What would you do.....

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
horizon
Posts: 10088
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: What would you do.....

Postby horizon » 5 Jun 2015, 12:59pm

bovlomov wrote:
maxcherry wrote:Is wearing a helmet such a big deal?

Yes. It's about the principle.

Helmet rules are a dress code. If they are required, they should be considered to be a part of the uniform, that denotes belonging. Nothing more.



Yes, but then they would require you to wear sunglasses, fingerless gloves and copious advertising. This dress code thing is a dangerous road ...
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: What would you do.....

Postby beardy » 5 Jun 2015, 1:05pm

So after the Sportive fees and buying a helmet already taking a big junk out of the money that could have gone to charity. Buying the rest of the fancy dress should leave just about nothing for good causes.

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

Re: What would you do.....

Postby bovlomov » 5 Jun 2015, 1:08pm

beardy wrote:So after the Sportive fees and buying a helmet already taking a big junk out of the money that could have gone to charity. Buying the rest of the fancy dress should leave just about nothing for good causes.

But all participants will feel a saintly glow, that is the reward for the charitable.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10088
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: What would you do.....

Postby horizon » 5 Jun 2015, 1:32pm

My guess is that there is a sort of corporate undercurrent here of which the helmet is a totemic symbol and that this is the cause of the OP's discomfort. The company wants loyalty and team work combined with personal striving. It chooses a corporate event that emphasises that. It throws it over to a company that can deliver on expectations as well as practicalities. The helmet is a symbol of conformity so it's part of the package. To question the helmet is to question the whole caboodle including your own position in the company.

I don't think it requires a conspiracy theory to suggest that sub-consciously the helmet is playing to the instincts of the company bosses. This may sound far-fetched but it's real enough for me to have thought of it. It gives me goose-bumps down my spine.

As regards what I would do, I reckon that this company would have "let me go" a long time ago if they had ever employed me in the first place.

Which doesn't help the OP one little bit.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

MickTheCyclist
Posts: 148
Joined: 7 Jul 2012, 4:22pm
Location: Co. Down

Re: What would you do.....

Postby MickTheCyclist » 5 Jun 2015, 2:21pm

I should add that my employer is not mandating anything. The charity committee has chosen the event.

Normally I don't really care about helmet-only events other than mild irritation about back door compulsion.
But in this case I feel I am being discriminated against by the sportive organisers as I am excluded from participating with my colleagues purely on the basis of personal choice.

As for the 'why is it such a big deal', what's the point in having principles if you give in with a fight.

Someone asked why the self-organised event was scrapped; health and safety apparently. But lets not hijack the thread down that route.

I'm working on a plan of attack. More later hopefully.

maxcherry
Posts: 664
Joined: 22 Mar 2011, 5:53pm

Re: What would you do.....

Postby maxcherry » 5 Jun 2015, 3:09pm

mjr wrote:
maxcherry wrote:I still take the stance that tagging along on a sportive while not being part of it is bad form. If one doesn't want to wear the helmet then don't do the sportive and really take a stance against mandatory helmet wearing.

Why is it bad form? The roads are public and still open. Isn't it worse form to encourage loads of road hogs on bikes and only put up a few warning signs for other road users? At least the Tour de Cambridgeshire has the guts to close the roads.



Being part of the group ride for free is not bad form?
Honestly chaps, I'm a female!

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: What would you do.....

Postby mjr » 5 Jun 2015, 10:32pm

Well, I'm part of a group ride for free most other weeks. Is that bad form too?

I'd have been part of the last sportive too except they don't allow riders like me. Blast them, the roads are open, I'll ride with my friends anyway.
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.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17924
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: What would you do.....

Postby Vorpal » 5 Jun 2015, 10:52pm

maxcherry wrote:
mjr wrote:
maxcherry wrote:I still take the stance that tagging along on a sportive while not being part of it is bad form. If one doesn't want to wear the helmet then don't do the sportive and really take a stance against mandatory helmet wearing.

Why is it bad form? The roads are public and still open. Isn't it worse form to encourage loads of road hogs on bikes and only put up a few warning signs for other road users? At least the Tour de Cambridgeshire has the guts to close the roads.



Being part of the group ride for free is not bad form?

It could be a form of protest. Maybe the OP wants to make a point and do the whole thing as a non-participant, wearing a shirt that says, 'no ride, no helmet' or 'helmets are a red herring' :mrgreen:
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

MickTheCyclist
Posts: 148
Joined: 7 Jul 2012, 4:22pm
Location: Co. Down

Re: What would you do.....

Postby MickTheCyclist » 5 Jun 2015, 11:28pm

Vorpal wrote:It could be a form of protest. Maybe the OP wants to make a point and do the whole thing as a non-participant, wearing a shirt that says, 'no ride, no helmet' or 'helmets are a red herring' :mrgreen:


I've done that in the past (except the t-shirt). I registered and paid for 100 mile charity ride. They had no helmet requirement. About 2 weeks before the event they added the requirement. I complained, they wouldn't move, I withdrew and told them I was riding it with my friends but wouldn't use their support facilities etc, they refunded my entry fee. I'm not looking to make protest here, just want to be treat equally to the fashion victims.

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: What would you do.....

Postby Steady rider » 7 Jun 2015, 4:33pm

http://www.cycleni.com/cycling-sportives/

If in Northern Ireland it looks like a helmet requirement would exclude some cyclists from many events.

The CTC could organise sportives and allow for non-wearers to take part. CTC members are already covered for insurance purposes so the cost of events may be reduced for CTC members. Contact with non-CTC cyclists could help the CTC to gain more members. A CTC AGM motion requesting the CTC to provide suitable events may gain support.
I don't think that they already do these types of events?

The CTC could in turn offer riders advice on how to take part and not incur undue safety risks or structure the events to minimise risk.

pwa
Posts: 11709
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: What would you do.....

Postby pwa » 7 Jun 2015, 9:04pm

Mick, as a "fashion victim" (never been called that before) I support your right to go without a helmet, but I don't see ant practical way to change the policy of the event organisers. I wish they were more inclusive, but the best you can do is ride unofficially. It should not be that way, but life is full of little injustices and we cannot correct them all.

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: What would you do.....

Postby Tonyf33 » 8 Jun 2015, 12:31am

I'm thinking of organising a charity ride, one main stipulation would be that your application to enter would only be allowed if you declare that you won't wear a helmet due to Health & Safety reasons 8) :wink: . This would be rigourously enforced and my officials make a big noise about you wearing one in front of the other charity riders should you turn up with one especially considering you were told beforehand...

Just think of the outrage from people wanting to participate but can't because you're excluded on the basis of a stupid rule, imagine if a local rag got hold of the story, now think how those of us whom don't 'need' helmets feel when 'forced' to abide stupid rules or not be able to partake because of them :evil:

MartinC
Posts: 1840
Joined: 10 May 2007, 6:31pm
Location: Bredon

Re: What would you do.....

Postby MartinC » 8 Jun 2015, 8:28am

maxcherry wrote:
mjr wrote:
maxcherry wrote:I still take the stance that tagging along on a sportive while not being part of it is bad form. If one doesn't want to wear the helmet then don't do the sportive and really take a stance against mandatory helmet wearing.

Why is it bad form? The roads are public and still open. Isn't it worse form to encourage loads of road hogs on bikes and only put up a few warning signs for other road users? At least the Tour de Cambridgeshire has the guts to close the roads.



Being part of the group ride for free is not bad form?


The group ride doesn't want him to be part of it. Can't have it both ways - if you exclude people from the group then they're excluded. But it's bad form (and illegal) to exclude people from the road.

old_windbag
Posts: 1869
Joined: 19 Feb 2015, 3:55pm

Re: What would you do.....

Postby old_windbag » 8 Jun 2015, 10:49am

Tonyf33 I agree with your sentiment even though I'm a helmet wearer and happy to do so. I stated in a post on the CTC mag cover thread that if a law came in demanding you don't wear a helmet then I'd most likely break it. So I understand why OP would feel annoyed at being told in order to enter the event he must do something he doesn't choose to do. Having said that we're all excluded from some events for various reasons of social/financial status and I didn't think all sportives/charity rides demanded helmets... correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's simple enough to ride the event as non-entrant as my first reply, or as another poster stated, make up a solo event to undertake and raise money. To do ride as non entrant putting the fee into the charity pot is fair enough and it's not as though his work colleagues would object as they'd not be out of pocket to him.
From the organisers perspective, if you were in their shoes and had say 5000 cyclists to organise with every possible admin blunder, logistics problems and then the event accidents/mishaps on non-closed roads etc that could result in completely the wrong publicity for the organisers/charities then the pressure is high. Thats their job, but for them mitigating risk by enforcing a helmet rule may come from outside i.e insurance cover etc. Some of you may have organised a mass participation event where from H+S perspective you were responsible but many won't, it can't be pleasant after a death or serious injury to stand up in court defending your choice of event preparation/safety cover etc. Sometimes the burden of responsibility leads you to make, what many may see as, perhaps excessive decisions, but made for the "safety" of the many rather than the individual. I know we can throw stats around but the organisers have probably found a system they feel works and perhaps has demonstrated that in all the rides they've put on, perhaps they've altered their rules based on past event issues.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17924
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: What would you do.....

Postby Vorpal » 8 Jun 2015, 11:42am

old_windbag wrote: From the organisers perspective, if you were in their shoes and had say 5000 cyclists to organise with every possible admin blunder, logistics problems and then the event accidents/mishaps on non-closed roads etc that could result in completely the wrong publicity for the organisers/charities then the pressure is high. Thats their job, but for them mitigating risk by enforcing a helmet rule may come from outside i.e insurance cover etc. Some of you may have organised a mass participation event where from H+S perspective you were responsible but many won't, it can't be pleasant after a death or serious injury to stand up in court defending your choice of event preparation/safety cover etc. Sometimes the burden of responsibility leads you to make, what many may see as, perhaps excessive decisions, but made for the "safety" of the many rather than the individual. I know we can throw stats around but the organisers have probably found a system they feel works and perhaps has demonstrated that in all the rides they've put on, perhaps they've altered their rules based on past event issues.

First of all, people very, very seldom die doing organised charity rides. I cannot recall ever hearing of one, though there have been a few deaths amongst those doing independent charity rides. So the likelihood that anyone will die, or even be seriously injured is vanishing small. I'm sure that minor injuries are quite common. I also expect that it's fairly common for people to suffer from heat exhaustion, and a myriad of health issues that are due to not being fit enough to ride a bike for the length of whatever charity ride.

Between that and the lack of evidence that helmets actually do very much, there is little or no reason to include them in a risk assessment. It is possible to find insurance that doesn't require helmets.

If I were to organise an event, I would be upset if someone were killed or seriously injured, but I would be under no illusions that a helmet would make a significant difference, and the threat of lawsuits and what have you makes absolutely no difference in that.

IMO, the only valid reason to require a helmet is that the Highway Code recommends them. But then, it should be sifficient to include a statement that participants are responsible to follow the Highway Code. Are organisers going to enforce all of the other recommendations in the Highway Code? probably not, though they may deny someone a finsih certificate if someone does soemthing blatantly dangerous.

Most organisers simply think helmets are a good idea becuase it seems like common sense. If no one ever questions that stance they will carry on believing that helmets are a necessary part of riding a bike.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom