Safer heads: New generation of helmets aims to help save 1000 lives per year

[weeksy]

https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/mot ... dards-law/

Spring 2021 sees a new breed of helmets hit the shelves. The Arai Quantic sports-touring lid is the first to meet tougher standards which will ensure that helmets are more protective in real-world accidents.

The prospect of safer lids is good news for us all, but how will it change the helmets we buy in the future and does it mean the lids we’re currently wearing are no longer any good?

For a helmet to be legal on UK roads it must conform to UNECE Regulation 22, which ensures all helmets are made to a basic protective standard.
The new version, ECE 22.06 is the first major update to the regulation in 20 years and is much more stringent than the version it replaces. Not only does it demand helmets undergo many more impact tests, at both higher and lower speeds, at more points on the helmet as well as an angled impact, it also requires that lids are tested with any official accessories fitted to prove they don’t compromise protection.

The visor is also tested to simulate being impacted by a high speed object. In short, it’s a much more real-world test than before.

Phased-in over the next three years, after January 2024 it will become illegal to sell – but not wear – a non-conforming lid, meaning there’s no legal requirement for you to rush out and buy a new ECE 22.06 helmet immediately.

Why did helmet safety standards need updating?

A lot has moved on in 20 years, including what we know about bike accidents and how the head reacts to impacts sustained in them. A huge scientific study of what happens to a rider’s head and neck during real-world bike crashes (COST 327), found that rapid rotational motion caused when a helmet hits the ground at an angle and transfers shear force to the brain was responsible for over 60% of brain injuries.

Owing to the findings from this study, 22.06 is the first official standard to include an angled abrasion drop test, however this test has been part of both the DfT’s SHARP helmet rating test since 2008 and also the FIM’s 2017 FRHPhe-01 homologation for MotoGP and WSB helmets.

What does the new rotational test mean for helmets?

In time, it may mean that we see more helmets fitted with internal slip planes, such as the MIPS Brain Protection System, or featuring next generation materials like Koroyd (made up of polymer tubes), but only once the standard evolves further.

MIPS co-founder Peter Halldin told MCN: "The thresholds to pass ECE 22.06 are relatively high, making it easy to pass, and a lot of helmets will get through without an implemented technology. However, the importance of the standard is that rotational motion is now on the map. This is the first official standard that actually includes rotational motion in the testing, which we think is great.

"We and many brands believe that requirements will increase over time and then it is important to make sure that helmets can pass the test. Given that development time of a motorcycle helmet can easily take two-to-three years, it is time to start now. We have seen more brands contacting us and wanting to launch MIPS due to this."

Will new helmets look and feel different?

Manufacturers are being a bit tight lipped about whether there will be any noticeable changes to the helmets we buy and wear.

But given that the new ECE 22.06 shares some similarities with the racing-only FIM standard, and the current crop of FIM-homologated lids are slightly heavier than their non-FIM approved versions (AGV’s FIM-spec Pista GP-RR is on average 100g heavier than the standard Pista GP-R thanks to a 5mm thicker carbon shell), we may see helmets become a little heavier – although not so much that you’d notice it.

Arai told MCN that they create their helmets to be as safe as possible in real accidents, not just to pass a test, and that their round helmet shell shape helps deflect energy from oblique or glancing impacts. In this respect, Arai say that meeting the criteria of the new test meant that they made no compromises to their traditional shell shape or thickness. They do admit that they have had to make their EPS softer than before.

Does that mean current helmets aren’t any good then?
The study that underpins ECE 22.06 found that, although current helmets are effective, significant improvements could be made through new standards and save the lives of 1000 bikers across Europe every year.

Of course, regulations only set the minimum acceptable safety standards and, as proved by the SHARP helmet rating scheme, some helmets protect more than others.

A spokesperson for SHARP said: "Even with enhanced regulation, there is still expected to be a range of performance offered, and it remains the aim of SHARP to provide consumers with a relative comparison of safety, so that this can be factored into their decision. As regulations evolve, so will SHARP and we are planning a review of the SHARP testing and rating protocols."

[Mr Moofo]

The first difference is that they will be more expensive ....

[DefTrap]

My current lid cost me 50 quid - it rated high (well 4/5), and still does, on the Sharp scale. I probably wouldn't have considered one in that price bracket without the rating. It looks ok, it's comfortable enough. From memory this was the first lid I actually gave a great deal of thought about Sharp ratings. Prior to that it was mainly about trying on as many as possible for best fit and comfort, then finding one in a price range that wasn't too hideous and that a local shop actually had in stock. My local shop in the 90s only stocked Nolan as far as I recall. After that I thought I'd better find something 'decent', hence a Shoei but again no idea how that rated on the safety scale. I bought a Shoei because it was cool.

My next lid I imagine I'll follow Sharp guidance again, improving standards is a good thing.
I think my favourite leathers are about 20 years old now. I imagine there is safer / better kit out there but that's literally all I have to go on. It's quite possible that my old favourites are still good enough.

[JackyJoll]

The first difference is that they will be more expensive ....

If you’ve got a less expensive head...

[Bigyin]

Strangely some of the more expensive helmets dont actually score that highly on Sharp ratings. My Arai Tour X4 has never actually been tested by Sharp, Arai Astro only scores a 3 star and the Shoei Neotec 2 a 4 star.

Arai as have been mentioned above always say their helmets are made for safety not aimed at passing a test. The cheapo Box helmet i bought as a temporary flip up scores the same as most Arai's at 3 Stars. I know i am glad i had the Arai on when i bounced my head down the road rather than the Box as it took 3 hits in different parts and directions and not convinced the cheaper helmet would have stood up as well.

There have been various questions raised over the method of testing Sharp uses and their assertion that the majority of accidents results in a side impact yet other studies show the majority of impacts are to the front and then have some side damage which would give different ratings if Sharp changed their testing methods to reflect this. This anomaly means the top range £450 Arai RX7 (the racers choice for those using/sponsored by Arai) scored only a 3 yet a £60 Lazer LZ6 got a 5 star rating.

I'll need to change my presentation from ECE 22.05 to the newer 06 when we get back to teaching

Expect a lot of sale prices towards Black Friday 2023 when retailers try to offload helmets they wont be able to sell from Spring 2024

[Mussels]

Some years back I read that Snell standards were the best and looked into it, turns out that a Snell rated helmet was more likely to save a life than a BS one but the Snell was also more likely to leave someone with permanent brain damage.
I always treat claims that one safety standard is better than another with some scepticism.

[Horse]

There have been various questions raised over the method of testing Sharp uses

Did you mean this?

Wiki says

Nigel Mills of the University of Birmingham criticised the SHARP scheme in a paper in 2009, examining its testing of rotational acceleration,[4] despite SHARP using the test procedures specified in British Standards BS 6658, and also the United Nations World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations ECE Regulation 22. The UK's Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) delivered a detailed response addressing the Nigel Mills paper in November 2009.[5] SHARP stress that irrespective of their own ratings, all helmets sold in the UK have been certified to comply with the relevant legal standard, namely ECE R22.[6] However, it also points out that there is a 70% difference in protection between a SHARP one star rating compared to their five star rating.[3]


http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/c ... atings.pdf

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/repor ... _mills.htm

[Bigyin]

I went looking after an MCN article a while back as well as a couple of other web pages and also found the Nigel Mills report but in a brief and reduced version. when i tried to find the full report it wasnt available, only the Abstract version without paying out and i wasnt that interested to shell out for material

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... ccess=true

Both the links you posted are error 404 not found when i clicked on them and i tried them a few times

I recall a conversation with an Arai helmet tech a few years ago about the ratings and he wasnt that glowing of Sharp ratings either ..... some would imply he might be pissed off at them not rating Arai helmets highly or from the conversation we had he thought their testing wasnt as comprehensive as it could be and didnt show them as they could have been rated.

[Horse]

Sorry, knew I'd seen the links somewhere, so didn't check before copying.

The response is now DfT.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 0aw96GOkIA

[Horse]

And .

Critical evaluation of the SHARP motorcycle helmet rating – May 2009

https://motorcycleminds.org/virtuallibr ... 2sharp.pdf

[Dodgy69]

I'm not convinced these lids are any safer. Big impacts etc. In real world public road accidents, your either lucky, or your not. Imo.

On track..

[The Spin Doctor]

There's an argument that says that helmets have already reached the point where in a crash which is severe enough to cause a fatal head injury, there's likely to be fatal internal injuries. The head injury just kills you a bit faster.

[Scootabout]

I tend to think that not having a crash is the goal. Once you have one, things are sort of in the lap of the gods anyway. So Sharp, ECE22, Snell...take your pick but try not to crash.

[The Spin Doctor]

I tend to think that not having a crash is the goal. Once you have one, things are sort of in the lap of the gods anyway. So Sharp, ECE22, Snell...take your pick but try not to crash.

Always my preferred option. Riders happily spend £400 on a helmet, but quibble about a course costing half that.

[JackyJoll]

Here’s a guy who’s all for it.

[Cousin Jack]

Some years back I read that Snell standards were the best and looked into it, turns out that a Snell rated helmet was more likely to save a life than a BS one but the Snell was also more likely to leave someone with permanent brain damage.
I always treat claims that one safety standard is better than another with some scepticism.

Some (like 20+) years back I read a long and very detailed article in a US motorcycle magazine that said more or less that ^

In essence the Snell is stiffer and more resistant to spike penetration. What it doesn't do as well is deform and cushion your head. So if you hit a kerb with your head your helmet stops, doesn't break, and your brain bounces around inside your skull. The UK/EU standard is less good at stopping spikes, but rather better at absorbing energy and cracking/delaminating to disperse it so your brain doesn't have to.

[Scootabout]

Some (like 20+) years back I read a long and very detailed article in a US motorcycle magazine that said more or less that ^

In essence the Snell is stiffer and more resistant to spike penetration. What it doesn't do as well is deform and cushion your head. So if you hit a kerb with your head your helmet stops, doesn't break, and your brain bounces around inside your skull. The UK/EU standard is less good at stopping spikes, but rather better at absorbing energy and cracking/delaminating to disperse it so your brain doesn't have to.

And I imagine hitting a blunt object like a road or a kerb, or even a lamp post, is more likely than hitting a spike. (Oops, that Hot Fuzz film has just sprung to mind..)

[Cousin Jack]

IMHO hitting ANY object with your head is a fool's game.

[The Spin Doctor]

IMHO hitting ANY object with your head is a fool's game.

Indeed but even if you topple sideways off the bike at a standstill the whiplash effect of the mass of your head on your neck is likely to end up with a bang of the head on the road surface. A significant chunk of the fatal accidents in non-helmet states in the US are of this sort - avoidable with a lid, even a cheapie DOT rated one.

[Hot_Air]

Aside from whether higher helmet standards save lives (an argument for SHARP), there's growing evidence that rotational injury leads to dementia in later life. And it's one of the reasons for the new 22-06 standard's test of protection versus rotational injury. A bump on the head (that isn't enough to kill you) could cause be a cause of dementia years later.

Aeons ago, the Ozzies had cottoned onto the importance of rotational injuries. Their CRASH test results get past the marketing hype of Arai's smooth shells versus MIPS – an exciting read, if you've got the head for it