London to Brighton - when were helmets mandated?

[mjr]

I hope that this explains the confusion.

Jonathan

You appear to have cut out or forgotten the rest of this post!

[deeferdonk]

If a cyclist just randomly falls off their bike due to there own mistakes, they are not going to get a pay out from insurance. If the event organisers negligence has contributed to the accident (maybe they have accidentally put signs up that direct you to ride off a cliff!) the insurance may well pay out against any legal action the rider takes. The organisers have a duty of care to the event participants, they are not just random cyclists.

EDIT: posted this without first reading JDSK's post and find it amusing we have both come up with the same example of riding off a cliff!

: - )

Let's see if Cowsham thinks that the organisers would be liable in this case...

Jonathan

I will post this again as it seems you've not seen it

This is written in white against a big red relief box in the terms and conditions set out by skyline promotions

IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY
Road cycling is an active sport and participation in such sports necessarily involves a risk of injury or
death regardless of the standard of the organisation of the event you are taking part in. I voluntarily
accept all the risks inherent in this event and I agree for myself and my personal representatives to
indemnify and hold harmless Skyline Promotions Ltd against any claim or claims whether on my own
account or from third parties arising out of any accident or incident resulting in any loss or damage
(including bodily injury and death). I confirm I have read all the sections of these Terms, and I
understand and agree to be bound to those terms and conditions and to comply fully with the same.

Waivers don't absolve the organisers of negligence. I bet these paddleboarders signed a waiver

https://press.hse.gov.uk/2025/04/23/pad ... he%20weir.

[deeferdonk]

Anyway all the talks about insurance aside, if the organisers insist the riders wear helmets, it's minimal effort for them to do so, there are no negative effects for them directly if they do specify it, it looks like they are doing "something" for safety, and it's the most basic , obvious thing that will come out of any risk assessment they undertake. You ask anyone about cycling safety and the first thing that will come up is helmets. (and members of this forum will argue until the cows come home that they are not safer - but that is not the view of the general society or cycling bodies)

And you know that anyone who complains about the event (theres always some) will say " and some of them weren't even wearing helmets"

If i do a running event (half marathon etc) they will more often than not, ban the wearing of headphones - same logic. Easy to do - and the perception that it is safer.

[Cowsham]

Waivers don't absolve the organisers of negligence. I bet these paddleboarders signed a waiver

https://press.hse.gov.uk/2025/04/23/pad ... he%20weir.

Well actually they ( waivers) do if the organizers have complied with the terms and conditions they needed to comply with and complied with conditions are relevant to the claim.

I experienced first hand this scenario at work. It used to be that if a worker got injured claims would nearly always get settled out of court but a few years ago ( maybe 10 or so ) the law changed requiring insurance companies to investigate personal injuries setting out timescales etc. ( this was to help lower insurance costs )

An employee got injured and was advised by the union to claim cos the expectation was that it would get settled out of court but that's not what happened. It went to court and the employer was able to produce the document signed by the claimant that he understood risks and had the training etc. The judge threw out the case and the union had to pay the court expenses. The claimant got nothing.

In the case you refer to the business owner was clearly negligent. Whether insurance or waiver is involved or not it doesn't say but as long as the fault or faults by the defendant are relevant to the claim * then a claim can be made ie before 2013 insurance companies could wriggle out of paying claims if some irrelevant compliance condition was missing.

*( eg if the only fault by the defendant was that the participate wasn't supplied with waterproof trousers ( I made that up but you'll get the drift -- sorry ) that would not have contributed to the accident and be deemed irrelevant )

[Cowsham]

Anyway all the talks about insurance aside, if the organisers insist the riders wear helmets, it's minimal effort for them to do so, there are no negative effects for them directly if they do specify it, it looks like they are doing "something" for safety, and it's the most basic , obvious thing that will come out of any risk assessment they undertake. You ask anyone about cycling safety and the first thing that will come up is helmets. (and members of this forum will argue until the cows come home that they are not safer - but that is not the view of the general society or cycling bodies)

And you know that anyone who complains about the event (theres always some) will say " and some of them weren't even wearing helmets"

If i do a running event (half marathon etc) they will more often than not, ban the wearing of headphones - same logic. Easy to do - and the perception that it is safer.

That's what I said up thread -- " it's my party... "

[mattheus]

Anyway all the talks about insurance aside, if the organisers insist the riders wear helmets, it's minimal effort for them to do so, there are no negative effects for them directly if they do specify it, it looks like they are doing "something" for safety, and it's the most basic , obvious thing that will come out of any risk assessment they undertake. You ask anyone about cycling safety and the first thing that will come up is helmets. (and members of this forum will argue until the cows come home that they are not safer - but that is not the view of the general society or cycling bodies)

FINALLY!!!

There was a risk this helmet thread would not qualify as a proper helmet thread :-(

But now one of the helmet zealots has trotted out the same nonsense (s)he and his tribe write on every thread, so we're back on safe ground

[deeferdonk]

Anyway all the talks about insurance aside, if the organisers insist the riders wear helmets, it's minimal effort for them to do so, there are no negative effects for them directly if they do specify it, it looks like they are doing "something" for safety, and it's the most basic , obvious thing that will come out of any risk assessment they undertake. You ask anyone about cycling safety and the first thing that will come up is helmets. (and members of this forum will argue until the cows come home that they are not safer - but that is not the view of the general society or cycling bodies)

FINALLY!!!

There was a risk this helmet thread would not qualify as a proper helmet thread :-(

But now one of the helmet zealots has trotted out the same nonsense (s)he and his tribe write on every thread, so we're back on safe ground

Oi !- i didn't state my views on helmets - just stated the observed views of others -i'm helmet agnostic .

[deeferdonk]

Waivers don't absolve the organisers of negligence. I bet these paddleboarders signed a waiver

https://press.hse.gov.uk/2025/04/23/pad ... he%20weir.

Well actually they ( waivers) do if the organizers have complied with the terms and conditions they needed to comply with and complied with conditions are relevant to the claim.

I experienced first hand this scenario at work. It used to be that if a worker got injured claims would nearly always get settled out of court but a few years ago ( maybe 10 or so ) the law changed requiring insurance companies to investigate personal injuries setting out timescales etc. ( this was to help lower insurance costs )

An employee got injured and was advised by the union to claim cos the expectation was that it would get settled out of court but that's not what happened. It went to court and the employer was able to produce the document signed by the claimant that he understood risks and had the training etc. The judge threw out the case and the union had to pay the court expenses. The claimant got nothing.

In the case you refer to the business owner was clearly negligent. Whether insurance or waiver is involved or not it doesn't say but as long as the fault or faults by the defendant are relevant to the claim * then a claim can be made ie before 2013 insurance companies could wriggle out of paying claims if some irrelevant compliance condition was missing.

*( eg if the only fault by the defendant was that the participate wasn't supplied with waterproof trousers ( I made that up but you'll get the drift -- sorry ) that would not have contributed to the accident and be deemed irrelevant )

Waivers don't absolve the organisers of negligence. If they have reasonably complied with conditions relative to the claim they haven't been negligent.
In your example the employer was found not to be negligent, as they had provided relevant training etc. ( or at least their legal representation convinced the court that was the case)
Obviously the negligence has to have some relevance to the accident if being pursued legally so the waterproof trousers would never be brought up in your example. (unless you generally wanted to paint the organiser in a bad light)

[mattheus]

Anyway all the talks about insurance aside, if the organisers insist the riders wear helmets, it's minimal effort for them to do so, there are no negative effects for them directly if they do specify it, it looks like they are doing "something" for safety, and it's the most basic , obvious thing that will come out of any risk assessment they undertake. You ask anyone about cycling safety and the first thing that will come up is helmets. (and members of this forum will argue until the cows come home that they are not safer - but that is not the view of the general society or cycling bodies)

FINALLY!!!

There was a risk this helmet thread would not qualify as a proper helmet thread :-(

But now one of the helmet zealots has trotted out the same nonsense (s)he and his tribe write on every thread, so we're back on safe ground

Oi !- i didn't state my views on helmets - just stated the observed views of others -i'm helmet agnostic .

Well OK, apologies if I've misrepresented you.

I've re-read your post, and fair enough ... but I take isssue with this statement:
"it's the most basic , obvious thing that will come out of any risk assessment they undertake"

(although your follow-up post may clarify what you actually meant by this!)

[deeferdonk]

I've re-read your post, and fair enough ... but I take isssue with this statement:
"it's the most basic , obvious thing that will come out of any risk assessment they undertake"

(although your follow-up post may clarify what you actually meant by this!)

basic = simple and not complicated
obvious = easy to see, understand, or recognize,

if you had a meeting with 10 randoms to discuss cycling safety, if helmets aren't the first thing to be brought up i'd be surprised.

What do you think I could actually mean to ask in such an accusatory way?

[mattheus]

I've re-read your post, and fair enough ... but I take isssue with this statement:
"it's the most basic , obvious thing that will come out of any risk assessment they undertake"

(although your follow-up post may clarify what you actually meant by this!)

basic = simple and not complicated
obvious = easy to see, understand, or recognize,

if you had a meeting with 10 randoms to discuss cycling safety, if helmets aren't the first thing to be brought up i'd be surprised.

What do you think I could actually mean to ask in such an accusatory way?

Thing is, asking 10 randoms about cycling safety isn't generally how a Risk Assessment meeting is normally run!

[pjclinch]

I've re-read your post, and fair enough ... but I take isssue with this statement:
"it's the most basic , obvious thing that will come out of any risk assessment they undertake"

(although your follow-up post may clarify what you actually meant by this!)

basic = simple and not complicated
obvious = easy to see, understand, or recognize,

if you had a meeting with 10 randoms to discuss cycling safety, if helmets aren't the first thing to be brought up i'd be surprised.

What do you think I could actually mean to ask in such an accusatory way?

Thing is, asking 10 randoms about cycling safety isn't generally how a Risk Assessment meeting is normally run!

Though given the shocking lack of actual knowledge about helmet efficacy and the widespread assumption of their Miraculous Powers, even among cyclists, it effectively is when it comes to cycling safety RA.
For example, in the last few days we had advice from Bikeability (generally good people IMHO) Bikeability in association with Frog Bikes (generally good people IMHO) put out https://www.bikeability.org.uk/blogs/to ... ke-safety/ about beginner mountain biking with...

First things first, a properly fitting helmet is an absolute must to protect against any falls or collisions.

(my emphasis).

Cycling RA is quite often pretty shocking, and I say that as someone who does it with bits of paper to say that I can.

Pete.

[mattheus]

basic = simple and not complicated
obvious = easy to see, understand, or recognize,

if you had a meeting with 10 randoms to discuss cycling safety, if helmets aren't the first thing to be brought up i'd be surprised.

What do you think I could actually mean to ask in such an accusatory way?

Thing is, asking 10 randoms about cycling safety isn't generally how a Risk Assessment meeting is normally run!

Though given the shocking lack of actual knowledge about helmet efficacy and the widespread assumption of their Miraculous Powers, even among cyclists, it effectively is when it comes to cycling safety RA.
For example, in the last few days we had advice from Bikeability (generally good people IMHO) Bikeability in association with Frog Bikes (generally good people IMHO) put out https://www.bikeability.org.uk/blogs/to ... ke-safety/ about beginner mountain biking with...

First things first, a properly fitting helmet is an absolute must to protect against any falls or collisions.

(my emphasis).

Cycling RA is quite often pretty shocking, and I say that as someone who does it with bits of paper to say that I can.

Pete.

Couple of points:
- that is not a quote from their RA
- despite your cunning use of "effectively", I stand by my statement; these things are not carried out by "10 randoms". There are numerous selection effects that result in the group of people carrying out the RA.

YOU KNOW THESE THINGS, yet have chosen to say otherwise to support your point. (No wonder helmet threads get fractious ... )

[mattheus]

Is there anyone in the Helmet Forum who HAS Risk Assessment training, who can hand-on-heart say that the FIRST THING they would discuss in a meeting of that kind would be:

- Shall we mandate helmets?

(And if they can , please show me which training document supports this approach!)

[deeferdonk]

I've re-read your post, and fair enough ... but I take isssue with this statement:
"it's the most basic , obvious thing that will come out of any risk assessment they undertake"

(although your follow-up post may clarify what you actually meant by this!)

basic = simple and not complicated
obvious = easy to see, understand, or recognize,

if you had a meeting with 10 randoms to discuss cycling safety, if helmets aren't the first thing to be brought up i'd be surprised.

What do you think I could actually mean to ask in such an accusatory way?

Thing is, asking 10 randoms about cycling safety isn't generally how a Risk Assessment meeting is normally run!

Ah no you have got me. I thought i was just overexaggerating for emphasis but you are totally correct. What a ridiculous thing for me to say. Wearing helmets would never come up in a million years when discussing cycling safety for events - that must be why none of them mandate it. I'll go back to my tribe of zealots in shame.