Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
The "gotcha!" scenario is simple; there is nothing in the "certification" standard that refers to what effectiveness the "certified" helmet might have for specifically reducing bicyclist risk or head injuries; or how passing the tests in any way "certifies" bicyclist protection with "less than serious head injuries, direct impact"; or why a certified helmet is more effective at reducing cyclist risk than a non certified helmet.
Huh. Well. If you trust that impact attenuation testing is relevant to potential head injury, then certification indicates some kind of minimum protection standard.
The standard doesn't claim or try to prove that helmets reduce risk. Not the point, not within the scope of the standard, unsure why you bring it up.
The certification indicates that the helmet passed the impact test. Again, assuming as above that the impact test has some relevance to injury mitigation, it offers cyclists some minimum standard of protection in the unlikely event of a crash involving potential bead injury.
"Less than serious head injury..." because I accept findings of studies showing no real change in serious head injury rates where helmets are required; figures indicating that forces which usually result in serious head injury far exceed the minimum standards; but since there are no studies regarding less than serious head injuries, which might include impacts of such force where standards testing indicates effectiveness, there's no indication they don't work to minimum standards.
"...direct impact." because that's the physics of the test.
Non-certified helmets may indeed provide better protection. A motorcycle helmet comes to mind... More to the point, the POC Backcountry MIPS. But the test is a minimum standard, no telling how many helmets far exceed the standards.
I'm more concerned about two other aspects of the CPSC doc:
- Bicycle helmets are defined by how they're marketed. Wuuuuuuuuut?!?
- Manufacturers certify that their helmets meet CSPC requirements. That just doesn't seem right, a stone's throw away from self-policing.
-but-
No mention of abrasion and laceration protective capabilities. Are such protective characteristics attributed to helmets in dispute?