reohn2 wrote:pwa wrote:In one particular area GT has a depth experience that most of us do not. he has probably been involved in, and witnessed, more falls than the great majority of cyclists. So he may well have a view on the efficacy of helmets. He could still be wrong, of course.
Yes but his view is skewed in that those falls are in a racing context,similarly so an F1 driver would witness and or be involved in crashes the same.
The problem here is that GT races bikes at a very high level and his view is from that perspective and not from an every day ordinary rider perspective.
That's the difference,and as such his view isn't representative of cycling as a whole,for that perspective Chris Boardman is the default cycling celebrity for the media to lsiten to.
PS,I don't hear of any F1 drivers claiming all drivers should wear a helmet,full harness and flame proof suit,though according to statistics perhaps the helmet would save motorists lives.
But GT sees and experiences modes of hitting the ground, trees or whatever that you or I could experience, the difference being his exposure to some risks is greater. He sees these incidents more than I do. I assume he also cycles in traffic sometimes unless he leads a monastic existence and only ventures out with an escort.
I'd leave F1 out of it. Too many differences. Head exposed to the elements at 180mph, history of drivers being burned alive in their seats.... I saw a bloke driving a Caterham on a public road a couple of weeks ago and he did have a helmet on...
Boardman's objections to the focus on helmets is not (unless I've missed something) that they offer no protection, but that they do not remove the main dangers and making them compulsory would deter some from cycling at all.