Expensive helmets... What's the deal?

[RoosterCogset]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

- the VT study does a good job of showing that MIPS will potentially reduce trauma in an incredibly specific fall when attached to a bald sticky headed cyclist who lacks a scalp or a neck.

FIFY :-)

How do we know, that since many riders already wear a helmet and have up to 3 preexisting slip planes already (hair, scalp, skullcap), as well a neck that does flex in various directions, that introducing a 4th slip plane in the form of MIPS, doesn't actually make the helmet more dangerous than non-MIPS?

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Going by your criteria, no helmet test standard is adequate, and there is no way to compare the effectiveness of different helmets. How is that better?

That isn't my criteria. I've mentioned that there are more realistic(and therefore accurate) ways to test. Those too won't be perfect, but they would be better.

I am smart enough to know I am not smart enough to design and run better testing. I can see the glaring, and now documented, flaws in the VT testing though.

It's just plain odd that an organization would know they are testing a product in a manner which doesn't come close to accurately representing actual use, refuse to use a more realistic test option, and then push their results out to the public as a way to inform.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

That isn't my criteria. I've mentioned that there are more realistic(and therefore accurate) ways to test. Those too won't be perfect, but they would be better..

If there are more realistic ways to test, then who is using them? And where can we find the results?

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

It's just plain odd that an organization would know they are testing a product in a manner which doesn't come close to accurately representing actual use, refuse to use a more realistic test option, and then push their results out to the public as a way to inform.

You have just described pretty much every standardized helmet test method. For example, the current CPSC test was designed only to test for protection from cranial fracture. But we now know that the cranium doesn't have to be fracture to produce a major brain injury, and forces well below cranium fracture can produce concussions. Just about everyone agrees that the CPSC test (which hasn't been changed in nearly 25 years) is outdated. And yet, every helmet model sold in the US is tested against, and must pass, the CPSC test.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

You have just described pretty much every standardized helmet test method. For example, the current CPSC test was designed only to test for protection from cranial fracture. But we now know that the cranium doesn't have to be fracture to produce a major brain injury, and forces well below cranium fracture can produce concussions. Just about everyone agrees that the CPSC test (which hasn't been changed in nearly 25 years) is outdated. And yet, every helmet model sold in the US is tested against, and must pass, the CPSC test.

Yeah- it's mind-bogglingly dumb on many levels.

"Hey this required safety test doesn't test real safety."
"Well its what we have in place, so let's keep it going!"


"Hey this safety test uses an unrealistic dummy and the results are therefore both skewed and invalid."
"Sure we could use more accurate tools to run these tests, but this is what we have so let's keep it going!"

It's just goofy for both.

[carlucci1106]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

Yeah- it's mind-bogglingly dumb on many levels.
"Hey this required safety test doesn't test real safety."
"Well its what we have in place, so let's keep it going!"...

Unfortunately, there are bigger conundrums in testing/approval in the world. Watching a documentary on medical devices a while back, I was informed that the only thing needed for the FDA to approve a prosthesis is that it is notably similar in design/form/function to a device that has previously been approved.

This would include artificial joints (one in particular that contained cobalt components) that caused a corrosive reaction in the body of some patients, massive internal bleeding and poisoning of the blood-- enough to kill a person if untreated in a timely fashion.

There are countless examples where the FDA has approved devices that caused harm to patients, that were approved in this fashion, where the original device it was similar to caused significant harm, and was pulled from the market.

My point is that the lack of real world testing in devices that are meant to improve physical condition or prevent injury are fraught with loopholes and inconsistencies. Bike helmets are pretty low on this hierarchy, as the general public cares very little, as long as you are wearing one when they hit you with their SUV.

[sjbraun]

I paid $250 for one of these last year. I balked at the price until I placed it on my head. It's easily the most comfortable helmet I've owned. And now they're on sale for $125.

[carlucci1106]

Originally Posted by carlucci1106

You do not need to fabricate or conflate scientific data to sell bike stuff. Get more people riding bikes, and you sell more helmets. This is a result of that not happening, I am certain.

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...4#.Y-gUSHbMK5c

Cue golf clap.