# Charity Bike Ride - Compulsory Helmet



## threebikesmcginty (12 May 2011)

My work has organised a bike ride to raise funds for a charity it supports. 

I said I'd take part, even though after years of pestering they refused to take part in the C2W scheme (thanks for your help with the facts and figures Norm) so we have to do the ride on bikes paid for by ourselves and not helped out in any way by The Man.

Just noticed yesterday that Rule No1 is compulsory helmet wearing. I questioned the rationale behind this as I don't wear a helmet and was told it was for safety reasons and to minimise risk.

Now, this isn't a helmet good thing/helmet waste of time debate for me - not interested in that part of it, but am I being childish in thinking I don't want to do the ride if I have to wear a helmet? That's how I feel about it, not childish but that I don't want to do the ride.


----------



## 2Loose (12 May 2011)

Nope, I felt the same when the entry form for the Great Notts Ride made a statement about helmets.
A quick phone call and I found they were not compulsory, so I did the ride after all, but I don't think I would ridden if they had been.


----------



## ianrauk (12 May 2011)

Your thinking is fair enough Ed. Not childish at all.
They want your time, effort and sponsorship money then they can work it your way... or the highway.


----------



## PoweredByVeg (12 May 2011)

I am sooooo pro helmets, but even I would have told them to shove it up their arse in your case :-)

Our company's like yours, so I see where you're coming from.

As for the charity aspect, next time you see a charity box, pop something in


----------



## snorri (12 May 2011)

You could express your reservations to the organisers, tell them you haven't got a helmet and rather than buy one for the event, offer to add the cost of a helmet to the sponsorship monies you raise.


----------



## SquareDaff (12 May 2011)

Is it an insurance issue? I.e. are work insuring the event?


----------



## TrevorM (12 May 2011)

I agree with you. I registered for a charity ride last year because it was the only one I could find where helmets were 'recommended' but not compulsory.
5 days before the event they changed their mind and made them compulsory. I complained about the lateness of the change but they wouldn't budge. 
So I withdrew and they returned my registration fee.


----------



## Durian (12 May 2011)

If I was in the same position I wouldn't bother with the ride.


----------



## the snail (12 May 2011)

I think in that situation I would bite my tongue and wear a helmet in order to participate, support the charity and perhaps encourage colleagues to get on their bikes. Then again maybe I would just say f*** it - I totally understand your attitude.


----------



## frank9755 (12 May 2011)

I'd pull out, stating why. 

While compromise is great, if you just go along with something that you resent you'll never feel good about it, and about the fact that your acquiescence implies support.


----------



## amaferanga (12 May 2011)

Its their ride and therefore they make the rules. If you don't like it don't ride.

(FWIW I don't usually wear a helmet, but I do to race cos thems the rules)


----------



## Moodyman (12 May 2011)

ianrauk said:


> Your thinking is fair enough Ed. Not childish at all.
> They want your time, effort and sponsorship money then they can work it your way... or the highway.




Agree, especially as they'll likely to use the efforts of the participants to get them some browny points - Corporate Social responsibility and all that.


----------



## Chris S (12 May 2011)

Just turn up and don't wear a helmet. If anybody raises any objections then ask them if they want to lose your sponsorship money - it should be enough to make them change their minds.


----------



## Chris.IOW (12 May 2011)

amaferanga said:


> Its their ride and therefore they make the rules. If you don't like it don't ride.



Well said. I had to endure a barrel load of abuse from someone who turned up for a sportive without a Helmet. The event sets the rules, we all have to endure rules we don't like at various times. If you feel that strongly don't ride.


----------



## Alien8 (12 May 2011)

Chris.IOW said:


> The event sets the rules, we all have to endure rules we don't like at various times.



_"If we had no rules where would we be? France! If we had too many rules where would we be? Germany!"_

The Pub Landlord


----------



## Kestevan (12 May 2011)

Assuming its a ride done on Public roads then there's nothing to stop you telling them to stuff it, then just turning up on the day to ride the same route....


----------



## jethro10 (12 May 2011)

It's for charity for gods sake.

If you feel like doing your bit to help the more unfortunate people in the world, then just wear the helmet!


All these people here telling you to take a stance for the good of helmetless riding - calm down, it's for charity.
there's enough time to make your point when it isn't likely to affect the unfortunate people of the world!


J


----------



## TrevorM (12 May 2011)

Kestevan said:


> Assuming its a ride done on Public roads then there's nothing to stop you telling them to stuff it, then just turning up on the day to ride the same route....



Yes, just turn up and ride the same route, then........



jethro10 said:


> It's for charity for gods sake.



just donate something to charity to keep jethro10 happy


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2011)

Chris S said:


> Just turn up and don't wear a helmet. If anybody raises any objections then ask them if they want to lose your sponsorship money - it should be enough to make them change their minds.



+1. If it's on public roads they can't stop you riding and they can decide whether they want to accept any money you've raised at the end or not. If not you can always pop it in one of their collection boxes anyway.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2011)

Have they said you have to wear it on your head?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (12 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Have they said you have to wear it on your head?



Good point - it says 'safety approved cycle helmets are worn at all times when cycling', so if I had a damaged and tatty cycling helmet at home when I was out riding it would be ok.


----------



## MacB (12 May 2011)

I'm surprised by the 'thems the rules', and 'it's for charity so suck it up' type attitudes.

Roads are public and there is no law that requires the wearing of a helmet to cycle - events that insist on helmet use(no doubt claiming it's all for insurance purposes) undermine the law of the land and your own personal freedoms.

Don't do it 3BM you'd be selling out man, keep it real!!!


----------



## davefb (12 May 2011)

work organised INNIT. they'd be super liable if anything happened.. 

mind you, have they asked what skill level people are and have you had to tick something to say 'my bike is in decent nick'..


----------



## threebikesmcginty (12 May 2011)

Uncle Mort said:


> Yeah - ask yourself what Freewheelin' Franklin would have done!



Skinned up a fatty and told 'em to 'get the freak out of town, man'


----------



## sadjack (12 May 2011)

My only comments would be who at the event

1. is policing the wearing of helmets?
2. will they stop anyone riding who has a badly fitted helmet? after all that can be MORE dangerous 
3. will they inspect every helmet to make sure it complies?

If your going to have a rule it should be enforced or its pointless.

Yeah have rules but lets be sensible about it, the rule could be SHOULD not MUST and let individuals decide. Any duty of care is then shifted to the individual.

I do think that in some cases this "Health and Safety" culture (or is it I'm scared of being sued culture?) can create more problems than it solves.


----------



## Jezston (12 May 2011)

amaferanga said:


> Its their ride and therefore they make the rules. If you don't like it don't ride.




And one should never _question_ authority.


----------



## Arch (12 May 2011)

davefb said:


> work organised INNIT. they'd be super liable if anything happened..
> 
> mind you, have they asked what skill level people are and have you had to tick something to say 'my bike is in decent nick'..



Yeah! Wear the helmet, but turn up on a rusty BSO with brakes undone, and wobble down the road no handed, smoking a fag.

Agree about the policing of it - I bet a lot of helmets will be worn balanced on the back of the head, straps dangling, etc.


----------



## davefb (12 May 2011)

Arch said:


> Yeah! Wear the helmet, but turn up on a rusty BSO with brakes undone, and wobble down the road no handed, smoking a fag.
> 
> Agree about the policing of it - I bet a lot of helmets will be worn balanced on the back of the head, straps dangling, etc.



hmm

if theres a load of other riders wobbling about, perhaps a full 'bmx kit' would be more applicable anyways


----------



## ianrauk (12 May 2011)

Arch said:


> Yeah! Wear the helmet, but turn up on a rusty BSO with brakes undone, and wobble down the road no handed, smoking a fag.
> 
> Agree about the policing of it - I bet a lot of helmets will be *worn balanced on the back of the head,* straps dangling, etc.



If there is one thing that really get's my goat, it's that....


----------



## frank9755 (12 May 2011)

ianrauk said:


> If there is one thing that really get's my goat, it's that....



Yes. Along with people attaching solid objects such as lights and cameras to their helmet for maximum skull-embedding effect in the event of a fall.


----------



## Arch (12 May 2011)

Actually, could you ask to see the risk assessment?

It would be interesting to see everything they've missed - bikes fit for the road etc.

Sunburn is a good one.

Although if you mention every little thing to make your point, they might end up cancelling the ride in terror, which wouldn't be great....

Turn up on the day, in a full suit of armour....


----------



## Mark_Robson (12 May 2011)

I would imagine that your company is worried about being held responsible if people injure themselves, hence the rule about helmets. 

If I were a cyclist who didn't own a helmet then I would be pretty unhappy about having to fork out for one for a one off. If your company is happy to provide helmets then I would would suggest that you swallow your pride and wear it for the day and justify it by telling yourself that you are doing it for a good cause.


----------



## User169 (12 May 2011)

The company I work for organises an annual bike "classic" (100kms following some of the Liege-Bastogne-Liege route) - helmets are obligatory. I don't usually wear one, but put up with it because it's a nice event and the company has a good attitude towards cycling in general (generous cycle to work scheme, sponsor of Garmin-Cervelo pro-team). I could see it would be a bit galling if your employers are usually arses when it comes to bikes.


----------



## classic33 (12 May 2011)

I'm with Arch, ask to see the risk assesment. Presumably if they have insisted that the first rule is that helmets are to be worn then they will have done an assesment to prove that they're required. OR more likely simply accepted the story that cycling is dangerous & requires a helmet to be worn in order to cycle safely.

Will an inspection of the actual bikes be made before the ride to see that they are fit to use? 

I did actually pull out of one that was organised by a place I used to work on the same grounds. Wasn't very well received. But I didn't want to be bullied into doing something that I disagreed with. Willing to raise the money, do the ride. Not to do something I wouldn't do at any other time.

You sell out your values, what have you got left?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 May 2011)

+1
[QUOTE 1393140"]
It's not just me then.


There's also another issue here. We ought to be doing everything we can to encourage cycling. Refusing to ride on helmet grounds is just going to make you look odd to a non-bikey, and it's unlikely to encourage anyone onto a saddle.

I'd suck it up, get them sucked into cycling, and then you can start the helmet debate.
[/quote]


----------



## Bicycle (12 May 2011)

I'm largely with the above.

Just do it and have a laugh...


----------



## ufkacbln (12 May 2011)

Ask for details of which standard they require to be worn and who is going to be invigilating.

I used to organise rides for the Scouts and bring in several hundred pounds a year until helmets became compulsory - I then stopped organising the rides.

Their choice, their loss


----------



## frank9755 (12 May 2011)

[QUOTE 1393140"]
There's also another issue here. We ought to be doing everything we can to encourage cycling. Refusing to ride on helmet grounds is just going to make you look odd to a non-bikey, and it's unlikely to encourage anyone onto a saddle.

[/quote]

-1
Remember that the evidence from countries which have promoted helmets is that it discourages cycling


----------



## frank9755 (13 May 2011)

[QUOTE 1393145"]
That's compulsion you're talking about. 
[/quote]

This is compulsion!

But let's not have the broader debate as the OP specifically didn't want it and I am sure he is familiar with the issues.


----------



## Fnaar (13 May 2011)

March into "The Man's" office, and tell to "STICK YOUR BL00DY RIDE...AND YOUR BL00DY JOB... WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE, MUSH!
Worth a try?


----------



## ufkacbln (13 May 2011)

Fnaar said:


> March into "The Man's" office, and tell to "STICK YOUR BL00DY RIDE...AND YOUR BL00DY JOB... WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE, MUSH!
> Worth a try?



But wear a helmet in case he gets upset and throws something?


----------



## ufkacbln (13 May 2011)

[QUOTE 1393145"]
That's compulsion you're talking about. Helmets are promoted in the UK. You're more likely to find that a newbie's first piece of kit is a helmet. Something inside them says that it's obviously going to make cycling safer. And if that's the case, let them get on with it. Our job as enthusiasts isn't to talk people out of wearing them, but talk people onto bikes. Any argument about the merits of helmet wearing can come later.

I think that the helmet discussion is a good one. But I don't think in this situation it's going to help or make any difference to anyone by making some kind of point here. Sure, have a chat with the organiser, and they may relent. But if they don't there's only detriment in pulling out of the ride.
[/quote]


My problem is that if we spent all the effort and money on education the benefit would be far greater.

Next time you are out look at the standard of bikes and cyclists.

Wearing a helmet on the back of your head with looses straps is going to be ineffective and even dangerous.

Then ask the next question. Is te helmet really the best safety investment when compared to having brakes that work, inflated tyres, and the forks the right way round?

Sadly the helmet is now seen as being the answer - we no longer seek to educate and prevent accidents rather we allow the accidents to happen inthe hopes the helmet will magically save us from our own neglect and ignorance


----------



## srw (13 May 2011)

[QUOTE 1393145"]
I think that the helmet discussion is a good one. But I don't think in this situation it's going to help or make any difference to anyone by making some kind of point here. Sure, have a chat with the organiser, and they may relent. But if they don't there's only detriment in pulling out of the ride.
[/quote]

Agreed. You're taking part to raise money, to have fun with colleagues and to demonstrate that even though you're a serious cyclist who posts on chat forums you're not above riding with people who don't. If you pull out you'll look like the boy who took his football away because his friends didn't want him to be captain.

My best guess is that the organiser just hasn't thought about it - or is part of a racing club which just automatically does helmets. At this stage of organisation the last thing he'll want is to have a helmet debate. To be fair to your colleague the time to have that debate is just after the ride, not before or during.


----------



## Red Light (13 May 2011)

[QUOTE 1393145"]


That's compulsion you're talking about. Helmets are promoted in the UK.[/quote]

TRL Report 286 in the UK found that in local authorities where helmets were strongly promoted cycling declined on average by 2.8% against an average increase of 4.9% where they weren't.

Copenhagenize has also reported that when they started to promote helmets for safety in Denmark in 2007/8, cycling numbers fell for the first time in decades.

So it's not just an effect of compulsion.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (13 May 2011)

For me, it's got nothing to do with helmet safety, it's got nothing to do with being a serious cyclist, etc., etc. It's about previously trying to get my company interested in cycling and participating in promoting cycling by taking part in schemes such as C2W (which I even offered to set up and run) - I've tried and it's as though the invention of the bicycle completely passed them by, not interested in the slightest. I gave up asking when they just started ignoring the information I gave them regarding the benefits, fun, health and saving money, etc. that cycling and C2W had to offer all of us as employees and them as employers. It isn't even about me sulking over not getting half price bikes either, I am paid enough to buy all the bikes I want. 

What I'm naffed off about is suddenly being dictated to about how to go about cycling safely, by folk who don't ride, when I've managed to ride a bike for about forty years without, last time I looked, dying.

As I stated in my first post, I'm finding it difficult because I don't want to appear to be a toy throwing brat but I can't help the way I feel on a matter of principle as far as I'm concerned. 

I will, no doubt, end up doing the ride once I've 'got over it', after all I'd rather be riding a bike than working!


----------



## threebikesmcginty (13 May 2011)

Uncle Mort said:


>



I know - maybe I'm Bonj!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 May 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Good point - it says 'safety approved cycle helmets are worn at all times when cycling', so if I had a damaged and tatty cycling helmet at home when I was out riding it would be ok.



Not gloves? Nothing about roadworthy bikes? Sounds like the legal department are worried about liability issues and have only done superficial analysis of the situation. Tosh. But easy for me to say as I'm fairly high up the food chain in my organisation.

mind you, on rides surrounded by unknown quantities I tend to wear a helmet just in case one of them offs me.


----------



## Grizzly (13 May 2011)

The vast majority of folk on this thread have agreed with you. I am very pro helmets, but if my employer (which has a C2W scheme) started to dictate to me what I must do on my own time whilst trying to raise money for a good cause, I'd be tempted to do the opposite. But (and there is always a but), could you play be their rules and use it as a way in? Could you use this opportunity to re-introduce the idea of a C2W scheme? Ask the opinions of all the staff members who turn up that day, use it to show your employers that their staff are interested in cycling. Try and make this work for you.


----------



## 4F (13 May 2011)

If it bothers you that much 3bm then don't do the ride. I am pro choice and ride 99.99% of the time helmetless however several years ago I purchased a cheap helmet from LIDL for the events which dictate compulsary helmet use ie. the Action Medical charity rides as well as the Cycle Chat rides around the velodrome.

Stop being a big wuss and more importantly why have you changed your user name back again ?


----------



## ELL (13 May 2011)

I would say don’t do the ride. You obviously don’t care about the charity that you will be doing it for so may as well not do it and save your friends and family the money of sponsoring you.


----------



## Crackle (13 May 2011)

Do it! I can't think of a better way to engage your work with the idea that cycling is good and the C2w scheme might be worth doing.

I completely agree with your thoughts but keep your eye on the bigger game here, this is an opportunity to recruit people to your cause. Don't miss it.

PS. I've got a spare helmet you can have. It has RBS banking written on the side but I'm sure it's a sticker that comes off


----------



## 400bhp (13 May 2011)

Grizzly said:


> The vast majority of folk on this thread have agreed with you. I am very pro helmets, but if my employer (which has a C2W scheme) started to dictate to me what I must do on my own time whilst trying to raise money for a good cause, I'd be tempted to do the opposite. But (and there is always a but), could you play be their rules and use it as a way in? Could you use this opportunity to re-introduce the idea of a C2W scheme? Ask the opinions of all the staff members who turn up that day, use it to show your employers that their staff are interested in cycling. Try and make this work for you.



Exactly.

You'll come across (rightly or wrongly) as a bit of a t1t by not doing it for the reasons given.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (13 May 2011)

4F said:


> Stop being a big wuss and more importantly why have you changed your user name back again ?



I've never changed my name as far as I know, it's always been ridiculous and inaccurate, much like my posts! 

Thanks for all the replies folks, I've already said I'll probably end up doing the ****er, just needed to get it off me chest.


----------



## screenman (13 May 2011)

You said that you would rather be riding than working, this tells me the ride is in works time, good on the company to want to support a worth cause.

Now for the big part of my answer, simple why not all you who do not support helmet wearing run an event for charity. Open to only those that do not wear one.

Personaly I admire and thank everybody who organises an event as to few people do, as it takes time and effort. For that reason if I want to do the ride then I am happy to abide to the organisers rules. 

From where I am sitting definitely a throwing the teddy out of the pram post.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (13 May 2011)

Crackle said:


> PS. I've got a spare helmet you can have. It has RBS banking written on the side but I'm sure it's a sticker that comes off



Much like the RBS wheels! Thanks for the offer Crackers.


----------



## Davidc (13 May 2011)

Paint/fix a large sign on the helmet:

"Warning. Helmets kill cyclists"*

Then do the ride.

I'm doing a charity ride in June, organised by the charity (the local Air Ambulance). Their instructions say that helmet wearing is recommended. If it stays that way I'll wear mine unless it's hot weather. If they change to compulsion I'll do what I've suggested, unless it's hot weather in which case I'll withdraw from the ride.

It's my head, not theirs.

(Risk Assessment: Helmets make my head get hot in hot weather, with the associated risk of passing out. This risk is massively greater than the risk of having an accident if I don't wear one. As I have yet to be convinced of any benefit at all from helmet wearing* I rate the hazard from an accident as the same in both cases. This means that I don't wear a helmet when it's hot. Can anyone find a flaw in this?)

*There's no actual evidence either way as far as I'm aware.

I'm not anti helmet, just anti compulsion.


----------



## jethro10 (13 May 2011)

to all those trying to make it an anti helmet crusade.

i just hope one day you need help from a charity and don't get it cos someone was more interested in making a different point.
forget helmet debates, forget pride. some poor sods that can't help themselves also don't give a shoot about helmets

so there !!!






Jeff


----------



## 4F (13 May 2011)

jethro10 said:


> to all those trying to make it an anti helmet crusade.
> 
> i just hope one day you need help from a charity and don't get it cos someone was more interested in making a different point.
> forget helmet debates, forget pride. some poor sods that can't help themselves also don't give a shoot about helmets
> ...




Jeff, I have seen no one on here trying to make an anti helmet crusade, you sure your looking at the right thread ?


----------



## Red Light (13 May 2011)

Davidc said:


> Paint/fix a large sign on the helmet:
> 
> "Warning. Helmets kill cyclists"*
> 
> Then do the ride.



Or get an ECF badge


----------



## ufkacbln (13 May 2011)

jethro10 said:


> to all those trying to make it an anti helmet crusade.
> 
> i just hope one day you need help from a charity and don't get it cos someone was more interested in making a different point.
> forget helmet debates, forget pride. some poor sods that can't help themselves also don't give a shoot about helmets
> ...



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?


----------



## screenman (13 May 2011)

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 (17 May 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> 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 (17 May 2011)

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 (17 May 2011)

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 (17 May 2011)

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 (17 May 2011)

Catrike UK said:


> 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 (17 May 2011)

Which charity is the event rasing funds for, Headway ?


----------



## Red Light (17 May 2011)

Bicycle said:


> 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 (17 May 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> 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 (17 May 2011)

srw said:


> 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 (17 May 2011)

Red Light said:


> 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 (17 May 2011)

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 (17 May 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> 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 (17 May 2011)

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 (17 May 2011)

screenman said:


> 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.


----------



## Paulus (17 May 2011)

Arch said:


> 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.




I always had you down as fast lady Arch!


----------



## screenman (17 May 2011)

So if track mits do that, then surely a helmet would! You know what I am getting at.

45 years of cycling and always wear gloves.


----------



## classic33 (17 May 2011)

screenman said:


> So if track mits do that, then surely a helmet would! You know what I am getting at.
> 
> 45 years of cycling and always wear gloves.



How would a helmet prevent friction burns??


----------



## threebikesmcginty (17 May 2011)

The helmet debate is thataway...


----------



## david k (17 May 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> My work has organised a bike ride to raise funds for a charity it supports.
> 
> I said I'd take part, even though after years of pestering they refused to take part in the C2W scheme (thanks for your help with the facts and figures Norm) so we have to do the ride on bikes paid for by ourselves and not helped out in any way by The Man.
> 
> ...



good that they insist on safety


----------



## ufkacbln (17 May 2011)

Arch said:


> 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.



(Like me) - you also haven't got far to fall either!

Personally I think recumbent trikes are the answer!


----------



## ufkacbln (17 May 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> 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!



I don't do charity donations.

I spend time and my personal skills with the charities I choose to support.

Much more valuable and much more satisfying than handing over a few pence to soothe one's guilt


----------



## evilclive (18 May 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> 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.



Nice one - that's actualy an excellent and slightly surprising result.


----------



## Red Light (18 May 2011)

benb said:


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



There is a fair amount of population epidemiology that is reasonably reliable and clear - have a look at the couple of papers by Paul Hewson for example based on the UK data sets.	Just because there is a lot of poor studies out there confusing the picture it doesn't mean they are all poor. The problem is a lot of the debate centres around the poor studies.


----------



## Fiona N (18 May 2011)

Ironically - as I usually don't wear a cycling helmet (except for mtbiking and riding on icy days) - this sort of charity ride would be just the sort of event to get me looking the helmet out...loads of inexperienced, over-excited cyclists with insufficient road sense  - it's harder to keep out of their way than avoid the cars


----------



## screenman (18 May 2011)

Having just ridden a charity even at the weekend I can see exactly where you are coming from, extremely good points.


----------



## david k (18 May 2011)

Fiona N said:


> Ironically - as I usually don't wear a cycling helmet (except for mtbiking and riding on icy days) - this sort of charity ride would be just the sort of event to get me looking the helmet out...loads of inexperienced, over-excited cyclists with insufficient road sense  - it's harder to keep out of their way than avoid the cars




why do you only wear them when mounting biking and on icy days? i presume its because you feel theres an increased risk?


----------

