Affiliated Groups and insurance

[mjr]

One CTC affiliate once told me that I needed a helmet on their rides "for insurance reasons". Obviously rubbish, but whether it was an honest mistake or a deliberate lie I can't say. If it is the former and he's a good chairman he should be willing to check with the CTC

The 2016 ride leader handbook does indeed say that CUK rides can turn away riders who aren't helmet users: "Cycling UK advocates freedom of choice as regards the wearing of helmets and hi-viz clothing (https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/v ... -briefings). [...] It is the Ride Leader’s prerogative to refuse anybody on their ride who they deem to be so ill-equipped they may pose a danger to themselves or others but note point above on helmets and hi-viz clothing" - so the rider leader has "freedom of choice as regards the wearing of helmets"! I know that's only one interpretation of an ambiguous wording which I think is clearly meant to discourage such forcing, but it's one that the forcers use.

[gaz]

.

[mjr]

I hadn't considered that interpretation before and it is rather worrying.

meic has posted about a Cycling UK Member Group passing a motion at their own AGM mandating plastic hats on their rides and the subsequent rebuttal from National Office.

Ride Leaders are "approved" at local level. If the local committee decided to only approve Ride Leaders who insist on plastic hats ... de facto mandatory plastic hats on rides, seemingly within the current rules.

But even without member groups going rogue, there are already plenty of affiliated groups requiring hard hats while CUK holds its nose and takes the money, saying nothing to try even to persuade them.