yet in the USA all riders Pro or Amateur are required to wear a helmet at all times during competition and you don’t hear one complaint, it’s the rules and you follow them.
I disagree with your logic
yet in the USA all riders Pro or Amateur are required to wear a helmet at all times during competition and you don’t hear one complaint, it’s the rules and you follow them.
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.
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.
Then how far should they go? The unfortunate death of Nicole Reinhart proves that wearing a helmet of current design doesn’t mean you won’t die. So should the UCI beef up the standards? Maybe make the helmets bigger, more foam, full face protection. Where does it stop? How safe is safe enough? What about chest protectors? Neck braces? I’m just wondering what is safe enough.
Speaking of Nicole Reinhart’s death. Why is it when she died it was accepted by all that it was an unfortunate accident, but when Kivilev or Casartelli died, it’s because they weren’t wearing helmets? Why didn’t people rage after Nicole’s death that helmets need to be made safer?
Isn’t it ironic that we in the U.S. can only argue for personal freedom, our country’s reason for being, over what happens in Europe? Evidently, suing people for allowing you to be stupid isn’t the growth industry there that it is here.
Eric,
OK, I am definitely with you on all of the personal freedom issues. I tend to react very strongly against rules and laws that tell me that I HAVE to wear a seatbelt or helmet. I also don’t need the lecture on life being terminal. I rather understand that one too. I have never made the claim that I am qualified to make decisions for others.
I think (here I go again with thoughts) that it is in the best interest of the governing body of a sport to take those steps it deems as appropriate to help reduce the risks associated with participating in that sport. I would imagine that any steps which are so drastic as to severly impact the nature of the sport itself would not be considered “appropriate”. If the UCI were to implement a helmet rule for its races, it would not be decreeing that all bike riders “have to” wear helmets. Only that riders that wish to ride in UCI events must wear helmets. Big difference. If the UCI thinks such a rule is unreasonable, then it is certainly their choice to not implement it. I might disagree with such a decision, but obviously I’m an outsider and my opinion here matters little. All I’m suggesting is a regulation for racing. Nothing more. I’ve said nothing of general helmet laws or restrictions. Why do I think governing bodies ought to make an effort to reduce risks where reasonable to do so? Certainly not because I feel that without these risks athletes would live forever. But because I think that our society is such that dangerous sports become very expensive sports from a legal standpoint and that in general, looking out for one another (within reason) is a good thing.
As for the idea that “What you do with your own time on this planet should be up to you,” I don’t necessarily agree and my guess is that I’m not alone. I think one of the reasons things like prisons and legal systems exist is to ensure that people don’t act in whatever manner they choose.
If you have such issues with with I “think” or what others “think”, then I question your motivation for visiting a public forum where the point is for people to exchange their “thoughts”.
Dave
As for the idea that “What you do with your own time on this planet should be up to you,” I don’t necessarily agree and my guess is that I’m not alone. I think one of the reasons things like prisons and legal systems exist is to ensure that people don’t act in whatever manner they choose. If you have such issues with with I “think” or what others “think”, then I question your motivation for visiting a public forum where the point is for people to exchange their “thoughts”.
I should have qualified that. What you do with your time on this planet should be up to you so long as it doesn’t violate the rights of others.
I didn’t say, or even imply, there was anything wrong with you having thoughts or sharing them on a public message board. I said the problem is when “your thoughts” become “someone else’s laws and restrictions.” Big difference. If everyone’s thoughts and wishes were all made into laws, we would literally have no freedom at all. That was all I meant.
Eric, would you sign this, “I, Eric Kornarske, take full responsibility for my actions; therefore, I or my estate will forgo any litigation and agree to pay for and reimburse anyone, public or private, for any expenses, medical or otherwise, for the privilege of not wearing a helmet. I also agree not to pursue any medical insurance reimbursement because I am responsible for my own decisions and do not wish the members of my group to be impacted financially for these personal decisions because their rates will rise or policy cancelled.” If you would sign something like this you would be a responsible hero in my eyes.
Bob Sigerson
I would not sign it with the included medical insurance statement. Part of me being responsible for myself is purchasing medical insurance so my bills won’t have to be covered by someone else in the event of an accident. We all, when we sign on the dotted line for insurance, accept that we are part of a community of people with a collective pool of money, and that if never used, the money we put in goes to help others, and it’s a total loss on our part. That’s a CHOICE and a gamble we all willingly make when we buy insurance. And if you don’t accept that gamble, you don’t buy insurance.
Trying to claim that buying and using health insurance means you’re not being responsible for yourself is really lame. If I didn’t have insurance, and I was trying to get someone else to pay, then you’d have a point.
The real victims are the young child that doesn’t have a father any more, and the wife who no longer has a husband. All because Kivilev decided he didn’t need a helmet that day. What a loss…
Eric, insurance is not a gamble. It is the transfer of risk using the law of large numbers. In other words, it has a large number of people paying for mistakes for which you may or may not be responsible (in this case you are). I will also tell you a decision to not wear a helmet will impact a whole lot of people outside of the immediate family. No “I think” here.
There should be a rule.
Bob Sigerson
Then how far should they go?
I don’t feel much like quibbling over where to draw the line as far as head protection is concerned. Obviously, in the design of helmets, there is some threshold for diminishing returns and there are experts out there that research this and establish standards.
It remains my opinion that the UCI bears responsibility for maximising rider safety in UCI sanctioned events. Especially when it comes to potential head injuries, which is a particularly nasty category of injury.
In this case, even the most minimal of helmets, in terms of protection, would likely have saved Andrei’s life, and his little boy wouldn’t now be fatherless. So sad.
If I am not mistaken, many years ago, they did try to enact a rule where all TdF riders had to wear a helmet. I believe it was enacted mid race though and that might have been part of the probelm. The riders reacted by getting off their bikes at the start whistle of the stage that the helmet rule began and had a sit down protest right there on the street and refused to race until the race organzation gave in. If I am mistaken, please correct me.
A man died in the swim of the Noosa triathlon either last year or the year before. Should we have to wear life jackets? This is a non-wetsuit race due to the temperature.
I am not for reinforcing the use of helmets. As Erik said, then, we will have speed limits downhills, distance to respect when sprinting etc…
!
Ok you must not be one of the 48,000+ USAT members that races under manditory helmet rules
or one of the USA Cyling members where helmets are also manditory.
But I would like you to show me those draconian sprinting rules that must have been passed or the downhill speed limits? surely that must have come hand in hand with the helmet rule…didn’t think so
They are not mandaited in pro hockey and I see no one without a lid. Does that say something about bikers:-) I don’t ride without one.
Dirtball
It is my personal belief that part of the role of the governing body of an organization is to protect the welfare of its members.
Studies have shown that 80 - 90% of brain injuries (from bicycle accidents) could be prevented by a bicycle helmet. That is why there is such a push to have people wear them… There is no research that says that wearing chest protectors would do anything… the goal is not to reduce risk to 0 (which is impossible) the goal is to implement changes which would significantly improve the safety of people. Now we can argue about siginificant all day but there is very little that you can argue about an 80 - 90% success rate.
So in reply to anyone who asks where will the line for regulation be drawn? I would say that the line will be drawn on an individual product basis depending on the whether there is substantial reason to employ it…
Now for my rant… a person died and widowed his wife and left behind a child.
It is a fact that if every rider wore a helmet this would cut down on fatal head injuries from bike accidents… This is as close to indisputable as scientific evidence. If you disagree, why don’t you go smoke some cigarettes, drink some antifreeze adn tell me how you feel in a couple of years. Call me a socialist / communist / tree hugger, whatever but I think if a couple hours of uncomfortable riding for a handful of people means that even one professional rider will be able to live through an accident, I think that that is a VERY VERY SMALL price to pay. The point thought, something like this requires full compliance, if they make such a rule, and people protest, and someone dies or is permanently diabled because they were not wearing a helmet… I ould definately say that they had some bad karma coming their way
It was a professional cyclist in Europe that died and the last time I checked they dont have to wear helmets.
It makes sense that USAT and USA cycling federations in this country enforce the mandatory wearing of helmets, hell I remember reading somewhere last year about a crit run in the rain, fella hit a manhole, bike went out from under him and he sued.
You try that anywhere in Europe and you’d be laughed out of court, which part of the personal responsibility did he fail to grasp when he got on the bike?
Here though organizations cant take the risk, here the head of USAT could be sued for looking the wrong way at a stop light. In this country if you know that helmets can potentially save lives you are going to enforce that rule because the one idiot that gets on that bike, ends up in coma with spinal injuries would end up suing claiming the RD was negligent. Simply could / would not happen in Europe
Kivilev and all other pro’s know the risks, have access to I am sure great physicians and health care providers, if they choose with in the rules not to wear a helmet so be it…