Triathlon Helmets

Dear All

I was in Machynlleth last week, and saw in the leisure centre a list
of rules for the local triathlon club. Number one for cycling was
"Helmets must be worn".

(http://www.ceristtriathlon.org.uk/ClubRules.doc)

If it's possible to avoid the usual arguments, I wonder if anyone
could explain to me why a triathlon club might have the rule.
Insurance requirement? Perceived risk? Pressure from parents? Standard
practice in triathlon land?

I'm in favour of letting people decide for themselves about helmets (I
don't wear one myself), so I wondered what would lead a club to make
them compulsory.

Ian

Ian writes:

If it's possible to avoid the usual arguments, I wonder if anyone
could explain to me why a triathlon club might have the rule.
Insurance requirement? Perceived risk? Pressure from parents? Standard
practice in triathlon land?

Usually it's insurance. But given that this is a triathlon club,
perhaps they are also effective boyancy aids?


-dan

Stating the obvious:
Sports where people push themselves to the limit, cycle when knackered
through the night etc. are much more likely to involve (single vehicle)
crashes than everyday cycling.

But: That doesn't necessarily mean wearing 'a helmet' is 'effective'
although it may be good for arse-covering. The rules ought to be more
specific about the expected 'standard' required if they were serious safety
equipment.

This general reasoning follows on the lines of "Racing drivers have
specialist safety rules that everyday drivers don't." It makes sense to
plan for hazards - the trouble with helmets is that beyond scalp-scuff
protection there isn't much evidence for protection that a lucky rabbit's
foot can't provide.

For me the key reason for not promoting helmets for general cycling is that
learning to avoid hazards is cheaper and confers a great deal more
survivability.


--
Peter 'Prof' Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
http://vulpeculox.net

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:55:51 -0700 (PDT), Ian
wrote:

Dear All

I was in Machynlleth last week, and saw in the leisure centre a list
of rules for the local triathlon club. Number one for cycling was
"Helmets must be worn".

(http://www.ceristtriathlon.org.uk/ClubRules.doc)

If it's possible to avoid the usual arguments, I wonder if anyone
could explain to me why a triathlon club might have the rule.
Insurance requirement? Perceived risk? Pressure from parents? Standard
practice in triathlon land?

I'm in favour of letting people decide for themselves about helmets (I
don't wear one myself), so I wondered what would lead a club to make
them compulsory.

Ian


Almost certainly a standard insurance policy must be in place.

Taken with the recent judgement by Mr Justice Griffith Williams:

"There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the
cyclist to the risk of greater injury.

The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and
it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should
wear one."



--

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

Daniel Barlow wrote:
Ian writes:

If it's possible to avoid the usual arguments, I wonder if anyone
could explain to me why a triathlon club might have the rule.
Insurance requirement? Perceived risk? Pressure from parents? Standard
practice in triathlon land?

Usually it's insurance. But given that this is a triathlon club,
perhaps they are also effective boyancy aids?


-dan

It's insurance, but what a good buoyancy aid, it keeps the hair above
the water.

--

Tony Dragon

Peter Fox writes:

But: That doesn't necessarily mean wearing 'a helmet' is 'effective'
although it may be good for arse-covering. The rules ought to be more

I know someone who sustained a (non-serious) head injury streetskating
while wearing a helmet on his arse (looped on a belt hook, I think)

That wasn't really relevant to the original question, for which I
apologise. Just thought it was funny.



-dan

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:55:51 -0700 (PDT), Ian
wrote:

If it's possible to avoid the usual arguments, I wonder if anyone
could explain to me why a triathlon club might have the rule.
Insurance requirement? Perceived risk? Pressure from parents? Standard
practice in triathlon land?

Could be any of the above, or they could simply have drunk the
kool-aid. I'd be inclined to ask them what their injury record is
that they feel a need to do this. I wonder if they've had more bike
injuries or more water incidents?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

Daniel Barlow wrote:
Ian writes:

If it's possible to avoid the usual arguments, I wonder if anyone
could explain to me why a triathlon club might have the rule.
Insurance requirement? Perceived risk? Pressure from parents? Standard
practice in triathlon land?

Usually it's insurance. But given that this is a triathlon club,
perhaps they are also effective boyancy aids?


-dan

In this case it's probably even simpler. If the club wants to be
affiliated to the British Triathlon Association, it has to follow BTA rules:

"11.3 Approved cycling safety helmets of ANSI Z90.4, SNELL B90, EN 1078
or an equivalent national standard must be worn by competitors. (NB: a
CE mark is NOT an approval mark.)"

Of course that just moves the question back a step - why does the BTA
insist on helmets?

They also have rules about tribars to ensure that no-one ever gets
skewered by one - I don't know if that's ever happened, and it's not
something that seems to bother time triallists.

Andy Key wrote:

[snipped...]

They also have rules about tribars to ensure that no-one ever gets
skewered by one - I don't know if that's ever happened, and it's not
something that seems to bother time triallists.

That's only really for drafting races, where your tri bars can't extend
past a certain point.

Cheers,

--
bob [at] bobarnott [dot] com http://www.bobarnott.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Crash programs fail because they are based on theory that,
with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby in a month."
-- Wernher von Braun

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:55:48 +0100, Andy Key
wrote:

Daniel Barlow wrote:
Ian writes:

If it's possible to avoid the usual arguments, I wonder if anyone
could explain to me why a triathlon club might have the rule.
Insurance requirement? Perceived risk? Pressure from parents? Standard
practice in triathlon land?

Usually it's insurance. But given that this is a triathlon club,
perhaps they are also effective boyancy aids?


-dan

In this case it's probably even simpler. If the club wants to be
affiliated to the British Triathlon Association, it has to follow BTA rules:

"11.3 Approved cycling safety helmets of ANSI Z90.4, SNELL B90, EN 1078
or an equivalent national standard must be worn by competitors. (NB: a
CE mark is NOT an approval mark.)"

Of course that just moves the question back a step - why does the BTA
insist on helmets?


That will be because they have taken advice from professional
bodies/organisations and not sought advice in urc.rec.cycling.

--

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored