Helmets

thelawnet

Fabio Casartelli died on a descent in the 1995 Tour de France. He was not wearing a helmet.

His death was the prime driving factor behind helmet wearing, which was made compulsory by UCI in 2003.

In the 17 years since his death 14 further cyclists have died. In the previous 17 years 6 cyclists died.

The most recent death was that of Wouter Weylandt, who died in much the same manner as Fabio Casartelli, on a descent.

Of course not all of the earlier or later deaths were from head injuries, but certainly helmets haven't made pro cycling any safer.

Heycock

Yes, I recall Phil Liggett or Paul Sherwen making the point of more deaths since the introduction of compulsion but i don't remember them relating that to any increase in number of crashes. I'm sure that we're getting more bunched sprint finishes than we used to get and consequent crashes. The most spectacular had to be Addoujaparov's on the Champs-Elysee and that was pre helmets. He slid 50 metres on his face but suffered no major head injury asIi remember. Loads of blood though! I just think we're seeing more than ever and I'm sure riders are taking more risks.
I don't think a helmet would have saved Casartelli from what .I remember about the incident.
Generally though, i'm going to put my head (unhelmeted) above the parapet and risk getting it blown off by saying that in my experience as a rider and as a driver doing 35 to 40K miles a year mostly around town for over 20 years as a taxi driver, my observation was that the cyclists most likely to stop at red lights, not ride on pavements, generally obey the rules of the rode AND ride defensively (which is what I do...its called pragmatism!) were the ones NOT wearing helmets. The ones taking all the chances and proving a hazard to everyone else (including fellow cyclists) were the ones with the full kit.

Heycock

Obviously, i'm not counting kids on bikes they've just robbed riding like idiots between drug runs.

Marco_Panettone

If you look into crashes in the pro peloton pre and post-helmets you need to factor in the increase of coverage the races now get. If crashes happen now, we'll know about it. 30 years ago that wouldn't be the case.

Regarding how different riders use the road I think you'll find that EVERYONE does stupid things now and again. Mostly this isn't deliberate, or dangerous, or illegal. Sometimes it is, but even then it usually doesn't result in any harm being done.

It seems strange to have an 'anti-authority' thing about helmets (rider choice) but not red lights, etc where you're actually told things by actual authority.

Heal fast, and stay lucky.

thelawnet

eh, 30 years ago dead cyclists were still reported.

Heycock

Marco#125...I cycle defensively and follow the rules out of self-preservation. It's nothing to do with authority. By not going through a red light I'm not going to cause an accident. By not mounting the pavement I'm not going to hit a pedestrian, a seemingly lesser species that no-one ever seems to mention on these pages.
It was simply MY observation from MY experience that the riders wearing the least "gear" are the ones who seem to ride more carefully. Here I'm being sexist I admit because I very rarely saw lady cyclists kitted out or otherwise take risks. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of cycling accidents involving cars broken down by cyclist's sex, age and profession.

Marco_Panettone

Heycock wrote: »

Marco#125...I cycle defensively and follow the rules out of self-preservation. It's nothing to do with authority. By not going through a red light I'm not going to cause an accident. By not mounting the pavement I'm not going to hit a pedestrian, a seemingly lesser species that no-one ever seems to mention on these pages.

I'm certainly not condoning rule-breaking on the roads by anyone, which is why I find the act of rebellion against helmets a bit odd. I too cycle within the law, don't go through reds (even empty pedestrian crossings when there's no other traffic around). I'd class myself as assertive, not defensive though - but for the same reasons you give.

Heycock wrote: »

It was simply MY observation from MY experience that the riders wearing the least "gear" are the ones who seem to ride more carefully. Here I'm being sexist I admit because I very rarely saw lady cyclists kitted out or otherwise take risks. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of cycling accidents involving cars broken down by cyclist's sex, age and profession.

There you go: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3313260.ece

It's missing statistics about the general cycling population so you can't tell if a greater proportion of men/women/certain age groups are more 'at risk', but it gives more information than most of these studies.

On a slight side-note, wouldn't it be nice if cyclists didn't have to justify themselves to each other every time there's a discussion? There are no points to win, and no prizes for the 'holier-than-thou' (I include myself in this spectrum too).

stevemcol

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

It seems strange to have an 'anti-authority' thing about helmets (rider choice) but not red lights, etc where you're actually told things by actual authority.

Heal fast, and stay lucky.

I'm in the Heycock camp on this one. All the other rules 'stopping at lights, not riding on the pavement etc etc' have a direct impact on other road users and are therefore rules worth sticking to. Helmets make no difference whatsoever to other road users and should therefore continue to be optional.

Marco_Panettone

stevemcol wrote: »

I'm in the Heycock camp on this one. All the other rules 'stopping at lights, not riding on the pavement etc etc' have a direct impact on other road users and are therefore rules worth sticking to. Helmets make no difference whatsoever to other road users and should therefore continue to be optional.

I completely agree. Helmets should remain as rider's choice, and other rules of the road should be adhered to. I was just baffled slightly be Heycock's reason for not wearing one:

Heycock wrote: »

Anyway I'm one of those "irresponsible" morons who have never worn a helmet and never will. Mostly because so many people tell me i should...its an anti authority thing.

Saying that wearing helmets has no impact on other road users isn't quite correct though. Studies have shown that drivers tend to give non-helmet wearers more space when overtaking, and that laws making helmets compulsory increase deaths per km of cyclists.

Personally I always wear one as I know too many people who probably wouldn't be alive today if they'd chosen not to the day they got hit by other vehicles. As I said, stay lucky.

motch

kerby_crawler wrote: »

I have seen a few videos showing all manner of quite atrocious driver behaviour, but, however wrong it may be, it is very often completely predictable. Defensive road use majors on good anticipation, rather than insisting upon one's 'rights'.

Rightly or wrongly, motorists are quite likely to perceive cyclists differently from the way they perceive other motorists - cyclists in turn need to make allowances for the predictable misperceptions of motorists - that is arguably at least as good a way to avoid a head injury as wearing a helmet. It also very often depends upon having a very good view of what is developing behind.

As a general rule i'd advise any new cyclists that all cars are generally out to knock you off - with that in mind you can antisipate cars/van pulling out on you, turning across you, smidsy etc on a regular basis.