All the tests show low speed impacts/crashes, I'm curious as to how well it would work in a high speed impact where your head hits the ground going forward, is it attached firmly enough to stay in place?
Also, how does it know when to inflate? Can it be repacked?
It looks interesting, but I'll stick with my regular helmet for now, even if it isn't stylish.
It's actually interesting. If it really works, we could see it evolve to vest, or pants or anything that protect the crucial area of the body other than the head.
I'm always fascinated by people's opinions about helmets. In New Zealand, where I'm from, helmets are required by law, and in my experience everybody wears helmets while cycling - it's just an accepted part of riding a bike there. Here in Europe, though, people ride with or without them and it's quite odd. Sure, they look cool without a helmet, but I just can't help but cringe when I imagine them having a nasty spill.
The one thing I'd disagree with about this helmet is its invisibility - it doesn't encourage other people to wear one. I don't know whether that's marketing advice or safety advice, but having everybody wear visible helmets sets a strong example.
Some countries experienced a reduction of bike usage after introducing mandatory helmets. This is quite a popular argument against such laws.
Personally I've bought a helmet the day after my first bike accident and am wearing it constantly since then (While on the bike, that is.) Unfortunately it's going to be quite costly to let everybody experience an accident in order to teach them wearing helmets.
I'm one of the cool-looking europeans :) I've started to bike recently and decided not to wear a helmet after reading few articles that suggested there is practically no evidence at all that bike helmets help you in any way. But most convincing was data from Australia - before they started forcing everyone to wear helmets, there were on average 7 deaths/year caused by incidents involving bikers. After the helmets were made mandatory, the mortality rate was reduced to 6/year, yet the number of regular bikers was reduced by 30%!! If anything, this suggests that helmets may worsen your chances to stay alive.
And if you think about it, if you're flying with 20-30km/h towards a tree, no helmet is going to save you. Even if the head is protected, your neck will break. With lower speeds I guess you still have time to try to fall in such a way so the head is somewhat protected.
Btw, I'm not avoiding helmets so I can look cool. It's just one more gear to carry and worry about. And I may still get a helmet if start riding more cross-country. Right now I'm riding on road and unpredictable falls look more unlikely.
> After the helmets were made mandatory, the mortality rate was reduced to 6/year, yet the number of regular bikers was reduced by 30%!! If anything, this suggests that helmets may worsen your chances to stay alive.
What if the majority of the bikers who stopped biking were less experienced and thus more dangerous on average? This seems likely because the more committed people are likely to be more experienced, and those who don't have a helmet handy on some particular ride and so don't ride are also likely to be less experienced.
The mortality rate went down in absolute terms, but up in per cyclist terms so your theory is the wrong way round. To explain more cyclist injuries you'd have to give a reason why the more committed cyclists that continued to cycle regularly were more likely to hurt themselves.
You could blame the helmets themselves for causing injury and that may be partly true but a more likely reason is 30% less cyclists meaning that car drivers were less used to sharing the road with cyclists. A common bike accident term is "SMIDSY", meaning "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" since they simply didn't expect a cyclist to be there.
Well, that makes the anti-helmet case even stronger. If the most dangerous riders from the pool were in the 30% that stopped biking and if the helmets were actually helpful, wouldn't it make sense for the reduction in mortality rate to be bigger than 30% as opposed to the actual 17%?
I was knocked off my bike by a car about 4 months ago whilst not wearing a helmet, I had forgotten it that day and had just had an earful from my girlfriend about it.
Both me and the car were doing about 20mph, fortunately it wasn't head on and they just swiped across into me. I went flying and landed square on my chin, at that speed there is nothing you can do to "fall in a better way". I ended up in hospital with a suspected broken jaw although it could have been far worse, if I had landed on the top of my head rather than my face I could have ended up with brain damage - or worse...
With the way I fell a helmet would have stopped me from having a huge graze from my chin up to my forehead.
Helmets do work, it is true that they aren't going to save you in a head on collision with a speeding car but they will help prevent sever head injury in the type of accident that happens commuting to work.
Frankly I think its stupid not to wear a helmet, I was stupid, and it should be law in the UK to wear one. Your head is the most important part of your body and you should do what ever it takes to prevent damage to it!
Do you wear a helmet when you walk? When you're in a car?
I ride a bike every day and I have never hit a car. Heck, I've never seen a biker hit a car, even though I see a hundred bikers or so each day. Nobody wears helmets in the Netherlands. If you see somebody with a helmet you can be sure that it's a foreigner, somebody under the age of four, or somebody on a racing bike.
Now suppose you do get hit and lets even suppose that you get hit on the head. What's the probability that you get hit on the helmet? Small: only the top of your head is protected. For racing bikers it can help. Due to the way you sit on those bikes it's much more likely you'll land on the top of your head.
It makes more sense to wear gloves than to wear a helmet. Nine out of ten times your hands will get injured. And in my experience you do think about how you fall in the split second you're in the air. When you're not wearing gloves you'll be less inclined to grind your hands over the asphalt.
I like it but I would feel uneasy knowing that it is not just a stupid foam helmet but an airbag and a bunch of gyros. Just reminding that the more complex the system is the more places something can go wrong.
I agree. This is perhaps close to being a luddite. The difference lies in the fact that the airbag, for the car, didn't replace any already simpler and proven security measure.
Tested at 20km/h; IIRC that's how normal bike helmets are tested too.
My problem is, I'd bet that crashes causing serious harm happen way faster than that: 20km/h is the average speed of a champion marathon runner, and no one runs with an helmet. My 2nd guess as to why is that if helmets were effective when it matters, at higher speeds, they would look very similar to a motorcycle helmet, and be impractical.
So, facing the choice between something that does its job, and something ineffective but slightly less impractical, lawmakers try to make the latter mandatory. It reminds me of the TSA "security" policies...
Marathon runners aren't generally dodging the mirrors of automobiles driven by inattentive people.
Do you really believe bicycle helmets are completely ineffective? I'm going to have to call [citation needed] on that, because having at some hard padded thing on my head seems like it should at least help somewhat. Concussions, etc.
There's plenty of advocacy sites if you google for them.
A very nutshell summary is that the minor benefits are accompanied by minor drawbacks. For example you'll not get much benefit if dragged under a 16-wheeler and research shows that drivers will come closer when overtaking someone wearing a helmet.
A major problem though is that well-meaning types want to legally enforce helmets in the name of safety. An immediate impact of this would be to reduce cycling amongst those who think helmets are a nuisance or uncool (as well as another reason for cops to hassle the poor/minorities for breaking laws that they won't bother the better off about). It's fairly well documented that more cyclists/cycling means safer cycling so anything that discourages cycling makes the remaining cyclists less safe.
I don't believe it's completely ineffective; it can certainly save your scalp from some road rash, and I'm sure you can find a couple of cases where a helmet avoided genuine head trauma.
But I'm not convince that the benefit of helmets for cyclists far exceeds the benefit of the same helmets on pedestrians, or on car passengers. Now, most people agree that there's a comfort/price/benefit compromise, which makes it inappropriate to enforce mandatory helmets onto pedestrians, although it would obviously save some lives. In order to accept that what applies to pedestrians doesn't apply to cyclists, I'd like to get some hard data, not some "gut feeling" from lawmakers who barely read what they vote for.
Also, I could understand that serious head traumas avoided in significant numbers would justify a law: in most civilized countries, the corresponding hospital bills and disability grants are paid by public insurance, i.e. taxpayers; cyclist are therefore accountable in front of them. But if it mostly saves scalps from roadrashes, I don't think that a law is appropriate.
There was a study that car drivers would benefit far more than cyclists from wearing bike helmets. Apart from there being 100x as many car drivers - there were a lot of accidents were the seatbelt saved them but they suffered injuries hitting the dashboard (this may have been before airbags).
My 2nd guess as to why is that if helmets were
effective when it matters, at higher speeds
It matters at low speeds. Falling over the handlebars of a near-stationary bike and on to your head is a serious injury. I've done it with a helmet on and taking some of the blow in my arms, and still had to lie down for an hour afterwards.
You should look up the speed car crash tests are done at. There are also really slow. The car industry---for obvious reasons---isn't very keen on raising the standards to some realistic speed (like 100km/h or 130km/h).
How fast you're travelling is mostly irrelevant, what matters is how hard your head hits the deck. The street surface is perpendicular to your velocity, so your head generally receives an impact no harder than if you had just fallen over while stationary. This betrays the real problem - the average impact speed of a motorcycle head injury is only very slightly higher than that of a cyclist, mainly due to the extra mass.
We know that motorcycle helmets work very effectively. They are markedly superior to cycle helmets in two main respects - they have much thicker EPS foam and so can absorb much more energy, and the smooth round shape of a motorcycle helmet reduces torsional forces on the head and neck, which can be just as lethal as impacts.
The problem cycle helmets have is in providing sufficient protection while still being acceptable to consumers. There is nothing stopping manufacturers from producing cycle helmets that vastly exceed mandatory or voluntary standards (Downhill-specific helmets do) but most cyclists are simply unwilling to wear a large, heavy helmet.
Personally, I think the actuarial data leads to an obvious conclusion - we should do whatever maximises the number of cyclists. The risk of being killed or injured while cycling is completely outweighed by the health benefits of physical fitness. In addition, a number of studies indicate that "safety in numbers" is the most important factor in cycle safety - the more riders on the road, the better other road users become at accommodating them.
"How fast you're travelling is mostly irrelevant, what matters is how hard your head hits the deck. The street surface is perpendicular to your velocity, so your head generally receives an impact no harder than if you had just fallen over while stationary."
Out on the street, there are plenty of vertical surfaces you can hit (lamp posts, trees, curb of the road, or just irregularities on the road surface)
That is why motorcyclists wear helmets, while pedestrians do not, although their center of gravity is higher than that of a motorcyclist.
Many years ago a neighbor of ours, riding his son's motorcycle at something around walking pace, collided with his daughter's bicycle, and fell off on his head. He died, she got away with a broken arm.
Has to be very hard to separate signal from noise on the deployment of the air bag. Those dummies were in very controlled environments and the helmet deployed at very low rates of acceleration change. In the hit from behind demonstration, you can see the rider's head experienced only around 1g of acceleration and little jerk.
It would get annoying as hell when this thing senses similar accelerations from non-car-hitting-you movements like bending over to roll up a pant leg or changing positions. Prankster friends would have a heyday too.
It may be the same problem, but I wouldn't count on the same resolution. A car airbag deploys after the car has crashed into something but before that has a chance to injure the passenger, whereas in a bicycle accident the first impact could be with the cyclist's head.
(Perhaps you can make airbag-helmets that inflate when the bike hits something, which will do for the case where you hit something in the road and get thrown off, or where a car collides with the bike. Not so good for tree branches and such, though.)
Yes, I'm pretty certain the rig uses some kind of accelerometers to detect the threshold event. Any fall from the seat is typically preceded by a kick. And yes, you can certainly can still "hit the ceiling", but it's not clear if such mode of injury is common among cyclists.
By any measure, it sure beats riding without helmet.
Obviously an airbag helmet will be safer (but more inconvenient) than no helmet. Presumably it will be less safe (but maybe more convenient and better looking) than an ordinary helmet.
It needs to beat both to succeed: that is, either some people who currently use helmets need to be convinced that the loss in safety from using an airbag helmet is small enough to be outweighed by the gain in convenience or looks or whatever, or some people who currently don't use helmets need to be convinced that the gain in safety from using an airbag helmet is large enough not to be outweighed by the loss in convenience or looks or whatever.
This seems pretty difficult to me, especially as I bet the convenience gain isn't very big: I bet an effective airbag helmet needs to fit you about as well as an ordinary helmet, and it'll need to be put on with about as much care.
The acceleration your car experiences in an accident is an order of magnitude higher than anything your car ever experiences in everyday use, making the control system very easy to engineer - something like anything over 20g's and it pops (the algorithms take vehicle speed into account too for a varying threshold and probably use jerk.)
In that video where the rider was hit from behind, there was very low relative change in velocity of the sensors in that helmet - no direct impact spike - and its on par with the same levels of acceleration you would experience in everyday bike riding.
You can easily have 20g impact when you speed over road bump.
The accelerometers in your car are bolted to your 4,000lb frame, riding on dampened shocks and rubber tires - you will never experience acceleration anywhere close to what you would in a frame-on collision.
You will easily experience that, just that energies involved are minuscule compared to collision. The mass of your car frame is irrelevant, shockwaves still propagate through solid bodies. When someone slaps your face hard, that can easily be 100s of Gs without much ill effect.
I'm curious how noisy it is. It has to inflate fast, so it's rather "bang" than "pffft". I wonder about the implications, given that it's so close to your ears.
reminded. 20+ years ago my friend biker explained to me the advantages of a full-head-face helmet for a biker - it makes for greater chances that your head/face would be relatively intact, even when severed, so they would be able to put it into the coffin with your body and have an "open coffin" ceremony
I've had two serious motorcycle incidents where a helmet protected me.
One: I fell off at slow speeds going round a corner, there was oil on the road, no ones fault, banged my head quite hard but was otherwise fine.
Two: On a motorway at ~65MPH a fucking prick threw a coke can out of his car which quickly decelerated and hit my visor. The visor cracked but maintained it's integrity and saved at least my nose and at most my life.
Please wear a full helmet, there are a lot of pricks in the world.
PS: I'm swearing in this post so you get the idea that 15 years later I still get really angry at this idiot.
15 years ago while cruising along a country road at 65 mph, I very clearly remember seeing, for a flash of a second, the point of a beak of a small bird as it hit my visor right in front of my left eye.
Without a visor (or helmet), I would have been blinded for sure.
I wonder if the designers were influenced by the inflatable collar that Y.T. wore in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. I think I'll wait for a suit that inflates like the airbags used by the Mars Pathfinder.
Never going to wear that heavy collar while cycling. Bike helmets are vented, cool. That collar has to be stifling.
And all in the interest of fashion? Ok, then I am Definitely not the target demographic. However, that model wearing that thing that looks like a cervical collar doesn't look very fashionable in my ignorant opinion.
51 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] threadAlso, how does it know when to inflate? Can it be repacked?
It looks interesting, but I'll stick with my regular helmet for now, even if it isn't stylish.
The one thing I'd disagree with about this helmet is its invisibility - it doesn't encourage other people to wear one. I don't know whether that's marketing advice or safety advice, but having everybody wear visible helmets sets a strong example.
Personally I've bought a helmet the day after my first bike accident and am wearing it constantly since then (While on the bike, that is.) Unfortunately it's going to be quite costly to let everybody experience an accident in order to teach them wearing helmets.
And if you think about it, if you're flying with 20-30km/h towards a tree, no helmet is going to save you. Even if the head is protected, your neck will break. With lower speeds I guess you still have time to try to fall in such a way so the head is somewhat protected. Btw, I'm not avoiding helmets so I can look cool. It's just one more gear to carry and worry about. And I may still get a helmet if start riding more cross-country. Right now I'm riding on road and unpredictable falls look more unlikely.
What if the majority of the bikers who stopped biking were less experienced and thus more dangerous on average? This seems likely because the more committed people are likely to be more experienced, and those who don't have a helmet handy on some particular ride and so don't ride are also likely to be less experienced.
You could blame the helmets themselves for causing injury and that may be partly true but a more likely reason is 30% less cyclists meaning that car drivers were less used to sharing the road with cyclists. A common bike accident term is "SMIDSY", meaning "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" since they simply didn't expect a cyclist to be there.
Both me and the car were doing about 20mph, fortunately it wasn't head on and they just swiped across into me. I went flying and landed square on my chin, at that speed there is nothing you can do to "fall in a better way". I ended up in hospital with a suspected broken jaw although it could have been far worse, if I had landed on the top of my head rather than my face I could have ended up with brain damage - or worse...
With the way I fell a helmet would have stopped me from having a huge graze from my chin up to my forehead.
Helmets do work, it is true that they aren't going to save you in a head on collision with a speeding car but they will help prevent sever head injury in the type of accident that happens commuting to work.
Frankly I think its stupid not to wear a helmet, I was stupid, and it should be law in the UK to wear one. Your head is the most important part of your body and you should do what ever it takes to prevent damage to it!
I ride a bike every day and I have never hit a car. Heck, I've never seen a biker hit a car, even though I see a hundred bikers or so each day. Nobody wears helmets in the Netherlands. If you see somebody with a helmet you can be sure that it's a foreigner, somebody under the age of four, or somebody on a racing bike.
Now suppose you do get hit and lets even suppose that you get hit on the head. What's the probability that you get hit on the helmet? Small: only the top of your head is protected. For racing bikers it can help. Due to the way you sit on those bikes it's much more likely you'll land on the top of your head.
It makes more sense to wear gloves than to wear a helmet. Nine out of ten times your hands will get injured. And in my experience you do think about how you fall in the split second you're in the air. When you're not wearing gloves you'll be less inclined to grind your hands over the asphalt.
My problem is, I'd bet that crashes causing serious harm happen way faster than that: 20km/h is the average speed of a champion marathon runner, and no one runs with an helmet. My 2nd guess as to why is that if helmets were effective when it matters, at higher speeds, they would look very similar to a motorcycle helmet, and be impractical.
So, facing the choice between something that does its job, and something ineffective but slightly less impractical, lawmakers try to make the latter mandatory. It reminds me of the TSA "security" policies...
Do you really believe bicycle helmets are completely ineffective? I'm going to have to call [citation needed] on that, because having at some hard padded thing on my head seems like it should at least help somewhat. Concussions, etc.
A very nutshell summary is that the minor benefits are accompanied by minor drawbacks. For example you'll not get much benefit if dragged under a 16-wheeler and research shows that drivers will come closer when overtaking someone wearing a helmet.
A major problem though is that well-meaning types want to legally enforce helmets in the name of safety. An immediate impact of this would be to reduce cycling amongst those who think helmets are a nuisance or uncool (as well as another reason for cops to hassle the poor/minorities for breaking laws that they won't bother the better off about). It's fairly well documented that more cyclists/cycling means safer cycling so anything that discourages cycling makes the remaining cyclists less safe.
But I'm not convince that the benefit of helmets for cyclists far exceeds the benefit of the same helmets on pedestrians, or on car passengers. Now, most people agree that there's a comfort/price/benefit compromise, which makes it inappropriate to enforce mandatory helmets onto pedestrians, although it would obviously save some lives. In order to accept that what applies to pedestrians doesn't apply to cyclists, I'd like to get some hard data, not some "gut feeling" from lawmakers who barely read what they vote for.
Also, I could understand that serious head traumas avoided in significant numbers would justify a law: in most civilized countries, the corresponding hospital bills and disability grants are paid by public insurance, i.e. taxpayers; cyclist are therefore accountable in front of them. But if it mostly saves scalps from roadrashes, I don't think that a law is appropriate.
How fast you're travelling is mostly irrelevant, what matters is how hard your head hits the deck. The street surface is perpendicular to your velocity, so your head generally receives an impact no harder than if you had just fallen over while stationary. This betrays the real problem - the average impact speed of a motorcycle head injury is only very slightly higher than that of a cyclist, mainly due to the extra mass.
We know that motorcycle helmets work very effectively. They are markedly superior to cycle helmets in two main respects - they have much thicker EPS foam and so can absorb much more energy, and the smooth round shape of a motorcycle helmet reduces torsional forces on the head and neck, which can be just as lethal as impacts.
The problem cycle helmets have is in providing sufficient protection while still being acceptable to consumers. There is nothing stopping manufacturers from producing cycle helmets that vastly exceed mandatory or voluntary standards (Downhill-specific helmets do) but most cyclists are simply unwilling to wear a large, heavy helmet.
Personally, I think the actuarial data leads to an obvious conclusion - we should do whatever maximises the number of cyclists. The risk of being killed or injured while cycling is completely outweighed by the health benefits of physical fitness. In addition, a number of studies indicate that "safety in numbers" is the most important factor in cycle safety - the more riders on the road, the better other road users become at accommodating them.
Out on the street, there are plenty of vertical surfaces you can hit (lamp posts, trees, curb of the road, or just irregularities on the road surface)
That is why motorcyclists wear helmets, while pedestrians do not, although their center of gravity is higher than that of a motorcyclist.
It would get annoying as hell when this thing senses similar accelerations from non-car-hitting-you movements like bending over to roll up a pant leg or changing positions. Prankster friends would have a heyday too.
Dainese has an has an impressive motorcycle airbag suit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo9Vlt5tGwY
tl;dr - That thing would go off all that time if they made it sensitive enough to work.
(Perhaps you can make airbag-helmets that inflate when the bike hits something, which will do for the case where you hit something in the road and get thrown off, or where a car collides with the bike. Not so good for tree branches and such, though.)
By any measure, it sure beats riding without helmet.
Obviously an airbag helmet will be safer (but more inconvenient) than no helmet. Presumably it will be less safe (but maybe more convenient and better looking) than an ordinary helmet.
It needs to beat both to succeed: that is, either some people who currently use helmets need to be convinced that the loss in safety from using an airbag helmet is small enough to be outweighed by the gain in convenience or looks or whatever, or some people who currently don't use helmets need to be convinced that the gain in safety from using an airbag helmet is large enough not to be outweighed by the loss in convenience or looks or whatever.
This seems pretty difficult to me, especially as I bet the convenience gain isn't very big: I bet an effective airbag helmet needs to fit you about as well as an ordinary helmet, and it'll need to be put on with about as much care.
In that video where the rider was hit from behind, there was very low relative change in velocity of the sensors in that helmet - no direct impact spike - and its on par with the same levels of acceleration you would experience in everyday bike riding.
Also, I'm sure in the 5 years they spent on product R&D, the concerns that came up to you in few minutes here were raised too.
The accelerometers in your car are bolted to your 4,000lb frame, riding on dampened shocks and rubber tires - you will never experience acceleration anywhere close to what you would in a frame-on collision.
They don't have a shipping product yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDaqcEkQRnM&feature=relat...
You can use tracker http://www.cabrillo.edu/~dbrown/tracker/
to calculate the decelerations on jumps. They are huge, bigger than the car hitting the back on the bike.
The only way to do this is to monitor the direction of the deceleration, not only the magnitude.
One: I fell off at slow speeds going round a corner, there was oil on the road, no ones fault, banged my head quite hard but was otherwise fine.
Two: On a motorway at ~65MPH a fucking prick threw a coke can out of his car which quickly decelerated and hit my visor. The visor cracked but maintained it's integrity and saved at least my nose and at most my life.
Please wear a full helmet, there are a lot of pricks in the world.
PS: I'm swearing in this post so you get the idea that 15 years later I still get really angry at this idiot.
15 years ago while cruising along a country road at 65 mph, I very clearly remember seeing, for a flash of a second, the point of a beak of a small bird as it hit my visor right in front of my left eye.
Without a visor (or helmet), I would have been blinded for sure.
And all in the interest of fashion? Ok, then I am Definitely not the target demographic. However, that model wearing that thing that looks like a cervical collar doesn't look very fashionable in my ignorant opinion.