Paris-Nice, Stage 2

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Robert Chung, Mar 11, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. > Never said anything about a coma. Punctured lungs, ruptured spleens, etc

    > can be just as traumatic. I wear a helmet, but that's my choice. From what

    > I've read, his injuries were due to a "Face Plant". I'm not sure a helmet

    > would have helped. In most fatal cases (Like auto racing) it's the sudden

    > deceleration that causes major injury. They have yet to design a helmet
    that

    > prevents that. My opinion is that a helmet might prevent some head

    > injuries, it won't prevent all injuries and it's not guaranteed to save
    your

    > life. You are welcome to your opinion.

    >

    > -Tom

    >

    Ummm...modulation of the deceleration rate is *exactly* a function of a bicycle helmet. The helmet
    deforms on impact, absorbing energy and slowing head deceleration.

    Nevertheless, helmets aren't very effective if an unprotected portion of the head is impacted. That
    *may* be what happened to AK as he is described to have suffered a 'face-plant'. IIRC, Fabio
    Casartelli also was reported to have impacted a portion of the head not protected by a helmet.

    As for me, I feel naked without a helmet and have retuned to the car after cycling a short distance
    and realizing what the 'odd' feeling was - forgot the helmet!

    Todd
     


  2. "EngineeringNow!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    >
    > Ummm...modulation of the deceleration rate is *exactly* a function of a bicycle helmet. The helmet
    > deforms on impact, absorbing energy and slowing head deceleration.
    >
    > Nevertheless, helmets aren't very effective if an unprotected portion of
    the
    > head is impacted. That *may* be what happened to AK as he is described to have suffered a
    > 'face-plant'. IIRC, Fabio Casartelli also was reported to have impacted a portion of the head not
    > protected by a helmet.
    >
    > As for me, I feel naked without a helmet and have retuned to the car after cycling a short
    > distance and realizing what the 'odd' feeling was - forgot the helmet!
    >
    > Todd
    >
    >

    I don't disagree with anything you've written. I do think there are limits to the amount of energy a
    helmet can absorb. For the record, I will concede the point that doctors think a helmet may have
    lessened the injuries to AK. I still believe that mandating helmets will not prevent further
    tragedies(some maybe, but not all)

    I would hate to see a situation like we have in football. Players get so much gear on that they feel
    invincible. As a result, the sport is much more violent than it was 20 years ago. Imagine how
    aggressive riders would become on a tough decent, or in a bunch sprint if they lost a little bit of
    the "Fear Factor"? I think we would see a lot more crashes, and a lot more injuries. Again - This is
    my opinion. People who think helmets should be mandatory also have some very good arguments. I think
    the best solution is somewhere in between, and that's why some pros wear helmets, and some don't.

    -Tom
     
  3. "Tom Schulenburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    >
    > Imagine how aggressive riders would become on a tough decent, or in a bunch sprint if they lost a
    > little bit of the "Fear Factor"?

    <snip>

    Your analysis is ridiculous. Bike racers are scared of crashing with or without helmets. Even if one
    feels like there will not be a skull fracture, there are collarbones, wrists, femurs to break, skin
    to be shredded against the pavement, trees to hit, immovable concrete barriers, cliffs to fall over.
     
  4. Suz

    Suz Guest

    Actually, if you read carefully, it doesn't really say anything about there being a competitive
    disadvantage to wearing a helmet. To the contrary, it said that studies show that the newer helmets,
    due to the ventilation and insulation, actually have a cooling effect, making a riders head surface
    temp up to 14 degrees cooler, thus allowing the core temp to cool much faster. Furthermore,
    Carmichael said that wearing a helmet wouldn't make a difference in climbing speed, and that
    tradition is the main reason more pros don't wear them.

    -Suz

    "Daniel Connelly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > One opinion: http://www.olntv.com/B70022EA0709428DBB91BA6E7DA3E81C.htm
    >
    > Summary : they should be required. That would eliminate the competitive
    disadvantage of
    > wearing them.
    >
    > Dan
    >
    >
    >
    > Mike Krueger wrote:
    > > << >Cofidis' Kivilev was caught up in a crash and last time we saw him
    was
    > > lying motionless on the ground. Ugh.
    > >
    > > He's in a coma, with a cracked skull (forehead) and two broken ribs. >>
    > >
    > > Perhaps if he had been wearing a helmet his injuries would not have been
    so
    > > severe. I hope he recovers.
    > >
    > >
     
  5. Suz

    Suz Guest

    "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Tom Schulenburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    > >
    > > Imagine how aggressive riders would become on a tough decent, or in a bunch sprint if they lost
    > > a little bit
    of
    > > the "Fear Factor"?
    >
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >
    >
    > Your analysis is ridiculous. Bike racers are scared of crashing with or
    without helmets. Even if one feels like there will not be a
    > skull fracture, there are collarbones, wrists, femurs to break, skin to be
    shredded against the pavement, trees to hit, immovable
    > concrete barriers, cliffs to fall over.
    >
    >
    Unbelievable, I actually agree with something Henry said. Well put, Henry.

    -Suz
     
  6. "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Tom Schulenburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    > >
    > > Imagine how aggressive riders would become on a tough decent, or in a bunch sprint if they lost
    > > a little bit
    of
    > > the "Fear Factor"?
    >
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >
    >
    > Your analysis is ridiculous. Bike racers are scared of crashing with or
    without helmets. Even if one feels like there will not be a
    > skull fracture, there are collarbones, wrists, femurs to break, skin to be
    shredded against the pavement, trees to hit, immovable
    > concrete barriers, cliffs to fall over.
    >
    >

    It may be ridiculous, but it's still my opinion. I'm not saying that helmets alone would remove the
    fear. But I think technology could advance to develop light weight, anti-shred materials. Anything
    that could give a rider a (false?) sense of security might make a lesser skilled rider, a little
    more aggressive. People are scared of dying. If a borderline rider weighed the risk between broken
    bones and a podium finish, they may ride different than if the option was death. Technology has a
    way of making mediocre athletes competitive. Already we see people taking steroids, knowing the
    possible long term effects. Would the same number of people take them if they knew it could kill
    them (sooner rather than later) ? I admit, for the majority of experienced riders I don't think this
    would be a problem. It's the borderline / inexperienced riders looking for a contract that could
    become a danger to the rest.

    Given the relatively few number of fatal accidents in Pro racing (what mandatory helmets are trying
    to prevent) I think there are more of the "borderline" riders who will take more chances as other
    "safety" equipment becomes available. Maybe I'm just talking out my ass on this, but I think it's
    something to consider.

    -Tom
     
  7. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Tom Schulenburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > Should wearing helmets be enforced?
    > > >
    > > > As much as they should enforce wearing full body armor. The helmet wouldn't have helped much
    > > > with the broken ribs
    > >
    > > You're kidding, right? He wouldn't be in a coma from broken ribs. Apparently you've fallen on
    > > your head a few times. Maybe you should wear a helmet.
    >
    > Never said anything about a coma. Punctured lungs, ruptured spleens, etc can be just as traumatic.
    > I wear a helmet, but that's my choice. From what I've read, his injuries were due to a "Face
    > Plant". I'm not sure a helmet would have helped. In most fatal cases (Like auto racing) it's the
    > sudden deceleration that causes major injury. They have yet to design a helmet that prevents that.
    > My opinion is that a helmet might prevent some head injuries, it won't prevent all injuries and
    > it's not guaranteed to save your life. You are welcome to your opinion.

    For the record, helmets have never been shown to prevent any fatal injuries. They seem to translate
    minor injuries into more minor injuries but accidents in which a fatality occurs include forces many
    times greater than a helmet can benefit.

    Helmets are a piece of clothing. If you want to pretend that your helmet is making you faster
    fine. If you want to pretend that your helmet is making you less likely to die, fine. But in fact
    neither is true.
     
  8. Clovis Lark

    Clovis Lark Guest

    Tom Kunich <[email protected]> wrote:
    > "Tom Schulenburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >> "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> > Should wearing helmets be enforced?
    >> > >
    >> > > As much as they should enforce wearing full body armor. The helmet wouldn't have helped much
    >> > > with the broken ribs
    >> >
    >> > You're kidding, right? He wouldn't be in a coma from broken ribs. Apparently you've fallen on
    >> > your head a few times. Maybe you should wear a helmet.
    >>
    >> Never said anything about a coma. Punctured lungs, ruptured spleens, etc can be just as
    >> traumatic. I wear a helmet, but that's my choice. From what I've read, his injuries were due to a
    >> "Face Plant". I'm not sure a helmet would have helped. In most fatal cases (Like auto racing)
    >> it's the sudden deceleration that causes major injury. They have yet to design a helmet that
    >> prevents that. My opinion is that a helmet might prevent some head injuries, it won't prevent all
    >> injuries and it's not guaranteed to save your life. You are welcome to your opinion.

    > For the record, helmets have never been shown to prevent any fatal injuries.

    The logic of this statement is rather bizarre...

    > They seem to translate minor injuries into more minor injuries but accidents in which a fatality
    > occurs include forces many times greater than a helmet can benefit.

    > Helmets are a piece of clothing. If you want to pretend that your helmet is making you faster
    > fine. If you want to pretend that your helmet is making you less likely to die, fine. But in fact
    > neither is true.
     
  9. Nick Burns

    Nick Burns Guest

    We are not talking about "hi-tech no shred" materials. FWIW, I agree that there are some sports
    where the equipment gives a false sense of security. This is NOT the case with bicycle helmets,
    where it is easy to forget one is wearing it.

    "Tom Schulenburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Tom Schulenburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:p[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > Imagine how aggressive riders would become on a tough decent, or in a bunch sprint if they
    > > > lost a little
    bit
    > of
    > > > the "Fear Factor"?
    > >
    > >
    > > <snip>
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Your analysis is ridiculous. Bike racers are scared of crashing with or
    > without helmets. Even if one feels like there will not be a
    > > skull fracture, there are collarbones, wrists, femurs to break, skin to
    be
    > shredded against the pavement, trees to hit, immovable
    > > concrete barriers, cliffs to fall over.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > It may be ridiculous, but it's still my opinion. I'm not saying that
    helmets
    > alone would remove the fear. But I think technology could advance to
    develop
    > light weight, anti-shred materials. Anything that could give a rider a (false?) sense of security
    > might make a lesser skilled rider, a little
    more
    > aggressive. People are scared of dying. If a borderline rider weighed the risk between broken
    > bones and a podium finish, they may ride different
    than
    > if the option was death. Technology has a way of making mediocre athletes competitive. Already we
    > see people taking steroids, knowing the possible long term effects. Would the same number of
    > people take them if they knew
    it
    > could kill them (sooner rather than later) ? I admit, for the majority of experienced riders I
    > don't think this would be a problem. It's the borderline / inexperienced riders looking for a
    > contract that could become
    a
    > danger to the rest.
    >
    > Given the relatively few number of fatal accidents in Pro racing (what mandatory helmets are
    > trying to prevent) I think there are more of the "borderline" riders who will take more chances as
    > other "safety" equipment becomes available. Maybe I'm just talking out my ass on this, but I think
    > it's something to consider.
    >
    > -Tom
    >
    >
     
  10. "Nick Burns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > We are not talking about "hi-tech no shred" materials. FWIW, I agree that there are some sports
    > where the equipment gives a false sense of security. This is NOT the case with bicycle helmets,
    > where it is easy to forget one
    is
    > wearing it.
    >
    >

    My point is that there is an inherent risk in racing. If you try to remove some of the risk, people
    will take bigger risks. It is human nature to push the envelope. Most people who wear helmets
    (including myself) do not feel as comfortable riding without a helmet. In these cases, I (and I
    would think most of those people) focus even more attention on safety. Not because wearing a helmet
    decreases my chance of getting in a crash, but because I no longer have that sense of security. If
    anyone could guarantee that mandatory helmets would eliminate all fatal racing accidents, I'd be all
    for it. If all (or a majority) of the racers decided they should all wear helmets, I'd support it.
    But, If you tell a racer that he must wear a helmet (or any other type of safety equipment) for his
    own safety, then I think some of them will take this as a cue to take more risks. I'm not saying
    this would be true for all racers, it may not be true for any, but I think it's highly likely that
    one or two of the less skilled racers will push the envelope a little further and cause trouble.

    -Tom
     
  11. Dan

    Dan Guest

    "Mike S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Didn't they try to mandate and enforce helmet use back in the early 90s? I remember protests by
    > the riders about having to wear the "hot and heavy" helmets of the day.
    >
    > As far as I'm concerned, if you are a professional that values his career, I'd wear a
    > helmet. Otherwise, you could end up like Kivilev... Just one stupid fall, and bang! there
    > goes your career.
    >
    > I feel naked without my helmet on. I especially don't trust other riders in the packs that I've
    > been riding in lately.
    >
    > Do I think mandating helmet use is the way to go? Probably not. If you want to be an idiot and not
    > wear your helmet, great. Just don't come crying to me when you end up with a fractured skull!
    >
    > Mike

    The issue hasn't gone unnoticed:

    "But this will put the highlight on the means of protection which are today at the disposal of the
    runners. They are more important than ten years ago and they are made to avoid similar dramas. And
    like for the road regulations, there are moments when the civic rules must be put before personal
    freedom. We think that the official as much as the sporting authorities, will have to concentrate on
    these facts."

    So will helmets be required in the TdF from now on? That could change everything.
     
  12. Danny Callen

    Danny Callen Guest

    "Tom Schulenburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Tom Schulenburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:p[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > Imagine how aggressive riders would become on a tough decent, or in a bunch sprint if they
    > > > lost a little
    bit
    > of
    > > > the "Fear Factor"?
    > >
    > >
    > > <snip>
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Your analysis is ridiculous. Bike racers are scared of crashing with or
    > without helmets. Even if one feels like there will not be a
    > > skull fracture, there are collarbones, wrists, femurs to break, skin to
    be
    > shredded against the pavement, trees to hit, immovable
    > > concrete barriers, cliffs to fall over.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > It may be ridiculous, but it's still my opinion. I'm not saying that
    helmets
    > alone would remove the fear. But I think technology could advance to
    develop
    > light weight, anti-shred materials. Anything that could give a rider a (false?) sense of security
    > might make a lesser skilled rider, a little
    more
    > aggressive. People are scared of dying. If a borderline rider weighed the risk between broken
    > bones and a podium finish, they may ride different
    than
    > if the option was death. Technology has a way of making mediocre athletes competitive. Already we
    > see people taking steroids, knowing the possible long term effects. Would the same number of
    > people take them if they knew
    it
    > could kill them (sooner rather than later) ? I admit, for the majority of experienced riders I
    > don't think this would be a problem. It's the borderline / inexperienced riders looking for a
    > contract that could become
    a
    > danger to the rest.
    >
    > Given the relatively few number of fatal accidents in Pro racing (what mandatory helmets are
    > trying to prevent) I think there are more of the "borderline" riders who will take more chances as
    > other "safety" equipment becomes available. Maybe I'm just talking out my ass on this, but I think
    > it's something to consider.
    >
    > -Tom
    >

    Sorry Tom, I too agree with Henry, your theory is ridiculous...

    Danny Callen ...feels so damn good to finally agree with Henry on something...
     
  13. Gary German

    Gary German Guest

    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Tom Schulenburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > > Should wearing helmets be enforced?
    > > > >
    > > > > As much as they should enforce wearing full body armor. The helmet wouldn't have helped much
    > > > > with the broken ribs
    > > >
    > > > You're kidding, right? He wouldn't be in a coma from broken ribs. Apparently you've fallen on
    > > > your head a few times. Maybe you should
    wear
    > > > a helmet.
    > >
    > > Never said anything about a coma. Punctured lungs, ruptured spleens,
    etc
    > > can be just as traumatic. I wear a helmet, but that's my choice. From
    what
    > > I've read, his injuries were due to a "Face Plant". I'm not sure a
    helmet
    > > would have helped. In most fatal cases (Like auto racing) it's the
    sudden
    > > deceleration that causes major injury. They have yet to design a helmet
    that
    > > prevents that. My opinion is that a helmet might prevent some head injuries, it won't prevent
    > > all injuries and it's not guaranteed to save
    your
    > > life. You are welcome to your opinion.
    >
    > For the record, helmets have never been shown to prevent any fatal injuries. They seem to
    > translate minor injuries into more minor injuries but accidents in which a fatality occurs include
    > forces many times greater than a helmet can benefit.

    Your statement seems to violate common sense. Do you have any sources for your apparently
    bizarre opinion?

    Does the same hold for football players? Batters in baseball? Motorcycle racers? Alpine skiers?

    >
    > Helmets are a piece of clothing. If you want to pretend that your helmet is making you faster
    > fine. If you want to pretend that your helmet is making you less likely to die, fine. But in fact
    > neither is true.
     
  14. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "Dan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Mike S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Didn't they try to mandate and enforce helmet use back in the early 90s?
    I
    > > remember protests by the riders about having to wear the "hot and heavy" helmets of the day.
    > >
    > > As far as I'm concerned, if you are a professional that values his
    career,
    > > I'd wear a helmet. Otherwise, you could end up like Kivilev... Just
    one
    > > stupid fall, and bang! there goes your career.
    > >
    > > I feel naked without my helmet on. I especially don't trust other
    riders in
    > > the packs that I've been riding in lately.
    > >
    > > Do I think mandating helmet use is the way to go? Probably not. If you want to be an idiot and
    > > not wear your helmet, great. Just don't come
    crying
    > > to me when you end up with a fractured skull!
    > >
    > > Mike
    >
    > The issue hasn't gone unnoticed:
    >
    > "But this will put the highlight on the means of protection which are today at the disposal of the
    > runners. They are more important than ten years ago and they are made to avoid similar dramas. And
    > like for the road regulations, there are moments when the civic rules must be put before personal
    > freedom. We think that the official as much as the sporting authorities, will have to concentrate
    > on these facts."
    >
    > So will helmets be required in the TdF from now on? That could change everything.

    The Tour mandating helmets would probably set the standard for the rest of the pro peloton
    to follow.

    I said it somewhere else earlier. All of us debating the helmet issue is worth about as much as a
    pile of spit. WE don't make the stinkin' rules, Hein Verbruggen and the UCI do. You can argue till
    you are blue in the face, but isn't that energy better spent ON the bike?

    Mike
     
  15. Nick Burns

    Nick Burns Guest

    Get used to saying that if you are going to have a conversation with Tom.

    "Gary German" <[email protected]_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message: <snip>

    > Your statement seems to violate common sense. Do you have any sources for your apparently bizarre
    > opinion?

    <snip
     
  16. "Mike S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > The Tour mandating helmets would probably set the standard for the rest of the pro peloton
    > to follow.
    >

    Agreed, but the TdF is sanctioned by the UCI and FFC and their rules. Not the other way around.
     
  17. In article <[email protected]>, "Kurgan Gringioni"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Tom Schulenburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > <snip, snip, snip>
    >
    >
    > The TdF, when it visits Belgium, is obliged to wear helmets. No one has
    ever said a thing about the racing being more aggressive
    > there.
    >
    > The 2 most aggressive and dangerous sprinters in recent memory were
    Djamalodin Abdujapourov and Frederic Moncassin. Abdu was all
    > over the place and Moncassin had the philosophy of "I get the space or
    we both crash". Neither one of those maniacs wore a helmet.
    > Moncassin's crazy squeeze-in move in TdF 199? prompted Tom Steels into
    his famous bidon throwing incident. There was no room, but FM
    > "made" room.
    >
    > Neither Adbu or Moncassin wore helmets.
    >
    > Your theory may look good to you on paper, but reality shows that it sucks.

    They both were a little mazzo. I remember seeing a photo of a big crash in the tour in 1996, and
    sure enough, there was frederic moncassin in yellow but no helmet! Same with Cipo. Abdujaparov was
    somewhere in the photo, but you can't see him. It was the crash where svorada went down while
    wearing the green jersey and ended up taking a few other guys with him, and then abandoned the
    next day. However, these days most of the sprinters seem to wear helmets, but I remember noticing
    how quite a few of the guys in that photo were NOT. Svorada was, I recall, and so was Brochard who
    also crashed.
     
  18. "Marlene Blanshay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, "Kurgan Gringioni"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Tom Schulenburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > <snip, snip, snip>
    > >
    > >
    > > The TdF, when it visits Belgium, is obliged to wear helmets. No one has
    > ever said a thing about the racing being more aggressive
    > > there.
    > >
    > > The 2 most aggressive and dangerous sprinters in recent memory were
    > Djamalodin Abdujapourov and Frederic Moncassin. Abdu was all
    > > over the place and Moncassin had the philosophy of "I get the space or
    > we both crash". Neither one of those maniacs wore a helmet.
    > > Moncassin's crazy squeeze-in move in TdF 199? prompted Tom Steels into
    > his famous bidon throwing incident. There was no room, but FM
    > > "made" room.
    > >
    > > Neither Adbu or Moncassin wore helmets.
    > >
    > > Your theory may look good to you on paper, but reality shows that it sucks.
    >
    > They both were a little mazzo. I remember seeing a photo of a big crash in the tour in 1996, and
    > sure enough, there was frederic moncassin in yellow but no helmet! Same with Cipo. Abdujaparov was
    > somewhere in the photo, but you can't see him. It was the crash where svorada went down while
    > wearing the green jersey and ended up taking a few other guys with him, and then abandoned the
    > next day. However, these days most of the sprinters seem to wear helmets, but I remember noticing
    > how quite a few of the guys in that photo were NOT. Svorada was, I recall, and so was Brochard who
    > also crashed.

    Moncassin did not wear a helmet on days when everyone else did (the bidon throwing day, for
    instance).

    Moncassin *never* wore a helmet. IMO, he was the craziest one, even a little crazier than Abdu.
     
  19. "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > Your theory may look good to you on paper, but reality shows that it
    sucks.
    >

    The difference between theory and opinion is that theory attempts to establish fact while opinion
    does not (I like blue more than red but that does not make blue "better" than red). I am not trying
    to say that riders should not use helmets. I am not trying to say that there can never be a benefit
    to wearing a helmet. What I am trying to say is consider the consequences of making helmets
    mandatory. The riders you mentioned are ones I would consider to be "established". I was trying to
    point out that mandatory helmets may give one or two fringe riders the courage to become a little
    more aggressive over time - and ride beyond their ability. Your opinion is that this is not true.
    Fine. I'm glad you can see into the mind of every rider. I'm not claiming to. I'm just asking that
    you consider the possibility, and the consequences.

    -Tom
     
  20. Gary German

    Gary German Guest

    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Why not simply ban bicycle racing. That way he wouldn't have fallen off at all.

    Why not require it of all pros, and make it a non-issue? They don't let pros ride with fairings, or
    aero bars in a peloton.

    >
    > "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > Should wearing helmets be enforced?
    > > > >
    > > > > Marcus
    > > >
    > > > As much as they should enforce wearing full body armor. The helmet
    > > wouldn't
    > > > have helped much with the broken ribs
    > > "Tom Schulenburg"
    > >
    > > You're kidding, right? He wouldn't be in a coma from broken ribs. Apparently you've fallen on
    > > your head a few times. Maybe you should
    > wear a
    > > helmet.
    > >
    > > Bob C.
    > >
    > >
    >
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...