Originally Posted by
MinnMan
Oh yeah, something else- manufacturers generally tend not to make claims that their helmets are "safer" (though again, with new technologies such as Wavecell, some have begun to make such claims). Doing so would open them up to litigation. So typically they tell you that all of the helmets sold meet federal standards and therefore are equally safe. However, objective testing (i.e., Virginia Tech) shows that that isn't precisely true.
A problem with this legalistic approach is that if all they will say is "meets federal standards", then there is no motivation for the manufacturers to innovate and improve helmet safety. But again, with MIPS and other newer technologies, this logjam seems to have broken and manufacturers do now strive to improve safety.
Also, I think the existence of independent safety tests has put some pressure on them to improve. The "safest" scores on the Virginia Tech site have diminished in the last few years.
Thank you for useful information.
The rating list proves the point we were discussing, higher cost is not an indication of better protection, even with incorporation of newer technologies. Giant #10 costs $65 (score 9.13) and Specialized #15 costs $50 (score 9.55) whereas Bontrager XXX Wavecell costs $300 and appears at #68 in the list (score 11.6). One has to wonder if makers of helmets are missing the point of objective tests and focusing more on the design elements for marketing or the testing itself is not fully representative of safety of human head in motion.
I read the details of their protocol - it is interesting to note that the maximum tangential speed tested is around 16MPH. Since some bicyclists who are younger than I and in good physical shape, go well over this speed, why the maximum tested speed is not around 20 MPH. On a good day, even I can push 16MPH for a few flat miles.
The road is assumed to be equivalent to a 50-grit sandpaper… not too sure about many roads that will fit this assumption!
The obvious question then is the nature of the failure of material used in bicycle helmets. Does the material compress drastically (as opposed to progressively to provide continuous absorption of forces) such that the helmet simply turns into a brain-bucket?
In general, it’s always better to have multiple independent groups to test such things to increase the possibility of bias elimination, whether by error in design or by design. Ideally, our governmental agencies should ensure safety of public because in the long run, permanent brain damage is not only a burden to the family, it effects the whole society ($$, since that’s only what seems to count).