helmet laws

[Max Watt]

Dave Clary <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Getting more on an RBR theme, how did the UCI manage to get the pros to agree to the helmet rules
> when they previously were able to thwart the implementation?
>
> Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary Never Forget:
> http://www.politicsandprotest.org

The rule was put in with little opposition after Andrei Kivilev was killed from a fall in Paris-Nice
last March. His injuries could arguably have been prevented by use of a helmet. The only concession
is for the last climb on a mountain top finish.

From a news story:

"The injury Andrei sustained on his skull is located at a point that would have been protected by a
helmet," said the Cofidis team physician.

 

[Van Hoorebeeck]

When the main opposition is Laurent Brochard calling in esthetic reasons, you know there case
against didn't look very strong..

 

[Robert Chung]

Max Watt wrote:
>
> The rule was put in with little opposition after Andrei Kivilev was killed from a fall in
> Paris-Nice last March. His injuries could arguably have been prevented by use of a helmet. The
> only concession is for the last climb on a mountain top finish.
>
> From a news story:
>
> "The injury Andrei sustained on his skull is located at a point that would have been protected by
> a helmet," said the Cofidis team physician.

That was the initial statement from the Cofidis team physician. The autopsy identified the primary
cause of death as a basal skull fracture.

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> When the main opposition is Laurent Brochard calling in esthetic reasons,
you know there case against
> didn't look very strong..

Brochard doesn't look too good either.

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 16:04:31 GMT, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>"Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> When the main opposition is Laurent Brochard calling in esthetic reasons, you know there case
>> against didn't look very strong..
>
>Brochard doesn't look too good either.

Exactly his point.

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 16:04:31 GMT, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >"Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> When the main opposition is Laurent Brochard calling in esthetic
reasons,
> >> you know there case against didn't look very strong..
> >
> >Brochard doesn't look too good either.
>
> Exactly his point.

Goddamm, I am a Dumbass.

 

[mt_biker]

Originally posted by Mark & Steven B
Dave Clary wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:35:09 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Bicyclists ON THE WHOLE have much better than average health. So helmet or no a bicyclist is less
> >of a risk for medical insurance. Does a head injury suffered by a bicyclist once for every 2000
> >or so head injuries suffered by a car occupant or person taking a fall constitute an additional
> >threat to insurance companies?
>
> I swore off helmet threads years ago but I'll throw in one thing here. I used to use the "we're
> all going to have to pay for it" answer in supporting helmet use. But then I had someone point out
> that if we really believed in that argument, we should be campaigning big time to outlaw
> cigarettes and alcohol. The burden put on the insurance companies by unhelmeted cyclists compared
> to the effects of maladies caused by smokers and drinkers is comparable to pissing in the ocean
> (by a fattie with an enlarged prostate).
>
> Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx

I don't know about your insurance policies, but my life and health ins. ask about smoking, so
smokers are in a different risk pool and presumably pay higher premiums. I've never been asked
on and ins. policy application if I bicycle, much less if I wear a helmet.

Steve

>
> Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary Never Forget: http://www.politicsandprotest.org

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 http://www.dentaltwins.com

If they did ask, I bet your premiums would go UP significantly if you said you rode a bicycle, and down insignificantly if you said you wore a helmet.

 

[Deeznuts]

Spider1977 <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I've had a relative who had a major head injury (19 years ago now). It's not nice for the victim
> and it can be even worse for partners and children. If bicycle helmets reduce the risk of bad
> injury then I'm all for it. Using logic of some, cars would not have mandatory crash protection
> (because it adds weight) and milk should not be pastuerized (some people want the right to drink
> it as it comes from the cow). While these examples are a little over the top, I can't see what is
> wrong with insisting on people wearing bike helmets.

Sorry for dredging up such and old post but this dude is such a

unpasteurized milk or milk products in the U.S. There are even cruises that go out into
international waters expressly for the purpose of serving imported foods that cannot be served in
the U.S. due to inane regulations.

D

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Max Watt wrote:
> >
> > The rule was put in with little opposition after Andrei Kivilev
was
> > killed from a fall in Paris-Nice last March. His injuries could arguably have been prevented by
> > use of a helmet. The only
concession
> > is for the last climb on a mountain top finish.
> >
> > From a news story:
> >
> > "The injury Andrei sustained on his skull is located at a point that would have been protected
> > by a helmet," said the Cofidis team physician.
>
> That was the initial statement from the Cofidis team physician. The autopsy identified the primary
> cause of death as a basal skull
fracture.

Robert, I think that you ought to explain that. If I do it will just be pushed off as some sort of
anti-helmet rant from me.

 

[Dave Clary]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:59:25 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> That was the initial statement from the Cofidis team physician. The autopsy identified the
>> primary cause of death as a basal skull fracture.
>
>Robert, I think that you ought to explain that. If I do it will just be pushed off as some sort of
>anti-helmet rant from me.
>
The same type of injury that killed Dale Earnhardt who, by the way, was wearing a helmet. His crash,
however, was at a higher speed a tad more violent.

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary Never Forget:
http://www.politicsandprotest.org RSG Roll Call
http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd

 

[Robert Chung]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Max Watt wrote:
>>>
>>> The rule was put in with little opposition after Andrei Kivilev was killed from a fall in
>>> Paris-Nice last March. His injuries could arguably have been prevented by use of a helmet. The
>>> only concession is for the last climb on a mountain top finish.
>>>
>>> From a news story:
>>>
>>> "The injury Andrei sustained on his skull is located at a point that would have been protected
>>> by a helmet," said the Cofidis team physician.
>>
>> That was the initial statement from the Cofidis team physician. The autopsy identified the
>> primary cause of death as a basal skull fracture.
>
> Robert, I think that you ought to explain that. If I do it will just be pushed off as some sort of
> anti-helmet rant from me.

There are several things to explain. The first is that initial pronouncements on the cause of death
are not the same as findings from a properly-done autopsy. The second is that the people who are
trained to do acute or emergency care are not always trained to assess the causes of death. A third
thing is that (sadly) there may be several proximate causes of death and sometimes it's difficult to
figure out which of the many was the primary cause of death, and that the secondary cause could also
have been independently fatal.

But I'm guessing that what you wanted me to explain is yet a fourth thing: the primary cause of
death in this particular case was assigned to a fracture of an area of the skull that is not covered
by the helmet and is often, though not exclusively, associated with either a faceplant or a sudden
deceleration of the head and neck, or whiplash-type injury. Ghoulishly, I mention that Dale
Earnhardt's death (or perhaps I could simply have written "3's death") was peripherally tied to a
question of whether the cause of death was a basal skull fracture. The HANS systems that race car
drivers use are supposed to help protect against this kind of injury.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> There are several things to explain. The first is that initial pronouncements on the cause of
> death are not the same as findings
from a
> properly-done autopsy. The second is that the people who are trained
to do
> acute or emergency care are not always trained to assess the causes
of
> death. A third thing is that (sadly) there may be several proximate
causes
> of death and sometimes it's difficult to figure out which of the
many was
> the primary cause of death, and that the secondary cause could also
have
> been independently fatal.

Thank you Robert. The point of this exercise is that injuries of the sort that killed Mr. Kievilev
are not preventable by wearing a helmet. They are preventable by not falling. In any fall of the
sort common in racing there is a statistical probability that a rider will fall and land in such a
manner that they will suffer a serious or fatal injury. These injuries are not common but they are
within the spectrum of injuries that will be seen upon occassion.

People pretending that they become magically immune to them by wearing half a pound of styrofoam are
in a sort of denial that is a wonder to behold.

You CAN avoid these sorts of injuries with a strategy for riding and a practice of falling. Learning
not to fall in situations where you cannot control your fall is not as difficult as it sounds. In
fact, one only has to note the difference in the numbers of accidents in Cat
5/4 and Master's Cat 5/4 to see that this isn't a piculiar idea. Learning to fall is part of
off-road cycling.

 

[Ilan Vardi]

Dave Clary <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> I swore off helmet threads years ago but I'll throw in one thing here. I used to use the "we're
> all going to have to pay for it" answer in supporting helmet use. But then I had someone point out
> that if we really believed in that argument, we should be campaigning big time to outlaw
> cigarettes and alcohol.

Well that argument isn't that good, I don't think, because there are already strict legal
limitations on cigarettes and alcohol. No, the correct argument is to state that the logical
consequence is

people.

-ilan

 

[Dave Clary]

On 9 Aug 2003 08:12:35 -0700, [email protected] (Ilan Vardi) wrote:

>Dave Clary <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> I swore off helmet threads years ago but I'll throw in one thing here. I used to use the "we're
>> all going to have to pay for it" answer in supporting helmet use. But then I had someone point
>> out that if we really believed in that argument, we should be campaigning big time to outlaw
>> cigarettes and alcohol.
>
>Well that argument isn't that good, I don't think, because there are already strict legal
>limitations on cigarettes and alcohol.

Like what? The number of cyclists is tiny compared to smokers and drinkers

>the correct argument is to state that the logical consequence is

>people.

Still small comparatively. You can add that to the argument, but it doesn't replace it.

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary Never Forget:
http://www.politicsandprotest.org RSG Roll Call
http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd

 

[Remove The Poli]

I always envisioned the skull as maybe a inch thick, or at least a half inch. The I read it was only
a quarter inch thick.

All the narcissistic pride in the world won't keep someone's head from caving in like an eggshell
given the wrong combo of balance and speed.

Then, they might, for instance, walk around for the rest of your "life" dragging one leg, drooling
out of one side of their mouth, unaware why they are like that. (That's someone I saw who got that
way from a MC accident. )

He might even still argue against helmets, alternating wiping the drool from his face.