- So I started biking recently and was hunting for helmets.
And turns out Virgina Tech does a bunch of helmet impact testing and maintains a ranking list https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/. The latest helmets have a releasable layer that absorbs (converts rotational energy?) more impact.
This HUD is pretty slick. In a way, it's more preventative (avoiding accidents) vs. reactive (absorbing impact in an accident) safety which sounds nice.
- 99% of bike fatalities involve car crashes. There is no styrofoam helmet which will protect against that, and the VaTech test notably does not model that type of crash.
To my knowledge, the only group that tried to test bike helmets against a car is Volvo -- and all helmets failed.
- The key service performed by a cycling helmet is not turning a death situation into a permanently maimed situation (they do that, but that's a very rare occurrence), it's turning a life changing injury situation into a situation of some fractured bones that will be almost forgotten two months later. The life and death part is overrated.
I guess one reason people are so focused on that is because it's easy to quantify.
- X-Rays of Rob Pike's Shoulder http://herpolhode.com/rob/xray.html
- Yeah, there are clavicle fractures that clearly don't need any surgery, but when in doubt, always slap on some titanium. Just try to get rid of the plate before the next fracture opportunity, because then you'll get an AC joint separation instead of a fracture and that stuff won't grow back. Ask me how I know, I had surgery to swap a fracture plate for an AC plate (those AC plates really, really suck)
- 99% of bike fatalities involve car crashes.
US or globally? Got any stats to link to on that?
- https://www.facs.org/about-acs/statements/statement-on-bicyc...
Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 48%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, facial injury by 23%, and fatal injury by 34%.2 Pediatric non-helmeted bikers have a 3-fold higher risk of serious head injury compared to helmeted bikers;3 one study suggests that helmet use may reduce the risk of head injury by 83%.4
Bicycle-related head injuries and deaths have decreased in states that have enacted bicycle helmet laws.5
Larger effects are found when legislation applies to all cyclists than when it applies to children only. 6
- "one study suggests that helmet use may reduce the risk of head injury by 83%"
That one study has been thoroughly debunked...yet decades later it still gets cited.
https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/06/04/feds-no-longer-ba...
- That's not what the ACS cited; this is: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10796827/
- Yeah some random blog from keen bikers is really debunking it all globally, including common sense.
I don't get this fanatical defense of no-helmet-at-all-fucking-cost stance many here often express. I personally know a person who died in bike accident helmet-less, she went head first due to slamming front brake too hard, straight on the head on tarmac, no complex situation, it was more than enough.
I had similar situation - new xc bike bought cca 2007, for the first time buying helmet, spent whole childhood and adulthood without one. Within 3 weeks, I had to slam brakes on narrow winding forest path due to my GF stopping abruptly behind the corner. Don't have memory of that situation, remember opening eyes while laying on the ground, looking at crumpled helmet and visor, and seeing how my forehead went perfectly into a sharp stone sticking out of the ground, not much cca 5cm. More than enough to kill me, and GF told me I hit the ground with quite a bit of force.
I have friends with broken collar bones, shoulders, wrists, scars on heads, from various common bike situations, mostly in the city. Many were skeptics, all of them wear helmets now (sometimes due to hard push from their SO). Most of our friends are doctors due to my wife being one, every single one of them had to do some time in emergency in biggest Swiss hospital, and every single one of them had seen rough head injuries including death from all those folks who swore to never wear helmet, it limits their view (bullshit), their senses (huh?) and so on.
Every single sport facing death risk is maximizing their survival chances by smart behavior and better equipment, which often include helmets. But somehow these folks feel like (since this is hard emotional debate, not factual one) they are outside normal risk envelope thats valid for every single living thing on Earth.
But sure, don't wear the helmet, but lets agree you will cover full lifetime costs of any injury treatment to head/neck/shoulders, including all after care due to permanent disabilities. And don't whine when your kids die because daddy was a bit fanatic and picked up wrong hill to wage their insecurities/arrogance battle on.
/rant
- Yeah, it's funny that some guy who baselessly claims that "99% of bike fatalities involve car crashes" (when people say "99%", odds are that they are pulling it out of their nether regions) then says that a study cited by the American College of Surgeons (which only says that "one study suggests") "has been thoroughly debunked", offering a citation that doesn't say that. What it does say is that the number from the study hasn't been replicated and other studies consistently show lower numbers. How much lower? It doesn't say. But one thing that is clear is that our drunken correspondent is himself highly prone to exaggeration.
And he notably has nothing to say about any of the other numbers and consequences mentioned by the ACS.
P.S. The 1989 "debunked" study isn't even what ACS cited! Their citation was an overview paper that used a broad range of studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10796827/
- Looks like 99% of the bulletholes are in the wings here...
- The helmet business is amazing, and proof that one is born every minute. It deserves to be shown how many logical fallacies there are. Top of the list is anecdotal evidence, everyone with a mouth can tell you about someone that had their life saved by magic styrofoam.
There is a grain of truth to the anecdotal claims. But, even then, this is very much an imagined grain of truth. What makes it fun is if you work for a specialist bicycle shop or up the chain, distributing thousands of helmets. With customer interaction at the showroom level, fitting hundreds of helmets, then selling gazillions at B2B, the question has to be asked, where are the broken ones, the one sent back for money off, as a replacement discount?
Indoctrination into the polystyrene club is also very easy. Customer buys new bicycle, customer gets upsold a helmet, as an easy win. The far more practical high vis jacket costs $5 and you make no profit on that, whereas the $50+ polystyrene is just money for the taking.
The testing was originally to a SNELL standard, but the helmets were too heavy. So manufacturers switched to the lame self-test consumer testing, 'trust us bro'. This became the new benchmark, anything aiming at SNELL or other meaningful test just did not survive the market.
Hence I keep it simple. If cycling for conspicuous leisure purposes (fitness, racing, stunts) then get the helmet and make sure the straps are tight. You will need it for organised events so you might as well get used to wearing it.
If not cycling for conspicuous leisure purposes, but merely for transport, whether that be the commute or errands, then you don't need a helmet. Get the lights, mudguards and high vis instead.
I am learning the counter-logical-fallacies, so I can counter the life saved anecdote with quality nonsense that has the same logical fallacies. For example, "I know a true Scotsman that has been cycling every day for fifty years without a helmet. Once he got hit by a car and his life was saved because he was not wearing an ill-fitting helmet, he would have been strangled by the straps had he been wearing a helmet, plus the driver would have given him less room, so the accident would have been far worse."
I digress, as for the article, the helmet is excellent for conspicuous leisure cycling. Now give me your money!
- Of course, wearing a helmet is a choice and many get on just fine without it. I've come off my bike enough times where my helmet prevented a nasty bump to the head to wear one, but I suspect I'd have survived just fine without it. I view my helmet as insurance against my own incompetence - slipping on a wet manhole cover for example. For context I ride thousands of km a year for transport, but have done much riding as a conspicuous leisure activity too. I just wear a helmet and I'm not really bothered by it.
- > And turns out Virgina Tech does a bunch of helmet impact testing and maintains a ranking list https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/
Thanks for sharing. Interesting to see my Giro (with MIPS) has... 3 stars. Hmmm.
- Fwiw they changed their ranking system a year or two ago in a way that moved a bunch of formerly 5 star helmets to 3 stars.
Too many helmets hit the old five star threshold, so to differentiate it's now based on relative performance (the x% best helmets get 5 stars) instead of static thresholds.
- MIPS is a liner that makes the same helmet a bit better.
A crappy helmet with MIPS is a slightly less crappy helmet that may still be worse than a great non-MIPS helmet.
Like upgrading a 1960 motor vehicle death trap’s 2 point seat belts to 3 point. It’ll help, but it’s still a death trap.
- I'm pretty convinced mips is just marketing. Hair will do the same thing. That's why in rock climbing world, petzl hasn't even bothered with it when they're usually very forward thinking about their designs (first company to do side impact testing).
- MIPS is increasingly common in rock helmets. Black Diamond (anecdotally the most common brand I see in the US) now has it in their higher end models, and Mammut as well.
- Petzl makes better helmets than BD. They pioneered the ultralight foam kind with the sirocco that everyone (including BD and Mammut) copied. Yet they still don't care about MIPS.
- Just checked my BD climbing helmet I bought few years ago (seems like Mips Capitan model based on design).
Considered these things a gimmick (any technical equipment bought has list of various tech used within, I generally ignore that by default since I have no idea what each means), happy to see move for more safety in this area. Even small steps matter.
I will climb in big heat wave we have here in Europe now this evening, more sweaty = more slippery on polished rock crags, risk is always not as far as we like to think.
- It does feel like a thing that has never been properly validated. It's a good market to push this in because, well, why wouldn't you spend 10% more to be a little bit safer?
- > Hair will do the same thing.
VA Tech (and others, IIRC) has years of empirical tests that show otherwise. What is your comment based on?
Edit: In fact, if I understand your analysis, humans won't get concussions at all.
- VA's test dummy doesn't have hair.
- That's not a basis for your claim.
- What? GP's claim is that hair provides a similar benefit. VA is simply not testing heads with hair on them -- their tests can't "show otherwise" (your claim).
- > GP's claim is that hair provides a similar benefit.
GP provides no evidence for that. VA Tech not addressing it (if it's true that they don't - I have no reason to believe it) is not evidence. VA Tech also doesn't address my theory that microscopic super-intelligent aliens affect helmet response.
- Thank you for this comment. I paid a little extra to get a helmet with mips but didn’t even think about my (long) hair serving the same function.
- I’m bald on top
- Exactly. Hair and scalp. Evolution already made a MIPS system. The thing lacking it was the test dummies that Virginia Tech uses, so now they recommend we put it in helmets too.
- Not having my hair and scalp act as the MIPS system is worth the $20 extra to me.
- I think they will already act like that, MIPS or not. Stick a helmet on your head, now wiggle it. It moves really quite a bit, unless you like to wear it so tight you get a headache.
- Is it worth helmets that are 100g heavier and don't breathe as well, though?
- Or the ground being low traction: dusty/dirt/wet. Harder to control what you land on, but will diminish MIPS’ ROI in many situations.
- If ruling out risks by a priori is a solution, why wear a helmet at all? Maybe you won't hit your head when you fall. Maybe you'll land in water or on a satin pillow (low friction).
- Not ruling out anything but pointing out MIPS’ benefits will be poorer than portrayed in the lab in many realistic situations.
Sure, buy all the safety equipment you can afford that has any possible benefit.
What’s better: a $15 more expensive bike light or a $15 more expensive helmet with MIPS?
- For $15, everybody should buy both. It's a non issue
- > MIPS’ benefits will be poorer than portrayed in the lab in many realistic situations
How are they testing it in the lab? How do concussions work in realistic situations (is there one way?)? What is the distribution of realistic situations?
Maybe the benefits are better in realistic situations; maybe the lab tests are more aggressive than reality or the results are interpreted conservatively (because scientists spending years on something might have thought of a 30-second hot take), ...
- Big shoutout to this study! Highly recommend donating if you get any value from these lists
> The latest helmets have a releasable layer that absorbs (converts rotational energy?) more impact.
MIPS? Or is there something newer
- I've posted that to HN before and it never gets traction. It's too bad; it's an excellent resource.
- Last I knew, several years ago, Virginia Tech tested for concussion prevention and the layer that 'slips' on impact was called the MIPS layer. (Please correct me if that's changed.)
That is important and useful, and is best used in combination with other testing: Bicycling also has many other and more serious risks to cyclist head, including skull fractures, brain damage, and death.
Consumer Reports is another great source (better one IMHO); in their labs they do empirical testing for other outcomes of ~150 helmets, and provide a comprehensive guide to buying helmets:
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/bike-helmets/
In Consumer Reports’ tests, we strap helmets onto “head forms” that simulate the size of a human head, then drop them 14 mph onto a flat anvil to find out how well they withstand impact. An electronic sensor inside the head form monitors the force that would be transmitted to a rider’s skull in an accident.
To ensure the helmet will stay in place during an accident, we test the strength of the chinstraps, attachment points, and buckles by dropping a weight that’s 8¾ pounds and 2 feet so that it yanks on the straps to simulate the force of a crash.
Our testers also evaluate each helmet for ventilation, fit adjustments, ease of use, and other features.
- MIPS is great but every layer is a tradeoff with venting. without MIPS the vents allow air onto your scalp. with MIPS you effectively have a plastic shower cap over your head, beneath the EVA foam insulator.
I'm anti MIPS
- There are multiple MIPS systems. The early ones were like you described, with a distinct feeling of too much plastic. Newer ones (e.g. Integra) are much more seamless. There are also other companies doing different types of rotational tech, like Lazer with an integral foam-based shearing design.
If you have only tried first-gen MIPS, I recommend giving it another shot.
- thanks that's actually helpful. I wasn't aware of the revisions. i have a 2023/2024 POC with mips. I'm guessing it's gen whatever. I'm sure a lot of people don't mind it. I ride a lot and sweat a lot so I'm more sensitive to airflow than most.
- I'm looking at my 2 MIPS helmets right now and your comment is complete nonsense. If anything the MIPS layer will allow for more breathability.
- how does a plastic liner improve breathability? the foam layer has clearance over the scalp/ hair. The mips layer sits over the scalp and prevents airflow.
- No mention of a built in camera makes this a total non starter for me. If I'm going all in on an AI helmet it better be able to record front and back so my next of kin can get a payout from whatever pavement princess flattened me in the unprotected bike lane.
- Its part of a whole prototype system, the cameras would be on the bike, it also mentions radar and all kinds of things. Basically just building a whole sensor suite into a bike platform. Idk how serious they are about it. https://media-centre.canyon.com/en-INT/266864-futuristic-pro...
- Not even a rear-view mirror. Which is the second most important piece of safety gear after a helmet.
- I'm surprised it doesn't tie into taillight radars. I've been intrigued by those but I don't want to deal with also buying a bike computer to see its output (plus the brand that's considered the "best" still uses micro-usb)
- the new varia is usb-c
- To anyone who wants to ride more safely I cannot recommend enough this simple $20 mirror which I find so valuable that I buy extra and hand them out to friends and strangers to help keep them safer. A mirror mounted on your glasses or a similar mirror affixed to your helmet (close to your eyes and mounted on your head) allows for a large field of view that you can easily steer to see behind you.
I ride on the streets of Oakland every single day and situational awareness is critical. The single biggest thing you can do for safety is watch each car as it approaches behind you for its speed and trajectory. Anyone approaching too close or too fast is a bad sign and with a mirror you can more easily avoid them.
These are also available on Amazon and I am not in any way affiliated I just think they’re good life saving technology:
- Obviously the mirror gets the job done, but I use Garmin Varia radar hooked up to my bike computer and you can see cars behind you and their velocity is displayed as different colors. It’s way more expensive, but amazing for road biking.
- I’ll second this, it’s absolutely a game changer. I’ve used handlebar mounted mirrors and the like but I’ll never willingly go back.
I tend to prefer helmet mounted and I glue them on which isn’t my favorite thing to do on a new helmet. It’s also a bit frustrating when you find yourself cycling in a country that drives on the opposite side.
I do find that on very long tours the week following I’m looking where I’d expect the mirror to be when I want to look behind me.
- This looks like a choice is a serious eye injury if you roll is something you're looking for. Why not buy a handlebar mirror like this one https://cateye.com/intl/products/accessories/BM-45/ I have one on each of my bikes, road/gavel/fitness. Dirt cheap, gives very good rear visibility and very compact size.
- Radars do this better. They can warn you from much further away and do not require for you to keep an eye out - there’s audible cues.
- I'm not sure who this is for. It's a time trial style helmet, but isn't very useful for time trialing. And it's not a commuter helmet. And it's not a road riding helmet, as it has no breathability. Is this a defensive patent thing?
- Note, they say it is based on their existing helmet[1].
[1]: https://www.canyon.com/en-de/clothing/helmets/canyon-cfr/can...
- it's just a thing to show off in their trade show booth.
maybe there will be some engineer on the project who learns something useful while working on this that can be applied to some actual project, but this is pretty clearly not an actual product that they intend to sell in anything more than single-digit quantities
- While this is cool, I’m really surprised that eyeglass or sunglasses manufacturers haven’t doubled down on simple HUDs. In swimming there are the FORM goggles [0], but everything in the sunglasses space is focused on voice and cameras (looking at you Meta).
I really just want a basic, simple HUD that can display speed, distance, pace, HR from other sources. I don’t care about it being standalone, I already have a bike computer, phone, and watch.
- [0] - https://www.formswim.com/products/smart-swim-2-lt-goggles
- Oh no I forgot to charge my helmet.
Also, helmets are meant to be replaced every couple of years as the materials deteriorate (UV/heat) and the protection dissipates.
As we like to say, dentist helmet.
- https://www.consumerreports.org/health/bike-helmets/when-you...
Not necessarily:
But if you really like your old helmet—and it’s in good condition—one scientific study tested older helmets and showed that holding on to one for longer won’t necessarily put you at significant risk. Randy Swart, executive director of the nonprofit Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute and former vice chair of the helmet and headgear subcommittee for ASTM International, a nonprofit, voluntary standards-setting organization, says that his own helmet is “much older than that,” though he adds that there may be other good reasons to get a new helmet, such as more protective technology included in some newer models.
- > UV
How can I get people to stop laughing at me for tinfoiling my helmet?
- I’m so done with technology’s “answer to a question nobody asked.” Like bluetooth derailleurs. Utter garbage. The only down side is that this wave of technocrap wipes out shelf space for analog cyclists. Hard enough to find a decent triple front derailleur, let alone 48-spoke hubs with a cartridge. Now this crap.
- Wasn't the triple front derailleur basically obsoleted by putting more gears on the rear? All the talk has been around single front gears and 12-13 rear gears. None of that has to do with electronics.
- Even if you put more on the rear you can still get 50% more options if you add a 3rd front cog.
It's not needed on everything but I really appreciate the extra options on my recumbent and touring bike.
- Most of those options are overlapping and redundant though. Only the total range really matters, by simplifying the front the whole system becomes easier to use and mechanically less complicated.
- Wear on the chain is greatly increased though on a 1x12 versus a 2x10, because of alignment.
Tolerances on a 1x setup are also much tighter, not ideal for long distance cycletrekking adventures.
Also, with a front derailer, dropping the chain to a smaller cog in the front to get to a lighter gear results in much happier shifting than having to lift the chain to a larger cog on the rear derailer when going uphill.
When MTB racing you can really get some advantage out of shifting combination discipline using a front derailer, when going from a downhill into an uphill.
I'm sad it's hard to find a 2x setup on new bicycles nowadays :-/
- I'm sure I'm just being a crotchety old graybeard but I ride my bikes to get away from this crap. I do use Strava to track my rides on my watch but I don't even look at it until the ride is over.
- I don't have strava or anything. I don't even know how long my rides are, my best times, my altitude. I just go for a ride; successfully capturing the exact feeling of riding since I was a teenager.
- I personally find strava culture to generally be toxic and annoying, though the above poster seems to use it in a genuine way. 8A is similar in the climbing community. Similar to Github: what starts out as an honest need for tracking and documentation turns into a social-media-showboating circus.
- Amen
- I'm sure I'm just being a crotchety old graybeard but I ride my bikes to get away from this crap.
Don't apologize for being a human being. The world needs more of them.
- > Its primary function – setting it apart from other eyewear data systems – is to provide instantly visible alerts about the behaviour other road users (e.g. such as brake light activation, *crash detection*, etc)
Just what I need, when a car nearby me crashes into a physical object, my vizor helmet is shouting "Bonzai!!!" with lighting bolts everywhere.
- Kind of surprising this stuff still is little more than a concept. 12 years after google launched and scrapped it's glasses there are still no well established alternatives for cycling, which is such an obvious market. Everyone is wearing glasses, everyone has a computer mounted to their handlebar, let's integrate them together already.
- It might make more sense to put this in the glasses than attached to the helmet, which is ultimately a consumable. But I basically agree with sibling comment that no one really wants this. (I race bikes and know a lot of other racers.)
- Well the helmet is also a consumable (you should swap them every few years and of course after every crash). But having the visor integrated in the visor is awkward.
- I’ve the same opinion between heated gloves and pogies.
Pogies are great but don’t do you any good off of your bike.
- And everyone will bully you on the group ride if you show up with this.
- There are HUD glasses for triathletes, and have been for years. That's why the ANT+ "extended display" profile exists. These HUD glasses have been on the market for at least 15 years. UCI rules prohibit them, which is why they are marketed to triathletes.
- With UCI ruling on bike computer sizes in the name of reducing rider distractions, I bet that HUD glasses would be outlawed with post hast if they became a thing in the pro peloton.
- That's a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. This would, at best, be useful for someone doing a time trial. I don't see road racers using it in any other context.
- The title is a bit confusing imho, it seems it fits more for time trialing rather than general road riding? I can't see no vents whatsoever, my incredibly sweaty noggin would soak tons of sweat into that thing
- It's not intended to be a real helmet. It's a prototype / marketing exercise. It is inevitably too expensive and/or heavy to be a practical helmet.
- I feel like this would work better if it were cheap enough to serve Uber Eats delivery workers instead of pro riders.
- I wish they showed videos with a human model or the retractable mechanism.
At first glance the visor seems large enough to cover the face, but based on the HUD simulation I guess it only covers the eyes.
- As someone who commutes in traffic daily, this is not what I need or want. First up, it looks heavy and badly-ventilated, and then there's the potential for distracting info blocking my view of the actual road in front of me. Even if it was really good info (which would take really good sensors, plus a lot of compute to cram onboard), I am skeptical it'd be better than, you know, paying attention to your surroundings. I like ADAS functionality in modern cars just fine, but it seems like a stretch to try and bring it to bikes. What we all could use is some kind of ad hoc network between all road users, so the car that was thinking about turning in front of me could ping my helmet / bike and understand that it should wait and turn behind me instead.
- I also did many miles commuting and riding in the city. A key, absolute rule after too many close calls was to never cross in front of a car about to enter or cross-over the road I was on unless I could see the driver looking at me. No matter how clear my right-of-way was or how obvious I thought I was. One close call about every 10K miles or so was enough for me to realize only purely defensive riding in the city would keep me uninjured (or worse). Sure a lot of riders rail at bad drivers, but that doesn't help in the end if you get t-boned. Hope this helmet helps with that.
- +1 to this. I always make eye contact with the driver in any iffy scenario. If you’re going to commit vehicular manslaughter on me, you’re gonna have to look me in the eye while you do it!
- What information would your bike send to the car in this example that would help?
We're closer to having lidar in all new cars than this mesh network, so "There's a bike behind you travelling approximately X speed" is something the car already knows. "The cyclist requested you not to turn in front of him" - why would anyone ever send anything else?
Perhaps the car can send you a message instead "I'm going to cut you off and there's nothing you can do about it" but even if that might actually improve safety I don't think it's the change you'd want to see.
- The idea would be more like the car, not the human behind the wheel, would realize that if it right-hooked me that would be bad (read insurance-increasing, citeable offense, etc.) and wait, where the driver would just keep flipping through their playlist and crush me.
- > "There's a bike behind you travelling approximately X speed"
Funny how garmin varia gives the exact same information but on cars. "There's a car behind you travelling approximately X speed" (which is most often over the speed limit anyway)
- I get the impression that this is not where it’s aimed.
- [dead]
- There have been a few attempts at devices like this before such the Everysight Raptor and Garmin Varia Vision but none of them ever found mainstream adoption. In principle a HUD with navigation cues and key cycling metrics would be nice to have. But the devices have always had problems such as poor integration with bike computers or discomfort on long rides or incompatibility with prescription lenses or just looking goofy. Road cyclists aren't necessarily shy about wearing stupid looking kit but there are limits, and this new Canyon helmet looks like you're cosplaying as a stormtrooper.
- Hmmmmm, a visor? I suppose it'll get steamed up pretty easily when hillclimbing on a cold damp morning.
- I use a Garmin edge bike computer and a Garmin tail light with lidar that shows cars as they come up from behind on you on the computer screen and give audio alert as well.
That works well enough for most road riding. I wonder if having a reverse view mapped onto my glasses would be an improvement or take away from my focus.
- I use a [mirror](https://takealookactive.com/), it adds so much more confidence and safety that I'll refuse to ride without it. Helps me make left turns, avoid aggressive cars, and make sure I'm not dropping my friends. No fancy electronics, no battery to charge, and it's inexpensive to replace.
- I've been commuting with a mirror for 5 years; it feels SO dangerous the odd time I commute with my non-mirrored mountain bike.
- So about the lidar: what does that actually do for you? Or I should say, what do you do in response to it? Do you yield more road space if it tells you a car is approaching? I've been trying to understand what good such an alert actually does for an otherwise attentive rider.
- The lidar shows me:
- if a car is behind me
- how many cars( I think up to 8) are behind me
- what speed they are coming up on me by way of animation
To answer your question about what to do, mostly yes, yield the road if I'm on a country road and get over to the shoulder if there is a good paved one.
It's a valid question if you've never ridden on a country road with cars. You want all the notification you can get if someone is coming up behind you so you can plan what to do
- There are a lot of new safety bike tech gadgets. It's difficult to spot nice ones, like MIPS helmets, from the useless.
Do my fellow hacker news readers recommend some useful tech for bikes?
- This really seems like a solution in search of a problem. Maybe it would be useful for pro tour riders, but I would guess it'll be banned as not in the spirit of cycle racing. Recumbents would really change the game in the pro tour for speed but the UCI doesn't allow them for the same reason.
- The target market is more likely to be affluent amateurs rather that pros. The pros will typically have a team car or radio for navigation, and aren't as dependent on metrics like power or heart rate for training.
Recumbent bikes might be fun to watch in time trial races but would be ridiculously dangerous in a peloton. Visibility is bad enough on a regular bike when you're at the back of a group, and the lower perspective on a recumbent would make mass crashes even more likely. Yikes.
- And recumbents on descents? Yeeeucchhh
- At least you crash feet-first.
- The target market is media (and social media). This won't be sold.
- This is unfortunately how I feel about AR in general, despite having worked in the space for a while.
- These things are already banned by UCI. Any kind of display has to be attached to the bike.
I can see a HUD (not this one) for non-pro club riders, though. It might be nice to be able to see your stats while holding a wheel at 20+ MPH, without having to look away.
- Except I've not heard of anyone using them, either online or IRL. If I'm holding a wheel my head unit is close to where I'm already looking, and the focus shift is similar to (or less than) going from the wheel in front of me to infinity where HUDs typically put things at.
- Yeah I've never heard of it either. I was just trying to steelman their motivations for this demo.
- Smart ski googles have had this for a while.
- As a cyclist myself. I’m not sure I could wear something like this.
- HUD won't protect from a driver texting and running you over!
- What will protect is taking bicycles off motor vehicle roadways, and laying down new, much narrower bicycle-exclusive roads all over instead. It doesn't make sense to mix the slower and vulnerable bicycle traffic with the faster and safer motor vehicles!
- We could also slow down the motor vehicles to the speeds where drivers can react to pedestrians and cyclists.
And improve education all around for road users, including pedestrians, to widen the understanding of how individual decisions affect the community. For example, starting to cross the road at the end of the crosswalk signal leads to fewer cars able to turn right, which leads to more congestion, etc. Trying to make it across the intersection when traffic is moving slowly and blocking crosswalks and cross traffic. Opening the driver's side door with your opposite hand to look in the side view mirror or blind spot for cyclists.
- Thanks to LaWs, people do this with their phone on their lap instead of held up with a forward field of view. Yay?
- See also https://minimis.life/ which is an Aussie startup with a foot in California trying to do a cycling-focused AR smart glasses solution (ie. no helmet integration).
- [dead]
- [flagged]
- [dead]
- [dead]
- I didn't see anything in the press release about notifying riders that they're not a quantum superposition of vehicle and pedestrian that can collapse into whatever legal domain they feel is most convenient.
