Spokes de-lists events requiring helmets

[CopperBrompton]

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.

No-one is saying you wouldn't notice, just that your insurance position doesn't change when you are cycling on a public road whether there is one other cyclist sharing the road with you or 10,000.

 

[Recycler]

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

Why turn up helmetless for an event which has made clear that helmets are required? If you want to ride, take a helmet. It you don't want to wear a helmet, don't turn up.

Surely life's too short to get worried about it?

 

[Recycler]

It wasn't made clear (it was buried in the T&Cs and most people don't bother reading those).

You've learnt a valuable lesson then.

I'll bet that the vast majority of other riders had helmets with them?

 

[marzjennings]

There were quite a few who didn't.

The outcome of this all is that this particular charity has lost support because of its stance.

It's often not the stance of the organizing body, but rather a requirement of the permitting body who may have insisted that the event was insured and that the insurance company would have mandated helmet use before issuing coverage.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Or more fundamentally the duty of care toward each other.

Indeed. And I don't think I'm any more likely to cause an accident when surrounded by other cyclists (as is quite common in central London, as well as on the numerous group rides I've done) than I am when not.

Frankly the riskiest cycling I do from a liability standpoint is cycling through Kensington where the density of supercars is notably high. It would reduce my risk significantly if there were a few cyclists between me and the nearest Ferrari.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Indeed. And I don't think I'm any more likely to cause an accident when surrounded by other cyclists (as is quite common in central London, as well as on the numerous group rides I've done) than I am when not.

Frankly the riskiest cycling I do from a liability standpoint is cycling through Kensington where the density of supercars is notably high. It would reduce my risk significantly if there were a few cyclists between me and the nearest Ferrari.

I once saw a 1966 Fiat 500 Abarth SS in Kensington Church Street.

Much better visibility than a Ferrari, much rarer than most Ferraris and sweeter than a custard doughnut sitting on a baklava.

I fell in love at first sight.

Sorry... what was the discussion about? I agree with the person who said no. Please continue your debate.

 

[Dan_h]

There is always the option of riding audaxes... cheaper, often have stops in pubs / coffee shops and no helmet rules!

 

[Recycler]

There were quite a few who didn't.

The outcome of this all is that this particular charity has lost support because of its stance.

You haven't told us which charity or event it was so we'll just have to take your word for it.

However, I'm sure that the charity will have had good reasons for making the rule and will be able to survive the loss of a handful of riders who choose not to read the T&C's.

I'm just surprised that peeps turned up without helmets for an organised ride.

 

[theclaud]

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?

Oh I quite agree, and I will probably go and mingle again with the Dragon Ride next year. Last year I managed to put some lost riders back on track. I wasn't really arguing, just acknowledging the insurance point as outlined by Dan above, and also suggesting that the duty of care thing cuts both ways. As in I don't expect to be barged out of the way by Dragon Riders, but also that if I find myself in the middle of a large cycling event in which I am not participating, I would ride with the additional care required and also take a bit of care not to disrupt the event.

 

[marzjennings]

Insurance is often an excuse that is used - but it is an excuse (just as people tend to quote non-existent 'health and safety' rules). I've organised insurance for cycling events and BUGs, etc. (including one policy which covers over 1 million people) and I've never had an insurer insist on helmets being worn.

That is great to know as I had assumed all insurance companies had jumped on requiring helmets for all events.

 

[Dan B]

There is always the option of riding audaxes... cheaper, often have stops in pubs / coffee shops and no helmet rules!

Ah, but then you're subject to mudguard rules :-)

Although I freely concede, mudguard rules are often far more sensible than helmet rules anyway

 

[Dan_h]

Ah, but then you're subject to mudguard rules :-)

Although I freely concede, mudguard rules are often far more sensible than helmet rules anyway

LOL, Actually not any more - that rule was dropped a while ago although individual organisers can specify mudguards they rarely do, in fact I dont think I have seen any events this year with mandatory mudguards.

 

[Alun]

LOL, Actually not any more - that rule was dropped a while ago although individual organisers can specify mudguards they rarely do, in fact I dont think I have seen any events this year with mandatory mudguards.

There are no mudguards required on Audaxes, but sandals and beards are encouraged.