jon@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Jonathan Gingerich) (02/21/86)
[ I mocked this posting at one point, but it appears not to have gotten out of our local network. This is just as well, as I dislike flames as well as thoughtlessness. Please 'n' over this if you have seen it already.] >>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... >>Joel Swank >>Tektronix, Redmond Oregon [ The major weakness of the following as a rebuttal is that Joel is NOT equating the safety equipement of various sports, but the attitudes toward the (implicitly) appropriate levels of safety equipement. Unfortunately, you distort many facts in the argument.] > In anything you do, the more safety equipment you wear the less damage. Does >this mean we should wear helmets in cars(it would save many more lives)? You >have to draw the line somewhere. I'm not against safety equipment, and I don't >buy comparing bike racing(20-30mph) to auto racing(up to 220mph, flamables). [If anyone were equating the levels of danger and appropriate safety equipement for cycling and motorsport, then they would contend that either a cyclist should wear a firesuit, or that drivers are adequately protected by a hard shell helmet, both patently absurd. What is more bothersome is that you give a top speed for autos but not for bicycles (Lemond broke 55 in the Coors). Also, the danger in cycling is that a naked rider can be hurled head first at the pavement, even at very low speeds.] >It also isn't a contact sport like football. [Riders can bump quite a bit thus making it a contact sport as much as basketball is. Of course, body contact is not intrinsic as it is in football, which is why they wear pads in football and not on a bike. On the other hand, football is not played on asphalt! ] > You mention some sports that use helmets, but none that do not(Rodeo riding, >horse racing, skiing, pole-vaulting, boxing etc.) [Even if someone were arguing that cyclists should have helmets because others do, this argument would be self-defeating. Skiers (downhill, jumpers, and GS?), boxers (amateur), and (I believe) jockeys do wear helmets. Speaking of which isn't the USCF largely (entirely?) amateur? Professionals do get paid to take greater risks in many sports. The sport that is resposible for Muhammed Ali's current condition is not a very good example.] >In the NFL, which is much more dangerous, [I think what you mean is more "injurious". This may be true, but as far as I know, no one has died in an accident in NFL football; This is not true of cycling!] >players wear what they feel is right, not what some one else feels is right. [Within limits, players can choose what kind of padding they wish to use; Tackling is not life threating. They must, however, wear a helmet.] >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.] >This rule was just a last minute effort to keep their insurance. [The rule was brought up last year. Shouldn't the word be "our" as in "our insurance". ] > I'm not saying people shouldn't wear them, I'm saying don't decide for us. [As a racer?, you know that you have had to wear a helmet; The question is whether or not it should pass the Snell or ANSI standards (i.e. a hard-shell). 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.] >[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. [This seems fair. The promoter has a number of costs (insurance, promotion, prizes, etc.) and a number of sources of revenue (advertising, entry fee, concessions, etc.) If he puts on a good race, racers will pay the entry fee, if not they won't. At least the membership doesn't have to pick up the cost for races they don't participate in. 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