Smart Helmet: Feeds Your Brain and Protects it Too
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 09. 1.06
A study of head injuries shows that they are down 35% since helmets became compulsory in Canada ten years ago , yet many people still don't wear them. Perhaps if they had Ted Selker's Smart Helmet they would think differently; it has a few tricks (and a PIC microprocessor) built in, including GPS so that you can record potholes and problems for future warnings; turn signals that activate by tilting your head; handsfree cell phone; fire siren detectors that mute the iPod and my favourite: If the wearer yells at an unruly motorist, the helmet will activate a horn at a higher decibel than the human noise. Selker said this feature helps keep him out of trouble with motorists."As a bicyclist, people don't like it when I yell". Selker, an MIT Media LAB research scientist, uses it to commute to work; It might be a bit heavy for our road bike, but we want one now. ::CNET
Looks like Darth Vader.
- Armand
I like hi-tech, but I'll wait for an eco-friendly version.
http://www.helmets.org/recycle.htm
The drop in head injuries in Canada has nothing to do with bicycle helmet compulsion but is driven by other factors.
This page:
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html
has a nice graph showing that fatalities have been dropping steadily since long before helmet use became common, likely driven by an increase in general safety campaigns targetting car drivers (who cause most bicycle accidents). In fact, helmet compulsion can actually increase injury rates since it generally reduces the number of cyclists.
For those who are interested this British Medical Journal article, "Three lessons for a better cycling future", contains a load of references to follow up:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582
(And as for the new helmet itself: turn signals are way less visible than hand signals (I frequently use hand signals in preference to the flashing indicators when on my motorbike since motorists notice them more) and WTF is he doing blocking off his hearing by listening to an iPod while cycling, not listening to personal stereos while on a bike is a rather basic bit of bicycle safety...)
As the article says: For Canadians as a whole, head injuries were most often caused by falls, followed by motor vehicle and bicycle accidents. So until pedestrians and motorists wear helmets, I won't on my bike.
scruss, are those numbers adjusted?
Because a lot more people drive than bike (sadly)...
What a great way to drive people away from biking, make it look even more unattractive!
Short of vanity, there is no reason not to wear a helmet
>As the article says: For Canadians as a whole, head injuries
>were most often caused by falls, followed by motor vehicle
>and bicycle accidents. So until pedestrians and motorists
>wear helmets, I won't on my bike
That is very poor logic. How many bikers are there vs pedestrians and motorists at any given time period? A tiny fraction of either of those two groups, so even if every biker on the road had a head injury there would still be more head injuries of motorists and pedestrians due to the sheer magnitude of people who fall into those classes.
The fact is if you are riding a bike it IS safer to wear a helmet. (And safer to wear one if you are a pedestrian or motorist, as unfashionable as that might be. You'll notice any motor sports people are required to wear much more substantial helmets than bikers)
The referenced study also seems a bit flawed, picking some weird time periods to do averages with, and their trending graph seems to contradict their idea that helmets don't help in a measurable way. When I look at their graph the trend in the end seems to be cyclists having less fatalities faster than their motorist counterparts, exactly in the time period when helmets requirements have a huge ramp up. (Assuming you can fit trend lines to it in your head as for some reason they were left off) It isn't much faster, but it is silly to think it would be much different. The two statistics are naturally trending the same since fatalities in each class are tied to the event of car collisions. (Large percentage of cyclists fatalities are car collisions, and presumably all motorist fatalities) That said I think the studies action items in terms of driver/cyclist education and night light enforcement are right on. It's too bad they imply helmets are worthless and you wearing one doesn't effect your chance of getting killed. Having personally known someone who only survived getting hit by a car because she was wearing a helmet I can't imagine not wearing one. (Driver error, not cyclist error - though as the article mentions plenty of reckless bikers out there.) Be safe, obey the law, don't flaunt the law in traffic, lets all try to get along out there.
As for the hand signal vs helmet turn signal, I think it depends where you are. When I commute I am often going 35 mph in heavy 4 lane traffic on really bad road (welcome to san francisco, oye) and I really don't like taking a hand of the handle bars in that situation.