Cycling UK Forum

Perhaps they like the ambiguity of it, because then they can satisfy non-helmeteers with choice, but leave the wording sufficiently ambiguous that it is frequently interpreted as compulsion all round, which so many people just assume is the status quo that they never think to question it. It sounds like just the thing that a committee with quite a few helmet promoters and the odd anti-helmet extremist might promote.

It’s a poser isn’t it?
Why is there a comma after sportive? It does absolutely nothing in my book. Now if you were to add another comma
"Please note that while taking part in a British Cycling sanctioned race or sportive, the use of a helmet conforming to a recognised safety standard, is mandatory. "
To me that sentence now makes sense and is clearly saying a helmet is mandatory and within the commas it qualifies what sort of helmet. I suspect who ever originally wrote it is under 50 yo and never learnt grammar like wot I did

mjr wrote:That is not the whole thing. Find the full "guidelines" PDF.

Got a link?
I can't see one unless I download each of the sections.

Paulatic wrote:It’s a poser isn’t it?
Why is there a comma after sportive? It does absolutely nothing in my book. Now if you were to add another comma
"Please note that while taking part in a British Cycling sanctioned race or sportive, the use of a helmet conforming to a recognised safety standard, is mandatory. "
To me that sentence now makes sense and is clearly saying a helmet is mandatory and within the commas it qualifies what sort of helmet. I suspect who ever originally wrote it is under 50 yo and never learnt grammar like wot I did

Could be!

Terrible grammar if they mean that helmets are mandatory, but they say it's an individual's choice previously.
As I say, I'm not taking it further because one, I'm not wearing a helmet no matter what their "rules" are, and two, I don't want to do their rides no matter what!

My interpretation was more on logical grounds than grammatical ones.
Why on earth would it be mandatory for the helmet on the cyclist next to me to meet standards when I can ride in a cycle cap, a bobble hat, bare headed or any other unregulated head gear.

It still doesn’t specify that it has to conform to a recognised ‘cycling’ safety standard, just that it must conform to ‘a’ recognised safety standard...

I took it to mean that they specified the type and design of helmet - if you were to wear one - and that it was mandatory that it complied to accepted standards.

They've already said for it to be correctly fitting, but it could be a correctly fitted skate-board helmet.

There was no statement to the effect ........
............ that it is mandatory that you should wear a correctly fitted cycling helmet of the accepted design which conforms to recognised standards.

That would mean that they were imposing a ban on cycle helmets that dont meet the standards while allowing any other headgear. That would be a totally illogical thing to do.

meic wrote:That would mean that they were imposing a ban on cycle helmets that dont meet the standards while allowing any other headgear. That would be a totally illogical thing to do.

Agreed, it would be illogical, but the thing with rules and mandatory requirements is that they have to be clear and unambiguous. As it is currently worded it’s very poor.

meic wrote:My interpretation was more on logical grounds than grammatical ones.
Why on earth would it be mandatory for the helmet on the cyclist next to me to meet standards when I can ride in a cycle cap, a bobble hat, bare headed or any other unregulated head gear.

But you can’t ride beside them in a BC sanctioned race or sportive.

But in Mick's interpretation you could.

Mick F wrote:

mjr wrote:That is not the whole thing. Find the full "guidelines" PDF.

Got a link?
I can't see one unless I download each of the sections.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi ... elines.pdf

"The wearing of hard shell helmets conforming to CE standards EN1078 is mandatory for all riders participating in British Cycling registered events."

BC don't follow their own policy.

Thanks.
I actually do own a helmet - not worn for over three years. I wish I could sell it, but who would buy a secondhand helmet?
Just looked at the label inside.
EN1078/A1/2005E(1)

What does all that mean?
Does it comply?
What happens if I remove the label, can I still take part?
Will they check?

The demarcation in BC seems to be between "organised events", even if these aren't competitive, and the definitely "Leisure" side with their "Let's Ride" programme, where helmets are only recommended (despite what some Breeze leaders seem to think). I would definitely challenge it if it was ever questioned if I turned up without one.

We've not tried signing up for a Breeze ride although I'm a regular with Chester Fab Ladies in my role as tandem pilot for a sight impaired lady! Neither of us wear helmets these days either but it is under the auspices of Cycling UK so not a problem.

The more I think about it the more I'm tempted to try it to see which caused the biggest stir - a bloke (in an enabling role) on a ladies ride or lack of helmets.

Mick F wrote:EN1078/A1/2005E(1)

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.