helmets worn at The Tour de France

Archer

helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby Archer » 25 Jul 2005, 10:10pm

Did any of you notice that helmets were worn at the tour de France this year?
There is a reason.... helmets can save lives!
On my side of the pond, helmets are required by all cycling clubs and touring groups. I know it's a bit of a reversal of attitudes but beleive me, it just makes sense. It's no grantee to prevent injury but every bit helps in lessening the degree
of brain injury. Any research to the contrary makes about as much sense as trying to show that smoking Camel cigarettes improves your wind. That was an
early cigarette advertisment.
The only downside of wearing a helmet is the inital cost and a good case of helmet hair. The better models have an adjustment in the back that conforms the helmet for a comfortable fit.
Ty it! you won't know you are wearing it.
Also, they tend to deflect a light rain.

Nurgles

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby Nurgles » 26 Jul 2005, 3:14am

So do you wear a helmet when you drive your car. ?This will surely lessen the degree of injury in the event of an accident.

gar

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby gar » 26 Jul 2005, 7:16am

When I go in for the tour de France I shall wear a helmet.

g

Tony Smith

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby Tony Smith » 26 Jul 2005, 1:22pm

I don't go in for the TDF but I wonder if anyone can recommend a helmet able to take 44 tonnes rolling over my head at 50mph?
In such a situation I'll believe the comment that I won't know I'm wearing it.

BTW has anyone done a risk assesment of helmet wearing for the TDF? I propose a speed limit of 12.5mph to ensure they remain within design limits...

TATANAB

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby TATANAB » 26 Jul 2005, 2:14pm

Archer, on your side of the pond the clubs etc require use of helmets because they are bothered by litigation. I do not know about whole states, but certainly counties within each state have their own laws and some counties do not require the use of helmets.

Helmets were required for the whole of the TdF for the first time this year. Maybe some of the TV interviews did not cross the water. Those being the ones where riders were saying they wore them because they had to, but given a choice they would not especially on hot climbs.

If a helmet is to have any effect, it has to be worn correctly. Some of the pros leave the straps way too loose. On the last day, even Lance Armstrong had his straps very loose but not undone.

gar

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby gar » 27 Jul 2005, 6:47am

helmets because they are bothered by litigation
Surely lawyers are capable of arguing ? There is litigation and l..i..t..i..g..a..t..i..o..n , two entirely different things, one of which would be the argument against wearing helmets.

It is the manufacturers and salesmen with huge markup profits to think about.

g

John S

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby John S » 27 Jul 2005, 1:25pm

Helmets do not save lives. Read the excellent article by a professional helmet tester about the technology of cycle helmets in the last CTC Cycle magazine.

They are designed to afford a measure of protection if the rider fall off his bike at less than 12mph and strikes his head on a flat surface.

They are not designed to withstand impacts against curved or sharp objects, or any collision at speed greater than 12mph, and hence are of no more use than a chocolate teapot when a rider is hit by a vehicle, or crashes at high speed, especially if he hits his head against a kerb or another vehicle.

The reason US cyclists wear helmets dates from the time in the 1970s when careless and aggressive drivers drove leisure cyclists off the roads of California and into mountainbiking - in mountainbiking you are very likely to fall off your bike (some would say it's part of the fun) and often onto a rough or rocky surface or a tree.

The average adult British cyclist is very unlikely to crash, compared to other hazards such as falling down stairs, getting run over crossing the road, developing a cancer or electrocution during DIY operations.

Based on the proportion of head injuries in collisions, a very good case could be made for pedestrians and motor vehicle users to wear crash helmets before any compulsion was placed on cyclists - pedestrians and motor vehicle users are more likely to suffer head injuries in a collision than cyclists.

trk1983

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby trk1983 » 27 Jul 2005, 9:49pm

Forgive me if I continue to wear my helmet for psychological reasons - I'm sure I cycle more carefully, or is that courageously....

On the issue, in an ideal world do I need to replace my helmet every year due to micro-fractures? It cost me £60 (I have a big head so specialist helmet required)!

gar

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby gar » 28 Jul 2005, 8:57am

The reason US cyclists wear helmets dates from the time in the 1970s when careless and aggressive drivers drove leisure cyclists

It was a national sport to knock cyclists off
much as it is Motorcyclists in this country today.

g

nigel

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby nigel » 3 Aug 2005, 1:03pm

It is an undisputable fact that wearing a helmet will not prevent an accident.
Helmets may well save the occasional life but it is the prevention of 'accidents' that will save the most lives.
I predict that one day a TDF rider will die with head injuries despite wearing a helmet. Where will that leave us?
And I still think the emphasis should have been on high visibility first -before helmets were ever debated.

Nigel

handallyingharry

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby handallyingharry » 4 Aug 2005, 4:19am

it is the prevention of 'accidents' that will save the most lives.

I agree with this Clunk click campaign by Jimmy Savill has been effective ever since. Every body wears them and it saves several lives every year.

Cyclists ALL wearing helmets on road might save one or two, but we would need to know
the facts of cyclist deaths to know that for certain before taking things any further.

Handallying

Stilly

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby Stilly » 4 Aug 2005, 11:48am

Just to put my two penneth worth in. I wear a helmet not because it will save my life (the current evidence supports that fact) but because if I do get knocked off at least it is one less thing the Insurance company cannot cite as a reason for not paying out. This has happened to my knowledge a couple of times where a cyclist has been knocked off their bike by a motorist and the insurance company has refused to pay out because the cyclist was not wearing a helmet, although I believe that the decisions have been succesfully challenged in court.

happiness is 30 miles in the Rain

handallyingharry

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby handallyingharry » 5 Aug 2005, 7:52am

I wear a helmet not because it will save my life (the current evidence supports that fact) What? the fact that it will not or the fact that it will?

at least it is one less thing the Insurance company cannot cite as a reason for not paying ou ???

You'll get a citation for rain cycling!

30 miles in the rain in warm weather is pure joy; it is quite pleasant naked on the beach too but that is another matter!

Handallyingharry

handallyingharry

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby handallyingharry » 6 Aug 2005, 1:12pm

phpbb.com

So many good things come from the Far East,
like ju jitsu, karate, tai kwondo, imimitable martial arts, but then when we think about it we have our own team and individual martial arts in Rugby and boxing.

It is the same with "Herlmets" from Korea.
It is surpriring they don't give it a Korean name to make a bigger impression; I s'pse they think the impression is what they charge for them.

If you are going to use a main road (Idiot)
then wear one. It won't make any difference
except psychologically; you may also peer in
to your stars and that may help too.

Handally

Pinky

Re:helmets worn at The Tour de France

Postby Pinky » 6 Aug 2005, 4:34pm

The helmet debate will go on forever.

I wear one everytime that I get on my bike.
I also wear good visible "bikng clothes" with reflective surfaces.
I am comfortable wearing the helmet and do not eperience overheating. I cover it in cold/rainy weather with a yellow waterproofcover - it also keeps my head warm on cold days. On my normal days cycling over the year I average, as near as damn it, 10 mph. so at 68 years old I am hardly a speed freak. But last year I cycled 4985 miles and this year so far I am over 3000 miles. ( including my trip down and back up the Danube).

I just don't understand all the venom that the anti helmet brigade hiss out. I quite understand the severe limitations of the helmet as it is designed and control BUT apart from the small protection it provides ( and that small protection has been very usefull on 2 occassions) it is an aid in litigation.
Now you may all get very uptight about lititgation, but as a cyclist you have to aim to get everything in your favour -- and cycling in UK is regarded with very little heed in legal/Insurabce circles.
If you are sensible you must take up every small stick that you can find to pretect yourself in the inevitable occurence of an incident involveing a blameworthy motorist/pedestrian.
Wearing a helmet is one of those sticks, just like a red or yellow shirt and reflective strips everywhere.
It is my belief that cycling in UK will never achive that "visibility" that it has on the continent of Europe -- just try crossing yoiyiuu a road in UK where the rare cyclepath has priority over the motorist ( also a v rare event) - you will take your life in your hands -- and in th event of you being injured the courts will be weighed against you.

So why not wear the gear (including the helmet) and be insured . Then you are halfway to winning again the blind mad motorist (and the blind, deaf pedestrian swearing at you as he is walking on the cycle path)