Bike.com also added that he is on life support. I wonder when these guys, and any one out there who does not use a helmet every ride, will learn understand that the human skull offers very little crash protection.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

By VeloNews Interactive

This report filed March 11, 2003


Cofidis's Andrei Kivilev remained in a drug-induced coma late Tuesday following his fall in the second stage of Paris-Nice, according to his team doctor in Saint-Etienne.

Kivilev, who finished fourth in the 2001 Tour de France, lost consciousness after his fall and was rushed to a hospital where he has been undergoing tests.

"He has cerebral edema (general swelling of the brain)," said the Cofidis team's doctor Jean-Jacques Menuet. "We still have to wait a few hours before we can make a full diagnosis."

The 29-year-old from Kazakstan is still on a life support system. Physicians often use a drug-induced coma to reduce any unnecessary activity on the patient's part that might increase blood pressure. Doctors also administer high doses of steroids and mannitol and often adjust ventilator settings to decrease the CO2 content in the blood to aid in reducing the swelling.

Kivilev was not wearing a helmet when he fell around 40 kilometers from the finish line of the 182.5km stage in the company of two other riders, his Polish teammate Marek Rutkiewicz and German Volker Ordowski.

Kivilev's face took the full impact of the crash and he is also thought to have broken ribs.

Normal treatment protocols suggest that doctors will leave Kivilev in the drug-induced coma for the next two or three days and then conduct an extensive CAT scan to assess the condition of his brain.

(The French wire service AFP contributed to this report)

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"on your Left"

I agree with the helmet comment, but I'm not sure it would have made a difference in this case... "Kivilev's face took the full impact of the crash and he is also thought to have broken ribs. "

Actually bike helmets are designed to cushion frontal impacts as well. unless he hit something square with the front of his face (ie not the ground) the helmet would have helped... either way I have to say that we are hoping the best for him... but unfortunately this is another one of those cautionary tales

wear you helmets... or run the risk of becoming a cautionary tale

While certainly adding my concern for the rider in this case, I have to pile in on the helmet issue. My team had to give a guy a last warning this week for showing up for a FAST "A" ride once again without a helmet (This was apparently the 5TH time he's done so!). Oh, to be 19, and stupid again. NOT! We told him if he shows up again without a helmet, he's off the team. We'll refund his $, but can't be responsible for his stupidity. Too bad. He's a strong rider and triathlete for his age and shows promise. Hopefully he'll listen. Probably not, though.

Gonna be a bad day.....Kivilev has died. Regardless of ANY of the circumstances, this is bad news. They'll never know, but I'm sure most of us grieve in some small way with his family, friends, and team. Sad.

[/reply]My team had to give a guy a last warning this week for showing up for a FAST "A" ride once again without a helmet (This was apparently the 5TH time he's done so!).[/reply][/reply] My team had to give a guy a last warning this week for showing up for a FAST "A" ride once again without a helmet (This was apparently the 5TH time he's done so!).[/reply][/reply][/reply][/reply][/reply][/reply][/reply][/reply]

That's pretty patient! My rule is that I don't ride unless everyone has a helmet. No tolerance on this issue. 1st, it is simply too dangerous. Next, I think you get more respect from motorists if you have respect for yourself. And lastly, they get the message real fast so that either they don't ride with you, or the problem gets solved. If he wants to come to NC I'll be happy to show him the helmet I broke into 6 pieces on a fall 12 years ago. I was fine and did IMH the next week. W/o the helmet I would have been chef salad!



david[/reply][/reply][/reply][/reply][/reply]

---

David
* Ironman for Life! (Blog) * IM Everyday Hero Video * Daggett Shuler Law *
Disclaimer: I have personal and professional relationships with many athletes, vendors, and organizations in the triathlon world.

yes it does suck that he died. what really sucks is that if it was not for the lack of 9oz of plastic and styrofoam he might still be with us.

[shakes head in sorrow]

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"on your Left"

That's pretty much my standard response to helmetless riders. We stipulated mandatory helmets at all rides in the team rules. I haven't been present at the rides this guy has been on sans helmet. I would have sent him home BEFORE the first ride. I've got no tolerance for stupidity of that sort and have no problem making myself clear that the person is unwelcome until they comply with the rule. The email from the pres this week was the first I learned of the situation.

While I would never ride without a helmet, it is the decision of the rider to strap one on. Most pro cyclists do not wear helmets for these types of rides (usually only for TTs etc.). This could have been any rider that day that fell and then died. Each person takes what ever risks they choose to, and they (and their families in most cases) deal with the consequences. (and don't give me the analogy of the drunk behind the wheel of a car - a car is a 2000lb weapon). Kivilev took what risks he felt were acceptable to him, and he died because of it.

Keep in mind that triathlon in an individual sport and cycling is a team sport. The dynamic of pack riding is very different in these two cases. When you ride with advanced, experienced cyclists who work together as a team, the safety level is far greater than the weekly ride of a pack of triathletes who are used to training and racing alone more often than not.

Don't get me wrong, I think all cyclists should wear helmets, particularly if I'm riding with them ;-). But if someone chooses not to, I can't force them. That's what my tri club's ride director is for...

---

------------------------
"How bad could it be?" - SimpleS

I think that it is the responsibility of the governing body (UCI) to determine whether it is in the interest of their members to let them make that decision. The governing body has a resposibility to promote the sport but to also look out for the welfare of their members...

The evidence is overwhelming when looking at safety and helmets. Similair to seat belts in cars. BAck in the day it was your choice whether to wear a seatbelt or not... now it really isn't your choice. Sometimes personl liberties have to be sacrificed for the greater good.

Surely there would be huge resistance with a mandatory helmet rule, but there would also fewer tragedies... FEWER not none...

Very sad news, indeed. Kivilev was one rider I really liked.

The UCI (cycling's governing body) needs to get with it and mandate helmet usage. Cyclists presently accept the risks and forego using a helmet to gain a, albeit minor, competitive advantage (weight, comfort). Simply requiring their use, as in Belgium and here in the States, will solve this issue once and for all. From all indications, this is a tragedy that could have easily been prevented by a little bit of foam.

:(

Sure, the UCI can dictate the rules re: helmets here. And with this tragedy there will be increased calls for changes to the helmet rules. But I don't necessarily agree with your comment about the "personl [sic] liberties have to be sacrificed for the greater good." I fail to see the greater good here. So we can continue to enjoy watching K climb those hills? So his team mates have a great team member? So his team directors and sponsors have a place to put ads and (hopefully) collect some purse monies? The "greater good" in this case is a relatively small circle of people. We're not talking about someone who will, by his choice to wear a helmet or not, kill others. He only stands to kill himself. Governments and sport governing bodies put restrictions & legislation in place to protect people from themselves and others, with the goal being peace & order for all. But ultimately, the individual is responsible for themselves as well. How far do you want safety legislation taken? Should we be able to ride bikes w/o licenses? w/o wearing huge amounts of safety gear? It's a fine line, and a slippery slope.

---

------------------------
"How bad could it be?" - SimpleS

I should clarify by greater goos I was talking more specifically about the seatbelt thing but I think it applies to this situation as well

This is the thought process:

Seatbelts are shown to save lives
Some people do not want to wear seatbelts for personal reasons
Government mandates seatbelt wearing in cars

The government mandate infringes or takes away the right to choose not to wear a seatbelt but it does it for the greater good of having less people die...

When a person dies it does not only impact them... actually the impact to them is in a sense none (insert existenstialist spiritual comment here) there is a greater impact on the community, the family of the person, health care system who took care of him/her.

The area of personal liberties and governmental regulation is a fuzzy one and depends a lot on personal views...

However I do not think that the line is crossed in that there is very very good evidence that helmets save lives, just as it was shown that seatbelts save lives.

Where the line gets fuzzy is when there are questionable benefits to the intrusion... Whenever these things come up the question that has to be answered is "are the benfits greater then the costs"

The benefit to wearing a helmet is very significant increased ability to survive a crash. Seeing as life has an "inifinite" monetary and social price the cost benefit analysis is pretty simple in my mind...

No they don't. The reason they're called "professional" bike racers is because they're the best at what they do. Who are you (we) to decide what's the best way for them to do their job? They know the risks. If they decide not wearing a helmet is the best way to do their job, well...

You do realize that bicycle racing is an extremely dangerous sport regardless of whether or not you're wearing a helmet, don't you? They do 70 mph down twisty mountain roads, and I guarantee if they slide off the side, they're dead no matter what they're wearing. It's a dangerous sport, and the only way to enforce perfect safety is to eliminate the sport. Car and motorcycle racers have a far higher mortality rate than bike racers do. Where's the outcry about that?

I always wear a helmet, but I sure don't need someone telling me I have to. And riding a bike isn't even what puts food on my table. Leave those who do it for a living to their own decisions.

"It's a dangerous sport, and the only way to enforce perfect safety is to eliminate the sport. Car and motorcycle racers have a far higher mortality rate than bike racers do. Where's the outcry about that?"

I don't think that anybody is trying to enforce or ensure "perfect safety". It just seems that there are some relatively simple and reasonable steps that could be taken to make the sport more safe with little impact to the nature of the sport. Helmets will certainly not eliminate all risks to the sport, but they may help prevent some serious injuries and deaths. At what cost? I think the cost is minimal. The nature of the sport wouldn't change, ie courses need not be changed, speeds aren't reduced, etc. I guess the big cost is riders might not look as cool. I'd do what the NHL did and have a helmet rule that grandfathers in existing riders such that they are not required to wear helmets. (TTs may have to have some special rules due to the nature of aero helmets.)

Yes car and motorcycle racing is very dangerous. Have you any idea the number of safety restrictions and regulations in those sports?? Safety has a HUGE impact on car design as well as on the equipment that the rider/driver must wear.

And this is the problem... "you" think. Great, you think the cost is minimal, so YOU always wear a helmet. When "I think" turns into "you have to", the line has been crossed. Again I ask what makes you or anyone else more qualified to make that decision than the person in question? I still haven't heard an answer.

People die every day due partly to what food they put in their mouth, and they know the risks. Do you want me to come to your house and toss everything "I think" is bad for you? "I think the cost is minimal." Do you do other things in your life that could potentially kill you? Do you want/need somone else to tell you that you can no longer do them?

Life is terminal. What you do with your own time on this planet should be up to you. I hope you realize that this flawed logic will eventually get cyclists banned from riding on public roads, period. It will eventually happen when enough other people make the decision for us that the risk is just too great. The ball is already rolling.

yet in the USA all riders Pro or Amateur are required to wear a helmet at all times during competition [Road, Tri, Dirt or BMX] and you don't hear one complaint, it's the rules and you follow them.

I disagree with your logic

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"on your Left"

That's only been a rule for about the last 15 years or so. When I started racing, helmets were not a requirement. And guess what... I'm not dead.

And since you disagree with my logic, which I guess means you think someone else should make decisions to ensure your safety, I'm on my way to your house to eliminate everything "I think" is a potential threat to your life. I hope you're ready to live a very boring, but safe, life.

Actually our government does tell you a lot of things you can't have in your house. Lead based paint and asbestos come to mind as examples. Try looking at you local building code of a book worth of examples.

The UCI mandates all sorts of things cyclists can and can't wear already. Adding a helmet rule would be simply that, adding a rules to the list of rules which already exist.

Richard

I may be wrong, but I think the vast majority of professionals that go helmetless would have little qualm over such a rule (sure, climbing the Ventoux on a hot day will suck..) beyond the initial whining. I know in the past they resisted against such measures, but the times and equipment are changing. In any flat race/stage, most riders in the peleton will be wearing a helmet *by choice*. I think that any competitive advantage (such as going w/o a helmet on hot climbs), perceived or real, weighs heavily into their decision process when it comes to risk taking (and I doubt any would argue that foregoing a helmet isn't risk taking). Having a helmet rule would level the playing field and eliminate the need for such a decision by the riders.

As has been stated already, there are already plenty of rules set by the UCI regarding equipment and attire. Sure, risk is inherent to bicycle racing, but what is wrong with attempting to minimise the risk? I think this is part of the duty of any governing body like the UCI.

All IMHO, of course.

EuroSport carried an interview with Jean-Marie LeBlanc (race organiser and organiser of the TdF) after today's stage coverage. He said the UCI should now look into making wearing a helmet compulsory even in the pro-ranks. In fact, his words were something along the lines that if the riders are stupid enough not to wear them then the UCI must take that decision for them and enforce it.

If you saw the coverage today, it was **VERY** ironic how all the Confidis team rode into the finish all wearing helmets. They had to really, but at least it sent out the right message that pro's do wear helmets sometimes, even when it is sadly too late.