Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 4/8/2025 12:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 4/8/2025 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:

>
In fairness, the present bicycle helmet standards are not enforced by any law

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Bicycle_helmet#History_of_standards
 "United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) created its own mandatory standard for all bicycle helmets sold in the United States, which took effect in March 1999.[1]"
 

The truth is more probably that the present impact amelioration levels are clustered around the nexus of weight, price, vision and effectiveness where some viable volume of sales will support them.

 When the (eventual) CPSC standard was first written, back in the 1970s, there were immediate criticisms that it was far, far too weak. (And that was long before the importance of rotational acceleration was realized.) Many articles complained that it produced no effective protection against crashes with cars, which have always been the main cause of bicyclist deaths.
 The defense by the standard writers was "This is the best we can practically do." IOW, anything more protective would be to large, too heavy, too unventilated to convince people to wear.
 So we're left with helmets that lots of people think are not too bothersome to wear, but that offer insufficient protection for most serious crashes.
 

Yes and yes.
CPSC only has an administrative specification for a product. There's no penalty for not using one.
You are also correct that, due to physics and marketing and user perception, they are mostly produced at some midpoint between effective and saleable. It is what it is and that's no one's fault.
Again, any rider may ride in a motorcycle or auto full face helmet. People don't. Why is that?
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971