You are hereI've got a question about the ACA rides.
I've got a question about the ACA rides.
Update: Don't worry y'all, I'm not going to show up on an ACA ride without a helmet. I may be an asshole on here, but in real life I'm not really THAT big of a dick. Just don't tell anyone, I'd hate to ruin my rep...
Also, I LIKE helmets. They're handy. I wouldn't dream of hitting up Walnut Creek or the Greenbelt without one. When I ride with my company's lunch-time roadie group I strap on the brain bucket. I just don't think a slow-paced urban ride needs or benefits from it.
I ALSO like the ACA, and all the stuff they do for bicycling in central Texas. I rescind my call of shenanigans on them, though I still disagree with their mandatory helmet rule.
I've got a quick questions for all y'all cyclists out there. I know the ACA has a strict "helmet mandatory" rule on all their rides. In fact here's the text lifted directly from their website (I've bolded a few things):
Note: ACA rides are open to any adult recreational cyclist (regardless of membership or affiliation), as well as riders under 18 accompanied by a responsible adult. Riders of all levels, including novice, are encouraged to participate. All rides are on public streets and roads, and all riders ride at their own risk. Carry identification and water bottle(s). Properly worn, approved bicycle helmets are required of all riders. Remember, each rider is responsible for his/her own safety and security.
My question is this:
What happens if you show up without a helmet?
Have any of y'all done it? I like a lot of what the ACA does and stands for, but this mandatory helmet thing is as bullshit as that law Bruce Todd tried to cram down our throats a couple years back.
If they truly believe that "all riders ride at their own risk" and "each rider is responsible for (their) own safety" then why the big deal on the helmet issue? If we're truly responsible, LET US BE RESPONSIBLE. It seems like they want to be the Austin Bike culture's worried, hand-wringing mother. What's up with that?
So I guess I really have 2 questions, first off what happens if you show up without a helmet, and second why the big deal about helmets being required in the first place? If you know anything about this rather baffling issue, please post here or email me privately if you need to remain anonymous to protect your member status or something.
Honestly, I just want to go on a couple of their rides, but I'm not willing to stoop to being treated like a child to do so.
P.S. Technically since the rides are on public roads and paced 12-14mph oftentimes, there's not a lot stopping a group of riders from tagging along on their own ride, but I don't know the protocol for such things....
P.P.S. Man this one has me kinda spun up. I have a real beef with the fact that a supposedly (that was mean of me) bicycle-friendly organization like the Austin Cycling Association has less bicyclist friendly rules than our city and their oftentimes bicycle-unfriendly police department have laws. If Merckx and Coppi can manage without helmets in actual races (the Paris-Roubaix, nonetheless!) why can't we do it on some slow paced, frequently stopping inner-city rec rides? I'm hereby calling shenanigans on the ACA and their whole helmeted-rider bias. Local non-helmeted riders are Austin Cyclists too, why can't we be associated with y'all?
Maybe in the case of the old pros they didn't need helmets because they were protected by the massive quantities of amphetamines they ingested.
Glad to see such a reasonable conversation going on here. Can't say I disagree with any comment made thus far.
ACA has liability insurance covering the organization in the event someone sues for whatever reason. Helmets and that sign-in sheet ACA asks you to fill out before each ride are measures required by the coverage and help to keep the insurance affordable.
Occasionally, someone shows up and refuses to wear a helmet. They're usually asked to not participate. (depends on the assertiveness of the ride leader, I guess) If they persist, nobody can physically stop anybody from riding. (that would be asking for a lawsuit)
--
robbo
Thanks for the info Bob. I guess it makes sense from an insurance standpoint, not that anything in the world of insurance actually makes sense...
To answer your question, someone volunteers to show up as the ride coordinator, ride leader, or whatever. If it's a no-drop ride, that means they keep sweeping up and down the road to make sure everyone makes it. They have a signup sheet where you put down how far you're riding and at what speed. You are also asked if you brought a helmet, or where's your helmet, or something about your helmet.
I think these people are friendly and aren't out to step on anyone's toes or piss anyone off. If you want to be a dick and cause a scene, go ahead. They'll probably tell you not to sign in or ride with them. They'll probably hand you a map so at least you know the routes, but you'll have to ride on your own.
Have fun with that.
Remember when your parents would say, "If you're going to act like a child then I'm going to treat you like one"? I think that's what you're doing if you show up at someone else's ride and make a big deal about wearing a helmet. I'm not going to walk into the Broken Spoke and tell them that the two-step is an oppressive and stifling dance form, or go to Sexxy Sunday and make fun of everybody's jorts.
I just don't see ACA's helmet policy as that big a deal. As to why they have the policy, it's gotta be for legal reasons--mainly the desire to not be sued. You or I could probably do their in-town rides a hundred times and not fall down once. But what about the 50-something year old couple who haven't been on bikes since childhood and just took up riding because their doctors told them to get off their butts? I see people like that being helped up off the ground on the Town Lake trail and at charity rides pretty regularly. The helmet policy is for them--for their protection and for ACA's peace of mind. Finally, the whole aim of their biggest fundraiser (happening tomorrow in Liberty Hill, BTW) is to raise $$$ to buy helmets for kids. How could they NOT require them on their rides?
Believe me, I'm no helmet lover. It flattens my rapidly thinning and precariously styled hair. And yes--they make a player look like a douche. If I hop on my bike to putter down to the Git 'n Split for a six pack and two Black & Milds, there's no way I'm wearing a helmet. Any law, like the old Austin helmet law, telling me I had to wear one would be bullshit. But for group rides with varying speeds and riders of different abilities, they just make sense to me.
Can't you just get a BMX helmet and put some spikes on it? I think I have an Eval Knieval skate helmet laying around somewhere that I'd be willing to part with.
I actually have a BMX helmet covered in reflective-tape dicks, but that Eval Knieval skate helmet sounds dope. It's not that I don't like helmets, I really do. Hell, I own 3 of them and I wear them 100% of the time when mountain biking, riding with my company's lunch-time roadie group, or whenever I'm doing something incredibly stupid on my BMX. I just don't cotton with being penalized because the hypothetical 50-something year old couple in your example don't know how to ride their bikes.
Everything I've heard is that it's for insurance purposes, so I guess that's it. Lame.
I updated my posting to assure people that I wouldn't be showing up on their rides and breaking their rules. I'll still make fun of all the jorts at Sexxy Sunday.
... guess I'll have to go back to my bellbottoms! They'll always be in style, right!??!
they don't get caught in chains. I assume the bell bottoms would be a nightmare at that.
I don't believe in mandatory helmet laws, and I go on group rides all the time with no helmet. I mean really, you've seen how much I sweat... the helmet just takes all that and magnifies it by 100x.
That said, I guess they can enforce their own rules on their own rides. ACA does seem to have a little bit of an authoritarian streak though, and that does worry me. I don't want to see any "circular firing squad" type of stuff going on in the Austin cycling community, we're too small for that. We can't go pitting one group of cyclists or one organization against another.
Marcus Sanford
Austin On Two Wheels
ACA is not being authoritarian. In fact, many of the ACA leadership were there in force fighting the Austin helmet laws. They believe in wearing helmets so make it part of their rides but aren't going to force the general public to wear them. It's like being pro-choice but being personally against abortions.
As for circular firing squads, who's firing the first shot by calling ACA authoritarian?
Elliott from Austin On Two Wheels
dont be a jack ass just wear a helmet if you want to go on ACA rides.
fixed gears are like butt holes, every one has one.
Man, even if I go on an ACA ride while wearing a helmet I'll STILL be a jack ass. Some styrofoam and plastic isn't gonna change that.
I agree with Elliot on this one. I'm definitely not a pro-helmet advocate however I think they have their place and mountain biking and group rides is where I think they definitely belong. You're riding with people of all experience levels on the ACA rides. I've seen people go down more than once. I've been veered into and forced off the road. And while there is no law in Texas requiring helmets they're a club and they can do what they want regarding what they feel is safe. I think ACA helps to propel cycling in Austin considerably more than requiring a helmet for a ride hurts it.
As Elliot said if you're not willing to follow their rules then don't ride with them. Show up, pickup the map and head out on your own.
...the rides and often the company sucks...sadly I know more friendly cops than ACA members so...why go at all?
Spandex is also required(as a safety precaution).
I saw show up with helmet on during all of the pre-ride what-have-you's and take it off a few miles after the ride commences with some legitimate excuse as to why it is broken or uncomfortable. Although, my guess is you do not own a helmet, in which case tinfoil will work.
according to their FAQ, spandex and lycra AREN'T required:
"Q: Ain't nobody never gonna catch me wearin' no lycra nor no bright pink!
A:That's okay; we have no dress code, as long as you're wearing enough clothing to be legal."
I guess a helmet is safety equipment, not clothing. And I've got 3 of 'em.
To answer your questions, if you show up without a helmet, you will be asked to not join the ride. Whether you respect that is up to you, but you probably won't get a change to socialize much on the ride which is most of the reason you are there.
To your second question, this club has decided that wearing a helmet is an important safety requirement for their rides. This may be insurance or their personal club preference. Whatever the reason, it's their ride and their rules. Nobody is making you ride their rides. If you don't want to wear a helmet, simply don't ride with them. If you don't like the rule, become a member of ACA and work to change it.
Personally, if I'm pacelining with a bunch of people I don't know, I'd be crazy to not to wear a helmet. Also, while Merckx and Coppi didn't wear helmets every since current pro must. That's like saying I should be able to play highschool football without helmet and pads because that's the way Knute Rockne played. The UCI changed the rules for pros because they realized bike racing is dangerous and it's reasonable injury prevention. They saw enough racers die and realized something could have helped reduced the fatalities.
Elliott from Austin On Two Wheels
Most likely scenario is liability. To organize rides and not be liable for injuries that happen on those rides, it's likely that the statement is a formality, probably by the suggestion of a lawyer, to protect ACA from liability issues. It's a rule, but as you noted, one that is pretty much impossible to enforce.