Search results for:

There is, it's just that you are particularly hard of understanding.

All adult cycle helmets legally on sale in the UK meet EN1078

That's it. The law precludes making any other claim.

That's utter rubbish. Every other sector can have other claims, even Bell do, on their European site for motorcycle helmets. Are you suggesting that there is a piece of legislation specifically concerning the bicycle helmet sector?

Genuinely, I'm not sure if you're stupid? But your arguments make no sense whatsoever. I've already given you the links to demonstrate that the same company uses safety standards for motorcycle helmets, and no safety standards for bicycle helmets. Both meet the similar CE regulations. Which bit of this do you not understand?

It doesn't answer the claims because the author seems to be of the opinion that the issue is too complicated to be pinned down so easily.

Here's a DfT paper reviewing the available literature. It comes out pro-helmet.
http://erso.swov.nl/knowledge/Fixed/40_Pedestrians/ref.%2054%20helmets.pdf

It also observes
"The way in which the debate has been conducted is unhelpful to those wishing to make a balanced judgement on the issue."

Which about sums up this thread, really.

It's not about being complicated, it's just that the links provided, don't answer the claims made. As to the question about whether consumers are informed, still nobody has provided a similar site to the Sharp.gov.uk one I posted above. And this is the issue. It's all opinion, or anecdotal evidence. I'd just like there to be clear, easy to understand information for the consumer. And it doesn't appear to exist as it does with other sectors/product categories.

Dear me, some people are getting rather hot under the collar here.

Here are some opinions from a guy who tests helmets for a living, in the UK.
http://cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

Feel free to disregard him if you feel his opinions don't meet some arbitrarily-defined criterion which would render them FACT.

This I would class as a site informing the consumer about their purchase.

Dear me, some people are getting rather hot under the collar here.

Here are some opinions from a guy who tests helmets for a living, in the UK.
http://cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

Feel free to disregard him if you feel his opinions don't meet some arbitrarily-defined criterion which would render them FACT.

Yup, read that years ago. Still doesn't answer the claims made by people here. Neither does it really count as informing the consumers about choice, as its not really at the point of sale. There's loads of other documents out there detailing the testing processes, it's just they aren't particularly friendly to read, or easy to find. Feel free to keep posting irrelevant links to obscure sites.

Here is a list.

http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/117293/349.pdf

Here are the Snell ones

http://www.smf.org/stds

Both from 2 seconds of Googling so not exactly hidden or hard to find for the consumer. If they can't simply Google to find the info then protecting their head may be the least of their worries.

Sorry, CPSC is American, and the majority of helmets stopped being tested by Snell in about 1995. Also, the first link doesn't contain anything about the tests carried out.

I live in Europe, specifically the UK, thus was really looking for info based on the standards here. So, er your two seconds of googling didn't work please try harder next time.

Possibly. What's it worth? ;-)

I notice you still haven't cited your claim mdcc-tester.

My source is Sir Isaac Newton. Within the range of velocities and scales under discussion, I consider him good enough.

I consider the standards authority who are endorsing the product better, since they tested the product. Rather than the theory of somebody who died in 1727.

What, exactly, would you like them to be even more open about? The test protocol is explicitly laid out in the standard named on the sticker inside your helmet.

No it's not. Show me the site which explains to a consumer the tests met by the sticker?

That's because you manifestly don't understand physics.

There is no regulatory body which will state what you are asking for, because it's none of their business and even the most arrogant and incompetent ones eventually realise that their hubris is trumped by physics (although, god knows, if you look at some of the shit they come up with you do wonder sometimes)

That's a bold claim. Unfortunately, the only person who doesn't understand physics is you. Why claim something you can't cite? If you're going to state FACT, back it up. Otherwise shut up.

I'd just like to clarify, I'm not trolling. Just cite your sources. I don't want your opinion, or what your friends say, but FACT.

It seems that just reading through a little of this thread, few people here have a grasp of the regulatory issues with bicycle helmets, what standards they meet and what standards they don't. Less seem to understand the actual testing which takes place, or even why the industry has developed the way it has. I've no agenda to push and I'm not claiming sides, just be able to cite what you claim, otherwise I'll call bullshit on you.

What I would like is that the industry be open about its information, so consumers can make informed decisions rather than the obvious broscience or anecdotal evidence which seems to be taking place here.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just misunderstanding the point rather than trolling.

A helmet designed for high energy impact will be worse in a low energy impact than a helmet designed for low energy impact.. It's not that the high energy hat magically gets worse at low energy, just that it can't be as good as one designed only for the low energy impact.

And I'll give you the benefit of trolling and just being plain stupid. Again, I don't want your opinion, or some made up pretend physics, I would like a citation from a regulatory body as to the claim. Nothing more, nothing less. It's simple. The claim was that a bicycle helmet designed/manufactured for a higher speed will be less effective than a bicycle helmet designed/manufactured for a lower speed. Please feel free to respond in your own time. You stated it, you can find it.

my pinkbike article link explained that quite well, using motorcycle helmets vs bike helmets as an example

No. I wanted a source which stated from a regulatory body that a bicycle helmet designed for an impact at a high speed, will be less effective at a lower speed, as stated by mdcc-tester. It's easy. It's a very simple statement. I dont want opinion, I want FACT! I'm not discussing whether a motorcycle helmet is different, or whether ducks float or not. Just answer the question. mdcc-tester stated it, I would like a credible source.

Try reading the bit under the heading "safety standards".

Sorry, read that. It doesn't answer the question at all, as to why a bicycle helmet designed for a high speed impact would be worse at a low speed impact. P,ease try harder next time.

Are motorcycle helmets covered by the PPE directive? If not, the citation above doesn't apply. There is plenty of legislation about motorcycle helmets, have a read through it and see if I can sue Arai for putting ACU Gold stickers on my helmet :-)

Motor cycle helmets are covered by the same directive, both ate zero rated. The only difference between the two is that motor cycle helmets also meet independent standards as well. Which bicycle helmets used to.

They also have stickers, and include in their marketing information that they met additional standards, as does virtually all other safety equipment.

Regulatory bodies (much to their own chagrin, I'm sure) don't regulate the laws of physics

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

Could you explain, I don't understand? I asked to cite a source as to why a bicycle helmet is safer at a lower speed than a bicycle helmet built for a higher speed. I wasn't aware there was a difference, and your source doesn't cover this.

And I was probably right.

The Personal Protective Equipment (EC Directive) Regulations 1992

implements

Directive 89/686/EEC

and is the relevant law covering cycle helmets as they are classed as PPE.

From the UK law:

So putting stickers on helmets indicating which other standards they meet could be construed as confusing for the purchaser or end user, and therefore illegal.

Um, then how does the motor cycle helmet sector, or any other safety sector do this?

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/DH-Helmets-vs-Motocross-Helmets-Which-Is-Safer.html

Not exactly peer reviewed, but there's some words at least

Thanks for that. It makes a lot of sense, but it's comparing motor cycle helmets tested to the Snell standard, as opposed to bicycle helmets which have met the Snell standard, specifically B95 or B90A which is different.

In order to sell helmets in Europe you need CE marking .. Helmets fall into the CE requirement for Personnal Protective Equipment .. This Directive defines only the basic requirements to be satisfied by personal protective equipment. In order to prove conformity with those basic requirements, you need to test, design, document etc in accordance with the harmonized European EN 1078 standard.

I wasn't disputing this, I was asking why helmet manufacturers don't exceed this, if there are other independent standards which are higher available? mdcc-tester claimed they weren't legally able to, yet this exists in virtually all other safety equipment sectors. The bicycle helmet sector is a competitive market, and highly profitable, it would be be a competitive advantage to have this extra, like it is in the motor cycle helmet sector. And it used to exist in 1995.

Yo Mupps, this is exactly the case as cycle helmets are designed to 'crumple zone' at lower speeds than motorcycle helmets which are much more solidly built.

Could you cite the source of your information? CE reference, or any other regulatory body would be great.

Of course, here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

Wow, you genuinely believe that it's easy to make a commercial bicycle helmet that's safe at high speed impacts, but less safe at low speed? And no citation? Hmmmm, I've a sneaky feeling that you're the best person to read the physics article in wiki. This might be useful for you too.

I still think it's the only one which can be used within the area covered by such legislation. I'm happy to be corrected, but I've got 4 helmets here which carry nothing but CE stickers, yet they are identical to ones which would carry CPSC stickers in the USA., and at least some of them might pass ASTM and/or Snell too, e.g. I have a Specialized Airforce 3 which is listed as meeting Snell B-90A on http://www.smf.org/cert. In the olden days (pre-European usurpation of British sovereignty), helmets used to carry all the stickers they could.

Well, then the motor cycle helmet industry can do this, and every other industry. Perhaps the bicycle helmet industry is a special case?

Meeting a higher impact test often means worse performance in low impacts, so don't assume that there are no free lunches

Sorry to be difficult, but could you provide a (credible) citation for this?

Well, do you know exactly what your helmet will protect you against or for? What standards does it meet? Did you look at other helmets and check those standards and compare? Do you know what the standards actually mean? What impact it's rated for, or whether rotational is or isn't included in that? We're you advised when to replace your helmet, or how to fit/adjust it correctly?

As in are you an informed purchaser! Did the manufacturer include all of that or similar information in the sales information? Or did you just choose the colour, and because it was blue, bought it?

Alas no, supplied by work.