BC membership up

awavey
Posts: 73
Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:04am

Re: BC membership up

Postby awavey » 18 Nov 2018, 10:59pm

PH wrote: If you doubt this, just try it for yourself - the recent proposed Highway Code changes would make a suitable search subject.


Id say arguably neatly sums up my point though as did Cycling UK in the Highway code changes come across as anything other than simply a cycling pressure group? not a members group to promote cycling that offers membership and benefits to those that join.

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 285
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: BC membership up

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 20 Nov 2018, 2:56pm

Si wrote:Sounds curious - I've never seen a HSBC Guided Ride or Breeze ride stating that lids much be worn by riders - could you put a link up to one of the ones near you please? (I'm not doubting what you say - I'd just like to have a look at one to see exactly what they are saying)

Of course RideSocial can compel people to wear lids but RideSocial are not BC rides - they are just people using the BC resource to list their rides.


Exactly right. Ride socials can ( and often do ) say “no lid, no ride”, Guided Rides have lid compulsion for minors, and leaders, but no ‘official’ lid compulsion for adult participants. None of my Guided rides, or Ride Socials have ever had a lid compulsion for adult participants. It’s not my place to force any adult participants to wear a lid, so I don’t. I’d rather they did though, as it makes any potential paperwork easier, if there was an incident.

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 285
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: BC membership up

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 20 Nov 2018, 3:01pm

Si wrote:
Of course RideSocial can compel people to wear lids but RideSocial are not BC rides - they are just people using the BC resource to list their rides.



Or sometimes they’re rides posted by actual Guided ride leaders that have to do the ride under the ‘ride social’ banner, for various reasons, leader to participant ratio issues for example.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 1852
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: BC membership up

Postby The utility cyclist » 21 Nov 2018, 5:28am

Vorpal wrote:We are all cyclists. No one is *lesser* for what they wear. :twisted:

p.s. when I was living in the UK, I was a member in multiple cycling organisations.

I disagree, when you are taking greater risks that harm yourselves and others more, both directly and indirectly then you are a lesser or 'worse' cyclist. Or would you say that a motorist that puts themselves at risk of harm and those around them through their actions sub conscious or not, more so than others that don't are equal?
Have you failed to recognise the change in behaviour of helmet wearing cyclists (the stats give us a bloody big clue for one thing even if you want to ignore the reality of their actions) and also how motorists behaviour changed when seatbelts, airbags, crash cells, bigger motors etc came about??

A cyclist whose actions cause more harm to themselves and to others and/or society as a whole is a lesser cyclist, stop sticking your head in the sand and pretending all people are equal, they simply aren't.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 16006
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: BC membership up

Postby Vorpal » 21 Nov 2018, 6:38am

The utility cyclist wrote:
Vorpal wrote:We are all cyclists. No one is *lesser* for what they wear. :twisted:

p.s. when I was living in the UK, I was a member in multiple cycling organisations.

I disagree, when you are taking greater risks that harm yourselves and others more, both directly and indirectly then you are a lesser or 'worse' cyclist. Or would you say that a motorist that puts themselves at risk of harm and those around them through their actions sub conscious or not, more so than others that don't are equal?
Have you failed to recognise the change in behaviour of helmet wearing cyclists (the stats give us a bloody big clue for one thing even if you want to ignore the reality of their actions) and also how motorists behaviour changed when seatbelts, airbags, crash cells, bigger motors etc came about??

A cyclist whose actions cause more harm to themselves and to others and/or society as a whole is a lesser cyclist, stop sticking your head in the sand and pretending all people are equal, they simply aren't.

You write this as if cyclists who wear helmets are going around killing people, or something.

The difference, compared to harm caused by moto vehicles is *miniscule*. Even of accept that the 14% difference oft quoted on here for Australia has applicability elsewhere, is it *still* a small difference, and one that mainly affects the cyclists themselves, and not other people.

I have never pretended that all people are equal. But I do not accept that someone is a 'lesser' cyclist for what they wear, whatever that may be.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom