invisable bike helmet!! ...

MS.ing · 13-05-2014 12:12PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:15PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:17PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:21PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:22PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:22PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:24PM

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

Jawgap · 13-05-2014 12:26PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:28PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:30PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:35PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:37PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:39PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:42PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:44PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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

Yes, mammy......:o

whisky_galore · 13-05-2014 12:54PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:57PM

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 · 13-05-2014 12:59PM

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 · 13-05-2014 01:07PM

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 · 13-05-2014 01:08PM

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.

MS.ing · 13-05-2014 01:15PM

rubadub wrote: »

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

yes. like I say been there done it. after personal experience now Id be a moran to go back to that way beause it does happen to you...eventually. no skin off my nose fella (your head/life), but preaching bollox to the naive and easily swayed is something I like to cut down if I feel like it especially when I have personal experience of said bollox being just that

rubadub · 13-05-2014 01:40PM

MS.ing wrote: »

yes. like I say been there done it. after personal experience now Id be a moran to go back to that way beause it does happen to you...eventually. no skin off my nose fella (your head/life), but preaching bollox to the naive and easily swayed is something I like to cut down if I feel like it especially when I have personal experience of said bollox being just that

I am still interested to hear if there is any circumstance where you do not wear a helmet.

I was thinking maybe the shower, but actually that is probably one of the more beneficial places to wear one, and following your previous logic you should similarly think people are morons not to wear one while in the shower or walking.

Dyr · 13-05-2014 01:45PM

its ****ing concealed not invisible

i call shenanigans

Joe Doe · 13-05-2014 02:09PM

You'd be better off putting the 300 notes on a full d3o suit, already featuring on some expensive motorbike jackets.

If you don't know what the d3o material is ask the google, or watch the chap in a regular cotton beanie hat (with some d3o added) getting tapped with a hammer for product demonstration, that's right cotton hat, hammer, head and all is well (do not try this at home even if you get one).

MS.ing · 13-05-2014 02:22PM

rubadub wrote: »

I am still interested to hear if there is any circumstance where you do not wear a helmet.

I was thinking maybe the shower, but actually that is probably one of the more beneficial places to wear one, and following your previous logic you should similarly think people are morons not to wear one while in the shower or walking.

only other place I wear one is while ****, to avoid the whole 'something about mary' thing, hats just get sticky afterall

Tail Docker · 13-05-2014 02:51PM

Helmets going off explosively in peoples faces -and it's not even porn. Cool.

invisable bike helmet!! ...

Comments