Helmets in the Tour De France???
Comments
-
-
Following the 2003 rules, there was a period when they were allowed to lose the helmet during the final climb if it was more than 5km long, but this exemption has since been dropped.0
-
And it still wouldn't be compulsory on Alpe D'Huez; riders are allowed to discard their helmets if the finish is on a climb of more than 5 km.0
-
dumb rule.
A fall from standing to the ground at 0 km/hr is enough to kill. It has nothing to do with speed.0 -
I seem to remember they changed the mountain finish rule because riders would get to the foot of a climb and just fling their helmets on the floor for someone to pick up later (and helmets are only designed to take one major impact so perhaps it was a bad example).
AFAIK Axel Merckx and Johann Vansummeren are the only two pro cyclists ever DSQed for riding without a helmet? They were caught out by the change of the mountain top finish rule in the 2005 Mont Faron stage of Paris-Nice. It doesn't happen very often, that's for sure.0 -
Ah yes Martin - the Tdf was a regular bloodbath back before helmets were introduced.....0
-
I see they changed that recently; definitely was an exception for some time.Arkibal wrote:FJS wrote:And it still wouldn't be compulsory on Alpe D'Huez; riders are allowed to discard their helmets if the finish is on a climb of more than 5 km.
No, riders have to wear helmets all the time in a race, no matter if it's a mountain finish.0 -
Would I be right in saying only three riders have ever died in the TdF history, which is a very good safety record, considering one of them (Tom Simpson) was drug related.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Francisco Cepeda crashed on the Galibier in the 1935 Tour and died three days later.
Tom Simpson on the Ventoux in 1967.
And of course Casartelli in 1995.
It's also debatable whether you include Adolphe Heliére, who died on a rest day during the 1910 Tour after going for a swim in the sea and drowning.0 -
cougie wrote:Ah yes Martin - the Tdf was a regular bloodbath back before helmets were introduced.....
Check your facts.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Fabio+Casartelli
Paulo Savoldelli hates helmets, he decided to ride down the mountain after one stage of the TDF back to his hotel, without his helmet (Luchon - Carcassonne)
" Savoldelli got a 15-stitch gash in his head running into a spectator when he was riding down the mountain to the hill after the stage yesterday."
Sometimes rules are just there to protect the phenomenally stupid.0 -
Yes Martin - I saw that live on TV.
Reports from the time said that a helmet wouldnt have helped him. That was from the Tour doctor Gerard Porte. He should know - he was there - I'm guessing you weren't ?
If helmets are so useful - how come Marathon runners dont wear them ?0 -
They don't crash as often as cyclists?Le Blaireau (1)0
-
cougie wrote:Yes Martin - I saw that live on TV.
Reports from the time said that a helmet wouldnt have helped him. That was from the Tour doctor Gerard Porte. He should know - he was there - I'm guessing you weren't ?
If helmets are so useful - how come Marathon runners dont wear them ?
Huh??? A Marathon runner going downhill 90/100km/h?
0 -
Arkibal wrote:cougie wrote:Yes Martin - I saw that live on TV.
Reports from the time said that a helmet wouldnt have helped him. That was from the Tour doctor Gerard Porte. He should know - he was there - I'm guessing you weren't ?
If helmets are so useful - how come Marathon runners dont wear them ?
Huh??? A Marathon runner going downhill 90/100km/h?
Paula Radcliffe looking for a portaloo.0 -
afx237vi wrote:I (and helmets are only designed to take one major impact so perhaps it was a bad example).
.
Hmm, so , you fall off your bike and bounce down the road, your helmet only saves you from the inital impact :shock:
I think this is a ploy by the manufacturers to increase helmet purchases.0 -
afx237vi wrote:I seem to remember they changed the mountain finish rule because riders would get to the foot of a climb and just fling their helmets on the floor for someone to pick up later (and helmets are only designed to take one major impact so perhaps it was a bad example).
??
Surely not. Wouldnt it just have something to do with general safety and consistency of rules?
Would anyone think that amateur cyclists and commuters would throw their helmets on the ground when they reached the bottom of a hiill, just because the pros set a "bad example?
It's not as if the pros spend the rest of their time setting a "good example" for safe and responsible riding, is it?0 -
terongi wrote:afx237vi wrote:I seem to remember they changed the mountain finish rule because riders would get to the foot of a climb and just fling their helmets on the floor for someone to pick up later (and helmets are only designed to take one major impact so perhaps it was a bad example).
??
Surely not. Wouldnt it just have something to do with general safety and consistency of rules?
Would anyone think that amateur cyclists and commuters would throw their helmets on the ground when they reached the bottom of a hiill, just because the pros set a "bad example?
It's not as if the pros spend the rest of their time setting a "good example" for safe and responsible riding, is it?
Wastrels... I simply spend the first KM of any majorly long climb tying my helmet straps in a gordian knot around my bars to it doesn't end up in my front wheel."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Wasn't there a sit-down protest at the start of some stage when the helmet rule came in?0
-
It's funny, I never notice the presence of my helmet during a long climb....perhaps that's because I'm distracted by my raging heartbeat and screaming leg muscles....My cycle racing blog: http://cyclingapprentice.wordpress.com/
If you live in or near Sussex, check this out:
http://ontherivet.ning.com/0 -
More people get hurt watching the race than riding in it, so for H&S reasons I think 'Credit Lyonnais' branded helmets should be distributed by the caravanne to the roadside punters.0
-
Also many more pedestrians than cyclists are killed on the roads, and the fatality rates per km travelled are higher for pedestrians as well. Given this I feel that all advocates of cycling helmets should prove their faith in the ability of an inch of polystyrene to 'save lives' by wearing them when out walking as well...le patron wrote:More people get hurt watching the race than riding in it, so for H&S reasons I think 'Credit Lyonnais' branded helmets should be distributed by the caravanne to the roadside punters.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Also many more pedestrians than cyclists are killed on the roads, and the fatality rates per km travelled are higher for pedestrians as well. Given this I feel that all advocates of cycling helmets should prove their faith in the ability of an inch of polystyrene to 'save lives' by wearing them when out walking as well...le patron wrote:More people get hurt watching the race than riding in it, so for H&S reasons I think 'Credit Lyonnais' branded helmets should be distributed by the caravanne to the roadside punters.
Dear god. It is quite simple. If you don't want to wear one then don't. When I have come of my bike I have been very grateful that there was something taking the impact of the road instead of my head. If you don't mind potentially cracking your head then don't wear the lid instead of sarcastic to look clever!0 -
Presumably this is a UCI rule, so does that mean that the riders at last year's non UCI sanctioned TdF would not have had to wear helmets if they didn't want to?0
-
EPR wrote:Presumably this is a UCI rule, so does that mean that the riders at last year's non UCI sanctioned TdF would not have had to wear helmets if they didn't want to?
No, same with minimum bike weights, ASO just applied the normal UCI rules for the bits they agreed with or couldn't be bothered to argue about.0 -
And yet you are quite happy to run the higher risk of 'cracking your head' when you are walking somewhere as opposed to when you are on your bike? Sounds a bit irrational to me. I guess that it might be argued that the level of risk when walking simply doesn't justify wearing a helmet. If so it would be have to accepted that the same applies to riding a bike, only more so!BenBlyth wrote:Dear god. It is quite simple. If you don't want to wear one then don't. When I have come of my bike I have been very grateful that there was something taking the impact of the road instead of my head. If you don't mind potentially cracking your head then don't wear the lid instead of sarcastic to look clever!
By the way, what does 'instead of sarcastic to look clever' mean?0 -
Pro Race is REALLY not the place for yet another helmet thread :roll:___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
aurelio wrote:
And yet you are quite happy to run the higher risk of 'cracking your head' when you are walking somewhere as opposed to when you are on your bike? Sounds a bit irrational to me. I guess that it might be argued that the level of risk when walking simply doesn't justify wearing a helmet. If so it would be have to accepted that the same applies to riding a bike, only more so!BenBlyth wrote:Dear god. It is quite simple. If you don't want to wear one then don't. When I have come of my bike I have been very grateful that there was something taking the impact of the road instead of my head. If you don't mind potentially cracking your head then don't wear the lid instead of sarcastic to look clever!
By the way, what does 'instead of sarcastic to look clever' mean?
Well done. You spotted I missed the word 'being'. Try having a discussion instead of trying to mock someone over the internet, there is a real irony in doing that.
Do you tend to fall over a lot when walking? When you do fall over when walking are you likely to hit your head? For me the answer is no. Now whilst I rarely fall off my bike it happens more than walking. When I do fall off, due to having my feet attached to pedals and the position on a bike and the speed being significantly faste I am quite likely to hit my head. I then have 2 options, protect my head and in the vast majority of cases reduce the injuries I incur or don't protect my head and in the vast majority of cases, increase the level of my injuries.
Like I say, if you wantto take the other choice then that is up to you.
Apologies Calvjones. You are right. :oops:0 -
BenBlyth wrote:aurelio wrote:
And yet you are quite happy to run the higher risk of 'cracking your head' when you are walking somewhere as opposed to when you are on your bike? Sounds a bit irrational to me. I guess that it might be argued that the level of risk when walking simply doesn't justify wearing a helmet. If so it would be have to accepted that the same applies to riding a bike, only more so!BenBlyth wrote:Dear god. It is quite simple. If you don't want to wear one then don't. When I have come of my bike I have been very grateful that there was something taking the impact of the road instead of my head. If you don't mind potentially cracking your head then don't wear the lid instead of sarcastic to look clever!
By the way, what does 'instead of sarcastic to look clever' mean?
Well done. You spotted I missed the word 'being'. Try having a discussion instead of trying to mock someone over the internet, there is a real irony in doing that.
Do you tend to fall over a lot when walking? When you do fall over when walking are you likely to hit your head? For me the answer is no. Now whilst I rarely fall off my bike it happens more than walking. When I do fall off, due to having my feet attached to pedals and the position on a bike and the speed being significantly faste I am quite likely to hit my head. I then have 2 options, protect my head and in the vast majority of cases reduce the injuries I incur or don't protect my head and in the vast majority of cases, increase the level of my injuries.
Like I say, if you wantto take the other choice then that is up to you.
Apologies Calvjones. You are right. :oops:
Taking the point that this thread has turned into another helmet debate....
However, why are you quite likely to hit your head if you fall off a biike? You have exactly the same chance i.e 50/50 of hitting it whether you fall whilst walking, running, cycling, skateboarding.
For those who want to wear them, wear them.
You do find in these argument it is really those who are predominantly FOR wearing them that try and make those who don't out to be fools than the other way around.
I wear mine to race, and commuting, when out training I usually don't and it's 50/50 as to whether I wear it if out with the club. I never wear it in France any more.
Care to back up that bit highlighted in bold with some kind of (non -anecdotal) evidence?0 -
Ok, so some people who' fall off' their bikes significantly often (such as children) might well benefit from wearing a helmet, if only because they may thereby avoid cuts to the scalp and so on. (Assuming that the impacts they experience are within the sort of very limited range a helmet is designed to 'protect' against - under 90 joules or so, which is very little). However, they would probably benefit a lot more from improving their riding skills!BenBlyth wrote:Do you tend to fall over a lot when walking? When you do fall over when walking are you likely to hit your head? For me the answer is no. Now whilst I rarely fall off my bike it happens more than walking.
Whatever, you appear to be missing my main point which is that many people argue that helmets are able to 'save lives' and that the risks are so great when riding a bike that it is essential to wear a helmet. However, if this were the case then they would also have to argue that wearing a helmet when walking to the shops was also essential, given that the statistical risk of being killed in a road crash when walking is higher for pedestrians than for cyclists.0
