Motorcyclists To Get Wearable Airbags

jonerik writes "For the past hundred years or so motorcycle accidents have had an unfortunate potential for particularly horrific injuries, or worse. Improvements in safety gear have certainly been made in the past few decades, but in some ways those improvements have been balanced out by the tremendous speeds that modern bikes are capable of. According to this article from ABC News, though, Dainese, a protective sports clothing maker in Vicenza, Italy has developed a wearable airbag vest - called the D-Air - designed to cushion riders in the event of an accident. The D-Air vest features a tiny electronic computer referred to as the STM (which stands for Sensing, Triggering, and Memory), which was developed by an Israeli company called Merhav APP. According to the article, the STM contains sensors that monitor the bike's physical motion. 'The sensors onboard the STM will watch for telltale signs -- such as a sudden deceleration force of about ten times that of gravity -- that precede a collision. Once the computer determines an impending accident, the STM blasts the data to receiver in the vest to start the inflation process.' This site also features some pictures of the D-Air vest in action. Dainese plans to begin selling the D-Air vest in Europe in the spring, though American sales will have to wait since the U.S. Department of Transportation has yet to set standards for such a device."

Comments

Ouch!

[DJPenguin]

Sounds like this sort of thing, if not calibrated perfectly for the person wearing it, could blow your head off!

Re:Ouch!

[e8johan]

An airbag inflator has the power of a hand granade. I would not like to carry such as device too close to the body. Also, what happens if I would wear a packpack, or have someone on join me on the bike (sitting behind me).

This device may look right, but how many lives will it save compared to those it take. Also, how do you dispose an explosive jacket, or take it with out on an aircraft. I'd say that this is probably a publicity stunt, and not really a life saver as airbags in cars are, but thats just MHO.

Re:Ouch!

[chamenos]

i agree. worse still, the danger the wearable airbag poses should it inflate when its not supposed to would be immense. will the company be held liable in such an event?

Re:Ouch!

[Goth Biker Babe]

You do have to remember that airbags in cars in the US are a lot more powerful than those in Europe. In the US they are designed to try and save people who refuse to wear seat belts. Over here most people wear them (in the UK its the law, both front and back) and it's considered the drivers fault if they are injured because they aren't wearing their belt.

I suspect that these bags are not as powerful as you might think. Having said that I wouldn't want to wear one.

Re:Ouch!

[Paul Jakma]

iirc from a report on Dainese's work on this jacket from quite a while ago, the jacket has a safety interlock, a key (attached to the jacket) which you need to plug into a receptle on the bike in order for it to be active. They might have changed the mechanism since then, (or i might not have iirc), but you can bet there will be some kind of interlock precisely because of the reasons you give.

Its definitely not a publicity stunt though. Dainese have been working on this jacket for quite a long while (many years). They're also one of the biggest names in protective motorcycle apparel.

Re:Ouch!

[e8johan]

I live in Sweden where seat belts are compulsory too, just as in the UK. This rule is the biggest life saver of them all, no airbag in the world saves you in a roll-over situation (which is quite common).

As for the force, I work at a company producing the inflators used in passenger side airbags and they are really powerful (the company name is Autoflator, a part of the Autoliv group). I have also smashed a car (aquaplaning... scary stuff) and I got hit pretty good by the airbag.

At least we agree on not wearing them!

Re:Ouch!

[Zathrus]

As of Jan, 2001 17 states had primary seat belt laws (meaning that if a cop saw you not wearing one then you could be pulled over and ticketed for that alone). I haven't been able to find any more current numbers or how many states have secondary laws (can't be pulled over for it, but can be ticketed if pulled over for something else). I'm sure someone out there with better Google skills can find info.

As for the women who put the shoulder belt behind them -- well, I hope they never wind up in an accident. Three point harnasses (shoulder and waist belts) are not made to be worn without the shoulder strap. They will probably wind up being seriously injured in the groin area, along with upper chest injuries from slamming into the steering wheel (with or without airbag -- my sister has been spending the last 4 months recovering from a 90 mph head on collision because some ditz crossed into her lane of traffic; if it hadn't been for her wearing a selt belt properly and airbags she would be dead).

Re:Ouch!

[coloth]

In the US they are designed to try and save people who refuse to wear seat belts. Over here most people wear them

I'm always a little curious about broad statements, especially when comparing the habits of different societies.

I live in California, which is the most populous state, and has by far the most cars of any state, as well as the most stringent emissions laws. It turns out that, at least as of 1999, it also had the highest rate of seat belt use, nearly 90%. (Buckle up America Report, 2001)

At a national level, that 90% is considered a target number for 2005. As of 2002, national usage is at 75%, which was a sad surprise to me. Of course, each state has its own laws.

It isn't surprising to me that less than half of North Dakotans wear a seat belt, considering the rural environment and culture, but I would have thought the national average would be higher by now.

Interestingly, all the states that border California are also very high.

Re:Ouch!

[Blkdeath]

I'd say that this is probably a publicity stunt, and not really a life saver as airbags in cars are, but thats just MHO.

Airbags, much like ABS brakes and anything else used in cars are only partially effective, and only when used right. In many circumstances people have walked away from rather non-fatal collisions with broken jaws, ribs, and being partially or completely blinded.

Having spoken with a biker (sitting in the next room from me. ;) ) he agrees that this vest is highly impractical. When you're launched from your bike, you keep your appendages close to your body and roll, similar to how paratroopers roll on landing to reduce the stress on your body. Also, they have to be able (barring physical injury) to get up and walk away, so as to prevent them from being flattened by passing cars (who tend to pay so much attention to the wreck they'd hit the broad side of a barn if it were planted in front of them). This vest looks like it has serious potential to create a situation faced by Ralphie's brother in "A Christmas Story". (Think 'big snow suit', and 'can't move')

Much as I hate to abuse a cliche; the best life saver in all these cases is education. Motorcyclists have to observe proper safety precautions, and cars have to be told that no, you can NOT share a lane space with a motorcycle, and that while they're not as big, they're considered the same as a car when it comes to road usage. There are many statistics about how motorcyclists have been faulted as the cause of collisions, but I'd be willilng to bet that most of those have been indirectly (or directly) caused by the car, or other surrounding motorists (I'm not including those plastic, 20lb "sport" bikes, because the guys who drive those seem to have a death wish).

If people don't use safety devices properly, they have this habit of backfiring and causing death or injury, rather than the desired prevention. Take my above example of ABS brakes; people have started to become complacent, believing that ABS will reduce their stopping distance, so they drive faster towards intersections and brake later. What they don't realize is that ABS actually increases your stopping distance. I can only imagine how the bikers have felt watching a car speed towards them at 80KM/h while they sat stopped at a light, often behind another car.

Chevrolet (and perhaps all of General Motors, I'm not sure) has apparently decided to make ABS once again an optional, rather than standard feature in their new product lines. I only wish I'd had that option for my '95 Cavalier.

Unfortunately, my usual opinion of 'Remove the safety labels/devices and let the stupid take care of themselves' doesn't apply here. The drivers of cars would cream motorcycles, and innocent (and perhaps highly intelligent) bikers would be dead, while drivers of cars would walk away.

How about this - retroactive corporal punishment for any driver who causes an accident due to stupidity (which includes not paying attention, driving while tired, intoxicated, being distracted by cell phones, kids, oral sex from the passenger seat, etc.)? What we do is break their ankles on a cinder block, much like in Misery, and then revoke their drivers license for five years with mandatory driver training in order to get it back. That is, of course, if their ankles are fit to operate the pedals. ;)

Re:Ouch!

[snake_dad]

As for the women who put the shoulder belt behind them -- well, I hope they never wind up in an accident.

For pregnant women this is different, though. Even a minor traffic accident or hard braking could be very bad for an unborn child when using the shoulderstrap.

Re:Ouch!

[e8johan]

You have to consider the ratio saved lives vs killed by missuse/accident. Most modern protection systems like airbags, seat belts, belt tensioners, ABSs, traction control systems, dynamic breaks, etc have a very good ratio, even though they cause problems. I would however not suggest using them the wrong way, collisions hold huge amounts of energy which can easily kill or deadly injure ignorant/badly informed/lazy individuals.

As for your suggestion about a law against stupid accidents. In Sweden there is a law against accidents, so if noone ever broke any rules, but still caused an accident, they will be punished. As for many of your examples, they are allready illegal (intoxicated driving, driving while using a cell phone, etc) and the rest are just things that one shouldn't do while driving.

Re:Ouch!

[Zathrus]

Not if you position the shoulder strap appropriately.

One of my best friends just had a baby (as in, he's 1 week old in about 3 hours) and she wore a seatbelt the entire pregnancy. Good thing too, since she was in a T-bone accident at about 6 months. Yes, she called her doctor after the accident and they had her come in immediately for an evaluation.

Doctor's recommend wearing one, because the injury that could occur to the fetus by improperly/not wearing one is much greater than the injury potential when wearing one properly.

Re:Ouch!

[TTMuskrat]

Someone I used to work with once rear-ended someone hard enough to deploy the steering wheel airbag - he had his hands in the 11 and 2 o'clock positions when he hit the car, and the force at which the airbag came out gave him burns on his forearms from his wrists to his elbows.

I think I'd rather take my chance on the leather armor when I finally get my motorcycle. Thousands of moto-racers can't be wrong :)

Re:Ouch!

[Lt Razak]

Yea, but there's like what, 10 people in Kansas? I'm sure you're safe.

Re:Ouch!

[e8johan]

Oh wait, I thought you smashed the car while at work for testing purposes...

Actually, it was my first job. I'd been working there alittle bit over one week when there was an urgent delivery needing care. Since the company cars were all used and I don't own a car I got to borrow my (quite new) boss' personal car...

I had my worst phone conversation ever when I had to tell him that I would come by train. "Could someone please pick me up?".

It took four months to replair the car. His fondest parts of the car were the rims; they were part of a limited edition. The problem with them is that in the process of smashing his car into pieces I crossed the side of the road. It was about one foot high and I hit it with the side first (luckily I did not flip the car). Two rims were jammed into the car, quite oddly shaped when removed, and the other two where ripped of the car and were never found.

As I said, the most embarissing thing I've ever done (this far). Nothing I recommend anyone trying at home!

Re:Ouch!

[Blkdeath]

As for your suggestion about a law against stupid accidents. In Sweden there is a law against accidents, so if noone ever broke any rules, but still caused an accident, they will be punished. As for many of your examples, they are allready illegal (intoxicated driving, driving while using a cell phone, etc) and the rest are just things that one shouldn't do while driving.

This may come as a shock to you, but such things are illegal in most of the rest of the civilized world, too. ;)

I wasn't suggesting a creation of a new LAW, but of a new punishment system. People aren't afraid of paying fines, they aren't afraid of going to jail, and they aren't afraid of losing their license. People would be afraid of having their ankles smashed, or their ribs broken, or having happen to them the same things they've caused for the people they hit.

I've never been a fan of creating more laws to enforce existing laws; that's just stupidity. Creating new enforcement and punishment practises, however, would curb a lot of problems. If somebody knows deep down that driving drunk WILL, not MIGHT mortally wound them, they'd probably think just a little bit harder before they got behind the wheel.

Re:Ouch!

[Kintanon]

That whole concussion thing is the reason I FEAR airbags! I'm a short guy, and I sit really close to the steering wheel so I can see and stuff. If an airbag deployed it would probably kill me!

Kintanon

Re:Ouch!

[CKW]

.
I call bullshit, and demand references.

Read the first 10 pages of google results for "abs increases stopping distance".

There is *nothing* in there that would lead anyone to conclude that removing ABS would be an advantage. Quite the opposite. The only time it increases your stopping distance is a) driver misuse (letting up on the brake due to feedback), b) snow covered road where the "piling up" of snow in front of the wheel helps.

Not having ABS results in the inability to steer and the potential for an undirected skid.

You're unjustified assertions are dangerous sir. I have a sister in law who believes vehemently that ABS is *DANGEROUS*, and who once chewed out a car rep about it. She's an idiot, and is just mad as hell that she couldn't remember to keep the brake down when the feedback came through the pedal, and that ABS ins't a magic pancea that can prevent all crashes. People like you will keep propogating this myth and disinformation, and it must stop here.
.

Re:Ouch!

[j-turkey]

There is *nothing* in there that would lead anyone to conclude that removing ABS would be an advantage. Quite the opposite. The only time it increases your stopping distance is a) driver misuse (letting up on the brake due to feedback), b) snow covered road where the "piling up" of snow in front of the wheel helps.

...People like you will keep propogating this myth and disinformation, and it must stop here...

OMG, what an arrogant comment. Do you work for the IIHS, NHTSA, or a major insurance carrier?

In this case, I picked the first reference from your google search and read the second paragraph that contained this line:

It isn't entirely clear that antilock braking will reduce stopping distance for the skilled driver

A skilled driver can stop better without ABS brakes (particularly on dry pavement) using a technique called threshold braking. Essentially, threshold braking is when a driver applies the maximum amount force on the brakes to slow the car without locking the wheels. If executed properly, the wheels will not lock, but actually move slower than the rotational speed required to maintain speed on the pavement. It tends to work best in an open-wheeled race car, but the technique also applies to roadgoing cars. Anti-lock brakes will hinder this technique. Check racing literature -- using this technique yields shorter stopping distances then punching the brake on an ABS-equiped vehicle.

ABS brakes also tend to limit the ability of a driver to use another technique called trail-braking (and left-foot braking). These are braking techniques used to offset the balance of the vehicle in a corner and tighten up the line through a corner. This is used in both racing situations and emergency avoidance manuvers.

Additionally, having ABS tends to make drivers over-confident -- many tend to steer during heavy braking, which unloads the rear tires of a car and can easily cause a vehicle to spin out of control...or cause a sport-ute to roll.

Many drivers prefer ABS brakes -- which is fine. Its their choice. In fact, for most drivers, ABS is better...but the absolute mentality you have is just wrong.

--Turkey

Re:Ouch!

[snarkasaurus]

I think you'd rather wear one than put up with a broken neck, old son.

Think about the classic car/bike accident where the imbecile car driver turns in front of the bike, which then hits the side of the car at full speed. I know of several people who would be walking today if they'd been wearing an airbag like this that fixates the head and neck upon impact. I'm a physiotherapist, I meet a lot of the ones who don't die on impact.

I'm walking today becase I was 17 when some prick did it to me, and I had reflexes like a cat. And I was LUCKY. He drove into me, and I managed to clear the hood of the car before impact.

One millisecond too slow and my left leg would have been a bag of smashed bone chips, an infinitely preferable arrangement to the head and spinal cord injuries I've seen, belive me. Even if they have to cut off your whole fucking leg, you can still wipe your own ass.

So don't be too quick to dismiss the good old airbag. Anything that adds armor to the neck and head is good. I'd wear it.

This is just the begining too. Once they get this perfected they can start on the lower trunk and limbs. Progress!

Re:Ouch!

[Blkdeath]

I call bullshit, and demand references.

Do you understand how ABS works? It alternatively locks and unlocks the wheel, which gives a pulse pattern, which means you stop for a second, roll for a second, etc. (Not actually 'a second', but short, pre-determined time intervals)

Read the first 10 pages of google results for "abs increases stopping distance".

What, like;

• This one?

  "1) It isn't entirely clear that antilock braking will reduce stopping distance for the skilled driver;"

  "The IIHS report, issued December 10, 1996, notes that in single-vehicle accidents, cars with antilock brakes are as much as 44% more likely to produce fatalities than are cars without the antilock system."

• Or this one?

  "Other factors affecting ABS performance include the condition of the tires, shocks, and suspension components, as well as their design. For example, if a tire hits a bump and the shocks/springs are weak, the tire may lift off the ground and lock under brake pressure. ABS interprets lockup and releases the brakes. The more the tire is off the ground, the more the brakes will release, thus extending the stopping distance."

• Or this one?

  "Stopping distance is nearly the same for pumped brakes as it is when the brakes are locked. However, with locked brakes the driver has little, if any, control over vehicle direction. ABS pumps the brakes automatically during emergency stop. It prevents wheel lock and allows the driver to maintain a higher degree of control."

  "Most people who have tested ABS in panic situations feel positively towards them. ABS, as stated before, does not shorten stopping distance. If the driver doesn't leave enough room to stop, an accident could occur. Drivers must apply good judgement whether or not their vehicle has ABS."

• Or this one?

  "Do cars with ABS stop more quickly than cars without it? Not always. Although the stopping distance with ABS is shorter under most road conditions, drivers should always keep a safe distance behind the vehicle in front of them and maintain a speed consistent with the road conditions. While a vehicle with ABS maintains its steering capability in a sudden stop, it may not turn as quickly on a slippery road as it would on dry pavement."

• Or this one?

  "ABS technology is designed to maintain rolling traction and steering. The rolling action may produce longer stopping distances on some surfaces, such as freshly fallen snow or loose gravel."

I think you get the point. The comonality between all of thesee pages looks like this;

1. Ideal conditions are required (both road and vehicle)
2. Drivers must be trained/knowledgeable in use of the system
3. Stopping distance is not always reduced, but the steering advantage is hilighted.

The problem with light cars (a very large number of consumer purchased vehicles lately) is that they don't have the weight to keep the skipping wheels on the ground, thus dramatically reducing the efectiveness in both stopping distance and steering control, hence the reason for removing them from the likes of the Cavalier and Sunfire.

Especially in snow, gravel, and sand (loose pack) ABS will drastically increase your stopping distance (by about 200% in some cases, depending on speed and density of the material you're driving in). The plow effect by your car's tires slows the trajectory of your vehicle.

ABS isn't designed to reduce stopping distance, it is designed to give steering control. These are two VERY different things. Incidentally, locking your tires and knowing how to change directions can/will significantly reduce your stopping distance with the same amount of control, as anyone who's ever taken or instructed a crash course will tell you.

I've conducted 80KM/h tests myself, in snow (loose and hard packed), gravel, sand, and wet and dry asphalt and under many of the conditions, especially the non-ideal driving conditions, my stopping distance was increased. I will grant you that my tires did suffer more on the locking tests, but if I'm making an emergency stop, I'd much sooner replace some tires than find myself face-first in the side of an SUV/Minivan/truck/etc.

BTW, speaking of ideal conditions; This study hilights another problem with ABS - Driver reaction time and leg strength. Many (most?) women and smaller men have great difficulty in putting 100lbs pressure on their brake pedals in a real hurry, which the NHTSA has discovered increases stopping distance (150-200lbs is the desired pressure, which was difficult to attain, except by the TRC (professional) test driver).

Re:Ouch!

[GooberToo]

You made excellent points!

As a rider, I can tell you the best thing people can wear is the existing safety equipment. A good set of leathers is good for 150+ MPH slide and tumble. The problem is, sudden deceleration (impacting something or something impacting your) tends to be the killer. Even with good gear on, it doesn't protect the neck which is made worse by the weight of the helmet. After it's all said and done, unless this prevents broken necks, object pentration or extreme blunt trama (being run over), it's going to be worthless.

Imagine traveling at 80+ MPH, a car side swipes you, sending you and your bike into a side rail. Your neck get's broken from the angle of impact and you tumble end over end with your bike (this really happens). Imagine being launched over the side rail into oncoming traffic (this really happens). Imagine being launched and you luckily slide on your leathers; only sadly, you get run over by a car or truck (this really happens). These are the things that typically kill already protected riders. I seriously doubt that vest is going to protect the rider in any significant manner. After all, if he's wearing that vest, chances are he's already smart enough to be wearing REAL safety gear in the first place.

Checklist:
o Helmet
o Riding gloves
o Riding leathers (jergin and pants)
o Riding boots

Re:Ouch!

[Blkdeath]

According to a friend that is a cop, for a collision to occur a formal or informal rule MUST have been broken.

I'm glad you referred to it (be it a paraphrasal or a direct quote) as a "collision", not an "accident".

There are no 'accidents' in motor vehicles. For a collision to occur, be it vehicle/vehicle or vehicle/pedestrian, someone had to do something wrong. In most cases it is the driver of one or more vehicles not paying attention or not following the rules of the road, or driving too aggressively, driving incorrectly for conditions, etc. that causes collisions.

Re:Ouch!

[Telastyn]

No offense, but in California at least (and I'm told, quite many other places) motorcycles are not considered cars when it comes to road usage. Here at least motorcycles are lawfully allowed to lane-split, which usually comes in the form of the motorcyclist doing 65 between cars stuck on the freeway doing 10-15.

It's damn near impossible to see them coming, especially at day (since there's no 3rd headlight coming) and around curves (where SUVs block perception). I've seen far too many "close calls" just from a car trying to change lanes without being able to see the oncoming cyclist.

Re:Ouch!

[MightyTribble]

In MA, the seatbelt usage rate is around 60%. One of the worst in the nation, apparently, but the recent 'click it or ticket' campaign, even though it has no legal standing, has driven usage up by six points. Which is good.

On a related point, my wife was talking to the head of the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) just yesterday about airbags. US airbags are a big pet peeve of his, because if you're a passenger using a seatbelt in a US airbag-equipped car, you're *MORE LIKELY* to be injured than your European seatbelted compatriot, because of the more powerful airbag. Congress deliberately set them more powerful to give (statistically-unproven) better protection to folks not wearing belts. While it *has* been statistically proven that belts plus low-velocity airbags reduces injury. I'm not making this up : this is what Dr. Runge said, and I assume he knows what he's talking about.

In fact, I know a doc in one of our local hospitals who is pissed because his wife is permanently disabled, directly because of the US high-powered airbags.

So, to conclude : US airbags are more powerful to provide an *unproven* amount of protection to non-seatbelted occupants, at the *direct* expense of seatbelted occupants. Gah.

Re:Ouch!

[GooberToo]

There is *nothing* in there that would lead anyone to conclude that removing ABS would be an advantage. Quite the opposite. The only time it increases your stopping distance is a) driver misuse (letting up on the brake due to feedback), b) snow covered road where the "piling up" of snow in front of the wheel helps.

You've been misinformed. ABS does increase stopping distance. Period. You're greatest stopping potential is acheived at or just prior to wheel lock. The problem is, you have no control once your tires do lock. That means, while you can stop faster, you can't avoid hitting objects and other people. That's where ABS' advantage comes in. You get *almost* the same stopping distance (usually within 5% -- obviously speed and tire dependant) while maintaining control of your vehicle. PLUS, in inclimate weather, and other adverse driving conditions, it allows you to avoid losing control in even moderate braking conditions.

The big win from ABS is that it allows the AVERAGE driver to break much better than they typically would be able to, while maintaining control of their vehicle.

His assertions were not dangerous, only how you decided to read into them. Like it or not, a small segment of high performance drivers can out break ABS consistently. He stated fact! In fact, should you ever bother to take an actual high performance driving course, this fact will be highlighted to you so that you understand what you have to work with.

Re:Ouch!

[Blkdeath]

As a rider, I can tell you the best thing people can wear is the existing safety equipment. A good set of leathers is good for 150+ MPH slide and tumble. The problem is, sudden deceleration (impacting something or something impacting your) tends to be the killer. Even with good gear on, it doesn't protect the neck which is made worse by the weight of the helmet. After it's all said and done, unless this prevents broken necks, object pentration or extreme blunt trama (being run over), it's going to be worthless.

lol.. Most riders I know aren't too terribly fond of their brain-buckets. :) (n.b. I'd be a rider myself if the 'Wing in the garage didn't need a total carb overhaul, new front-end wiring, rear brakes (the calipers, apparently, aren't available anymore for the '79...) just to make it road-worthy. {sigh} )

My friend was reading some of the online forums/lists he participates in, and the general consensus is pretty bleak towards this vest. Of particular note was a question asked by one of the members; "What happens to a passenger when that thing goes off?". What followed were several amusing hypothetical situations involving people being launched forwards and backwards into the windsheilds of SUVs and the like. :) (Have you seen the "Bubble Boy" previews/movie? {BOING!})

After all, if he's wearing that vest, chances are he's already smart enough to be wearing REAL safety gear in the first place.

Very true. The riders that wear tennis shoes and t-shirts are probably the ones contributing to rider fatality statistics, and there's not much chance they'll buy a (likely) expensive vest if they won't even pick up a standard leather jacket and boots, letalone leg leathers.

Re:Ouch!

[runenfool]

Excellent post .. except for the part about cars being light nowadays. The compact cars of 10 years ago were quite a bit lighter than those of today. Its rare to find any car under 2600 lbs and most of them are over 3000 (especially if it's a luxury marquee).

The J Bodys you referenced are over 2600 lbs. Thats a far cry from the ~2000 lb 1990 (4th gen?) Civic hatchback.

Re:Ouch!

[FFFish]

"This vest looks like it has serious potential to create a situation faced by Ralphie's brother in "A Christmas Story". (Think 'big snow suit', and 'can't move') "

I was all about to make jokes about bouncing down the road and all that, when I realized that the thing probably deflates almost as quickly as it inflated.

The whole point of this device, then, is to prevent the bone-cracking injuries of an impact. Once you've hit the road, you slide like normal.

Re:Ouch!

[Blkdeath]

Excellent post .. except for the part about cars being light nowadays. The compact cars of 10 years ago were quite a bit lighter than those of today. Its rare to find any car under 2600 lbs and most of them are over 3000 (especially if it's a luxury marquee).

Granted, they're not as light as those toy Hondas of old, but studies being performed by the Big Boys of the automotive industry are finding that they've under-estimated the car weight required to make ABS effective.

My mother's Oldsmobile Intrigue is heavy enough that ABS work as intended; the car keeps all four wheels firmly in contact with the pavement during the stop; even when hitting small to medium sized bumps. My and my fathers' Cavaliers (1995 and 2002, respectively) do not have this luxury, as they both come in light enough to allow the wheels to 'skip'.

Sorry for not being more clear, but my use of 'light' was a relative term in comparison to larger luxury cars, SUVs, minivans, etc.

Re:Ouch!

[Blkdeath]

The whole point of this device, then, is to prevent the bone-cracking injuries of an impact. Once you've hit the road, you slide like normal.

Except that now you're dragging a flapping piece of stiff cloth along with you, which could get caught on (or under) any number of things.

I've seen a number of inflated airbags in my life, and that's not an insignificant amount of cloth.

Re:Ouch!

[Blkdeath]

Or of course equipment failure or uncontrollable events that occur to the driver.

That's why we have regular maintainance. Cars also give telltale signs of when things are about to go wrong. Noises, vibrations, decreased fuel economy, rattling, etc. Asking a competent mechanic to put the car on a hoist will result in finding the flaws that could cause you serious danger down the road (cracks in the frame, suspension control arms, shocks, brake burn, etc.)

If your mechanic finds nothing indicating a potential problem in an older car (5+ years) that hasn't been serviced in 6 months or greater, you should find yourself a new mechanic. If you're not taking your 2000lb+ projectile into a shop periodically, you shouldn't be on the road, IMHO. (For the record, I also think there should be periodic, ie; every 3 years, mandatory written and road testing for all drivers)

Re:Ouch!

[drinkypoo]

I wouldn't say that the lack of ability to do trail-braking is a problem on the street. It allows the average, mediocre driver to steer while applying the brakes at full force, which is the single largest benefit of ABS to begin with. In general it is a technology designed to assist idiots, because all you have to do to stop is mash the brakes and it takes care of the rest.

Of course if we were all driving AWD vehicles (much safer though certainly more expensive) then AWD + ABS + at least two limited slip diffs or torsens, one at the center and one at the front or rear, preferrably the rear, gets you excellent traction control.

I personally believe that all vehicles not used in racing (and some of those, but far less percentagewise) should have ABS. Obviously some people don't want them, that's fine, they don't have to have them. I'm not going to force anything on anyone. A well-designed ABS system makes good sense on the road. The problem remains the people.

Finally, OT: Why in hell do car manufacturers still put drum brakes on the back of cars? They suck, and they can't be that much cheaper than disc brakes at this point. I don't see how a drum could be cheaper than a rotor except that it's got less metal in it... I guess that's my answer? That's not even true of some of the teensy rear discs I HAVE seen, though rarely.

Re:Ouch!

[drinkypoo]

While a vehicle with ABS maintains its steering capability in a sudden stop, it may not turn as quickly on a slippery road as it would on dry pavement."

I can't believe you even cited this one. This is the stupidest quote I've ever seen. A bicycle can't turn as quickly on a slippery road as it would on dry pavement either, unless you mean turn over.

ABS isn't designed to reduce stopping distance, it is designed to give steering control. These are two VERY different things.

For the average driver, ABS will reduce stopping distance. The average driver, in a panic situation, will mash the brakes and skid, or not press them down hard enough for optimal braking force. In addition most people will overbrake on slippery roads.

You are right about the primary benefit being control, however. ABS will still let you steer (albeit jerkily) while the brakes are mashed.

Re:Ouch!

[Scotch Game]

Having spoken with a biker (sitting in the next room from me. ;) ) he agrees that this vest is highly impractical. When you're launched from your bike, you keep your appendages close to your body and roll, similar to how paratroopers roll on landing to reduce the stress on your body. Also, they have to be able (barring physical injury) to get up and walk away, so as to prevent them from being flattened by passing cars (who tend to pay so much attention to the wreck they'd hit the broad side of a barn if it were planted in front of them).

This is obviously written by someone who has never ridden a motorcycle for any length of time and who's getting advice from someone who thinks he's a better rider than he is (which is scary). As a former editor at Motorcycle Online (http://www.motorcycle.com),
I can tell you that when you're tossed off a bike at 70 miles per hour, the first thing that goes through your mind isn't, "Ah, now I'll tuck my legs and roll!" That's just ridiculous. You hit the ground so quickly (if you're lucky and don't highside which involves you being tossed through the air and is definitely the most dangerous way to wad) that about all you have time for is "OHSHIT!!", which is, interestingly, what anyone who claims otherwise is full of.

As far as the vest is concerned, well, if it works, great. Many would refuse to wear it just like many refuse to wear helmets, citing rights and freedoms and fashion and whatever. But research into this kind of technology is nice to see because, at the very least, it keeps a dialog open and fresh about motorcycle safety.

Re:Ouch!

[richie2000]

People aren't afraid of paying fines, they aren't afraid of going to jail, and they aren't afraid of losing their license. People would be afraid of having their ankles smashed, or their ribs broken, or having happen to them the same things they've caused for the people they hit.

Not really. People are afraid of getting caught. The death penalty does not deter people from committing capital crimes, it just cuts down on the repeat offenders. Increasing the risk/chance of getting caught in the first place (and making this risk clearly visible to the people) has much better effects on crime deterrence. Witness automated (visible) speedtraps and cardboard copmobiles and their effect on reducing speeding.

If people don't see cops around or the consequences of their actions are not made clear to them, they will act as if they do not exist. If you can't see that semi coming at you around the curve, you will happily try to pass that tractor. Typical last mistake.

In Sweden, the government with its assorted road safety agencies, has adopted a view known as the Zero Vision. The basic idea is to allow people to make a mistake without it killing them and it involves, among other things, building safer roads, researching road safety as well as safer cars.

If somebody knows deep down that driving drunk WILL, not MIGHT mortally wound them

An old boss of mine used to say that all these safety systems in our cars makes us complacent and he advocated getting rid of all these airbags, ABS, anti-skid systems and deformation zones and instead simply mount a sharpened 3" steel spike in the steering wheel hub, pointed at the driver. Everyone would drive very, very slowly. :-)

Re:Ouch!

[snake_dad]

Doctor's recommend wearing one, because the injury that could occur to the fetus by improperly/not wearing one is much greater than the injury potential when wearing one properly.

That's not what our doctor recommended my wife, while she was pregnant with my 2 year old and my 2 week old girls. Just goes to show that doctors rarely all agree on a subject.

A friend of mine was even recommended (though not officialy, off the record) to smoke a little bit of marihuana at the end of her pregnancy, because with the chronic disease that she has that was the only painkiller that worked. (Yes, she quit had smoking when she became pregnant, and she knew from before the pregnancy that marihuana was the only non-addictive painkiller that was effective. Yes, I live in the Netherlands :) ). The side-effects of the pain and loss of sleep were in the doctors opinion worse than those of smoking a small amount of marihuana.

Re:Ouch!

[darkonc]

What they don't realize is that ABS actually increases your stopping distance.

ABS only increases the best-case theoretical stopping distance. The purpose of ABS is to give users the equivalent stopping capability of a driver half-decently trained in threshold braking (emergency braking without locking the wheels).

For someone who is very well-trained on how to brake properly, ABS brakes will decrease your braking capability. For the other 95-98% of us they do provide a net benefit. (Unfortunately, they also make it impossible to learn threshold braking). They're like any other technological assist facility that provides beginners with the capabilities of a very proficient user but make things harder on the seasoned professional.

In the same domain, we have the example of automatic transmission vs manual. Automatic transmissions make life much easier on most people, but at the cost of absolute control and fuel effeciency. Pick your poison.

Re:Ouch!

[VdG]

I'm a motorcyclist, and I've had some experience of crashing.

First of all, I have grave reservations about whether this device will do all it claims. However, putting that aside I think that there are several major practical problems with it.

As some people have mentioned, many motorcyclists wear ruck sacks and belt pouches. I think that these are probably not a good idea with the D-Air, which will put a lot of people off. (I use a belt pouch as a safety measure: beter to have keys and stuff in there than in my pockets if I go sliding down the road.)

Clearly this is designed to be worn over clothing. But I wear different gear according to the season. In the summer I've got my leathers; in the winter a very bulky waterproof jacket. Can they make something like this sufficiently adjustable, or will I need two of them?

In the summer, I may also wear a waterproof oversuit. It's enough trouble to put the damn thing on without having to take off the D-Air first.

People ride different sorts of bikes. I'm usually fairly upright on my trailee, but someone on a sports bike could well be leant right over the tank. Is this jacket going to produce similar results in each case?

What about the poor pillion? "Pillion Pal" type handles are becoming quite popular, (that's a belt that the rider wears, with plastic handles for the pillion to hold onto), which will increase the liklihood of the two people being quite close together when the vest goes off.

This thing _may_ do some good, but overall I very much doubt that it's a sufficient improvement over good, armoured leathers to overcome the practical disadvantages.

Re:Ouch!

[Blkdeath]

Only an idiot suggests someone's privilege (right to use the road) is of higher regard than someone's constitutional right (esp. in the US) against cruel and unusual punishments.

Where did I suggest this? I don't recall ever stating that anybody's privilege to use the road (BTW - it is not a right to use the roads, as you further stated) outweighed anything. If anything, I believe that the rights of people who are properly using the road and are killed every year due to stupid drivers outweighs the privilege stupid drivers have of walking after having crippled another person for life. An eye for an eye and all that.

BTW - I can post my opinions under my name, but you can't do me the same courtesy? If you lack the testicular fortitude to come forward with your opinions, why not keep them to yourself? To coin a phrase; "Freakin dumbass".

So you want ankles, with a smiley, while our society has decided on money, e.g. insurance claims and civil courts, as the way to reimburse and the primary means to resolve these issues.

Yes, because civil action is doing so well in America (your country, not mine) to help serve the people and make for a safer place. Money is why stupid people are able to be rewarded for their stupidity at the expense of tax payers, consumers, and most everybody else ("It's just an insurance company!" is all well and good until my premiums go up because everybody sues them. "It's a big corporation with lots of money - they can afford the lawsuit!" is fantastic until I have to start paying a premium on products and services they offer so they can afford to pay off the morons who hurt themselves using their products incorrectly.)

Regardless of what you believe, I firmly believe stupid people should not be protected, and moreover should be punished when their screw-ups adversely affect the lives of others. If you're not paying attention on the road and you ram into me, it's your fault and you should be punished. If we take away your license, you'll just get back into a car.

Re:Ouch!

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Except that now you're dragging a flapping piece of stiff cloth along with you, which could get caught on (or under) any number of things.

That's nearly as bad as not wearing a parachute becasue you could land in a powerline.

Sure, it could get caught, and you could end up being dragged. But I'd rather take that lesser risk that the risk of getting my neck broken via landing head first on to the road/into a car etc.

Re:Ouch!

[MightyTribble]

Depends on the crash circumstances, really.

The problem is that a person's natural reaction in a head-on crash (in the passenger seat) is to raise one or both arms to cover the face. The powerful airbag then goes off, resulting in greater injuries to the passenger in low-velocity accidents (where the airbag doesn't significantly ameliorate occupant throw-forward, because the seatbelt does all the work, and because in a low-velocity crash the passenger is more likely to have enough 'flinch' time to raise their arms).

It's not uncommon for front seat passengers who wear seatbelts to sustain serious (we're talking disabling) injuries to their arms or face in otherwise 'walk-away' accidents, purely because of the force of the US airbag. I personally know a local doctor who's wife lost the use of her left arm from just such an accident. It's not so bad in cars like the Subaru where the airbag fires 'up' first into the windshield (look for where the airbag is placed - if it's on the top of the dashboard rather than directly facing the passenger, it's an 'up' airbag).

In a high-velocity front impact, it's better to have an airbag, any airbag, to ameliorate throw-forward, even if there's an increased risk of head or arm trauma - the alternative is often worse. And, of course, it's even worse if you're not wearing a seatbelt. ;-)

A friend of mine who's an EMT with 20 years experience says he's never cut a dead person out of a seatbelt. That's anecdotal, of course, and people can and do die in car crashes even with correct seatbelt use, but it's indicative of the huge difference wearing a seatbelt makes in crash survivability.

Re:Ouch!

[uncleFester]

Having spoken with a biker (sitting in the next room from me. ;) ) he agrees that this vest is highly impractical. When you're launched from your bike, you keep your appendages close to your body and roll, similar to how paratroopers roll on landing to reduce the stress on your body.

I'd be curious to know what kind of bike your cubemate rides. It sure as hell isn't a sportbike. If you ever watch any kind of races (or some stupid show of fabulous road car crashes) you know most people forcibly dismounted from bikes don't roll. If you're tossed over the bars your legs are whipped outward via angular acceleration; you're sliding with your legs splayed outward. If you highside chances are you'll roll once, until your outward arm is again flung outward by angular acceleration and again, you're skidding down the road. And if someone rolls, chances are they'll be so damn disoriented they wn't be able to just 'hop up out of the road.' Dizziness does that to you.

If people just rolled, there would be no cases of road rash. After all, there's no flesh dragging across the ground...

-fester (owner of one sportbike, one streetfighter and a nice amount of leather- and kevlar-lined protective gear)

Re:Ouch!

[drinkypoo]

I don't think any of the advantages of drum brakes actually warrant using them; it would be better to improve disc brakes. Disc brakes have a number of very important advantages over drum brakes from the mechanic's point of view as I'm sure you know; they are easier to work on (don't have to take off the hub nor do you need special tools), they are easier to rebuild (because you usually don't have to hone them)... And of course they provide more braking force.

Ever since their invention for aviation use during WWII there has been no reason to use drum brakes that I think warrants the additional pain in the ass.

Re:Ouch!

[j-turkey]

Yeah, you're right.

There are 2 exceptions that I can think of...drums won't warp like discs...and they're easier to work on until you get into a drum-in-a-disc like alot of parking brakes are set up. Man, what a pain in the ass those are to work on...take apart the disc brake (disassemble & remove caliper, then remove disc/drum) so you can deal with all the crap in the stupid drum (can you guess what I have waiting at home for me to fix?).

-Turkey

Re:Ouch!

[e8johan]

I wasn't speeding, but apparently going too fast (as I aquaplaned). I went over a crest while going through a sharp curve and the rest is already known to you...

I learned two big things while doing this: 1) water is more dangerous than it seems, and 2) the value of a car compared to a human is neglectable, I am *really* glad noone got hurt!

Re:Ouch!

[Lars T.]

"1) It isn't entirely clear that antilock braking will reduce stopping distance for the skilled driver;"

Are you sure it says what you want it to say? Just because ABS may not reduce stopping distance for the skilled driver doesn't mean it will make it longer.

"The IIHS report, issued December 10, 1996, notes that in single-vehicle accidents, cars with antilock brakes are as much as 44% more likely to produce fatalities than are cars without the antilock system."

Which says nothing about breaking distance. Just about stupid drivers.

"Other factors affecting ABS performance include the condition of the tires, shocks, and suspension components, as well as their design. For example, if a tire hits a bump and the shocks/springs are weak, the tire may lift off the ground and lock under brake pressure. ABS interprets lockup and releases the brakes. The more the tire is off the ground, the more the brakes will release, thus extending the stopping distance."

So if your care is not road safe, ABS will not work right. Neither will it help if you drive over a cliff.

"Stopping distance is nearly the same for pumped brakes as it is when the brakes are locked. However, with locked brakes the driver has little, if any, control over vehicle direction. ABS pumps the brakes automatically during emergency stop. It prevents wheel lock and allows the driver to maintain a higher degree of control."
"Most people who have tested ABS in panic situations feel positively towards them. ABS, as stated before, does not shorten stopping distance. If the driver doesn't leave enough room to stop, an accident could occur. Drivers must apply good judgement whether or not their vehicle has ABS."

Again, nothing about making the breaking distance (notably) longer.

"Do cars with ABS stop more quickly than cars without it? Not always. Although the stopping distance with ABS is shorter under most road conditions, drivers should always keep a safe distance behind the vehicle in front of them and maintain a speed consistent with the road conditions. While a vehicle with ABS maintains its steering capability in a sudden stop, it may not turn as quickly on a slippery road as it would on dry pavement."

Another miss.

"ABS technology is designed to maintain rolling traction and steering. The rolling action may produce longer stopping distances on some surfaces, such as freshly fallen snow or loose gravel."

Let's recap: if your suspension is gone, or you drive on loose gravel or freshly falling snow, or you are an experienced race driver, speeding toward an intersection with intention to break just in time is a worse idea with ABS than it already is without.

Re:Ouch!

[Blkdeath]

Let's recap: if your suspension is gone, or you drive on loose gravel or freshly falling snow, or you are an experienced race driver, speeding toward an intersection with intention to break just in time is a worse idea with ABS than it already is without.

Actually, I summarized it in an earlier posting. Your car has to be in good condition (tires, suspension, the ABS and braking systems themselves, etc.) in order for the brakes to be effective. Moreover, if you are driving on loose-pack or dry pavement, your braking distance will almost surely be increased. Come winter time we tend to get a lot of fresh packed snow, and sure enough people stomp on their brake pedals to stop; engaging the ABS brakes. Ironically enough, if they'd been trained on a non-ABS car they might pump their brakes, disable the system, and plow to a comfortable stop in half the distance.

Further to that, if the driver can't apply adequate pressure to the pedal the brakes aren't likely to be effective.

The long and short of it is this; ABS will only give you approximately the same stopping distance as pumped or locked brakes under ideal conditions. It is not guaranteed, nor is it designed to decrease your stopping distance. For the record; most times people have to make emergency maneuvers aren't ideal conditions.

The original point of this thread, however, was the general complacency of drivers. Drivers are told, be it by ignorant driving instructors, car salesmen, advertising (propaganda), or just ignorant people in general that ABS will reduce their stopping distance, so they're waiting longer to brake. Having spoken with a few police officers about it, they agree that in a lot of collision situations the driver(s) involved (often the one 'at fault') will claim to have used their ABS and not know what went wrong.

BTW - I've used my ABS personally in an emergency; travelling 40-50KPH up a wet off-ramp (fresh rainfall), because I'd misjudged the distance between myself and the van ahead of me (the offramp was a blind curve). They did nothing to reduce my stopping distance, so I had to disengage them to aim my vehicle sharply to the left to go off the ramp and on to the grass. Had I relied on my ABS, even at such a low rate of speed, I'd have plowed the guy and then some. Thankfully all I got out of it was a smashed drivers-side mirror and a broken muffler strap (which was already rusted to begin with).

Re:Ouch!

[Blkdeath]

This is obviously written by someone who has never ridden a motorcycle for any length of time and who's getting advice from someone who thinks he's a better rider than he is (which is scary).

This was obviously written by a person who's never taken a fall before. Sticking your appendages outwards while flying through the air is a good way to get them ripped off.

As a former editor at Motorcycle Online (http://www.motorcycle.com)

I'm glad you told us that; now your opinions carry so much more weight. (Just remember that they're just opinions).

I can tell you that when you're tossed off a bike at 70 miles per hour, the first thing that goes through your mind isn't, "Ah, now I'll tuck my legs and roll!" That's just ridiculous. You hit the ground so quickly (if you're lucky and don't highside which involves you being tossed through the air and is definitely the most dangerous way to wad) that about all you have time for is "OHSHIT!!", which is, interestingly, what anyone who claims otherwise is full of.

When riding something one knows is dangerous, one should condition their minds to know what to do instinctively, rather than have to think about it. If you're thinking about your actions in any emergency situation, be it in a car or on a bike, it's already too late. I think various studies (along with personal experience; both behind the wheel and in vehicles in situations like that) have shown that you've got all of half a second to make and execute your decision, if even that. The time, for example, between your bike and a car pulling out of a driveway without looking as you travel at 80KPH.

This is part of the reason I think driver training should be mandatory for all drivers who wish to use public roads. There should also be standards about what is taught in driver training courses; including how to deal with motorcycles and bicycles (which it seems 75% or more of drivers on the road don't seem to be able to do), and vice-versa for bikers.

As far as the vest is concerned, well, if it works, great. Many would refuse to wear it just like many refuse to wear helmets, citing rights and freedoms and fashion and whatever. But research into this kind of technology is nice to see because, at the very least, it keeps a dialog open and fresh about motorcycle safety.

True, but probably only in the biker community itself. It's (unfortunately) not something that car drivers will likely ever read about en masse, letalone understand the issues about how to allow two-wheeled vehicles the same space as the four-wheeled variety.

Re:Ouch!

[Grab]

The majority of US drivers may wear seatbelts. However, US drivers (for some reason) have the right to refuse to wear seatbelts. Car manufacturers (for some reason) are therefore compelled to provide airbags which will hold someone who isn't wearing a seatbelt. This means that the airbags must come out faster and harder.

For myself, I'd rather say that anyone not using a seatbelt does so at their own risk. Unfortunately this is not the case. For the sake of protecting a few muppets who deserve to become Darwin Award nominees, other "regular" folks may suffer minor injuries that they would not otherwise have done.

Grab.

Re:Ouch!

[Grab]

In the early 90s, ABS was standard on F1 cars. It was removed (along with various other electronic aids) to make the driving more "challenging". Check this link, written in 1991 when ABS came in: http://autopedia.com/stuttgart-west/Physics/StuttP hysics12.html. Particularly the quote:

"Drivers who do not have ABS have already complained that it gives their competition an unfair advantage."

I therefore submit that you are wrong - either threshold braking does not give better results, or it's theoretically better but it's so difficult to do that even top drivers can't use it reliably on race-prepared cars. Either way, the technique does not belong in the skill-set we should expect of any road driver.

Should a driver have the right to turn off ABS if they think they can brake better themselves? If they can demonstrate this fact, then yes. However, car drivers are notorious for believing they have levels of skill which they don't in fact have - the accident statistics are full of these. And if you can't brake in time, you're not just endangering yourself, you're also endangering other ppl with the 2 tons of metal you're controlling when you come off the road on a corner and wipe out another car. Over-confidence when the controls will try and mitigate your actions is one thing - over-confidence where your failure will *definitely* lead to an accident is another thing altogether.

"Your right to wave your fist around ends at my nose".

Grab.

Re:Ouch!

[ArsonSmith]

My full leather suit didn't do me any good when I was rear ended on the free way while stopped and the other car at about 50+MPH. I broke L2 and L3 Vertebra in my back was thrown about 20 yards and laid in the road. I could still move my legs at the time so I knew my spinal cord was ok but I was unable to move from between my chest and my waist. There was no tuck and roll no planning for the hit, nothing.

This Vest might have helped although I am skeptical about how well it would have sensed that I had been hit and reacted.

I have had a long 5 year recovery but I would say with the new found respenct for being able to still walk I have pushed myself to 110% of what I was before my accedent. I now run 2-3 miles 3 times a week, camp, hike, fish, hunt, go to clubs/bars, party, off-road 4x4 and code with no problems. Might have been laid up for a year and a half but it gave me some time to learn more about sysadmin stuff and programming.

Re:Ouch!

[Lars T.]

Your car has to be in good condition for the breaks to be effective, ABS or not.

Plus, with ABS you can still steer your car even if you are not an expert diver. If you "had to disengage them to aim my vehicle sharply to the left to go off the ramp and on to the grass", your ABS was broken - or your story is.

You will still have to be aware that you are not an expert driver - again, ABS or not.

Re:Ouch!

[Blkdeath]

Your car has to be in good condition for the breaks to be effective, ABS or not.

Threshold braking isn't nearly as demanding on my car as ABS. Threshold braking won't lock or release one of my wheels if it leaves the ground.

The point stands; there is too much potential for failure with ABS, and they only work under ideal conditions.

Fin.

Heh

[jgerman]

Welcome to SnowCrash...

This is good stuff, as a biker one of my biggest concerns is protection. Dropping the bike is no big deal, wearing the right gear you're more or less safe. But in the case of collisions with other vehichles I'm not sure this will help. But more protection is always good.

Re:Heh

[GMontag]

Welcome to SnowCrash...

That is the first thing I thought, YT's automatic inflatable collar for extreme skateboarding and fighting nuclear terrorists.

Re:Heh

[ender-]

I have to say, I can't imagine getting on my bike without a helmet, despite (touch wood) never having an accident... Do Merkins really have that much problems with the idea?

Well, I just moved from California [has a helmet law] to Texas [no helmet law]. I can tell you there's NO FRIGGIN WAY I'm getting on my bike [sport bike] without a helmet. Especially on Texas roads. The speed limits are generally lower than they would be on similar roads in California, but the driver's here are so bad that I feel safer doing 90mph [speeding nicely] in California than I do going 55mph [under the limit] here [Dallas/Ft. Worth area]. It's to the point where I'm tempted to start riding tracks only. [Partially because there don't seem to be any nice twisty roads here]

Anyway, the most I've ridden my bike without a helmet is across a large parking lot [helmet propped on tank] and I feel so naked without it. No way I'm getting on public roads without it.

As for the Air-bag vest, I dunno. Maybe it'll be ok if you t-bone a truck or something, but if it were to go off during say a high-side [don't think it'd go off on a low-side], I'd think [based on the size of it when inflated] it would make you tumble more once you hit the ground. The reason leathers are so tight is to let you slide so you're not breaking limbs left and right. :)

So I'll wear the helmet, but I think I'll skip the air-bag vest.

Ender

Re:Heh

[jgerman]

It's to the point where I'm tempted to start riding tracks only. [Partially because there don't seem to be any nice twisty roads here]

I could have told you that, I feel for you though. I agree, I feel naked without my helmet. I never ride the sportbike without it. I won't even use the shell helmets on the cruiser, unless they're dot approved. And still I feel better with a full face.

Just coincidence ?

[cwernli]

That D-Air is pronounced like "dare" is probably just a coincident, right ?

Is it likely to come with a warning "The usage of D-Air does not substitute driving with due care ?"

Oh my....

Is this the same patent?

[ianscot]

Is this patent from the same Tokyo commuter whose inflatable underwear went off on the train a few years ago?

(Who knew NASA technology would pay off in this particular indirect way? Now our motorcyclists are bouncing around like Mars Pathfinder... After the accident maybe they can enjoy some refreshing TANG.)

Re:Is this the same patent?

[Dannon]

motorcyclists are bouncing around like Mars Pathfinder

That is exactly the mental image I had! Complete with loony sound effects. Something like:
CRASH, inflation-Thwump! (inflated cyclist goes sailing through the air) boing, boing, boing.....

Riding pillion

[Space cowboy]

I wouldn't like to be behind the driver when that thing went off :-)

Simon

Worse?

[Skiboo]

Am I the only one that at first glance read that as:

For the past hundred years or so motorcycle accidents have had an unfortunate potential for particularly horrific injuries, or worse; Improvements in safety gear

Methinks I need some coffee... :/

What even happened to the honda idea?

[John_Renne]

A while ago I saw a show on TV about an innovation made by Honda. They were making airbags on the outside of cars. In case of a crash the victim would be hurt less. In combination with a wearable airbag things would become even better.

On the other hand I would also suggest investing in technology to prevent accidents from happening as well as in damage reducing gear. We can build the electronics to accomplish this in planes, why not in cars&bikes?

Re:What even happened to the honda idea?

[Froggie]

On the other hand I would also suggest investing in technology to prevent accidents from happening as well as in damage reducing gear. We can build the electronics to accomplish this in planes, why not in cars&bikes?

Like, for instance, hundreds of hours of intensive full time operator training?

Re:What even happened to the honda idea?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

"643 to control. Am I clear to make this turn yet? Over"
"Negative 643, we're still waiting for the an old lady to cross the street. Over"

personal air bags

[Lazarus_Bitmap]

Here in Dallas, we've long been on the cutting edge of this type of technology. Specialized silicon-based versions have been available for some time, though they seem to be much more popular with women than men...

Michelin...

[giel]

Cool! I imagine what a motercyclist will look like during or after an accident, I guess like this: the (good old) Michelin-guy.

Re:Michelin...

[guybarr]

This is what happens to stray babylonian gods crash-landing on Earth.

"There is no Dana, only Goo"

I had a vision ...

[tjwhaynes]

... of that James Bond coat that inflated to turn the wearer into an oversized inflatable golf-ball-like object.

Be the envy of your friends - turn into a bouncy ball at the touch of button. Be known as Pinball forever.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

Fine for collisions

[ThaReetLad]

This seems fine for when a biker hits another vehicle more or less head on but there are plenty of accidents where this wouldn't help at all. During the summer I came across two motorcycle accidents, one of which was sadly fatal (lots of blood. Not very nice). In one of them the victim just lost control of his bike on a bend and hit his head on the curb hard, and in the other one the bike was clipped from behind by a car and the rider fell off her bike and thankfully ended up in a bush with little more than bruises. The point is that in neither of these cases did the rider (or bike) experience forces in excess of 10 g's until the moment they hit the road, and possibly not even then.

I'm saying that this is a bad device, just that its applicability is limited.

I love government regulation

[Quila]

American sales will have to wait since the U.S. Department of Transportation has yet to set standards for such a device."

So, how many motorcyclists will die a preventable death before the DOT gets off its ass and allows these.

Re:I love government regulation

[jonerik]

The company wants to avoid a situation where they introduce the vest into the US and the government comes along a few months later and sets higher standards for similar devices than what the vest has been engineered for, inviting potential lawsuits down the road. Having said that, I suspect there will be a pretty good number of grey market US sales in the meantime through eBay and third-party distributors.

Re:I love government regulation

[YrWrstNtmr]

So, how many motorcyclists will die a preventable death before the DOT gets off its ass and allows these.

Or, how many would be injured or die due to use of a "safety" device not properly tested and evaluated, which may introduce other, more serious problems. Even though "It seemed like a good idea at the time".

These things may be the best prevention device going. Or, they may compound the problems in a crash. Causing the rider to tumble instead of slide, inadvertant activations, too much force resulting in broken ribs, compatibility with other user worn articles (backpacks, etc), and on and on.

Just because it looks like a good idea doesn't mean it is a good idea.

thats retarded... i'll take my leathers

[in_ur_face]

i'm sorry but i still feel much more comfortable in my full leathers. not only is my whole body protected, but that air bag looks like it would do more damage then good for the rider.

when riding, its important not to have anything on your body in case of a fall. For instance, if you wear a backpack, it has been shown not to be safe in the event of a fall (increased back injury, etc...). this is why they have tank/trunk bags. But this air bag looks like it would only protect your back and cause a more ackward fall in the case of an accident.

also price is rediculous. good full leaters will run you around 500$. the price of the vest is well over that (sure its becuase it is early development phase but still). what about re packing your air bag? i'm sure thats more $$$ too

good concept but not good enough

My airbag

[night_flyer]

always sits behind me on the motorcycle.

(dont let her know I said that or she'll yell at me!)

One more way to avoid personal responsibility

[Adam Rightmann]

I think this is a step in the wrong direction, and will lead to more accidents and deaths down the road.

Any biker who's rode more than 10,000 miles will have many tales to tell you of stupid cagers trying to kill them, with only the biker's wits and reflexes to save them. In a way, it's a way of separating men who trust themselves from the great scared masses who can't be trusted with dangerous machines, be they motorcycles, or even handguns.

But with this, the stupid cager masses will think they will be invulnerable on a bike, and take up riding. Soon, the body count will rise, how much will an airbag protect one against being run over by a semi, or high siding into a tree at 80 mph?

It's a lot like sin, the safest way to ride is not to rely on gear, but constant, ceaseless vigiliance, and no matter how much you try to protect yourself and your family from sin and temptation, the best way to prevent the excrutiating pain of eternal Damnation is ceaseless, constant vigilance, and being born Catholic.

Re:One more way to avoid personal responsibility

[Photon Ghoul]

You know, there are people on bikes acting careless already. Bikes are the minority on the road (here in Dallas, anyway). It never fails that when I do see them, for the most part, they are doing one of the following:
- going insanely faster than any vehicle with four or more wheels
- driving said speed in the rain
- driving said speed in-between car lanes on the freeway
- driving said speed on the shoulders of the freeway

Just an observation from one of the "stupid cager masses".

Re:One more way to avoid personal responsibility

[samoht]

I think there have been studies (aren't there always :-) that relate to this. Too tired to look them up just now. Basic point was that increased safety equipment tends to lead to decreased safe driving/riding. Give somebody an airbag and they're more liable to rely on the airbag to save them in a crash, rather than driving safely to avoid crashes in the first place. I suspect that the same thing applies here - give somebody an airbag suit and they're likely to be less careful when riding. The airbag suit will save them if something goes wrong, after all. I think the best thing to do is to fit all cars and motorbikes with a large and pointy spike right in the middle of the wheel/bars, pointed right at your head. This would encourage people to be very, very sure that they're not going to crash into anything that might cause them to nod too enthusiastically.

Re:One more way to avoid personal responsibility

[Casca]

I don't really agree with the It never fails that when I do see them, for the most part portion of your statement, but non-cagers are capable of some pretty dumb activities. I can't tell you the last time I was passed by a cager with half their wheels in the air in front of them going at least 80mph. I saw two cyclists do this a week ago, and another a little over a year ago. People do stupid things in cars, but they do even dumber things on bikes.

The guy that really made me laugh recently, had made a bunch of modifications to his bike. Like, putting a cover over his tail light that makes it blend in with the bike, making it harder to see. I have no sympathy for anyone that rides a bike and modifies it to make the safety features harder to see.

I don't really have a problem with bikers that don't want safety features on their bikes, don't want to wear helmets, and so on. I just don't want my car/health insurance rates going up because of how expensive it is to fix their bodies when they get in an accident. Making the choice to put yourself at risk should be a choice you are allowed to make, I just don't think I should have to subsidise it.

Re:One more way to avoid personal responsibility

[thelen]

Anecdotal evidence is not an argument. Here's an excerpt from an article in the Seattle Times addressing precisely your point:

Many car drivers complain bitterly about motorcycle riders. They say riders exceed speed limits, and indeed speed was a factor in more than half the deaths of riders between ages 21 and 30 from 1993 to 2001 in Washington state. They say riders drive while drunk, and indeed alcohol was involved in 109 of the 365 accidents. They also say that riders weave in and out of traffic, pass on the right and don't signal. So, to them, the findings of a NHTSA-funded study, the most comprehensive ever conducted on motorcycle safety, may come as a surprise. Looking at 4,500 accidents in Los Angeles, researchers found that when motorcycles and other vehicles collided, it is usually the driver in the car who violated the motorcyclist's right of way. While that study was done in 1981, periodic looks at state police reports in Washington suggest its findings hold true today, said Dave Wendell, program manager for Evergreen Motorcycle Safety Training in Seattle. "Car drivers don't see us because they're not looking for us," Wendell said. "They're looking for something at least 6 feet wide with two headlights."

The full text is here.

Re:One more way to avoid personal responsibility

[Photon Ghoul]

I wasn't making an argument, rather a comment based on my experiences which do not involve motorcycle collision but instead simple observation of very inconsiderate and irresponsible driving on the part of the majority of motorcycle operators that I have noticed. (whew).

Speaking for myself, I always watch for motorcycles just as well as I do cars because it was pounded into my head by people I knew who were (real) bikers growing up.

None of this excuses the fact that there are quite a few very STUPID motorcyclists out there on the road. I didn't even mention the yahoos that pull stunts (wheelies, etc) on the road and highways as I felt they are too much of a minority.... for now.

Re:One more way to avoid personal responsibility

[caveat]

born Catholic

oh, you mean a hellbound heathen idolater? i'm sorry, but i've had it explained by priests and theologians, but i just don't see how PRAYING to the saints and to Mary isn't idolatry. maybe giving them props in a prayer...but asking mary to ask god for remdemption..jeez. yes, i know that was mean, i'm not trying to flame or bait, but i'm really curious to know how you get around "Thou shalt have no gods before God" with "hail mary mother full of grace"...

Re:One more way to avoid personal responsibility

[dubious9]

the best way to prevent the excrutiating pain of eternal Damnation is ceaseless, constant vigilance, and being born Catholic.

I am begining to think you are a mere troll and do not actually believe in such. The apostles weren't born Catholic, and come to think of it, Jesus was a Jew.

Do you now offer no redemption even for those who convert? You, IMHO represent the worst aspects of those who believe in the Catholic religion. Have you nothing to say for yourself? How can you possibly justify such a statement?! Defend your opinion like a man.

Wireless?

[GedLandsEnd]

The STM also features a radio transmitter that wirelessly links the box to a receiver built-into the D-Air vest.

Someone hits their garage door opener and you get blown off your bike...

nice

It will help in some accidents

[davidfsmith]

However it wouldn't have stopped my thigh bone being broken when I was "helped" off my bike at a junction by a kindly lady pulling across my path.

What you probably need is a version of the michelin man suit !

Anything that adds to the protection of motorbike pilots has to be a good thing, but I would suggest that a lot of the problem is from two areas, pilots riding too fast for the conditions, and car drivers / other road users not being aware of bikes.

I was wearing a jacket with armour in it, and a 400ukp crash helmet, without the full face lid I would be dead as the lower part of it seemed to have been the first point of contact I had with the ground as I performed a face plant on my way to going 30-0 mph in a few feet. When on a bike assume all other road users are idiots, and spend as mcuh money as you can (and more) on your personal protection, it *will* save your life!

If you have an accident on your bike the next important bit is the speed you get taken to somewhere that can put you back together... luckily I crashed a 2 minute ambulance ride away from the local hospital (and you have to hope that as you lie there in the road a "helpful" stranger doesn't remove your crash helmet unless they know what they are doing)

Re:It will help in some accidents

[space_hippy]

If you have an accident on your bike the next important bit is the speed you get taken to somewhere that can put you back together... luckily I crashed a 2 minute ambulance ride away from the local hospital (and you have to hope that as you lie there in the road a "helpful" stranger doesn't remove your crash helmet unless they know what they are doing)

I would like to add, unless you pull up to a motorcycle accident with an ambulance (i.e. you are a paramedic) NEVER remove a downed bikers helmet. Let the hospital do it. Please.

The risk of spinal injury is far to great even if you know what you are doing, or just think you know what you are doing. If there is a suspected spinal injury the hospital will cut the helmet off like a cast.

Re:It will help in some accidents

[Darmox]

Also, if theres a concussion, the helmet will stop your brain/head from swelling temporarily(this is a good thing, until you get to the hospital)

And if you happen to take a dive and feel decent afterwards, it's probably a good idea to feel around the helmet for new scratches/dents before taking it off... shock can be an amazing thing.

Re:It will help in some accidents

[NeMon'ess]

No kidding. After getting hit on my bicycle, I sat on the side of the road for a few minutes waiting for the ambulance to arrive. I reached to wipe what I thought was sweat off my nose, and was shocked/horrified to feel warm, thick blood.

Airbags for construction workers.

[XNormal]

This article in Wired from 1999 describes an airbag vest developed by Japanese construction giant Kajima to protect construction workers from falls.

Re:Airbags for construction workers.

[XNormal]

From the article: "...An earlier version that covered the legs was unpopular with workers, who had to remove the contraption whenever they took off their shoes. "

Where did you get to try this?

Preceding a collision?!?!

[Alsee]

The sensors onboard the STM will watch for telltale signs such as a sudden deceleration force of about ten times that of gravity that precede a collision.

Yeah, riiiiiight...
and while they're at it why don't they try detecting other tell-tale signs like profuse bleeding and bone fractures that also precede a collision.

I guess when the computer determines an "impending accident" it dumps 1.21 jiggawatts into the flux capacitor.

-

Re:Preceding a collision?!?!

[BradleyUffner]

"Yeah, riiiiiight...
and while they're at it why don't they try detecting other tell-tale signs like profuse bleeding and bone fractures that also precede a collision."

I'm going to assume them mean the collision between the rider and the ground, or other object. When the rider is thrown from the bike it would mean that the bike has alrady hit something and the rider is being carried by innertia. The sudden deceleration of the bike triggers the wearable airbag before the rider actually impacts something.

I'll pass thanks

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

It's bad enough we have hand grenades in the steering wheels of our new cars (another reason I only drive old cars) but now we'll be wearing one too?

Thanks, I'll pass. When I ride my FZR600, I wear heavy leather gloves, massive leather jacket (along with a spine brace), two pairs of pants (inner one are jeans, outer: leather) and a full helmet.

When I flipped my FZR once and was thrown off, the only thing bruised was my pride (and all the expensive fiberglas on the bike.)

If I want hand grenades attached to my jacket, I'll join the military.

Re:I'll pass thanks

[Kris Warkentin]

Yeah. Studies have shown that the only people who are statistically helped by airbags are unbelted males of average or greater size. Anyone smaller or wearing a seatbelt doesn't need airbags and won't be helped by them. Then there's the whole, "Airbags going off for no reason" thing where the airbag knocks you for a loop (exploding at 300kph, hitting you like Mike Tyson) and THEN you have an accident. That's why I disabled the airbags on the passenger side of my car. I sure as hell won't put my kids or wife behind one of those things.

Biking stories ... sniff

[Anonymous Coward]

After witnessing my friend's death due to a biking accident ( crashed into a parked car at more then 4 times the speed limit ( 180+ kph)) i decided to sell my bike.
It was the 3d person of a 15 member group of bikers that had died in the course of about 2 years, and i had enough. OK, most of the blame was up to us, we drove at incredible speeds on public roads ( 200 kph+ was not at all unusual ( and it wasn't on a highway or speedway). We did have a lot of experience on circuit tests and occasional amateur racing. But nothing protects you from your own stupity or that of others that cross your path ...

On the other had, it's just plain impossible to respect the speed limits with any stock supersport bike these days. ( I used to have a Suzuki TL-1000 R, standard 138 hp, but after carefull tuning it got up to about 150 hp, and reached speeds of around 290 kph ) Going slower then about 80-90 per hour is impossible with this bike ...

Anyway,I've been reading about this airbag jacket for a while now, but i'm not sure that this kind of stuff will really help a lot.
Sure, it does offer some more support, but at high speeds, i guess it won't really help a lot. And the kick in biking for me was all about speed ... ok the romantic idea of the freedom and joy of biking does have some truth in it ...
But the real kick is in scraping your knee-pads at high-speed turns ...
And that's where protective clothing really is important, I've been fairly happy with the dianese protective clothes, they've saved my from road burn a few times already, when i was luchky enough to fall at places where i was going slow enough to survive , and had enough place to slide to a halt ...Never had anything more then some slight burns and scratches and some broken fingers ...

Re:Biking stories ... sniff

[petrilli]

On the other had, it's just plain impossible to respect the speed limits with any stock supersport bike these days.

Bullsh*t. It's called self-control. I ride quickly on the open roads, as do all my friends, but that doesn't mean we ride at 100MPH+ on the streets. That's what track days are for.

I'm sorry, but you and your friends were nothing more than squids who took stupid risks, and paid the price. Personal responsibility, buster. It's just like people who choose to ride without a helmet, in shorts and a set of flip flops on a bike that can do 200MPH. Yeah, there's using your noggin.

Darwinian evolution. Get out of the gene pool.

Re:Biking stories ... sniff

[jonerik]

It was the 3d person of a 15 member group of bikers that had died in the course of about 2 years, and i had enough. OK, most of the blame was up to us, we drove at incredible speeds on public roads ( 200 kph+ was not at all unusual

Christ, what was the name of this group? The Lemmings?

Re:Biking stories ... sniff

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Interesting, I have very little trouble riding sanely on my ZX with 175 ponies under my wrist. I'm not saying I never exceed the speed limit, but I definitely let the situation and traffic conditions temper my riding style. I've maxed it, but it was a 4 lane limited access Big Wide Flat Straight road at 2AM with good visibility, and I backed off well before I encoutered traffic again. When I ride it on my daily commute, I just ride with traffic.

But, that comes with experience. I usually ride toward the back of the pack, because the guys in front are too reckless for my comfort.

Doubtful...

[ivrcti]

I rode every day for 7 years and I'm not sure about this product. This won't protect against the slide (as others have already pointed out), but that only accounts for about 5-10% of accidents.

The biggest cause of motorcyle accidents is when the car driver doesn't see you and either turns left in front of you, or pulls into your lane. In the left hand turn accident, the bike would experience the sudden deacceleration and the vest would inflate. But if it does, the inflated vest makes you a slightly more "round shape." I believe this would tend to cause more rolling and less sliding. At 30+ mph, the rolling effect would likely protect the head and neck (IF you are wearing a helmet), but tend to cause a LOT more arm and leg injuries.

In the accident where a car pulls into your lane, you usually bounce off the car and go into an uncontrolled tumble. I don't believe the vest would inflate.

I also wonder about the vulnerability of the wireless link. If a passing cell phone/CB/Ham radio/TV tower caused it to go off accidentally, it would almost certainly cause an accident.

The biggest hurdle by far, though is cost and use. Most riders are young, predominately male. As a general rule, we either are so young we don't fully understand the risk of riding (or after about 2 weeks of street riding) we realize the risk and accept it as the cost for our freedom. Most riders will spend plenty of money on their bike, but not much at all on their gear, so you would first have to convince the young guy that the risk will really be minimized and that the financial cost is worth the reduction in risk. Not an easy sale! I give it a 10% chance of being successful.

Re:Doubtful...

[gillbates]

I agree, but I'll add something.

The biggest problem with motorcycle accidents is spinal cord and head injuries, which this device will do nothing to prevent. All other types of injuries commonly associated with motorcycle accidents are very survivable (road rash, bruises, the occasional broken bone, etc...).

I remember a few years ago, someone came out with a motorcycle seatbelt which could be retrofitted to a motorcycle. Not surprisingly, very few bought the idea. The reason is simple: it is fairly common for motorcycles to "come out from under" a rider; slick asphalt or gravel, a flat tire, or locking either wheel while braking will cause a motorcycle to fall over, and most riders would rather ditch the bike than be dragged along with it. (motorcycles will slide on the pavement much farther than the rider.) Once again, we have a device which inspires little confidence in its safety because:

• The number of accidents in which this device would protect the rider is relatively small, and the degree of protection is relatively minor - the road rash and bruises this device would prevent are relatively insignificant compared to the spinal cord and head injuries feared by the safety-conscious riders.
• The possibility of this complicating injuries in an accident is relatively large.

This is the kind of device which is invented by technicians wearing lab coats, rather than real riders. Most riders are open to safety enhancements, however, the nature of motorcycle riding dictates that different methods of safety be used. In cars, ejection of passengers results in injuries more often than not; with motorcycles, it's just the opposite - many motorcyclists (myself included) are still alive today because they separated themselves from the bike before or during an impending accident. While airbags and seatbelts may increase the safety of automobiles, they have the opposite effect in motorcycles - they tend to complicate injuries while offering very little in the way of accident protection.

Re:Doubtful...

[olman]

The biggest problem with motorcycle accidents is spinal cord and head injuries, which this device will do nothing to prevent.

Doesn't protect your back? Did you look at the link? This suit has BIGGER airbag protecting your back than ribcage! Anyone riding a bike without a helmet deserves what they get IMHO.

Important Safety Rule For Motorcycle Riders

[wiredog]

Always assume that anyone driving a car, truck, etc, is one or more of:

• Blind
  
• Drunk
  
• Stoned
  
• Stupid
  

Re:Important Safety Rule For Motorcycle Riders

[martinthebrit]

Important Safety Rule for Motorists.

Always assume that anyone driving a motorcycle is one or more of:

• Irresponsible
• Reckless
• Stupid

I'm sorry, but why do motorcyclists (and I acknowlegdge that I am generalising here and that there are responsible motorcyclists as well as irresponsible motorists - but I am always much more aware of the bikers) treat themselves as above the law. The highway code (I am in the UK here) and speed limits apply to bikes as much as cars. Just because you are able to drive at high speed and weave between traffic doesn't mean that it is safe to - I lose count of the number of near misses that I have noticed where motorcyclists undertake at high speed on dual carriageway roads, but it's usually the motorist that gets the blame when there is an accident.

Re:Important Safety Rule For Motorcycle Riders

[fermion]

My thing with motorcycles has been responsible riding. Although some complain that other vehicles are the problem, the insurance institute reports that about half the deaths involve a single vehicle, and about half of those involved an alcohol level above 0.10 percent. The report also informs us that in states where helmets are not required, only about 50% of the rides wear helmets, and those riders that do not wear them are about a third more at risk,

On the other hand, it seems we need to do something. The report indicates that a motorcycle is 18 times more dangerous than a car. Even if we get rid of drunk riders, that still is a very dangerous machine to ride. On the other hand, air bags will only protect the rides in limited circumstances, like a head on collision or running into another vehicle, which is only like 20%, while running off the road, falling down, or having a car smack into the bike is the rest. While air bags will protect the center of the body from trauma, will the effectiveness be high enough to make a difference?

One thing I found interesting on the above link is that deaths were falling until 1998. It looks like deaths have increased like 30% since then. I wonder if this might be due to the increased sales of larger vehicles, and the maniacs that drive them. I wonder if we required a different kind of drivers license for anything bigger than a Ford Escape we might save lives. After all, the car companies convinced congress to give trucks a catalytic converter exemption because they were largely commercial vehicles. Therefore, perhaps we should require commercial licenses for these large vehicles.(we were at 35% trucks in the mid 90's, and about 45-50% now)

Re:Important Safety Rule For Motorcycle Riders

[Builder]

You left out

Out to get you :)

Re:Important Safety Rule For Motorcycle Riders

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

I try to go 5-10mph faster than traffic, since it reduces the danger of being hit from behind or clipped from the side by cagers. I know I'M paying attention to what's in front of me, but the guy behind/beside me is beyond my control. I also pay close attention in my mirrors when stopping, making sure the guy behind me looks like he is too. If he isn't, I try to leave an escape route for myself.

Sometimes, it's just safer to speed. :-/

Dropping your bike

[panker]

I have ridden motorcycles for quite some time, and everyone I know has dropped their bike while parked at least once. Having your airbag vest go off at that time would make the event even more embarassing that it already is.

I love morons who think it's all the govt's fault

[JPelorat]

Talk to the company about it - they're the ones that are declining to sell them. The fact that the DOT doesn't have standards for it is irrelevant.

All that means is that the company is afraid of putting out a product that might not spec up in the future. Not that there's a government conspiracy to continue to let idiots die on dangerous vehicles.

Re:Deceleration

[gatkinso]

There are threee collisions in an accident:

1) bike with object (or road)
2) rider with object
3) riders organs with his/her skeleton

The second two collisions are what kills. The rapid decelleration of the first collision will precede the other two - triggering the device.

Who said anything about brakes?

Re:The picture

[Sc00ter]

Just because you're should wear a helmet doesn't always mean people do, and it's not always required by law (NH still doesn't require a helmet or seatbelts for people over 18)

Oops, forgot the new battery !

[RyoSaeba]

Imagine, you drive peacefully, suddenly realize you heading in for a bad collision.... you think 'at least i have that jacket' and at that time you have the battery warning light switching on !!!

Re:What are we actually learning?

[EllF]

Unfortunately, drivers of SUVs aren't required to take these safety courses and end up killing a fair amount of their own citizens in smaller vehicles and motorcycles.

I knew SUV's were large, but I didn't realize that they constituted soverign nations yet. I guess I'll stick to walking.

Snow Crash

[Apocalypse111]

Didn't the book Snow Crash have something similar in it? I think both YT and Hiro were wearing suits that incorporated similar stuff to this.

Re:Snow Crash

[bourne]

Didn't the book Snow Crash have something similar in it? I think both YT and Hiro were wearing suits that incorporated similar stuff to this.

Yes. YT went into detail at one point explaining how it inflated around the neck and head, removing the need for a helmet. She wore one all the time when skating. Hiro wore one when he, ah, bought that motorcycle; his had the added advantage of being bulletproof.

Now if only someone'd build smartwheels, we could avoid being chiseled spam.

Michelin Man

[turgid]

Just goes to show that the Michelin Man was way ahead of his time.

I can just see it.

[BurntHombre]

So your leg will be lying over there...

And your arm will be hanging from that tree...

And your head will be there by the curb...

But your torso will be in a remarkably preserved state!

Re:I can just see it.

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

I make similar statements about helmets... :-)

Style and Alternate Uses

[Nevermore-Spoon]

Will these come in the Bright Colors got the Crotch Rocketeers? Basic Black for the Harley riders?

What about alternate uses
-Base Jumping safety device
-new yuppie teach-your-kid-to-ride-a-bike saftey device
-New Staight Jacket for the mentally Ill
-Really safe sex device

Re:What are we actually learning?

[Matt_Bennett]

Fortunately, here in the states, motorcycle drivers are required to take a safety course teaching the proper handling of a motorcycle in difficult situations.

Ummm... motorcycle drivers are not required to take a safety course in the states (that is, if you are referring to the United States of America) That sort of thing is set by the state anyway. Motorcyclists are encouraged to take a safety course, and doing so makes it much easier to get a license. I believe that the laws elsewhere (particularly in Europe) enforce much stricter licensing requirements (such as graduated licensing). I used to be a certified Motorcycle Safety Foundation instructor (I let my certification expire- too much work in miserable conditions for too little pay).

There are some states that require you take a motorcycle safety course if you are under 18 and want to get a motorcycle license, but if you're over 18 in most places, all you have to do is pass the test(s).

I thouroughly recommend the MSF courses for anyone who is even thinking about getting a motorcycle- they are the best form of instruction we have. They have proven techniques and a demonstrated track record. One of the most important concepts stressed is that motorcycles are dangerous and you must accept the risk, or not ride. They teach ways to reduce the risk, but it can't be eliminated.

Re:I love morons who think it's all the govt's fau

[Quila]

It doesn't remove the basic fact that these lifesaving devices will not be legally available in the U.S. because of our bureaucracy. Whether it's an active negative action of the bureaucracy, or a company not doing something lifesaving because it is afraid of same, it's still a bureaucracy operating to the detriment of the people.

Of course I could still be bitter against the DOT because they won't allow the fast, safe and fuel efficient Lotus Elise into the U.S.

Well, that and mandating airbags in cars before the technology was up to an acceptable and safe level, the cause of some major injuries to me.

Check this out too

[codeButcher]

This Greek manufacturer is doing something similar - although the "trigger" is a bit more low-tech: A proximity sensor sensing distance between rider and bike (actually a steel cable hooked to your ride :-) ). See pictures here and here. Unfortunately the site is a bit low on textual info.

Re:Check this out too

[codeButcher]

Sorry for replying to my own post...

I sure hope it's rechargeable, because there's bound to be a lot of guys who will forget to unhook on getting off, as is usual with new equipment....

I wouldn't wear this

[b0bby]

Really body armor can do a pretty good job already on injuries to your torso. A full face helmet is also a must. The real worry is head/spinal cord injuries - a system to hold your helmet in a safe position would be more effective in my opinion, but difficult and inconvenient. Even better is training and awareness and not riding drunk - a huge percentage of motorcycle fatalities are single vehicle crashes where the rider is drunk. By not being an idiot and wearing conventional protective gear you're really in pretty good shape.

If you read the article

[Quila]

They've already done extensive testing for situations a rider might encounter. They are holding off because they're afraid of what the business effects and liability will be if the the DOT later makes a regulation that screws them. Meanwhile, it'll be widely sold in the safety-conscious EU.

Not that I personally love airbags. I hate U.S.-style airbags in cars. But if they're being made, U.S. consumers should have a choice to purchase them.

Re:If you read the article

[YrWrstNtmr]

They've already done extensive testing for situations a rider might encounter.

And any manufacturer will do their own testing, and tell you the product is GREAT.

Me, I prefer some independant testing.

Re:If you read the article

[Quila]

Me, I prefer some independant testing.

Then let the buyer beware. All the testing they did on car airbags didn't stop kids from getting killed, but at least with these riders have a choice of buying them or not.

Re:If you read the article

[YrWrstNtmr]

but at least with these riders have a choice of buying them or not.

So far. Just like there used to be a choice with helmets.

Until then..

[nolife]

Anyone that rides a motorcycle hopefully already knows this.. use LEATHER!!

It's not just a Harley thing or a status symbol, it is for safety. Leather boots, pants and gloves with hard sole boots or shoes. In a motorcycle ejection or fall off, it is better to gradually slide to a stop then to stick to the ground and tumble around. Leather will allow you to slide while protecting the skin and provide a decent stopping friction. It does not help much when slamming into something where conservation of momentum is tested but for most motorcycle dumps and mishaps it can save your life.

Re:Until then..

[SirWhoopass]

I think you've got it right.

I never hesitated to buy gear. My bike is still stock, but I've got two helmets, three pairs of gloves, and two riding jackets. The key to gear is wearing it, so I've got both warm weather and cold weather stuff, so I'm never tempted not not wear it because it would be too hot/cold.

Re:Until then..

[Scrameustache]

Don't forget a full-face helmet.

I was coming home on my bike once, in traffic, and this FUCKING IDIOT threw his cigarette out the freakin' window, it flew right into my left eye.

Now lemme tell you, there is nothing like red-hot ashes in your eye to make you realise the value of a full-face helmet (it was really hot, so my visor was up). I still can't believe I managed to get to the curb and stop safelly without being run over by another idiot...
Of course now whenever I see someone throw a cigarette out of a car window I get an adrenaline rush and the urge to ram their car, drag them out and beat them to a bloody pulp...sigh.

Re:Until then..

[wompser]

This could have been avoided were you to wear eye protection. It is ALWAYS a good idea (and law here in Washington State) to wear eye protection (even just clear glasses should be OK). It is not just cigarette butts, but bird droppings, bugs, small (and large) rocks, etc. that can be a major hazard to unprotected eyes, but trivial with proper glasses of some sort.

Re:Until then..

[Scrameustache]

I was wearing glasses (normal prescription glasses), the cigarette still found a way in...the fun thing about a cigarette is that its loose material, burning, in a tube. When it hit me it got the edge of my glasses and all the burning tobacco just blew apart right in my eye.
And of course the other eye got all watered up out of sheer camaraderie with the one that got hit...

seriously people, DO NOT THROW LIT CIGARETTES OUT OF MOVING CARS!

Soverign SUVs

[Zathrus]

You apparantly haven't encountered an Excursion XL yet.

Re:The picture

[Paul Jakma]

Not wearing a helmet on a bike is /insane/.

It doesnt take much of a knock to the head to kill, you can kill yourself when the bike is /stationary/ if you're not wearing a helmet. (ie you fall sideways and your head happens to be the one to break the fall).

Scary but funny scenario

[Jon Abbott]

I wonder how many people will get one of these jackets and forget to take it off when they get off their motorcycle... The rider starts walking away, then the sensing circuits in the jacket detect that the rider and motorcycle are getting further away, then PFFFFFFT, instant fat rider! :^)

Coincidentally, I actually rode my Honda Magna 750 motorcycle into work today...

Version for Segway also planned...

[clickety6]

It looks the same and works identically except that the trigger goes off if the wearer acheives speeds of more than 20 miles per hour, as on a Segway this is an obvious sign of a collision...

is an airbag the right concept?

[g4dget]

The primary problem that airbags address is hitting the windshield or steering wheel with your head. But on a motorcycle, the head is already well protected by the helmet. The main concern would seem to be the spine. Is an airbag the best way of protecting that?

Perhaps the various semi-rigid body armors are better after all. Does anybody know how effective they actually are? Are there any studies or tests?

Re:is an airbag the right concept?

[Havokmon]

Not sure if they use rigid body armour like you are talking about, but there are pieces of plastic covering the spine and kidney areas.

Like I said, they walk away, so they are effective.

That's basically it... I know a couple people who motorcross, and broken hands/fingers are the typical injuries. A co-wokers husband has broken his fingers/hands more times than she can count.

But seriously, folks...

[CausticPuppy]

Thanks, I just about had coffee spewing out my nose when reading that.

But anyway, I think here's how the system is supposed to work, based on my thorough reading of the short slashdot blurb but not the article itself:
In any bike accident you have two collisions (at least). The first is when your bike hits something. Your bike stops suddenly, but since you're not strapped onto it, you still have all that momentum.
So there's a split second between the bike hitting something, and your body hitting something. When the bike slams into, say... a bus, it sends a radio signal to the rider's chest air bag that says "Hey, I just hit something, you might want to inflate that airbag within the next 0.02 seconds or so." Hopefully your airbag will inflate just in time for your upper body to ram into the side of the bus.

Of course in many crashes, the rider is thrown far away from the bike. Your bike hits a car, you're thrown over the hood of the car, and then while you're in mid-air you'll be thinking "wouldn't it be nice if I was surrounded by big inflateable pillows like that Mars lander so I could just bounce around for a while instead of wrapping my intestines around this upcoming light pole?"

On the other hand, this opens up the possibility of practical jokes... see a biker on the highway, send a spoof "inflate airbag" radio signal to his bike, enjoy the resulting hilarity.

Re:Motorcycle injuries

[FiskeBoller]

I agree.

There is a great deal of armor out there that works well, especially the C2, high-impact rated plastics for racing. I know what I trust from personal experience.

What isn't a good idea is bouncing along after getting thrown off the bike. Good leather abrasion helps bring you to a halt. On the other hand, this suit would have you bounding like a ball down the highway. You are more likely to snap limbs or run into obstacles the further you bounce ... Boing Boing Boing!

Think about throwing a sandbag across the ground vs. a rubber ball.

Wireless?

[Halo-]

My first reading of the article lead me to beleive the sensors "blast the data" to the inflation unit via wireless signals of some type.

I hate to think of the fun/damage a script kiddie could have with a transmitter... :)

Less silly than tomatoes that eject b4 collision

[unfortunateson]

For several years, they have been talking about a helmet-mounted airbag for high-school and collegiate football players, to prevent neck injuries. Those injuries have gotten a lot of research into safer equipment, including helmets bolted to shoulder pads.

But looking at that inflato-vest, I couldn't help think that it looked halfway through the transformation to Mospeada (Robotech Part III) ride-armor.

Re:Worse? The heat...

[Havokmon]

Am I the only one that at first glance read that as:

For the past hundred years or so motorcycle accidents have had an unfortunate potential for particularly horrific injuries, or worse; Improvements in safety gear

Methinks I need some coffee... :/

No, must just live in Milwaukee. 90% of the riders don't wear helmets, and on a hot day, they're not going to wear one of those vests. Jackets are bad enough when the temp is over 80. You can sweat like a 'hog' merely sitting at a stoplight, surrounded by car fumes.

Sorry, but jeans and t-shirts (or light vests) are the norm.
Yes, I do OWN a helmet, and yes I wear it sporadically.

Re:The picture

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Then again, you could kill yourself walking down the street too. Would you wear a helmet on your evening walk?

Since D.O.T. rated helmets are good for perpendicular impacts of ~10MPh (IIRC), they won't help in a accident, even in town at 35MPH, except to stop road rash.

Personally, I prefer to have unimpaired peripheral vision and hearing in town to let me avoid the accident in the first place. I do wear my helmet on long highway trips, though, becuase it cuts down on wind fatigue.

Don't buy into the helmet propaganda, they aren't ALWAYS a good idea. I think it needs to be the rider's choice, since he/she is in the best position to evaluate the tradeoffs based on the type of riding he/she is doing.

False sense of security

[Nemosoft Unv.]

Improvements in safety gear have certainly been made in the past few decades, but in some ways those improvements have been balanced out by the tremendous speeds that modern bikes are capable of.

Capable of, indeed. However, there is hardly ever any need to use this power and go 300kph. As a motorcyclist-in-creation (read: taking lessons right now) I don't always understand the need for these immense speeds. I apreciate the accelerating power of the bike (no car can keep up with you after a traffic light) and that you can often squeeze through a narrow gap where a car simply cannot goi. Going 120 kph (75 mph) on the highway is certainly thrilling, but I would rather drive at a speed I feel comfortable with than going to the edge of what is technically and humanly possible.

But to get back to my point: cars have become a lot 'safer' with ABS, airbags (unless you smoke), wrinkle zones (unless you have long legs), side bars (unless you do end up in an accident and rescue workers spend 30 minutes cutting through them; time you are trapped in your vehicle), and drivers seem to rely on these gadgets, rather than actually paying attention to their driving style. Thus, they tend to drive more dangerously.

With this airbag, something similarly may happen to motorcylcists. However, when you go at 200 kph, no amount of airbag is going to save you if you hit something streaight on or glide under the 'egg-slicer' guidance rails at the side of the road. So folks, learn to control your right hand first (that's the gashandle, before you get any funny ideas :-)) and *watch out*. Rule number 1 while driving a motorcycle is to be smarter and more observant than the other users on the road and avoid dangerous situations.

Re:I love morons who think it's all the govt's fau

[Wolfier]

Exactly.

Let me also add, that manufacturers are the ones who are MADE to change their products in order to sell in the US.

The Elise didn't make it here probably because it fails the US DOT bumper test. (European has a lower impact standard).

Sounds safe huh? Not so, my friend. SUV's are excempt from the bumper height regulation so your head can easily be chopped off even if your car's bumper can withstand a 1000 mph impact - a truly splendid testament of how US DOT bureaucracy "improves" our odds arriving alive.

Another example: E-code headlights. They have better beam pattern that concentrates the light on the road, not to the sky - US DOT requires 1/3 of the light to beam upwards so "drivers can see street signs". Well, the only thing that drivers can see when it is raining or snowing with a US DOT light is the raindrops/snow in front, not the road. LOL.

Just an example how conjured-up theories made its way to real regulations. I've been in E-code cars before, and the street signs are just as easy to read - but I couldn't believe how tremendously improved the lighting performance was.

Good thing I'm in Canada, although we get the same USDOT-spec cars it is legal to modify them to Euro spec headlights. I'm going to do it soon.

Re:I love morons who think it's all the govt's fau

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Well, that and mandating airbags in cars before the technology was up to an acceptable and safe level, the cause of some major injuries to me.

So if they do something, they're bad. If they don't do anything (like the airbag vest), they're still bad.

It looks to me like they are being cautious so they don't repeat earlier mistakes. To release the wrong specs on these vests could cause more injuries than they would prevent, similar to your airbag experience.

I'd say they are being smart.

In the unlikely event of a 10g+ water landing...

[NotTheNickIWanted]

...your motorcycle gear may be used as a flotation device.

Re:The picture

[ender-]

Personally, I prefer to have unimpaired peripheral vision and hearing in town to let me avoid the accident in the first place. I do wear my helmet on long highway trips, though, becuase it cuts down on wind fatigue.

Don't buy into the helmet propaganda, they aren't ALWAYS a good idea. I think it needs to be the rider's choice, since he/she is in the best position to evaluate the tradeoffs based on the type of riding he/she is doing.

First of all, if you get the right helmet, it has VERY little effect on your peripheral vision. Secondly, the helmets are designed to also not too badly affect your hearing [other than cutting down on wind noise]

From Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Regarding claims that helmets obstruct vision, studies show full-coverage helmets provide only minor restrictions in horizontal peripheral vision -- less than 3 percent from that of an unhelmeted rider. A 1994 study by A. James McKnight analyzed the effects of motorcycle helmet use on seeing and hearing. The study found that wearing helmets "restricts neither the ability to hear horn signals nor the likelihood of visually detecting a vehicle in an adjacent lane prior to initiating a lane change." To compensate for any restrictions in lateral vision, riders increased their head rotation prior to a lane change. Subjects in the hearing study showed no differences in hearing thresholds under three helmet conditions: no helmet, partial coverage, and full coverage. The noise generated by a motorcycle is such that any reduction in hearing capability that may result from wearing a helmet is inconsequential. Sound loud enough to be heard above the engine can be heard within a helmet, a NHTSA study concluded.

Anyway, I DO agree with you that it should be the rider's choice. The state doesn't need to run our lives. HOWEVER, I personally feel that anyone who doesn't wear a helmet on public roads needs their head examined. [Pun intended]

Ender

Re:I love morons who think it's all the govt's fau

[Quila]

The basic difference is that the car airbags was a requirement, these are rider's choice. Why does the government have to release specs on something before it's worthwhile?

We're all little children who need tending to.

Re:I love morons who think it's all the govt's fau

[Quila]

The Elise didn't make it here probably because it fails the US DOT bumper test.

Oh yes, the test standard that has reaped massive benefit to the American publ^H^H^H^H insurance industry.

The new lights are great. They're very popular in Germany.

Good thing I'm in Canada

But you're still stuck with daytime running lights, aren't you? Those blind me every time I see them in front or behind me, especially being low in the Elise. Very dangerous.

or maybe

[Quila]

Don't have a standard? Or treaty with the EU for cross-recognition of standards?

Nope, can't do that. This whole standards thing has two reasons: appease the insurance industry and create protective trade barriers.

Yeah

[wiredog]

That's why some riders carry ball peen hammers with extra long handles.

Or guns. A couple rounds into the block gets attention.

Nanny state

[Quila]

So far. Just like there used to be a choice with helmets

Good point. Same with car airbags, power brakes/ABS (soon in Europe), daytime running lights, seatbelts, etc. Except for the seatbelts, these are all things I don't want on a sports car and luckily was able to order one without (but not in America).

I say if you don't want the stuff, your government shouldn't force you to buy it. But we all know you are not responsible enough to decide what sort of safety equipment you want on your car.

Motorcycling safety

[TheGH]

Hi,

Just having a flick around the front page of Slashdot and saw this post and thought I'd add my two pence! (This is my first Slashdot post...)

Just thought it may be of interest that in the UK you can already get stuff like this. My colleague has a similar system but cruder in operation. It simply attaches him to the bike via a short, fine cable. Get on the bike, plug yourself in, "arm" the system and you're off. If you have an accident, the cable comes out of it's socket, breaks a circuit and the jacket fires its internal airbag.

G

Natural selection?

[0xdeadbeef]

Improvements in safety gear have certainly been made in the past few decades, but in some ways those improvements have been balanced out by the tremendous speeds that modern bikes are capable of.

Are we talking about street bikes, those that have no business going anywhere close to their maximum speed?

It is the natural order of the world to weed out the reckless and stupid. I don't think we should do more to upset that balance.

Re:Horse pucky...

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Do you remember the (NY?) senator that wanted to mandate SEATBELTS for motorcycles some years ago? He was (of course) a non-rider.

Supposedly, one of the constituents in his home district rode, and fitted his bike with a lap belt. He then went to a political rally for this senator, said he supported the legislation, and asked if the politico wanted to get some publicity photos sitting on the bike. The senator sat down on the bike in front of the press, and the motorcylist kicked the bike over!

The proposed legislation was dropped shortly thereafter. :-)

It's better than nothing!

[ISPTech]

I wouldn't wear it as my only protection, but it beats the T-shirt and baggy pants 2 morons wore when we went out riding as a group.

I don't even want to think of the damage to your arms when you bounce around in that thing. It wouldn't have helped the 2 minor newbie accidents I had sliding the bike.

...it can never be said enough. Wear your gear.

Re:I love morons who think it's all the govt's fau

[Wolfier]

Well after getting the lights I'll get the switch too that would allow me to turn EVERY light on/off individually :) :)

Re:Air bags for football

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Where do they wear the wearables to minimize wear and tear? And we're dying to know where they get the wares... :-)

it's not the fall, it's getting run over

[websensei]

wearing leather and a helmet protect most riders against all but the worst spills. I have no stats to quote offhand but I believe the problem is usually not the fall, rather the fact that you're lucky if you only get run over twice. an airbag won't help when the cars behind you can't slow down in time.

The real shame is the gov...

[red elk]

All of the new technologies to make bike riding safer is excellent until the government forces you to use them. Its a fundamental right as an individual to decide whether or not you want to use those safety measures - including helmets! Now that those rights are being taken away, we fall down a dangerous path...

Free transplants - no more?

[Broege]

It may be good for motorists but it's very bad for humanity - the number of kidneys available as transplants will drop radically.

So, in the interest of humanity, ban those airbags now!

Motorcyclists To Get Wearable Airbags

[Morgahastu]

they are called tits.

Re:The picture

[ke4roh]

This summer I drove (in a car) 1100 miles through several states in the U.S. and almost every motorcyclist I saw on the interstate (especially in Indiana and Wisconsin) was wearing blue jeans, a cotton shirt, and no helmet. The most head protection I saw was a cotton scarf. It seems I saw a couple of helmeted motorcyclists in Alabama.

I doubt if the invention of another safety device for motorcyclists will do much good for those who already have a flagrant disregard for their own protection.

Re:The picture

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

I must have a funny shaped head. :-) I have a good Nolan helmet (full face, of course) and it definitely impedes my vision. And my exhaust note seems to resonate and be louder inside of it, despite my trying to quiet the bike down by repacking the exhaust regularly.

As far as turning the head goes, you can flick a glance but in emergency avoidance mauevers you don't have time to turn your head, in my experience. Sometimes you have to change lanes NOW to avoid a left-turner, you know?

And you still didn't cover the structural limitations of a 10mph helmet. :-)

Personally, I think the helmet companies have a vested interest in furthering the propaganda and backing mandatory helmet laws. That could just be conspiracy theory though! LOL (Maybe I need my head examined?)

This seems like a waste of time...

[Anonymous Coward]

considering that the majority of motorcycle fatalities are related to head trauma. Even if the person is wearing a helmet, the DOT standards in the US only require the helmet to survive an impact of a 6 pound weight from 6 feet in the air (not a very high impact speed, around 20mph I think). Considering the speed at which most collisions happen it seems to me that improvements in helmet technology would make more sense.

Re:I love morons who think it's all the govt's fau

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

The government hasn't released any specs yet, and probably will not for some time. The manufacturer is choosing not to bring the device here, they are not being blocked by the (very overbearing) government.

this is more about scooters in Italy

[SethJohnson]

Considering that the product is coming out of Italy, where scooters are wildly popular within cities, I have the feeling this vest is primarily going to be sold to the scooter crowd. According to this BBC article,

"scooters and motorcycles are the principal cause of death in Italy among youths aged 19 to 24"



Speaking in general terms, the accidents that scooter users suffer in Italian cities are likely to be less extreme than motorcyclists in the US. There are probably fewer collisions with automobiles compared to the overall number of scooter spills due to other mishaps such as leaning out too far to grab a woman's ass (I have personally witnessed this maneuver in Rome). In such circumstances, this vest will probably decrease the impact of a low-speed tumble.

Though statistics show a lot of Italian deaths caused by scooter accidents, that doesn't mean scooter riding itself is so dangerous that injuries can't be mitigated by products like this. It means that there are a LOT of people tooling around on scooters in Italy. If you go there, you'll notice that right away.

Re:The picture

[Jon Abbott]

It seems I saw a couple of helmeted motorcyclists in Alabama

I rode through Alabama back in September or October with a friend... We were driving north up to Auburn from Tallahassee, FL -- took US-280 from Columbus, GA to Opelika and then I-85 to Auburn. We were wearing helmets. Pictures of my motorcycle here. Perhaps you saw us? :^)

Re:The picture

[Jon Abbott]

Not wearing a helmet on a bike is /insane/.

There is an old motorcycle adage that goes, "If you have a cheap head, wear a cheap helmet." That speaks volumes for those who don't wear helmets! :^)

Re:The picture

[Paul Jakma]

Don't buy into the helmet propaganda, they aren't ALWAYS a good idea

living in europe, i find this attitude amazing. I just cant imagine not wearing a helmet. If i try it, i feel naked and just cant go above 30mph, 20mph even.

good for perpendicular ~10MPh

well, actually they tend to be rated to absorb a certain force. So speed is kind of immaterial. A helmet can make the difference between life and death irregardless of speed. You can walk away from 160+MPH crashes with the right gear and you can die from a little fall at 30MPH, depends on the circumstances. I've crashed at 70+MPH and walked away, and i know someone who crashed at 110MPH and /drove/ his bike away afterwards (admittedly a track day). I also know of someone who took a little fall driving at very low-speed (20MPHish) through a housing estate and died from head injuries.

In the case of high-speed crashes that you walk away from, without a helmet you probably wont, or at least you're unlikely to have much of a face left.

they aren't ALWAYS a good idea

what crafty language you anti-helmet people use. :)

what you really mean, at least the arguments you use to back this up, is "in a lot of cases they wont save your life" while ignoring the fact that in many cases they will, or at least save you extensive facial surgery. and that makes them worth it, as there are far fewer down-sides to wearing them.

Re:The picture

[SirWhoopass]

And you still didn't cover the structural limitations of a 10mph helmet.

The DOT standard is weak, that's why I have a SNELL M2000 cerified helmet.

In the end, you're right about helmet limitations. Every helmet has a limitation, nothing is going to protect you if you go 90MPH driectly into a brick wall. Odds are, however that your accident will be much less severe. You'll probably skid a lot (don't forget the armor!) and take a glacing blow at low speed off something. Fatal without a helmet, completely survivable with one. I know several people who owe their life to their helmets. I know some that would be alive today had they been wearing one.

I support individual rights. I don't agree with helmet laws. It's silly, however, to try and argue that you're safer without one. Read the Hurt study: people wearing helmets showed a significant reduction in all types of injuries; plus, people wearing helmets are underrepresented in accidents. Helmet wearing riders are less likely to be in an accident than someone not wearing a helmet. This, of course, is most likely because riders who wear helmets are more cautious in general, but it also shows that wearing a helmet doesn't cause accidents due to restricted vision/hearing.

10 gs *preceding* a collision?

[Farce Pest]

'The sensors onboard the STM will watch for telltale signs -- such as a sudden deceleration force of about ten times that of gravity -- that precede a collision.'

Um, if you are pulling 10gs, you have already hit something.

I had a relatively low-speed accident a few years back, a combination of a limited-visibility off-ramp with a bad drop-off and a stationary pickup truck pulling a garden trailer. Missed the truck and trailer but heavy breaking made me dump the bike, or tossed me: There's some missing time of a few seconds. Broke the left foot peg mount, with my foot on it. Landed on asphalt with the left side of my body, primarily top and side of the head, shoulder, left forearm, left thigh, and both hands.

Injuries: Bruises and soreness.

Why: Full-face helmet prevented serious head injury (at best road rash on my face). Leather jacket saved about 8 sq. in. of skin on my shoulder. Leather gloves saved the skin on my palms. Leather boots with steel toes probably prevented a broken foot. Jeans sucked up just enough to save my skin on my legs, just barely (some extremely minor abrasions).

After checking out myself and the bike, I rode it to work (with 5th gear only), got a ride to the doctor's office for some x-rays, then later rode the bike home.

I'd consider wearing body armor, but not an air bag. That's just silly.

Re:The picture

[ender-]

I must have a funny shaped head. :-)
HEHEHE... [sorry,got a good chuckle out of that :)

As far as turning the head goes, you can flick a glance but in emergency avoidance mauevers you don't have time to turn your head, in my experience. Sometimes you have to change lanes NOW to avoid a left-turner, you know?

Very true, but that's part of riding [and driving] defensively at all times. Of course there will be emergency avoidance at times. But that's why the rider needs to pay attention to where the cars around him are at all times. Even if you don't wear a helmet, or the helmet doesn't affect your vision. You should already know where the surrounding traffic/obstacles are. At least then, when the ONE surprise car shows up, it would just be REALLY bad luck if a second surprise car is in your avoidance path. :) [at that point, it's your fate to crash and there's nothing you can do about it hehe]

And you still didn't cover the structural limitations of a 10mph helmet. :-)

Well, according to about.com for a DOT rating, they just drop the helmet 10 feet and check the G's felt inside.
However, the general rule of thumb is if the helmet only has a DOT rating, don't buy it. It should also have a Snell rating [which most racing clubs require]. The Snell rating [300G's] requirements are rather more strict and complicated than the DOT rating [400G's]. It even includes visual requirements.

Personally, I think the helmet companies have a vested interest in furthering the propaganda and backing mandatory helmet laws. That could just be conspiracy theory though! LOL (Maybe I need my head examined?)
Can't argue there..[ducking] I mean about the vested interest of helmet companies in backing helmet laws. :) Like I said, I don't care if they take away the helmet laws. I'm still gonna wear mine...

Ender

"DO NOT REMOVE HELMET" sticker

[caveat]

i have stickers on the back and front of my lid that says "DO NOT REMOVE HELMET IN A CRASH (unless you are an EMT)" - bold white on a black background, had to have them custom made. hopefully if they're ever needed (god forbid), at least one of them will be intact (and i won't be needing CPR). i put them on after one of my dad's highschool buddies lost the use of his legs that way; that's not how i wanna go, lying on the road with some well-intentioned person yanking at my helmet, wondering why my head spins 360 degrees...

Re:"DO NOT REMOVE HELMET" sticker

[caveat]

it's possible to make sure somebody's breathing properly without removing their helmet - then take it off if needed. a lot of newer halmets have a flip-up facebar, that might be an option for CPR as well.

Fun with spark gap generator

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

12v relay - $3.50
9v battery - $2.29
momentary contact switch - $0.79
WarDriving with a spark gap generator to swamp the sensor in the exploding vest - priceless
--

neck protection

[caveat]

The biggest problem with motorcycle accidents is spinal cord and head injuries, which this device will do nothing to prevent.

well...how about if the jacket included a super-strong, super-stiff inflatable cervical collar? put it on a separate inflator system, make it out of something bombproof like kevlar so it'll stay inflated, and even if it doesn't spare you a broken neck, you're at least immobilized and set for extraction. and if you aren't wearing a helmet along with the jacket, well, Darwin deserves to get ya. of course i imagine you might get all sorts of new and lethal head injuries if your neck couldn't move at all during the crash, but hey, quid pro quo.

Always wear a seatbelt. No exceptions.

[MightyTribble]

My wife is an emergency physician. She says you should *always* wear a seatbelt. I don't care if you're one, six or nine months pregnant - the medical literature is unanimous that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Of course, you have to wear it properly (i.e. shoulder-adjusted to the correct height, seated the correct distance from the wheel, etc), which is a problem if you're a 5ft mother-to-be in a Truck or big SUV, where they deliberately put the pedals 2" or so further back (because they're designed for big men, not soccer mums).

But always wear your seatbelt.

Re:logical inconsistency

[Blkdeath]

you attempt to support the "ABS increases stopping distance" argument by providing a number of references which state that "ABS does not shorten stopping distance"

So I take it you didn't read what I referenced, did you? Stopping distances are only decreased under ideal road and vehicle conditions and even then only when the driver has enough strength, control, and presence of mind to stomp 150lbs of pressure onto the brake pedal.

That's a lot of if's.

Incidentally, the first, second, fourth, and fifth references I provided did state that stopping distance was increased (note the use of ambiguous "under most road conditions" phraseology). Are you sure we're talking about the same post?

hmm, so...

[Magius_AR]

Rather than learning the lesson that doing 70+ mph sitting on a small strip of metal and 2 tires isn't exactly the brightest idea, they're finding ways to try to pad themselves. It's called a CAR.

What kind of data???

[QuietRiot]

Once the computer determines an impending accident, the STM blasts the data to receiver in the vest to start the inflation process.

I wonder exactly what kind of data is sent to the jacket.

Perhaps it is somthing along the lines of: "NOW!!!", encoded in XML to facilitate the use of the data in other devices as well.

I'm a biker and a geek

[Anonymous Coward]

No, really, I am. I ride an 1100 Honda ACE. I'd like to dispell a myth that I hear about every day and I see starting in this thread as well.

I can say with absolute certainty that bikers are not the cause or well over 90% of the accidents. Of all the drivers I know the ones that ride motorcycles are the most cautious, the most careful, the most defensive drivers I know. They won't cut you off. They won't pull out in front of you. They won't try to occupy your lane while you're still in it. They won't turn in front of you. All these things here are exactly what "cagers" do to bikers.

Cagers, not the bikers, cause almost all of the motorcycle accidents. It truely reminds me of "suit syndrome" where the suits lose 1/2 of the brain cells within seconds of strapping on their tie. It's as if as soon as cagers get behind the wheel they instantly suffer from tunnel vision, incompetence, and stupidity all at once.

I had a fun experience happen once. I was driving down a busy 2-lane road in town. I was going about 45mph. A cager in at a crossroad (he had a stop sign) looked right away from me, looked back at me, literally looked me in the eye, and then pulled out in front of me. I was about 3 car lengths away when he did that. I damned near nailed him. I didn't have a chance to slow down so I swerved into the ditch. I was going fast enough I just zipped right by him and back onto the road. The dumb son of a bitch had the nerve to honk at me and flip me off. Now that pissed me off.

I see shit like that happen all the damned time. It's not just women drivers (fitting the stereotype) that cause these problem. Male cagers cause just as many problem to us bikers.

Before people start saying how dangerous bikers are, they read should ride a couple miles in our shoes. The vast majority of wrecks bikers have are not their fault. Given the lack of metal surrounding their bodies though, even a small accident on a motorcycle is usually a bad one. I consider myself a fairly good biker and I've never had a wreck. I've had close calls though. One of these days a cager will probably get me.

Re:The picture

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

I'm not anti-helmet, I make it part of my riding routine when I feel conditions warrant it. I am rabid about seatbelts, they rarely have a downside and never get in the way of safe operation. I can't even move my truck in the driveway without a seatbelt on, it's like a subconscious psychosis. :-)

What I really mean is that in some cases they won't save your life, and in some situations they are a risk factor themselves.

Retro Design

[serutan]

About 30 years ago Popular Science had an article about a new type of motorcycle with a simple roll cage. The rider sat in a bucket seat, wearing an aircraft-style combination shoulder and lapbelt. The cage looked minimal but supposedly in tests you could lay the bike down on pavement at high speed and walk away without a scratch. I always wondered why those things never went into production.

Re:Motorcycle injuries

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

On the other hand, this suit would have you bounding like a ball down the highway.

Not sure about that. Car airbags deflate immediatly. It may acctualy help you slow down.

Well, Squid, that's what you get...

[FatHogByTheAss]

..when you're dumb.

Uncle Darwin was telling you and your croaked squid friends something, and it wasn't "Bikes are dangerous."

Bikes are dangerous. Fact of life.

[Moderation abuser]

Live with it. I ride 25,000 miles a year and I accept and live with the risk.

You don't like that risk? Drive a car like all the other cagers.

Cool your jets

[Crag]

The topic is a motorcycle safety device. The post you replied to is about motorcycle safety. It's also good advise for anyone, no matter what vehical they're in/on. There's nothing off-topic or troll-like about the post at all.

Re:The picture

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Then again, you could kill yourself walking down the street too. Would you wear a helmet on your evening walk?

I hate these silly "but you could XXX just XXXing XXX". Most poeple don't walk in the middle of roads at over 50mph. And if they could go that fast, they'd be running for starters ;).

Biker walks into a Bar wearing an Air-Bag Vest....

[billstewart]

So what does it take to set one off? A good hard punch to the sensor? Thrown beer bottle? How embarassing is that!? Sure, they're designed to go off when they need to and not go off accidentally, but what about deliberate attempts to trigger them? If they ever become popular, will this become as good a way to start a bar brawl as walking up an insulting a guy's bike? Hey, drivin' an underpowered riceburner like that, I bet you really *need* to wear this airbag!

If they won't wear a helmet what is the point?

[Hoi Polloi]

If you can't convince some macho headed, herd mentality bike rider to wear a helmet for their own saftey what possible chance do you have of getting them to invest in a hi-tech vest that'll cover up their designer leather gear?

Just drive through a "worry later" state like NH and you'll see that about 90% of the bike riders are convinced that their skulls are invulnerable. Maybe they realize that there is nothing vital in their heads?

They are being blocked

[Quila]

By the dangers associated with a sluggish bureaucracy. It's not an active block as in "You can't import this." It's a passive one as in "You can import it, but we may make your lives miserable and ruin your company when we decide to get around to making rules on your type of product."

Re:Sumerian, not Babylonian

[guybarr]

Next time, listen to Ray, or get your own lawyer

OK, OK, So my joke was not completely historically accurate.

Sumer/Akkad, Assyria, (not Syria) Babylon, all these "totally different" empires originated from cities from a relatively small region (few hundreds of KM) of what today we call Iran/Iraq, for a relatively dense period of several centuries.

So, insisting on wether some god crashing on a 12000KM-diameter target, several millenia later, is Babylonian or Sumerian is really working in the wrong time and space resolutions ...

(On a more serious tone, it is interesting to note that the distribution of civilizations on the globe is highly non-uniform. As is the distribution of major battles.
If this interests you, I recommend reading J. Keegan's A history of warfare . An enlightening book, IMHO. )

They say it for a reason

[rhombic]

Please check out Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures, Volume 1: Technical Report by H.H. Hurt et al. (available from Drive Aware). Note that this isn't a study by a motorcycle group-- it's a state of california study.

The relevant conclusion (among many) is that "In the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents." It seems to me that the vast majority of car drivers are very much aware of the other cars and trucks on the road, and pay attention to them. They're not often paying attention to little buzzy things that haven't enough mass to seriously damage their car (unless the cyclist gets tossed through their windshield, which tends to get a bit messy.)

As far as people sharing lanes in rush hour traffic, that's legal in california. Here's the link to the CHP FAQ:

Q: Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles?
A:Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner.

Doing 80 on the freeway? Stupid in the same way that drivers in their Civics with 8 foot spoilers doing 90 are stupid. Often with the same result-- unfortunately it's usually an innocent person that gets killed in those wrecks. Check the Hurt study again-- 92% of motorcycle accidents involve riders that haven't been trained. The most important thing they teach you in rider courses is how to deal with the inattentive drivers around you. That's the single most important thing to learn to keep yourself from getting turned into a red smear.

Re:The picture

[Paul Jakma]

How exactly are helmets a risk though?

wrt to hearing: above 30mph wind noise obscures most sounds. I wont ride a bike without ear plugs even, and i find helmet + ear plugs /improve/ hearing as low-sounds (ie engines) still make it through without being obscured by wind noise. However, hearing is still a very limited sense to warn you of impending danger. Cars these days are ultra-quiet. And even if you /can/ hear them, its very hard to know /where/ something is precisely. (from experience on track, first you'll know of a faster bike is the rumble of the engine - but often you cant tell which side they're coming from).

wrt to vision: well, its limited slightly, but to be honest, modern helmets have excellent fields of view. You do have to make more of an effort when looking over your shoulder though, but that's a matter of building up your technique through habit.

I'm not sure how helmets are a risk. :)