
Bicycle helmets haven't changed since their introduction - robg
http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/
======
kamjam
This was a really interesting read. To think that all this research spawned
off a visit to the bike shop to replace his daughters bike helmet!

 _The Air Attack perfectly illustrates what drives most helmet innovation:
performance_

For most everyday commuters, some safety is required at a reasonable price. So
a $40 helmet will suffice. For more serious and avid cyclists, they will more
likely splash out for the more expensive honeycomb MIPS design.

It took a while for the article to get there, but I was thinking all the time
I was reading this about the lightweight honeycomb bike helmets that the
British Cycling Team adopted for their Olympics:

[http://www.designweek.co.uk/news/crux-product-design-
creates...](http://www.designweek.co.uk/news/crux-product-design-creates-new-
helmets-for-british-cycling-team/3034708.article)

[http://www.trackcyclingnews.com/olympics12bchelmets.html](http://www.trackcyclingnews.com/olympics12bchelmets.html)

 _Extensive testing found that aluminium honeycomb, often used within the
aerospace industry, worked well as a material for the helmet core. When
combined with the unique dual shell, it was said to outperform previous
designs in terms of absorbing impact energy efficiently and ensuring
deceleration forces weren 't transferred to the wearer._

------
mixedbit
Inflatable bike helmet hidden in a scarf is quite a revolutionary idea in this
space (already on the market, but expensive):

[http://gizmodo.com/5949067/the-ridiculous-high+concept-
infla...](http://gizmodo.com/5949067/the-ridiculous-high+concept-inflatable-
bike-helmet-is-finally-buyable)

------
revelation
They haven't changed because they are an obvious dead end. Professional sports
aside, it makes no sense to force an everyday commuter to wear such a thing
for a very dubious return in safety while we put up with automobile transport
and retarded city designers.

Bicycle helmets are the equivalent of telling homeowners they should build a
nuclear bunker for their home because we have no interest in ensuring safety
standards for nuclear reactors fearing that could cause prices to go up.

~~~
ajross
Cite for the "bike helmets are ineffective" assertion? It's belied by the
statistics in the linked article, among other things like fairly
straightforward intuition...

~~~
pessimizer
[http://www.cyclehelmets.org/](http://www.cyclehelmets.org/)

>fairly straightforward intuition

Ignore this when thinking about statistics.

------
notatoad
A little bit like bicycles themselves. sure, we've got full suspension and
electronic shifting and remote lockouts and carbon fibre and all kinds of
other fun stuff now, but it's all really just garnish. a bicycle you buy today
is not fundamentally different from a bicycle you might have bought 100 years
ago. all the core mechanisms are identical.

~~~
revelation
They are all garnish because there is no culture around bicycles as everyday
transportation. So it's become an enthusiast market with flashy inventions but
little improvement in the core categories like reliability or safety.

It's a market where all you can buy is the kids plastic version of a Porsche
or a literal Porsche.

~~~
mesofile
Actually, there has long been a strong culture of bikes as transportation for
ordinary people in Europe, and to a great extent this has bled over to US
cities as more commuters have taken up cycling and created a demand for more
utilitarian gear. In the late 90s I had the same complaint you make above, but
this is no longer the case. Along with their road and MTB lines all the major
marques have introduced a range of 'street' or 'city' models.

The real challenge of improving anything in cycling, from an industrial design
perspective, is that a bike is a product whose primary virtue is minimalism.
Adding features can be useful for certain niche markets (suspension for
downhillers, aero bars for racers) but for the most part a bike is only
improved when one can deliver the same (or improved) characteristics of
handling, comfort and durability while using less material. Sometimes this is
a question of design improvement, but this is rare -- many designs recur over
decades (like integrated headset bearings) without ever really becoming
essential. More often improvements come from better materials and fabrication
techniques.

------
devilshaircut
If you want protection from injury on your bicycle, you are better off with a
motorcycle helmet than a bicycle helmet, end of story. As has been stated by
previous posters, bike helmets are largely ineffective. Bike helmets solve the
cyclist protection problem for a small subset of crashes.

The only real innovation I've seen in bike helmets lately is this:

[http://www.hovding.com/en/how_it_works?/en/how](http://www.hovding.com/en/how_it_works?/en/how)

Without this kind of total reimagining of bike protection, I doubt it is
possible to innovate on what is currently classified as a helmet for cyclists.

EDIT: Link already posted by a previous poster, of course.

~~~
MartinCron
Once you go that far, you might as well ride a motorcycle or a scooter. You
can wear much better safety gear and are fast enough to keep pace with
traffic.

~~~
devilshaircut
There is nothing preventing a cyclist from wearing motorcycle gear on a bike.
I would never do it though because it isn't practical. But this is precisely
the point I am getting at and in fact I do not wear a helmet at all.

As for saying "you might as well ride a motorcycle or a scooter" \- you're
missing the point entirely. As a cyclist, I don't ride for any other reason
than I prefer it.

If you want to say that a car is slower, I would beg to differ. In normal
commuting traffic, I blow past the parking lot that urban streets effectively
become at rush hour.

------
stox
Although the appearance has not changed much, the mechanics have. Helmets
built in the mid 1970's were too hard. As a result, during certain accidents,
they would enhance the likelihood of breaking one's neck. Later designs would
absorb much more of the impact, providing greater protection.

------
pconf
This isn't really an educational article. I say that because of the studies it
selectively cites and the conclusions they reach.

For example it's fine to call a facial skin abrasion a "head injury" if you
are clear about that definition in the research. It's another thing to cite
research about "head injuries" and helmet use without mentioning what they
means by a head injury.

The article also fails to cite research that contradicts the authors bias.
Academic work such as Robinson's longitudinal study of AU or numerous pieces
in the British Medical Journal (as referenced at
[http://www.boycottbell.com/](http://www.boycottbell.com/) ) appear to have
been carefully avoided.

For these reasons, and the fact that Bicycling Magazine is heavily funded by
helmet advertising, it would be naive not to see the advertising influence in
this article which goes out of its way to appear to be educational.

The unfortunate result of this sort of "journalism" is that people with little
cycling experience and no knowledge of epidemiology read it and assume it is
true despite the fact that 98% of the world's bicycling population don't wear
helmets and their incidence of true head injuries are uniformly lower among
them than the US' helmeted riders. Another downside to this propaganda is that
many kids never take up cycling in the first place and many of those who do
ride are afraid to venture outside of bike paths, sidewalks and super-low-
traffic routes.

From a foreigner's perspective this illustrates American's naivete with
regards to sales and marketing and their relatively undeveloped bicycling
ecosystem. I for one hope both of those dysfunctional cultural attributes
improve with the rising price of petrol.

------
PencilAndPaper
I dont have time to read the whole of this very interesting but LONG article
to see if he mentions airbag helmets.

I am skeptical about how well these airbags protect one's face, but its an
interesting new take on protecting your head.

[http://www.hovding.com/en/how_it_works?/en/how](http://www.hovding.com/en/how_it_works?/en/how)

They also have airbag jackets for motorcyclists

[http://www.bikebone.com/Air-Vest-Motorcycle-Airbag-Hit-
Air.h...](http://www.bikebone.com/Air-Vest-Motorcycle-Airbag-Hit-Air.htm)

~~~
mdesq
I've seen air vests for horseback riding as well. I wonder how horseback
riding helmets compare to bicycle helmets.

~~~
malandrew
Although they aren't designed for impact mitigation, there are also airbag
vests for snowboarders and skiers in case they get caught in an avalanche. The
vest inflates large enough and helps you "float" to the top of the snow wave
that engulfs you.

------
nether
Helmets have changed substantially since their introduction, starting with the
"hairnet" designs
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#History_of_desi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#History_of_designs)
also shown in the classic film Breaking Away), better foam/shell materials,
fitting, visors that protect the nose from ground contact, and specialization
toward different types of cycling. Full-face helmets are used in mountain
biking for frontal impacts.

------
steelframe
As someone who cycles thousands of miles every year and who has smashed a
helmet on the pavement in the past, I happily paid over $200 for a MIPS helmet
-- the only one I could manage to find for sale in the U.S.

------
EvanAnderson
Obligatory invocation of Neal Stephenson, by way of a prior HN discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4390110](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4390110)

------
sliverstorm
For what it's worth, motorcycle helmets are in a similar position. As I read
this article, it's like a flashback to a similar article about motorcycle
lids.

Both are spec'd and designed for crazy impacts that are not frequent in the
real world, and sacrifice low-speed impact protection in the process.

I suppose you could say helmet standards are like an example of unintentional,
slightly misguided test-driven development.

~~~
DigitalJack
I've always thought Motorcycle helmets are most effective at low speed due to
their mass.

~~~
sliverstorm
I'm not sure I follow. How would their mass reduce effectiveness at speed?

------
rdouble
In the USA people tend to ride bikes with frame designs inspired by either
road or mountain racing bikes. This type of bike geometry makes it easy to get
thrown over the handlebars and land on your head should you have an accident.

However, in countries like China, the Netherlands and Denmark, the most
popular bikes are typically upright designs that haven't changed much in 100
years. These bikes are pretty much impossible to get thrown over the
handlebars, and as such you will never land on your head. The same goes for
beach cruisers, bromptons, citi bikes / velib, kids bikes and anything
described as a "leisure" bike.

For cyclists who use this sort of bike it doesn't matter that bike helmets
haven't changed much, because they are unnecessary for safety, anyway.

~~~
dragonwriter
Your position seems to presume that you cannot receive a head injury in a
bicycle accident without being thrown over the handlebars, which is rather
emphatically not the case.

~~~
rdouble
Sure, it's theoretically possible but you'd have to try pretty hard to hit
your head falling off a dutch bike. Anyone who manages that should probably
not be riding a bike in the first place.

------
cbr
"If an incremental safety improvement results in higher manufacturing costs,
the realized value of the improvement must outweigh those costs."

That actually sounds pretty reasonable.

~~~
VLM
The real cost is anyone who ever wore an old model helmet who ever got into an
accident of any sort will sue them the moment they change to a new model.

Picture yourself on the stand at trial trying to explain why you didn't safety
recall every model 1 after you released model 2. So did you intentionally
design model 1 to be faulty? It'll just be awful.

This huge headache has also been an issue for general aviation.

The third reason is improvement R+D costs money, and with virtually no
protection from Chinese copies, all that money is lost unless you can convince
people to pay more for a genuine helmet rather than a cheap copy with the same
improvement.

You can imagine some poor embattled CEO saying "forget it all, just license
this years disney characters, put some yoga pants in the ads, and call it
good".

