9 ms·

Want: The airbag scarf that replaces a bulky bicycle helmet, inflates in 100ms

98 points by sethbannon 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago
With safety equipment I tend to prefer simpler designs. A lump of polystyrene in a shell is pretty good, and doesn't have loose wires or flat batteries to worry about. It's a lot cheaper too. But the problem with traditional helmets is that they tend to be built to pass a safety standard. Some people want the helmet that is much better than that standard. So it's nice to see someone experimenting with new techniques.
- brianwawok 13y ago
  Helmets do not do as much as you think. They are not really very good for the types of accidents that bicycles have. For example, see: http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html
  - gambiting 13y ago
    I don't know, I have personally fallen off a bike travelling at around 25km/h and hit the side of my head on the pavement. If I wasn't wearing my helmet(and that was a regular, $40 helmet) I don't know if I would be still here - the helmet cracked,but my head was still completely intact,so I guess they have to work to some extent.
    - disputin 13y ago
      Agreed. Some bike crashes have no impact to set off an airbag - other than the impact of the head.
    - cocoflunchy 13y ago
      Bike helmets are actually designed to crack under an impact; they protect you by absorbing a big part of the energy of the impact.
    - awjr 13y ago
      It's slightly more complex than that. If the helmet cracked then the force of the collision was transferred to your skull. Admittedly cracking the helmet would have taken some force out of the collision, but the moment it cracked it became useless.
      - vacri 13y ago
        This is why you throw away a 'used' helmet. It is the process of cracking - or even merely deforming - that is the protective act. That it's useless after cracking doesn't mean it hasn't done it's job. It's like saying the crumple zone of a car is useless because it crumpled in the accident.
      - dasil003 13y ago
        > If the helmet cracked then the force of the collision was transferred to your skull. This does not make any sense at all. Your skull absorbs some force in all cases. The exact mechanics of what happens are definitely complex, but compressed and cracked polystyrene is still better than hitting your head directly on concrete, just as hitting your head on asphalt is. That is of course leaving aside the question of how much force was absorbed before it cracked and what was left afterwards, but in all cases it's not a binary assertion.
    - apendleton 13y ago
      Argh, this kind of anecdotal evidence makes me crazy. Helmets aren't skulls. You have no idea whether the forces that caused the helmet to crack would have caused similar injury to your head had you not been wearing the helmet, nor do you have any idea whether the forces the helmet managed to absorb before failing are a significant fraction of the forces your head experienced during the accident. Nothing about your experience is sufficient grounds for the conclusion you draw at the end of your comment (that "they have to work to some extent"), nor can any single accident experience provide such grounds.
      - kennywinker 13y ago
        I personally know people who object to helmets, and refuse to wear them even though we have a helmet law in my city. I'm not entirely in agreement, but there is logic to this line of reasoning: 1. Helmets, and helmet laws give the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity, and discourage people to cycle. 2. the biggest thing you can do to increase the safety of cycling, is create cycling infrastructure and put more cyclists on the road (I believe this is backed up by hard data, but I have no citations). 3. It follows from 1 & 2 that helmet laws make cycling less safe for all of us by decreasing the number of cyclists on the road. There is more to their argument than that, but that's the one I personally find most convincing. I still wear a helmet though, so clearly I'm not entirely convinced.
        joosters 13y ago
        Your first point is a strange one. Are you saying that cycling is not dangerous enough to warrant wearing a helmet? If so, then the other points are moot, and you could have simplified your argument to just "there's no need to wear a helmet". If on the other hand, you believe that cycling is dangerous enough to wear a helmet, then you're effectively saying that people shouldn't wear them in order to 'lure' other potential cyclists into cycling. That's just ludicrous!
        001sky 13y ago
        Its sort of a mixed bag: So if they can help reduce injury, shouldn’t they be mandatory, just like motorbike helmets? Australia tried it in the early 90s and the result was a 15 to 20 per cent drop in the number of hospital admissions for head injuries. That would have been great, but it also reduced the number of cyclists by around 35 per cent. ---- A recent study in the British Medical Journal showed that cycling has a positive health impact around 77 times larger than the potential for serious injury; essentially, there’s a small chance that you’ll come a cropper, but a very large chance that you’ll reduce your likelihood of suffering mental illness, heart disease and obesity. That means the laws were hugely counterproductive [Personally, I wear a helmet, though.]
    - singingfish 13y ago
      I have two pieces of relevant experience. Firstly I hit my head on the side when I was about 16 on a bike with no helmet, in a slow speed accident. I had unpleasent concussion, about 10 minutes of retrograde amnesia and 5 minutes or so of post traumatic amnesia. Some weird vomiting symptom about 3 days into recovery which would have been cause for serious concern if it repeated itself. I think I was off school for a whole week. I passed through high school with my usual marks (top end of the middle), and onto an undistinguished but advanced university education. Another friend was involved in a human versus baseball bat assault (skull fracture I think) around the same time and had big problems for a few years. I also worked in brain injury rehab for 4 years or so in my mid 20s. During that time I would have interacted with hundreds of patients with severe traumatic brain injuries. During that time I saw one paitent with a bike related TBI. Bike at full speed versus cow. I don't remember if he was wearing a helmet but his potential as a person was dramatically reduced, although nothing easy to observe casually. I used to be for compulsory bike helmet laws. These days I think the indirect risks of a reduced number of cyclists on the road (as evidenced by the australian experience) outweigh the direct risks of a small number of TBIs. I wear a helmet when I have longer distances to travel, or need to make use of dangerous main roads (I tend to cycle on wide underutilised sidewalks where possible). For short distances I don't wear a helmet. It's a risk, but a small one.
    - nether 13y ago
      When I fell sans helmet, I rolled on the ground but my head never contacted the ground because my shoulder was in the way. I still wear a helmet for long distance or traffic rides.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Not quite what that article is saying. A better characterisation would be "helmets are better than nothing, but don't do much for the most frequent kind of head injury in bike accidents". Helmets do do good things for some of the types of accidents that bicycles have. It's an important distinction to make, because some people will use it as an excuse to peddle the idea that helmets are worse than not wearing one. It's a great article, well-written and researched, but it should be noted that the author concludes by saying he still has his daughter wearing an old-style helmet while he waits for a next-gen one to become available.
  - peapicker 13y ago
    Thanks you for posting this link. After having a family member go thru a concussion this year, I see how difficult they are to deal with. I hadn't even thought about this in terms of bicycle helmets. I'm going to replace ours now that I know more about it. Thanks again!
  - bguthrie 13y ago
    That article does not appear to be making the argument that helmets are worthless, only that they don't protect against concussions. The $40 helmet is one of the great success stories of the past half-century. Like seat belts, air bags, and smoke detectors, bike helmets save countless lives every year. They do a stellar job of preventing catastrophic skull fractures, plus dings and scrapes from low-hanging tree branches and other common nuisances. Likewise, US safety standards haven't been updated to reflect more modern medical research on their seriousness.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    They do naughty things with their statistics: >"Here's the trouble. Stat #3: As more people buckled on helmets, brain injuries also increased. Between 1997 and 2011 the number of bike-related concussions suffered annually by American riders increased by 67 percent, from 9,327 to 15,546, according to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, a yearly sampling of hospital emergency rooms conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)." >"Of course, concussions are more readily diagnosed now than they were 15 years ago. That likely accounts for some of the increase. It's also possible that some of the 149 fewer riders killed every year survived to get lumped into the brain-injury category. But that still leaves thousands unaccounted for. We're left with this stark statistical fact: The concussion rate among bicycle riders has grown faster than the sport." // So, yes 9327 -> 15546 is a 67% increase and as they rightly say the increased survival rate contributes as does the improved diagnosis. >"that still leaves thousands unaccounted for" // Except they already said that daily commuting had increased over years 1995 to 2009 by 60%. Which seems rather like it would account for a whole heap of those thousands of extra injuries; that there are a lot more cars might account for a lot more injuries occurring too. It's an interesting piece and the MIPS helmets probably are better but overall it just looks like it's there to sell the most expensive bike helmets as being the only possible option, especially the emotional CTA in the final para. [OT the site's policy page appears to have been MIA since some time in 2012, http://web.archive.org/web/20120122171726/http://www.bicycling.com/gear/policy/1,7980,,00.html http://web.archive.org/web/20120122171726/http://www.bicycli...]
  - leurl7 13y ago
    An other way to present things is that helmets have some effectiveness: source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Meta-analyses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Meta-analyses So at least use a one instead of none. Even if it has some merits on some points, http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html is too much misleading and not that really seriously researched, cf. http://www.bhsi.org/bicyclingmag1305.htm http://www.bhsi.org/bicyclingmag1305.htm A current certified helmet is already very useful, even a simple one.
  - michaelmior 13y ago
    A study I just happened to come across today http://www.universityaffairs.ca/bike-helmets-prevent-injuries.aspx http://www.universityaffairs.ca/bike-helmets-prevent-injurie...
  - DanBC 13y ago
    That link just takes a lot of words to say a few things: 1) Helmets are built to pass a safety standard (which I've already said) 2) Better helmets need to be built (I said that too) Your summary mischaracterises the article, which clearly says (more than once) that current helmets are good at saving lives.
  - robomartin 13y ago
    Wow. What an interesting article. Every time I think about quitting my daily HN addiction I come across something like this. Thanks for the link. Very interesting.
- robbiep 13y ago
  This helmet - http://www.kraniums.com/ http://www.kraniums.com/ - mixes it up a bit from traditional materials - I would guess it would reduce the sort of injuries that cause concussion as well but I can't find any information on that
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    The kraniums site have a claim of reducing impact related accelerations from 200g to 70g. It's also made from cardboard.
- ilaksh 13y ago
  I really doubt that is the point. To me the obvious thing that no one has mentioned is fashion. Actually fashion can be such a severe problem with helmets that many people would rather risk their lives than wear one. In fact, in some countries (like Thailand), that is normal. So when it comes to safety practicalities, the reality that has been demonstrated is that the unattractive appearance of helmets can often mean they aren't used at all. If a device like this were more accepted then that could save many lives.
  - carlsayagain 13y ago
    yeah i'm sure thai's don't wear helmets because of fashion.
  - blacksmith_tb 13y ago
    My assumption has been that worrying about the unfashionable nature of bike helmets was mainly restricted to the developed world, and that people in the developing world were likely not wearing helmets because they are an added expense (above and beyond the expense of just getting a bicycle in the first place). It is possible that airbag devices could 'save many lives' (if helmetless riders wore them), but I am not convinced that more wouldn't be saved by wearing helmets. That said, the work on putting airbags on the exterior of vehicles to protect cyclists and pedestrians seems very promising, and I hope it comes to market soon.
    - ilaksh 13y ago
      What I'm saying is that +5% wearing the new device would be better than +0% who didn't wear anything because they didn't like helmets and the device didn't exist. I think it could be a lot percent actually. The Thai people I spoke to told me helmets weren't fashionable. They also don't wear seat belts, since those aren't cool either, and those are already installed, so there is no added expense in that decision.
hengheng 13y ago
What if you land on a pointy surface ... gravel, sand or sharp stones? Sure it's good protection, but let's think this through first. (I am convinced that regular bicycle helmets are crap, as there are no decent standards or crash tests being done with them. The least I would call an improvement is a downhill helmet, a motorcycle helmet would be preferred as speeds for severe crashes are quite similar.)
- DanBC 13y ago
  What is wrong with all the various standards? Are they just not rigorous enough? Or is there some other problem? Here's a quick list of different information I found http://www.bhsi.org/index.htm#standards http://www.bhsi.org/index.htm#standards
  - brianwawok 13y ago
    See my link above. Normal helmets do nothing to prevent concussions, which is one of the major outcomes of a bike crash. Stop broken skulls, great. But concussions are still very possible, and current helmets do not do much for it.
    - patdennis 13y ago
      No helmet can stop concussions. If they could, the NFL would redesign football helmets and save themselves a lot of trouble. G-forces are G-forces, whether you're in a helmet or not. EDIT: There are a lot of very smart people working on this problem. But it's a hard problem. From the Associated Press: In a series of interviews with The Associated Press, representatives of the NFL, its players' union and the four equipment companies that make every helmet worn in the league all agreed there's no football helmet -- in production or on drawing boards -- that can eliminate concussions. And there might never be one. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5797046 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5797046
      - SamReidHughes 13y ago
        Helmets could spread the impulse over a longer period of time, reducing G-forces.
headgasket 13y ago
This would be awesome if it had a detector of coughing patterns indicative of water entering lungs (quite distinctive if you think of it): it would be selling like hotcakes to parents of young children learning to swim or going to camp.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  An accelerometer would be able to detect the unique thrashing signature of a body trying to stay above water; it differs greatly from swimming or kicking to stay afloat.
  - patdennis 13y ago
    If you're putting it on a toddler, why not simply have it activate when it detects water?
    - magoldbe 13y ago
      this exists. http://www.safetyturtle.com/ http://www.safetyturtle.com/
      - headgasket 13y ago
        this is great, but it wont save any lives if no one is around or if the kids are expected to be playing in water. There was a death at a day camp in my neighbourhood last year; the kids were under watch, adults were swimming with the kids,but because of all the activity (outing at the pool for day-camps can get really crowded) the life guards did not spot the kid in distress and he drowned. A device like this that inflates when distress is detected would have save that life.
      - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
        If they want to actually sell any they should put a video demonstrating the product on the front page and not limited by being Apple Quicktime only nor hidden behind a "super nanny" logo.
      - 13y ago
kirk21 13y ago
Should be placed in the steer. Would forget to wear it after 5 times...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
msvan 13y ago
http://hovding.com/en/ http://hovding.com/en/ This is the official site. They seem to have tested the safety rigorously. And, best of all, it's Swedish design!
- scoofy 13y ago
  As someone in the cycling community, this isn't actually a new thing. It's been for sale for years.
imgabe 13y ago
That doesn't seem all that less bulky than a regular helmet. Plus, you have to keep it charged. Sometimes low-tech is better.
- specialp 13y ago
  Not to mention that if I were riding in the summer there is no way I would want something wrapped around my neck as it would decrease my ability to cool myself down. Sure, having something on your head is not much better but helmets these days have quite good ventilation.
  - vacri 13y ago
    There is a social problem with helmets in that people who don't want to mess up their hair or makeup don't like wearing them. I don't particularly like the idea of relying on a battery-powered barrier device, but for someone who won't wear a helmet, this product is better than not wearing anything.
  - blacksmith_tb 13y ago
    And then there's riding in the winter, when I am quite happy to have a helmet with rain cover on my head, as opposed to nothing, or an airbag scarf...
Segmentation 13y ago
Are Swedes actually that concerned with their cycling appearance? A nice helmet (I use the Giro Aeon) and cycling glasses looks good enough.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  Part of it's practicality. In NYC we now have a bike share - grab a bike from any station, ride around, return to any other station. Frequently I'm out and about and feel the need to grab a bike and do something - but I don't because I don't have my helmet with me. At the same time, I really don't want to have to lug my helmet around everywhere just in case I want to take a short ride. Having a compact "helmet" all the time that takes up next to no space (and is inconspicuous to boot) would be very nice. When cycling is a sport/deliberate activity, rather than a transportation method/incidental activity, the dynamic changes.
MichaelGG 13y ago
Very very cool. Although it seems it wouldn't help if something runs into your head before impacting your bike or body. Like a truck with a high bumper. Or entering a free-fall and landing on your head. But I suppose those are relatively few of bike incidents.
- crisnoble 13y ago
  Yeah I thought about hitting a tree branch across your forehead, the collar would not be aware of the impending impact.
melpomene 13y ago
Working at a local hackerspace in Malmö (Sweden) a few weeks back a girl came in with one of these and complained that it was annoying that it kept poking her in the neck all the time. When she pointed to where it was itching it accidentaly exploded around her head. Sounded like a gunshot. No one was hurt, many where shocked. Better safe than sorry I guess.
probably_wrong 13y ago
Given that the general idea looks fine, and I'm all in for anything that improves safety, I'll nitpick. In the last test, the dummy' face (if it had one) ends up all over the floor, as the helmet only protects the forehead and, furthermore, slides a little. Given that regular bike helmets are longer on the front and rigid, in theory only the chin would hit the floor. Thus, a regular helmet would be better in that case. Can anyone confirm or deny if that would be the case?
snitko 13y ago
And that's why we have regulations. So people can only purchase an innovation that not only looks great, but is actually more effective, in like 2 to 5 years which it will take to approve it.
js2 13y ago
Articles about this helmet have made it to the front page a few times. Here are a couple submissions with comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1828134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1828134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4388056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4388056 And apropos, "Bicycle helmets haven't changed since their introduction" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5901164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5901164
melpomene 13y ago
"Testing by the Swedish insurance company Folksam that compared Hövding to 12 conventional helmets found it performed at least three times better than the other helmets in a drop/hit test for shock absorbance" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2013/04/04/meet-the-girls-who-want-to-sell-you-an-invisible-bicycle-helmet/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2013/04/04/meet-t...
brianbarker 13y ago
Just don't forget to keep the batteries fresh, I guess.
arjn 13y ago
This is neat but some potential problems with it. - Will not protect from things falling on the head - May not protect in a direct impact (head-on) collision where the head may hit something before the person falls because it may not deploy in time.
scoot 13y ago
Innteresting concept, but I'm even more interested in what sort of valve technology can contain a gas under pressure, and release it electrically.
xbryanx 13y ago
I'd be really curious to see video of how this works with some common "updo" hairstyles. My girlfriend wears her helmet most of the time. But if we're going out for a nice dinner, she'll wear her hair up in a bun on top of her head. If we're on bikes ( a common event ) she generally skips the helmet to accommodate her hairstyle. I wonder if this inflatable helmet would get hung up on this wad of hair and prevent full deployment.
skreech 13y ago
Here is a user test from an early adopter: http://alfabravo.com/2011/11/hovding/ http://alfabravo.com/2011/11/hovding/
revelation 13y ago
Bicycle helmets are just bizarre. No one wants to admit that the problem is with 5 ton liquid fuel propelled potential wrecks and their woefully inadequate (both in what nature has granted them for the task and their attitude) drivers. Give me proper streets, not pyrotechnic strapped to my neck.
- joosters 13y ago
  Lots of people know and say that cars are the real problem, but unless you can snap your fingers and make them all vanish, I'd suggest you try putting a helmet on instead.
- btgeekboy 13y ago
  Helmets have saved my life not once, but twice. Both times were off road, at slow speeds, doing things that shouldn't have been a big deal. Neither involved any cars, but one resulted in a concussion and the other a severely sprained neck and a root canal. Both helmets were shattered. Cars are _a_ problem, not _the_ problem.
- jules 13y ago
  Yea, in the Netherlands nobody wears a helmet, but it's far safer to bike there than in the US. People find it almost as strange to wear a helmet on a bicycle as wearing a helmet for walking or driving in a car.
alex_doom 13y ago
Only thing I can't figure out is if it's reusable?
- sukuriant 13y ago
  real helmets aren't reusable after a real accident, so probably not; that said, I have no idea
  - xj 13y ago
    I assume this would inflate even upon a gentle fall.
  - alex_doom 13y ago
    Sure a bad accident they get destroyed. But what happens if you fall off your bike over something simple and not even get a scratch. Helmet will still work fine. Will this get set off for minor things? And if there's no damage can it be reset? Seems like an expensive $500 helmet that would only be useable once.
websitescenes 13y ago
The only purpose I can think of for this is to keep your hair all pretty. No serious cyclist would use this. Specifically, I ride downhill bikes and can guarantee I'd be dead already if I were to wear this for protection. With a real (full face) helmet, I have already endured multiple concussions, a broken neck and countless other injuries to the head/neck area so consider me a qualified test dummy.
- jzwinck 13y ago
  Obviously you are not the target market. Impacts are expected in downhill riding, unlike most forms of cycling. You don't see off-road car racers relying on airbags either--they aren't fit for the purpose.
  - websitescenes 13y ago
    It's just not safe. To use this would be trading safety for looks. If you ride a bike at all, you should plan on going down.
    - ScottBurson 13y ago
      I commuted by bike for years (though not so much in recent years) and have never had an accident at speed. I do wear a helmet, but not a full-face helmet, and it looks like this thing would actually be more effective in protecting against concussions.
      - websitescenes 13y ago
        From this comment, it is obvious you do not do a real commute. I have worked at various bike shops throughout my life and most recently I own one. Almost every commuter or road cyclist I have ever spoken too has been hit by a car, hit a car or been in a serious wreck at least once. If they had been wearing this silly contraption then many of them would not still be riding today. It is just absolutely ridiculous unless your priority is looks.
mllobet 13y ago
Anyone knows if it is legal in Europe? I've searched extensively to no result.
caycep 13y ago
OK, did anyone else think that crash test dummy was cool? There are now bicycle crash test dummies! And they fitted it out with Portlandesque hip bicycle clothing too....
wazoox 13y ago
Funny, I've just finished Neal Stephenson's "Snow crash" and that's what the skaters are using instead of helmets in the book.
beloch 13y ago
The website raises a few red-flags about Hovding for me. 1. It must be charged to operate. 2. It has an on/off button even when charged to ensure it doesn't accidentally inflate when you're putting it on, suggesting this is a problem. 3. Once inflated, it's done. You have to buy a new one. The website suggests your insurance may pay for this, which implies they definitely won't even if it did not inflate in an accident. This is certainly an interesting concept, but it's expensive, has two additional points of failure vs a helmet (must be both charged and switched on to work), has a high probability of inflating when it shouldn't, and isn't reusable. Technically, most bike and snowsports helmets aren't reusable after an impact either, but you can certainly wipe-out in a way that would trigger the Hovding but wouldn't cause a head-impact, thus wasting the Hovding in an accident a helmet could come through unscathed. I can certainly see why this isn't catching on. This kind of helmet, with modifications, would be good for back-country skiing, more for avalanche protection than for impact protection. Suffocation is a major cause of death in avalanches. When you are pulled under, snow generally gets everywhere and, once you stop, freezes fairly solid. Even wearing very warm gear you don't have much longer than 15 minutes before hypothermia will kill you (being packed in snow crushes your insulation and greatly increases the rate of thermal conduction to the ice surrounding you), but you can easily suffocate before that. This is why things like avalungs are fairly popular. However, avalungs are basically useless if you aren't very careful about keeping them in mouth-range (if not actually in your mouth) at all times, because you will not think to move it over from its convenient spot on your shoulder when an avalanche is bearing down on you, and you will not be able to grab it from your shoulder once you're immobilized by snow! An inflatable hood that covers the face during impact and then deflates could automatically produce a bubble of air large enough to keep an avalanche victim from suffocating for 15 minutes, which is hopefully long enough for his AST trained buddies to find and dig him out! There are currently avalanche air-bags on the market which can be user-triggered. These air-bags supposedly help one float on top of an avalanche in addition to providing protection, which is obviously a good thing! However, they must be triggered, and generally don't come over the head. Something that would trigger automatically would be invaluable, although the difficulty of only triggering when appropriate is immense! If hovding's triggering system could work reliably in avalanche conditions it might be worth adding to avalanche air-bag units. I'd love to see radio controlled airbags in addition to automatic and manual controls though. This way, if your buddy is being swept away by an avalanche you might actually be able to trigger his bag even if he doesn't think to. This would be fantastic for heli/cat-ski operators as well. Avalanche safety is a much higher price-point market than bicycle safety. It's a better target market for bleeding edge tech like hovding. If you could deliver a system that is reliable, even at a price-point in the thousands of dollars, cat/heli-ski operators would go for it immediately.
lquist 13y ago
Why not have this cover more of the body? E.g. a vest or something?
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
As a cyclist, I could point out that relative to a normal helmet this thing is hugely expensive and very prone to user error (must be charged, must be turned on). But I could live with both of those things. The real deal-breaker is that it doesn't look any more comfortable than a regular helmet. Cycling on a hot day, my scalp gets all sweaty and uncomfortable, but at least the helmet has big air vents to minimize overheating. You want me to replace that with a thick, bulky scarf? No. In July, I'd be miserable after 10 minutes.
dchichkov 13y ago
Interesting. I can see how it may work for deep powder skiing. As to biking, there is a pretty nice alternative available based on plastic/gel materials that harden on the impact! Lookup 3DO beanie.
xj 13y ago
Watch the video again. Go to 00:38, and assume that the dummy was hit by a lorry with flat face. The lorry would make a direct impact on the back of the head, before the helmet inflates. Go to 03:55, and assume that the cyclist had hit a wall. This time too, the cyclist's head would hit the wall. I wouldn't buy this helmet.

98 points by sethbannon 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

With safety equipment I tend to prefer simpler designs. A lump of polystyrene in a shell is pretty good, and doesn't have loose wires or flat batteries to worry about. It's a lot cheaper too. But the problem with traditional helmets is that they tend to be built to pass a safety standard. Some people want the helmet that is much better than that standard. So it's nice to see someone experimenting with new techniques.

brianwawok 13y ago
Helmets do not do as much as you think. They are not really very good for the types of accidents that bicycles have. For example, see: http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html
- gambiting 13y ago
  I don't know, I have personally fallen off a bike travelling at around 25km/h and hit the side of my head on the pavement. If I wasn't wearing my helmet(and that was a regular, $40 helmet) I don't know if I would be still here - the helmet cracked,but my head was still completely intact,so I guess they have to work to some extent.
  - disputin 13y ago
    Agreed. Some bike crashes have no impact to set off an airbag - other than the impact of the head.
  - cocoflunchy 13y ago
    Bike helmets are actually designed to crack under an impact; they protect you by absorbing a big part of the energy of the impact.
  - awjr 13y ago
    It's slightly more complex than that. If the helmet cracked then the force of the collision was transferred to your skull. Admittedly cracking the helmet would have taken some force out of the collision, but the moment it cracked it became useless.
    - vacri 13y ago
      This is why you throw away a 'used' helmet. It is the process of cracking - or even merely deforming - that is the protective act. That it's useless after cracking doesn't mean it hasn't done it's job. It's like saying the crumple zone of a car is useless because it crumpled in the accident.
    - dasil003 13y ago
      > If the helmet cracked then the force of the collision was transferred to your skull. This does not make any sense at all. Your skull absorbs some force in all cases. The exact mechanics of what happens are definitely complex, but compressed and cracked polystyrene is still better than hitting your head directly on concrete, just as hitting your head on asphalt is. That is of course leaving aside the question of how much force was absorbed before it cracked and what was left afterwards, but in all cases it's not a binary assertion.
  - apendleton 13y ago
    Argh, this kind of anecdotal evidence makes me crazy. Helmets aren't skulls. You have no idea whether the forces that caused the helmet to crack would have caused similar injury to your head had you not been wearing the helmet, nor do you have any idea whether the forces the helmet managed to absorb before failing are a significant fraction of the forces your head experienced during the accident. Nothing about your experience is sufficient grounds for the conclusion you draw at the end of your comment (that "they have to work to some extent"), nor can any single accident experience provide such grounds.
    - kennywinker 13y ago
      I personally know people who object to helmets, and refuse to wear them even though we have a helmet law in my city. I'm not entirely in agreement, but there is logic to this line of reasoning: 1. Helmets, and helmet laws give the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity, and discourage people to cycle. 2. the biggest thing you can do to increase the safety of cycling, is create cycling infrastructure and put more cyclists on the road (I believe this is backed up by hard data, but I have no citations). 3. It follows from 1 & 2 that helmet laws make cycling less safe for all of us by decreasing the number of cyclists on the road. There is more to their argument than that, but that's the one I personally find most convincing. I still wear a helmet though, so clearly I'm not entirely convinced.
      - joosters 13y ago
        Your first point is a strange one. Are you saying that cycling is not dangerous enough to warrant wearing a helmet? If so, then the other points are moot, and you could have simplified your argument to just "there's no need to wear a helmet". If on the other hand, you believe that cycling is dangerous enough to wear a helmet, then you're effectively saying that people shouldn't wear them in order to 'lure' other potential cyclists into cycling. That's just ludicrous!
        001sky 13y ago
        Its sort of a mixed bag: So if they can help reduce injury, shouldn’t they be mandatory, just like motorbike helmets? Australia tried it in the early 90s and the result was a 15 to 20 per cent drop in the number of hospital admissions for head injuries. That would have been great, but it also reduced the number of cyclists by around 35 per cent. ---- A recent study in the British Medical Journal showed that cycling has a positive health impact around 77 times larger than the potential for serious injury; essentially, there’s a small chance that you’ll come a cropper, but a very large chance that you’ll reduce your likelihood of suffering mental illness, heart disease and obesity. That means the laws were hugely counterproductive [Personally, I wear a helmet, though.]
  - singingfish 13y ago
    I have two pieces of relevant experience. Firstly I hit my head on the side when I was about 16 on a bike with no helmet, in a slow speed accident. I had unpleasent concussion, about 10 minutes of retrograde amnesia and 5 minutes or so of post traumatic amnesia. Some weird vomiting symptom about 3 days into recovery which would have been cause for serious concern if it repeated itself. I think I was off school for a whole week. I passed through high school with my usual marks (top end of the middle), and onto an undistinguished but advanced university education. Another friend was involved in a human versus baseball bat assault (skull fracture I think) around the same time and had big problems for a few years. I also worked in brain injury rehab for 4 years or so in my mid 20s. During that time I would have interacted with hundreds of patients with severe traumatic brain injuries. During that time I saw one paitent with a bike related TBI. Bike at full speed versus cow. I don't remember if he was wearing a helmet but his potential as a person was dramatically reduced, although nothing easy to observe casually. I used to be for compulsory bike helmet laws. These days I think the indirect risks of a reduced number of cyclists on the road (as evidenced by the australian experience) outweigh the direct risks of a small number of TBIs. I wear a helmet when I have longer distances to travel, or need to make use of dangerous main roads (I tend to cycle on wide underutilised sidewalks where possible). For short distances I don't wear a helmet. It's a risk, but a small one.
  - nether 13y ago
    When I fell sans helmet, I rolled on the ground but my head never contacted the ground because my shoulder was in the way. I still wear a helmet for long distance or traffic rides.
- vacri 13y ago
  Not quite what that article is saying. A better characterisation would be "helmets are better than nothing, but don't do much for the most frequent kind of head injury in bike accidents". Helmets do do good things for some of the types of accidents that bicycles have. It's an important distinction to make, because some people will use it as an excuse to peddle the idea that helmets are worse than not wearing one. It's a great article, well-written and researched, but it should be noted that the author concludes by saying he still has his daughter wearing an old-style helmet while he waits for a next-gen one to become available.
- peapicker 13y ago
  Thanks you for posting this link. After having a family member go thru a concussion this year, I see how difficult they are to deal with. I hadn't even thought about this in terms of bicycle helmets. I'm going to replace ours now that I know more about it. Thanks again!
- bguthrie 13y ago
  That article does not appear to be making the argument that helmets are worthless, only that they don't protect against concussions. The $40 helmet is one of the great success stories of the past half-century. Like seat belts, air bags, and smoke detectors, bike helmets save countless lives every year. They do a stellar job of preventing catastrophic skull fractures, plus dings and scrapes from low-hanging tree branches and other common nuisances. Likewise, US safety standards haven't been updated to reflect more modern medical research on their seriousness.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  They do naughty things with their statistics: >"Here's the trouble. Stat #3: As more people buckled on helmets, brain injuries also increased. Between 1997 and 2011 the number of bike-related concussions suffered annually by American riders increased by 67 percent, from 9,327 to 15,546, according to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, a yearly sampling of hospital emergency rooms conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)." >"Of course, concussions are more readily diagnosed now than they were 15 years ago. That likely accounts for some of the increase. It's also possible that some of the 149 fewer riders killed every year survived to get lumped into the brain-injury category. But that still leaves thousands unaccounted for. We're left with this stark statistical fact: The concussion rate among bicycle riders has grown faster than the sport." // So, yes 9327 -> 15546 is a 67% increase and as they rightly say the increased survival rate contributes as does the improved diagnosis. >"that still leaves thousands unaccounted for" // Except they already said that daily commuting had increased over years 1995 to 2009 by 60%. Which seems rather like it would account for a whole heap of those thousands of extra injuries; that there are a lot more cars might account for a lot more injuries occurring too. It's an interesting piece and the MIPS helmets probably are better but overall it just looks like it's there to sell the most expensive bike helmets as being the only possible option, especially the emotional CTA in the final para. [OT the site's policy page appears to have been MIA since some time in 2012, http://web.archive.org/web/20120122171726/http://www.bicycling.com/gear/policy/1,7980,,00.html http://web.archive.org/web/20120122171726/http://www.bicycli...]
- leurl7 13y ago
  An other way to present things is that helmets have some effectiveness: source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Meta-analyses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Meta-analyses So at least use a one instead of none. Even if it has some merits on some points, http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html is too much misleading and not that really seriously researched, cf. http://www.bhsi.org/bicyclingmag1305.htm http://www.bhsi.org/bicyclingmag1305.htm A current certified helmet is already very useful, even a simple one.
- michaelmior 13y ago
  A study I just happened to come across today http://www.universityaffairs.ca/bike-helmets-prevent-injuries.aspx http://www.universityaffairs.ca/bike-helmets-prevent-injurie...
- DanBC 13y ago
  That link just takes a lot of words to say a few things: 1) Helmets are built to pass a safety standard (which I've already said) 2) Better helmets need to be built (I said that too) Your summary mischaracterises the article, which clearly says (more than once) that current helmets are good at saving lives.
- robomartin 13y ago
  Wow. What an interesting article. Every time I think about quitting my daily HN addiction I come across something like this. Thanks for the link. Very interesting.
robbiep 13y ago
This helmet - http://www.kraniums.com/ http://www.kraniums.com/ - mixes it up a bit from traditional materials - I would guess it would reduce the sort of injuries that cause concussion as well but I can't find any information on that
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  The kraniums site have a claim of reducing impact related accelerations from 200g to 70g. It's also made from cardboard.
ilaksh 13y ago
I really doubt that is the point. To me the obvious thing that no one has mentioned is fashion. Actually fashion can be such a severe problem with helmets that many people would rather risk their lives than wear one. In fact, in some countries (like Thailand), that is normal. So when it comes to safety practicalities, the reality that has been demonstrated is that the unattractive appearance of helmets can often mean they aren't used at all. If a device like this were more accepted then that could save many lives.
- carlsayagain 13y ago
  yeah i'm sure thai's don't wear helmets because of fashion.
- blacksmith_tb 13y ago
  My assumption has been that worrying about the unfashionable nature of bike helmets was mainly restricted to the developed world, and that people in the developing world were likely not wearing helmets because they are an added expense (above and beyond the expense of just getting a bicycle in the first place). It is possible that airbag devices could 'save many lives' (if helmetless riders wore them), but I am not convinced that more wouldn't be saved by wearing helmets. That said, the work on putting airbags on the exterior of vehicles to protect cyclists and pedestrians seems very promising, and I hope it comes to market soon.
  - ilaksh 13y ago
    What I'm saying is that +5% wearing the new device would be better than +0% who didn't wear anything because they didn't like helmets and the device didn't exist. I think it could be a lot percent actually. The Thai people I spoke to told me helmets weren't fashionable. They also don't wear seat belts, since those aren't cool either, and those are already installed, so there is no added expense in that decision.

hengheng 13y ago

What if you land on a pointy surface ... gravel, sand or sharp stones? Sure it's good protection, but let's think this through first. (I am convinced that regular bicycle helmets are crap, as there are no decent standards or crash tests being done with them. The least I would call an improvement is a downhill helmet, a motorcycle helmet would be preferred as speeds for severe crashes are quite similar.)

DanBC 13y ago
What is wrong with all the various standards? Are they just not rigorous enough? Or is there some other problem? Here's a quick list of different information I found http://www.bhsi.org/index.htm#standards http://www.bhsi.org/index.htm#standards
- brianwawok 13y ago
  See my link above. Normal helmets do nothing to prevent concussions, which is one of the major outcomes of a bike crash. Stop broken skulls, great. But concussions are still very possible, and current helmets do not do much for it.
  - patdennis 13y ago
    No helmet can stop concussions. If they could, the NFL would redesign football helmets and save themselves a lot of trouble. G-forces are G-forces, whether you're in a helmet or not. EDIT: There are a lot of very smart people working on this problem. But it's a hard problem. From the Associated Press: In a series of interviews with The Associated Press, representatives of the NFL, its players' union and the four equipment companies that make every helmet worn in the league all agreed there's no football helmet -- in production or on drawing boards -- that can eliminate concussions. And there might never be one. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5797046 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5797046
    - SamReidHughes 13y ago
      Helmets could spread the impulse over a longer period of time, reducing G-forces.

headgasket 13y ago

This would be awesome if it had a detector of coughing patterns indicative of water entering lungs (quite distinctive if you think of it): it would be selling like hotcakes to parents of young children learning to swim or going to camp.

toomuchtodo 13y ago
An accelerometer would be able to detect the unique thrashing signature of a body trying to stay above water; it differs greatly from swimming or kicking to stay afloat.
- patdennis 13y ago
  If you're putting it on a toddler, why not simply have it activate when it detects water?
  - magoldbe 13y ago
    this exists. http://www.safetyturtle.com/ http://www.safetyturtle.com/
    - headgasket 13y ago
      this is great, but it wont save any lives if no one is around or if the kids are expected to be playing in water. There was a death at a day camp in my neighbourhood last year; the kids were under watch, adults were swimming with the kids,but because of all the activity (outing at the pool for day-camps can get really crowded) the life guards did not spot the kid in distress and he drowned. A device like this that inflates when distress is detected would have save that life.
    - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
      If they want to actually sell any they should put a video demonstrating the product on the front page and not limited by being Apple Quicktime only nor hidden behind a "super nanny" logo.
    - 13y ago

kirk21 13y ago

Should be placed in the steer. Would forget to wear it after 5 times...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

msvan 13y ago

http://hovding.com/en/ http://hovding.com/en/ This is the official site. They seem to have tested the safety rigorously. And, best of all, it's Swedish design!

scoofy 13y ago
As someone in the cycling community, this isn't actually a new thing. It's been for sale for years.

imgabe 13y ago

That doesn't seem all that less bulky than a regular helmet. Plus, you have to keep it charged. Sometimes low-tech is better.

specialp 13y ago
Not to mention that if I were riding in the summer there is no way I would want something wrapped around my neck as it would decrease my ability to cool myself down. Sure, having something on your head is not much better but helmets these days have quite good ventilation.
- vacri 13y ago
  There is a social problem with helmets in that people who don't want to mess up their hair or makeup don't like wearing them. I don't particularly like the idea of relying on a battery-powered barrier device, but for someone who won't wear a helmet, this product is better than not wearing anything.
- blacksmith_tb 13y ago
  And then there's riding in the winter, when I am quite happy to have a helmet with rain cover on my head, as opposed to nothing, or an airbag scarf...

Segmentation 13y ago

Are Swedes actually that concerned with their cycling appearance? A nice helmet (I use the Giro Aeon) and cycling glasses looks good enough.

potatolicious 13y ago
Part of it's practicality. In NYC we now have a bike share - grab a bike from any station, ride around, return to any other station. Frequently I'm out and about and feel the need to grab a bike and do something - but I don't because I don't have my helmet with me. At the same time, I really don't want to have to lug my helmet around everywhere just in case I want to take a short ride. Having a compact "helmet" all the time that takes up next to no space (and is inconspicuous to boot) would be very nice. When cycling is a sport/deliberate activity, rather than a transportation method/incidental activity, the dynamic changes.

MichaelGG 13y ago

Very very cool. Although it seems it wouldn't help if something runs into your head before impacting your bike or body. Like a truck with a high bumper. Or entering a free-fall and landing on your head. But I suppose those are relatively few of bike incidents.

crisnoble 13y ago
Yeah I thought about hitting a tree branch across your forehead, the collar would not be aware of the impending impact.

melpomene 13y ago

Working at a local hackerspace in Malmö (Sweden) a few weeks back a girl came in with one of these and complained that it was annoying that it kept poking her in the neck all the time. When she pointed to where it was itching it accidentaly exploded around her head. Sounded like a gunshot. No one was hurt, many where shocked. Better safe than sorry I guess.

probably_wrong 13y ago

Given that the general idea looks fine, and I'm all in for anything that improves safety, I'll nitpick. In the last test, the dummy' face (if it had one) ends up all over the floor, as the helmet only protects the forehead and, furthermore, slides a little. Given that regular bike helmets are longer on the front and rigid, in theory only the chin would hit the floor. Thus, a regular helmet would be better in that case. Can anyone confirm or deny if that would be the case?

snitko 13y ago

And that's why we have regulations. So people can only purchase an innovation that not only looks great, but is actually more effective, in like 2 to 5 years which it will take to approve it.

js2 13y ago

Articles about this helmet have made it to the front page a few times. Here are a couple submissions with comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1828134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1828134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4388056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4388056 And apropos, "Bicycle helmets haven't changed since their introduction" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5901164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5901164

melpomene 13y ago

"Testing by the Swedish insurance company Folksam that compared Hövding to 12 conventional helmets found it performed at least three times better than the other helmets in a drop/hit test for shock absorbance" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2013/04/04/meet-the-girls-who-want-to-sell-you-an-invisible-bicycle-helmet/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2013/04/04/meet-t...

brianbarker 13y ago

Just don't forget to keep the batteries fresh, I guess.

arjn 13y ago

This is neat but some potential problems with it. - Will not protect from things falling on the head - May not protect in a direct impact (head-on) collision where the head may hit something before the person falls because it may not deploy in time.

scoot 13y ago

Innteresting concept, but I'm even more interested in what sort of valve technology can contain a gas under pressure, and release it electrically.

xbryanx 13y ago

I'd be really curious to see video of how this works with some common "updo" hairstyles. My girlfriend wears her helmet most of the time. But if we're going out for a nice dinner, she'll wear her hair up in a bun on top of her head. If we're on bikes ( a common event ) she generally skips the helmet to accommodate her hairstyle. I wonder if this inflatable helmet would get hung up on this wad of hair and prevent full deployment.

skreech 13y ago

Here is a user test from an early adopter: http://alfabravo.com/2011/11/hovding/ http://alfabravo.com/2011/11/hovding/

revelation 13y ago

Bicycle helmets are just bizarre. No one wants to admit that the problem is with 5 ton liquid fuel propelled potential wrecks and their woefully inadequate (both in what nature has granted them for the task and their attitude) drivers. Give me proper streets, not pyrotechnic strapped to my neck.

joosters 13y ago
Lots of people know and say that cars are the real problem, but unless you can snap your fingers and make them all vanish, I'd suggest you try putting a helmet on instead.
btgeekboy 13y ago
Helmets have saved my life not once, but twice. Both times were off road, at slow speeds, doing things that shouldn't have been a big deal. Neither involved any cars, but one resulted in a concussion and the other a severely sprained neck and a root canal. Both helmets were shattered. Cars are _a_ problem, not _the_ problem.
jules 13y ago
Yea, in the Netherlands nobody wears a helmet, but it's far safer to bike there than in the US. People find it almost as strange to wear a helmet on a bicycle as wearing a helmet for walking or driving in a car.

alex_doom 13y ago

Only thing I can't figure out is if it's reusable?

sukuriant 13y ago
real helmets aren't reusable after a real accident, so probably not; that said, I have no idea
- xj 13y ago
  I assume this would inflate even upon a gentle fall.
- alex_doom 13y ago
  Sure a bad accident they get destroyed. But what happens if you fall off your bike over something simple and not even get a scratch. Helmet will still work fine. Will this get set off for minor things? And if there's no damage can it be reset? Seems like an expensive $500 helmet that would only be useable once.

websitescenes 13y ago

The only purpose I can think of for this is to keep your hair all pretty. No serious cyclist would use this. Specifically, I ride downhill bikes and can guarantee I'd be dead already if I were to wear this for protection. With a real (full face) helmet, I have already endured multiple concussions, a broken neck and countless other injuries to the head/neck area so consider me a qualified test dummy.

jzwinck 13y ago
Obviously you are not the target market. Impacts are expected in downhill riding, unlike most forms of cycling. You don't see off-road car racers relying on airbags either--they aren't fit for the purpose.
- websitescenes 13y ago
  It's just not safe. To use this would be trading safety for looks. If you ride a bike at all, you should plan on going down.
  - ScottBurson 13y ago
    I commuted by bike for years (though not so much in recent years) and have never had an accident at speed. I do wear a helmet, but not a full-face helmet, and it looks like this thing would actually be more effective in protecting against concussions.
    - websitescenes 13y ago
      From this comment, it is obvious you do not do a real commute. I have worked at various bike shops throughout my life and most recently I own one. Almost every commuter or road cyclist I have ever spoken too has been hit by a car, hit a car or been in a serious wreck at least once. If they had been wearing this silly contraption then many of them would not still be riding today. It is just absolutely ridiculous unless your priority is looks.

mllobet 13y ago

Anyone knows if it is legal in Europe? I've searched extensively to no result.

caycep 13y ago

OK, did anyone else think that crash test dummy was cool? There are now bicycle crash test dummies! And they fitted it out with Portlandesque hip bicycle clothing too....

wazoox 13y ago

Funny, I've just finished Neal Stephenson's "Snow crash" and that's what the skaters are using instead of helmets in the book.

beloch 13y ago

The website raises a few red-flags about Hovding for me. 1. It must be charged to operate. 2. It has an on/off button even when charged to ensure it doesn't accidentally inflate when you're putting it on, suggesting this is a problem. 3. Once inflated, it's done. You have to buy a new one. The website suggests your insurance may pay for this, which implies they definitely won't even if it did not inflate in an accident. This is certainly an interesting concept, but it's expensive, has two additional points of failure vs a helmet (must be both charged and switched on to work), has a high probability of inflating when it shouldn't, and isn't reusable. Technically, most bike and snowsports helmets aren't reusable after an impact either, but you can certainly wipe-out in a way that would trigger the Hovding but wouldn't cause a head-impact, thus wasting the Hovding in an accident a helmet could come through unscathed. I can certainly see why this isn't catching on. This kind of helmet, with modifications, would be good for back-country skiing, more for avalanche protection than for impact protection. Suffocation is a major cause of death in avalanches. When you are pulled under, snow generally gets everywhere and, once you stop, freezes fairly solid. Even wearing very warm gear you don't have much longer than 15 minutes before hypothermia will kill you (being packed in snow crushes your insulation and greatly increases the rate of thermal conduction to the ice surrounding you), but you can easily suffocate before that. This is why things like avalungs are fairly popular. However, avalungs are basically useless if you aren't very careful about keeping them in mouth-range (if not actually in your mouth) at all times, because you will not think to move it over from its convenient spot on your shoulder when an avalanche is bearing down on you, and you will not be able to grab it from your shoulder once you're immobilized by snow! An inflatable hood that covers the face during impact and then deflates could automatically produce a bubble of air large enough to keep an avalanche victim from suffocating for 15 minutes, which is hopefully long enough for his AST trained buddies to find and dig him out! There are currently avalanche air-bags on the market which can be user-triggered. These air-bags supposedly help one float on top of an avalanche in addition to providing protection, which is obviously a good thing! However, they must be triggered, and generally don't come over the head. Something that would trigger automatically would be invaluable, although the difficulty of only triggering when appropriate is immense! If hovding's triggering system could work reliably in avalanche conditions it might be worth adding to avalanche air-bag units. I'd love to see radio controlled airbags in addition to automatic and manual controls though. This way, if your buddy is being swept away by an avalanche you might actually be able to trigger his bag even if he doesn't think to. This would be fantastic for heli/cat-ski operators as well. Avalanche safety is a much higher price-point market than bicycle safety. It's a better target market for bleeding edge tech like hovding. If you could deliver a system that is reliable, even at a price-point in the thousands of dollars, cat/heli-ski operators would go for it immediately.

lquist 13y ago

Why not have this cover more of the body? E.g. a vest or something?

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

As a cyclist, I could point out that relative to a normal helmet this thing is hugely expensive and very prone to user error (must be charged, must be turned on). But I could live with both of those things. The real deal-breaker is that it doesn't look any more comfortable than a regular helmet. Cycling on a hot day, my scalp gets all sweaty and uncomfortable, but at least the helmet has big air vents to minimize overheating. You want me to replace that with a thick, bulky scarf? No. In July, I'd be miserable after 10 minutes.

dchichkov 13y ago

Interesting. I can see how it may work for deep powder skiing. As to biking, there is a pretty nice alternative available based on plastic/gel materials that harden on the impact! Lookup 3DO beanie.

xj 13y ago

Watch the video again. Go to 00:38, and assume that the dummy was hit by a lorry with flat face. The lorry would make a direct impact on the back of the head, before the helmet inflates. Go to 03:55, and assume that the cyclist had hit a wall. This time too, the cyclist's head would hit the wall. I wouldn't buy this helmet.