A folding cycle helmet for less than a fiver? What do you make of this year’s James Dyson Award winner? (+ video)

jerome wrote:

I think it is great, really! People having no idea of science nor structural engineering think they can piss on someone's invention. It is truly sad.

If you should by any chance be referring to me, I have a BSc (Hons) an MSc and I worked for twenty years as an engineer.

It is truly sad that some people don't read anything about a subject before diving in with both feet with a "cure" for a problem that doesn't exist.  Cycling is as dangerous per mile travelled as walking, but Miss Shiffer, well intentioned as she may be, doesn't even understand the most basic facts about cycling but still stumbles in with her solution which treats the symptoms not the cause, which has already been proven not to work.

It certainly is sad that someone so obviously talented has wasted their intelligence and efforts, and that a well meaning industrialist, similarly misinformed, wastes his money on it when it could have been used beneficially.

Ush wrote:

In the light of recent discussion/request for a reduction of swearing here I find myself deprived of the appropriate response.

 

I hope Shiffer will now address the "infrastructure gap" by providing vending machines stuffed with disposable divining rods to help "millenials" and "professionals" find their way about on "city bikes".

I also expect to see other safety essentials sold at these "retail points":  Royal Jelly; homeopathic performance water (a couple of drops of Lance Armstrong's piss in a few gallons of water will probably have a measurable effect); laser bikelane bike lights; high-vis killer klown cycling outfits.

  

 

I know what you mean, and don't even get me started on those companies that design body armour for the police instead of addressing the actual issue and just stop people being aggressive and violent.......

ClubSmed wrote:

I know what you mean, and don't even get me started on those companies that design body armour for the police instead of addressing the actual issue and just stop people being aggressive and violent.......

What?  Are you telling me that some unscrupulous, post-rational nitwit is selling the police something that they call body armour which does not actually stop stabbing weapons?  The swine!  Can you credit people believing  something works just because it is claimed that it works?

ClubSmed wrote:

Ush wrote:

In the light of recent discussion/request for a reduction of swearing here I find myself deprived of the appropriate response.

 

I hope Shiffer will now address the "infrastructure gap" by providing vending machines stuffed with disposable divining rods to help "millenials" and "professionals" find their way about on "city bikes".

I also expect to see other safety essentials sold at these "retail points":  Royal Jelly; homeopathic performance water (a couple of drops of Lance Armstrong's piss in a few gallons of water will probably have a measurable effect); laser bikelane bike lights; high-vis killer klown cycling outfits.

  

 

I know what you mean, and don't even get me started on those companies that design body armour for the police instead of addressing the actual issue and just stop people being aggressive and violent.......

Travelling by a simple mode of transport is now analogous to becoming a police officer? So mass active-travel is about as likely as everyone, including young children, becoming cops?

If people were regularly shooting police officers the authorities wouldn't ban guns, but instead cops would just be advised to wear bullet-proof vests? That don't even work?

And cyclists now have all the legal powers that the police do, to deal with the threats that the protective clothing is made necessary by? And we get a salary?

Or are you employing a seriously poor analogy that falls on its bottom at the slightest scrutiny?

PS I like lasers on bikes. Be better if they could be used to guide anti-tank rockets for rapid close-pass-payback, but even on their own I think they're kind of pretty. Don't do a lot for safety, granted.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

? PS I like lasers on bikes. Be better if they could be used to guide anti-tank rockets for rapid close-pass-payback, but even on their own I think they're kind of pretty. Don't do a lot for safety, granted.

In the harsh light of night I see your point.  But why bother with a missile?  Something of sufficient power to blind a culprit would do the trick.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Or are you employing a seriously poor analogy that falls on its bottom at the slightest scrutiny?

You mean like university designers having the powers and influence to approve and fund infrastructure reforms to better suit cyclists but instead waste time on safety equipment?
Yes, it was a very obvious and light hearted rebuke at a poorly aimed criticism

SRRC wrote:

James Dyson is no idiot, he's not going to put his name to some hopeless design. I don't know if he still rides but he used to be very keen on his Cannondales.

I know he's not an idiot, but he is apparently totally ignorant about cycle helmets.  I would have thought that anyone thinking of giving someone £30k for a product might have done the tiniest bit of research about that product first.  We can all be idiots sometimes.

Edgeley wrote:

If it really is as effective as a polystyrene helmet, then why buy the latter?

If it isn't, why bother with the former?

Unfortunately logic isn't going to be key here - people will want or be obliged to have a helmet on, this is a helmet, and whether it works or not is irrelevant. 

I think it said that the effectiveness of the paper honeycomb design degrades over time so it is a disposable/recylable product. Polystyrene helmets are made to last so are not a disposable product.

ClubSmed wrote:

Edgeley wrote:

If it really is as effective as a polystyrene helmet, then why buy the latter?

If it isn't, why bother with the former?

Unfortunately logic isn't going to be key here - people will want or be obliged to have a helmet on, this is a helmet, and whether it works or not is irrelevant. 

I think it said that the effectiveness of the paper honeycomb design degrades over time so it is a disposable/recylable product. Polystyrene helmets are made to last so are not a disposable product.

Not if you believe the manufacurers. For example this is from Bell's Helmet FAQ page:

Bell has a general recommendation of replacing your helmet every three (3) years.

And this is from the Kask 'Use and Care' booklet:

in any case, we advise replacing it after approximately 5 years, because over time its capacity for protection decreases due to the aging of the materials.

CygnusX1 wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Edgeley wrote:

If it really is as effective as a polystyrene helmet, then why buy the latter?

If it isn't, why bother with the former?

Unfortunately logic isn't going to be key here - people will want or be obliged to have a helmet on, this is a helmet, and whether it works or not is irrelevant. 

I think it said that the effectiveness of the paper honeycomb design degrades over time so it is a disposable/recylable product. Polystyrene helmets are made to last so are not a disposable product.

Not if you believe the manufacurers. For example this is from Bell's Helmet FAQ page:

Bell has a general recommendation of replacing your helmet every three (3) years.

And this is from the Kask 'Use and Care' booklet:

in any case, we advise replacing it after approximately 5 years, because over time its capacity for protection decreases due to the aging of the materials.

 

True but I got the impression that this helmet lasts far less than 1 year, though that is just an impression.
"The helmet is designed for a limited number of uses and will deteriorate and weaken overtime, especially if carried around at the bottom of a bag. The final design is likely to have a visible stripe that will wear off when it is time to throw it away or a clip that ceases to work after a certain amount of time."