Re: Does the helmet rule cause more crashes in the Tour? <- ENOUGH, this ******* is plonked

[[email protected]]

Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> There is something to what he's saying whether you like it or not. We
do
> know that in the last two years since the helmet rule the numbers of
crashes
> are WAY up. And now we're seeing riders dropping out from broken
bones
> sustained in these crashes. That indicates to me that riders are
taking a
> lot more chances.
>

Even if that's true - if it's not worth it to take more chances, the
riders will eventually adjust and will decide to not take more chances.

Or do you really think the riders are forever unthinking slaves to the
helmets? They put a helmet on and are incapable of doing anything but
taking more chances?


PC


> I just bought a new Bell Alchera and it looks really cool, but I
don't want
> to test whether it would have the slightest effect on a head injury -
how
> about you?
>
> > > Everybody can see that crashes are up this year. 99 riders have
> > > crashed at least once by stage 7. The Tour de France in 2004 will
> > > quite possibly have the most crashes since they used to use those
> > > handlebar attachments about 6 years back.
> > > There is speculation the UCI requirement of all riders must now
wear
> > > crash helmets in the races has given them a false sense of
security.
> > > The cyclists now think that because they have increased
protection
> > > against head injury, that they can increase the chances they are
> > > taking.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ronde Champ
> >

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Even if that's true - if it's not worth it to take more chances, the
> riders will eventually adjust and will decide to not take more chances.
>
> Or do you really think the riders are forever unthinking slaves to the
> helmets? They put a helmet on and are incapable of doing anything but
> taking more chances?

If the experiences in most of the world are anything to judge by, risk
compensation appears to only go one way. It isn't as if racers are going to
slow up now. That means they'll continue taking chances. Once out of the
bottle the genie can't be put back in.

 

[remove the polite word to reply]

uh, are these sad facts too obvious to mention, or is rhetoric more
important than
real, indisputable, tragic rider deaths?

Let's even grant the fantasy that poor Kivilev's
crushed head "wouldn't have been helped" by a helmet; and just talk
about crash deaths.
Is "Dead" objective enough for weird, anti-helmet Luddite thinking?

Would you want to explain your bizarre "reasoning" to Kivilev's widow?

Remember the skull is only 1/4 of an inch thick. I used to imagine
more of an inch or so
before grad school.

Pro riders descend as fast as they can- 40-55 MPH. Hard, immovable
objects,
as well as the hard pavements waits.

PRO RIDERS DEAD FROM CRASH INJURIES IN THE 3 YEARS BEFORE INSTITUTION
OF HELMET RULE:
2 ( ?)
casartelli
kivilev

PRO RIDERS DEAD FROM CRASH INJURIES IN 8 MONTHS SINCE INSTITUTION OF
HELMET RULE
0 (?)

 

[Tom Kunich]

"remove the polite word to reply" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> uh, are these sad facts too obvious to mention, or is rhetoric more
> important than
> real, indisputable, tragic rider deaths?
>
> Let's even grant the fantasy that poor Kivilev's
> crushed head "wouldn't have been helped" by a helmet; and just talk
> about crash deaths.
> Is "Dead" objective enough for weird, anti-helmet Luddite thinking?
>
> Would you want to explain your bizarre "reasoning" to Kivilev's widow?
>
> Remember the skull is only 1/4 of an inch thick. I used to imagine
> more of an inch or so
> before grad school.
>
> Pro riders descend as fast as they can- 40-55 MPH. Hard, immovable
> objects,
> as well as the hard pavements waits.
>
> PRO RIDERS DEAD FROM CRASH INJURIES IN THE 3 YEARS BEFORE INSTITUTION
> OF HELMET RULE:
> 2 ( ?)
> casartelli
> kivilev
>
> PRO RIDERS DEAD FROM CRASH INJURIES IN 8 MONTHS SINCE INSTITUTION OF
> HELMET RULE
> 0 (?)

Casatelli struck a concrete pylon so hard that it crushed in the side of his
face. At least one report claimed that at least part of the skull fracture
was to the left cheekbone which was shoved back into the brain. Later there
were conflicting claims but there was never publically released any accurate
data relating to Casatelli's injuries. The chances that a helmet would have
done anything at all is remote at best.

Kivilev had both hands in his back pocket messing with his radio and fell
face first onto the roadway. We haven't gotten any reasonable reports on
this but if you fall that far onto your head with nothing to break your fall
(such as your hands and arms) you will exceed the protective capacity of a
helmet.

If helmets translate straight on collisions into rotating forces, which the
odd shapes do, it requires a much smaller rotational force to kill a rider.
So it is possible for a helmet to actually increase the danger to the
wearer.

And let's put this into perspective: number of riders dead in the Tour de
France without helmets in nearly 100 years - 4
Riders dead after 8 months of helmet rule - 0.
Now explain what that means?

Again, there are strong suggestions that a helmet will reduce minor injuries
to even more minor injuries or none at all. That certainly qualifies for 97%
of all accidents involving the head. Plainly it makes sense to wear helmets
in amatuer racing because most of the medical costs disappear with these
minor injuries which nevertheless are extremely expensive to treat.

But the idea that we're going to avoid racer's death with helmets is far
fetched enough to discount.

But the discussion was about risk compensation and not helmet dynamics. Do
racers take more chances with helmets on? I think that you can plainly see
that indeed they do. And since racing head injuries are only a small portion
of the injuries and because that means that added risk taking multiplies the
risk for all other injuries there is a net loss.

Moreover, no one has come up with any reasonable dispute over my claim that
risk compensation only works in one direction - to increase risks and not to
decrease them. If you narrow the track, throw gravel on the corners and
water the course down you'll see riders slow up and take fewer chances. But
remove their helmets now that they've grown used to a certain level of risk,
and they will simply continue at that level until something happens to cause
them to further increase their risk yet again.