Helmets worn

in message <[email hidden]>, Daniel Barlow

(') said:

Adrian Godwin said:

I find it difficult to argue that helmets have little or no benefit
above 12mph on the road when racing bodies insist on using them. If
they have good reasons for this, I would like them to be explained :
if it was done as a result of pressure from the usual suspects then
that was a major PR victory and needs serious attention.

An argument could be made that in mass-start or bunch races one is
riding in very close proximity to other cyclists and more likely
therefore to be involved in an accident which does not involve being run
over by a motor vehicle. Racing cyclists also cite "road rash" as one
reason for shaving their leg hair - this would suggest to me that they
are concerned about some classes of injury which the average
commuter/leisure/touring cyclist has no reason to fear, and if they
additionally want to wear helmets to reduce the likelihood of road rash
on the head, that shouldn't have any bearing on what the rest of us do.

Thing is, very few of them do want to. Helmets were introduced into the
professional peloton against fairly stiff resistance, and it's only in the
past two years that racers have been obliged to wear a helmet on the last
climb of a stage. If you look back at photos of Armstrong on the big
climbs, where's the helmets? He didn't wear one, and neither did many
others:

http://chipgrafx.com/portfolio/web/lance/i/img02.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e0/250px-Lance_Armstrong_AdH01.jpg
http://www.experienceplus.com/images/email/dsc_0040.jpg
http://www.aukadia.net/alps/pix/armstrong.jpg

If they didn't have to, they wouldn't; and if the professionals didn't it
would be hard to argue that they're somehow essential.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; 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.
;; Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Dem, OR)

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Adrian Godwin said:

I find it difficult to argue that helmets have little or no benefit
above 12mph on the road when racing bodies insist on using them. If
they have good reasons for this, I would like them to be explained

It's quite simple, someone died from head injuries in a high profile
event without one, there existed a wide variety of head protectors that
were generally assumed to be better than none, so it made some sort of
sense to insist on them.

Fabio Casartelli, Motorola, in le Tour, 1995. He was descending the Col de
Portet d'Aspet flat out at over 100Km/h.

The difference a helmet would make in this situation is 0.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

Simon Brooke wrote on 09/05/2007 20:30 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Fabio Casartelli, Motorola, in le Tour, 1995. He was descending the Col de
Portet d'Aspet flat out at over 100Km/h.

The difference a helmet would make in this situation is 0.

Be fair. It wasn't a much slower speed at which a cotton cap saved your
life. ;-)

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

Fabio Casartelli, Motorola, in le Tour, 1995. He was descending
the Col de Portet d'Aspet flat out at over 100Km/h.

The death that led to the introduction of compulsory helmets in UCI road
races was that of Andrei Kivilev in the 2003 Paris-Nice.

James Thomson

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Simon Brooke wrote on 09/05/2007 20:30 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Fabio Casartelli, Motorola, in le Tour, 1995. He was descending the Col
de Portet d'Aspet flat out at over 100Km/h.

The difference a helmet would make in this situation is 0.

Be fair. It wasn't a much slower speed at which a cotton cap saved your
life. ;-)

My crash was at about 75Km/h. It could very easily have been fatal; I was
absurdly lucky. However, if I'd gone head first into the rock instead of
somersaulting past it, neither my cotton cap nor a helmet your
realistically have made any difference.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Good grief, I can remember when England won the Ashes.

Simon Brooke wrote on 10/05/2007 08:58 +0100:

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Simon Brooke wrote on 09/05/2007 20:30 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Fabio Casartelli, Motorola, in le Tour, 1995. He was descending the Col
de Portet d'Aspet flat out at over 100Km/h.

The difference a helmet would make in this situation is 0.

Be fair. It wasn't a much slower speed at which a cotton cap saved your
life. ;-)

My crash was at about 75Km/h. It could very easily have been fatal; I was
absurdly lucky. However, if I'd gone head first into the rock instead of
somersaulting past it, neither my cotton cap nor a helmet your
realistically have made any difference.

But you're missing the point - a cotton cap saved your life. How can
you deny it? ;-^)

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

Fabio Casartelli, Motorola, in le Tour, 1995. He was descending the Col de
Portet d'Aspet flat out at over 100Km/h.

The difference a helmet would make in this situation is 0.

Also, and probably more pertinently,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/2842707.stm
The problem for the non-helmet lobby* is that several people are
quoted as saying that a helmet would have saved him. If this is
accepted unquestioningly, then to cancel out its effect you have to
provide a corresponding case where a cyclist was killed and lots of
people who are supposed to know about these things say it was because
(s)he was wearing a helmet.
IIRC from accounts at the time, the cyclist in question was sitting
up, fishing with one (maybe both) hands in his pockets when he touched
the bike in front. Straight over the handlebars, landed on his head
with no time to break his fall with anything.

* Note, I make no comment either way. I don't have a position on
helmet use which I want to share. I'm not sure I have a position. Or I
might even have two. Either way, please don't try and convert me. If I
can't make up my mind, you can't do it for me.

Quoted post said:

The problem for the non-helmet lobby* is that several people are
quoted as saying that a helmet would have saved him. If this is
accepted unquestioningly, then to cancel out its effect you have to
provide a corresponding case where a cyclist was killed and lots of
people who are supposed to know about these things say it was because
(s)he was wearing a helmet.

But when this happens they say it was in spite of the helmet rather
than because of it. And when someone dies without a helmet they tend
to say a helmet would have, rather than might have, saved them.

--
Dave...