|
On November 15 2013 00:49 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 15:26 gg_hertzz wrote:
i don't even know why people wear helmets. statistically 3/4 of all accidents happen to people who wear helmets. erm....... what? Source please?
what you need a source for?
If 3/4 of ppl cycling wear a helmet, it is almost logical, that 3/4 of the bike accidents happen to ppl wearing helmets. Of course it could be, that ppl wearing helmets are driving in a safer manner (or in more dangerous territory) thus those stats do not actually are linked that closely. Still this statistic wouldn't say anything about the positive effect of the usage of bike helmets. Except you try to make a point, that wearing a helmet increases your chance to get into an accident. But that would hardly be the case with regular helmets. (while driving with an mp3 player on and a hoodie over your head is due to obstruction and obstructed field of vision)
And the positive effect of wearing a helmet in reducing head injuries is indeed fact.
So for this helmet it comes down how it actually compares in an accident with a regular helmet. I would guess it does better, if the product is given a few years in production. Like with the early airbags, the first ones also failed (inflating when nothing happened and not inflating properly in accidents) but nowadays i wouldn't want to be one of the first to try it.
And about he one-use thing.
In general also normal helmets are one-use helmets. You have a serious crash, and you better get a new helmet, no matter if the old one broke or not. Otherwise wearing a plastic bag over your head will be as useful afterwards. Thing is, that small accidents at low velocity (like the tested ones...) require the helmet to inflate, because you may fall in an odd way. But most of these crashes are easily shaken of even without a helmet, and even if wearing one, ppl would not (need to) rebuy their regular helmet, while this helmet has to be reset. Btw, i feel it being odd to only test the helmets at 16-20 kmh...
Yes, it may be the the normal traffic speed of bikes... But from personal experience i know that i drastically increase my risk of accidents when being in a hurry and going 30 to 50 kmh (don't need much of a downslope for that). And that would be situation when it most matters, at least to me.
|
I'm skeptical of this thing's ability to trigger at the right moment. I expect many false positives tbh!
|
I've never really had an issue with normal bike helmets really, although I can see how it may be more annoying if you have long hair?
Pretty cool either way I guess
|
On November 15 2013 01:10 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 00:49 JieXian wrote:On November 14 2013 15:26 gg_hertzz wrote:
i don't even know why people wear helmets. statistically 3/4 of all accidents happen to people who wear helmets. erm....... what? Source please? what you need a source for? If 3/4 of ppl cycling wear a helmet, it is almost logical, that 3/4 of the bike accidents happen to ppl wearing helmets. Of course it could be, that ppl wearing helmets are driving in a safer manner (or in more dangerous territory) thus those stats do not actually are linked that closely. Still this statistic wouldn't say anything about the positive effect of the usage of bike helmets. Except you try to make a point, that wearing a helmet increases your chance to get into an accident. But that would hardly be the case with regular helmets. (while driving with an mp3 player on and a hoodie over your head is due to obstruction and obstructed field of vision) And the positive effect of wearing a helmet in reducing head injuries is indeed fact.
So are you saying that the statistics are crap by making some assumptions and the about the characteristics of the studied sample and the statistics itself? You do have a point in some cases but I'd rather have a look before jumping to conclusions and calling it crap.
BTW that's exactly what gg-hertzz was trying to say, that it's useless to wear a helmet because it increases your chance to get into an accident.
|
Don't see this changing the Dutch culture of not wearing head protection. Would be quite an interesting alternative if for some reason it is ever made mandatory. Though I would geuss such a law would face very heavy opposition here.
|
On November 15 2013 01:27 Crushinator wrote:
Don't see this changing the Dutch culture of not wearing head protection. Would be quite an interesting alternative if for some reason it is ever made mandatory. Though I would geuss such a law would face very heavy opposition here.
People hate wearing goofy helmets so much, many would literally switch to driving cars if they were stripped from the liberty to not wear the helmet. Also, the price of this thing, which seems to be $500, is restrictive enough that people would just risk their life instead  .
I know I wouldn't pay $500 and I'm not broke. I just don't want to spend $500 on it, especially if there's a chance it'll pop for no reason.
|
On November 15 2013 01:35 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 01:27 Crushinator wrote:
Don't see this changing the Dutch culture of not wearing head protection. Would be quite an interesting alternative if for some reason it is ever made mandatory. Though I would geuss such a law would face very heavy opposition here. People hate wearing goofy helmets so much, many would literally switch to driving cars if they were stripped from the liberty to not wear the helmet. Also, the price of this thing, which seems to be $500, is restrictive enough that people would just risk their life instead . I know I wouldn't pay $500 and I'm not broke. I just don't want to spend $500 on it, especially if there's a chance it'll pop for no reason.
In the Netherlands, using a bike is so convenient, and owning a car expensive enough, that almost nobody would switch to driving cars. Without a change in law, wearing a helmet for non-sports cycling is not even a consideration though, you would look very out of place, and pretty much everyone would comment. I suppose the scarf thing could reduce that issue. But carrying a helmet around is also quite inconvenient, same goes for the scarf thing.
The current price of $500 would be prohibitive for pretty much everyone though. Having a small crash and losing $500 would be pretty devastating. Would rather take my chances.
|
Not sure how this would work if you simply run over something/it is icy and you fall without a car involved at all. I think the normal helm will be better in most cases.
|
On November 15 2013 02:00 Araneae wrote:
Not sure how this would work if you simply run over something/it is icy and you fall without a car involved at all. I think the normal helm will be better in most cases.
Did you watch the video? Half the tests dont involve cars
|
lets replace an annoying helmet with an annoying mega scarf? I dont think so
|
On November 15 2013 01:27 Crushinator wrote:
Don't see this changing the Dutch culture of not wearing head protection. Would be quite an interesting alternative if for some reason it is ever made mandatory. Though I would geuss such a law would face very heavy opposition here.
If I recall correctly, there was a Belgian lobby group who tried to make bicycle helmets mandatory, but their propositions were met with heavy resistance. People don't want to go through the hassle of wearing ridiculous-looking and uncomfortable helmets every time they go out with their bicycles (which is multiple times a day for most people).
Besides, mosts cyclists don't go faster than 15-20 km/h. It's not like people with motor bikes who go around 30-50 km/h or faster with vehicles that are a lot less manoeuverable.
|
On November 15 2013 00:20 Ghostcom wrote:
That the dutch, who cycle a lot, don't wear helmets doesn't really tell us anything about the usefulness of a helmet, rather it tells us that the dutch are morons.
Morons with the least bicycle deaths
|
looks like broken left wrist in first hit
|
On November 14 2013 17:44 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 17:27 Caihead wrote:Culture, infrastructure, societal values, personal fitness, etc all contribute to whether or not bicycling with out a helmet is safe. Same reason why Germany has high ways with out speed limits yet are relatively safe compared to other countries which have high ways with speed limits. I don't know why you draw this blanket comparison when helmets are designed to keep a person safe from a specific format of physical trauma; and if you do have anecdotal evidence which supports certain helmet designs not actually being safe, then that's exactly what that is, a failure of design, not principle. I'm sure safe drivers wouldn't actually "need" seat belts either if they never get into an accident due to personal awareness and responsible driving. I agree that all those things contribute to make biking safer, so there's no need for helmets. I just don't understand why the USA is so focussed on bicycles helmets. I'm sure a lot more pedestrians die in traffic each year. Why not give them helmets too? Or people in cars? And people in the bathroom, where most accidents happen? Why not have everyone wearing helmets all the time? I guess my question is, why do you draw the line at bicycles?
The Netherlands is pretty flat. I live in a hilly area, where coming off of a bicycle might leave you sliding down a hill on your head for a long time. Helmets are much more useful in that case.
|
On November 15 2013 02:49 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 02:00 Araneae wrote:
Not sure how this would work if you simply run over something/it is icy and you fall without a car involved at all. I think the normal helm will be better in most cases. Did you watch the video? Half the tests dont involve cars
I think the point is that apart from the situation with the car, you actually wouldn't want your single use 500$ item to inflate. In the low speed falls simulated in the tests, an actual human would protect their head by falling on their arms. Not only is a helmet much cheaper, but its single use is not spent in such situations.
|
|
|
On November 14 2013 13:38 iTzSnypah wrote:
I came in here to post "If the helmet is invisible then how do you know you're wearing it".
Upon seeing the device, it looks pretty sketchy. What happens if your head get's into the way of it deploying? How long does it stay inflated? Regular air bags only are for a few seconds. So when you get thrown from the bike and bounce off the ground is there going to be protection the second time your head hits the ground? How does this thing know when to deploy?!? Is it a lanyard type thing (That jetski's have to shut off the engine when you fall off). It would be pretty pointless to have a G load sensor as you wouldn't cross the threshold until you smack your head on the ground.
E: Also you have a canister of high pressure helium right next to your jugular. Yeah that sounds safe.
My prediction. Useless.
Also if I have to replace the canister of high pressure helium whenever I fall from my bike, then I'd rather not use it.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Helmets is for pussies who don't know the rules of the road yarrr
Well actually Netherlands is just easy to cycle, its flat, there are cycling roads(something unheard of in other countries) and everyone cycles from a very young age.
There is no good market for helmets in the Netherlands despite it being one of the countries where cycling is most prevalent.
|
For everyone talking about places like Netherlands where there is a biking culture so they have a lot of infrastructure for it, clearly it's going to be safer cycling in a place like that. But these could definitely be very useful for example in NYC which just recently started a huge bike renting program where you just get on a bike riding it to and from set locations as convenient transportation. In NYC there are cars and pedestrians everywhere with very little in the way of bike lanes, but people aren't going to wear normal helmets because A. if they're using this to go to work they don't want to have helmet hair at the beginning of their office day and B. no one wants to be carrying around a hard-shell bicycle helmet when they're not riding. I think this is exactly the type of thing that office workers who use this program in NYC would want.
|
Also
On November 15 2013 01:27 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 01:10 mahrgell wrote:On November 15 2013 00:49 JieXian wrote:On November 14 2013 15:26 gg_hertzz wrote:
i don't even know why people wear helmets. statistically 3/4 of all accidents happen to people who wear helmets. erm....... what? Source please? what you need a source for? If 3/4 of ppl cycling wear a helmet, it is almost logical, that 3/4 of the bike accidents happen to ppl wearing helmets. Of course it could be, that ppl wearing helmets are driving in a safer manner (or in more dangerous territory) thus those stats do not actually are linked that closely. Still this statistic wouldn't say anything about the positive effect of the usage of bike helmets. Except you try to make a point, that wearing a helmet increases your chance to get into an accident. But that would hardly be the case with regular helmets. (while driving with an mp3 player on and a hoodie over your head is due to obstruction and obstructed field of vision) And the positive effect of wearing a helmet in reducing head injuries is indeed fact. So are you saying that the statistics are crap by making some assumptions and the about the characteristics of the studied sample and the statistics itself? You do have a point in some cases but I'd rather have a look before jumping to conclusions and calling it crap. BTW that's exactly what gg-hertzz was trying to say, that it's useless to wear a helmet because it increases your chance to get into an accident.
I'm pretty sure what gg-hertz was saying was a joke, if it is true that would almost certainly just be because most people on bikes are wearing helmets so most accidents are with helmets. It's like how something like 80% of car accidents are within like 25 miles of one's home, that's because most driving occurs near the home, not because driving near your home is inherently more dangerous. But even if helmets do increase the chance of accidents that increase (which is likely fairly small) would be nothing compared to the massive safety benefits conferred by wearing them. Helmets save lives, I'm not saying you're going to get hurt if you don't wear them but they are definitely the safer option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
