THE PROTECTIVE PERFORMANCE
OF BICYCLE HELMETS INTRODUCED
AT THE SAME TIME AS THE BICYCLE
HELMET WEARING LAW IN VICTORIA
by
MaxCameron
Caroline Finch
Peter Vulcan
Monash University
Accident Research Centre
July 1994
Report No. 59
MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Report No.
Report Date
ISBN
Pages
59
July 1994
0732600588
72
Title and sub-title:
The Protective Performance of Bicycle Helmets Introduced at the Same Time as the Bicycle
Helmet Wearing Law in Victoria
Author(s)
Cameron, M.H.
Finch, C.F.
Vulcan, A.P.
Type of Report & Period Covered
General, 1991-94
Sponsoring Organisation:
Roads Corporation (Vic Roads)
Abstract:
This project aimed to examine any changes in helmet performance due to the amendment of
the Australian Standard for bicycle helmets, which was made at essentially the same time as
the introduction of the bicycle helmet wearing law in Victoria on I July 1990. There was
concern that the deletion of the penetration test from the Standard may have resulted in
reduced protection to the heads of cyclists involved in crashes. Forty helmets sustaining
impacts in crashes were collected from cyclists who were killed or treated at selected
Melbourne hospitals during 1991-92. These helmets were predominantly "foam-only" (a
foam helmet often with a material cover), "micro-shell" (a foam helmet with a thin plastic
shell), or light weight "hard-shell" (a foam helmet with a hard plastic shell) allowed under
the amended Standard. The new helmets were tested, and information on the bicyclists'
injuries obtained, so that comparison could be made with similar information previously
obtained for older-design, heavier hard-shell helmets. It was concluded that the new
helmets transmit a lower level of peak acceleration to the cyclist's head inside the helmet,
for a given severity of impact on the external surface of the helmet. There was no evidence
of a real difference in protective performance between the older and new helmets so far as
actual head injury risks are concerned. This may have been due to the absence of a
difference or due to the relatively small number of helmets considered in the two helmet
groups.
Key Words:
(IRRD except when marked*)
bicycle, crash helmet, cyclist,
evaluation (assessment), injury,
statistics, safety, collision, head.
Reproduction of this page is authorised.
Disclaimer:
This report is disseminated in the interests of
information exchange. The views expressed
are those of the authors and not necessarily
those of Monash University.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project
was commissioned
by VicRoads
to examine
any changes
in helmet
performance due to the amendment of the Australian Standard for bicycle helmets, which
was made at essentially the same time as the introduction of the bicycle helmet wearing law
in Victoria on 1 July 1990. There was concern that the deletion of the penetration test from
the Standard may have resulted in reduced protection to the heads of cyclists involved in
crashes.
The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) had collected 64 helmets which had
sustained an impact in a crash which resulted in the helmet wearer being admitted to or
treated at hospital during 1987-89. These helmets were predominantly heavy weight hardshell type. The helmets were submitted to the testing laboratory of Technisearch Limited,
who simulated the principal helmet damage by impact tests on new helmets of the same
make, model and size. The test results included the drop height (a measure of the impact
severity) and the peak acceleration of the headform inside the helmet. Information on head
injuries was also obtained.
Forty helmets sustaining impacts in crashes were collected from cyclists who were killed or
treated at selected Melbourne hospitals during 1991-92. These helmets were predominantly
"foam-only" (a foam helmet often with a material cover), "micro-shell" (a foam helmet with
a thin plastic shell), or light weight "hard-shell" (a foam helmet with a hard plastic shell)
allowed under the amended Standard. The new helmets were also tested by Technisearch,
and information on the bicyclists' injuries obtained, so that comparison could be made with
the information obtained by the RACS.
The conclusions regarding the protective performance of the new helmets, in comparison
with the older design, heavier hard-shell helmets, were:
1.
The new helmets transmit a lower level of peak acceleration to the cyclist's head
inside the helmet, for a given severity of impact on the external surface of the
helmet, for a range of impact types representative of those occurring in real bicycle
crashes (the majority resulting in blunt impacts to the helmets).
2.
There was no evidence of a real difference in protective performance between the
older and new helmets so far as actual head injury risks are concerned. This may
have been due to the absence of a difference or due to the relatively small number of
helmets considered in the two helmet groups.
It was also concluded that the specified drop height of 1500 mm for the impact energy
attenuation test in the Australian Standard has been set too low if the intention is to cover
closer to the full range of impact severities experienced by the helmets of cyclists involved
in crashes resulting in severe injury. In addition, since one-third of the major impacts on the
new helmets occurred below the test line, consideration could be given to lowering the line
to ensure that helmets provide protection against a larger proportion of impacts sustained in
real crashes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A project as long and as complex as this could not have been carried out without the help and cooperation of a number of people. The authors particularly wish to acknowledge:
•
VicRoads (Roads Corporation of Victoria) for sponsoring the project
•
Mr Ron Christie, Ms Fairlie Nassau and Ms Andrea Anderson of VicRoads Road Safety
Department who supported and provided advice for the project
•
The management, staff and Human Ethics Committees of the following hospitals who provided
access to bicyclist patients for interview and to their medical records:
•
Royal Children's Hospital
•
Westem Hospital
•
Dandenong and District Hospital
•
•
•
Preston and Northcote Community Hospital
Box Hill Hospital
Alfred Hospital
•
Dr John Lane, Member of the Victorian Road Trauma Committee, Royal Australasian College
of Surgeons (RACS), and Principal Research Fellow at MUARC, who provided valuable
guidance throughout the study
•
Dr Joan Ozanne-Smith, Director of the Victorian Injury Surveillance System and Senior
Research Fellow at the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC), who prepared
the submissions to the hospital Human Ethics Committees and provided advice on the collection
of patient injury data
•
SRNs Barbara Fox and Di Holtz, Research Nurses at MUARC, who conducted the interviews
with injured cyclists, arranged collection of their helmets where ,appropriate, and extracted and
coded details of cyclists' injuries from medical and Coroners' records
•
Mr George Rechnitzer, Senior Research Fellow at MUARC, who investigated crashes resulting
in cyclists being killed and arranged the collection of their helmets
•
Mr Martin Williams, Manager, Engineering and Scientific Services of Technisearch Limited,
who diligently undertook the impact testing of the helmets collected from the killed and injured
cyclists
•
Manufacturers and importers who provided new helmets (some free of charge or at a discount
rate) for use in the impact testing program
•
Professor Frank McDermott, Chairman of the Victorian Road Trauma Committee, RACS, for
providing access to the impact test results and injury information collected during the College's
1987-89 study of bicycle helmets impacted in crashes
•
Ms Anne Tremayne of the State Coroner's Office, Victoria, who provided data collected during
the RACS's 1987-89 study
•
Mr Tri Le, Computer Systems Officer at MUARC, who entered the new data, established the
database for comparing the helmets, and provided assistance with'the statistical analysis
•
last, but not least, the injured cyclists who provided information about their crashes and their
helmets for testing
THE PROTECTIVE PERFORMANCE OF BICYCLE HELMETS
INTRODUCED AT THE SAME TIME AS
THE BICYCLE HELMET WEARING LAW IN VICTORIA
Table of Contents
Page No.
1.
BACKGROUND
1
2.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
1
3.
DATA COLLECTION
2
3.1
3.2
Helmet collection
Patient interview
3.3
3.4
Patient injury information
Helmet impact tests
2
3
3
4
4.
ANAL YSIS AND RESULTS
5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5
5
Principal points of impact
Distribution of drop heights from impact tests
Head acceleration related to impact severity
Head injuries
6
6
5.
DISCUSSION
11
6.
CONCLUSIONS
12
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A.
B.
C.
D.
Summary of helmets collected
Patient Interview form
Patient Information form
Helmet impact test reports from Technisearch
13
THE PROTECTIVE PERFORMANCE OF BICYCLE HELMETS
INTRODUCED AT THE SAME TIME AS
THE BICYCLE HELMET WEARING LAW IN VICTORIA
1.
BACKGROUND
In September 1989, the Victorian Government announced that the wearing of approved
bicycle helmets would become mandatory in that State from 1 July 1990. At the same time
the Government moved to permit the wearing of the lighter and better-ventilated helmets
then existing, as well as helmets approved under the then current Australian Standards AS
2063.1-1986 and AS 2063.2-1986. As an interim measure prior to the introduction of the
new Australian Standard, Vic Roads established an approval system for helmets satisfying
the impact energy attenuation test and the helmet stability test of the 1986 Standards. The
amended Standard introduced in April 1990, AS 2063.2-1990, confirmed these test
requirements, and specifically deleted the requirements for a hard shell, maximum size of
ventilation openings, and resistance to a penetration test. The VicRoads interim approval
system was phased out in favour of approval to the new Standard on 1 August 1990.
This project was commissioned by VicRoads to examine any changes in helmet
performance due to the change in the Australian Standard for bicycle helmets, which was
made at essentially the same time as the introduction of the bicycle helmet wearing law in
Victoria. There was concern that the deletion of the penetration test from the Standard may
have resulted in reduced protection to the heads of cyclists involved in crashes.
2.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) collected 64 helmets which had
sustained an impact in a crash, as part of a larger study of bicyclist injuries (McDermott et
al 1993). These crashes had resulted in the helmet wearer being admitted to or treated at
one of 11 hospitals in Victoria during 1987-89. The helmets were submitted to the testing
laboratory of Technisearch Limited, who simulated the principal helmet damage by impact
tests on new helmets of the same make, model and size. The test results included the drop
height (measuring the impact severity) and the peak acceleration of the headform inside the
helmet. Hospital records were interrogated to obtain details of the actual head injuries
sustained (if any) and descriptions of the circumstances of the crashes were obtained
(Williams 1991).
The majority of the helmets (61, or 95%) consisted of a hard shell with an expanded
polystyrene (EPS) foam impact-absorbing liner. Fifty-three (85%) were designed to meet
the requirements of the Australian Standard before its 1990 amendment. The remainder
were imported helmets which had not been submitted for Australian Standards approval.
Thus the group of 64 helmets were representative of the range of helmets being worn and
involved in crashes prior to the bicycle helmet wearing law, ie. they were mainly heavy
weight hard-shell helmets approved under the old Australian Standard. The data set of
impact test results and head injury information collected by the RACS represented a
valuable basis for a comparison of the new, lighter, "foam-only" and "micro-shell" helmets
permitted under the amended Standard.
g)
-shell
3.
DATA COLLECTION
Forty helmets sustaining impacts in crashes were collected from cyclists who were killed or
treated at selected Melbourne hospitals during 1991-92. These helmets were predominantly
"foam-only" (a foam helmet often with a material cover), "micro-shell" (a foam helmet with
a thin plastic shell), or light weight "hard-shell" (a foam helmet with a hard plastic shell)
allowed under the amended Standard (or the VicRoads interim approval system).
The
collection of these helmets and associated data, including the results of impact testing by
Technisearch, will be described in the following sections.
The information collected was
intended to be comparable with information obtained by the RACS in their study of
bicyclist helmets impacted in crashes during 1987-89.
3.1
Helmet collection
Arrangements were established with six Melbourne hospitals to be advised of bicyclists
who had been admitted or otherwise medically treated and to obtain access for initial
interviews. Permission was granted from the Royal Children's Hospital, Western Hospital,
and Dandenong and District Hospital in April 1991, Preston and Northcote Community
Hospital in May 1991, and Box Hill Hospital in June 1991. The Alfred Hospital was added
to the group in May 1992.
At the interview (usually in a hospital ward), the patient or his/her parents were asked
whether the patient was wearing a bicycle helmet at the time he/she was injured and, if so,
whether the patient's helmet struck the ground or another object. If the helmet had been
impacted, the interview continued and the patient was asked to supply the helmet for testing
in exchange for a voucher to purchase a new helmet up to a value of $50. Informed consent
to access the patient's medical record to obtain details of the injuries sustained was also
obtained directly from the patient.
Three helmets worn by fatally injured cyclists were also collected. In these cases the
helmets were sought and obtained by the Police, and the information on the crash
circumstances and the cyclist's injuries was obtained from Coroner's records.
Thirty-seven helmets were obtained which were representative of helmets approved under
the amended Australian Standard, AS 2063.2-1990, plus three hard-shell helmets
representative of the trend towards lighter weight helmets before the Standard was amended
(Table 1 and Appendix A). All were considerably less massive than the heavy weight hardshell helmets approved under the old Standard, which typically weighed nearly 600 grams.
Table 1:
Types of helmets collected from cyclists who were killed or treated in
hospital. The helmets were considered to have been impacted in the crash.
No.26
Mass
3ofcapable
510-530
11
collected
395-425
Category
Comment
by 40
Technisearch
Probably
of
passing
AS
Capable
passing
AS
2063.2-1990
AS245-255
2063.2-1990
2063.1-1986 and AS 2063.2-1986
2
An additional 25 helmets of the heavy weight hard-shell type approved under the old
Standard were also collected, but these have been held in reserve and were not submitted for
impact testing.
3.2
Patient interview
If the patient's helmet was impacted, the patient was interviewed to obtain some details of
the circumstances of the crash. The information was recorded on the Patient Interview form
in Appendix B (or on a variation of this form if the interview was with the patient's parent).
Thirty (75%) of the patients' crashes involved a collision with a motor vehicle.
The
remainder were single bicycle crashes. This contrasts with the crashes which involved the
wearers of the 64 helmets collected by the RACS, where 52% involved a collision with a
motor vehicle, 39% involved a single bicycle, and in the remainder the wearer's bicycle
collided with another bicycle or a jogger (Williams 1991). All but three of the patients were
riding on a bitumen road and two of the remainder crashed on a concrete driveway or cycle
track. The exception was a cyclist riding on a grass track when he crashed.
Thirty-five of the patients (88%) were certain or probably certain that their helmets were
retained on their heads at the time it was impacted in the crash. Another two patients did
not know. The remaining three patients considered that their helmets came off before
impact. It should be noted that many of the patients suffered concussion and that their
opinions on this subject may not be reliable.
In two of the 40 cases, Technisearch considered that the patient's helmet could not have
been retained on hislher head at the time of the impact. Because there could be no clear
association between the impact severity and the patient's, (head) injuries in these
circumstances, it was decided not to subject these helmets to impact testing. For similar
reasons, only 58 ofthe 64 helmets collected by the RACS were impact tested; the remainder
had not been retained on the cyclist's head, had been run over by a motor vehicle, or more
than one impact had occurred on the same site (Williams 1991).
Of the 38 helmets tested, the principal point of impact in 25 cases (66%) was with a
bitumen roadway or concrete surface. Eleven (29%) principal points of impact were with a
vehicle metallic surface or windscreen. The remaining two cases involved an impact of the
helmet with a flat electricity pole and an impact with a bicycle pedal. In comparison, 62%
of the impacts on the helmets collected by the RACS were with a bitumen road and 13%
were with a sand or dirt path or track. Only 20% were with a vehicle panel or windscreen
(Williams 1991).
Visual inspection indicated that none of the helmets had sustained a penetrating impact, as
had none of the helmets collected by the RACS.
3.3
Patient injury information
The medical records of interviewed patients were interrogated to determine the injuries they
sustained and the duration of any loss of consciousness. Coroner's records were accessed in
3
the cases of killed bicyclists. The information was recorded on the Patient Information form
in Appendix C.
The recorded injuries were coded on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) using both the
1985 and 1990 versions (AAAM 1985, 1990). The AIS measures the threat-to-life of
individual injuries on an internationally recognised scale. While the 1990 version reflects
finer levels of severity of head injuries, it was not available when the head injuries of
bicyclists included in the RACS data series were coded.
Thus the 1985 coding of the
bicyclists injuries included in this new study was necessary to allow a comparison of head
injuries in the two data sets.
Information was recorded to allow coding of the Glasgow Coma Scale of conscious state for
those hospitalised patients who had sustained a head injury. While 15 out of the 40 cases
had sustained a head injury, only 10 had sufficient complete information to code the
Glasgow Coma Scale. This was considered too few cases to make analysis of the Glasgow
Coma Scale worthwhile as an additional measure of head injury.
3.4
Helmet impact tests
Thirty-eight newly collected helmets were tested by Technisearch Limited, who have had
extensive experience in impact performance testing. The test procedure closely followed
the impact energy attenuation test in the Australian Standard AS 2063.1-1986 (Williams
1991), which is also required in AS 2063.2-1990. The same procedure had been used to test
the helmets collected by the RACS during 1987-89.
The main points of impact on each helmet were determined by the depth, area and shape of
permanent crushing that remained on the surfaces of the expanded polystyrene (EPS) energy
absorbing material from which the helmet was constructed. Up to three such points were
located, but in the majority of tested cases (24) only one major point was found. A total of
54 main points of impact were found.
Technisearch provided the location of the impacts on the helmets in relation to the test line
specified in the Australian Standard AS 2063.1-1986. The Standard specifies that helmets
must satisfy the performance tests when impacted anywhere above the test line, but does not
necessarily require satisfactory performance below the line. Eighteen (33%) ofthe 54 major
points of impact on the newly collected helmets occurred below the test line. Among the
helmets collected by the RACS, 63% of the major impacts occurred below the test line
(Williams 1991).
Four new helmets of the same make, model and size as each impacted helmet were obtained
from manufacturers and importers and then passed to Technisearch.
Technisearch
simulated the damage at each main impact point on the impacted helmets by dropping the
new helmets, strapped to an instrumented aluminium headform, in guided free-fall onto a
steel anvil. The new helmets were dropped from progressively greater heights until the
damage sustained by the test helmet was similar to that produced on the impacted helmet
during the crash.
The shapes of the steel anvils used were chosen to represent approximately the shape of the
surface which the impacted helmet hit at each impact point during the crash. For all but five
4
of the impact points (91 %), a flat anvil was used. In two cases the anvil was a 50 mm round
cross-section bar, and the other anvils were a 20 mm square cross-section rod, a 20 mm
"H"-section rod, and the end of a 12 mm round rod. It is understood that a flat anvil was
used for each impact test of the helmets collected by the RACS, because the surface struck
in the impact was generally flat or there was insufficient information to determine its shape.
The drop height obtained from the impact test was considered tQ be a measure of the impact
severity to which the helmet was exposed in the crash. Instruments within the headform
measured the peak acceleration which was transmitted through the helmet structure. Further
details of the test procedure and the accuracy and reliability of the results are given by
Williams (1991).
The test reports provided by Technisearch are given in Appendix D. It should be noted that
the injury information recorded on the report forms was preliminary information provided to
Technisearch to assist in locating the main points of impact and is not necessarily the same
as the information extracted and coded from medical and Coroner's records (see Section
3.3).
4.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1
Principal points of impact
The analysis was focused on the test results for the principal point of impact, chosen as the
point where the impact tests had suggested that the greatest impact severity (highest
estimated drop height) had been applied during the crash. It was presumed that the most
severe head injury (if any), measured on the AIS scale, was related to the impact at this
point. Only the maximum AIS of head injury was available for the bicyclists with tested
helmets included in the RACS series.
4.2
Distribution of drop heights from impact tests
Sixteen of the 38 newly collected helmets (42%) had impact test results suggesting they
were exposed to impact severities equivalent to drop heights below 250 mm. In contrast,
none of the helmets collected in the RACS series had estimated drop heights below 250
mm. It was considered that the newly collected helmets, being predominantly foam-only or
micro-shell type, were more likely to display external damage than the hard-shell helmets.
Thus they were more likely to have been considered by the cyclist to have been impacted
during the crash, and thus to have been included in the study after sustaining low impact
severities, than the hard-shell helmets. This difference between the two helmet collections
made it imperative that the impact severities to which each group were exposed should be
taken into account in the analysis.
Four (or 11%) of the newly collected helmets had drop heights estimated as exceeding 1500
mm, the height from which the impact energy attenuation test in the Australian Standard AS
2063.1-1986 is performed. Ten per cent of the drop heights estimated for the helmets
collected in the RACS series also exceeded this level. Thus a significant proportion of
helmets involved in real crashes leading to severe cyclist injury appear to be exposed to
more severe impacts than the test in the Standard requires.
5
4.3
Head acceleration related to impact severity
Figure 1 shows that there were strong, but different, relationships between the impact
severity (measured by the drop height) applied to each helmet, and the resulting peak
acceleration experienced by the head form (as a proxy for the cyclist's head), for each of the
two sets of helmets.
The helmets in the newly collected set (1991/92) appear to produce
lower peak head accelerations for a given impact severity, compared with the helmets in the
older set (1987-89).
FIGURE
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
1
HEAD ACCELERATION
AND HELMET
DROP HEIGHT
350
" 100
~"
150
Gi
~l: 0200
u
•l..
•
••
""u
l.s:
.2
o
§ 2500 50
300
o
o
9.j).··
o 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Drop height (mm)
•
1991/92
o
1987-89
-. -. -. - 1987-89regression
---1991/92
regression
Linear regressions were fitted to the relationships shown in Figure 1 for each of the helmet
sets. The 95% confidence limits for the estimated regression slopes and intercepts did not
overlap when the two helmet sets were compared. Thus there was a statistically significant
difference between the two relationships.
The higher head accelerations, for a given impact severity, apparently experienced by the
wearers of the older helmets, which were predominantly hard-shell types, may be due to the
plastic shell deflecting elastically giving a non-negligible rebound velocity and hence a
higher velocity change to the cyclist's head. It may also be due to the thick shell, when
impacting a flat surface, spreading the load sufficiently widely for too little of the crushable
EPS foam to be engaged in absorbing energy.
4.4
Head injuries
The AIS of the most severe head injury sustained by each injured cyclist, plotted against the
drop height, is shown for each of the two sets of helmets in Figure 2. Many of the cyclists
did not sustain any head injury (AIS = 0), but sustained injuries to other body regions
requiring treatment in hospital. There is a general tendency for a greater proportion to have
sustained a head injury when their helmets have sustained a greater impact severity.
6
FIGURE 2
MAXIMUM
3+
o
•
0
••
AIS OF HEAD INJURY vs DROP HEIGHT
••
0
o
~
"
:?
'tl
•••
2
ElOO 0
•
0 0
00
O.
o
0
o
0
o
I'll
Gl
.c
'0
III
C(
"
E
E
';(
o
1
00 e
•
0
o
I'll
::E
o
I _ •_~~
o
250
----~.~.~--~--~.~~I----~---~----~
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
Drop height (mm)
• 1991/92 "1987-89
Figures 3 and 4 show the percentage distribution of head injuries at different severity levels
in 200 mm ranges of drop height. There was no clear pattern of increasing frequency or
severity of head injury with the drop heights of the new helmets, possibly due to the
relatively small number of these helmets (N = 38), but there was some indication of a trend
among the head injuries sustained by wearers of the older helmets (N = 56) (Figure 4).
DISTRIBUTION
OF HEAD INJURY
FIGURE 3
SEVERITY ACCORDING
TO DROP HEIGHT
-1991/92
DATA
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1-200
201-400
40Hoo
601-800
801-1000
1001-1200
1201-1400
1401-1600
1601-1800
Drop height (mm)
I
.AIS=3+
0 No head injury 0 AIS=1
• AIS=2
7
1801-2000
2001-2200
2201-2400
FIGURE 4
DISTRIBUTION
100%
400
OF HEAD INJURY
SEVERITY
ACCORDING
TO DROP HEIGHT -1987-89
DATA
2011-200
20%
30%
90%
0%
10%
80%
50%
70%
40%
60%
401600
601800
8011000
10011200
12011400
16011800
18012000
20012200
22012400
Drop height (mm)
I
•
0 No head injury 0 AIS=1
AIS=3+
• AIS=2
In order to smooth the trends in the data on the limited number of helmets available, Figures
5 and 6 show the percentages of injured cyclists with head injuries in cumulative ranges of
drop height. It can be seen that there is a tendency for a reducing percentage of cyclists to
have escaped any head injury as the range of drop heights increases. There is also a
tendency for the percentage sustaining severe injury (AIS at least 2) to increase.
PROPORTION
FIGURES
OF INJURED CYCLISTS WITH HEAD INJURIES
RANGES OF DROP HEIGHT -1991/92
ACCORDING
DATA
TO CUMULATIVE
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
<=200
<=400
<=600
<=800
<=1000
<=1200
<=1400
<=1600
<=1800
Drop height (mm)
I
0 No head injury 0 AIS=1
• AIS=2
8
•
AIS=3+
<=2000
<=2200
<=2400
FIGURE 6
PROPORTION
OF INJURED
CYCLISTS
RANGES
WITH HEAD INJURIES
ACCORDING
OF DROP HEIGHT -1987-89
TO CUMULATIVE
DATA
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
<=200
<=400
<=600
<=800
<=1000
<=1200
<=1400
<=1600
<=1800
<=2000
<=2200
<=2400
Drop height (mm)
•
I
D No head injury 61 AIS=1
AIS=3+
• AIS=2
Figure 7 compares the cumulative percentages of the cyclists in each group who sustained
any head injury (ArS = 1 or more), as a function of increasing drop height, for the two sets
of helmets. It can be seen that, in general, the new helmets were associated with a lower
proportion of cyclists sustaining head injuries than the older helmets, for impact severities
up to any given level (the exception being for impacts equivalent to drop heights below 200
mm).
However the difference between these two cumulative distributions was not
statistically significant when tested by the Kolmogorov-Smimov (K-S) test (Neave 1981)
(K-S test statistic = 78; p > 0.05).
FIGURE 7
CUMULATIVE
" "~c
11.
~
~
PROPORTION
OF CASES WITH A HEAD INJURY ACCORDING
TO DROP HEIGHT
60
100
40
50
<=200
0
70
30
10
90
80
20
.0
0" ••••••
<=400
o' •
<=600
••••
.£J- •
<=800
__
-c:-
••.•.•
<=1000
_()II
••
-
<=1200
••
-0 _ .•.•• 0""
<=1400
<=1600
<=1800
Drop height (mm)
- -00 - 1987-89data
1-1991192data
9
- _0 - - •• 0
_0 ••
I
<=2000
<=2200
<=2400
Figures 8 and 9 show the same comparison for the more severe head injuries, defined as
those with AIS greater than 2 and 3, respectively. Figure 8 shows that the new helmets
were associated with a lower proportion of cyclists sustaining AIS 2 and above head
injuries, for impacts equivalent to drop heights greater than 800 mm. This difference was
not statistically significant (K-S test = 88; p > 0.05).
FIGURES
CUMULATIVE
PROPORTION
OF CASES WITH AT LEAST AN AIS 2 LEVEL
ACCORDING
HEAD INJURY
TO DROP HEIGHT
100
90
80
70
-
60
~
50
~
l:!
er.
40
30
4=-
20
,
10
o
,
•
•
<=1200
<=1400
.0.
• _ •• .0- • - ••
()o
••••
•
00 •••
•
•
<=1800
<=2000
-c- ••••
00 - • -
•
-0 •••
•
·0
,
6'
<=200
_ ••
I
<=400
<=600
<=800
<=1000
<=1600
<=2200
<=2400
Drop height (mm)
1-1991192data
-.()o
-
1987-89dataI
In contrast, Figure 9 shows that the new helmets were associated with a higher proportion
of cyclists sustaining the more life-threatening AIS 3 and above head injuries. However,
this difference was also not statistically significant (K-S test = 5; p> 0.05).
FIGURE 9
CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OF CASES WITH AN AIS 3 LEVEL OR ABOVE HEAD INJURY
ACCORDING TO DROP HEIGHT
100
90
80
70
-
~
i
60
50
l:!
er.
40
30
20
10
_0_
•. - •. 0
••••••••
I() ••••••••
~ ••••••••
<5••.•.•.
..:J-
•.•.•.
-0-
-:J- •.•.•.
-<:)00
•.•.•.
-0
o ~ •
<=200
<=400
<=600
<=800
<=1000
<=1200
<=1400
<=1600
Drop height (mm)
!-1991192data
-
10
-00 -
1987-89dataI
<=1800
<=2000
<=2200
<=2400
5.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing the results of the comparison of the performance of the older and new helmets
which have sustained impacts in crashes, it needs to be noted that the two sets of helmets
were involved in somewhat different types of crashes. The new helmets were more often
involved in collisions on the road with a motor vehicle and, as a result, the impacts on the
helmets were more often from contacts with hard surfaces such as bitumen roads and parts
of vehicles.
As a further result of these different crash circumstances, the helmet impact test program
found it appropriate to use non-flat anvils for some (five) of the drop height tests of the new
helmets, because these were considered to represent the actual contact surface better than a
flat anvil. A flat anvil had been used in all drop height tests of the older helmets. It should
be noted that Williams (1990) had found that foam-only helmets had generally performed
better (ie. lower surface forces and peak accelerations of the headform), for a given drop
height, than hard-shell helmets when flat anvils were used, and that the foam-only helmets
had been disadvantaged when tested on non-flat anvils, especially those with smaller radii
of curvature.
Notwithstanding this, it is believed that the impact testing provided a reliable estimate of the
impact severity (measured as equivalent drop height) applied to the cyclist's helmet at each
major point of impact during the crash. The testing program also provided a measure of the
output from this severity of impact in terms of the forces on the cyclist's head inside the
helmet, measured by the peak acceleration of the headform to which the test helmet was
strapped.
It was found that the new helmets appeared to have been exposed to a greater proportion of
contacts with impact severities at low levels than the older helmets. However, at higher
levels of impact, both sets of helmets had been exposed to a broad range of impact severities
up to levels equivalent to drop heights exceeding 2000 mm. Nevertheless, the disparity in
the distribution of impact severities to which the two sets of helmets were exposed made it
imperative that impact severity was taken into account in the analysis, and this was
subsequently done throughout.
It was noted that in none of the cases did a new helmet appear to have sustained a
penetrating impact (this was also the case for the helmets collected by the RACS). This is
noteworthy because it suggests that few, if any, penetrating impacts occur in real bicycle
crashes. This suggests that the deletion of the penetration test from the Australian Standard
may not be considered to have relaxed or weakened the Standard, because in fact the test
has little or no relevance.
More than 10% of helmets collected in each series appeared to have sustained contacts with
impact severities of greater magnitude than the equivalent drop height of 1500 mm specified
for the impact energy attenuation test in the Australian Standard. This suggests that the
specified drop height has been set too low if the intention is to cover closer to the full range
of impact severities experienced by the helmets of cyclists involved in crashes resulting in
severe Injury.
11
In addition, it was found that one-third of the major impacts on the new helmets occurred
below the test line (over 60% of the major impacts on the helmets collected by the RACS
fell below the line). Since the Standard currently does not require satisfactory performance
below the test line, consideration could be given to lowering th~ line to ensure that helmets
provide protection against a larger proportion of impacts sustained in real crashes.
The relationship between the estimated impact severity on the helmet and the estimated
peak acceleration of the cyclist's head inside it was clear and direct for each of the two
helmet sets. There was also statistically significant evidence that the two relationships were
different, with the new helmets apparently transmitting lower accelerations to the cyclist's
head, for a given impact severity, than the older helmets. This suggests that the new
helmets, which were predominantly foam-only (or had light weight shells), were better at
absorbing and distributing their predominantly blunt impacts than the older helmets, and is
consistent with Williams (1990) finding. This generally superior performance was observed
even though five of the new helmets had been exposed to significant impacts with non-flat
surfaces and were tested with appropriate non-flat anvils.
When the incidence and severity of the head injuries of the cyclists wearing the tested
helmets was analysed, taking the impact severities into account, the results suggested that,
in comparison with the older helmets, the new helmets displayed:
(a)
better protection against head injuries of minor or moderate severity (AIS of 1 or 2),
and
(b)
worse protection against severe to critical head injuries (AIS of 3 and above).
However, none of the analyses comparing the head injuries of the cyclists wearing the two
groups of helmets were statistically significant. Thus there was no evidence of a real
difference in protective performance between the older and new helmets so far as actual
head injury risks are concerned. This may have been due to the absence of a difference or
due to the relatively small number of helmets considered in the two helmet groups.
It should be noted that maximum AIS was
comparison of the two groups of helmets.
injury severity such as the number of head
been available, may have displayed different
6.
the only measure of head injury available for
An analysis based on other measures of head
injuries or the Glasgow Coma Scale, had they
results.
CONCLUSIONS
New, lighter bicycle helmets, manufactured entirely of expanded polystyrene foam or
covered with a light weight plastic shell, have become common in Victoria following the
deletion of the penetration test from the Australian Standard for bicycle helmets at
essentially the same time as the introduction of the mandatory' requirement for cyclists to
wear approved helmets. The conclusions from this study of the protective performance of
the new helmets, in comparison with the older design, heavier hard-shell helmets, were:
1.
The new helmets transmit a lower level of peak acceleration to the cyclist's head
inside the helmet, for a given severity of impact on the external surface of the
helmet, for a range of impact types representative of those occurring in real bicycle
crashes (the majority resulting in blunt impacts to the helmets).
12
2.
There was no evidence of a real difference in protective performance between the
older and new helmets so far as actual head injury risks are concerned. This may
have been due to the absence of a difference or due to the relatively small number of
helmets considered in the two helmet groups.
3.
The specified drop height of 1500 mm for the impact energy attenuation test in the
Australian Standard has been set too low if the intention is to cover closer to the full
range of impact severities experienced by the helmets of cyclists involved in crashes
resulting in severe injury.
4.
Since one-third of the major impacts on the new helmets occurred below the test
line, consideration could be given to lowering the line to·ensure that helmets provide
protection against a larger proportion of impacts sustained in real crashes.
REFERENCES
ASSOCIA nON FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF AUTOMOTIVE MEDICINE (AAAM)
(1985), The Abbreviated Injury Scale: 1985 Revision. AAAM, Illinois.
ASSOCIA nON FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF AUTOMOTIVE MEDICINE (AAAM)
(1990), The Abbreviated Injury Scale: 1990 Revision. AAAM, Illinois.
AS (1986), Lightweight protective helmets (for use in pedal cycling, horse riding and other
activities requiring similar protection), Part 1 - Basic performance requirements, AS
2063.1-1986. Standards Association of Australia, Sydney.
AS (1986), Lightweight protective helmets (for use in pedal cycling, horse riding and other
activities requiring similar protection), Part 2 - Helmets for pedal cyclists, AS 2063.2-1986.
Standards Association of Australia, Sydney.
AS (1990), Lightweight protective helmets (for use in pedal cycling, horse riding and other
activities requiring similar protection), Part 2: Helmets for pedal cyclists, AS 2063.2-1990.
Standards Australia, Sydney.
McDERMOTT, FT, LANE, lC, BRAZENOR, GA, and DEBNEY, EA (1993), The
effectiveness of bicycle helmets: a study of 1710 casualties. Journal of Trauma, Vol. 34,
pp. 834-835.
NEA VE, HR (1981), Elementary Statistical Tables For All Users of Statistical Techniques.
Aldren Press, London.
WILLIAMS. M. (1990),
Evaluation of the penetration test for bicyclists' helmets:
comparative performance of hard shell and foam helmets.
Accident Analysis and
Prevention, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 315-325.
WILLIAMS, M. (1991), The protective performance of bicyclists' helmets in accidents.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 23, Nos. 2/3, pp. 119-131.
13
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF HELMETS COLLECTED
SUMMARY OF HELMETS COLLECTED
B1/01/91
HEADWAY
ATOM
MET
BELL
HEADWAY701
Pro-U
Itracool
701
Airlite
ROSEBANK
PRO
HEADGEAR
Pro-Ultracool888
888
EQUINE
SCIENCE
NOLAN
KIN
YONG
Triat
U
Lucci
ltralite
LUNG
Pro-Ultracool
Pro-Ultracool252
PB2
ROSE
BANK
DAVIES
V1-Pro
CRAIG
Grand
Prix
Freestyle
Cyclone
Challenger
Joey
TCB
Streamlight
501Max
ATOM
Zephyr
New
Airlite
ATOM
Hartop
Zephyr
New
Max 252
Australia
ABS/EPS
USA
Australia
Thermoplastic/EPS
PBT/EPS
Italy
Australia
EPS
PBT/EPS
Australia
PBT/EPS
Australia
Australia
EPS
EPS
Australia
EPS
Australia
EPS
Australia
PBT/EPS
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
EPS
ABS/EPS
PBT/EPS
EPS
EPS
EPS
ABS/EPS
EPS
EPS
EPS
EPS
EPS
EPS
ABS/EPS
EPS
EPS
EPS
EPS
EPS
Plastic/EPS
PBT/EPS
ABS/EPS
Italy
Australia
USA
Australia
Taiwan
APPENDIXB
PATIENT INTERVIEW FORM
Interview Date
MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
PATIENT INTERVIEW
MUARC Case No
.
PATIENT DEI' Aill)
Age
Sex
.
ACCIDENT DEI'AILS
Date of accident
.
Where did the accident occur? (e.g.road, footpath)
Was another vehicle involved?
YES (NO
If YES, what type of vehicle was it?
Do you know how fast you were travelling? YES / NO
If YES, estimated speed
Do you know how fast the other vehicle was travelling?
.
YES / NO
If YES, estimated speed
Describe what happened (including why you think the accident happened) :
.
.
What do you think: caused the injuries? (e.g. hitting the roadway/part of the bicycle/part of a
car)
...........................................................................................................................•.................................
............................................
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
.
•••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••
•••
•
••••••
0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Any other comments about the accident :
.......................................................................................................................................................
•............•...............•.............•...............
.
.............................•..•..........
.
Were you wearing any protective clothing (apart from a bicycle helmet)?
YES/NO
If YES, please give details:
HELMET DErAILS
What did the helmet strike in the accident?
Did the helmet stay on with the impact?
YES/NO
If NO, was the helmet done up properlylcorrectly fitted? (give details)
Were there any problems with the helmet?
etc.)
How old was the helmet?
(e.g. uncomfortable, too loose,
.
How often was the helmet used?
.
Where was it stored when not in use?
Are there any visible signs of damage which occurred prior to this accident?
If YES, describe what happened to cause the damage?
.
YES/NO
Was the helmet ever dropped/thrown/etc.?
YES / NO
If YES, give details (including how often)
.....................................................................................................................................
....
.
Helmet may be collected from :
Name
~
.
Addresss
Day
Telephone number
.
Time
.
.
APPENDIXC
PATIENT INFORMATION FORM
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
VICTORIAN INJURY SURVEIlLANCE
SYSTEM
MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
BICYCLE HELMET EVALUATION PROJECT
PATIENT INFORMATION
MUARC case No.
HOSPITAL
PATIENT DETAILS
Age
1.
.
Sex
'"
.
INJURIES BY BODY REGION
HeadlNeck Injuries(ISS Body Regions, maximum AIS)
1.
AIS90
AIS
90
AIS
AIS 85
85
Face Injuries (ISS Body Region, maximumAIS)
-------
1.
AIS 85
AIS 90
2.
AIS 85
AIS 90
3.
AIS 85
AIS90
_
4.
AIS 85
AIS90
_
5.
AIS 85
AIS 90
6.
AIS 85
AIS 90
26 RAILWA Y AVENUE, CAULFIELD EAST 3145 (pO BOX 191, CAULFIELD EAST, MELBOURNE,
FAX: (61X3) 513 2882 TELEPHONE: (03) 513 2880 lOO: +6135132880
----
VICTORIA 3145) AUSTRALIA
Chest Injuries (ISS Body Region, maximum AIS)
--------2. --------3. --------4. --------5. --------6. --------1.
AIS 85
AIS90
_
AIS 85
AIS90
_
AIS 85
AIS 90
AIS 85
AIS 90
AIS 85
AIS 90
AIS 85
AIS 90
----
----
Abdomen and Pelvic Content (ISS Body Region, maximum AIS)
1.
AIS 85
AIS 90
2.
AIS 85
AIS 90
3.
4.
5.
----------------------------
6.
AIS 85
AIS 85
AIS 85
---------
AIS 90
AIS 90
-----
AIS 85
AIS 90
--------2. ---------
MS 85
MS 90
MS 85
MS90
3.
MS85
4.
MS 85
MS 90
AIS 85
MS90
MS 85
MS 90
5.
---------
6.
_
-----
---------
AIS 90
Extremity and Pelvis (ISS Body Region, maximum MS)
1.
_
_
AIS 90
_
----------
_
_
External Injuries (ISS Body Region, maximum MS)
MS 85
MS 90
MS 85
AIS90
MS 85
MS90
MS 85
MS 90
5.
MS85
MS 90
6.
MS 85
MS90
1.
2.
3.
4.
2.
----------------------------
---_
----
_
----
_
HEAD INJURY IDENTIFIED
1 = yes
2=no
D
3.
WAS THE CASUALTY RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS IN THE ACCIDENT?
FOR THE PURPOSES OF TIllS STUDY, A CASUALTYIS SAID TO BE
UNCONSCIOUS IF: FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A BYSTANDE~ THE
CASUALTY IS UNROUSABLEAND UNRESPONSIVE,
AND/OR
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE VICTIM, HE OR SHE IS ABSOLUTELY
UNAWARE OF THEIR SURROUNDINGS,AS IF ASLEEP.
D
1 = Yes, the casualty was unconscious
2 = No, there was no loss of consciousness
3 = Don't know
4.
DURATION OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS
1
2
3
4
5
5.
=
=
=
=
=
D
Only a second or two - transient, momentary
Less than a minute
More than a minute
Less than 1 hour
More than 1 hour
DOES THE CASUALTY REMEMBER BEING AT THE SCENE OF THE
ACCIDENT, BEFORE IT OCCURRED?
1
2
3
4
D
= Yes
= No
= Not sure
= No information available
6.
HEAD CIRCUMFERENCE
7.
WAS AN OPERATION PERFORMED ON THE HEAD?
1 = Yes
2 = No
Describe briefly if yes:
..
ems
D
8.
mms
GLASGOW COMA CHART READINGS (HEAD INJURY CASES ONLY)
I.E. ACTUAL TRANSCRIBINGS FROM THE HOSPITAL OBSERVATION
CHARTS IF AVAILABLE AT THE FOLLOWING TIMES:
mins
GLASCOW
ADMISSION
PRE4ADMISSION
24
72
Time
hours
hours
since
E.D.
POSTE.D.
injwy
.......
Words
Confused
MOTOR
RESPONSE
Oriented
=To
voice
None
VERBAL
63551 =
fuappropriate
Reflection
Obey
command
(pain)
244RESPONSE
=
Withdraw
Extension
(pain)
Incomprehensible
Localises
pain
spontaneous
To
pain
TOTAL
9.
LENGTH OF STAY IN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT
................ Hours
10.
LENGTH OF STAY IN ACUTE HOSPITAL
................ ... Days
11.
SURVIVAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
D
=
=
=
=
Alive
Dead from Head Injury Only
Dead from Multiple Injuries (Including Head)
Dead from Complications of Treatment for Head Injury
= Dead from Other Injuries
= Death Unrelated to Accident
04107/9416:12
HELM-PAT.DOe
APPENDIXD
HELMET IMPACT TEST REPORTS
FROM TECHNISEARCH
Technlsearch
,~
I
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
Bl/l/91.
MANUFACTURER
Atom.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
PB2.
SIZE
M57.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
liD
F107821.
MATERIAL
NUMBER
ABS/EPS.
IMPACT DATA
(lI)
(1)
LOCATION
Centre left a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
1620mm, 140g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
EPS foam fusion failure.
Contributed to injury?
Possibly.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
Fatal. Extensive distributed brain damage. No skull fracture.
PROJECT NUMRER
16653,981-3100.
Bruised scalp top of head.
Technisearch
I
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
I
PROJECT
Post-crash
CLIENT
Monash University
TESTMEmOD
AS 2063.2-1990.
evaluation
HELMET
of bicyclists'
helmets.
Accident Research
Centre.
DATA
HELMET CODE
B5/2/9l.
MANUFACTURER
Bell.
COUNTRY
USA.
TRADEMARK
VI-Pro.
SIZE
S/M.
STANDARD
Snell.
DATE OF PROD'N
liD
B249l254.
MATERIAL
NUMBER
Thermoplastic/
EPS.
IMPACT
DATA
(ll)
(1)
LOCATION
Front left a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
l690mm,
134g.
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
Brittle failure of shell.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
Webbing ends not doubled over to prevent removal from fittings.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
Fatal.
No head injury.
PROJECT NUMBER
Severe chest injuries and fractured
16653,981-3100.
spine.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash
CLIENT
Monash University
TEST METHOD
AS 2063.2-1990.
evaluation
HELMET
HELMET CODE
of bicyclists'
helmets.
Accident Research
Centre.
DATA
MATERIAL
PBT*/EPS.
G732213.
60cm.
DATE
OF
AS
PROD'N
2063.1-1986.
B6/3/9l.
SIZE
Grand
Prix.
COUNTRY
Australia.
Rosebank.
ephthalate.
ER
IMPACT DATA
(H)
(I)
LOCATION
No impact damage
SURFACE STRUCK
Nil.
TEST SURFACE
N/A.
TEST RESULT
N/A.
a*
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK. Helmet not damaged
at impact.
Contributed to injury?
while rider sustained
severe head injury.
Helmet not on rider's
head
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
Retention webbing habitually worn very loose.
at crease.
Contributed to injury?
Yes.
Indicated
by creased chinstrap
webbing
and wear
INJURY
Fatal. Comminuted fracture of left parietal and occipital bones with a transverse extension across
the middle cranial fossa involving both petrous temporal bones. Subgaleal haematoma over the
left parieto-occipital
region. Subarachnoid haemorrhages.
PROJECT NUMBER
16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash
CLIENT
Monash University
TEST METHOD
AS 2063.2-1990.
evaluation
of bicyclists'
helmets.
Accident Research
HELMET
Centre.
DATA
HELMET CODE
01.
MANUFACTURER
Nolan.
COUNTRY
Italy.
TRADEMARK
Zephyr New Max.
SIZE
Large.
STANDARD
VicRoads Part
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD1N
4/90.
MATERIAL
EPS.
liD NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(ll)
(1)
LOCATION
Rear left a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
540mm,60g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed
to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
Webbing ends were not doubled over to prevent removal from fittings.
by granny knot in webbing.
Contributed to injury?
Yes.
INJURY
No head injury.
Severely
PROJECT NUMBER
grazed L knee, L elbow.
16653,981-3100.
Bruised ribs.
Male clip held in place
Technlsearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
02.
MANUFACTURER
Davies Craig.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Hartop.
SIZE
57.
STANDARD
AS 2063.1-1986.
DATE OF PROD'N
10/87.
liD
G311016.
MATERIAL
PBT/EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
Rear
left 31g.
rim b*
Flat.
(ll)
Roadway.
360mm;
Front
left
b* XS
(1)
20mm
1730mm;
square
181g;
925N.
rod.
Rear
s/wagon
pillar.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
*a =
above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
EPS foam severely cracked at thin cross-sections - old cracking.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
PROJECT NUMIlER
16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
METHOD
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
03.
MANUFACTURER
Davies Craig.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Hartop.
SIZE
53.
STANDARD
AS 2063.1-1986.
DATE OF PROD'N
12/87.
liD
F548957.
MATERIAL
PBT/EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(11)
LOCATION
Front left rim b*
SURFACE STRUCK
Vehicle panel.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
80mm, 18g.
* a = above
HELMET
test line; b
= below
test line
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
EPS foam severely cracked at thin cross-section - old cracking.
Contributed to injury?
No.
Broken into five pieces.
RETENTION CONDITION
Female portion of clip fractured prior to accident. Material fault.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
Crazed left forehead.
Broken R tibia and fibula. Grazed knee and upper L leg.
PROJECT NUMBER
16653, 981-3100.
Jechnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
07.
MANUFACTURER
Atom.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Airlite.
SIZE
57-59.
STANDARD
Part AS 2063.
DATE OF PROD'N
liD
NUMBER
MATERIAL
IMPACT
EPS foam.
DATA
(I)
(11)
LOCATION
Right rear top a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
950mm,83g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONOITION
Webbing ends were not doubled over to prevent removal from fittings.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
both elbows.
PROJECT NUMBER
Fractured L femur (transverse, closed). L thigh swollen, pain L shoulder and
16653,981-3100.
Jechnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
08.
MANUFACTURER
Pro Headgear.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Pro-Ultracool 888.
SIZE
57-58
STANDARD
VicRoads,
Part AS 2063.2.
DATE OF PROD'N
11/90.
liD
No. 15335.
MATERIAL
EPS foam.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(ll)
LOCATION
Rear centre top a*
Rear left rim b*
SURFACE STRUCK
Windscreen.
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
Flat.
TEST RESULT
140mm,30g.
280mm; 38g.
* a = above lest line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
L.O.C. time not specified.
feet.
PROJECT NUM8ER
LI vertebra crushed.
16653, 981-3100.
Lacerations skin and hip. Bruised legs and
Technisearch
I~---i
i
!
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
10.
MANUFACTURER
Atom.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Airlite.
SIZE
59-62.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
2/91.
liD
1388332.
MATERIAL
EPS foam.
NUMUER
IMPACT
DATA
(II)
(I)
LOCATION
Front centre upper a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Rear panel of truck.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
280mm,42g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
Lacerated upper and lower lip. Grazed nose.
PRO.JECTNuMRER
16653,981-3100.
Jechnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
11.
MANUFACTURER
Atom.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Airlite.
SIZE
56-59
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
11/90.
lID
H889673.
MATERIAL
EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(ll)
LOCATION
Rear right upper a*
Left cen tre a *
SURFACE STRUCK
Flat vehicle panel.
Wiper pivot knob.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
12mm rod end.
TEST RESULT
90mm, 13g.
320mm; 48g; 152N.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
Fractured tibia. Bruised L calf, grazed elbow. Nil head injury.
PROJECT NUMBER
16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
r
I
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
12.
MANUFACTURER
Davies Craig.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Hartop.
SIZE
57.
STANDARD
AS 2063.1-1986.
DATE OF PROO'N
3/87.
liD
F020297.
MATERIAL
PBT/EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(ll)
(I)
LOCATION
Front centre rim b*
SURFACE STRUCK
Gutter.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
230mm,24g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
EPS foam severely cracked at thin cross-section - old damage.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
Lacerated mouth, lost two front teeth. Abrasion L lower leg.
PROJECT NUMnER
16653,981-3100.
7£:chnisearch
I
I
I
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
i
PROJECT
:
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
I
I
CLIENT
:
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
I
TEST
I
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD:
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
15.
MANUFACTURER
Atom.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Airlite.
SIZE
Large.
STANDARD
AS 2063.1-1986.
DATE OF PROD'N
1/90.
MATERIAL
EPS.
liD
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(ll)
(1)
LOCATION
Left centre a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
80mm,26g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
PRO.JECTNuMBER
Torn L shoulder muscles. Abrasion L elbow. Bruising L shoulder.
16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post -crash eval uation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
16.
MANUFACTURER
Atom.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
PB2.
SIZE
57-63.
STANDARD
AS 2063.1-1986.
DATE OF PROD'N
9/88.
liD NUMBER
E506791.
MATERIAL
ABS/EPS.
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(11)
LOCATION
Right rear upper a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
60mm,20g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
Webbing ends were not doubled over to prevent removal from fittings.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
PROJECT NUMBER
Generalized grazes.
16653,981-3100.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash
CLIENT
Monash University
TEST METHOD
AS 2063.2-1990.
evaluation
HELMET
of bicyclists'
helmets.
Accident Research
Centre.
DATA
HELMET CODE
19.
MANUFACTURER
Rosebank.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Ultralite.
SIZE
60.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
liD NUMHER
H125435.
MATERIAL
IMPACT
DATA
(lI)
(1)
LOCATION
Front right rim b*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
240mm,34g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed
to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed
to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
Fracture
PROJECT NUMHER
L arm, grazes.
16653,981-3100.
PBT/EPS.
Technisearch
I
I
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
20.
MANUFACTURER
Pro Headgear.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Pro- Ultracool 888.
SIZE
57-58.
STANDARD
Vic Roads, Part
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
11190.
liD
No. 14354.
MATERIAL
/EPS.
NUMHER
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(ll)
LOCATION
Front left a*
Rear left a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Cycle track.
Cycle track.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
Flat.
TEST RESULT
140mm,22g.
230mm; 31g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
EPS fusion failure.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head inj ury. Fractured elbow, chipped bone in hip, grazed elbow.
PROJECT NUMHER
16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash
CLIENT
Monash University
TEST METHOD
AS 2063.2-1990.
of bicyclists I helmets.
evaluation
Accident Research
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
22.
MANUFACTURER
Pro Headgear.
TRADEMARK
Pro Ultracool
STANDARD
VicRoads, Part
AS 2063.2-1986.
DATE OF PROD'N
liD NUMBER
No. 745.
MATERIAL
888.
IMPACT
Centre.
COUNTRY
Australia.
SIZE
57-58.
DATA
(I)
(H)
LOCATION
Left centre
SURFACE STRUCK
Vehicle roof.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
120mm,22g.
a*
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed
to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed
to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head inj ury.
Cuts, left eye, left elbow, left ear.
PROJECT NUM8ER
16653,981-3100.
EPS.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
23.
MANUFACTURER
Headway Helmets.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
701.
SIZE
58.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
6/91.
liD
1325140.
~ATERIAL
EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT DATA
(ll)
(I)
LOCATION
Front right b*
SURFACE STRUCK
Vehicle panel/rucksack.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
50mm,20g.
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
Webbing ends were glued double but bond was broken.
connected to webbing.
Contributed to injury?
No.
Side clip and female buckle not
INJURY
No head injury.
buttocks.
PROJECT NUMBER
Fractured fibula, bruised calf. Abrasions - R elbow, R knee, R ribs, both
16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
27.
MANUFACTURER
Rosebank.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Challenger.
SIZE
M/L.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
12/91.
liD
L191082.
MATERIAL
EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(Ill)
LOCATION
Rear right b*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
l80mm; 26g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
L.O.C. period not indicated.
Grazed top right forehead.
PROJECT NUMBER
Slight memory loss. Compound fracture R leg. Broken nose.
16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
27.
MANUFACTURER
Rosebank.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Challenger.
SIZE
M/L.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
12/91.
liD NUMUER
L191082.
MATERIAL
EPS.
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(ll)
LOCATION
Front right a*
Cen tre top a *
SURFACE STRUCK
Windscreen/roof joint.
Vehicle panel.
TEST SURFACE
50mm round.
Flat.
TEST RESULT
1170mm; 68g, 151N.
21Omm; 26g.
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
L.O.C. period not indicated.
Grazed top right forehead.
PROJECT NUMBER
Slight memory loss. Compound fracture R leg. Broken nose.
16653,981-3100.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
26.
MANUFACTURER
Headway.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Freestyle.
SIZE
55.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
10/90.
I/O NUMHER
H635437.
MATERIAL
ABS/EPS.
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(II)
LOCATION
Front right a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Concrete drive.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
80mm,22g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
Webbing ends were glued double but bond was broken. Webbing could be removed from
fittings.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
PROJECT NUMRER
Fractured R arm, bruised legs.
16653, 981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
28.
MANUFACTURER
Pro Headgear.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Pro-Ultracool.
SIZE
59-60.
STANDARD
VicRoads
DATE OF PROD'N
Part AS 2063.2-1990.
12/90.
liD
15760.
EPS.
NUMBER
MATERIAL
IMPACT
DATA
(ll)
(I)
LOCATION
Front right b*
SURFACE STRUCK
Flat SEC pole.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
540mm, 52g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury, abrasion R head, temple. Compound fracture R tibia, fibula comminuted.
Fractured R thumb, abrasions R knee and leg.
PROJECT NUMIJER
16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
29.
MANUFACTURER
Atom.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Airlite.
SIZE
57-59.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
8/90.
liD
H356627.
MATERIAL
EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(ll)
(1)
LOCATION
Left front b*
SURFACE STRUCK
Bar at rear van.
TEST SURFACE
50mm round.
TEST RESULT
1270mm, 74g; 199N.
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
PRO.JECTNUM8ER
Lacerations forehead.
16653,981-3100.
Bruised neck. Lacerated knee.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post -crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
31.
MANUFACTURER
Headway.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Joey.
SIZE
54.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PIWD'N
1/92.
liD
L293191.
MATERIAL
EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(H)
LOCATION
Rear centre b*
Right centre b*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
Flat.
TEST RESULT
1340mm; 98g.
280mm; 42g.
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONOITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONOITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
PROJECT NUMBER
Sprained ankle, bruise forearm and upperback.
16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash
CLIENT
Monash University
TEST METHOD
AS 2063.2-1990.
evaluation
HELMET
of bicyclists'
helmets.
Accident Research
Centre.
DATA
HELMET CODE
32.
MANUFACTURER
Equine Science.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
TCB Streamlight
252.
SIZE
M.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
1/90.
liD NUMBER
H374716.
MATERIAL
EPS.
IMPACT
Flat.
Centre
left32g.a*
250mm;
Roadway.
DATA
Wall.
Flat.
(H)
240mm;
33g. a*
Centre right
(I)
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed
to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed
to injury?
No.
INJURY
Concussion.
Dislocated
PROJECT NUMBER
R elbow.
Abrasions
16653,981-3100.
R arm.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post -crash eval uation of bicyclists I helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST METHOD
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
HELMET CODE
36.
MANUFACTURER
Equine Science.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
TCB Streamlight
252.
SIZE
Large.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
3/91.
liD NUMBER
J671650.
MATERIAL
EPS.
IMPACT DATA
(I)
(H)
LOCATION
Front Centre a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
820mm; 71g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
Concussion.
Fractured L collarbone.
PRO.JECTNuMnER
16653,981-3100.
Sprained neck (whiplash type injury).
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
37.
MANUFACTURER
Headway.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Freestyle 501.
SIZE
62.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
2/91.
liD
J481035.
MATERIAL
ABS/EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT DATA
(ll)
(I)
LOCATION
Front right a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
11Omm,22g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head inj ury. Fractured L wrist. Bruised L shoulder.
PROJECT NUMIJER
16653,981-3100.
Lacerations R elbow, L elbow.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post -crash eval uation of bicyclists I helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
39.
MANUFACTURER
Atom.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Airlite.
SIZE
57-59.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
11/91.
I/D NUMBER
K578952.
MATERIAL
EPS.
IMPACT DATA
(Il)
(1)
LOCATION
Front right a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Vehicle panel/window.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
220mm,3lg.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONnITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
PROJECT NUMBER
Bruised chest, shoulders and hands.
16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash
CLIENT
Monash University
TEST METHOD
AS 2063.2-1990.
evaluation
HELMET
of bicyclists'
helmets.
Accident Research
Centre.
DATA
HELMET CODE
40.
MANUFACTURER
Pro Headgear.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Pro- Ultracool.
252.
SIZE
59-60.
STANDARD
VicRoads
Part AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
12/90.
liD
22599.
MATERIAL
EPS.
NUMHER
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(II)
LOCATION
Front right
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
160mm,25g.
*a =
b*
above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed
to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK
Contributed
to injury?
No.
INJURY
Concussion.
Lacerations
PRO.JECTNuMHER
R side face.
16653,981-3100.
Bruised legs, thighs and knees.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
45.
MANUFACTURER
Atom.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Airlite.
SIZE
57-59.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
1/92.
liD
L092943.
MATERIAL
EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(ll)
(1)
LOCATION
Front rim a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
220mm,38g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
Mild concussion, headaches.
PROJECT NUMIJER
Strained neck, L knee. Sprained wrist.
16653, 981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
44.
MANUFACTURER
Met.
COUNTRY
Italy.
TRADEMARK
Lucci.
SIZE
Large.
STANDARD
ANSI Z90.4.
DATE OF PROD'N
2/90.
MATERIAL
EPS.
liD
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(11)
LOCATION
Front rim b*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
360mm; 38g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
Webbing ends were not doubled over to prevent removal from fittings.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
PROJECT NUMBER
Contusion R arm, abrasions L elbow. Bruised L hip.
16653, 981-3100.
Jechnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
43.
MANUFACTURER
Atom.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Airlite.
SIZE
59-62.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
1/91.
lID
1578519.
MATERIAL
EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(1)
(lI)
LOCATION
Top rear a*
Front left a *
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
Flat.
TEST RESULT
80mm,26g.
90mm, 199.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
PRO.JECTNUMBER
Bruised L knee. Fractured L big toe. Abrasions face and legs.
16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
46.
MANUFACTURER
Bell.
COUNTRY
U.S.A.
TRADEMARK
Cyclone.
SIZE
M/L.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
12/91.
liD NUMBER
K721754.
MATERIAL
Plastic/EPS.
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(H)
LOCATION
Left centre a*
Top a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Vehicle panel.
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
Flat.
TEST RESULT
770mm: 73g.
71Omm; 104g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONI>ITlON
EPS fusion failure. Liner cracked and collapsed.
Contributed to injury?
Yes.
RETENTION CONI>ITION
Webbing ends were not doubled over to prevent removal from fittings.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
Concussion, headaches for 5 days. Possible brief L.O.c.
knees.
PROJECT NUMBER
16653,981-3100.
Scalp lacerations, abrasions to both
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
47.
MANUFACTURER
Rosebank.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Ultralite.
SIZE
57.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
10/91.
liD
K304522.
MATERIAL
PBT/EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(H)
LOCATION
Front rim b*
Centre right a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
Flat.
TEST RESULT
180mm,26g.
240mm,37g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
EPS liner extensively cracked before these minor impacts. Poor EPS fusion.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injuries.
PROJECT NUMBER
Four fractures of R leg. Fractured wrist.
16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
48.
MANUFACTURER
Kin Yong Lung.
COUNTRY
Taiwan.
TRADEMARK
Triat.
SIZE
Large.
STANDARD
Nil.
DATE OF PROD'N
11187.
I/D NUMBER
Nil.
MATERIAL
ABS/EPS.
IMPACT
DATA
(ll)
(1)
LOCATION
Nil
SURFACE STRUCK
Nil.
TEST SURFACE
Nil.
TEST RESULT
Nil.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
No damage to shell on liner.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
Retention system loose, helmet must have slipped off to permit head injury sustained by rider.
Contributed to injury?
Yes.
INJURY
L.O.C. half hour. Deep laceration R leg. Abrasion arms, fingers and legs.
PROJECT NUM8ER
16653, 981-3100.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
METHOD
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
49.
MANUFACTURER
Met.
COUNTRY
Italy.
TRADEMARK
Lucci.
SIZE
Large.
STANDARD
ANSI Z90.4
Snell B-84.
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
110 NUMBER
IMPACT
EPS.
DATA
(I)
(ll)
LOCATION
Rear right a*
Centre left a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
Vehicle panel.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
Flat.
TEST RESULT
680mm; 59g.
200mm; 34g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONOITION
EPS helmet collapsed into five pieces. Poor fusion.
Contributed to injury?
Yes.
RETENTION CONOITION
Webbing ends were not doubled over to prevent removal from fittings.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
Possible L.O.C. confused at scene. Fractured L ribs (2 & 4), fractured pneumo thorax.
Dislocated L a-c joint (hand).
PROJECT NUMBER
16653, 981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post -crash eval uation of bicyclists I helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
50.
MANUFACTURER
Headway.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
701.
SIZE
58.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PRon'N
2/91.
liD
J496617.
MATERIAL
EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(II)
(1)
LOCATION
Rear left b*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
2140mm, 133g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
PROJECT NUMBER
Fractured ribs, punctured lung. Fractured collarbone.
16653,981-3100.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
51.
MANUFACTURER
Nolan.
COUNTRY
Italy.
TRADEMARK
Zephyr New Max.
SIZE
Large.
STANDARD
VicRoads
Part AS 2063.2.
DATE OF PROD'N
4/94.
liD
Nil.
MA TERIAL
EPS foam.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(ll)
(l)
LOCATION
Front right rim b*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
420mm,57g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
.
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
Webbing ends were not doubled over to prevent removal from fittings. Male clip undone.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
L.O.C. 10 minutes. Bruised skull. Laceration R forehead, R face. Clot in vessel over R
temple. Grazed R hip, R shoulder.
PROJECT NUMBER
l
16653,981-3100.
~
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
52.
MANUFACTURER
Pro Headgear.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Pro- UItracool.
SIZE
59-60
STANDARD
VicRoads,
Part AS 2063.2.
DATE OF PROD'N
7/90.
liD
622.
MATERIAL
EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(II)
LOCATION
Left rear a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
TEST RESULT
250mm; 36g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
EPS fusion failure.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
Lacerated L skin. Fractured rib. Bruised shoulders/arms.
PROJECT NUMUER
16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
I
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
METHOD
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
53.
MANUFACTURER
Rosebank.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Ultralite.
SIZE
57.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
liD NUMBER
G704427.
MATERIAL
IMPACT
PBT/EPS.
DATA
(I)
(Il)
LOCATION
Left rear b*
Left centre a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Windscreen.
Vehicle panel.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
Flat.
TEST RESULT
470mm; 50g.
100mm; 22g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury but amnesia of event. Bruised R temple. Lacerated R occipit scalp. Fractured
pubic ramii, sacral foramina, avulsion L3L4L5 transverse processes.
PROJECT NUMBER
16653,981-3100.
Jechnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
54.
MANUFACTURER
Rosebank.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Ultralite.
SIZE
57.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
liD NUMBER
G707746.
MATERIAL
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(H)
LOCATION
Centre left a*
Centre right b*
SURFACE STRUCK
Roadway.
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
Flat.
TEST RESULT
100mm; 27g.
180mm; 28g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
No head injury.
PROJECT NUMnER
Lacerated chin. Abrasions chest.
16653,981-3100.
PBT/EPS.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET DATA
HELMET CODE
55.
MANUFACTURER
Rosebank.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Challenger.
SIZE
M/L.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PR(m'N
12/91.
liD
L188176.
MATERIAL
EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT DATA
(Ill)
LOCATION
Rear left a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Pedal end?
TEST SURFACE
20mm H section.
TEST RESULT
320mm; 28g; 97N.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
Contusion R eye. Abrasions cheek, L hip, R buttock. Headaches since.
PROJECT NUMBER
16653,981-3100.
lechnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
CLIENT
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
TEST
AS 2063.2-1990.
METHOD
HELMET
DATA
HELMET CODE
55.
MANUFACTURER
Rosebank.
COUNTRY
Australia.
TRADEMARK
Challenger.
SIZE
M/L.
STANDARD
AS 2063.2-1990.
DATE OF PROD'N
12/91.
liD
L188176.
MATERIAL
EPS.
NUMBER
IMPACT
DATA
(I)
(H)
LOCATION
Front left a*
Centre left a*
SURFACE STRUCK
Windscreen.
Roadway.
TEST SURFACE
Flat.
Flat.
TEST RESULT
l30mm; 28g.
190mm; 32g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET
PERFORMANCE
HELMET CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
RETENTION
No.
CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury?
No.
INJURY
Contusion R eye. Abrasions cheek, L hip, R buttock.
PROJECT NUMHER
16653,981-3100.
Headaches since.