tomasrojo wrote: » As mentioned before (I think in this thread), the cycle helmet probably could do with a fundamental re-think. The only really radical departure I can think off is the Hövding, which probably should be mentioned in this thread, seeing as it's the definitive helmet thread. Frequently derided, including by me, it has performed considerably better in standard linear impact tests than the standard helmet. Maybe will turn out to have its own unexpected safety issues. Who knows.
Dermot Illogical wrote: » At what speed do you think these cyclists are to be thrown off their bicycles then? If it's to be the same speed that expels occupants from vehicles then perhaps Strava better put the lawyers on a retainer.
Originally Posted by Dermot Illogical View Post It is for their safety, and that of anyone else they may be catapulted into on impact.Whereas wearing (or not) a helmet on a bike doesn't affect anyone else but the cyclist. Not that you would think that from the amount of people who seem determined to interfere. I can only guess they possess the potent cocktail of pathetic skills with a dash of belief that those skills are as good as it gets, and as such are projecting their perception of risk onto others. Wobble off the lot of you.
droidus wrote: » This is great news. A helmet that doesn't inconvenience the rider in any way and actually provides proper head and neck protection in the event of an accident.
AstraMonti wrote: » Having your whole neck covered is really inconvenient! Maybe it's ok in the really cold part of the winter, but outside that, it's really terrible idea.
droidus wrote: » If it offers the level of safety it seems to offer, anyone who now wears a helmet would be mad not to wear one.
smacl wrote: » Mad, Ted? Substituting a cheapo piece of styrofoam that may or may not help in the case of an accident with an expensive unproven blow up yoke based on accelerometers and gyros that also may or not work. I don't think so.
Maybe after it's been in use by a few hundred thousand people for a few years and shown to have some benefit.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » replacing the drivers airbag with a harpoon would improve the safety of other road users.
Spook_ie wrote: » or even making cyclehelmets like this compulsory would put manners on some pedestrians
droidus wrote: » More inconvenient than a helmet?? What if they built it into shoulders or backpack straps? Or a smaller collar? If it offers the level of safety it seems to offer, anyone who now wears a helmet would be mad not to wear one.
droidus wrote: » Im assuming you're joking here considering that one of the main conclusions so far on this thread is that the effectiveness and benefits of helmets is questionable.
Spook_ie wrote: » Would assume that the speed they get thrown off at would be proportionate as people exiting a car via a window usually stop halfway out before the end of the bonnet. So as said in general someone not wearing a seatbelt is only risking themselves when alone, which is where I came in
Dermot Illogical wrote: » They do, do they? It's not Eastenders you know. In real life when someone exits a car during a high speed collision they can go a long way past the bonnet. 50-60 meters wouldn't be uncommon. But that's in real life, where they don't conveniently stop half way out to make things easy for everyone. You're trying to equate a cyclist falling off a bike at max 50km/h with someone crashing a vehicle at anything up to 240km/h. But hey, if it makes sense to you then good luck with it.
Originally Posted by Dermot Illogical View Post It is for their safety, and that of anyone else they may be catapulted into on impact. Whereas wearing (or not) a helmet on a bike doesn't affect anyone else but the cyclist. Not that you would think that from the amount of people who seem determined to interfere. I can only guess they possess the potent cocktail of pathetic skills with a dash of belief that those skills are as good as it gets, and as such are projecting their perception of risk onto others. Wobble off the lot of you.
Spook_ie wrote: » Yeay yeah yeah, in a front end collision even without doors your not going out sideways, you are more than likely to be stopped by the steering wheel/dashboard windscreen, as in real life different accidents have different results but still comes back to a complete rejection of your argument ( even when you start posting about 2x the motorway speed limit to try and justify yourself and there's likely to be no car left to be ejected from!)
Pennsylvania motorcyclists suffered large increases in head injury deaths and hospitalizations in the two years following the repeal of its motorcycle helmet law, according to a University of Pittsburgh study. Even after accounting for increases in motorcycle registrations that occurred during this period, study authors noted a 32 percent increase in head injury deaths and a 42 percent increase in head injury-related hospitalizations, raising concerns about motorcyclists' safety and the impact of this trend on health care costs.
North American cyclists are eight to 30 more times likely to be seriously injured while cycling than their counterparts in Germany, Denmark and The Netherlands. Harris says one explanation could be the availability of segregated bike lanes in those countries. ... The researchers also found that painted and shared bike lanes commonly found in Toronto offered no significant protection for cyclists.
In contrast, infrastructure designed for cyclists -- including bike lanes on major streets without parked cars, residential street bike routes, and off-street bike paths -- carries about half the risk, while cycle tracks (physically separated bike lanes) carries the lowest injury risk for cyclists, at about one-tenth the risk.
What the authors found was that in those crashes where a single cyclist collided with a bollard, narrowed road or other obstacle, or rode off the road altogether, poor visibility and especially poor visual contrast played a significant part. Schepers and den Brinker also investigated how issues with a cyclist's 'focal' vision (seeing the 'far' road ahead to plan for future hazards) and 'ambient' vision (seeing the 'near' road to correct the bicycle's current position) can contribute to a crash. As a result of their study, the authors question the common assumption that cyclists 'can do without a minimal level of guidance and conspicuity of (design-related) obstacles'. They state that 'the visibility of critical information in the visual periphery is indeed important for safe cycling' and make several recommendations, including applying edge lines to the curves on bicycle paths, especially on those with high levels of cycling, no street lighting or a risk of glare from oncoming vehicles. Schepers and den Brinker also suggest that adding warning centre lines to two-way cycle paths, increasing the visibility of bollards with contrasting colours, and using 'profiled' markings to alert a cyclist riding behind another to dangers ahead could all help prevent crashes.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » If safety was really the goal then are better ways of doing it. First keep motorists away from cyclists since that's how ~77% of the deaths occur <snip>
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » If safety was really the goal then are better ways of doing it. First keep motorists away from cyclists since that's how ~77% of the deaths occur
galwaycyclist wrote: » It is probably better to explore this by re-opening one of the cycle lane threads.
Spook_ie wrote: » Likely sequence for various scenarios involving kiddie seats and trailers
doozerie wrote: » Not speaking the language in that video I don't know what point it is trying to make, as the person who posted it perhaps you can elaborate.
doozerie wrote: » Not speaking the language in that video I don't know what point it is trying to make, as the person who posted it perhaps you can elaborate. It's of particular interest to me because my wife and I have been using a child trailer for 3 years or so now, and the video seems to focus on child trailers and the impression the video leaves (in the absence of a translation of the dialogue) is that trailers are somehow dangerous, or something. The idea that child trailers are dangerous is a misconception that we have encountered directly amongst a minority of people who have approached us about our trailer and invariably it is a view fueled by ignorance (e.g. "is that child not wearing a helmet in there? *swoon*" while completely ignoring the significant safety features of the trailer itself) and/or obnoxiousness (e.g. "you'll kill your child by taking her around in *that*!" as yelled by a woman driver who had almost driven my wife and daughter off the road only moments before in an attempt to overtake them against oncoming traffic). It is a view that doesn't stray far from the notion that a helmet is essential, even for someone enclosed in a roll cage and held in place by a 5-point harness. For its part, the video shows a kid wearing a helmet in a trailer, which is a complete no-no for many trailers as it would force the child's head forward creating some serious potential problems. The most extreme examples of hysteria around the "helmets are essential" debate tend to extend to include everything in sight, seeming to suggest that absolutely everything cycle related is voluntary suicide. That video appears to convey that attitude, but perhaps you can clarify.
Spook_ie wrote: » Back to helmets or no helmets rather than seatbeltsLikely sequence of events if you get doored <snipped video>Likely sequence for various scenarios involving kiddie seats and trailers <snipped video>
Spook_ie wrote: » If I understood German possibly but the videos were posted as stated to show the likely sequence of events involved in various collisions involving doors, child trailers and child seats
CramCycle wrote: » In my opinion (and I know I could be horrifically wrong) the video with the dooring was not reliable, I realise the best you can do without getting a guy in a padded suit to cycle around a line of parked cars and have someone door him at random. Reactions by the cyclist are not taken into consideration. I imagine in a typical dooring it would be very different, I have met guys who have got stuck in the window, went over the door, fell into traffic, a dummy with no reactions is not reliable and therefore makes any data relating to the helmets unreliable at best.
Spook_ie wrote: If I understood German possibly but the videos were posted as stated to show the likely sequence of events involved in various collisions involving doors, child trailers and child seats
swansea wrote: » For those not wearing a helmet, would you have a max speed you would go? Or does that not matter?
CramCycle wrote: » Don't speak the language either but it looks like* trailers are far safer than those seats on the back.
CramCycle wrote: » In my opinion (and I know I could be horrifically wrong) the video with the dooring was not reliable,
