The great helmet debate continues....

Just thought I'd add my experience of cycling helmets. I'm of the age where we never used to wear them.. then they became compulsory for racing,and I bought one,not that I ever went racing. I was always on the fence as to whether you needed one,until I got taken out going through a junction on green.. I was thrown a couple of metres and landed on my back,my head hitting the road..softly I thought.. but it broke my helmet in 3 places. That could have been my head! So I now tell everyone to wear one. Drivers seem to be in such a rush to get places,so don't look properly..all too easy to get knocked off these days.
Anyway..just my experience, so I'd never risk a ride without a helmet. It didn't stop me needing crutches for a few weeks,but maybe it saved my life..

Their motives are obvious, but I filled the survey out anyway.  At one point I was able to comment that - I know helmets are only rated to 12 mph, that if you are hit by any other vehicle moving at 40 mph or more then the chances of the helmet making any difference are neglible and that statistically you have more chance of banging your head in your bath or you car.  But in all my accidents, usually nobody else involved, my head has hit the Tarmac pretty hard, so I usually wear one.

"However, currently there is no independent assessment of helmets used on UK roads, leading to consumers' confusion. The objectives of our research at the HEAD lab, Imperial College London, are to: 1) develop a research-led method for rating bicycle helmets,"

I would argue that there IS independent assessment of helmets (though not necessarily in the UK), and we need another "research led method for rating" like we need a hole in the head (no pun intended). We already have Virginia Tech and the Research Institute of Sweden with established methods and rating for those interested, and a further test method is merely going to add to confusion, rather than resolve it.

As for any validity of such testing? In various career roles I have been involved in lab testing of both fast jet pilot helmets under ejection conditions, and fall arrest systems for people working at height. In both cases, a coach and horses could be driven through established test standards by making very small changes to the test conditions (angles, speeds etc). In simple terms, safety devices are designed to pass a specific test (eg ISO or Mil), rather than necessarily to meet a wide range of real world conditions. This was well illustrated with the death of a windfarm worker in Scotland in 2007 where his fall arrest system passed every test standard going, but failed to arrest a fall under a very common fall orientation.   

Quote:

What is the purpose of the study?
The number of cyclists on UK roads are growing, particularly after the pandemic. Head injuries are a key cause of fatal and life-changing injuries in cyclists, and helmets are the only line of defence against them. New helmet technologies have been entering the market at a rapid pace with a range of claims and prices. However, currently there is no independent assessment of helmets used on UK roads, leading to consumers' confusion. The objectives of our research at the HEAD lab, Imperial College London, are to: 1) develop a research-led method for rating bicycle helmets, 2) rate helmets used on UK roads, and 3) disseminate the results widely to reach retailers and cyclists.

My emphasis in bold.

I'm pretty put off by this line in the pre-amble - "Head injuries are a key cause of fatal and life-changing injuries in cyclists, and helmets are the only line of defence against them."  Helmets the last line of defence - actions to prevent crashes in the first place are far more effective.  (And I think that's an uncontroversial statement, wherever you stand in the great helmet debate.)