Recently we got a 2.0 model of the Hövding Airbag in for review here on road.cc. You may have read about the Hövding airbag before on road.cc we’ve written about it a number of times since it’s launch back in 2012 (in fact even before its launch).
Basically it’s a collar containing an airbag controlled by an accelerometer, a gyroscope and a 2000 and something rule algorithm. Aimed at urban cyclists and designed to go off in the event of a crash or collision – saving your head by enveloping it in a helmet-style air bag. There’s a lot more detail in the video.
Hövding market their device as a safety aid for urban cyclists and claim an eightfold reduction in the chances of suffering concussion in a collision – the promo material on their website features an animation of a collision with a car – and almost total elimination of the chances of a skull fracture. A claim they make on the back of research by Stanford University.
Like most other cycling websites we don’t crash test helmets when we review them here on road.cc. We don’t have our own crash test dummy or a suitable lab facility in which to replicate the safety tests, and asking the reviewer to go out and crash as part of the reviewing process has so far been deemed a step too far. Nor has a helmet manufacturer offered to come in and do the crashing for us (with the aid of a willing volunteer) well, until now.
Hövding did offer to demonstrate an airbag ‘deployment’ in a simulated crash situation – all they needed was someone prepared to crash on to their crash mat. We had that someone. Me.
Find out how me, the Hövding, and the crash mat got on in the video above
23 thoughts on “Video: road.cc crash tests the Hövding 2.0 Airbag for urban cyclists”
Can’t see BTBS in that.
Can’t see BTBS in that.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Defintely not, bloody heavy those types of crash protection systems
This is my only crash hat that I use in the colder months on the bike, the top bobble is particularly effective at preventing my head from being caved in, I also have a chart to prove its efficacy
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I think that we might need to see a graph…
Interestingly, this kind of
Interestingly, this kind of helmet can get around the problem of making cycling look more dangerous as most people wouldn’t realise that they are wearing a helmet with that design.
However, it’s expensive and I’d be worried about it deploying and then being useless afterwards.
(Edit – just watched the video with sound and found out that it costs £99 for replacement after an incident or free if it deployed in the wrong circumstance).
hawkinspeter wrote:
That is a good point, imagine the phone call home, can you pick me up my helmet has deployed…
Great for casual riding or
Great for casual riding or commuting, really does seem to be a good idea!
Just get Cavendish to test it
Just get Cavendish to test it !
2000 rules algorithm
“a gyroscope and a 2000 and something rule algorithm” had to watch the video to know what this meant: “a gyroscope, and a 2000 plus rule algorithm”. Had no idea what “a 2000” was.
It did seem to work well and gives much more protection than a helmet. Might be annoying to wear when it’s hot out, not perhaps a UK problem.
Isn’t there a video out there
Isn’t there a video out there in the interweb of one of these going off in a bank or post office or something…? Hilarious
brooksby wrote:
I found this one of a bloke in a supermarket: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61Kb53DCeEc
There’s an on/off switch now, so that should stop the accidental firings.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yup – that was the one I was thinking of.
brooksby wrote:
That’s actually quite good. The guy slipped and almost went down – that is why it deployed.
It’s claimed to be 8X more
It’s claimed to be 8X more effective than a polystyrene hat at preventing concussion and skull fractures. What does this actually mean?
Does it absorb 8X more energy than the polystyrene titfer, which only manages to absorb 7 Newtons? That would be 56 Newtons – an amount around the quantity typically imparted by a car if it hits you. Would that save your bonce, even if it doesn’t save the rest of your body?
It also seems to offer protection against penetration, to a degree, as it doesn’t have the spaces between the polystyrene bananas that a plastic helmet has. But how tough is the airbag? Will it resist a serious jab from a pointy thing on a tractor, for example?
It also seems to inflate around the neck in a fashion that presumably reduces the risk of whiplash and similar top-of-spine injuries….? It’s peak might even save your face if you go over the bars and face-plant.
*****
Of course, the whole concept does ignore this inconvenient (to the manufacturers) fact: the risk of head injuries from cycling is low compared to the risk of head injuries from being in a car, being a pedestrian on a street or going up and down stairs to bed. Must we all now go through life with an expensive one-use inflatable collar in place?
Cugel
This is an ingenious solution
This is an ingenious solution to a very small problem, and is the wrong solution. We shouldn’t be armouring victims, we should be stopping the drivers killing us, and this is merely a distraction from real road safety measures.
Since all the long term, large scale, reliable evidence (cue someone claiming something about case control studies) shows that ordinary helmets have zero effect on the safety of cycling, eight times nothing is still nothing. It’s just more expensive.
And for those who don’t want to sit through the seemingly interminable preamble, the action starts at 5:45
burtthebike wrote:
I’m still waiting for your hierarchy of evidence link Burt.
Or was that just another one of your made up stories?
Rich_cb]
There is literally no point in providing you with any evidence of anything, no matter how valid and proven; you just deny anything you don’t agree with at great length as if prolix proves what you say.
I quite like my helmet
I quite like my helmet :/
I used one – for real
I rode with a mark 1 ,which also had (an on/off tag). Sods law dictated that I was throw by a pothole in the dark a couple of days later (first on road dismount for 20 years). Bag deployed. Luckily I didn’t hit myhead on anything, but if I had I’d much rather of been in this than any of my lids. Although I could never get any response from Holdving I did buy another, mainly cause I like urban cycling without sweaty hair (a marginal hot neck is less irritating to me). Yes, I could ‘go dutch’, – stats don’t lie, yet like many, habit has made me feel strangley vunerable without anything. Yes it would be better if roads were pothole free too, but judging by current trends that’s not going to happen any time soon. Doesn’t suit extra urban drop bar riding though, for which is is not recommended.
It is somewhat interesting
It is somewhat interesting from an engineering point of view. However I am not sure at all it deploys in time if hitting/hitten by a vertical surface: cyclist vs wall, bus, truck.
Every video I see actually suggests quite the opposite.
Missus, sis-in-law, mum-in
Missus, sis-in-law, mum-in-law all got them a couple of years back. 2 out of the 3 went off with no warning riding gently. Got refunds on both.
Waste of space if you ask me, a helmet wearer who doesn’t think everyone should wear helmets.
I hadn’t realised that
I hadn’t realised that cycling was so dangerous.
don simon wrote:
It isn’t, but it can feel it at times.
I’m so paranoid I even have an airbag in my car. No wait, we all do. There were teething troubles with them too, but the accelerator can potentially detect a collison before the rider falls, as in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzoakbBxm5g
The knee would have been
The knee would have been protected if it had been a full-body model but, sadly, Michelin have the patent on that.