Di Lucca back racing

[Colm.Murphy]

Helmet makers are interested in over-selling the benefits of their product, increasing people's perception of risk, and taking advantage of people's irrational behavior. The same person who won't swing a leg over the top tube of his bike without wearing a helmet will gleefully bomb down a twisty mountain descent at 90 km/hr even though the risk from the descent far exceeds riding on the flat without a helmet.

Who is this "person"? Is it you? So when they crash and die, it must be the helmet producer's fault?

This is a stupid piece of logic. FAIL.

 

[BroDeal]

Who is this "person"? Is it you? So when they crash and die, it must be the helmet producer's fault?

This is a stupid piece of logic. FAIL.

You seem to have completely missed my point. In addition you have created a strawman that has nothing to do with what I wrote. As far as stupid logic goes, you win big time, probably because you are one of the people I was talking about in my last paragraph, one of those people who has poor risk assessment in addition to poor reading skills.

The point of the last paragraph is this: People in general are bad at risk assessment and they make irrational decisions that are not supported by realistic probablities. They will act on fear of one risk and not on another risk, even though the chance and consequences of the second risk are much higher than the first.

For example, huge amounts of money, time, and effort have been expended to fight the "terrorists" since 9/11 even though more people die in auto accidents every month than were killed in 9/11. In fact since 9/11 more than a hundred times as many people have been killed in auto accidents than were killed in 9/11.

This point can be illustrated in cycling with a large number of examples. The one I gave in my previous post was the difference in risk of just riding around (JRA) without a helmet and bombing a high speed, twisty descent with a helmet. The chance of being injured descending far exceeds the chance of being injured while JRA. Yet people who profess fear of being killed while riding without a helmet will engage in activities that have a much higher risk of death. This is irrational behavior based on a faulty perception of risk.

Another example is an old friend of mine who liked to do sprint workouts by sprinting between intersections where there was heavy traffic yet he was a helmet nazi who would yell at people who were not wearing helmets. In the U.S. you are most likely to be killed while cycling on a major road at an intersection when one of the members of the crash fails to stop or fails to yield at a stop. He would have been safer doing sprints in the country sans helmet than he was wearing helmet while riding in traffic.

Then there are people who won't think of riding while not wearing a helmet but blow through four way stops on their bike. The list of examples is endless. The point here is not to that you should not wear a helmet. You should; the burden is low and wearing one increases your chances of surviving some kinds of accidents. The point is that the best piece of bicycle safety equipment is your brain. It is being aware of your surroundings and not doing things that increase your risk of being killed. That will keep you far safer than any helmet.

Funny enough, even though helmet use has gone up dramaticly, there is little change in cycling deaths, which average about 800 per year in the U.S. There have been studies that conclude that safety equipment often makes little difference because people act on their perception of increased safety to increase their risky behavior until the actual risk is the same as what they felt comfortable with before the safety equipment. For cycling this would equate to something like a person not wearing a helmet feels vulnerable so he rides more carefully. Perhaps he is only willing to descend at 40 mph but when wearing a helmet the added perception of protection make him willing to descend at 50 mph.

 

[frenchfry]

You seem to have completely missed my point. In addition you have created a strawman that has nothing to do with what I wrote. As far as stupid logic goes, you win big time, probably because you are one of the people I was talking about in my last paragraph, one of those people who has poor risk assessment in addition to poor reading skills.

Calm down Bro, you are reacting like Colm.Murphy said that Lancey-poo is the greatest thing since sliced bread, when he was just making an argument in favor of wearing a helmet while cycling. Did you forget to take the T patch off this morning?

You both make good points, but isn't it possible to manage risk at many levels - like for example wearing a helmet at all times (well, maybe not in bed) and not taking unreasonable risks as well? It's not like reckless riding is a natural consequence of helmet use. Of course some will take more risk when wearing one, but maybe their lack of judgement is unrelated to the marketing of helmet makers.

Statistics are confusing. Are there the same number of cycling deaths because helmets encourage unreasonable risk taking, or are there more cyclists therefore the proportional risk is actually lower? I don't know the answer to this.

What is pretty certain is that compulsary helmet use generally leads to an overall reduction in cycling. This is the main reason I am against imposed helmets (except in races) but am for wearing helmets at all times. Even if I don't take risks.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Calm down Bro, you are reacting like Colm.Murphy said that Lancey-poo is the greatest thing since sliced bread, when he was just making an argument in favor of wearing a helmet while cycling. Did you forget to take the T patch off this morning?

You both make good points,

Although to be fair Murphy's post prior to that certainly had a smug air about it. These two are arguing in an insulting tone without really disagreeing on the main point. Which BTW has gone quite off topic.

 

[frenchfry]

Although to be fair Murphy's post prior to that certainly had a smug air about it. These two are arguing in an insulting tone without really disagreeing on the main point. Which BTW has gone quite off topic.

If that little doper Di Luca's only positive contribution to the world is an interesting debate on helmet use, I think we have to seize the opportunity.

And when I use the adjective little, I mean it as an insult.

 

[pmcg76]

He's not racing, he's riding. I think even being banned for two years, he's allowed to ride a bike

He's also not sequestered to his house so he can pretty much ride where he wants and when.

Maybe I'm going out on a limb on this one

Return of the Prodigal son!!! Welcome back.

 

[BroDeal]

What is pretty certain is that compulsary helmet use generally leads to an overall reduction in cycling. This is the main reason I am against imposed helmets (except in races) but am for wearing helmets at all times. Even if I don't take risks.

On this last point there has been the assertion that mandatory helmet laws reducing the amount of cycling increases the health risks of the general population because of reduced amounts of exercise. I am not sure if I buy that, but it illustrates a principle that laws often have unintended consequences that negate their supposed benefits.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Return of the Prodigal son!!! Welcome back.

Psst......that's not him.

 

[fatandfast]

Just to put things in a different direction.. DiLuca riding around sunning himself without a helmet got to people. All the training camp photos of "popular" riders were enjoyed without almost any comment. The fact that many people have brought up the race for the bottom by the cycling industry should be noted. Producing a helmet that tips the scales at a few grams and additionally squeeeks by on the safety standard should be more appalling than some Italian dope dwarf trying to stay fit while on a 2 year vacation. I went on a guided tour of an active volcano 4 years ago, was fantastic. The friends I went with still get a laugh out of the A-hole arguing with his wife over the need for sunglasses as we climbed close to lava and burning ground. Just like the insistence of those foam wearers as a cement truck passes them on a training ride.If DiLuca wants somebody to cry to I will by the 1st couple of beers.

 

[buckwheat]

Just to put things in a different direction.. DiLuca riding around sunning himself without a helmet got to people. All the training camp photos of "popular" riders were enjoyed without almost any comment.

One is cool until they are convicted.

The fact that many people have brought up the race for the bottom by the cycling industry should be noted. Producing a helmet that tips the scales at a few grams and additionally squeeeks by on the safety standard should be more appalling than some Italian dope dwarf trying to stay fit while on a 2 year vacation..

True dat!

I went on a guided tour of an active volcano 4 years ago, was fantastic. The friends I went with still get a laugh out of the A-hole arguing with his wife over the need for sunglasses as we climbed close to lava and burning ground..

But you all did wear helmets? BTW, what's a good tyre for lava?

Just like the insistence of those foam wearers as a cement truck passes them on a training ride..

I'm on a life extension program. I believe the Hgh and the nandrolone has made my skull and jaw much stronger because when my head got run over by a cement truck the helmet was trashed but I was unscathed.

If DiLuca wants somebody to cry to I will by the 1st couple of beers.

I don't think the Killer drinks. Ya gotta be careful with alcohol when you're on a program. Bad for the liver and kidneys.

I'm always ready to pound a few Budweisers though.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

You seem to have completely missed my point. In addition you have created a strawman that has nothing to do with what I wrote. As far as stupid logic goes, you win big time, probably because you are one of the people I was talking about in my last paragraph, one of those people who has poor risk assessment in addition to poor reading skills.

The point of the last paragraph is this: People in general are bad at risk assessment and they make irrational decisions that are not supported by realistic probablities. They will act on fear of one risk and not on another risk, even though the chance and consequences of the second risk are much higher than the first.

For example, huge amounts of money, time, and effort have been expended to fight the "terrorists" since 9/11 even though more people die in auto accidents every month than were killed in 9/11. In fact since 9/11 more than a hundred times as many people have been killed in auto accidents than were killed in 9/11.

This point can be illustrated in cycling with a large number of examples. The one I gave in my previous post was the difference in risk of just riding around (JRA) without a helmet and bombing a high speed, twisty descent with a helmet. The chance of being injured descending far exceeds the chance of being injured while JRA. Yet people who profess fear of being killed while riding without a helmet will engage in activities that have a much higher risk of death. This is irrational behavior based on a faulty perception of risk.

Another example is an old friend of mine who liked to do sprint workouts by sprinting between intersections where there was heavy traffic yet he was a helmet nazi who would yell at people who were not wearing helmets. In the U.S. you are most likely to be killed while cycling on a major road at an intersection when one of the members of the crash fails to stop or fails to yield at a stop. He would have been safer doing sprints in the country sans helmet than he was wearing helmet while riding in traffic.

Then there are people who won't think of riding while not wearing a helmet but blow through four way stops on their bike. The list of examples is endless. The point here is not to that you should not wear a helmet. You should; the burden is low and wearing one increases your chances of surviving some kinds of accidents. The point is that the best piece of bicycle safety equipment is your brain. It is being aware of your surroundings and not doing things that increase your risk of being killed. That will keep you far safer than any helmet.

Funny enough, even though helmet use has gone up dramaticly, there is little change in cycling deaths, which average about 800 per year in the U.S. There have been studies that conclude that safety equipment often makes little difference because people act on their perception of increased safety to increase their risky behavior until the actual risk is the same as what they felt comfortable with before the safety equipment. For cycling this would equate to something like a person not wearing a helmet feels vulnerable so he rides more carefully. Perhaps he is only willing to descend at 40 mph but when wearing a helmet the added perception of protection make him willing to descend at 50 mph.

you spelled "dramatically" wrong.






...just kidding (well you did).

Take it easy. I simply mirrored some of your initial strawmen and tossed them back.

I understood your point, just disagree.

Simply put, I do not believe that cyclist take on a sense of invulnerability when they don a helmet, rather than when they don't. Risk takers generally will take risks regardless and there will always be some form of irrational behavior.

But I do think we agree that when your number is up, not much is going to change that.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Should safety be considered a state imposed obligation or simply common sense?

While I am against imposing helmet use (outside of racing), I consider it to be stupid not to wear one at all times.

Agreed. I don't see anything contrived about protecting your head. But in DiLuca's defense, he doesn't seem to use it much anyway.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

LOL!

To chime in - I wear my helmet 99% of the time. Only on a few hot days on super easy safe rides will I skip it. Sometimes if I'm going up a remote forest road in the hot sun, I'll clip the helmet to the front of the handle bars, but only on the up.

There's a lot of things in life you should do to make you life safer beyond just wearing a helmet on a bike. I'm sure we could create a big list.

 

[BroDeal]

you spelled "dramatically" wrong.






...just kidding (well you did).

Take it easy. I simply mirrored some of your initial strawmen and tossed them back.

I understood your point, just disagree.

Simply put, I do not believe that cyclist take on a sense of invulnerability when they don a helmet, rather than when they don't. Risk takers generally will take risks regardless and there will always be some form of irrational behavior.

But I do think we agree that when your number is up, not much is going to change that.

That is "You" not "you." Try hitting the shift key at the beginning of sentences.




...just kidding (well you should).

Take it easy. I simply pointed out some of your initial bullsh!t. Don't wig out or anything.

 

[tubularglue]

he is back riding among racers.
he can do whatever he wants.


riding without a helmet is stupid, regardless if you are an old as f*ck Italian pro, or a 12 yr old. jmo

crack your helmet during a crash, not your head.

 

[laziali]

He was not racing. He just happened to be on a training ride that used the same route at the same time as the race. It could happen to anyone.

A bit off topic Bro, but your new avatar is the angriest looking cat of all time