British Skin Foundation London to Brighton Cycle Ride

[Kelly2012]

British Skin Foundation London to Brighton Cycle Ride ​

2nd September 2012 ​

​

Start: Lloyd Park, Croydon
Event organiser: British Skin Foundation - The charity for skin disease research
Cost of entry: £25 per person, £100 for a team of 5
Minimum sponsorship: £100
Beneficiary: 100% of the funds raised will be used to fund research into skin disease and skin cancer
Event link:
http://www.britishskinfoundation.org.uk/Events/LondontoBrightonCycleRide2012.aspx

More than 8 million people suffer from skin disease in the UK today. Adults and children with skin disease endure both physical and psychological suffering on a daily basis. The pain and misery it brings to their lives in incalculable. Around 4,000 skin disease sufferers will also die as a result of their condition every year.

Anyone who takes part in this exciting event will be helping us raise money for crucial research into skin diseases such as skin cancer, eczema and psoriasis, as well as less common but equally distressing conditions.

If you would like any further information or to sign up for this iconic challenge please contact Kelly on 020 7391 6088 or kelly@britishskinfoundation.org.uk

 

[StuartG]

"As with any cycling event a helmet is an essential piece of equipment, if you don’t have a helmet
you won’t be allowed to take part. A pair of cycling gloves may also be useful but not essential."

Where do we get most serious skin injuries?

 

[Kelly2012]

Hi StuartG, please excuse me but I do not entirely understand your question. Do you think cycling gloves should be an essential as cycling causes people's hands to become sore?

 

[Davidc]

"As with any cycling event a helmet is an essential piece of equipment, if you don’t have a helmet
you won’t be allowed to take part. A pair of cycling gloves may also be useful but not essential."

Where do we get most serious skin injuries?

Why?

I no longer take part in any event where a helmet is a requirement. My requirement for taking part is that I have the choice. I also now refuse to sponsor anyone on a cycling event where this is an event rule.

 

[Kelly2012]

Dear Davidc,

I am sorry you feel this way about cycling events. The reason that a helmet is compulsory is for health and safety reasons, we are required to protect participants as much as we can and give them as much warning and advice as possible. Therefore we need to state the need for a helmet in order to protect participants and us as a charity.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Dear Davidc,

I am sorry you feel this way about cycling events. The reason that a helmet is compulsory is for health and safety reasons, we are required to protect participants as much as we can and give them as much warning and advice as possible. Therefore we need to state the need for a helmet in order to protect participants and us as a charity.

Can we see the risk assessment please?

 

[Kelly2012]

No I am afraid not. To be perfectly honest I do not see why there is such 'outrage' expressed at the fact I wish to protect all participants, if I were not to do this there would also be outrage expressed, it simply feels like a no win situation. If someone were to have an accident I (and the charity) could be held liable and possibly sued. I do not wish to put anyone at risk, and I have to say people being required to wear cycle helmets on an organised (charity) cycle ride is standard practice, therefore we are not asking anything out of the ordinary.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

No I am afraid not. To be perfectly honest I do not see why there is such 'outrage' expressed at the fact I wish to protect all participants, if I were not to do this there would also be outrage expressed, it simply feels like a no win situation. If someone were to have an accident I (and the charity) could be held liable and possibly sued. I do not wish to put anyone at risk, and I have to say people being required to wear cycle helmets on an organised (charity) cycle ride is standard practice, therefore we are not asking anything out of the ordinary.

Because, for reasons of 'health and safety', which are likely to be spurious, or inadequately risk assessed, you, and, it seems, other charities organising rides, have chosen to set a higher standard, i.e. helmet compulsion, than that which the law of the land requires normal cyclists to adhere to when riding their bicycles, and I'm interested to know why.

Based on your expressed desire to protect all participants from risk I wonder why you allow them to participate in such an apparently risky event at all. You are aware no doubt that helmets can only protect the wearer at low speed? Will you impose a 12mph speed limit on the riders? Of course not.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

BTW Kelly . You have simply stumbled onto one of the sport's few touchy subjects which some here have spent many hours reading and debating supported by voluminous research from 7 continents if not the whole universe. IIRC helmets are recommended, but not compulsory for BHF London to Brighton, probably the biggest UK charity ride, and which might be a good compromise causing no difficulty to either the charity or potential participants?

 

[StuartG]

Thank you TMN - spot-on.

Kelly,

Neither helmets nor gloves will prevent a crash. The requirement for either is not mandated by 'H&S reasons'. Many organised (and insured rides) take no such position after a careful RA.

Some people believe that helmets are helpful, some not. The factual evidence is pretty mixed so can be exploited by both sides of a hot topic.

I was merely suggesting that if you believe helmets are helpful than gloves are even more so. Head injuries are thankfully rare, whereas every regular cyclist has hit the deck hands first (to protect their head?). Nobody I know has any doubt that a protective glove usually means no skin abrasion instead of blood everwhere. Hand injury is life and work incapacitating for almost everyone . Thats why there is no controversy - every serious cyclist I know may or may not wear a helmet but always dons gloves for any long ride.

 

[MrJamie]

Welcome Kelly

It's good to see another London to Brighton ride. Im always put off by minimum sponsorship though, id rather foot a £50 enterance fee myself than ask people for sponsorship so I can have fun, but thats just me. I hope all goes well with the event

 

[Davidc]

Dear Davidc,

I am sorry you feel this way about cycling events. The reason that a helmet is compulsory is for health and safety reasons, we are required to protect participants as much as we can and give them as much warning and advice as possible. Therefore we need to state the need for a helmet in order to protect participants and us as a charity.

Please avoid being inaccurate in your posts. The highlighted items are wrong.

This is not a helmet debate so I will not expand on this, please see the helmet debates forum for further information.

It is only a matter of time before an event organiser or other compulsive body is sued by someone injured as a direct result of wearing a helmet worn only as a result of compulsion. It is of course to be hoped that the first major award for this is against a government (such a Australia or Jersey) rather than a charity.

I would normally take part in three organised rides during the year. Not this year as a result of date clashes. All have done a full RA. Two state that the organisers prefer participants to wear helmets but the decision is the rider's, the other states that riders may wear helmets if they wish to. These organisers clearly do not wish to be sued.

Make helmet wearing optional and I might join you, as yours is a very worthwhile charity. In the meantime I won't be.

 

[dellzeqq]

No I am afraid not. To be perfectly honest I do not see why there is such 'outrage' expressed at the fact I wish to protect all participants, if I were not to do this there would also be outrage expressed, it simply feels like a no win situation. If someone were to have an accident I (and the charity) could be held liable and possibly sued. I do not wish to put anyone at risk, and I have to say people being required to wear cycle helmets on an organised (charity) cycle ride is standard practice, therefore we are not asking anything out of the ordinary.

I'm afraid that you're flat-out wrong. I organise bunches of cycle rides, and I've got insurance cover from the CTC - which does not mention helmets.

 

[StuAff]

I have taken part in multiple events where helmets were compulsory, which didn't bother me that much as I wear one anyway, and I've been in accidents where I've been glad I wore one. However, I'm firmly of the opinion that helmet use should be down to personal choice. At least three riding buddies have suffered broken collarbones, and multiple others have been in accidents where a helmet would have been of no benefit whatsoever.

 

[Aperitif]

Best wishes and a safe journey for your ride, Kelly - I hope the rain stops for you all.