One in ten people in UK have forgotten how to ride a bike, survey finds

Mungecrundle wrote:

These relatively low energy spills are exactly the sort of scenario where a helmet can meet its design brief and provide meaningful protection.

"Meaningful protection"   Could you define that please?  If you mean that helmets prevent bumps and scratches, I can only agree, but I can't help feeling that "meaningful" means something rather more profound.

If it is only bumps and scratches, then do they really need a rule? and if you mean serious trauma and death, please provide some evidence that helmets prevent them.

keirik wrote:

The only proven fact about helmets is the anti's will shoe horn the argument into any thread they can.

While it may be compulsory to wear one on the BHF rides, it's not compulsory to go on a BHF ride, so if you don't like it, then it's really easy to avoid.

That way we won't have to read the same old arguments constantly

The only proven fact about helmets is that the zealots will take every opportunity to denigrate those presenting the facts rather than the myths, fairy stories and lies of those promoting helmets.

The question is why the BHF has this rule, a question which seems to have escaped your comprehension.  BHF exists to prevent heart disease and one of the best ways of doing that is by riding a bike regularly, but the BHF discourages cycling with its helmet rule, so it is increasing heart disease by its own actions.

Trust me, we'll keep hearing the same old arguments, supported by all the facts, data and science, until people like BHF drop their entirely counterproductive rule.

burtthebike wrote:

The only proven fact about helmets is that the zealots will take every opportunity to denigrate those presenting the facts rather than the myths, fairy stories and lies of those promoting helmets.

Another definition of zealotry would be to hijack a thread about something unrelated and spam it repeatedly with the same tired old crap even after the reasons have been explained to you in very simple words.

Fact is that over the years hundreds of thousands of cyclists have participated in BHF charity rides. They really are not struggling to fill spaces and they really are not missing you if you decide to stay away.

Fact is that BHF are not a cycling lobby.

Fact is that BHF are not calling for compulsory cycle anything outside the guidance of their own events.

If you feel so strongly on the subject, why not start your own organisation to campaign against the dreaded cycle helmet. You could even organise your own charity walk and make people wear helmets to demonstrate your point.

Mungecrundle wrote:

They have no choice but to follow the guidance issued in the highway code. To do otherwise would leave them open to critiscism and possible legal action in the event of a head related injury. Obviously a bit unfortunate for those very few who have a psychosis that physically prevents them from wearing a helmet and joining in but there are other ways to support such events such as marshalling (though you may have to wear hi viz).

The Highway Code is advice, not law, and there is no reason to follow it, and there has been a single incident of a legal case where it was found that contributory negligence applied for not wearing a helmet, in such unique circumstances that it did not make case law.  They could do what the HC does, and advise you to wear a helmet, but compulsion is frankly stupid.

Why would any cyclist want to support an organisation which makes absurd decisions and discourages cycling and healthy exercise, defeating the reason for its existence?

This kind of creeping compulsion by incompetent organisers should be resisted by everyone interested in increasing the number of cyclists.

burtthebike wrote:

Why would any cyclist want to support an organisation which ... discourages cycling...?

I think that's going a bit far. I would say that the BHF encourages cycling quite a lot. I think a fairer way of making your point would be "could encourage cycling more effectively", or "doesn't encourage cycling as much as it could."

I don't think that just because one might disagree with their helmet policy, and think that it's counterproductive, one could never support what they are doing! Would more people cycle if the BHF didn't exist? I doubt it. I know a lot of non-cyclists who have done the L2B or similar. I'm sure some of those people must "get the bug."

Babies and bathwater spring to mind.

DaveE128 wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Why would any cyclist want to support an organisation which ... discourages cycling...?

I think that's going a bit far. I would say that the BHF encourages cycling quite a lot. I think a fairer way of making your point would be "could encourage cycling more effectively", or "doesn't encourage cycling as much as it could."

I don't think that just because one might disagree with their helmet policy, and think that it's counterproductive, one could never support what they are doing! Would more people cycle if the BHF didn't exist? I doubt it. I know a lot of non-cyclists who have done the L2B or similar. I'm sure some of those people must "get the bug."

Babies and bathwater spring to mind.

The only proven effect of helmet laws is to reduce the number of cyclists, there is no safety improvement.  By having a helmet rule, BHF are clearly implying that cycling is dangerous, which is in itself likely to discourage people from cycling.

Regular cycling is an extremely good way of preventing heart disease, and BHF aren't really interested in encouraging cycling, otherwise they wouldn't have the ludicrous, unjustified helmet rule.  They'd be doing everything possible to make sure more people rode bikes more often to prevent heart attacks, not discouraging it by making it appear dangerous, which is exactly what the helmet zealots have been doing for thirty years.

There must be someone reading this thread who works for, or knows someone who works for BHF, so how about telling us why they have this rule?

burtthebike wrote:

That would be the same British Heart Foundation that discourages cycling by having a helmet rule on it's fundraising rides would it? 

"a. All Participants in Events involving cycling (“Cycle Event”) must:

wear a cycle helmet at all times during the Cycle Event;"

Frankly, I find it absurd to the point of insanity that a charity supposed to be dedicated to lowering levels of heart disease actively discourages people from taking the exercise necessary to ensure that they stay healthy, especially when the evidence that cycle helmets prevent serious injury and death are absent and there is no legal, health, safety or insurance reason for having their rule.

Time that these organisers were held to account and explained why they have such a mistaken rule.  Mind you, the few I've been in touch with normally mumble something about insurance, clearly an alternative fact, and then refuse to correspond any further.

Bloody hell- surely there are enough feckin' helmet debate treads on this site now that you don't need to crowbar in another one!

burtthebike wrote:

That would be the same British Heart Foundation that discourages cycling by having a helmet rule on it's fundraising rides would it? 

How about it road.cc?  Get in touch with them and find out why they have this rule?  Or at least what they claim anyway.  Trump truth anyone?

I would imagine it's probably more down to getting public liability insurance than a foundation rule.

Beatnik69 wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

That would be the same British Heart Foundation that discourages cycling by having a helmet rule on it's fundraising rides would it? 

How about it road.cc?  Get in touch with them and find out why they have this rule?  Or at least what they claim anyway.  Trump truth anyone?

I would imagine it's probably more down to getting public liability insurance than a foundation rule.

No.  I've been in touch with quite a few of the organisers who mandate helmets to ask why they have such a rule, and many of them have claimed that it is imposed by the insurance company.  However, checking with the insurance company reveals that they make no such stipulation, so the organisers were lying, or is that alternative truth these days.  Any organiser with a helmet rule clearly doesn't understand risk, and I'd rather avoid rides where the organisers are clueless about risk.  What else have they completely misunderstood?

The insurance companies are experts in life expetancy and risk, and they don't demand helmet rules: what does that tell you?

burtthebike wrote:

The insurance companies are experts in life expetancy and risk, and they don't demand helmet rules: what does that tell you?

The insurance companies also don't demand that I drive to the speed limit in my car or reduce my millage either, but if I do they reduce the cost of insurance. They don't have to mandate it, just put an incentive on it.

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

The insurance companies are experts in life expetancy and risk, and they don't demand helmet rules: what does that tell you?

 

The insurance companies also don't demand that I drive to the speed limit in my car or reduce my millage either, but if I do they reduce the cost of insurance. They don't have to mandate it, just put an incentive on it.

I'm sorry, arre you saying that insurance companies reduce the cost of insurance for cyclists if they wear a helmet?  If so, could you provide a couple of examples?

To save you time, they don't.  But please feel free to waste your time looking.

Insurance companies will increase your car insurance if you're found guility of exceeding the speed limit, because their data shows that people who exceed the speed limit have more collisions and the effects of those collisions are more serious.  On the other hand, the data shows that cycle helmets make, at best, no difference to the safety of cyclists, and at worst increase the risk, so they don't increase the premiums for people who don't wear helmets.  Or, as they are otherwise known, people intelligent enough to read the evidence.

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

The insurance companies are experts in life expetancy and risk, and they don't demand helmet rules: what does that tell you?

 

The insurance companies also don't demand that I drive to the speed limit in my car or reduce my millage either, but if I do they reduce the cost of insurance. They don't have to mandate it, just put an incentive on it.

I'm sorry, arre you saying that insurance companies reduce the cost of insurance for cyclists if they wear a helmet?  If so, could you provide a couple of examples?

To save you time, they don't.  But please feel free to waste your time looking.

Insurance companies will increase your car insurance if you're found guility of exceeding the speed limit, because their data shows that people who exceed the speed limit have more collisions and the effects of those collisions are more serious.  On the other hand, the data shows that cycle helmets make, at best, no difference to the safety of cyclists, and at worst increase the risk, so they don't increase the premiums for people who don't wear helmets.  Or, as they are otherwise known, people intelligent enough to read the evidence.

A very quick google search (because I like to waste my time) and the first link states this:

What do insurers consider?

You will also need to make sure you adhere to any insurance requirements so you don't invalidate your policy. These can include having working lights fitted for night time cycling and wearing a helmet at all times.

Quoted from:

http://www.money.co.uk/bicycle-insurance/bicycle-liability-insurance.htm

burtthebike wrote:

That would be the same British Heart Foundation that discourages cycling by having a helmet rule on it's fundraising rides would it? 

"a. All Participants in Events involving cycling (“Cycle Event”) must:

wear a cycle helmet at all times during the Cycle Event;"

Frankly, I find it absurd to the point of insanity that a charity supposed to be dedicated to lowering levels of heart disease actively discourages people from taking the exercise necessary to ensure that they stay healthy, especially when the evidence that cycle helmets prevent serious injury and death are absent and there is no legal, health, safety or insurance reason for having their rule.

Time that these organisers were held to account and explained why they have such a mistaken rule.  Mind you, the few I've been in touch with normally mumble something about insurance, clearly an alternative fact, and then refuse to correspond any further.

How about it road.cc?  Get in touch with them and find out why they have this rule?  Or at least what they claim anyway.  Trump truth anyone?

Maybe they are trying to avoid any sort of claim like the case of Reynolds v. Strutt & Parker where the High Court held that the partners organising the cycling event had breached their duty of care owed to the claimant as neither had properly assessed the need to recommend and/or require participants to wear helmets.