Swedish company Hövding has announced a partnership with Absolutely, one of Britain’s oldest courier businesses, that will see it supply the London-based firm with its innovative airbag cycle ‘helmet’.
In a joint press release, the companies say that “many professional couriers shun helmets because they are uncomfortable to wear for long periods of time and are perceived to be ‘useless’ in the event of an accident.”
The tie-up between the firms seeks to address that perceived problem, enabling Absolutely “to further expand its safety measures for its push-bike couriers and increase their protection when delivering within the capital.”
The announcement coincides with the start of a three-month trial, with couriers wearing the airbag – which is stowed in a neck collar, with a gas cylinder deploying it when necessary – also sporting Absolutely x Hövding cycling jerseys.
While Absolutely sounds like – and indeed is – a 21st Century brand name, the business behind it can trace its heritage back more than 150 years, when it was founded as G. Thompson Ltd, using Welsh Cobs to transport people and goods around London by horse and cart.
It’s now owned by the fifth generation of the founder’s family, and managing director Jeremy Thompson said: “We pride ourselves on our knowledge, experience and heritage as well as the safety of our people.
“Hövding is a good example of deploying technology in our business for the benefit of our cycle couriers and leading the way in London.
“We very much hope to see this world leading technology being deployed not only within our business but also throughout the UK to reduce injuries and fatalities.
“According to TFL’s 2015 report released in June 2016, there were 387 serious cyclist injuries in London, of which nine were fatalities.”
Not all of those incidents would have resulted in the cyclist sustaining a head injury, and even where they did, it is debatable whether a helmet – airbag, or otherwise – might have prevented it.
Mr Thompson added: “Ensuring our couriers have adequate protection is of paramount importance to us and following our partnership with Hövding, we intend to lead the field.”
Hövding CEO Fredrik Carling said that his company “is always looking for opportunities to partner up with other forward-thinking companies that encourage and promote cycling safety.
“Absolutely is a tremendous ambassador for our product and we are proud to be a part of an initiative that will improve the safety of hard-working couriers.
“Additionally, we hope that by having a successful partnership we can effectively introduce our product and drastically reduce the number of road deaths in the UK,” he added.
Wearing a helmet while cycling is recommended under the Highway Code, but is not compulsory under UK law – although where someone rides a bike in the course of their employment, using one could be a condition imposed by their employer’s insurers.
Add new comment
75 comments
Not trolling, genuine question, is there a study showing this specifically in cyclists or is this statement simply extrapolating risk compensation theories to cyclists?
[/quote]
Take a look at
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-l... and
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-l... .
4. Helmet effectiveness: In addition, there are doubts about the potential effectiveness of cycle helmets against likely impacts on the head, as well as the relative importance of other impacts on the body (for which helmets are not supposed to have effectiveness). The design is for low-speed impacts. There is significant debate about the amount of energy which they can absorb and the significance of breakage on impact.
V...
According to the UK government's scientific review, standard helmets are only effective in falls and low speed collisions, where they reduce the risk of a fatal head injury by 10 - 16%.
That review was done by TRL, and the press release headline did indeed say that they would prevent between 10-16% of fatal head injuries, but if you read the whole report, it stated that this was an estimate with no actual data or evidence to support it, in other words a guess.
Nowhere with a massive increase in helmet wearing can show any reduction in risk to cyclists, despite all the "helmet saved my life" stories and the many thousands of anedotes. So which is true, the whole population long term, reliable data, or the anecdotes and fairy stories?
Interesting way to descrive people's experiences.
Same old quite frankly. In the real world, Burt the bike's statistics mean f*ck all to those of us who've been involved in accidents and have helmets to thank for avoiding more serious injury. That goes for both me and my 8 year old who ended under a car and survived being hit by a combination of road and mechanicals.
People can choose not to wear them or not, I don't care, but from experience will continue to do so.
Tell me something: why doesn't the death rate of cyclists fall as helmet wearing rates rise? Surely if all the "helmet saved my life" stories and anecdotes were true, the death rate of cyclists would have fallen significantly, but it hasn't.
Just because your chosen statistics don't show it, it still happened. Go figure.
Tell me something: why doesn't the death rate of cyclists fall as helmet wearing rates rise? Surely if all the "helmet saved my life" stories and anecdotes were true, the death rate of cyclists would have fallen significantly, but it hasn't.
[/quote] Just because your chosen statistics don't show it, it still happened. Go figure.[/quote]
I quite literally have no idea what you are trying to say there, so could you be a little more explicit than the rather enigmatic "go figure".
If you are suggesting that all the "helmet saved my life" stories are true, and yet the death rate of cyclists hasn't fallen, then the only possible conclusion is that wearing a helmet makes it several thousand times more likely that you'll be involved in a life threatening collision, which hardly seems a good reason for wearing one.
You assume I was describing their experiences; you are wrong, yet again. I was describing their assumptions, which contradict all the reliable data.
Heres one, racing accident on closed roads, 25+ MPH straight down on my head.
Won't appear in any stats as I decided not to attend hospital against paramedic advice based on the speed of impact, damage to helmet and other injuries. I suspect that many "helmet saved my life" stories are anecdotal simply because the wearer does not end up in A&E and those that do are involved in incidents that blow through the limited protection offered or have other injuries requiring treatment.
They most definitely do work in some circumstances, yet I don't wear one for commuting as I refuse to accept that riding your bike to work in an urban low speed environment should be considered a dangerous activity requiring PPE.
Helmet.jpg
looking at that I'd say your head would have missed the ground completely and you still wouldn't have registered on the stats. if you and your fellow competitors were all sans helmet you might even had ridden more safely and the incident avoided completely. Do you follow cycle racing, how long for? if you bother to have a quick look you'll see that the amount of crashing competition riders do now compared to even pre 2000s is massively more. Only one change and that is plastic hats, that there are more deaths in the pro ranks after helmet compulsion in racing just tells you all you need to know really.
Glad you're okay all the same.
It is not a question of comfort. If it keeps your geek pie from being messed up then it's well brown.
Apparently it is: ..."many professional couriers shun helmets because they are uncomfortable to wear for long periods of time..."
Is it of as little use as an EPS helmet?
And that thing is more long-term comfy than a decent well-fitting helmet? Hmmmm...
Pages