Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

TECH NEWS

POC ramps up helmet safety with SPIN rotational impact technology

SPIN is Swedish company's simplier take on MIPS helmet safety feature

Swedish helmet and apparel company POC is a brand focused on safety, whether it’s visibility with very bright clothing or its unique helmet designs, and its latest quest in the pursuit of rider safety is SPIN, a new technology that is designed to reduce rotational impacts during a crash and lessen the impact.

TECTAL_race_spin_blackBlue-970x970.jpg

If you’re thinking it sounds a bit like MIPS, then you’d be right. POC was one of the first companies back in 2008 to utilise MIPS technology, which added a plastic liner to allow a small range, up to 15mm, of rotational movement during an impact, but POC has this year decided to develop a new solution that it claims is simpler, lighter and allows a better fit.

- Cycling helmets — everything you need to know

Love or hate it, there are a lot of safety claims backing up MIPS and most helmet companies have gradually adopted the technology, usually with a small increase in price. If there’s one complaint against MIPS is that it often impacts the fit of the helmet as it takes up a bit of space - I’ve found some helmets a tighter fit once upgraded to MIPS.

POC hasn’t dropped MIPS, yet, but it has spent two years developing its own version which aims to offer the same benefits but without the drawback of limiting fit.

SPIN, short for Shearing Pad INside, involves silicone-filled pads placed at strategic places inside the helmet intended to allow a small range of rotational movement so the helmet can move relative to the head. POC says it reduces the amount of force transmitted to a user’s head and brain in the event of an oblique impact. It reckons that angled impacts are the most common and its research shows that this sort of impact can cause serious head injury with a much lower impact force.

“Rotational impact protection is necessary to counter the forces involved in oblique impacts, which are a common cause of head injury. SPIN pads are integrated inside a helmet and add an extra layer of rotational impact protection by shearing in any direction, allowing the head to move relative to the helmet, reducing the force transmitted to the brain,” explains the company.

“Without SPIN pads the remaining rotational impact energy would require nature’s impact defence system, Cerebrospinal fluid, to react. However, by using SPIN pads another layer of protection is introduced as SPIN pads are able to shear in any direction and reduce the energy and force transmitted to the head.”

Compared to MIPS, SPIN is claimed to be lighter and allow for a closer fitting helmet because it eliminates the plastic layer inside the helmet and uses rather conventional looking pads. POC has produced this video to demonstrate how the pads are intended to work.

The new technology was first rolled out in POC’s snowsports helmets at the beginning of the year, and for 2018 it is adding it to several of its mountain bike helmets. There’s no news on rolling out SPIN to its road helmets at this stage, but it’s surely only a matter of time.

 

David worked on the road.cc tech team from 2012-2020. Previously he was editor of Bikemagic.com and before that staff writer at RCUK. He's a seasoned cyclist of all disciplines, from road to mountain biking, touring to cyclo-cross, he only wishes he had time to ride them all. He's mildly competitive, though he'll never admit it, and is a frequent road racer but is too lazy to do really well. He currently resides in the Cotswolds, and you can now find him over on his own YouTube channel David Arthur - Just Ride Bikes

Add new comment

53 comments

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to hawkinspeter | 6 years ago
0 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

I just had a little look at http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2636/cycling/stats-uk/index.html and they've got a graph that implies that pedestrian fatalities have dropped at a sharper rate than cyclist fatalities. Does this mean that pedestrians started wearing helmets in the early nineties?

 

No, it means that in 1990 a pedestrian specific factor starting affecting the pedestrian KSI rate.

Whatever that factor was it did not affect the cyclist KSI rate (which had been broadly static since the early 1980s).

A pedestrian specific factor might be something like improved pedestrian crossings for example.

Avatar
davel replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
0 likes

@Rich: that's a pretty rambling admission that you're arguing ideologically. I'm not saying others aren't doing the same, but posting unrelated graphs does not an argument make - it's the kind of stuff I'd expect from a Trump tweet.

If "There is some evidence to support that hypothesis", maybe post that and not the pictures.

Apropos of nothing, here's Mig. Experts say he reached peak boring in 1995. Don't accept that that level of boring could cause 7% drop in KSIs? Sad.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to davel | 6 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:

@Rich: that's a pretty rambling admission that you're arguing ideologically. I'm not saying others aren't doing the same, but posting unrelated graphs does not an argument make - it's the kind of stuff I'd expect from a Trump tweet.

If "There is some evidence to support that hypothesis", maybe post that and not the pictures.

Apropos of nothing, here's Mig. Experts say he reached peak boring in 1995. Don't accept that that level of boring could cause 7% drop in KSIs? Sad.

I don't think you've understood the argument I'm making.

The graphs are the evidence.

The graphs show a cycling specific factor which began to have a significant effect from 1995 onwards.

By comparing the decline in cycling KSIs to pedestrian KSIs and overall KSIs we can be confident that the factor is specific to cyclists.

The challenge is then to identify that factor.

A time trialling Spaniard boring all cyclists into submission is one possibility but another, some might argue more likely, possibility is the rise in helmet use.

The rise in helmet use occurred at the exact same time as the cycling specific decline in KSIs.

You will never be able to definitively prove that helmets caused the decline but you will equally never to be able to prove that they did not.

The weight of evidence currently suggests that helmets were responsible for at least some of the decline in cyclist KSIs.

Avatar
davel | 6 years ago
1 like

@Rich: I do get exactly that argument - that there's a cycling-specific difference. And there might be, but we haven't found it yet.

What I'm saying is

1. I'm skeptical that an increase in use of 15% would cause a reduction in KSIs of 7%, and that we'll ever identify and quantify all the factors, but also

2. When you take the overall reduction of a huge volume of KSIs - tens of thousands, compared to about a thousand cycling-specific ones, that a reduction of 42% cyclist KSIs not significantly different from the overall 35%?

And of course all this is framed by your decade from 1995. Could we pick a year either side and find that cycling is closer to the trend than the 7%? ie. I haven't crunched these, but is this 7% difference for this single set effectively noise? What does 94-04 or 96-06 look like etc.

Right, lashing it down here and I really need to get my new TT bike on the turbo and also try out Rouvy. Will check in later.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
2 likes

Rich_cb][quote=davel wrote:

No. Is it possible to obtain absolute irrefutable proof? No. It is evidence though. The quality of evidence in the helmet debate is generally poor. Most studies are small and riddled with errors. This evidence is, therefore, as good or better than pretty much anything else in the debate. The hypothesis is that the large increase in cycle helmet use contributed, in part, to the relatively steep in decline in cyclist KSIs compared to other road users. There is some evidence to support that hypothesis. If you have evidence of other cyclist specific factors that changed during that period feel free to post them. Jokey suggestions about Big Mig aside...

Well, the helmet wearing rates in Australia and New Zealand jumped significantly when the helmet laws were introduced, and the absolute number of cyclist deaths fell, but the number of cyclists fell by more, so the relative risk actually rose.  That's long term, whole population data and is just about as good as it's possible to get, and the results are similar in all long term, large scale, reliable studies.  It is almost impossible to have absolute irrefutable proof about anything, but when all the reliable evidence says one thing, it's pretty conclusive.

The research showing massive benefits from helmet wearing is rated the lowest on international scales of reliability of research, and is usually done by blatantly biased researchers, and it always gets headlines, but the reliable studies which show no benefit are ignored.  The public are misled and believe that cycle helmets are fantastically effective and therefore take more risks when they wear one, risk compensation.  The actual protection given by a helmet is low, and the extra risk taking overwhelms it.

The largest ever study found a small but significant increase in risk with helmet wearing.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 6 years ago
1 like

Here's another graph that suggests to me that helmets are far less important than the road culture. Interestingly, Portugal is an outlier and they recently revoked their mandatory helmet law (presumably because mandating helmet use tends to lead to fewer cyclists and increased KSIs) and can be contrasted with Amsterdam and their lack of helmet use. More importantly, it suggests that the number of cyclists on the road is a major factor in cyclists' road safety (whereas the benefits of helmets are somewhat debatable).

Avatar
Rich_cb | 6 years ago
0 likes

@Davel

hawkinspeter posted a graph showing the years you asked about.

Prior to 1995 there hadn't really been any significant change in the KSI rate since the early 1980s, from 2002 onwards the KSI rate closely mirrors the pedestrian rate suggesting that it was a joint factor at play from then on.

I would argue that the difference between 42% and 35% is significant. hawkinspeter's graph shows the comparison with pedestrians well, from 1995 onwards there is a clear change.

Interestingly the number of overall injuries (KSI + slight/minor) suffered by cyclists was pretty static from 1995 to 2005.

So whatever the cyclist specific factor was it did not prevent cyclists from having accidents, it just reduced the proportion of accidents that resulted in a death or serious injury.

I would argue that is more evidence that the factor was cycling helmets.

(Note: the overall injury data is not as reliable as the KSI data but it's the best we've got)

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to burtthebike | 6 years ago
0 likes
burtthebike wrote:

Well, the helmet wearing rates in Australia and New Zealand jumped significantly when the helmet laws were introduced, and the absolute number of cyclist deaths fell, but the number of cyclists fell by more, so the relative risk actually rose.  That's long term, whole population data and is just about as good as it's possible to get, and the results are similar in all long term, large scale, reliable studies.  It is almost impossible to have absolute irrefutable proof about anything, but when all the reliable evidence says one thing, it's pretty conclusive.

The research showing massive benefits from helmet wearing is rated the lowest on international scales of reliability of research, and is usually done by blatantly biased researchers, and it always gets headlines, but the reliable studies which show no benefit are ignored.  The public are misled and believe that cycle helmets are fantastically effective and therefore take more risks when they wear one, risk compensation.  The actual protection given by a helmet is low, and the extra risk taking overwhelms it.

The largest ever study found a small but significant increase in risk with helmet wearing.

The problem with studying mandatory helmet laws is that the cyclist population is changed by such laws.

The number of cyclists decrease but not uniformly. Casual cyclists are far more likely to be deterred than those who cycle for sport.

Road racing or mountain bike racing is obviously more dangerous than a quick spin to the corner shop so the risk statistics become skewed as a larger proportion of cyclists are engaging in higher risk activities.

If you look at the graphs I've posted on this thread you can actually disprove the argument that cycle helmets increase accident rates.

From 1995 onwards the helmet wearing rate in the UK increased dramatically.

Over the same period of time the number of accidents stayed virtually static.

Interestingly the proportion of those injuries that were serious or fatal fell substantially.

In the UK there is therefore no evidence that increased use of helmets leads to an increase in the accident rate. There is some evidence that the increased use of helmets leads to a decrease in the KSI rate.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 6 years ago
0 likes

@Rich_cb - I can't find any decent stats on UK helmet use over the years. Have you found any?

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to hawkinspeter | 6 years ago
0 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

@Rich_cb - I can't find any decent stats on UK helmet use over the years. Have you found any?

I posted a graph earlier in the thread.

This is the data that the graph is based on.

https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR420

It's not perfect but the methodology is consistent so the results are comparable.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
0 likes

Rich_cb wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

@Rich_cb - I can't find any decent stats on UK helmet use over the years. Have you found any?

I posted a graph earlier in the thread. This is the data that the graph is based on. https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR420 It's not perfect but the methodology is consistent so the results are comparable.

Thanks - I should have checked the thread.

I'm not convinced that the helmet usage lines up that well with the KSI stats, but we're just playing with graphs here, so it's all down to interpretation.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to simonmb | 6 years ago
2 likes

simonmb wrote:

Nothing science-based about my next statement, and even I don't fully understand it, but I'm just back from Amsterdam and spent four days cycling the city - and comfortably riding sans helmet. First day back home - on goes the helmet. I couldn't even contemplate cycling without a lid here. The same thing happened in and after Copenhagen. Anyone else had the same experience? Do they / did they have the same helmet debate on Dutch and Danish cycling forums?

Put your finger on it there Simonmb.  Cycling in Amsterdam is much safer than in any UK city, and no-one there wears a helmet, apart from road racers and tourists, so whatever makes cycling safe, it isn't helmets.  So why do we waste so much time talking about helmets which are just a distraction from the real issue, and why aren't we doing what the Dutch and the Danes do and making cycling safe?

That's why I object so much to articles and advertorials extolling the virtues of helmets, because they are essentially a waste of time and most definitely not "the answer" to making cycling safe.   They also deter some people by making it appear that cycling is a very risky activity, as why would you need to wear a helmet if it wasn't?  The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, but nobody considers that inherently dangerous.  

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there seems to be a correlation between the number of cyclists and the risks of cycling, so by deterring some people, helmet publicity puts us all at greater danger.  There was another report last week which showed that the heatlh benefits of cycling are even bigger than had been estimated before, so helmet publicity also increases ill health by deterring people.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
1 like

Rich_cb wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

The largest ever study found a small but significant increase in risk with helmet wearing.

The problem with studying mandatory helmet laws is that the cyclist population is changed by such laws. The number of cyclists decrease but not uniformly. Casual cyclists are far more likely to be deterred than those who cycle for sport. Road racing or mountain bike racing is obviously more dangerous than a quick spin to the corner shop so the risk statistics become skewed as a larger proportion of cyclists are engaging in higher risk activities. If you look at the graphs I've posted on this thread you can actually disprove the argument that cycle helmets increase accident rates. From 1995 onwards the helmet wearing rate in the UK increased dramatically. Over the same period of time the number of accidents stayed virtually static. Interestingly the proportion of those injuries that were serious or fatal fell substantially. In the UK there is therefore no evidence that increased use of helmets leads to an increase in the accident rate. There is some evidence that the increased use of helmets leads to a decrease in the KSI rate.

The largest ever study (Rodgers, 1988) had nothing to do with a helmet law, but it found that wearing a helmet increased risk.

The evidence showing no benefit or an increase in risk from wearing a helmet is considerably more reliable than that showing a benefit, including your inference from UK data, which may or may not be due to helmet wearing.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html#96

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to burtthebike | 6 years ago
0 likes
burtthebike wrote:

The largest ever study (Rodgers, 1988) had nothing to do with a helmet law, but it found that wearing a helmet increased risk.

The evidence showing no benefit or an increase in risk from wearing a helmet is considerably more reliable than that showing a benefit, including your inference from UK data, which may or may not be due to helmet wearing.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html#96

The data I've linked to in this thread strongly suggest that helmet use does not increase the risk of injury.

Helmet use more than doubled between 1995 and 2005 yet the rate of cycling injuries stayed completely static. The rate of KSIs dropped dramatically.

If helmets do increase the risk of injury how do you explain that data?

Avatar
brooksby replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
1 like

Rich_cb wrote:
ConcordeCX wrote:

Oh, dear. You don't understand elementary statistics, do you?

I actually understand statistics very well. I've simply posted two facts. Are the facts wrong?

Apologies if this has already been said (I've commented now rather than read to the end and scroll back up): but presenting  two sets of facts doesn't necessarily show a causal link, does it? For example: mobile  phones became much more available after 1995 so are they responsible for the drop in KSIs? (after all, people could call an ambulance more easily).  Street Hawk wasn't on tv anymore so maybe people started wearing helmets.  Actually, when did the Tour organisers start insisting that riders wore helmets?  I dunno, just stirring...   3

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
0 likes
brooksby wrote:

Apologies if this has already been said (I've commented now rather than read to the end and scroll back up): but presenting  two sets of facts doesn't necessarily show a causal link, does it? For example: mobile  phones became much more available after 1995 so are they responsible for the drop in KSIs? (after all, people could call an ambulance more easily).  Street Hawk wasn't on tv anymore so maybe people started wearing helmets.  Actually, when did the Tour organisers start insisting that riders wore helmets?  I dunno, just stirring...   3

It's already been covered.

Correlation is not always causation but sometimes it is.

The increased use of helmets correlates strongly with the decrease in cycling KSIs.

The same rate of decrease is not seen in non cyclists.

So what is causing the cyclist specific decrease?

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
0 likes

Hasn't the criteria for SI data changed over time?

Also, something as simple as looking at it by miles ridden can have a significant impact. With our sport being the new golf haven't the number of recreational miles increased significantly? I'd imagine leisure miles are much different in terms of KSI than city commuting.

First ally, I have a simple test for those for and against helmets. I have a 2 by 2 concrete slab, a dining chair and a helmet... Pop along and get involved.

I am in the helmet saved my life camp but don't give a shite who chooses to wear one (except my kids). What I hate is someone telling me it has no benefit as that's simply idiotic and I'd invite them to the aforementioned chair...

Avatar
brooksby | 6 years ago
0 likes

Oh, right: it has been addressed, and discussed ad nauseam. I'll get my coat...

Avatar
davel replied to alansmurphy | 6 years ago
1 like
alansmurphy wrote:

I have a simple test for those for and against helmets. I have a 2 by 2 concrete slab, a dining chair and a helmet... Pop along and get involved.

I am in the helmet saved my life camp but don't give a shite who chooses to wear one (except my kids). What I hate is someone telling me it has no benefit as that's simply idiotic and I'd invite them to the aforementioned chair...

I don't think anyone says they can never offer any protection, and no-one can argue that yours didn't protect you. It's the weight of the benefit that is debated - and I can't see it being resolved.

You highlight one of the criticisms, because I'd take the helmet in your test any day of the week, but they're not designed to protect you from stones being dropped on your head, which is a pretty unlikely riding scenario. The criticism is that the rating and testing of them is too specific for them to be of much real world use, when you consider how much they're mandated and the perception of their safety. In certain offs they might well be better than nothing but they're certainly not marketed or mandated with that as their strapline.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Stumps | 6 years ago
2 likes

Stumps wrote:

Regardless of scientific tests saying they do or don't work and all the people saying it saved my life or those saying it won't save you if a ton of metal runs over you etc etc...... After nigh on 30yrs of attending RTC's involving bikes and seeing the mess a head makes when it's scraped along the ground I will happily wear one.

By definition you wear a helmet for walking and when in a motorvehicle, if not, why not?

We already know that almost half of all serious head trauma's are from a group that occupy motorvehicles and that as a rate people on foot are more likely to have a serious head trauma.

Clearly your own bias proves you can't assess risk correctly.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
0 likes

Dave, there are certainly some on here that argue that they offer no protection. My chair game was more to point out concrete hurts but I could certainly think about spring loading the front legs.

I also massively agree with the Boardman argument I. E. that as you suggest, it's so far down the pecking order it's untrue. Furthermore, should never be used when victim blaming as is so often the case...

Avatar
madcarew replied to hawkinspeter | 6 years ago
0 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

Simply posting two sets of data and implying that they are related is disingenuous.

Correlation is not causation. If you compare the pedestrian KSI figures to the cyclist KSI figures you can see that the cyclist KSI suddenly began to decline post 1995 after decades of stasis whilst the pedestrian rate continued to decline at its previous rate. By taking pedestrians as our control group we can eliminate a lot of the statistical noise and provide stronger statistical evidence than just correlation.

I just had a little look at http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2636/cycling/stats-uk/index.html and they've got a graph that implies that pedestrian fatalities have dropped at a sharper rate than cyclist fatalities. Does this mean that pedestrians started wearing helmets in the early nineties?

 

It simply implies that some factor may be at work in pedestrian KSI's causing the decrease. It would be worth looking at the possible causes for that decrease, perhaps starting with miles walked, use of public transport, improved car / pedestrain impact safety factors. Just as one needs to look at a possible cause for the cycling KSI decrease, in which case we have a convenient and good candidate in the increase of helmet wearing. Obviously cyclists and pedestrians don't exist in the exact same risk climate so expecting there to be a common factor in the KSI decline may be jumping the gun a little...

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Stumps | 6 years ago
2 likes

Stumps wrote:

Regardless of scientific tests saying they do or don't work and all the people saying it saved my life or those saying it won't save you if a ton of metal runs over you etc etc...... After nigh on 30yrs of attending RTC's involving bikes and seeing the mess a head makes when it's scraped along the ground I will happily wear one.

You might like to check out the term "observation bias".

Pages

Latest Comments