Un-ban The Helmet Rule.

[boardhanger]

I just read this thread for the first time, and it's pretty hilarious. I think boardhanger's on-line persona of the grumpy old codger is very well-played. I particularly liked this insane bit of reasoning--that the reason there are no African professional bike racers is due to the price of helmets. For good old-fashioned craziness like momma used to make (until they locked her up) that can't be beat. Chapeau!

.......considering the UCI brought it up at the the AGM I don't think it's my insane bit of reasoning, neither.

 

[L'arriviste]

Daft how this issue gets turned into a question of civil liberties and state intervention when there's plenty of other crap to undermine these things that's not in your best interests.

As for kids in Africa, they get by OK ...

 

[Black-Balled]

God. Just about everything involving cycling has tripled since this rule has gone into effect.

I was going to replace the pedals on my MTB but they are just too dam pricey now.

makafaka helmet rule...

 

[Angliru]

......it has taken the personal connection outa racing when watching. If grown men and woman want to race on 'closed roads' without wearing it then they should be allowed to. When the ban came into effect for all levels of racing the price of helmets tripled!! Anyone else notice that?????? I was happy with a moderate helmet law i.e sprint stages etc. But mountain top finishes when they're riding 13-14mph. Come on !!!

So the real basis for your complaint is that the pro's mandatory rule for wearing helmets has driven up the price of helmets for the consumer?

 

[Angliru]

The primary difference in the ultra expensive helmets and the "affordable" ones are that the high end ones are lighter, likely have more color options, more vent holes, has some fancy-smancy retention system, the straps may be color coordinated, and their likely worn by one or more pro teams. I just bought a Lazer O2 helmet for $70 on sale and I can't imagine anyone "needing" anymore helmet than this. "Wanting" is a different story.

 

[Polyarmour]

..... But mountain top finishes when they're riding 13-14mph. Come on !!!

And I think I should be able to unclip my car seat belt every time my speed drops beneath 25mph. Come on!!!

 

[TheDude]

i have not read the whole thread so i am not sure if this has come up but there are 3 times more brain injuries per year from football games than from cycling

how do you think a helmet law for football would be received by the taxpayer? remembering you would have to wear a helmet in competition and while kicking the footy around with your mates at the local park.

Well, here in the states a helmet is required for football. Now soccer, that is another thing entirely...

 

[Angliru]

I'm sure the price change would have been inevitable. Simply because as the materials get better obviously they will get more expensive. I won't sit here and say that the prices don't bother me its crazy that a helment can cost up to $200 but it is there obviously to protect the racers and also rec cyclist who want to be just like the pros.

Last time I checked cycling was a pretty much upper class hobby.So I'm sure cyclist have some cash to flash around.

It depends on how you narrowly define it as a "hobby". If you're simply riding for the love of the sport, then you can find affordable gear and bikes, be they new or used. If you are competing then you will have to spend some dollars but still it is within reasonable amounts. If you just have to have the latest smack then you will need a fairly decent income to keep up with your competition in the looks and gear department.

 

[Angliru]

What a ridiculous argument. So to follow to its conclusion, helmets should be mandatory when you go out drinking? FFS

Stop being purposely difficult and ignoring the point. High speed or low speed crash/fall, a helmet can save your life or at least minimize the severity of your head injuries.

 

[pedaling squares]

i have not read the whole thread so i am not sure if this has come up but there are 3 times more brain injuries per year from football games than from cycling

how do you think a helmet law for football would be received by the taxpayer? remembering you would have to wear a helmet in competition and while kicking the footy around with your mates at the local park.

Do you have the details of this statistic? I'd like to know how many more people played football than rode bikes in that population. Also the extent of the injuries, ie if football players had lots of concussions from banging heads together when competing for a ball, vs cyclists who had less but more severe injuries from banging their head on solid objects at speed.

 

[joe_papp]

Dude give it up. Helmets save lives thats why they are mandatory. As many people have stated (including myself) it is possible to get a helmet under $100. As far as i'm concerned you have no decent arguments as to why helmets should be un-banned.

Actually, the BBC recently published a piece contending that helmets don't necessarily increase the safety of the rider to the degree that is generically assumed by both cyclists and drivers on the open-road...

http://is.gd/eIGuw

"While many cyclists wouldn't leave home without clamping on their helmet, Dr Ian Walker, a professor of traffic psychology, has long believed head protection can work against someone on a bicycle..."

 

[Michielveedeebee]

Ingredients:

* 2 eggs, separated
* 3/4 cup sugar
* 1/4 cup melted butter
* 1/4 cup all-purpose flour
* 2 teaspoons grated lemon zest
* 1/4 cup fresh lemon juice
* 1 cup milk
* 1/8 teaspoon salt
* 1 9-inch pie crust, unbaked

Preparation:
Beat egg whites until stiff peaks form; set aside. In a mixing bowl, combine flour, lemon zest, lemon juice, milk, and egg yolks. Gently fold egg whites into mixture. Pour mixture into pastry-lined pie pan. Bake lemon sponge pie at 350° for 40 minutes, or until done.

I actually LOL'ed

 

[davidg]

Stop being purposely difficult and ignoring the point. High speed or low speed crash/fall, a helmet can save your life or at least minimize the severity of your head injuries.

Actually, I think that you have missed the point. You are perfectly correct in your statement, and so was the prior poster who commented about the cricketer who was king-hit and later died.
Head injuries come from all walks of life. The difference is that in other areas people have a freedom of choice. That is what I resent the most. Once again nanny-state governments thinking that they have to protect people in case they are incapable of making informed choices. Given the number of pedestrian injuries on the road, shouldnt you be shouting about everybody wearing a helmet when they are walking around?

 

[La Pandera]

Actually, the BBC recently published a piece contending that helmets don't necessarily increase the safety of the rider to the degree that is generically assumed by both cyclists and drivers on the open-road...

http://is.gd/eIGuw

"While many cyclists wouldn't leave home without clamping on their helmet, Dr Ian Walker, a professor of traffic psychology, has long believed head protection can work against someone on a bicycle..."

It's also stated that there isn't enough research to support this argument according various sources.

So you're frakked if you do and you're frakked if you don't. I'll continue to wear mine and take my chances.

 

[boardhanger]

Fact. I seen cycling pre-Nike before they bought into it arround 1999- 2000 ish. Fact. The market price for everthing tripled in clothing. I lived it. Seen it. Many here might have seen it. Younger ones maybe not. The UCI has talks regarding prices because it hurts the sport. Fact. I'm not knocking cycling. Just stating the facts.

 

[La Pandera]

Actually, I think that you have missed the point. You are perfectly correct in your statement, and so was the prior poster who commented about the cricketer who was king-hit and later died.
Head injuries come from all walks of life. The difference is that in other areas people have a freedom of choice. That is what I resent the most. Once again nanny-state governments thinking that they have to protect people in case they are incapable of making informed choices. Given the number of pedestrian injuries on the road, shouldnt you be shouting about everybody wearing a helmet when they are walking around?

It is not a law everywhere. If in your particular locale it exists as a law and you're not happy with it, what are doing to have it changed? If you feel this strongly about it what are you doing currently or have you done or attempted to do in the past to make it so it is not mandatory? I wear my helmet because I feel personally that I am safer with it than without it. I don't begrudge anyone that chooses not to wear one but their argument that they are not safer wearing a helmet should they fall, crash, get hit by a vehicle and hit their head is a ludicrous and ignorant statement/belief.

I don't have a problem at all with the government getting involved and deciding that helmet usage is mandatory. Sometimes you need someone to look out for those that are simply too stupid to look out for themselves, whether they realize it or not. If its the law, you can abide, you can break it and take your chances with the consequences, or you can lobby to change the law if you find it is not to your liking.

 

[boardhanger]

It is not a law everywhere. If in your particular locale it exists as a law and you're not happy with it, what are doing to have it changed? If you feel this strongly about it what are you doing currently or have you done or attempted to do in the past to make it so it is not mandatory? I wear my helmet because I feel personally that I am safer with it than without it. I don't begrudge anyone that chooses not to wear one but their argument that they are not safer wearing a helmet should they fall, crash, get hit by a vehicle and hit their head is a ludicrous and ignorant statement/belief.

I don't have a problem at all with the government getting involved and deciding that helmet usage is mandatory. Sometimes you need someone to look out for those that are simply too stupid to look out for themselves, whether they realize it or not. If its the law, you can abide, you can break it and take your chances with the consequences, or you can lobby to change the law if you find it is not to your liking.

.......but the goverments apply the rule to the idiots standard. Why should smart safe people be held accountable to an idiots level of intelligence as the benchmark?

 

[powerste]

Actually, the BBC recently published a piece contending that helmets don't necessarily increase the safety of the rider to the degree that is generically assumed by both cyclists and drivers on the open-road...

http://is.gd/eIGuw

"While many cyclists wouldn't leave home without clamping on their helmet, Dr Ian Walker, a professor of traffic psychology, has long believed head protection can work against someone on a bicycle..."

I've seen other studies and arguments that helmets can affect both driver and cyclist perception. I recall this being a particularly hot topic in Australia in the past couple of years(?) as helmet laws have fairly recently(?) come into effect there.

Basically it boils down to:
-Wearing a helmet may help you have a better outcome in the event of a crash - there is plenty of anecdotal experience to support this (and of course it seems intuitive) but no long-range studies that I know of.
VS
-Forgoing a helmet may help you avoid a crash either because drivers give you wider berth or you take staying upright more seriously. This seems less intuitive at first but certainly does have merit when you stop to think about it for a minute. Again, nothing conclusive to fully support or refute it.

That's right, folks - no certainty either way. We'll just have to live with that.

Given that driver and cyclist perceptions and behavior will vary widely with culture, landscape, population density, and even (especially!) across individual cyclists and motorists, I don't think any behavioral study can claim wide applicability. So in my (hopefully) reasonable way of looking at it, this is a case where it's up to each individual to make as informed a decision as possible. Ergo, I know my town and local riding area quite well and I never ride without my helmet - but I do not find it appropriate for governments to tell all citizens that they must do so.

As far as applicability to professional cycling (back to the OP), according to the "better crash outcome vs lower crash possibility" approach, at first blush it would seem that they should definitely wear helmets because they will crash. We've all witnessed enough bike racing to know that. OTOH, they are professionals who learn both superior bike handling and crash management skills over years of training. In a race situation, a helmet arguably would not affect driver or rider behavior a la the BBC study. There are plenty of professional crashes (the majority, I'd say) in which the helmet is far from a deciding factor in the medical outcome. But in the truly horrific crashes - Casartelli, Kivilev, Horillo, for example - I can't believe that the insurance (not guarantee, mind you - insurance!) of a helmet is not worth it. And since these horrific crashes can happen, I do believe pros should wear helmets.

 

[VeloFidelis]

Fact. I seen cycling pre-Nike before they bought into it arround 1999- 2000 ish. Fact. The market price for everthing tripled in clothing. I lived it. Seen it. Many here might have seen it. Younger ones maybe not. The UCI has talks regarding prices because it hurts the sport. Fact. I'm not knocking cycling. Just stating the facts.

Sounds like you need to get your facts straight. Nike has been a relatively inconsequential player in both the international, and U.S. cycling markets, and I know from where I speak. They have gotten in and out of cycling several times in the last two decades because they can't make any money in it. They're not in it now except for some LiveStrong stuff that they don't even make. They don't even make any cycling shoes. So what is your obsession with Nike?

Good technical clothing is not cheap, but it is a great investment. I've had a 30 year career in technical clothing and product design and the science behind some of these new fabrics is amazing. But you know what?... it's still all made from petroleum. What are you paying at the pump these days?

Here's a few facts for ya. While you can pretty easily pony up over $200 US on a b!thcin new bib short, every reputable manufacturer has a $75 short that is totally adequate. If you don't crash in them they will last 5 years or hundreds of rides. Your cost per ride?... pennies!

You can get all the safety you need in a helmet for about the same price. It should be replaced every 2 to 3 years. Two rides a week for 3 years is 300 rides. Do the math. Cycling is cheap, even with good equipment. You can make it really expensive if you want to, but few sports are economical as cycling. So find anther reason to against helmet use, like maybe your head isn't really worth protecting.

 

[pedaling squares]

Actually, the BBC recently published a piece contending that helmets don't necessarily increase the safety of the rider to the degree that is generically assumed by both cyclists and drivers on the open-road...

http://is.gd/eIGuw

"While many cyclists wouldn't leave home without clamping on their helmet, Dr Ian Walker, a professor of traffic psychology, has long believed head protection can work against someone on a bicycle..."

Of course the context of that article is not about collisions with a helmet vs those without. Dr Walker finds that motorists give cyclists wearing helmets less room, presumably because those cyclists are considered to be more experienced riders. Interesting article, but it doesn't assist the debate about wearing them in a race on closed roads.

 

[pedaling squares]

Fact. I seen cycling pre-Nike before they bought into it arround 1999- 2000 ish. Fact. The market price for everthing tripled in clothing. I lived it. Seen it. Many here might have seen it. Younger ones maybe not. The UCI has talks regarding prices because it hurts the sport. Fact. I'm not knocking cycling. Just stating the facts.

The cost of equipment and apparel for most sports skyrocketed in the 1990's. I think that cycling was behind some other sports in this regard. The pros started making multi-millions per annum, advertising costs went up, and it was all passed down to consumers. Hockey skates went up by about 500% and it's probably the same for football helmets, soccer cleats, baseball gloves.........

 

[boardhanger]

Sounds like you need to get your facts straight. Nike has been a relatively inconsequential player in both the international, and U.S. cycling markets, and I know from where I speak. They have gotten in and out of cycling several times in the last two decades because they can't make any money in it. They're not in it now except for some LiveStrong stuff that they don't even make. They don't even make any cycling shoes. So what is your obsession with Nike?

Good technical clothing is not cheap, but it is a great investment. I've had a 30 year career in technical clothing and product design and the science behind some of these new fabrics is amazing. But you know what?... it's still all made from petroleum. What are you paying at the pump these days?

Here's a few facts for ya. While you can pretty easily pony up over $200 US on a b!thcin new bib short, every reputable manufacturer has a $75 short that is totally adequate. If you don't crash in them they will last 5 years or hundreds of rides. Your cost per ride?... pennies!

You can get all the safety you need in a helmet for about the same price. It should be replaced every 2 to 3 years. Two rides a week for 3 years is 300 rides. Do the math. Cycling is cheap, even with good equipment. You can make it really expensive if you want to, but few sports are economical as cycling. So find anther reason to against helmet use, like maybe your head isn't really worth protecting.

Nice try Mr NikePropaganda. Your wrong. Show me your proof of your statements? I have no reason to hide. I've lived the fact. p.s Any company that has attempted several in your own words 'in and out' moves with cycling surely is adequete evidence of market upheave. i.e Tried to take advantage of Armstrong popularity. Buying out Girodandra for the rights to the jersey rights way back then. I apolgise for my spelling mistakes but i'm flying thru some hard turbelance right now.

 

[woodie]

Actually, the BBC recently published a piece contending that helmets don't necessarily increase the safety of the rider to the degree that is generically assumed by both cyclists and drivers on the open-road...

http://is.gd/eIGuw

"While many cyclists wouldn't leave home without clamping on their helmet, Dr Ian Walker, a professor of traffic psychology, has long believed head protection can work against someone on a bicycle..."

He's talking about what drivers perceptions are when they see a cyclist without a helmet not what helmets are actually for so as far as i'm concerned that article is irrelivant to the argument

 

[woodie]

Nice try Mr NikePropaganda. Your wrong. Show me your proof of your statements? I have no reason to hide. I've lived the fact. p.s Any company that has attempted several in your own words 'in and out' moves with cycling surely is adequete evidence of market upheave. i.e Tried to take advantage of Armstrong popularity. Buying out Girodandra for the rights to the jersey rights way back then. I apolgise for my spelling mistakes but i'm flying thru some hard turbelance right now.

Where's your proof???

 

[VeloFidelis]

Nice try Mr NikePropaganda. Your wrong. Show me your proof of your statements? I have no reason to hide. I've lived the fact. p.s Any company that has attempted several in your own words 'in and out' moves with cycling surely is adequete evidence of market upheave. i.e Tried to take advantage of Armstrong popularity. Buying out Girodandra for the rights to the jersey rights way back then. I apolgise for my spelling mistakes but i'm flying thru some hard turbelance right now.

Proof?? Hmmmm proof... OK See if you can follow this. Nike does not currently make cycling shoes or cycling clothing... Nada, Zip, nothing... they are done, can you explain that? I know many people there, and there are no plans for future cycling product. The LiveStrong stuff is a promotional contract with Lance, and they don't make it.

They have never made a consistent profit in cycling. They had a wonderful promotional opportunity with Lance Armstrong, and it initially paid huge dividends. (we'll see how the future of that plays out) But Nike generated more money with their women's Tempo Track short, than the entire Cycling division did in it's final year. As for the several "in and outs", each entry was followed by an exit as we have recently witnessed, and Nike doesn't usually say "no thanks" to making money.

Your Giordana ramble is incomprehensible to me, but then again most of your posts are. I can't wait to decipher the next cryptic message. As for the Mr Nike Propaganda title; I am not sure how panning Nike as a viable cycling company earns me such high esteem, but it does run consistent with your misguided attempts at logic