Fignon Quote: "Blame it on bad luck" What a F****** Idiot !



Status
Not open for further replies.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
>Good Point. But yesterday it was noticed that the stage albeit neutralised had a good many riders
>still not wearing helmets. On a personal note I had a bad crash 6 years ago and the doc told my
>wife if I had not been wearing a helmet we would not be having this conversation with him.! But at
>the end of the day both Fabio and Andre MAY have been saved by the helmet

IIRC, Fabio crashed on his face, so a helmet would not have helped him.
-----------------
Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)
 
"Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >
> >
> >Good Point. But yesterday it was noticed that the stage albeit
neutralised
> >had a good many riders still not wearing helmets. On a personal note I
had a
> >bad crash 6 years ago and the doc told my wife if I had not been wearing
a
> >helmet we would not be having this conversation with him.! But at the
end
> >of the day both Fabio and Andre MAY have been saved by the helmet
>
> IIRC, Fabio crashed on his face, so a helmet would not have helped him.

Get your facts straight before posting nonsense, Alex. According to the Guardian:

"The Kazakh's doctor with the Cofidis team said that in his view Kivilev's life might have been
saved had he worn a lightweight hardshell helmet. "The area of the skull fracture corresponds to a
place protected by a helmet," said Dr Jean-Jacques Menuet. "My fellow doctors would agree with me
that they should be made obligatory.""

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/story/0,10482,913118,00.html

> -----------------
> Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Fignon, one of the great cyclists makes a comment and some old fool can criticise him.
>

Dr. says: Doctor Jean-Jacques Menuet claimed that wearing a helmet would almost certainly have saved
Kivilev's life. "The injury Andrei sustained to his skull is located at a point that would have
been protected by a helmet," said Meunet.

Ds. Laurent Fignon says:

"If you land on your forehead, a helmet is still not going to protect you. It doesn't
change a thing."

So, Tom are you telling me that Dr. Fignon knows more about the potential advantages of wearing a
helmet than Dr. Menuet ?

on head injuries, that's why he is an idiot for that statement.

OMC
 
That's the implication ****. If the UCI demanded that everyone wear a helmet Kivilev would never
have been injured in the first place. Unfortunately I just can't see how someone can expect 7 ounces
of foamed plastic to protect a 150 lb body going head first into some hard object. It's like people
believing in witchcraft.

"**** Durbin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >It isn't bad enough that the guy gets killed, but

been
> > wearing a plastic hat he'd be as good as new right this second.
>
> Who said that? I have looked back over the thread and don't see
that.
>
> **** Durbin
 
Alex

I stand corrected about Fabio, friend of mine sys he was'nt wearing a helmet on that fateful day
"Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >
> >
> >Good Point. But yesterday it was noticed that the stage albeit
neutralised
> >had a good many riders still not wearing helmets. On a personal note I
had a
> >bad crash 6 years ago and the doc told my wife if I had not been wearing
a
> >helmet we would not be having this conversation with him.! But at the
end
> >of the day both Fabio and Andre MAY have been saved by the helmet
>
> IIRC, Fabio crashed on his face, so a helmet would not have helped him.
> -----------------
> Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)
 
"Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm just a cycling fan who would like to see the pros required to wear helmets
(like
> they are here in the US), because:
>
> 1) it would level the playing field for all.

You would seem to be admitting that maybe the pro riders know what they're talking about when they
say that a helmet slows them up.

> 2) it would set a good example for youngsters

Living a clean athletic life ain't enough apparently. Maybe you'd also like them to go around to
schools and show 3rd graders how to use condoms?

> 3) it would save some lives (and help us avoid threads like this
one).

For years I've been trying to counter this idea that a helmet can save a life. I suppose it can, in
some instances a wooly cap can save a life. But the chances of it doing so are so slight as to not
warrant consideration.

Bell Sports invented modern crash helmets and they are nothing more than a plastic hat. They most
certainly can keep you from minor injuries but fatalities are caused by very large forces and a
helmet simply cannot deal with large forces and never will be able to unless you're willing to wear
a helmet that weighs several pounds and is 3 feet in diameter.

Over the years Bell has recognized that people aren't concerned about safety anyway and they have
more and more made helmets that are nothing more than fashion statements that year by years have
offered less real protection than when they started with the Bell Biker.

The only thing that you can count on to protect you is your own good sense. If you don't get in an
accident you don't need to worry about how protective or non-protective a helmet is.
 
"George Privon" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Umm... I think you're the one that needs to review High School
Physics.
> The head just before impact has a certain amount of momentum. The crushing of the helmet (or
> breaking as the case may be) disperses
*some*
> of the energy. This crushing/breaking of the helmet also lengthens
the
> time of the impact.

Firstly, George, the only way that foamed plastic can absorb energy is by crushing. When the helmet
breaks it essentially absorbs NO energy. Haven't you noticed that there are all sorts of stories
about how people's lives were saved by helmets and the way they knew it was because the helmets were
broken? I wonder why people think that would show that a helmet performed correctly?

And helmets only rarely crush, especially modern helmets. Over time they've made these weird shaped
monstrosities that don't have enough surface area for soft enough foam. So the foam they use is very
rigid and with all of the vents in modern helmets they simply break apart in a fall.

Now it isn't as if helmets do nothing at all. In a minor fall the helmet can help spread the force
of an impact over a larger area of the skull which has some positive effect. But when the forces
start getting high enough to cause impact damage to the brain the forces are altogether too high for
7 ounces of plastic foam which isn't designed properly in the first place to have any cogent effect.

So the most you can expect from a helmet is that it will protect your somewhat from minor injuries
but it will have no effect at all in serious injuries.

> If you remember from physics - Force * Time = Change in Momentum. In
a
> collision like this the change in momentum is very large. The time
is
> very small. This generates an extrememly large force on the head. However, with a helmet the time
> of the impact is lengthened so, the force isn't as large. Less force = less damage.

The foam in a helmet will collapse to about 50% of its original thickness. The thick parts of a
helmet are about an inch thick. The foam is supposed to collapse at an even 300 gees for a 13 lb
head magnesium mold.

You seem capable of doing the math.

However, in real life there isn't a magnesium head mold. There is a head and inside of that head is
a brain floating in a liquid that allows it to slosh around when accelerated. That sloshing around
can be fatal even though there is no external damage.

The long and the short of it is that the head isn't a block of metal (well, most people's aren't)
and saving the skull from cracking isn't the only thing that is necessary to prevent fatal injuries.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I'm just a cycling fan who would like to see the pros required to wear helmets
> (like
> > they are here in the US), because:
> >
> > 1) it would level the playing field for all.
>
> You would seem to be admitting that maybe the pro riders know what they're talking about when they
> say that a helmet slows them up.

Whether it slows them up or not, is not the issue. Not having a fairing slows them up too, but
that's just part of the rules that makes the playing field the same for all.

>
> > 2) it would set a good example for youngsters
>
> Living a clean athletic life ain't enough apparently. Maybe you'd also like them to go around to
> schools and show 3rd graders how to use condoms?
>
> > 3) it would save some lives (and help us avoid threads like this
> one).
>
> For years I've been trying to counter this idea that a helmet can save a life. I suppose it can,
> in some instances a wooly cap can save a life. But the chances of it doing so are so slight as to
> not warrant consideration.

You sound like one of thosed crazed street corner prophets, convinced that he's the only one who
knows the world will end next week.

I've asked you several times over the last few days...please provide some sort of engineering or
medical studies that back up your ridiculous opinions. Here are some that say that helmets do
prevent injuries, and save lives:

1) American College of Surgeons says:
a.. Bicycle helmets can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent. Bicyclists hospitalized with
head injury are 20 times more likely to die as those without head injury.
b.. 98 percent of bicyclists killed were not wearing a helmet at the time of injury. Helmet use is
estimated to prevent 75 percent of cycling deaths.
http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-38.html

2) The Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program concludes that helmet use reduces
injuries, and saves lives.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/chirpp-schirpt/06nov95/iss6c_e.h tml

3) The Centers for Disease Control says: If every bicycle rider wore a helmet, that action alone
would prevent an estimated 150 deaths and another 100,000 nonfatal head injuries each year.
Bicycle helmets reduce the risk of serious head injury by as much as 85% and the risk of brain
injury by as much as 88%. Helmets have also been shown to reduce the risk of injury to the upper
and mid-face by 65%.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/11_Bicycle_Related_Injuries.htm

>
> Bell Sports invented modern crash helmets and they are nothing more than a plastic hat. They most
> certainly can keep you from minor injuries but fatalities are caused by very large forces and a
> helmet simply cannot deal with large forces and never will be able to unless you're willing to
> wear a helmet that weighs several pounds and is 3 feet in diameter.
>
> Over the years Bell has recognized that people aren't concerned about safety anyway and they have
> more and more made helmets that are nothing more than fashion statements that year by years have
> offered less real protection than when they started with the Bell Biker.
>
> The only thing that you can count on to protect you is your own good sense. If you don't get in an
> accident you don't need to worry about how protective or non-protective a helmet is.
 
"OMC" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Fignon, one of the great cyclists makes a comment and some old
fool
> > can criticise him.
> >

>
> Dr. says: Doctor Jean-Jacques Menuet claimed that wearing a helmet would almost certainly have
> saved Kivilev's life.

(Firstly, my applogies for my harsh comments)

Doctors can say anything at all Mike. Do you suppose that doctors study the mechanics of collisions
so that they can tell what is and what isn't possible? And someone else here said that they reported
a basal fracture. That is around the base of the skull and is caused by the head being forced back
too far. I won't describe the rather horrible effects of this but rest assured a helmet wouldn't
have any effect on that sort of fatal injury.

> "The injury Andrei sustained to his skull is located at a point that would have been protected by
> a helmet," said Meunet.
>
> Dr. Laurent Fignon says:
>
> "If you land on your forehead, a helmet is still not going to protect you. It doesn't change
> a thing."
>
> So, Tom are you telling me that Dr. Fignon knows more about the potential advantages of wearing a
> helmet than Dr. Menuet ?

We apparently don't have a good description of the injury Kivilev sustained and a call to authority
of a doctor who may have no idea what he's talking about isn't much better. Remember that only 100
years ago doctors were bleeding patients to cure them. Let's not pretend that a medical degree
confers engineering knowledge on a doctor.

> on head injuries, that's why he is an idiot for that statement.

I was attending a friend who was involved in a motorcycle crash. The doctor came out and talked to a
group of us and said, "If he'd been wearing a helmet he would never have received these sorts of
injuries." We looked at him and said, "He was wearing a helmet."
 
"le gopheur" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If memory serves me, the USCF had to institute a hard shell helmet
law
> for races to be able to purchase liability insurance. it had NOTHING to do with the USCF board or
> riders debating the issue.

And if I recall properly they instituted helmet reqiurements without any requirements from the
insurance companies.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. Or maybe you haven't noticed some riders
> >still aren't wearing helmets and are
dong
> >rather well in the TT department?
>
> Yep they are doing well but they would do better if they wore one.

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA! That's a good one. Winning a TT in the Vuelta and "they
would do better". Maybe you ought to explain that to Dr. Coggan and others.

> Thats like saying a kid who didn't study for a test but gets 95% did
a
> great job. Sure but if they studied they would have done better.

No, it's like saying that a kid that got 100% on a test could have done better if only he'd
studied harder.

> Helmets lower TT time's. Its a well known fact. Ask Cobb, Coggan
or
> anyone else who does wind tunnel testing. Did your wind tunnel testing prove otherwise Tom?

It was Cobb and Coggan who admitted that a helmet may not do anything at all and it was several
riders who have started riding TT's without a helmet that showed that they are probably right.

What would cause you to simplify the world around you so much that you'd believe that something is
always true in aerodynamics?
 
In article <[email protected]>, gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net says...

>> IIRC, Fabio crashed on his face, so a helmet would not have helped him.
>
>Get your facts straight before posting nonsense, Alex. According to the Guardian:
>
>"The Kazakh's doctor with the Cofidis team said that in his view Kivilev's life might have been
>saved had he worn a lightweight hardshell helmet. "The area of the skull fracture corresponds to a
>place protected by a helmet," said Dr Jean-Jacques Menuet. "My fellow doctors would agree with me
>that they should be made obligatory.""

Maybe you should learn to read. The post you are replying to does not mention Kivilev.
-----------------
Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)
 
Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
>>This is exactly the attitude that keeps the UCI from making changes and keeping the riders safe.
>>The never is any 100% guarantee that a helmet will save your life, but it's stupid not to take
>>advantage of technology to increase your chances of survival. I guess Fignon knows a lot more
>>about head trama than emergency doctors do.
>
>
>
> You are talking about adult professionals not children. They should be allowed to make thier own
> decisions.
> --------------
> Alex

Just a pot shot...

NASCAR requires safety equipment on its cars and drivers to minimize driver deaths and injuries. The
drivers tend to protest then move on, and cars get a little safer.

Bike racing has many parallels. If the UCI wants to require helmets, more power to 'em and I'd say
it's a good move.

--
--
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.
 
"Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "The Kazakh's doctor with the Cofidis team said that in his view
Kivilev's
> life might have been saved had he worn a lightweight hardshell
helmet. "The
> area of the skull fracture corresponds to a place protected by a
helmet,"
> said Dr Jean-Jacques Menuet. "My fellow doctors would agree with me
that
> they should be made obligatory.""

Someone else quoted a story that describe a basal skull fracture. That isn't a place protected
by a helmet.
 
"Raptor" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> NASCAR requires safety equipment on its cars and drivers to minimize driver deaths and injuries.
> The drivers tend to protest then move on, and cars get a little safer.
>
> Bike racing has many parallels.

Durn Right! Bik Racun and NECKCAR gots lots 'n commun.

Bik Racurs ride biks, we run 'em over.

yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaawwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Billy Bob Gringioni "3" NECKCAR fan

where mah sistuh? I's gots ta get some.
 
With statistics like that, I don't want to be your friend.

Mark VandenBerghe

"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Crystal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Most head traumas from a crash have little to do with the wearing of a
> > helmet. It has more to do
> > > with the brain banging around inside your head, helmets do not stop
that
> > from happening.
> > > Dave
> >
> > However... the helmet will "cushion" the blow the brain....
> >
> > Crystal
>
> Not that I want to get into the great helmet debate, but I have had 3
friends die from head injuries
> sustained WHILE wearing a helmet. None had any skull fractures. One died
in a fall from a motorcycle
> in soft dirt at about 20mph with a motorcycle helmet which offers far more
protection than a bike
> helmet. If you think that a bike helmet "cushions" the blow, take yours
off and hit yourself in the
> head with it. The styrofoam in helmets is fairly hard, the amount of force
to take a mass the size
> of your head and make an indentation in the foam before it breaks (crumple
zone effect) is far
> greater than the force it takes to slam the brain into walls of the skull
and cause fatal injury.
> Dave
 
Tommy Tomcat,

When the helmet breaks, it clearly does absorb a significant amount of energy that would have
otherwise been transfered to the head. Your statement that "When the helmet breaks it essentially
absorbs NO energy" is absolutely untrue from a physics standpoint (so where did the energy come from
to break the helmet if not the fall itself, Tom?). You are aware of the Laws of thermodynamics that
state that energy cannot be created or detroyed, only changed from one form to another. A broken
Puerto Rican cooler signifies a successful transfer of significant energy into a helmet and NOT the
head. Manufacturing a helmet that does not break might actually offer less protection than one that
does because it would absorb little energy yet transfer a lot to the head.

Such a safety design features are employed in the auto industry in their vehicles as the well-known
'crumble-zone' technology.

Consequently, current DOT certified helmets are actually DESIGNED and INTENDED to break in an impact
precisely for this very reason. Your argument that the styrofoam needs to be 'crushed' (i.e.
compressed) would not apply to a high speed impact, but would apply to a very low-speed impact.
Cycling accidents are exclusively high speed impacts and thus result in breakage instead of
compression (they are the same species of animal).

Your other argument that a helmet is designed to dissipate the impact forces over a larger area of
the head's surface area is correct and is a secondary safety mechanism of bicycle helmets.

Your final conclusion that a helmet is only good for preventing minor injuries and not serious
injuries is a completely unquantified conclusion that lacks any data and does not even feel
intuitively correct. I can assure you if the safety engineers from Bell, SNELL, DOT, and Mercedes
Benz, not to mention the head trauma physicians from the AMA came onto this forum, they would have a
field day debunking your unqualified answers with core facts and scientific and medical data that
dates back to the 1950's....that is, once they stopped laughing at your head injury.

There can be only one,

Café Actually Paid Attention in Physics Class

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "George Privon" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Umm... I think you're the one that needs to review High School
> Physics.
> > The head just before impact has a certain amount of momentum. The crushing of the helmet (or
> > breaking as the case may be) disperses
> *some*
> > of the energy. This crushing/breaking of the helmet also lengthens
> the
> > time of the impact.
>
> Firstly, George, the only way that foamed plastic can absorb energy is by crushing. When the
> helmet breaks it essentially absorbs NO energy. Haven't you noticed that there are all sorts of
> stories about how people's lives were saved by helmets and the way they knew it was because the
> helmets were broken? I wonder why people think that would show that a helmet performed correctly?
>
> And helmets only rarely crush, especially modern helmets. Over time they've made these weird
> shaped monstrosities that don't have enough surface area for soft enough foam. So the foam they
> use is very rigid and with all of the vents in modern helmets they simply break apart in a fall.
>
> Now it isn't as if helmets do nothing at all. In a minor fall the helmet can help spread the
> force of an impact over a larger area of the skull which has some positive effect. But when the
> forces start getting high enough to cause impact damage to the brain the forces are altogether
> too high for 7 ounces of plastic foam which isn't designed properly in the first place to have
> any cogent effect.
>
> So the most you can expect from a helmet is that it will protect your somewhat from minor injuries
> but it will have no effect at all in serious injuries.
>
> > If you remember from physics - Force * Time = Change in Momentum. In
> a
> > collision like this the change in momentum is very large. The time
> is
> > very small. This generates an extrememly large force on the head. However, with a helmet the
> > time of the impact is lengthened so, the force isn't as large. Less force = less damage.
>
> The foam in a helmet will collapse to about 50% of its original thickness. The thick parts of a
> helmet are about an inch thick. The foam is supposed to collapse at an even 300 gees for a 13 lb
> head magnesium mold.
>
> You seem capable of doing the math.
>
> However, in real life there isn't a magnesium head mold. There is a head and inside of that head
> is a brain floating in a liquid that allows it to slosh around when accelerated. That sloshing
> around can be fatal even though there is no external damage.
>
> The long and the short of it is that the head isn't a block of metal (well, most people's aren't)
> and saving the skull from cracking isn't the only thing that is necessary to prevent fatal
> injuries.
 
George,

You are essentially correct, but a helmet does not primarily rely on lengthening the time of the
impact to work. It relies on actually dissipating the energy of the impact forces into mechanical
energy (causing breakage), and by spreading the impact forces over a larger surface area of the
head. Thirdly, impact energy is also disspated in heat.

I would guess that reduction in time is actually negligible, but might account for as much as a few
more percent.

I'm sure BELL has the exact proportions of how the energy is dissipated. Tom Kunich does not have
the correct answers.

There can be only one,

Café

George Privon wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> | "Crystal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | news:[email protected]...
> |
> |>"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> |>news:[email protected]...
> |>
> |>>Most head traumas from a crash have little to do with the wearing
> |
> | of a
> |
> |>helmet. It has more to do
> |>
> |>>with the brain banging around inside your head, helmets do not
> |
> | stop that
> |
> |>from happening.
> |>
> |>>Dave
> |>
> |>However... the helmet will "cushion" the blow the brain....
> |
> |
> | Gee Crystal, where did you get your engineering degree?
> |
> |
>
> Umm... I think you're the one that needs to review High School Physics. The head just before
> impact has a certain amount of momentum. The crushing of the helmet (or breaking as the case may
> be) disperses *some* of the energy. This crushing/breaking of the helmet also lengthens the time
> of the impact.
>
> If you remember from physics - Force * Time = Change in Momentum. In a collision like this the
> change in momentum is very large. The time is very small. This generates an extrememly large force
> on the head. However, with a helmet the time of the impact is lengthened so, the force isn't as
> large. Less force = less damage.
>
> george
> - --
> [email protected]
> - --
> http://privon.com
> - --
> "Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Never drink and derive." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version:
> GnuPG v1.2.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQE+cAroNyfm0mDgbJ8RAg9qAKC0s0P+9u4wzBrdOqiYyocvRhl2EgCfcVmi 4yIapJHpfVv+j3T1pFHuf2A= =NNnB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Tom,

You are incorrect once again. A basal skull fracture is usually the result of an impact to the part
of a head (usually the front) that would otherwise be protected by a helmet.

If you recall, Dale Earnhardt died as a result of a basal skull fracture because his chin hit the
steering wheel, and transfered the energy through his head and into his medulla area at the base of
his skull.

Had he been wearing a full face helmet (Dale was the only NASCAR driver to wear an open face
helmet), the enrgy would have been dissipated over his entire head (and in different force vectors
too). So that is how a helmet can protect an injury to a part of the head that it does not cover.

Try reading some of the cycling tech articles with more precision next time,

Café

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "The Kazakh's doctor with the Cofidis team said that in his view
> Kivilev's
> > life might have been saved had he worn a lightweight hardshell
> helmet. "The
> > area of the skull fracture corresponds to a place protected by a
> helmet,"
> > said Dr Jean-Jacques Menuet. "My fellow doctors would agree with me
> that
> > they should be made obligatory.""
>
> Someone else quoted a story that describe a basal skull fracture. That isn't a place protected by
> a helmet.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

> "le gopheur" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > If memory serves me, the USCF had to institute a hard shell helmet
> law
> > for races to be able to purchase liability insurance. it had NOTHING to do with the USCF board
> > or riders debating the issue.
>
> And if I recall properly they instituted helmet reqiurements without any requirements from the
> insurance companies.

I'm not sure. I raced only one season, 1986. That year the season opening was delayed because
there was no liability insurance. I think it was a problem for the entire USOC, not just the
USCF. I don't know specifically what the requirements of the policy were when one was obtained,
but we were TOLD that wearing of hard-shell helmets had become a requirement.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 http://www.dentaltwins.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.