Paper helmet, anyone?

Shades wrote:

Only if its Rapha branded and costs a fortune

RaPaPa...

mattydubster wrote:

This thread is hurting my head.

Seconded.

P3t3 wrote:

My main issue with this paper hat is that it diesn't even look like it would work very well within the limited remit of a plastic hat, hit the pavement with your head in that and it'll just flop off.  

A very good point, if the fit isn't right then they could well be completely ineffective. Hopefully this and the issue of how prone it is to the British weather will have been or will be ironed out in the current design phase.

P3t3 wrote:

If bike hire schemes are safe then they don't need plastic hats, if they are dangerous enough that they need PPE then they should rip them out and forget about it.  As it is the councils have put the cart before the horse on this one, providing the vehicles but nowehere safe to ride them.

Does that mean that because cars are fitted with safety equipment that the car share schemes that the councils allow also shouldn't exist until they improve the infrastructure enought to remove all congestion that contributes to accidents?

P3t3 wrote:

As for Dyson - if he can design something that works and dosent produce a million decibels of noise and I might respect him.  

My main gripe with Dyson is those Airblades. They may be good (?) at drying hands but are useless at drying hair yet are placed in many rest rooms with shower facilities (including some offices where I work).

ClubSmed wrote:

My main gripe with Dyson is those Airblades. They may be good (?) at drying hands but are useless at drying hair yet are placed in many rest rooms with shower facilities (including some offices where I work).

If you can't be bothered to squeeze your head down into the slot, you don't deserve hair.

ClubSmed wrote:

Does that mean that because cars are fitted with safety equipment that the car share schemes that the councils allow also shouldn't exist until they improve the infrastructure enought to remove all congestion that contributes to accidents?

No, I specifically mentioned Personal Protective Equipment.  Driving a car is seen as a safe, everyday activity and therefore you aren't encouraged to wear funny dayglow clothes and a silly plastic hats hats to do it.  The car safety equipment that you speak of would have its equivalent in the lights that most hire bikes are fitted with, not the helmet the rider wears.  

Cycling is either safe enough or it isn't.  Councils have deemed it safe enough not to have to wear helmets when using hire bikes, then this kid comes along with a product to play to the subjective perception that cycling is dangerous.  

ClubSmed wrote:

My main gripe with Dyson is those Airblades. They may be good (?) at drying hands but are useless at drying hair yet are placed in many rest rooms with shower facilities (including some offices where I work).

I usually walk away before my hands are dry... deaf

P3t3 wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Does that mean that because cars are fitted with safety equipment that the car share schemes that the councils allow also shouldn't exist until they improve the infrastructure enought to remove all congestion that contributes to accidents?

No, I specifically mentioned Personal Protective Equipment.  Driving a car is seen as a safe, everyday activity and therefore you aren't encouraged to wear funny dayglow clothes and a silly plastic hats hats to do it.  The car safety equipment that you speak of would have its equivalent in the lights that most hire bikes are fitted with, not the helmet the rider wears.  

Cycling is either safe enough or it isn't.  Councils have deemed it safe enough not to have to wear helmets when using hire bikes, then this kid comes along with a product to play to the subjective perception that cycling is dangerous.  

Being in a car is seen as safe not just because of the lights. There are also many safety features to limit impacts including crumple zones, seat belts and air bags, of which the cyclist has non. The only imact dampening device a cyclist has as far as I am aware is a helmet, so actually car drivers are required (or forced) to take more preventative measures than a cyclist is asked to take.

I am not saying that a cyclist should be forced to wear a helmet, I am just pointing out that any statement along the lines of "cars are safe and don't have to suffer safety equipment to make them feel safe" is rather innacurate.

ClubSmed wrote:

P3t3 wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Does that mean that because cars are fitted with safety equipment that the car share schemes that the councils allow also shouldn't exist until they improve the infrastructure enought to remove all congestion that contributes to accidents?

No, I specifically mentioned Personal Protective Equipment.  Driving a car is seen as a safe, everyday activity and therefore you aren't encouraged to wear funny dayglow clothes and a silly plastic hats hats to do it.  The car safety equipment that you speak of would have its equivalent in the lights that most hire bikes are fitted with, not the helmet the rider wears.  

Cycling is either safe enough or it isn't.  Councils have deemed it safe enough not to have to wear helmets when using hire bikes, then this kid comes along with a product to play to the subjective perception that cycling is dangerous.  

Being in a car is seen as safe not just because of the lights. There are also many safety features to limit impacts including crumple zones, seat belts and air bags, of which the cyclist has non. The only imact dampening device a cyclist has as far as I am aware is a helmet, so actually car drivers are required (or forced) to take more preventative measures than a cyclist is asked to take.

I am not saying that a cyclist should be forced to wear a helmet, I am just pointing out that any statement along the lines of "cars are safe and don't have to suffer safety equipment to make them feel safe" is rather innacurate.

Well there is the the danger of heart disease due to physical inactivity. Maybe drivers should be compelled to run on a treadmill so many hours a week?

Andreeoouu wrote:

Do we really have to resort to the use of the f-word to get our opinions across?

Innovation requires trial and error. Some things are good, some not.

 

Yes I do, you cunt.

freebsd_frank wrote:

Andreeoouu wrote:

Do we really have to resort to the use of the f-word to get our opinions across?

Innovation requires trial and error. Some things are good, some not.

 

 

Yes I do, you cunt.

Language, Timothy!

freebsd_frank wrote:

Andreeoouu wrote:

Do we really have to resort to the use of the f-word to get our opinions across?

Innovation requires trial and error. Some things are good, some not.

 

 

Yes I do, you cunt.

i hope you feel better now. Well done. 

Man of Lard wrote:

In 2016 a design award from a chap who moved his manufacturing operations to Malaysia from Malmesbury.

 

Excuse me for not being excited on any level.

Dyson is also the fuckwit who's "engineers" managed to design a £400 hairdryer, when you can get another make for less than a tenth of that which does the job just as well.

His firm's the crApple of the consumer goods market.

freebsd_frank wrote:

His firm's the crApple of the consumer goods market.

Gets out old TheRegister Commentard Bingo Sheet and marker pen... *

* ..although I agree with sentiment..

Mungecrundle wrote:

Got to say that I'm half with Python on this one. Cycling in town should not be seen as a dangerous activity requiring protective equipment and this is surely the environment where such a disposable helmet would be used, e.g casual cylce hire schemes. The better risk mitigation is to provide proper infrastructure and reduce use of motor vehicles.

When I cycle on the roads on my commute to work (which is fairly well serviced by a cycle hire scheme) I would say that it is dangerous and should be seen as such. There are far too many cars pulling out on me at junctions because they are running late and think they should chance it (I assume) and drivers opening doors without looking for cyclists.

I know that the issue is a lack of proper infrastructure and education and that definitely needs to be addressed (and is to some extent). However, even if all the measures needed were set into motion today it would be decades realistically before we see the entirety of the positive results so in the interim we still need other temporary fixes like this in place.

Just my humble opinion.

ClubSmed wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

Got to say that I'm half with Python on this one. Cycling in town should not be seen as a dangerous activity requiring protective equipment and this is surely the environment where such a disposable helmet would be used, e.g casual cylce hire schemes. The better risk mitigation is to provide proper infrastructure and reduce use of motor vehicles.

When I cycle on the roads on my commute to work (which is fairly well serviced by a cycle hire scheme) I would say that it is dangerous and should be seen as such. There are far too many cars pulling out on me at junctions because they are running late and think they should chance it (I assume) and drivers opening doors without looking for cyclists.

I know that the issue is a lack of proper infrastructure and education and that definitely needs to be addressed (and is to some extent). However, even if all the measures needed were set into motion today it would be decades realistically before we see the entirety of the positive results so in the interim we still need other temporary fixes like this in place.

Just my humble opinion.

 

I speak for myself here, but my absolute distaste for this argument is that it's a red herring, and, as such, it blurs and skews the entire debate and what we really should be talking about.

How do you really know your commute is dangerous? Are you in possession of reliable statistics regarding the proportion of KSIs to cyclists along the route vs pedestrians? vs drivers? vs people who slip coming out of their houses along the route? or does it just feel dangerous because of the drivers at junctions and car doors?

How do you know a helmet is a fix, if anything did happen?

Yes, it will take decades to do anything about the REAL fixes, especially if we keep getting distracted by these arguments.

davel wrote:

How do you really know your commute is dangerous? Are you in possession of reliable statistics regarding the proportion of KSIs to cyclists along the route vs pedestrians? vs drivers? vs people who slip coming out of their houses along the route? or does it just feel dangerous because of the drivers at junctions and car doors?

You are correct, I do not KNOW my commute to be dangerous, it is purely subjective data. It has been gained from having done this commute in many different forms including walking, cycling, public transport and driving and having only had any incidents with one of those modes of transport. Not scientific but valid enough for my purposes.

davel wrote:

How do you know a helmet is a fix, if anything did happen?

The helmet is not a fix, it is a preventative measure. Having had to witness first hand the mess the pavement made of my Father's head as he impacted with it whilst not wearing a helmet I am reluctant to suffer the same. Again seeing this is personal experience and not scientific but is valid for me.

CygnusX1 wrote:

On the road, my risk of a head injury is roughly equivalent to that of a pedestrian and far lower than that of a car driver/passenger [plenty of studies to back this up] so rationally, if the risk of head injury whilst in a metal box does not warrant a magic lid, then neither does any less risky activities.

My assumption is that airbags started to be fitted to cars to reduce the risk of head injuries and that helmets would not be practical in such situations as the is not always the head clearance in a car to wear head gear. On the bike however, I believe we have the opposite problem of nowhere to reasonably place an airbag but plenty of headroom to allow wearing head gear.

ClubSmed wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

On the road, my risk of a head injury is roughly equivalent to that of a pedestrian and far lower than that of a car driver/passenger [plenty of studies to back this up] so rationally, if the risk of head injury whilst in a metal box does not warrant a magic lid, then neither does any less risky activities.

My assumption is that airbags started to be fitted to cars to reduce the risk of head injuries and that helmets would not be practical in such situations as the is not always the head clearance in a car to wear head gear. 

Aye, this, which does get mentioned - then seemingly forgotten - most times it comes up. Motor vehicles already do have elements designed to prevent or mitigate head injuries - air bags, curtain / side bags and to a lesser extent seat-belts as well. Whether that's a good thing overal, e.g. risk compensation, is another matter.

I don't care if cyclists decide to wear, or not wear, helmets and am vehermently opposed to compulsion but if we could at least not drag up this particular issue each time without context I would be a much happier man.

ClubSmed wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

On the road, my risk of a head injury is roughly equivalent to that of a pedestrian and far lower than that of a car driver/passenger [plenty of studies to back this up] so rationally, if the risk of head injury whilst in a metal box does not warrant a magic lid, then neither does any less risky activities.

My assumption is that airbags started to be fitted to cars to reduce the risk of head injuries and that helmets would not be practical in such situations as the is not always the head clearance in a car to wear head gear. On the bike however, I believe we have the opposite problem of nowhere to reasonably place an airbag but plenty of headroom to allow wearing head gear.

Well then, these types of cars should be made mandatory, where there is actually enough headroom for the occupants to be wearing suitable PPE/Headgear.

I see these particular people are flouting that premise...shame on them...bloody drivers and their passengers!!!!...they're all the same, running red lights...not wearing hi viz garments, not wearing helmets...standing up in their cars...

The _Kaner wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

On the road, my risk of a head injury is roughly equivalent to that of a pedestrian and far lower than that of a car driver/passenger [plenty of studies to back this up] so rationally, if the risk of head injury whilst in a metal box does not warrant a magic lid, then neither does any less risky activities.

My assumption is that airbags started to be fitted to cars to reduce the risk of head injuries and that helmets would not be practical in such situations as the is not always the head clearance in a car to wear head gear. On the bike however, I believe we have the opposite problem of nowhere to reasonably place an airbag but plenty of headroom to allow wearing head gear.

Well then, these types of cars should be made mandatory, where there is actually enough headroom for the occupants to be wearing suitable PPE/Headgear.

I see these particular people are flouting that premise...shame on them...bloody drivers and their passengers!!!!...they're all the same, running red lights...not wearing hi viz garments, not wearing helmets...standing up in their cars...

My sister in law has a fiat doppio (I think that's the name) as the family car. You often see them used as taxis and by wheelchair users. Loads of headroom, great visibility, and she hasn't been able to get it in a multi-storey car park because it's too tall (won't go in *any* car park which has a height barrier).

unconstituted wrote:

Just no to anything disposible. We have tons of helmets already. Stick them in a locker and let people rent and return with the bike. We don't need to be making more crap. They are not 'environmentally friendly', unless they're organically grown on location. 

 

Room 101 with these, and those ridiculous coffee pods.

I agree on the coffee pod front.
On the helmet front I'm not sure how much people would want to hire a helmet that's still wet from the previous users sweat....
These are recyclable rather than just disposable and far better than any alternative I can come up with.