Digital_Cowboy

This is true, but sadly we all know that there are people out there who like to spoil things for others. And I can easily see someone who was denied "permission" to ride with the group still riding "with" them and making a pain of themselves.

RapidRobert

Thanks for all the replys, but "Where's the Beef?" I thank prathman for setting me on to this a while back, and still nobody's delivered. I think the helmet requirement by bike clubs has done more harm than good. That's not saying that helmets don't usually work as designed, in the rare event that one makes a real difference, and many should probably be wearing them, but this "everybody, everywhere and always" is just plain WRONG.

A few laws get passed by left wing members of the PC idiocracy and lawyers start warping what can be considered "normal, reasonable precaution". Right. Then comes the fourth grade demonstration of gravity with a watermellon in front of all the Oprah watching Soccer Moms with no knowledge of or interest in statistics, much less risk analysis.

This "insurance requirement" excuse seems to be a meme. The rug under which bike clubs sweep their broken arguments for the need of helmets on "everybody, everywhere and always".

sggoodri

Right - but this is purely a safety and liability concern - there is no effort to mandate or even encourage any other specific equipment, attire, or speed capability.

Any club will have some hammerheads who are primarily interested in speed and fancy equipment. But we also have lots of folks more interested in the social benefits of riding in groups, and in encouraging cycling in general. I've led rides that included a lady riding with a little dog in the front basket of her beach cruiser. The beach cruiser riders usually don't ride as far as those with more efficient bikes (there are exceptions) but we still want them to have fun and provide them full support.

Bruce Rosar used to ride with a toy animal-shaped squeeze horn on his handlebars, which he used to entertain cyclists and bystanders. On his memorial ride, we had lots of people riding with toy squeeze horns added to their bikes. It was sort of the opposite of a Ride of Silence. My squeeze horn is shaped like a dragon.

DX-MAN

The same BS insurance requirement, and 'safety', are the cited reasons so many places with drive-up windows refuse to serve cyclists. Tired and lame then, and now.

When nearly EVERY bicycle sold comes with an owner's manual that has the required disclaimer that "bicycling is an inherently risky behavior", or words to that effect, you have to go some to prove ANY culpability on the part of a club, IMO. (I know, it's been done; but that's less a fact of reality than it is of legalistic interpretation.)

That said, you also have the personal freedom, as an adult, not to wear some accessory that has a LOT of indication of being a benefit. And if you choose not to do so, fall, and hurt your leg, well, it wouldn't have done you a bit of good. But if you choose not to do so, fall, and crack your skull on a curb, Y THE F SHOULD I AND MY FELLOW CITIZENS PAY YOUR MEDICAL BILLS, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY?

I am ALL FOR personal choice; I am also ALL FOR personal responsibility, something sadly lacking in society today.

I-Like-To-Bike

Brakes, lights, good tires, tight axle nuts, mechanical soundness -all optional; helmets mandatory. Yep its all about safety and liability

Maybe so, but only in your dreams. Your club's lawyer wannabees have a misguided and deluded sense of where cycling risk lies.

randya

yeah sure, the 'left wing' is responsible, wtf?





the idiocracy knows no political divisions. Exhibit A: Glenn Beck.

Exhibit B: see posts #5 and #7

You sir, are FOS

RapidRobert

Let's save the completely ridiculous argument of "Y THE F SHOULD I AND MY FELLOW CITIZENS PAY YOUR MEDICAL BILLS, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY?" for another thread, OK?

THIS thread is about the equally ridiculous excuse "Right - but this is purely a safety and liability concern". So Sqqoodri, ask at your club for a copy of their insurance policy and share with us the clause that shows their requirement for helmets.

Bicycling is a very safe thing to do. Always has been and is now. Helmets are unnecessary for the vast, vast majority of casual cyclists.

RapidRobert

Yeah, I might be FOS in YOUR opinion, and who cares. At least I'm not blind to the facts that the schoolmarms of the political left are every bit as destructive and belligerant as the Archie Bunkers on the right.

Helmets were first pushed in the late '70s as baby boomer Soccer moms hit the bike clubs with their kiddies in tow. "Pleeeeeeeeease, we have to protect the children" with doey-eyed skeptacism for the dangerous mechanical thing on the road with those big noisy cars. Then it was "Oh, can't you just wear it to make a good impression", meaning "I don't want to explain the difference between adults and kids to my kids, who must be my friends". Now, it's "safety and liability" pushed by politically correct peer pressure and lies.

This one came from the left. That doesn't mean those on the equally extreme right aren't equally malicious and wrong.

randya

OMFG!. Please prove to us how helmet idiocy came from the 'left' or STFU.

I'd say it's just as likely from the idiots on the right who would like to make cycling appear dangerous and impractical so they can continue to flaunt their hegemony of the roads in their stupid SUVs, pickups and trophy cars.

RapidRobert

I put up a chronology and you respond with a grand conspiracy theory. Can you add something on topic, or are you limited to smirking insults from the cheap seats just like Mr. Beck?

Can you show us a bike club insurance policy requiring helmets?

geo8rge

I used to volunteer for the 5 boro before and after the check point system. I can say that the biggest pains in the ass were people who snuck in. They were not poor sob stories that could not afford to enter. They were largely thrill riders that wanted to race on a highway.

They typically did not wear helents, when they were forced to they brought whatever gear they had laying around that morning. Buying a $30 helmet in advance is not typically part of the fun.

My guess is many people do sneak in and attempt to blend in with the crowd, they are unnoticed.

sggoodri

That may be. But a number of us also encourage quick bike inspections at the beginning of rides (e.g. the A-B-C Quick Check), and better traffic behavior. If we see mechanical problems, we fix them. If we see dangerous cycling behavior, we address that as well. The worst behavior is actually among some of the most competitive "serious" road cyclists across multiple clubs and groups. This has resulted in local cycling leaders initiating a new effort, in its infancy, to encourage lawful and safer group cycling. https://www.thepelotonproject.com/ We are currently developing content for the site, including a best practices guide, and will be working with local law enforcement to help them prioritize safety education, encouragement, and enfocement activities to do the best good and promote good relations with cyclists. We are getting endorsements from virtually all the respected group ride leaders.

I-Like-To-Bike

Steve, I am sure that you and other ride leaders with good intentions are a positive asset to your community. The mandatory helmet requirement is misguided and unnecessary for liability or risk reduction purposes, despite what the fanatical helmet nannys on your club believe, and probably has a negative effect on promoting good relations with cyclists who are not members of the (helmet) club.

BTW, I am not surprised that the most competitive "serious" road cyclists across multiple clubs and groups display the worst behavior. Maybe they believe their helmet wear neutralizes their incompetent cycling.

JoeyBike

The USA is a litigious society. Which, in many cases is actually a good thing. If some manufacturer makes a faulty/dangerous product or a refinery releases a dangerous chemical in a populated area, there is recourse.

The bad side of that is lawyers have gotten their noses into inherently dangerous sports that should be "at your own risk" like dirt jumping BMX, skate parks etc., creating a market for expensive insurance that often makes a profitable business model impossible to create.

I remember an article in a Louisiana newspaper about a fellow who dove from a pier located in the Bonnet Carre Spillway owned by the US Government just up river from New Orleans. The water was shallow and the man got badly hurt. A neck injury I think. He sued and was awarded $500,000 because there were no signs warning him of the shallow water! Private land owners are subject to lawsuits too if people wander onto their property and hurt themselves. So the vacant lot that my little friends and I turned into a cyclecross track back in the 1970s was posted and off limits, even though the owner of the land didn't give two hoots if we used it. Some kid broke his arm, his parents sued - and won - no more cyclecross.

People in the USofA really suck. So in Paris, if you CHOOSE to ride your bike on a club ride and crash on a slippery manhole cover or cross someone's wheel in the dark of night within the reasonable scope of normal activity, it's YOUR problem. If you sneak into an industrial park with your skateboard, grind some handrails and break your neck - YOUR problem. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. We don't have that here in the US, unless like myself, we impose it upon ourselves i.e., if I hurt myself on your property jumping ramps on my skateboard and broke my @55, my parents would not sue you, and I as an adult would not even dream of suing you unless you purposely set a trap to hurt me.

bmclaughlin807

You're absolutely right. I'm never going to ride my bike without a helmet again! Instead, I'll sit on my couch and get fat, get diabetes, have a heart attack.

You won't have to pay any extra taxes for all the medical care that would require, I'm quite sure.






_________________________________________________________________
People are stupid. And no, I'm not talking about people that ride without helmets.

Feldman

[QUOTE=randya;9716136]If I had been hit on my bike in Paris I would've gotten some of that free public health care.


Great thought, Randy. Our go-it-on-your-own economic and social system make lawsuits an unfortunate necessity of survival for many injured people. Want fewer lawsuits? Then stop thinking of welfare and socialized medicine as bad things.

:

RapidRobert

If you want to decrease frivilous lawsuits, like when bicyclists who crash because of stupid riding decisions and sue a driver or club instead of taking personal responsibility, then make it "loser pays".

Temporary social assistance is a good thing, generational welfare is a terrible thing.

randya

you're the one that started with the tin foil hat political theories of who is responsible for mandatory helmet policies. And your so-called 'chronology' is pretty much a steaming pile of BS.

RapidRobert

Again, nothing to add to the discussion. Only a personal attack. Why not rebuke what I said with facts that suggest an alternative conclusion to mine? You can't because I'm right, and all you can do is throw "pithy" comments that are off topic.

Again, where's the insurance policy?

prathmann

Might want to make sure that there's a real problem before calling for major changes in the legal system.

The LAB basic club insurance coverage premium is less than $1.50 per member per year. Sure it'd be nice if we didn't need it at all, but it's hardly a major burden for our club or most others. Given this annual premium it seems that there aren't all that many lawsuits brought against bike clubs - which is as it should be.

njkayaker

I don't doubt that these people exist I do doubt that requiring a helmet (a requirement that isn't enforced) did anything to keep these people away. The "chokepoints" now make it harder for these people to do the whole thing but it doesn't do anything to keep people out of part of it.

It's quite possible that the the "pains in the asses" constituted a small percentage of people who snuck in. I doubt that you have any real data to be able to tell much about the population.

njkayaker

Oddly, people without bicycles are unjustly excluded too!

What club allows bad brakes or tires, etc?

Maybe not. Most "salmons" don't have lights and don't wear helmets. It's also not established that it is "incompetent" cycling.

============================

It's interesting that the insurance policies appear not to require helmets. It might even be that it is basically unreasonable/unnecessary for clubs to require them.

randya

I personally could care less, I'm not interested in club rides of this type, nor do I participate in other mandatory helmet rides, so you're asking the wrong person.

Widsith

That sort of thing is one of the major reasons I will not join a club and do not take part in group rides. I would never want to be part of a group with any rule more restrictive than "Don't run into the other riders." As for insurance, I don't care whether they have it or not, because I wouldn't expect any club with which I rode to be responsible for my safety. That's my own responsibility, and none of their business.

randya

For the record, this is where the name calling started.

Own it, dude.