CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

[mattheus]

If you speak to the helmet nazis, you will realise they're not interested in "reasonable cases"

snip...nor the diplomacy to push them through, so this might be a very long road ...

Can I make a suggestion...?

You are very welcome to make any suggestions - and I will be happy to support you - direct to the helmet nazis.

[Steady rider]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... quirements

The research details, in 2021 requirements to wear cycle helmets in time trials were introduced in the UK by Cycling Time Trials. This assessment considers if the requirement is justified. It finds the requirement is not justified based on safety aspects and in not meeting the conditions detailed in Cycling Time Trials ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION.

[mattsccm]

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.

[Jdsk]

There's at least one other possible explanation, and I'd take that into account in trying to persuade any organisation to change its decision.

In addition to adopting a diplomatic approach.

Jonathan

[TrevA]

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.

[mattheus]

There's at least one other possible explanation, and I'd take that into account in trying to persuade any organisation to change its decision.

In addition to adopting a diplomatic approach.

Jonathan

What would we do without you JD?!! Thankyou for this helpful - yet concise - contribution. :insert-supplicant-praying-emoji:

[mattheus]

We know it isn't justified but I bet you a quid that it is either the insurance people insisting to cover their backsides ...

A quid you say?

I'll give you 2:1 on this bet - still wanna play? How about we make it a crisp 50?

(you could win enough to buy British Cycling membership!)

[dmrcycle]

[/quote]
What wider selection of views IS there than the CUK forum?!?
[/quote]

That actually made me laugh out loud! This is very much an echo chamber here.

[rogerzilla]

I know at least one person who has given up time trials due to the new rule.

I have given up riding with the local road club for the same reason - they "require" them on social rides.

Helmet compulsion is very much here already if you want to ride with most clubs.

[mattheus]

I have given up riding with the local road club for the same reason - they "require" them on social rides.

Helmet compulsion is very much here already if you want to ride with most clubs.

Yup. (and it's very poor thinking to say "their club, their rules" - what if it's the biggest club in your small town? Or the only one that has tandem rides, or isn't racist, or ... etc ...)

I know at least one person who has given up time trials due to the new rule.

This is pretty much me. (although numbers at our races for lid-lovers are about 50% down generally, well done CTT ... )

I may ride bare-headed as protest, have to work out the best tactics; I would still like to be part of encouraging folks into cycle-sport.

The thing is, with entries down across the board, any board (or District) VIP can just ignore the negatives.
And I noticed at the District meeting I went to, all the pro-choice people are just far too nice to make a fuss.

They were happy to maintain the recumbent ban of course, "it's just obvious, they're more dangerous, aren't they??"

[Steady rider]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... tart-guide
could helmet requirements be challenged under the equality act?
in particular 'beliefs'

• religion or belief – this includes lack of belief

[Jdsk]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... tart-guide
could helmet requirements be challenged under the equality act?
in particular 'beliefs'

• religion or belief – this includes lack of belief

Equality 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.

Jonathan

[drossall]

In all honesty, and as a helmet sceptic, I don't think that "belief" is intended to extend to "I don't agree with this". Equally, as one of those who struggles even to buy a helmet to fit, I'd like to think that discrimination legislation would prevent excluding people just because of issues of physical size. But it doesn't.

[Jdsk]

... I don't think that "belief" is intended to extend to "I don't agree with this".
...

You're right.

Jonathan

[Steady rider]

Which beliefs are protected by the Equality Act 2010?
The Act does not include a definition of belief other than ‘belief means any religious or
philosophical belief’ and includes a lack of a particular belief. The courts have developed
a definition of belief through the cases they have decided.
A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but it must affect how a
person lives their life or perceives the world.
For a philosophical belief to be protected under the Act it must:
• be genuinely held
• be a belief and not just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of
information available
• be about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and
not in conflict with fundamental rights of others. For example, Holocaust denial, or the
belief in racial superiority are not protected.
Beliefs such as humanism, pacifism, vegetarianism and the belief in man-made climate
change are all protected.

The Act lacks a definition of 'belief' but via cases have provided guidance. It may be possible for a court to include a belief that has not so far been recognised.
A person who may have cycled all their life without a helmet and may have a philosophical belief that this is how they cycle and for various reasons may not wish to change that view. It could be their belief that this is very important to them and would be harmful if they had to change. They may also view it as part of their human rights to decide about wearing a helmet. They may also believe it fundamental to their health and wellbeing to continue to cycle without a helmet.
ps
Without a law requiring helmet use, is It philosophical belief to believe a person has a right to cycle without one?