We won't tell you why you have to wear a helmet...

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14993
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

We won't tell you why you have to wear a helmet...

Postby mjr » 2 Jun 2015, 2:23pm

So after viewtopic.php?f=9&t=96404 I asked the council for the documents I was told concluded that ineffective personal protective equipment must be made compulsary. You can see the request at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... _aldeburgh and the reply https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... 4.pdf.html is nothing short of astonishing IMO:
• In the interest of public safety certain details of the event should remain confidential to prevent any potential disruption on the day
The information requested is classified as confidential by the overarching organisation planning the event.
• Draft status of the manual – Regulation 12(4)(d) applies in that the draft manual is not in its final state. The version held by SCDC may not be full and accurate. It would not serve the public interest to disclose the information in this incomplete form.
• Ongoing process – Regulation 12(4)(d) applies in that the material relates to work in progress.
• “Chilling effect” – There is some concern that disclosure of the information would affect the frankness of future discussions with participants. Its disclosure now would risk putting future full and frank discussions under threat.

I'll appeal on the grounds that the wrong regulations were used and partial disclosure should have been made but there's now no chance they'll tell us before the event why the chance to ride the last 1km of the Women's Tour is so dangerous that it requires helmets. Another victory for British Cycling's helmet promoters?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: We won't tell you why you have to wear a helmet...

Postby bovlomov » 2 Jun 2015, 3:22pm

• In the interest of public safety certain details of the event should remain confidential to prevent any potential disruption on the day
The information requested is classified as confidential by the overarching organisation planning the event.

Imagine the discussions that led to this reply!

AlaninWales
Posts: 1585
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: We won't tell you why you have to wear a helmet...

Postby AlaninWales » 2 Jun 2015, 4:56pm

bovlomov wrote:
• In the interest of public safety certain details of the event should remain confidential to prevent any potential disruption on the day
The information requested is classified as confidential by the overarching organisation planning the event.

Imagine the discussions that led to this reply!

They appear to have been around the idea that our mjr was going to use the risk assessments to undertake a terrorist attack :lol:
In addition, the manual contains information regarding details of set-up for the
event which could be used to disrupt the event if known. We would consider
this a potential threat to public safety.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: We won't tell you why you have to wear a helmet...

Postby TonyR » 2 Jun 2015, 5:13pm

I would ask them to reconsider your request under the FOIA instead which does not have many of those exemptions.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13898
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: We won't tell you why you have to wear a helmet...

Postby gaz » 2 Jun 2015, 8:15pm

mjr's request was made under FOIA.
2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3872
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: We won't tell you why you have to wear a helmet...

Postby pjclinch » 3 Jun 2015, 8:28am

The FOI secrecy is ridiculous, appalling and pathetic.

As is the helmet requirement for the ride, but judging from my interactions with BC concerning helmets it boils down to a one-size-fits-all insurance issue fired by fear of litigation.

The following from an email discussion with the coaching section concerning issues I'd raised about that (notably, if we can give turban-wearing Sikhs a helmet exemption in a coaching session subject to a risk assessment, how come we can't do it for anyone else, and how are we to inform that assessment for Sikhs in turbans if our basic knowledge about helmets is "you've got to wear them, end of"), but I imagine it's pretty much representative of other formal events run under BC.

From a coaching perspective, it is highly improbable that there will be a policy change on helmet use. This subject has already been addressed at the very highest level within the organisation. We believe the current coaching guidelines protect/are in the best interest of all coaches. I.e. regardless of the rights/wrongs in the debate, the courts may consider that there has been contributory negligence if the coach allows a rider to participate in a session without a helmet and the insurers of British Cycling could be liable for payouts etc if we simply applied a 'choice' policy.

Of course, British Cycling supports/promotes the right of cyclists to choose whether they wear a helmet or not in environments where they are responsible for their own wellbeing, without contradicting the coaching guidelines.


Since the CTC can manage to run events without this it looks like a failure of imagination from BC to realise one size doesn't fit all and find appropriate insurers, which is Not Good, and bowing to FUD, which is also Not Good. I don't think it's the same as direct promotion (i.e., trying to get us all in crash hats for everything) though. It has been in the past, and I'm greatly relieved they've backed off from that particular idiocy.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14993
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: We won't tell you why you have to wear a helmet...

Postby mjr » 3 Jun 2015, 10:21am

AlaninWales wrote:They appear to have been around the idea that our mjr was going to use the risk assessments to undertake a terrorist attack :lol:

Like I'd need their event manual to be able to do that! :evil:
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: We won't tell you why you have to wear a helmet...

Postby Bicycler » 3 Jun 2015, 11:10am

mjr wrote:
AlaninWales wrote:They appear to have been around the idea that our mjr was going to use the risk assessments to undertake a terrorist attack :lol:

Like I'd need their event manual to be able to do that! :evil:

You'd be doomed to fail, I daresay bomb deflection is another of the endless properties of magic hats :wink:

Psamathe
Posts: 11130
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: We won't tell you why you have to wear a helmet...

Postby Psamathe » 3 Jun 2015, 1:33pm

I think they're having a laugh. Maybe good to see Councils do have a sense of humour. So I'd tell them you fell for their joke and could you now please have the info.

Ian

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: We won't tell you why you have to wear a helmet...

Postby Bicycler » 3 Jun 2015, 2:41pm

In all seriousness, are these exemptions not clearly defined? If they are so loose could they not be potentially used to prevent virtually any actual freedom of information, particularly on matters potentially more serious than organisation of a cycling event?

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: We won't tell you why you have to wear a helmet...

Postby TonyR » 3 Jun 2015, 10:26pm

gaz wrote:mjr's request was made under FOIA.


The request was but the reply clearly wasn't and it says so.

Anyway worth a request for it to be handled under FOI and if still rejected an email to the Information Commissioner's Office to appeal.