Originally Posted by
JonathanGennick
I'm sure you're right. The CPSC -- if it ever addressed the issue -- would want to require rotational protection along with specifying some sort of test of that protection, leaving the details up to the manufacturers.
The article you linked made it clear they're looking for plaintiffs whose helmets weren't MIPS or Wavecell, but aren't specifying other forms of rotational protection.
Is there any real data that shows that rotational protection actually makes a difference outside of laboratory conditions? Honest question, not rhetorical. I don't know if anyone is creating a database of crashes showing the type and severity of injury and type of helmet, and I'm not sure such a thing is feasible. For one thing, if they are more effective, the crashes involving rotational protected helmets might not actually get recorded as they would be more likely to just be the "walk away" variety, and never show up in anyone's records.