Obviously you are not the target market. Impacts are expected in downhill riding, unlike most forms of cycling. You don't see off-road car racers relying on airbags either--they aren't fit for the purpose.
From this comment, it is obvious you do not do a real commute. I have worked at various bike shops throughout my life and most recently I own one. Almost every commuter or road cyclist I have ever spoken too has been hit by a car, hit a car or been in a serious wreck at least once. If they had been wearing this silly contraption then many of them would not still be riding today. It is just absolutely ridiculous unless your priority is looks.
I checked it out pretty thoroughly. All the wrecks they test are best case scenarios. Put some obstacles in the way of the fall and results will dramatically change. Anything remotely sharp would end this holiday.
> All the wrecks they test are best case scenarios.
I didn't see a comprehensive list of scenarios. Are you referring to the 3-minute video? I don't think that was intended to show "all" the cases they tested.
I guess the thrust of your criticism is that it doesn't protect against all possible accidents. Surely you're aware that a helmet doesn't either. (A friend of mine died in a bike accident -- his helmet was insufficient. I don't know enough of the details of the accident to hazard a guess as to whether this device would have worked better.) Probably, there are some accidents where a helmet would work better, but I have no problem believing there are many where this device would perform better. (It's much larger, when inflated, giving it much better cushioning ability. Helmets, as noted elsewhere in this thread, aren't very good at preventing concussions -- I expect this device would be much better.)
Precisely my point. Not even a real helmet is 100% and there is no way this is as good as a real helmet. Just no way. Also there is a chance of failure if your power source or gyroscope malfunctions. Why would you take that chance? For nice hair? Not a good idea.
