Dumbass rules

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

> Riding without gloves looks really stupid to those of use who've fallen off our bikes. I don't
> think I've ever scraped up a shoulder.

I never wear gloves except during races and then it's often long-fingered gloves. As for shoulders,
try going down hard in a corner and not scraping your shoulder. FYI, wear a t-shirt underneath to
greatly reduce road rash under a jersey.

-WG

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bob Schwartz wrote:
> > Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >>
> >>>Do you beat your wife?
> >>
> >
> >>If I had one, I'm sure I would.
> >
> >
> > Are there enough that they can gang up on you?
> >
> > Bob Schwartz [email protected]
>
> I'm holding out for one that can fight me to a draw.

Hang out backstage at the Springer show and take your pick.

 

[Steve McGinty]

On 29 May 2003 04:05:18 -0700, [email protected] (John Forrest Tomlinson) wrote:

>"Andrew Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> If you think of both of those rules in the case where you are crashing and sliding on the ground,
>> I think they both make plenty of sense. I've seen shoes with toes exposed after a long slide.
>> I've seen jerseys slide nicely on pavement without seriously damaging the skin below. Reducing
>> injury is the name of the game.
>
>This doesn't make sense. Why draw the line there? Why not long sleeves and long pants? Or at least
>lengths that cover the knees and elbows, which are fairly likely to get road rash. I've seen elbows
>after a long slide too, but they're not required to be covered.
>
>The real reason for the rules is tradition and uniformity. I think there's some value to that.
>Sleeveless jerseys are not part of the bike racer look. And there is something to be said to having
>participants in the sport look more uniform -- it makes the sport look more serious/important to
>outsiders.
>
>JT
IIRC there was no "rule" about sleeves until the late '80s when some of the Tour riders starter
cutting the sleeves off on hot days. This was declared "un-aesthetic" and the rule on what
constitutes a cycling jersey was introduced.

Regards! Stephen

 

[Chris Mitchell]

>Raptor wrote and started this late April fools joke and Ken Papai wrote Ewoud Dronkert wrote Donald
>Munro wrote AND Heather, Henry, JFT, Kyle, TomK and many more wrote:

Many comments on sleeveless jersies and appropriate footwear.

Denizens of rbr, Proper dress is important to success in the field of competitive cycling. I believe
the rules exist for a reason. I am unsure of what exactly that reason is, but I CAN help clarify the
location of several of these sartorial guidelines. Please refrain from applause.

Officials shall check cycling shorts for clean chamois. I believe the shorts should be worn
inside-out to ease this action for the officials. This is probably in the rulebook under section
Y2K. Or KY.

Cycling jersies require sleeves so the lame-ass tan lines (where applicable) we
lost-children-of-the-farm flaunt do not nauseate the general public or cause small children to
convulse with laughter at our manic preening. This rule may be found in the same section of the
handbook which details the professional ethical standards required to be head of our national
cycling federation. Go look.

Section 5, Article III, subparagraph i, clause OU812 notes: Cycling shoes should be seen and not
detected via the olfactory function. Cycling sandals should be scene. Especially if these sandals
are the new Shimano model PeD-File, particularly popular with many Catholic priests in my diocese
here in the people's republic of Massachusetts.

Regards,

Chris Mitchell I wear shoes, thank you very much

 

[Donald Munro]

Dashi Toshii wrote:
> Sorry to hear about the injury, I can empathize, I did the same a couple of years ago.
Thanks. Looking on the bright side I've got a few really exciting weeks on an indoor trainer
ahead of me.

 

[Les Earnest]

Benjamin Weiner wrote:
> Not to advocate for the return of the white sock rule, but tradition is important, and to take
> what you and JFT are saying a bit further, one of the reasons against sleeveless jerseys is to
> distinguish roadies from tri geeks. Even if we are both members of the oppressed minority of
> bicycle riders, tribalism dictates that the two factions come up with ways to divide themselves.

I'm glad that Benjamin doesn't miss the white sock rule. It took me eight years of repeated attempts
before the board of directors finally agreed to demolish it. Others had been trying to remove it for
at least a decade before that.

Regarding the need to divide the tribes, I believe that there are ample opportunities within the
existing rules. For example, though the rules require that certain kinds of helmets be worn, that
the shoulders be covered and that shorts come to mid-thigh, there is no requirement that anything
else be covered. For example, mooning is permissible within the rules.

-Les Earnest

 

[Jeff Poptart]

I was about to grace the bike racing world with my super alternative, hairy-leg, puzzling presence
for the first time in 15 days. Having waited an hour for the 1-4s to race, I collected with the
other non-governing body dudes at the start line, only to be informed:

A. 1.3.014 The saddle support shall be horizontal. The length of the saddle shall be 24 cm minimum
and 27.5 cm maximum, but we'll let it slide this time.
B. 1O10. A licensee may be penalized for causing a crash or spill through inadequate tightening or
adjustment of a bicycle component, including gluing of tires [disqualification and 10 days
suspension], and we'll NOT let it slide this time.

Rule A strikes me as the more stupid one. There's no sensible rationale that I can think of. My
saddle is a regular old Sella drilled/sawed out and beautified with black duct-tape. So I got a
little carried away when the shape started to resemble my favorite fairing on the WISIL Missile
lowracer (full suspension). This fascist control of all aspects of cycling by the UCI is why you
don't see fully faired recumbents being used to run errands in Peking.

Rule B is the more annoying one, though I can barely accept the presumed reasoning. A guy was
showing us his superkevlar clincher wheel before the race, handing it around, folks oooing and
ahhhing and I popped off my 20-yr-old ergal sewup wheel with cx sewup for comparison. Some
federation geek says, "Looks like 20-yr-old glue too!". I says, "Half a tube per wheel! And they
don't make it like they used to! This is Tubasti!" No go.

I avenged myself by doing 43-44 mph on the 15 mile ride home. Those lusers gained a reprieve, but I
will be back!

Jeff Poptart (imitating pooter parodying potter)

 

[Raptor]

Jeff Poptart wrote:
> I was about to grace the bike racing world with my super alternative, hairy-leg, puzzling presence
> for the first time in 15 days. Having waited an hour for the 1-4s to race, I collected with the
> other non-governing body dudes at the start line, only to be informed:
>
> A. 1.3.014 The saddle support shall be horizontal. The length of the saddle shall be 24 cm
> minimum and 27.5 cm maximum, but we'll let it slide this time.
> B. 1O10. A licensee may be penalized for causing a crash or spill through inadequate tightening
> or adjustment of a bicycle component, including gluing of tires [disqualification and 10 days
> suspension], and we'll NOT let it slide this time.
>
> Rule A strikes me as the more stupid one. There's no sensible rationale that I can think of. My
> saddle is a regular old Sella drilled/sawed out and beautified with black duct-tape. So I got a
> little carried away when the shape started to resemble my favorite fairing on the WISIL Missile
> lowracer (full suspension). This fascist control of all aspects of cycling by the UCI is why you
> don't see fully faired recumbents being used to run errands in Peking.
>
> Rule B is the more annoying one, though I can barely accept the presumed reasoning. A guy was
> showing us his superkevlar clincher wheel before the race, handing it around, folks oooing and
> ahhhing and I popped off my 20-yr-old ergal sewup wheel with cx sewup for comparison. Some
> federation geek says, "Looks like 20-yr-old glue too!". I says, "Half a tube per wheel! And they
> don't make it like they used to! This is Tubasti!" No go.
>
> I avenged myself by doing 43-44 mph on the 15 mile ride home. Those lusers gained a reprieve, but
> I will be back!
>
> Jeff Poptart (imitating pooter parodying potter)

See, I was right. There ARE dumbass rules, and I'm looking forward to taking credit in December for
spawning the longest-lived "thread" of the year.

You got the attributions wrong. You'll hear from my lawyer.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

 

[Benjamin Weiner]

Les Earnest <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm glad that Benjamin doesn't miss the white sock rule. It took me eight years of repeated
> attempts before the board of directors finally agreed to demolish it. Others had been trying to
> remove it for at least a decade before that.

Many of us struggle for years and fail to achieve even one lasting accomplishment. I salute Les
Earnest, who both invented the Internet [*] _and_ got the white sock rule repealed. The latter was
probably more difficult.

> Regarding the need to divide the tribes, I believe that there are ample opportunities within the
> existing rules. For example, though the rules require that certain kinds of helmets be worn, that
> the shoulders be covered and that shorts come to mid-thigh, there is no requirement that anything
> else be covered. For example, mooning is permissible within the rules.

LOL. I thought there was some rule about general decorum that could be used, but on looking at the
rulebook I don't see one, other than a ban on swearing. In fact, looking at sections 1.K and 1.L,
1.K.2 requires jerseys but I can't find a rule that requires shorts (there is an entry in the index,
but nothing on the page - thanks to Acrobat's "Find" function). 1.L.1 forbids torn clothing. So
if you tear your shorts before a race, better show up without them.

I believe mooning is only actually encouraged at cyclocross races, though.

-Ben [*] not being facetious about the Internet; it's in the archives.

 

[Les Earnest]

Jeff Poptart wrote:
> I was about to grace the bike racing world with my super alternative, hairy-leg, puzzling presence
> for the first time in 15 days. Having waited an hour for the 1-4s to race, I collected with the
> other non-governing body dudes at the start line, only to be informed:
>
> A. 1.3.014 The saddle support shall be horizontal. The length of the saddle shall be 24 cm
> minimum and 27.5 cm maximum, but we'll let it slide this time.
> B. 1O10. A licensee may be penalized for causing a crash or spill through inadequate tightening
> or adjustment of a bicycle component, including gluing of tires [disqualification and 10 days
> suspension], and we'll NOT let it slide this time.

That penalty, which I got the USCF board to put into the rulebook in 1980, is a reasonable one, I
believe, but discretion must be used in identifying violations.

> Rule A strikes me as the more stupid one. There's no sensible rationale that I can think of. My
> saddle is a regular old Sella drilled/sawed out and beautified with black duct-tape. So I got a
> little carried away when the shape started to resemble my favorite fairing on the WISIL Missile
> lowracer (full suspension). This fascist control of all aspects of cycling by the UCI is why you
> don't see fully faired recumbents being used to run errands in Peking.

If this was a USCF race, UCI rules such as the one you cite do not apply. Perhaps you encountered
another confused official.

-Les Earnest

 

[Mike Murray]

"Andrew Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:

"The rules are not there for your comfort or because they want to restrict your liberties - they are
there for INSURANCE. Anything the USCF or any other sanctioned racing body does that doesn't
directly relate to race rules usually comes down to liability. Ask Mike Murray what his insurance
rates are - ask him if he'd make everybody in his races wear some sort of sunglasses if it meant his
premiums would drop."

I would not only make people wear sunglasses I would ask them to wear party hats and bowties if it
would keep premiums down. However, the statement is inaccurate about insurance companies. The
company that sells insurance to FIAC organizations does not care about issues like cycling sandals
or sleeveless jerseys. In fact, the insurance company does not even mandate helmets, although all
the organizations do. I don't know if this is also true for the USAC's insurance company but I
suspect that it is. There are plenty of things that we can lay on insurance companies and the civil
liability system in the US, but this is not one of them.

--
Mike Murray

 

[Les Earnest]

Mike Murray wrote:
> I would not only make people wear sunglasses I would ask them to wear party hats and bowties if it
> would keep premiums down. However, the statement is inaccurate about insurance companies. The
> company that sells insurance to FIAC organizations does not care about issues like cycling sandals
> or sleeveless jerseys. In fact, the insurance company does not even mandate helmets, although all
> the organizations do. I don't know if this is also true for the USAC's insurance company but I
> suspect that it is. There are plenty of things that we can lay on insurance companies and the
> civil liability system in the US, but this is not one of them.

Mike is right about insurance companies being oblivious to racing rules and even the use of helmets.
In 1984, when I initiated a study of possibly having USCF adopt a strong helmet rule, I requested
head injury accident data from the insurance company. When they refused to provide it, even though I
was a member of the USCF board of directors, I threatened to take them to court. They then produced
the data which showed that every payment over $20,000 involved head injuries.

The insurance company could have figured that out for themselves but they didn't. Because of cycling
traditions and politics it took until 1986 to get the strong helmet rule adopted. USCF insurance
costs subsequently declined for a time.

-Les Earnest

 

[Andrew Martin]

"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<FnfDa.14496$d51.63481@sccrnsc01>...
> "Andrew Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "The rules are not there for your comfort or because they want to restrict your liberties - they
> are there for INSURANCE. Anything the USCF or any other sanctioned racing body does that doesn't
> directly relate to race rules usually comes down to liability. Ask Mike Murray what his insurance
> rates are - ask him if he'd make everybody in his races wear some sort of sunglasses if it meant
> his premiums would drop."
>
> I would not only make people wear sunglasses I would ask them to wear party hats and bowties if it
> would keep premiums down. However, the statement is inaccurate about insurance companies. The
> company that sells insurance to FIAC organizations does not care about issues like cycling sandals
> or sleeveless jerseys. In fact, the insurance company does not even mandate helmets, although all
> the organizations do. I don't know if this is also true for the USAC's insurance company but I
> suspect that it is. There are plenty of things that we can lay on insurance companies and the
> civil liability system in the US, but this is not one of them.

I guess my statement was a little too "literal". Since I've never put on an event - I've never
actually seen the rules as they relate to insurance requirements. I would bet that although not
directly required by insurance companies - at some point in negotiations, somewhere along the
history of Insurance/racing organization relations, these rules came out of a discussion on safety
and injury severity (and have probably just been thrown in there ever since). When the topic of
sleeveless came up at a race, insurance was the answer that the official gave and it seemed to make
sense to me.

-a

 

[Andrew Martin]

Les Earnest <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > I would not only make people wear sunglasses I would ask them to wear party hats and bowties if
> > it would keep premiums down. However, the statement is inaccurate about insurance companies. The
> > company that sells insurance to FIAC organizations does not care about issues like cycling
> > sandals or sleeveless jerseys. In fact, the insurance company does not even mandate helmets,
> > although all the organizations do. I don't know if this is also true for the USAC's insurance
> > company but I suspect that it is. There are plenty of things that we can lay on insurance
> > companies and the civil liability system in the US, but this is not one of them.
>
> Mike is right about insurance companies being oblivious to racing rules and even the use of
> helmets. In 1984, when I initiated a study of possibly having USCF adopt a strong helmet rule, I
> requested head injury accident data from the insurance company. When they refused to provide it,
> even though I was a member of the USCF board of directors, I threatened to take them to court.
> They then produced the data which showed that every payment over $20,000 involved head injuries.
>
> The insurance company could have figured that out for themselves but they didn't. Because of
> cycling traditions and politics it took until 1986 to get the strong helmet rule adopted. USCF
> insurance costs subsequently declined for a time.
>
> -Les Earnest

Wow - this blows my point out of the water. That's amazing to me that insurers know nothing about
what they are insuring. It truly must just be a thoughtless numbers game then. If they don't even
consider the content behind the numbers - then that just seems to be bad business.

-a

 

[Les Earnest]

Andrew Martin wrote:
> When the topic of sleeveless came up at a race, insurance was the answer that the official gave
> and it seemed to make sense to me.

That official was blowing smoke. I doubt that any insurance company is even aware of the sleeves
rule and certainly none have required it.

Race officials sometimes make things up to rationalize their actions. What they should say is simply
"It is a rule and it is my responsibility to enforce it." In any athletic competition, some rules
are a bit arbitrary. If you wish to change them you must enter the political arena.

-Les Earnest

 

[Steve McGinty]

On Tue, 27 May 2003 23:14:49 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

>I was about to grace the bike racing world with my lard-ass, hairy-leg, grizzled presence for the
>first time in 15 years. Having waited an hour for the 1-4s to race, I collected with the other
>freds at the start line, only to be informed:
>
>A. Sleeveless jerseys are illegal,

Who's going to tell him

http://tinyurl.com/dkpv
--

Regards! Stephen

 

[Tom Schulenburg]

"Andrew Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<FnfDa.14496$d51.63481@sccrnsc01>...
> > "Andrew Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "The rules are not there for your comfort or because they want to
restrict
> > your liberties - they are there for INSURANCE. Anything the USCF or any other sanctioned racing
> > body does that doesn't directly relate to race
rules
> > usually comes down to liability. Ask Mike Murray what his insurance
rates
> > are - ask him if he'd make everybody in his races wear some sort of sunglasses if it meant his
> > premiums would drop."
> >
> > I would not only make people wear sunglasses I would ask them to wear
party
> > hats and bowties if it would keep premiums down. However, the statement
is
> > inaccurate about insurance companies. The company that sells insurance
to
> > FIAC organizations does not care about issues like cycling sandals or sleeveless jerseys. In
> > fact, the insurance company does not even
mandate
> > helmets, although all the organizations do. I don't know if this is
also
> > true for the USAC's insurance company but I suspect that it is. There
are
> > plenty of things that we can lay on insurance companies and the civil liability system in the
> > US, but this is not one of them.
>
> I guess my statement was a little too "literal". Since I've never put on an event - I've never
> actually seen the rules as they relate to insurance requirements. I would bet that although not
> directly required by insurance companies - at some point in negotiations, somewhere along the
> history of Insurance/racing organization relations, these rules came out of a discussion on safety
> and injury severity (and have probably just been thrown in there ever since). When the topic of
> sleeveless came up at a race, insurance was the answer that the official gave and it seemed to
> make sense to me.
>
> -a

It makes as much sense as requiring collared shirts on the golf course, or white socks on the tennis
court for insurance reasons.

-T