Helmets in cycle races

I realise this is a controversial subject, I would like you to take my
word that I'm not trying to troll. I have a question that has been
bugging me for a while and I haven't found an answer. Here goes...

Why do professional cyclists always wear helmets during races
(specifically the Tour de France)

Personally, after spending a lot of time researching the subject, I
wear a helmet when riding mainly off-road (due to the increased risk
of low speed injury and penetrative head injury (hitting head on sharp
object). However, on the road I don;t think the advantages outweigh
the disadvantages.

Whny, during the Tour de France where weight is so important, why does
every rider wear a helmet

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:11:27 -0700 (PDT), Philip Ryder
wrote:

I realise this is a controversial subject, I would like you to take my
word that I'm not trying to troll. I have a question that has been
bugging me for a while and I haven't found an answer. Here goes...

Why do professional cyclists always wear helmets during races
(specifically the Tour de France)

Personally, after spending a lot of time researching the subject, I
wear a helmet when riding mainly off-road (due to the increased risk
of low speed injury and penetrative head injury (hitting head on sharp
object). However, on the road I don;t think the advantages outweigh
the disadvantages.

Whny, during the Tour de France where weight is so important, why does
every rider wear a helmet

They have to wear a helmet, except in limited circumstances, unless
they want to be disqualified. The rules are a little complicated, but
if I recall correctly, if a stage ends at the summit of a hill, riders
are permitted to discard their helmet at the base of the hill.

If I am wrong, I am sure someone will post a correction.

Philip Ryder wrote:

Whny, during the Tour de France where weight is so important, why does
every rider wear a helmet

Because in their case, if they do fall off, the helmet is likely to save
them if they hit a kerb head first.
A rider died 5 or 6 years ago after doing such a thing, so rather than
being voluntary, helmet wearing was made compulsory, except, I think,
for mountain top finishes, where their speed is slower, and riders
complained about the excess heat when wearing them at 10mph with a very
low chance of an injury.
Racing is one of the times when a helmet can make a difference in a
crash, as generally only the cyclist is involved, and the helmet is
enough to save a bad head injury.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

Philip Ryder wrote:

Why do professional cyclists always wear helmets during races
(specifically the Tour de France)

Very simply, the rules require them to.

Personally, after spending a lot of time researching the subject, I
wear a helmet when riding mainly off-road (due to the increased risk
of low speed injury and penetrative head injury (hitting head on sharp
object). However, on the road I don;t think the advantages outweigh
the disadvantages.

Informed choice. Very good idea!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Philip Ryder wrote:
I realise this is a controversial subject, I would like you to take my
word that I'm not trying to troll. I have a question that has been
bugging me for a while and I haven't found an answer. Here goes...

Why do professional cyclists always wear helmets during races
(specifically the Tour de France)

Because the governing body mandates it.

The riders protest about it loudly, and whenever they have the
opportunity, discard the helmets (they used to be allowed to do so at
sprints and finishes, I think, and always did so).

Whny, during the Tour de France where weight is so important, why does
every rider wear a helmet

Because they are not permitted to race without.

The sponsors like them.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 07:43:50 +0100
(A.Lee) wrote:

Racing is one of the times when a helmet can make a difference in a
crash, as generally only the cyclist is involved, and the helmet is
enough to save a bad head injury.

But helmets are typically only rated to work up to 12mph, and racing
cyclists can top 50mph - do you really think a bit of plastic brain
packaging makes much difference?

On Jun 19, 10:09*am, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 07:43:50 +0100

(A.Lee) wrote:
Racing is one of the times when a helmet can make a difference in a
crash, as generally only the cyclist is involved, and the helmet is
enough to save a bad head injury.

But helmets are typically only rated to work up to 12mph, and racing
cyclists can top 50mph - do you really think a bit of plastic brain
packaging makes much difference?

It is not the speed that matters, it's the height of the fall and the
suddenness of the stop. Even motorcycle helmets are only tested to 7 m/
s (16mph), but you regularly see motorcycle racers spectacularly
coming off their bikes at well over 100 mph and limping away virtually
unscathed. The important thing is to cushion the head and the brain
from the initial impact, which expanded polystyrene (EPS) does very
well. EPS is used both in cycle helmets and the liners of motorcycle
helmets. In fact the EPS does most of the work in the m/c helmets,
with the outer shell only being there to prevent intrusions from sharp
objects and to resist abrasion as the fallen motorcyclist slides at
high speed along the tarmac.

Derek C

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:33:33 +0100, JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:11:27 -0700 (PDT), Philip Ryder
wrote:

Whny, during the Tour de France where weight is so important, why does
every rider wear a helmet

They have to wear a helmet, except in limited circumstances, unless
they want to be disqualified. The rules are a little complicated, but
if I recall correctly, if a stage ends at the summit of a hill, riders
are permitted to discard their helmet at the base of the hill.

That doesn't really answer the question, though, does it?

If there are allegedly no advantages compared to the alleged
disadvantages, why do the organisers take the line they take?

Sponsors like them.

Do you think every rule in every sporting endeavour is there becaue
teh participants want it? Surely, if teh participants wanted it, it
wouldn't need to be a rule.

There are no advantages to teh participant in all sorts of rules.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Jun 19, 10:40*am, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:33:33 +0100, JNugent wrote:
*Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:11:27 -0700 (PDT), Philip Ryder
wrote:

Whny, during the Tour de France where weight is so important, why does
every rider wear a helmet

They have to wear a helmet, except in limited circumstances, unless
they want to be disqualified. The rules are a little complicated, but
if I recall correctly, if a stage ends at the summit of a hill, riders
are permitted to discard their helmet at the base of the hill.

*That doesn't really answer the question, though, does it?

*If there are allegedly no advantages compared to the alleged
*disadvantages, why do the organisers take the line they take?

Sponsors like them.

Do you think every rule in every sporting endeavour is there becaue
teh participants want it? *Surely, if teh participants wanted it, it
wouldn't need to be a rule.

There are no advantages to teh participant in all sorts of rules.

--
* |\ /| * * *no .sig
* |o o|
* |/ \|- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:33:33 +0100, JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:11:27 -0700 (PDT), Philip Ryder
wrote:

Whny, during the Tour de France where weight is so important, why does
every rider wear a helmet
They have to wear a helmet, except in limited circumstances, unless
they want to be disqualified. The rules are a little complicated, but
if I recall correctly, if a stage ends at the summit of a hill, riders
are permitted to discard their helmet at the base of the hill.

That doesn't really answer the question, though, does it?
If there are allegedly no advantages compared to the alleged
disadvantages, why do the organisers take the line they take?

Sponsors like them.

Do they insist on them? And if they do, do we know why? And if they don't
insist on them, why are they mandatory?

Do you think every rule in every sporting endeavour is there becaue
teh participants want it?

No.

Surely, if teh participants wanted it, it wouldn't need to be a rule.

Absolutely. That's why I didn't ask a question about what the participants want.

There are no advantages to teh participant in all sorts of rules.

I was asking about this one, not others.