Advocacy & Safety - Helmets

I'm sure this has been addressed many time on here but I have been reading about helmets for the past several days having just crashed. Thankfully I did have my helmet on, but still had a bad concussion and was hospitalized for a couple of days. I know they all meet basic testing, but obviously not all can be created equally.

I saw that back in the day the Snell-95 was a good certification but cant' really find any helmets on the market now with that certification, although a couple do have Snell-90 which really just sounds like any other helmet certified in the US. Are there any with 95 certification around?

Have any helmets been tested to determine whether they provide better impact protection than others?

rudy project seems innovative, but have they actually been tested as performing better with impacts?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

I guess you missed the very top thread in this topic, huh? Well, here you go, 176 pages that address what helmets can and can't protect you from and much, much, more:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=96298

Huh? The point of my response is that the question has been asked and answered many times... It'd be easier for the OP to read that thread than have everyone here get all into it again.

here we go again.
twisting the OP's question into another excuse for the anti-helmet libertarians to vent.
sheesh.

moonxc, this site has some links & articles that may help answer a few of your questions on standards and testing -

http://www.bhsi.org/index.htm#standards

here we go again.
twisting a responders question into another excuse for the anti-choice authortarians to vent.
sheesh.

moonxc, this site has some links & articles that may help answer a few of your questions on standards and testing plus a handy FAQ feature -

http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/

http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/hfaq.html

PS - you might want to check out Wiki's entry as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

Cheap or expensive, all helmets have to pass the same testing and meet the same requirements. The helmet can under the correct impact prevent damage to the skull but they cannot prevent the "second impact" of your brain colliding with the cranium interior.

I'm sure this has been addressed many time on here but I have been reading about helmets for the past several days having just crashed. Thankfully I did have my helmet on, but still had a bad concussion and was hospitalized for a couple of days. I know they all meet basic testing, but obviously not all can be created equally.

I saw that back in the day the Snell-95 was a good certification but cant' really find any helmets on the market now with that certification, although a couple do have Snell-90 which really just sounds like any other helmet certified in the US. Are there any with 95 certification around?

Have any helmets been tested to determine whether they provide better impact protection than others?

rudy project seems innovative, but have they actually been tested as performing better with impacts?

Thanks for any help you can provide.Here's info on current standards: Standards (http://www.bhsi.org/index.htm#standards)

And info on current models: Current models (http://www.bhsi.org/helmet09.htm)

a third source, which reviews published evidence

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1047.html

including published evidence supportive of helmet effectiveness and published evidence sceptical of helmet effectiveness or promotion

Have any helmets been tested to determine whether they provide better impact protection than others?
When Consumer Reports did some testing years ago the general trend was that the cheapest helmets provided the best protection. Seems reasonable since it's expensive to develop a helmet that meets the standards while providing the lightest weight and most ventilation possible. The result is a helmet that just barely meets the standards and probably went through multiple design iterations. Any design that exceeded the required protection level would be examined to see where some additional weight could be trimmed and/or more vents added.

OTOH, the least expensive design is to just make the foam thick enough so you're sure it'll pass the standards test - that'll usually result in passing with a significant margin.

Cheap or expensive, all helmets have to pass the same testing and meet the same requirements.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong country, mate.

In the eight months I've been posting on this forum, this is what I've learned.

There are two types of Bicycle Riders

1. Those who wear helmets.

2. Those who don't wear helmets.

Those who don't wear them will never convince those who do that they don't need them.

Those who do wear them will never convince those who don't that they do need them.

Whatever side you're on, don't quote statistics. There are enough statistics for either case that if all posted at once would crash the internet.


:deadhorse::deadhorse:

I started wearing a more covering helmet (like http://www.amazon.com/TSG-Evolution-Multi-Sport-Helmet-X-Large/dp/B000I47KRE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=generic&qid=1236403697&sr=1-1) compared to a more traditional helmet (like http://www.amazon.com/Giro-Transfer-Sport-Bike-Helmet/dp/B000BO3D18). The larger helmet covers the back and sides of my head more, which I like.

As everyone knows, helmets sold in the U.S. have to pass minimum safety standards. They all perform about the same, though I'm sure there are some that are lighter, have .098765 better wind resistance, and .087653 better cooling than others.

Buying an expensive bike helmet is nothing more than ego gratification with the illusion of getting more dates.