Retro "Sportive" in the South East for 2012

[Steady rider]

Just list the event as a CTC ride with HQ, they are insured and do not require helmets to be worn on rides. Then all suitable cyclists would feel welcome.

[diapason0]

Sounds a good wheeze.

[al_yrpal]

Its unbelievable! The anti helmet police who are obviously running these forums have removed my post because I observed that a helmet had protected me from a serious head injury. What sort of moron has been allowed to do that? Long live truth, the right to an opinion and free speech!

Al

[Edwards]

Its unbelievable! The anti helmet police who are obviously running these forums have removed my post because I observed that a helmet had protected me from a serious head injury. What sort of moron has been allowed to do that? Long live truth, the right to an opinion and free speech!

The topic has been split to remove the contentious helmet discussion from the original. So if you want to make any comments about the use of helmets in this context this is the place to do so.
Your original post is still in the original part of the thread.

I think you just might need to make any apology to the moderators for the above.

[al_yrpal]

I am totally confused now.

Al

[diapason0]

A good move by the mods, I think. Any topic involving helmets is likely to provoke strong responses on both sides. It would be a pity in petty 'rules' demanded by an insewerants company were to spoil what could be a good event. Al, you are, of course, perfectly at liberty to make your point aboput a helmet. Might I be permitted to temper it by saying that it is your opinion/belief that the helmet saved you from serious injury or even death. But is is your opinion/belief, not a proven scientific fact. My own opinion/belief - and also not a proven scientific fact - is that an egg box might help reduce the very minor injuries likely were I to fall off at very low speed, but would be totally useless at my normal commuting speed (not fast either ) or were I to be hit by a motor vehicle. You pays your money and takes your choice.

[al_yrpal]

I am sorry, but I have read a lot of these anti helmet posts and my opinion is that the people who persist in that view are wrong. I sincerley hope that helmets are made compulsory and will add my voice to the campaign for them. I am not wasting my time by joining any discussion. I know what I know.

Al

[Steady rider]

We know there were 191000 deaths in 2008 due to heart and circulatory disease, one every 3 minutes, ask the British Heart Foundation.

We know there where 111 cyclist deaths in 2010, see DfT figures, one every 4375 minutes.

We know helmets cannot save many if any lives.

We know helmet laws discourage cycling, see Cyclehelmets.org for details.

We know helmet laws do more harm than good.

[diapason0]

I I know what I know.

Sorry, but you believe what you believe. That is your right. Mine is to disagree strongly based on a large body of scientifuic research, the results of some of which have been quoted in the post above. By advocating compulsion you are attempting to force your views on others. hardly democratic. Nothing personal.

[Edwards]

I sincerley hope that helmets are made compulsory and will add my voice to the campaign for them.

By advocating compulsion you are attempting to force your views on others.

Now I am confused the statement made by al is perfectly clear to me, so how does it get turned?
I will also not get into any debate about helmets or not.
If anybody wants to try amateur Psychology please give it a go.

[[XAP]Bob]

To go back to the original issue (one of insurance companies requiring helmets)..

has anyone ever asked an insurance company for the evidence they use to make such a restriction?

[Tonyf33]

Can we not have those who do not want to wear a helmet sign a waiver form relating to helmet preventing injuries, i.e. abrasions & minor lacerations

Shame, would love to have a run out on this......but a helmet isn't in keeping with a 'retro' bike & given the lack of real protection from such in any case, I'm out

[Steady rider]

Can we not have those who do not want to wear a helmet sign a waiver form relating to helmet preventing injuries, i.e. abrasions & minor lacerations

Cycling without a helmet is OK, so why should they sign anything?

The CTC should ban non-racing events that require helmets as a pre condition to taking part, because it not in keeping with trading standards in regards to discrimination and equal opportunity aspects. It is also imposing a questionable safety product that may increase certain types of head injury, eg diffuse axonal injury.

Cycling with a helmet can increase the accident rate, eg Erke and Elvik (Norwegian researchers) 2007 stated: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent."
( Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007. page 28 http://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasj ... 7-nett.pdf

[Edwards]

The CTC should ban non-racing events that require helmets as a pre condition to taking part

Are you saying that no CTC member should be allowed to take part in these events?

OR That nobody should be allowed to ride in any CTC event if wearing a helmet?

OR That the CTC should stop all events that require the wearing of a helmet?

[diapason0]

I think he means that the CTC should not allow any event to be held under it's banner which insists on helmet wearing for entry. Of course, those who wish to wear them are free to do so.