Iconic Cycling Events offer team road.cc members a 10% discount off of Bike Bath, Oxford & Chester sportives

davel wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

missionsystem wrote:

Mind you, they should definately exclude the use of SPDs on road bikes on the grounds above.

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. 

 

Aw bless. Someone thinks 'SPDs' = 'cleats'.

"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:

davel wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

missionsystem wrote:

Mind you, they should definately exclude the use of SPDs on road bikes on the grounds above.

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. 

 

Aw bless. Someone thinks 'SPDs' = 'cleats'.

"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?"

You're more fun when you're laughing at graphs.

davel wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

missionsystem wrote:

Mind you, they should definately exclude the use of SPDs on road bikes on the grounds above.

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. 

 

Aw bless. Someone thinks 'SPDs' = 'cleats'.

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:

Aw bless. Someone thinks 'SPDs' = 'cleats'.

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:

davel wrote:

Aw bless. Someone thinks 'SPDs' = 'cleats'.

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)

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:

davel wrote:

Aw bless. Someone thinks 'SPDs' = 'cleats'.

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)

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:

I took your quote in the spirit it was intended, I think.

Indeed you did - it wasn't you who was confused. I seem to be having trouble communicating effectively today!

Leviathan wrote:

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...

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.

ClubSmed wrote:

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.

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:

ClubSmed wrote:

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.

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.

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.

peted76 wrote:

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

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.

paulrattew wrote:

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. 

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.

Leviathan wrote:

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. 

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:

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.

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:

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. 

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:

Leviathan wrote:

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. 

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?

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:

burtthebike wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

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. 

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?

 

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!

 

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:

alansmurphy wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

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. 

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?

 

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!

 

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.

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:

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.

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:

madcarew 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.

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.

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:

alansmurphy wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

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. 

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?

 

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!

 

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.

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:

Leviathan wrote:

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. 

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.

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:

burtthebike wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

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. 

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.

 

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.

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:

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

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_Co...

Quote:

1.6

Helmets 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.

fukawitribe]</p>

<p>[quote=burtthebike wrote:

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

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_Co...

Quote:

1.6

Helmets 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.

Thanks, interesting.  Even more interesting is that Chris Boardman of BC doesn't support helmets either.