From Justen Harcourt, by way of SpacingToronto:
Two design students who hate bike helmets (one says they’re like “a hard mushroom on your head”) took it upon themselves to create something impossible: an invisible bicycle helmet. Their solution is deceptively simple, but it’s a bit less “invisible” than advertised …
.
We’ve shown this helmet before, but the video is worthwhile in any event. Not just to see the ‘helmet’ (you have to wait right to the end) but for two other reasons. First, it’s another indication of the social change that’s occurring around cycling, and the sophisticated design culture that’s accompanying it. Second, how business culture has recognized its legitimacy, no longer viewing the bicycle as just a toy or sports equipment, or as a manifestation of fringy, lefty, greenie counterculture.
Along with this shift is the changing attitude towards the necessity of the car. We’re moving into the post-Motordom (or car dependent) world, and the early adopters are figuring out ways to profit from it. Like in Portland, where, of 40 apartment building projects to be filed in the last year and a half, 25 offer no parking.
Post motordom? Nonsense! That’s what they said about the horse.
Author
Don’t confuse car dominance with car choice. The auto is too useful – but not at the expense of all other modes.
Had a couple of lengthy discussions about this on my Facebook page this week. Here are the Coles Notes:
It’s an interesting concept, and one that might get a few more butts on bikes, but I still have my doubts. Why do we continue to “bubble wrap” cyclists, while refusing to address the root causes of collisions: dangerous driving and insufficient infrastructure. The European Cyclists’ Federation just released an informative pamphlet on helmet promotion, which is worth a read: http://bit.ly/Ooyhpi.
Dealing with the car is a lot more complicated than forcing people to wear helmets. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Barcelona is currently adding 30 km/h zones across their city, and 80% of all streets will have lower speed limits by 2015. Why? Because fast cars kill. If you get hit by a car going 30 km/h you have a 95% chance of surviving, but at 50 km/h it’s 55% and at 65 km/h it’s only 15%. When similar measures were proposed by Toronto’s chief medical officer earlier this year, the media, politicians, and motoring public dismissed it almost instantly: http://bit.ly/NyEIRD.
Besides the philosophical objections I have, there are some practical things that need to be considered: What if you’re not wearing it correctly? What is the rate of failure? What if the battery is dead? Perhaps most importantly there is the prohibitive cost. Do you know anyone who is going to drop $600 on one of these suckers? Couldn’t a user of one of these still get stopped and harassed by the police? Can you not take them on airplanes or anywhere explosives are prohibited (like schools and government buildings)?
Add to all of that two fun facts I just learned on Twitter: 1) One of the designers lobbies for helmet laws in Sweden. 2) The Hövding helmet was unable to use the European EN1078 helmet standard and is only approved for use in Sweden with a CE mark.
All in all, I have no doubt they’ll sell a shitload. As a business idea, I think it’s brilliant. But as a practical tool to improve safety and promote cycling, I have my severe doubts. And it certainly isn’t “going to save the world”, as the video claims.
interesting about the lack of parking in new appartments in Portland, is this because there is a large supply of existing parking in the area or are they expecting residents to take transit/walk/bike? I believe that transit mode share in the city of Portland is only 10%, I don’t remember the walk/bike numbers except that Vancouver has higher walk numbers and lower bike numbers. So if these apartments are being built where there is no existing surplus of parking why can’t we do it here?
Gordon, you need to follow up on the Portland Parking article as it’s not as cut and dried as it may seem. The following article on BikePortland.org provides some background information and the impacts that the “no parking” apartment buildings is having on transportation projects in the city.
http://bikeportland.org/2012/08/14/editorial-portlands-parking-problem-75951
Basically, developers are taking advantage of city code provisions allowing them to eliminate parking to cut costs, not because of less demand for parking. The demand for parking is still there because the alternative transportation infrastructure is not available in all areas of the city and so the local streets are overflowing with residential parking.
Your link is a dead link.
And I wouldn’t say “taking advantage” is the right term. The city’s code is specifically designed to allow this and that’s part of a policy goal, and not necessarily a bad one either. Many Vancouver neighbourhoods have the exactly the same sort of parking problems despite having hundreds or thousands of expensive empty parking spots in condominiums around the region. I for one would jump at the chance to live in a car-free apartment, largely because I already live car-free myself, like many other people who live in this city.
My apologies. Problem with the link was with my computer.
Pretty zany concept that invisible helmet video – I’d have thought it was a joke, until I saw it. My sense is that cycling infrastructure is not keeping up with the desire to bike and cultural changes towards cycling – which has shifted upwards and is much more positive as you say. I’m seeing more cyclists. Tonight, just walked down to the seawall and it was crazy numbers of cyclists. Felt quite vulnerable as a pedestrian. I often avoid bike routes on back roads because they are slow – suvs stuck behind slow bikers. As far as design goes, I do feel that the equivalent of the ipad hasnt come along in motordom. I believe it will be a mass produced electric light vehicle, that is cheaply manufactured, and can allow a family to do most chores/trips within a 50 mile radius of their home. The volks wagen of the digital age. Maybe a HPV/car hybrid.
Thanks for the link Jason. Quite informative.
I’m amazed at the price difference they listed in that article you linked to. They said it made the difference between a $750 apartment and a $1,200 apartment. That’s a huge chunk of the affordability problem in Vancouver solved right there. We really ought to try this idea out here, especially if city council can attach conditions about the price per square foot and about the number of bike parking spaces and maybe adding one parking spot for a car-share in the lane.
If Portland can do it, with its lower density and transit usage, then certainly Vancouver can. So why are we so far behind?