Charity Bike Ride - Compulsory Helmet

[screenman]

Who is making the rule, the charity or the company? Either way enjoy the ride, convert others that cycling is good fun as well as being good for you.

Just a thought, if it was a charity ride that insisted on you wearing say gloves.

 

[jethro10]

Rather silly concept really?

Charities have no "right" to your money, time, or effort. If you disagree with a charity policy then you have the right to refuse to participate or raise funds for it surely?

I totally agree, perhaps we said the same thing the other way round.
It's voluntary, with a set of rules it seems. Either do it or dont - simples.
That's what i meant.

Jeff

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Ok, I've asked if there can be exemptions for those that don't want to wear a helmet. They've agreed to this providing you sign a disclaimer saying you won't be wearing a helmet at your own risk. Fine by me.

Now all those banging on about it's for the charity and that's all that matters, please form an orderly queue and tell me how much you fancy coughing up please!

All gratefully received!

 

[Bicycle]

I can't get too excited about the helmet debate.

I wear one, but not always. (Sadly, I seem to have become superstitious in my older age, which is why I usually do wear one).

I am a (reformed) serial crasher of both motorcycles and bicycles, but have never had a head injury. That's just luck, but it informs my thinking nonetheless.

My knees, elbows, shoulders and wrists have been bashed around a lot more than is healthy, but I don't ride in body armour...

I do the occasional MTB enduro, where I have to wear a helmet. I'd rather not, but it's OK. There are other things to get excited about.

So I wear it always on events and I enjoy the ride (although usually not when dying in the saddle with another 30 hilly kms to go...)

I also do quite a lot of charity collections locally and have seen a slight hardening of the UK's giving soul in the last 10 years.

If an employer wants to raise some money and encourage bicycle use, that's lovely and should be applauded.

If (as appears to be the case) it is happening in work time, that's a double Hurrah from me.

Burnt toast makes me much crosser than the helmet debate, which often more resembles intellectual trench warfare between the inflexibly convinced and the unyielding zealot than debate.

 

[Riding in Circles]

Their third party event insurance will insist on helmet usage because the policy will have been provided by an events insurance company that know little about bicycles, my previous business insurance had a similar clause for demonstration and hire but the new policy no longer has this clause.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Their third party event insurance will insist on helmet usage because the policy will have been provided by an events insurance company that know little about bicycles, my previous business insurance had a similar clause for demonstration and hire but the new policy no longer has this clause.

Got my own third paty through the CTC, told 'em that, maybe it's what swung it.

 

[4F]

Which charity is the event rasing funds for, Headway ?

 

[Red Light]

Burnt toast makes me much crosser than the helmet debate, which often more resembles intellectual trench warfare between the inflexibly convinced and the unyielding zealot than debate.

Mmmmmm........toast!

For me it's more like Dawkins v Creationists. One has scientific evidence on it's side the other unshakeable belief summarised by BHIT on the One Show yesterday with "Ignore the research, use common sense". Or something v. similar.

The reason I care about it is there have been multiple attempts to make helmets mandatory in the UK and they continue with Jersey succumbing and Northern Ireland escaping in the the last few months. All it requires for mandatory helmets to succeed is for a few good men (and women) to do nothing. And as we know from Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and Israel, mandatory helmets are a disaster for cycling.

 

[srw]

Got my own third paty through the CTC, told 'em that, maybe it's what swung it.

That's not much use. The event's insurance policy will protect them if you get injured and sue them*. Your CTC policy will protect you if you cause injury to someone else who then sues you.

*Don't think it'll never happen because you're a nice chap and would never sue anyone. If you're in a coma it won't be your decision, it'll be the decision of your lawyer. And it will be in your best interests.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

That's not much use. The event's insurance policy will protect them if you get injured and sue them*. Your CTC policy will protect you if you cause injury to someone else who then sues you.

Oh ok, thanks. I expect I'm like a lot of folk when it comes to insurance, I know it's something you have to have and I just sign on the line. I've never made a claim for anything so apart from paying for it I never give it another thought and certainly don't ever read the small-print.

 

[benb]

Mmmmmm........toast!

For me it's more like Dawkins v Creationists. One has scientific evidence on it's side the other unshakeable belief summarised by BHIT on the One Show yesterday with "Ignore the research, use common sense". Or something v. similar.

It's not really, as there is no clear evidence either way.

 

[dellzeqq]

ok - on a slightly more constructive note, and fresh from my victory against helmet compulsion on the Martlets ride, I'd suggest the following

Ask who has insisted on helmets. It might be the firm, it might be the charity, it might be the broker or it might be the underwriter

If it's the firm I'd suggest a polite letter saying that compulsory helmet use dissuades people from riding bikes, and, with regret you can't take part in the ride

If it's the charity I'd suggest a polite letter saying that compulsory helmet use is off-putting and suggest that they would get more riders if they dropped the requirement. In the mean time, you're sorry, but cycling with a helmet is no fun, and you'd rather be at work

If it's the broker then write to the employer, the charity, and the broker saying that other charity rides are organised without a compulsory helmet rule, which, in your opinion, will diminish the appeal of the ride, and that you would suggest that the broker looks at the way the ride is managed, including the risk assessments, particularly of the route, the safety and highway code advice given to riders, and any checks made on the bikes along the lines of the Dr. Bike checks, and make a proposal to the underwriter with that information to hand

If it's the underwriter then write to the broker, copying your letter to the charity and the firm saying that other insurers don't have a problem, and you would be happy to offer names (Towergate spring to mind and I can find you some others)

You could also write to the firm and suggest that if they're seriously going to back cycling then the sensible thing to do is to set up a CTC affiliate, sell the CTC third party insurance to employees (it's well worth having), and run the event under CTC rules, which, the CTC having had a fair amount of experience of this kind of thing, won't require helmets. That takes time, though, and is probably one for next year.

Think of this less as a personal choice and more as an opportunity to strike a blow for freedom of choice for all

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Think of this less as a personal choice and more as an opportunity to strike a blow for freedom of choice for all

'Go on, be a sport - freedom of choice, etc!' was my parting shot, it worked - I'm on and the helmet isn't!

 

[screenman]

I enjoy riding my bike with a helmet on.

Why do track cyclist wear gloves? I mean it is not like they are going to get cold hands. Maybe better grip.

 

[Arch]

I enjoy riding my bike with a helmet on.

Why do track cyclist wear gloves? I mean it is not like they are going to get cold hands. Maybe better grip.

I expect you'd know if you'd ever skidded off at high speed* and tried to save yourself with your hands....

Friction burns.

*Not that I have, I don't do high speed.