Helmets

damoando

I'm with you on this one botboiler. I wasted £100 on one and all it took was to crash and smack it on the tarmac and its now a write-off. I can tell you I wont be wasting my money on buying another!

hambones

You might possibly consider some BHF rides? I did a couple of them this year and the majority of riders were not wearing helmets.

T.C.

Bob, i'm in the same position as you worn one twice, etape 2002 and wicklow 200, hated it, i entered the 3 cc this year, and some sarcastic bloke, told me to wear one, i said i't wasn't compulsory, i wouldn't wear one again (my choice ), so yes you might have to miss out, even if an organiser says it's insurance, please can someone explain as it's not law?

unik

Just ride some audaxes instead, the entry fees are only 10% of the cost of sportives and no-one will look down on you for not wearing a polystyrene hat...

But you will have to grow a beard.

dennisn

T.C. wrote:

Bob, i'm in the same position as you worn one twice, etape 2002 and wicklow 200, hated it, i entered the 3 cc this year, and some sarcastic bloke, told me to wear one, i said i't wasn't compulsory, i wouldn't wear one again (my choice ), so yes you might have to miss out, even if an organiser says it's insurance, please can someone explain as it's not law?

I would guess that in this lawsuit happy world that the insurance companies, who underwrite these events, have seen more that a few people bash their heads on the pavement, try to sue the event organizers for failing to mark that pothole or whatever,
and have decided that helmets reduce the risk of severe head injury. Can't say as I blame them in that thinking. I'll grant you it isn't a LAW but that doesn't mean that the insurance people can't insist on helmets in their policy to the organizers.

freehub

Infamous wrote:

I suspect you did hit your head, at some point.

Only in virtual reality.

hopper1

damoando wrote:

I'm with you on this one botboiler. I wasted £100 on one and all it took was to crash and smack it on the tarmac and its now a write-off. I can tell you I wont be wasting my money on buying another!

:shock: ... Are you taking the p1ss?

You crashed whilst wearing a helmet?
The impact wrecked the helmet?
You wont replace the helmet?

So, next time you crash, you'll just write your head off!...
Are you for fcuking real?

Wearing helmets is down to the individual, whatever floats your boat.
But, to sya it was a waste of money after it has been sacrificed to save your head... :roll:

If your comment was tongue in cheek, you forgot the ( )

pickled

I think he did miss out the

de_sisti

What are the insurance implications on a sportive regarding helmet use? I've the term
"A requirement form the insurance company". But what exactly does it mean? Will the
insurance cover for the even be cancelled if anyone is spotted riding the event without
one? Will the event be cancelled if observers from the insurance company spot helmetless
riders on the event?

On every sportive I've done I've always seen a handful of riders one the event
without a helmet. It doesn't bother me whether people wear them or not.

pickled

I suspect the insurers might not pay out on individuals hurt in cases where a helmet might have helped.
The requirement would be part of the insurers terms and conditions (insurers like common sense.)
The requirement is to protect you as well as the event organisers.
If the organisers don't insist on helmets then they could be found negligent in their health and safety should a serious accident occur.

de_sisti

I see where you're coming from. However, there is always some wording in the terms
and conditions of the event that says something along the lines that organisers will not be
held responsible for any accidents on to the road. Any pariticipant has to agree to those
conditons otherwise they aren't allowed to enter. Under those circumstances, wearing
a helment or not would not allow a cyclist who's entered, and injured on the ride to claim
against organisers.

I'm sure I must be missing something. Can someone with insurance knowledge please
clarify.

Thanks.

dennisn

maander wrote:

I see where you're coming from. However, there is always some wording in the terms
and conditions of the event that says something along the lines that organisers will not be
held responsible for any accidents on to the road. Any pariticipant has to agree to those
conditons otherwise they aren't allowed to enter. Under those circumstances, wearing
a helment or not would not allow a cyclist who's entered, and injured on the ride to claim
against organisers.

I'm sure I must be missing something. Can someone with insurance knowledge please
clarify.

Thanks.

I think you are missing something. The fact that there are still lawsuits by people who have signed waivers, agreed not to hold anyone but themselves responsible, knew all the risks involved in participating, even wear a tag(skiing - lift ticket) saying they won't hold the resort responsible for anything, and still try and sue someone, anyone. I remember a club member asking why he had to wear a helmet to race in our club races. He assured us that HE wouldn't sue us. I assured him that it wasn't just him I was worried about as far as lawsuits against the club went. What about wife, kids, parents?
His answer - "Oh, they won't sue you either". All righty then. I'm convinced.

andyp

Borrow one, wear it at the start, then remove it and hang it over your handlebars for the rest of the ride.

ledburyloafer

btb most may ask, many wont enforce, you will always see riders who don't wear them. Though as someone who dumped his bike at speed not wearing a helmet,same reasons as you, and booked a ride in an ambulance in the process, I never ride without now, realising how lucky i was to get away with it.
As the bike went down, I clearly remember thinking f*** why am I not wearing a helmet' this is going to hurt!
Have to say bit niave toi think this thread wouldn't trigger the response it has! :roll:

bigmat

dennisn wrote:

maander wrote:

I see where you're coming from. However, there is always some wording in the terms
and conditions of the event that says something along the lines that organisers will not be
held responsible for any accidents on to the road. Any pariticipant has to agree to those
conditons otherwise they aren't allowed to enter. Under those circumstances, wearing
a helment or not would not allow a cyclist who's entered, and injured on the ride to claim
against organisers.

I'm sure I must be missing something. Can someone with insurance knowledge please
clarify.

Thanks.

I think you are missing something. The fact that there are still lawsuits by people who have signed waivers, agreed not to hold anyone but themselves responsible, knew all the risks involved in participating, even wear a tag(skiing - lift ticket) saying they won't hold the resort responsible for anything, and still try and sue someone, anyone. I remember a club member asking why he had to wear a helmet to race in our club races. He assured us that HE wouldn't sue us. I assured him that it wasn't just him I was worried about as far as lawsuits against the club went. What about wife, kids, parents?
His answer - "Oh, they won't sue you either". All righty then. I'm convinced.

You can't exclude liability for death or personal injury. So terms and conditions excluding liability will relate to loss / damage to equipment etc but if you come a cropper and get injured / worse then you will be within your rights to sue the sportive organisers. Said organisers will then look to their insurers to meet your claim for damages. Insurers will almost certainly point to their terms and conditions specifying all entrants should wear a helmet. If you didn't they won't pay out leaving the organisers to foot the bill. Its pretty inconsiderate to ride without one when you look at it like that - you'd be better off just turning up without an official entry (which isn't exactly good form)> Hell, just wear a helmet - it isn't going to kill you.

bobtbuilder

Have to say bit niave toi think this thread wouldn't trigger the response it has!

I just thought the whole helmet debate had been done to death already. I really only wanted an answer in relation to sportives.

andyp

Sadly whenever someone says they don't wear a helmet, or always wear a helmet, someone, somewhere will have to share their opinion of why they are a crazy fool.

The winner of craziest fool on this thread has to be Freehub, who gets all het up about helmet wearing only to then be outed as someone who doesn't wear a helmet some of the time. :roll:

You're an adult, helmets are optional, make up your own mind.

dennisn

MatHammond wrote:

dennisn wrote:

maander wrote:

I see where you're coming from. However, there is always some wording in the terms
and conditions of the event that says something along the lines that organisers will not be
held responsible for any accidents on to the road. Any pariticipant has to agree to those
conditons otherwise they aren't allowed to enter. Under those circumstances, wearing
a helment or not would not allow a cyclist who's entered, and injured on the ride to claim
against organisers.

I'm sure I must be missing something. Can someone with insurance knowledge please
clarify.

Thanks.

I think you are missing something. The fact that there are still lawsuits by people who have signed waivers, agreed not to hold anyone but themselves responsible, knew all the risks involved in participating, even wear a tag(skiing - lift ticket) saying they won't hold the resort responsible for anything, and still try and sue someone, anyone. I remember a club member asking why he had to wear a helmet to race in our club races. He assured us that HE wouldn't sue us. I assured him that it wasn't just him I was worried about as far as lawsuits against the club went. What about wife, kids, parents?
His answer - "Oh, they won't sue you either". All righty then. I'm convinced.

You can't exclude liability for death or personal injury. So terms and conditions excluding liability will relate to loss / damage to equipment etc but if you come a cropper and get injured / worse then you will be within your rights to sue the sportive organisers. Said organisers will then look to their insurers to meet your claim for damages. Insurers will almost certainly point to their terms and conditions specifying all entrants should wear a helmet. If you didn't they won't pay out leaving the organisers to foot the bill. Its pretty inconsiderate to ride without one when you look at it like that - you'd be better off just turning up without an official entry (which isn't exactly good form)> Hell, just wear a helmet - it isn't going to kill you.

You have my curiosity up. I thought that waivers for sporting events seemed to always include clauses about death and injury and how I agree not to hold anyone responsible for these things. At least that's how it seems to read to me. I seem to recall though, that
someone once told me that in reality most waivers are not ALL that binding. :? :? :?

bigmat

dennisn wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

dennisn wrote:

maander wrote:

I see where you're coming from. However, there is always some wording in the terms
and conditions of the event that says something along the lines that organisers will not be
held responsible for any accidents on to the road. Any pariticipant has to agree to those
conditons otherwise they aren't allowed to enter. Under those circumstances, wearing
a helment or not would not allow a cyclist who's entered, and injured on the ride to claim
against organisers.

I'm sure I must be missing something. Can someone with insurance knowledge please
clarify.

Thanks.

I think you are missing something. The fact that there are still lawsuits by people who have signed waivers, agreed not to hold anyone but themselves responsible, knew all the risks involved in participating, even wear a tag(skiing - lift ticket) saying they won't hold the resort responsible for anything, and still try and sue someone, anyone. I remember a club member asking why he had to wear a helmet to race in our club races. He assured us that HE wouldn't sue us. I assured him that it wasn't just him I was worried about as far as lawsuits against the club went. What about wife, kids, parents?
His answer - "Oh, they won't sue you either". All righty then. I'm convinced.

You can't exclude liability for death or personal injury. So terms and conditions excluding liability will relate to loss / damage to equipment etc but if you come a cropper and get injured / worse then you will be within your rights to sue the sportive organisers. Said organisers will then look to their insurers to meet your claim for damages. Insurers will almost certainly point to their terms and conditions specifying all entrants should wear a helmet. If you didn't they won't pay out leaving the organisers to foot the bill. Its pretty inconsiderate to ride without one when you look at it like that - you'd be better off just turning up without an official entry (which isn't exactly good form)> Hell, just wear a helmet - it isn't going to kill you.

You have my curiosity up. I thought that waivers for sporting events seemed to always include clauses about death and injury and how I agree not to hold anyone responsible for these things. At least that's how it seems to read to me. I seem to recall though, that
someone once told me that in reality most waivers are not ALL that binding. :? :? :?

Sorry Dennis, I was talking about the situation here in the UK. I think it is different in the US (possibly varying from state to state?) and that it may be possible for a waiver of any liability to be valid. I've certainly signed things like that in Latin America / Australia / Canada - can't remember seeing them in the US although can't remember doing any kind of activities that would require it now I think about it. They may have been valid - fortunately I didn't need to put that to the test.

dennisn

MatHammond wrote:

dennisn wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

dennisn wrote:

maander wrote:

I see where you're coming from. However, there is always some wording in the terms
and conditions of the event that says something along the lines that organisers will not be
held responsible for any accidents on to the road. Any pariticipant has to agree to those
conditons otherwise they aren't allowed to enter. Under those circumstances, wearing
a helment or not would not allow a cyclist who's entered, and injured on the ride to claim
against organisers.

I'm sure I must be missing something. Can someone with insurance knowledge please
clarify.

Thanks.

I think you are missing something. The fact that there are still lawsuits by people who have signed waivers, agreed not to hold anyone but themselves responsible, knew all the risks involved in participating, even wear a tag(skiing - lift ticket) saying they won't hold the resort responsible for anything, and still try and sue someone, anyone. I remember a club member asking why he had to wear a helmet to race in our club races. He assured us that HE wouldn't sue us. I assured him that it wasn't just him I was worried about as far as lawsuits against the club went. What about wife, kids, parents?
His answer - "Oh, they won't sue you either". All righty then. I'm convinced.

You can't exclude liability for death or personal injury. So terms and conditions excluding liability will relate to loss / damage to equipment etc but if you come a cropper and get injured / worse then you will be within your rights to sue the sportive organisers. Said organisers will then look to their insurers to meet your claim for damages. Insurers will almost certainly point to their terms and conditions specifying all entrants should wear a helmet. If you didn't they won't pay out leaving the organisers to foot the bill. Its pretty inconsiderate to ride without one when you look at it like that - you'd be better off just turning up without an official entry (which isn't exactly good form)> Hell, just wear a helmet - it isn't going to kill you.

You have my curiosity up. I thought that waivers for sporting events seemed to always include clauses about death and injury and how I agree not to hold anyone responsible for these things. At least that's how it seems to read to me. I seem to recall though, that
someone once told me that in reality most waivers are not ALL that binding. :? :? :?

Sorry Dennis, I was talking about the situation here in the UK. I think it is different in the US (possibly varying from state to state?) and that it may be possible for a waiver of any liability to be valid. I've certainly signed things like that in Latin America / Australia / Canada - can't remember seeing them in the US although can't remember doing any kind of activities that would require it now I think about it. They may have been valid - fortunately I didn't need to put that to the test.

I wonder why a waiver absolving a prompter of ALL liability doesn't seem to be possible?
Could it be an insurance company scam? They might say it's not legally possible to be absolved of all risk in order to sell more insurance??
I'm just kidding - sort of.
I guess I don't really understand why I can't "sign off" like that. Is it to protect the idiots
from themselves??? Or don't we have the right to do stupid things??? It just strikes me as odd that even though you "sign off" at an event you still have recourse to sue. I'm not debating right or wrong here, just "what's the deal"? Why have anyone sign anything if it's not worth the paper it's written on????

bigmat

You tell me Dennis! I have signed waiver of liability documents in the UK safe in the knowledge that they are unenforceable, saves arguing. There are good policy reasons for not allowing a company to waive liability for death / personal injury though. Not everyone reads the small print. A lot of people aren't that sharp when it comes to these things. And in a lot of situations you don't have that much bargaining power and might be inclined to be a bit reckless and just sign off anyway. By not allowing those clauses, it forces companies / event organisers etc to take their repsonsibilities extremely seriously - which they should - its a matter of life and death after all.

antfly

The law overrides any waivers, and so it should.

dennisn

MatHammond wrote:

You tell me Dennis! I have signed waiver of liability documents in the UK safe in the knowledge that they are unenforceable, saves arguing. There are good policy reasons for not allowing a company to waive liability for death / personal injury though. Not everyone reads the small print. A lot of people aren't that sharp when it comes to these things. And in a lot of situations you don't have that much bargaining power and might be inclined to be a bit reckless and just sign off anyway. By not allowing those clauses, it forces companies / event organisers etc to take their repsonsibilities extremely seriously - which they should - its a matter of life and death after all.

You're right, it forces even our local club to take club racing very seriously with course marshals, pavement repair where possible, bad weather watches, that kind of thing.
We don't mess around with race safety. We do all we can and if there aren't enough marshals, the road is all torn up, or lighting strikes, we cancel or hold until conditions permit. And we have insurance. I don't think anyone would even let their names be listed as club officers without it. Anyway, it's always been my feeling that the waivers were
sorta, kinda, maybe, almost, legally binding. God knows we have the racers sigh enough of them. Last year at each race we had to charge each racer 3 dollars, at each race, and it ALL went for insurance.

de_sisti

Am I right in thinking that the waivers aren't/wouldn't be enforceable because wearing of
helmets aren't compulsory in law?

roger_merriman

there are helmet free sportives and charity rides etc.

tour of black mountains is one, you'll need to dig though as most assume your going to wear one.

there are certinaly a few that don't require if one wished. hell of ashdown sold out is one as well.

owenlars

Matthammond

If you come a cropper on a sportive then the organisers are only liable if they are negligent in some way. If you stack it going down a hill because you are going too fast it's your problem not anyone elses. You can't sue the organiseres because if they hadn't organised the sportive you wouldn't have crashed. If someone is actually negligent then a waiver isn't worth the paper it is written on, but you will have to prove they are negligent to make that case.

zoomcp

maander wrote:

Am I right in thinking that the waivers aren't/wouldn't be enforceable because wearing of
helmets aren't compulsory in law?

not sure but if it's an insurance thing they probably can enforce it on a "paid to enter" event. Remember helmets are now compulsory (not advisable) on all road races (even professional now I think) and some TT's where the CTT district has decided it. And I would have thought on any mass event like a sportive, even if not mass start, the insurers can argue that the likelihood of an off resulting in a HI is increased.

Audax does not and probably never will require them because Audax rides do not exist as such, they are legally speaking a group of cyclists undertaking a private excursion on the public highway and AUK only exists as means of validating the distance and time and supplying riders with copious tea and cake whilst on that private excursion

(check an AUK entry form to confirm this)

DaveMoss

Simple, It's a requirement of the insures that helmets are compulsory. Any that don't insist probably haven't read their insurance conditions properly.

I am not an advocate of helmets for normal use, . anyone inclined to wear a helmet for town commuting should really wear one all the time, when walking, when in a car, when going down stairs, because the risks are very similar and the helmet might just one day save a nasty injury (but probably won't. on or off the bike).

However, riding in big groups of riderws, especially rider you do not know such as in a race or sportive, increases the risk dramatically. Modern helmets are very good and not much of an inconvenience, really it's a stupid question.

And as an organiser can i dispell the idea that it's ok to ride round in an event without an entry. Legally you cannot be stopped, but if you do you are a total plonker and a pest, and you jepardise the future of the whole sport. don't do it.

freehub

andyp wrote:

Sadly whenever someone says they don't wear a helmet, or always wear a helmet, someone, somewhere will have to share their opinion of why they are a crazy fool.

The winner of craziest fool on this thread has to be Freehub, who gets all het up about helmet wearing only to then be outed as someone who doesn't wear a helmet some of the time. :roll:

You're an adult, helmets are optional, make up your own mind.

I like how you single me out due to the threads in Cake stop, nothing wrong with my opinions and they're in line with plenty of other peoples opinions, just I find it silly when no one gives a reason, just makes them sound like they're being childish and he's now not able to do sportives due to them, so it's his loss over some silly reason.

I don't get het up about someone not wearing a helmet, it's the stupid reasons and posts like yours that gets me all het up, and I think your post is foolish as you singled me out.

When he gave his reason I left it at that, but then some people had to have another dig.

Would you like some rolleyes with that sir?

hopper1

freehub wrote:

andyp wrote:

Sadly whenever someone says they don't wear a helmet, or always wear a helmet, someone, somewhere will have to share their opinion of why they are a crazy fool.

The winner of craziest fool on this thread has to be Freehub, who gets all het up about helmet wearing only to then be outed as someone who doesn't wear a helmet some of the time. :roll:

You're an adult, helmets are optional, make up your own mind.

I like how you single me out due to the threads in Cake stop, nothing wrong with my opinions and they're in line with plenty of other peoples opinions, just I find it silly when no one gives a reason, just makes them sound like they're being childish and he's now not able to do sportives due to them, so it's his loss over some silly reason.

I don't get het up about someone not wearing a helmet, it's the stupid reasons and posts like yours that gets me all het up, and I think your post is foolish as you singled me out.

When he gave his reason I left it at that, but then some people had to have another dig.

Would you like some rolleyes with that sir?

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... :roll: