Helmet not mentioned.

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
thirdcrank
Posts: 28687
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Helmet not mentioned.

Postby thirdcrank » 29 Aug 2014, 1:23pm

This is prompted by reports of the inquest into the death of Rob Evans who died after crashing in an ironman event in France last year. I've read several media reports and all seem broadly similar so I presume it's one report that's been syndicated. Although it's not mentioned in those reports, I also presume he was wearing a helmet when he crashed because it would be required by the event's rules.

For some reason that's not clear to me, some reports of the rider's death are headlined that this was a "freak accident" although the reported evidence is that
... (he) fell off his bike and smashed his head on a rock after losing control on a fast descent. ...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/c ... 96005.html

This is the flip-side of the "my helmet saved me" argument. Although we'll never know, it seems more than likely to me that that the rider felt encouraged to push himself like this to gain time downhill because his helmet gave him an increased feeling of safety. It's not mentioned in the reports I've read whether the coroner considered this possibility: coroners and the media are often quick to remark on the absence of a helmet. (Before anybody points it out, I'm not suggesting that the helmet didn't work as intended. There must be some impacts to the head that no helmet would protect against, but that's not a reason for never wearing one.)

I've not lost sight of the fact that this death was a sad loss of a young life, especially to the bereaved

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby TonyR » 29 Aug 2014, 2:08pm

It is noticeable that the death rate of professional cyclists in competition has tripled since around the time mandatory helmets were introduced by the UCI.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4421
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby Mike Sales » 29 Aug 2014, 2:16pm

TonyR wrote:It is noticeable that the death rate of professional cyclists in competition has tripled since around the time mandatory helmets were introduced by the UCI.


Do you have a reference for this?

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby TonyR » 29 Aug 2014, 2:32pm

From another cycling forum:
Image Attachments
ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1409319117.458885.jpg

Mike Sales
Posts: 4421
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby Mike Sales » 29 Aug 2014, 2:45pm

Thanks, TonyR. I would appreciate more details, if poss.

Bonefishblues
Posts: 7372
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby Bonefishblues » 29 Aug 2014, 2:46pm

The UCI made them compulsory in May 2003 - this seems to illustrate a trend wich started prior to this, or am I misreading?

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17178
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby [XAP]Bob » 29 Aug 2014, 3:11pm

Also says nothing about number of competetitors/competitions.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby TonyR » 29 Aug 2014, 3:39pm

True its not definitive. It doesn't account for the number of professional cyclists nor the number of races and the inflection point could be anywhere from 1998 to 2003 but its an interesting indication. I doubt that professional cyclists or races tripled over a short period of time and helmet use was already rising in the late '90's/early '00's. Which is why the UCI mandatory helmet requirement succeeded in 2003 when it had previously failed in 1991 - the cyclists went on strike over it and it was withdrawn.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17909
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby Vorpal » 29 Aug 2014, 4:28pm

TonyR wrote: I doubt that professional cyclists or races tripled over a short period of time and helmet use was already rising in the late '90's/early '00's. Which is why the UCI mandatory helmet requirement succeeded in 2003 when it had previously failed in 1991 - the cyclists went on strike over it and it was withdrawn.

What do you count as professional races? If professional racing includes all Elite races, I doubt that the publically available information is sufficent to give us correct statistics, at least without someone doing their thesis on it. If it means those included in the UCI season calendar, the UCI have restructured the race calendar twice in this period. The number of professional races included has indeed tripled.

Prior to 2005, the international professional races were those included in the UCI World Cup, which was 9 races, according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCI_Road_World_Cup

UCI restructured first in 2005, when they created the ProTour, then they expanded it with the addition of races in other countries (beginning with the Tour Down Under).

A couple of years ago, they merged the ProTour and world ranking. It now includes races all over the world. The current calendar includes 28 races.

Edited to add: some of the information, plus references about professional cyclists who having died is available at Cyclehelmets.org http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1213.html but, IMO, even what they publish is misleading.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby TonyR » 29 Aug 2014, 5:45pm

The data is professional cyclist killed in competition, not professional cyclists killed in UCI competitions. I believe it originated with the Wikipedia list edited to remove those cases where a helmet had no involvement in the death e.g. a heart attack.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17909
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby Vorpal » 29 Aug 2014, 10:08pm

TonyR wrote:The data is professional cyclist killed in competition, not professional cyclists killed in UCI competitions. I believe it originated with the Wikipedia list edited to remove those cases where a helmet had no involvement in the death e.g. a heart attack.

But that list includes a number of deaths during training rides, and the list of deaths during competition is incomplete. An analysis like that doesn't make any sense without including the number of races, kilometers travelled, or hours spent racing. There is otherwise, no fair comparison.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby TonyR » 29 Aug 2014, 10:17pm

Vorpal wrote:But that list includes a number of deaths during training rides, and the list of deaths during competition is incomplete. An analysis like that doesn't make any sense without including the number of races, kilometers travelled, or hours spent racing.


Do you think that those factors suddenly trebled over a small number of years? And if the list in incomplete you can always go into Wikipedia and add the missing deaths to improve the data.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17909
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby Vorpal » 29 Aug 2014, 10:32pm

TonyR wrote:
Vorpal wrote:But that list includes a number of deaths during training rides, and the list of deaths during competition is incomplete. An analysis like that doesn't make any sense without including the number of races, kilometers travelled, or hours spent racing.


Do you think that those factors suddenly trebled over a small number of years? And if the list in incomplete you can always go into Wikipedia and add the missing deaths to improve the data.


I don't know if they have trebled, but without that information, or some other means to understand exposure, the number of deaths is meaningless.

edited to add: and exposure also cannot account for other factors, such as how difficult the organisers make the race
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17178
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby [XAP]Bob » 29 Aug 2014, 10:44pm

Any stats on broken limbs as a comparison?
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Helmet not mentioned.

Postby bovlomov » 29 Aug 2014, 11:03pm

We did have a similar thread about it - similarly lacking any conclusions.

The conclusion I draw is this: The governing bodies must have some of the data, but they are not keen to share it. That in itself should raise suspicions. Surely if their safety policies were effective they would waste no time in publicising the fact.

A less sinister conclusion is that the policy was introduced without either a clear understanding of the current situation or any procedure for measuring the effects of that policy. But that would mean they are idiots.

[See Phil Fouracre's signature]