The link is here (in English), and here in Russian.
I saw many designs like that. The common detail of all of them was use of hydrogen peroxide H2O2 as a fuel. This could be OK for a soldier, but everyone else would be quite a reckless person to deal with the substance, so violently corrosive it is. If not all fuel is "burned" in the engine (there is a catalyst grid to break it up) then remaining vapors can get onto pilot's clothes, body and get inhaled too. Hardly healthy...
But this helicopter seems to be different. The linked article says that the jets at the ends of blades use the fuel that consists of two components; if true, this would be a key difference because these components can be safer, and maybe even easy to maintain. What exactly components are used? Article says nothing about that. A different interpretation of the text (it is vague) says that more than one kind of fuel can be used (but only one component). If so, the fuel could be any standard jet fuel (kerosene) or equivalents. But then such an engine would need a high airspeed to start up - how did they do it if the design went this way? But obviously it has been solved, and the thing flies!
Another "interesting" detail is that helicopters of this sort have absolutely no protection of a pilot against anything untoward that might happen. Collision with a bird could be unpleasant even when you just walk on the ground (proof is here). Imagine how will it feel if both you and the bird fly at 100 km/h ;-) Rain and clouds can also affect the pilot (not the aircraft). But the relatively short flight time probably limits the danger of a bad weather.
This design, with its weight of only 20 kg, definitely makes the contraption practically usable. Definitely, it is not a car, and not a bus, but it can find plenty of uses already. If the FAA (or your local equivalent) allows such a flight gear, I am sure thousands of people would gladly buy them - especially if the price is right (anything below $2,000 would be OK, I guess, for a start). That is in range of motorcycle prices, and way below of any used car price (not even mentioning a very, very used airplane).
Looks like flying of such a helicopter would be not any more dangerous than flying an ultralight airplane, for example. In fact, it could be safer because there is no "stall speed" that you have to exceed in order to remain in the air. You can fly as high or as low as you want. Most important practical benefit would be flying across bodies of water, this is a problem in many places because you can't build bridges everywhere. You can fly over fields, over ravines, over territories where there are no roads; this way you can quickly get to places which would require hours of driving around in a car.
Another aspect of safety of such flights has been taken care of already. Years ago, if you were to make an emergency landing somewhere in a field, at night, you would be thoroughly frozen by the time you reach a phone. Today all you need is to make a cell phone call to your local AAA equivalent, send your GPS position, and wait 15 minutes for someone to come - maybe with tools, maybe with fuel, maybe with a car to load your helicopter on.
In-flight safety, high in the air, can be dealt with too. Normally, helicopters and parachutes don't mix, because if you decide to jump, you'd fly right through the spinning blades, and that is not practical. However in this design the pilot probably can abandon the helicopter safely. There is always an option of jettisoning the blades, and then deploying a built-in parachute. With such modifications, the aircraft would be safe for everyone.
I hope eventually some of those prototypes find their way to the manufacturing. People buy flights to ISS, of all places, for $20M - I'd guess a lot more people could afford a personal helicopter!