JonathanGennick 

The below bit of news is interesting. A class action lawsuit is being contemplated against helmet makers who aren't keeping up by providing protection such as MIPS against rotational injuries. What do you think about this? Is it time for the CPSC to upgrade their helmet rules? Should protection such as MIPS be mandatory?

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...l#.XULCquhJHb0

jon c. 

I don't think the technology has yet been proven to that degree.

berner

Another law firm with time on it's hands.

Bandera

No.

DrIsotope

The problem with a bicycle helmet is you're not supposed to use it-- a helmet doing what it's designed to do means something else has gone wrong. It's very easy to design a safer football helmet-- the helmets get bashed into one another, with human heads in them, dozens of times in a single game. So unless mfrs. start firing cyclists into various mobile and stationary objects to find out what really improves a helmet's performance, we're never going to know if MIPS makes any real, quantifiable improvement.

So no. I still see MIPS as increased weight, cost, and complexity. A kid with a $20 WalMart helmet on his noggin is better'n a kid with no helmet at all. Requiring MIPS might make the WalMart helmet $50, and then maybe that kid isn't on a bike at all.

Leisesturm

I take your point, but my wife just bought a Giro Register helmet for herself. It claims to be a MIPS helmet and it is the lightest helmet I have ever hefted. Ever. When she told me what it cost: $49. I thought it was a leftover from 2017 like the ones we already own were overstocks from earlier years. Nope. Current issue helmet. But once again, to your point, the helmet I own and the helmet my wife owned before she left it in her gym locker overnight (stupid gym policy mandating discard of any items left in lockers) are over 12 years old and have never seen impact! We only bought them to be compliant with club rules on group rides. On our daily tandem commute she was not in the habit of wearing a helmet. I did because my mirror is there. The hate and verbal abuse from drivers when she did not wear a helmet wore her down. So, no, we won't be spending a dollar more than necessary for a helmet because we both know it isn't what the helmet is made out of or the engineering behind its design, but in the roadcraft and skills improvement that prevent blunt force trauma to the head (not needing a helmet) when riding a bicycle.

Paul Barnard

No.

rseeker

predation noun

1 : the killing by one living organism of another for food
2 : the act of injuring, exploiting, or plundering others for personal gain

SoreFeet

MIPS is a joke. That little improvement isn't going to do anything to prevent head trauma. Helmets are only effective in mild crashes...it's absurd to think people have so much faith in helmets.

For instance...I'll challenge any avid cyclists to take a trained professional boxers punch to the head wearing a helmet...your still going to get a concussion and your still going to hurt.

A helmet is better than nothing, but it's so wrong that people fear base people who don't wear one.

The lousy strap mechanisms and fasteners should be more of a concern than a MIPS design. MIPs is a proprietary gimmick.

Cycling helmet technology hasn't changed much since the original bell foam jobbies came out...

Bandera

Still going with: No.

-Bandera

eddy m

MIPS is a proprietary technology and a standard test of its effectiveness has yet to be defined. You might incorporate a test for rotation injuries in helmet standards, but the standards have never required a specific technology. So, no.

em

Leisesturm

The first thing anyone asks when they learn that someone has died in a bicycle accident is: "were they wearing a helmet?". Never fails. The question is being asked a LOT in NYC because they just racked up their 18th cyclist killed this year which is more than all of last year (10?) and, of course it has to be the cyclists fault for not wearing a helmet. Of course a lot of cyclists do wear helmets. The overwhelming majority, in fact. Any day now helmets are going to be mandatory for all cyclists on public roads. MIPS probably not, but ordinary CPSC certified helmets for all adults (already in force for children), yep, its coming. Fat lot of good it will do. Helmet adoption is already over 90% and every year more cyclists are killed and injured in collisions with cars than in the previous year. And it isn't because more cyclists are riding. Not most cities anyway. NYC is about the only exception. I will say though that cyclists could ride much more defensively than they do. Lots of threads here on the effectiveness of this or that helmet, or light, or brake technology ... a consistent six second scan, and a willingness to yield, without question, the nanosecond your right of way is abrogated, will yield better results over time than the finest MIPS helmet or super bright daytime running light.

tcs

Other manufacturers have their own, different, proprietary designs for mitigating rotational energy transfer to the brain: 6D, Bontrager, Kali, Leatt, Louis Garneau, POC and probably others.

tcs

The article sez the Virginia Tech test showed MIPS to be 'effective', but:
1) Snell testing has not found MIPS to be effective.
2) Some non-MIPS helmets have performed at the top of the Virginia Tech tests.

So:
a) What happens in real-world accidents?
b) How is that event accurately modeled in a controlled, repeatable test?

livedarklions

Real plausibility issue for this as a class-action suit. They're going to have to show causation -in other words, that the injury wouldn't have occurred or wouldn't have been as severe with a MIPS helmet. That can't just be determined on a probability modeling basis, but needs to be shown for each individual case. It's going to be hard to find cases, and they're all going to present very different facts.

Anyone with a really good case isn't going to want to join the class and give up control of their own case to join up with probably weaker cases.

Clyde1820

I staunchly believe a science-based ratings system makes sense, by some group interested in doing such ratings.

But I'm staunchly against any forcible legal steps to push such requirements upon makers. Let people decide, if the testing and stats show improved performance and reduced likelihood of injury. It's on the user, anyway. Let them bear the full weight of their choices, one by one. Myself included.

JMO

Cyclist03516

I studied some of this for a talk I gave on motorcycle crashes and some it may extrapolate. You decide.

High speed high energy crashes are what they are. You can protect yourself completely but you will look like a tech defusing a car bomb! Most crashes are falling from riding height to the ground. Forward momentum adds little energy (some but not as much as one might think) to the equation unless you high side or hit something before you scrub off all of the forward momentum. Thus, that is what helmets are best designed to do. Left side of the bell curve so to speak. MIPS may or may not help incrementally but some magic bullet, not a chance.

So buy a decent helmet certified by somebody. If it is not comfortable you likely won't wear it so make sure of that. Replace it every 5 years. Go out and enjoy. Some of us will have a horrific crash and live out our days eating through a tube. Nothing will change that. The alternative is to cover yourself in bubble wrap and never leave the couch.

Kevin R

Helmets are a rip off, as is almost everything cycling.....and we the cyclist/consumer are the happy victims of savvy marketing tactics.....

I absolutely advocate new technology like MIPS and WaveCel in cycling helmets, as well as mandatory use of helmets; I am all for tech improvements....BUT please consider the cost of that piece of (lighter is better) styrofoam covered plastic.
Manufacturers are charging us hundreds of dollars for us to feel safe?

Helmets/kit seem to be more of a fashion statement nowadays; its all about the vents and the paint job etc......The choice is mind boggling......but how much different is one from the next (MIPS and WaveCel is relatively new tech)?


So long as the cycling community does not seek to educate itself on technology we will always fall victim to manufacturers charging us excessively for anything cycling.....

i better stop.....

Safe cycling; dont forget to wear your helmets....

I-Like-To-Bike

Your second sentence confirms the conclusion of your first sentence.

Bonzo Banana

I've not seen any conclusive evidence that mips should be mandatory, it's licensed proprietary technology anyway so wouldn't of thought it could be part of such certification. I don't think you can force a manufacturer or importer into paying a license for such technology. However the safety standards can be improved to allow for rotational movement that doesn't conflict with Mips patents or designs. The fact that Mips is licensed technology is surely the reason it won't be part of the certification.

I haven't done extensive research but the impression I got from reading various test reports is the advantages of Mips are over-stated anyway and no substitute for increasing the physical protection in the helmet itself. Cycling is obsessed with low weight and that includes low weight helmets. Always trying to remove more material and use more advanced materials that cost a lot more just to create low weight products.

Lets not forget one minor impact and you are meant to replace the helmet. The high cost of Mips helmets might cause you to delay replacing that helmet which would mean reduced safety. The foam inside only compresses once and thats it.

Gresp15C

If anything happens from a regulatory standpoint, the CPSC could conduct research to develop better evidence-based standards for bike helmets.

There's a MIPS helmet at Target for 35 bucks. It even looks pretty good. If people are paying hundreds of dollars for helmets, that's their own luxury.

https://www.target.com/p/bell-revolu...t/-/A-54051739

MikeyMK

Helmets aren't even mandatory.

What next, airbag suits?

bruce19

NO. Just no.

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.

livedarklions

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.