NYC XYZ wrote:

Maybe it also protects the clubs, etc., from negligence lawsuits, you
think? An incredible case of chutzpah they're assuming, but then
again, you really never do know -- say the families decide to sue, even
if the fatality had signed all kinds of releases.

It protects the officers of the club, it protects the ride leader, and
in the case of our club protected the city that allowed us to use a
meeting room, on the condition we had liability insurance. IIRC, we
changed to the insurance from LAW because it was much cheaper than
buying insurance on our own from an agent. This was sometime in the
1980's, when the liability insurance rates for allegedly dangerous
activities went up. I remember the local Sierra Club Rock Climbing
activity section losing insurance coverage through the Sierra Club, and
having to make the club into a group that got together for meetings and
parties, with all activities done not as official activities.

Prior to the insurance company making the decision on compulsory helmets
for the club, we had periodic debates regarding helmets. On one side,
were the ride leaders, including myself, that thought that it should be
a decision of the ride leader whether or not to require helmets, while
on the other side we had the do-gooders that wanted to pass more rules
to make everything safe for everybody.