Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

[The utility cyclist]

Replying on a more serious note...

It must be hard to get good photos of an event like this with riders not wearing helmets. Clare and I did the 50 mile route, both helmetless. There were over 200 people riding &, despite helmets not being compulsory, I don't recall seeing anyone else riding without one. The same for the Two Mills Early Season 50 in April, featured in the previous edition of Cycle, we didn't see any others riding without. When I did the Wild Wales, solo, last August I saw a couple of other helmetless riders but that was all. These are all part of Cycling UK's Challenge series so come under their helmets not required remit.

If you organise "helmets not compulsory" events but your punters insist on wearing them, what are organisers expected to do?

If you are photographing an event do you wait at a nice location for hours, possibly many hours, on the off chance that someone is riding without a helmet? If you manage to get photos of any helmetless riders are they going to be suitable for a cover photo?

Members' group rides too. We occasionally go out with various permutations of Chester CTC. There's only one guy I can recall who isn't a wearer. We're the only ones ever helmetless when we're out with the Fab Ladies!

Banning helmets from organised rides would be a start, safer for everyone and more photo opportunities to put on the magazine front page & inside articles.

[RickH]

Banning helmets from organised rides would be a start, safer for everyone and more photo opportunities 6o put on the magazine front page.inside articles.

In my more militant moments I would be inclined to agree, even to the extent of wishfully thinking it would be better if they were generally made illegal!

But then I wonder how many would "dare" to turn up to such an event. Over 40 riders out the other Sunday (Chester & North Wales CTC annual President's Ride & Lunch), Clare & I were there - helmetless - on the tandem, the guy mentioned previously that we sometimes ride with wasn't there (he works shifts) but there was another guy who was, like us, just wearing a traditional cycle cap (on our heads - it wasn't an off-shoot of the World Naked Bike Ride! ).

Team tandem

[The utility cyclist]

... was Council right or wrong?

Motion 17 was put to the 2016 AGM and rejected by the Membership.
M17.png
Shouldn't your question be were the Members right or wrong?

How many CUK members are there currently? That helmets are continually shown in the magazine continually perpetuates that helmets are de-rigueur/acceptable/should be worn, it's self propagating and in itself has an influence on the vote. If only a very small % of members voted against the motion it doesn't necessarily represent the wishes of all members does it?
In fact given the high number of actual votes cast by a group of people clearly with a slanted and indeed ignorant view + protectionism of their idiotic view that this is a 'small' matter and don't want criticism of their view as they fail to understand the damage they are doing means the result is a sham.
It's why I started the thread in the first instance (under my former username) the whole ridiculousness of the person and the scenario really not requiring a helmet at all. They continually promote helmets simply by their inclusion whether that be on the front page or elsewhere. As mentioned in a previous post, that there are events advertised by CTC, sorry CUK are not specifically mentioned that helmets are not required also draws participants to think they are so wear them becuase they don't want to risk being told they can't take part.
We even had a thread a while back about a local CUK group forcing through helmet use viewtopic.php?f=45&t=111218 influenced by helmet promotion, the magazine is part and parcel of that promotion. CUK wrote to the group but they are part of the problem in their weak kneed 'we are for freedom of choice' rubbish.

[pwa]

I'd not take part in any ride that interfered with my choice (since the 1980s) to wear a lid for most of my cycling. And I would be uncomfortable taking part in a ride that interfered with other folk's choice not to wear a lid. Frankly, on the few occasions anyone has approached me to criticise my choice of what I do or do not put on my head I have told them where to go. And that includes an elderly gentleman, lidded and in lycra, astride a high end carbon racer. "Wear a helmet" he yelled at me as I pootled home lidless from a friend's house at the other end of the village. My verbal response was loud and short, leaving him in no doubt that I would prefer that he remove himself from my sight.

[mjr]

How many CUK members are there currently? That helmets are continually shown in the magazine continually perpetuates that helmets are de-rigueur/acceptable/should be worn, it's self propagating and in itself has an influence on the vote.

Indeed. It seems similar to a certain current political hot topic: have the press lie to voters for decades and then turkeys will vote for Christmas. Are the current CUK leaders who have moved across from the sport side of cycling trying to change CTC's annoying helmets-are-not-needed policy? Maybe because it hinders some sales of their commercial partners' profitable products?

[The utility cyclist]

I'd not take part in any ride that interfered with my choice (since the 1980s) to wear a lid for most of my cycling. And I would be uncomfortable taking part in a ride that interfered with other folk's choice not to wear a lid. Frankly, on the few occasions anyone has approached me to criticise my choice of what I do or do not put on my head I have told them where to go. And that includes an elderly gentleman, lidded and in lycra, astride a high end carbon racer. "Wear a helmet" he yelled at me as I pootled home lidless from a friend's house at the other end of the village. My verbal response was loud and short, leaving him in no doubt that I would prefer that he remove himself from my sight.

Me neither, yet you've been free to ride wherever you like and whatever ride you wanted and never been excluded, I and many others have, the only other alternate is forced to abide by rules that are against your will and wear a contraption on your person.

You now have a feel for how non wearers have been increasingly excluded from cycling, there are a fair few rides i would like to do but am forced away because i have no choice. You're chastised incessantly, ridiculed and have others plot to force change and force others to bide by their illogical and never necessary rules or simply be forced away or worse given up cycling completely (which in turn loses generations of people on bikes and become car dwellers)

Rules that have caused untold misery, that have changed for the worse how people on bikes are treated by police and government from a legal and law point of view, discriminated against by these 'powers', even by judges who are also swayed by emotion and 'common sense' instead of facts, how general public think about cyclist safety and the affects this has had on cases of death and injury and social pressures to conform even despite evidence contrary to beliefs.

It's caused fractures between like minded people, where the loudest shouters have got their way and as I said it's their way or the highway.
CUK are one of the few if not last big organisation to say we won't require helmets, it's free choice and yet their actions through the magazine alone and increasingly elsewhere, very much give the impression they are pro helmets.

[meic]

I think it must be about a year since anybody has mentioned the subject of my lack of helmet.
Even then it wasnt directed at me personally but an attempt to make them compulsory in my CTC group.
On my return to the group after I thwarted this attempt nobody has said a word about the subject or treated me in the least bit differently.
Nothing on the street, nothing during events CTC Cymru camping festival, New Forest CTC Camping Festival, Gower Cycling Festival. Obviously I dont enter events where helmets are compulsory.

[Mick F]

Obviously I dont enter events where helmets are compulsory.

I've only done one organised event in my whole cycling life. Cotswolds Challenge Audax in May 2014. Back then, I wore a helmet habitually.

These days, I've seen the light. Going completely and totally bald tipped me over to being helmetless and I've not looked back. I've been cycling 60years and wore a helmet for ten of those, but not every single ride. Short ones not, long ones with.

Seems daft to wear one sometimes and not others. You wouldn't do that with car seatbelts, would you.

Any road up, back to the Cotswolds Challenge.
I have no idea if helmets were compulsory or not because I wore one and didn't consider it as an issue. Now, if I were to do that ride again, would I be forced to wear a helmet?
If so, they can stick their helmets wherever they like, so long as it's not on me!

[meic]

Now, if I were to do that ride again, would I be forced to wear a helmet?

No. The subject would not even be mentioned.

[Mick F]

Good!

Common sense approach is always best.

[pwa]

I'd not take part in any ride that interfered with my choice (since the 1980s) to wear a lid for most of my cycling. And I would be uncomfortable taking part in a ride that interfered with other folk's choice not to wear a lid. Frankly, on the few occasions anyone has approached me to criticise my choice of what I do or do not put on my head I have told them where to go. And that includes an elderly gentleman, lidded and in lycra, astride a high end carbon racer. "Wear a helmet" he yelled at me as I pootled home lidless from a friend's house at the other end of the village. My verbal response was loud and short, leaving him in no doubt that I would prefer that he remove himself from my sight.

Me neither, yet you've been free to ride wherever you like and whatever ride you wanted and never been excluded, I and many others have, the only other alternate is forced to abide by rules that are against your will and wear a contraption on your person.

You now have a feel for how non wearers have been increasingly excluded from cycling, there are a fair few rides i would like to do but am forced away because i have no choice. You're chastised incessantly, ridiculed and have others plot to force change and force others to bide by their illogical and never necessary rules or simply be forced away or worse given up cycling completely (which in turn loses generations of people on bikes and become car dwellers)

Rules that have caused untold misery, that have changed for the worse how people on bikes are treated by police and government from a legal and law point of view, discriminated against by these 'powers', even by judges who are also swayed by emotion and 'common sense' instead of facts, how general public think about cyclist safety and the affects this has had on cases of death and injury and social pressures to conform even despite evidence contrary to beliefs.

It's caused fractures between like minded people, where the loudest shouters have got their way and as I said it's their way or the highway.
CUK are one of the few if not last big organisation to say we won't require helmets, it's free choice and yet their actions through the magazine alone and increasingly elsewhere, very much give the impression they are pro helmets.

I mostly agree with all that, though I have appreciated the injustice of excluding people who do not wear helmets for a long time now. But I think if you had a "No helmets allowed" rule on a ride you would just be joining in with the unnecessary discrimination. I can understand how years of being picked on might make you want to hit back, but it would be a mistake. "Wear what you like" is the way forward.

[pwa]

Now, if I were to do that ride again, would I be forced to wear a helmet?

No. The subject would not even be mentioned.

https://issuu.com/audax-uk/docs/17febarrivee-issu


Looking at an issue of the audax mag from last year things have not changed much since I was participating. Lots of helmets in evidence, but a fair sprinkling of non-wearers. I don't remember ever having a conversation about helmets on an audax.

[meic]

I just did a count in the Autumn 2008 Arrivee and it was 32:54 ratio of lidless:helmeted.

What was noticeable is that many of those individuals riding then without helmets now ride with helmets instead. I find that on our local Audaxes I am sometimes the only person without a helmet and that Arrivee showed that certainly wasnt the case just ten years ago.

Strangely I did have a chat about helmets on my last Audax because the one other helmet refusnic from my old crowd turned up wearing one. A change bought about after cutting his scalp getting T-boned on his daily commute.

[mjr]

I mostly agree with all that, though I have appreciated the injustice of excluding people who do not wear helmets for a long time now. But I think if you had a "No helmets allowed" rule on a ride you would just be joining in with the unnecessary discrimination. I can understand how years of being picked on might make you want to hit back, but it would be a mistake. "Wear what you like" is the way forward.

Is it, though? If there's one group loudly calling for "no helmet no ride" - probably using emotional blackmail - and a less vociferous less well-backed-by-media group calling for "wear what you like" based on evidence, then the faux-balanced view becomes "helmets recommended" which - if you sincerely believe that helmets have no effect because their impact protection is negated by increasing crash rates - doesn't help our fellow cyclists, especially those the helmet users crash into. So, to move the pendulum back to neutral, shouldn't we call for racing helmets to be banned from non-races?

[pwa]

I mostly agree with all that, though I have appreciated the injustice of excluding people who do not wear helmets for a long time now. But I think if you had a "No helmets allowed" rule on a ride you would just be joining in with the unnecessary discrimination. I can understand how years of being picked on might make you want to hit back, but it would be a mistake. "Wear what you like" is the way forward.

Is it, though? If there's one group loudly calling for "no helmet no ride" - probably using emotional blackmail - and a less vociferous less well-backed-by-media group calling for "wear what you like" based on evidence, then the faux-balanced view becomes "helmets recommended" which - if you sincerely believe that helmets have no effect because their impact protection is negated by increasing crash rates - doesn't help our fellow cyclists, especially those the helmet users crash into. So, to move the pendulum back to neutral, shouldn't we call for racing helmets to be banned from non-races?

And that in itself acts as a ban on people like myself who wear a lid but don't care whether others do or not. Where does that get us? Apartheid based on headwear. And the lidless become a fringe group, even more so than now.