Part of the look?!

[Chiz]

This has been an amazing thread. It has tackled helmets full-on. Whether or not helmets are useful, at least this thread recognises that there is a huge amount of social and personal psychology involved with them, whatever one's final decision.

I only posted because I needed my faith in the wider cycling community restored. I wouldn't normally take such things personally but I seemed to have little option when I was the only one speaking out.

I do see helmets in a similar way to neckties. It is a part of conformity to wear one even though they have no real use.
Scarily that fad has been going on for over 300 years.

I do my best to avoid wearing one of those too.

Time to google transactional analysis.

Also "motivated reasoning" and "cognitive dissonance". People will fight hard to not have the things they believe to be true invalidated and evidence just tends to harden their opposition and make their rationalisations more and more irrational.

It seems that was exactly what I was up against, I had to reign in my usual blend of light sarcasm and fun-pokery to try to prevent the row escalating, although ANYTHING I said seemed to fan the flames. Up until then every interaction I'd had with the club had been fairly pleasant, I'd seen the odd flare up but nothing on this scale.

[mjr]

Possibly put a motion to the CTC AGM naming the club and asking that the CTC approaches them seeking discussions and changes in their rules.

1. is the club in the opening post a CTC group or affiliate?
2. even if so, would CTC do anything? I've seen several CTC affiliates with "no helmet no ride" policies (or worse, but some have been covered in other discussions on this forum).

[Chiz]

Possibly put a motion to the CTC AGM naming the club and asking that the CTC approaches them seeking discussions and changes in their rules.

1. is the club in the opening post a CTC group or affiliate?
2. even if so, would CTC do anything? I've seen several CTC affiliates with "no helmet no ride" policies (or worse, but some have been covered in other discussions on this forum).

1. There's no mention of any CTC affiliation, where as the BC logo appears everywhere.
2. I think even with CTC input, they are unlikely to change their stance, although the 'helmet thing' has never been challenged before.

[Bicycler]

I don't suppose you can take a strict line with your affiliates otherwise they'll just decide to affiliate to BC. Given the number of formal CTC groups which recommend helmets despite the CTC's position on helmet promotion, I can hardly imagine the CTC having meaningful influence over its affiliates.

EDIT: Thanks Chiz, sounds like it isn't a CTC affiliate anyway. I concur with others about finding (or even forming) another group. I speak from experience when I say that this will just get under your skin and reduce your enjoyment of rides.

[Chiz]

I speak from experience when I say that this will just get under your skin and reduce your enjoyment of rides.

It's already under my skin, the initial 'disagreement' and how quickly it escalated has really irritated me. Combined with the less hostile (but equally unhelpful) comments from other club members, the result is I feel I'll have to make a conscious effort not to bring it up again on a club ride.

[Steady rider]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... -clubs.pdf

As the relevant provisions of the Act came into force on 1 October
2010, clubs will need to ensure that they are complying with their obligations.

The Act defines an association as an organisation
that:
• has 25 or more members, and
• has rules (not necessarily formal or written)
regulating who can be a member and there is a
genuine selection process for members

I expect the selection is being a cyclist.

The Act protects people from discrimination
on the basis of ‘protected characteristics’. The
relevant characteristics for private clubs and other
associations are:
• disability
• gender reassignment
• pregnancy and maternity
• race – this includes ethnic or national origins,
colour and nationality
• religion or belief – this includes lack of belief
• sex, and
• sexual orientation.

• religion or belief – this includes lack of belief, so the club holds the belief that members should wear helmets and insists that they do. They are not allowing for those with a lack of belief.

It may be the case that anyone who may wish to join a cycling club and finds a helmet requirement could contest the requirement. The CTC are there to help cyclists, they could perhaps take up a test case.

It is a case of the people insisting believing they are doing the right thing but they are wrong. There is no legal requirement and the evidence for helmet use is mixed, so insisting is wrong.

[beardy]

so insisting is wrong

It is just a dress code, it is still perfectly legal to insist on a dress code.
Look at the entrance conditions for L'Eroica, totally oddball and prejudiced but that is what defines the ethos of the event.
Like a restaurant can insist on a tie for entry, even if you are a serious Leftwinger who sees ties as an instrument of oppression of the working class.

[TonyR]

• religion or belief – this includes lack of belief, so the club holds the belief that members should wear helmets and insists that they do. They are not allowing for those with a lack of belief.

Wrong interpretation of belief I'm afraid. Its the religious sort of belief they are talking about, not the belief that you should wear a helmet or clothes or that the earth goes round the sun.

[mjr]

It is just a dress code, it is still perfectly legal to insist on a dress code.
Look at the entrance conditions for L'Eroica, totally oddball and prejudiced but that is what defines the ethos of the event.

And when have those entrance conditions ever been tested in court?!?

L'Eroica's ethos is the mock-Tudor of cycling events, isn't it? Last I saw, some period-correct heroic bikes are banned simply because they don't meet the organisers' misconceptions of bikes of that time... but that's just one event (or three or whatever it is now), whereas British Cycling damages hundreds of events and the image of cycling in this country.

I suspect the legality under the Equality Act will only be challenged formally if someone with a disability that prevents helmet-wearing is formally excluded and is stubborn enough not to give up and simply cycle elsewhere (such as on the same public roads as the helmet-forcing event, even!).

[[XAP]Bob]

Find a Sikh to join you with a turban...

[Steady rider]

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/hu ... yguide.pdf

Article 9: Freedom of belief
3.79 Article 9 protects your rights in relation to a broad range of views, beliefs, thoughts and positions of conscience as well as to your faith in a particular religion.
Holding particular beliefs
3.80 You have the absolute right to hold the thoughts, positions of conscience or religion you choose. The state can never interfere with your holding of these views, whatever the circumstances of your case.
Manifesting particular beliefs
3.81 You also have the right under Article 9 to manifest your thoughts, positions of conscience or religion. This can include the right to practise or demonstrate your religion or beliefs in public and in private.

I suppose a case may be put that it is a person's 'positions of conscience' that they have the right to decide if to wear a helmet. Removing the right may seem to them removing their basic rights, affecting how they look and feel and their convenience in being able to cycle normally or in their usual fashion.

[TonyR]

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/human-rights/act-studyguide.pdf

Article 9: Freedom of belief
3.79 Article 9 protects your rights in relation to a broad range of views, beliefs, thoughts and positions of conscience as well as to your faith in a particular religion.
Holding particular beliefs
3.80 You have the absolute right to hold the thoughts, positions of conscience or religion you choose. The state can never interfere with your holding of these views, whatever the circumstances of your case.
Manifesting particular beliefs
3.81 You also have the right under Article 9 to manifest your thoughts, positions of conscience or religion. This can include the right to practise or demonstrate your religion or beliefs in public and in private.

I suppose a case may be put that it is a person's 'positions of conscience' that they have the right to decide if to wear a helmet. Removing the right may seem to them removing their basic rights, affecting how they look and feel and their convenience in being able to cycle normally or in their usual fashion.

You should read http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/site ... chaska.pdf on the definition of a belief in Article 9. I don't think cycle helmets either for or against come anywhere near a "belief"

[reohn2]

I do see helmets in a similar way to neckties. It is a part of conformity to wear one even though they have no real use.
Scarily that fad has been going on for over 300 years.

Especially if you attended certain schools

[Bicycler]

For some they are in danger of becoming a religion!

[Mike Sales]

A friend on the club run once said to me, "You'd look really good if you wore a helmet, Mike."
I was annoyed. "No, I'd look an idiot like you."
I see that the look is now often compulsory.
I would not wear a helmet if they become legally required. I certainly would not wear one for a club rule.