Cycling UK - helmet required for rides

[thelawnet]

Moderator note: this thread was split from another viewtopic.php?f=1&t=130911

What's wrong with Cycle UK?

well in my case I cancelled my membership because they said I had to wear a helmet on the ride I was on.

but I suspect it was a rhetorical question.

[Grandad]

I cancelled my membership because they said I had to wear a helmet on the ride I was on

At what level was that rule applied? As the official stance is not to make helmets compulsory can local DAs, or whatever they are called now, impose a ban?

[thelawnet]

I cancelled my membership because they said I had to wear a helmet on the ride I was on

At what level was that rule applied? As the official stance is not to make helmets compulsory can local DAs, or whatever they are called now, impose a ban?

As I understand it several of the 'fast' group leaders were so inclined and indeed shared such sentiments on the group mailing list that people who don't wear helmets were selfish (or something to that effect), also one told me explicitly not to come back next week without a helmet.

So I didn't.

[gaz]

.

[mattheus]

***EDIT***
This post doesn't make sense now that the topic has been split-out!

(and well done the Mods for doing so )
***EDIT***

I cancelled my membership because they said I had to wear a helmet on the ride I was on

At what level was that rule applied? As the official stance is not to make helmets compulsory can local DAs, or whatever they are called now, impose a ban?

As I understand it several of the 'fast' group leaders were so inclined and indeed shared such sentiments on the group mailing list that people who don't wear helmets were selfish (or something to that effect), also one told me explicitly not to come back next week without a helmet.

So I didn't.

Were these the same people that either:
- provide the 3rd party cover, or
- provide this forum?

[thelawnet]

Were these the same people that either:
- provide the 3rd party cover, or
- provide this forum?

Er, the same organisation, yes?

I have been a member of this forum for a few years. This year I went along to some rides, and they said 'if you want to come regularly you should join'. So I did and set up a direct debit to pay for the same.

Not long after that I came across the helmet issue so cancelled said direct debit as it was directly the rides that I was joining for, not the forum, insurance, or anything else.

[thelawnet]

A Ride Leader "notes" that Cycling UK policy is to advocate freedom of choice before exercising their prerogative that any rider without a helmet is so ill-equipped that they present a hazard to themselves and will not be allowed on their ride.

However implausable that interpretation may be, it remains a possible interpretation and is in line with thelawnet's experiences. I presume that Ride Leaders who use it have the support of their local committee, either because they share their view or they fear that challenging them will lead to the loss of ride leaders to the detriment of the group.

Indeed, I don't have an issue with them doing this, hence cancelling and not going back. To be clear I got the impression that the 'fast' group was slightly younger (though this is relative ) and perhaps a different mindset, I don't think there was necessarily an issue with other groups who are perhaps not in such a hurry.

[mattheus]

Were these the same people that either:
- provide the 3rd party cover, or
- provide this forum?

Er, the same organisation, yes?

I have been a member of this forum for a few years. This year I went along to some rides, and they said 'if you want to come regularly you should join'. So I did and set up a direct debit to pay for the same.

Not long after that I came across the helmet issue so cancelled said direct debit as it was directly the rides that I was joining for, not the forum, insurance, or anything else.

er, so "no" then.

And if you weren't joining for the insurance, why join an insurance discussion?

[PH]

A Ride Leader "notes" that Cycling UK policy is to advocate freedom of choice before exercising their prerogative that any rider without a helmet is so ill-equipped that they present a hazard to themselves and will not be allowed on their ride.

However implausable that interpretation may be, it remains a possible interpretation and is in line with thelawnet's experiences. I presume that Ride Leaders who use it have the support of their local committee, either because they share their view or they fear that challenging them will lead to the loss of ride leaders to the detriment of the group.

I think that's a perverse interpretation,
"note point above on helmets"
and that is
"It is not up to Ride leaders to promote or otherwise the pros and cons of these."
How can there be any ambiguity in "It is not up to Ride leaders"?

[Cunobelin]

Remember an organised event at Goodwood

You have to cross the race track, and cannot push bike across without one either

So walked across, borrowed helmet, walked back across and then balanced too small helmet oh head while I pushed the bike across

Helmet required for only one if the three times I walked across the track, and the time I did it was too small, not done up, but still wssential

[Cunobelin]

The other classic is UK Cycling events

For many years they used to exclude EN 1078 (I.e “. Any helmets sold in the Uk) demanding Snell or ANZI 90/4

After many years of querying this they have now included EN1078

5. You must wear a safety-approved cycling helmet complying with latest EN1078, ANSI Z90/4 or SNELL standards during your participation in the event. Any rider not wearing a helmet will not be covered by the event insurance and will be disqualified from the event and could be liable for damages if involved in an accident on that basis. You must accept this as a condition of entry.

However the small issue is that ANSI has not existed for some 15 years... so they are now allowing ancient helmets passing a non-existent standard


This is an illustration of how I’ll-informed, and ignorant the people making the decisio to enforce helmet use actually are

[gaz]

.

[PH]

I think that's a perverse interpretation,

I agree.

"note point above on helmets"
and that is
"It is not up to Ride leaders to promote or otherwise the pros and cons of these."
How can there be any ambiguity in "It is not up to Ride leaders"?

I don't take that to be the point above on helmets, rather the first point about Cycling UK advocating personal choice.

Non-promotion of the pros/cons of helmet wearing is easily accomodated when a Ride Leader has decided to mandate helmet use, "Wear a helmet, or you're not coming on my ride. I'm not going to discuss whether or not they work. No helmet, no ride".

I can't see how that wouldn't be against CUK policy that all members are entitled to participate in all MG rides. The only real life example I've seen is from this forum, didn't National Office step in and tell them they couldn't do that?

[thelawnet]

Were these the same people that either:
- provide the 3rd party cover, or
- provide this forum?

Er, the same organisation, yes?

I have been a member of this forum for a few years. This year I went along to some rides, and they said 'if you want to come regularly you should join'. So I did and set up a direct debit to pay for the same.

Not long after that I came across the helmet issue so cancelled said direct debit as it was directly the rides that I was joining for, not the forum, insurance, or anything else.

er, so "no" then.

And if you weren't joining for the insurance, why join an insurance discussion?

it was a response to the rather curt implication that forum users were freeloading.

which had nothing to do with insurance .

If you're not a member then you're using our forum for free.

[gaz]

.