The airbag is designed like a hood and made in an ultra-strong nylon fabric that won’t rip when scraped against the ground. Hövding protects nearly all of the head, while leaving the field of vision open.
The inflated airbag covers a much larger area than a traditional cycle helmet and is designed according to current accident statistics. The protection is greatest where it is needed most and the airbag provides extremely soft and gentle shock absorption. The pressure remains constant for several seconds, making it able to withstand multiple head impacts during the same accident. After that the airbag slowly starts to deflate.
The gas inflator that inflates the airbag is placed in a holder in the collar on the cyclist’s back. Hövding’s gas inflator is a so called cold gas inflator that uses helium.
Saw this the other day, I think it's an amazing new technology! Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a few European cities where cycling is very popular (and safe), they tend not to wear helmets. This would be pretty cool!
I came in here to post "If the helmet is invisible then how do you know you're wearing it".
Upon seeing the device, it looks pretty sketchy. What happens if your head get's into the way of it deploying? How long does it stay inflated? Regular air bags only are for a few seconds. So when you get thrown from the bike and bounce off the ground is there going to be protection the second time your head hits the ground? How does this thing know when to deploy?!? Is it a lanyard type thing (That jetski's have to shut off the engine when you fall off). It would be pretty pointless to have a G load sensor as you wouldn't cross the threshold until you smack your head on the ground.
E: Also you have a canister of high pressure helium right next to your jugular. Yeah that sounds safe.
What happens if your head get's into the way of it deploying?
I'd assume it can't, but no way know for sure. Presumably the fabric just goes up around your head and doesn't really get blocked
How long does it stay inflated? Regular air bags only are for a few seconds. So when you get thrown from the bike and bounce off the ground is there going to be protection the second time your head hits the ground?
"The pressure remains constant for several seconds, making it able to withstand multiple head impacts during the same accident. After that the airbag slowly starts to deflate."
How does this thing know when to deploy?!? Is it a lanyard type thing (That jetski's have to shut off the engine when you fall off). It would be pretty pointless to have a G load sensor as you wouldn't cross the threshold until you smack your head on the ground.
" Their studies included the comparison of accelerometer data from bicycle crashes against 'typical' cycling.[4] The Hövding contains accelerometers that detect these unusual movements and deploy the airbag if the movement patterns match the profile of a crash.[5] Each helmet also contains a "Black Box" that records the accelerometer data 10 seconds before a deployment.[6] This data can be used by the Hövding developers to improve the product. "
No idea how developed or correct any of this is, but I'd be suprised if they released this without strong confidence in their product due to all the potential liability issues.
I agree I'd just rather wear a standard helmet than wear this thing around my neck and potentially not have it deploy. I wouldn't particularly call it invisible either... it's just yeah...
How useful is a soft airbag going to be against the solid ground? I mean, when you're sitting on a car seat with a seat belt and stuff, sure.. but on a bike, in the open? When the airbag pops and your head hits the pavement, it's either going to get ripped to shreds or not going to provide any protection at all.
The only situation I can think of where I'd rather have a traditional shell helmet than this is if there was a sharp object colliding with my head, other than that I would prefer this. Also on really hot days I would 100% prefer this to a normal helmet! I could probably ride all year round then.
For longer training rides the traditional helmet would be better and more aerodynamic, but for casual riding this would be great
On November 14 2013 13:52 Spaylz wrote: How useful is a soft airbag going to be against the solid ground? I mean, when you're sitting on a car seat with a seat belt and stuff, sure.. but on a bike, in the open? When the airbag pops and your head hits the pavement, it's either going to get ripped to shreds or not going to provide any protection at all.
It's a pretty thick air bag, it will soften any blow big time and provide adequate protection.
On November 14 2013 13:52 Spaylz wrote: How useful is a soft airbag going to be against the solid ground? I mean, when you're sitting on a car seat with a seat belt and stuff, sure.. but on a bike, in the open? When the airbag pops and your head hits the pavement, it's either going to get ripped to shreds or not going to provide any protection at all.
I don't think any of that is really going to apply to falling from a bike at regular riding speeds. The forces just aren't there, and the design would have tough enough material to handle a scrape. If you're doing high speed riding then a normal helmet would be better.
On November 14 2013 13:52 Spaylz wrote: How useful is a soft airbag going to be against the solid ground? I mean, when you're sitting on a car seat with a seat belt and stuff, sure.. but on a bike, in the open? When the airbag pops and your head hits the pavement, it's either going to get ripped to shreds or not going to provide any protection at all.
Well if you read the info, it says that the material is made so that it doesn't rip against concrete. At least based on what they say.
On November 14 2013 13:50 Grobyc wrote: I agree I'd just rather wear a standard helmet than wear this thing around my neck and potentially not have it deploy. I wouldn't particularly call it invisible either... it's just yeah...
It looks like they've done a fair bit of work to make it reliable - I'd certainly trust it, but it would be terrible to have a minor accident, have your helmet blow up, and there's 400 euro down the toilet.
On November 14 2013 13:52 Spaylz wrote: How useful is a soft airbag going to be against the solid ground? I mean, when you're sitting on a car seat with a seat belt and stuff, sure.. but on a bike, in the open? When the airbag pops and your head hits the pavement, it's either going to get ripped to shreds or not going to provide any protection at all.
Again, it's designed not to break, in fact it seems pretty sturdy. It's no different to how a normal airbag protects you, and those protect you from far higher impulses than a bike crash. You can have a look at their video here to see it in action - it looks entirely reasonable.
For me, it comes down to cost. Looks like you have to replace the entire system if you have any sort of accident with it... And you're far more likely to have a clumsy fall than a hit with a car, and both will deploy the helmet. It would be nice to have a helmet that wasn't so obtrusive, and protected you better, but that price point just isn't competitive imho.
Hmm. Granted, I don't think I fell under the "typical cycling" category back when I was still riding a lot, but the point made about "crash profile matching" to activate and "remains constant for several seconds" makes me very leery. I have been in crashes that would probably not match their profile, and which lasted for more than several seconds. (Taking a tumble while going down a steep hill is not going to be over for awhile, depending on your starting speed and what impediments are there to stop you.)
It may (if it deploys) protect you from (some*) initial and subsequent impacts, but the wide variety of situations I've seen and been part of would be a poor fit for this device. (And it goes without saying, not for off-road use. That nylon could be great at taking a scrape, but probably will not stop something even mildly pointed from rendering it less effective if impacted with enough force.)
Of course, I've always taken my chances on a bike - no helmet or pads and doing incredibly stupid things. Less stupid things these days, and much less overall biking.
On November 14 2013 14:10 felisconcolori wrote: Hmm. Granted, I don't think I fell under the "typical cycling" category back when I was still riding a lot, but the point made about "crash profile matching" to activate and "remains constant for several seconds" makes me very leery. I have been in crashes that would probably not match their profile, and which lasted for more than several seconds. (Taking a tumble while going down a steep hill is not going to be over for awhile, depending on your starting speed and what impediments are there to stop you.)
It may (if it deploys) protect you from (some*) initial and subsequent impacts, but the wide variety of situations I've seen and been part of would be a poor fit for this device. (And it goes without saying, not for off-road use. That nylon could be great at taking a scrape, but probably will not stop something even mildly pointed from rendering it less effective if impacted with enough force.)
Of course, I've always taken my chances on a bike - no helmet or pads and doing incredibly stupid things. Less stupid things these days, and much less overall biking.
You're right in so many ways - it's clearly designed for the European market where cycling in traffic is really common. I don't think it's meant to replace an off road helmet, or any sort of extreme conditions helmet (a lot of people wear full face motorcycle helmets for those anyway). Clearly it's looking to replace the helmet of someone who uses their bicycle as a frequent daily commute, and I think it does this well. It looks well designed for those types of accidents, and it's far less obtrusive, which is certainly something many would value (wouldn't want to have bicycle hair when you get to work!) It seems to be aimed at people who don't wear helmets out of convenience, but they know they really should be because of the potential dangers. This seems like a good solution for those people. But it's so expensive, and clearly can't work in a lot of extreme cases the way it's currently designed, so normal helmets will continue to exist. It does serve an interesting niche market though!
Just put a helmet, cheaper, no risk of fail. You're the only one that thinks you look ridiculous with it. Can see how some people working in very classy places really care for their hair though... but that's about it.
I don't see people buying this as anything other than a,"Hey check out this cool new gizmo I picked up". I personally never wear a helmet and I've been cycling for the last ten years now. It's not a fashion or any sort of political statement. I just never have worn one. And I'll continue to never wear one.
I think people that don't wear a helmet now, won't really want to spend the dough on a fancy "invisible helmet" and the people who do wear a helmet are probably fine with the 20 dollar solution from Wal-Mart. So I can't see this really taken off in anything more than a niche market.
On November 14 2013 14:38 NovaTheFeared wrote: So what we have here is a one time use $500 helmet? Genius!
I can't tell if youre being dense as that helmet - or I'm trying to be funny - but if people REALLY care about their looks while riding their bicycle, then $500 isn't the worst thing in the world. I think the worst thing in the world is getting run over by a car and dying. Or if the person gets hit and their $500 helmet doesn't go off and their matching-clothes and accessories get all messed up gets really dirty and they survive to be angry about it. Either way, it's really stylish and kinda magical.
well it is a funny idea but i cant see this will get mainstream. i mean you have to pay a ton and then you can only use it like once. ( i know that you have to replace your normal helmet after it drops but i dont know anyone who would do that ) i will stick with biking without helmet it reminds me of that james bond jacket that has a similar mechanism
That "scarf" is like the exact opposite of invisible.
And considering how car airbags can hurt like a bitch, and even break your hands/nose on deployment, I'm not sure if I'd trust one wrapped around neck...
On November 14 2013 15:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: That "scarf" is like the exact opposite of invisible.
And considering how car airbags can hurt like a bitch, and even break your hands/nose on deployment, I'm not sure if I'd trust one wrapped around neck...
since this airbag is not punching against your face i dont think it will hurt that much. maybe you cut your ear or sth like that.
On November 14 2013 16:08 Zandar wrote: bicycles helmets are such bullshit. Nobody wears them in the Netherlands, and we have probably most bicycles per person:
If most people are biking, then are their less cars? Pathways more designed for bikes? Of course the bike deaths would be lower then. In places like NY City or San Francisco, pretty necessary imho.
On November 14 2013 16:08 Zandar wrote: bicycles helmets are such bullshit. Nobody wears them in the Netherlands, and we have probably most bicycles per person:
If most people are biking, then are their less cars? Pathways more designed for bikes? Of course the bike deaths would be lower then. In places like NY City or San Francisco, pretty necessary imho.
Yeah there's bicycle-only roads everywhere.When I see someone on a bicycle abroad I'm nervous for their sake lol. Cars passing them at top speed and all.
On November 14 2013 16:08 Zandar wrote: bicycles helmets are such bullshit. Nobody wears them in the Netherlands, and we have probably most bicycles per person:
Culture, infrastructure, societal values, personal fitness, etc all contribute to whether or not bicycling with out a helmet is safe. Same reason why Germany has high ways with out speed limits yet are relatively safe compared to other countries which have high ways with speed limits. I don't know why you draw this blanket comparison when helmets are designed to keep a person safe from a specific format of physical trauma; and if you do have anecdotal evidence which supports certain helmet designs not actually being safe, then that's exactly what that is, a failure of design, not principle. I'm sure safe drivers wouldn't actually "need" seat belts either if they never get into an accident due to personal awareness and responsible driving.
To be fair, this looks safer compared to regular helmets. Normal helmets only protect the skull but this new inflatable helmet provides neck support as well.
On November 14 2013 16:08 Zandar wrote: bicycles helmets are such bullshit. Nobody wears them in the Netherlands, and we have probably most bicycles per person:
Culture, infrastructure, societal values, personal fitness, etc all contribute to whether or not bicycling with out a helmet is safe. Same reason why Germany has high ways with out speed limits yet are relatively safe compared to other countries which have high ways with speed limits. I don't know why you draw this blanket comparison when helmets are designed to keep a person safe from a specific format of physical trauma; and if you do have anecdotal evidence which supports certain helmet designs not actually being safe, then that's exactly what that is, a failure of design, not principle. I'm sure safe drivers wouldn't actually "need" seat belts either if they never get into an accident due to personal awareness and responsible driving.
I agree that all those things contribute to make biking safer, so there's no need for helmets.
I just don't understand why the USA is so focussed on bicycles helmets. I'm sure a lot more pedestrians die in traffic each year. Why not give them helmets too? Or people in cars? And people in the bathroom, where most accidents happen? Why not have everyone wearing helmets all the time?
I guess my question is, why do you draw the line at bicycles?
On November 14 2013 16:08 Zandar wrote: bicycles helmets are such bullshit. Nobody wears them in the Netherlands, and we have probably most bicycles per person:
If most people are biking, then are their less cars? Pathways more designed for bikes? Of course the bike deaths would be lower then. In places like NY City or San Francisco, pretty necessary imho.
People who cycle regularly just have better traffic sense and agility than people who don't. It's not really about the number of cars either. It's about how used motorists are to dealing with cyclists. I wouldn't for the life of me ever wear a bicycle helmet for the simple fact that I hop on my bike up to three of four times a day. Having to constantly put a helmet on or off and keep it with me is kind of bothersome. Not even old people wear them in Belgium.
The argument "they just look silly" is considered valid over here.
On November 14 2013 13:52 Spaylz wrote: How useful is a soft airbag going to be against the solid ground? I mean, when you're sitting on a car seat with a seat belt and stuff, sure.. but on a bike, in the open? When the airbag pops and your head hits the pavement, it's either going to get ripped to shreds or not going to provide any protection at all.
Good enough that NASA use them for "lithobraking" (aka. slowing down by crashing on the ground) for their previous Mars Rover. Pretty much the rover is cover with airbag and bounce on the ground falling from orbit around Mars. So assuming that the material making the airbag is as strong or at least 80-90% as strong as the one NASA used, then it not going to ripped apart that easily in a bike accident.
A lot of people in this thread are discussing whether or not the helmet actually works... and how safe it truly is. That's a terrible way of looking at it, because they wouldn't release it if it didn't work. As pointed out above, the science behind it is solid, and we've been using airbags to protect ourselves in FAR more dangerous applications for years. When it comes down to it, if anyone ever dies with this helmet on, it will probably spell a pretty quick death for the company if a regular helmet would have saved them, and this didn't. And the helmet data will quickly show if that's the case.
Whilst you would consider whether or not it was safe when you were buying it, once you had been convinced of the safety you'd be comparing it to normal helmets on price, and then comparing functionality. What is really interesting with this product is it's clearly designed for reasons OTHER than trying to provide a superior helmet. It's pretty much got every other purpose in mind. The idea is to create a helmet that suits the fashion of these European countries. As a fashion item that potentially saves your life, it's truly interesting. And there are so many people who would pay that money for something they think is fashionable, and it's far easier to justify the cost when it provides the functionality of the helmet (to potentially save your life) as well. Will this ever be more popular than a traditional helmet? Never. It's too expensive. Will it see significant distribution throughout the world? Maybe - if bikes become more popular globally like they are in Europe, why not pay more for a helmet that's more convenient and doesn't crush your hair? (Come on, some people pay hundreds of dollars to have their hair styled, you wouldn't wear a helmet on that) That's the market their going for, and if their margins are good, the market is probably big enough for them to be a very successful company. If they market well, and capture a large market segment ahead of competitors, they could become very successful. And that's what I find most interesting about this helmet, and I'd love to here if they think that market exists in their country.
On November 14 2013 16:08 Zandar wrote: bicycles helmets are such bullshit. Nobody wears them in the Netherlands, and we have probably most bicycles per person:
I've lived in London, Australia and the Netherlands and Cycled in all of them, and you're right by far that the Netherlands is the safest of them to cycle in, but it has nothing to do with not wearing helmets. What it does relate to are how conscious Dutch Drivers are of bike riders, and they drive so sensibly compared to other countries. Bikes really are treated as being equal to cars, rather than being an annoyance.
I always wear a helmet in England, not because I have to, but because the drivers are so bad, and pay so little attention to -bikes. In the Netherlands, I don't even think of putting one on. In Australia, you have to wear one, and that saved my head once, where a car passed me so close and going so fast, I got thrown from my bike and hit the ground hard enough the split my helmet in two.
On November 14 2013 16:08 Zandar wrote: bicycles helmets are such bullshit. Nobody wears them in the Netherlands, and we have probably most bicycles per person:
I've lived in London, Australia and the Netherlands and Cycled in all of them, and you're right by far that the Netherlands is the safest of them to cycle in, but it has nothing to do with not wearing helmets. What it does relate to are how conscious Dutch Drivers are of bike riders, and they drive so sensibly compared to other countries. Bikes really are treated as being equal to cars, rather than being an annoyance.
I always wear a helmet in England, not because I have to, but because the drivers are so bad, and pay so little attention to -bikes. In the Netherlands, I don't even think of putting one on. In Australia, you have to wear one, and that saved my head once, where a car passed me so close and going so fast, I got thrown from my bike and hit the ground hard enough the split my helmet in two.
What i meant was that there are better ways to protect bikers than helmets.
The issue with the airbag helmet is it should wrap all the way around your head, like a ball. Theres no reason it shouldn't also protect your face when it deploys. If you fall face-first into a cactus this helmet won't do anything to protect it.
On November 14 2013 16:08 Zandar wrote: bicycles helmets are such bullshit. Nobody wears them in the Netherlands, and we have probably most bicycles per person:
Bike helmets have in all studies proven to decrease the amount of serious head trauma. That the dutch, who cycle a lot, don't wear helmets doesn't really tell us anything about the usefulness of a helmet, rather it tells us that the dutch are morons.
On November 15 2013 00:25 Gnaix wrote: why are we even talking about whether helmets are safe or not in the first place? That's not the purpose of this thread imo.
Because the viability of any helmet depends first of all on whether or not it serves the purpose of protecting against injury.
It doesn't even matter if the helmet rips on concrete or any other surface. A normal helmet is designed to shatter, as the main purpose of a helmet is to reduce the initial force and pressure on the head as it hits a surface, and the only way to achieve the reduction in force for the same impulse (impulse doesn't change with a helmet) is to increase the duration of the force which requires a cushioning material (hint: like an airbag). Traditional helmets shattering increase that duration a bit, but airbags do it much better. For an extreme crash (50km/h or faster into a tree for example, I've done it before at almost that speed ), it's quite possible that the airbag style is much safer than a typical foam helmet.
I wouldn't use it though, unless it was multiuse and about the same cost, which isn't going to happen.
On November 15 2013 00:25 Gnaix wrote: why are we even talking about whether helmets are safe or not in the first place? That's not the purpose of this thread imo.
Because the viability of any helmet depends first of all on whether or not it serves the purpose of protecting against injury.
which if anyone who actually read the article can reasonably assume that it does it's job as well if not better than most bike helmets. The original purpose of this thread is a comparison of traditional bike helmets to the new one.
On November 15 2013 00:25 Gnaix wrote: why are we even talking about whether helmets are safe or not in the first place? That's not the purpose of this thread imo.
Because the viability of any helmet depends first of all on whether or not it serves the purpose of protecting against injury.
which if anyone who actually read the article can reasonably assume that it does it's job as well if not better than most bike helmets. The original purpose of this thread is a comparison of traditional bike helmets to the new one.
And if the golden standard hasn't been established (does the traditional bike helmet actually improve safety?), how are you going to tell if the new one will make a difference?
EDIT: I do not disagree with you as such - I think it is folly to contest the injury prevention of the traditional bike helmet, and on the basis of the OP, also of this new design. However others were apparently doubting the usefulness of the traditional bike helmet which made it a reasonable discussion to take.
On November 15 2013 00:25 Gnaix wrote: why are we even talking about whether helmets are safe or not in the first place? That's not the purpose of this thread imo.
Because the viability of any helmet depends first of all on whether or not it serves the purpose of protecting against injury.
which if anyone who actually read the article can reasonably assume that it does it's job as well if not better than most bike helmets. The original purpose of this thread is a comparison of traditional bike helmets to the new one.
And if the golden standard hasn't been established (does the traditional bike helmet actually improve safety?), how are you going to tell if the new one will make a difference?
ok, let me make an analogy of what happened with this thread then. Suppose I make a thread about the potential creation of a new method of vaccination that inoculates the patients without the side effects of many vaccines of today, but the costs are higher than traditional vaccination. The OP then asks whether the new form of vaccination would be the future. Then a later post makes a claim that vaccines are a scam and that they cause autism. Clearly that is a derailing of the original purpose of the thread, since although not initially stated, it is heavily implied in the OP that vaccines do work. Likewise, the OP of this thread is heavily implied that helmets do work (or else the thread should be changed to "Should we wear bike helmets or not?").
On November 14 2013 15:26 gg_hertzz wrote: i don't even know why people wear helmets. statistically 3/4 of all accidents happen to people who wear helmets.
On November 15 2013 00:25 Gnaix wrote: why are we even talking about whether helmets are safe or not in the first place? That's not the purpose of this thread imo.
Because the viability of any helmet depends first of all on whether or not it serves the purpose of protecting against injury.
which if anyone who actually read the article can reasonably assume that it does it's job as well if not better than most bike helmets. The original purpose of this thread is a comparison of traditional bike helmets to the new one.
And if the golden standard hasn't been established (does the traditional bike helmet actually improve safety?), how are you going to tell if the new one will make a difference?
ok, let me make an analogy of what happened with this thread then. Suppose I make a thread about the potential creation of a new method of vaccination that inoculates the patients without the side effects of many vaccines of today, but the costs are higher than traditional vaccination. The OP then asks whether the new form of vaccination would be the future. Then a later post makes a claim that vaccines are a scam and that they cause autism. Clearly that is a derailing of the original purpose of the thread, since although not initially stated, it is heavily implied in the OP that vaccines do work. Likewise, the OP of this thread is heavily implied that helmets do work (or else the thread should be changed to "Should we wear bike helmets or not?").
I disagree with your analogy as well as the point you are trying to make. Luckily neither of us are moderators, so how about we drop it? This discussion has filled more than the discussion you objected to and it is even less relevant.
On November 14 2013 15:26 gg_hertzz wrote: i don't even know why people wear helmets. statistically 3/4 of all accidents happen to people who wear helmets.
erm....... what? Source please?
Pretty sure it's a joke, since it assumes that most people wears helmets when biking, so that most biking accidents would therefore happen to those that also wear helmets.
On November 14 2013 15:26 gg_hertzz wrote: i don't even know why people wear helmets. statistically 3/4 of all accidents happen to people who wear helmets.
erm....... what? Source please?
what you need a source for? If 3/4 of ppl cycling wear a helmet, it is almost logical, that 3/4 of the bike accidents happen to ppl wearing helmets. Of course it could be, that ppl wearing helmets are driving in a safer manner (or in more dangerous territory) thus those stats do not actually are linked that closely. Still this statistic wouldn't say anything about the positive effect of the usage of bike helmets. Except you try to make a point, that wearing a helmet increases your chance to get into an accident. But that would hardly be the case with regular helmets. (while driving with an mp3 player on and a hoodie over your head is due to obstruction and obstructed field of vision) And the positive effect of wearing a helmet in reducing head injuries is indeed fact.
So for this helmet it comes down how it actually compares in an accident with a regular helmet. I would guess it does better, if the product is given a few years in production. Like with the early airbags, the first ones also failed (inflating when nothing happened and not inflating properly in accidents) but nowadays i wouldn't want to be one of the first to try it.
And about he one-use thing. In general also normal helmets are one-use helmets. You have a serious crash, and you better get a new helmet, no matter if the old one broke or not. Otherwise wearing a plastic bag over your head will be as useful afterwards. Thing is, that small accidents at low velocity (like the tested ones...) require the helmet to inflate, because you may fall in an odd way. But most of these crashes are easily shaken of even without a helmet, and even if wearing one, ppl would not (need to) rebuy their regular helmet, while this helmet has to be reset. Btw, i feel it being odd to only test the helmets at 16-20 kmh... Yes, it may be the the normal traffic speed of bikes... But from personal experience i know that i drastically increase my risk of accidents when being in a hurry and going 30 to 50 kmh (don't need much of a downslope for that). And that would be situation when it most matters, at least to me.
On November 14 2013 15:26 gg_hertzz wrote: i don't even know why people wear helmets. statistically 3/4 of all accidents happen to people who wear helmets.
erm....... what? Source please?
what you need a source for? If 3/4 of ppl cycling wear a helmet, it is almost logical, that 3/4 of the bike accidents happen to ppl wearing helmets. Of course it could be, that ppl wearing helmets are driving in a safer manner (or in more dangerous territory) thus those stats do not actually are linked that closely. Still this statistic wouldn't say anything about the positive effect of the usage of bike helmets. Except you try to make a point, that wearing a helmet increases your chance to get into an accident. But that would hardly be the case with regular helmets. (while driving with an mp3 player on and a hoodie over your head is due to obstruction and obstructed field of vision) And the positive effect of wearing a helmet in reducing head injuries is indeed fact.
So are you saying that the statistics are crap by making some assumptions and the about the characteristics of the studied sample and the statistics itself? You do have a point in some cases but I'd rather have a look before jumping to conclusions and calling it crap.
BTW that's exactly what gg-hertzz was trying to say, that it's useless to wear a helmet because it increases your chance to get into an accident.
Don't see this changing the Dutch culture of not wearing head protection. Would be quite an interesting alternative if for some reason it is ever made mandatory. Though I would geuss such a law would face very heavy opposition here.
On November 15 2013 01:27 Crushinator wrote: Don't see this changing the Dutch culture of not wearing head protection. Would be quite an interesting alternative if for some reason it is ever made mandatory. Though I would geuss such a law would face very heavy opposition here.
People hate wearing goofy helmets so much, many would literally switch to driving cars if they were stripped from the liberty to not wear the helmet. Also, the price of this thing, which seems to be $500, is restrictive enough that people would just risk their life instead .
I know I wouldn't pay $500 and I'm not broke. I just don't want to spend $500 on it, especially if there's a chance it'll pop for no reason.
On November 15 2013 01:27 Crushinator wrote: Don't see this changing the Dutch culture of not wearing head protection. Would be quite an interesting alternative if for some reason it is ever made mandatory. Though I would geuss such a law would face very heavy opposition here.
People hate wearing goofy helmets so much, many would literally switch to driving cars if they were stripped from the liberty to not wear the helmet. Also, the price of this thing, which seems to be $500, is restrictive enough that people would just risk their life instead .
I know I wouldn't pay $500 and I'm not broke. I just don't want to spend $500 on it, especially if there's a chance it'll pop for no reason.
In the Netherlands, using a bike is so convenient, and owning a car expensive enough, that almost nobody would switch to driving cars. Without a change in law, wearing a helmet for non-sports cycling is not even a consideration though, you would look very out of place, and pretty much everyone would comment. I suppose the scarf thing could reduce that issue. But carrying a helmet around is also quite inconvenient, same goes for the scarf thing.
The current price of $500 would be prohibitive for pretty much everyone though. Having a small crash and losing $500 would be pretty devastating. Would rather take my chances.
Not sure how this would work if you simply run over something/it is icy and you fall without a car involved at all. I think the normal helm will be better in most cases.
On November 15 2013 02:00 Araneae wrote: Not sure how this would work if you simply run over something/it is icy and you fall without a car involved at all. I think the normal helm will be better in most cases.
Did you watch the video? Half the tests dont involve cars
On November 15 2013 01:27 Crushinator wrote: Don't see this changing the Dutch culture of not wearing head protection. Would be quite an interesting alternative if for some reason it is ever made mandatory. Though I would geuss such a law would face very heavy opposition here.
If I recall correctly, there was a Belgian lobby group who tried to make bicycle helmets mandatory, but their propositions were met with heavy resistance. People don't want to go through the hassle of wearing ridiculous-looking and uncomfortable helmets every time they go out with their bicycles (which is multiple times a day for most people).
Besides, mosts cyclists don't go faster than 15-20 km/h. It's not like people with motor bikes who go around 30-50 km/h or faster with vehicles that are a lot less manoeuverable.
On November 15 2013 00:20 Ghostcom wrote: That the dutch, who cycle a lot, don't wear helmets doesn't really tell us anything about the usefulness of a helmet, rather it tells us that the dutch are morons.
On November 14 2013 16:08 Zandar wrote: bicycles helmets are such bullshit. Nobody wears them in the Netherlands, and we have probably most bicycles per person:
Culture, infrastructure, societal values, personal fitness, etc all contribute to whether or not bicycling with out a helmet is safe. Same reason why Germany has high ways with out speed limits yet are relatively safe compared to other countries which have high ways with speed limits. I don't know why you draw this blanket comparison when helmets are designed to keep a person safe from a specific format of physical trauma; and if you do have anecdotal evidence which supports certain helmet designs not actually being safe, then that's exactly what that is, a failure of design, not principle. I'm sure safe drivers wouldn't actually "need" seat belts either if they never get into an accident due to personal awareness and responsible driving.
I agree that all those things contribute to make biking safer, so there's no need for helmets.
I just don't understand why the USA is so focussed on bicycles helmets. I'm sure a lot more pedestrians die in traffic each year. Why not give them helmets too? Or people in cars? And people in the bathroom, where most accidents happen? Why not have everyone wearing helmets all the time?
I guess my question is, why do you draw the line at bicycles?
The Netherlands is pretty flat. I live in a hilly area, where coming off of a bicycle might leave you sliding down a hill on your head for a long time. Helmets are much more useful in that case.
On November 15 2013 02:00 Araneae wrote: Not sure how this would work if you simply run over something/it is icy and you fall without a car involved at all. I think the normal helm will be better in most cases.
Did you watch the video? Half the tests dont involve cars
I think the point is that apart from the situation with the car, you actually wouldn't want your single use 500$ item to inflate. In the low speed falls simulated in the tests, an actual human would protect their head by falling on their arms. Not only is a helmet much cheaper, but its single use is not spent in such situations.
On November 14 2013 13:38 iTzSnypah wrote: I came in here to post "If the helmet is invisible then how do you know you're wearing it".
Upon seeing the device, it looks pretty sketchy. What happens if your head get's into the way of it deploying? How long does it stay inflated? Regular air bags only are for a few seconds. So when you get thrown from the bike and bounce off the ground is there going to be protection the second time your head hits the ground? How does this thing know when to deploy?!? Is it a lanyard type thing (That jetski's have to shut off the engine when you fall off). It would be pretty pointless to have a G load sensor as you wouldn't cross the threshold until you smack your head on the ground.
E: Also you have a canister of high pressure helium right next to your jugular. Yeah that sounds safe.
My prediction. Useless.
Also if I have to replace the canister of high pressure helium whenever I fall from my bike, then I'd rather not use it.
Helmets is for pussies who don't know the rules of the road yarrr
Well actually Netherlands is just easy to cycle, its flat, there are cycling roads(something unheard of in other countries) and everyone cycles from a very young age.
There is no good market for helmets in the Netherlands despite it being one of the countries where cycling is most prevalent.
For everyone talking about places like Netherlands where there is a biking culture so they have a lot of infrastructure for it, clearly it's going to be safer cycling in a place like that. But these could definitely be very useful for example in NYC which just recently started a huge bike renting program where you just get on a bike riding it to and from set locations as convenient transportation. In NYC there are cars and pedestrians everywhere with very little in the way of bike lanes, but people aren't going to wear normal helmets because A. if they're using this to go to work they don't want to have helmet hair at the beginning of their office day and B. no one wants to be carrying around a hard-shell bicycle helmet when they're not riding. I think this is exactly the type of thing that office workers who use this program in NYC would want.
On November 14 2013 15:26 gg_hertzz wrote: i don't even know why people wear helmets. statistically 3/4 of all accidents happen to people who wear helmets.
erm....... what? Source please?
what you need a source for? If 3/4 of ppl cycling wear a helmet, it is almost logical, that 3/4 of the bike accidents happen to ppl wearing helmets. Of course it could be, that ppl wearing helmets are driving in a safer manner (or in more dangerous territory) thus those stats do not actually are linked that closely. Still this statistic wouldn't say anything about the positive effect of the usage of bike helmets. Except you try to make a point, that wearing a helmet increases your chance to get into an accident. But that would hardly be the case with regular helmets. (while driving with an mp3 player on and a hoodie over your head is due to obstruction and obstructed field of vision) And the positive effect of wearing a helmet in reducing head injuries is indeed fact.
So are you saying that the statistics are crap by making some assumptions and the about the characteristics of the studied sample and the statistics itself? You do have a point in some cases but I'd rather have a look before jumping to conclusions and calling it crap.
BTW that's exactly what gg-hertzz was trying to say, that it's useless to wear a helmet because it increases your chance to get into an accident.
I'm pretty sure what gg-hertz was saying was a joke, if it is true that would almost certainly just be because most people on bikes are wearing helmets so most accidents are with helmets. It's like how something like 80% of car accidents are within like 25 miles of one's home, that's because most driving occurs near the home, not because driving near your home is inherently more dangerous. But even if helmets do increase the chance of accidents that increase (which is likely fairly small) would be nothing compared to the massive safety benefits conferred by wearing them. Helmets save lives, I'm not saying you're going to get hurt if you don't wear them but they are definitely the safer option.
Does anybody know if it works at -20C or colder? That is the temperature I have the most problems in. The cold effects me enough to make me a worse biker and there is snow and ice to compound the problem.
On November 14 2013 15:26 gg_hertzz wrote: i don't even know why people wear helmets. statistically 3/4 of all accidents happen to people who wear helmets.
erm....... what? Source please?
what you need a source for? If 3/4 of ppl cycling wear a helmet, it is almost logical, that 3/4 of the bike accidents happen to ppl wearing helmets. Of course it could be, that ppl wearing helmets are driving in a safer manner (or in more dangerous territory) thus those stats do not actually are linked that closely. Still this statistic wouldn't say anything about the positive effect of the usage of bike helmets. Except you try to make a point, that wearing a helmet increases your chance to get into an accident. But that would hardly be the case with regular helmets. (while driving with an mp3 player on and a hoodie over your head is due to obstruction and obstructed field of vision) And the positive effect of wearing a helmet in reducing head injuries is indeed fact. .
I don't have a quote for this, but I remember an article once came to the conclusion that it could actually put you in more danger to wear a helmet, because cars passing by you in general would show less caution towards you compared to someone not wearing a helmet (I seem to recall cars going 30cm closer to cyclists wearing helmet compared to no helmet). If that is indeed true this invisible helmet should be the safest option to choose, since cars will show caution as if your head is an egg waiting to be broken and your helmet will deploy if an accident occur.
Personally I would never pay 400 euro for a darned helmet. I however don't mind wearing a visible helmet, since it is alot cheaper :-).
On November 15 2013 00:20 Ghostcom wrote: That the dutch, who cycle a lot, don't wear helmets doesn't really tell us anything about the usefulness of a helmet, rather it tells us that the dutch are morons.
Morons with the least bicycle deaths
Which is totally attributable to not wearing helmet...
A new “invisible” bike helmet that uses technology similar to a vehicle airbag has been developed in Sweden. The Hövding device, worn around the neck, is designed to shoot a protective, inflatable nylon hood around the user's head within one-tenth of a second of impact.
On November 15 2013 00:20 Ghostcom wrote: That the dutch, who cycle a lot, don't wear helmets doesn't really tell us anything about the usefulness of a helmet, rather it tells us that the dutch are morons.
Morons with the least bicycle deaths
Which is totally attributable to not wearing helmet...
...
..
.
Oh wait.
The question is how many severe injuries would really be avoided by wearing a helmet?
If the probability of suffering a head injury during cycling is very low for the average cyclist in the Netherlands, helmets might just not be worth the hassle for the average cyclist. It's that simple.
Since this topic came up. They got banned in Sweden due to not always working. The company then declared bankruptcy. Worth noting if somebody else starts selling a similar product, this one failed and the next one should require more testing due to that.
EPT![[image loading]](http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/autos/2013-11-12/6ffa5ecc-6f79-4d9a-b13a-054881fff75c_ht_invisible_bike_helmet_dm_120821_wg.jpg)
), it's quite possible that the airbag style is much safer than a typical foam helmet.
.
