Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 175–183

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

The impact response of traditional and BMX-style bicycle helmets at

different impact severities
Alyssa L. DeMarco a , Dennis D. Chimich a , John C. Gardiner b , Gunter P. Siegmund a,c,∗
a
MEA Forensic Engineers & Scientists, 11-11151 Horseshoe Way, Richmond, BC V7A 4S5, Canada
b
MEA Forensic Engineers & Scientists, 23281 Vista Grande Dr., Suite A, Laguna Hills, CA 92653, USA
c
School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, 210-6081 University Blvd., Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Bicycle helmets reduce the frequency and severity of severe to fatal head and brain injuries in bicycle
Received 18 January 2016 crashes. Our goal here was to measure the impact attenuation performance of common bicycle helmets
Received in revised form 23 March 2016 over a range of impact speeds. We performed 127 drop tests using 13 different bicycle helmet models (6
Accepted 30 March 2016
traditional style helmets and 7 BMX-style helmets) at impact speeds ranging from 1 to 10 m/s onto a flat
Available online 11 April 2016
anvil. Helmets were struck on their left front and/or right front areas, a common impact location that was
at or just below the test line of most bicycle helmet standards. All but one of the 10 certified helmet models
Keywords:
remained below the 300 g level at an impact speed of 6 m/s, whereas none of the 3 uncertified helmets
Helmet
Acceleration
met this criterion. We found that the helmets with expanded polystyrene liners performed similarly
Bicycle and universally well. The single certified helmet with a polyurethane liner performed below the level
Skateboard expected by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) standard at our impact location and the
Foam absorber helmet structure failed during one of two supplemental tests of this helmet above the test line. Overall,
Impact attenuation we found that increased liner thickness generally reduced peak headform acceleration, particularly at
higher impact speeds.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Modern certified bicycle helmets, i.e., helmets < ∼ 10 years old,
generally consist of an energy absorbing liner made of expanded
Bicycle helmets reduce the frequency and severity of head polystyrene (EPS) or polyurethane (PU) and either a thin outer
and brain injuries from bicycle crashes (Thompson et al., 1999; shell (traditional style) or a thick outer shell (BMX-style). Some
McIntosh et al., 2011; Persaud et al., 2012; Elvik, 2013; Bambach BMX-style bicycle helmets are also certified to snow sport and/or
et al., 2013; Cripton et al., 2014). They achieve this reduction by skateboarding standards, whereas other skateboarding helmets
attenuating head acceleration, increasing impact duration, and dis- that appear similar to BMX-style helmets are not certified to any
tributing the impact force over a larger area of the head than standard, potentially confusing consumers.
without a helmet. The effectiveness of helmets in mitigating injury Only limited impact performance data for modern bicycle hel-
has led to laws requiring bicycle helmet use in many jurisdic- mets are available, mostly in the scientific literature (Mills and
tions. Since March 10, 1999, all bicycle helmets manufactured or Gilchrist, 2008; Dressler et al., 2012; Mattei et al., 2012; McIntosh
imported for sale in the United States are required to meet the and Patton, 2012; Hansen et al., 2013; McIntosh et al., 2013;
standard set by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Cripton et al., 2014; Mizuno et al., 2014) and consumer magazines
(U.S. CPSC, 1998). CPSC certified helmets now dominate the North (Consumer Reports, 2007, 2009, 2012). This limited availabil-
American market, although some bicycle helmets sold in North ity differs from motorcycle helmets, for which compliance test
America are also (and sometimes only) certified by other agencies, results (NHTSA, 2014) and ratings (http://www.crash.org.au/what-
such as the American Society for Testing and Materials Interna- is-crash.html) are available online, and football helmets, which
tional (ASTM, 2006a,b), the Snell Memorial Foundation (1998), the are rated with the STAR system (Rowson and Duma, 2012) also
European Committee for Standardization (1997, 2007) and Stan- available online (http://www.sbes.vt.edu/helmet.php). Moreover,
dards Australia/New Zealand (AS/NZS, 1996). bicycle helmets are typically tested only under the conditions stip-
ulated by the standards. For impact attenuation performance, this
typically means radial impacts above a defined test line onto vari-
∗ Corresponding author. ous anvils at specific impact speeds. While these well-defined test
E-mail address: gunter.siegmund@meaforensic.com (G.P. Siegmund). conditions are needed for certification, the resulting data are of lim-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.03.027
0001-4575/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
176 A.L. DeMarco et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 175–183

Table 1
Helmet label information.

Make and Model Year Size Certifications

Traditional-style
B1 CCM V15 Back-Trail 2009 S/M (54–58 cm) CPSC
B2 Supercycle 073-0445-8 2009 M (54–58 cm) CPSC, CE
B3 Giro Stylus 2007 M (55–59 cm) CPSC
B4 Giro Prolight 2010 M (55–59 cm) CPSC, CE EN 1078:1997/A1:2005
B5 Specialized Propero 2010 M (54–60 cm) CPSC, Snell B90A
B6 Specialized S-Works 2010 M (54–60 cm) CPSC, Snell B90A

BMX-style
S1 Protec Classic 2-Stage foam 2009 M (55–56 cm) None
S2 Protec The Classic EPS 2010 M (55–56 cm) CPSC, AS/NZS 2063:2008, ASTM 1447, CE EN 1078
S3 Bern Watts Hard Hat 2010 M (55.5–57 cm) None
S4 Bern Watts EPS 2009 M (55.5–57 cm) CPSC, ASTM F 2040, CE EN 1077 − Class B, CE EN 1078
S5 Bern Brentwood Zipmold 2011 M (55.5–57 cm) CPSC, ASTM F 2040, CE EN 1078
S6 Nutcase Street Classic Shell 2010 S/M (52–60 cm) CPSC, AS/NZS 2063:1996, CE EN 1078, TÜV GS
S7 RED Trace 2008 M (57–59 cm) CPSC ASTM F 2040-00, CE EN 1077

Table 2
Helmet specifications.

Make and Model Na Massb Shell Liner Vents

c d
(g) material (mm) material (mm)

B1-CCM V15 15 245 PVC 0.6 EPS 22.9 13

B2-Supercycle 15 216 PVC 0.9 EPS 28.9 15
B3-Giro Stylus 10 284 PC 0.38 EPS 33.3 26
B4-Giro Prolight 8 186 PC 0.25 EPS 30.0 25
B5-Specialized Propero 10 286 PC 0.7 EPS 31.4 34
B6-Specialized S-Works 8 228 PC 0.32 EPS 32.2 30
S1-Protec 2-Stage foam 4 357 ABS 2.7 PE 24.1 11
S2-Protec EPS 10 450 ABS 2.3 EPS 22.0 11
S3-Bern Hard Hat 4 486 ABS 3.3 PP/PUe 21.0 11
S4-Bern EPS 11 542 ABS 3.3 EPS 18.2 11
S5-Bern Zipmold 11 346 PVC 0.9 PU 21.3 11
S6-Nutcase 10 379 ABS 3.0 EPS 16.7 11
S7-RED 11 536 ABS 2.8 EPS 21.3 10
a
number of impact tests.
b
mass of helmet as tested.
c
PVC polyvinyl chloride; PC polycarbonate; ABS acrylonitrile butadiene styrene.
d
EPS expanded polystryrene; PE polyethylene; PU polyurethane; PP polypropylene.
e
Brock® Foam (PP beads coated with a thin layer of PU).

ited use for analyzing actual bicycle helmet impacts with varying (Table 1). The traditional bicycle helmets (numbered B1 to B6) had
angles, surfaces, locations and speeds. Data from real-world bicy- thin shells (<1 mm) and expanded polystyrene (EPS) liners, and one
cle helmet impacts indicate that contact to a flat surface (Williams, model (B6) had a dual density EPS liner. Models B1 and B2 had their
1991; Smith et al., 1993; Cameron et al., 1994) is common, and that shells and liners glued or taped together, whereas models B3 to B6
52–78 percent of the studied impacts occurred with the front/side had their shell and liner fused, i.e., a molded-in-shell design. Mod-
of the helmet (McIntosh and Dowdell, 1992; Smith et al., 1993; els B5 and B6 had internal reinforcing advertised as a “composite
McIntosh et al., 1995; Ching et al., 1997). Thirty-three to 63 percent matrix internal reinforcement” and “Kevlar-reinforced InnerMa-
of these impacts occurred at a region below the test line (Williams, trix” respectively. This reinforcing reportedly maintains tensile
1991; Cameron et al., 1994; Ching et al., 1997). These data also indi- strength when a lower density EPS is used (Mills and Gilchrist,
cate that impact severities above that stipulated in the certification 2006). Liner thicknesses varied between and within each model,
standards do occur in some cases, albeit rarely (Williams, 1991; with the largest variability in the vent regions (traditional helmets)
Cameron et al., 1994; Ching et al., 1997). and near the edges (both helmets).
Our goal was to measure the impact attenuation performance The BMX-style helmets (excluding S5) had thicker shells
of common North American bicycle helmets over a range of impact (>2 mm) and liners made of polyurethane (PU), polypropy-
speeds. We performed radial impacts to the front/side of the helmet lene/polyurethane (PP/PU), polyethylene (PE) or EPS. Only helmet
(near and sometimes below the test line) onto a flat anvil at a wide S5 had a molded-in-shell design; the others had their shells and
range of impact speeds (1–10 m/s). The impact speeds were chosen liners fixed together with glue, tape or VelcroTM . The BMX-style
to cover the range we see in our crash investigations, even though helmets had fewer vents than the traditional helmets (Table 2)
we recognize that helmet impacts at the upper end of this range and their liners generally covered more of the head. The thickness
are rare. measurements reported in Table 2 represent the thickest region
of the helmet within the area of impact (traditional helmets) or
the thickness at the impact area (BMX-style helmets). Helmet S3
2. Methods was advertised as a multi-impact helmet despite not being certi-
fied, whereas all others were designated single-impact (B1-B6, S2,
Thirteen helmet models were tested (Tables 1 and 2, S4-S7) or unspecified (S1).
Figs. 1 and 2). All helmets had a shell, an energy absorbing liner
and a comfort liner, but only 11 helmet models were certified
 A.L. DeMarco et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 175–183 177

Fig. 1. Traditional bicycle helmets tested in this study and their mid sagittal cross sections. The “X” shows the approximate impact location on each helmet.

All of the helmets were size medium (M) or small/medium (S/M) for impacts to or between the ribs of the traditional helmets. In
and fit the magnesium alloy headform (ISO J, Half Magnesium K1A, the helmets with impacts to both sides, the first impact was in the
Cadex Inc., Quebec, Canada). Detachable visors were removed for range of 1–7 m/s and there was no damage to the liner foam or hard
the testing, although removable ear covers were left in place. These shell affecting the subsequent test area.
alterations were trivial and did not affect the impact performance of The accelerometer signals were filtered using a 4-pole, dual-
the helmets. The chinstrap was secured snugly over a custom-made pass Butterworth filter with a roll-off frequency of 1650 Hz (SAE
chin bar using a small C-clamp (Fig. 3) and the plastic retention Channel Class 1000) before extracting peak headform acceleration
buckle components were removed. A 3.2 m tall monorail and trol- and calculating the head injury criterion (HIC). The relationship
ley assembly guided the helmets during the drop tests. For impact between peak headform acceleration and impact speed was mod-
speeds above 7.7 m/s, an elastic slingshot near the top of the mono- eled using a function that captured the three phases of compression
rail was used to increase the speed of the helmet. in polymeric foams: linear elastic region, collapse plateau and den-
A uni-axial accelerometer ±2000 g accelerometer (7264B- sification (Nagy et al., 1974; Zhang et al., 1998; Ouellet et al., 2006).
2000T, Endevco, San Juan Capistrano, CA) was fixed into the ball The viscoelastic relationship proposed by Nagy et al. (1974) was
arm where it fastened to the headform and was located at the adapted to the helmet response data by assuming peak head-
center of mass of the headform. The total mass of the moving form acceleration (apeak ) was proportional to foam stress, and
assembly (without the helmet) was 5.09 kg. Impact speed was mea- impact velocity (v) was proportional to both foam strain and strain
sured using high-speed video (250 fps) immediately before impact. rate (DeMarco et al., 2010). This yielded an equation with four
Accelerometer signals were acquired at 100 kHz. coefficients (A, b, c and d; Eq. 1) that was fit to the data using
Drop tests onto a flat steel plate were conducted against the the nonlinear regression function (nlinfit) in the Matlab Statis-
left side, right side or sometimes both sides of the helmets. A total tical Toolbox (Matlab 2013b, MathWorks, Natick, MA). For the
of 127 impacts (115 left- and 12 right-sided) were performed on two uncertified helmets without impact absorbers, the exponen-
116 helmets. The impacts occurred to the front/side of the helmets, tial term that captured densification (i.e., cvd ) was eliminated and
at or slightly below the test line that would be used in certification the model was reduced to a simple power function. The 95th per-
testing (see “X” in Figs. 1 and 2). The headform orientation remained centile confidence intervals and coefficients of determination (r2 )
constant for all helmets and no adjustments were made to account were also computed for each regression. For the subset of EPS-lined
178 A.L. DeMarco et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 175–183

Fig. 2. BMX-style bicycle helmets tested in this study and their mid sagittal cross sections. The “X” shows the approximate impact location on each helmet.

ening as peak headform acceleration and impact speed increased

(Fig. 4). All of the regressed curves and their 95th percentile con-
fidence intervals remained below the CPSC standard requirement
(300 g at 6.2 m/s onto a flat anvil; see red data point in Fig. 4).
The responses of the BMX-style helmets were more variable,
but generally fell into three groups (Fig. 5). The two helmets that
did not comply with any standards (S1 and S3) exceeded 300 g at
impacts speeds below 5 m/s. The four certified BMX-style helmets
with EPS liners (S2, S4, S6 and S7) exhibited response curves similar
to the traditional bicycle helmets, but for two of the helmets (S6 and
S7) the 95th percentile confidence interval of the regressed curve
passed closer to or included the CPSC requirement (see red data
point in the lower panels for both helmets in Fig. 5). The approved
helmet with the polyurethane liner (S5) did not exhibit obvious
evidence of densification at higher impact speeds and the 95th per-
centile confidence interval of its regressed curve passed above the
CPSC requirement (Fig. 5).
Fig. 3. Oblique view of the test setup showing the chin bar and the helmet config-
uration.
The nonlinear regression models for the individual helmets
(r2 = 0.886–1.000) fit the data better than the regressions for
the pooled traditional helmets (r2 = 0.836) or the pooled EPS-
helmets, the correlation between peak headform acceleration and lined BMX-style helmets (r2 = 0.690) (Table 3). The regression
liner thickness was then examined at a range of impact speeds. coefficients—particularly c and d—varied considerably between
  individual helmets (Table 3). For those helmets with EPS liners,
b+c vd
apeak = Av (1) however, there was a strong relationship between c and d (Eq. 2,
r2 = 0.997). Smaller values for c were associated with larger values
3. Results for d and yielded a sharper inflection at the onset of densification.

d = −0.2121 − 0.418ln (c) (2)

All helmets showed increasing peak headform acceleration with
increasing impact speed and energy (Figs. 4 and 5). The traditional Pooled data for all of the traditional and BMX-style helmets
bicycle helmets all behaved similarly, with impact duration short- showed that the EPS-lined helmets generally produced lower peak
 A.L. DeMarco et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 175–183 179

Fig. 4. Summary of headform acceleration versus time data (top graph of each panel) and peak acceleration versus impact speed (bottom graph of each panel) for each
traditional bicycle helmet. The upper graphs are color-coded for impact speed range. The red dot in the lower panels represents the CPSC impact performance criterion.
The solid lines and the pair of adjacent dashed lines represent the regression curve fits and their 95th percentile confidence intervals respectively. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

headform accelerations and HIC values at the moderate and high below 4 m/s (Fig. 6). Peak headform accelerations predicted by the
impact speeds, whereas the two helmets that used PU liners gener- regression models at 2, 4, 6 and 8 m/s showed that a significant pro-
ated lower peak headform accelerations and HIC values at speeds
180 A.L. DeMarco et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 175–183

Fig. 5. Summary of headform acceleration versus time data (top graph of each panel) and peak acceleration versus impact speed (bottom graph of each panel) for each
BMX-style helmet. The upper graphs are color-coded for impact speed range. The red dot in the lower panels represents the CPSC impact performance criterion. The solid
lines and the pair of adjacent dashed lines represent the regression curve fits and their 95th percentile confidence intervals respectively. The supplemental impact of helmet
S5 is shown as a dashed line in its upper graph and an open circle in its lower graph. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.)

portion of their variance (r2 = 0.56 to 0.82, p < 0.0063) was related 1 to 10 m/s. Ten of the 11 certified helmets remained below the
to the initial liner thickness in the EPS-lined helmets (Fig. 7). 300 g criterion at impact severities near those specified in the
CPSC standard, a finding consistent with previous studies that
reported certified helmets generally exceed certification require-
4. Discussion
ments (Williams, 1991; McIntosh and Patton, 2012). One certified
helmet (S5), however, reached 345 g at an impact speed of 5.85 m/s
This study compared the impact attenuation performance of
during our tests (this helmet was only tested once). This peak head-
various North American bicycle helmets at impact speeds from
 A.L. DeMarco et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 175–183 181

Table 3
Regression equation parameters (see Eq. 1) and their coefficients of determination (r2 ).

Nonlinear Fit Coefficients

Helmet Liner A b c d r2

B1-CCM V15 EPS 19.26 1.295 4.084E-08 6.902 0.992

B2-Supercycle EPS 17.42 1.302 2.567E-20 18.450 0.993
B3-Giro Stylus EPS 25.76 0.956 1.208E-03 2.371 0.995
B4-Giro Prolight EPS 25.51 0.997 8.323E-09 7.754 0.991
B5-Specialized Propero EPS 31.62 0.942 2.258E-20 18.783 0.969
B6-Specialized S-Works EPS 18.19 1.245 3.139E-09 8.112 1.000
All B helmets 25.20 1.025 5.03E-04 2.705 0.836
S2-Protec EPS EPS 46.43 0.866 8.850E-10 8.264 0.989
S4-Bern EPS EPS 37.32 0.971 7.354E-14 12.600 0.965
S6-Nutcase EPS 42.93 0.912 9.501E-07 5.969 0.988
S7-RED EPS 46.57 0.913 2.980E-08 6.716 0.954
All S EPS helmets 34.78 1a 3.45E-03 1.759 0.690
S1-Protec 2-Stage foam PE 0.05428 7.655 –b –b 0.886
S3-Bern Hard Hat PP/PU 22.44 1a 6.47E-10 13.598 0.999
S5-Bern Zipmold PU 10.53 1.952 –b –b 0.987
a
coefficient set to 1 to avoid an ill-conditioned Jacobian and allow convergence.
b
coefficients not included in model.

Fig. 6. Summary of the peak headform acceleration versus impact speed (top row) and head injury criterion (HIC) versus impact speed (bottom row) for the traditional
bicycle helmets (left column) and BMX-style helmets (right column). The solid lines and the pairs of adjacent dashed lines represent the regression curve fits and their 95th
percentile confidence intervals respectively for the combined EPS helmets only. The red dot in the upper panels represents the CPSC impact performance criterion. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

form acceleration exceeds the 300 g threshold for a 6.2 m/s impact the standard requirement (216 g). These results suggest that this
set out in the CPSC standard, but may be due to our choice of particular helmet provides less protection compared to the other
an impact location below the prescribed test line. To explore this certified helmets at the impact location we tested. Furthermore,
possibility, we conducted two supplemental tests of this helmet when impacted above the test line this helmet demonstrates a risk
make/model at ∼6 m/s at a right rear location that was above the for breaking apart (and potentially coming off the head) that was
test line and in a region where the energy absorbing liner was not observed in the other helmets.
thickest. One of the supplemental helmets (previously tested at Our impact location was at or slightly below the test line speci-
3.43 m/s at the left front region) broke apart during this supplemen- fied by the various standards to which the helmets were certified.
tal test (Fig. 8) and the other (previously not tested) was well below We chose this impact location because we commonly see impacts
182 A.L. DeMarco et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 175–183

minimum impact location requirements set out in the standards. It

also suggests that there is scope to lower the standard test line to
capture more of the kinds of helmet impacts that can occur during
actual use.
All of the traditional bicycle helmets we tested had EPS liners
whereas some of the BMX-style helmets used PE, PP and PU liner
foams. Two of these non-EPS helmets (S1 with PE foam, and S3 with
a combination of PP and PU foam) were not certified, and the other
helmet (S5 with PU foam) yielded higher peak headform acceler-
ations than the EPS-lined helmets at impact speeds of about 6 m/s
and higher. Data from crown impacts to other PU-lined helmets are
more like our data from the EPS helmets (Hui and Yu, 2002), and
suggests that the difference we observed between one PU helmet
and multiple EPS helmets could be related to something specific
in the model we tested (e.g., liner thickness) or our testing setup
(e.g., the proximity of our impact location to the edge of the helmet
foam). Further work comparing PU and EPS helmets is needed to
better understand their differences.
All of the bicycle helmets with EPS liners performed simi-
lar to the EPS-lined motorcycle helmets tested previously over
the same speed range (DeMarco et al., 2010). Nevertheless there
were still interesting differences within our sample of EPS-lined
bicycle helmets. The most obvious differences were that the
BMX-style helmets had hard shells, fewer vents and thinner lin-
ers (16.7–22.0 mm) compared to the traditional-style helmets
(22.9–33.3 mm, with all but one being 28.9 mm or more). Within
the traditional helmets, the liner thickness generally increased
with the number of vents, which suggests that manufacturers are
Fig. 7. Relationship between peak headform acceleration and helmet liner thick- increasing rib thickness to offset the absence of foam in the vent
ness at impact speeds of 2, 4, 6 and 8 m/s for the EPS helmets. The peak headform regions. Within all of the EPS helmets, we also found that increased
acceleration is predicted from each helmet’s regression equation and the coefficient
of determination (r2 ) is shown for each impact speed.
foam thickness yielded lower peak headform accelerations across a
range of speeds below and above the 6 m/s impact speed of the CPSC
standards (Fig. 7). This finding suggests that the additional foam
thickness used in highly vented helmets is offering more added pro-
tection than needed to offset the loss of foam in the vented regions.
This finding may also be related to foam density and internal rein-
forcing used in the various helmets, and could also be affected by
the hard shells used for the BMX-style helmets.
Low foam density likely explains the low peak headform accel-
erations and HIC values we observed in the uncertified PE and PP/PU
foam helmets (S1, S3) in the vicinity of 2 m/s (see inset Fig. 6). Given
similar foam thicknesses amongst most of the BMX-style helmets,
lower peak headform accelerations would be expected from foams
that compress more easily, up until that foam bottoms out. Once
the foam bottoms out, however, peak headform accelerations rise
rapidly and reach injurious levels below the impact severity where
this occurs in certified helmets. These large differences in impact
performance between different foams may not be obvious to con-
sumers, particularly since both uncertified helmets are externally
identical to a certified helmet from the same manufacturer (com-
pare S1 to S2, and S3 to S4 in Fig. 2). Comfort, weight, and possibly
even color, could lead a consumer to unknowingly purchase an
uncertified helmet instead of its certified brother.
Our results are limited to the helmets we tested and other
bicycle helmets may perform differently. We also tested only one
certified helmet with a PU liner, and additional work is needed to
characterize a larger population of these helmets above, at and
Fig. 8. Damage to helmet S5 following a supplemental test at 6 m/s onto the right
below the test line prescribed by the standards. Similarly, our
rear quadrant and above the test line.
results are restricted to a single impact location that was at or
below the test line specified by the relevant standards, and thus
near this location in our forensic work and we were unable to find may not represent a helmet’s performance at other impact loca-
data for how bicycle helmets perform at this location. Although tions. We also measured only uniaxial linear acceleration of the
our impact tests were not designed to comply with any of the stan- headform during orthogonal drops onto a flat anvil. This test con-
dards, our data indicates that all of the EPS-lined helmets would figuration does not capture the potential effects of other impact
likely meet the CPSC standard at our impact location. This encour- surface shapes or oblique impacts that may induce head rotation.
aging finding indicates that the helmets we tested are exceeding the
 A.L. DeMarco et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 175–183 183

In summary, we performed drop tests of 13 commercially avail- Hui, S.K., Yu, T.X., 2002. Modelling of the effectiveness of bicycle helmets under
able bicycle helmets at impact speeds ranging from 1 to 10 m/s at impact. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 44, 1081–1100.
Mattei, T.A., Bond, B.J., Goulart, C.R., Sloffer, C.A., Morris, M.J., Lin, J.J., 2012.
a common impact location at or below the test line of most bicycle Performance analysis of the protective effects of bicycle helmets during impact
helmet standards. We found that the helmets with EPS liners per- and crush tests in pediatric skull models. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 10, 490–497.
formed universally well. The single certified helmet with a PU liner McIntosh, A.S., Dowdell, B., 1992. A field and laboratory study of the performance
of pedal cycle helmets in real accidents. In: Proceedings of the International
performed below the level expected by the CPSC standard at our Ircobi Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact, IRCOBI Secretariat, Zurich,
impact location and failed during one of two supplemental tests Switzerland.
above the test line. McIntosh, A.S., Patton, D.A., 2012. Impact reconstruction from damage to pedal and
motorcycle helmets. J. Sports Eng. Technol. 226 (3/4), 274–281.
McIntosh, A.S., Kallieris, D., Mattern, R., Svensson, N.L., Dowdell, B., 1995. An
Acknowledgements evaluation of pedal cycle helmet performance requirements. SAE 952713,
111–119.
McIntosh, A.S., Andersen, T.E., Bahr, R., Greenwald, R., Kleiven, S., Turner, M.,
The authors thank Mr. Mircea Oala-Florescu and Mr. Jeff Nickel
Varese, M., McCrory, P., 2011. Sports helmets now and in the future. Br. J.
for their help in conducting the tests. Sports Med. 45 (16), 1258–1265.
McIntosh, A.S., Lai, A., Schilter, E., 2013. Bicycle helmets: head impact dynamics in
helmeted and unhelmeted oblique impact tests. Traffic Inj. Prev. 14, 501–508.
References
Mills, N.J., Gilchrist, A., 2006. Oblique impacts on bicycle helmets. In: Proceedings
of the International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact, IRCOBI
Australian/New Zealand Standard® , 1996. Pedal cycle helmets. AS/NZS 2063:1996, Secretariat, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 425–428.
Homebush NSW Australia, Wellington New Zealand. Mills, N.J., Gilchrist, A., 2008. Oblique impact testing of bicycle helmets. Int. J.
American Society for Testing and Materials International, 2006a. Standard test Impact Eng. 35, 1075–1086.
methods for equipment and procedures used in evaluating the performance Mizuno, K., Daisuke, I., Yoshida, R., Masuda, H., Okade, H., Nomura, M., Fujii, C.,
characteristics of protective headgear. F 1446-06. West Conshohocken, PA. 2014. Adult headform impact tests of three Japanese child bicycle helmets into
American Society for Testing and Materials International, 2006b. Standard a vehicle. Accid. Anal. Prev. 73, 359–372.
specification for helmets used for recreational snow sports, F 2040-06, West NHTSA, 2014. Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. Compliance Database http://
Conshohocken, PA. www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/comply/.
Bambach, M.R., Mitchell, R.J., Grzebieta, R.H., Olivier, J., 2013. The effectiveness of Nagy, A., Ko, W.L., Lindholm, U.S., 1974. Mechanical behavior of foamed materials
helmets in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles: a case-control study. Accid. under dynamic compression. J. Cell. Plast. 10, 127–134.
Anal. and Prev. 53, 78–88. Ouellet, S., Cronin, D., Worswick, M., 2006. Compressive response of polymeric
Cameron, M.H., Finch, C.F., Vulcan, A.P., 1994. The protective performance of foams under quasi-static, medium and high strain rate conditions. Polym. Test.
bicycle helmets introduced at the same time as the bicycle helmet wearing law 25, 731–743.
in Victoria. Monash Univ. Accid. Res. Cent. (Report No. 59). Persaud, N., Coleman, E., Zwolakowski, D., Lauwers, B., Cass, D., 2012. Nonuse of
Ching, R.P., Thompson, D.C., Thompson, R.S., Thomas, D.J., Chilcott, W.C., Rivara, bicycle helmets and risk of fatal head injury: a proportional mortality,
F.P., 1997. Damage to bicycle helmets involved with crashes. Accid. Anal. Prev. case-control study. CMAJ 184 (17).
29 (5), 555–562. Rowson, S., Duma, S.M., 2012. Development of the STAR evaluation system for
Consumer Reports, 2007. Ratings bike helmets www.consumerreports.org. football helmets: integrating player head impact exposure and risk of
Yonkers, N.Y. concussion. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 39 (8), 2130–2140.
Consumer Reports, 2009. Kid & toddler bike helmet ratings Smith, T.A., Tees, D., Thom, D.R., Hurt Jr., H.H., 1993. Evaluation and replication of
www.consumerreports.org. Yonkers, N.Y. impact damage to bicycle helmets. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual AAAM
Consumer Reports, 2012. Best bike helmets www.consumerreports.org. Yonkers, Conference, San Antonio, TX, pp. 143–155.
N.Y. Snell Memorial Foundation, 1998. 1998 Augmentation to the 1990 Standard for
Cripton, P.A., Dressler, D.M., Stuart, C.A., Dennison, C.R., Richards, D., 2014. Bicycle Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling B90A. Snell Memorial Foundation,
helmets are highly effective at preventing head injury during head impact: North Highlands, CA.
head-form accelerations and injury criteria for helmeted and unhelmeted Thompson, D.C., Rivara, F., Thompson, R., 1999. Helmets for preventing head and
impacts. Accid. Anal. Prev. 70, 1–7. facial injuries in bicyclists (Review). Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (4), http://
DeMarco, A.L., Chimich, D.D., Gardiner, J.C., Nightingale, R.W., Siegmund, G.P., dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001855.
2010. The impact response of motorcycle helmets at different impact U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1998. 16CFR Part 1203 Safety Standard
severities. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42, 1778–1784. for Bicycle Helmets; Final Rule, Vol. 63. U.S. Federal Register, Bethesda, MD
Dressler, D., Richards, D., Bates, E., Van Toen, C., Cripton, P., 2012. Head and neck (No. 46).
injury potential with and without helmets during head-first impacts on snow. Williams, M., 1991. The protective performance of bicyclists’ helmets in accidents.
ASTM Int. Skiing Trauma Saf. 19, 235–249 (Paper ID STP104525). Accid. Anal. and Prev. 23 (2/3), 119–131.
Elvik, R., 2013. Corrigendum to Publication bias and time-trend bias in Zhang, J., Kikuchi, N., Li, V., Yee, A., Nusholtz, G., 1998. Constitutive modeling of
meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy: a re-analysis of Attewell, Glase and polymeric foam materials subjected to dynamic crash loading. Int. J. Impact
McFadden, 2001 [Accid. Anal. Prev. 43 (2011) 1245–1251]. Accid. Anal. Prev. Eng. 21, 369–386.
60, 245–253.
European Committee for Standardization, 1997. Helmets for pedal cyclists and for
users of skateboards and roller skates, EN 1078, Brussels.
European Committee for Standardization, 2007, Helmets for alpine skiers and
snowboarders, EN 1077, Brussels.
Hansen, K., Dau, N., Feist, F., Deck, C., Willinger, R., Madey, S.M., Bottlang, M., 2013.
Angular impact mitigation system for bicycle helmets to reduce head
acceleration and risk of traumatic brain injury. Anal. Prev. 59, 109–117.