A test of 15 cycle helmets for adults and eight children’s helmets available to the UK market has resulted in recommendations for three of them for safety. All three incorporate technology designed for protection against rotational forces.
The Road Safety Trust, a body that’s “dedicated to achieving zero deaths and serious injuries on UK roads”, funded the Folksam Insurance Group in Sweden to complete extended safety tests on a selection of helmets available in this country.
Five physical tests were performed by the Research Institutes of Sweden (RISE) which is accredited for testing and certification in accordance with the European standard: two shock absorption tests with straight perpendicular impact and three oblique impact tests. Computer simulations were subsequently carried out to evaluate the risk for concussion.
Of the 23 tested helmets available to the UK market, two adult models and one child’s model were given the ‘recommended’ label (a second child’s helmet not available in the UK was also tested and recommended):
• Scott Arx Plus (adult)
• Specialized Align II (adult)
• Lazer Gekko MIPS (children’s)
To be recommended, a helmet had to be more than 15% better than the average in the test round – both for direct and oblique (angled) impact. This criterion means that comparatively few helmets are ever likely to be recommended. There is no pass/fail standard.
“It is important that when consumers purchase safety equipment they spend their money wisely,” said Oliver Carsten, Trustee of The Road Safety Trust.
“The recommended adult helmets are both general-purpose helmets and relatively low-cost with an approximate price of £80 for the Scott Arx Plus and £45 for the Specialized Align II. The recommended Lazer Gekko MIPS child helmet costs around £50. This confirms that good safety performance does not require high expense.
> Your complete guide to the Specialized road bike helmet range
“All the recommended helmets from the current set of tests incorporate technology for protection against rotational forces, either in the form of Multi-directional Impact Protection System (MIPS) or alternative technologies. In general, helmets with such technologies performed better than helmets without, but it is not the case that all the tested helmets with such protection are recommended.”
> Find out all you need to know about MIPS
For example, the Lazer Urbanize MIPS adult helmet was tested this year and wasn’t recommended, and the same is true of several other MIPS-equipped helmets.
> Read our review of the Scott Arx Plus helmet
This is the third year that the Folksam Insurance group has carried out cycle helmet testing. You can find the full list of recommended helmets here.
Check out the full Road Safety Trust/Folksam Adult Bicycle Helmets 2021 report here
Check out the Road Safety Trust/Folksam Child Bicycle Helmets 2021 report here
For the full report and previous year’s test results visit www.roadsafetytrust.org.uk/cycle-helmet-testing
66 thoughts on “Swedish safety research recommends three helmets out of 23 tested”
Quote:
So if the standard deviation is tight then no helmets would be recommended? Possibly because they were all, equally, more than good enough.
agreed- they could all be
agreed- they could all be amazingly good, but if they are equally amazingly good, none gets recommended.
sounds like a flawed model.
Sounds almost deliberately
Sounds almost deliberately designed to spike the sales or a few random manufacturers each year. Pretty pointless criteria for consumers to make an informe choice. Surely just better than average would have been good enough to improve safety?
Equally, they could all be
Equally, they could all be crap, but any that are sufficiently less crap than the average crapness would still be ‘recommended’.
if you open the link to the
if you open the link to the full report – more of which should be visible in teh above articel – you will see there is a significant range of results
Cycling helmets are designed
Cycling helmets are designed to pass EU standard EN1078, whilst also being as light and comfortable as possible.
It is hardly surprising, when you subject helmets to tests that they were not designed for, that some helmets do worse/better than others.
I don’t wear a helmet myself but I’d assume that most who do wear it to cushion impacts rather than rotational forces. Is there any evidence that ‘rotational forces’ are a significant issue in KSI incidents? If not then what is the point of this study?
Joeinpoole wrote:
People who wear a helmet do so because they want to be safe(r) – although clearly the desire to be safe is weighed against comfort and convenience as otherwise we’d all be wearing full-face motorbike helmets and body armour the whole time (including while out for a walk around the park).
One problem with standards like EN1078 is that they set a pretty low bar and don’t do a very good job of accurately assessing the amount of safety provided in real crashes. I can’t promise that the testing protocol used does a better job, although if you read their report, the whole point was they think it does more closely reflect real crashes.
Another problem is that the standards are pass or fail – there is no graduation. Even if you only care about cushioning impacts as per the EN1078 test protocol, some helmets do that better than others.
And yes, there is substantial evidence that rotational forces are a serious issue in crashes – see e.g. this article: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/concussion-life-saving-facts-440763
OnYerBike]
[quote
The Snell Foundation test is a better test than EN1078 so I suggest that helmets built to pass that are a better choice. I’m not surprised that Specialised Align scored well in this testing since they are built to pass Snell.
I owe my life to a Specialised Propero II that I destroyed, K&S Air Ambulance, and Kings College Hospital A&E Surgeons.
Your milage may vary, however no part of life is improved with reduced brain function.
I’m very much liking the POC
I’m very much liking the POC Kortal Race Mips, which doesn’t score particularly well on this test, only just above average, but does come up to Dutch NTA 8776 electric bicycle standard, which seems to be a stringent test, meant to help more at speed. Who knows though, I like POCs ethos, and their XL/XXL does seem to fit my rather large head, even with a thermal scull cap, well my Trbec Race Mips does anyway, and the amount of coverage looks good.
OnYerBike wrote:
Some people only wear a helmet because of incessant nagging about it from their Significant Other…
A lot of real crashes on the
A lot of real crashes on the road are falling from cycling speed. E.g. in groups and often when one hits a pothole. Or when a car pulls out from a side junction causing you to hit it at whatever speed you are cycling at.
I know of and have been unfortunate to have personally seen such crashes.
Other reasons include slipping on dirt, gravel or ice that was on the road.
Yes, if a cat hits you at high speed you are likely dead anyway. But thankfully most falls are not like that.
Holland: much lower speed, upright cycles (can see where going and slower). No downhills. Great infrastructure, little mixing with other road users. I know a Dutch cyclist who came to the UK and he immediately wanted a helmet as he felt so unsafe here compared to Holland. He even thought about giving it up at first he found it so scary. Still wears his helmet today. Yet never wears one in Holland. It’s list way safer there, the lower speeds of everyone, the lack of potholes, the upright town bikes. A lacks of cars in the way to dodge (e..g pulling out in front of you causing you to go OTB).
All this makes me think none of the “you don’t need a helmet” comments I have seen here make any kind of common sense. Yet oddly get lots of upvotes.
Joeinpoole wrote:
— JoeinpooleWell, it has been shown by experiments on monkees that rotational injuries are more dangerous than direct impacts, and since almost all road collision impacts will involve some degree of rotation, then the answer to your question is yes. Helmets increase the risk of rotational injuries and MIPS has not been proven to reduce that risk, with some research showing no benefit.
I’m so sorry, what was the point of your question?
“has been shown by
“has been shown by experiments on monkees that rotational injuries are more dangerous than direct impacts” you can’t really make claims like that without including links to the article or paper that includes the evidence for those claims.
Mickey, or Davey, maybe Peter
Mickey, or Davey, maybe Peter?
just seen on Twitter “hi folks I see you’re loading up your new 50″ TV set – you won’t mind dropping it to the ground will you? It’s ok, it’s got its polystyrene around it. No? how about you hold it up and I’ll drive into it?”
Wibbly wrote:
It’s here somewhere cyclehelmets.org I just can’t bothered to find it for you.
Wibbly wrote:
Double.
eburtthebike wrote:
I know their career was a while ago, but don’t they still earn enough from royalties that they don’t need to volunteer for this kind of research to make ends meet?
mdavidford wrote:
I really thought my wife was joking when she said she wanted to see a Monkees tribute band play in Switzerland.
And then I saw her face, now I’m in Geneva…
hawkinspeter wrote:
Chortle?
eburtthebike wrote:
Crikey, I must admit I wouldn’t shed a tear if I never heard Daydream Believer again but using them as crash test dummies is a bit harsh.
I wear a helmet to cushion my
I wear a helmet to cushion my head in the event of me having an accident all by myself. If I get hit by 2 tonnes of steel travelling at 60 mph then the helmet is going to do f-all, the shattered bones and bleeding internal organs will render the helmet pointless.
The Road Safety Trust “We are
The Road Safety Trust “We are an independent grant-giving Trust working hard to reduce the numbers of people killed or injured on our roads. We do this by providing independent funding for vital research and practical interventions into new approaches to road safety.”
Independent? working hard? new approaches to road safety?
If any of these were true, it might be worth listening to you, but they aren’t and you aren’t. We’ve had helmet laws, promotion and zealots for over thirty years, but they haven’t reduced the death rate of cyclists; admit it, you’re just another pseudo-road safety group flogging helmets.
eburtthebike wrote:
For someone who talks such a lot of common sense on other subjects you have such a massive blindspot on this issue. The RST is an independent charity that runs (through a subsidiary) the National Driver Retraining Scheme (i.e. speed awareness courses) and invests all profits from that into a range of road safety research. You can disagree with them by all means but accusing them of “flogging helmets” is absurd.
Thanks for this article and
Thanks for this article and the link to relative comparisons between helmets.
Disappointing to see to usual anti-helmet (the cycling equivalent of anti-vaxxers) in the discussion, but the more research we get into efficacy the better.
Anyone who has read about the
Anyone who has read about the subject knows the evidence for helmets is unclear and there are others factors including psychological ones involved.
A lot of push back occurs as they are presented as some pancea for all ills by people who are commenting outside of their expertise and experience.
Are you Judge Adams ?
No idea who Judge Adams is –
No idea who Judge Adams is – is that a new series on freeview daytime?
You can read a good introduction to helmets at Headway – https://www.headway.org.uk/news-and-campaigns/campaigns/cycle-safety/
Helmets protect your brain in the event of a crash – I’ve certainly been glad I’ve been wearing one in the past. Just because people mention whether a cyclist was wearing a helmet when an accident occurs doesn’t make them ineffective, any more than whether someone was wearing a seat belt in a car crash.
They protect your skull not
They protect your skull not your brain.
Try yesterday’s blog too.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
You can read a good introduction to [i]Headway[/i] here:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jul/30/jersey-compulsory-cycle-helmet-law-emotion-not-evidence
Few people (if any) are “anti
Few people (if any) are “anti-helmet”. Anti-compulsion, perhaps; arguing that there is insufficient evidence of real benefit to warrant such a measure (among other things) or perhaps “anti-bullshit”; of which there is plenty when helmets are being discussed.
Bentrider wrote:
That’s fine, but journalists are perfectly entitled to comment on whether you were wearing one in the event of you crashing and questioning your intelligence if you weren’t.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I thought journalists had grown up about questioning the attire of the victims of violent crime…
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Few people (if any) are “anti-helmet”. Anti-compulsion, perhaps; arguing that there is insufficient evidence of real benefit to warrant such a measure (among other things) or perhaps “anti-bullshit”; of which there is plenty when helmets are being discussed.
— Nigel Garrage That’s fine, but journalists are perfectly entitled to comment on whether you were wearing one in the event of you crashing and questioning your intelligence if you weren’t.— Bentrider
Only if it’s relevant. Somebody not wearing a helmet doesn’t mean the injuries they suffered would have been sufficiently mitigated – or even mitigated in any way – had they worn one. And that comment from the journalist shouldn’t be presenting the factoid as a given conclusion that the cyclist was the author of their own misfortune. Those that do aren’t journalists, they’re just cheap-rent hacks.
I would question their
I would question their credentials if they presented such a superficial understanding of the topic.
hirsute wrote:
Bloody armchair expert.
A reasonable description of
A reasonable description of the journalist in this instance
Nigel Garrage wrote:
No, it’s not fine when, having been killed through the actions of a car driver, a judge says, in so many words, you killed yourself by your own choice.
If I fell off my bike, wasn’t
If I fell off my bike, wasn’t wearing a helmet, and gave myself brain damage as a result, I’d want this advertised to stop others doing the same. That’s all I’m saying here.
I haven’t mentioned blame, victims, being hit by someone else, or anything else spurious. I’m talking about an event such as the squirrel incident where there are no contributory factors.
I’ll repeat: people who deny the efficacy of helmets are in the same league as anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Cyclist fell off bicycle unaided, injured head, wasn’t wearing helmet – I don’t recall ever reading such a report.
Helmetless cyclist suffers head injury in collision with motorist – only has himself to blame. Seems a more familiar tale.
Vermin in your spokes? We’re down to the, “if it saves just one life…” fallacy.
If people choose to wear a helmet that’s fine. I do. Most of the cyclists I see do too. But it stops being a choice as soon as it becomes a point of censure or a question of legal liability.
Sriracha wrote:
Well it has happened to me personally – I’ve fallen off my bike a few times, mostly through personal negligence and once due to hitting a pothole. Personal negligence includes failure to unclip and going round a bend too quickly so the back tyre skidded out from under me.
In the case of the pothole I had to attend a minor injury unit and my helmet had smashed – the attending said that it was likely I would have has a brain injury if I hadn’t been wearing one, and he’s seen the effects of not wearing one. As it was I just had a load of road rash, a bashed knee and a bashed elbow.
There are statistics about the causes of serious accidents involving bikes – I’ll dig it out if I have time.
The helmet argument has been
The helmet argument has been looked at time and time again. I choose to wear a helmet, but I do so knowing that in anything other than a very minor collision a helmet is going to be about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
I wear a helmet because in the event I am involved in an accident I want to give the other party absolutely no chance to argue that i am partly to blame for any injuries. As was shown in the case in the blog the other day where the judge apportioned some of the blame to the victim because they chose not to wear a helmet.
On the flip side, studies in other countries (Australia if memory serves) found that drivers were more likely to close pass cyclists who were wearing helmets because of the perceived security that the helmet provides.
The only way for a cyclists head to have anywhere near a sensible level of protection would be for them to wear a motorcycle helmet because they are designed with higher impact speeds in mind whereas bicycle helmets are designed to withstand minimal impacts whilst still be light.
I have had a look at some bicycle helmet testing protocols and most of them test at up to 16mph of impact velocity…. The test in question here looked at a velocity of 14 mph. So if they perhaps looked at double those speeds you would see how limited the protection provided by a bicycle helmet in a motor vehicle accident actually is
You’re downplaying the
You’re downplaying the benefits of helmets and overstating the risk of being in a collusion with a third party.
As the recent study in 2020 on The Netherlands stated, https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-08544-5, 75% of all accidents there involved just the cyclist and/or an obstacle with no third party. Helmet use was found to reduce brain injury by 51%. Many many lives and serious injuries could be saved through compulsion (which I don’t agree with by the way – I prefer nudging people with the unvarnished facts)
It’s time to stop denying the truth. statistically, you’re far more likely to stop a major brain injury by cycling with a helmet than you are to collide with a third party, regardless of fault.
Absolutely there are cases where helmets are completely useless, but it’s dangerous anti-science to deny their efficacy in many scenarios.
It’s almost as though we have
It’s almost as though we have never, ever, discussed helmets on here before…
“a study in the Netherlands”
“a study in the Netherlands”
“75% of accidents THERE”
And how does cycling in the UK compare with cycling in the Netherlands?
Apples. Oranges.
To be clear, the 51%
To be clear, the 51% reduction in head injuries by wearing a helmet is the best quality meta-analysis of all sources globally – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27450862/. It also confirms that wearing helmets reduces serious and fatal head injuries by an even greater factor.
Exactly, and this Dutch
Exactly, and this Dutch argument I see used time and time again by almost every anti (you don’t need a) helmet mob.
Facts they all miss:
1) The Dutch cycle much more slowly on upright bikes (they even wear jeans they go so slow), mostly on cycle paths and with few downhills to build up any speed.
2) On the rare occasion when they mix with cars, other motorists are very likely cyclists and there is a culture to be kind to them and the infrastructure favours them.
None of this is like the UK.
I only have 200 FB friends, as keep it for close friends, yet two of them recently had bad crashes and concussions. Took time to recover and both are still not fully over it yet (some brain damage). Imagine if they were not wearing a helmet!
A YTer I watch (Katey K) recently had a nasty crash and was knocked out cold. Again imagine if she had no helmet.
Think! If you get a concussion injury with a helmet on it’s going to be much worse without one.
Then they come up with the totally stupid argument that your helmet may stick out a bit and you would have knocked you would have missed totally if you had no helmet on. Can they not think most of the time you will hit your head without a helmet – which is more lethal. But nom that one time when you might catch the edge of a helmet makes all the difference according to them! I swear these people do not have a brain worth protecting!
All Doctors I have heard speak on this subject say helmets save lives.
Yet we have these know it alls who always comment about the Dutch. And link to dodgy websites anyone could set up to show the “science”.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I think that puts you in ” in the same league as anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers.”
Surprised to see you still
Surprised to see you still posting at this hour hirsute- thought you’d be in your bunker by now preparing for the alien invasion
Trying to fit in as many
Trying to fit in as many logical fallacies as you can ?
Your example of the
Your example of the Netherlands shows where you are going wrong.
I do not doubt that wearing a helmet reduces the consequences of a blow to the head. And yet in comparing the Netherlands with the UK we see that low rates of helmet use correlates with reduced head injuries amongst cyclists. The Netherlands, with the lowest rates of helmet wearing and the highest rates of cycling nevertheless is about the safest place to cycle.
So in terms of public policy (as opposed to individual choice) helmet wearing is clearly the wrong place to invest. In other words, whilst wearing a helmet may save your life, lives are not saved by diverting public resource towards making people wear helmets.
https://cyclingindustry.news/london-has-highest-helmet-use-in-europe-netherlands-almost-zero/
So we’re in agreement – if
So we’re in agreement – if you scroll back you’ll see that we both agree wearing a helmet significantly reduces the risk of a head injury and that compulsion isn’t a sensible policy decision.
My point was that although compulsion is undesirable, it’s important to ensure the public have the full facts to make an informed decision, including pointing out when someone has unfortunately sustained a preventable head injury through not wearing a helmet.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
we are very nearly in agreement. We don’t have helmet laws in the UK, but we are approaching compulsion by other means, as when the “preventable” in your statement becomes the burden of the cyclist and not the perpetrator.
You know that is an utterly
You know that is an utterly stupid comparison completely unrelated to the evidence. I see you are going on about brain injury so I guess you didn’t bother to read the links in here.
I did reckon that 50% of what you post you don’t actually believe so I guess I need to up that %.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
with you one this Nigel, but Hirsute loves to argue against not wearing helmets. Also Hirsute will take offence if mildly profane language is used, requesting I think filters to be used. One to many punches to the face for being deliberately obtuse, was going to sat a dick but found my filter.
You take a very binary
You take a very binary approach on a subject that has grey areas.
I argue where people make assertions about the efficacy of helmets and fail to understand their limitations or just make wild claims with no evidence. I’ve never said “don’t bother to wear a helmet”.
Perhaps you are Judge Adam’s brother.
Your last sentence makes no sense.
hirsute wrote:
Sadly, lots of people do that.
I guess it saves them having to make the effort to engage with facts they were unaware of (or don’t want to know); or recognise that it may be useful to consider a different perspective on such an important topic.
Simon E wrote:
Sadly, lots of people do that.
I guess it saves them having to make the effort to engage with facts they were unaware of (or don’t want to know); or recognise that it may be useful to consider a different perspective on such an important topic.— hirsute
That’s exactly what someone who claimed that they had evidence of 5g signals being injected with the Covid vaccine would say.
Sounds rather like an example
Sounds rather like an example of an association fallacy.
Me binary you binary with
Me binary you binary with your same old dull ‘ binary ‘ view.
Another incoherent sentence.
Another incoherent sentence.
I only wear a helmet in the
I only wear a helmet in the winter to help keep my head warm, in the summer I do not want a plastic hat on my head.
This uniform of helmet and lycra and poncey shoes does nothing to encourage cycling to the average person, but especially with the helmet obsession, just reinforces the false impression that cycling is dangerous.
Look at pictures of Dutch cyclists, rarely do you see helmets and most wear ‘ordinary’ clothes.
Don’t get me wrong if you want to dress like you just finished a stage of the Tour de France then good luck to you and I wear poncey shoes and lycra myself most days, but helmets? Nah, just paranoia and health and safety gone mad.
Do you realise how many people kill themselves getting out of the bath every year and do you want them to wear a helmet?
yupiteru wrote:
Go on, how many?
https://www.theguardian.com
Nearest I can find is
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010
29
5 from Accidental suffocation in bed
hirsute wrote:
Yes, I saw that but that’s accidental drowning in the bathtub, which can be as a result of seizures, bathing whilst drunk etc. I would imagine the number actually dying of falling whilst de-bathing is quite small and I would guess mainly confined, sadly, to the elderly and infirm. Which is why these comparisons (“I suppose people in cars should wear car helmets” is another stupid one) just don’t work: as a (relatively) young and (again relatively) fit person I know that I am highly unlikely to have a fatal fall getting out of the bath, indeed the likelihood is so small it’s not worth protecting against; as a cyclist I know that it is highly likely that at some stage, riding around 5,000 kms a year, much of it in urban environments, it’s virtually a certainty that at some point I will have a fall either through my fault, someone else’s or just plain bad luck, and so I protect against it.
What we all need now is some
What we all need now is some graphs.
And perhaps a lengthy discussion on causality/correlation.
And a pic of a squirrel inexplicably wearing a helmet…
Actually, the culpability of
Actually, the culpability of vermin has already been covered in this thread!
Well that’s ridiculous. I’m
Well that’s ridiculous. I’m not going to put on three helmets no matter what they say.