NO HELMET = NO RIDE

[wahoofish]

I used to organise sponsored cycle rides for the Scouts and cubs.

Then they insisted on helmets and we were having to exclude people who wanted to take part.
Equally we were forced to exclude children from cyclist badges on teh same grounds.

I stopped and the Scouts lost half their annual income, resulting in financial problems

There is a cost to these rules

We had the same situation with a scout group. The parents who could afford to put some money into a kitty, I topped it up through my company and we negotiated a good deal on helmets. Every kid got one and nobody was left out. We can all find reasons not to do things, but rather decide on the outcome and make it happen.

[meic]

Or the helmet rule could have not been imposed in the first place, a far simpler solution.
These helmets, were they stored in the hut and only bought out when needed for events and tests?
So the children continued in their normal day to day riding without them.

So a barrier was not insurmountable but it was still another obstacle to be overcome in a situation that already has too many obstacles to begin with.

[Vorpal]

I've known of situations where students who wanted to take Bikeability could not because of such rules imposed by a county council.

I rode my bike to and from sessions, so I could take a couple of spare helmets, and my partner could do likewise, but there was one school where we taught that almost none of the kids had their own helmets. It was also a school where we had to run a free 'Dr. Bike' session a couple of weeks before Bikeability, or we'd have hardly any participants at all

[Flinders]

Might there be an issue here about insurance?
I have PL insurance, as I am sure many groups/organisations will, and it imposes some conditions on me, pretty much all perfectly reasonable. One, however, is in my opinion, no safer than my preferred alternative, but they are my insurer, those conditions are imposed directly by their underwriters in my case, and they are the only insurers I could find to insure me after a three month search, so I comply*. Maybe some of those ride organisers etc. have the same problem. It's not necessarily what they want to do, just what they have to do.

* have never had a claim, it's just a complicated and unusual thing that I do, and most insurers can't be bothered to sort a quote out with their underwriters.

[Cunobelin]

I used to organise sponsored cycle rides for the Scouts and cubs.

Then they insisted on helmets and we were having to exclude people who wanted to take part.
Equally we were forced to exclude children from cyclist badges on teh same grounds.

I stopped and the Scouts lost half their annual income, resulting in financial problems

There is a cost to these rules

We had the same situation with a scout group. The parents who could afford to put some money into a kitty, I topped it up through my company and we negotiated a good deal on helmets. Every kid got one and nobody was left out. We can all find reasons not to do things, but rather decide on the outcome and make it happen.

I was not wiling to exclude parents or children making an informed decision as to whether or not they wore a helmet.......... nor was I willing to impose helmets on those who did not wish to wear them.

Nothing at all about finding reasons, or making things happen

[Cunobelin]

I've known of situations where students who wanted to take Bikeability could not because of such rules imposed by a county council.

I rode my bike to and from sessions, so I could take a couple of spare helmets, and my partner could do likewise, but there was one school where we taught that almost none of the kids had their own helmets. It was also a school where we had to run a free 'Dr. Bike' session a couple of weeks before Bikeability, or we'd have hardly any participants at all

Ironic where once again the proven reduction in injuries from training is ignored in favour of the dubious and unproven helmet

[wahoofish]

Or the helmet rule could have not been imposed in the first place, a far simpler solution.
These helmets, were they stored in the hut and only bought out when needed for events and tests?
So the children continued in their normal day to day riding without them.

So a barrier was not insurmountable but it was still another obstacle to be overcome in a situation that already has too many obstacles to begin with.

Children were given a helmet each, not loaned or hauled out as and when.

[mjr]

Might there be an issue here about insurance?

There might be, but no one has ever shown us a PL insurance policy which requires any particular equipment. It would be very surprising because there's basically no evidence they help, but I expect some zealots work for insurers and one might sneak it in. Apart from that, I'd expect ABC checks and basic group riding training to be required before particular equipment or clothing.

[Flinders]

Might there be an issue here about insurance?

There might be, but no one has ever shown us a PL insurance policy which requires any particular equipment. It would be very surprising because there's basically no evidence they help, but I expect some zealots work for insurers and one might sneak it in. Apart from that, I'd expect ABC checks and basic group riding training to be required before particular equipment or clothing.

My policy doesn't state the conditions, they were told to me separately, and so I couldn't actually show them to anyone unless I showed them my records of conversations and my email folder, but they are operative nontheless.
Requirements don't have to be perfect in all circumstances, or something with which everyone agrees. They are just requirements, you conform, or are left uninsured.

The one I am not keen on in my policy would look very logical to most people, but I know enough about it to consider that it has its own weaknesses, just as my preferred method has. In my case, which method would be best in any individual case would only be known after an issue arose, by which time it would be too late to change what you had done, and either would be a responsible choice before the event. I suspect that's all pretty much the same as helmets. Most people would regard wearing one as safer than not, and in the event of an accident, it's only afterwards when you'd know whether it was the best option or not, by which time it is too late to change what had been done. Exactly like wearing a seatbelt or not.

When it comes to the importance of several different issues, I would insist on things my insurer would not require. Their requirements don't constrain me from having more of them if I choose. But I have to conform to theirs as a minimum. Others would do only what their insurer required.

[mjr]

Firstly, I think I did write that no helmet-requiring INSURANCE had been shown just to cover the case where it's in a letter or email rather than the main p policy.

Secondly, requirements are usually guided by cold hard actuarial data, rather than " Most people would regard", for better or worse. I'd love to debunk some of the safety theatre props but I don't think it'll make much difference to insurance requirements because the data already doesn't support them.

[Flinders]

Firstly, I think I did write that no helmet-requiring INSURANCE had been shown just to cover the case where it's in a letter or email rather than the main p policy.

Secondly, requirements are usually guided by cold hard actuarial data, rather than " Most people would regard", for better or worse. I'd love to debunk some of the safety theatre props but I don't think it'll make much difference to insurance requirements because the data already doesn't support them.

]That's confusing. If the data doesn't support their conclusions, then are they using actuarial evidence or not? As it happens, in my case there is no data, as nobody has ever claimed either way.]

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear in my post.
I meant that unless I supplied scans of my handwritten notes from the phone to my students, plus a pile of personal emails including other matters, I would not be able to point to the requirements of the policy. If this had been the case for a ride requiring helmets, it really would be unreasonable to have to produce all that.

If the rules are clear beforehand, and you don't like them, either don't take part, or set up your own event. If enough people don't like the rules, supply and demand will take care of it, unless insurers are requiring it, in which case you either do as I do and conform to them, or you can't do/run the activity.

Insurers are private companies, they don't have to insure you, and they can impose whatever conditions they like, regardless of evidence, or no evidence. OTOH, sometimes they will pull out of a specific market simply because it is so small there is no data to assess the risk - that's even worse for the people doing that activity. Sometimes an insurer would even like to insure, but their underwriters don't choose to.

[mjr]

If enough people don't like the rules, supply and demand will take care of it, unless insurers are requiring it, in which case you either do as I do and conform to them, or you can't do/run the activity.

There are many events not requiring particular equipment (whether h*lm*ts or specific bike types) which have insurance, ergo not all insurers are requiring it, ergo the only reason to use such an insurer is if you're a zealot who sees nothing wrong with forcing others to fit your image of cycling.

[100%JR]

. and so the non-using majority of cyclists can't ride with them. This is a huge opportunity for relaxed riding / easy-riding / freewheeling groups IMO.

Non-using majority?
I'm not sure I agree with this.
In MTBing particularly I rarely see a rider without a lid.Ditto CX.
On the Road(at least where I've ridden) the only riders I see without a lid are either people on BSOs pottling to work in their Hi-Viz and Steel-toe cap boots or the local Yoof on their BMX.
I would say amongst what I would call "Cyclists" the vast majority wear helmets.
Even on the Trans-Pennine Trail the "Sunday plodders" on their Apollo BSOs mostly wear a (often poorly fitted)helmet.

Obviously where I live,and ride,I'm in prime Tourer Country and whilst I'll concede you will see the odd Bearded chap,with Corderoy Trousers,either tucked into socks or held with clips and old style toe-straps on a 1970s Tourer wearing either nothing or an Aussie type Bush-Hat 90% of riders actually wear a lid

[PH]

I would say amongst what I would call "Cyclists" the vast majority wear helmets.

Cyclists are people cycling, doesn't seem a complicated definition to me. Stop being so tribal

[mjr]

I would say amongst what I would call "Cyclists" the vast majority wear helmets.

Cyclists are people cycling, doesn't seem a complicated definition to me. Stop being so tribal

This, plus there are local variations, but the overwhelming majority of UK cyclists don't use helmets. Doesn't matter whether anyone agrees or not: it's a published fact.

Your prime tourer country is counterbalanced by my prime utility cycling fenland where some days I see dozens of cyclists and only children wearing helmets and not even all of them.