The Helmet Update
Volume 13, Issue 2 - December, 1995
All issues index
CPSC Standard Needs Your Comments Now!
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has approved a second draft of the U.S.
government bicycle helmet standard. The standard is based on ASTM impact levels and retention system tests, but CPSC has
added some new provisions for child helmets. Lower peak g levels (250 vs. 300 g) and more coverage are required for
helmets for children up to 5 years old. The draft also makes technical changes and clears up ambiguities. We applaud
those changes.
There are two changes we did not applaud. One is a small reduction in the required coverage in the rear of the helmet by
raising the test line 5 mm (3/16"). That places the line above Snell B-95, but below ASTM. We do not regard this as
a critical issue, but had asked CPSC to keep the lower line for best coverage.
The second change, on which we urge you to send comments to CPSC, regards a requirement for reflective tape or surfaces.
CPSC is conducting a study on the subject of nighttime bicycle safety, and pending that study has left just a blank space
in the draft instead of requiring reflective tape. Most helmets already have tape around the seam where shell and liner
meet anyway, but manufacturers do not want to spend the extra 24 cents to make it reflective. Some even use silver tape
that imitates reflective tape, fooling the consumer. We feel strongly that the standard should require at least some
reflective surface on the helmet. In nighttime demonstrations we and the CPSC staff noted that reflective tape on helmets
helps visibility by adding a reflective point at a higher level than bike reflectors, and drives home to a motorist that
there is a live human being there as well as a bicycle. Nobody is pretending that reflectors alone could replace lights
to ensure a rider's nighttime visibility, but few riders use or maintain lights, and the reflectors are at least always
there, whatever their effectiveness. CPSC needs comments on this subject.
We were also disappointed that CPSC will permit coding of the date of manufacture. This complicates recalls, since
cyclists who see a brand x recalled helmet on someone's head will not be able to tell them "All of those
manufactured in 1994 have been recalled." Nobody could remember a code in that situation. This is a step back from
the ASTM standard, which requires uncoded dates.
You can send comments to CPSC until February, addressing them to Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408. Or you can send them by email to info@cpsc.gov.
Just note that they are comments on the revised proposed Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets. We have the full draft if
you need a copy, as BHSIDOC# 561.
It's Time to Change the Message:
Standards are no Longer a Big Issue
The Consumer Product Safety Commission's progress on a new Federal bicycle helmet standard has changed the helmet
promotion landscape. CPSC is now enforcing a requirement that a helmet must meet one of its interim standards (ANSI,
ASTM, Snell, or CSA). It has also published its second draft of the required standard, which will probably take effect in
early 1997.
So here we are in late 1995. Helmets for 1996, covered in our "Show" article below, are almost universally
highly protective. By law, every one of them has to meet at least the old ANSI standard. If they carry an ASTM standard
sticker they have to meet that standard by law whether they are SEI-certified or not. CPSC will police that, no doubt
aided by manufacturers ratting on each other. We conclude that the likelihood of sub-standard helmets reaching the market
is no longer a major issue.
In the enclosed revision of our Consumer's Guide to Bicycle Helmets, you will see that we have made some changes in
emphasis. We still have a section on standards, and we still like Snell the best. But with the U.S. Government policing
the market, the message can concentrate on persuading people to buy a helmet in the first place, and making sure they
take the time to fit the helmet correctly. That should make the job a little easier. Development and improvement of
standards will continue, of course, but with the CPSC enforcement we are over the hump.
Helmets for 1996: Interbike Show Report
The biggest news at the Interbike show this year was that manufacturers are addressing the fit and strap adjustment
problems that are the number one consumer complaint. Beginning last year most manufacturers have been adding
"grippers" in the rear of their helmets to assist in fit and stability. This year many manufacturers have new
strap junction pieces, and some have added rubber o-rings to the buckle to try to control strap creep. Visors are
increasingly popular. Most are anchored with hook-and-loop to pop off easily in a crash, as they should, but a few are
rigid and solidly attached. Standards organizations in the U.S. will have to address that problem, as Australia has
already done. At present our standards do not cover the visor at all.
Finishes and colors were similar to last year, with the exception of some brighter graphics on the wilder designs and the
sudden rise of matte (flat) finishes. The matte finish gives a helmet an appearance of strength and looks very
professional. but does not address the problem of making helmets more visible on the road. There is also a trend toward
large stick-on letters for logos, of the type that are thick enough to give a raised effect. We have reservations about
those on the basis of durability and believe they could cause an unnecessary increase in the sliding resistance of the
shell.
Two years ago every serious helmet in the market had a Snell B-90 sticker in it. Last year that began to change, and this
year a large percentage of the production (Bell's huge share, for starters) had ASTM stickers with SEI certification
instead. Snell's stickers and followup testing charges are expensive in a highly competitive market, and as the country
moves to the CPSC's U.S. Government standard the manufacturers are betting that Snell approval is less a factor for
marketing. Unless otherwise noted below, the helmets we discuss are certified to Snell B-90, B-90S or to ASTM. We
consider a Snell B-95 model to be a premium helmet. Snell's N-94 standard requires tests with impacts on the same spot at
lesser force levels prior to the full drop-height test. A helmet that only meets the ANSI Z90.4 1984 standard is a decade
behind the times and should be rejected out of hand.
As the market has gotten tougher, the major manufacturers have turned to advertising agencies to up their hype level.
There are unfortunate examples below.
The mainstream helmet material continues to be expanded polystyrene (EPS--picnic cooler foam) although small
manufacturers are producing helmets from expanded polypropylene (EPP) and expanded polyurethane (EPU) foam. They claim
advantages. It appears that EPP does provide multiple impact performance, but it is more expensive and there may be a
rebound effect from EPP's more rubbery, less crushing, response to impact. The rebound takes place during the crash
sequence milliseconds after the data for Snell-style tests has already been recorded, but may be significant and nobody
knows what the effect is in the field. EPS remains an ideal crushing foam with almost no rebound, and for that reason
alone is probably still the material of choice for a single-impact helmet. General Electric's GECET variant, a
combination of EPS and a resin, still seems to be the hallmark of premium helmets. One manufacturer who is just putting a
first helmet on the market is using expanded polyurethane (EPU). While others have used EPU before, it has its own
special problems and may require technical skill that would be beyond most ordinary commercial foam shops. We have not
seen test results from EPU helmets.
Pricing is discouraging for the dealer. While competing with mass-merchant stores selling helmets for under $10 retail,
the best prices the dealer sees from their suppliers start at $8 per helmet, usually plus shipping. Dealers typically
double the wholesale price, so their prices will be almost double that of the discounter. It is no wonder some dealers
are resentful at Bell for putting the Bell brand on their discount line, formerly known only as BSI. Most are resigned to
the competitive situation and understand Bell's move, however. The dealer has to convince the consumer that the higher
style and higher quality helmets they sell, along with the services they provide, are worth the extra cost.
Some Show Highlights
Adidas showed helmets made for them by Pro-tec, including Pro-tec's multisport helmet. They offer a lifetime
warranty.
Advent has an adjustable inner band with a dial to vary the fit.
Avenir has a Corsair EPS helmet retailing for $30, a $40 GECET adult helmet with rear gripper and visor, and their
$50 VSR Comp GECET with visor. Their helmets all have a small but very bright die-cut rear reflective tab.
Bell improved their line for 1996 by dropping all but two of their old "hardcore" (a BSI trademark)
helmets with hard foam inserts around the vents. The sales staff said that Hardcore helmets were very expensive to
produce. Consumers should still avoid the Avalanche Pro and the Razor Pro models. Bell has a new flip tab on the strap
junction and a rubber o-ring to the buckle to help hold the strap better. Bell's top of the line helmets are inmolded, a
manufacturing technique which in the past has produced very good performance. They have matte finishes, but no reflective
surfaces at all to offset their low conspicuity. Some have visors with Velcro attachments, but Bell's literature says you
can use snaps or even screws if you want to. Bell has two different rear gripper attachments. Their child helmets all
have thin shells. Bell's pricing now ranges from super-cheap for their department store line to over $100 retail for
their top of the line models. Their sales literature projects average helmet prices dropping in 1996 to $15, down from
$21 in 1995. Bell's opinion: "If somebody doesn't do something quick, helmets will end up like water bottles: cheap
commodity items." Bell now offers a lifetime "nominal fee" replacement program.
Giro has a new high-end Helios helmet with about as much vent surface as solid helmet surface. They have rear
grippers, including one on their AirBlast model that separates and refastens below your pony tail, solving a heat and
moisture buildup problem for longhairs. They also have a new strap junction piece, rubber o-rings on the buckle and new
visors made of soft foam, which should prevent visor snags from jerking the head in a crash. Giro has matte finishes in
their line. They use reflective materials only on their child helmets. They will soon market a downhill racing helmet
called Mad Max with full face protection. Three of their models meet Snell's B-95 standard: the Express, Fat Hat and
Ricochet. Giro's current guarantee is a "nominal fee" replacement program for the first three years.
GT showed two helmets labeled Troy Lee designs with heavy, rigid plastic visors fastened on with screws, pointing
up the need for a visor test in the ASTM standard.
Helmet Worx has been bought by Itek, a major Canadian manufacturer of hockey helmets, and has moved all production
facilities to Canada. They are currently producing two models from GECET foam with their unique strap gripper in the
back, and pricing of $35 to $45. Their Headcase X-95 is Snell B-95 certified.
J & B Importers displayed Alpha helmets with dealer prices running $8 and up ($16 and up at the retail level)
in quantities of 12 or more for Snell-certified helmets, including one B-95 model. Alpha is made in USA, but we do not
know the company.
Louis Garneau showed their growing line of helmets including a new inmolded design with their thin ABS plastic
inner shell, their new strap junction piece, buckle and rear gripper. It has ASTM and CEN but not Snell certification,
and will sell for $110. They have some snappy-looking child helmets, and a suitably drab lid made of 10 per cent recycled
materials. They have a multiple-impact helmet made of GECET EPP, the first we have seen, and it is Snell certified. One
model has a titanium inner reinforcing ring while another has aluminum. There is a downhill racing model with a hard
shell and a chinbar. Garneau has five helmets on the Snell B-95 list (LG-10, LG-44, LG-55, S200 and S202). But their time
trial helmet only meets the ANSI standard. For the other models they advertise ASTM, CSA (Canada) and CEN (Europe).
Oryx has just begun producing in Israel a very interesting helmet made of expanded polyurethane (EPU). There is a
large red LED blinker embedded in a hollow in the rear of the helmet. The rear is designed to split and release the
blinker in a crash. They said the helmet meets Snell B90S, but it did not appear on Snell's September 28 list. It will
retail for about $50 if they can find any takers at that price.
Netti helmets were exhibited by CTEL, an importer. This Australian manufacturer produces an impressive looking
line of helmets, many of them inmolded with internal reinforcement and selling at retail prices of $40 to $50, a bit high
in today's market for a lesser-known brand. Netti helmets have reflective tape.
Pro Tec had a Snell B-95 helmet, the B-200 B, on display. It has the usual large vents, a rear gripper, and a
cloth-backed foam visor. Their Multi-Sport helmet for cycling, inline skating and skateboarding has Snell N-94
certification. At retail price
points of $37 to $50 they offer a lifetime warranty program. Pro-tec's literature has some rather astonishing claims,
among them:: the first to introduce a softshell and "first in performance..." Just for the record: Bell and
Giro introduced softshells in 1983 and 1986, when Pro-tec was introducing their hardshell Breeze model. And Consumer
Reports ranked the performance of a Pro-tec adult model 15th and a youth model last of the helmets they rated in August
of 1994. Curiously, the sales literature fails to mention Pro-tec's most notable innovation in helmetry: the internal
mesh reinforcing in their soft-shell Mirage model in the late 1980's was the first on the market with a basic and
much-copied improvement.
Troxel has a new strap junction fitting which can be tightened with a coin, rear grippers on several models and a
new single-tab buckle. Some models have pads made of ScotchFelt designed to wick perspiration to the sides to drip away
from eyes. Their visors are mounted with Velcro. Most of their models are still Snell-certified, except for the Catalina
"entry-level" helmet, which is an ASTM helmet, and the titanium-shelled ANSI-only Radius-Ti, featured in Troxel
ads as "the world's fastest helmet," a mystifying claim to say the least, with the warning that "at these
speeds, plastic melts." Absolutely! We understand the concept of image helmets, and hope that the Radius-Ti will
continue to sell poorly. Troxel's Vector model, with big vents but a large, obviously warm gripper in the back, is billed
as the "world's coolest helmet."
Vetta had two helmets: an Antares model from Taiwan with a sloppy shell/liner interface and no standards sticker
at all, and a Gryphon with a good shell fit and a visor with an l-shaped brace in the center which wrapped under the
helmet brow to a hook-and-loop pad. We don't like that design, which could snag if the visor is pulled upward.
Wolf Pro remains among the price leaders in the market. They have ended their association with Renaissance
Marketing. Dealer prices start at $8 and go all the way up to $16 for Snell-certified helmets. with $5 more for rear LED
flashers. Some of their models have rear grippers. We have no comments on any manufacturer who was not at the
Philadelphia show. Next year the rival trade shows will re-integrate and we hope to see everyone.
PTI Helmet Recall
The first helmet recall after the CPSC interim rule was adopted was undertaken by Protective Technologies International
last spring, recalling PTI's Jaguar Model 3060 child helmets manufactured before February, 1995. PTI has informed us that
it was a voluntary recall initiated by them rather than CPSC. Recalls seldom net even half of the defective helmets. Have
you seen any other notice of the recall? This points up the importance of the manufacturer's quality control and the
uncoded date in the helmet.
CPSC Announces Amnesty for Manufacturers
The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced on August 17 a new program to permit manufacturers to 'fess up about
flawed products they have not reported in the past, without paying any of the usual
penalties. There may be some helmet manufacturers who will take advantage of the amnesty, which will be available to them
for six months.
B-95 Snell Standard in Effect
The Snell Foundation has put into effect its B-95 Bicycle Helmet Standard. It has a positional stability test, slightly
increased test impacts, and a lower test line in the rear of the helmet. We do not consider it a major revision from the
consumer's point of view, although many current helmets fail to meet the rear coverage requirement.
Snell is permitting manufacturers to continue using the old B-90 standard, as well as the B-90 supplement adding a
positional stability test. This accommodates hundreds of current helmets which are unable to meet the new requirements,
particularly the increased coverage. When we last checked, Snell had certified 51 helmets from 21 manufacturers to their
new B-95 standard.
Snell has certified only a handful of helmets to its N-94 standard for multi-purpose helmets. That standard provides for
four "conditioning impacts" around the back of the helmet with a 1 meter drop before the full 2 meter drops are
performed. It also has a lower test line in the rear, corresponding to the requests from skaters for more rear protection
for backward falls.
ASTM Standard Revisions Stalled
ASTM's F-08 Committee has been working on a number of changes to its bicycle helmet standards, but has been largely
unable to make progress due to a combination of editorial problems and philosophical differences between committee
members over such issues as the maximum g level to be permitted for children, constant vs. size-variable headform
weights, how to specify a spray box and where to locate test lines. There will not be a new version of the ASTM standard
until at least mid-1996.
ANSI Adopts ASTM Standard
As we reported in April, the ANSI Z-90.4 bicycle helmet standard passed its 10th birthday on December 31, 1994 and was
"administratively withdrawn" by ANSI. The Z-90 committee met twice this spring and approved the adoption of the
ASTM F-1447 standard as
the ANSI standard updating the entire ANSI standard in one action. Harmonizing the two standards will eliminate a source
of confusion for consumers and reduce the amount of repetitive testing needed.
European Standard Takes Effect
We thought that the new CEN European standard for bike helmets took into effect on July 1. But Per Nygaard says
otherwise. It is in use by some people, one way or the other. It introduced a second helmet type for children with a
self-releasing buckle designed to prevent the wearer from strangling on playground equipment. We will have the new
provisions incorporated in our Standards Comparison before long.
Bike Shop Sued After Test Ride Death
A bike shop in Texas is being sued by the family of a customer who died of a head injury while test riding a bike. The
customer was reportedly offered a helmet but declined. The family alleges that the shop was negligent because it failed
to force the rider to wear a helmet.
BASF Pushing Expanded PolyPropylene
BASF is showing helmet manufacturers their EPP resin and a new process for making helmets. The process uses pre-heating
of the mold to melt the first layer of bead into a tough EPP skin. Then the rest of the bead is expanded into foam with
steam under pressure, producing a fully-formed helmet with the thin shell already on it. Samples looked good and might be
certified under multiple-impact standards. BASF said the EPP costs about 50 cents more per helmet than standard EPS,
which makes it a tough sell in the current market. One manufacturer, Aria Sonics, has been making EPP helmets for years
and claiming advantages for them, but has had difficulty marketing the material. They estimate the extra cost of EPP over
EPS to be on the order of $1.50 or $2 per helmet, but believe that the material's advantages will eventually be
recognized.
Note added later: Aria Sonics went out of business in 1997. Their helmet is no longer available. If
BASF can make the outer skin reflective or mold in the graphics their new process could be cost-competitive.
Bell Grows, Goes Discount
Bell is no longer using Snell certification, and is instead promoting the ASTM standard, with an eight million dollar
advertising campaign. Bell is now selling Bell brand helmets in discount stores for the first time, and has a more
expensive line for sale exclusively in bike shops called
Bell Pro. In late June, Bell Sports Incorporated completed its merger with American Recreation. The new company says it
has 70% of the world helmet market. Bell's stock price has fallen, (check out BSPT in the financial section of your
newspaper) and they announced their first-ever loss for the year in October.
New Australian Study is Top Notch Work
The Australians have a leg up on us in many helmet matters, and they have proven it once again with the publication of a
new reference work by Dr. Michael Henderson. Titled
The Effectiveness of Bicycle Helmets: A Review, this study is
destined to become a standard reference work, and will be essential for anyone beginning research in the field of bicycle
helmets.
Henderson is a physician who has spent most of his professional life in highway safety research and administration. He
established and ran Australia's first government crash research group and test lab, and he chaired the Standards
Australia committee that wrote the first standard covering bicycle helmets. In short, he is well known in the field.
For this study Dr. Henderson has digested the available literature and laid out chapters on why cyclists need helmets,
crash and injury characteristics, the biomechanics of head injury, the effectiveness of helmets, the history and
effectiveness of helmet laws, and more. He fits the relevant findings of hundreds of studies into a comprehensive
framework, adding his judgment and perspective to aid the reader. The text is fact-filled and it seems as if every other
sentence is a statistic. The study uses Australian experience as a starting point, but it is an international study.
There are a few questions not covered, notably the difference between Australia's 400 g test threshold and the 250 to 300
g threshold used by the rest of the world. But this study can save many hours for a researcher. We recommend it highly
for anyone engaging in a helmet debate-either side will find it invaluable.
Copies of the study are available from Anne Deans, Rehabilitation Manager, Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales,
Level 12, 139 MacQuarie Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia. Telephone from the U.S. is 011-61-2-252-4677 Fax
011-61-2-252-4710. We can supply copies from here if you send us $6.50 to cover our cost of photocopying and postage. As
for BHSIDOC# 586. We have asked Ms. Deans for permission to put the entire study up on our Internet website.
Army and Navy Require Helmets on Bases
The League of American Bicyclists reports that an Army Times article says that after April 13, 1995, all cyclists on Navy
bases were required to wear helmets. They report that at least some individual bases of other services also require
helmets. Riders on Army bases will be required to wear helmets "within the next few months."
BHSI News
We are enclosing the latest revision of our helmet pamphlets. You will note a change in emphasis from being careful about
standards to encouraging a good fit.
You can find this newsletter, our latest annotated bibliography, our Most Asked Questions About Bicycle Helmets, our
helmet standards comparison, statistics and a lot of other helmet stuff on our World Wide Web server at
http://www.bhsi.org. Many of you have visited, including browsers from at least 45 foreign countries. Our email
address is still
info@helmets.org. We still have our 24hour interactive Fax on Demand service at our regular phone
number, (703) 4860100. Faxes include statistics and background information for preparing press articles or speeches,
recent helmet industry articles from Bicycle Retailer and Industry News, this newsletter, our helmet standards
comparison, our pamphlets, our current list of helmet laws, our list of manufacturers, the 2nd draft of the CPSC standard
and more. We also have a recorded comment on current developments in helmets. The same number is our regular voice phone
number, so you can leave messages or even reach a live volunteer if you prefer old-fashioned human contact. If we are in
the office we pick up the line immediately when you select Option 2 to "talk to us or leave us a message."
We hope these different avenues for access will be useful.
(not included in this online version)
The Helmet Update - Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
Randy Swart, Editor
4611 Seventh Street South
Arlington, VA 22204-1419 USA
(703) 486-0100 (voice)
(703) 486-0576 (fax)
www.helmets.org