The Invisible Bike Helmet: An Airbag On The Go(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
The Invisible Bike Helmet: An Airbag On The Go
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/15/invisible-bike-helmet/
16 comments
Reminds me of complaints I saw about new table saw tech that aimed to prevent injury[1]. It wasn't that people were opposed to increased safety, but rather were afraid that expensive equipment would become mandatory, and possibly encourage complacency that would undermine existing safe practices.
Did you feel that the Cypres encouraged skydivers to become more complacent?
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SawStop
Did you feel that the Cypres encouraged skydivers to become more complacent?
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SawStop
At least as of a few years ago, the rate of death per skydive had remained largely constant for years. What changed drastically was that people died from injuries sustained after a successful canopy deployment. Concurrent with Cypres's adoption was the emergence of high performance canopies. With large, "boring" canopies, it would be hard to kill oneself if already under a good canopy above cornfields. However, small, high-performance canopies provided thrilling swoops toward the ground along with long plane-outs. Half the fun of the skydive now could be had during the landing. With this fun came the risk of a poorly executed turn slamming a person into the ground hard enough to kill him. So, having achieved greater safety in the air, perhaps skydivers adopted add-on risks? The other factor which probably reduced deaths due to low deployments was the widespread adoption of larger aircraft which could quickly take large groups of jumpers to 15K ft. When one's only option for skydiving was to ride for 20+ minutes in a Cesna 182 to 10K, he wanted to maximize his airtime and might deploy somewhat low. However, the extra time in the air isn't so significant if one can exit 5K higher after a mere 10 minute ride. Deploying higher means extra time to cut away a malfunctioning main canopy and deploy a reserve parachute.
tl;dr; Skydivers traded increased safety levels for newly-found risks.
tl;dr; Skydivers traded increased safety levels for newly-found risks.
Interesting -- I didn't even know such canopies existed; I've only ever seen the bog-standard rectangular ram-air ones at airshows. Are high-performance canopies restricted to certain levels of licensed proficiency? That's basically how it is with paragliding (although the licenses are basically self-regulated and the restrictions are informal). IIRC, at least one of the skydiving wingsuit manufacturers won't sell to you unless you can prove an advanced level of skydiving experience -- and paragliding in a wing that is above your skill level is highly discouraged.
Glancing at Wikipedia, the higher-performance ones sound like paraglider wings -- more cells, elliptical shape. I guess paragliding wing optimization has come full circle back to skydiving parachutes.
Glancing at Wikipedia, the higher-performance ones sound like paraglider wings -- more cells, elliptical shape. I guess paragliding wing optimization has come full circle back to skydiving parachutes.
"more cells, elliptical shape" Yeah, a relatively rigid wing which reacts quickly when deformed by pulling a toggle.
"Are high-performance canopies restricted to certain levels of licensed proficiency?"
Circa 2004 (when my knowledge ends), rules were informal and largely enforced on a case-by-case basis by dropzone owners who didn't want the bad publicity of an inept person splattering himself into the ground. "No Bob, you're not going to jump with that canopy here!"
I do recall the wingsuit manufacturers at least having minimum standards and then asking questions when someone called to purchase one. It also helped that most wingsuits were sold at skydiving conventions where the manufacturer was on-site and could directly assess the buyer's competence. This sort of regulation is quite prevalent in the BASE jumping community where it's even frowned upon for individuals to sell used gear to someone without first assessing competence (or at least the existence of a mentor).
"Are high-performance canopies restricted to certain levels of licensed proficiency?"
Circa 2004 (when my knowledge ends), rules were informal and largely enforced on a case-by-case basis by dropzone owners who didn't want the bad publicity of an inept person splattering himself into the ground. "No Bob, you're not going to jump with that canopy here!"
I do recall the wingsuit manufacturers at least having minimum standards and then asking questions when someone called to purchase one. It also helped that most wingsuits were sold at skydiving conventions where the manufacturer was on-site and could directly assess the buyer's competence. This sort of regulation is quite prevalent in the BASE jumping community where it's even frowned upon for individuals to sell used gear to someone without first assessing competence (or at least the existence of a mentor).
> Over time, the culture reversed so that those not using a Cypres were deemed foolhardy.
The same happened in motor- and bi-cycle culture.
Obviously, if your reason for doing something (cycling, diving, etc), it to intentionally taunt death, you will eschew safety equipment.
The same happened in motor- and bi-cycle culture.
Obviously, if your reason for doing something (cycling, diving, etc), it to intentionally taunt death, you will eschew safety equipment.
[deleted]
Neat, but it's fixing a problem that doesn't really exist.
Bike Helmets are reliable and inexpensive. This thing isn't. How about putting it on the bike itself, or on other parts of the wearer's body, so that it works in coordination with the helmet.
Bike Helmets are reliable and inexpensive. This thing isn't. How about putting it on the bike itself, or on other parts of the wearer's body, so that it works in coordination with the helmet.
Apparently among some populations they aren't. A black female friend of mine was explaining how much of a problem helmets are for folk without naturally straight hair who have had it artificially straightened. She would definitely be a customer for this product.
No-one wears helmets in Amsterdam, very few die (~5 p.a.) mostly due to others faults (trucks). Not sure whether helmets would help.
Helmets give you helmet hair.
Where do you put them when not using?
Helmets give you helmet hair.
Where do you put them when not using?
On the bike.
Most dead bikers aren't at fault. That's part of the point of the helmet.
Where are you drawing the boundary of Amsterdam? It has ~0.1 the population of NYC, and 0.5 the bike helment death rate.
So, maybe helmets would save lives in Amsterdam (not to mention non-death casualties like paralysis)
Most dead bikers aren't at fault. That's part of the point of the helmet.
Where are you drawing the boundary of Amsterdam? It has ~0.1 the population of NYC, and 0.5 the bike helment death rate.
So, maybe helmets would save lives in Amsterdam (not to mention non-death casualties like paralysis)
The problem it fixes is that "fashionable" people don't like wearing bike helmets. They don't like how helmets look, mess with their hair, whatever.
So if even one person who won't wear a bike helmet uses this instead, consider it a success.
So if even one person who won't wear a bike helmet uses this instead, consider it a success.
>> The problem it fixes is that "fashionable" people don't like wearing bike helmets.
But then you're messing with natural selection.
But then you're messing with natural selection.
This vapid observation could also be made about seatbelt laws and warning labels on poisons. And yet . . .
I saw a complaint once that helmets were not perfect -- namely, they could protect your head, but could increase your risk of neck injuries. Apparently, this is only "soft or no-shell helmets", though[1] -- which IMO are junk for that reason -- and frankly, risking your head to "protect" your neck is pretty idiotic reasoning anyway.
[1]: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00036941.htm
[1]: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00036941.htm
So you replace a bike helmet with something you wear around your neck instead. That seems less comfortable and more annoying that just wearing a normal helmet. Plus you could get a very comfortable helmet for much less than $600.
It doesn't mess your hair up - a key issue for women riding fairly upright bicycles (where the risk of head injury during a crash is negligible anyway).
I want more people on bikes on the road - makes it safer for me. If they want to ride without helmets, so be it.
(I ride, I wear a helmet, but I'm a dude in lycra, I have no shame)
I want more people on bikes on the road - makes it safer for me. If they want to ride without helmets, so be it.
(I ride, I wear a helmet, but I'm a dude in lycra, I have no shame)
I wonder why they chose to use compressed helium to fill the bag. I don't know much about these things, but helium is not cheap, and surely you don't need its lighter-than-air properties in this application. Couldn't you use compressed carbon dioxide, or even just compressed air? For comparison, apparently automotive airbags are inflated with nitrogen gas.
Automotive airbags are inflated with an explosive which has Nitrogen gas as the majority byproduct, it's rare for actual compressed Nitrogen to be used.
As to why they chose Helium for this application, it's hard to say. It might mean that they are compressing the gas to very high pressures which would result in liquifaction of other gases, but that's just speculation.
As to why they chose Helium for this application, it's hard to say. It might mean that they are compressing the gas to very high pressures which would result in liquifaction of other gases, but that's just speculation.
Maybe the container which holds the gas has to be small so helium would require a smaller storage container which is able to fill the volume of the device.
I wonder how well the crash-sensing technology works. In a car, it's dead simple: you notice a rapid deceleration and you can inflate the airbags while the crumple zones are crumpling.
There are no crumple zones in your head. Yes, you do often fall forward or sideways onto the ground, allowing for time to sense the new orientations... but not always. Would it inflate if I broadside a bus (like if the bus ran a red)?
There are no crumple zones in your head. Yes, you do often fall forward or sideways onto the ground, allowing for time to sense the new orientations... but not always. Would it inflate if I broadside a bus (like if the bus ran a red)?
If you watch the doc that's on Vimeo about this thing they sampled a lot of data themselves by actually simulating normal riding situations and then also situations where they would crash in different ways. I'm assuming they used some accelerometers and other recording devices and then designed something that discerns a crash situation from a normal bike riding situation
And Neal Stephenson is proven right again.
"In his 1992 book Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson described a protective airbag technology for bikers and skateboarders."
Below quote courtesy http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1824 :
"At the same time, she jerks the manual release on her cervical collar and goes into full Michelin Man mode as tiny gas cartridges detonate in several strategic locations around her bod. The biggest one goes off like an M-80 at the nape of her neck, unfurling the coverall's collar into a cylindrical gasbag that shoots straight up and encases her entire head. Other airbags go off around her torso and pelvis, paying lots of attention to that spinal column."
Below quote courtesy http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1824 :
"At the same time, she jerks the manual release on her cervical collar and goes into full Michelin Man mode as tiny gas cartridges detonate in several strategic locations around her bod. The biggest one goes off like an M-80 at the nape of her neck, unfurling the coverall's collar into a cylindrical gasbag that shoots straight up and encases her entire head. Other airbags go off around her torso and pelvis, paying lots of attention to that spinal column."
Thank you, too lazy to go find the book and quote it
Previous discussion - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1828134
Saw a demo of this where the dummy fell off the front of a bike and the dummy fell right on its face. The helmet doesn't seem to protect the dummy's forehead, not getting all the way in front of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Oud3iGXWY&feature=playe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Oud3iGXWY&feature=playe...
I'm suspicious of this gadget myself, for just this reason. When fitting a bike helmet one must take pains to adjust it so that it won't slip backwards off the forehead when pushed.
See e.g. http://www.consumersearch.com/bicycle-helmet-reviews/how-to-...
In most crashes, the forehead and top front of the head strike first. Experts recommend buying a helmet that sits low on the forehead, about one finger-width above the brow.
In most crashes, the forehead and top front of the head strike first. Experts recommend buying a helmet that sits low on the forehead, about one finger-width above the brow.
I recently crashed my mountain bike wearing a full face (think motorbike) helmet.
I can personally attest that even those won't protect your face in certain circumstances. No helmet is perfect.
(here are pics of me. WARNING: blood http://imgur.com/a/UgGTI )
I can personally attest that even those won't protect your face in certain circumstances. No helmet is perfect.
(here are pics of me. WARNING: blood http://imgur.com/a/UgGTI )
Very true, but were I to wear a helmet or neck airbag helmet I probably wouldn't wear one that was objectively worse at protection than another. I figure if I'm going to look like a dork either way, might as well go with the safest option?
If there's data to prove it's just as safe as regular helmets (which right now aren't tested very well either, if memory serves me correctly the only test required is to drop a weight on the helmet at height) then I might be less critical, but I still think the forehead protection looks a little shoddy on the surface.
If there's data to prove it's just as safe as regular helmets (which right now aren't tested very well either, if memory serves me correctly the only test required is to drop a weight on the helmet at height) then I might be less critical, but I still think the forehead protection looks a little shoddy on the surface.
Mountain biking brings a whole new level of risk factors. Chollas for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylindropuntia
I took one to the hand once, I can't imagine taking one to the face or a full on crash.
I took one to the hand once, I can't imagine taking one to the face or a full on crash.
Well, yeah, you wear a helmet on your skull, and your skull is still round.
You don't wear a helmet on your nose, and nose gets a third hole.
You don't wear a helmet on your nose, and nose gets a third hole.
Should have worn a mouthguard too ;)
That is a very nice looking bike.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The CDC started this, with inconclusive information. They are giving the general population bad stats. Go to the American Motorcycle Association website listed here. They have been at this a looonnnggg time. The CDC is only going on what has been given to them without doing any research on their own. So, who do you trust? There are pages and pages that come up when you search CDC Motorcycles that have run this mis-information all over the nation. Please check out AMA's information. It is much more indepth, and much more American. http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/Rights/PositionStatement...
I could have sworn I've seen a prototype of something very similar to this for motorcycle racers years ago...
EDIT: A quick Googling comes up with a whole suit system by Alpinestars, reported on 2 years ago, and another airbag system made by Dainese from 4-5 years ago, which I think is what I saw. I always wondered if these ever made it into the mainstream, or if they were too expensive or were otherwise unavailable/undesirable for the average motorcyclist.
EDIT: A quick Googling comes up with a whole suit system by Alpinestars, reported on 2 years ago, and another airbag system made by Dainese from 4-5 years ago, which I think is what I saw. I always wondered if these ever made it into the mainstream, or if they were too expensive or were otherwise unavailable/undesirable for the average motorcyclist.
If you want to see it in action, it's at 2m:50s in the video.
Some great points in the comments about how helmets are less expensive, but I'm surprised how quickly a revolutionary new tech is being dismissed because of its high initial price point. If this can find scale, the price will fall and they could become even more compact. And if any of this can mean more people actually wearing helmets, this company might save lives. A pretty awesome innovation.
It is interesting tech and to be sure, but when the target market is "people too cool to be seen wearing helmets" it loses some of the punch for me.
I'd be much more interested if the system was a fully body airbag that provides additional protection above and beyond a standard helmet.
I'd be much more interested if the system was a fully body airbag that provides additional protection above and beyond a standard helmet.
See my comment: http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4389384
Looking at a few pictures of these systems inflated (harder to find than you'd think), it doesn't look like they are really "full body". I've always been amused by the idea of an airbag suit that, when triggered, resulted in something like what the Mars rovers used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#Airbag_landing_systems).
Looking at a few pictures of these systems inflated (harder to find than you'd think), it doesn't look like they are really "full body". I've always been amused by the idea of an airbag suit that, when triggered, resulted in something like what the Mars rovers used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#Airbag_landing_systems).
There are a whole lot of hamsters that fit that description though. If an innovation can get people, any people, out of cars and onto bikes somewhat safely, it's a good thing.
My initial impression was that this wouldn't be commercially viable in the US due to prohibitive bicycle helmet laws. Well to my surprise, bike helmet laws in the US are actually pretty lax, with only 21 states requiring them (and usually only for younger riders): http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx
I'd think the real question is whether you'd be allowed to market it as a a "bike helmet". Will it pass ANSI certifications for helmets, like my "real" helmet did?
I thought not only impact, but "skidding" was a huge danger for cyclists [that don't wear helmets]. This seems to do next to nothing to help there.
I'd rather just wear a helmet. Visca el Barça btw.
I´d love to see this to motorcycles too. At my country the helmet is mandatory.
See my comment: http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4389384
It is now so common for skydivers to use automatic activation devices (deploys one's reserve canopy if he passes below a certain altitude traveling at least a certain velocity) that many dropzones refuse to allow the use of "rigs" without them installed. I recall being told that, when the Cypres (www.cypres-usa.com) was first introduced, a major marketing feature was that it is not visible to those casually observing the skydiver or his rig. So, a user could avoid the stigma associated with choosing to reduce the risk of death from skydiving. Over time, the culture reversed so that those not using a Cypres were deemed foolhardy.
I should note that I stopped jumping a few years ago, so my information is somewhat out-of-date.