It's about time, if you ask me.

Here's a link: https://www.velonews.com/news/fea/3699.0.html

Good for them!

BAD BAD BAD---If you want to cover your melon it should be your own choice---knowing full well what the possible outcomes could be.

You take your own chances--the world is an imperfect place and we don't need Utopian idiots telling us what to do.

Big Bother doesn't need to be telling all its "children" how to dress.

It makes just as much sense as 5 point harnesses in car races. If you feel your brain is worth protecting then protect it. For those that don't, makes me wonder if they think they don't posess anything of much value up there.

Before I pass comment I would like to know how many cycling miles the combined professional cyclinsts do in say a decade and how many deaths there have been that might have been prevented by helmets.

If the answer turns out to be over 1m miles or less than 1% then I'd say the helmets are there only for one reason - selling advertising space. Nothing to do with saftey

1 death.
Isn't that really enough?
I'm sure that Andre Kivilev's wife would think so.
Especially when her daughter starts to ask, "why did my daddy die?"

I believe helmets have been compulsory in many (most? all?) U.S. racing events and large organized rides for many years. If race organizers can mandate equipment selection and contestant qualifications and behaviours, they certainly can decide whether to require helmets.

However, for transportation and recreational adult cyclists in most states of the U.S., helmet use remains, as it should be, optional but strongly recommended. I support California's current law, which requires helmets for cyclists and 'bladers under 18. I forget where I first read this, but it seems appropos: "It's one thing for daddy not to wear a helmet because he's an idiot. It's another for the kid to grow up an idiot because he didn't wear a helmet."

Absolutely.... when it's your own race and your choice of rules.

No one is saying that you must wear a helmet when you cycle. What they're saying is that if you want to participate in their race, you have to abide by their rules. Otherwise, you're free to run your own race with your own rules.

There's no 'Big Brother' here. No government entity is telling people 'how to dress'. It's an organization exercising its right to run its own events as it sees fit.... just as you are exercising your right to wear or not wear a helmet when you're riding in your own event or on your own time.

It's now optional for adults. But I can see a day when municipalities start to require their use on public roadways. I'm not in favor of that, mind you. But when people are so quick to sue govenmental agencies for incidents that happen on public property but for no other reason than they have deep pockets, what else can they do?

I used to ride without a helmet, but after a small amount of time in this sport, I've decided to learn from others mistakes rather than to learn them the hard way, or even worse to be left only as an example as to why people should wear a helmet. Now I ride with one all the time. And I think race organizers have the right to determine whether or not helmets are mandatory in their races.

Darn straight. If you don't want to go by what the UCI says, you should feel free to do your own thing. It's sort of like the saying, "As long as you live under this roof, you abide by MY rules. " As long as you do a race run by the USCF, you wear a helmet. Now, as long as you race under the UCI, you wear a helmet. No different.

The strongest advocates and lobbying force behind mandatory helmet is and always has been the helmet manufacturers -- which should not come as a surprise. If the UCI actually succeeds in imposing and enforcing this rule the champagne will be certainly be flowing for all the lobbyists and helmet manufacturers.

Is mandatory helmet use a good thing? For the UCI, probably -- if only as a hedge against liability and as a PR tool. Personally, I hope they don't invoke the ruling but I suspect sponsors will pressure the teams who'll pressure the riders who'll reluctantly give in rather than stage a protest so close on the heels of Kivilev's accident.

Why, how could I say such a thing! Don't you wear a helmet? Sure I do; most of the time. But it's not because I'm required to. Having cracked 3 helmets -- one in a road bike / pace line crash and two while off-roading -- I appreciate the value of a helmet. However, I still take mine off on long, hot steep climbs in the summer and then put it back on at near the top. I also don't wear one when I tool around in full recreation mode -- cargo shorts and Hawaiian shirts on fat tires -- at Jekyl Island or other vacation spots. I'd hate to live some place where I didn't have the right to make that decision. As for bearing the responsiblity for my actions, that's part of being an adult - I'm sure Kivilev understood that too.

Fate is fate and mortality is inevitable; it's all part of the cycle of life. We make choices and live with the consequences. Families must deal with the consequences too, as they must with all catastrophic loses which occur far more often that we like to admit.

My beef is the stigma that "mandatory helmet use" continues to provide yet more evidence that bicycling is perhaps one of the most dangerous sports to engage in -- and mothers take note of this. However, it makes me wonder how on earth those of us who rode bikes to school and just about everywhere else we went from the age of 7 through 17 without helmets survived. Yes, believe it or not, as a kid there were more bicycles in the racks than there were cars in the parking lots -- even in high school. Of course, that was a LONG time ago and I did live in suburbia at the time (Ramsey, NJ; Arlington Height, IL).

Passing laws or rules that are intended to protect us from our "own stupidity" or as a hedge against "fate" are never "good" for individuals. Each time another law or rule is passed we give up just a little bit more of our freedom. Despite any message about the "best of intentions and for the greater good" if you follow the money trail from the lobbyists who represent the "real backers" you'll find it's usually about the bottom line.

However, in spite of the dubious nature of the money that's used to influence rules and laws, the reality appears to be that we must be stupid because history tells us that it's easier to modify human behaviour through mandate than by appealing to rational thought via education. Darwin was probably right; leave it to the politicians and rule makers to find a way to subvert that natural process too.

I cherish my rights -- openly expressing my thoughts is one of them at least here in the U.S of A. And yes, I'm having a pissy day.

Much as I hate to do this AGAIN...

Athletes are different. They are engaging in a cycling activity that is immensely more dangerous than the recreational rides most of us are on. Most importantly, they are the WORST judge of what they should or shouldn't be doing, protection-wise. If there is even the slightest notion that lessening some safety measure will make them even a nanosecond faster they will do it. Completely disregarding thier own well-being. EVERY sport has mandated safety measures. Why? Because without them, we'd have athletes in EVERY sport dying all over the place because they were trying to eak out that extra edge. Why else would doping be illegal in sports? Ephedra is a good example. It WILL be banned from most if not all sports, because it is dangerous. All the athletes knew it was dangerous, but they're taking it anyway. Clearly they are not capable of making sound rational decisions about thier own safety. Their judgement is clouded by thier competitive spirit. Mandatory helmet rules for pro athletes are a great idea. I really hope they have the stones to see it thru.

I need to state here that I am pro-helmet, BUT I am against making it legally mandatory for Joe/Jane Citizen when riding on the street. Except for children, where I believe it SHOULD be mandatory at all times, when riding, blading and particularly those damnable motorized scooters that have become SO popular recently.

i cant belive it took this long here in canada its been law for years i think oh wait its just been common sense i cant belive people are still weird about riding with a helmet i had a freind like that once... he died from an anurizem not right away it took a bit so he was in alot of pain the docs said oh its a migrane but then bam he was dead if he wore a helmet that day in hamilton ontario he would prob be in whistler now withh me, strap on a brain bucket man ride safe all i think of anti helmet people is well get a life posser and buy some titanium berings cause they are lighter and they make you look cool

You might want to check out one of these when you get some free time:

Don't forget about the hidden costs of not wearing a helmet has on society. No one lives in a void. Brain damaged patients rot in hospitals & nursing homes everywhere, many no longer with insurance, a burden on the able and tax-payers. Kivelev was, in a fashion, lucky. His family is not.

Biker deaths due to no helmet (or blamed on no helmets) make it tougher on everyone else. But manditory helmets may deter low risk, ie, Ma & Pa crusing around the block, from taking up biking. Personal choice, but think of others and look at the big picture, not just your life.

Let's also look at this in terms of the cost to society when one sustains a closed head injury (or open depending on the velocity of impact). Anyone in the medical field will attest to the severe long term consequences of the spectrum of head injuries from the mild brain contusion to outright epidural bleed and even brains spewing out of a cracked skull. A mild brain contusion can result in debillitating post concussion syndrome headaches and the latter two can end a person's independance....ability to walk, chew, swallow, defecate, urinate etc. not to mention the stress it puts on family loved ones who have to take care of a vegetable. It's just utterly selfish, not to wear a helmut wether it's biking, motorcycling, rollerblading etc.

It looks like Da Tinker and I were on the same cosmic plane of thought at the same exact time (look at time of posts).. Wow...psycodellic.

Well, count on 1000 professional cyclists putting in 10,000 miles a year each = 10,000,000 miles - times 100 years of competition (lets be fair and say only 75 years of riding that much ) x 75 = 750,000,000 miles and we have 3 (?) deaths in competition (Casartelli, Sanroma, and Kivelev) - If anyone has more names, post them, I can't recall any more than these - Sanroma and Casartelli were wearing helmets.

I don't think the UCI thought they had much choice. Publicity regarding the Paris-Nice fatality, combined with the general spiraling of litigation resulted in their action.

In every sport from baseball to hockey the initial reaction to helmets is similar. Yet it's hard to think of goalies without face masks or moto riders without full face helmets once a few years goes by.

So whether you love them or hate them is a moot point. Helmet legistlation has very little opposition.

In the motorcycle world it took political guerilla warfare from groups like ABATE to reverse the tide, resulting in helmet law repeals in a few locales.

If you really want controversy, put yourself on the side of an argument espousing personal freedom over personal safety.

There's always a group that somewhat correctly states that ones personal actions always will affect others, be it not wearing a helmet, smoking a cigarette, shooting a gun, etc., etc.

They are opposed by a group stating that individuals have the right to make decisions for themselves, even if those decisions are generally viewed as incorrect and irresponsible.

In the long term it seems as if the (responsible/repressive) views usually win. Take your pick. Responsible if you agree with them, otherwise repressive.

So we are forced to invent new ways of being irresponsible. Jackass the Movie comes to mind.




Back to Cycling. UCI is not beyond reversing its calls, whenever the mood strikes. They keep redefining the bicycle every few years or so, and redefining the drug test regime every few minutes or so. So maybe in the middle of the twelfth stage of the Giro they will reverse this rule and make helmets illegal, or bring back hair nets.

Unfortunately, we don't have the data on every head injury a bike helmut prevented..... that would be the eye opener.

There are those who use the same argument against seat belts...
when I was a paramedic in New YOrk (for 1 year only), I never pulled a person out of a motor vehicle accident DOA (dead on arrival) if they were wearing a seatbelt. I saw too many DOAs who did not wear seat belts. Unfortunately, only the latter made it into the statisitical books and not the ones who survived minimal injuries with their seatbelts.

If you think your head is a wothless blob of jello that does not justify spending even 30 bucks on a cheap helmet then I agree. You don't need to wear one. Society would be better off if you incurred a head trauma and we no longer have to listen to your worthless rantings.

I don't care if you wear one or not but when I see someone without one I immediately realize just how stupid the most intelligent mammal on earth can be.

Even a moderately low impact crash can cause permanent head trauma. I have broken at least 10 helmets while riding my mountain bike on serious trails and crashing. I'd bet I would not be the highly intelligent and sophisticated individual that I am now if not for a helmet.

are you sure the only thing you broke was your helmet?

OOps, forgot this was not the political forum, I'll catch you there later.

Seat belts in cars have nothing to do with helmets on bikes. For one thing they're effective and were been proven to be effective before they were put in cars. For another the death rate from auto accidents dropped dramatically once they were put in cars.

Deaths of cyclists in competition are documented and publicized.

I think Doctorspin is closer to the mark. Liability is a huge issue and the governing bodies have to make the effort to appear to be doing all they can so they won't be sued.

The UCI does have a history of flip flopping on all kinds of issues. It will be interesting if the opposition of the riders has changed since the last time they implemented a helmet rule. I don't think more riders are wearing helmets more often when they usually complain about wearing them. Wouldn't it be a change to see them stuggling up those mountains in the July heat with helmets on?

Gee, I thought we were talking about the UCI here and not personal riding. And Sam, if I hit my head 10 times while riding, I'd change the way I'd ride.