Is EN1078 a sufficiently good standard for cycle helmets?

[Derek C]

Having once suffered a serious head injury in a relatively minor
cycling accident, I am in favour of wearing cycle helmets and normally
do so. However I wonder if the current EN1078 standard is good
enough.

To pass the EC EN1078 test a helmet has to withstand a drop height
onto a hard surface of 1.5 metres at a speed of 5.4 m/s (19.4kph, 12
mph), with a maximum peak translational acceleration to the head of
250g. While this is very much better than hitting a hard surface with
your bare head, the drop height is slightly less than the typical
cyclists head height in the riding position, and a fit cyclist should
be able to ride at more than 12 mph. You may also collide with a
vehicle going much faster than this.

The American CPSC standards have an increased drop height of 2.0m,
with a maximum translational peak acceleration to the head of 300g.
The Snell B-95 standard further increases the drop height to 2.2
metres. (BTW, if you make a helmet too strong, the high g loading on
the brain may kill you anyway, and there is an increased risk of a
broken neck.)

I reason I make this point is that the anti-helmet brigade seem to
believe that a wearing a tea cosy on your head will give as much
protection as an EN1078 helmet. This is not true, but adopting the
Snell B-95 standard, or an EC equivalent, would remove one of their
arguments.

I would also like to see better protection to the back of the head and
the face, if that can be done without too much gain of weight. Many
cycle helmets seem to perch on top of your head and have useless
'aerodynamic' shapes that may possibly increase your risk of
rotational brain injuries and neck injuries.

Derek C

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 07/06/10 09:38, Derek C wrote:
> Having once suffered a serious head injury in a relatively minor
> cycling accident, I am in favour of wearing cycle helmets and normally
> do so. However I wonder if the current EN1078 standard is good
> enough.
>
> To pass the EC EN1078 test a helmet has to withstand a drop height
> onto a hard surface of 1.5 metres at a speed of 5.4 m/s (19.4kph, 12
> mph), with a maximum peak translational acceleration to the head of
> 250g. While this is very much better than hitting a hard surface with
> your bare head, the drop height is slightly less than the typical
> cyclists head height in the riding position, and a fit cyclist should
> be able to ride at more than 12 mph. You may also collide with a
> vehicle going much faster than this.
>
> The American CPSC standards have an increased drop height of 2.0m,
> with a maximum translational peak acceleration to the head of 300g.
> The Snell B-95 standard further increases the drop height to 2.2
> metres. (BTW, if you make a helmet too strong, the high g loading on
> the brain may kill you anyway, and there is an increased risk of a
> broken neck.)
>
> I reason I make this point is that the anti-helmet brigade seem to
> believe that a wearing a tea cosy on your head will give as much
> protection as an EN1078 helmet. This is not true, but adopting the
> Snell B-95 standard, or an EC equivalent, would remove one of their
> arguments.
>
> I would also like to see better protection to the back of the head and
> the face, if that can be done without too much gain of weight. Many
> cycle helmets seem to perch on top of your head and have useless
> 'aerodynamic' shapes that may possibly increase your risk of
> rotational brain injuries and neck injuries.

This what you looking for? They are already out there, specially designed for
cyclists.

http://www.parker-international.co.uk/13672/Bell-Drop-BMX-Downhill-Helmet---Black-Gold.html

[Derek C]

On Jun 7, 9:50*am, Tosspot > wrote:
> On 07/06/10 09:38, Derek C wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Having once suffered a serious head injury in a relatively minor
> > cycling accident, I am in favour of wearing cycle helmets and normally
> > do so. However I wonder if the current EN1078 standard is good
> > enough.
>
> > To pass the EC EN1078 test a helmet has to withstand a drop height
> > onto a hard surface of 1.5 metres at a speed of 5.4 m/s (19.4kph, 12
> > mph), with a maximum peak translational acceleration to the head of
> > 250g. While this is very much better than hitting a hard surface with
> > your bare head, the drop height is slightly less than the typical
> > cyclists head height in the riding position, and a fit cyclist should
> > be able to ride at more than 12 mph. You may also collide with a
> > vehicle going much faster than this.
>
> > The American CPSC standards have an increased drop height of 2.0m,
> > with a maximum translational peak acceleration to the head of 300g.
> > The Snell B-95 standard further increases the drop height to 2.2
> > metres. (BTW, if you make a helmet too strong, the high g loading on
> > the brain may kill you anyway, and there is an increased risk of a
> > broken neck.)
>
> > I reason I make this point is that the anti-helmet brigade seem to
> > believe that a wearing a tea cosy on your head will give as much
> > protection as an EN1078 helmet. This is not true, but adopting the
> > Snell B-95 standard, or an EC equivalent, would remove one of their
> > arguments.
>
> > I would also like to see better protection to the back of the head and
> > the face, if that can be done without too much gain of weight. Many
> > cycle helmets seem to perch on top of your head and have useless
> > 'aerodynamic' shapes that may possibly increase your risk of
> > rotational brain injuries and neck injuries.
>
> This what you looking for? *They are already out there, specially designed for
> cyclists.
>
> http://www.parker-international.co.uk/13672/Bell-Drop-BMX-Downhill-He...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, but you can't buy them from Halfords, they don't have the
required EC labels, and they may not be suitable for general cycling.
I had a look at the helmets in a large branch of Halfords, which
included a Bell full face downhill helmet. This still had a EN1078
label inside, although it was almost a motorcyle standard helmet and
weighed 1.1kg (cf >300g for a typical EPX cycle helmet). It was not
well ventilated.

Derek C

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 01:38:22 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Derek C
> wrote this:-

>However I wonder if the current EN1078 standard is good
>enough.

I take it that you know that manufacturers used to produce bike
helmets to Snell standards, but reduced them to the above standard
when that came out. That seems fairly conclusive evidence that
helmets are fashion accessories, as do the extensive disclaimers on
the packaging.

>While this is very much better than hitting a hard surface with
>your bare head,

You assume that the two options are hitting one's head in exactly
the same way with and without the helmet. Others have indicated why
this assumption is false.

>I would also like to see better protection to the back of the head and
>the face, if that can be done without too much gain of weight.

Weight is not the only criteria for a bike helmet. Things are
different for a motorbike helmet where the rider is not doing a lot
of physical work.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[Derek C]

On Jun 7, 10:29*am, David Hansen >
wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 01:38:22 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Derek C
> > wrote this:-
>
> >However I wonder if the current EN1078 standard is good
> >enough.
>
> I take it that you know that manufacturers used to produce bike
> helmets to Snell standards, but reduced them to the above standard
> when that came out. That seems fairly conclusive evidence that
> helmets are fashion accessories, as do the extensive disclaimers on
> the packaging.

The original UK standard was BS6863 which only required a 1.0 metre
drop height!
>
> >While this is very much better than hitting a hard surface with
> >your bare head,
>
> You assume that the two options are hitting one's head in exactly
> the same way with and without the helmet. Others have indicated why
> this assumption is false.

Correction - A helmet may make a small difference to the way your head
contacts the road or whatever else it hits. This would depend on the
exact circumstances, so can't be said to be a false assumption.
>
> >I would also like to see better protection to the back of the head and
> >the face, if that can be done without too much gain of weight.
>
> Weight is not the only criteria for a bike helmet. Things are
> different for a motorbike helmet where the rider is not doing a lot
> of physical work.

I did think of mentioning ventilation, but decided that this would
remain the same in the interests of brevity. I did mention this in a
subsequent posting on a downhill type helmet.

Derek C

[roger merriman]

Derek C > wrote:

> Having once suffered a serious head injury in a relatively minor
> cycling accident, I am in favour of wearing cycle helmets and normally
> do so. However I wonder if the current EN1078 standard is good
> enough.
>
> To pass the EC EN1078 test a helmet has to withstand a drop height
> onto a hard surface of 1.5 metres at a speed of 5.4 m/s (19.4kph, 12
> mph), with a maximum peak translational acceleration to the head of
> 250g. While this is very much better than hitting a hard surface with
> your bare head, the drop height is slightly less than the typical
> cyclists head height in the riding position, and a fit cyclist should
> be able to ride at more than 12 mph. You may also collide with a
> vehicle going much faster than this.
>
> The American CPSC standards have an increased drop height of 2.0m,
> with a maximum translational peak acceleration to the head of 300g.
> The Snell B-95 standard further increases the drop height to 2.2
> metres. (BTW, if you make a helmet too strong, the high g loading on
> the brain may kill you anyway, and there is an increased risk of a
> broken neck.)
>
> I reason I make this point is that the anti-helmet brigade seem to
> believe that a wearing a tea cosy on your head will give as much
> protection as an EN1078 helmet. This is not true, but adopting the
> Snell B-95 standard, or an EC equivalent, would remove one of their
> arguments.
>
> I would also like to see better protection to the back of the head and
> the face, if that can be done without too much gain of weight. Many
> cycle helmets seem to perch on top of your head and have useless
> 'aerodynamic' shapes that may possibly increase your risk of
> rotational brain injuries and neck injuries.
>
> Derek C

good enought for what?

rather depends what you want the helmet to do. DH helmets are heavier
hotter beasties.

are you going to wear body armor etc?

ie what do you expect/wish a helmet to do?

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Derek C]

On Jun 9, 11:47*am, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Derek C > wrote:
> > Having once suffered a serious head injury in a relatively minor
> > cycling accident, I am in favour of wearing cycle helmets and normally
> > do so. However I wonder if the current EN1078 standard is good
> > enough.
>
> > To pass the EC EN1078 test a helmet has to withstand a drop height
> > onto a hard surface of 1.5 metres at a speed of 5.4 m/s (19.4kph, 12
> > mph), with a maximum peak translational acceleration to the head of
> > 250g. While this is very much better than hitting a hard surface with
> > your bare head, the drop height is slightly less than the typical
> > cyclists head height in the riding position, and a fit cyclist should
> > be able to ride at more than 12 mph. You may also collide with a
> > vehicle going much faster than this.
>
> > The American CPSC standards have an increased drop height of 2.0m,
> > with a maximum translational peak acceleration to the head of 300g.
> > The Snell B-95 standard further increases the drop height to 2.2
> > metres. (BTW, if you make a helmet too strong, the high g loading on
> > the brain may kill you anyway, and there is an increased risk of a
> > broken neck.)
>
> > I reason I make this point is that the anti-helmet brigade seem to
> > believe that a wearing a tea cosy on your head will give as much
> > protection as an EN1078 helmet. This is not true, but adopting the
> > Snell B-95 standard, or an EC equivalent, would remove one of their
> > arguments.
>
> > I would also like to see better protection to the back of the head and
> > the face, if that can be done without too much gain of weight. Many
> > cycle helmets seem to perch on top of your head and have useless
> > 'aerodynamic' shapes that may possibly increase your risk of
> > rotational brain injuries and neck injuries.
>
> > Derek C
>
> good enought for what?
>
> rather depends what you want the helmet to do. DH helmets are heavier
> hotter beasties.
>
> are you going to wear body armor etc?
>
> ie what do you expect/wish a helmet to do?
>

I want a helmet to protect my skull and brain in the sort of head
impact I might receive in a minor road accident. I would put up with
the odd broken limb or rib because they probably won't kill me. I
don't want to wear a downhill helmet for normal cycling as they are
too heavy (>1kg) and poorly ventilated.

Derek C

[JMS]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:47:49 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
wrote:

<snip>


>are you going to wear body armor etc?
>
>ie what do you expect/wish a helmet to do?
>
> roger



Do you think that that makes you look smart?

You missed off - are you going to wear it getting out of the both.



--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

[Derek C]

On Jun 9, 7:16*pm, JMS > wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:47:49 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >are you going to wear body armor etc?
>
> >ie what do you expect/wish a helmet to do?
>
> > roger
>
> Do you think that that makes you look smart?
>
> You missed off - are you going to wear it getting out of the bath.
>
> --

The Kevlar body armour might prevent bruising or a broken rib if you
slip getting out of the bath!

BTW, I did a quick bit of vital research by popping into my local
branch of Halfrauds (sic) yesterday. It seems that all the Bell
helmets, even the cheaper ones, comply with both the EN1078 and the
stricter American CPSC standards. Some of the other makes claimed to
exceed the EN1078 standard, but didn't say by how much.

Derek C

[Derek C]

Just as an equivalent thread to this on urcm was getting on to some
serious scientific debate about how effective cycle helmets are at
preventing real life head injuries, and how to prove to prove this
(either way), the moderators decided to pull the plug on the debate.

The helmet-sceptic 'pscholists' obviously don't want to know if it can
be conclusively proven that cycle helmets are effective, as this would
destroy their case. I can only conclude that this was the real reason
for ending the debate!

Derek C

[roger merriman]

Derek C > wrote:

> On Jun 9, 11:47 am, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> > Derek C > wrote:
> > > Having once suffered a serious head injury in a relatively minor
> > > cycling accident, I am in favour of wearing cycle helmets and normally
> > > do so. However I wonder if the current EN1078 standard is good
> > > enough.
> >
big snips
> >
> > > Derek C
> >
> > good enought for what?
> >
> > rather depends what you want the helmet to do. DH helmets are heavier
> > hotter beasties.
> >
> > are you going to wear body armor etc?
> >
> > ie what do you expect/wish a helmet to do?
> >
>
> I want a helmet to protect my skull and brain in the sort of head
> impact I might receive in a minor road accident. I would put up with
> the odd broken limb or rib because they probably won't kill me. I
> don't want to wear a downhill helmet for normal cycling as they are
> too heavy (>1kg) and poorly ventilated.
>
> Derek C

then get a helmet thats been tested to a higher standurd, they do exist.

I'm not sure really where the problem as such is.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Derek C]

On Jun 11, 9:18*am, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Derek C > wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 11:47 am, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> > > Derek C > wrote:
> > > > Having once suffered a serious head injury in a relatively minor
> > > > cycling accident, I am in favour of wearing cycle helmets and normally
> > > > do so. However I wonder if the current EN1078 standard is good
> > > > enough.
>
> big snips
>
> > > > Derek C
>
> > > good enought for what?
>
> > > rather depends what you want the helmet to do. DH helmets are heavier
> > > hotter beasties.
>
> > > are you going to wear body armor etc?
>
> > > ie what do you expect/wish a helmet to do?
>
> > I want a helmet to protect my skull and brain in the sort of head
> > impact I might receive in a minor road accident. I would put up with
> > the odd broken limb or rib because they probably won't kill me. I
> > don't want to wear a downhill helmet for normal cycling as they are
> > too heavy (>1kg) and poorly ventilated.
>
> > Derek C
>
> then get a helmet thats been tested to a higher standurd, they do exist.
>

Yes I know. Please read my original posting and the one I made at 9.35
on 10th June!

Derek C