invisable bike helmet!! ...

MS.ing

Amazing! and not just conceptual but actually on sale now too!

one of them times you might think " o yeah, why didnt I think of that!"

http://www.goodnet.org/articles/invisible-bike-helmet-that-keeps-you-safe

dodderangler

Deadly aren't they.
Here's one I made earlier
( picture is also invisible)

Boombastic

I can't see that working

Jawgap

Well most cyclists are already treated as if they are invisible, so why not an invisible helmet.......

D1stant

Stupid bastardin things

I after buying 6 of them and cant find them anywhere

Turtyturd

Jawgap wrote: »

Well most cyclists are already treated as if they are invisible, so why not an invisible helmet.......

Nonsense...they are perfectly visible breaking lights and cycling along paths.

Boombastic

will they accept MasterCard or some other form of payment?

Jawgap

Turtyturd wrote: »

Nonsense...they are perfectly visible breaking lights and cycling along paths.

except the ones you don't see, because then they'd be visible......;)

Btw - €300 for a bike helmet........that's a lot to avoid helmet hair!

MS.ing

amazing design, to have it inflate fast enough (like an airbag)and in such a way to avoid neck injury. really clever piece of kit, relatively soft supple and winter scarflike

video demo showing crash tests on the link too. mind = blown (wait maybe I mean neck)

foggy_lad

I'd rather not wear explosives around my neck, even if it is there to inflate an airbag helmet.

Tokyo

As an innovation, it's nice, but what's wrong with passive safety? If you have a helmet on your head, then it just works by default. This airbag collar looks like it needs to be powered (batteries can die), switched on (easy to forget), no protection in a front impact, plus I'm not a fan of the idea of wearing an explosive charge around my neck.

The idea has been around for a while too - there was a motorbike airbag jacket back in the 90's that never took off for the same reason.

Boombastic

you could cycle inside a large inflatable ball (zorb?) like a hamster, much safer all round

Kirby

Very clever.....but that's not invisible. It's an airbag for your head. Very visible.

pickarooney

That collar looks much more uncomfortable than a helmet, although a helmet is ****-all use in case of a crash.

Red Nissan

Ironically, I see this technology being used in the motor cycle industry.

Personal airbags are not new and are a once off usage [usually] cyclists fall off almost routinely, a cyclist falling off his bike is not a once in a lifetime incident as crashing a car is.

I thought they were going to weave absorbent materials into their hair!

endacl

Turtyturd wrote: »

Nonsense...they are perfectly visible breaking lights and cycling along paths.

And they're off!!

Caliden

Do you have to buy a new one when it's used?

Turtyturd

endacl wrote: »

And they're off!!

Such a stupid post.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that I was responding to a post which played the 'cyclists are victims' card.

But a cyclist ignoring sh*t is par for the course.

endacl

Turtyturd wrote: »

Such a stupid post.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that I was responding to a post which played the 'cyclists are victims' card.

But a cyclist ignoring sh*t is par for the course.

And the pace quickens as they reach the first bend...

rubadub

Kirby wrote: »

Very clever.....but that's not invisible. It's an airbag for your head. Very visible.

its less visible to motorists than a traditional helmet. They have done studies and motorists give less room to cyclists wearing helmets than those without, presumably thinking it will not be as bad if they fall off -similar to how in school I remember people going mental with hurls once full face hurling helmets were compulsory.

This is one of several reasons why some people think not wearing a cycling helmet when commuting can be safer in the long run.

Jawgap

Turtyturd wrote: »

Such a stupid post.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that I was responding to a post which played the 'cyclists are victims' card.

But a cyclist ignoring sh*t is par for the course.

Except I wasn't playing the victim card.......just relaying an observation that's something of an in-joke among people who cycle and that's also good advice - when you are on a bike, should always assume that other road users have not seen you, because then

• you'll never be surprised at their idiotic behaviour.
• you'll be less likely to be knocked off or have to take take evasive action

Jawgap

rubadub wrote: »

its less visible to motorists than a traditional helmet. They have done studies and motorists give less room to cyclists wearing helmets than those without, presumably thinking it will not be as bad if they fall off -similar to how in school I remember people going mental with hurls once full face hurling helmets were compulsory.

This is one of several reasons why some people think not wearing a cycling helmet when commuting can be safer in the long run.

the Bristol Bath University study?

they also found that a helmet incorporating a blonde wig led to motorists giving you more room......

https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/04/01/safest-bicycle-helmet-has-built-in-wig/

kneemos

Looks a tad sweaty in anything other than winter weather.

MS.ing

pickarooney wrote: »

That collar looks much more uncomfortable than a helmet, although a helmet is ****-all use in case of a crash.

I see you have had no experience of crashing on a bike, good luck with avoiding that in future then, for your sake. :rolleyes:

kneemos

Jawgap wrote: »

the Bristol Bath University study?

they also found that a helmet incorporating a blonde wig led to motorists giving you more room......

https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/04/01/safest-bicycle-helmet-has-built-in-wig/

Drivers always give me an extra wide berth when I have a flashing rear light for some reason.The difference is quite noticeable

seamus

These yokes have been circulating the web in various "Wow! look at this new innovation!" videos for years now.

The basic gist from most people is that they're too expensive and too impractical for everyday use. In the dead of winter they're great for keeping your neck snug, but cycling around in the summer in a T-Shirt with a lifejacket hanging around your neck is just not going to happen.

It's a solution looking for a problem. The number of cyclist injuries which can be prevented by the use of any kind of helmet is practically zero. Most collisions are with vehicles that weigh a number of tonnes. Helmets are about as effective as a towel in that scenario.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

I could see it.

MS.ing

Red Nissan wrote: »

Ironically, I see this technology being used in the motor cycle industry.

Personal airbags are not new and are a once off usage [usually] cyclists fall off almost routinely, a cyclist falling off his bike is not a once in a lifetime incident as crashing a car is.

I thought they were going to weave absorbent materials into their hair!

Id say its more clever than that, a certain g force would be needed for it to trigger (like a car airbag) Id imagine, but then flip side of that is it wont trigger if that g isnt reached...tricky. that said Im just conceptualising here vs 7 years of development at least that it took to make

Birroc

Turtyturd wrote: »

But a cyclist ignoring sh*t is par for the course.

I cant help ignore it is part of your username.

milltown

I can see these being outlawed the first time somebody puts it on upside down and has their head torn off in a minor accident.

Tokyo

seamus wrote: »

The number of cyclist injuries which can be prevented by the use of any kind of helmet is practically zero. Most collisions are with vehicles that weigh a number of tonnes. Helmets are about as effective as a towel in that scenario.

I wouldn't agree. While helmets might not be the difference between walking away from an accident and an extended stay in hospital, they can be (and quite often are) the difference between an extended stay in hospital, and being propped up in a chair in the corner of the room, drooling out of the corner of your mouth and sucking your dinner up through a straw for the rest of your life.

MS.ing

kneemos wrote: »

Drivers always give me an extra wide berth when I have a flashing rear light for some reason.The difference is quite noticeable

Id say thats cause its very hard to tell the size of an object like a bicycle in the dark that has a flashing light on it (your eyes cant focus long enough because of the flashing so you never get the night vision you get when walking to the bathroom in the dark), so because they cant tell what size you are they need to give you more room to be more sure.
I never realised this till this post but it makes alot of sense now I think about it. I did wonder why the flashing lights. another of lifes mysteries solved. done. :cool:

The One Doctor

seamus wrote: »

The number of cyclist injuries which can be prevented by the use of any kind of helmet is practically zero. Most collisions are with vehicles that weigh a number of tonnes. Helmets are about as effective as a towel in that scenario.

Most injuries are caused by collisions with kerbs, lampposts, skidding on a bad surface or just falling off. A low percentage of cycling injuries are caused by vehicle collisions. Fatalities, yes, they're mostly caused by hitting a vehicle. Helmets are invaluable in lower speed collisions with fixed objects, which are the most common cause of injury.

Actually I'm surprised to see Seamus coming out with this kind of spurious reasoning, he's usually a very sensible poster. Maybe someone has hacked his account?

kneemos

MS.ing wrote: »

Id say thats cause its very hard to tell the size of an object like a bicycle in the dark that has a flashing light on it (your eyes cant focus long enough because of the flashing so you never get the night vision you get when walking to the bathroom in the dark), so because they cant tell what size you are they need to give you more room to be more sure.
I never realised this till this post but it makes alot of sense now I think about it. I did wonder why the flashing lights. another of lifes mysteries solved. done. :cool:

I don't cycle in the dark.

Ray Palmer

This has been around a while and has a number of issues. The price and only one use are the main issues.

I would not trust it to work correctly every time and it appears it could also cause damage if worn incorrectly.

AS is the number of people wearing helmets incorrectly is shocking. I still wonder what people who wear helmets without the strap connected think will happen in an accident. Then you have the ones where the strap is so loose that they would be better not wearing it all. In the event of an accident the have given themselves something really useful to snap their neck on.

That is even ignoring the fact helmets are probably not much use in most accident anyway.

Jawgap

mike_ie wrote: »

I wouldn't agree. While helmets might not be the difference between walking away from an accident and an extended stay in hospital, they can be (and quite often are) the difference between an extended stay in hospital, and being propped up in a chair in the corner of the room, drooling out of the corner of your mouth and sucking your dinner up through a straw for the rest of your life.

There's an extensive discussion on this in the Cycling Forum.

Like many cyclists, I've had my share of crashes - in not one of them has the helmet helped. In most spills you come down on your torso or legs, and on the one occasion I did get clipped by a car (making an illegal right turn) it was still my leg and hip that bore the brunt of the collision and the subsequent slide out.....

(EDIT: - the car, not me was making the illegal turn.)

A helmet, though, is important - I find it provides excellent protection against self-righteous preachy types, and from naggy family members

In that context, this device - clever as it is - would be of no use to me. If people can't see it, they'll start to nag me to wear a 'proper' helmet......

MS.ing

The One Doctor wrote: »

have you ever cycled a bike? Most injuries are caused by collisions with kerbs, lampposts, skidding on a bad surface or just falling off. A low percentage of cycling injuries are caused by vehicle collisions. Fatalities, yes, they're mostly caused by hitting a vehicle. Helmets are invaluable in lower speed collisions with fixed objects, which are the most common cause of injury. If you're going to generalise wildly, at least tell us what you're generalising about.

or even crashed one

I have, two potentially fatal/brain injury ones. both times helmet ensured I didnt have brain injury from each (each time the helmet cracked in half thereby doing its job to absorb the impact by smashing)

Renegade Mechanic

An airbag that detonates explosively around your face. My god, think of the pranks you could have with a rigged one...

Jawgap

I know the thread title is spelled wrong, but I can't decide if it should be.....

'invisible bike helmet'

or

'inadvisable bike helmet'

Both would be applicable, but I suspect the second one would be the most appropriate........

Greenmachine

The question I have to ask is why. Who needs an "invisible helmet". Watched the video but can't see the appeal of the item over a conventional helmet which the majority of cyclist don't wear anyway.

Sir Arthur Daley

Greenmachine wrote: »

The question I have to ask is why. Who needs an "invisible helmet".

Its for cyclist who thinks the bicycle lanes are invisible also and cycle on the road beside them.

Jawgap

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

Its for cyclist who thinks the bicycle lanes are invisible also and cycle on the road beside them.

Why would a cyclist want to cycle in the gutter? Cycle lanes are, with some notable exceptions, badly maintained, poorly laid out and insanely routed - if the objective is to get people to use cycle lanes, build better cycle lanes, look after them and route them rationally.

seamus

mike_ie wrote: »

I wouldn't agree. While helmets might not be the difference between walking away from an accident and an extended stay in hospital, they can be (and quite often are) the difference between an extended stay in hospital, and being propped up in a chair in the corner of the room, drooling out of the corner of your mouth and sucking your dinner up through a straw for the rest of your life.

Evidence pls

The One Doctor wrote: »

Helmets are invaluable in lower speed collisions with fixed objects, which are the most common cause of injury.

Evidence pls

http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf

Page 45:

The non-wearing of helmets was frequent and noted for one in five NAS and NSU cyclists and motorcyclists (Table 6.14). In the NSU, 15 out of 29 (52%) pedal cyclists and 6 out of 18 motor-cyclists (33%) were reported to be without a helmet. Nine of the 10 motorcyclists without a helmet had a GCS <9 (a severe injury) but no statistical difference is injury severity was proven for either pedal or motorcyclists. Reference to protective devices was often lacking in the medical notes

The only remotely reliable study on head injuries finds that there was no difference in the level of brain trauma suffered between wearing and not wearing a helmet.
I left the last line in to acknowledge the fact that the data is known to be unreliable. This works both ways - there is zero evidence that the wearing of a bicycle helmet actually provides effective protection against head injuries in everyday use. The evidence that they don't work is equally sketchy, but if helmets were known to work, it should be dead easy to provide evidence to back that up.

Ray Palmer

Jawgap wrote: »

Why would a cyclist want to cycle in the gutter? Cycle lanes are, with some notable exceptions, badly maintained, poorly laid out and insanely routed - if the objective is to get people to use cycle lanes, build better cycle lanes, look after them and route them rationally.

Please don't feed people to turn this into a cyclist versus motorists thread.

Fizman

pickarooney wrote: »

That collar looks much more uncomfortable than a helmet, although a helmet is ****-all use in case of a crash.

I have an Ironman-competing colleague who would beg to differ.

He is only alive because of his helmet. He crashed into the back of a large taxi in SA doing some ridiculous speed, to the extent that the person in the front of the car had to be hospitalised.

Jawgap

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Please don't feed people to turn this into a cyclist versus motorists thread.

Yes, mammy......:o

whisky_galore

foggy_lad wrote: »

I'd rather not wear explosives around my neck, even if it is there to inflate an airbag helmet.

Ah it'll be grand, just like the ones in Battle Royale.

MS.ing

you are a ****in moron if you dont wear a helmet (a good one) as I said earlier it has saved me from serious brain injury on two occasions

"itll never happen to me!" I hear you say, it will, mark my words only a matter of time, that is if you get to even remember the reason you are sucking food through a straw

you have a choice, btw I was a bit like that, but still erred on side of caution by wearing one and treating motorists as idiots but even then what someone did to me was beyond stupidity and no accounting for.

btw background in bike racing where one of the incidents happened in a finishline bunch sprint.

Tokyo

http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html

Wearing a helmet isn't going to prevent you from getting mown down and killed, sure. But comparing like for like, your chances of walking away from similar crashes without brain injury are reduced if you're wearing a helmet.

endacl

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

An airbag that detonates explosively around your face. My god, think of the pranks you could have with a rigged one...

You'd really have to be certain it was on the right way up...

rubadub

MS.ing wrote: »

you are a ****in moron if you dont wear a helmet (a good one) as I said earlier it has saved me from serious brain injury on two occasions

Have you ever been a moron yourself and cycled without one? do you call your family morons as I expect some cycled without one in the past.

Do you ever take your helmet off? seeing as its shown to be more beneficial in other situations, like driving or walking. Do you call people morons who go drinking alcohol without helmets?

http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

According to a 2006 French study, pedestrians are 1.4 times more likely to receive a traumatic brain injury than unhelmeted cyclists. We can also approach it from the perspective of injuries per million hours from a 1996 Australian study looking at head injury risk before the beginning of any helmet laws:

Risk of head injury per million hours travelled

Cyclist - 0.41
Pedestrian - 0.80
Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46
Motorcyclist - 7.66
In each of these three examples we see that cyclists are not the group at highest risk for serious head injury.

Let's be clear. I am NOT trying to say that studies definitively show that cycling is safer than driving or walking. The studies that are out there give us mixed messages about the relative safety of the different modes of transport. What I am saying is that these statistics raise an interesting question: If we're so concerned about head injuries, why aren't we wearing helmets all the time? Why do places that have mandatory helmet laws for cyclists not have them for drivers or pedestrians? The same 1996 Australian study suggests that a mandatory helmet law for motor vehicle occupants could save seventeen times more people from death and serious head injury than a similar law for cyclists.

Yet, despite the clear threat of fatal head trauma from these other activities, virtually nobody insists that people wear helmets in these situations. In fact, doing so is openly mocked. Consider a sentence from this recent article from Forbes magazine that reports that vehicle accidents are the number one cause of fatal head injuries among teenagers :

Short of suggesting all teen drivers and their passengers wear helmets, the survey determined that states which maintain the strictest graduated driver licensing laws (GDL) are the most effective in reducing both brain injuries and fatalities among young motorists.
Did you catch that? Despite the fact that car accidents are the number one cause of all fatal head trauma among teenagers, the suggestion that teens wear helmets when they drive is simply brushed off. The passage treats the idea of mandatory driving helmets as completely preposterous. Yet we insist that children wear bike helmets (in fact, in some places, it's the law) despite data that shows kids are more likely to die of head injuries riding in a car than riding on a bike. Children and toddlers on foot are far more likely to receive traumatic brain injuries than cyclists, yet parents who place protective headwear on their walking toddlers are openly ridiculed.