Helmets

Dave_C_2

Off topics - gloves.
When you fall off a bike (or even just fall) your natural reaction is to use your hands to break the fall* so gloves are a must even in very low speed falls to prevent gravel rash .

The big plus is that padded gloves make the ride easier as well.

Of course in the winter I need to layer up on the gloves, the rest of me gets warm by moving around, but my hands get very cold- they are immobile on the handlebars.

*A reaction which also keeps your head from hitting the ground - presumably this is a a result of strong evolutionary pressure.

Dave

art_for_arts_sake

Dave_C wrote: »

The latest cycle helmet that was in the guardian six months ago http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/22/airbag-bike-helmet-way-forward
I agree that the £400 price tag is a bit off-putting.
Dave

Even older than that, Dave, it first appeared in 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/21/airbag-helmet-hovding

ozzage

The problem with these pro-helmet arguments is that they could equally apply to being a pedestrian or in a motor vehicle. Head injuries are a big problem for both groups.

To be honest, if you want to reduce head injuries then you should look at car passengers first, as in pure numbers you'd have a much greater impact than worrying about cyclists.

But that won't happen. And nor should it.

Riding a bike is a form of transport, just like walking or driving. It doesn't require special clothes or a helmet, and in countries where bikes are genuinely a normal transport mode you'll see very few people in high-viz and helmets. And yet they have injury and fatality rates far lower than in the UK!

Focus on the real problems, not the "easy" ones.

[Deleted User]

SailorSam wrote: »

Is anyone watching Stephen Fry C4, the gadgets show.
He's just been testing the latest cycle helmet, it's like a collar but with a built in helmet that goes off automatically if you're in a crash just like the air bag in your car.
It can only be used once and costs over £400

What I'd like to know is how the accelerometer is going to distinguish between a normal sudden movement of the head and a sudden movement due to an accident, thereby avoiding a sudden bill for £400 every time you turn your head.

Idiophreak

jack_pott wrote: »

What I'd like to know is how the accelerometer is going to distinguish between a normal sudden movement of the head and a sudden movement due to an accident, thereby avoiding a sudden bill for £400 every time you turn your head.

Do the airbags in your car go off every time you brake?

Dave_C_2

jack_pott wrote: »

What I'd like to know is how the accelerometer is going to distinguish between a normal sudden movement of the head and a sudden movement due to an accident, thereby avoiding a sudden bill for £400 every time you turn your head.

Idiophreak wrote: »

Do the airbags in your car go off every time you brake?

Just my 2d worth and I am Not A Cyclist Air Helmet Designer so please take this as only my opinion.

I've never bothered with these helmets in detail, but it's an interesting question. I imagine it's "fairly easy" to set a car airbag accelerometer to a high impact g force as the car gets the impact shock first - not the driver. This gives the bag time to deploy before the driver feels the sudden impact.

The accelerometer on the neck bag can't do this, if it relies on a high impact force, then it's too late as the cyclist has already has hit the road.

It's difficult to imagine a cyclist falling at more than 1g, so it must be set quite close to the 1g figure. What happens on a MTB/ BMX where the cyclist can be airborne and hence falling at 1g?

Also any false inflation can be enough to distract the cyclist at the wrong moment with possible fatal results.

Dave

[Deleted User]

Dave_C wrote: »

I imagine it's "fairly easy" to set a car airbag accelerometer to a high impact g force as the car gets the impact shock first - not the driver. This gives the bag time to deploy before the driver feels the sudden impact.

The accelerometer on the neck bag can't do this, if it relies on a high impact force, then it's too late as the cyclist has already has hit the road.

Got it in one.

kerby_crawler

skivenov wrote: »

My scooter does about 30mph, I can do about the same on my pushbike with a bit of help of gravity. I wear a helmet on one, so I wear a helmet on the other

Do you wear the same helmet for both, or do you accept a lower-spec helmet when doing 30mph on your pushbike? What is the difference?

This thread seems to confirm that cycling in countries other than Holland is inherently risky because there is no specific infrastructure dedicated to cyclists.

Cyclists should obviously not expect to be allowed to ride on the pavement, right? So why should they expect to be allowed to ride on the road? Surely, the difference between a pedestrian and a cyclist is no greater than the difference between a motorist and a cyclist.

I have not studied cycle helmets very closely at all, and I have never worn one. They seem to me to be little more than a token gesture by cyclists who feel the need to try to rationalise the risks they are taking by venturing onto a totally unsuitable infrastructure.

I thoroughly enjoyed my first-ever ride across central London last weekend, but I would be the last to suggest that it is a very sensible way to get across town.

But times are changing, and very gradually cycling seems to be gaining some respectability. The helmet issue is not really significant i.m.h.o.

custardy

kerby_crawler wrote: »

Do you wear the same helmet for both, or do you accept a lower-spec helmet when doing 30mph on your pushbike? What is the difference?

This thread seems to confirm that cycling in countries other than Holland is inherently risky because there is no specific infrastructure dedicated to cyclists.

Cyclists should obviously not expect to be allowed to ride on the pavement, right? So why should they expect to be allowed to ride on the road? Surely, the difference between a pedestrian and a cyclist is no greater than the difference between a motorist and a cyclist.

I have not studied cycle helmets very closely at all, and I have never worn one. They seem to me to be little more than a token gesture by cyclists who feel the need to try to rationalise the risks they are taking by venturing onto a totally unsuitable infrastructure.

I thoroughly enjoyed my first-ever ride across central London last weekend, but I would be the last to suggest that it is a very sensible way to get across town.

But times are changing, and very gradually cycling seems to be gaining some respectability. The helmet issue is not really significant i.m.h.o.

well I disagree
In some scenarios they will make a difference
In my off in December I never even knew i was off the bike until my (helmeted) head hit the road
would I have died? no idea
would I have had a really sore and no doubt damaged head? without a doubt

Marco_Panettone

kerby_crawler wrote: »

Do you wear the same helmet for both, or do you accept a lower-spec helmet when doing 30mph on your pushbike? What is the difference?

This thread seems to confirm that cycling in countries other than Holland is inherently risky because there is no specific infrastructure dedicated to cyclists.

Cyclists should obviously not expect to be allowed to ride on the pavement, right? So why should they expect to be allowed to ride on the road? Surely, the difference between a pedestrian and a cyclist is no greater than the difference between a motorist and a cyclist.

I have not studied cycle helmets very closely at all, and I have never worn one. They seem to me to be little more than a token gesture by cyclists who feel the need to try to rationalise the risks they are taking by venturing onto a totally unsuitable infrastructure.

I thoroughly enjoyed my first-ever ride across central London last weekend, but I would be the last to suggest that it is a very sensible way to get across town.

But times are changing, and very gradually cycling seems to be gaining some respectability. The helmet issue is not really significant i.m.h.o.

Why should cars be allowed on roads that were developed for cyclists, you mean? Maybe you need to spend more time on the bike, and do a small amount of research before spouting opinions about things you've already admitted to knowing nothing about...