Baseball cap-style folding cycle helmet designed by ex-SpaceX engineers smashes crowdfunding target (+ video)

LastBoyScout wrote:

I wear a helmet and I've been glad of it in the handful of crashes I've had, as my head has hit the floor in a few of them and the helmet has done it's job and saved me from more serious injury. Only 4 of my crashes that I can think of were the result of being hit by another vehicle (2 cars, 2 cyclists) - the rest were the result of running out of grip/ability or mechanical failure.

I used to wear a helmet but stopped.  In all of the crashes I've had (ice twice, oil once, not-so-dropped kerb once, car door once) my helmet remained absolutely pristine and it was my hands or shoulders which took the brunt. I don't usually wear anything on my head now.

(PS - How many fingers do you have on a hand?  Four crashes accounted for specifically only leaves one as "the rest"  )

brooksby wrote:

LastBoyScout wrote:

I wear a helmet and I've been glad of it in the handful of crashes I've had, as my head has hit the floor in a few of them and the helmet has done it's job and saved me from more serious injury. Only 4 of my crashes that I can think of were the result of being hit by another vehicle (2 cars, 2 cyclists) - the rest were the result of running out of grip/ability or mechanical failure.

I used to wear a helmet but stopped.  In all of the crashes I've had (ice twice, oil once, not-so-dropped kerb once, car door once) my helmet remained absolutely pristine and it was my hands or shoulders which took the brunt. I don't usually wear anything on my head now.

(PS - How many fingers do you have on a hand?  Four crashes accounted for specifically only leaves one as "the rest"  )

You may have been lucky, in my 5 crashes in 3.5 years, I have banged my helmeted head 4 times, possibly 5.  Two on ice, three downhill corners...all my own fault, although a mechanical issue may have contributed to one.  I'm not saying the helmet saved my life, or that they should be compulsory for everyone, but they definitely meant the recovery time allowed me to savour the broken bones, road rash and bike in shop for expensive repairs without a nasty headache.

Zigster wrote:

Problem is, then the Government says, "Hey, look!  Everyone is wearing helmets.  Cycling is now safe.  No need for those expensive cycle lanes."

I would argue that the Government bends to popular opinion and the more people that cycle the better we are heard by them.

ClubSmed wrote:

Zigster wrote:

Problem is, then the Government says, "Hey, look!  Everyone is wearing helmets.  Cycling is now safe.  No need for those expensive cycle lanes."

I would argue that the Government bends to popular opinion and the more people that cycle the better we are heard by them.

Ummm, if you're not from Earth, which planet are you from?  Fracking: opposed by the vast majority, voted against by the councils  involved, but the government forces it through. 

Having more people cycling is useful, but until we reach a significant minority, a lot more than the few percent now, governments can and will ignore us.  Doesn't stop them pretending though, with lots of nice words and almost no funding, while massive road schemes and HS2 with no economic case and massive environmental and social costs get nodded through.

Zigster wrote:

Problem is, then the Government says, "Hey, look!  Everyone is wearing helmets.  Cycling is now safe.  No need for those expensive cycle lanes."

Aided and abetted by British Cycling and Sportive/charity ride organisers who tell lies about the reasons why they have a no helmet no ride policy because it certainly isn't for insurance purposes, not when they fail to stipulate the correct helmet standard (one ride organiser even stated a bicycle code as being a helmet one!), not when they also state that third party injuries and costs due to crashing etc (whilst wearing a helmet) are to be covered by the participant, maybe the organisers think that wearing a helmet makes you a safer rider/less likely to cause a crash?

Not that helmets are required by insurers anyway which has been exposed several times that organisers are liars.

Helmet wearing has only come about in the UK due to government pressure and also that by road safety campaigners and police, not to mention that British Cycling's fucktarded response to what the UCI did, back of a fag packet reckoning on why one or two riders died, utterly ignoring the facts that have been shown to prove helmet wearing is massive failure/red herring everywhere and indeed proven to be the same failure in the pro ranks which has made the riding more dangerous, riders suffering more injuries and more pro riders dying since UCI made helmets compulsary.

Wannabe club riders just copy the pros and now many clubs have no helmet=no ride rules, there was even a CTC/CUK area group that basically forced through helmets to be worn because of a couple of shouty types and forced away one of the riders who wanted to ride as they'd done before.

Helmets have caused massive ructions, excluded people from participating and pushed away the focus of the actual problems. This is why I am so anti helmet, it's the worst thing to happen to cycling since the motorvehicle could go above 15mph IMHO.

More people have died, more people have had freedoms removed, generations of cyclists have packed in cycling and have been lost to motorvehicles and their kids too, sickeningly the law has been ignored and discrimination against cyclists is prevelent, all on the back of helmets/helmet wearing.

ClubSmed wrote:

A lot of these arguments are circular "chicken or egg" type arguments.

• We need better cycling infrastructure, but the government won't fund this well enough until enough people cycle
• Enough people won't cycle because of safety concerns (despite statistics) and they don't want to wear helmets (normally for vanity reasons)
• These people won't cycle without helmets until there is better cycling infrastructure.

 

If this is a product that can break into this circular issue and get people cycling who wouldn't have then I see it as a good thing. Once more people are cycling then the other elements of the circular arguments can be broken.

If you'd read the previous comments undermining the claims made for this piece of junk then you'd know that, just like the stupid indicators and 'clever' gadgets that surface every other week, it will do NOTHING to improve cycling levels.

Do you really, honestly think that people will see this pathetic little hat and think "Yep, that's gonna stop drivers close passing, SMIDSY, honking and abusing people on bikes and scaring the sh*t out of me. On shared paths all dog owners will keep their mutts on a short leash, the glass will disappear and they will be gritted in winter. It will totally transform the experience of cycling on the road. I will get on my bike tomorrow and wear it with pride."?

If you do then you really are living in cloud cuckoo land. Please return after waking up from the daydream.

I've just looked at the crowdfunder link. £117 + shipping.  Early birds can pay £64 but you won't be able to ride your bike for another 5 months (estimated). Fools.

Simon E wrote:

I've just looked at the crowdfunder link. £117 + shipping.  Early birds can pay £64 but you won't be able to ride your bike for another 5 months (estimated). Fools.

I doubt they'll be able to deliver anything in that time frame.

I'm still waiting on a HedKayse (https://www.hedkayse.com/) helmet that I backed in 2016!

Simon E wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

A lot of these arguments are circular "chicken or egg" type arguments.

• We need better cycling infrastructure, but the government won't fund this well enough until enough people cycle
• Enough people won't cycle because of safety concerns (despite statistics) and they don't want to wear helmets (normally for vanity reasons)
• These people won't cycle without helmets until there is better cycling infrastructure.

 

If this is a product that can break into this circular issue and get people cycling who wouldn't have then I see it as a good thing. Once more people are cycling then the other elements of the circular arguments can be broken.

If you'd read the previous comments undermining the claims made for this piece of junk then you'd know that, just like the stupid indicators and 'clever' gadgets that surface every other week, it will do NOTHING to improve cycling levels.

Do you really, honestly think that people will see this pathetic little hat and think "Yep, that's gonna stop drivers close passing, SMIDSY, honking and abusing people on bikes and scaring the sh*t out of me. On shared paths all dog owners will keep their mutts on a short leash, the glass will disappear and they will be gritted in winter. It will totally transform the experience of cycling on the road. I will get on my bike tomorrow and wear it with pride."?

If you do then you really are living in cloud cuckoo land. Please return after waking up from the daydream.

I've just looked at the crowdfunder link. £117 + shipping.  Early birds can pay £64 but you won't be able to ride your bike for another 5 months (estimated). Fools.

No helmet will ever do the things that you are stating, there is no one thing that is going to solve all the issues facing cycling. If you are waiting for something that will it is you living in cloud cuckoo land!

Some people do wear helmets (despite there being no hard evidence on their safety either way) because they are like some sort of magic invisible cape that will make them invincible. All this product has to do is convince enough people who would cycle with a magic cape (but don't want to because of an image issue) that this is the answer and it will help.

Simon E wrote:

I've just looked at the crowdfunder link. £117 + shipping.  Early birds can pay £64 but you won't be able to ride your bike for another 5 months (estimated). Fools.

In my experience these crowdfunding campaigns are as much about guaging the market and gaining pre-launch advertising/buzz/hype as they are about gaining financial backing. As for the price of the item, the early birds may get a discount on the RRP of the product, but who pays for products at RRP? You will find that not long after launch you will probably see them available online for below RRP (as with just about any product) and closer to the early bird prices. So if you take the more likely online retail cost of £64 for a helmet, it does not seem that crazy to me (I have certianly paid more for one, haven't you?).

I am not going to buy one of these, but I can see a potential market (and the amount they have gone over their funding target would indicate that this market exists).

I am not claiming that this helmet magicly saves people, but if non cyclists believe it will enough to get them on the bike then that can't be a bad thing.

nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

Why?

It doesn't work, it will just instil a false sense of security in the wearer.

nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

And if drivers compensate for the apparently reduced risk by driving more dangerously, then what?

nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

It's not a bad thing, but I'd suggest it's a completely irrelevant thing.  Look at the cost of it!  The numbers of non-wearers it's likely to convert will be close to zero, and given how hugely questionable, even unknowable, the effect of wearing a helmet is, I don't beleive it will have any effect at all on cycling safety overall.

The argument for it is that some existing helmet wearers (with a lot of disposable income) might gain some aesthetic pleasure because they prefer the look of it to the traditional kind.  That's a valid, if limited, reason and is entirely up to them.

The market will decide, I guess.  But in the bigger picture it's just not significant.

nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

fenix wrote:

nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

ClubSmed wrote:

fenix wrote:

nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

fenix wrote:

nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

I am just pointing out that from some of the studies on barriers to cycling there is a significant number that claim safety concerns and won't wear a helmet for image concerns. within that group it is possible that there is a percentage that could be justify that the use of a helmet such as this aleviates their safety concern and solves their image concern.

I am not saying that this will solve everything that is wrong with cycling, but I don't believe that any one thing will. This is a problem that needs to have lots of solutions targeting multiple issues effectively.

ClubSmed wrote:

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

Is that to protect them from boats?

ClubSmed wrote:

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

fenix wrote:

nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

I am just pointing out that from some of the studies on barriers to cycling there is a significant number that claim safety concerns and won't wear a helmet for image concerns. within that group it is possible that there is a percentage that could be justify that the use of a helmet such as this aleviates their safety concern and solves their image concern.

I am not saying that this will solve everything that is wrong with cycling, but I don't believe that any one thing will. This is a problem that needs to have lots of solutions targeting multiple issues effectively.

I know you haven't suggested mandating; I'm countering your argument, by saying there is no evidence for helmet 'encouragement' or products leading to people cycling. The converse (decrease in cycling) we do have evidence for, via places that HAVE mandated. 

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

fenix wrote:

nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

I am just pointing out that from some of the studies on barriers to cycling there is a significant number that claim safety concerns and won't wear a helmet for image concerns. within that group it is possible that there is a percentage that could be justify that the use of a helmet such as this aleviates their safety concern and solves their image concern.

I am not saying that this will solve everything that is wrong with cycling, but I don't believe that any one thing will. This is a problem that needs to have lots of solutions targeting multiple issues effectively.

I know you haven't suggested mandating; I'm countering your argument, by saying there is no evidence for helmet 'encouragement' or products leading to people cycling. The converse (decrease in cycling) we do have evidence for, via places that HAVE mandated. 

No, what you have is evidence that when helmets are mandated in an environment where this product does not exist, it reduces cycling figures. In an environment where lots of hills exist it reduces cycling figures, that does not mean that the advent of wide ranging gears and ebikes cannot make that reduction less.

The advent of this product is not bringing forth the manatory enforcement of helmet wearing or the apocolypse.

We do not know if the figures on mandatory helmet wearing would have decreased at the same rate if this product existed at the time.

To cover a previous point about Giro having made a similar product in the 90s, that product was aimed at children. Children do not have the same safety fears as adults, but do have major fears about looking cool and fitting in, so the failure is understandable. Adults have lots of safety fears and less (but not zero) issues with having to look cool

ClubSmed wrote:

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

fenix wrote:

nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

I am just pointing out that from some of the studies on barriers to cycling there is a significant number that claim safety concerns and won't wear a helmet for image concerns. within that group it is possible that there is a percentage that could be justify that the use of a helmet such as this aleviates their safety concern and solves their image concern.

I am not saying that this will solve everything that is wrong with cycling, but I don't believe that any one thing will. This is a problem that needs to have lots of solutions targeting multiple issues effectively.

I know you haven't suggested mandating; I'm countering your argument, by saying there is no evidence for helmet 'encouragement' or products leading to people cycling. The converse (decrease in cycling) we do have evidence for, via places that HAVE mandated. 

No, what you have is evidence that when helmets are mandated in an environment where this product does not exist, it reduces cycling figures. In an environment where lots of hills exist it reduces cycling figures, that does not mean that the advent of wide ranging gears and ebikes cannot make that reduction less.

The advent of this product is not bringing forth the manatory enforcement of helmet wearing or the apocolypse.

We do not know if the figures on mandatory helmet wearing would have decreased at the same rate if this product existed at the time.

To cover a previous point about Giro having made a similar product in the 90s, that product was aimed at children. Children do not have the same safety fears as adults, but do have major fears about looking cool and fitting in, so the failure is understandable. Adults have lots of safety fears and less (but not zero) issues with having to look cool

You know what's really got zero evidence?

That this might be a "solution that could get more people on the road and cycling".

Guess who said that. Up there. Under your name.

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

fenix wrote:

nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

I am just pointing out that from some of the studies on barriers to cycling there is a significant number that claim safety concerns and won't wear a helmet for image concerns. within that group it is possible that there is a percentage that could be justify that the use of a helmet such as this aleviates their safety concern and solves their image concern.

I am not saying that this will solve everything that is wrong with cycling, but I don't believe that any one thing will. This is a problem that needs to have lots of solutions targeting multiple issues effectively.

I know you haven't suggested mandating; I'm countering your argument, by saying there is no evidence for helmet 'encouragement' or products leading to people cycling. The converse (decrease in cycling) we do have evidence for, via places that HAVE mandated. 

No, what you have is evidence that when helmets are mandated in an environment where this product does not exist, it reduces cycling figures. In an environment where lots of hills exist it reduces cycling figures, that does not mean that the advent of wide ranging gears and ebikes cannot make that reduction less.

The advent of this product is not bringing forth the manatory enforcement of helmet wearing or the apocolypse.

We do not know if the figures on mandatory helmet wearing would have decreased at the same rate if this product existed at the time.

To cover a previous point about Giro having made a similar product in the 90s, that product was aimed at children. Children do not have the same safety fears as adults, but do have major fears about looking cool and fitting in, so the failure is understandable. Adults have lots of safety fears and less (but not zero) issues with having to look cool

You know what's really got zero evidence?

That this might be a "solution that could get more people on the road and cycling".

Guess who said that. Up there. Under your name.

I agree, there is no evidence that it will get more people to cycle, that is why I said that it *could* get more people to cycle. There is also no evidence that the introduction of such a product would decrease the number of cyclists as seems to be suggested. To my mind though, one of those is a possibility and the other isn't.

ClubSmed wrote:

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

fenix wrote:

nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

I am just pointing out that from some of the studies on barriers to cycling there is a significant number that claim safety concerns and won't wear a helmet for image concerns. within that group it is possible that there is a percentage that could be justify that the use of a helmet such as this aleviates their safety concern and solves their image concern.

I am not saying that this will solve everything that is wrong with cycling, but I don't believe that any one thing will. This is a problem that needs to have lots of solutions targeting multiple issues effectively.

I know you haven't suggested mandating; I'm countering your argument, by saying there is no evidence for helmet 'encouragement' or products leading to people cycling. The converse (decrease in cycling) we do have evidence for, via places that HAVE mandated. 

No, what you have is evidence that when helmets are mandated in an environment where this product does not exist, it reduces cycling figures. In an environment where lots of hills exist it reduces cycling figures, that does not mean that the advent of wide ranging gears and ebikes cannot make that reduction less.

The advent of this product is not bringing forth the manatory enforcement of helmet wearing or the apocolypse.

We do not know if the figures on mandatory helmet wearing would have decreased at the same rate if this product existed at the time.

To cover a previous point about Giro having made a similar product in the 90s, that product was aimed at children. Children do not have the same safety fears as adults, but do have major fears about looking cool and fitting in, so the failure is understandable. Adults have lots of safety fears and less (but not zero) issues with having to look cool

You know what's really got zero evidence?

That this might be a "solution that could get more people on the road and cycling".

Guess who said that. Up there. Under your name.

I agree, there is no evidence that it will get more people to cycle, that is why I said that it *could* get more people to cycle. There is also no evidence that the introduction of such a product would decrease the number of cyclists as seems to be suggested. To my mind though, one of those is a possibility and the other isn't.

Can't really argue with that.

Because mandating helmets = decrease in cyclists, I think it logically follows that focus on helmets = a less severe decrease in cyclists, but I accept I'm stretching there, with no supporting evidence.