The reason I ask this is this past year before the Tri-State Trails Tour III the Siouxland Trails Foundation President was handing out the registration forms to people along the MUP. He handed one to a gentleman & a week or so later STF received a letter in the mail with the unused form.
The letter basically thanked us for asking him to participate in our ride but declined because he does not like the statement HELEMTS ARE REQUIRED. Which is our right to require people to wear a helmet or they can be prevented from participating. This is more of our insurance policy then ours, but we have to abide by it.
This person was nice but belligerant about required helmet usage on organized rides. He even went as far as stating sometimes he participates in organized rides where a helmet is required but does not wear one out of protest & to see what the organizers will do. He stated he thinks when groups or individuals who require helmet usage on a ride goes against & violates what he calls his constituitionaly protected right to not wear one.
First of all I did not know that not wearing a helmet was a constituitionly protected right. Maybe it falls under one of the rights that are general & do not have any specifications as to what they are for. When one of the STF members, who is an attorney, heard this he rolled his eyes & said "good grief". Also even if that right was protected by the constitution, if there is an organization, such as STF that has an insurance policy that states you wear a helmet or you do not participate, the so called constitutionaly protected right is trumped & it is not a so called violation of the constitution. At least that is my impression of it anyway.
Am I correct or way off base here?