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.
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

Steady rider wrote: 14 Jan 2023, 5:09pm ...
The Act lacks a definition of 'belief'...
The definition in the Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

Steady rider wrote: 14 Jan 2023, 5:09pm
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.
Have you had a chance to study the cases in the article linked upthread?

Thanks

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

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

No, is the short answer.

I am not sure but in one part it says,
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
The Act may be more closely defined.

Requiring helmet use can affect how a person lives their life, e.g. clubs excluding cyclists not wearing helmets, not being allowed to take part in their local group rides could be an example.
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

It's well worth studying those cases.

Perhaps you could then state what you would assert as your relevant belief in this situation.

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

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

The question I would try to answer before is,
Without a law requiring helmet use, is It a philosophical belief to believe a person has a right to cycle without one?
It could just be an opinion for many people.
It could be more than an opinion if based on a background leading to believe that they should have a right not to wear one.
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.
Trying to list
A person who may have cycled all their life without a helmet and may have a philosophical belief that this is how they should cycle.
A person may believe it is very important to them and would be harmful if they had to change.
A person may believe it fundamental to their health and well being to continue to cycle without a helmet.
A person may believe it is part of their philosophical belief not to wear a cycle helmet for normal cycling.
Requiring to wear one can affect if a person will take part in group rides or event and potentially affecting their whole cycling and social life.
A philosophical belief can be more ingrained into a person background as opposed to an opinion.
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wha ... al-belief/
I think cycle helmets would need to be considered on its own.
Last edited by Steady rider on 15 Jan 2023, 6:07pm, edited 1 time in total.
tim-b
Posts: 2091
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by tim-b »

Not wearing a cycle helmet is no more a philosophical belief than using bagged house coal for your fire (bagged house coal was banned from sale in the UK last year)
Householders have used coal for hundreds of years and you can still can, but only from bulk purchases
Cyclists have ridden without helmets for 200 years and you still can, but not in TT

That isn't to say that the CTT decision is correct, but using the Equality Act 2010 is probably barking up the wrong fossilised plant matter
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

What sort of tribunal or court deals with the Equality Act?
tim-b
Posts: 2091
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by tim-b »

Try the advice here:
https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your- ... you-can-do
= "complain directly to the person or organisation
= use someone else to help you sort it out (called ‘mediation’ or ‘alternative dispute resolution’)
= make a claim in a court or tribunal
= Contact the Equality Advisory Support Service for help and advice."
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

Thanks Tim for the link.
I discussed it with them today.
I think it boils down to one group imposing their belief onto others, those who believe helmets should be worn imposing their view onto others.

In the case of coal, I think you can still buy a bag, any legal requirement would be a law. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement or H&S requirement.
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

Steady rider wrote: 16 Jan 2023, 11:53am Thanks Tim for the link.
I discussed it with them today.
I think it boils down to one group imposing their belief onto others, those who believe helmets should be worn imposing their view onto others.
...
And what advice were you given by the EASS, please?

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

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

I was left unsure about if further action could be taken. The chap mentioned health and safety, and I pointed out cycle helmets are not covered. Looking at the details on,
https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights
What you can do
If you think you’ve been unfairly discriminated against you can:

complain directly to the person or organisation
use someone else to help you sort it out (called ‘mediation’ or ‘alternative dispute resolution’)
make a claim in a court or tribunal
He mentioned complaining, so any cyclist not taking part due to helmet requirement could complain as a first step.
He mentioned a figure of 25 and it seems any group with 25 or more members may be considered as an organisation and perhaps procedures are different. CTT may be in such a category.

He mentioned -
Types of discrimination ('protected characteristics')
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

age
gender reassignment
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or on maternity leave
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation
I mentioned the issue appears to be on primarily based on beliefs because it is not a legal requirement or an health and safety requirement. One group deciding helmets should be worn and others not having the same view. Human rights were also mentioned because some evidence suggests helmets may contribute to accidents occurring. I think Cycling UK could collect copies of any complaints to CTT or concerning any cycle rides requiring their use and this potentially could be useful if group action was possible.
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

Thanks

There are two very different issues there: what action could be taken, and whether the position that you seem to be pursuing would be classified as a belief.

On the former:

That figure of 25 is used in the definition of an association. Of course the Act covers employment, but that is rather different.

"Equality Act 2010: what do I need to know? A quick start guide for private clubs and other associations":
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... -clubs.pdf

"Core guidance: Clubs, societies and associations":
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... sociations

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

Steady rider wrote: 16 Jan 2023, 4:25pm ...
I mentioned the issue appears to be on primarily based on beliefs because it is not a legal requirement or an health and safety requirement. One group deciding helmets should be worn and others not having the same view. Human rights were also mentioned because some evidence suggests helmets may contribute to accidents occurring.
...
I can only repeat the recommendation to read the case law and the subsequent expert interpretation of what can be classified as a belief.

Jonathan
tim-b
Posts: 2091
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by tim-b »

In the case of coal, I think you can still buy a bag, any legal requirement would be a law. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement or H&S requirement.
That's the point of the Equality Act 2010, "It means that public bodies have to consider all individuals when carrying out their day-to-day work – in shaping policy, in delivering services..." I can challenge laws using the Act ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance )
Without wishing to derail the thread, please read on...
You cannot buy bagged bituminous coal (coal) from a shop in the UK any more (unless it's extracted from and sold in the Forest of Dean) but I can buy it loose from an approved coal merchant.
There isn't a demonstrable H&S benefit because I can still buy coal and nobody is protected from my PM2.5 pollution. Instead of me popping to the local shop on my cargo bike for 20kg of coal at zero pollution, a 20T lorry belches PM2.5, PM10, nitrogen oxide, CO2, etc to deliver to my door... This isn't a true scenario and please ignore the deficiencies in the argument.

The point is that you can challenge anything, but the EA talks about religion or belief in the same sentence (section 10 of the Act).
Buddhism is a belief rather than a religion and is protected under the Act. IMHO not wearing a cycle helmet isn't a belief as intended by the Act.

"He mentioned complaining, so any cyclist not taking part due to helmet requirement could complain as a first step" is an important one and should be considered by individuals, followed by EASS and mediation if necessary.
I am not a lawyer and this is only my opinion, maybe thirdcrank could be persuaded to give his thoughts??
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by thirdcrank »

tim-b wrote: 17 Jan 2023, 5:05am
In the case of coal, I think you can still buy a bag, any legal requirement would be a law. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement or H&S requirement.
That's the point of the Equality Act 2010, "It means that public bodies have to consider all individuals when carrying out their day-to-day work – in shaping policy, in delivering services..." I can challenge laws using the Act ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance )
Without wishing to derail the thread, please read on...
You cannot buy bagged bituminous coal (coal) from a shop in the UK any more (unless it's extracted from and sold in the Forest of Dean) but I can buy it loose from an approved coal merchant.
There isn't a demonstrable H&S benefit because I can still buy coal and nobody is protected from my PM2.5 pollution. Instead of me popping to the local shop on my cargo bike for 20kg of coal at zero pollution, a 20T lorry belches PM2.5, PM10, nitrogen oxide, CO2, etc to deliver to my door... This isn't a true scenario and please ignore the deficiencies in the argument.

The point is that you can challenge anything, but the EA talks about religion or belief in the same sentence (section 10 of the Act).
Buddhism is a belief rather than a religion and is protected under the Act. IMHO not wearing a cycle helmet isn't a belief as intended by the Act.

"He mentioned complaining, so any cyclist not taking part due to helmet requirement could complain as a first step" is an important one and should be considered by individuals, followed by EASS and mediation if necessary.
I am not a lawyer and this is only my opinion, maybe thirdcrank could be persuaded to give his thoughts??
I only saw this bit quite by chance. My concentration was already drifting and I was wondering where coal came into it. Anyway, I don't feel able to add anything useful.
Post Reply