EPTHow in the fuck is that considered safe? lmfao.
"Quick, get unattractive attractive eastern-european model to model it for us!"
The invisible bike helmet - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
How in the fuck is that considered safe? lmfao. "Quick, get unattractive attractive eastern-european model to model it for us!" | ||
|
shaftofpleasure
Korea (North)1375 Posts
| ||
|
Restrider
Germany129 Posts
| ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
On November 14 2013 13:52 Spaylz wrote: How useful is a soft airbag going to be against the solid ground? I mean, when you're sitting on a car seat with a seat belt and stuff, sure.. but on a bike, in the open? When the airbag pops and your head hits the pavement, it's either going to get ripped to shreds or not going to provide any protection at all. Good enough that NASA use them for "lithobraking" (aka. slowing down by crashing on the ground) for their previous Mars Rover. Pretty much the rover is cover with airbag and bounce on the ground falling from orbit around Mars. So assuming that the material making the airbag is as strong or at least 80-90% as strong as the one NASA used, then it not going to ripped apart that easily in a bike accident. | ||
|
Wetty
Australia419 Posts
Whilst you would consider whether or not it was safe when you were buying it, once you had been convinced of the safety you'd be comparing it to normal helmets on price, and then comparing functionality. What is really interesting with this product is it's clearly designed for reasons OTHER than trying to provide a superior helmet. It's pretty much got every other purpose in mind. The idea is to create a helmet that suits the fashion of these European countries. As a fashion item that potentially saves your life, it's truly interesting. And there are so many people who would pay that money for something they think is fashionable, and it's far easier to justify the cost when it provides the functionality of the helmet (to potentially save your life) as well. Will this ever be more popular than a traditional helmet? Never. It's too expensive. Will it see significant distribution throughout the world? Maybe - if bikes become more popular globally like they are in Europe, why not pay more for a helmet that's more convenient and doesn't crush your hair? (Come on, some people pay hundreds of dollars to have their hair styled, you wouldn't wear a helmet on that) That's the market their going for, and if their margins are good, the market is probably big enough for them to be a very successful company. If they market well, and capture a large market segment ahead of competitors, they could become very successful. And that's what I find most interesting about this helmet, and I'd love to here if they think that market exists in their country. | ||
|
DR.Ham
Netherlands621 Posts
On November 14 2013 16:08 Zandar wrote: bicycles helmets are such bullshit. Nobody wears them in the Netherlands, and we have probably most bicycles per person: http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/ and least bicycles deaths: http://www.bakfiets-en-meer.nl/2008/10/16/bicycle-death-statistics-in-amsterdam-and-the-netherlands/ Your logic is pretty flawed to be honest. I've lived in London, Australia and the Netherlands and Cycled in all of them, and you're right by far that the Netherlands is the safest of them to cycle in, but it has nothing to do with not wearing helmets. What it does relate to are how conscious Dutch Drivers are of bike riders, and they drive so sensibly compared to other countries. Bikes really are treated as being equal to cars, rather than being an annoyance. I always wear a helmet in England, not because I have to, but because the drivers are so bad, and pay so little attention to -bikes. In the Netherlands, I don't even think of putting one on. In Australia, you have to wear one, and that saved my head once, where a car passed me so close and going so fast, I got thrown from my bike and hit the ground hard enough the split my helmet in two. | ||
|
Assault_1
Canada1950 Posts
On November 14 2013 18:10 shaftofpleasure wrote: I would love to see this in action .. -_- Added a video if it to the first post | ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
On November 14 2013 19:33 DR.Ham wrote: Your logic is pretty flawed to be honest. I've lived in London, Australia and the Netherlands and Cycled in all of them, and you're right by far that the Netherlands is the safest of them to cycle in, but it has nothing to do with not wearing helmets. What it does relate to are how conscious Dutch Drivers are of bike riders, and they drive so sensibly compared to other countries. Bikes really are treated as being equal to cars, rather than being an annoyance. I always wear a helmet in England, not because I have to, but because the drivers are so bad, and pay so little attention to -bikes. In the Netherlands, I don't even think of putting one on. In Australia, you have to wear one, and that saved my head once, where a car passed me so close and going so fast, I got thrown from my bike and hit the ground hard enough the split my helmet in two. What i meant was that there are better ways to protect bikers than helmets. | ||
|
Assault_1
Canada1950 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
On November 14 2013 16:08 Zandar wrote: bicycles helmets are such bullshit. Nobody wears them in the Netherlands, and we have probably most bicycles per person: http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/ and least bicycles deaths: http://www.bakfiets-en-meer.nl/2008/10/16/bicycle-death-statistics-in-amsterdam-and-the-netherlands/ Bike helmets have in all studies proven to decrease the amount of serious head trauma. 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. For more info one could read this excellent cochrane review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827 | ||
|
Gnaix
United States438 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
On November 15 2013 00:25 Gnaix wrote: why are we even talking about whether helmets are safe or not in the first place? That's not the purpose of this thread imo. Because the viability of any helmet depends first of all on whether or not it serves the purpose of protecting against injury. | ||
|
Rollin
Australia1552 Posts
 ), it's quite possible that the airbag style is much safer than a typical foam helmet.I wouldn't use it though, unless it was multiuse and about the same cost, which isn't going to happen. | ||
|
Gnaix
United States438 Posts
On November 15 2013 00:26 Ghostcom wrote: Because the viability of any helmet depends first of all on whether or not it serves the purpose of protecting against injury. which if anyone who actually read the article can reasonably assume that it does it's job as well if not better than most bike helmets. The original purpose of this thread is a comparison of traditional bike helmets to the new one. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
On November 15 2013 00:30 Gnaix wrote: which if anyone who actually read the article can reasonably assume that it does it's job as well if not better than most bike helmets. The original purpose of this thread is a comparison of traditional bike helmets to the new one. And if the golden standard hasn't been established (does the traditional bike helmet actually improve safety?), how are you going to tell if the new one will make a difference? EDIT: I do not disagree with you as such - I think it is folly to contest the injury prevention of the traditional bike helmet, and on the basis of the OP, also of this new design. However others were apparently doubting the usefulness of the traditional bike helmet which made it a reasonable discussion to take. | ||
|
Gnaix
United States438 Posts
On November 15 2013 00:37 Ghostcom wrote: And if the golden standard hasn't been established (does the traditional bike helmet actually improve safety?), how are you going to tell if the new one will make a difference? ok, let me make an analogy of what happened with this thread then. Suppose I make a thread about the potential creation of a new method of vaccination that inoculates the patients without the side effects of many vaccines of today, but the costs are higher than traditional vaccination. The OP then asks whether the new form of vaccination would be the future. Then a later post makes a claim that vaccines are a scam and that they cause autism. Clearly that is a derailing of the original purpose of the thread, since although not initially stated, it is heavily implied in the OP that vaccines do work. Likewise, the OP of this thread is heavily implied that helmets do work (or else the thread should be changed to "Should we wear bike helmets or not?"). | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
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? | ||
|
Ettick
United States2434 Posts
On November 14 2013 14:38 NovaTheFeared wrote: So what we have here is a one time use $500 helmet? Genius! Most bike helmets are essentially one time use | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
On November 15 2013 00:48 Gnaix wrote: ok, let me make an analogy of what happened with this thread then. Suppose I make a thread about the potential creation of a new method of vaccination that inoculates the patients without the side effects of many vaccines of today, but the costs are higher than traditional vaccination. The OP then asks whether the new form of vaccination would be the future. Then a later post makes a claim that vaccines are a scam and that they cause autism. Clearly that is a derailing of the original purpose of the thread, since although not initially stated, it is heavily implied in the OP that vaccines do work. Likewise, the OP of this thread is heavily implied that helmets do work (or else the thread should be changed to "Should we wear bike helmets or not?"). I disagree with your analogy as well as the point you are trying to make. Luckily neither of us are moderators, so how about we drop it? This discussion has filled more than the discussion you objected to and it is even less relevant. | ||
|
Gnaix
United States438 Posts
Pretty sure it's a joke, since it assumes that most people wears helmets when biking, so that most biking accidents would therefore happen to those that also wear helmets. | ||
| ||
