Helmets in cycle races

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 02:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
Derek C wrote:

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.

Because they don't hit anything. Race tracks don't have Armco right
next to the tarmac, descents on the TDF do. Kerbs are a problem on race
tracks, and a helmet /might/ be useful were a head to hit one. Kerbs
on roads are generally much more vicious than the track ones.

The important thing is to cushion the head and the brain
from the initial impact

When I fall off my bike[1] (pedal or motor powered) I land on my hip, my
shoulder or my outstretched hand(s), so there is no "initial impact" to
my head.


[1] Believe me when I say I have quite a lot of experience of this.


P.S. You're a very tedious person who won't accept offers of clue, so
you're killfiled as of now. Byeee.

On Jun 19, 11:03*am, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 02:39:33 -0700 (PDT)





Derek C wrote:
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.

Because they don't hit anything. *Race tracks don't have Armco right
next to the tarmac, descents on the TDF do. *Kerbs are a problem on race
tracks, and a helmet /might/ be useful were a head to hit one. *Kerbs
on roads are generally much more vicious than the track ones.

Hardly the case for the Isle of Man TT! Some motorcylists get killed
there every year, but the majority of crashers do survive, thanks to
crash helmets and body armour.

The important thing is to cushion the head and the brain
from the initial impact

When I fall off my bike[1] (pedal or motor powered) I land on my hip, my
shoulder or my outstretched hand(s), so there is no "initial impact" to
my head.

I don't think you can guarantee to do this in all circumstances.

[1] *Believe me when I say I have quite a lot of experience of this.

P.S. *You're a very tedious person who won't accept offers of clue, so
you're killfiled as of now. *Byeee.- Hide quoted text -

Wow, what an honour!

Derek C

On Jun 19, 11:03*am, JNugent wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, this is from Wikipedia:

"Andrei Kivilev (September 20, 1973 – March 12, 2003) was a
professional road bicycle racer from Taldykorgan, Kazakhstan. In March
2003, he fell heavily during the Paris-Nice race and subsequently died
of his injuries. His death was the trigger for the UCI to implement
the compulsory wearing of helmets in all endorsed races."

I believe there was another incident in which a cyclists fell off in a
race and banged his head very hard against a concrete post. He was
wearing a helmet and, much to everyones surprise, he got up and
continued in the race.

Derek C

Derek C wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:03 am, JNugent wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, this is from Wikipedia:

"Andrei Kivilev (September 20, 1973 – March 12, 2003) was a
professional road bicycle racer from Taldykorgan, Kazakhstan. In March
2003, he fell heavily during the Paris-Nice race and subsequently died
of his injuries. His death was the trigger for the UCI to implement
the compulsory wearing of helmets in all endorsed races."

I believe there was another incident in which a cyclists fell off in a
race and banged his head very hard against a concrete post. He was
wearing a helmet and, much to everyones surprise, he got up and
continued in the race.

Derek C

No need to be sorry.

I think you might have come closer to the answer than others have so far, but
I couldn't possibly be certain of that.

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:03:18 +0100, JNugent wrote:
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?

Sponsors don't insist on helmets. They don't have to, because the
governing body does. Sponsors generally _do_ insist on particular
helmets (you might have noticed that generally all the members of a
cycling team wear the same make, model and variant of helmet).

The governing body likes sponsors. The governing body mandates
helmets on the riders in order to encourage sponsors to sponsor.

If the governing body didn't mandate helmets we don't know whether the
sponsors would stop sponsoring. We often make decisions in the
absence of absolute certainty of outcome. It's like that in the real
world.

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

On 06/19/2010 11:25 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:03:18 +0100, wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:33:33 +0100, 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?

Sponsors don't insist on helmets. They don't have to, because the
governing body does. Sponsors generally _do_ insist on particular
helmets (you might have noticed that generally all the members of a
cycling team wear the same make, model and variant of helmet).

The governing body likes sponsors. The governing body mandates
helmets on the riders in order to encourage sponsors to sponsor.

If the governing body didn't mandate helmets we don't know whether the
sponsors would stop sponsoring. We often make decisions in the
absence of absolute certainty of outcome. It's like that in the real
world.


It's not just helmet manufacturers which sponsor the TdF though is it?
I recall back in the '70s cycling helmets were quite plain and probably
fairly useless but cyclists in competition still wore them.

If I was fool enough to cycle on the someone's rear wheel at speed I'd
want to wear a helmet too!

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:40:46 +0100, Jim A wrote:
On 06/19/2010 11:25 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:03:18 +0100, wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:33:33 +0100, 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?

Sponsors don't insist on helmets. They don't have to, because the
governing body does. Sponsors generally _do_ insist on particular
helmets (you might have noticed that generally all the members of a
cycling team wear the same make, model and variant of helmet).

The governing body likes sponsors. The governing body mandates
helmets on the riders in order to encourage sponsors to sponsor.

If the governing body didn't mandate helmets we don't know whether the
sponsors would stop sponsoring. We often make decisions in the
absence of absolute certainty of outcome. It's like that in the real
world.


It's not just helmet manufacturers which sponsor the TdF though is it?

I didn't say it was.

_ALl_ sponsors like helmets. They can be coloured in the sponsor's
colours, or the team colours which are associated with the sponsor.

I recall back in the '70s cycling helmets were quite plain and probably
fairly useless but cyclists in competition still wore them.

Not universally, which was the OP's question.


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

Derek C wrote:


I believe there was another incident in which a cyclists fell off in a
race and banged his head very hard against a concrete post. He was
wearing a helmet and, much to everyones surprise, he got up and
continued in the race.

How was the concrete post?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

On Jun 19, 12:25*pm, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Derek C wrote:

I believe there was another incident in which a cyclists fell off in a
race and banged his head very hard against a concrete post. He was
wearing a helmet and, much to everyones surprise, he got up and
continued in the race.

How was the concrete post?

Only slightly dented!

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)

I think it's in the rules these days - but there is a more compelling
reason that led a number of riders to wear them before that. It's
because they're paid to. If you or your team is getting sponsorship
money from a helmet maker, you wear that helmet.

--
Andrew