Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucdcsb
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!winters
From: winters@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.bicycle
Subject: Re: USCF HELMET RULE
Message-ID: <16200138@uiucdcsb>
Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 19:43:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.16200138
Posted: Mon Feb 10 19:43:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Feb-86 08:11:26 EST
References: <173@oasys.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:oasys.UUCP:173:uiucdcsb:16200138:000:1268
Nf-From: uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU!winters    Feb 10 18:43:00 1986


Regardless of whether racers think the hard shell helmets are cmfortable
or not, the real incentive behind the USCF ruling has to do with getting
insurance and keeping insurance rates down, just as is the case with auto-
mobile seatbelt laws to some extent. Crashes are a part of bike racing,
and head injuries can be serious and result in big lawsuits. 

I personally crashed in a race, and later noticed that my (hardshell) helmet
had sustained some damage. Better the helmet than my head. As far as the
heat is concerned, not all of the hardshell helmets are unbearably hot, althoughI agree they are not as comfortable as no helmet. I have a V1-Pro which
has alot of ventillation, and I survived alot of very hot, humid days last
summer during long training rides. 

I guess my attitude is that the hard shell helmet ruling keeps USCF insurance 
rates down (and thus membership fees) and makes bike racing a safer sport, both
of which result in increased participation which is something U.S. cycling can
benefit from. I think the U.S. situation as far as insurance goes is alot
different than that in Europe where bike racing is an established sport and
the dangers are readily accepted and/or there is enough participation to offset
the cost of insurance.


L.W.