Spokes de-lists events requiring helmets

[gavintc]

Every event that insists on helmets is one step closer to compulsion.

And yes, a single website adopting this policy will have little effect, but if other sites follow their example, it will snowball.

..it will.snowball or snowball's chance in hell to make an impact.

 

[Boris Bajic]

This move by Spokes seems a reasonable step in an evolving debate. I sometimes wear a helmet but would not favour a law making it compulsory. Nor do I think such a bill will be passed in my lifetime, but then many people thought Germany's territorial ambitions would stop at Anschluss and the Sudatenland in 1938.... (Is that in poor taste? One never knows with WWII references).

It is no surprise to me to see a post on this thread supporting the Spokes stance on this issue while questioning their apparent support of Cycle Lanes. Cycle campaigning is not a single-issue debate. Annoyingly, there is a range of opinion on both sides of the fence I sit on.

This stance by Spokes raises the profile of the helmet issue in a helpful and positive way, without the sneering and patronising approach one sometimes hears from ardent believers on one side or the other of this debate.

To many of us it is not a big deal, but it is nice nonetheless to see the issue being approached in this way by an organisation for which it is.

From me it's a big Thumbs Up to Spokes for making their views clear in a civilised and positive way.

 

[Dan_h]

I was refused a start on a charity ride because I didn't have a helmet.

See, I don't get this. If the ride is on a public road how can they actually stop you? I guess for a Sportive they could refuse to give you timings but I can't see how they can prevent you from riding the course anyway.

 

[Boris Bajic]

That wouldn't change anything. They're trying to dissuade event organisers from having a ridiculous rule forcing people to wear a helmet to participate in an activity that is statistically incredibly safe - far safer than walking downstairs, for example. By adopting this policy, it puts pressure on organisers to rethink their stance.

Never mind the organisers, this post puts huge pressure on me!

We keep our family helmets in the porch, so I have to go downstairs to get one.

Do I now have to sleep downstairs every night or build a new porch on the first floor (and clash with an unwelcome Gade II listing)?

You may think you are helping, but you are not!

 

[Dan B]

Perhaps you should sleep wearing a helmet. How many people have died in bed?

 

[CopperBrompton]

Dan's right: sleeping is incredibly dangerous. It's best to avoid doing it altogether, but if you really must do it, full protective gear is a must.

 

[dellzeqq]

See, I don't get this. If the ride is on a public road how can they actually stop you? I guess for a Sportive they could refuse to give you timings but I can't see how they can prevent you from riding the course anyway.

pump in the spokes? If you join an organised ride for which you are not registered, and you're involved in a crash, prepare for the worst.

 

[Dan_h]

pump in the spokes? If you join an organised ride for which you are not registered, and you're involved in a crash, prepare for the worst.

Yes, but a few weeks ago I was out for a ride on my own. I followed my normal route and towards the end that intersected with a crowd of people on a sportive ride. I followed the same route as them for a few miles passing a lot of the slower riders on it. One of the marshalls did get a bit annoyed when he decided it was not safe for me to cross a junction due to traffic, but it looked safe to me so not being on their ride I ignored his upheld hand and carried on.

Now as far as I am concerned I am on a public road and following the rules of it correctly. If I was involved in an accident then I can't see how it would be any different from any other accident. I am not registered with their sportive and am not riding with them, I just happen to be going the same way on an open public road. If I extend that and decide to follow their arrows I am still on a public road with as much right to it as the sportive riders and if I decide to follow the whole route I am still doing nothing wrong. I can't see how "prepare for the worst" can be applied here! A closed road sportive is different, but a sportive on open roads... I can see no way that the organisers or their insurers can say that I should not be on the course with all the other riders.

 

[dellzeqq]

Yes, but a few weeks ago I was out for a ride on my own. I followed my normal route and towards the end that intersected with a crowd of people on a sportive ride. I followed the same route as them for a few miles passing a lot of the slower riders on it. One of the marshalls did get a bit annoyed when he decided it was not safe for me to cross a junction due to traffic, but it looked safe to me so not being on their ride I ignored his upheld hand and carried on.

Now as far as I am concerned I am on a public road and following the rules of it correctly. If I was involved in an accident then I can't see how it would be any different from any other accident. I am not registered with their sportive and am not riding with them, I just happen to be going the same way on an open public road. If I extend that and decide to follow their arrows I am still on a public road with as much right to it as the sportive riders and if I decide to follow the whole route I am still doing nothing wrong. I can't see how "prepare for the worst" can be applied here! A closed road sportive is different, but a sportive on open roads... I can see no way that the organisers or their insurers can say that I should not be on the course with all the other riders.

pump in the spokes, then

 

[Dan B]

YI can see no way that the organisers or their insurers can say that I should not be on the course with all the other riders.

Agreed, but if you were in collision with one of them, expect their insurers to argue quite vehemently that it was your fault if there's any basis at all for their doing so. If you have TP insurance of your own this might be less scary, but for the rider without legal cover?

 

[Dan_h]

Agreed, but if you were in collision with one of them, expect their insurers to argue quite vehemently that it was your fault if there's any basis at all for their doing so. If you have TP insurance of your own this might be less scary, but for the rider without legal cover?

Of course they will, that is what insurance companies do if they can think of a way that they can avoid paying out. You still have a right to be on the same bit of road if you want or need to ride along it and unless the organisers are going to close the roads for the event then there is nothing they can do about that. Which kind of brings me back to the helmet bit at the start, I can choose to ride around the whole route without a helmet and time myself if I wish to, the only thing I can see that the organisers can do about this is to not allow me through the timing area / get official timings etc. Most sportives seem to get around this by making you have a sticker on your helmet with the timing chip anyway!

I guess it is the pump through the spokes idea then

 

[CopperBrompton]

If you join an organised ride for which you are not registered, and you're involved in a crash, prepare for the worst.

If the event is on public roads, and you're not registered for any ride that happens to be taking place on it at the same time, then by definition you are just out for a normal cycle ride.

 

[theclaud]

If the event is on public roads, and you're not registered for any ride that happens to be taking place on it at the same time, then by definition you are just out for a normal cycle ride.

I don't think it's quite that simple. I accidentally found myself amongst the Dragon Ride last year. I quite enjoyed it, but if I'd charged through and knocked someone off their bike I don't think it would wash that I hadn't noticed anything going on. The 3,000-odd cyclists wearing numbers were a bit of a clue...

 

[mcshroom]

Of course you'd notice it was going on, but that doesn't mean that you have any less right to be there.

Twice now I've been cycling on part of the Fred Whitton Route while the Sportive has been on (once in the opposite direction, that confused them ). It happens that I need to be somewhere on the same weekend that is on part of the route. If I had an collision with one of them (especially the idiots coming down Irton Pike on the wrong side of a blind bend - they should be thankfull I was paying attention and not a car) why should it make any difference that they were on a sportive?

 

[Dan_h]

I was supposed to be doing a ride, with others, for charity. I was refused a start because I didn't have the helmet.

Yes - of course I could have done the ride by pretending I was simply out for a ride along the same route - but that's not the point.

The point is that organisers are refusing to allow cyclists to take part in their events if they are not wearing a helmet.

I wondered about this at the weekend, I did the Evans sportive and they said the same thing, any rider without a helmet won't be allowed to ride. But, if you get there and they say you can't ride as you have no helmet they can't physically prevent you from riding anyway, just going through the timing gate. On a charity ride there is no timing gate so apart from not giving you insurance cover in the event of an accident what can they do to prevent you completing the ride anyway?

I disagree with the notion that organisers should stop people riding without a helmet as there is no law requiring one to ride on the public road, and all these events are is a ride on the public road, however I know it is down to insurance liability and if the insurers won't give cover without the organisers insisting on helmets then the organisers are a little bit stuck.

Mind you, having witnessed the standard of riding by some people on sportives in the past I am not convinced that full body armour should not be a requirement!