Airbag for cyclists.

Simon E wrote:

Simon E wrote:

But saying “not always effective” or “will only help in certain crash scenarios” aren’t great sales lines. How far down the road of “if it saves one life” should we go? Full leathers and a motorcycle helmet? That’s going be better than 0.3mm of lycra and a 200g hat full of holes, isn’t it?

I was posing the question in a provocative way but I feel it’s a valid point: why do people wearing hi-viz still get hit? And do riders in black get knocked off more than those wearing brighter colours? If so then are the clothing brands irresponsible for selling it?

Do you have links to any of this research? I’m prepared to revise my opinion if it is convincing.

You think the airbag is a good idea, apparently without that kind of evidence. So it’s fine for others to buy stuff based on marketing hype but I can’t go with a scepticism resulting from decades of experience, a ‘gut feeling’ based on my research and experience?

Will you wear an airbag once they become available?

For me it’s a balance between safety and comfort.

It’s been pretty cold recently so I’ve been wearing a gilet, do I care what colour my gilet is? Not really. So my comfort is identical but my safety is improved.

Full leathers and a motorcycle helmet would probably improve safety in a collision but would be very uncomfortable so not really an option.

People in hi viz still get hit because the majority of all collisions are not preventable by the cyclist. All we can do is focus on the collisions we can prevent through good equipment and good road craft.

I think equipment that only protects the cyclist, eg helmet, high visibility, should not be compulsory and as such while I wouldn’t personally go out in the dark dressed entirely in black I think others should be free to do so.

I think the airbag is a good idea without research as it’s literally just been invented so gut feeling is all I have to go on, I probably won’t buy one now but may buy a future iteration once the evidence is available.

Research:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528

Simon E wrote:

Simon E wrote:

PPE should be a ‘last resort’ not the first thing we try. Just because a vest thing might work in rare cases is not a good reason to flog them to every person that rides a bike.

Daytime lights – promoted heavily by the manufacturers, as with helmets – are not a solution. In fact I believe that the widespread use of daytime lights on cars is counterproductive and makes it harder to spot less conspicuous vehicles, objects and people. Since these lights are very widely used on modern cars why have we not seen a significant drop in daytime collisions on our roads? As I read in a recent article, most people who push this quote a single 2005 Danish self-reported study (in the writer’s words, “not worth the paper they’re written on”), the results of which have not been repeated since. Plenty of so-called scientific studies are anything but objective.

While hi-viz might make you stand out in some circumstances it is not a solution. Cyclists still get SMIDSY or hit while wearing hi-viz and it’s useless in the dark. If it is so effective (which surely suggests that non-hi-viz clothing is not) then why don’t cyclists wearing black get mown down on their first ride?

It’s not an ideal world but the problems we face on the road won’t go away just because we buy unproven gadgets which we know are very unlikely to make a real difference to the outcome of a collision and at the same time reinforce the widespread and erroneous perception that cycling is a dangerous activity. And that’s before we mention risk compensation.

If you’re that keen on all this protective equipment why not just drive a car? Though even with all the gizmos and 2 tonnes of steel cage around them more car occupants are killed or injured each year than any other road user category. So why haven’t all the safety features added to modern cars signifcantly reduced the collision statistics?

Please let us know how you get on with your airbag. I could do with a laugh.

A good attempts to cram as many logical fallacies as you can into just one comment. Kudos.

If something doesn’t work 100% of the time that doesn’t make it ineffective.

Likewise if it is possible to complete a ride dressed head to toe in black without dying that doesn’t mean it is as safe as wearing brighter clothing.

The studies demonstrating the benefit of high visibility and daytime lights were both large randomised controlled trials. The highest quality evidence available in this context. Your personal hunches don’t really compare.

I do agree that PPE should be a last resort but unless something changes dramatically over night when I head out on my bike tomorrow morning I will be down to that last resort as it will be impossible for me personally to change a single other risk factor before I set off.

It’s hardly innovative when
It’s hardly innovative when it just copies self inflating life jackets.

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

This is an innovative product that has the potential to reduce deaths and injuries.

Do you honestly believe that?

All I see is a cynical way of making money out of PPE when it would be effective only in a tiny number of collisions. Look at the number of people who die falling from stairs & ladders – why is no-one flogging helmets and comedy inflatable lifejackets to those people?

Just like helmets, we will get to a point a cyclist is killed or injured without wearing one then insurance companies (and all the fools who swallowed the hype) will claim the victim is at fault for not protecting themselves when in fact it’s drivers that need to do something to prevent the collisions in the first place. Like slowing down, putting their mobile away or, god forbid, stop acting like they own the fucking road.

If you don’t see this as a problem then fine, go and buy one. No-one is stopping you waste your money. Wear it along with your ineffective polystyrene hat with its ‘cry wolf’ crash detection beacon, your hi-viz, your reflectives, your useless brake lights and indicators, your St Christopher bracelet and any other lucky charm you think might help. But none of it will work. I will fight it because I’m sick to death of this pattern of exploiting (and scapegoating) the victims on the road and pretending that the same old problem of cars crashing into people can be fixed with yet another new gadget for cyclists to buy.

Rich_cb wrote:

good to see some new devices being invented.

FFS. What’s next? Compulsory airbags for people on stairs?

from https://lastnotlost.wordpress.com/2017/04/17/pedscyclists/

StoopidUserName wrote:

brooksby wrote:

hirsute wrote:

…

Car drivers and their passengers should be made to wear a Bibendum outfit – excellent idea! 

This is only the 2nd time I’ve ever seen someone use Michelin man’s proper name – the other being in the legendary ‘The Great Bike Race’. Kudos! 🙂

In the interests of full disclosure, I only knew it because its a major plot point in a William Gibson novel I read (“Pattern Recognition” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_Recognition_(novel)).  Strong product branding brings the main character out in what’s effectively an allergic reaction, and Bibendum gives her the worst reaction of all.

brooksby wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Car drivers and their passengers should be made to wear a Bibendum outfit – excellent idea! 

This is only the 2nd time I’ve ever seen someone use Michelin man’s proper name – the other being in the legendary ‘The Great Bike Race’. Kudos! 🙂

hirsute wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Car drivers and their passengers should be made to wear a Bibendum outfit – excellent idea!