Originally Posted by Alan K

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).