Indeed. But there is something known as proportional risk.

From everything I have read over many years, the difference between a $280 helmet and $28 helmet is definitely not proportionate to their priceifference. When you buy a fancy helmet, you are paying for their more fashionable design, better air flow scheme so your head stays less hot in summer, and mostly for all the money they spend in advertising and sponsoring.

We started buying bicycle helmets for our children from Chikdren’s Hospital’s gift shop when we learned that their helmets were thoroughly tested and they were as safe as the best ones. Hospital sold these helmets without any profit as a community service. Some years later they started selling helmets for adults. Majority of our helmets were and still are bought from them. A couple of them got knocked in accidents and we replaced them promptly with new.

Winters are cold here and a full size helmet used for skiing and snowboarding suits us quite well. I think they much safer than a summer version - very sturdy shell and thicker layer of closed polystyrene foam. Too bad children’s hospital doesn’t sell them. 😉

I can’t believe that in some states driving a motor cycles without wearing a helmet isn’t against the law - something to do with their objections about interfering with their freedom!

It's very true that the safety of a helmet is not proportional to its cost. At the momement, the helmets rated safest by the Virginia Tech testing lab also happen to be on the expensive side,

https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicyc...-ratings.html#!
but that is not the same as saying that safety and cost correlate. In fact, there are some rather inexpensive helmets in their rankings that rate quite well.

For example a few years ago I wanted a second helmet for my non-road use (because I didn't want to go for a road ride and then 30 minutes later, go out for errands with a helmet still sopped in sweat) and I bought a $50 Specialized helmet that was at the time 3rd or 4th in the Virginia Tech rankings.

OTOH, some recent technologies (e.g., MIPS, Wavecell) have also added a premium to the helmets that have them, and so there is a bit more of a relationship between safety and cost.

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).

You may have noticed that the Virginia Tech lab is presently funded by an organization of insurance companies who invest some cash to help reduce vehicular injuries. That's their self-interest, but for the greater good.

Also, I agree that it would be good if there were more groups doing this kind of testing. It makes sense that the Virginia Tech lab develop one protocol and stick to it - they can't really be expected to do comprehensive tests on hundreds of helmets. Other labs with different protocols would be very helpful. I believe that CU also does some testing. One supposes that there are industry data that are confidential. In any case, the Virginia Tech lab is by far the most complete, and we should be grateful for their contribution.

If you give a hungry man potatoes and cabbage everyday, he will be happy enough because he has no other options!

Generally speaking, monopolies are never ideal. This is why competition which gives reason for each participant in the process to improve… as long as there is an effective way to prevent under the table deals for price or regulatory rules- fixing. Given the nature and ultimate goals of every business (to make ever increasing profits by doing whatever it takes), realistic solutions should come from governmentally funded multiple centers who must compete for grants and prove themselves to be more effective/better. Relying on insurance companies to fund safety may seem like something is better than nothing but it is barely just that!
On the other hand, looking at the track records of the FDA, EPA, and even the NIH of late… it’s difficult to put much confidence in our publicly funded organizations that are supposed to protect us, but do not always seem to do so. They are more concerned about the commerce.

The logjam that appears to be broken is the reluctance of some manufacturers to make claims that their "new helmet technology" allegedly makes their helmets ( or the helmets that incorporate the technology that they are licensing/marketing) safer than those helmets without such "newer technology" and therefore justify a higher selling price.

​​​​​​​https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8503260/

There is more to it then just that simple… for starters, the type of high speed accidents on motorcycles that cause massive trauma leading to instant or delayed death, are not helped by the presence or absence of helmet. Human body is quite frail and at high speed accidents, helmet only serves as a brain bucket… saving some effort for the cleaning crew. The accidents where life-saving differences are made by the use of helmet are relatively low speed accidents, which are far more numerous in number. And this why effect of helmets on donor organ count. High speed accidents can often do, damage internal organs to the degree that they are not useable.

I dislike blanket generalizations not backed up by research. Motorcycle fatalities are not eliminated by helmet use, but they are diminished.
People like to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Why this tendency comes out so prominently during disagreements is not clear to me, but it's a general human failing as far as I can tell.

• Motorcycle helmets are 37 percent (for riders) and 41 percent (for passengers) effective in preventing deaths.6
• Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 69%.

etc.

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-go...ichigan-adults

And yet, you chose to cite the broadest generalization of all, representing information from all motorcycle accidents and fatalities!

My comment was addressing high speed accidents and I specifically stated that the difference in fatalities comes into play in accidents at lower speed.

By the way, quoting CDC hardly qualifies for research; and lately, they have not even been reliably credible. But then everyone has their likes and dislikes, and that’s what makes life interesting. 😉

Sorry, but that's wholly unconvincing. According to your assertion, low speed accidents that cause head trauma are few in number. And yet, there is that 40% reduction in fatalities by helmet-wearing. Are you now going to say, "yes, I meant 40% is a small number."?

And had you bothered to dig a little, you'd have noticed that the info on the cdc site was simply quoting a study from the NHTSA.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/813112

The gathered statistics in the cited NHSTA's Traffic Safety Facts only provides a count of fatalities and percentage victims who were known to have been wearing/not wearing helmets death at time of the fatal event. It in no way provides any confirmation that helmets "prevented" motorcyclists' deaths. It provides no information or clues about how many fatalities, if any, would have been prevented or reduction in significant head injury if unhelmeted victims had worn helmets.

The cited CDC report and its methodology is no better at proving anything about the effect of helmet wear or helmet capability at preventing motorcyclists death at any speed.
The CDC methodology of estimating the lives and costs saved estimates, as well as injury details, is derived from the same set of data cited in the NHTSA document. As Alan K points out the CDC did no "research" on the subject, and its report just made a lot of assumptions about potential benefits from helmet wear that cannot be substantiated from the fatality statistics provided by NHSTA or FARS

Well, Alan, you have I-Like-To.... on your side. Apparently, he rejects the entire premise of epidemiology. Lucky you.

What does epidemiology has to do with motorcycle, is riding it a disease?

Then again, may be someone changed the definitions - I can barely keep up with made-up terms and reinvented sciency gobbledegook.

Rather than claiming what I reject or accept, without knowing it, please read carefully what I stated originally.

Not sure from where did you get that!

Apparently the new version of "epidemiology" allows looking at total numbers of fatalities with and without helmets, and without any data on the percentage of motorcyclists who wear helmets when riding, or the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the victims of the fatal events can determine the prophylactic power of helmets from the limited data at hand.

The same epidemiologist can use the same analysis method to gaze at the NHSTA data set to determine the prophylactic power of reducing engine size of motorcycles again without knowing anything about percentages of riders who ride bikes with big engines.

More importantly such "analysis" ignores all other variables at play including that riders of big bikes or riders without helmets may ride differently than riders who ride ride small bikes or wear helmets.

My experience, so completely anecdotal: I was wearing a ~$70 Bell (Influx?) 2013 when my rear tire blew while I was going about 25 mph. Apparently I'd been careless and did not tighten the chin strap. The tire came off the rim. I only managed to bleed my speed down slightly when it came off entirely and jammed in the seatstays. Threw my hands off the bars, me over and into a head and shoulder crash. I have a vivid memory of my helmet grinding along the pavement, then all went blank until I came to a stop. (Not a concussion. Just my fully aware brain or body deciding that Ben really didn't need to see the damage happening. As soon as I stopped I was 100% with it. The car I knew was behind me was exactly where it belonged so no loss of time sense.) There was a cyclist behind me who stopped, asked me how I was, then walked with me as I wandered around the park I was passing and assessing the damage to myself. He questioned me for a while; looking for evidence of concussion. I didn't ask but I'm pretty certain he had first aid skills or more. Maybe the angel I really didn't need that day. He offered to call 911 but I had him just call a taxi to take me to the nearby Urgent Care. (Excellent outcome and I saved thousands.)

So, the damage to me. Broken collarbone, ribs. An acre or two of road rash (both sides). Scrape and blood from my glasses being knocked off. The helmet spun a lot and also cut my ear with the strap. But no concussion.

And an aside - I had a TBI 35 years before this when I crashed that famous Lambert fork. Lived only because I was wearing Bell #1. (Well, not #1, but year two of the original Biker.) 5 day coma. And after that, concussions happened easily. I've received concussions from hard body-slam crashes where my head and helmet never hit. To do this last crash, hit that hard and not have a concussion - big, big surprise.

3 weeks later I read about the new MIPS technology being developed in Sweden. Got thinking. That loose strap. Helmet spun 30? degrees, nearly taking my ear off and violently knocking my glasses off. Was that spin why I had no concussion? Something had to be going on for this NFL lineman's abuse brain to come through unscathed.

I was sold on the MIPS technology right then. Bought the first white MIPS helmet I saw, the MTB POC Trabec. 6 years later, the POC closest to that one. New name and a slightly nicer helmet. (Both are built to very high standards and are very comfortable. Yes, MTB weight, not road weight but I don't notice that riding.)

With time, it seems that the MIPS concept works and does often improve outcomes. I don't expect it to save my hide. I didn't expect that original Bell to either but without it, I wouldn't be here. So far, I have not tested either of those POCs. May it stay that way, please.

Epidemiology has its roots in disease, but has been the basis of vehicular safety studies for more than 50 years. If you want any kind of understanding of risk assessment based on objective data, maybe catching up a little wouldn't be a bad idea. Cause otherwise, like The Dude said, then that's just your opinion, man.

And here I was thinking I’m submitting a manuscript for publication in Science, my mistake.

I’m beginning to understand the reason for your poor understanding of scientific principles - if you want to understand science, stop paying attention to Dude!
Dude has no concept of cause and effect - he is easily convinced if someone throws a bunch of numbers at him and make it seem sciency. Example:

Ownership of a Lexus LS460 is statistically significantly associated with lower infant mortality.

You and your Dude must think about cause and effect to grasp the reality.

Old Man Petersen has some things to say about helmets
 

Thought you all might find this interesting. It's his latest blog, so there will be some scrolling to get to the helmet stuff. I found myself nodding a lot.