Folding Bikes - Is Dahon anti-helmet?

How come nobody in Dahon's bike owner's manual wears a helmet, nor does anyone on their youtube video page:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DahonFoldingBikes

Is this typical of most bike manufacturers, i.e not show people wearing helmets?

US riders are a minority that think recreational/commuter riders ought to wear a helmet. Most of the rest of the world doesn't. Because Dahon is very much an international company, they are simply marketing to the majority of their customers, rather than the minority US market.

Ok now to open a new can of worms, why doesn't the rest of the world wear helmets ( assuming they can afford to )?

Why don't you ask this in A&S?

Why don't you ask this in A&S? I was just about to suggest that, too. :)

Well do manufacturers of road bikes show everyone without helmets as well? If so , I rest my case.

Ok now to open a new can of worms, why doesn't the rest of the world wear helmets ( assuming they can afford to )?

:deadhorse:

I don't wear a helmet and I live in the US. ;)

How come nobody in Dahon's bike owner's manual wears a helmet, nor does anyone on their youtube video page: I don't know about the vids, but the 2008 owner's manual only shows one person on their folder and we can't see their head anyway (it's a closeup of the bike). It mentions this about helmets, though:

"Always wear an approved helmet when riding your bike, and follow the helmet manufacturer’s instructions for fit, use and care."

Doesn't seem like Dahon has any anti-helmet agenda.

From a marketing point of view it's concievable that showing their 'quirky' bikes in conjunction with helmets may make dubious would-be punters conclude that the bikes aren't safe with those strange new-fangled folding mechanisms. Ergo: showing carefree, white teethed happy bikers with no helmets gives the best impression of a bike that wants to look as hassle free, fun and easy to use and safe as humanly possible.

If you do not promote helmets, you are anti-helmet?

How come nobody in Dahon's bike owner's manual wears a helmet, nor does anyone on their youtube video page:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DahonFoldingBikes

Is this typical of most bike manufacturers, i.e not show people wearing helmets?

Quick, write letters of outrage to Dahon for putting forth the idea that riding without a helmet is acceptable. The horror of it. Form your Neighborhood Association of Concerned Parents and discuss how best to bring down this evil empire.

If you do not promote helmets, you are anti-helmet?

He who is not for me is against me

Ok now to open a new can of worms, why doesn't the rest of the world wear helmets ( assuming they can afford to )?

Civilized countries dont feel the need to violently act out on cyclists.

Only declasse US kutlure tacitly OK's the use of violence against cyclists
because vehicular dominion determines an SUV driver is more important
than a cyclist as is the SUV's right get to, and wait at the next red lite without
you inconveniencing them. Many times the helmets spare people injury whilst
bouncing off the front of said important persons vehicle.

when the Hon family rides their bikes they usually wear helmets ....

thor

to me it just doesnt look right to see the folks without helmets. I dont gospel to use them, each to its own, but I didnt like the helmetless adds either

Look at some climbing magazines. They often show nobody wearing a climbing helmet in their pics.

It's pure and simple marketing. Flashy helmets, like tight lycra may deter first time bike buyers. Do I need to look like a 'pro' just to ride my bike? (although some do)

And why promote someone else's product? (there are some marketeers like that)

Whether to wear a helmet? Aah,it's like deciding to wear a condom. Your choice, you decide. Suffer the consequences....

This must be stamped out. Next thing Dahon will be encouraging cyclists to exhale carbon dioxide...

It's to do with the notion of 'freedom' too, I'd imagine, i.e. the whole folding idea is about not being encumbered by physical objects.

I resisted buying a helmet for a long time due to the way they look and only bought one when I picked up the Dahon MU SL and found myself travelling fast down the hill to the railway station on busy city streets. If I’m going slow on quiet streets I usually hang in from the handle bars.
I bought it to protect my head and not for its looks...... to be honest I still think bike helmets make the wearer look like a knob due to their uncanny resemblance to the head of a penis.

a piece in the Guardian on Mon said wearing helmets could be more dangerous than not wearing one. A travel psychologist(?) Dr Ian Walker found bareheaded motorists gave him a wider berth, but on wearing a helmet he got hit twice! he said 'that a behaviour intended to reduce risk(ie helmet) might increase ones overall level of risk cos drivers react to its presence by changing their behaviour'
i don't wear one because they only offer protection from a fall from a stationery bicycle(!) and i tried wearing one and found it restrictive (ie dangerous)

He who is not for me is against me

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I dont wear a helmet, but I make my kids wear one - do as I say, not as i do

Well do manufacturers of road bikes show everyone without helmets as well? If so , I rest my case.

Gee, and I thought you were just curious and asking a question. I had no idea you were making a case or had some kind of agenda...

Road bikes are racing bikes. Racing rules state that competitors must wear helmets. As a result, the marketing follows suit--they are playing on people who want to look like a pro, will buy a pro bike, and all the pro kit... including the helmet of their choice. It's part of the pro uniform, part of the pro culture, so marketing to people who want to emulate pros, they will certainly use helmets in their marketing material.

If the manufacturers of those same road bikes market commuter or liesure bikes as well, there's a good chance that their international marketing material shows people on bikes without helmets, while their US catalogs will show riders with helmets...

Gee, and I thought you were just curious and asking a question. I had no idea you were making a case or had some kind of agenda...

Road bikes are racing bikes. Racing rules state that competitors must wear helmets. As a result, the marketing follows suit--they are playing on people who want to look like a pro, will buy a pro bike, and all the pro kit... including the helmet of their choice. It's part of the pro uniform, part of the pro culture, so marketing to people who want to emulate pros, they will certainly use helmets in their marketing material.

If the manufacturers of those same road bikes market commuter or liesure bikes as well, there's a good chance that their international marketing material shows people on bikes without helmets, while their US catalogs will show riders with helmets...

That's exactly why I am confused. Dahon makes many models that are specifically designed for performance. In fact most of their bikes perform very well speed-wise. So why not show more serious people riding them than just dainty people taking it for a stroll through the park? Now if Dahon bikes were just designed for parks then it would make sense. But they are not, hence my confusion..

Well do manufacturers of road bikes show everyone without helmets as well? If so , I rest my case.

What case? You have not shown that Dahon is different. You then asked why doesn't the rest of the world wear helmets. That question belongs in A&S.

That's exactly why I am confused. Dahon makes many models that are specifically designed for performance. In fact most of their bikes perform very well speed-wise. So why not show more serious people riding them than just dainty people taking it for a stroll through the park? Now if Dahon bikes were just designed for parks then it would make sense. But they are not, hence my confusion..

If you bother to stroll through Dahon's website, you'll find plenty of people in their Newsletters, Gallery and News sections shown wearing helmets. The overwhelming majority of those pictured as "serious" people riding Dahons in what might be considered performance environments seem to be wearing helmets.

What's your point here? What's your goal? What case are you trying to make? Because if this is simply some kind of helmet troll like it appears to be, well then you suck.

How come nobody in Dahon's bike owner's manual wears a helmet, nor does anyone on their youtube video page:

Is this typical of most bike manufacturers, i.e not show people wearing helmets?

The US riders tend to be somewhat paranoid as a whole. They even teach their children that riding on sidewalks is safer than streets! Back in the Dark Ages (late 1960s, 1970s, and even into the 1980s) people did not wear helmets except on motorcycles. My father did not wear a helmet on his motorcycle circa mid 1950s.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/world-of-folding-bicycles/289494502/in/set-72157594325178229/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/world-of-folding-bicycles/289494502/in/set-72157594325178229/)

I never heard him say to wear a helmet on either my pedal bikes or motor bikes. I never felt a need to even today. In other countries, the only people I seen wear helmets in photos were tourists. Dahon is probably reflecting this since it is a global company.

That's exactly why I am confused. Dahon makes many models that are specifically designed for performance. In fact most of their bikes perform very well speed-wise. So why not show more serious people riding them than just dainty people taking it for a stroll through the park? Now if Dahon bikes were just designed for parks then it would make sense. But they are not, hence my confusion.. Interesting, I've never really thought of Dahon's lineup as being mostly performance bikes. Only the Speed Pro/TT really comes to mind.

Well the motorcycle helmet thing I understand. Just like the seat belt thing. People get hurt, don't have insurance and cost the rest of us money (chiefly a US problem due to the ridiculous health care system- thank you Nixon).


I'm with Thor on this one, I'd like to see helmets in ads. People, kids especially, learn from repetition and consistency. More images of helmets, lights, and proper equipment will help to embolden a "safe riding ideal". Even if it doesn't magically solve the bike vs car problems we have, it helps foster more conscientious riders who may be greater in tune with their bikes and surroundings.

Well the motorcycle helmet thing I understand. Just like the seat belt thing. People get hurt, don't have insurance and cost the rest of us money (chiefly a US problem due to the ridiculous health care system- thank you Nixon).

The argument you put forward, which many legislators and lobbyists have also used in support of mandatory helmet laws in the US, is bogus. The majority of brain injuries involve auto accidents--using this logic for mandatory helmet use laws regarding motorcycles or bicycles is the biggest argument for mandatory use of helmets in cars. And yet that will never happen...

That's exactly why I am confused. Dahon makes many models that are specifically designed for performance. In fact most of their bikes perform very well speed-wise. So why not show more serious people riding them than just dainty people taking it for a stroll through the park? Now if Dahon bikes were just designed for parks then it would make sense. But they are not, hence my confusion..

If you really want information on this topic go to the Helmets Cramp my Style (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=96298) thread in A&S.

The helmet issue has been argued to death there.

Speedo

Cyclists should wear condoms on every conceivable occasion.

Me, being the style queen here, I cant wear a helmet - I tried, but they cramp my style:

http://i532.photobucket.com/albums/ee323/Tarmacblossom/katzenhelm.jpg

For all you others out there a condom is a minimum, better still full safety gear:

http://i532.photobucket.com/albums/ee323/Tarmacblossom/savebikeriding.jpg

The bicycle is such a benign and elegant piece of technology. After more than 40 years of cycling, I'm still surprised at what type of people are drawn to it.

Why is it that so many cyclists feel the need to get so frenetically judgmental about the minutiae of cycling and jump up and down ranting in support their agenda?

I am not generally a social cyclist, and it's because of BS like this. There are so many factions. Helmet/no helmet. Sidewalk/no sidewalk. Commuters vs. spandos. Single speeders and fixies with chips on their shoulders. It's as though cyclists are looking for any excuse to be bitter about something.

Veggie, your life must be pretty friggin' perfect if you can spare a moment's thought to whether Dahon is doing enough to promote helmets. Let's all get a little perspective, people.

The argument you put forward, which many legislators and lobbyists have also used in support of mandatory helmet laws in the US, is bogus. The majority of brain injuries involve auto accidents--using this logic for mandatory helmet use laws regarding motorcycles or bicycles is the biggest argument for mandatory use of helmets in cars. And yet that will never happen...

Well of course that's true. But if requiring people to wear helmets saves us (me) any money at all, I say hook it up.


Moreover, I would be all for an "opt-in" system where individuals could be exempt from such laws if they were over 18 and signed releases accepting financial responsibility for their actions.

The bottom line is that corporations that make millions of dollars off us *should* feel a sense of responsibility to encourage safe use of their products. If the iPhone-toting, skinny jeans-wearing hipster dufuses are so turned off by helmets in advertising, they can ride the bus.


Rant over.

Cyclists should wear condoms on every conceivable occasion.

:lol:

I don't think Dahon is anti helmet as the OP puts it. They're just 'not promoting' other companies helmets in their ads. Not until Dahon starts manufacturing helmets.

You're more likely to see a Trek helmet in a Trek catalogue, or a Giro helmet as it's a co-sponsor in the TDF. Back to the helmet/condom debate, you could say that some heads are worth protecting more than others. Sorry, ladies.

Well of course that's true. But if requiring people to wear helmets saves us (me) any money at all, I say hook it up.


Moreover, I would be all for an "opt-in" system where individuals could be exempt from such laws if they were over 18 and signed releases accepting financial responsibility for their actions.

The bottom line is that corporations that make millions of dollars off us *should* feel a sense of responsibility to encourage safe use of their products. If the iPhone-toting, skinny jeans-wearing hipster dufuses are so turned off by helmets in advertising, they can ride the bus.


Rant over.

Nice rant. There would be more of a point if bicycle helmets provided any meaningful protection in a crash. They don't, and there is no meaningful evidence that they do. As it is, helmets are just a means to placate the paranoid, while making millions for helmet manufacturers. Don't believe the hype.

True. But you can't deny that if you flew over the handlebars and hit your head on a light post, a helmet would be nice. Of course, the same could be said for knee pads, elbow pads, and everything else. I'd want a helmet in some situations, but not in others. If its a common (mis)conception that helmets provide protection, then ads showing helmeted cyclists might use that conception for good. Most people (for better or worse) associate helmets with "safe" riding, and seeing "safe" riders having fun in advertising can only have a positive effect.

Safety gear isn't enough, attack gear is also required. After somone shouted out when passing by on my Brompton, 'that's a ***'s bike' the other day, it would be very useful to have front and rear guns to deal with such jerks lol. Maybe

Helmets in ads sets a good example. I used to avoid wearing one on short trips but don mine all the time now. That head protection is very crucial. Besides the design of helmets has improved so much with more lightweight materials and airlflow, mine doesn't bother me at all.

I'm not for compulsion but I did appreciate my helmet the other day when my bike hit me on the back of the head...

Well that's makes sense using a helmet when riding a bike, you can live with a broken leg, elbow or arm, but hitting your head can leave all your body useless, even if everything part of your body is in place!

For me I use normal clothes but always: helmet, gloves and shoes.

Regards

Well of course that's true. But if requiring people to wear helmets saves us (me) any money at all, I say hook it up.


Moreover, I would be all for an "opt-in" system where individuals could be exempt from such laws if they were over 18 and signed releases accepting financial responsibility for their actions.

The bottom line is that corporations that make millions of dollars off us *should* feel a sense of responsibility to encourage safe use of their products. If the iPhone-toting, skinny jeans-wearing hipster dufuses are so turned off by helmets in advertising, they can ride the bus.


Rant over.

Your last paragraph? Come on. It`s not exactly like these terrible bike companies are fleecing you, innocent consumer. You`re part of a market and they`re providing good/services to that market. You don`t like it? Take your money somewhere else.

Most people (for better or worse) associate helmets with "safe" riding, and seeing "safe" riders having fun in advertising can only have a positive effect.
I associate helmets with unsafe activities. Showing cyclists with helmets presents the image that cycling is inherently unsafe. If I were producing advertising trying to lure new people into cycling, I might omit the helmet too.

Your last paragraph? Come on. It`s not exactly like these terrible bike companies are fleecing you, innocent consumer. You`re part of a market and they`re providing good/services to that market. You don`t like it? Take your money somewhere else.

I'm not saying that we're being fleeced by Dahon. I don't think that paragraph was unreasonable.