Tour de France - Why no helmets?
Mike Aniskovich
"Not that old saw again...!" Nope, here's a helmet question with a
slightly different twist.
My 4 1/2 year old son loves to ride, and he especially
likes the off-road stuff. We are serious about wearing
our helmets.
Anyway, a few days ago a clip from the Tour was being
broadcast, and it showed the bikers speeding down the
mountainside. My son asks: "Daddy, why don't those
people wear their helmets?"
Dang if I couldn't give him a good answer. And even after
I thought about it for awhile, I wondered as my son did.
So, is this a vestige left over from the past (and will unadorned
heads in the Tour go the way of those in professional hockey)?
What's the reason... is it historical or competitive? Or both?
-MikeA.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <5rj20q$c...@walters.East.Sun.COM>,
Mike Aniskovich <michael.a...@east.sun.com> wrote:
>My 4 1/2 year old son loves to ride, and he especially
>likes the off-road stuff. We are serious about wearing
>our helmets.
>
>Anyway, a few days ago a clip from the Tour was being
>broadcast, and it showed the bikers speeding down the
>mountainside. My son asks: "Daddy, why don't those
>people wear their helmets?"
Yeh, actually I agree with you. In bicycle racing the majority
of injuries are minor in nature, These are the types of injuries
that a helmet is designed to lessen. These minor injuries
can be distracting to a racer even though they don't threaten
his health.
Still and all, since serious injuries are VERY rare in the pro
peloton, they don't believe that the small decrease in minor
injuries is worth the discomfort that a helmet causes. And in
a pro, discomfort may mean losing a race.
Garry Lee
to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) wrote:
>
> In article <5rj20q$c...@walters.East.Sun.COM>,
> Mike Aniskovich <michael.a...@east.sun.com> wrote:
>
> >My 4 1/2 year old son loves to ride, and he especially
>
> Still and all, since serious injuries are VERY rare in the pro
> peloton, they don't believe that the small decrease in minor
> injuries is worth the discomfort that a helmet causes. And in
> a pro, discomfort may mean losing a race.
>
ONe is that pros don't get major injuries.
They do. Casarteli was killed. The Portuguese champion was killed by
a head injury while sprinting in the tour of Portugal a few years ago.
The second is that helmets produce a minor increase in injuries in
racing. They eliminate serious head injury in bike racing.
The third is that helmets cause discomfort. They don't. Scalp
temperature is the same in climbing a big mountain whether you are
wearing a helmet or not. Some teams wear them all the time.
The other point is that cyclists are full of myths and superstition.
They are the least scientific of athletes. Greg Lemond showed many of
their beliefs to be total nonsense.
Wes Szumera
to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) wrote:
>In article <5rj20q$c...@walters.East.Sun.COM>,
>Mike Aniskovich <michael.a...@east.sun.com> wrote:
>
>>My 4 1/2 year old son loves to ride, and he especially
>>likes the off-road stuff. We are serious about wearing
>>our helmets.
>>
>>Anyway, a few days ago a clip from the Tour was being
>>broadcast, and it showed the bikers speeding down the
>>mountainside. My son asks: "Daddy, why don't those
>>people wear their helmets?"
>
>Yeh, actually I agree with you. In bicycle racing the majority
>of injuries are minor in nature, These are the types of injuries
>that a helmet is designed to lessen. These minor injuries
>can be distracting to a racer even though they don't threaten
>his health.
>
>Still and all, since serious injuries are VERY rare in the pro
>peloton, they don't believe that the small decrease in minor
>injuries is worth the discomfort that a helmet causes. And in
>a pro, discomfort may mean losing a race.
After seeing some of the massive pile-ups these guys get into, I
wonder how they stay alive or at least non-brain damaged.
It was nice to see bobby julich wearing his bucket though.
I can imagine that at their level of performance, the extra heat that
a helmet holds in would be a distraction. It does seem that americans
seem to wear helmets more often.
Show him some MTB racing, they all have there helmets on.
Wes
Richard McClary
Mike Aniskovich wrote:
>
> Anyway, a few days ago a clip from the Tour was being
> broadcast, and it showed the bikers speeding down the
> mountainside. My son asks: "Daddy, why don't those
> people wear their helmets?"
>
stages where sprints were frequent. (Note the unusual number of serious
crashes this year.)
The main reason they don't always wear helmets is they claim they get
too hot in some stations. After Fabio Casartelli died, one rider said
something like 'without helmets, an occasional rider may suffer serious
head injuries or death. With helmets, 190 riders will suffer heat
stroke.' (Not my opinion but that of a rider.)
Attempts at mandatory helmet use have resulted in protest, fiasco, etc.
Francois Cau
Thomas H. Kunich wrote:
>
> In article <5rj20q$c...@walters.East.Sun.COM>,
> Mike Aniskovich <michael.a...@east.sun.com> wrote:
>
> >My 4 1/2 year old son loves to ride, and he especially
> >likes the off-road stuff. We are serious about wearing
> >our helmets.
> >
> >broadcast, and it showed the bikers speeding down the
> >mountainside. My son asks: "Daddy, why don't those
> >people wear their helmets?"
>
> of injuries are minor in nature, These are the types of injuries
> that a helmet is designed to lessen. These minor injuries
> can be distracting to a racer even though they don't threaten
> his health.
>
> Still and all, since serious injuries are VERY rare in the pro
> peloton, they don't believe that the small decrease in minor
> injuries is worth the discomfort that a helmet causes. And in
> a pro, discomfort may mean losing a race.
downhill during a Tour de France stage. It seems a helmet could have
saved him life. But that absolutely didn't change anything to the riders
behaviour, except that everybody was wearing a helmet on the following
stage...
A few years ago the UCI tried to impose the helmet, but the riders went
on strike...
--
Francois CAU //// THOMSON multimedia
franco...@hol.fr (@ @) Grenoble, FRANCE
------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo------------------------
Dave Blake
michael.a...@east.sun.com says...
>
>"Not that old saw again...!" Nope, here's a helmet question with a
>slightly different twist.
>Anyway, a few days ago a clip from the Tour was being
>broadcast, and it showed the bikers speeding down the
>mountainside. My son asks: "Daddy, why don't those
>people wear their helmets?"
>What's the reason... is it historical or competitive? Or both?
1) The riders will not ride if required to wear helmets.
They have staged protests in the past.
2) They are less comfortable.
3) The risk of injury due to not wearing a helmet is small.
Especially for riders with skills such as the pros. The
risk is high in sprint stages - you will see most of the
pros wearing helmets in such stages.
Honestly, how many head injuries in the tour do you
think would be prevented ? I cannot think of a single
one that would have been impacted by helmets
(including Fabio Casartelli who died) in years and
years.
If there is no problem, why are you concerned about a
solution ?
--
Dave Blake
dbl...@phy.ucsf.edu
http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/
Avery Burdett
Mike Aniskovich (michael.a...@east.sun.com) writes:
> "Not that old saw again...!" Nope, here's a helmet question with a
> slightly different twist.
>
> My 4 1/2 year old son loves to ride, and he especially
> likes the off-road stuff. We are serious about wearing
> our helmets.
>
> Anyway, a few days ago a clip from the Tour was being
> broadcast, and it showed the bikers speeding down the
> mountainside. My son asks: "Daddy, why don't those
> people wear their helmets?"
> Dang if I couldn't give him a good answer. And even after
> I thought about it for awhile, I wondered as my son did.
>
> So, is this a vestige left over from the past (and will unadorned
> heads in the Tour go the way of those in professional hockey)?
>
> What's the reason... is it historical or competitive? Or both?
> -MikeA.
Some wear them so don't. They are pros, they know their own skills and they
know the risks. If it was that risky and they believed all the helmet
propaganda coming mostly from North America, they would all be wearing them
all the time, but only at end of stage sprints do you see many riders wearing
helmets. They pick them up from support wagons just before the sprint. Most
don't wear them in the mountains because of heat build up. Likewise,
in long time trial stages where the poorly ventilated aerodynamic helmets
trap too much heat. Americans seem more prone to the helmet disease.
Rominger breaks his collarbone and Andreu's on TSN marketing helmets. I
suppose it's because they spend too much time reading and believing Bicycling
magazine.
Their has been no particular head injury epidemic in over 90 years
of the Tour de France. It's unlikely a helmet would have made any
difference to Casartelli two years ago, and his death made little impact on
the numbers wearing helmets in the same stage this year. Just as
motorists deaths from head injury don't convince me or you to wear a
helmet in a car.
So tell your son it's better to be fanatical about being a skilled rider
and learning how to avoid collisions than being fanatical about wearing a
helmet. But then that might be a little Un-American (or Un-Canadian)
wouldn't it?
--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario
Chris Siano
Francois Cau wrote:
> Two or three years ago an italian member of the Motorola
>team died in a downhill during a Tour de France stage. It
>seems a helmet could have saved him life. But that absolutely
>didn't change anything to the riders behaviour, except that
>everybody was wearing a helmet on the following stage...
> A few years ago the UCI tried to impose the helmet, but the
>riders went on strike...
Actually, the doctors that treated him said that it was very unlikely
that a standard bicycle helmet would have saved his life. He landed on
his face and slid almost face first into a concrete retaining wall at
close to 50 mph.
If you noticed, a lot of riders were wearing helmets in the early flat
stages where the roads were narrow, and the speed of large groups were
fairly high. Look also at the number of riders that dropped out then
and the number of large crashes that occured. Once the race hit the
mountains, the peloton was spread out much more and riders could relax
about someone else causing a collision.
Lets face it, these guys know how to handle a bike. I think they should
also know if they want a helmet.
To the original poster:
I'd remind your son of three very important things.
1) The TdF roads are closed to general traffic and the support vehicles
are very careful around the riders so that car/bike collisions are
extremely rare. On the other hand, these accidents account for the vast
majority of cycle injuries in the US.
2) the riders are professional and know what their bikes are doing and
how to read a road. At the level of competition that the TdF is
comprised, even the worst placed rider is still an extremely talented
and skillful bicyclist. It would be like comparing an NBA team to your
local High School. Even the worst players on the NBA team are
significantly better.
3) In Europe, the social rules about personal safety and the insurance
laws that govern it are very different than in the US. To expect laws
and customs that exist in the US to apply in France is not realistic.
This is actually a good example of how different cultures work.
NO-SPAM Lee Porter
>.............. Just as
> motorists deaths from head injury don't convince me or you to wear a
>
> --
> Avery Burdett
> Ottawa, Ontario
Wouldn't a more equitable comparison be between a helmet on a bike and
seatbelts in a car? Just a thought, aside from anybody trying to force
anything on anybody else regardless of culture, country, etc.
--
Remove "(NO-SPAM)" from address to email.
Tim McNamara
Like a lot of folks, many pro riders don't like to wear helmets. They
also tend to believe they don't have to because they're *such* good riders
(well, actually, they *are* really good riders in terms of bike handling
skills) and offer the usual excuses: too hot, too heavy, etc. You will
notice, however, they are *all* wearing helmets for stages in Belgium and
some other countries around France where helmets are compulsory in bike
races.
If you want to see something more extreme, check out Paris-Roubaix in
which many, if not most, of thepeloton isn't wearing helmets. Now, I
would say that it would be far more likely to have a crash on the cobbles
nearing Roubaix than on any stage in the Tour- but many go blithely on
with no helmets! Oh well, it's their heads.
--
Tell me all that you know- I'll show you
snow and rain.
-Robert Hunter
Derek Hodge
On 29 Jul 1997 06:20:35 GMT, Garry Lee <gl...@iol.ie> wrote:
>to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) wrote:
>> Still and all, since serious injuries are VERY rare in the pro
>> peloton, they don't believe that the small decrease in minor
>> injuries is worth the discomfort that a helmet causes. And in
>> a pro, discomfort may mean losing a race.
>>
>Some myths here, Thomas.
>ONe is that pros don't get major injuries.
He never said that.
>They do. Casarteli was killed. The Portuguese champion was killed by
>a head injury while sprinting in the tour of Portugal a few years ago.
>The second is that helmets produce a minor increase in injuries in
>racing. They eliminate serious head injury in bike racing.
No, I'm afraid not. There's been at least one UK time triallist
killed by a head injury whilst wearing one.
>The third is that helmets cause discomfort. They don't. Scalp
>temperature is the same in climbing a big mountain whether you are
>wearing a helmet or not. Some teams wear them all the time.
>The other point is that cyclists are full of myths and superstition.
>They are the least scientific of athletes. Greg Lemond showed many of
>their beliefs to be total nonsense.
Yet Greg Lemond often did not wear a helmet.
I'm looking at the book "Te Great Tours" by Graham Watson. There's
seven pictures of Greg, in all but one he's not wearing a helmet.
Derek Hodge <der...@post.almac.co.uk>
Avery Burdett
Lee Porter (por...@wild.net) writes:
>>.............. Just as
>> motorists deaths from head injury don't convince me or you to wear a
>> helmet in a car....
>>
>> --
>> Avery Burdett
>> Ottawa, Ontario
>
>
> Wouldn't a more equitable comparison be between a helmet on a bike and
> seatbelts in a car? Just a thought, aside from anybody trying to force
> anything on anybody else regardless of culture, country, etc.
No because despite the wearing of seatbelts, users of motor vehicles still
incur head injuries.
Burki
Richard McClary wrote:
>
> Mike Aniskovich wrote:
> >
>
> > Anyway, a few days ago a clip from the Tour was being
> > broadcast, and it showed the bikers speeding down the
> > mountainside. My son asks: "Daddy, why don't those
> > people wear their helmets?"
> >
> stages where sprints were frequent. (Note the unusual number of serious
> crashes this year.)
>
> The main reason they don't always wear helmets is they claim they get
> too hot in some stations. After Fabio Casartelli died, one rider said
> something like 'without helmets, an occasional rider may suffer serious
> head injuries or death. With helmets, 190 riders will suffer heat
> stroke.' (Not my opinion but that of a rider.)
>
> Attempts at mandatory helmet use have resulted in protest, fiasco, etc.
This heat stroke business makes no sense. Look at a Triathlon anywhere
in a desert (helmets mandatory) or a serious mountain bike long distance
races like the Cristalp (helmets mandatory) - heat stroke does not seem
to be a problem using modern helmet designs and cooling fluid.
I think today's pros making $1M+ have a responsibility to be a role
model for all those kids who believe that helmets are uncool.
I cannot judge Casartelli's case but in Mauro Giannetti's pavement dive
in 1995 at the Tour de Suisse he was saved by his helmet when he fell
flat on his forehead at 50+ kph , his front wheel was caught in a crack
in the road. During that stage approaching Geneva (mostly flat) he was
one of only a few who wore a helmet because he had always worn one
throughout his carreer.
--
D. Burki, M.D.
Institute of Medical Microbiology
University of Berne/Switzerland
(to reply please replace amm by imm)
Jim Frost
Chris Siano wrote:
> 1) The TdF roads are closed to general traffic and the support
> vehicles
> are very careful around the riders so that car/bike collisions are
> extremely rare. On the other hand, these accidents account for the
> vast
> majority of cycle injuries in the US.
It is very important to remember that a cycling helmet is not designed
to deal with the injuries involved in a car/bicycle accident. They may
help, but they won't help a lot. It is vastly more important that you
learn to do everything you can to avoid the accident in the first place.
I say this as a very experienced Boston city cyclist. I treat all cars
as if they are driven by people who couldn't care less about whether or
not there is a cyclist around -- because that is almost universally
true. That attitude has saved my skin more times than I can even count.
jim frost
ji...@world.std.com
Jim Frost
Avery Burdett wrote:
> It's unlikely a helmet would have made any
> difference to Casartelli two years ago,
Everything I read about it said that the impact would have killed him
regardless; he hit what would have been an unprotected portion of his
head, and even if he hadn't the speeds that he was going vastly exceeded
those for which bicycling helmets are designed.
> So tell your son it's better to be fanatical about being a skilled
> rider
> and learning how to avoid collisions than being fanatical about
> wearing a
> helmet. But then that might be a little Un-American (or Un-Canadian)
> wouldn't it?
It's not an "American" versus "non-American" issue; I could go on all
day about the fallacies in most of the contemporary American safety
consciousness, but this isn't one of them.
The truth of the matter is that there is a huge difference between the
speeds and crash likelihood of a TdF versus average rider. While
helmets provide marginal safety benefits to a TdF rider, they provide
exactly the right protection for the low speed falls typical of average
riders and especially children. These injuries are not likely to be
life threatening but they are painful and can easily lead to a trip to
the hospital (eg for lacerations or a concussion). I personally
disagree with anyone who believes that helmets provide more than
marginal benefit in life-threatening situations -- they just aren't
design for that kind of energy disspation -- but it certainly won't
hurt.
If you're not a professional-class rider, helmets are a great idea --
and due to cooling effects they're even a good idea for professionals,
though I'm aware that many dispute the findings in that area. Off-road
racers, whose typical speeds are low and crash likelihood high, all wear
helmets. They wouldn't if there were no benefit.
jim frost
ji...@world.std.com
liv2padl
i don't believe helmets are very uncomfortable. i've heard that the "no
helmet thing" is strictly a "how do i look" on TV issue. these guys are
vying for sponsorship money, advertising money, newspaper and magazine
space and TV time. there's alot of elitism and tradition in "the pro
look" which evidently is alot more important than the risk of head
injury. my opinion only. dan
Dave Blake
Burki <Bu...@amm.unibe.ch> writes:
> I think today's pros making $1M+ have a responsibility to be a role
> model for all those kids who believe that helmets are uncool.
The purpose of the pros is advertising for their sponsors.
If a helmet helps them in that goal they will wear
it. If it does not help them they will not wear the helmet.
I think that is what you should teach to all those kids.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <liv2padl-300...@ecity-187.interpath.net>,
I guess that's why those Formula I drivers always race bare headed.
If there was any serious safety issue that could be resolved with helmets
then they would use them.
Avery Burdett
Jim Frost (ji...@world.std.com) writes:
> Avery Burdett wrote:
> (snip)
>> So tell your son it's better to be fanatical about being a skilled
>> rider
>> and learning how to avoid collisions than being fanatical about
>> wearing a
>> helmet. But then that might be a little Un-American (or Un-Canadian)
>> wouldn't it?
>
> It's not an "American" versus "non-American" issue; I could go on all
> day about the fallacies in most of the contemporary American safety
> consciousness, but this isn't one of them.
It absolutely is. The modern helmet resulted from research after the death
of racing car driver Peter Snell whose helmet provided him with little
protection. Combined with "contemporary American safety consciousness", as
you put it and American commercial savvy, the American obsession with
bicycle helmets was born. The comparisons with the European experience has
to be made. The US, with no particular cycling culture
until the oil crisis, has quickly embraced the helmet because the
public views cycling as dangerous. The Europeans, who have over 170 years
of cycling tradition and who all grew up riding bicycles, have no fear of
cycling, and thus do not suffer the cycling hypochondria suffered by
Americans. As soon as Europeans learn to ride a bicycle they operate it as a
vehicle on the road, unlike most (North) Americans who are taught to fear the
road and as a result generally use bicycles improperly.
I grew up in Europe and as kids we all used bicycles as transportation to
ride to school and other locations. Of all the kids I knew not one suffered a
serious head injury (sure we suffered minor bumps but we got those in
other activities too). My own kids never wore helmets either and they don't
know any kid who suffered a serious head injury on a bike. From
published accident data, there's no particular epidemic of head
injuries among kids. Ride a bike properly and the chances of incurring a
serious head injury are no greater than for other common modes of
transportation.
> The truth of the matter is that there is a huge difference between the
> speeds and crash likelihood of a TdF versus average rider. While
> helmets provide marginal safety benefits to a TdF rider, they provide
> exactly the right protection for the low speed falls typical of average
> riders and especially children. These injuries are not likely to be
> life threatening but they are painful and can easily lead to a trip to
> the hospital (eg for lacerations or a concussion). I personally
> disagree with anyone who believes that helmets provide more than
> marginal benefit in life-threatening situations -- they just aren't
> design for that kind of energy disspation -- but it certainly won't
> hurt.
They are designed to mitigate the impact that would typically occur from a
fall from a bicycle (1.5 metres).
>
> If you're not a professional-class rider, helmets are a great idea --
> and due to cooling effects they're even a good idea for professionals,
> though I'm aware that many dispute the findings in that area.
I don't know if you do any racing but my training runs are bareheaded.
There is a significant difference in comfort when I'm forced to wear a helmet
for racing (time trials). If helmets were a great idea then you must apply
this to other activities where head injury occurs in large numbers such as
riding in a car and walking on downtown streets. I doubt whether you do.
> Off-road
> racers, whose typical speeds are low and crash likelihood high, all wear
> helmets. They wouldn't if there were no benefit.
I tend to agree in this case although I haven't seen any data to support it.
Hajaj
Thomas H. Kunich wrote:
Hear, hear. You don't neccesarily hit your head just because you crash
on a bike.
--
Christian Ellegaard
chre...@post3.tele.dk
remove '00' to reply
Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law
da...@erinet.com
>On the issue of Tour helmet use, I understand that only rookies are
>required to wear helmets. That's one explanation why Bobby Julich had one
>on, it was his first Tour. Helmets are good looking now a days so there
>is no excuse not to wear one. It must be an ego thing or the sponsorship
>comment sounds about right.
Another writer in this echo noted that Julich was wearing the Giro
helmet because it was a new model that Giro (one of Julich's sponsors)
was planning to introduce in the fall/next year. That's believable.
I've never heard about the rookie rule, but even the rookies in the
race have riidden other serious bike races. The TdeF gets more
publicity in the U.S. but the tours of Spain and Italy are very
popular in Europe. Ditto for Paris-Roubaix.
Maybe someone has a copy of the Tour rules.
.................dh
LYDDANS
David Rees
Helmets are not generally worn on mountain stages because they're HOT, in
spite of what the manufacturers say. A helmet may channel air efficiently
on the flats or while descending, but it makes you much hotter when your
speed drops very low, as on a tough climb, when air is not channelled and
driven through the vents. Try the experiment yourself, and you'll never
want to wear a helmet on the way up again. Also, it's an additional
250grams/half pound of easily-chucked dead weight. In Montreal in spring,
we have a lot of Mayflies, and they get in the vents, and you can't
scratch, so similar things may happen in the Tour when riders go through
clouds of midges, etc., although I've never heard this mentioned before.
The manufacturers have a vested interest in getting you to wear a helmet,
as it is the single most profitable item in cycling: Giro sells the Helios
for $140US, with a $25 crash replacement policy. You can bet that when they
honour the $25 replacement policy that they're still putting $10 of it in
their pocket. When manufacturers say that the high price reflects the R&D
and testing that goes into the product, they're lying: They hire Industrial
Designers (like me) to design their helmets, and the Snell Foundation does
the testing for free (at least they used to), so in effect, you're buying a
low-tech product, cheap to design, cheap molds/tooling, dirt cheap
materials, cheap testing, and cheap shipping, for a ludicrously high price.
Louis Garneau sells their top-of-the-line helmet for about half what Giro
gouges you for, and CCM used to make an EXACT copy of Giro's '92 top model
(I forget the name) which cost $30CDN, and they still made a healthy
profit. Re-reading this, I sound like a disgruntled ex-employee of Giro's,
but I'm not, and I don't mean to pick on them in particular-the whole
idustry is guilty of fraud where helmets are concerned. If some idiot quips
"How much is your head worth?", ask him if he pays $200 for a haircut, or
$1000 for a condom. Sorry to get off the subject, but I had to get that
out. I just hope that someone reads it and takes it to heart.
hau...@mbi.org
In article <33e6c94c...@nntp.erinet.com> da...@erinet.com writes:
>From: da...@erinet.com
>Subject: Re: Tour de France - Why no helmets?
>Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 11:35:57 GMT
>>On the issue of Tour helmet use, I understand that only rookies are
>>required to wear helmets. That's one explanation why Bobby Julich had one
>>on, it was his first Tour.
With Julich's awesome performance as a rookie, does this mean he will be the
one (american, that is) to watch in coming years? With Lance out of the
picture in all probability, we bike-culture-deprived 'mericans need a new hero.
To paraphrase the Who: "Bobby, can you hear me?"
Rich
David Rees
Helmets are not generally worn on mountain stages because they're HOT, in
spite of what the manufacturers say. A helmet may channel air efficiently
on the flats or while descending, but it makes you much hotter when your
speed drops very low, as on a tough climb, when air is not channelled and
driven through the vents. Try the experiment yourself, and you'll never
want to wear a helmet on the way up again. Also, it's an additional
250grams/half pound of easily-chucked dead weight. In Montreal in spring,
we have a lot of Mayflies, and they get in the vents, and you can't
scratch, so similar things may happen in the Tour when riders go through
clouds of midges, etc., although I've never heard this mentioned before.
The manufacturers have a vested interest in getting you to wear a helmet,
as it is the single most profitable item in cycling: Giro sells the Helios
for $140US, with a $25 crash replacement policy. You can bet that when they
honour the $25 replacement policy that they're still putting $10 of it in
their pocket. When manufacturers say that the high price reflects the R&D
and testing that goes into the product, they're lying: They hire Industrial
Designers (like me) to design their helmets, and the Snell Foundation does
the testing for free (at least they used to), so in effect, you're buying a
low-tech product, cheap to design, cheap molds/tooling, dirt cheap
materials, and cheap testing, for a ludicrously high price. Louis Garneau
EASTIAN
da...@erinet.com wrote:
>>On the issue of Tour helmet use, I understand that only rookies are
>>required to wear helmets. That's one explanation why Bobby Julich had
one
>>on, it was his first Tour.
>I've never heard about the rookie rule, but even the rookies in the
>race have riidden other serious bike races. The TdeF gets more
>publicity in the U.S. but the tours of Spain and Italy are very
>popular in Europe. Ditto for Paris-Roubaix.
>Maybe someone has a copy of the Tour rules.
There is a copy of the Tour rules on the official Le Tour web site
http://www.letour.com/tour97us/july27/haut2.html
It does not mention helmets at all, but it does state the race will be run
under UCI regulations, I don't know if these mention helmets maybe someone
has a copy of these too.
.....Ian
David Rees
begin 600 Re Tour de France - Why no helmets.nws
<encoded_portion_removed>
end
aaron_fillion
In article <33e13f81...@news.almac.co.uk>, der...@post.almac.co.uk says...
To respond to helments do not make your head hotter:
They do!!
Even if scientific tests prove that they do not make your head hotter it is
irrelevant!
When I climb and if the temperature is above 25°C my head will FEEL hot, when I
take it off it FEELS better. The way that it FEELS to me is the only thing that
matters. The main reason helments feel hot on your head is because they restrict
air flow (no matter how vented the helment is).
I am all for helment use, and I would definately wear one if I was doing the
tour, but it is unrealistic to say that there are no drawbacks to wearing a
helment.
Aaron Fillion
Avery Burdett
LYDDANS (lyd...@aol.com) writes:
> On the issue of Tour helmet use, I understand that only rookies are
> required to wear helmets.
I had never heard of this so I checked the regs and there's no such
requirement.
> That's one explanation why Bobby Julich had one
> on, it was his first Tour.
Julich like others may have been wearing one for some stages but in
the mountains he was bareheaded. The only American rider I saw always
helmeted was Frankie Andreu, but he's a good ole American helmet zealot
(surely sponsored by Bicycling magazine).
Helmet uss is more common for end of stage sprints (correctly perceived as
higher risk) as riders pick them up from support vehicles. Hardly any used
in the mountain stages where heat build up is a problem.
> Helmets are good looking now a days so there
> is no excuse not to wear one.
You got it, it's really about fashion and commercial interest. Excuse? Do
pros need an excuse to do what's in there own interest?
> It must be an ego thing or the sponsorship
> comment sounds about right.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <01bc9eb2$3b9db5d0$19f7eccd@hal>,
David Rees <dr...@microtec.net> wrote:
>
>Helmets are not generally worn on mountain stages because they're HOT, in
>spite of what the manufacturers say. A helmet may channel air efficiently
>on the flats or while descending, but it makes you much hotter when your
>speed drops very low, as on a tough climb, when air is not channelled and
>driven through the vents. Try the experiment yourself, and you'll never
>want to wear a helmet on the way up again.
On a ride today I couldn't ride up the climb with my (*&^% helmet
on. Several times a year it is too hot for me to wear a helmet on
a climb. I normally ride early enough that it isn't a problem but
when it's an especially warm day or a slow climb...
>The manufacturers have a vested interest in getting you to wear a helmet,
>as it is the single most profitable item in cycling: Giro sells the Helios
>for $140US, with a $25 crash replacement policy. You can bet that when they
>honour the $25 replacement policy that they're still putting $10 of it in
>their pocket. When manufacturers say that the high price reflects the R&D
>and testing that goes into the product, they're lying: They hire Industrial
>Designers (like me) to design their helmets, and the Snell Foundation does
>the testing for free (at least they used to), so in effect, you're buying a
>low-tech product, cheap to design, cheap molds/tooling, dirt cheap
>materials, cheap testing, and cheap shipping, for a ludicrously high price.
>Louis Garneau sells their top-of-the-line helmet for about half what Giro
>gouges you for, and CCM used to make an EXACT copy of Giro's '92 top model
>(I forget the name) which cost $30CDN, and they still made a healthy
>profit. Re-reading this, I sound like a disgruntled ex-employee of Giro's,
>but I'm not, and I don't mean to pick on them in particular-the whole
>idustry is guilty of fraud where helmets are concerned. If some idiot quips
>"How much is your head worth?", ask him if he pays $200 for a haircut, or
>$1000 for a condom. Sorry to get off the subject, but I had to get that
>out. I just hope that someone reads it and takes it to heart.
Yeh, it's unfortunate that most people haven't a clue what it takes
to design and build a helmet. Sorry people, there ain't now difference
in the cost to develop, test, build and market the cheapest Giro
(at, I think $30 US retail) than the most expensive at nearing
$200 now. Everyone's a sucker for something I expect but helmet
folks are really getting it out of balance.
David Rees
Helmets are not generally worn on mountain stages because they are HOT, in
spite of what the manufacturers say. A helmet may channel air efficiently
on the flats or while descending, but it makes you much hotter when your
driven through the vents. Try the experiment yourself, and you'll never
get a lot of Mayflies, and they get in the vents, and you can't scratch or
get them out without slowing/stopping to remove your helmet, so similar
things may happen in the Tour when riders go through clouds of midges,
have a vested interest in making helmets mandatory for everyone, as it is
the single most profitable item in cycling. Giro sells their Helios for
$140US, with a $25 crash replacement policy. You can bet that when they
When manufacturers claim that the high price reflects the R&D and testing
that goes into their product, they're lying: They hire Industrial Designers
(like me) to design their helmets, and the Snell Foundation does the
testing for free (at least they used to), so in effect, you're buying a
cheap molds/tooling, fast cycle times (they pop 'em out of the molds very
quickly, so zillions are made in very little time), dirt cheap materials,
and cheap testing, for a ludicrously high price. Louis Garneau sells their
top-of-the-line for half of what Giro gouges you for, and CCM used to make
an EXACT copy of Giro's '92 top model ($180CDN at the time) which cost
$30CDN, and they still made a healthy profit. Re-reading this, I sound like
a disgruntled ex-employee of Giro's, but I'm not, and I don't mean to pick
are concerned, and it's disappointing that none of the magazines has
brought this to light. I wear a helmet 'cause it's stupid not to, but it's
almost as stupid to pay $140US for styrofoam/Gecet and a nylon strap. The
next time some marketing lacky coughs up the lame "How much is your head
worth to you?" line, ask him if he'd pay $200 for a haircut or $1000 for a
condom. The analogy is apt, since a helmet is meant to be used once, then
replaced. Sorry to get off the subject, but it needed to be said. I just
hope that someone reads it and will look at the heated helmet debate a
little differently.
Matt O'Toole
David Rees <dr...@microtec.net> wrote in article
<01bc9fb7$24d06540$69f7eccd@hal>...
> Helmets are not generally worn on mountain stages because they are HOT,
in
> spite of what the manufacturers say. A helmet may channel air efficiently
> on the flats or while descending, but it makes you much hotter when your
> speed drops very low, as on a tough climb, when air is not channeled and
> driven through the vents. Try the experiment yourself, and you'll never
> want to wear a helmet on the way up again.
In such situations, helmets definately are hotter. This doesn't bother me
much, but the sweat control issue does. Most helmets have open cell foam
pads that rest against your forehead. They act like sponges, holding sweat
in a reservoir, ensuring a steady stream running directly into the eyes.
This interferes with my vision, and has caused me to crash on occasion. It
would be much better for me to go helmetless in this situation, and be able
to wipe the sweat from my forehead with my hand.
> Also, it's an additional 250
> grams/half pound of easily-chucked dead weight.
If everyone has to carry the weight, it doesn't matter.
> In Montreal, in Spring, we
> get a lot of Mayflies, and they get in the vents, and you can't scratch
or
> get them out without slowing/stopping to remove your helmet, so similar
> things may happen in the Tour when riders go through clouds of midges,
> etc., although I've never heard this mentioned before.
I've had this happen before, and it is extremely annoying.
> The manufacturers
> have a vested interest in making helmets mandatory for everyone, as it is
> the single most profitable item in cycling.
You bet they do! So do the magazines, who benefit from increased ad sales
as helmet companies compete for our business. By taking a safety conscious
pose, all these entities can be seen as having our best interests at heart.
> Giro sells their Helios for
> $140US, with a $25 crash replacement policy. You can bet that when they
> honour that policy, that they're still putting $10 of it in their pocket.
> When manufacturers claim that the high price reflects the R&D and testing
> that goes into their product, they're lying:
Absolutely. How much can it cost to make a hunk of styrofoam? The real
cost, if any, is in the advertising. The price reflects the fashion
element. Giro also makes plenty of $40 helmets that are just as good. I'm
sure they're purposely designed to be dorkier-looking than the expensive
ones, so that riders will pay more to look good.
> They hire Industrial Designers
> (like me) to design their helmets, and the Snell Foundation does the
> testing for free (at least they used to), so in effect, you're buying a
> low-tech product masquerading as high-tech, quick and cheap to design,
> cheap molds/tooling, fast cycle times (they pop 'em out of the molds very
> quickly, so zillions are made in very little time), dirt cheap materials,
> and cheap testing, for a ludicrously high price.
You bet. There have been few improvements in the utility of helmets, so we
still have problems like the one I mentioned above. Instead, manufacturers
invent gimmicks like the Roc-Loc, answering questions nobody's asking,
selling snake oil.
> Louis Garneau sells their
> top-of-the-line for half of what Giro gouges you for, and CCM used to
make
> an EXACT copy of Giro's '92 top model ($180CDN at the time) which cost
> $30CDN, and they still made a healthy profit. Re-reading this, I sound
like
> a disgruntled ex-employee of Giro's, but I'm not, and I don't mean to
pick
> on them in particular- the whole industry is guilty of fraud where
helmets
> are concerned, and it's disappointing that none of the magazines has
> brought this to light.
With all those expensive ads Giro buys, do you think an editor is going to
step on their toes? Besides, have you ever read any real jounalism in a
bike magazine?
> I wear a helmet 'cause it's stupid not to, but it's
> almost as stupid to pay $140US for styrofoam/Gecet and a nylon strap.
I wear one all the time too, seeing how easy it would be to fall on the
trail and hit my head against a rock or something. I do think going
helmetless occasionally is justified. However, I'd rather avoid
confrontations with self-righteous assholes who make it a point to stop and
bitch at everyone they see without a helmet, eg, "Where's your helmet,
pal?" Well, how about "Where are your manners, asshole?"
> The
> next time some marketing lacky coughs up the lame "How much is your head
> worth to you?" line, ask him if he'd pay $200 for a haircut or $1000 for
a
> condom. The analogy is apt, since a helmet is meant to be used once,
then
> replaced.
Don't bring up the $200 haircut. Those are commonplace around here, as are
$140 helmets, $50,000 SUVs, Spinergy mountain bike wheels, and $100-plus
molded plastic sunglasses. Does Prada make mountain bike shoes? What
price, fashion?
> Sorry to get off the subject, but it needed to be said. I just
> hope that someone reads it and will look at the heated helmet debate a
> little differently.
I'd like to see some figures on head injuries and cycling. I have a
feeling they aren't as common as helmet zealots would have us believe.
I'll still be wearing mine, though.
Matt O.
Garry Lee
> I'd like to see some figures on head injuries and cycling. I have a
> feeling they aren't as common as helmet zealots would have us believe.
>
I'm not getting into a long argument about this but
1. Helmets are not hotter than no helmet in heat. It's been measured
scientifically.
I can vouch for this myself, climbing half a col in the Alps with, and half
without a
helmet, in severe heat. There was no difference.
2. Here are some figures on bike injuries from Ireland, POP 3,500,000 1995
Killed 28
Injured, 850.
Most injuries and deaths are attributable to head injury.
Steven L. Sheffield
In article <5rvnpl$t...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:
> LYDDANS (lyd...@aol.com) writes:
> > On the issue of Tour helmet use, I understand that only rookies are
> > required to wear helmets.
>
> I had never heard of this so I checked the regs and there's no such
> requirement.
Yeah, this is bicycling ... not hockey.
> > That's one explanation why Bobby Julich had one
> > on, it was his first Tour.
>
> Julich like others may have been wearing one for some stages but in
> the mountains he was bareheaded. The only American rider I saw always
> helmeted was Frankie Andreu, but he's a good ole American helmet zealot
> (surely sponsored by Bicycling magazine).
Every picture I saw of Bobby Julich on ESPN's coverage showed
him wearing a helmet .... even in the high mountains. I know
I saw Frankie NOT wearing a helmet at least once. It was the
same in the Vuelta last year as well. Julich ALWAYS wore his
helmet.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steven L. Sheffield (BOB #1765/IBOB #3) Disclaimer? What's that? |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ste...@veloworks.com / http://www.veloworks.com/rivendell/ |
| Vox: +1 415 296 9893 / "Ride lots." -- Eddy Merckx |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| vett...@aol.com / Vox: +1 415 274 3290 / Fax: +1 415 274 3259 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Chris Phillipo
In message <01bca04a$0c680920$0a2b7dc2@default> - "Garry Lee"
<NOSPA...@iol.ie> writes:
:>
:>
:>> I'd like to see some figures on head injuries and cycling. I have a
:>> feeling they aren't as common as helmet zealots would have us believe.
:>>
:>
:>1. Helmets are not hotter than no helmet in heat. It's been measured
:>scientifically.
:>I can vouch for this myself, climbing half a col in the Alps with, and half
:>without a
:>helmet, in severe heat. There was no difference.
Bull, would you care to produce these numbers? The scientists are currently
making guest appearances on Reese Peanut Butter Cup commercials are they?
:>
:>2. Here are some figures on bike injuries from Ireland, POP 3,500,000 1995
:>Killed 28
:>Injured, 850.
:>
:>Most injuries and deaths are attributable to head injury.
:>
And most fatal head injury-impacts do not fall within to scope of the helmet's
protection envelope.
___________________________________________
Chris Phillipo - webm...@tread.pair.com
TREAD Publications - TREAD Online! Cycle Magazine. <07-30-97>
http://www.tread.pair.com/ - http://www.tread.pair.com/bikemag/
Avery Burdett
"Garry Lee" (NOSPA...@iol.ie) writes:
>> I'd like to see some figures on head injuries and cycling. I have a
>> feeling they aren't as common as helmet zealots would have us believe.
>>
> I'm not getting into a long argument about this but
>
> 1. Helmets are not hotter than no helmet in heat. It's been measured
> scientifically.
> I can vouch for this myself, climbing half a col in the Alps with, and half
> without a
> helmet, in severe heat. There was no difference.
It's not abpout scientific measurement of heat (temperature) it's about
comfort, i.e. heat, sweat and the cooling effect of air flow. Your
experience is your experience. It doesn't translate for everybody. My
training runs are always bareheaded - no discomfort. The time trials I ride
for which helmets are mandated, the discomfort is particularly unpleasant.
Pros rarely wear helmets in the mountains because of discomfort resulting
from heat build up.
> 2. Here are some figures on bike injuries from Ireland, POP 3,500,000 1995
> Killed 28
> Injured, 850.
>
> Most injuries and deaths are attributable to head injury.
>
Un;ess the Irish have an extremely peculiar method of cycling different
from the rest of the world, this statement is false. Most cycling injuries
( and the number of deaths in proportion are so tiny to be irrelevant) occur
as a result of falls and don't get into official stats. They are of the
road rash type. In Canada, reportable injuries occur in collisions with other
vehicles on the road. Most of these injuries are other than head injuries.
It doesn't help to exaggerate.
Matt O'Toole
Chris Phillipo <webm...@tread.pair.com> wrote in article
<5s26qg$g2p$2...@news.istar.ca>...
> Bull, would you care to produce these numbers? The scientists are
currently
> making guest appearances on Reese Peanut Butter Cup commercials are they?
Yes, numbers please.
> And most fatal head injury-impacts do not fall within to scope of the
helmet's
> protection envelope.
That's my suspicion. I'd like to have some real info.
Matt O.
Avery Burdett
"Matt O'Toole" (ma...@deltanet.com) writes:
(snip)
> I wear one all the time too, seeing how easy it would be to fall on the
> trail and hit my head against a rock or something. I do think going
> helmetless occasionally is justified. However, I'd rather avoid
> confrontations with self-righteous assholes who make it a point to stop and
> bitch at everyone they see without a helmet, eg, "Where's your helmet,
This is exactly how they want you to react. Why would you let them control
what you do? You live in America don't you?
By the way they've got you saying helmetless rather than bareheaded as
though wearing a helmet was the norm. I don't ride a bicycle swordless any
more than I do helmetles. Calling it helmetless is part of their linguistic
fascism which they seem to have picked up from Orwell's 1984.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <01bca04a$0c680920$0a2b7dc2@default>,
Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:
>1. Helmets are not hotter than no helmet in heat. It's been measured
>scientifically.
>I can vouch for this myself, climbing half a col in the Alps with, and half
>without a
>helmet, in severe heat. There was no difference.
Yet I find just the opposite Gary. Climbing around here on a hot day
I cannot bear to wear a helmet it is so uncomfortable. Yet with
just my cycling cap I've never had a problem.
>2. Here are some figures on bike injuries from Ireland, POP 3,500,000 1995
>Killed 28
>Injured, 850.
>
>Most injuries and deaths are attributable to head injury.
The results of Scuffham's study suggests that while most deaths and serious
injuries _are_ attributed to head injury, the truth is that there are
multiple fatal injuries of which head injury is only one. I might
add that there are several studies on motorcycle deaths that have
concluded exactly the same thing in those accidents.
m.b.
Mabey its just me but it seems that when I'm offroad (mountain biking) im
much more dangerous (actually more daring and confident) wearing full
riding gear, helmet included.... I often use the helmet to bash through
low branches (low speed you never know when there is a low or fallen tree).
I would never try to ride the way I do without full riding gear. But
thats probably just me..
Matt O'Toole <ma...@deltanet.com> wrote in article
<01bc9fc8$d2b53da0$39ca...@Pmatt.deltanet.com>...
Dave Blake
gl...@iol.ie says...>> Mike Aniskovich <michael.a...@east.sun.com> wrote:
>> >My 4 1/2 year old son loves to ride, and he especially
>h.
>>
>> Still and all, since serious injuries are VERY rare in the pro
>> peloton, they don't believe that the small decrease in minor
>> injuries is worth the discomfort that a helmet causes. And in
>> a pro, discomfort may mean losing a race.
>>
>Some myths here, Thomas.
>ONe is that pros don't get major injuries.
Please take it to rec.bicycles.soc where this topic
is THE number one topic of discussion and has been
since the split. Helmet wars belong there, if
anywhere. So if you want to discuss pros and cons
of helmet use, GO FOR IT ! Just do it in an
appropriate place. Thank you.
Note followups.
Matt O'Toole
Avery Burdett <ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<5s3epj$l...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
> By the way they've got you saying helmetless rather than bareheaded as
> though wearing a helmet was the norm. I don't ride a bicycle swordless
any
> more than I do helmetles. Calling it helmetless is part of their
linguistic
> fascism which they seem to have picked up from Orwell's 1984.
A gentleman and a scholar you are, my good man.
Matt O.
Drew Eckhardt
In article <01bca04a$0c680920$0a2b7dc2@default>,
Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:
>1. Helmets are not hotter than no helmet in heat. It's been measured
> scientifically.
Although measured scalp temperatures with and without helmets are identical,
I still _feel_ hotter when I climb with a helmet than without. Maybe it's
the sweat not evaporating as quickly, maybe it's less air flow, or maybe
it's entirely a placebo effect. Whatever the cause, given the significance
of mental state to successful bicycle racing, it's significant.
--
"Come to the edge, Life said. They said: We are afraid. Come to the edge,
Life said. They came. Life pushed them...and they flew." -Guillaume Apollinaire
Work: dr...@Qualcomm.COM Play: dr...@PoohSticks.ORG
Home Page: <a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
Avery Burdett
"Matt O'Toole" (ma...@deltanet.com) writes:
It's a family tradition. Ancestors were knights on
fine (fienne) horses - helmetless and swordless, never!
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <01bca060$7b11cd00$2bca...@Pmatt.deltanet.com>,
Matt O'Toole <ma...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>
>Chris Phillipo <webm...@tread.pair.com> wrote in article
><5s26qg$g2p$2...@news.istar.ca>...
>
>helmet's
>> protection envelope.
>
>That's my suspicion. I'd like to have some real info.
Frank K. has posted the citation for the Scuffham study and I've read
it. Scuffham, et. al. was a pro-helmet study that looked to find a
large difference in head injuries or in their severity over several
decades in New Zealand where helmet use went from about zero to 85%
Their final conclusions were that helmets appeared to have no effect
on the rates or severity of head injuries.
Now helmets may have some effect but it is so slight that it is beyond
the ability of statistical analysis to find it in such a small population.
Several other studies in Australia after mandatory helmet legislation
was enacted showed no change in (in fact a slight increase) in head
injury rates amoung bicyclists. What it did show was a massive decrease
in bicycle use particularly amoung children.
Finally, after careful analysis of the health benefits and the very
small possible helmet addition, the British Medical Association
released a study that stated that helmets should not be made
mandatory and moreover, should not even be suggested since telling
someone that bicycling was so dangerous that it required safety
equipment would decrease public health. Their conclusion was that
26 years was added for every year lost due to accidents.
A scandanavian study produced evidence that helmets didn't reduce
rotational injuries at all and seemed to protect only against
"cosmetic" injuries (road rash on your head). Concussions are
most often caused by rotational forces.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <01bca096$e79261c0$3cca...@Pmatt.deltanet.com>,
><5s3epj$l...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>> By the way they've got you saying helmetless rather than bareheaded as
>> though wearing a helmet was the norm. I don't ride a bicycle swordless
>any
>> more than I do helmetles. Calling it helmetless is part of their
>linguistic
>> fascism which they seem to have picked up from Orwell's 1984.
>
>A gentleman and a scholar you are, my good man.
But Avery has a very good point Matt. Is there any reason that you
(or I) should use the term "helmetless"? Do we say that we walk
down the street weaponless? Or do we go to work nakedless?
He is quite correct that we are being brain washed by these terms without
even realizing it. Thanks for pointing that out Avery.
Avery Burdett
"m.b." (mitch...@msn.com) writes:
> Mabey its just me but it seems that when I'm offroad (mountain biking) im
> much more dangerous (actually more daring and confident) wearing full
> riding gear, helmet included.... I often use the helmet to bash through
> low branches (low speed you never know when there is a low or fallen tree).
> I would never try to ride the way I do without full riding gear. But
> thats probably just me..
This is called "risk compensation". It occurs when the perceived benefits
of safety equipment are offset by increased risk taking
(often sub-conscious) resulting in no net effect, or reaching a
state of homeostasis. Trials with ABS in cars show strong evidence of such
a phenomenon. Data in studies of airbags and seatbelts suggests the same. The
problem is if the perceived protection has been exaggerated, as in the case
of bicycle helmets, injury rates can actually increase. See "Target Risk"
by Gerald Wilde (sorry don't have a full reference in front of me).
Matt O'Toole
Chris Phillipo <webm...@tread.pair.com> wrote in article
<5s8cvm$jd6$2...@news.istar.ca>...
> I used to scoff at the thought of wearing a helmet. Now, I can't ride
without
> one. I find my confidence is weakened when I forget my gloves and
helmet.
> Irrational, perhaps, but I never have a good day if I forget either my
helmet
> or my gloves.
Good point about the gloves. I fear scraping my hands in a minor fall,
which is very likely, a lot more than I fear hitting my head. I don't feel
much in danger riding without a helmet, but I feel very naked without
gloves.
Matt O.
Dave Gittins
I finally got round to doing the sums.
Since 1903, the riders who have completed the Tour De France have
collectively ridden approximately 26,000,000km. In that time there have
been two fatal accidents to riders. (Cepeda in 1935 and Casartelli in
1995). Both were due to head injuries, but it is not certain that a helmet
would have helped either rider. Cepeda continued to ride after crashing
and Casartelli essentially fell on his face. Your chances of being killed
in a race accident in the Tour are very low, so the pros only wear helmets
on the stages which they consider most risky.
To get things in perspective, if we consider Tour winners only, three
(Faber, Petit-Breton and Lapize) were killed in WWI. Two (Pottier and
Ocana) committed suicide and one (Bottecchia) was murdered.
Dave Gittins
Chris Phillipo
:>
:>Yes, numbers please.
:>
:>> And most fatal head injury-impacts do not fall within to scope of the
:>helmet's
:>> protection envelope.
:>
:>That's my suspicion. I'd like to have some real info.
:>
:>Matt O.
:>
I believe that snell's standard requires that the helmet withstand a 1.3+m
drop with a 5kg headform and impart no more than 300g's to the subject. I
would venture to guess that while we might not fall more than 1.3 meters in
most cases, 5kg is not a realistic representation of the mass what would be
behind the helmet in a fall. I'm speaking from memory here, if anyone has a
copy of Snell's 95 helmet standard, please post it.
Tim Smith
On 6 Aug 1997 15:47:17 GMT, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett)
wrote:
>
>Steven L. Sheffield (ste...@veloworks.com) writes:
>> In article <5rvnpl$t...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>> ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:
>>> Julich like others may have been wearing one for some stages but in
>>> the mountains he was bareheaded. The only American rider I saw always
>>> helmeted was Frankie Andreu, but he's a good ole American helmet zealot
>>> (surely sponsored by Bicycling magazine).
>>
>> Every picture I saw of Bobby Julich on ESPN's coverage showed
>> him wearing a helmet .... even in the high mountains. I know
>> I saw Frankie NOT wearing a helmet at least once. It was the
>> same in the Vuelta last year as well. Julich ALWAYS wore his
>> helmet.
>
>I have a videotape recording containing shots of Julich in the hills riding
>bareheaded. It was in a summary of his overall performance so I don't know
>which stage.
Yes, I saw this also. I was surprised, because Julich had gone on a
televised rant earlier, at the end of the stage where Tony Rominger
had his accident, saying over and over how good it was that TR was
wearing his helmet (he broke his collarbone, I believe).
--Tim (tss...@best.com)
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <5sljn1$3d7$1...@news.istar.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <webm...@tread.pair.com> wrote:
>
>I believe that snell's standard requires that the helmet withstand a 1.3+m
>drop with a 5kg headform and impart no more than 300g's to the subject. I
>would venture to guess that while we might not fall more than 1.3 meters in
>most cases, 5kg is not a realistic representation of the mass what would be
>behind the helmet in a fall.
Right. If you land on your head there is a good chance that your
body weight will be behind it. On the other hand, in most falls
you have some control, put out your hands and strike with considerably
less force on your head. Since there is no way to honestly
model this I guess their way is as good as any.
However, using this data to indicate that helmets can improve your
chances in any real impact is pretty curious.
Moreover, latest medical thinking is that 300 g's is way too high.
Avery Burdett
This is getting confusing. Maybe Julich did say it as you describe, but I
think it may have been Frankie Andreu you saw. Frankie's rant was
irrational since Rominger broke his COLLARBONE! It was the shoulder area
which took the impact not the head.
Talk about marketing at every opportunity.
Avery Burdett
Chris Phillipo (webm...@tread.pair.com) writes:
(snip)
> But other crashes, like low speed trail crashes, the helmet
> might be more effective, perhaps not saving your life but preventing
> superficial injuries. In short, wear your helmet anyway.
One of the things which bugs us bareheaded cyclists is gratuitous advice
from zealots who think they know what's good for us, even though they
don't know us or our cycling practices. It's not much different from my
telling you to learn how to ride a bike even though I've never seen you
ride. If you think cycling is so dangerous that you must wear a helmet, so
wear one. However, I could draw the conclusion that you don't trust
yourself to stay out of trouble and really need some lessons on operation
of a bicycle.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <5sqvd1$koa$3...@news.istar.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <webm...@tread.pair.com> wrote:
>But other crashes, like low speed trail crashes, the helmet
>might be more effective, perhaps not saving your life but preventing
>superficial injuries. In short, wear your helmet anyway.
Well, this is the point that most of us (dubbed anti-helmet by the
idiots who believe that helmets will save your life) have been
trying to make.
The problem is that if you tell people to wear a helmet to prevent
minor cosmetic injuries, they are much more suseptable to the
propaganda from helmet manufacturers visa vi; "Courage for your head".
SabineUK
Dave Gittins said:
>[26m km & 2 deaths since 1903]
>the pros only wear helmets
>: on the stages which they consider most risky.
Matthew Robertson said:
>So, what you are ACTUALLY saying is that these riders engaged in Risk
>Compensation. Clearly, the proper thing for them to do would be to drop
>out of the Tour, or, better yet, take some classes to learn how to ride
>in safety.
Why is this risk compensation?
Risk assessment seems closer to the mark.
BTW, Matthew, how many Tours have you ridden?
John
Simon Bexfield
Are there any standards for the size(s) of axles for bicycle wheels?
Having just bought a new wheel and found that the nuts supplied were
the wrong diameter (about a 1mm larger than the axle). The nuts supplied
had the same pitch thread, and screwed on. But they were mighty loose,
and of course not safe.
This if course was easily fixed, but...
Does it make any difference to have a mm slack space in the drop-in at
the end of the forks?
Can the drop-in slot-size vary from bike to bike?
Is there a British /World standard for axle diameters - most bike bits
seem to be made to global standards?
Thank you in advance.
/======================================\
| Simon Bexfield |
| Tel/Fax 0171 482 5797 |
| si...@bexfield.demon.co.uk |
| PGP Open Key on Request |
\======================================/
Chris Phillipo
In message <tomkEEr...@netcom.com> - to...@netcom.com (Thomas H.
Kunich)Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:38:42 GMT writes:
:>
:>In article <5sljn1$3d7$1...@news.istar.ca>,
:>Chris Phillipo <webm...@tread.pair.com> wrote:
:>>
:>>I believe that snell's standard requires that the helmet withstand a 1.3+m
Having been hit by a car once myself, I can attest to the fact that there is
no time for blinking, much less putting your arms out. In fact I didn't know
I was hit until I was sitting in the ditch wondering where the blood was
coming from. These are the accidents where I don't believe a helmet would
save your life. But other crashes, like low speed trail crashes, the helmet
might be more effective, perhaps not saving your life but preventing
superficial injuries. In short, wear your helmet anyway.
Bill Lloyd
Matthew Robertson wrote:
> Dave Gittins (git...@senet.com.au) wrote:
> : I finally got round to doing the sums.
>
> : Since 1903, the riders who have completed the Tour De France have
> : collectively ridden approximately 26,000,000km. In that time there
> have
> : been two fatal accidents to riders. (Cepeda in 1935 and Casartelli
> in
> : 1995). Both were due to head injuries, but it is not certain that a
> helmet
> : would have helped either rider. Cepeda continued to ride after
> crashing
> : and Casartelli essentially fell on his face. Your chances of being
> killed
> : in a race accident in the Tour are very low, so the pros only wear
> helmets
> : on the stages which they consider most risky.
>
> So, what you are ACTUALLY saying is that these riders engaged in Risk
> Compensation. Clearly, the proper thing for them to do would be to
> drop
> out of the Tour, or, better yet, take some classes to learn how to
> ride
> in safety.
Hmmm... I have noted that in some stages, pros who are not wearing
helmets
in the middle of the stage ARE wearing helmets at the end of the stage,
which
is obviously the part of the stage they consider to be more dangerous.
I don't doubt that they are engaging in some sort of risk compensation.
To say
that to eliminate some risk should necessarily lead to trying to
eliminate ALL
risk is ludicrous. But I bet you already know that.
I personally have been in a couple crashes which have destroyed helmets,
and
I'm pretty damn glad I was wearing a helmet: Utherwyze my speling and
uther
thyngs about mee mite be bad. Even knowing this, I admit that at times
I do ride
without a helmet. I think professional cyclists can probably do this
figuring themselves,
too.
-Bill
TBGibb
In article <5sqvd1$koa$3...@news.istar.ca>, webm...@tread.pair.com (Chris
Phillipo) writes:
> These are the accidents where I don't believe a helmet would
>save your life. But other crashes, like low speed trail crashes, the helmet
>might be more effective, perhaps not saving your life but preventing
>superficial injuries.
The helmet "wars" are *almost* funny. I've been spared more serious
injury twice because of one and have a friend that had a car suddenly pull
out in front of him when he was doing 20 mph. He landed on his helmet,
which split, and he was knocked out. He was at work (he was commuting in
the first place) within 2 hours with a mild concussion. There is no
question in my mind that in that case his helmet saved him from very
serious injury or death. I might add he is an experienced rider and the
whole thing happened too fast for him to react.
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
Matthew Robertson
: Since 1903, the riders who have completed the Tour De France have
: collectively ridden approximately 26,000,000km. In that time there have
: been two fatal accidents to riders. (Cepeda in 1935 and Casartelli in
: 1995). Both were due to head injuries, but it is not certain that a helmet
: would have helped either rider. Cepeda continued to ride after crashing
: and Casartelli essentially fell on his face. Your chances of being killed
: in a race accident in the Tour are very low, so the pros only wear helmets
: on the stages which they consider most risky.
So, what you are ACTUALLY saying is that these riders engaged in Risk
Compensation. Clearly, the proper thing for them to do would be to drop
out of the Tour, or, better yet, take some classes to learn how to ride
in safety.
--
Tarannah, Canada.
There's no misery in this world that full
suspension and high-pressure slicks can't fix.
Marcio Watanabe
bx...@torfree.net (Matthew Robertson) wrote:
>: Since 1903, the riders who have completed the Tour De France have
>: collectively ridden approximately 26,000,000km. In that time there have
>: been two fatal accidents to riders. (Cepeda in 1935 and Casartelli in
>: 1995). Both were due to head injuries, but it is not certain that a helmet
>: would have helped either rider. Cepeda continued to ride after crashing
>: and Casartelli essentially fell on his face. Your chances of being killed
>: in a race accident in the Tour are very low, so the pros only wear helmets
>: on the stages which they consider most risky.
>
>So, what you are ACTUALLY saying is that these riders engaged in Risk
>Compensation. Clearly, the proper thing for them to do would be to drop
>out of the Tour, or, better yet, take some classes to learn how to ride
>in safety.
ROTFL! That was funny!
Marcio
--
_
__ _ ___ _________(_)__ If you had half as much fun reading this
/ ' \/ _ `/ __/ __/ / _ \ as I had writing it
/_/_/_/\_,_/_/ \__/_/\___/ I had twice as much fun as you!! ,,,
(o o)
--- mar...@primenet.com -------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo--
Dave Blake
tbg...@aol.com says...
>The helmet "wars" are *almost* funny. I've been spared more serious
>injury twice because of one and have a friend that had a car suddenly pull
>out in front of him when he was doing 20 mph. He landed on his helmet,
>which split, and he was knocked out. He was at work (he was commuting in
>the first place) within 2 hours with a mild concussion. There is no
>question in my mind that in that case his helmet saved him from very
>serious injury or death. I might add he is an experienced rider and the
>whole thing happened too fast for him to react.
There is no question that helmets can, in the
appropriate circumstances, reduce injury.
But, for example, my mother got in a car accident in 1984
and had a concussion that kept her from work. She,
being incredibly hardworking and stubborn, walked
to work anyway and had to be retrieved again from
the hospital.
Had she been wearing a helmet she would have been
spared serious injury.
A good high school friend of mine sustained serious
brain injury in a car accident that would have been
preventable from wearing a helmet in the car. He is
a burden on society today since he cannot work. Had
he worn a helmet while driving, society would have
saved several hundred thousand dollars.
The question is not really whether helmets ever
work. More to the point, does the risk per time
cycling justify the use of helmets ? Does the
risk per time driving justify the use of helmets
in cars ? How about the risk as a pedestrian in
a city ? How about taking a shower ? Lots of
people slip and hit their heads, and ALL the impacts
fall within the range of prevention by helmets.
Orders of magnitude more head injuries could be
prevented if drivers and peds wore helmets
than cyclists.
This is not intended as a sophist argument. The
only reason to advocate helmets is public
perception. If people were really concerned
about head injuries per time doing an activity,
cycling would be WAY down the list.
Reg_Burgess%AntiSpamPostfix%
In article <EEvG8G.G8...@torfree.net> bx...@torfree.net (Matthew
> Dave Gittins (git...@senet.com.au) wrote:
> : I finally got round to doing the sums.
>
> : collectively ridden approximately 26,000,000km. In that time there
have
> : been two fatal accidents to riders. (Cepeda in 1935 and Casartelli in
> : 1995). Both were due to head injuries, but it is not certain that a
helmet
> : would have helped either rider. Cepeda continued to ride after
crashing
> : and Casartelli essentially fell on his face. Your chances of being
killed
> : in a race accident in the Tour are very low, so the pros only wear
helmets
> : on the stages which they consider most risky.
>
> So, what you are ACTUALLY saying is that these riders engaged in Risk
> Compensation.
Not only that, but even in the riskiest stages riders don't get killed
that often and for the ones that do helmets wouldn't have helped. Got it
now ?
> Clearly, the proper thing for them to do would be to drop
> out of the Tour, or, better yet, take some classes to learn how to ride
> in safety.
>
Not at all clear. They are in it for
money/glory/ongoing_money/ongoing_glory, etc. They probably know well
enough how to ride safely enough, they probably balance risk (physical and
career) a lot better than many others in other professions. Not all of
this ports well to club rides, commutes, other countries, etc.
Wheel sucking on club rides is probably one of the most dangerous optional
risks that wannbe racers/advanced_recreational_riders indulge in. But Ya
gotta look like a Pro, hence the goofy team jerseys, etc.
R
Allan Beck
Chris Phillipo (webm...@tread.pair.com) wrote:
: Having been hit by a car once myself, I can attest to the fact that there is
: no time for blinking, much less putting your arms out. In fact I didn't know
: I was hit until I was sitting in the ditch wondering where the blood was
: coming from. These are the accidents where I don't believe a helmet would
: save your life. But other crashes, like low speed trail crashes, the helmet
: might be more effective, perhaps not saving your life but preventing
: superficial injuries. In short, wear your helmet anyway.
I agree about wearing your helmet, and wear my own close to religiously.
I must disagree about how much time you have to react when being hit by a car.
I myself was hit from behind and had enough time to realize that I was flying
through the air, think "Oh boy is this ever going to hurt...", and get my hands
out in front of me so I didn't hit nose first. Ironically, this happened to be
the one time in six months that I didn't have my helmet on, 'cause I was only
going a few blocks. Now I wear it almost all the time, even for short
distances.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Friesen "The opinions stated are my own and
Nortel are not related to company policy."
Ottawa, ON
"That is the top of the calibration target, that is _not_ in fact a monolith."
--NASA TV commentator, 7/5/97, discussing an image of a black rectangle
silhouetted against the Martian landscape
William Volk
In article <5stmai$14...@itssrv1.ucsf.edu>, dbl...@phy.ucsf.eduDELETETHISPART
(Dave Blake) wrote:
>Orders of magnitude more head injuries could be
>prevented if drivers and peds wore helmets
>than cyclists.
What are the statistics for cycling injuries? How does the "rate-per-mile"
compare to automobile travel?
Bill
Derek Hodge
>Every picture I saw of Bobby Julich on ESPN's coverage showed
>him wearing a helmet .... even in the high mountains. I know
>I saw Frankie NOT wearing a helmet at least once. It was the
>same in the Vuelta last year as well. Julich ALWAYS wore his
>helmet.
There's a picture of a bareheaded Bobby Julich on page 72 of the
september 1997 Cycle Sport.
Derek Hodge <der...@post.almac.co.uk>
Avery Burdett
According to posts on rec.bicycles.soc about the same for head injuries. If
you ask the question there, you may get a reference to the source of this
information.