Survey - The aesthetics and visual appeal of bicycle helmets

[Joe Bunyan]

Hello Everyone,

I am new to CTC Forum. My name is Joe, I am a student and road cyclist studying Product Design at Loughborough University in the UK.
I am currently in my final year and undertaking my major design project involving the design of a bicycle helmet.
The aesthetics and visual appeal is one element of the design of the helmet, and I would be very interested to see what you think of my progress so far. I am still in the flexible development stage of the design process, so I hope to use your feedback and responses to further develop and improve the design.
I have put together a check-box survey regarding the aesthetics and visual appeal of bicycle helmets.
I would be very grateful if you could spare a few moments to fill this in.

Many thanks for your time and contribution to my project.

Joe

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1yCJwNd ... _form_link

[pjclinch]

I tried, and I'm afraid I failed...

It's got quite a bit of "Concerning the aesthetics and visual appeal alone", but it's PPE. Anyone who assesses PPE purely on aesthetic and visual appeal is not someone that thinks like me. I really can't answer that sort of question, because I don't get PPE according to cosmetic appearance alone.

I couldn't manage the 5 phrases thing either.

(FWIW my helmet was selected mainly according to fit and (low) price. It's a neutral off-white and I suspect I wouldn't have got it had it been especially garish, but that's about as far as I'd go on appearance. I mainly wear it to coach Go-Ride sessions, because the rules require me to have one. Were I particularly after protection or aerodynamic performance I'd want some sort of proof beyond what it looked like that it exceeded the standard designs. Recommending to parents of my Go-Ride clients I'd probably cite fit and adjustability as particularly important, having wasted over 10 minutes faffing about with the damn things on Saturday when we could have been riding.)

Pete.

[[XAP]Bob]

Compulsory questions which make no sense aren't good.

Safety is the only criterion on which to buy a helmet, possibly trading some safety against cost.

[Vorpal]

I buy a helmet based upon the following characteristics, in priority order:
safety
weight
ventilation
price
colour

Other aesthetics don't come into it. I guess they might, if I found by the time I had done the selection process, that I had more than one helmet to choose from.

[pjclinch]

Compulsory questions which make no sense aren't good.

Safety is the only criterion on which to buy a helmet, possibly trading some safety against cost.

From a functional point of view, aerodynamics are a possible reason to go with one helmet over another.

You're unlikely to be trading safety for cost because the more expensive helmets seem to use the extra cost to make a similarly specified helmet that is lighter and/or better vented, rather than a more physically protective one. So you're trading cost against comfort rather than protection.

There will be aesthetic considerations, however much we like to kid ourselves we're only interested in function. Two otherwise identical helmets but one in white and another in particularly clashing day-glo paisley patterns, you won't choose one over the other on the toss of a coin, will you? However, that's not the same as considering the aesthetics alone when summing up helmets.

Pete.

[stewartpratt]

Safety is the only criterion on which to buy a helmet, possibly trading some safety against cost.

Of course it's not. If it was, people would, at the very least, cycle wearing motorcycle helmets.

[[XAP]Bob]

Safety is the only criterion on which to buy a helmet, possibly trading some safety against cost.

Of course it's not. If it was, people would, at the very least, cycle wearing motorcycle helmets.

No - cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant special protection - the cost is far too high.

Of course there is some comfort factor in there as well, but you'd not buy a comfortable and provably useless helmet would you?
Aesthetics come so far down the list of priorities to consider that they don't even feature on mine. If you're going to look like a prat you may as well do it properly

The "standards" to which cycle helmets are built are so weak as to be pointless in most of our experiences - the UK standard isn't even accepted by various sporting bodies. Sales of PPE should be based on the PP qualities of the E, there will undoubtedly be other considerations (cost, comfort, convenience) but the sale should be based on the PP. Unfortunately the helmet manufacturers won't do that, because they know that the PP isn't actually very effective* - and certainly not in the cases people are actually concerned about.

Interestingly though I am planning to do Mt Ventoux at some point soon, and have sourced some kevlar denims (motorbike clothing) and a full crash helmet (track day approved motor sport helmet) to use on the way *down* - because if I have an issue on that stretch I want some decent protection, additionally I want to have some fun on the way down

Bob


* on a statistical basis - there are, I am sure cases where they are beneficial - but on the basis that the population studies don't demonstrate any improvement they must be detrimental in other cases (see the "I rode into a telephone pole at 40mph" thread).

[pjclinch]

* on a statistical basis - there are, I am sure cases where they are beneficial - but on the basis that the population studies don't demonstrate any improvement they must be detrimental in other cases (see the "I rode into a telephone pole at 40mph" thread).

The work that shows no net effect is based on (and is only really relevant to) serious and worse injuries. There is no work done at population level on minor injuries (which is what the actual spec would suggest is the point of the things) for the simple reason that hardly any data on painful bumps and grazes is reliably and consistently logged. But a helmet can be beneficial and protective without going nearly so far as saving you a fractured skull etc., much as protective gloves can be beneficial when pruning rose bushes. Gardeners wear gloves despite a startling lack of "my pruning gloves saved my life!!!" stories.

Pete.

[Vorpal]

Maybe I should have put 'fit' in my list. Though it's not typically a problem for me, I know that it is for some people.

[[XAP]Bob]

* on a statistical basis - there are, I am sure cases where they are beneficial - but on the basis that the population studies don't demonstrate any improvement they must be detrimental in other cases (see the "I rode into a telephone pole at 40mph" thread).

The work that shows no net effect is based on (and is only really relevant to) serious and worse injuries. There is no work done at population level on minor injuries (which is what the actual spec would suggest is the point of the things) for the simple reason that hardly any data on painful bumps and grazes is reliably and consistently logged. But a helmet can be beneficial and protective without going nearly so far as saving you a fractured skull etc., much as protective gloves can be beneficial when pruning rose bushes. Gardeners wear gloves despite a startling lack of "my pruning gloves saved my life!!!" stories.

Pete.

Absolutely, but a rugby skull cap would prevent most abrasion/laceration style injuries...