Helmet project

[ianrauk]

Okay then, not essential but highly recommended if you don't want to get brain damage....

So let me get this straight. I will get brain damage if I don't wear a helmet?

 

[JonnyBlade]

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Completed.

Hello I am a design student, currently doing a project on cycal helmets. In it I am hoping to design a cycle helmet that is more desirable and help get more people wearing cycle helmets.

I am posting hear to ask for your opionions on cycal helmets. The good and the bad, Why you wear them or why you don't, What features do you like to see etc . And if you have a second if you could fill out this short questionnaire linked below. Doing this will be a great help in getting a good design.

http://willsham.wufo...-questionnaire/

Thanks

 

[Mad at urage]

Okay then, not essential but highly recommended if you don't want to get brain damage....

Nope. I think the CTC said it rather well:

Dear Sir or Madam,

The letter below is for publication, in response to your recent article about MP Norman Baker's decision to ride a bicycle without a helmet as published at:
www.metro.co.uk/news/860718-transport-mp-norman-baker-no-need-for-a-helmet-when-cycling

The Minister for cycling, Norman Baker, shouldn’t need to defend his decision to cycle without a helmet. In countries like Holland, helmet use is almost unheard of, yet cyclists there have an excellent safety record.

Cycle helmets are (and can only be) designed for minor knocks and bumps, not being hit by fast or heavy traffic. What’s more, any limited protection they may provide in a collision could well be outweighed by the increased risks of having a collision in the first place. Cyclists who wear helmets are 14% more likely to have a collision per mile cycled than those without. Maybe this is because they ride less cautiously, maybe it’s because drivers are known to leave less space when overtaking them. There are several other possible explanations.

All we know is that increases in helmet use have never been linked with lower cycle casualty rates. And that the one proven effect of telling people to wear helmets is to put people off cycling. This is not only bad for our health and the environment, it may be bad for cyclists’ safety too. Cycling gets safer the more cyclists there are: cyclists really do gain from 'safety in numbers'. So, if you deter cyclists, you may worsen the risks for those who remain. And by adding to our obesity epidemic, you would also shorten far more lives than could possibly be saved by helmets, however effective (or ineffective) they might be.

Cycling is not a particularly high-risk activity – you are less likely to be killed in a mile of cycling than a mile of walking. For the sake of our health, and that of our streets, communities and the environment, it is far more important for politicians to demonstrate leadership by showing cycling as something everyone can do, in whatever clothes you would normally be wearing. Whether or not you wear a helmet is irrelevant.

Yours sincerely,

Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director
CTC, The UK's National Cyclists' Organisation

 

[mickle]

[QUOTE 1367739"]

Who would have thought ..... possible 10 years ago? Or a rear mech that changes via the use of an electric current?
[/quote]

Mavic.

 

[Chutzpah]

Hi Willsham,

As a bit of feedback, some of the questions aren't very well designed. For example:

[font="'Lucida Grande"]Why do you ride your bike?

Commuting
Pleasure
Fitness
Other[/font]
[font="'Lucida Grande"]
[/font]

Well, all three really. Including running errands, so all four really.

Or do you mean "what reason do you mostly ride your bike for?"

If so, I'm sure you're aware during questionnaire design that you shouldn't leave people guessing about the meaning of the question.

 

[palinurus]

"Why do you ride your bike?": All of the above, plus cycle sport. I suspect this would apply to many on here. I selected "other" and listed.

Anyway, survey done.

 

[Davidc]

Okay then, not essential but highly recommended if you don't want to get brain damage....

So why then have the Australian courts effectively overturned the compulsion laws there because in accidents helmets INCREASE brain damage?

 

[arallsopp]

Done.

I'm 50/50 on helmets. I don't feel I should be compelled to wear one on a bicycle, but would definitely get one if I was planning to attack Wessex from a longship.

 

[Zoiders]

Helmets don't stop brain damage after a certain velocity even if they keep the head together.

They just turn a possible skull fracture it into shaken baby syndrome in adults, it's still brain damage.

 

[Backchat]

Wicked! But funny!

Here's a good starting idea ;-)

http://www.sheldonbr...bag-helmet.html

 

[ufkacbln]

Done.

I'm 50/50 on helmets. I don't feel I should be compelled to wear one on a bicycle, but would definitely get one if I was planning to attack Wessex from a longship.

I couldn't find out if this one is EN1078 (or SNELL B95), but it does have the additional facial protection suggested by the Vritish dental Association.....

 

[Red Light]

I couldn't find out if this one is EN1078 (or SNELL B95), but it does have the additional facial protection suggested by the Vritish dental Association.....

Interesting that its taken elements from car design with two "crumple zone" fins with three stage grading sticking up for the drop test rather than internal foam. Shame that it only works from one direction but then that's all you need to pass the EN1078 test