21 May 2009

Motoring Helmets for REAL High-Risk Transport

Helmet for motorists
Cool, light and comfortable.
Let's just get one thing straight right off the bat. This is a real product, produced in Australia in the 1980's by a company called Davies, Craig.

And I'm so pleased to know it exists. Chris from the CTC - Cycle Touring Club - which is Great Britain's cyclist advocacy group with 130ish years behind it, has this helmet in their offices and my mate Chris was kind enough to send me photos of it.

I can't describe the calm that has now settled over my soul now that I know true safety exists.

The box reads:
"You have made a sound decision to purchase your Davies, Craig Motoring Helmet. Wear it and don’t feel self-conscious. Driving even for the most proficient is dangerous.

Ultimately, motoring helmets will be commonplace, but in the meantime, you will be a leader whilst those who may consider your good sense misplaced, will follow."



Finally, with the quality Motoring Helmet, we can now begin active advocating of helmet use for motorists. Not only do those poor souls suffer higher levels of pollution inside their cars - compared to cycling next to them - but they also have a higher risk of head injury than safer activities like... um... oh i don't know... cycling. Just to pick a safe activity off the top of my head. Completely random. Honest.

Here's Chris trying it out in a car. Not his car, just a car. He doesn't even have a driving licence.
From the instruction manual we can learn these important tips:
"Davies, Craig recommends you wear your Motoring Helmet at all times when motoring but particularly at the following, documented high-risk times:

- After consuming any alcohol.
- When other drivers are likely to have consumed alcohol especially 4:00PM to 2:00AM Fridays and Saturdays.
- After dark and during twilight.
- In rain or when the roads are wet.
- During long trips when you may become tired.
- Within five kilometres of your home or destination.
- Christmas, Easter and long weekends.
- If you are aged under 25 or over 60."


What's even better, you can buy a Motoring Helmet just like this one on Ebay Australia! Hurry, hurry! Be the first!

78 comments:

Brent said...

First-class marathoners average about 20 kph in races, and even a club level runner can maintain this pace for shorter distances. These speeds are above that which many bicyclists find themselves wearing helmets. Do we need to require helmets for runners, too?

Melbourne Cyclist said...

-still giggling at the pictures of Chris in the helmet-

That's awesome! Thanks for sharing :-)))

ps double-awesome for my word verification word being wine, mmm.

Karl McCracken (twitter: @karlonsea) said...

Fantastic! So now we can expect to see personal injury claims from motorists reduced due to their contributory negligence through not wearing a helmet . . .

Anonymous said...

This is fantastic.

anna said...

I knew that something like that exists (obviously, cause in motor sports they also wear helmets), but it's great to see it "for real".

townmouse said...

It's a good point about the pollution though - why isn't Chris wearing a smog mask? Is he nuts? And the child, think of the children...

Ryan said...

I've always said that if any Province or city over here wants to force cyclists to wear helmets, they better do the same for car drivers.
I believe over 50% of all head injuries here in Canada are caused from car accidents. Actually bicycle related head injuries account for something like 1%. Walking was even higher.

GMD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
spiderleggreen said...

Assume! Will you help us with writing auto helmet laws? They are urgently needed to save lives!

Anonymous said...

Wow, they really do exist. Do you suppose that the new CEO of GM will be seen wearing soon one to promote safety?
Jack

didrik said...

Did the CEO or employees of the company that made these ever wear them?

Why hasn't the helmet lobby jumped on this? My guess is that the automobile lobby stared them straight in the eye and said, "If you promote these, we will kill you".

Anonymous said...

I've always said that if any Province or city over here wants to force cyclists to wear helmets, they better do the same for car drivers.I believe over 50% of all head injuries here in Canada are caused from car accidents. Actually bicycle related head injuries account for something like 1%. Walking was even higher.

What's your point? You're more likely to die from a motor accident than a gunshot wound, but that doesn't mean you stick a shotgun in your mouth and pull the trigger, does it? There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.

You might want to compare head injuries per passenger-mile.

Andy in Germany said...

This reminds me of an illogical point here in Germany: no speed limits on many Autobahns, despite the obvious risk of injury when you have an accident at 200km/h. (I was intructed to drive at over 240km/h when I learned to drive) Yet I'm considered 'irresponsible' for not wearing a helmet at up to 30km/h...

Anonymous said...

Thats brilliant, thanks I needed a laugh...

Yokota Fritz said...

Oh rock on. I love it.

I Bike NY said...

I don't wear a helmet here in New York and am constantly being criticized for my decision. Today I posted my response:
http://ibikenyc.com/2009/05/21/helmets-in-new-york/

Pierre-Luc Auclair said...

@Ryan -- Do you have the figures of hear injuries for bikes vs cars in Canada in terms of per million km ? I can't find these but they'd be really interesting to get..

lee.watkins said...

Wearing a helmet when you bike, but not when you drive, is kind of like only wearing sunscreen in the shade, but never in the sun.

You're much more likely to hit your head and die in a car than on a bike. The nation with the highest per-capita motor-vehicle deaths is the USA, and in the USA highest per-capita death rate is in newer suburban developments.

If anyone should be wearing a helmet for anything - than suburban motorists in the USA would be #1. Just look at the statistics!

lee.watkins said...

you forgot to add the shot of a guy who was in a car accident while wearing his driving helmet, holding his shattered helmet and saying "it saved my life", and "driving helmets save lives!"

Anonymous said...

Here's an "inconvenient truth." According to this source, US cyclists are 3.4-11.5 times as likely to die per passenger mile than motorists:

http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html

Emrys Jones said...

The important figure is not per passenger mile, but per hour spent travelling.

Under this measure the figures I have seen suggest that planes, cars bikes and walking all come out with roughly comparable risk. Trains come out very safe, whereas motorcycling and jogging are highly lethal.

Erik Sandblom said...

Another inconvenient truth: three quarters cyclists are killed in collisions with motor vehicles. (In Sweden at least) So it's the cars that are dangerous, not bikes.

Krockar trafiksäkerhet med miljöhänsyn?

Yokota Fritz said...

Another inconvenient truth: Most of us generally drive much farther in less time than we can bike, which tempers the 3 to 11X risk factor in the fatality-per-distance stats.

Ron said...

Interesting. It looks like I came here on late, but so far no one has commented on how wearing a helmet in a car is likely to :

1. Affect visibility of the road

2. Hit the ceiling of the car when worn by the driver (existing car design has to be modified to accomodate a helmeted rider...which could cost into the thousands for any manufacturer)

3. Get pulled over by a cop if he believes you wore the helmet to actually drive faster

If wearing a helmet leads to more safety hazards in a car than not wearing one, I do not see why car drivers must wear a helmet. These are probably some of the reasons why helmet wearing in a normal automobile has become unpopular.

Comparing a modern car with its sophisticated control, comfort and safety features to a bicycle is like comparing apples and oranges. They're two different breeds. As it is, a car driver has plenty to expect in terms of safety. He has a seat belt, a considerable area of metal, leather, polymer and plastic around him, he has airbags, he even has an intelligent control system on his car to monitor all this for him (rear view monitoring, inter-vehicle distance monitoring, cruise control)

What does the bicycle have in terms of safety?

Nothing.

Infact, you can only design a bicycle to such a degree that it is stable, rides comfortably and corners well. Riding a bicycle at 30mph with modern performance cycling clothes and then falling off it is like stripping down to nothing in a car and deliberately jumping out of it. Compare the two.

Another important point is that a car has four wheels. It is inherently stable. A bicycle has two wheels and it is statically unstable. You cannot ride a bicycle unless you get it upto a certain weave speed. Otherwise, you will fall sideways, tumble, and take a hit. That hit could be on your head. This is the problem faced by beginning bicycle riders. They aren't willing to ride fast to gain that stability advantage, neither do they have the skill to ride slow and use lean/body movements to balance themselves. When they fall, they either have to quickly (like clockwork) learn to free themselves (mostly feet) from the bicycle or fall in such a fashion such that they avoid landing on their heads. In most cases, beginning riders can't do this. At high speed, any rider cannot do this to an effective degree mainly due to how fast things happen. The human body can only react so fast.

Should bicyclists wear helmets? It is advisable. Should they be forced to? No. Should car drivers be forced to wear helmets so that cyclists could be comforted that they're not alone in this? It is stupid and purposeless, just a trivial joking matter.

I do not understand what the bottomline purpose of this post was.

Erik Sandblom said...

Yokota, I'm not sure I like that comparison. It's true that a cyclist might choose to shop at a store nearby, say 2 km away. But is it reasonable to assume that a driver would shop ten times further away, 20 km? That's comparing a ten-minute bicycle ride to a 20-minute drive.

I can see how cycling is healthier overall because of the exercise. But cycling can't compare to other modes purely on safety alone.

Erik Sandblom said...

Ron, "What does the bicycle have in terms of safety? Nothing."

Everything: better vision and hearing. Remember, safety is about avoiding accidents in the first place, not mitigating their consequences.

Ron said...

Erik : I actually meant "Not much", instead of nothing. Again, better hearing and vision can be debated. A crouched road rider has no way to look behind him and get a sense of what may be approaching him. He has to turn around while maintaining proper handlebar control and obstacle collision. Hearing is reduced considerably at high speeds, where most of the audible sounds are that of the wind. Depending on the rider, you can't say for certain that he will hear a vehicle behind him or hear a honk.

Because the bicycle is so simple and entirely human powered, it has limitations, and a set of unique advantages of its own. I hope you see that.

Just a cyclist said...

Funny that Ron thinks that helmets decrease visibility inside cars but not on bicycles. Its also funny that he thinks that the chances of hitting the head increases as its size increases... but only in a car.

BTW all cyclists are not crouching.

Ah well, anyways, he is a guy that thinks people cycling merrily without full lycra kit and carbon shoes are not real cyclists.

Anonymous said...

Erik,

Well sure, most cycling accidents involve cars, so it's not the bikes that are dangerous... just riding them in the US.

Emrys,

I agree that fatalities per mile are not the best measure (thought it's surely better than comparing total number of injuries, as some on this thread have done), but I'm not sure about fatalities per hour. Is there any reason to think that cylists who use bikes as their primary form of transportation spend the same time on the road as drivers who use cars as the primary form of transportation? Could be more, could be less.

Anonymous said...

The Road Traffic acts makes it an offence to wear a helmet while driving in the UK. So the product is a non starter over here

Anonymous said...

The first motoring helmet? Someone call Bell and inform them of this. I've been wearing motoring helmets for decades.

The best professional models have oxygen hose connectors.

Breath safe.

Anonymous said...

The first motoring helmet? Someone should call Bell and inform them of this.

I've been wearing motoring helmets for decades. The best professional models for car use have oxygen hose connectors.

Breath safe.

Anonymous said...

Didn't he just say that on the other side of the record?

nnberg said...

Your posts about Helmet Hysteria are always so funny :) I've been to Denmark twice (2008-05 and 2009-01). At my first trip, I took the helmet and even tried to use it (as I used to do in Russia). What a stupid idea it was! The last few days of my first trip I just left the helmet in the hotel. And on the next trip, I just left it home, certainly. Just cannot imaginate people who really think is is useful to put on helmets in Copenhagen, Odense, Arhus, etc. It's completely stupid idea, indeed. If anyone thinks it is dangerous to cycle through Denmark without a bike helmet -- well, welcome to Russia. By the way, now I decline to use my helmet even in St. Petersburg -- it looks more dangerous to use it than to avoid. Good luck in you struggle against stupidity!

Anonymous said...

Eurosmugness...

Dieter-Louis Sven von de Garmisch-Partenkirchen-upon-Tyne said...

Anon 14:31 Weakest retort ever, congrats!

Anonymous said...

Ah well, anyways, he is a guy that thinks people cycling merrily without full lycra kit and carbon shoes are not real cyclists.

All, yes, the inevitable anti-lycra meme rears its ugly head. It's nice to see that cyclists can be just obnoxious as motorists when they don't want to have a reasonable discussion with someone like Ron, who was just trying to point out the bikes (like everything else) have limitations. But I guess that that argument doesn't fly in Eurodisn... whoops... I mean Copenhagen.

Just a cyclist said...

Problem is that you normally cannot have any sort of discussion on this subject matter with pro-helmet people. For them, the world is black or white.

Anonymous said...

Problem is that you normally cannot have any sort of discussion on this subject matter with pro-helmet people. For them, the world is black or white.

Exactly. Those pro-helmet people are just so closed minded... and silly... "completely stupid," actually. Ron's post was totally over-the-top. Look at this sentence, for instance:

Because the bicycle is so simple and entirely human powered, it has limitations, and a set of unique advantages of its own.

Ridiculous! How could you have a reasonable conversation with someone like this?

Joao Lacerda said...

When it comes to encourage bike helmet usage, they sometimes hit kids HARD in the head..

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5263

Shame on them!

Just a cyclist said...

Actually, pro-helmet-reasoning will always, a l w a y s, result in a call for compulsion.
That is why a blog post like this one, for some, is just plain offending.

Anonymous said...

Actually, pro-helmet-reasoning will always, a l w a y s, result in a call for compulsion.

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely shameless. Really. Just a minute, you were accusing the other side of seeing the world in "black and white."

It's sad, really. You've become so dogmatic that you think that your own refusal to entertain other points of view is open-minded and that anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how reasonably, is by definition "plain offending."

The absolute worst part of this is your equation between helmet advocacy and compulsory helmet laws. Whatever you think about helmets, the idea that you are somehow coerced or harmed when people *suggest* you wear them is worthy of a sniveling 3-year old.

"Helmet laws no, helmets yes" - Sheldon Brown

Erik Sandblom said...

Just a cyclist, I don't think pro-helmet reasoning necessarily leads to compulsion. It does lead to a portrayal of cycling being dangerous though, which I think probably leads to an overall decline in health.

Even in the USA, half the population lives within 5 miles (8 km) of work which is easily done by bike. Something is stopping people from cycling, and safety fears are probably an issue.

Just a cyclist said...

Oh... but I meant that these blogposts are offending for some people (others that is, not me), simply because there cannot be any arguments against the "truth".
Now, I sense that this whole thing evokes strong emotions for you... tell me why?

However, what I was trying to say was simply that when advocating helmets you have to point out that cycling whithout them is wrong. At that point you cannot be wrong. No way.

When the "time is ripe" (having gained some level of approval after heavy promotion) compulsion is the next logical step.
At which point you have the choice of hardheaded cycling or no cycling at all, well perhaps spinning.
Any room for reasoning or entertaining other points of view? None whatsoever.

This is in fact the way this have happened in countries that now have compulsion, and is also what is in the mind of the lobby groups working for promotion and compulsion in other countries.

How this whole thing affects the views of cycling as well as the rates of cycling have been dealt with, for instance on this blog.

m e l i g r o s a said...

thought I had left a comment here and somehow is not there.
anyhow
this reminds me of benny & joon. she wears a helmet everytime she gets in the car. you can see it in sec 0:22

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qbbIgG87vU

Anonymous said...

Just a cyclist,

Yes, I do feel strongly that one's position on helmets should not be a litmus test for one's commitment to promoting cycling. Cycling in North America is much more dangerous than in Europe. (Erik: it's not just about distances to work, it's also about whether you have to use a 4-lane expressway with virtually no shoulder to get there.) If everyone simultaneously started riding bikes and stopped wearing helmets, I'm sure we'd all be better off, but that isn't going to happen overnight. Until that happens, and in the absence of conclusive evidence, it is reasonable that *some* cyclists error on the side of caution and wear helmets, and encourage those about whom they care to do the same. Those who decide that they're safer without helmets are free not to wear them.

The irony of this debate is that the anti-helmet brigade has become just as shrill as the helmet advocates. The reality is that very few countries have helmet laws for people over 18 (I only know of Australia and New Zealand), and very few cyclists actually advocate for such laws (I have never seen a comment on this blog actually arguing for compulsion). So you will excuse me if I just don't find your conspiracy theories credible.

Just a cyclist said...

Its not a conspiracy theory per se.
What I described is exactly what some authorities and lobby groups have been planning, at least here (SWE).

I hate to repeat this but anyway: Its quite doubtful whether if anyone have a problem with someone chosing to wear protective gear or, for that matter, lycra ;)

What is very clear however, is that "not protecting oneself" is indeed repeatedly called into question.

Erik Sandblom said...

Anonymous 01:21, I know the roads look intimidating. But I've read blog posts from people describing Los Angeles and other similar places as being cycle-friendly. Ecovelo has a post where they argue that the average motorist has a windshield perspective, so they are simply unaware of the quieter side streets, park routes, and yes, bike paths, that are perfectly OK for an adult cyclist.

You have to seek them out, but that's not an issue for someone who likes cycling and who lives in a place long enough to get to know the street network. To a large extent it's just about getting started.

Mekuh said...

I dont have a license either, fuck it! Nevertheless that helmet is hilarious only in america? reminds me of a segue.

Ron said...

To the author and others :

A car affords more protection to the driver than a cyclist, or motorcyclist. There is little need for a helmet in most of our cars. Go ahead and wear them if you still like to. You don't have tell drivers what to do. Its silly and needless and I think is just instigating more friction between motorists and other users of the road.

Besides, wearing a helmet in a car is illegal in some part of the the USA. California is one.

Gordon said...

I only got a helmet after a head-to-head collision with a jay-walking pedestrian in central London. The result of the collision was that we both went to hospital in the same ambulance,suffering from concussion. For me there was severe and alarming visual dysfunction:I wondered if I would ever be able to see properly again. That gave me 4 hours of terror until things settled down to relative normality.
A few days later when fully recovered I went first to a bike shop and bought a helmet;then to the police station to collect my bike.
Since then I've always worn a helmet when cycling. My wife says if you don't wear a helmet, you probably don't have anything worth protecting! - so NO to compulsion, but YES to recommendation.

P.S. If you are very short of money, flourescent ankle bands are probably the most cost-effective items for safety as they are not very expensive, are seen moving up and down and remain visible when cars are driven (as very commonly these days) on dipped headlights.

Erik Sandblom said...

Gordon, most bicycle pedals already have reflectors, so the flourescent ankle band is not necessary. It's a good idea to wipe your reflectors clean now and then.

Just a cyclist said...

It looks like some enjoy feeling the wind in their hair a sunny day in a convertible at 100 km/h while feeling guilty for it the when riding a bicycle at 30 km/h.

Practical Cyclist said...

There's not much excuse not to wear a helmet while riding bicycles. Atleast for me. I dont want to feel what its like to hit my head on the road or find a branch through my forehead.

Anonymous said...

What a bunch of cycling nitwits.

Am I Right Or Am I Right? said...

Isn’t telling drivers to wear protective gear in order not to get harmed by other cars a bit like telling women not dress unduly lightly in order not to get molested?

Mark said...

Anon 3:43 : There's one nitwit for sure here. 'Just a Cyclist.' What a joke. He's exactly the sort of person who'd wear Oakley sunglasses and drive around in an unmarked vehicle in a spy movie while shooting bullets at other's back. Most famously, he's also been going around harassing helmet wearers throughout numerous other blogs, leaving his stinking stamp that leads to blind alleys. Sounds like a trolling bastard child of Copenfaganize to me...

Anonymous said...

I know the roads look intimidating.

How patronizing...

Why do you think that you know more about the roads that I cycle on than I do? I DO seek out safe roads. But the idea that cycling is "just safe" misses the reality in the US, where around 700 cyclists die every year, mostly in collisions with motor vehicles.

As for infrastructure, you simply don't understand the scale of the problem. Sure, there are US cities that are relatively cycling friendly. But many American communities are built around multi-lane roads that link shopping centers and otherwise unconnected subdivisions. The cities aren't the problem (though I'm sure that many people would contest the idea that L.A. is cycling-friendly!), it's the suburbs, where most Americans live.

Erik Sandblom said...

Anonymous 15:55, Why do you think that you know more about the roads that I cycle on than I do?Uh, well since you're anonymous I don't know who you are, and since you're not telling me what place you're talking about then I don't know that either.

Anyway, more often then not, people who don't cycle just aren't aware of what cycle-friendly routes are available. That's not saying the infrastructure is perfect, it's just that many people have a windshield perspective and don't even know it exists at all.

There are lots of bike paths where I live, but that doesn't stop non-bikers from complaining: they say the paths don't join up and they are unridable in the winter. Well I ride them all the time, and they sure do join up, and they are well-plowed in the winter. Things are far from perfect, but much of the criticism is just ill-informed.

It's the same with public transport. It's been documented (Andreasson, "Resenärer i bilsamhället" among others) that habitual car drivers wildly overestimate the time penalty of riding transit compared to driving.

I sympathise with providing and improving cycle infrastructure and public transport. But exaggerating their faults is not the best way to improve things.

Anonymous said...

Uh, well since you're anonymous I don't know who you are, and since you're not telling me what place you're talking about then I don't know that either.

I would have thought that it was clear that I was in North America, more specifically the US.

As for your general argument, while there is some truth to the notion that people overestimate the dangers of cycling, I think that it remains important to distinguish between the European and American contexts. It's one thing to live in cycling "Mecca" like Copenhagen or Amsterdam. It's quite another to live in a hostile environment where city councils shun bike paths (and indeed pedestrian- and bike-friendly streets) because they provide access to the "wrong type of person."

Unlike in Europe, many American cyclists are quite concerned about safety issues (this is visible on American cycling blogs), and you might want to at the very least entertain the idea that we are not simply stupid. In fact, by dint of necessity, American cyclists have developed a pretty sophisticated understanding of the kinds of roads that are conducive to safe cycling and those that aren't. Thus we understand, for example, that city streets are often much safer than suburban or rural roads.

So we're not children, and we don't appreciate being condescended to.

Mikael said...

homo sapiens can assess risk for themselves, regardless of whether they live here or there or somewhere else.

the difference between north america and northern europe/japan is that helmet manufacturers - most being american - have had more success in selling their products and spreading the 'message'.

brainwashing comes to mind.

Anonymous said...

Mikael,

Brainwashing? Please. Your post is a brilliant demonstration of my point regarding the obnoxious condescension of this blog.

If Copenhagenization (would Copenhageni-s-ation be more to your Euro taste?) means rethinking transportation and urban planning using insights gleaned from Copenhagen, then great. If it means promoting a dogmatic and monolithic view of the world based on a smug sense of your superiority, and without any regard for local context, then I don't seeing how it's better than "Americanization" or "Westernization" or any similar hegemonic project.

Mikael said...

You're actually more amusing to me when you DON'T repeat yourself, which you are doing of late. Keep it fresh and exciting for the entertainment value, please.

Anonymous said...

Mikael,

I'll let your readers decide if my repetition is worse than your condescension and contempt.

BTW, I just noticed that even your picture is smug. (How's that for entertainment value?)

Mikael said...

Your personal interpretation of a photograph is hardly interesting to anyone but yourself.

Remember to include the all important "I think that..." or "In my opinion..." before penning statements like "...your photograph is smug."

You're clearly a bitter and irritated person with a sizable chip on his shoulder who has slowly evolved into a troll-like reader on this blog. I honestly don't understand why you: A. ...even bother spending so much time on it and B. ...don't start your own blog somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

Mikael : Suck my rod. You need to shut down this blog, and get some pills for sitting too much on the internet watching porn. Have you ever ridden a bike? Ha!

Am I Right Or Am I Right? said...

Anon above : Yeah, gosh, I hate armchair theorists. Copenfaganize indeed. I'm ready to vomit over.

Just a cyclist said...

Isn’t telling cyclists to wear protective gear in order not to get harmed by cars a bit like telling women not dress unduly lightly in order not to get molested?

Anonymous said...

I honestly don't understand why you: A. ...even bother spending so much time on it and B. ...don't start your own blog somewhere else.

Good question. Let's just say that:

A) I find your reactions to my provocations to be very entertaining indeed. Interestingly, they didn't start as provocations (just observations), but once I realized that you just couldn't *stand* it when someone disagreed with you, I couldn't help myself.

B) See A.

(BTW, I am not Anonymous 22:52.)

Just a cyclist said...

To Mark @ 04:10
I cannot figure out how my little comments can be interpreted as any harassments directed against helmlet wearers in particular. It is in any case not my intention: I do not wish to impose my personal tastes, preferences, opinions or even moral values on others as if they would be compelling, conclusing and final, and find it rather repugnant whenever this is done as, for instance, in any religious mission or, in some instances of promotion...

Anonymous said...

Here is a great solution for those hesitant to wear helmets... Collargo Animal Helmet Covers. There are man to choose from and all are family friendly. For example the Red Devil or Rockin Rooster...or my favorite Daisy the Cow are some of our styles. This will surely get more people to cycle as well as wear helmets. :) hehe Check us out at www.collargo.com

Anonymous said...

Here is a great solution for those hesitant to wear helmets... Collargo Animal Helmet Covers. There are man to choose from and all are family friendly. For example the Red Devil or Rockin Rooster...or my favorite Daisy the Cow are some of our styles. This will surely get more people to cycle as well as wear helmets. :) hehe Check us out at www.collargo.com

Don from Denver said...

Nice try! But I'm concerned that the raised parallel ribs of the shell might interfere with the transmissions for The Mother Ship.

central park bike rental said...

I agree with this. Some of the guys here seem to know what is going on.
John K.

central park bike rental said...

In NYC one doesnt need a helmet as long as they are under 14.

Central Park bike tours said...

Awesome posting. Love the helmets..

Bike Rental Central Park said...

I would say the people should were helmets. But i know you can't make them.

Anonymous said...

When I skidded on a sandy corner and went down on my first motorcycle in Rome, I asked a biking colleague how much I should spend to get a safe helmut. His response was "how much do you think your head is worth?" I think this is far more important than forcing people to wear helmuts. If insurance pools were set up for various groups of activities that would make me happy. I just don't want to help pay for injured people who don't value their heads.

Archie