The Invisible Bicycle Helmet

AdMMM

A controversial subject but it looks like these two girls have figured out a possible solution...

http://vimeo.com/43038579

doozerie

It has been discussed on here before. I certainly find it an interesting idea, and innovation in this area is a good thing I reckon, but I question it's "invisibility". It's "invisible" in the same way that an un-deployed parachute is, which is to say it's not invisible at all. Probably a good marketing angle though I guess.

hueylewis

Definitely an interesting idea, though the comment about helmets being "extremely uncomfortable" is a bit of an exaggeration surely - especially considering you would be trading that discomfort for the discomfort of a thing wrapped around your neck. I imagine that would be potentially more uncomfortable if you're working up any kind of a sweat whilst riding.

Beasty

We've had numerous threads on this product over the last 3 years or so and still no sign of them taking off ...

droidus

TBF to them, its just completed crash testing and has performed amazingly well. I imagine the development process for something like this is fraught with problems. I wish Id had one on when I fell off last week as it seems to offer good neck protection and support.

droidus

Actually, it is available, for only €400!!

They either need to start a 'refill' scheme so you can get it replaced cheaply if you crash, or bring the price down drastically.

Dcully

Pointless, helmets today are neither uncomfortable or ugly.

droidus

I'm more interested in it because it actually seems to work. If I'm going to wear something stupid to protect myself, Id like to know that its actually effective.

tomasrojo

I guess how ugly you think helmets are is a subjective thing. Less subjective is that these 'invisible' ones are pricey.

If they're performing better in tests than conventional helmets, and that seems to be the case, jurisdictions with mandatory hemet laws should rewrite the law to include these as meeting the requirement. No sign of that though.

valleyoftheunos

To me it looks uglier and less comfortable than the Bell I have at the moment. Having said that I think its a good concept and one that I would certainly go for if were a bit smaller and a lot cheaper.

magicbastarder

how can it distinguish between an accident where you hit your head, and a similar one where you don't?
i.e. how do you stop it from deploying when it is not needed?

Mr.Fred

Why try and re invent the wheel? needlessly over engineered piece of equipment.

doozerie

Mr.Fred wrote: »

Why try and re invent the wheel?.

Because the current "wheel" doesn't instil confidence.

droidus

doozerie wrote: »

Because the current "wheel" doesn't instil confidence.

Exactly:

Regular Gizmag readers may recall the Hövding airbag collar we covered back in October 2010. Recent tests by Swedish insurance company Folksam suggest that, when it comes to direct impact tests, the Hövding beats the competition hands down.

Not content with CE standards which test direct impacts at a speed of 20 km/h (12 mph), Folksam instead conducted more onerous tests using impacts at 25 km/h (16 mph).

According to Treehugger, Folksam tested 12 CE-approved helmets and found that the Hövding recorded impacts of 65 Gs at this speed, whereas none of the competition achieved under 200 Gs of force, suggesting that when it comes to direct impact forces, the collar performs almost three times better than conventional helmets.

However, Folksam was unable to apply its method of testing oblique impacts to the Hövding, and suggests that an alternative method will need to be devised. For this reason it appears that Hövding does not appear in Folksam's top-performing helmets which takes findings from both tests.

Inflation of the Hövding airbag takes only one tenth of a second and is triggered by built in accelerometers and gyros.

http://www.gizmag.com/hovding-airbag-tests/23099/

magicbastarder

still, how many false firings would you expect over the course of using that before it fires when it's needed?

Mr.Fred

doozerie wrote: »

Because the current "wheel" doesn't instil confidence.

I wouldn't be confident having a canister of compressed air around one the most vulnerable areas of my body. A full face helmet should ease your fears.

Sarz91

magicbastarder wrote: »

how can it distinguish between an accident where you hit your head, and a similar one where you don't?
i.e. how do you stop it from deploying when it is not needed?

I assume there's some sort of accelerometer built into it so that you have displacement or acceleration in 3 axis x, y and z but that's just my guess.

magicbastarder

i'd assume so too, but there are possibly going to be several such falls where the head or helmet would not contact the ground for every one that it does.

Sarz91

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd assume so too, but there are possibly going to be several such falls where the head or helmet would not contact the ground for every one that it does.

Well I'd also assume that the "helmet" activates when for instance the y velocity begins to increase. Or it could be that the bike has some sort of sensor on the crossbar and once passed the "helmet" inflates.

The latter seems more realistic and would offer a more precise inflation. That is to say it would only inflate when you are indeed falling. I'd like to get a hands on to see though.

doozerie

Mr.Fred wrote: »

I wouldn't be confident having a canister of compressed air around one the most vulnerable areas of my body. A full face helmet should ease your fears.

My fears? What fears? I simply don't have the blind faith that many seem to in the ability of conventional helmets to protect my head and its contents. I believe that there are many unanswered (and seemingly rarely asked) questions about helmet design and the safety standards that helmets have to conform to. That view is not motivated by fear, it is motivated by what I consider healthy scepticism.

I consider the "invisible" helmet to be a welcome departure from existing conventional helmet design and I hope that it promotes further innovation in an area that appears to me to be sadly lacking in that department.

endacl

Anybody else think 'Oh. OK. Head popcorn'?

Capt'n Midnight

you could wear a helmet made of custard

it would keep you cool since it would be a gel

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1294074/The-revolutionary-liquid-armour-suit-bullet-proof-custard.html


the viemo looks like it would catch in the ground rather than acting as a skid lid so there is that whole side of the debate


but at €400 a pop it's a non-starter for mass market - that would pay for a lot of motorbike helmets which are proven to provide protection in collisions with vehicles

petethedrummer

Dcully wrote: »

Pointless, helmets today are neither uncomfortable or ugly.

Helmets are both uncomfortable and ugly.

petethedrummer

Dcully wrote: »

Pointless, helmets today are neither uncomfortable or ugly.

monument

Beasty wrote: »

We've had numerous threads on this product over the last 3 years or so and still no sign of them taking off ...

Loads of cyclists are using them. You just can see them.

Dcully wrote: »

Pointless, helmets today are neither uncomfortable or ugly.

Good one!

Mr.Fred

doozerie wrote: »

My fears? What fears? I simply don't have the blind faith that many seem to in the ability of conventional helmets to protect my head and its contents. I believe that there are many unanswered (and seemingly rarely asked) questions about helmet design and the safety standards that helmets have to conform to. That view is not motivated by fear, it is motivated by what I consider healthy scepticism.

I consider the "invisible" helmet to be a welcome departure from existing conventional helmet design and I hope that it promotes further innovation in an area that appears to me to be sadly lacking in that department.

Okey Dokey then... Good luck on your quest...



Quietly backs away from the slightly irate man..

Mr.Fred

I think folks need to realise a safety device isn't designed to be aesthetically pleasing it's purely designed for functionality. Hard hats on building sites/seat belts for example. These designers are trying to design it for the former but it's a fail imo.

Perhaps if they managed to design the neck tie smaller then it would be more appealing but I suspect the volume of fabric is preventing this. I'd imagine if they teamed up with a jacket manufacturer they could develop a slimmer version incorporating some of the materials/sensors into the jacket.


So I'm all for developing the safest form of protection for our melons but don't be upset when it isn't going to accentuate your boyish looks.

Also I know it's hard to put a price on safety but at €400 I'll take my chances with my styrofoam Giro.

studiorat

Perhaps I shouldn't mention the elephant in the room here, but they aren't invisible!

kirving

Mr.Fred wrote: »

Why try and re invent the wheel? needlessly over engineered piece of equipment.

People said the same about airbags and ABS in cars. Sure what's the point in them? We already had seatbelts and brakes that actually stopped the wheel from turning.

I don't remember the last time I heard about an accidental firing of an airbag, or someone questioning whether the car made the right decision in firing one. This uses very similar technology, so I'd absolutely love to try it out.

Mr.Fred

Kevin Irving wrote: »

People said the same about airbags and ABS in cars. Sure what's the point in them

I doubt it.

Dcully

petethedrummer wrote: »

Helmets are both uncomfortable and ugly.

nah your just way too fussy.

doozerie

Mr.Fred wrote: »

I think folks need to realise a safety device isn't designed to be aesthetically pleasing it's purely designed for functionality. Hard hats on building sites/seat belts for example. These designers are trying to design it for the former but it's a fail imo.

Perhaps if they managed to design the neck tie smaller then it would be more appealing but I suspect the volume of fabric is preventing this. I'd imagine if they teamed up with a jacket manufacturer they could develop a slimmer version incorporating some of the materials/sensors into the jacket.


So I'm all for developing the safest form of protection for our melons but don't be upset when it isn't going to accentuate your boyish looks.

Also I know it's hard to put a price on safety but at €400 I'll take my chances with my styrofoam Giro.

Eh, it's you that's focusing on aesthetics here. Personally I'm interested in any helmet design that provides a better level of protection than current helmets and this "invisible" helmet appears to do just that. Hopefully this type of innovation will encourage others with imagination in a market that appears to be stagnant as regards new ideas.

If you are happy with your polystyrene hat then bully for you, personally I'll continue to wear no helmet at all when it suits me and I'll wear a polystyrene hat of questionable benefit when I'm obliged to do so (club rides, races, etc.). For those later occasions I'd prefer to wear something that I have more confidence in, if I'm obliged to wear something at all.

Mr.Fred

doozerie wrote: »

Eh, it's you that's focusing on aesthetics here. Personally I'm interested in any helmet design that provides a better level of protection than current helmets and this "invisible" helmet appears to do just that. Hopefully this type of innovation will encourage others with imagination in a market that appears to be stagnant as regards new ideas.

If you are happy with your polystyrene hat then bully for you, personally I'll continue to wear no helmet at all when it suits me and I'll wear a polystyrene hat of questionable benefit when I'm obliged to do so (club rides, races, etc.). For those later occasions I'd prefer to wear something that I have more confidence in, if I'm obliged to wear something at all.

Right I'm not sure what the F your issue with me is but there are numbers you can call for the issues you seem to have.

Myksyk

I'm assuming this is a 'one deployment only' piece of equipment. Pretty expensive piece of kit if it needs replacement after each fall.

hueylewis

doozerie wrote: »

Eh, it's you that's focusing on aesthetics here. Personally I'm interested in any helmet design that provides a better level of protection than current helmets and this "invisible" helmet appears to do just that. Hopefully this type of innovation will encourage others with imagination in a market that appears to be stagnant as regards new ideas.

If you are happy with your polystyrene hat then bully for you, personally I'll continue to wear no helmet at all when it suits me and I'll wear a polystyrene hat of questionable benefit when I'm obliged to do so (club rides, races, etc.). For those later occasions I'd prefer to wear something that I have more confidence in, if I'm obliged to wear something at all.

If you distrust standard road helmets, and are genuinely interested in a helmet with superior protection and not concerned with aesthetics, maybe you'd be interested in a full face MTB helmet on the road. Would be considerably cheaper than this inflatable thing.

Sarz91

doozerie wrote: »

Eh, it's you that's focusing on aesthetics here. Personally I'm interested in any helmet design that provides a better level of protection than current helmets and this "invisible" helmet appears to do just that. Hopefully this type of innovation will encourage others with imagination in a market that appears to be stagnant as regards new ideas.

If you are happy with your polystyrene hat then bully for you, personally I'll continue to wear no helmet at all when it suits me and I'll wear a polystyrene hat of questionable benefit when I'm obliged to do so (club rides, races, etc.). For those later occasions I'd prefer to wear something that I have more confidence in, if I'm obliged to wear something at all.

I remember reading a paper about bicycle helmet efficacy. Actually managed to find it. It's a decent enough read. In it they conclude that the evidence is clear
that bicycle helmets prevent serious injury and even death. Give it a read if you're sceptical and if you can. It's on science direct so you may only be able to get a small sample of the paper. I still have my college login :P.

magicbastarder

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I don't remember the last time I heard about an accidental firing of an airbag, or someone questioning whether the car made the right decision in firing one. This uses very similar technology, so I'd absolutely love to try it out.

a steering wheel airbag probably (i'm guessing here, would like to know if i have it arseways) fires based on data from an accelerometer working in one axis, whereas this helmet would probably need accelerometers in three axes.

plus, a large deceleration in a car (beyond what the brakes can physically achieve, which is an easy benchmark to determine an emergency situation) is going to be A Bad Thing; but falling off your bike might result in hitting your head maybe one in four times (estimate plucked out of the air). will the helmet be able to detect which one of those four times is the one time it should deploy?

doozerie

Mr.Fred wrote: »

Right I'm not sure what the F your issue with me is but there are numbers you can call for the issues you seem to have.

Huh?

doozerie

hueylewis wrote: »

If you distrust standard road helmets, and are genuinely interested in a helmet with superior protection and not concerned with aesthetics, maybe you'd be interested in a full face MTB helmet on the road. Would be considerably cheaper than this inflatable thing.

A full face helmet would provide some degree of protection for the chin and face, but as a cycling helmet it still has to just meet the same safety standards as a regular road helmet, and I'm not convinced those safety standards themselves are adequate.

And when I turn that question around and ask people why they trust cycling helmets I've yet to hear an answer which addresses my concerns with helmet design and testing.

petethedrummer

Dcully wrote: »

nah your just way too fussy.

I'm not handsome enough to wear a helmet and still look good.

Beasty

doozerie wrote: »

Huh?

Mr.Fred's post has been actioned - let's leave it there

Thanks

hueylewis

doozerie wrote: »

A full face helmet would provide some degree of protection for the chin and face, but as a cycling helmet it still has to just meet the same safety standards as a regular road helmet, and I'm not convinced those safety standards themselves are adequate.

And when I turn that question around and ask people why they trust cycling helmets I've yet to hear an answer which addresses my concerns with helmet design and testing.

I wouldn't trust my road helmet too much in a high speed collision. It's a tiny barrier of foam between my skull and the road/a car that makes me feel a little bit safer, but I know it won't count for much at high speeds.

What I really wear it for is low speed impacts, or any kind of accident where a relatively soft impact to my head might occur. I would rather scrape and gouge a piece of plastic out of my helmet than suffer a minor wound or direct bump to the side of my head.

tomasrojo

Best to leave the contested issue of the efficacy of the conventional design to the helmet megathread.

Seweryn

Dcully wrote: »

nah your just way too fussy.

No matter how comfortable and pretty they are, I am more comfortable and pretty looking without one on.

RobertFoster

petethedrummer wrote: »

I'm not handsome enough to wear a helmet and still look good.

I wear a helmet and dark glasses to hide my good looks. Can't be distracting pedestrians and other traffic, it just wouldn't be fair.

doozerie

Sarz91 wrote: »

I remember reading a paper about bicycle helmet efficacy. Actually managed to find it. It's a decent enough read. In it they conclude that the evidence is clear
that bicycle helmets prevent serious injury and even death. Give it a read if you're sceptical and if you can. It's on science direct so you may only be able to get a small sample of the paper. I still have my college login :P.

Unfortunately quite a few studies on this topic are open to dispute as to their accuracy and their bias, on both sides of the discussion about whether helmets truly are beneficial. I haven't read the one you link to above as yet, so I'm not raising doubts about it, but it is necessary to approach all of these studies with a bit of scepticism.

As mentioned by tomasrojo though this is very much getting into the realm of the helmet megathread so further discussion on it probably belongs in there. There is some interesting discussion in that thread already, including links to various other studies.

droidus

I not trying to advocate for this product, but to address some concerns:

1/ Accidental deployment

They claim to have run tens of thousands of tests and incorporated the results into an algorithm which correctly identifies when a crash is taking place. It uses gyros and accelerometers, not a sensor on the bike, and it can be turned off when not cycling.

2/Explosive collar

This is inflated using compressed air - NOT the pyrotechnic and chemical inflators used in car airbags which inflate in 20-30 milliseconds. Ive seen the vids, it doesn't seem particularly dangerous. The worst that could happen is an unexpected deployment (see above).

3/ Unnecessary deployment

A fair concern as the collar will activate if you come off your bike regardless of whether or not you hit your head.


As far as I can see, the main advantages of this system are the fact that it seems to offer far more protection than a helmet, and is (arguably) less ugly/inconvenient to the average cyclist.

The main disadvantage is obviously the cost and the fact that it will deploy in a crash regardless of whether your head is in danger. If the cost comes down, the second factor is less of an issue, and, I assume, it will come down.

As for pro use - I can easily envisage a future where smaller versions of these are built into jerseys to provide a neck brace during a crash as an addition to the standard helmet. There are motorcycle helmets with built in airbags for the the neck, and it seems like a reasonable trade off between safety and convenience.

nomdeboardie

It got another TV demo just now, on Dara O Briain's Science Club (BBC2)

kirving

magicbastarder wrote: »

a steering wheel airbag probably (i'm guessing here, would like to know if i have it arseways) fires based on data from an accelerometer working in one axis, whereas this helmet would probably need accelerometers in three axes.

Newer cars would use accelerometers in every direction in order to measure and account for bumps in the road, in addition to gyroscopes and actual crash sensors. My point was really that the systems that control airbags and ABS are far more complicated than most people realise, meaning that the helmet isn't actually too much of a jump in complexity. (In simplistic terms; If you know the head height when cycling along, it's easy to judge how close the head is to the road by integrating acceleration values over time)

magicbastarder wrote: »

hitting your head maybe one in four times (estimate plucked out of the air). will the helmet be able to detect which one of those four times is the one time it should deploy?

Fair point, I'd hate to see €400 down the drain after felling on my shoulder, but I'm sure that it's only a matter of time before it becomes a multi-use item since it only uses a CO2 cartridge.

I do see some sense in the single use aspect, initially anyway. If the company don't have a testing facility in place to check deployed helmets, they can't really stand over it for a second use since it may be damaged from contact with the road. It's just matter of time I suspect.

tomasrojo

Conventional helmets are also supposed to be replaced after any fall when they contact the ground.

I assume the Hövding might deploy even should you break your fall the usual way, with your arms, and so would require replacing a little more often -- and at much greater cost. Nevertheless, I've gone from thinking this design to be rather silly to thinking it has some potential. At least, if I lived in a mandatory-helmet jurisdiction I'd preferentially use one of these, if I could afford it and they were admitted into law.

Capt'n Midnight

Sarz91 wrote: »

I remember reading a paper about bicycle helmet efficacy. Actually managed to find it. It's a decent enough read. In it they conclude that the evidence is clear
that bicycle helmets prevent serious injury and even death. Give it a read if you're sceptical and if you can. It's on science direct so you may only be able to get a small sample of the paper. I still have my college login :P.

and here's the reply to that (my highlights)
http://helmetfreedom.org/553/publication-bias-and-time-trend-bias-in-meta-analysis-of-bicycle-helmet-efficacy/

This paper shows that the meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy reported by Attewell, Glase, and McFadden (Accident Analysis and Prevention 2001, 45–352) was influenced by publication bias and time-trend bias that was not controlled for
...
After controlling for these biases, Elvik concludes:

Bike helmets reduce the risk of head injuries, all other things equal, although not by as much as previously reported.
Bike helmets increase the risk of neck and rotational injuries.
Older studies show a small postive reduction in injuries when considering head, neck and face as a whole.
Newer studies of helmet efficacy “summarised by a random-effects model of analysis, indicate no net protective effect.”
The results from studies of the effectiveness of helmet laws are not consistent with the claims of helmet efficacy. Mandatory helmet legislation doesn’t produce the effects that pro-helmet research predicts it should.

So while no new primary data is presented, this study is still interesting in that it highlights the dilemma for promoters of helmet legislation – not a single study anywhere in the world has shown that helmet laws make cycling safer.

see also http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1251.html