tested .... by the manufacturer. It wouldn't be a surprise, would it, if 99.99% of helmets in the wild actually offered far less protection than even those meagre amounts specified in the standards. After all, manufacturing processes often go awry and plastic (especially polystyrene) deteriorates over time.
What a con they are. No different, really, from snakeoil.
Cugel
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
one thing that I was thinking about regarding wearing a helmet and insurance is this
The Highway code states that you SHOULD wear a helmet- therefore not a legal requirement The highway code states that you MUST have a red rear reflector and amber pedal reflectors if you ride at night. this is not necessary when dark, but the sunset to sunrise times.- therefore a legal requirement
So presumably, when BC events are arranged, the event organisers have to ensure that if the event is likely to either start or end after sunset/ sunrise, do they ensure that all cycles used comply with these regulations, and if you have an accident during these times, will your insurance be invalid if you have not complied with the above legal requirement
as I would say that most of us on this site use clipless pedals, do most of us ride technically illegally at night?
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.Screen Shot 2018-10-09 at 16.15.42.png
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!
Just a minute... as an Environmental project shouldn't the Eden Project be discouraging the use of plastic?
Very restrictive on the type of bike you can ride as well, maybe CUK could ask for an official statement on why they use disposable plastic timing chips, insist on wearing a plastic hat, and are discriminatory against certain forms of disability groups, as they are banned from taking part. (You need a two wheeled cycle with only one occupant.) they advise strongly against hand cycles
Might get an interesting reply, not sure CUK would do this
Very restrictive on the type of bike you can ride as well, maybe CUK could ask for an official statement on why they use disposable plastic timing chips, insist on wearing a plastic hat, and are discriminatory against certain forms of disability groups, as they are banned from taking part. (You need a two wheeled cycle with only one occupant.) they advise strongly against hand cycles
Might get an interesting reply, not sure CUK would do this
Martin
I think this is pretty standard across events.Is it right?I'm not sure. All the "events" I've entered state only "standard road/hybrid/mtbs.Tri-bikes or road bikes with tri-bars,Trikes and hand bikes not allowed. There will be an official line on it. A friend of mine just turns up and rides events he want to.Even the Ride London(he's done it the last 5 years yet never officially entered).They can't actually stop you riding on Public roads
I agree its pretty standard across most events, but many things are " pretty standard" before they were challenged and what was pretty standard, when viewed in the light of inclusiveness have had to be changed and adapted. So sportives are held on open public roads, are not a race, and should therefor be open to all who could normally use the road anyway. Maybe it is the time to look in the actual legality of exclusion, the initial assumption being they must have done this, but its not always the case
Yes we can always ride events alongside, but this could be argued is a point of principle.
martinn wrote:I agree its pretty standard across most events, but many things are " pretty standard" before they were challenged and what was pretty standard, when viewed in the light of inclusiveness have had to be changed and adapted. So sportives are held on open public roads, are not a race, and should therefor be open to all who could normally use the road anyway. Maybe it is the time to look in the actual legality of exclusion, the initial assumption being they must have done this, but its not always the case
Yes we can always ride events alongside, but this could be argued is a point of principle.
Martin
There has to be a legitimate reason for exclusions.I'm sure that the organisers will have looked into it extensively to see how far they can go before breaking any laws.I might not agree with it but I'm sure it will have been challenge before and will be again without any success. I have a gripe that the minimum age tends to be 16 unless it's a "Family" event
What does all that mean? Does it comply? What happens if I remove the label, can I still take part? Will they check?
I guess it's a marking showing it's been tested against some 2005 version of the standard - it sucks that these markings don't seem to be easy to decipher, with no good online guides that I found.
Yes, it complies. If you remove the label, it would still comply but I don't see how they'd be able to tell. No, they won't check and that's part of how you can tell that this is a pantomime rather than a useful safety measure.
In reality, does any helmet meet the standard on it's label or in it's product description? As far as I know, only a very few are actually tested .... by the manufacturer. It wouldn't be a surprise, would it, if 99.99% of helmets in the wild actually offered far less protection than even those meagre amounts specified in the standards. After all, manufacturing processes often go awry and plastic (especially polystyrene) deteriorates over time.
What a con they are. No different, really, from snakeoil.
Cugel
The reason why SNELL testing is so unpopular
They take helmets off the shelf, as opposed to a helmet specifically manafactured for the test
The classic was the “Trek Anthem”
Passed with flying colours’ yet when independently tested the production model failed to pass a single test, resulting in the withdrawal of the helmet from sale
Very restrictive on the type of bike you can ride as well, maybe CUK could ask for an official statement on why they use disposable plastic timing chips, insist on wearing a plastic hat, and are discriminatory against certain forms of disability groups, as they are banned from taking part. (You need a two wheeled cycle with only one occupant.) they advise strongly against hand cycles
Might get an interesting reply, not sure CUK would do this
Martin
I think this is pretty standard across events.Is it right?I'm not sure. All the "events" I've entered state only "standard road/hybrid/mtbs.Tri-bikes or road bikes with tri-bars,Trikes and hand bikes not allowed. There will be an official line on it. A friend of mine just turns up and rides events he want to.Even the Ride London(he's done it the last 5 years yet never officially entered).They can't actually stop you riding on Public roads
Perhaps worth a challenge under Disability legislation
British Cyclin is a joke when it comes to safety for cyclists IN Gosport there are regular BMX events under their banner, yet trying to get them to adress the endemic illegal parking and obstruction of the cycling facility that should be available to recreational cyclists falls upon deaf ears
It is absurd that a BC sponsored event forces families to cycle the wrong way down a 40 mph road because of a lack of enforcement
But then again , if these families wear helmets ... perhaps that will compensate for the organiser's negligence
Mick F wrote:I may ask why car occupants don't wear helmets when they are far more likely to be admitted to A+E with a head injury than anyone on a bike.
One of the other "Great MYTHS" and screaming hypocrisies
Apparently the "evidence" that professional racing cyclists wear helmets is unequivocal proof that ALL cyclist should work wear helmets...
Yet hypocritically the same argument that professional racing drivers were helmets, fireproof clothing and additional protection is very, very silly
martinn wrote:one thing that I was thinking about regarding wearing a helmet and insurance is this
The Highway code states that you SHOULD wear a helmet- therefore not a legal requirement The highway code states that you MUST have a red rear reflector and amber pedal reflectors if you ride at night. this is not necessary when dark, but the sunset to sunrise times.- therefore a legal requirement
So presumably, when BC events are arranged, the event organisers have to ensure that if the event is likely to either start or end after sunset/ sunrise, do they ensure that all cycles used comply with these regulations, and if you have an accident during these times, will your insurance be invalid if you have not complied with the above legal requirement
as I would say that most of us on this site use clipless pedals, do most of us ride technically illegally at night?
Martin
And both should be removed from the HC and the legalise changed, it certainly isn't law to have reflectors nor does their lack of presence cause harm to others, they're yet anther ineffective 'conspicuousy aids forced upon the vulnerable so that motorists can go faster and not bother looking properly within the lead of their headlights. Removing any reference to hi-vis, helmets and reflectives and making Rule 126 a MUST instead of a casual sentence should be something CUK should be seriously campaigning to change.
Unfortunately, the lights/reflector argument - though valid of course - is a non starter as an argument about the Eden sportives as they'll be over by mid afternoon.
