- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
TECH NEWS
helmet impact testHow safe is your helmet? New study rates them, Bontrager Ballista MIPS comes out on top
How safe is this helmet? That’s probably the question most of you ask when buying a new helmet, beyond such factors as weight, ventilation, fit adjustment and style.
Now new research by Virginia Tech in the US sheds some interesting light on how helmets perform in a crash test.
- Cycling helmets — everything you need to know
It tested 30 adult sized helmets using an impact simulator designed to recreate the most common head-impact scenarios on the road, dropping helmets onto an angled anvil in six different locations and at two impact speeds. Sensors measured the acceleration and rotational velocity so it was able to predict the head injury risk.
The helmets were then ranked, from five stars for the best ability to reduced head and neck injury, down to two stars, the lowest ranking in this test.
And the results of the test show the Bontrager Ballista MIPs tops the list with five stars, followed by the Louis Garneau Raid MIPS, Bell Stratus MIPS and Specialized Chamonix MIPS also on five stars.
All scoring four stars were the Specialized Prevail II, Smith Optics Overtake, POC Octal, Giro Synthe and Scott Arx Plus MIPS.
Lower down the list there’s a cluster of urban helmets such as the Giro Sutton MIPS, Bern Brentwood, Kali City, Bontrager Electra and Nutcase Street.
Not fairing so well is the Bern Watts, bottom of the list with two stars. The Lazer Genesis doesn’t score much better.
You can view the full list here
Are you surprised by the results? An expensive helmet topping the list might be expected, but the much cheaper Specialized Chamonix helmet performing nearly as well is very interesting and indicates that a higher price tag doesn’t always result in a safer helmet.
Through the testing of 30 helmets the Virginia Tech researchers noticed trends. It says that road-style helmets performance better than rounded urban helmets, which is why the likes of the Ballista is at the top and the Bern urban helmet is towards the bottom.
It also reckons MIPS improves helmet performance in these tests. MIPS stands for Multi-Directional Impact Protection System. A MIPS helmet is claimed to offer additional protection against rotational forces in a crash, by allowing two layers of the helmet to move independently. It's increasingly common in top-end helmets.
- 8 of the best cheap cycling helmets — decent lids that don't cost a fortune
The organisation has spent the last few years testing various sporting equipment for safety, from football to hockey helmets. For this cycle helmet test it was supported by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, who lent expertise in analysing common crashes, as well as providing financial support.
It’s the first such comparative test that we can recall seeing here at road.cc that attempts to rate helmets by the level of protection they offer. Helmets have to be tested before they go on sale, but's very much a pass or fail thing, there's no indication whether a £200 helmet is better in a crash than a £20 helmet, or how two £100 helmets compare to each other for example.
In the European Union, helmets must meet the EN 1078 standard, which calls for a deceleration of no more than 250g to be transmitted to the head in an impact at 5.42-5.52 m/s (a little over 12 mph). The standard involves impacts on a flat surface and a kerbstone.
In the US a Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) standard applies. The two are roughly equivalent in terms of impact absorption.
- When should I replace my bike helmet?
“But which helmets are most effective? Until now, there hasn’t been a systematic way for consumers to know. Every bike helmet on the market is required to meet a standard related to the impact threshold for exceptionally severe head injuries, like skull fractures.
But that standard is pass-fail, and didn’t help cyclists discriminate between hundreds of passing helmets; it also didn’t assess helmet performance during less-severe impacts, which are far more common and can still result in concussions and other injuries,” explains Virginia Tech.
“In cycling, we saw an opportunity to reach a broad cross-section of the public and bring a new level of safety to an activity with a wide range of other benefits. We also hope manufacturers will use the information to make improvements,” said Steve Rowson, an associate professor of biomedical engineering and mechanics in the College of Engineering and the helmet lab’s director.
It’s interesting research and sheds clear light on how helmet tests are lacking. I'd like to see a Euro NCAP-style test for helmets with much more transparency about the results so the consumer can make a much more informed choice.
The research team says it’s planning to test more helmets so we'll keep an eye out for those results.
Will these findings influence your next helmet purchasing decision?
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.
Latest Comments
- PenLaw 4 sec ago
It emphasises that British Cycling concentrates on pure sport cycling, not leisure cycling....
- Hirsute 24 min 5 sec ago
Brown trouser moment for this cyclist...
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 2 sec ago
Yes, that's a fair enough way of looking at it. I suppose it's in some ways the same as the Blitz in World War II, by any objective measure the...
- markmulder 5 hours 1 min ago
The form over function customer base is growing in cycling, and company is apparently exploiting that to the fullest.
- David9694 5 hours 8 min ago
Hours of gridlock on A2 in Canterbury after men assaulted...
- Bungle_52 5 hours 11 min ago
Looks like you may get your wish. https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/motoring/should-older-drivers...
- David9694 5 hours 24 min ago
Man charged after lorry crashes onto railway line...
- Quiddle 5 hours 58 min ago
The first part of this article scrapes the bottom of the barrel. Councillor Hunt makes a reasonable case with no evidence of any 'fuming'. Why go...
- lesterama 14 hours 21 min ago
They need to re-release a yellow turbo. That is their most iconic saddle of all time, as ridden by Fignon, Lemond, Hinault et al. on their...
- chrisonabike 15 hours 28 min ago
Don't worry! They've got plenty of others they can use!...
Add new comment
93 comments
Does "How safe is your helmet" sound like the first line to the sort of hymn that many of us were forced to sing whilst @ school?
On a more serious note, chaps.
Without doing statistical analysis (e.g. standard deviation, chi-squared), without a control with which to compare, without being able to consider all the other factors in cycle safety and without any statistics specifically relating to head injuries only to cyclists...
Absolutely no meaningful/significant conclusion can be achieved by looking at all these graphs and whatever other rubbish turns up.
I'm afraid the only way we can truly work out if helmets do or do not work is by setting up many hundreds (if not thousands) of real-world tests where all possible crash/collision scenarios are played out - something similar to how cars are tested.
I imagine the overriding result from these tests would be that being hit by a large vehicle (the real danger to cyclists) is quite inconvenient for your wellbeing, regardless of whether or not you have a helmet on.
There's little point in discussing (arguing, it seems) this topic...
Noisy bastards.
Squirrel.jpg
The graph to squirrel ratio on this thread is all wrong.
squirrels in NFL helmets.jpg
cycling ksi have risen by more than increases in miles travelled (using 2005-2009 government stats) all the while helmet wearing has increased multiple times over since 2005. yup they've worked a treat!
I'm glad you're so au fait with the UK helmet use and cyclist KSI statistics.
Burt claims there has never been a period of rising helmet use and simultaneous falling KSIs.
Maybe you could tell him what happened in the UK between 1995 and 2005?
.
Fuck it
oi oi Richie, I smell a dodgy correlation.
Capture.PNG
*
Your best contribution to date, keep it up!
Burt denies the correlation exists.
I'm just pointing out that it does.
*
Pretty much correct, there is no correlation between helmet wearing and cycle safety.
It can be seen that, for Australia, it's clear the increased use of bicycle helmets had little to no effect on cycle safety.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/jpg/1139_1.jpg
The same is true for NZ.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/jpg/1139_2.jpg
It's also clear from the UK gov's stats that cycle deaths are falling (very slightly) whilst the amount of KSI's is too scattered to make any judgements.
There is no statistical case for helmets.
I wear a helmet much for the same reason that I wear gloves - if I fall off, I'll have some sort of padding, so it should hurt less, it'll also stop road rash.
A helmet won't save my life if I'm mowed down by a car though.
stats.png
UK 1995-2005.
IMHO there is a problem with these best in test results, in the same manner as there is with cycle shoes. That is that body shape is not taken into account. The items are useless if they move on the head / are too tight or in the case of shoes are too small / not wide enough. When will testers start taking this into account, by for instance showing head and foot shape symbols?
I carried a watering can in one hand and cycled across town at rush hour yesterday, incredibly I didn't die, christ I've even carried a full sized bike box from the back of Halfords before, mind, you need a good grip hold and not choose a windy day!
Ho hum!
http://sciencenordic.com/should-bicycle-helmets-be-mandatory
"do a front flip when a shopping bag swinging from your handlebars snags in your spokes,"
Perhaps the safety research needs to be redirected.
Bags on handlebars. Whatever next? The Velominati would have something to say about that! It is impossible to legislate for those that put themselves at risk.
"New research shows that cyclists reduce their risk of head injuries by 60 percent when they wear helmets,..."
Except that it wasn't new research, it was a meta-analysis of other studies, and we all know the problem with meta-analyses don't we? It all depends on which studies you chose, and all you have to do is draw the criteria for inclusion so that anything you don't like is excluded.
While I'm not saying that this definitely is the case here, I've seen it done enough times for the suspicion to be more than a nagging doubt e.g. The Cochrane Review, done by the grandaddies of helmet promotion which included all their own research, but excluded anything which didn't prove their pre-decided conclusions and broke every rule of Cochrane Reviews.
Wake me when they introduce a helmet that doesn't cause drivers to drive more dangerously around me when wearing a helmet due to 'risk compensation'.
Ps, I won't know when you reply because I'm not some magical mind-reader.
One question, in all helmet tests I have seen a disembodied head is strapped into a helmet and dropped, has ayone ever done tests using a full "crash test dummy" strapped into a hemlet and made to fall off a bike?
@Burt - can I ask you a simple question - if your head was about to smack into concrete would you prefer to be wearing a helmet, or rely on your anti-helmet arguments?
The problem with your endless "helmets are useless and you're all stupid" argument, is that you're polarising the debate rather than changing people's opinions. Which is a shame because what, I think, you’re trying to highlight IS really important.
Find me a single quote where I said "helmets are useless and you're all stupid" and you might have a case. Until then STFU you ignorant imbecile. I apologise to all my readers for my restraint.
The problem with your analysis/pro helmet argument is that it's massively flawed. What bit of not being in the incident to start with (increased due to helmet wearing/adorning a a so called safety device) and increasing the size and weight of your head so increases chances of a head strike in the first instance do you not understand?
Your simple/naive question is utterly meaningless, extrapolate from that and you must of course apply the same to the other 1.3million other people whom report to hospitals/GP surguries etc every year.
Do you apply that thinking re helmets to any other walk of life where you can and statisically have a chance of banging your head, if not why not? Consider the 160,000+ admissions for serious head injuries, now compare that to the circa 1000 cycling head injuries. Do you ask the question of those who travel in a motorvehicle who don't wear helmets, what about children who die in greater numbers due to head injury alone than all child deaths on bike? What about children head injuries/deaths in playgrounds, both in school and outside of school? Do you ask the same question about people who go out at night, what about old/inform people, do you ask them the same question if they might trip and smash their head onto concrete. Wait, I bet you ask that same question of the family of a loved one whom was walking on the footway/footpath when a motorist crashed into them and they smashed their head in against the pavement, did you ask the husband in the charlie alliston case that question, because she smashed her skull on concrete. Wait, I bet you ask a similar question of women if they don't wear an anti rape device when they go out at night, or even in the home where many women are raped.
What about stab victims, have you followed up with well if they were a wearing a stab vest.
Sorry but your 'well if you smashed your head against concrete' IS stupid and total bollocks.
Yorkshire Wallet, you're a pathetic plank.
I know the heat is getting to me, and apparently other people, but I absolutely concur with this post. Some of us post facts while the rest of you post anecdotes as if they were somehow equivalent. Grow up for C's sake.
You post lies and exaggerations.
I've looked in to your claims about the 'largest study ever'.
It's nonsense.
All the study showed was a correlation between the estimated sales of one brand of helmet and an estimated increase in cyclist injuries.
That's it.
No proof of causation. Just a correlation between two sets of estimated figures.
It's ridiculously weak evidence.
You go on and on about Thompson, Rivera and Thompson being poorly scrutinised but then blithely post these findings as fact.
Why are you trying to deceive people Burt?
Discussion of the study contents here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bicycle_helmet/Archive_4#Reversion_...
Troll.
You try to deliberately mislead people over and over again yet I'm the troll?
Is anything I've posted inaccurate?
Pages