A response from SHARP

[very-near]

I wrote to them a few weeks ago asking if they had any plans to test cycle hats. I just got the response.

Dear V-N

Thank you for your enquiry to the SHARP website.

Unfortunately we are only testing motorcycle helmets.

We would be unable to test cycle helmets.

The testing consists of 30 linear and 2 oblique impacts on each motorcycle helmet
over three impact velocities (6, 7.5 and 8.5 metres per second). Each helmet is
impacted on the front, rear, crown, left and right sides. At total of 9 helmets are
tested per helmet model to generate the SHARP rating. The rating is calculated by
measuring the peak acceleration (peak 'g') that the brain experiences during an
impact combined with the probability of risk of injury on UK roads at that impact
site. This probability of risk has been derived from DfT accident studies involving
motorcycle accidents which resulted in slight, seriously injured or killed outcomes.

I am sure you can appreciate that there is a deep scientific base to the helmet
rating that cannot thoroughly be described via email.

To that end SHARP will be issuing a descriptive document very soon for publication
on the website.

Kind regards


SHARP Team


Enquiry:

Hi

Is there any plans to introduce the SHARP testing standard to cycle hats as there is
no legislation covering their use, and on the many cycling forums, the debates rage
on about their effectiveness.

Testing would either prove or disprove the argument and you are in the position to
do this.

It wasn't the answer I was hoping for

 

[MartinC]

Good post.

They seem to have a very rigorous and well thought out approach to testing. Presumably they're using helmet samples they've sourced themselves (i.e. off the retail shelf). I'd be (genuinely) very interested to see the how they derive their probability of risk figure. It seems that DfT are collecting useful stats here.

I can see that they'd be phased at being asked to test cycle helmets. In the context they work it'd be like asking them to test chocolate teapots - nothing would survive the first attempt at a test.

It certainly illustrates the gulf in design between motorcycle and cycle helmets.

 

[MartinC]

Just worked it out - 8.5 metres/sec is about 19mph. Not a very ambitious target scenario for a motorcycle accident.

 

[theclaud]

Good post.

Quick, Linf - print this off and frame it!

 

[very-near]

I honestly can't see why the tests on the m/cycle lids cannot be done on a cycle hat if they are being tested in the cycling speed range (19mph)

The authorities bang on about how important it is to wear a cycling hat, but deny the opportunity for the pro-choice crowd to examine the findings of a comprehensive comparitive test.

Given a fatal RTA costs upwards of £100k to resolve, testing would be small beer.

After all the heads and contents which go in m/cycle helmets are the same ones which also go in cycle hats (in a great many cases I know of)

 

[MartinC]

Quick, Linf - print this off and frame it!

Is this a comment on my posts or his? Or both?

 

[byegad]

You don't fund government research if it's likely to give results you don't want. If, as I suspect, it came up with minimal benefits, or even negative benefits, the nanny state could not introduce another 'safety' measure i order to justify their own existence.

 

[Tony]

My anecdotal evidence for m/cycle lids is of dying (technically) after splitting one following being hit by a car. The lid in question was a carbon fibre race helmet and weighed a ton.
I rather feel that Byegad's post is spot on. If a cycle helmet was tested in the conditions my biker lid had to endure, it would evaporate. And I was only doing 30 mph.....

 

[very-near]

You don't fund government research if it's likely to give results you don't want. If, as I suspect, it came up with minimal benefits, or even negative benefits, the nanny state could not introduce another 'safety' measure i order to justify their own existence.

So why do it for motorcycle helmets as well if the message is the same to both groups of users (protect your head) ?

 

[thomas]

Just worked it out - 8.5 metres/sec is about 19mph. Not a very ambitious target scenario for a motorcycle accident.

I don't know if this is true, but I'd imagine most accidents happen at lower speeds. In the past 5 years my Dad has had two motorcycle accidents, one at about 10 mph, the other he was doing 0mph.

 

[stoatsngroats]

So why do it for motorcycle helmets as well if the message is the same to both groups of users (protect your head) ?

Because of the legal requirement to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle...?

 

[very-near]

Because of the legal requirement to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle...?

Through my own experiences and that of those I know, I have seen the value of a crash helmet. Everytime I've come off, the helmet shell has been marked with an impact.

 

[yello]

I don't know if this is true, but I'd imagine most accidents happen at lower speeds. In the past 5 years my Dad has had two motorcycle accidents, one at about 10 mph, the other he was doing 0mph.

I would be surprised if they did. I suspect your father accidents are not typical. As I recall, and I stand to be corrected, the majority don't involve another vehicle and are the result of the rider loosing control (e.g. cornering).

 

[very-near]

I would be surprised if they did. I suspect your father accidents are not typical. As I recall, and I stand to be corrected, the majority don't involve another vehicle and are the result of the rider loosing control (e.g. cornering).

It is about a third of the total numbers, and this can also include hitting diesel, black ice etc etc

 

[Dayvo]

Is this a comment on my posts or his? Or both?

His posts!

The Claude and Linford LB/Very-Near have history!