Helmets in TdF

Alfred Ryder said:

I did not see any helmets go off during today's final climb. But I only
watched the first few riders to the line. What is the story? I can't believe
that they were voluntarily keeping them on.

T'is the rule:

http://www.tdfblog.com/2005/03/new_helmet_rule.html

Neil Brooks said:

Alfred Ryder said:

I did not see any helmets go off during today's final climb. But I only
watched the first few riders to the line. What is the story? I can't believe
that they were voluntarily keeping them on.

T'is the rule:

http://www.tdfblog.com/2005/03/new_helmet_rule.html

Yep. The harangue continued for years, and the officials finally caved
in. Shameful.

- Frank Krygowski

Neil Brooks said:

Alfred Ryder said:

I did not see any helmets go off during today's final climb. But I only
watched the first few riders to the line. What is the story? I can't believe
that they were voluntarily keeping them on.

T'is the rule:

http://www.tdfblog.com/2005/03/new_helmet_rule.html

Has there ever been a death due to a crash on the climbing stage of any
major race?

I only found three instances of deaths during races where a helmet would
have saved the rider, and none were doing climbing stages.

[QUOTE}

Has there ever been a death due to a crash on the climbing stage of any
major race?

I only found three instances of deaths during races where a helmet would
have saved the rider, and none were doing climbing stages.[/QUOTE]

Did you see Jan's helment after his crash the other day, bet he is glad he was wearing one.

Steven M. Scharf said:

I only found three instances of deaths during races where a helmet would
have saved the rider, and none were doing climbing stages.

You have data to show that a helmet would have saved the rider? Do
share it.

On the other hand, the number of pro rider fatalities in the first
five years of this decade is more than the total in any other decade
on record, as far as I can tell. But still a *tiny* number.

As Frank says, there was pressure, UCI caved in.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer

Quoted message said:

Has there ever been a death due to a crash on the climbing stage of any
major race?

Kivilev had been wearing a helmet, but had removed it in anticipation of an
upcoming climb.

However, he was still on the flat section of the course at the time of his
accident.

Chris Neary
[email hidden]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

I only found three instances of deaths during races where a helmet would
have saved the rider, and none were doing climbing stages.

You have data to show that a helmet would have saved the rider? Do
share it.

As Frank says, there was pressure, UCI caved in.

You have data to show that there was pressure, UCI caved in? Do share it.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:32:27 -0600, Rich <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As Frank says, there was pressure, UCI caved in.

You have data to show that there was pressure, UCI caved in? Do share it.

Did you not read the debates around the time of the Kivilev crash? A
crash, a rider died, a helmet would "obviously" have saved his life,
there were calls for a change in the rules, and the group within the
UCI who had been agitating for a lid rule for some time, ran with it.

There was pressure, UCI caved in.

OK, I admit it's partly conjecture on my part. But then, the UCI
don't usually enact significant rule changes at the last minute, like
they did with respect to TT helmets in particular, unless there is a
political reason.

Compare and contrast their refusal to legalise bikes under a certain
arbitrary weight.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer

Just zis Guy said:

On the other hand, the number of pro rider fatalities in the first
five years of this decade is more than the total in any other decade
on record, as far as I can tell. But still a *tiny* number.

Are you talking about total fatalities or just those from crashes?

Chris Neary said:

Quoted message said:

Has there ever been a death due to a crash on the climbing stage of any
major race?

Kivilev had been wearing a helmet, but had removed it in anticipation of an
upcoming climb.

However, he was still on the flat section of the course at the time of his
accident.

So the rule change should have been that you cannot remove it until the
climbing actually begins, not just in anticipation of the climb, though
isn't that what the rule actually was on the TDF?

In the case of Kivilev, on the Paris-Nice race, helmets were not
required at all, from what I read.

The team doctor for Kivilev's team stated that the type of injury
sustained by Kivilev was in a location that would have been protected by
a helmet. What a damn shame that he did not keep his helmet on a little
longer.

Rich said:

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

I only found three instances of deaths during races where a helmet
would have saved the rider, and none were doing climbing stages.

You have data to show that a helmet would have saved the rider? Do
share it.

As Frank says, there was pressure, UCI caved in.

You have data to show that there was pressure, UCI caved in? Do share it.

I know that many team doctors have been pressing for helmet
requirements, but allowing riders to remove them during climbing seems
like a reasonable compromise.

Quoted message said:

Has there ever been a death due to a crash on the climbing stage of any
major race?

I only found three instances of deaths during races where a helmet would
have saved the rider, and none were doing climbing stages.

Not really the point - whatever the pros do is copied down the line so
if they
don't wear helmets then then recreational cyclists are less likely to
wear them
due to the coolness factor.

At 13 Jul 2005 09:56:58 -0700, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by
"gds" <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, the number of pro rider fatalities in the first
five years of this decade is more than the total in any other decade
on record, as far as I can tell. But still a *tiny* number.

Quoted message said:

Are you talking about total fatalities or just those from crashes?

Crashes.

My mate Bob is working on this, but the data is very patchy. You need
collisions, numbers involved in collisions and other data, too, to
form a good picture.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

At 13 Jul 2005 10:20:03 -0700, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by
"Jeff" <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

Not really the point - whatever the pros do is copied down the line so
if they
don't wear helmets then then recreational cyclists are less likely to
wear them
due to the coolness factor.

And?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

Not really the point - whatever the pros do is copied down the
line so if they don't wear helmets then then recreational cyclists
are less likely to wear them due to the coolness factor.

And?

The sponsors obviously don't like that.

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

SMS said:

The team doctor for Kivilev's team stated that the type of injury
sustained by Kivilev was in a location that would have been
protected by a helmet. What a damn shame that he did not keep his
helmet on a little longer.

I doubt the team doc had any reasonable understanding about the
difference a helmet would have made. And I've read quite some
medic's ideas about mechanics...

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

Just zis Guy said:

Compare and contrast their refusal to legalise bikes under a certain
arbitrary weight.

Perhaps they surmised that a "helmet" rule didn't have any downside, and
might in fact save someone's life, so it did have a potential postive.

Legaliseing bikes under a certain arbirtrary weight benifits those that
have the money to get those bikes. It basically increases the cost of
the sport for everyone.

I think those that mandated helmets and refused to legalize bikes uner a
certain arbitrary wieght in fact acted very rationally.

Rich

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:07:56 -0600, Rich <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Perhaps they surmised that a "helmet" rule didn't have any downside, and
might in fact save someone's life, so it did have a potential postive.

They might have surmised that, but the long-standing opposition from
riders suggests they were ignoring at least /some/ downside. And the
persistent failure of any cyclist population to show any reduction in
injury rates with increasing helmet use suggests they may have been
overestimating the potential positives as well...

Actually of course most helmet rules and laws are driven by ideology
not evidence. Once you get into evidence you find that cycling is not
actually very dangerous, and that helmets are at best tinkering at the
edges anyway. Helmet rules are a fig-leaf that allows responsible
bodies (sport or civil) to pretend they have managed risk without
actually having to do anything, especially anything which might be
politically difficult.

Quoted message said:

Legaliseing bikes under a certain arbirtrary weight benifits those that
have the money to get those bikes. It basically increases the cost of
the sport for everyone.

LOL! In the context of the money already being paid out by teams, the
additional cost of the lightest bike over the one they are currently
using is negligible. And actually I seem to recall reading that
Lance's Treks cost *more* than the "illegal" Cannondale, but that
could easily be wrong.

Quoted message said:

I think those that mandated helmets and refused to legalize bikes uner a
certain arbitrary wieght in fact acted very rationally.

For some values of rationally. 12mph crashes are quite rare in pro
races, and fatal ones even rarer :-)

Look at that crash on the railway lines at Karlsruhe. If the UCI and
race organisers are so very concerned about rider safety, how come
they allowed a route which crossed railway lines at an angle?
Everyone knows what's going to happen there!

On the other hand, contemporaneous reports that Kivilev had his hands
off the bars and was fiddling with his radio seem to have taken a back
seat. Perhaps they should have mandated keeping your hands on the
bars? Maybe that would have been more "rational"?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer

Rich said:

Perhaps they surmised that a "helmet" rule didn't have any downside, and
might in fact save someone's life, so it did have a potential postive....

I think those that mandated helmets and refused to legalize bikes uner a
certain arbitrary wieght in fact acted very rationally.

You may think so. But without knowing their thought processes, you
can't really say.

Personally, I think it's much more likely they caved in to politics and
pressure. The safety record of the Tour regarding head injuries is
easy enough for them to check. Incidence of serious head injury seems
_extremely_ low - again, think of the millions of rider miles in the
last 100 years - but helmet-pushers have no doubt been doing their best
to raise the head-injury spectre, data or no.

In addition, helmet manufacturers have now removed the source of those
troubling photographs, the ones showing racer after racer actually
surviving while riding bareheaded! The solution to that "problem" was,
no doubt, very valuable to the manufacturers.

All that was needed was a statement equivalent to "Why, if only _one_
life can be saved!!!"

.... like the one you gave.

Well, I certainly hope they apply that to full body armor for the next
Tour. It's just as logical.

- Frank Krygowski