Dutch cyclists lobbying for external airbags on cars

Sure, there's always the airbag-equipped motorcycle, but for those who prefer to power their own two wheel transporters, you're pretty much on your own. The Dutch Cycling Federation has just cranked out a study showing that some 60 lives could be saved each year (though we're not sure if that's worldwide or region-specific) if airbags were installed on the hoods of vehicles. These external safety devices could also slash serious cycling injuries by 1,500 a year, and while you're likely passing this off as completely infeasible, Sweden's own Autoliv has already developed a bag that "inflates from the bottom of the windscreen." Of course, these timid cyclists could just wait until 2010 and strap on a wearable airbag of their own, but where's the fun in that?

[Via Autoblog]

[looseinthedeuce @ Apr 24th 2008 10:39AM]

I wonder if regular airbags sounded this hilarious when first proposed.

[Niraj @ Apr 24th 2008 1:16PM]

The whole thing sounds like a slippery slope to driving around in giant pillows.

[Tony @ Apr 24th 2008 1:18PM]

I can ride a bike with no handle bars.

[Chuckles McGee @ Apr 24th 2008 7:57PM]

I could see a bunch of idiots jumping on the roofs of cars idling at an intersection in order to set off the airbags. Perhaps drivers should have access to a merciful(on)/no mercy (off) setting for the airbags.

[tonypotenza @ Apr 24th 2008 10:40AM]

that guy is just lazy, look at the picture, he just wants to sleep on the car :P

[alexmueller @ Apr 24th 2008 12:15PM]

cause he is a dummy

[Matt @ Apr 24th 2008 10:42AM]

If a biker landed on the hood of my car, equiped with an airbag.... wouldn't he just bounce off?

[Zeus.:God @ Apr 24th 2008 10:47AM]

Yeah, and into an adjacent vehicle.

[Lowest Ranked @ Apr 24th 2008 11:50AM]

I'd much rather bounce off of an inflatable airbag than the steel hood of your car.

[morcheeba @ Apr 24th 2008 12:55PM]

Eventually, though, he'll bounce from car to car until he reaches one without an airbag... thus defeating the purpose

[John @ Apr 24th 2008 10:51AM]

I don't even understand this - the principle of the airbags we use now is that part of the car gets hit before you will end up hitting the car, letting the first collision trigger the airbags. What triggers these airbags to inflate?

[Idlemind @ Apr 24th 2008 10:59AM]

I agree. Airbags original purpose was to inflate after primary (Car to object) impact to attenuate secondary (You to car) and tertiary (Internal organs to you, the most deadly) impacts. How will it work in this case?

I'm a cyclist, and I like the thought of something like this, but there has to be a better way. Will cars be "walking on egg shells" around people? In NYC bike messengers are getting bumped by cars all day long.

[NHAnimator @ Apr 24th 2008 1:19PM]

Additionally, airbags are set to go off not simply based on a particular change in velocity, but on a complicated (and sometimes proprietary) algorithm developed by manufacturers to interpret the severeness of the collision. A 20-mph collision with a tree may trigger the air bag, while a 20-mph collision where you underride the ICC bar of a tractor trailer may not as the time to decelerate has lengthened and the deltaV is more spread out. In those latter types of collisions, you are less likely to incur an injury.

Creating this sort of airbag presents, IMHO, and insurmountable number of obstacles including requiring many more sensors around the vehicles front end as the impact area may be as small as the width of a tire. These airbags would most likely make vehicles involved very expensive to fix. (Someone I knows had a vehicle totalled due to $2000 of collision damage and $2600 of airbag-deployment-related damage). Imagine bumping into another car or pole while parking and getting a $1500 deployment repair.

Lastly, a huge number of serious injuries/deaths to peds/cyclists involve speeds in which the person is thrown up into the windshield. Even if you were to try to inflate an airbag over that area, you would be blocking the view of the driver and could very well cause further injury/death.

Wear you helmet correctly out there and everyone watch where they're going. There. Problem solved.

[Samus Aran @ Apr 24th 2008 10:51AM]

I bicycle in city traffic all the time and even I think this is a ridiculous idea.

[dervheid @ Apr 24th 2008 10:53AM]

Maybe if more cyclists actually had some road sense, there'd be fewer accidents. Simple things like, say, stopping at red lights/crossings/junctions. Looking round BEFORE they try to turn right (UK only, left for (most of) the rest of you), lights on at night, and shit like that. oh and a burnt-in awareness that if you pick a fight with a vehicle bigger than a smart car YOU WILL LOSE!

[dexter fillmore @ Apr 24th 2008 12:19PM]

and what about those drivers who open doors without looking, causing a cyclist to slam into it? or the drivers who make a turn with a bike next to them and don't know that they're there?

both parties need to be aware, you can't blame it all on one.

[pyxopotamus @ Apr 24th 2008 1:44PM]

couldn't have said it better myself.

[Derbeste @ Apr 24th 2008 2:46PM]

100% agreed.

Tell me again why I have to pay more for my car - essentially paying for someone else's safety despite carelessness.

[frankXchange @ Apr 24th 2008 10:53AM]

Heaven forbid they should wear protective clothing - but that would ruin the whole spandex thing they've got going. Stopping at red lights (with the notable exception of the red light district of Amsterdam) and avoiding swerving through traffic would probably save more lives. I thought the minimum cut-off was 1000 lives?

[D @ Apr 24th 2008 10:54AM]

I don't know about the Dutch, but American cyclist are usually the ones getting themselves into dangerous situations, weaving in and out of vehicle traffic, blowing through stop signs and lights, never using hand signals...it's rarely the car's fault.

I'm all for safety, but frankly, well-behaved cyclists typically ARE very safe.

And it's kinda hard to have enough sympathy for the thrillseeking-on-the-road types to warrant a drastic change to the auto industry.

[jollyllama @ Apr 24th 2008 2:05PM]

That's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard anyone say. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you've never tried riding a bike in a city, or even spent much time as a pedestrian. Believe me, the first time you ride to work you'll understand how terrible most drivers are when it comes to bikes, and quite frankly, why it's often more safe for cyclists to follow a different set of rules than cars on busy streets. I'm not talking about being reckless, but when you can pretty much assume that drivers never do common sense things like check their mirror before making a right hand turn (US) you have to think creatively about how to avoid getting hit.

To state again, please try riding a bike somewhere before you say that it's always the bicyclists fault.

[phanbouy @ Apr 24th 2008 3:31PM]

".it's rarely the car's fault"

right, because D asserts so.

i'm with the first replier. you're full of shit.

[phanbouy @ Apr 24th 2008 3:42PM]

btw, "D", like the above poster said, come spend a day biking around San Francisco and then get back to me with your conjecture and judgmental non-logic. Survival's the name of the game, and you do what you gotta do to get out of traffic's way. For every dare devil bike messenger riding recklessly, there's the other 95% of us just trying to get around in one piece. Spare us your condescension.

[Cory @ Apr 24th 2008 11:09AM]

This really isn't a new idea. Automotive companies have been working on pedestrian air bags for several years now. I think it was one of the Japanese auto companies that had a working design, which makes sense considering the traffic congestion (both pedestrian and automobile) in the cities.

[wickedpheonix @ Apr 24th 2008 11:13AM]

So really..... why not?

[Jon Doe. @ Apr 24th 2008 11:41AM]

Because it takes responsibility away from the driver and the pedestrian. Mainly the ped. I've lost count of idiots who I RUN across on the road who don't pay attention when they cross the street. These are probably the same people who weren't paying attention to mom when she told them to always look both ways.

Because it will add to the price of the car when in reality it really isn't needed to begin with. (Seriously what are the stats on being in an accident that requires an airbag vs. being in an accident that could save a life by having one on the hood of your car. I have to imagine statisticly there are a hell of a lot more of the former then the latter.)
While we are at it why don't we have cabins in the car detach, inflate, and float away "just in case" someone drives their car into a lake. You can't prepare for everything.

[barry99705 @ Apr 24th 2008 11:25AM]

I just wish bicyclists would pick a set of rules and stick with them! Are you a motor vehicle and ride on the road, and follow traffic signals, or are you a pedestrian, and ride on the road and follow cross walk signals? It's the morons that bounce between them that usually get hit.

[Jon Doe. @ Apr 24th 2008 11:33AM]

Sweet. I can start running people over with impunity! Its a wondrous time to be alive!

[Surur @ Apr 24th 2008 11:40AM]

Say each airbag added $50 to the price of the car, and they sold a million cars in the Netherlands every year. I don't think saving 60 lives from car accidents is worth $50 million a year in tax payers money. Using that $50 million to promote road safety and maybe issue cycling licenses would be a better use of the money.

[Shinigami @ Apr 24th 2008 1:19PM]

Lets say you promote road safety and save 50 people per year. Is it worth $50 million?
And why did it absolutely have to be tax payer's money? Its buyer's money! And if it costs $50 to the car maker, it will cost $2000 for the car buyer.
Remember Intel with Atom? Rough calculations from industry said - production cost is around $8 per CPU. The cheapest Atom is $45, the most expensive $169. Even Apple takes less in their products (like 100% compared to intel's 500%).

Please correct me if I'm wrong because I don't know for sure.

[macona @ Apr 24th 2008 3:03PM]

If you hae ever seen the prices of parts for airbag system there would be no way that it would only cost $50 a car. Most likely $1500 or more for a complete system to be added.

And theres the inherent danger of working on a car with these systems. There are many mechanics hurt every year from airbags going off when they are working on them. After all they have rocket fuel in them...

[alansky @ Apr 24th 2008 11:40AM]

One of the silliest ideas I have ever heard. Of course, a similar decrease in bicycle injuries would probably result if bicyclists would begin stopping for stop signs and traffic lights.

[Eric @ Apr 24th 2008 11:42AM]

Why should drivers be stuck with the bill for the this? Here's an idea, why don't the cyclists wear their precious airbags instead of those silly spandex suits.

If it does get passed, the taxes to pay for it should be on the cyclists, not the drivers.

[gear @ Apr 24th 2008 11:47AM]

The air bag isn't needed; rising gas prices are going to be the best safety feature for a cyclist. Come on $10 per gallon!

[Technex @ Apr 24th 2008 12:04PM]

I have to pay 44$ on a US gallon for my nitro car! :D.

[alexmueller @ Apr 24th 2008 12:18PM]

I think if everything had an airbag on it it would severely reduce the number of injuries worldwide. Trees, walls, poles, bullets... etc

[FrequentFlier @ Apr 24th 2008 12:33PM]

Have you been to Amsterdam lately? No one wears a helmet. I wonder how many more lives could be saved by simply handing out free helmets.

[blackfeather @ Apr 24th 2008 12:38PM]

I think it would be alot cheaper and safer if you rode your bicycle WITH your arms on.

[lanejasper69 @ Apr 24th 2008 1:07PM]

This is Dumb!!!! And In SoCal (SAn Diego) these f-ing bikers down here need to learn that if they are going to ride in the streets like regular vehicles, the same laws should apply, I've seen MANY of them run stop lights, red lights etc. Maybe their own actions and safety would prevent them from being hit. I aim for the bastards when they are taking up the whole lane and going 10 mph in a 45 zone all while having a bike lane and a curb next to them these really are assholes down here about it, they think they own the freaking road so I say let em get hit, sorry...but that's just the way it is.

Faslane
Bring it!

[macona @ Apr 24th 2008 3:05PM]

The same laws do apply... Just the police choose not to enforce them.

[phanbouy @ Apr 24th 2008 3:44PM]

jasper, i hope you get broad-sided by a semi and die a gruesome death before your reckless driving kills someone. scumbag

[Victor @ Apr 24th 2008 5:41PM]

And you're the reason why I hate both driving and riding here in San Diego. This town is still full of trailer trash rednecks.

[James @ Apr 24th 2008 10:50PM]

Right on.

These goddamn cyclists cycling in the middle of the road at 10mph...

To paraphrase a friend, I drop a gear and rev my V8 as I drive past cyclists so they can hear I'm hurting the environment as I drive by and knock them back into the cycling lane with my 100% pure American steel tank.

[benjamin @ Apr 24th 2008 1:45PM]

That byclist deserves to be run over for wearing such tacky clothes. The 70s are over, my friend, dump that pumpkin outfit!

[Andrew Barbour @ Apr 24th 2008 1:54PM]

I live in Amsterdam, and it's worth noting that THERE IS NO HELMET LAW HERE... in fact, I've seen a tourist family (of 3) and possibly two other people in helmets ... in 3 years! In a city with population of

[Andrew Barbour @ Apr 24th 2008 1:57PM]

WEird... cut my comment. Anywho, AMS has a population of

[phanbouy @ Apr 24th 2008 2:40PM]

attack of the less than symbol! muhahahahaha

oh and to all you hummer drivers talkin smack about bicyclists; get off your high horse and drive the speed limit, hypocrites

[Dave A @ Apr 24th 2008 2:15PM]

I also live (& drive, & cycle) in the Netherlands. The Dutch are a pretty egalitarian lot but put one on a bicycle and they behave as if they are a king. Mind out drivers and pedestrians!

The best way of cutting cyclist death & injury would be if the cyclists exhibited some common sense. The following habits are all seriously life threatening when combined with cycling:
- ignoring traffic lights
- weaving across the road in front of cars crawling along behind
- holding an umbrella/bunch of flowers/shopping/briefcase
- talking on mobile phone
- texting
- reading a book to your child on the seat behind

Frankly, these people deserve what they get. Unfortunately, the law here is such that a car driver is always responsible in a collision between a car and a bike. Make the cyclist take the blame if he/she is at fault and the situation might improve. Then let's talk about forcing car owners to pay for safety features designed to help the negligent.

[boe @ Apr 24th 2008 2:40PM]

Hmmm - perhaps the motorists should be lobbying to get cyclists to wear airbags and have them on their cars. Imagine how much damage those 1500 cyclists are doing to peoples cars every year!

[phanbouy @ Apr 24th 2008 3:30PM]

Imagine how much damage to Boe's brain would cause him to post this rubbish!