tom@oasys.UUCP (02/07/86)
I would like to stimulate some discussion on the new United States Cycling Federation ruling requiring ANSI approved hard-shell helmets in USCF sanctioned reaces. Personally, I feel based on eight years of racing experience that these helmets pose much more of a heat retention problem and therefore heat exhaustion and heat stroke problem than their added protection is worth. In Europe, where bike racing is the number one or two sport in many countries, this new ruling has become some what of a joke. It is accepted there that the risks of the sport are understood by the riders. The two best reasons against this ruling I feel are heat problems and the freedom an individual should have from others dictating what he should do for his own benefit. Please don't answer by saying you have never had heat problems with your hard helmet unless you have been racing as a Category I or II in 100 degree weather in 100+ mile races. It is at the limits of physical exhaustion where heat really becomes a problem. Tom Nelson @ NBI in Boulder CO
tom@oasys.UUCP (02/07/86)
> I would like to stimulate some discussion on the new United States Cycling > Federation ruling requiring ANSI approved hard-shell helmets in USCF sanctioned > reaces. Personally, I feel based on eight years of racing experience that > these helmets pose much more of a heat retention problem and therefore heat > exhaustion and heat stroke problem than their added protection is worth. > In Europe, where bike racing is the number one or two sport in many > countries, this new ruling has become some what of a joke. It is accepted > there that the risks of the sport are understood by the riders. > The two best reasons against this ruling I feel are heat problems and > the freedom an individual should have from others dictating what he should do > for his own benefit. Please don't answer by saying you have never had heat > problems with your hard helmet unless you have been racing as a Category I or > II in 100 degree weather in 100+ mile races. It is at the limits of physical > exhaustion where heat really becomes a problem. > > Tom Nelson @ NBI in Boulder CO
matt@utastro.UUCP (Matt Wood) (02/09/86)
In article <173@oasys.UUCP>, tom@oasys.UUCP writes: > I would like to stimulate some discussion on the new United States Cycling > Federation ruling requiring ANSI approved hard-shell helmets in > USCF sanctioned races. I live in Austin Texas, and although not a sanctioned racer, have riden some hard miles in 100-degree heat with a helmet. It's too hot to be comfortable, no doubt. The main reason I wear my helmet, though, is a fear of cars, not fear of crashing, even if riding in a group. If I'm riding away from the city for an entire ride, I'll usually go without. When I commute, I _always_ wear the helmet. I don't think racers should be required to wear helmets. -- Matt A. Wood Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!matt (UUCP) matt@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)
tuba@ur-tut.UUCP (Jon Krueger) (02/10/86)
In article <173@oasys.UUCP>, tom@oasys.UUCP writes: > I would like to stimulate some discussion on the new United States Cycling > Federation ruling requiring ANSI approved hard-shell helmets in > USCF sanctioned races. > I don't believe anyone should be REQUIRED to wear helmets. I don't believe anyone should be REQUIRED to use basic safety equipment anywhere. But I suggest follow-ups be directed to net.suicide.
winters@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/11/86)
Regardless of whether racers think the hard shell helmets are cmfortable or not, the real incentive behind the USCF ruling has to do with getting insurance and keeping insurance rates down, just as is the case with auto- mobile seatbelt laws to some extent. Crashes are a part of bike racing, and head injuries can be serious and result in big lawsuits. I personally crashed in a race, and later noticed that my (hardshell) helmet had sustained some damage. Better the helmet than my head. As far as the heat is concerned, not all of the hardshell helmets are unbearably hot, althoughI agree they are not as comfortable as no helmet. I have a V1-Pro which has alot of ventillation, and I survived alot of very hot, humid days last summer during long training rides. I guess my attitude is that the hard shell helmet ruling keeps USCF insurance rates down (and thus membership fees) and makes bike racing a safer sport, both of which result in increased participation which is something U.S. cycling can benefit from. I think the U.S. situation as far as insurance goes is alot different than that in Europe where bike racing is an established sport and the dangers are readily accepted and/or there is enough participation to offset the cost of insurance. L.W.
joels@tekred.UUCP (Joel Swank) (02/11/86)
> I would like to stimulate some discussion on the new United States Cycling > Federation ruling requiring ANSI approved hard-shell helmets in USCF sanctioned > reaces. Personally, I feel based on eight years of racing experience that > these helmets pose much more of a heat retention problem and therefore heat > exhaustion and heat stroke problem than their added protection is worth. > In Europe, where bike racing is the number one or two sport in many > countries, this new ruling has become some what of a joke. It is accepted > there that the risks of the sport are understood by the riders. > The two best reasons against this ruling I feel are heat problems and > the freedom an individual should have from others dictating what he should do > for his own benefit. Please don't answer by saying you have never had heat > problems with your hard helmet unless you have been racing as a Category > I or II in 100 degree weather in 100+ mile races. It is at the limits of > physical exhaustion where heat really becomes a problem. > > Tom Nelson @ NBI in Boulder CO It never ceases to amaze me how bicycle racers are vehemently against safety equipment. This doesn't seem to be true in any other sport. No professional auto racer would go out without a helmet, fire suit and lots of in-car safety equipment. Baseball players don't complain about having to wear a helmet at the plate. Motorcycle racers never complain about wearing helmet and leathers. Football players are glad to wear lots of protective padding. I'm sure there are lots of other examples. Bicycle racers, though, insist on their right to bleed and die. Maybe you just have to be stupid to get into bicycle racing in the first place. Joel Swank Tektronix, Redmond Oregon
eirik@tekchips.UUCP (Eirik Fuller) (02/12/86)
In article <446@tekred.UUCP> joels@tekred.UUCP (Joel Swank) writes: > ... > >It never ceases to amaze me how bicycle racers are vehemently against safety >equipment. This doesn't seem to be true in any other sport. I have a vague memory of controversy in college hockey a few years ago about the new (at the time) helmet rule. Of course, we know that hockey is such a wimpy sport, no one could possibly want protection :-). >... Bicycle racers, though, insist >on their right to bleed and die. Maybe you just have to be stupid to get >into bicycle racing in the first place. I'm not sure how seriously to take this. A :-) or two might have helped me decide. Oh well, here goes. As a 'stupid' bicyclist (not racer, though), I find it quite easy to relate to an attitude which favors comfort over the protection offered by a helmet. I'm not too fond of insurance companies either. I don't think there is a correlation between this attitude and intelligence. This attitude might be truly 'stupid' if it lacked an awareness of the risks, but I haven't fooled myself into believing that I will never crack my skull open. By the same token, I don't believe that I will never break my spine getting run over either. It's not something I expect to happen frequently. I have had two head injuries while bicycling in recent years. Neither of them had lingering effects beyond imperceptible scars. I'm not convinced one way or another what effect a helmet would have had in either case; both incidents involved facial injuries. In the first case I was blind sided by a pedestrian in a large crowd; I wouldn't have been any safer on foot. Do you wear your helmet walking in large crowds? In the other case, I have no clue what happened, and may never know; I woke up in the hospital a few hours later. Neither incident affected my attitude about helmets. One more comment. I can foresee changing my mind (if I live that long :-). Not because my attitude is wrong, but because my attitudes are changing all the time as I get older. I would prefer to wear a helmet because I want to, not because someone insists on it. I doubt some 'preacher' will 'convert' me; I'll make the decision on my own. As I already have.
diego@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) (02/13/86)
> I have had two head injuries while bicycling in recent years. > . . . > > One more comment. I can foresee changing my mind (if I live that > long :-). Not because my attitude is wrong, but because my attitudes > are changing all the time as I get older. I would prefer to wear a > helmet because I want to, not because someone insists on it. I doubt > some 'preacher' will 'convert' me; I'll make the decision on my own. > As I already have. As a long-time non-helmet cyclist with very few accidents (in 26 years of riding) I was very reluctant to accept helmet use. I have used a helmet regularly for the past 5 years and would like to offer these observations. Cyclists, whether motor or pedal, operate with no intervening materials (except clothing) between themselves and the pavement, poles, walls, and motor vehicles. There is a high inherent risk of physical injury in any accident. Head injuries, however infrequent, are the most serious that might be sustained in a biking accident. In general, I consider myself too be a very good rider with above average cycling skills. I have fallen a number of times and managed to protect my person and my bike. I have never had a head or face injury while cycling. However, considering the potentially irretrievable damage that might occur in any fall, it seems to make sense to use available technology for protection. I have ridden on hot days and remember in the last miles thinking only of the moment I could stop and take my helmet off. There are definitely heat build-up problems with some models (my **old** Brancale, for one). But I say that heat problems are better than "dead" problems any day. But I'll tell you the main reason why I finally accepted helmet use as a matter of course. My wife. She feels much more reassured of my safety regardless of my riding prowess. In a sense, I feel that I am doing what I can to ensure a successful ride. I suppose those who feel that there's nothing worth living for take a different attitude. I consider them in the same class with cigarette smokers and drivers who refuse to wear seat belts. It's not that someone **wants** to tell others what to do. It's that common sense does not always prevail and so costs society in medical research, hospitalization, and rehabilitation. Local race and tour sponsors have for several years required participants to wear helmets for their own safety and to ensure a tragedy-free experience for all. That makes sense. I think the basic rule of democracy is that one should be free to do as one wishes so long as one's actions have no adverse effects on others. When people act in ways that bring risk or cost to others, then it becomes necessary to introduce regulations. Sometimes there isn't time to allow everyone to evolve to better attitudes. In a way it's too bad, but in a way it's not either. I hope you make a positive decision soon.
junk@ur-tut.UUCP (Jan Vandenbrande) (02/13/86)
... Safety should always be an issue, no matter where. One of the problems with bicycle helmets is that many are ill designed. According to a friend who worked at a Hospital's emergency, the helmets would save your head but snap the nek where the helmet ended. This is of course annoying. She figured that you are better of without a helmet than with a bad helmet. (outside of traffic that is.) JV.
jxs7451@ritcv.UUCP (jxs) (02/14/86)
To the non helmet believers:
Sure a helmet might be uncomfortable, but your head smashing into
the (pavement | car | curb | dirt | ...) is also uncomfortable.
J. Smith Rochester NY
{allegra, siesmo}!rochester!ritcv!jxs7451
PS: And don't say "I dont plan to crash"grt@twitch.UUCP ( G.R.Tomasevich) (02/14/86)
One consideration people have been ignoring, at least in the cycling press, is insurance. I think that in part, the USCF was trying to create a better image to insurers concerning their safety consciousness. In fact, see the recent Velo-News; it appears that racing may be dead for lack of insurability. I would never run a race without plenty of coverage. Concerning heat load, I am not sure. I have done plenty of centuries in high-heat high-humidity weather, both before and after hard-shell helmets were available and cannot attribute a large effect to the helmet (Pro-Tec). One interesting comparison is high-speed driving on race tracks. I have to wear a full helmet (car helmets are like motorcycle helmets), long sleeves and pants. The cars get quite hot in the summer, mainly from engine heat. I have never gotten hotter or more sweat-soaked on the bike as I have gotten in the car in such weather. The people running the events warn the drivers about dehydration. Overall, I think bike racing is safer than riding in traffic (commuting in particular) or riding in club training rides, based on accidents I have had in 20 years, PROVIDED that the races have separate events by categories. -- George Tomasevich, ihnp4!twitch!grt AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
eirik@tekchips.UUCP (Eirik Fuller) (02/18/86)
In article <6184@cca.UUCP> diego@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) writes: > ... >But I'll tell you the main reason why I finally accepted helmet use as a >matter of course. My wife. She feels much more reassured of my safety >regardless of my riding prowess. In a sense, I feel that I am doing >what I can to ensure a successful ride. I suppose those who feel that >there's nothing worth living for take a different attitude. I consider >them in the same class with cigarette smokers and drivers who refuse to ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ >wear seat belts. It's not that someone **wants** to tell others what to >do. It's that common sense does not always prevail and so costs society >in medical research, hospitalization, and rehabilitation... Ahem. I have no problem being compared to a seat belt nonwearer. After all, I am one :-). However, this bit about cigarette smokers is simply ludicrous. The RISK in cigarette smoking is not the only issue; there is immediate damage. Also, with smoking there is the question of who else is damaged; I don't harm others (physically, anyway) by spraying my brains on the road. Am I to understand that everybody who doesn't wear a helmet feels that there's nothing worth living for? If not, maybe you are not comparing me to a smoker. Either way, the analogy is flawed. By the way, my girlfriend doesn't wear a helmet either, when she rides. This is not something one of us talked the other into; we simply happen to agree. > >Local race and tour sponsors have for several years required >participants to wear helmets for their own safety and to ensure a >tragedy-free experience for all. That makes sense.... I am mostly indifferent about the USCF rule itself. If I ever get into racing, I'll take the same attitude that I took toward head gear and knee pads when I was a wrestler. If I had more of a desire to race, I would be less indifferent, since it might affect my decision. I guess my point is that I get weary of the preaching. My worst fear about this is that I will be the same way when I finally give in and wear a helmet. After all, I think all of the following people are unquestionably insane: people who ride at night without lights; people who ride double on non-tandems; people who ride facing traffic; and, most of all, people who ride without rear view mirrors. Don't take this last too seriously; it is a tad exaggerated. However, I mean it about mirrors. Do any of you helmet fanatics ride without a mirror? Somebody explain to me why anyone would ride without a mirror; as a convert, I am blind :-).
buz@umich.UUCP (Greg Buzzard) (02/20/86)
If all of those opposed to wearing helmets would sign a contract stating that they will not burden society with any expenses that may arise from injuries that could have been avoided by the wearing of a helmet, then I would say fine, let personal freedom prevail. But our society does not seem to be able to offer such an alternative. In light of this, I'm in favor of minimizing my expenses, both direct and indirect, wherever possible, hence feel that safety equipment rules and/or laws are justifiable. I firmly believe in preserving *important* personal freedoms, even at considerable expense, however, helmet laws do not rank high on my *important* personal freedom list.
bill@sdcsvax.UUCP (Bill Appelbe) (02/20/86)
I wear a helmet for a simple reason ... It saved my life once!
I was rear-ended, by a VW driven by a teenager merging from a ramp onto
a major road, at a speed fast enough to send my head through his windshield
(and melt my backpack, while sliding up his hood, and knock teeth out of my
rear cluster). Needless to say, I had quite a few cuts, and minor concussion,
but after a 24hr. checkout I was out of the hospital and back to normal
(and back on my bike, of course!). I ride a lot, and have seen the results
of someone not wearing a helmet too (they hit a pedestrian, while on a
kamakize-like downhill run at night without lights ... the poor pedestrian
was simply crossing the dark road, not expecting a 'misguided missile'!).
The net result was the pedestrian was shaken, the bicyclist put in a coma,
from which he never returned. If you come off a bike, you are likely to
hit the ground at 10-20 mph, quite likely on your head! If its direct,
and there is no convenient mud or soft dirt ....
Helmets are not a replacement for defensive cycling (they are no help against
the danger of fracturing your spine). If you do not want to wear a helmet
that's fine by me, but I AM SURE GLAD I DID NOT THINK THAT WAY A COUPLE
OF YEARS AGO!
Cheers -- Billsalex@rice.EDU (Scott Alexander) (02/21/86)
I have worn a helmet since I first started to consider bicycling as more than just a way to get to a friends house when Mom wouldn't drive me. My experience in commuting in large cities (Houston, Phoenix, and Ks. City), though, has reinforced this decision. I found that drivers tend to show a greater respect for a bicyclist wearing a helmet than one not. There seems to be a mentality that w/o a helmet, I am playing, whereas, with a helmet I must be someone serious. *Breaking Away* seems to have strenghtened this. Scott Alexander Rice University salex@rice.edu
wholmes@bbnccv.UUCP (William P. Holmes) (02/24/86)
>>We didn't even get to vote on it or at least get some notice so as to let them >>know how we feel. >[I don't know too much about the USCF, but I assume you get to vote on your >leadership at some point.] Yes, we do vote on our district reps, but that won't reverse or postpone the rule. I think that if the insurance wasn't involved the rule wouldn't have passed. Since the insurance company didn't care wether or not we had this rule. >> I'm not saying people shouldn't wear them, I'm saying don't decide for us. >There are a number of good reasons why the USCF decided to pass this rule, >but the bottom line is that they are deciding only for the organization, their >right and obligation. If you don't want to wear one, you don't have to race >in their races. Start one of your own.] I guess my main concern is just the way they dropped it on us. I believe their will be comfortable hard shell helmets, but not untill mid to late season. If the USCF gave more notice (1 year) the helmet companies could have come out with new lines before the rule went into effect. Racing starts in another month and except for mail order I haven't seen any new hard shells this year. I already bought my hard shell helmet so that I don't miss any racing waiting for the post-helmet rule helmets. As for racing in other races(citizen), you can't do it, unless you want to give up your USCF lic. Most citizen races are fairly dangerous and poorly run. The helmet rule isn't that big a deal to me. >>[raig >>cmacfarlane@bbn-vax.arpa > >>BTW, the USCF now has another insurance policy anyway, which costs promoters a >>little over $200. This cost will just be passes on to racers. > >...You seem to suggest that paying for insurance is an unfair burden. The >promoter both needs protection from, and is morally obliged to protect the >racers from the consequences of accidental oversights that statistically are >bound to occur. If you should get hurt, do you promise not to call a laywer?] > >Jon. Gingerich I included that to let people know what was going on, not as further argument. Anyway, I think hard shell helmets are a great idea, and by the end of the year there will be some that provide enough cooling for anybody. I was just upset that it happened so quickly, as to surprise racers and helmet companies. See you on the road, [raig cmacfarlane@bbnv.arpa
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (02/25/86)
> > It never ceases to amaze me how bicycle racers are vehemently against safety > equipment. This doesn't seem to be true in any other sport. Wrong! I played ice hockey for a number of years before moving to the current sunny climes (climbs?) where I now reside. Hockey players opposed helments for years for a number of good and bad reasons. Currently the NHL requires all *new* players to wear helmets whereas the old-timers do not have to. For the USCF to have adopted this sort of approach would make more sense than the sudden, unexpected transition. Any equipment change by fiat will be rejected in the same way. The participants in other sports would react no differently. Equipment changes in the sports you mentioned are care- fully considered over a period of years with the athletes actually using prototype equipment in top level competition before final designs are adopted. Nothing of this sort was done in cycling. No-- Cat 3,4 riders wearing a Bell Biker in their local 25 mile criterium does not qualify as careful evaluation. (No flames, OK? I'm a Cat 3 and ride local criteriums myself) > I'm sure there are lots of other examples. Bicycle racers, though, insist > on their right to bleed and die. Maybe you just have to be stupid to get > into bicycle racing in the first place. > I don't know about that, but you sure have to be stupid to put a comment like that on the net. Have you ever raced? Have you ever seen a race? Racers are not daredevils. You don't win if you crash and you surely don't win if you die. And winning is what its all about. But you also don't win if you overheat or the sweat pours in your eyes and blinds you. What the original author was trying for was an intelligent discussion of the USCF ruling. If you can't contribute to that then don't waste our time.
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (02/25/86)
> benefit from. I think the U.S. situation as far as insurance goes is alot > different than that in Europe where bike racing is an established sport and > the dangers are readily accepted and/or there is enough participation to offset > the cost of insurance. Actually, its the civil court system in the US that awards outrageous (flames to net.legal) sums for any unpleasent occurance that a litigant cares to take to court. This system is much more controlled in Europe and therefore insurance rates are not out of sight. Of 37 sports governing bodies associated with the US Olympic Committee, 35 were refused insurance at the beginning of 1986! This situation was so out of hand that USOC finally stepped in to represent all the governing bodies. The situation is still not completely resolved. My only hope is that, like Marcos, lawyers and insurers have finally gone too far this time.
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (02/25/86)
> I ride a lot, and have seen the results > of someone not wearing a helmet too (they hit a pedestrian, while on a > kamakize-like downhill run at night without lights ... the poor pedestrian > was simply crossing the dark road, not expecting a 'misguided missile'!). Comeon Bill, we're talking USCF Helmet Rule here, not the results of natural selection! :-)
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (02/26/86)
I wear a hard shell helmet because of what did not happen to a helmeted friend of mine (namely death). This friend was bicycling in Humboldt County, California, a beautiful heavily forested area crisscrossed with clearcuts. A logging truck passed him and a chip fell off the truck, tangled in his front wheel, and landed him in the hospital with a concussion and major lacerations along one forearm. He got to see what was left of his helmet -- apparently he had landed directly on a fist-sized rock which had embedded itself in the shell to a depth of over an inch. I bike almost exclusively in metropolitan areas (Los Angeles and Portland, OR) and I prefer to safeguard myself against coming in contact with concrete curbs whenever possible (As an emergency medical technician, I don't want to become one of the gory details). Granted, Portland is usually a "temperate" climate, but accidents happen most easily when heat, fatigue, or other factors combine -- more reason to keep the helmet on in hot weather. Ellen -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" "I read it in a book," said Alice. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E8D@PSUVM.BITNET (03/08/86)
This discussion seems to be dying down a bit so here's another twig
for the flames:
I checked out the promo-sheet that came with my Balen. They claim
that there is no evidence that wearing a helmet reduces body CORE TEMPERATURE
(emphasis mine). Their claim is that an adequately ventelated helmet
(ie theirs) reduces heat loss from the head no more than a traditional cloth
cycling cap. (Of course squirting water on it doesn't do much for evaporation.)
I do wish they hadn't changed the sweat-band on the front though -- the new one
gets a lot stickier.
I think racer's aversion to helmets is a lot like hockey player's. There
is a lot of inertia in the system to be overcome. Personally I don't care
except that it gives us all a bad name if cycling is seen by the general
public as a dangerous sport. Maybe now there won't be any peer pressure
NOT to wear a hard-shell so some cyclists will be following their own
instincts.
On the bright side at least it's a fairly uniform handicap.
-------
Disclaimer: Sorry about the spelling.
Evan Dresel
Dept. of Geochemistry E8D @ PSUVM (bitnet)
228 Deike Bldg. ...!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!e8d (uucp <-->
Penn State University bitnet gateway)
University Park, PA 16802 e8d%psuvm.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa (arpa)
(814) 863-0672
------------------------------------------------------------------------