i watched as the man won himself his 5th Tour
(well, not oficially but i doubt if ulrich can claw back one minute something now)
it was truly awesome and i had exactly the same thoughts about the helmet as i watched the incident
what’s the protocol in uni racing?
surely u dont wait for a upd’d rider during a track race?
and when we start racing road races?
dont do it! i stopped drinking four five days last week and almost died of bordom…
I too noticed the lack of helmets in yesterday’s Tour coverage. I know the Tour has been a hotbed of helmet controversy over the years, and has been one of the major holdouts against mandatory helmet use in big, high-publicity races.
I imagine there is tremendous “political” pressure in both directions. Helmet companies no doubt want their products advertised on the stars’ heads. Pro- and anti-helmet law advocates probably pay a lot of attention to what the Tour riders do. But the riders themselves carry tons of weight as the most elite road riders. Though I haven’t followed in detail, I believe they have rebelled against helmet rules in the past. I wasn’t aware of the current “last climb only” rule. Obviously uphill speeds are way slower (as well as hotter) than the 60+ mph descents from the summit, so it’s probably the safest time during the race to take them off.
There was big debate in the early 90s about mandatory helmet usage for track racing. All the same arguments we’ve heard here were tossed around for several years, to the point of an unprecedented membership vote of the Unicycling Society, carried out through the newsletter. I think this was the only one of those we’ve ever done. Freedom of choice was the winner, and the exact rules can of course be seen in the rulebooks.
I believe the IUF and USA Rulebooks both require helmets for the same (or nearly same) short list of events: Downhill Glide, Fast Backwards, Unlimited Road Race, MUni. I would like to see a helmet requirement for High and Long Jump as well, as they generally always end in some sort of dismount.
So we require helmets in extra fast, backwards, and rough terrain events. Beyond this, the host has the option of requiring additional safety gear as they see fit. For example, the mountain bike park at the Snoqualmie Summit has a mandatory helmet rule, so all riders had to wear one, even if not racing. Otherwise, riders are free to not wear helmets, except when they compete in events that are “owned” by someone else.
We started doing road races in 1988 (8k race, UNICON IV). Obviously, rules don’t require that you wait. In the Tour de France, there appears to be a strong sense of honor in the pack; a unity amongst the riders. I think it’s great.
We don’t have any such traditions in unicycle racing, though sometimes we wait. At the 10k race at UNICON last summer, I was behind Nathan Hoover as we came back into the track, near the end. They had the track set up with sprialing ribbons, where you went 2 or 3 times around to fill out the 10k. Nathan mistakenly stopped a lap early, thinking he was done. I could have beat him, the one-and-only time I ever raced my 20-year-old 45" wheel. We were in like 5th and 6th position. But Nathan is my friend, has raced a lot less than me over the years, and that’s not the way I like to win. I waited for Nathan to get back in front of me, and then we resumed racing from there. He stayed in front.
The longest unicycle race I ever raced was the 9 mile “Cinder Path” in Chariton, Iowa, at NUCs in 1991 and 1996. I was with the lead group both times (those were the days), and we socalized and played games up there.
In '91, it was Kiear Renaud, Amy Edwards and me. Amy had stayed up to some ongodly hour the night before, and we knew she was tired. She fell behind. But we were way ahead of the next riders, so Kiear and I decided to hide in the bushes and try to scare her when she rode past. Fortunately, she did not fall off, which would have made me feel real guilty. Instead, she got her revenge. I had crouched in a bed of poison ivy! Fortunately it was mostly faded by the time I got to UNICON V, a week or so later.
In '96 I ended up in a lead group with Andy Cotter and Dustin Kelm. We decided to try to annoy the timers by crossing the finish line as perfectly side-by-side as possible. But first we had to make sure we trusted each other… 
I don’t remember how they recorded the results, but we had fun. I think that was also the race where I actually reloaded the film in my little Olympus XA camera during the race. Talk about things not to do! I have pictures from both of those 9 mile races. I think the finishing time for those (on 24" wheels) was about 54 minutes.
Re: Helmets to be required in Seattle
Graeme wrote:
> When seatbelts became compulsory in the UK, the long term reduction in
> driver injuries was almost unmeasurably small and the increase in
> injuries to vulnerable road users (e.g. perdestrians, cyclists, us)
> was dramatic (somewhere around 30% or more from memory).
I was trying to find the exact figure (and ideally a reference to it) a
few weeks ago for a letter that I was writing to the Department for
Transport. Sadly I couldn’t find it anywhere 
BTW, the letter (and the letter that preceded it) are at
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/cycling/dft01.html and may be
of interest to anyone who is actively campaigning to prevent compulsory
helmet legislation.
> …I promised myself not to get into another helmet thread. Bad
> Graeme, no beer for at least a week 
Hmm. I’ve promised myself the same thing dozens of times, and I’m
getting better at resisting, but I still seem to get drawn into about
one helmet thread in four.
–
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny )
Recumbent cycle page: http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” - Thomas Paine
Re: Re: Helmets to be required in Seattle
I never promised to stay out of helmet discussions, though I’m sure I’ll get tired of it eventually…
This indicates only an incomplete set of data. Any accident figures used before and after enaction of seat belt legislation must include figures for compliance to be meaningful. If only 5% more people are wearing seat belts at the time, the numbers don’t really mean much yet.
I notice nobody has argued the benefits of seat belts in cars. Maybe because it’s off topic? I know, I know.
I checked it out, in hopes of enlightenment; a better explanation of the “facts” in that direction. Instead I found only more “bad science.” Bad science is usually used by both sides in any argument of this nature. The letter starts, after a complaint about the semantics used by the other side, with the a mention of how helmets can cause injuries as well as prevent them. To what percent? If it’s 50% you have a compelling argument. If it’s 10%, it should be noted that helmets aren’t perfect (nobody thought they were).
The letter claims that images of helmeted cyclists give the impression that “Cycling is dangerous.” Is this based on any survey or other data? To me a helmet does not indicate danger. Lots of sports use helmets, though their incident of injury is not necessarily high. They wear the helmets because injury is possible. This is not enough to make an argument for mandatory helmet legislation though.
When I advocate helmet requirements for unicycle competition it is to protect the organizers from liability, and to present a responsible image. Again, this is competition we’re talking about, not street riding. People look at us as a bunch of crackpots. But in “my” competitions, the idea is that we look like crackpots who have at least thought about cause and effect.
The author of the letter also unscientifically concludes that in his case he would be more likely to crash while wearing a helmet, so he chooses, for his own safety during the summer months, not to wear one. He appears to be saying he would rather crash less times, without a helmet, than more times, with one. Maybe this works, but it doesn’t make sense to me.
Sorry to attack that letter specifically, but as an offered example of reasons to oppose helmet legislation, it has little to offer. It needs work to make a convincing argument.
What makes a much more compelling case for me is Tom Holub’s notes about how the numbers of deaths and injuries for motorists and pedestrians are far greater. Hey! So why do we have to wear them and not them? I think it’s a valid question, even though it avoids the issue. The issue is, and I believe the studies support this, that helmets save lives. That is the reason to wear one, if you choose to do so.
But in deciding if everyone should have to wear one, pointing away from cycling to other activities is neither compelling, nor convincing, as an argument.
I am only in favor of mandatory helmet laws (for adults) if they remove the burden of health care for accident victims from the general population. The numbers here are far less than they are for motorcycles, so the argument can be weak at best. People who ride motorcycles on the freeway, for example, and then have one-bike accidents, are being irresponsible if they aren’t wearing a helmet. That is, if my health care costs or taxes have to pay for that riders’ rehab or lifelong social security benefits. In other words, the argument is much stronger for motorcycles than for bicycles as I assume the accident numbers are higher, and the injuries are more severe.
What about those Rugby players, anyway? 
Re: Re: Re: Helmets to be required in Seattle
If there is no danger for a helmet to protect a rider from, then why does anyone wear one at all? I know many of us who do wear helmets do so “just in case”. The problem is that cyclists in general, and unicyclists in particular, are in the minority and many (most?) other non-cyclists will assume that as we are wearing helmets there must be a high element of risk. Look at the other sports they see helmets worn in - motor racing, ski jumping, sky diving. In those sports there is a perceived high risk of injury (or at least a higher risk of serious injury in the event of a crash). So in the minds of the uninformed - helmet=dangerous
This is what we have to remember, participants in any sport invariably know more about the hazards involved and the real level of risk than non-participants. Unfortunately it is often the non-participants who make the rules and regulations for the participants.
I’m soon to move to Western Australia where, I’m told, helmets are compulsory for cyclists. Although I’m a helmet wearer, this really annoys me but I’ll try hard to bite my tongue. Who knows, question one law and it might be “Right Mr Dods, we don’t want you in our country any more, now get lost!”
Have fun!
Graeme
…well maybe one beer, seeing as you guys say it’s okay;)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Helmets to be required in Seattle
i’ve always considered sky divers who wear helmets to be among the most optimistic people in the world!
definately one beer graeme
as long as u can come up with a nice unicycling toast…
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Helmets to be required in Seattle
I was thinking the same thing… So maybe for skydivers, the helmet makes the sport seem less dangerous? No, I’m not serious. Though I understand why they wear helmets.
I guess I can accept the idea that images of cyclists with helmets on indicates “acknowledgement of the possible consequences of an accident,” as it does for any other activity. I get this from looking at seatbelt use. Until recently, in most American media, when a scene of people casually riding in a car was shown, seat belt use was the exception rather than the rule. But now it isn’t. So now we almost always see seat belts in the car. With everyone strapped up, there is an unstated acceptance that cars can crash, including the one they are in.
Still, the idea that perceived danger level of cycling has changed because riders now wear helmets is not one that I’m accepting until I hear more statistics on it.
I ride back and forth to work on a popular bike path, and pass lots of other cyclists. There are riders of all types, from grandma out for an easy ride, to what appear to be training racers and triathletes. I consider the serious cyclists as the ones wearing jerseys. Almost all of them have helmets on. For the more casually dressed riders, helmet use seems to run maybe 50% or less. What does this mean?
Re: Re: Re: Helmets to be required in Seattle
Rugby injuries top the list in ACC (NZ no-fault Government insurance scheme) claims by far
Rugby injuries
But it just wouldn’t be Rugby if they padded up like Am football would it
What is interesting to note is that Netball comes in second on the list. But NZ just won the World Champs- woohoo! 
Re: Helmets to be required in Seattle
johnfoss wrote:
> This indicates only an incomplete set of data. Any accident figures
> used before and after enaction of seat belt legislation must include
> figures for compliance to be meaningful. If only 5% more people are
> wearing seat belts at the time, the numbers don’t really mean much
> yet.
Well, I have no data. I couldn’t find them. The statistics on the DfT
website don’t go that far back.
I’m not aware that there was a serious issue with non-compliance, but I
was too young to have been greatly aware of it at the time (the
legislation was introduced in the early eighties). I remember that the
legislation was very well publicised and that the police were expected
to enforce it vigorously in the early days.
The legislation referred to was a requirement to wear seat belts when
travelling in the front of a car if seat belts were fitted. I know that
even now there is significant non-compliance with the requirement
introduced sometime in the nineties to wear a seatbelt in the back of
the car, but that wasn’t as well publicised. (Not that publicity should
be an issue, as the law is made very clear in the Highway Code, which
all motorists are expected to have a thorough knowledge of).
Anyway, I’m straying from the topic. Sorry.
> I notice nobody has argued the benefits of seat belts in cars. Maybe
> because it’s off topic? 
I know, I know.
I think the only relevance of the stats following seatbelt legislation
is that they provide good evidence of risk compensation, which in turn
is a good argument against mandatory cycle helmet legislation. And when
I argue about helmets I’m not arguing against helmet wearing per se, but
against mandatory helmet legislation.
> The letter starts … with the a mention of how helmets
> can cause injuries as well as prevent them. To what percent? If it’s
> 50% you have a compelling argument. If it’s 10%, it should be noted
> that helmets aren’t perfect (nobody thought they were).
What percent of what? The percentage of crashes where a helmet causes
injury? The percentage where a helmet increases the severity of an
injury? These would, of course, be useful data to have, but then we’d
also need to consider the type of crash and what injuries may have been
prevented, and to rank the severity of injury somehow. Unfortunately
good, controlled, studies seem to be very rare in helmet research.
Nobody can even say what proportion of crashes are reported. Also
unfortunately I no longer have access to a university library to look up
papers
Whether the limited statistics are considered useful or not it is still
worthwhile to consider all of the risks and benefits associated with
helmet wearing and the mechanisms associated with those risks and
benefits. My letters sought to mention important risks that the DfT had
apparently not considered.
> The letter claims that images of helmeted cyclists give the impression
> that “Cycling is dangerous.” Is this based on any survey or other
> data? To me a helmet does not indicate danger.
Graeme has already answered this. I won’t write any more, except to
mention that my second letter raises an objection to the DfT’s campaign
aimed at 10-14 year old boys. The x-ray images
http://www.cyclesense.net tend to evoke extremely negative emotions in
people outside the target audience.
> When I advocate helmet requirements for unicycle competition it is to
> protect the organizers from liability, and to present a responsible
> image.
I think that comes down largely to cultural differences between our
countries. But my letters refer to general riding, not to competition.
Even for competition I would tend to advocate freedom of choice,
although I took on board a comment made recently by one of the TdF
riders (Jens Voigt IIRC). He mentioned that the discomfort of wearing a
helmet can have an adverse affect on performance (particularly in hot
weather), and that this put helmeted riders at a disadvantage compared
to their unhelmeted colleagues in the peloton. The result was that
riders would have to think long and hard about wearing a helmet, as long
as helmets were not required.
The greatest encouragement that I’ve seen for helmet wearing has been
while watching pro cycling, but of course they take risks that I would
never dream of taking.
> The author of the letter also unscientifically concludes that in his
> case he would be more likely to crash while wearing a helmet, so he
> chooses, for his own safety during the summer months, not to wear one.
> He appears to be saying he would rather crash less times, without a
> helmet, than more times, with one. Maybe this works, but it doesn’t
> make sense to me.
Of course, I have no way of knowing for sure that discomfort adversely
affects my concentration, or that the resultant adverse effect on
concentration will make me more likely to crash. I’m pretty confident
that reduced vision resulting from sweat in my eyes will make a crash
more likely.
A helmet will only protect against head injury (although at least one
study is supposed to have found that helmets were effective against
lower limb injury). A crash could cause injury to any part of my body.
The closest I have ever had to a life-threatening injury was when I was
caught at the base of the sternum by a bar end. An inch lower and I
could have been killed (think ruptured heart or liver) - no helmet could
have prevented it. So yes, I would much rather avoid crashing in the
first place than protect myself against a limited set of possible
consequences of having crashed.
> Sorry to attack that letter specifically, but as an offered example of
> reasons to oppose helmet legislation, it has little to offer. It needs
> work to make a convincing argument.
I recommend looking at one particular reference from the letter,
http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/papers/broader.pdf . This was written by
John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft and widely recognised as the UK’s
leading expert on cycle safety.
> What makes a much more compelling case for me is Tom Holub’s notes
> about how the numbers of deaths and injuries for motorists and
> pedestrians are far greater.
This certainly is compelling, and I’d add:
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582
> The issue is, and I believe the studies support this, that
> helmets save lives. That is the reason to wear one, if you choose to
> do so.
I have no doubt that helmets save lives in certain circumstances. I’m
not convinced that there’s a net saving, though. You are, and the data
available aren’t good enough to really judge either way, one reason for
the ultimate futility of helmet threads.
> But in deciding if everyone should have to wear one, pointing away
> from cycling to other activities is neither compelling, nor
> convincing, as an argument.
Agreed. For that reason I made no more than passing mention of this
argument in my letters.
> I am only in favor of mandatory helmet laws (for adults) if they
> remove the burden of health care for accident victims from the general
> population.
The British Medical Association is opposed to mandatory helmet
legislation, on the basis that the resulting reduction in the number
people cycling is likely to do more harm to public health than any
benefits from helmet wearing.
> People who ride
> motorcycles on the freeway, for example, and then have one-bike
> accidents, are being irresponsible if they aren’t wearing a helmet.
I wouldn’t ride a motorbike without a helmet even if helmets weren’t
mandatory. But of course I don’t pedal on a motorbike, so sweat is less
of an issue.
I have read some convincing arguments against mandatory motorbike
helmet legislation, though, on the bases that spinal injuries and
torsional brain injuries are significantly increased and, more
significantly, that a lot of death and paralysis tends to be caused by
untrained first aiders removing a crashed motorcyclists helmet at the
roadside, rather than waiting for the paramedics to come along and
stabilise the neck. I don’t have a reference to hand, I’m afraid. I
believe this one may be relevant, but I haven’t read it:
Corner, J P et. al. - “Motorcycle and bicycle protective helmets:
requirements resulting from a post crash study and experimental
research” Federal Office or Road Safety report No CR 55, Canberra, p5
(1987)
> What about those Rugby players, anyway? 
We’re back to cultural differences now. I understand that rugby players
across the pond wear full body armour and take a break every 15 minutes
for the adverts 
–
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny )
Recumbent cycle page: http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” - Thomas Paine