UCI Mandated Helmets

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by American Floyd
It's not often that governing bodies of professional atheltics get praised (at least not too often in the US), but I heartily commend UCI for mandating helmets in all its sanctioned road races starting this year. Many people constantly talk (including many forum users) about the necessity of helmets, with which I totally agree, but hasn't it been frustrating that the professionals don't always have to wear them?

I applaud the UCI for the change. However, I've read some of the pros complaining about the mandate. I have to ask, though, why do they not want to wear helmets? I've heard it's for heat purposes, but there are plenty of well-ventilated helmets available, especially for some of the Grand Tour Sponsor's astronomical budgets. Millions watch these riders and those millions follow their example, so it's only safer for kiddos to see their riding heros being smart and protected. So what gives?

Good job, UCI. They got that one right.

Oh dear I hope this post doesn't spark off another one of those eight-page debates about whether helmets are good or evil...

Not that I don't agree.

They should always have a helmet w/in reach, but do you need them for the climbs? How does it read exactly? Do you have a link for us to follow? Thanks in advance.

James

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jmcmillanut
They should always have a helmet w/in reach, but do you need them for the climbs? How does it read exactly? Do you have a link for us to follow? Thanks in advance.

James

Have they changed the rule that says you can get rid of your helmet for finishing climbs that exceed 5 miles?

Helmets are a good idea, seatbelts are a good idea, not smoking is a good idea.

Letting adults make their own decisions is also a good idea.

It's not necessary to make the pros wear helmets if the desired result is to get kids to wear them. Have you noticed that *every* professional hockey player wears a helmet? Did you know that they are not mandatory. All they had to do was make them mandatory for kids and then a generation grew up that never considered *not* wearing one.

Please understand that I favor helmets, that I just finally bought one myself and that I don't argue against the wearing of them.

I argue against a paternal culture that protects people from themselves. I argue against making professional athletes the guiding lights of our children.

Being influential is a side affect of celebrity and frequently a bad one. Role-modeling is not something that should be required of celebrities and frankly it's rarely something they should be entrusted with.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jstraw

Helmets are a good idea, seatbelts are a good idea, not smoking is a good idea.

Letting adults make their own decisions is also a good idea.

It's not necessary to make the pros wear helmets if the desired result is to get kids to wear them.

I argue against a paternal culture that protects people from themselves. I argue against making professional athletes the guiding lights of our children.

Being influential is a side affect of celebrity and frequently a bad one. Role-modeling is not something that should be required of celebrities and frankly it's rarely something they should be entrusted with.

AMEN

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jstraw
Have they changed the rule that says you can get rid of your helmet for finishing climbs that exceed 5 miles?

Helmets are a good idea, seatbelts are a good idea, not smoking is a good idea.

Letting adults make their own decisions is also a good idea.

Being influential is a side affect of celebrity and frequently a bad one. Role-modeling is not something that should be required of celebrities and frankly it's rarely something they should be entrusted with.

Regardless of whether or not celebrities are "required" to be role models is immaterial. They ARE role models, like it or not. Charles Barkley came out and specifically said "I am not a role model. Don't do what I do." He IS a role model, however, for good or bad. And the UCI DOES have a responsibility to its fan base, young and old, to avoid tragedies on its courses and to use its influence to the best of its ability.

That's part of why sports have governing bodies in the first place, to protect its athletes both from themselves but more importantly each other. What if Armstrong had slammed into Beloki on that disastrous descent? What if neither of them had been wearing helmets? What then?

People listen to celebrities now, and sometimes only celebrities. Musicians and athletes have as great an impact on kids and adults as their own parents sometimes, especially in the teenage years. Hell, I put more stock into something Frank Zappa would say then George Bush.

Making your own decisions is good. Far better, though, is taking the responsibility and influence you have and doing good with it.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jstraw
Letting adults make their own decisions is also a good idea.

it is if they can make good choices. but the world is full of adults that can't do that.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by American Floyd
Regardless of whether or not celebrities are "required" to be role models is immaterial. They ARE role models, like it or not. Charles Barkley came out and specifically said "I am not a role model. Don't do what I do."

Actually, I don't think he said that last part....since that would have been self-contradictory.

Quoted post said:

That's part of why sports have governing bodies in the first place, to protect its athletes both from themselves but more importantly each other. What if Armstrong had slammed into Beloki on that disastrous descent? What if neither of them had been wearing helmets? What then?

That's absolutely correct and I have no quarrel with the UCI taking responsibility for the rules of their game. Further, as stewards of the sport, I'd go further and say they have a legitimate public relations duty to set a positive example and to spare spectators the sight of cracked melons.

Quoted post said:

Making your own decisions is good. Far better, though, is taking the responsibility and influence you have and doing good with it.

Yes, agreed. But when individuals don't take that responsibility seriously parents and other caretakers of the young aren't left helpless to throw up their hands and moan. At the end of the day, children are not left to the example of celebrities.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by stevek
it is if they can make good choices. but the world is full of adults that can't do that.

No, it is *period*. Actions have consequences and adults are responsible for accepting those consequences for good or ill untill the consequences tread on someone else's toes. The failure of a responsibile adult to make wise decisions for him or herself does not justify bodies in authority enforcing choices that a consensus deems wise.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by stevek
it is if they can make good choices. but the world is full of adults that can't do that.

If someone can't make a "good" choice (whatever that means) then too bad... let 'em suffer the consequences. Anytime you remove the link between action and responsibility you invoke the law of unintended consequences. Do you really propose taking away a person's right to make choices because they made one or more bad choices (criminals excluded... but then again, they make a choice and deal with the consequences)? And if you really advocate this lunacy, who will be making the decisions? You appear to be on very slippery ground...

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jstraw
It's not necessary to make the pros wear helmets if the desired result is to get kids to wear them. Have you noticed that *every* professional hockey player wears a helmet? Did you know that they are not mandatory. All they had to do was make them mandatory for kids and then a generation grew up that never considered *not* wearing one.

That's not how helmets originally evolved in the NHL, though.

There was a time when helmets WERE mandated for all new pros, but "old-timers" who had NOT worn helmets were grandfathered/exempt.

It's certainly a good idea to try to teach kids not to emulate stars just because they're famous, but they DO emulate them - what else could POSSIBLY account for all the teenage girls dressed like hookers these days (all emulating some pop star or other that looks like that...)?

😕

There is one part of this debat that always astounds me.

The idea that making a safety item, like a bike helment, should be left up to the individual because they are a adult.

I would not have a problem with this comment if it was not for the fact that the rest of the community will be stuck with their medical bills when they come off.

Helmets these days are cool, comfortable and not that expensive.

I could not belive that they are having such problems in the UK over such a obvious piece of safety gear.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jcjordan
😕

There is one part of this debat that always astounds me.

The idea that making a safety item, like a bike helment, should be left up to the individual because they are a adult.

I would not have a problem with this comment if it was not for the fact that the rest of the community will be stuck with their medical bills when they come off.

Helmets these days are cool, comfortable and not that expensive.

I could not belive that they are having such problems in the UK over such a obvious piece of safety gear.

You think you'll have to cover my bills if I get hurt? I am insured.

I suppose that insurance companies could argue for an exemption from covering people's head injuries resulting from accidents while not wearing helmets they have a legitimate financial stake. Or a helmet law could stipulate that riding without a helmet is only legal if one has coverage that has no such exemption.

The fact is these would be approaches that are at least based upon a legitimate financial stake and/or a common good. But these differ fundimentally from the paternalistic blather that is the basis for the laws we actually see passed or proposed.

You want to limit insurance company exposure? Ok. You want to protect the community from the stupidity of the indigent? Fine. But before you start protecting me from me, remember that we live in a world where adults (rightly) have the freedom to (stupidly) choose to consume tobacco.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jstraw
You think you'll have to cover my bills if I get hurt? I am insured.

I suppose that insurance companies could argue for an exemption from covering people's head injuries resulting from accidents while not wearing helmets they have a legitimate financial stake. Or a helmet law could stipulate that riding without a helmet is only legal if one has coverage that has no such exemption.

The fact is these would be approaches that are at least based upon a legitimate financial stake and/or a common good. But these differ fundimentally from the paternalistic blather that is the basis for the laws we actually see passed or proposed.

You want to limit insurance company exposure? Ok. You want to protect the community from the stupidity of the indigent? Fine. But before you start protecting me from me, remember that we live in a world where adults (rightly) have the freedom to (stupidly) choose to consume tobacco.

I agree with your comments for the most part, but i live in Australia where medical bills are a little diffrent. If you have a accident on the road and get pick up by the ambulance the only cost to you is the ride to the hospital, Medicare (goverment health care) picks up the rest.

As for tabacco would you belive that there is a call here, that if sucessful, would limit the access smokers have to health care that requires surgury. The reason behind this is that they have a higher risk of infection and longer recovery times.

Thank god i quit 5 years ago.