Ahem...may I recommend Fortnine's video on smart helmet to shed light on why they aren't a thing.
https://youtu.be/IiACV0Ly4j4?si=Zrg1_5Uhdevy-Lna
Have fun
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
138 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
67669 readers
5390 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Tl:dr he has no real point.
He just lists two failed smart helmet startups, then talks about a successful smart helmet that doesn't use a full HUD but uses an LED light bar. The only actual point he makes is that it's hard to make a display that's visible in the sun.
It's also a motor cycle channel so he makes points like "why not use your mirrors or built in dash" which is not really applicable to cyclists, eskaters, EUC users, etc.
Fair reasoning but I still think Ryan is in the right path.
He is right that shoving a holographic display and the computer bits in the helmet either makes it bulky, heavy, and useless or you'd be paying up the wazoo for what is an engineering exercise.
A simpler interface that solves current problems in my opinion would be much better than trying to make an Ironman helmet.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/IiACV0Ly4j4?si=Zrg1_5Uhdevy-Lna
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
To me a hud would be useful for two things, in this order of importance:
-
A rear view mirror right at the top middle of my field of vision, so I could check what is behind without losing track of my front;
-
A GPS.
Gimme those and I will be throwing money at you faster than my wallet can hold it.
Development costs, lack a research into it, and a lack of companies willing to take on that financial risk for a (mostly) untested market
Not to mention the costs of such a device with any kind of feature set other than just a glorified screen
Undeniably there's been some tech developments that could lead in such a direction but there's still some substantial hurdles to clear first
Like a motorcycle helmet? I'd love one, show my speed, maybe a gps overlay, rearview, etc. That'd be great.
I'm pretty sure there are a couple motorcycle helmets out there with a built in HUD. There are after market ones that you can add to your existing helmet that seem pretty cool to.
There's also the Cross Helmet but I'm super skeptical. Not only are helmets limited-time use, so after a few years it's trash anyway. But that seems like it would be super distracting for something that requires your utmost attention.
If I start seeing racers (or some other riding professional) wear them, I might consider it.
As with all things, it really is a matter of implementation. Putting telemetry data and such in a place where you only have to flick your eyes at it for a second instead of looking down is a good thing.
I mean, maybe? I like the idea. I've been following Cross for a while (that's why I linked it). I want it to work. But this is one case where I don't want to be the early adopter.
That's cool as hell but $500 is about what I'm willing to spend on an entire helmet not just an attachment. I suppose I'll keep dreaming. Thank you for showing me that though.
What really gets me about these expensive gadget helmets is that helmets are fundamentally a consumable good. They can only take so many bangs and bumps, so much sweat, so much all that before they start to wear out. The miscellaneous wear and tear on them. Getting dropped on the ground, banged against things, taken apart and washed and put back together. And for most helmets, once the foam wears out, that's it. They no longer are fit to purpose as a helmet and should be replaced.
Back when I rode a motorcycle -- which was commuting to work for the better part of 2 decades -- I always got the most affordable, comfortable DOT-labeled helmet I could find. Any extra gadgets had to be aftermarket addons that could be portable. Because things like headphones, for me, always lasted 2-3 times as long as the helmet.
MAYBE a really high-end helmet has a longer service life. But I am skeptical even a really fancy one worn by a commuter using it near-daily would last more than maybe 4 or 5 years. They're going to have lifetimes like smartphones, for sure. Which means these gadget helms sure do have a high subscription fee to use.
Wouldn’t that make the aftermarket kit much more attractive? Since you could just install it into the new helmet
When was the last time you ever saw a cool new tech product and thought "wow that's actually cheap"
Personally I would expect a product like this without favourable economies of scale to be $500.
Chromecast?
that's because you are the product.
Control music with my tongue
Everything reminds me of her
I'd rather see a HUD on a car windscreen before I'd want a helmet HUD
Um. Those have existed for years.
- Contrast. You can't use light to make something dark.
- In the HUDs that we do have (Hololens, Google Glass), you typically use something like DLP or waveguides. Both are pretty expensive.
There are fewer barriers with helmets because they are usually tinted.
I'm a fan of anything that keeps eyes more forwards/on the road.
Motorcycle helmets? Sounds like a great way to become an organ donor.
Doing it right can actually prevent organ donations. Like having speed shown without the need to take eyes away from road.
I dunno, if you're relying on a number to determine if you are proceeding at a safe speed, I am a bit skeptical you have sufficient mastery of whatever motor vehicle you are operating.
Just as if you're relying on a speed limit sign & law enforcement to control what speed drivers go rather than road design feedback, you have insufficient mastery of your engineering trade.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/6/22/facing-an-uncomfortable-truth-about-speed-limits
Did you mean to come off sounding like a pretentious douche?
Literally everyone uses the Speedo. This is such a weird comment tbh.
He's right though. Conditions on the road and your speed relative to other drivers really matter. Your visibility forward really matters.
Also roads suck and are hostile to pedestrians in too many places.
Indeed. But in normal conditions the main thing you want to do is not break the speed limit. In sensible places the speed limits are usually lower than the maximum safe speed.
The safe driving speed isn't a single number. It will drop in certain conditions and people need to be able to read the road to drive safely.
They also need to know their speed to drive safely.
... Yeah and that's not the only important thing.
You know if you are going fast relative to other drivers without a speedometer.
You know about how fast you are going without a speedometer. 40 or 60 or 80 feel different to drive.
Don't just rely on a number to drive. Ask yourself, can I see well up ahead? Would I have time to stop if someone pulled out from a blind spot? Are there pedestrians or children I should be mindful of?
Like if you don't give a fuck and you'll rely on insurance and following the law to protect you, bully for you.
Pay attention to the road.
Never said it was the only important thing.
Are you trying to argue that speedometers are unnecessary?
No they are. A poorly trained driver that is just following the speed limit is also dangerous.
It's not about going a safe speed, it's about going a legal speed. I feel safe going 100+ in a 70mph zone when there aren't other vehicles around but it ain't exactly legal so I often check my speed, that momentary look down would be prevented with a HUD.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense to me. Speed limits themselves are only very loosely related to safety (85th percentile rule and civil engineering voodoo science) and the speedometer is more about staying on the right side of the police state when confronted with roads that overwhelmingly signal to drivers that they should be going WAY faster than is legal.
And even then those speed limits, at least outside of the comparative safety of highways, are almost always set well higher than what is actually safe for the neighborhood or useful to keep the traffic network freeflowing.
Ok. Limited HUD I agree would be useful.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of safety rule about looking at a screen.