Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
M O R P H E R – folding bicycle helmet
LAST month I attended the British Inventions Show.
The stand-out product was the stand by the entrance.
It took me about one second to sense that this was a good idea.
I met the inventor, Jeff Wolf OBE, who explained his head was saved by a regular helmet ... yet few cyclists trouble to wear them. It set him thinking:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/morpher-folding-helmet-technology
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
When you fall off your bike sideways from just sitting on it whilst not moving, your head is doing 14mph when you hit the ground (although this has happened quite a few times to me and as I don't wear a helmet I made sure my head did not hit the ground).
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I would assume that most serious injuries or deaths do not happen to cyclists when they static on their bikes and keel over. The more probable cause would be heart failure.
-
-
I was cleated in and forgot.
-
Permalink Reply by 26mhcx4vtb0rb on
-
If I were riding a bike as tall as a house I would definitely consider wearing a helmet.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
It's often been suggested that motorists would drive more carefully if there were a sharp spike protruding from the centre of the steering wheel, rather than an airbag
The safer you make the tool, the more risks the user takes.
-
-
JohnD i also have heard of this theory. I'd like to know if any field tests have been carried out.
-
-
Maybe it comes down to this. If you are on a bike and hit something that is moving very fast with your head it is highly likely that you will die because your brain, which is encased within your skull, controls your body. Broken bones are terrible but they can mend
If you have something that provides a bit of a cushion you may not die. The only objection to this premise I can find on this thread seems to be from people who think that having a lower risk of being killed makes one more likely to behave with bravdo. People who think that having a helmet on their head turns them into some kind of man or woman of steel are frankly stupid.
If people do not want to wear helmet and after weighing up the risks still wish to do that, fine. You will just increase your chances of being dead or brain injured because you want to keep you hair looking nice. From the contributions I've seen here I can see no other rationale.
I would be interested to find out how many of the anti helmet people also do not put their kids in car seats as by doing so it makes them over confident when driving.
-
-
" The only objection to this premise I can find on this thread seems to be from people who think that having a lower risk of being killed makes one more likely to behave with bravdo"
That is not my view. I do not wear a helmet because:
1, given the way I cycle the risk of a head injury is very low. I assess this risk as no greater than many activities for which helmets are not typically worn, so I see no reason to make cycling a special case.
2. The cultural weight placed on helmets far outweighs any possible benefit, and diverts attention from the real cause of danger on the roads which is poor road skills. While poor road skills are present in every class of road user, the impact is greatly exacerbated by the weight of the machines some of these poor road users operate.
3. Focusing attention on cycle helmets will not prevent a single accident. It may at best minimise the severity of a small subset of cycle accidents. It will do nothing to address the far higher numbers of pedestrians and motorists being killed every year.
4. The promotion of cycle helmets as essential safety equipment for cyclists is overwhelming far more important messages about safe road positioning and behavior. Cyclists (and drivers and pedestrians) literally don't know what safe cycling looks like because the message has been drowned out by the assertion that all a cyclist needs to do to be safe is to make the right fashion choices. It doesn't matter what you do as long as you wear a helmet and hi viz.
5. Cycle helmet protection standards are very low. Motorcycle helmets they ain't.
6. Helmets are sold by overplaying the dangers of cycling. The accident rate per hour is lower than for car passengers. (Incidentally, the risk of head injury is higher for car passengers. Driving helmets?) Portraying cycling as a dangerous, extreme activity might give a few mamils a thrill and sell helmets but it puts off a lot of people who would like to cycle as an easy, cheap and healthy day to day transport method but have come to believe that if they cycle on the roads injury or death are unavoidable.
7. Modern helmets are even less protective than older designs because manufactures have prioritised unit-shifting features like low weight and ventilation over actual protection. They know what sells is not true protection but the illusion of protection.
"If people do not want to wear helmet and after weighing up the risks still wish to do that, fine. You will just increase your chances of being dead or brain injured because you want to keep you hair looking nice. From the contributions I've seen here I can see no other rationale."
I think you have just not looked hard enough. I do not want to have the helmet debate but I will not accept having words put in my mouth.
Road safety - for all users not just cyclists - is a complex issue. Our society likes to think we can buy solutions to problems. This makes helmets very seductive - it's a one shop fix. Only problem is it's no fix at all.
-
-
Oh, and 8. As helmet wearing becomes conflated with safe cycling, whether or not a cyclist was wearing a helmet is reported as relevant even when cyclists suffer injuries for which a helmet would have been completely ineffective (that would be most of them).
-
-
I want to make sure that I understand this. Your premise is that by wearing a helmet, cyclists are more likely to engage in behaviour that makes them more likely to be injured?
-
-
Hi MIchael
NO, categorically not. You said that ("The only objection to this premise I can find on this thread seems to be from people who think that having a lower risk of being killed makes one more likely to behave with bravdo"), not me!
I think you may be confusing two points. I stated earlier in the thread that Dutch injury rates are higher for cyclists wearing helmets, because when there is no culture of bike helmets for day to day cycling, people choose to wear helmets only when they are engaging in more risky activities ie mountain bikers, bmx-ers, road racers etc. That in no way says that helmets cause risky behaviour - in fact it shows that when cyclists are not bombarded with messages about how important helmets are they are pretty good at deciding for themselves when a helmet is a good idea.
The post above concerns transportation cycling rather than sports cycling, and in no way states that helmets cause risky behavior. I do think the focus on helmets over road skills misleads cyclists into poor decisions but that's not a direct effect of an individual wearing a helmet, its the cumulative effect of cyclist "safety" promotion focussing on what you buy not what you do. (Point 4 above). If you would like to quote the section that has confused you I will be very happy to clarify
Incidentally, you said "If you are on a bike and hit something that is moving very fast with your head it is highly likely that you will die because your brain, which is encased within your skull, controls your body." I would not dispute that. However since bicycle helmets are only rated to about 14mph impact speed, sadly if your head hits something moving very fast even wearing a helmet you are still very likely to die. The helmet won't make a difference. It just isn't designed to. Bike helmet standards are based on bicycle falls at low speeds, not even racing speeds let alone impacts from motor vehicles. (You will note that bike helmet advertising is all abut aerodynamics and comfort, yet weirdly silent about protection level.).
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
