Helmet not mentioned.

[TonyR]

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

As I said originally it is interesting that the death rate has tripled. It may be that the factors you cite are responsible although I cannot recollect anything that would indicate that they changed significantly over the relevant period. But it is an interesting enough observation to be worth asking more questions. Of course if helmets worked as suggested then you should have seen a big decrease in deaths following mandatory helmets, not a big increase.

[Bonefishblues]

Why? As previously said there's insufficient data to draw any firm conclusions as it stands.

[TonyR]

Why? As previously said there's insufficient data to draw any firm conclusions as it stands.

Not firm conclusions no, but indicative ones. Otherwise you have to posit a big change in the conduct of professional cycle racing to explain the change and I am not aware of any indications that happened. Are you?

[[XAP]Bob]

One conclusion can be drawn - it's not made things better.

I cannot imagine that the spprt has tripled it's exposure and then stayed prerty static.

[Bonefishblues]

Why? As previously said there's insufficient data to draw any firm conclusions as it stands.

Not firm conclusions no, but indicative ones. Otherwise you have to posit a big change in the conduct of professional cycle racing to explain the change and I am not aware of any indications that happened. Are you?

I have no idea v-a-v the number of competitors, race miles etc across that period, which is missing data.

One can come up with all sorts of hypotheses worthy of further examination, such as the one in the OP v-a-v the high likelihood that the chap who died in the Tri was encouraged to push himself harder and go faster because of the feeling of security a helmet gave him (I paraphrase). Unlike the former, where more work could be done to produce meaningful conclusions, we will never know the latter, sadly.

[pjclinch]

We also need to know the extent to which the nature of competition has changed. While the Tour is still the Tour, MTB has risen a great deal and one component of that is downhill, which certainly encourages riders to take considerable risks going down big hills: it's the basic nature of the event. Ditto BMX Free cross: pro cycling is a broader thing these days, and the newer forms are arguably riskier, and have been an increasing part of the total sport over the last 10 years. If you don't take that in to account you're rather pulling numbers out of the air.

And while you might say that a helmet encourages risk taking on a descent, so does a $$$ bonus for winning the race.

Pete.

[Edwards]

And while you might say that a helmet encourages risk taking on a descent, so does a $$$ bonus for winning the race.

The last part does sound like hitting the plastic thing on the head.

[Tonyf33]

Deaths in pro cycling
1950s 8, 60s..4, 70s..4, 80s..5, 90s...3, then up to 2003 before the helmet law there were 2..after that there were another 7...

I don't think there is any more or less racing or fewer/more competitors..certainly less miles than they used to do BITD. However crashes ARE more prevalent, pro cyclists DO take far more risks than ever before and ride beyond both their own abilities and their equipments' far far too often with consequences that show in the mulitple crash scenarios on virtually every single day of every single grand tour in the last few years.
If those riders didn't have helmets I'd be pretty certain they would ride with far more respect for the conditions and fellow professional.

They can't even ride over manhole covers for gods sakes without crashing like out of control simpletons

[Vorpal]

But one could just as easily attribute it to the fact that pro cyclists now mostly ride twitchy carbon fibre butterflies instead of proper steel bikes.

[thirdcrank]

What prompted me to start this thread was my belief that had the deceased not been wearing a helmet, it would have been mentioned by the coroner and highlighted by the media as in "if only he'd been wearing a helmet....". Instead, it's a freak accident, with no mention of a helmet.

[Tonyf33]

What prompted me to start this thread was my belief that had the deceased not been wearing a helmet, it would have been mentioned by the coroner and highlighted by the media as in "if only he'd been wearing a helmet....". Instead, it's a freak accident, with no mention of a helmet.

Exactly, the conscious bias towards helmets prevents 'them' from making any negative noises about plaggy hats!
It could quite easily have said, that despite wearing a helmet the injury was fatal, given the tested design parameters of cycle helmets are far lower than the impact speed and forces involved it would have made little to no difference to the outcome. Indeed with all safety equipment offering a certain amount of risk compensation that could potentially be a factor in the speed of descent.

But you won't ever read anything like that from any quarters..because they are so blinded by the helmet rubbish they can't even bring themselves to say what are facts and very likely scenarios. Ones that if they did might actually bring about a change in attitude toward helmets and indeed the overall safety of cyclists..

[Bonefishblues]

What prompted me to start this thread was my belief that had the deceased not been wearing a helmet, it would have been mentioned by the coroner and highlighted by the media as in "if only he'd been wearing a helmet....". Instead, it's a freak accident, with no mention of a helmet.

Exactly, the conscious bias towards helmets prevents 'them' from making any negative noises about plaggy hats!
It could quite easily have said, that despite wearing a helmet the injury was fatal, given the tested design parameters of cycle helmets are far lower than the impact speed and forces involved it would have made little to no difference to the outcome. Indeed with all safety equipment offering a certain amount of risk compensation that could potentially be a factor in the speed of descent.

But you won't ever read anything like that from any quarters..because they are so blinded by the helmet rubbish they can't even bring themselves to say what are facts and very likely scenarios. Ones that if they did might actually bring about a change in attitude toward helmets and indeed the overall safety of cyclists..

It could - but we must remember that this was a report about the sad death of a Tri competitor in a tabloid, not a quasi-technical treatise on helmet performance and whether the wearing of a helmet does or does not result in an increased propensity to take risks.

For all we know the "freak" nature of the accident may have been that the poor guy hit his head on the only rock for miles around (or any one of a thousand other scenarios).

What we do know is that a fellow enthusiast lost his life in tragic circumstances

[Bicycler]

we must remember that this was a report about the sad death of a Tri competitor in a tabloid, not a quasi-technical treatise on helmet performance and whether the wearing of a helmet does or does not result in an increased propensity to take risks.

Agreed. However, If the media could remember that and cease to include any comments on helmets when reporting cyclist casualties then we could all go happily about our business and wouldn't be having this discussion.