Are cheaper cycling helmets better than expensive ones? New test and rating system from Imperial College London ranks £45 Specialized lid as safest

The method is quite interesting, it's evaluating the severity of injuries found across 90,000 incidents, with the likelihood of impact by zone found from 1800 cases, multiplied by the performance fraction of the helmet in those zones.

My concerns is if the zonal likelihood is tailored to different intended use cases of different helmets.

I also take umbrage with the only real-world datum-ing of the 1-5 scale with 1 being equal to the theoretically worst performing EN 1078 compliant helmet.
By their scaling no helmet would not be 0 as would be intuitive, but would it be a negative number, or a tiny fraction? Can it even be evaluated?
Maybe I'm just being a pedantic nerd and it's akin to asking an average American what the value of absolute 0 in F?

Premium helmets are going for £200-300. So on that scale, mid price is about £100-£150.

In fact, the current most expensive road helmet on Merlin Cycles is the Kask Nirvana (the brand new one which half-covers the ears) retails for £320 (currently "on offer" at £310) A Kask TT helmet is £50 cheaper.

Only supermarket brands are selling helmets that cheap now. In-house brands from major bike retailers (Pinnacle, Van Rysel etc) helmets start from £35 nowadays.

I'm sure your prices are true. But in terms of the most useful number, maybe the median would be more useful than a simple average of the outliers at either end. Or the modal range (most commonly purchased price band).

Seems to be what the study did - they apparently looked at 30 "most popular" helmets priced between £9.99 and £135.

This post seems slightly off-topic (details below).

- Nobody wrote which researchers discovered the dangers of head rotation or when - if this was 50 years ago, fine.

- Helmets are considered a secondary safety approach? So which primary safety measures would be more effective and efficint? Prohibit cycling for leisure (certainly mountainbiking, BMX, track cycling, road racing) and to encourage everybody to use cars for transport?

- Why are helmet laws relevant if they exist in only very few places in the world? And in which of these places was a claim of 85% reduction made? And why would you just focus on deaths, instead of also considering pain, traumata, minor injuries, need for cosmetic surgery, major injuries, or even lasting brain damage?

Currently looking at a reddit thread of someone asking what equipment they should get as a new cyclist.

Its scary how many people rate helmets above bike lights. And pretty much get abusive if you suggest helmets aren't the top answer - showing how wide the issue of helmets as a distraction from more effective measures.

We have consistent, reproducible research for bike lights reducing accidents, including during the day (n.b. mainly because at some point you will get caught out by bad weather) and especially at night (statistically road riding at night with lights is safer than road riding in the day!).

This benefit applies to all severities of incidents and protects everything (can't damage bike + body if the collision doesn't happen) and is achieved with basically any bike light, so cheap £5 sets are enough for safety benefit.

VS cycle helmets that should only reduce head injuries and research on them is inconsistent because other factors outweigh helmets and helmets have a limit in the severity of incidents they can protect against (no helmet will help if crushed by a truck, while a light can prevent you being crushed in the first place...)

The answer is certainly lights AND a helmet.

Lights will help with the truck, the helmet with slipping on a root. In busy places with poor visibility, lights are far more important, in calm/safe places with good visibility or off road, at daytime, helmets.

I never understand why some people seem to hate helmets (this is not aimed at qwerty360), even if worn by others. It seems unreasonable and very one-sided - and trying to convince others to not wear a helmet might have tragic results.

anke2 wrote:

The answer is certainly lights AND a helmet.

Depending on your bike / when and wear you ride / your mobility etc. I'd suggest acquiring things in order of priority: mirrors (if any doubt about your ability to quickly and safely look behind), a suite of reflectives for night (most of your "visibility" to motorists will be via their very effective lights!), lights (may be mostly to see by for your own safety in dark areas, or mostly to be seen - probably by pedestrians as again most of the seeing by drivers will be via their / other drivers lights), helmets.

Helmets are in a different category of PPE to the others.  All the other things can help prevent or prepare for collisions - which is a more effective way of avoiding or lessening injury.

OTOH you don't have to have a collision with another road user to fall off your bike (you don't even have to be on a bike to fall over and hit your head).  And you may not be able to prevent a collision in which case your helmet may be a backup.

anke2 wrote:

I never understand why some people seem to hate helmets (this is not aimed at qwerty360), even if worn by others. It seems unreasonable and very one-sided - and trying to convince others to not wear a helmet might have tragic results.

Wear what you like say I.  In the last decade I might have been best-served by adopting MTB+ body armour when riding my regular hack bike on regular errands - but (reasonably) no-one is advocating for that and I didn't and picked up a broken bone and some other injuries (not to the head)... perhaps my example suggests rugby and martial arts training (or other "falling practice") should be suggested to new cyclists as a sensible protection against head injuries (also works off the bike, like a cycling helmet)?

As to "why would anyone say anything against helmets" as someone always says when this comes up this is generally because the vast majority of those proposing are not those wearing and cycling.  It's ultimately "it's your own fault your teeth were broken when someone punched you in the mouth - you didn't wear a gumshield".  Because this view is so pervasive a fair proportion of cyclists have also accepted the common wisdom that a) it's on cyclists to protect themselves from others (not the others to pay more attention) and b) helmets offer far better protection than they actually do - thus not wearing one is somewhere on the scale of "asking to be run over".  Which it's pretty unlikely a helmet will help, or help much, with.

Of course we can't personally address individual cases of (a) (we can campaign more generally of course) so in trying to answer "there must be something I do - but what?" the "answer" seems to have become "helmets and hi-vis".

I'm rather dubious of "trying to convince others to not wear a helmet might have tragic results".  Well ... in that case by the same logic trying to convince someone to get on a bike at all (or go for a jog) might have tragic results, surely?

FWIW (it seems the rule is you have to state your own "position") for years I was "always helmet" but now I wear one less and less.  I think it does rather come down to feelings and fashion rather than any "science" (contended) or sober evaluation of probability.

chrisonabike wrote:

I'd suggest acquiring things in order of priority: mirrors...

Agreed, mirror(s) should be a priority; many riders cannot look behind them without veering into traffic, including me. The Berthoud is expensive but excellent and unobtrusive on drop bars. 

Yup!  As you note it's not even "I can't turn my head" - it has to be something you can do quickly, easily and without e.g. losing your balance / coming off your line!

Wasn't convinced until I turned to the Dark Side - they make instant sense on  most recumbents, even though I can just about see behind without.  After a while I realised I missed them on the upright, although ATM it's probably still evens which is most convenient for me.  Haven't tried helmet- or glasses- mounted ones yet though...

(Aside - quite a few people driving would do well to consider just how mobile their necks are, despite mirrors you do need to be able to move your head).

Possibly some training instead though.

Quoting: "As to "why would anyone say anything against helmets" as someone always says when this comes up this is generally because the vast majority of those proposing are not those wearing and cycling.  ...  Because this view is so pervasive a fair proportion of cyclists have also accepted the common wisdom that a) it's on cyclists to protect themselves from others (not the others to pay more attention) and b) helmets offer far better protection than they actually do - thus not wearing one is somewhere on the scale of "asking to be run over".  Which it's pretty unlikely a helmet will help, or help much, with."

Well, I know that readers here are unlikely to not be cycling (and probably, unlikely to not wear a helmet). They are also unlikly to blame a cyclist endangered by traffic for not wearing a helmet. 

a) Wearing a helmet, I very much protect myself from my own mistakes - slipping on a greasy, wet road surface or on roots, getting stuck in a deep mud puddle or a gap filled with soft tarmac, hitting my head at a low hanging branch of a tree... I'd estimate that I spent 200km a week on paths with no danger from others (gravel roads in forrests, separate bike-paths, very low traffic roads with good visibility, farm roads, single trails) and less than 20km in "dense" urban traffic. Nevertheless, I also use bright lights at daytime, have stuck (almost invisible but effective) reflector tape on all bikes and wheels, obviously maintain the bikes in good technical condition and try to expect stupid, dangerous behaviour from other users of the road/bikelane/path.

b) Knowing that helmets can't do magic, I still try to be save, and have only had one (inconsequential) fall over the last 25.000km. But should this make me choose to not wear a helmet any longer? (After all, I don't have any reliable statistics over several sampling periods over 100.000 km for my own, current riding style...)

anke2 wrote:

a) Wearing a helmet, I very much protect myself from my own mistakes - slipping on a greasy, wet road surface or on roots, getting stuck in a deep mud puddle or a gap filled with soft tarmac, hitting my head at a low hanging branch of a tree... I'd estimate that I spent 200km a week on paths with no danger from others (gravel roads in forrests, separate bike-paths, very low traffic roads with good visibility, farm roads, single trails) and less than 20km in "dense" urban traffic. Nevertheless, I also use bright lights at daytime, have stuck (almost invisible but effective) reflector tape on all bikes and wheels, obviously maintain the bikes in good technical condition and try to expect stupid, dangerous behaviour from other users of the road/bikelane/path.

b) Knowing that helmets can't do magic, I still try to be save, and have only had one (inconsequential) fall over the last 25.000km. But should this make me choose to not wear a helmet any longer? (After all, I don't have any reliable statistics over several sampling periods over 100.000 km for my own, current riding style...)

I'm not (I hope) advising for or against. Just interested to see what people's reasons are (well - and query some things which seem unlikely).

I'm quite inconsistent in my particular set of "safety" choices. While I could give reasons, if I'm honest I've neither really sat down and thought about it nor worked through the literature and stats. Like most people probably it's feeling, what others do and then habit.

* Added reflective tape or bands to both bikes and self, especially moving things. But... wear hi-vis stuff less now. Lights - all bikes have dynamo ones so essentially no chance of not having, added chargeables for longer / planned night trips. But not running them during the day. Generally don't wear a helmet now (a change over last decade) - indeed only use it for more "sporty" and social occasions (fewer comments). FWIW i tend to be "always PPE" in non-cycling contexts. Dunno if that makes the best logical sense in terms of my riding (now mostly in busy, visually cluttered urban environments BUT a lot of the time on motor traffic free paths. All of the above pretty well lit).

anke2 wrote:

I never understand why some people seem to hate helmets (this is not aimed at qwerty360), even if worn by others. It seems unreasonable and very one-sided - and trying to convince others to not wear a helmet might have tragic results.

Find me a single case of someone 'hate helmets ... even if worn by others'.

Its extraordinarily rare if not non-existant.

I have seen plenty of cases of people objecting to being told to wear a helmet.

If you are telling me to wear a helmet because 'cycling is dangerous' then you should be wearing one for every activity with a comparable or higher risk profile. Which for a healthy adult and road cycling includes walking, getting dressed, getting out of bed, taking a shower, most other sports, etc... Basically if cycling is dangerous enough to justify a helmet then you should be wearing a helmet unless in bed or doing an activity where the helmet creates its own risk (strangulation by getting caught on something...)

anke2 wrote:

I never understand why some people seem to hate helmets (this is not aimed at qwerty360), even if worn by others. It seems unreasonable and very one-sided - and trying to convince others to not wear a helmet might have tragic results.

It's blinkered opinions like this that get people mad. You seem to have assumed that cycle helmets have value in preventing deaths and injuries but the facts do not show that. The topic is repeatedly debated at great length and the pro-helmet people who believe the marketing hype just don't want to listen to reason.

I'm not anti-helmet per se but after many years of reading the arguments I cannot find any convincing evidence that cycle helmets actually offer the kind of protection many people assume they do.

Feel free to wear one if you wish, I genuinely don't mind, but for general road riding they are not a way to make cycling safer; as Chris Boardman said, "they are not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe."

https://www.chrisboardman.com/content/if_you_think_helmets.php

Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:

I bought the Align MIPS last year, as my general use lid, and I am really happy with my choice. Although being between sizes I went with the smaller option, which fits nicely but I can't wear a casquette underneath during inclement weather as my head is on the wide rounded side and the helmet is slightly ovalised in the cradle.

Whilst I may use another helmet in race applications, I will happily use the align for commuting, shopping and social club rides. Good to know I bought wisely.

If you only "bought wisely" after the fact, what was the basis of your buying before you read this article?

A serious question as it surely matters that buyers of a safety or protection article should be self-aware of what is causing them to buy that article, if not knowledge concerning its primary functional ability to provide added safety or protection.

Another poster mentions "protection from insects" and a number of other buying considerations nothing to do with reducing the force of head-blows. These seem something of another after-the-fact rationalisation as there are far better ways to protect against insects, cold and those other "reasons" for buying than using a cycling helmet.

I don't assume the word "wisely" was used in its precise meaning, which seems OK in a forum.

Protection against insects: Some helmets feature little nets, to keep flies, bees and wasps out. For (unfortunately) bold people like me, this is a reason to prefer helmets with nets over helmets without - as insects trapped between skull and helmet tend to panic and may sting...

I have one too. I chose it because it was rated highly by Virginia Tech at least a couple of years ago, and the only one IIRC in their top 10 that was not £silly or hard to find. So I like to think I bought it wisely too.

On the other hand, sweat pools on the forehead pad in a most annoying way. I spend quite a bit of time squeezing it against my head when on longer rides. No doubt the main reason I have 0 KOM.

I had pretty much zero budget so my remit was to find what I could for under £50. I wanted visibility (I bought the flouro yellow version), and if possible, MIPS owing to Virginia Tech stating that in their impact reduction tests every MIPS or equivalent tech-equipped helmet out-performed every single one that didn't. The Align was the only MIPS fitted option at my budget so I went for it. I hadn't seen any hard data on specific testing of this model, nor some of the others I was considering at the time, so my purchase was based on an educated guess on overall average findings as opposed to exact specifics. Virginia Tech do not quantify their data into a simple-to-understand score as the new HIPER ratings do. I am also surprised it has outperformed its more expensive cousins and I am glad that the results reaffirmed my decision to buy the Align over other similarly priced helmets, or buy a more expensive unit on finance which I wasn't prepared to do.

Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:

I had pretty much zero budget so my remit was to find what I could for under £50.

Sensible choice IMHO. I bought an Align (pre-MIPS, £35) for my son because it was in the LBS and it fitted him better than the others on display. I knew about various standards a long time ago and knew that it probably had the same degree of protection as a £150 helmet. The CPSC standard was considered more stringent than CE EN1078 (I don't know if that is still accurate) so I looked for brands with CPSC.

Kask don't seem too keen to fit MIPS. These road.cc and 2023 CW articles may be relevant for anyone interested in that topic:

https://road.cc/content/feature/kask-wg11-vs-mips-which-cycling-helmet-t...

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/products/tech-question-is-mips-the-safest-...

Kask and MIPS each has its own PR machine. So, I've more trust in Virginia Tech testing because it's independent.

Disappointedly, Kask helmets score low down the protection league in Virginia Tech's tests. Kask's latest Elemento—despite costing £335—came a lowly eighty-first among road helmets.

Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:

I bought the Align MIPS last year, as my general use lid, and I am really happy with my choice. Although being between sizes I went with the smaller option, which fits nicely but I can't wear a casquette underneath during inclement weather as my head is on the wide rounded side and the helmet is slightly ovalised in the cradle.

Whilst I may use another helmet in race applications, I will happily use the align for commuting, shopping and social club rides. Good to know I bought wisely.

Important point here. Helmets, like heads, come in different shapes as well as sizes.

Ultimately, I could have sized up as I have done for gloves, shorts etc which would have eliminated the issue. However as I wasn't buying in person I was going off reviews stating on how it fits between sizes.

Without a cap, the helmet fits great and the cradle does not dig in. But as I bought the helmet in Spring, by which time I was no longer wearing caps under my helmet, it was several months before I realised the problem I had