CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

[Jdsk]

...
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.

I suggest rereading that criterion about the present state of information.

Your final paragraph quoted after it above isn't relevant to that criterion.

And by introducing those data "based on the present state of information" you disqualify your "opinion or viewpoint" from being a protected belief.

Jonathan

[Steady rider]

My reading is it has to affect the way people live their lives to be considered a 'belief'.

The NZ data is used to show it does affect how people live their lives because they have beliefs, not just opinions or a viewpoint.
The belief is not based on data but their life experience of cycling that has led them to believe they should be allowed to cycle without a helmet. If not allowed, it is against their convictions, affecting their cycling/exercise/social interactions and enjoyment.

ps
My opinion is a lower speed limit should be provided for minor roads. This does not affect me in the way I live my life, so is considered an opinion or viewpoint. Helmet requirements would affect how I live my life, so qualify as a belief.

[pjclinch]

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!

I'm not surprised, but in court you're trying to persuade the bench, not argumentative denizens of the Interweb: different audiences and different contexts.
And that the DfT say you should wear a lid to ride a bike is the sort of thing that will likely go over both succinctly and well.

And if you point out that the DfT are on shaky ground it's mainly your word against theirs, and being right in such a situation probably isn't enough.

Pete.

[Steady rider]

Advice in the Highway Code to wear a cycle helmet introduced in 1993 was based in part on the Thompson RS, Rivara and Thompson DC, 1989 Seattle (USA) study, it claimed a major benefit from helmet use with reductions in head injury by 85%. Zeegers 2015 reported a 400%+ overestimation of helmet effectiveness from the Seattle study.

Details from Victoria, Australia – 1992 reported reductions in serious head injuries but did not provide survey details of state-wide cycling levels. In 1989, Victoria’s road fatality rate was 178 per million population and by 1992 it had reduced to 88 per million (50.6% reduction), widespread enforcement of speed limits and drink drive measures were mainly responsible. Melbourne surveys, pre to post helmet law, showed 30 more teenagers wearing helmets compared with 623 fewer cycling, a drop of 48%. With such changes reductions in serious head injuries could be expected.

[pjclinch]

Advice in the Highway Code to wear a cycle helmet introduced in 1993 was based in part on the Thompson RS, Rivara and Thompson DC, 1989 Seattle (USA) study, it claimed a major benefit from helmet use with reductions in head injury by 85%. Zeegers 2015 reported a 400%+ overestimation of helmet effectiveness from the Seattle study.

Details from Victoria, Australia – 1992 reported reductions in serious head injuries but did not provide survey details of state-wide cycling levels. In 1989, Victoria’s road fatality rate was 178 per million population and by 1992 it had reduced to 88 per million (50.6% reduction), widespread enforcement of speed limits and drink drive measures were mainly responsible. Melbourne surveys, pre to post helmet law, showed 30 more teenagers wearing helmets compared with 623 fewer cycling, a drop of 48%. With such changes reductions in serious head injuries could be expected.

Like I said...
And if you point out that the DfT are on shaky ground it's mainly your word against theirs, and being right in such a situation probably isn't enough.

It's no secret I'm no great fan of helmets as a general H&S intervention, but if you're going to get the fever over them reduced then you need to have a pragmatic take on what will actually move things along, and I don't think discrimination against strongly held belief fits the bill.

I think at the moment the best approach is probably pragmatic (as opposed to legal) takes on inclusivity: people on bikes = Good; barriers to people on bikes thus = Bad, helmet promotion/requirement is a barrier to some people cycling, thus = Bad. I note this seems to be the way that the likes of Active Travel England and Cycling Scotland are approaching things, and making at least some degree of progress.
Having said that, I don't think it'll get you far with CTT. The main thing putting people off time trialling isn't that they might have to wear a helmet, but that TT isn't most people's idea of fun to start with!

Pete.

[dmrcycle]

I think at the moment the best approach is probably pragmatic (as opposed to legal) takes on inclusivity: people on bikes = Good; barriers to people on bikes thus = Bad, helmet promotion/requirement is a barrier to some people cycling, thus = Bad.
Pete.

I agree be pragmatic and inclusive but the statement helmet promotion is a barrier to people cycling is not always true (not pragmatic or inclusive). If I was out on the road I wont cycle without a helmet and I know many others who feel the same, others who dont care and others who wont wear one. I have gone round to a friends house to pick him up for a ride only for him to say, "I'm not cycling today as I dont have a helmet". Having access to good quality affordable headwear promotes cycling to me. Promoting helmets helps achieve accessible cheap protection. Its all about your own attitudes. People in USA feel safer carrying a gun, I would feel less safe. Wear one if you want, no problem with promotion, no problem with people preaching people wear one or don't wear one. But if you don't want to wear one thats your risk and up to you. But you cant say my opinion is wrong as the facts are not proven either way.

[pjclinch]

I think at the moment the best approach is probably pragmatic (as opposed to legal) takes on inclusivity: people on bikes = Good; barriers to people on bikes thus = Bad, helmet promotion/requirement is a barrier to some people cycling, thus = Bad.

I agree be pragmatic and inclusive but the statement helmet promotion is a barrier to people cycling is not always true (not pragmatic or inclusive).

But I didn't say that. I said it's a barrier to some people cycling, i.e., I've clearly implied it's not always the case.
So you've ignored the very deliberate qualification I added and then used its absence to argue against my point, and that's rather poor form TBH.

Pete.

[mattheus]

That is the kind of wooly thinking we can expect from cyclists who support compulsion:

From January 2023, cyclists in Cyprus will have to wear a helmet after the country’s parliament passed an amendment to the Bicycles Law last month.

According to the amendment, helmets will soon be mandatory for anyone cycling on the island’s roads, bike paths, cycle corridors and cycle lanes, as well for any passenger carried in a special bike seat.

I always thought Cyprus was a good country. Well done!

[deeferdonk]

Just had a read through the CTT's rules for time trials.

Noted this rule "To be allowed to start all clothing shall be clean and tidy"

I am genetically a scruffy b*stard so find this rule discriminatory.

[Steady rider]

There are very few legal means to challenge helmet requirements. If the Equality act provides one, it could be worth a try, as their requirement would be an extra requirement for those who cycle without one.

[pjclinch]

There are very few legal means to challenge helmet requirements.

That being because while the requirements are arguably daft/pointless/counter-productive/etc., as far as I can tell they generally aren't illegal.

If the Equality act provides one, it could be worth a try, as their requirement would be an extra requirement for those who cycle without one.

Especially given that court time is hard to come by, long winded and expensive I would say that's a pretty huge "if"...

Pete.

[Jdsk]

...

If the Equality act provides one, it could be worth a try, as their requirement would be an extra requirement for those who cycle without one.

Especially given that court time is hard to come by, long winded and expensive I would say that's a pretty huge "if"...

And from what has been posted here so far the likely outcome would be a finding that a belief within the meaning of the Act had not been demonstrated. That outcome should be considered as part of the decision tree.

Jonathan

[mattheus]

There are very few legal means to challenge helmet requirements.

That being because while the requirements are arguably daft/pointless/counter-productive/etc., as far as I can tell they generally aren't illegal.

If the Equality act provides one, it could be worth a try, as their requirement would be an extra requirement for those who cycle without one.

Especially given that court time is hard to come by, long winded and expensive I would say that's a pretty huge "if"...

Pete.

I think you're right.

<sigh>

So I guess steady_rider and I will just have to go back to slashing their tyres until they stop coming up with these stupid rules. Yes?

[dmrcycle]

I think at the moment the best approach is probably pragmatic (as opposed to legal) takes on inclusivity: people on bikes = Good; barriers to people on bikes thus = Bad, helmet promotion/requirement is a barrier to some people cycling, thus = Bad.

I agree be pragmatic and inclusive but the statement helmet promotion is a barrier to people cycling is not always true (not pragmatic or inclusive).

But I didn't say that. I said it's a barrier to some people cycling, i.e., I've clearly implied it's not always the case.
So you've ignored the very deliberate qualification I added and then used its absence to argue against my point, and that's rather poor form TBH.

Pete.

But you said “ = bad” which is not the case. Helmet promotion doesn’t = bad. You did indeed qualify it but then put a black and white blanket statement in after.

[Steady rider]

But you said “ = bad” which is not the case. Helmet promotion doesn’t = bad

Research suggests helmet promotion can discourage cycling and suggests the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks.

Cycling UK (2017) stated:

However Cycling UK is not only concerned about the harmful effects of mandatory helmet use. By creating exaggerated perceptions of the risks of cycling, even voluntary helmet promotion campaigns have been found to deter some people from cycling. Given that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by around 20:1 (one recent study put it at 77:1), it can be shown that only a very small reduction in cycle use is needed for helmet promotion (let alone helmet laws) to shorten more lives than helmets themselves could possibly save, regardless of how effective helmets might be.

Cycling UK,(2017) Health and Cycling https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/v ... nd-cycling

Information available comparing Denmark and the Netherlands suggests that helmet promotion is indeed bad, from the overall health perspective https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _warranted