This is a helmet debate

[ufkacbln]

your not considering like for like, so once again your point is err....pointless

How do you work that out?

Of course denial is easier than actually answeringthe point, so let me make it simpler and ask two questions........


The original post was:

my point is, if wearing helmets is pointless or of little benefit, why do the experienced racing authorities insist on it?

1. The UCI and the RAC / ACU are "the expereinced racing bodies" for the two sports and insist on helmets, or are you denying this is the case?
2. The implication is that we should listen to the "experienced racing bosies"- Could you explain why we should we listen to one and not the other?


I would look forward to your explanation as to which of these statements you disagree with and why.

 

[ufkacbln]

It does seem completely bonkers for a sport that is renowned for its drug taking to get all worried about bumping their heads.

Actualy the sport with the greatest ratio of failed drug tests to tests carried out is Crown Green Bowls, and they don't wear helmets either!

 

[billy1561]

The local Clarion club say no helmet no ride. Don't think that is about money or sponsorship.

 

[yello]

Tell you what, you give us the answer you want to hear and we can then all agree with you and bring this thread to an end.

 

[NormanD]

The helmets are used as an anti glare device to cover the riders bald spots, thus preventing blinding the riders behind due to reflective sunlight, everyone knows that

 

[Fab Foodie]

The local Clarion club say no helmet no ride. Don't think that is about money or sponsorship.

Agreed, though it IS about liability/insurance as per Sportives etc. which sometimes insist on helmet wearing...
Again, AFAIK, there is no evidence to suggest that helmet wearing has made any impact other than to discourage people cycling - and that's a bad thing.

 

[billy1561]

The more i read about the debate regarding helmet wearing the more puzzled i get. Some people make good arguments both for and against. Others just spout nonsense.
Either way my personal choice is a helmet and i respect others who decide not to although i will never understand why not

 

[SquareDaff]

The helmets are used as an anti glare device to cover the riders bald spots, thus preventing blinding the riders behind due to reflective sunlight, everyone knows that

So that's why I've slowed down since wearing a helmet - I've covered my solar panel

 

[yello]

The more i read about the debate regarding helmet wearing the more puzzled i get. Some people make good arguments both for and against. Others just spout nonsense.
Either way my personal choice is a helmet and i respect others who decide not to although i will never understand why not

Spot on billy. You're right. There are good for and against arguments, valid in their own contexts. There isn't a simple, uncontested 'one size fits all' answer. You simply have to make up your own mind on the subject and do what you feel best.

 

[david k]

i agree guys, and posted as such on one of the other helmet threads, well said

+1

 

[corshamjim]

Spot on billy. You're right. There are good for and against arguments, valid in their own contexts. There isn't a simple, uncontested 'one size fits all' answer. You simply have to make up your own mind on the subject and do what you feel best.

There isn't a 'one size fits all' helmet either, much as the manufacturers would try and pretend otherwise.

 

[oldroadman]

I seem to recall that helmets were mandatory long before Mr Bell decided that he could make money from hard shell cycling helmets as their share of the motorbike market declined. So they simply ran a big PR campaign. At the time the "hairnet was compulsory for road racing in UK and Belgium. BCF were then confronted by insurers who insisted that the hard shell was a better standard and insurance would be withdrawn unless shells were introduced. So there you have it. And continued marketing pressure has persuaded all the poor saps that a helmet will make you safe, at around £100 a go for a bit of plastic and expanded polystyrene. Who is laughing all the way to the bank...
Even the UCI caved in.
Aerodynamic, standard RR crash hat, I think not, only the TT things are anywhere near it.

 

[Paco de Bango]

your not considering like for like, so once again your point is err....pointless

go on answer the point raised you can't fob that one off.

Racing cyclists wear helmets because there's an increased risk of crashing because of the aggressive way they ride.

Racing drivers wear helmets because there's an increased risk of crashing because of the aggressive way they drive.

Wearing helmets for driving or cycling on public highways is not necessary if you drive/cycle in a way that reduces the risk of crashing

 

[david k]

As i say, not judging like for like

A racing driver drives a car that is built for speed, on tracks often built for that purpose and in a dangerous manner. Car racing is well known for its dangers. Public driving however if rarely in similar cars, never on race tracks, often on a and b roads at low speed and therefore not the same.

A pro cycler will use a professional bike and at the top of his game travel at speed. He rarely travells on a road with other vehicle users as they are either on a track or on roads that have been shut down for the purpose of the race. A casual cyclist can use similar bikes, can travel at similar speeds (albeit not for the same length of time) and travel on roads with other road users.

A car crashing at 100+mph is likely to cause alot of damage. this is more likely to happen to a race driver than causal car user.

A cyclist can come of their bike at speed, a pro or casual cyclist oing down hill. A casual cyclist is more likely than its pro counterpart to be hit by a vehicle, which I presume is just if not more dangerous than just falling off.


And therefore, you are not judging like for like, I presumed you would see this for yourselves but I have had to write it down for you. I am happy to accept your views but not arguments that have no basis

 

[400bhp]

This is what the UCI said on the matter:

They haven't explicitly stated the reason but implicitly state it's for safety reasons.

Make of it what you will.