51 comments

[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 131 ms ] thread
It's tough to convince people (in Europe) to wear helmets without a surrounding culture of jokes about killing vulnerable road users. Maybe if they really want to sell helmets in Europe they need to import American drivers.
That's a pretty unfair criticism. Fatalities per 100,000 vehicles, the US ranks #24 best (lowest) in the world among nations not the size of Maldives.

To put it into perspective, Russia and Mexico are four times worse; Brazil is five times worse; Colombia is six times worse; the Philippines and China are ten times worse; India is 15 times worse; Venezuela is 20 times worse; Nigeria is 30 times worse.

Adjusting for miles driven per capita, the US comes out ahead of about 18 European nations, and is comparable to France and Spain.

Maybe it should also be scaled by number or percentage of cyclists in this case.
It's not about the outcomes it's about the attitude. Which is only held (acted on) by I'd guess less than 1% of drivers, who think when they see a cyclist that they should "teach her a lesson." This attitude doesn't show up in the European countries I've cycled in.

It's the existence of that attitude that keeps parents from biking / walking their kids to schools merely blocks away. I've never cycled in countries without basic infrastructure, it would be interesting to see how closely cycle danger correlates to car danger.

Don't know about all of Europe but basically every serious cyclist in Italy wears a helmet. It's very rare to see a road bike or a MTB cyclist without one. The opposite is true for short range cyclists inside cities. Basically nobody wears a helmet. Small children sometimes do, less frequently their parents. Given the number of cyclists using sidewalks in cities (tolerated but not allowed) I think cyclists are quite worried by drivers. Given I always ride in the road (better surface, no obstacles, faster) I think they are a little too fearful (crossing fingers).

By the way, because of our climate that collar airbag won't sell well here. It could be handy replacement for a scarf in winter but nobody's going to wear it in summer. About the north of Italy: it's NYC's weather with less extremes (0-35C / 30-95F.)

How do they detect the need to unfold?

Also, I'm wondering about a full-body version for motor riders.

There are sensors in the device. They're activated by a battery that starts when you put the thing on and clip the zipper. You have to charge the battery every 3 weeks or so. I've got one and have been using it for a month. So far I didn't fall, and the stuff hasn't been triggered by any of my jumps on and off the sidewalk. It's much more comfortable than a standard helmet. It's very expensive though.
(comment deleted)
This raises some questions. How do the sensors work? And, more importantly, how do you know it actually works? What happens when it is accidentally activated; can you re-use it?
You can already get motorcycle riding gear that is equipped with airbags. It's not full-body, but it does protect the chest, back and neck.
"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee."

Bizarrely UK users ie. those who have to pay for the BBC have to use a cloak to access this content. At least the charter is up this year. Hopefully all the BBC will be 'not funded by the license fee' soon.

This is due to the journalism lobby, i.e. Rupert Murdoch, insisting that the commercial and profit-making arm of the BBC should not be allowed to compete with UK business.
"It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes."

So the not great, old programmes are funded through the licence fee?

Oh, I don't fully defend the BBC. It's terrible that they have a profit-making focus.

Great, niche programs such as Open University have made way for the same commercial stuff that every other television network already provides.

If you want to see what things will be like if they're "not funded by the license fee", look at America's media.

Appreciate any form of actual journalism while you have it.

BBC's standards of journalism are going much the same way I'm afraid.
One BBC UK version is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-15384480 but that is not the same content but looks like the same device.

The nonsense is that it is trivial to bypass such location filtering.

Don't hold your breath on the BBC losing that license fee anytime soon - there is too much money being made off it by all sorts of companies [not just the BBC]. Despite having long left the UK, their sub-contracted enforcement company still send me reminders to my old UK address every few weeks and tell me they're coming to visit me to check my TV equipment and that they'll take me to court when they catch me ! They've spent hundreds of pounds more than the license fee sending those letters and having people visit to be told I don't live there any longer. They still turn up every 2 months or so. They've had years to update their records but never do.

On a sidenote, why do they have a cheaper licence for black-and-white tv (£49 vs £145.50 for colour)? Does anyone use that?
Worldwide, more than 25% of road traffic deaths are pedestrians and bicyclists. Improved active safety, like head protection, collision warning, and automatic audible and visual warning for drivers are badly needed. And cars should be required to have autonomous braking that looks for bicyclists and pedestrians ahead and in the "right hook" zone.
I could see some Fixie riders deliberately trying to cause cars to trigger this.
What if they do?
The driver would be inconvenienced.
you know with the way cars are built these days even a slow speed shunt can cause a write off and whiplash neck injuries are not fun

I can see Russian style dash cams being popular fro driver less cars to stop the obvious possibilities for insurance fraud.

Is the "right hook zone" referring to making a right turn into someone crossing an intersection?

Just curious, have you seen any research on the efficacy (and cost efficiency) of those features you say should be required?

Hard numbers seem to be hard to come by, but this article gives at least a qualitative balance of costs and benefits: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transpo...

What's interesting is the case for a subsidy based on reducing government costs when people are killed and injured. reduced insurance costs could also make the time-to-payback for individual purchasers very short.

It'll be interesting to see in which geographies the introduction of self driving cars leads to a decrease in per-capita vmt. The suggestion being that some portion of the people who choose to drive today do it because they are being terrorized into cars by inattentive or aggressive drivers.
riding both motorcycles and bicycles I never have felt as safe on the bicycle as my motorcycle. Part of that might come from wearing a full face helmet and protective gear on the motorcycle but even if I had the same protective gear regular bicycle helmets just feel wrong. The sensation of speed is wholly different, speeds over the mid twenties on the bicycle feel as dangerous as speeds on the motorcycle over a hundred.

Still nothing disappoints me more than the number of children I see riding everyday without any protection

I agree with you about the feeling of danger, as related to speed, that you get on a bicycle vs a motorcycle. There's a very long, fairly steep hill near here that I bike ever so often, and on the coast down I make it a point to not use the brakes, which takes a lot of nerve. I probably never get going faster than 25-30mph but it's close to terrifying. Sometimes on the descent I remind myself that "on my motorcycle this would feel like nothing at all". I don't think the feeling is, for me, a function of protective gear, it's more the perception of stability as function of mass/inertia. Motorcycles want to keep going straight, bikes not so much.
I can't help but imagine this thing malfunctioning and completely strangling some poor biker.
They have recently announced a newer version of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHIOD67PKCY

It is really big. Notice how the people shown wearing it in still shots, also wear bulky or winter clothing. I don't see how could you wear the helmet in the summer along with a t-shirt and shorts and not look ridiculous. A backpack variant, even if larger, would be better for social acceptance.
Not much in the way of face protection. In the linked video provided by another HNer I see the face gets some protection from the "visor" but not all falls are perfect faceplants on flat surfaces.

In the "culture" of racing/biking - a biker with a "bucket" helmet is a sure sign that the rider is more concerned with vanity than safety (is is just a noob)

My sweetie ordered one of these for me for Crimblemas. They didn't ship to the US so she had a friend get it in the UK. Then they shipped it to the US.

It never arrived.

We did some digging and apparently US customs seized the explosive device I was being shipped and destroyed it.

And that's how the US Gov't blew up my crimble present.

I'm not too surprised - automotive airbags contain explosives.
Buy some guns instead, they are legal aren't they?
There are safety issues with mailing explosives, in particular on planes. Firearms are just metal, so no issues there.
"sorry British Broadcasting Corporation worldwide, cannot be accessed from Britain because this part isn't supported by the license fee"

pretty arrogant of them to assume someone from Britain is paying a TV license.

"No helmet at all" implies it's safer not to wear a helmet. I think that puts this title in the misleading/linkbait category. Plus it's basically an ad for this company.
If anyone can suggest an accurate, neutral title, we'll change it.
"Company creates bicycle airbag to replace helmets"
Done. Thanks!
Dangerously misleading title.

It does not establish that no helmet is better, but only that helmets might be improved by technology into a form that is more like an airbag (there when you need it) and less like a traditional helmet.