CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... sociations
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... cteristics
Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition.
A belief that you should have a right to choose in helmet use can be seen in how it has affected people when this right is removed, people being discouraged from cycling and for time trials some riders put off. People often wear helmets but still support others having a choice, a belief in allowing choice. Time trials and other rides that require helmet wearing put some off taking part, affecting their lives, both in health and social aspects.

If accepted as a 'protected-characteristic' a case involving the Equality Act may be feasible.

If anyone wants help with sending in an objection to the CTT or for any other rides requiring helmets they are welcome to send me a private message and I will assist if possible.
Jdsk
Posts: 24635
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

Steady rider wrote: 17 Jan 2023, 6:11pm https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... sociations
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... cteristics
Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition.
A belief that you should have a right to choose in helmet use can be seen in how it has affected people when this right is removed, people being discouraged from cycling and for time trials some riders put off. People often wear helmets but still support others having a choice, a belief in allowing choice. Time trials and other rides that require helmet wearing put some off taking part, affecting their lives, both in health and social aspects.
...
I don't think that you're going to make progress on this until you address all of the properties of a protected belief as currently identified in the relevant case law. They're cited upthread.

Cherrypicking phrases such as the one above won't make any headway. That property is necessary but nowhere near sufficient.

Jonathan
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... cteristics

The video link talks about the protected characteristics, 2.-51 minutes and for beliefs it says,
Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition.
It is the main aspect they mention for beliefs, not me cherry picking, its their basic approach.

If you have specific links to the other
currently identified in the relevant case law
I could look into these to see if they are of any significance. Any links to cycling and human rights could be of interest.
Jdsk
Posts: 24635
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

Steady rider wrote: 17 Jan 2023, 6:37pm https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... cteristics

The video link talks about the protected characteristics, 2.-51 minutes and for beliefs it says,
Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition.
It is the main aspect they mention for beliefs, not me cherry picking, its their basic approach.

If you have specific links to the other
currently identified in the relevant case law
I could look into these to see if they are of any significance. Any links to cycling and human rights could be of interest.
Jdsk wrote: 14 Jan 2023, 12:48pmEquality and Human Rights Commission: "Religion or belief: a guide to the law":
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sit ... he-law.pdf

"Philosophical belief under the Equality Act":
https://www.macdonaldoates.co.uk/legal- ... ality-act/

I suggest stating the belief that you think might be relevant and then checking how it stands up against those criteria and the decisions on those cases.
"Religion or belief: is the law working?":
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sit ... r-2016.pdf

"Review of equality and human rights law relating to religion or belief":
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sit ... belief.pdf

Jonathan
mattsccm
Posts: 5101
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by mattsccm »

Maybe we can also look at it in the same way that some of us view those of a more persuasive religion. My ex mother in law felt that it was her religious duty to bring the word to others. She felt that this was more important than another persons desire not to be preached to. Sort of "I know better and my god says that I must do so" . That faith was so strong that she failed to consider other peoples view points in this respect. Bit like many a missionary in (say) the 19th century in Africa.
Logic and reasoning meant nothing to her. Her view of what her faith said was everything. There are people out there who feel the same way about helmets and bikes and refuse to consider another persons view point as being valid.
I still reckon an insurance compay has a lot to say though. I wonder how CTT feel about Sikhs and turbans? Or the UCI. Could you make a very aero turban (no offence meant if I have used the wrong word and most definitely not being disrestful, apart possibly to CTT/UCI)
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by mattheus »

mattsccm wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 6:28pm
I still reckon an insurance compay has a lot to say though.
What do you mean?

The story behind the CTT change has already been posted on this thread:
TrevA wrote: 25 Oct 2022, 9:15pm
mattsccm wrote: 23 Oct 2022, 6:19pm We know it isn't justified but I bet you a quid that it is either the insurance people insisting to cover their backsides or some weak committee member not prepareded to stand up to current public opinion. Of course they could be, like every polititian ever born, more interested in their own feelings than those they represent.
It’s neither of those. The rules of the CTT aren’t decided by the national committee, but by proposals put forward by member clubs, which get forwarded via Districts and put on the National AGM agenda for discussion and voting. The decision to introduce compulsory helmets came from the membership, not from “the committee” or the insurers.

Democracy (albeit twisted CTT democracy) at work.
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5469
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by pjclinch »

mattsccm wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 6:28pm <snip>I wonder how CTT feel about Sikhs and turbans? Or the UCI. Could you make a very aero turban (no offence meant if I have used the wrong word and most definitely not being disrestful, apart possibly to CTT/UCI)
I don't know about CTT, but for British Cycling Go-Ride coaching there are specific exemptions for the helmets rule for medical and religious grounds, Sikhs specifically used as examples.
if a turban-requiring Sikh turns up at one of my sessions I am to do a Risk Assessment to decide whether he's doomed or not, and if I decide not he'll be good to ride. Quite why I can't perform such an RA for anyone else isn't explained, and wasn't explained after I went to some length to point out this particular bit of daftness in my written assessment for the L2 Coaching award either... My assessment was done by Scottish Cycling who (a) pointed out I'd scored particularly well on the written section and (b) if I wanted to take up issue with someone it would be Manchester and not Glasgow.
So off to BC I went, and they immediately tried to pass the buck back to SC but I pointed out they'd already been caught out by their Northern colleagues on that, and we then proceeded with an elaborate "I'm not going to answer your questions" game until after some time and a 'phone call with someone in BC Coaching where he pretty much admitted that BC helmet policy was down to insurance requirements. I think I only got that because I'd just qualified as an L2 Coach, and in general any approach to BC about their helmet policy that can't be answered by pointing you to the web page seems to be met with tumbleweed. They really don't want to talk about it, at least with argumentative so-and-sos like me.

On to the "is it a human right?" issue, I can't really see it going anywhere to be honest. If anyone in CTT feels their rights are being abused they can form another association and if you want to challenge it on lack of good safety evidence grounds then all they really have to do is point at Highway Code Rule 59. That that's mince isn't the point, it gives them a base that anyone in a court will probably side with rather than spending a few years reading studies they don't care about and don't have the skills to understand.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by mattheus »

pjclinch wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 1:31pm On to the "is it a human right?" issue, I can't really see it going anywhere to be honest. If anyone in CTT feels their rights are being abused they can form another association and if you want to challenge it on lack of good safety evidence grounds then all they really have to do is point at Highway Code Rule 59. That that's mince isn't the point, it gives them a base that anyone in a court will probably side with rather than spending a few years reading studies they don't care about and don't have the skills to understand.

Pete.
Fun Fact: I have heard dozens of CTT members' pro-compulsion testimony - either in person, or on the time-trialing forum. Not ONE has cited the Highway Code!
(At the most recent meeting I was at, one chap stands out as saying he "just wouldn't feel comfortable" sending riders off on one of his events lid-less. So it's just pure personal bias; do what I do, anything else is dangerous and wrong )

Anyways, carry on ...
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Stevek76 »

pjclinch wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 1:31pm I don't know about CTT, but for British Cycling Go-Ride coaching there are specific exemptions for the helmets rule for medical and religious grounds, Sikhs specifically used as examples.
if a turban-requiring Sikh turns up at one of my sessions I am to do a Risk Assessment to decide whether he's doomed or not, and if I decide not he'll be good to ride. Quite why I can't perform such an RA for anyone else isn't explained, and wasn't explained after I went to some length to point out this particular bit of daftness in my written assessment for the L2 Coaching award either.
Indeed, this exemption part really strikes me as a bit crackers as someone who falls into the 'strict agnostic' category. I've always been uneasy at various completely unverifiable sky fairy beliefs somehow exempting one from a thing required of everyone else.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
tim-b
Posts: 2091
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by tim-b »

snip...if a turban-requiring Sikh turns up at one of my sessions I am to do a Risk Assessment to decide whether he's doomed or not, and if I decide not he'll be good to ride...snip

I think that the BCGR exemption for Sikhs follows the HSE line, essentially because hard hats should be the last line of protection with other pre-eminent safe systems already in place. There are exemptions where a hard hat is considered essential, e.g. a soldier on the frontline, but that doesn't apply to TT

What BC, CTT, etc should be doing is considering the major risks and controlling/eliminating those first and I'd question why CTT believe that the dual carriageways typically associated with TT are a suitably controlled risk

It might be that an individual wearing an aero helmet is faster than one without, but that's personal choice
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by drossall »

tim-b wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 6:57amIt might be that an individual wearing an aero helmet is faster than one without, but that's personal choice
It's only choice if you have aero helmets available in your size :wink: But I agree, helmets and PPE are properly considered only at the end of a list of possible measures.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en
I think there is a reasonable case for objecting to the CTT requirement to wear helmets or for any organised rides requiring their use. It may be better coming from several cyclists.

It would be a hard case and I am unsure about the legal processes and potential costs. Professional advice via Cycling UK would be helpful.

The Highway Codes advice was introduced in 1993 and based on questionable evidence that now appears much weaker than it appeared in 1993.
Jdsk
Posts: 24635
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

Steady rider wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 9:53am https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en
I think there is a reasonable case for objecting to the CTT requirement to wear helmets or for any organised rides requiring their use. It may be better coming from several cyclists.

It would be a hard case and I am unsure about the legal processes and potential costs. Professional advice via Cycling UK would be helpful.

The Highway Codes advice was introduced in 1993 and based on questionable evidence that now appears much weaker than it appeared in 1993.
Are you talking about "objecting" on the basis of discrimination against someone who holds a protected belief? Or on some other grounds?

One of the criteria for a protected belief is:

"It must be a belief, and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available."

So that dependence on new evidence would disqualify whatever it is you are asserting to be a protected belief.

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24635
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

pjclinch wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 1:31pm ...
On to the "is it a human right?" issue, I can't really see it going anywhere to be honest.
...
I haven't seen anything yet that looks like discrimination against someone on the grounds of them holding a protected belief.

Jonathan
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

The Equality Act provides guidance to protected characteristics with regards ‘beliefs’, stating,
Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... istics#rob

After many years of cycling without wearing a helmet people can have a strong conviction and belief in the way they cycle. It can be their main means of exercise/enjoyment/social interacting. Having to wear a helmet can be against their convictions and belief and affect their enjoyment, convenience, and desire to cycle. A belief that you should have a right to choose in helmet use can be seen in how it has affected people when this right is removed, people being discouraged from cycling, as an example New Zealand introduced a helmet law in 1994 and cycling levels reduced. For the period 1989–1990 to 2006–2009, survey data showed that average hours cycled per person reduced by 51%’ compared to before their helmet law.
"It must be a belief, and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available."
The requirement to wear helmets does affect life choices in that all rides requiring their use can affect people with a conviction that they should be able to follow their belief in cycling without one.
If just an opinion of viewpoint that alone may not result in discouraging cycling.
Post Reply