Cyclists choosing a new helmet can see how much protection different helmets offer, thanks to new safety testing and ratings from Imperial College London.
Researchers at Imperial College London have developed a simple new cycle helmet safety rating system with simple-to-understand scores from 0-5, designed to help buyers select which helmet to buy and assist manufacturers in future helmet design. The system is based on extensive new safety testing experiments on medium-sized helmets at Imperial.
Testing on the UK’s 30 most popular helmets, funded by The Road Safety Trust, revealed significant differences in performance with no link between the price of a helmet and the level of safety it provides the wearer. So, for example a helmet costing £130 did not perform better in tests than one costing £40.
People can check the rating of the adult cycle helmets tested to date on the helmet impact protection effectiveness rating (Hiper) website, and the team plan to add ratings for children’s helmets following further research.
Lead author Dr Claire Baker, from Imperial’s Dyson School of Design Engineering, said: “Until now, there has been limited information about how well cyclists can expect their helmet to protect them during head impact. This is because current safety standards are simply pass/fail and only test direct impact sustained during straight-on head impact. However, evidence from previous studies shows that lasting brain damage occurs in more serious impacts or when the head undergoes rapid rotations during an impact.”
No correlation between price and protection
Cycling offers a cost-effective and environmentally-friendly way to commute, a low-impact way to improve cardiovascular health, muscle strength and joint mobility, and can improve mental health.
Injuries and deaths from cycling have declined in recent years.[2] However, cyclists remain vulnerable road users, and cycling accidents can be serious, with head injuries being one of the main causes of death and life-changing injuries for cyclists involved in collisions. Yet the costs and designs of helmets vary widely and until now there has been no objective ratings information about which helmets on sale in the UK offer cyclists the best protection.
To produce the ranking, the Imperial team tested 30 of the most popular adult helmets on the market, all medium sized, based on a combination of in-lab testing, data from major retailers, and a survey of more than a thousand cyclists.
All cycle helmets sold, and therefore all helmets tested in this study, must have passed regulatory standards to ensure they offer protection.
Dr Baker said: “All helmets sold in Europe must meet the EN1078 minimum safety standard, but we wanted to determine whether some offered better safety protection than others in realistic collision tests. We developed a simple scoring system to rate helmets based on the risk of head injury during a collision. The risk of injury took account of the likelihood of deep brain injuries from head rotation as well as more surface level injuries and potential skull fractures from direct impact. Our scoring ranges from zero for lower protection to five for the best on the market.”
“Interestingly, we found no correlation between price and protection, with the highest-performing helmet being one of the less expensive, retailing at around £50. Our new ratings give consumers objective, evidence-based data to support their buying decisions.”
Evidence from previous studies shows that head rotation is often associated with loss of consciousness and injuries deep in the brain that can be life-changing, for example triggering dementia.
The overall risk was calculated as an average of the linear and the rotational risk, which assumes they have equal importance and presence in real-world casualties. However the researchers say the weighting of these risks should be adjusted in future as more data emerges on the distribution of these injuries and their consequences.
The survey showed that a large proportion of the adult population of all genders wear medium helmets. The use of only medium-sized helmets in this study, which fitted the 57 cm circumference test headform, means that future work will test a wider range of helmet sizes to ensure equitable research.
Senior author Dr Mazdak Ghajari, also from the Dyson School of Design Engineering at Imperial, supervised the research and is also a member of the working group responsible for one of the European standards on helmet safety (CEN/TC158/WG11).
He said: “The science of brain biomechanics has advanced tremendously and we now know much more about how best to protect the human head from serious injury and injuries with long-term effects in a collision.
“We are sharing our findings with helmet manufacturers and those responsible for setting testing standards, so that the industry can keep pace and develop products that offer the best possible protection.
“Thanks to funding from the Road Safety Trust, our research can now help consumers to make an informed choice when they buy a helmet. We believe these ratings will lead to further improvements in helmet designs, providing better protection against a range of head and brain injuries if a cyclist is involved in a fall or collision.”
The Road Safety Trust has extended its funding for three years so that Dr Ghajari and his team can apply their testing and rating techniques to children’s helmets as well as continuing to test the wide range of adult helmets available to buy.
Ruth Purdie OBE, Chief Executive of The Road Safety Trust, which funded the research, said: “In the event of a collision, cycle helmets can play a vital role in preventing and reducing the severity of head injuries.
“That’s why this new rating system is incredibly important. It will show riders which helmets offer the best protection, helping them to make better informed choices.”
Is this not just reinventing the wheel? SHARP have been testing and researching scooter/motorbike helmets for many years, surely cycle helmets would be a natural addition?
Interestingly they have also come to the same conclusion, that price is not a factor in meaning a helmet is safer.
Jay2F, Sheffield
0
I must be getting old and intolerant, but Mr Burton’s comments are dangerous and make me very angry. In fact, walking is far better for you than cycling, but if you do cycle (as I used to) then perhaps you should read this article from Nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
I have had a couple of bicycle accidents (no contact with another vehicle) and I can tell you that I am very glad that I always wore a helmet. This new research is welcome – cyclists need no longer be ripped off by ruthless manufacturers …
Fraser Andrew, STIRLING
+1
While this research is useful, the concentration on secondary safety measures distracts from what should be the focus: removing danger. PPE is the last resort if all else has failed, except, apparently, when it comes to cycling, when it becomes the first solution to be offered. Reducing the risks imposed by drivers on cyclists has a history of success: putting plastic hats on them does not.
The sole measurable effect of helmet mandation and promotion is to deter people from cycling, who then lose the overwhelming health benefits, and the cost to the individual and society is huge. Regular cyclists live two years longer and suffer less from all forms of morbidity, and we should be doing everything to encourage and assist people to make cycling their usual choice. The transport secretary recently acknowledged this and announced an unprecedented investment into active travel, recognising that this would massively benefit the NHS.
Quite why research is still being conducted on cycle helmets baffles me, as they have been proved the deadest of ducks by the helmet law in Australia, where despite the promise of an 85% reduction in cyclists’ deaths, no reduction at all has been observed. Very few people in Holland wear a helmet, but cycling there is much safer than Australia, where they all do, so could we please follow what has been proven to work, rather that endlessly repeating something proven not to?
Richard Burton, Lydney
--5