The team at Iconic Cycling Events spend their time designing, developing and delivering high quality cycling events around the UK and overseas working with a range of event partners, sponsors and stakeholders at each event including British Cycling.
Bike Bath is the cycling sportive event that set it all of. Starting in the city centre that takes in routes of varying lengths in the countryside surrounding the spa city with routes changing each year. The event is now well-established in the South West of England’s cycling calendar and following its success in 2012 and 2013, Iconic Cycling Events was launched in 2014 with the introduction of Bike Oxford with Bike Chester launching in 2016.
Iconic Cycling Events are giving our members the chance to get 10% discount off of the entry fee for each of these events which you can access from here in the member’s section.
Not a member? Well just click on the links below to enter each event and hopefully some of us will see you there.
Bike Oxford
Starting at Oxford University Rugby Club, near to the historic city centre, Bike Oxford takes a short route around the colleges before heading into the Cotswold countryside, providing spectacular scenery for riders. The sportive which will be celebrating its 5th anniversary in 2018 champions local produce and includes rides of 25, 50 and 80 miles.
Entry Price:
- 80 & 50 mile routes – £36
- 25 mile route – £26
- Under 16’s – £15
Bike Chester
Starting at The King’s School, Bike Chester features routes of 25, 50 and 80 miles, all of which will take in the spectacular local countryside. The sportive will be celebrating its 3rd year in 2018 and has feedstations championing local produce.
Entry Price:
- 80 & 50 mile routes – £36
- 25 mile route – £26
- Under 16’s – £15
Bike Bath
Bike Bath is one of the largest single day city cycling events in the South West, attracting over 1000 riders to the spa city. Routes change each year but have previously included the Cotswolds and Mendips including the iconic Cheddar Gorge climb and on the shorter routes the famous Two Tunnels, Europe’s longest cycling tunnel, ensuring all rides are extremely enjoyable yet challenging.
Entry Price:
- 80 & 50 mile routes – £36
- 25 mile route – £26
- Under 16’s – £15
91 thoughts on “Iconic Cycling Events offer team road.cc members a 10% discount off of Bike Bath, Oxford & Chester sportives”
Yet another organisation so
Yet another organisation so ill informed that they have a helmet rule:
“What do I need to bring with me to a cycling sportive?
Most importantly your bike and your helmet………..”
Many of these rides have this rule, and I’ve asked many times why they have it, and am invariably given some industrial grade BS. The most usual is that the insurers demand it, except that when I contact those insurers, they haven’t.
These kind of events with their unjustifiable rules are making helmet laws easier to implement and are reinforcing the perception that cycling is dangerous. Thankfully, some organisations base their rules on proven facts, not myths, rumours and BS, so I’ll continue riding with CUK and Audax, which have sensible rules.
I don’t have much confidence in people organising events when they don’t even know the most basic facts about cycling.
burtthebike wrote:
Never done a sportive that didn’t have a compulsory helmet rule, and I personally have no problem with it.
burtthebike wrote:
Hi burt, I can’t help but wonder who you spoke to in the insurance companies?
Is it possible that helmet wearing in not compulsory but a lack would dramatically increase the insurance costs?
Surely the only way to be certain of this point would be to see the insurance schedule issued with a list of terms and conditIons?
stomec wrote:
It is possible, but when I’ve spoken to the insurers, they point blank deny that they have demanded a helmet rule. While I haven’t asked whether premiums would increase if there was no such rule, I’d be a bit surprised if the insurers hadn’t mentioned that to me. Insurers are experts in risk, and they do not demand that helmets be mandated, but organisers keep saying they do; it is a lie. The organisers don’t claim that the premiums would be increased if they didn’t have a helmet rule, they just say that the insurance companies demand it.
It’s just sloppy, incompetent organisers, trying desperately to justify the unjustifiable rule that they made up.
burtthebike wrote:
It’s all in the wording though, if a company buys the cheaper insurance which does mandate the use of helmets then they can honestly say that the use of helmets is a condition of it’s insurance.
A lot of insurers do not mandate the use of black boxes in the car, but if you chose that option then it is cheaper. Once you have purchased that insurance you would be perfectly correct to say that you have to have the black box connected in your car because it is mandated by your insurance.
*I am not saying that I know one way or the other, just saying that the use of the word mandated does not mean that it is universaly mandated, only that it is on the relevent policy purchased.
ClubSmed wrote:
You’re assuming, apparently without any proof, that such cheaper insurance exists, and that insurers give a discount for events which mandate helmets. Since the insurance companies, experts in risk, know full well that helmets don’t reduce risk, why would they give you a discount for something which doesn’t reduce risk?
burtthebike wrote:
I am not “assuming, apparently without any proof, that such cheaper insurance exists, and that insurers give a discount for events which mandate helmets”. What I am saying is that the wording for the two sides (insurer and insured) are different. If you asked an insurance company if they mandated black boxes in cars then the answer would be no, if you took out a policy that had a black box requirement then you could claim that they are mandated by your insurance. I am just trying to say, as others have, that the question you should ask insurers is “Do you have policies that mandate helmet wearing in cycling events” rather than “Do you mandate helmet use in cycle events” as the two questions could illicit a different answer and still be correct.
ClubSmed wrote:
To sum up your argument “I have absolutely no proof of anything, but I’m going to carry on asserting it.”
burtthebike wrote:
I am not asserting anything so therefor do not need any proof. As I stated on my original post on this matter “I am not saying that I know one way or the other”
All I am doing is pointing out that the only “proof” that you are offering is the answer to a verbal question that you asked someone in an insurance company. This answer does not necessarily support your theory that insurers do not mandate cycle helmets on any policies unless you can provide the exact wording of the question and answer as well as the insurer in question and who you spoke to from there.
As far as I am concerned, no-one here has proven one way or the other that helmet use is mandated by the insurers of these events. However, you are the one who hijacked this thread to claim that the mandated by insurers line is false and yet offered nothing more than very vague hearsay evidence to support this claim.
I have at no point suggested that you are wrong, I have only pointed out how the “proof” that you offer could be made stronger if you wanted to continue with your claims.
ClubSmed wrote:
I have at no point suggested that you are wrong, I have only pointed out how the “proof” that you offer could be made stronger if you wanted to continue with your claims.— ClubSmed
At the time I made the enquiries, they were just for my personal knowledge, and I had no idea that I would one day become involved in a debate like this, so I didn’t make notes or keep records. Perhaps I should have.
On the other hand, no-one has provided any proof to show that I’m wrong, but there are lots of people making unfounded assumptions.
Ooh look – another helmet
Ooh look – another helmet thread.
Organizations running
Organizations running sportives don’t really have a choice about having a mandatory helmet rule as its required for them too get event insurance, so any argument on this point is a bit mute. If you don’t want to wear a helmet, go off and do something else – all good. If you want ot take part in a corporate organized event, accept that they have silly rules in order for them to be able to run at all.
I like Bike Bath, but I can’t help feel that it is a shadow of its former self. It used to be rides on both the Saturday and Sunday, which I loved. The first year I did it I did the 100 miler on the saturday, then the short route on the sunday with friends and their kids. The next year (last year they did two back to back days) I did both 100 mile routes – a really challenging fun weekend.
paulrattew wrote:
Perhaps if you had read my original post, you might be able to constuct a logical argument. I’ve heard this insurance excuse dozens of times, and as I posted above, it is a lie. The insurance companies do not demand that helmets are worn; I’ve checked.
It is a lie used by incompetent organisers to justify their absurd, illogical rule.
The briefest reflection shows that it can’t be true; there are thousands of events which don’t have this rule which still get event insurance.
burtthebike wrote:
Such as? They can’t be popular mass participation sportives, because from experience they all make you wear a helmet. Even if it’s just something to stick your timer chip onto.
burtthebike wrote:
Well, in my experience of having worked for companies organizing similar events, insurers do either demand it or rank the cover price up massively if you do not mandate helmets, which is effectively the same as the insurers demanding it.
Small events may have different insurance demands, but if you would like to point out which large, mass participation, run for profit by a company events do not mandate helmets then I would very much like to know (as it would be nice to take part and support their events).
Perhaps you should try to organize a mass participation event, for profit, and see what the insurance companies say then
paulrattew wrote:
I have been quoted this imposition by insurance companies by organisers a dozen times, and a dozen times I’ve contacted the insurers and found out that the organisers were lying. The insurance companies are highly experienced in determining risk, and they don’t demand helmets because they don’t reduce risk.
Tell you what, give us the names of a few of the insurers who demand helmet laws, in your experience, and I’ll check again.
burtthebike wrote:
And who, exactly, did you approach?
Rapha Nadal wrote:
First I approached the organisers and asked why they had a helmet rule, and the response was that their insurers demanded it. I then contacted those insurers and asked why they had such a rule, and the response was always that they didn’t have one. I don’t remember individual details of which event or insurer, but the response was always the same.
If you want to confirm this, there is nothing stopping you adopting the same method.
burtthebike wrote:
Insurers will insure pretty much anything for a price – and that price may be such that it effectively precludes running the event – that’s the point some people have been trying to make to you but you seem unwilling to consider.
fukawitribe wrote:
No, the point most people here are trying to make, with absolutely no proof so far, is that insurers demand helmet rules for organised leisure rides.
burtthebike wrote:
No, they’re really not. You should only need to read what they’re saying to understand that. I am, truly, sorry you don’t understand that.
fukawitribe wrote:
No, the point most people here are trying to make, with absolutely no proof so far, is that insurers demand helmet rules for organised leisure rides.
— fukawitribe No, they’re really not. You should only need to read what they’re saying to understand that. I am, truly, sorry you don’t understand that.— burtthebike
OK, if I’m misunderstanding something, and all these people aren’t saying that insurers demand helmet rules for leisure rides, then please explain to me in words of one syllable what their argument is? I’ve seen nobody say anything different, but perhaps I’ve missed it in some of the longer waffle posts.
burtthebike wrote:
OK – here goes again, from the bit you snipped just above your first quote
That is what a number of people are saying, and have tried to explain to you in equally simple terms. I actually don’t believe you can’t understand the essential point there – the alternative is too frightening.
fukawitribe wrote:
Thank you for your response. I must be hard of understanding, but what does that have to do with whether insurers demand a helmet rule? You’re talking about price and I’m talking about whether the insurers impose a helmet rule. Please explain how the two are related. I’m talking about chalk and you keep talking about cheese.
As I’ve already shown, some BC events can be ridden without a helmet. The Eroica Britannia has no helmet rule, but they all have event insurance.
burtthebike wrote:
Taking your last point, i’ve also already shown BC registered events have mandatory helmet rules according to their own documentation – but that is beside the point; i’ve not claimed at any point that you cannot have an organised event without a mandatory helmet requirement. I have, in fact, already pointed out that I don’t believe there is any ubiquitous mandatory helmet requirement.
As to the first point – and I have to believe you’re just being deliberately obtuse here – what some people are saying is that the quotes for event insurance with and without e.g. compliance to safety recommendations from certain recognised bodies (e.g. as in an insurance policy question shown in an earlier reply) may well be different. That difference may be sufficient to preclude running the event. So, whilst the answer to question “Is there a hard helmet rule in all your policies ?” is “No”, the overall effect is such that the event can only take place in line with the organiser constraints (cost, profit etc) if the policy with compliant safety clauses is taken.
I really can’t be bothered to try and explain any further – several people have tried and I thought i’d put is as simply as I could earlier, clearly not – I have better things to be doing with my time. Enjoy your world, you have my sympathy.
fukawitribe wrote:
Since no-one has produced a shred of evidence that there are different costs for events with or without helmets, it isn’t me who’s being obtuse. This is merely a distraction tactic from the real point and as I’ve already said many times, utterly irrelevant to that point.
Since you haven’t yet explained anything, stopping isn’t going to be a problem.
burtthebike wrote:
Yeah, funny that you suddently can’t remember the exact insurers but yet can categorically remember that they all gave you the same response. Did you speak to head of underwriting? Somebody working for a syndicate? A person in a call centre who wouldn’t know insurance if it slapped them in the face? A broker? Did you speak to just on emarket? Multiple markets?
Rapha Nadal wrote:
It is hardly funny that I can’t remember inconsequential facts but remember the important ones. That’s the way memory works.
Any BC sanctioned event will
Any BC sanctioned event will have mandatory helmet clauses – some hosts have ‘historic’ or ‘vintage’ exemptions where there is a recommended helmet usage – not sure about Cycling UK event liabiliity insurance – one argument i’ve heard is that allowing things which go against the recommendations in the Highway Code, whilst not actionable in itself, may be used to argue about liability in the case of subsequent proceedings. So helmet mandation does happen though I doubt it’s ubiquitous.
Can you just give it a rest
Can you just give it a rest for once. The OP is nothing to do with helmet use. As people have pointed out this type of event always specifies them. Most people are fine with this. If, as you claim Burt, you want to take part so much, but are so adamantly against wearing a helmet that you called several insurers, and neglected to ask the most important question; what would the event cost to cover? Either you wound yourself up to a state in which you are incompetent, or all this is just a little fantasy of yours. Either way go and take a piss into the wind.
Leviathan wrote:
So anyone questioning accepted “wisdom” should just shut up and go away. There is no justification for these helmet rules and they are helmet compulsion by the back door, and are counterproductive to cycling, so anyone interested in making cycling more popular should be agitating against them, not just accepting the organisers’ lies.
burtthebike wrote:
Go and agitate somewhere else. I notice you didn’t contradicted me about getting actual figures. You have made a lot of assumptions about why organisers/insurers do anything and are drawing your own conclusions about ‘risk’ that fit your own confirmation bias. The main problem is having to listen to you battering on about the same subject on unrelated threads. You aren’t converting anyone here, it’s boring, you are boring, not a truth seeker. Frankly you sound like a nutcase who might have hit his head one too many times.
Leviathan wrote:
As always, it is for the proposers of rules and laws to justify them. Thus far, no-one has provided a single piece of proof that the insurers demand helmets, or any justification at all for these rules, but you want me to find out the costs of insuring an event? Why should I obtain the costs of event insurance and what would it prove?
burtthebike wrote:
Sorry Burt, I need to see your proof that they are lying.
Could you list the events that you have spoken to organisers of, the name of the organiser and what they actually said?
Could you then tell us the insurers you phoned and the people who disclosed confidential information that was between the event organiser and their company; that would be grand!
alansmurphy wrote:
No, since I was just doing my own personal research I didn’t make notes or keep records, but my point still stands: it is for people proposing a rule to justify that rule, which they have so far been unable to do.
burtthebike wrote:
Burt, you weren’t doing research. You were asking random questions. There is a difference.
“Why should I answer a question of absolutely no relevance or interest to me?” It is of no relevance to you because it is of absolute relevance to your argument.
“yet another organisation so ill informed that they have a helmet rule:”
You posit they are ill-informed
“Many of these rides have this rule, and I’ve asked many times why they have it, and am invariably given some industrial grade BS. The most usual is that the insurers demand it, except that when I contact those insurers, they haven’t.”
So, to take you up on your own argument, what BS were you given aside from the insurance one?
We have made it clear (from experience) that insurers will provide insurance at reasonable cost for events that require helmet wearing, but not necessarily without. The subtext, that you are perfectly able to grasp, is that “we are unable to insure at reasonable cost without a helmet rule”, hence the terms of insurance effectively mandates that there is a helmet rule. This is perfectly clear to you.
“These kind of events with their unjustifiable rules”
It’s been made perfectly clear that the rule is quite possibly justifiable.
“are making helmet laws easier to implement and are reinforcing the perception that cycling is dangerous.” Agreed. No-one on this thread has disputed this.
“Thankfully, some organisations base their rules on proven facts, ” you haven’t at any point in previous debates provided these ‘proven facts’
“so I’ll continue riding with CUK and Audax, which have sensible rules.” Good on you. You’ll notice no-one else is deriding you or your event’s organisers for their choice.
“I don’t have much confidence in people organising events when they don’t even know the most basic facts about cycling. ” and that is just so peurile as to be undeserving of a reply.
I don’t have any confidence in someone’s opinion of running events when they are so ill-informed as to be unable to understand the most basic principles of event insurance, regardless of how clearly explained.
quote
madcarew wrote:
You are mistaken; I was asking a very precise single question “Do you demand helmets be worn on organised leisure rides?” Nothing random about that is there? I was researching whether the claims of organisers about insurers demanding helmet rules was true, and asking the only relevant question. If you think that there is no difference to asking random questions, the problem is yours, not mine.
Please explain to me how the cost of event insurance is in any way relevant to whether the insuranc e companies demand a helmet rule? Clue: it isn’t, and you’re just seeking to distract from the fact that you have no logical argument.
burtthebike wrote:
Burt, I know you won’t agree, and that’s your prerogative, but as i ahve said previously here, it is my experience having worked for companies putting on similar events to this that the insurance companies have either demanded helmet use or have effectively required it through pricing differentials. You as an individual can phone up insurance companies all you like but until you are in the position of being a company organizing a mass event, for profit, you will probably not be get the same answers.
Insurance is hugely specific. To give a recent real life example – I as an individual can ask for a quote for public liability insurance for putting on a community football challenge, and get one set of price scales and conditions. When my current employer (a private healthcare group), made the exact same enquiries, the prices and restrictions were very different. It was more expensive, insurance-wise, for the company to run the event than it was for me as an individual, and there were greater restriction.
As I previously said, fully willing to accept that some events don’t have this restriction placed upon them, but I have not experience of working for any companies running events without this sort of restriction.
burtthebike wrote:
Not at all Burt, you are telling us that you are contacting insurers and they are disclosing information that they shouldn’t be in violation of the DPA, multiple times.
I am making an assumption that you’re talking shite!
burtthebike wrote:
No Burt, anyone questioning accepted wisdom should simply answer in a straight-forward, non accusatory manner the simple questions put to them about the extent of their ‘research’.
As pointed out, you failed to ask a basic simple question, but accuse event organisers (whom you accuse of being lazy and sloppy) of incompetence, but accuse others of assumption when you are making a raft of assumptions yourself. You fail, almost invariably to make a cogent argument, but here is your opportunity.
So, Burt. I know, from having run a theme park (UK), that our insurance costs allowing xyz activity allowed us to make a profit on xyz activities. If we wanted to include another activity (which was actually in-ground trampolines) our insurance cover ramped from premium of over 25k a year, to 85k. As you say. They’re experts in assessing risks. Why would we add 60k a year to our baseline costs for a non-profit activity? People asked why we took out the trampolines, and we said because out insurers wouldn’t cover it. The sub text there was “at viable cost”. It is quite likely in my exprerience of running national championship cycling events in NZ that, although we don’t have strict (medical related) public liability rules, our insurance costs for allowing some activities (a bouncy castle and other amusements for young ones while the events are going on) that the inclusion or exclusion of some activities alters the cost of insurance cover to the extent it can make the entire event unviable. It’s not only the cost of the insurance, but the application, including excesses.
Your ‘sloppy and incompetent’ organisers, whom you tar all with the same brush (BTW, which is it? There are ‘thousands of events’ that don’t require helmet use, or as others attest, most events require helmet use) are generally volunteers, often working for a charitable trust which is operating a shoe string budget, for whom an insurance premium (or excess) increase of a few thousand pounds makes the entire thing unviable.
So, Burt. Who did you ring? What were their quotes (I highly doubt you got one, because the paper work involved in getting insurance quotes for public events is exhaustive) and what was the margin that the organisers were operating on that enabled them to take ‘option b’ of no helmet? Are they operating under the aegis of British cycling or UCI, in which case helmets are mandatory, and the liability insurance is unavailable for non-helmet events? These are simple and direct questions Burt, which in your encyclopaedic knoweldge of running events, and risk assessment you will be able to answer in simple and straightforward, traceable replies.
And one last question Burt. How many mass participation public events have you organised and tried to get insurance for? What, exactly, is your depth of knowledge and expertise in this field, such that you can smear the reputation of those that do undertake this task?
Put up Burt, or STFU.
madcarew wrote:
I’ve just read your post through twice, and it still doesn’t make sense. To be accused of failing to construct a cogent argument by someone quite so incapable of constructing one is a real compliment, thank you.
From the little I did manage to understand, perhaps you could tell me what you’re referring to “As pointed out, you failed to ask a basic simple question…..”. what basic simple question? The only question I was interested in was did the insurers demand a helmet rule, and the cost of the insurance was of absolutely no concern to me.
You then ramble on incoherently about trampolines, cycling events in NZ and bouncy castles, none of which seem to have any relevance to the imposition of helmet rules on bike rides in the UK.
You go on to say that I was obtaining quotes for insurance for events, which I wasn’t, so quite where you got that from is a mystery.
I’ve helped organise quite a few mass participation cycling events, none of which required helmets.
And for all those kindly explaining that all BC rides mandate helmets, they don’t
“Helmets
In compliance with British Cycling’s rules and regulations, helmets are compulsory for under-18s, and recommended but not compulsory for adults, taking part in our rides.”
https://www.letsride.co.uk/terms
burtthebike wrote:
I was basing that on their own wording on the BC website for BC registered events, e.g.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/20160825_-_Non_Competitive_Event_Guidelines.pdf
fukawitribe]
I was basing that on their own wording on the BC website for BC registered events, e.g.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/20160825_-_Non_Competitive_Event_Guidelines.pdf
Thanks, interesting. Even more interesting is that Chris Boardman of BC doesn’t support helmets either.
burtthebike wrote:
Well Burt, I’ll put up my hand. I learned something today. Not all rides under the aegis (it seems) of BC require helmets (though those of the UCI do).
However, your simple question you needed to ask was not whether insurance companies madate helmet wearing, but what the difference in prices for that particular event is for insurance with and without helmets (hence the quote). Insurance companies can and will tell you they don’t mandate stuff, they just price appropriately to the risk (as you’ve pointed out, they’re the experts on that). It’s a shame that you couldn’t understand my explanation (with examples) after 2 reads, but not surprising. Other readers certainly could after one perusal.
So Burt. Which event, which insurer? As I said, those challenging perceived wisdom need to be able to provide clear, traceable answers to those questions, not a Clintonian “I can’t remember”. Your inability to provide basic details undermines the credibility of your entire argument;
FWIW I don’t approve of mandatory helmet wear, but I certainly approve of wearing one myself, and would encourage others to do so.
madcarew wrote:
Why should I answer a question of absolutely no relevance or interest to me? The question I asked the insurance companies was simply “do you demand helmets be worn for non competetive cycling events.” If you want to find out if they have variable rates for events with or without a helmet rule, I suggest you ask them.
I was just asking for my own personal interest, so I didn’t keep records or make notes, but to turn your question on its head, how about you provide the actual insurance contract that mandates helmets for organised leisure rides?
There’s obviously no point in
There’s obviously no point in arguing with Burt, as he’s not going to be swayed. I’m fully willing to accept that events may be able to get insurance without mandating helmet use. It’s just that the experiences I have had, when working for similar companies, was that requiring helmets was an insurance condition for the events that were run if insurance was to be obtained at a price that was viable for the event. They are not putting the events on out of the goodness of their hearts (for big events anyway), it’s about making money, and insurance is a major cost.
Obviously, I’ve only seen a small range of the events put on across the country, buy a couple of big companies. The experiences of others may vary wildly.
There’s also the perception issue – many local groups (mostly NIMBY twats) and councils really do react badly to large groups of cyclists hitting the roads at the same time. You get complaints of riders riding dangerously, pissing in people’s gardens and generally being menaces, even when none of the staff and volunteers you have out and about have spotted any of this sort of thing. Add in lots of riders without helmets and the perception, quite wrongly, is even worse. Event organizers want to have a collaborative relationship with the local area. Why would they bother pushing back on their insurers when they know not demanding helmets would just make it harder for them to run the event in the future.
paulrattew wrote:
There is a point to arguing, and I’m perfectly prepared to be swayed by facts, but not by assumptions, rumours and myths. All the times I’ve checked with insurance companies they have denied having a helmet rule. I’m sure that professional and amateur racing events have a helmet rule, but the events demanding helmets are not races, so why do the organisers demand them?
It is notable that none of them have come on here and explained their position, or given chapter and verse from their insurance contract.
This is more like helmet
This is more like helmet circle jerk than a debate.. pah! Where are the rest of the anti-helmet brigade!
I like a helmet, wearing one hasn’t done me any harm yet and swear I go faster with one on 😉
peted76 wrote:
You probably do go faster with a helmet, because of risk compensation, which goes some way to explaining why helmets don’t make cycling safer.
I went online to find a cycle
I went online to find a cycle event insurer, having looked at the simple quotation form it had the following:
Can you confirm the health & safety/risk assessment procedures you have in place for the events and that you are happy to provide them to us upon request. Yes/No
Have your assessments been submitted to and confirmed as adequate by an appropriate national governing body – for example British Triathlon/Triathlon England or British Cycling? Yes/No
Having looked at the British Triathlon/Triathlon England and British Cycling Health and Safety documents I can confirm that they all mention use of helmets. So in this case it would seem that although the insurer does not mandate helmet use in its initial quotation (it could still be in the future detail though) it does require Health and Safety checks that confirm to governing bodies that do require helmet use. So in this scenario it would be fair to say that helmet use is not mandated by the insurers but is a requirement of the policy due to other accreditation required.
*I should point out that I did not complete this quotation request as I did not want to waste the companies time quoting for a fictional event so do not have all the details.
ClubSmed wrote:
What kind of event were you enquiring about? If it was some kind of race, then race rules apply, including use of helmets. If it is a leisure ride, like a sportive, they don’t.
burtthebike wrote:
I believe that there was a question earlier on asking if it was a race or not and I would have selected the non race option.
Burt is just pulling our
Burt is just pulling our collective plonker. He’s written multiple replies today and still deflected the question of price. It seems to be helmet ‘yes/no’ with him; not a real world scenario. He then claims to not understand Madcarew’s excellent example of insurance in the leisure industry.
I’ve seen the same rhetoric bullshitting from climate change deniers and flat earthers; deflection, claims of incomprehensible from the other side, and down right lies. You are a terrible advocate for your own argument, Burt. Do tell us the one again about torsional stress…
Leviathan wrote:
The only person apparently interested in price is yourself. Since it is completely irrelevant to the point I’ve been making, I certainly am not interested in it.
These bastards who organise
These bastards who organise Sportives… who do they think they are, setting perfectly reasonable rules for participation in their events???
Apparently you are not allowed to sport only a mankini and giant foam stetson on some events due to “issues of good taste and decency”. Well, excuse me! This country is like the bloody Third Reich.
Not really.
Mind you, they should definately exclude the use of SPDs on road bikes on the grounds above.
missionsystem wrote:
I am now very much more interested in this statement. As the majority of people who attend these event are club riders/experience commuters/weekend warriors who would generally use cleats why exclude them? I would be a lot less safe if forced to go back to straps as I can remove my foot from the cleat instinctively.
Sorry Burt, you are just a stuck record. I am glad you think you won this debate.
Leviathan wrote:
Aw bless. Someone thinks ‘SPDs’ = ‘cleats’.
davel wrote:
I am now very much more interested in this statement. As the majority of people who attend these event are club riders/experience commuters/weekend warriors who would generally use cleats why exclude them? I would be a lot less safe if forced to go back to straps as I can remove my foot from the cleat instinctively.
— Leviathan Aw bless. Someone thinks ‘SPDs’ = ‘cleats’.— missionsystem
“SPDs” do equal “Cleats”
but
“Cleats” do not always equal “SPDs”
I get that the original comment was only about SPDs and the reply expanded this to be all cleats but I do not see that as an issue, more opening the question to “Why should any cleats be banned as they are what are used at most other times?”
ClubSmed wrote:
You’re more fun when you’re laughing at graphs.
davel wrote:
I am now very much more interested in this statement. As the majority of people who attend these event are club riders/experience commuters/weekend warriors who would generally use cleats why exclude them? I would be a lot less safe if forced to go back to straps as I can remove my foot from the cleat instinctively.
— Leviathan Aw bless. Someone thinks ‘SPDs’ = ‘cleats’.— missionsystem
That does sound like the sort of mean-spirited snobbery mountain bikers used to accuse roadies of back in the day. Or maybe I’m reading it wrong.
Plus SPDs do = cleats, just not all of ’em
davel wrote:
Aye – a bit of confusion there. I thought we all knew what we were talking about on here =] . I was only mucking about anyway…
I wasn’t referring to grounds of safety, I was referring to the aforementioned grounds of “good taste and decency”. Suggesting that putting SPDs (rather than SPD-SLs, if I need to clarify) on a road bike is an act of gross impropriety akin to wearing a mankini is clearly ridiculous.
It’s actually much worse.
(I’m mucking about again BTW)
missionsystem wrote:
I’d like to switch to SPD-SLs on my road bike, but as I use it for commuting, I need to walk through Bristol Temple Meads station which is slippery enough with SPDs. That means that I’d need to either swap shoes or swap pedals all the time.
Unless anyone knows of SPD-SL shoes that can handle slippery when wet floors? (And some jostling with commuters going up the wrong side of the stairs when it’s busy).
missionsystem wrote:
I took your quote in the spirit it was intended, I think.
Was puzzled by the response by the usually crystal-minded Leviathan suggesting you were pining for clips.
davel wrote:
Indeed you did – it wasn’t you who was confused. I seem to be having trouble communicating effectively today!
Burt? Are you there? You’ve
Burt? Are you there? You’ve gone awfully quite and there are so many questions being asked of you.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
Oh, how kind! I didn’t realise you were missing me. If it’s ok with you, I’ll occasionally take some time to live my life and earn a crust, not spend all my time answering irrelevant questions.
burtthebike wrote:
Burt? Are you there? You’ve gone awfully quite and there are so many questions being asked of you.
— burtthebike
Oh, how kind! I didn’t realise you were missing me. If it’s ok with you, I’ll occasionally take some time to live my life and earn a crust, not spend all my time answering irrelevant questions.
— Rapha Nadal
Mate, you rang multiple insurers to ask if they require helmets to be worn. That is some quality living, you fucking dullard.
To summarise:
To summarise:
Burt contacted some events (he can’t remember which events they were).
He then contacted the insurers of said events (he can’t remember which insurers they were).
He asked some questions (he can’t remember exactly what those questions were).
Based on this incredibly detailed evidence Burt has decided he is definitely right.
Rich_cb wrote:
To summarise:
lots of people make lots of assumptions about event insurance
none of them have actually checked anything
they can’t prove what they say
unable to prove their case, they resort to rather tepid insults
burtthebike wrote:
I think you’re the one who is unable to prove his case.
Your rather convenient amnesia has made it impossible to verify your claims.
As others have pointed out the fact that an insurance company will insure an event without helmets doesn’t automatically mean that the policy for a specific event doesn’t mandate helmets.
Without knowing exactly what the specific policy for an event requires and what the alternative polices cost you literally have no case to make.
Rich_cb wrote:
To summarise:
lots of people make lots of assumptions about event insurance
none of them have actually checked anything
they can’t prove what they say
unable to prove their case, they resort to rather tepid insults
— Rich_cb I think you’re the one who is unable to prove his case. Your rather convenient amnesia has made it impossible to verify your claims. As others have pointed out the fact that an insurance company will insure an event without helmets doesn’t automatically mean that the policy for a specific event doesn’t mandate helmets. Without knowing exactly what the specific policy for an event requires and what the alternative polices cost you literally have no case to make.— burtthebike
Anyone can make an enquiry about event insurance and easily prove or disprove my case, but it’s rather strange that none of the event organisers have come on here and provided the clause from their insurance mandating helmets.
So we have two competing scenarios; I have said that I have checked with insurance companies and they have denied having a helmet rule. Other people have speculated, assumed and guessed that they do. Take your pick.
burtthebike wrote:
You’ve made a claim and provided absolutely no evidence to back it up.
Why don’t you rack your brain for at least a shred of corroborating information before demanding things of other people.
You made the original claim, the onus is on you to provide supporting evidence.
If you don’t provide any then it might be reasonable to assume that you’ve just made the whole thing up…
burtthebike wrote:
Probably because they have got better things to do then pick over your posts. If you hadn’t gone on a rant I would have asked some relevant people but now I can’t be bothered.
Btw Some insurers regard sportives as bike “racing” simply because it’s a mass participation event.
Rich_cb wrote:
To summarise:
lots of people make lots of assumptions about event insurance
none of them have actually checked anything
they can’t prove what they say
unable to prove their case, they resort to rather tepid insults
— Rich_cb I think you’re the one who is unable to prove his case. Your rather convenient amnesia has made it impossible to verify your claims. As others have pointed out the fact that an insurance company will insure an event without helmets doesn’t automatically mean that the policy for a specific event doesn’t mandate helmets. Without knowing exactly what the specific policy for an event requires and what the alternative polices cost you literally have no case to make.— burtthebike
Anyone can make an enquiry about event insurance and easily prove or disprove my case, but it’s rather strange that none of the event organisers have come on here and provided the clause from their insurance mandating helmets.
So we have two competing scenarios; I have said that I have checked with insurance companies and they have denied having a helmet rule. Other people have speculated, assumed and guessed that they do. Take your pick.
[/quote]
I did enquire, and as I posted earlier, the insurance company I enquired with did not mention that it required helmet use but it did require H&S signoff from British Triathlon or British Cycling and their H&S checks require helmets. So in that situation it is not specifically mandated by the insurers but you wouldn’t have the insurance without it.
I have done further research and discovered that there are insurers that mandate helmet use specifically, and those that do not. The question remains as to why the event organisers choose to use those insurers that do require extra restrictions. I am taking a complete guess here but I am willing to bet that it is a cost related issue
ClubSmed wrote:
Undoubtedly – that and the fact that most of us expect to wear a hat on a sportive and think nothing of it.
Some of us use SPDs on road bikes too (PS, it’s hard to tell once you’re clipped in…)
I wouldn’t generally want to
I wouldn’t generally want to pay what sportives ask these days and not one for wanting to do mass participation riding in the format advertised. I would however like to have the option to do so.
It’s the fact that events like this are not inclusive, quite the opposite of how they portray themselves, they exclude people who might want to participate by removing choice on clothing. The rules on clothing that exclude people are enforced despite the evidence being flaky at best that it enhances safety for ANY type of cycling.
What this type of clothing/rules are proven to do is make mass participation riding MORE dangerous and less safe for the participants.
These events attract riders that for the most part treat them as races in all but name, they like the pros and in other fast riding are proven to be less safe/more at risk of injury due to the rules that are forced upon them or choose voluntarily.
Sad state of affairs.
Enjoy if you’re taking part.
Anyway, switching back to the
Anyway, switching back to the subject of article, is anyone signed up for any of these? I’ll be doing Bike Bath and I’m tempted by the Oxford one.
We’re now on to page three of
We’re now on to page three of the ‘missing the point’ thread and Burt appears to be drowning in 2 inches of water. (You totally missed the smily winky face meant for irony in my previous post btw, and that leads me to be just a little bit worried about you.)
Can’t we just leave this thread alone now and move on to throwing poo at monkeys, I swear it’ll be more fun, come on I’ll meet you at Twycross in an hour, I’ll be the one there with a tesco bag for life full of manure dressed in my best lycra and road.cc socks.
I’m one of the team behind
I’m one of the team behind these sportives, so allow me to clear a few things up.
1. British Cycling (who we insure through) definitely mandate helmets for sportives. From the terms of their insurance: “The wearing of hard shell helmets conforming to CE standards EN1078 is mandatory for all riders participating in British Cycling registered events. It is the organisers’ responsibility to notify all participants, prior to event day, that the wearing of helmets is a requirement of the event.” (I’d link to this if I could, but the link on the BC site is broken).
The example Burt quoted was for Let’s Ride, which are a different category of events (They’re what used to be known as Sky Rides).
2. While there are insurers and events out there which don’t require riders to have helmets, most of the riders on them still choose to wear one. We get over a thousand riders on some of our events, which indicates that for most people, it isn’t an issue.
3. Even in countries with high levels of everyday cycling, it’s completely standard for sportive organisers to have a mandatory helmet rule. e.g. the Amstel Gold sportive: https://www.amstel.nl/amstelgoldrace/belangrijke-informatie Rule 2.10 translates as “Wearing a crash helmet is mandatory during the entire tour.” So you’ll have to forgive us if we look sceptically at claims that making helmets a mandatory requirement on a sportive suppresses everyday cycling.
While I’m here, the reason that Bike Bath isn’t a 2-day event any more is that it wasn’t financially viable to keep doing this. However it is something we’d like to reintroduce in the future. We got our highest ever number of riders last year and we’re on track to break that this year; we also get a high proportion of novice and female riders. So we might be “incompetent”, but we seem to be doing something right.
Mr Agreeable wrote:
I’m one of the team behind these sportives, so allow me to clear a few things up.
1. British Cycling (who we insure through) definitely mandate helmets for sportives. From the terms of their insurance: “The wearing of hard shell helmets conforming to CE standards EN1078 is mandatory for all riders participating in British Cycling registered events. It is the organisers’ responsibility to notify all participants, prior to event day, that the wearing of helmets is a requirement of the event.” (I’d link to this if I could, but the link on the BC site is broken).
The example Burt quoted was for Let’s Ride, which are a different category of events (They’re what used to be known as Sky Rides).
2. While there are insurers and events out there which don’t require riders to have helmets, most of the riders on them still choose to wear one. We get over a thousand riders on some of our events, which indicates that for most people, it isn’t an issue.
3. Even in countries with high levels of everyday cycling, it’s completely standard for sportive organisers to have a mandatory helmet rule. e.g. the Amstel Gold sportive: https://www.amstel.nl/amstelgoldrace/belangrijke-informatie Rule 2.10 translates as “Wearing a crash helmet is mandatory during the entire tour.” So you’ll have to forgive us if we look sceptically at claims that making helmets a mandatory requirement on a sportive suppresses everyday cycling.
While I’m here, the reason that Bike Bath isn’t a 2-day event any more is that it wasn’t financially viable to keep doing this. However it is something we’d like to reintroduce in the future. We got our highest ever number of riders last year and we’re on track to break that this year; we also get a high proportion of novice and female riders. So we might be “incompetent”, but we seem to be doing something right.
— Mr Agreeable
Burt, your dull retort please.
Mr Agreeable wrote:
So you don’t offer freedom of choice for clothing for your rides and can’t back up your stance with any good reason to be so firm in that, again without any indication that insurers would refuse insurance (you only state that others do it so we do to) so are happy to exclude people who wish to ride without being forced to wear certain attire have I got that correct?
If you have so many riders interested as you state why do you have to go through British Cycling for insurance or even be mandated/aligned with them when in fact that would make zero difference to your uptake (according to your thinking) and indeed if pro choice would potentially increases the numbers that events are attracted to them, it certainly wouldn’t diminish would it otherwise your argument fails.
That you and others force, that’s right FORCE people to wear certain clothing to take part or the only other option is total exclusion can you not see why people still take part, do you think if there was freedom to choose it would not affect your profit margin in any way?
As I said, you are about EXCLUSION (And like BC and UCI indoctrinating people on bikes) not inclusion unless you abide by excessive, needless and further and importantly, rules that increase danger. Why would you want to increase danger for cycling by enforcing rules to be allowed to take part? Why would you not want to offer freedom of choice that is acceptable the whole world over and is proven not to affect risk, quite the opposite in fact?
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
So you have nothing but a dull retort YAAAAAWN, yet again proving you can’t enter into a debate about something that has a massive negative effect on cycling as a whole and its safety without dullards like you turning up and making a fool of themselves because they don’t have the capacity to make a point without turning to insults and childish remarks.
Gotcha.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN.
— BehindTheBikesheds
So you have nothing but a dull retort YAAAAAWN, yet again proving you can’t enter into a debate about something that has a massive negative effect on cycling as a whole and its safety without dullards like you turning up and making a fool of themselves because they don’t have the capacity to make a point without turning to insults and childish remarks.
Gotcha.
— Rapha Nadal
A negative effect on cyclng?! What fucking planet do you live on?! Go outside once in a while and see what’s occurring. Better still, ride your bike with other people instead of by yourself and see how “negative” the impact is of wearing a helmet.
Sportives are regularly over subscribed but that’s negative, right? Cycling in the UK is at an all time high but that’s negative, right?
If you choose not to wear a helmet and not ride in a group because you’re socially retarded then fine, that’s your choice, but to constantly bang on about it to a group who really couldn’t give two fucks deserves a big old YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN.
I went over the bonnet of a car a while back and face first into the kerb on the other side. You know what stopped my head being split open? A helmet. But you keep on about how they’re useless.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
So you have nothing but a dull retort YAAAAAWN, yet again proving you can’t enter into a debate about something that has a massive negative effect on cycling as a whole and its safety without dullards like you turning up and making a fool of themselves because they don’t have the capacity to make a point without turning to insults and childish remarks.
Gotcha.
— BehindTheBikesheds
A negative effect on cyclng?! What fucking planet do you live on?! Go outside once in a while and see what’s occurring. Better still, ride your bike with other people instead of by yourself and see how “negative” the impact is of wearing a helmet.
Sportives are regularly over subscribed but that’s negative, right? Cycling in the UK is at an all time high but that’s negative, right?
If you choose not to wear a helmet and not ride in a group because you’re socially retarded then fine, that’s your choice, but to constantly bang on about it to a group who really couldn’t give two fucks deserves a big old YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN.
I went over the bonnet of a car a while back and face first into the kerb on the other side. You know what stopped my head being split open? A helmet. But you keep on about how they’re useless.— Rapha Nadal
Clearly on your planet it doesn’t look at facts regarding the damage that cycle helmets have done worldwide, not just in the increased danger on an indiidual basis but also for groups and cycling as a whole. Nope you and your planet ignore all of that or just call it false news, maybe you’re related or indeed are Donald Trump?
I mean you spout shite all the time like that orange faced turnip so the similarities are scarily similar. Wearing helmets and the forcing of wearing have removed freedoms, pushed unlawful acts, criminalised cycling, put people off from cycling, increased obesity, increased motor travel, pushed responsibility for safety onto people on bikes and so on.
But your planet doesn’t recognise any of that.
As I thought you are a fuckwit of epic proportions
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
A negative effect on cyclng?! What fucking planet do you live on?! Go outside once in a while and see what’s occurring. Better still, ride your bike with other people instead of by yourself and see how “negative” the impact is of wearing a helmet.
Sportives are regularly over subscribed but that’s negative, right? Cycling in the UK is at an all time high but that’s negative, right?
If you choose not to wear a helmet and not ride in a group because you’re socially retarded then fine, that’s your choice, but to constantly bang on about it to a group who really couldn’t give two fucks deserves a big old YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN.
I went over the bonnet of a car a while back and face first into the kerb on the other side. You know what stopped my head being split open? A helmet. But you keep on about how they’re useless.— BehindTheBikesheds
Clearly on your planet it doesn’t look at facts regarding the damage that cycle helmets have done worldwide, not just in the increased danger on an indiidual basis but also for groups and cycling as a whole. Nope you and your planet ignore all of that or just call it false news, maybe you’re related or indeed are Donald Trump?
I mean you spout shite all the time like that orange faced turnip so the similarities are scarily similar. Wearing helmets and the forcing of wearing have removed freedoms, pushed unlawful acts, criminalised cycling, put people off from cycling, increased obesity, increased motor travel, pushed responsibility for safety onto people on bikes and so on.
But your planet doesn’t recognise any of that.
As I thought you are a fuckwit of epic proportions— Rapha Nadal
I’ll assume that you know the meaning of irony…
Really, how has somebody as dense as you managed to live for so long yet alone pro-create?! It defies both science & logic in all it’s forms. The repeated knocks to your head are clearly starting to have an effect. A helmet would definitley help you out and I’m surprised your carer doesn’t make you wear one. Fuck off back to your cave you utter luddite.
Well – personally, I thank
Well – personally, I thank the organisers of such events for bothering to do so in the first place.
Even if I’m not allowed to wear a mankini…
What we do know so far:
What we do know so far:
There are policies/insurers that mandate the use of cycle helmets in cycling events and there are also those who don’t
What we don’t know so far:
Why event organisers decide to choose those insurers/policies that mandate the use of cycle helmets
There are lots of (logical?) assumptions as to why but we are yet to have an actual answer from someone who has been involved with the insurance from either side (event organisor or insurer).
I have to say though, I can’t imagine a scenario where an event organiser would choose to take out insurance with extra restrictions without some other incentive.
*Sits back and unpacks picnic
*Sits back and unpacks picnic..
It took three pages but we’ve made it! Yeee haaaaw!
This is still going?
This is still going?
“I do not recall.” – Jeff Sessions/Burtthebike
“Wow” – Jon Baptiste
Ah…don’t you just love
Ah…don’t you just love internicsene arguments.
Actually, no, not really as they tend to dissolve into petty name calling and insultsm, and nobody EVER changes their views or comes round to the argument of others. So pointless really. See above.
Tiresome (tyresome
)