Event helmet cobblers

[Graham]

As a matter of curiousity I had a quick scan of some event terms and conditions :-

All riders are covered by third party insurance for the duration of the event. The cost of this is included in your entry fee. In addition, Rather Be Cycling is covered for civil party liability.

It is mandatory that all riders wear a safety-approved cycling helmet complying with latest EN1078, ANSI Z90/4 or SNELL standards. Any rider not wearing a helmet will not be covered by the event insurance and will be disqualified from the event and could be liable for damages if involved in an accident on that basis. The rider must accept this as a condition of entry. UK Cycling Events Ltd, Time Inc. (UK) Ltd and (where applicable*) Rather Be Cycling reserve the right to refuse entry to the event to anyone with inappropriate equipment or clothing.

Perhaps I have missed something, but this seems completely irrational.

Does the lack of a plastic hat cause negligent damage to third parties ?? ( . . . or increase the risk thereof ? )

Perhaps I missed the section that tells us that Personal Accident Insurance is included for each participant ?
If that were so, then I could understand why they would get wobbly about mandatory plastic hat wearing.

But no. I find this :-

Each participant will be fully responsible for any fees or costs incurred or arising from an accident either involving or caused by the rider. This includes, but is not exclusive to, fees from Police, Air Ambulance, Fire and Rescue and the Ambulance service. If the situation arises that you are not capable of making the decision to call the emergency services, the rider agrees that a member of UK Cycling Events Ltd, Time Inc. (UK) Ltd or (where applicable*) the Rather be Cycling Event Team or a member of the public may call for them. In this situation, the rider still accepts the costs and consequences of such actions.

I'm beginning to suspect legalistic-sounding, bull-product.

[mjr]

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?

[Graham]

I have a theory that it is the Organiser's attempt to ensure that they reduce/eliminate the chance of being sued by a participant.

e.g. A participant crashes and receives a severe head injury.
The participant's representative claims negligence by the organiser for directing the rider . . . over such an obstacle/surface . . . and NOT mandating the participant to wear a plastic hat.

That would make some sense.

[reohn2]

I've never needed an organised "event"(sportive or charity ride) to go for a bike ride,and on the few occasions I/we've got caught up in one by inadertently being on the same stretch road at the same time,it's been like riding with more than a fair share of idiots who've no idea how to ride in a group or behave on the road.
Which has caused us on a couple of occasions to get of "their" road ASAP for fear of incident,one in particular springs to mind,on a long descent where solos had no chance of overtaking us on the tandem but didn't stop a couple of them trying their utmost,and taking crazy chances to achieved it,I spoke to one of them about his conduct but was met with abuse.
On the only charity(20 mile) ride we did on the tandem,we stopped four times to help people who had no tools and even less idea,including one chap who was stopped complaining his front disc brake wasn't working,that was easily solved,I took his wheel out and turned it around so his rotor was in the caliper
As for helmets and insurance those people need all the help they can get

[Psamathe]

It is often said that if a contract is "unfair" or "unreasonable" then it cannot be enforced (i.e. no court would enforce it). My personal opinion is that some of the clauses are beyond "unreasonable" and I can see any sensible court upholding any claims

It is mandatory that all riders wear a safety-approved cycling helmet .... Any rider not wearing a helmet will not be covered by the event insurance and will be disqualified from the event and could be liable for damages if involved in an accident on that basis.

I'd have thought that if you are found to be responsible for an accident then you could be liable but if you are not responsible for an accident then you won't really be liable. Somehow linking the liability with wearing a helmet is quite daft and I can't see that link being upheld.

But I'm no expert though I'd not bother to attend an event organised on such a prejudicial basis.

Each participant will be fully responsible for any fees or costs incurred or arising from an accident either involving or caused by the rider. This includes, but is not exclusive to, fees from .....

I assume that this is a "let out clause" trying to say that whatever the cause, the organisers (or 3rd party) calling emergency services would not be liable for any costs.


Ian

[fastpedaller]

I've never needed an organised "event"(sportive or charity ride) to go for a bike ride,and on the few occasions I/we've got caught up in one by inadertently being on the same stretch road at the same time,it's been like riding with more than a fair share of idiots who've no idea how to ride in a group or behave on the road.

I've come across these groups on a few occasions and my experience has been the same - the 'marshalls' even tried to manhandle me into turning left as I was going straight on and clearly every cyclist was one of 'theirs'
Many years ago some from my cycling club said they would ride in the London-Brighton, and I declined stating it would IMHO be mayhem. Afterwards they concurred that riders were all over the rode (and some on the road!) within the first 1/2 mile and they would never do it a again. Not wishing to sound elitist, but many riders in sportive or charity events (the latter more so) don't seem to have basic ability of riding in a group or on the road in a responsible manner like the average 'Club Cyclist'
It worries me that we (cyclists) all get tarred with the same brush.

[Mick F]

I've come across these groups on a few occasions and my experience has been the same - the 'marshalls' even tried to manhandle me into turning left as I was going straight on and clearly every cyclist was one of 'theirs'

Me too.

I stopped and chatted to the marshals and explained their "problem" to them. They eventually understood that not all cyclists going up that road were going to be involved in their event. I certainly wasn't!

I also explained that there was no-one marshalling up the road where the competitors could take a short cut. They had no idea about the local geography or the local roads. As for plastic hats, I wasn't wearing one, and they still (originally) thought I was one of the competitors.

[Cunobelin]

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?

For a cycling organisation, they are incredibly ill informed on cycle helmets, so I doubt the requirements are an informed decision on their part

I used to enjoy quoting this ignorance on a number of forums by pointing out that they did not accept EN1078 helmets the European Standard

They used to state:

It is mandatory that all riders wear a safety approved cycling helmet complying with latest ANSI Z90/4 or SNELL standards

They have now included the inferior EN1078 :

It is mandatory that all riders wear a safety-approved cycling helmet complying with latest EN1078, ANSI Z90/4 or SNELL standards

They changed the wording to include EN1078, but are still unaware of the suspension (as above) of the ANSI Z90.4.... The "latest" standard was in fact in 1992 and ANSI did not meet again until 1995 when they agreed to recognise ASTM as their successor.

This was the helmet that passed the "latest" standards...

[Cunobelin]

I've come across these groups on a few occasions and my experience has been the same - the 'marshalls' even tried to manhandle me into turning left as I was going straight on and clearly every cyclist was one of 'theirs'

Me too.

I stopped and chatted to the marshals and explained their "problem" to them. They eventually understood that not all cyclists going up that road were going to be involved in their event. I certainly wasn't!

I also explained that there was no-one marshalling up the road where the competitors could take a short cut. They had no idea about the local geography or the local roads. As for plastic hats, I wasn't wearing one, and they still (originally) thought I was one of the competitors.

I went to the Brompton Event at Goodwood motor-racing circuit, near Chichester and the stalls etc are in the centre of the race track.

I was not allowed to ride into the event as I did not have a helmet!!!!

Crossing the track apparently required one.

This is now added to an increasing list where helmet mandating has meant the event is impracticable

[Mike Sales]

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.

[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.

[Graham]

Some damned fool started the topic in the wrong place.

[gaz]

Local event earlier this month.

PSPO.png

I'd bet they've just cut and paste from UK Cycling Events a few years back and haven't checked back since.

[Mike Sales]

Some damned fool started the topic in the wrong place.

And I had thought that the civil conduct of this thread meant that the subject might be allowed out of the ghetto. After all, discussions of other controversies have been rather more vitriolic, and personal.

[Cunobelin]

Local event earlier this month.
PSPO.png
I'd bet they've just cut and paste from UK Cycling Events a few years back and haven't checked back since.

As with the UK Cycling Events - any helmet bought in the UK is not usable, unless it has additional testing