AGM Motion for 2019

Steady rider
Posts: 2169
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

AGM Motion for 2019

Postby Steady rider » 15 Jan 2019, 11:46am

Suggested AGM Motion

That Cycling UK promotes and supports people cycling in normal clothes and without requirements or coercion to wear extra personal protective equipment, hi-vis or helmets for example. This support shall cover all Cycling UK activities and in general.

STATEMENT OF REASONS There is concern that some events require wearing specific personal protective equipment and sets an example towards support for compulsory use of personal protective equipment, we wish to ensure that does not accrue. Insurance requirements can also add extra requirements to use personal protective equipment and act to prohibit people who generally cycle without extra personal protective equipment from taking part. Nationwide Building Society had for a time offered an account requiring cycle helmet use as a condition to be covered by the travel insurance cycling aspects, included in the account. The motion does not prevent any person from wearing a helmet if they so choose.

Any changes needed? A seconder please.
Last edited by Steady rider on 16 Jan 2019, 12:58pm, edited 3 times in total.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby thirdcrank » 15 Jan 2019, 11:56am

Are you sure you mean "cohesion?"
===========================================================
I see that's now been fixed: presumably it was a predictive spelling typo or similar.
Last edited by thirdcrank on 16 Jan 2019, 8:22am, edited 1 time in total.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 1832
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby Oldjohnw » 15 Jan 2019, 12:07pm

Are you sure you mean "cohesion?"


Coercion?
John

Cycling and recycling

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3768
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby pjclinch » 15 Jan 2019, 12:17pm

As thridcrank suggests, I think you want "coercion".

I'm pretty much onside on this but suspect the devil may be in the detail. For example, "all Cycling UK activities and in general" is a pretty wide scope and potentially includes competitive downhill mountain biking and I'd suggest it's beyond CUK's remit to challenge PPE for that kind of thing. Not sure on a good form of words to get around it off the top of my head... "Non-competitive cycling" maybe?

In the Reasons you may wish to add something along the lines that requirement of helmets and hi-viz in training, for both students and instructors, reinforces the outdated notion that helmets and hi-viz is what "proper" cycling requires, in turn implying it is dangerous to attempt it without these things. The excellent example of child cyclist images at The Association of Bikeability Schemes website shows this isn't just libertarian loons with helmet fixations thinking along these lines.

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

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 499
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby Wanlock Dod » 16 Jan 2019, 6:12am

promotes and supports?

Steady rider
Posts: 2169
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby Steady rider » 16 Jan 2019, 12:56pm

Adding changes suggested,

thelawnet
Posts: 2224
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby thelawnet » 16 Jan 2019, 3:29pm

The wording is a bit off IMO.

Firstly I'd note that my local cycle club which claims to be a 'friendly' one, and has lots of social (as distinct from racing) rides is mandating helmets.

Secondly isn't PPE simply 'helmet' in 99.9% of cases so it would be best to say that? Are there any cases wear there are onerous terms NOT relating to helmets? (Hi-vis is NOT PPE)

I'd say

"That Cycling UK promotes cycling in normal clothes, without requirements or coercion to wear personal protective equipment such as helmets. This support shall cover all cycling activities that take place on public roads.

STATEMENT OF REASONS There is concern that groups and events are excluding those who do not wear helmets. In some, but not all cases, this exclusion is driven by insurers.

The motion is not intended to discourage those who wish to wear helmets from doing so."

I think that:

the UCI mandates helmets for racing so it would not make sense to include racing (which is illegal on public roads)
full-face helmets for extreme MTBing, etc., seems advisable

charliepolecat
Posts: 315
Joined: 22 Mar 2018, 3:53pm

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby charliepolecat » 16 Jan 2019, 4:18pm

This is a completely unnecessary motion, and I expect the sole aim is to push a personal point of view - which is hardly in the spirit of inclusion and fair mindedness. The heading should have been : "I want a mandate to force others to do as I want".

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby thirdcrank » 16 Jan 2019, 4:21pm

FWIW, cycle racing is permitted on public roads, subject to regulations.

thelawnet
Posts: 2224
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby thelawnet » 16 Jan 2019, 4:29pm

charliepolecat wrote:This is a completely unnecessary motion, and I expect the sole aim is to push a personal point of view - which is hardly in the spirit of inclusion and fair mindedness. The heading should have been : "I want a mandate to force others to do as I want".


I thought we were talking about exclusion of non-helmet-wearers. Where is the 'forcing others', here?

Steady rider
Posts: 2169
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby Steady rider » 16 Jan 2019, 4:38pm

I think the suggested motion looks good.
"That Cycling UK promotes cycling in normal clothes, without requirements or coercion to wear personal protective equipment such as helmets. This support shall cover all cycling activities that take place on public roads."

Reduced compensation is an issue when a motorist causes an accident and the cyclist suffers an head injury, then claims the cyclist should receive less compensation due to not wearing a helmet.

There are other issues with the Highway Code and its advice. Cycling UK have published quite a lot of information

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/why-s ... be-revised

Perhaps the helmet motion is not needed but a one or two day conference with the DfT to discuss the evidence for changes needed to the Highway Code, including helmets, passing advice, door opening, etc.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2436
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby The utility cyclist » 16 Jan 2019, 4:58pm

charliepolecat wrote:This is a completely unnecessary motion, and I expect the sole aim is to push a personal point of view - which is hardly in the spirit of inclusion and fair mindedness. The heading should have been : "I want a mandate to force others to do as I want".

ah right, so when I and indeed others are excluded from taking part in cycle rides/events because we do not wish to wear a piece of attire that puts us at greater risk, that's not the same as what you mean?
How are people who want to wear excluded exactly? It's completely the other way. where those wanting choice, have none in many situations, that's charity rides, sportives, many cycling clubs, even one CUK group was forcing through helmets to be worn at all times according to one forum member recently.
Maybe you need to have a think about what inclusive and fair means when it comes to forcing people to wear x and putting them at greater risk of harm! :x

User avatar
LinusR
Posts: 299
Joined: 24 May 2017, 7:27pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby LinusR » 16 Jan 2019, 5:37pm

Steady rider wrote:Suggested AGM Motion

That Cycling UK promotes and supports people cycling in normal clothes and without requirements or coercion to wear extra personal protective equipment, hi-vis or helmets for example. This support shall cover all Cycling UK activities and in general.

STATEMENT OF REASONS There is concern that some events require wearing specific personal protective equipment and sets an example towards support for compulsory use of personal protective equipment, we wish to ensure that does not accrue. Insurance requirements can also add extra requirements to use personal protective equipment and act to prohibit people who generally cycle without extra personal protective equipment from taking part. Nationwide Building Society had for a time offered an account requiring cycle helmet use as a condition to be covered by the travel insurance cycling aspects, included in the account. The motion does not prevent any person from wearing a helmet if they so choose.

Any changes needed? A seconder please.


It might be helpful if you could state what is wrong with the current Cycling UK policy on helmets: "Cycling UK is opposed to both cycle helmet laws and to helmet promotion campaigns because these are almost certainly detrimental to public health." The full policy is here: https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2017/11/helmets-policy_4s.pdf

The policy does refer to events:

Cycling UK view: Schools, employers and the organisers of non-sporting cycling events (e.g.
sponsored rides) should not impose helmet rules for their pupils, staff and participants respectively.
These rules are not justified in terms of health and safety, they are likely to reduce both the
numbers and the diversity of people who take part in cycling, and they may in some circumstances
be illegal.


And also downhill mountain biking:

Cycling UK view: There is limited evidence on the risks involved in different types of off-road recreational cycling
(from family riding to downhill mountain biking etc.) and cycle sport. Likewise, evidence on the
potential for helmet use to mitigate (or exacerbate) these risks is equally limited.


So some reference to the existing policy and what is wrong with it and why.

Steady rider
Posts: 2169
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby Steady rider » 16 Jan 2019, 7:19pm

See above 4.38pm
Perhaps the helmet motion is not needed but a one or two day conference with the DfT to discuss the evidence for changes needed to the Highway Code, including helmets, passing advice, door opening, etc.


The policy I think is correct to a large extent. Perhaps a motion should read something like;

"That Cycling UK cycle helmet policy promoting choice in their use, without coercion or requirements to use them, is very good. Further action should be taken to discuss with the Department for Transport possible changes to the Highway Code that are needed and without delay, to update the advice in the Code and result in better advice and legal protection for cyclists".

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 499
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: AGM Motion for 2019

Postby Wanlock Dod » 16 Jan 2019, 8:04pm

I think that the existing Cycling UK policy on helmets is extremely good, but widely ignored.
I believe that the Steady rider probably seeks to address the latter issue and I commend their standing up to do so.
I might be inclined to quibble about some of the wording though, at least to the extent that racers (whilst actually engaged in the activity of racing) could be allowed some level of helmet compulsion, and so that mountain bikers at least shouldn't feel picked on.
I might even be inclined to mention hi-viz and daytime running lights too, but it's not something I feel strongly about.
Some bloke down the pub wrote:"That Cycling UK promotes cycling in normal clothes for everyday activities that take place on public roads, without requirements or coercion to wear personal protective equipment such as helmets."

I think that helmets and hi-viz in particular, but lights in the day as well, signal to the general public very clearly that cycling is extremely dangerous, and makes it easy for them to believe that the cyclist probably deserved it for being such a risk taker when they collided with the lorry.