Upload
edithcowan
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE PROTECTIVE PERFORMANCEOF BICYCLE HELMETS INTRODUCEDAT THE SAME TIME AS THE BICYCLE
HELMET WEARING LAW IN VICTORIA
by
MaxCameronCaroline Finch
Peter Vulcan
Monash UniversityAccident Research Centre
July 1994
Report No. 59
MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Report No.
59
Report Date
July 1994
ISBN
0732600588
Pages
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.
Sponsoring Organisation:
Roads Corporation (Vic Roads)
Type of Report & Period Covered
General, 1991-94
Abstract:
This project aimed to examine any changes in helmet performance due to the amendment ofthe Australian Standard for bicycle helmets, which was made at essentially the same time asthe introduction of the bicycle helmet wearing law in Victoria on I July 1990. There wasconcern that the deletion of the penetration test from the Standard may have resulted inreduced protection to the heads of cyclists involved in crashes. Forty helmets sustainingimpacts in crashes were collected from cyclists who were killed or treated at selectedMelbourne hospitals during 1991-92. These helmets were predominantly "foam-only" (afoam helmet often with a material cover), "micro-shell" (a foam helmet with a thin plasticshell), or light weight "hard-shell" (a foam helmet with a hard plastic shell) allowed underthe amended Standard. The new helmets were tested, and information on the bicyclists'injuries obtained, so that comparison could be made with similar information previouslyobtained for older-design, heavier hard-shell helmets. It was concluded that the newhelmets 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 evidenceof a real difference in protective performance between the older and new helmets so far asactual head injury risks are concerned. This may have been due to the absence of adifference or due to the relatively small number of helmets considered in the two helmetgroups.
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 ofinformation exchange. The views expressedare those of the authors and not necessarilythose 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 incrashes.
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 hard
shell 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 impactseverity) and the peak acceleration of the headform inside the helmet. Information on headinjuries was also obtained.
Forty helmets sustaining impacts in crashes were collected from cyclists who were killed ortreated 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 witha 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 withthe information obtained by the RACS.
The conclusions regarding the protective performance of the new helmets, in comparisonwith the older design, heavier hard-shell helmets, were:
1. The new helmets transmit a lower level of peak acceleration to the cyclist's headinside the helmet, for a given severity of impact on the external surface of thehelmet, for a range of impact types representative of those occurring in real bicyclecrashes (the majority resulting in blunt impacts to the helmets).
2. There was no evidence of a real difference in protective performance between theolder and new helmets so far as actual head injury risks are concerned. This mayhave been due to the absence of a difference or due to the relatively small number ofhelmets considered in the two helmet groups.
It was also concluded that the specified drop height of 1500 mm for the impact energyattenuation 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 involvedin crashes resulting in severe injury. In addition, since one-third of the major impacts on thenew helmets occurred below the test line, consideration could be given to lowering the lineto ensure that helmets provide protection against a larger proportion of impacts sustained inreal crashes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A project as long and as complex as this could not have been carried out without the help and co
operation 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 Collegeof Surgeons (RACS), and Principal Research Fellow at MUARC, who provided valuableguidance throughout the study
• Dr Joan Ozanne-Smith, Director of the Victorian Injury Surveillance System and SeniorResearch Fellow at the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC), who preparedthe submissions to the hospital Human Ethics Committees and provided advice on the collectionof 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 andcoded details of cyclists' injuries from medical and Coroners' records
• Mr George Rechnitzer, Senior Research Fellow at MUARC, who investigated crashes resultingin 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 injuredcyclists
• Manufacturers and importers who provided new helmets (some free of charge or at a discountrate) for use in the impact testing program
• Professor Frank McDermott, Chairman of the Victorian Road Trauma Committee, RACS, forproviding access to the impact test results and injury information collected during the College's1987-89 study of bicycle helmets impacted in crashes
• Ms Anne Tremayne of the State Coroner's Office, Victoria, who provided data collected duringthe RACS's 1987-89 study
• Mr Tri Le, Computer Systems Officer at MUARC, who entered the new data, established thedatabase 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 theirhelmets 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
BACKGROUND
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
DATA COLLECTION
3.1 Helmet collection3.2 Patient interview
3.3 Patient injury information3.4 Helmet impact tests
ANAL YSIS AND RESULTS
4.1 Principal points of impact4.2 Distribution of drop heights from impact tests4.3 Head acceleration related to impact severity
4.4 Head injuries
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
1
1
2
2334
5
556
6
11
12
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A. Summary of helmets collectedB. Patient Interview formC. Patient Information form
D. Helmet impact test reports from Technisearch
13
THE PROTECTIVE PERFORMANCE OF BICYCLE HELMETSINTRODUCED 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 helmetsthen 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. Theamended Standard introduced in April 1990, AS 2063.2-1990, confirmed these testrequirements, and specifically deleted the requirements for a hard shell, maximum size ofventilation openings, and resistance to a penetration test. The VicRoads interim approvalsystem 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 helmetperformance due to the change in the Australian Standard for bicycle helmets, which wasmade at essentially the same time as the introduction of the bicycle helmet wearing law inVictoria. There was concern that the deletion of the penetration test from the Standard mayhave 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 hadsustained an impact in a crash, as part of a larger study of bicyclist injuries (McDermott etal 1993). These crashes had resulted in the helmet wearer being admitted to or treated atone of 11 hospitals in Victoria during 1987-89. The helmets were submitted to the testinglaboratory of Technisearch Limited, who simulated the principal helmet damage by impacttests on new helmets of the same make, model and size. The test results included the dropheight (measuring the impact severity) and the peak acceleration of the headform inside thehelmet. Hospital records were interrogated to obtain details of the actual head injuriessustained (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 expandedpolystyrene (EPS) foam impact-absorbing liner. Fifty-three (85%) were designed to meetthe requirements of the Australian Standard before its 1990 amendment. The remainderwere 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 andinvolved in crashes prior to the bicycle helmet wearing law, ie. they were mainly heavyweight hard-shell helmets approved under the old Australian Standard. The data set ofimpact test results and head injury information collected by the RACS represented avaluable basis for a comparison of the new, lighter, "foam-only" and "micro-shell" helmets
permitted under the amended Standard.
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 bicyclistswho had been admitted or otherwise medically treated and to obtain access for initialinterviews. Permission was granted from the Royal Children's Hospital, Western Hospital,and Dandenong and District Hospital in April 1991, Preston and Northcote CommunityHospital in May 1991, and Box Hill Hospital in June 1991. The Alfred Hospital was addedto the group in May 1992.
At the interview (usually in a hospital ward), the patient or his/her parents were askedwhether 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 beenimpacted, the interview continued and the patient was asked to supply the helmet for testingin exchange for a voucher to purchase a new helmet up to a value of $50. Informed consentto access the patient's medical record to obtain details of the injuries sustained was alsoobtained directly from the patient.
Three helmets worn by fatally injured cyclists were also collected. In these cases thehelmets were sought and obtained by the Police, and the information on the crashcircumstances and the cyclist's injuries was obtained from Coroner's records.
Thirty-seven helmets were obtained which were representative of helmets approved underthe amended Australian Standard, AS 2063.2-1990, plus three hard-shell helmetsrepresentative 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 inhospital. The helmets were considered to have been impacted in the crash.
Category MassNo.Comment by Technisearchrange (g)
collected
Moderate weight hard-shell
510-5303Probably capable of passing AS2063.1-1986 and AS 2063.2-1986Light weight hard-shell
395-42511Capable of passing AS 2063.2-1990
Foam-only or micro-shell
245-25526Capable of passing AS 2063.2-1990TOTAL
40
2
An additional 25 helmets of the heavy weight hard-shell type approved under the oldStandard 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 ofthe 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 bicyclecollided with another bicycle or a jogger (Williams 1991). All but three of the patients wereriding on a bitumen road and two of the remainder crashed on a concrete driveway or cycletrack. 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 wereretained on their heads at the time it was impacted in the crash. Another two patients didnot know. The remaining three patients considered that their helmets came off beforeimpact. It should be noted that many of the patients suffered concussion and that theiropinions on this subject may not be reliable.
In two of the 40 cases, Technisearch considered that the patient's helmet could not havebeen 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 thesecircumstances, it was decided not to subject these helmets to impact testing. For similarreasons, only 58 ofthe 64 helmets collected by the RACS were impact tested; the remainderhad not been retained on the cyclist's head, had been run over by a motor vehicle, or morethan 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 abitumen roadway or concrete surface. Eleven (29%) principal points of impact were with avehicle metallic surface or windscreen. The remaining two cases involved an impact of thehelmet 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, ashad 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 theysustained 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 headinjuries 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 GlasgowComa 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 hadextensive experience in impact performance testing. The test procedure closely followedthe impact energy attenuation test in the Australian Standard AS 2063.1-1986 (Williams1991), which is also required in AS 2063.2-1990. The same procedure had been used to testthe helmets collected by the RACS during 1987-89.
The main points of impact on each helmet were determined by the depth, area and shape ofpermanent crushing that remained on the surfaces of the expanded polystyrene (EPS) energyabsorbing material from which the helmet was constructed. Up to three such points werelocated, but in the majority of tested cases (24) only one major point was found. A total of54 main points of impact were found.
Technisearch provided the location of the impacts on the helmets in relation to the test linespecified in the Australian Standard AS 2063.1-1986. The Standard specifies that helmetsmust satisfy the performance tests when impacted anywhere above the test line, but does notnecessarily require satisfactory performance below the line. Eighteen (33%) ofthe 54 majorpoints of impact on the newly collected helmets occurred below the test line. Among thehelmets 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 obtainedfrom manufacturers and importers and then passed to Technisearch. Technisearchsimulated the damage at each main impact point on the impacted helmets by dropping thenew helmets, strapped to an instrumented aluminium headform, in guided free-fall onto asteel anvil. The new helmets were dropped from progressively greater heights until thedamage sustained by the test helmet was similar to that produced on the impacted helmetduring the crash.
The shapes of the steel anvils used were chosen to represent approximately the shape of thesurface 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 byWilliams (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 toTechnisearch to assist in locating the main points of impact and is not necessarily the sameas the information extracted and coded from medical and Coroner's records (see Section3.3).
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 thepoint where the impact tests had suggested that the greatest impact severity (highestestimated drop height) had been applied during the crash. It was presumed that the mostsevere head injury (if any), measured on the AIS scale, was related to the impact at thispoint. Only the maximum AIS of head injury was available for the bicyclists with testedhelmets 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 theywere 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 250mm. It was considered that the newly collected helmets, being predominantly foam-only ormicro-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 impactedduring the crash, and thus to have been included in the study after sustaining low impactseverities, 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 betaken into account in the analysis.
Four (or 11%) of the newly collected helmets had drop heights estimated as exceeding 1500mm, the height from which the impact energy attenuation test in the Australian Standard AS2063.1-1986 is performed. Ten per cent of the drop heights estimated for the helmetscollected in the RACS series also exceeded this level. Thus a significant proportion ofhelmets involved in real crashes leading to severe cyclist injury appear to be exposed tomore 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 1RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEAD ACCELERATION AND HELMET DROP HEIGHT
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Drop height (mm)
350
300§ 250
l:.2~ 200Gi
uu••~ 150".s:""••"ll.. 100
500
0
200 400 600
o 0
o9.j).··
o
o
• 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 helmetsets. The 95% confidence limits for the estimated regression slopes and intercepts did notoverlap when the two helmet sets were compared. Thus there was a statistically significantdifference between the two relationships.
The higher head accelerations, for a given impact severity, apparently experienced by thewearers of the older helmets, which were predominantly hard-shell types, may be due to theplastic shell deflecting elastically giving a non-negligible rebound velocity and hence ahigher velocity change to the cyclist's head. It may also be due to the thick shell, whenimpacting a flat surface, spreading the load sufficiently widely for too little of the crushableEPS 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 thedrop height, is shown for each of the two sets of helmets in Figure 2. Many of the cyclistsdid not sustain any head injury (AIS = 0), but sustained injuries to other body regionsrequiring treatment in hospital. There is a general tendency for a greater proportion to havesustained a head injury when their helmets have sustained a greater impact severity.
6
FIGURE 2
MAXIMUM AIS OF HEAD INJURY vs DROP HEIGHT
3+ o •• 0 • 0 •• o
~":? 2'tlI'llGl.c'0IIIC(
E"E 1';(I'll
::E
••• ElOO 0 • 0 0 00
o 00 e 0
o O. o 0 o 0
• o
o I_ •_~~ ----~.~.~--~--~.~~I----~---~----~o 250 500 750 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 levelsin 200 mm ranges of drop height. There was no clear pattern of increasing frequency orseverity of head injury with the drop heights of the new helmets, possibly due to therelatively small number of these helmets (N = 38), but there was some indication of a trendamong the head injuries sustained by wearers of the older helmets (N = 56) (Figure 4).
FIGURE 3DISTRIBUTION OF HEAD INJURY SEVERITY ACCORDING TO DROP HEIGHT -1991/92 DATA
.AIS=3+
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 1801-2000 2001-2200 2201-2400
Drop height (mm)
I 0 No head injury 0 AIS=1 • AIS=2
7
FIGURE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF HEAD INJURY SEVERITY ACCORDING TO DROP HEIGHT -1987-89 DATA
100%
90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%1-200
201-400
401600
601800
8011000
10011200
12011400
16011800
18012000
20012200
22012400
Drop height (mm)
I 0 No head injury 0 AIS=1 • AIS=2• AIS=3+
In order to smooth the trends in the data on the limited number of helmets available, Figures5 and 6 show the percentages of injured cyclists with head injuries in cumulative ranges ofdrop height. It can be seen that there is a tendency for a reducing percentage of cyclists tohave escaped any head injury as the range of drop heights increases. There is also atendency for the percentage sustaining severe injury (AIS at least 2) to increase.
FIGURES
PROPORTION OF INJURED CYCLISTS WITH HEAD INJURIES ACCORDING TO CUMULATIVERANGES OF DROP HEIGHT -1991/92 DATA
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
<=200 <=400 <=600 <=800 <=1000 <=1200 <=1400 <=1600 <=1800 <=2000 <=2200 <=2400
Drop height (mm)
I 0 No head injury 0 AIS=1 • AIS=2 • AIS=3+
8
FIGURE 6
PROPORTION OF INJURED CYCLISTS WITH HEAD INJURIES ACCORDING TO CUMULATIVE
RANGES OF DROP HEIGHT -1987-89 DATA
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
• AIS=3+
<=200 <=400 <=600 <=800 <=1000 <=1200 <=1400 <=1600 <=1800 <=2000 <=2200 <=2400
Drop height (mm)
I D No head injury 61AIS=1 • AIS=2
Figure 7 compares the cumulative percentages of the cyclists in each group who sustainedany head injury (ArS = 1 or more), as a function of increasing drop height, for the two setsof helmets. It can be seen that, in general, the new helmets were associated with a lowerproportion of cyclists sustaining head injuries than the older helmets, for impact severitiesup to any given level (the exception being for impacts equivalent to drop heights below 200mm). However the difference between these two cumulative distributions was notstatistically significant when tested by the Kolmogorov-Smimov (K-S) test (Neave 1981)(K-S test statistic = 78; p > 0.05).
FIGURE 7
CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OF CASES WITH A HEAD INJURY ACCORDING TO DROP HEIGHT
.0 -0 _ .•.•• 0"" - _0 - - •• 0
•••• .£J- • __ -c:- ••.•.• _()II •• - •• _0 ••o' •0" ••••••
<=400 <=600 <=800 <=1000 <=1200 <=1400 <=1600 <=1800 <=2000 <=2200 <=2400
Drop height (mm)
1-1991192data - -00 - 1987-89data I
100
908070~
60
~c 50" ~"11. 40
3020100<=200
9
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 headinjuries, 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 HEAD INJURY
ACCORDING TO DROP HEIGHT
100
90
80
70
•••••••4=- _ •• .0. _ •• .0- • - •• ()o •••• 00 ••• -c- •••• 00 - • - -0 ••• ·0•30
20 ,10 ,,
o 6' I
<=200 <=400 <=600 <=800 <=1000 <=1200 <=1400 <=1600 <=1800 <=2000 <=2200 <=2400
Drop height (mm)
1-1991192data -.()o - 1987-89dataI
- 60~~ 50l:!
er. 40
In contrast, Figure 9 shows that the new helmets were associated with a higher proportionof 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 9CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OF CASES WITH AN AIS 3 LEVEL OR ABOVE HEAD INJURY
ACCORDING TO DROP HEIGHT
100
90
80
70
- 60~i 50l:!
er. 40
30
20
10
o ~ •
•••••••• I() •••••••• ~ •••••••• <5••.•.•. ..:J- •.•.•. -0- -:J- •.•.•. -<:)00 •.•.•. -0_0_ •. - •. 0
<=200 <=400 <=600 <=800 <=1000 <=1200 <=1400 <=1600 <=1800 <=2000 <=2200 <=2400
Drop height (mm)
!-1991192data - -00 - 1987-89dataI
10
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 partsof 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 performedbetter (ie. lower surface forces and peak accelerations of the headform), for a given dropheight, than hard-shell helmets when flat anvils were used, and that the foam-only helmetshad been disadvantaged when tested on non-flat anvils, especially those with smaller radiiof curvature.
Notwithstanding this, it is believed that the impact testing provided a reliable estimate of theimpact severity (measured as equivalent drop height) applied to the cyclist's helmet at eachmajor point of impact during the crash. The testing program also provided a measure of theoutput from this severity of impact in terms of the forces on the cyclist's head inside thehelmet, measured by the peak acceleration of the headform to which the test helmet wasstrapped.
It was found that the new helmets appeared to have been exposed to a greater proportion ofcontacts with impact severities at low levels than the older helmets. However, at higherlevels of impact, both sets of helmets had been exposed to a broad range of impact severitiesup to levels equivalent to drop heights exceeding 2000 mm. Nevertheless, the disparity inthe distribution of impact severities to which the two sets of helmets were exposed made itimperative that impact severity was taken into account in the analysis, and this wassubsequently done throughout.
It was noted that in none of the cases did a new helmet appear to have sustained apenetrating impact (this was also the case for the helmets collected by the RACS). This isnoteworthy because it suggests that few, if any, penetrating impacts occur in real bicyclecrashes. This suggests that the deletion of the penetration test from the Australian Standardmay not be considered to have relaxed or weakened the Standard, because in fact the testhas little or no relevance.
More than 10% of helmets collected in each series appeared to have sustained contacts withimpact severities of greater magnitude than the equivalent drop height of 1500 mm specifiedfor the impact energy attenuation test in the Australian Standard. This suggests that thespecified drop height has been set too low if the intention is to cover closer to the full rangeof impact severities experienced by the helmets of cyclists involved in crashes resulting insevere 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-flatsurfaces and were tested with appropriate non-flat anvils.
When the incidence and severity of the head injuries of the cyclists wearing the testedhelmets 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 twogroups of helmets were statistically significant. Thus there was no evidence of a realdifference in protective performance between the older and new helmets so far as actualhead injury risks are concerned. This may have been due to the absence of a difference ordue to the relatively small number of helmets considered in the two helmet groups.
It should be noted that maximum AIS was the only measure of head injury available forcomparison of the two groups of helmets. An analysis based on other measures of headinjury severity such as the number of head injuries or the Glasgow Coma Scale, had theybeen available, may have displayed different results.
6. CONCLUSIONS
New, lighter bicycle helmets, manufactured entirely of expanded polystyrene foam orcovered with a light weight plastic shell, have become common in Victoria following thedeletion of the penetration test from the Australian Standard for bicycle helmets atessentially the same time as the introduction of the mandatory' requirement for cyclists towear approved helmets. The conclusions from this study of the protective performance ofthe 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 headinside the helmet, for a given severity of impact on the external surface of thehelmet, for a range of impact types representative of those occurring in real bicyclecrashes (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 theAustralian 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 otheractivities requiring similar protection), Part 1 - Basic performance requirements, AS2063.1-1986. Standards Association of Australia, Sydney.
AS (1986), Lightweight protective helmets (for use in pedal cycling, horse riding and otheractivities 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 otheractivities 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), Theeffectiveness 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 andPrevention, 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
SUMMARY OF HELMETS COLLECTED
B1/01/91 ATOM PB2B5/02/91
BELL V1-ProB6/03/91
ROSE BANKGrand Prix101
NOLAN Zephyr New Max102
DAVIES CRAIGHartop103
DAVIES CRAIGHartop107
ATOM Airlite108
PRO HEADGEARPro-Ultracool 888
1110ATOM Airlite
111
ATOM Airlite
112
DAVIES CRAIGHartop115
ATOM Airlite/16
ATOM PB2119
ROSEBANKUltralite120
PRO HEADGEARPro-Ultracool888122
PRO HEADGEARPro-Ultracool 888123
HEADWAY701126
HEADWAYFreestyle127
ROSEBANKChallenger128
PRO HEADGEARPro-U Itracool129
ATOM Airlite131
HEADWAYJoey132
EQUINE SCIENCETCB Streamlight 252136
EQUINE SCIENCETCB Streamlight 252137
HEADWAYFreestyle 501139
ATOM Airlite140
PRO HEADGEARPro-Ultracool252143
ATOM Airlite144
MET Lucci145
ATOM Airlite146
BELL Cyclone147
ROSEBANKUltralite148
KIN YONG LUNGTriat
149
MET Lucci150
HEADWAY701151
NOLAN Zephyr New Max152
PRO HEADGEARPro-Ultracool153
ROSEBANKUltralite154
ROSEBANKUltralite155
ROSEBANKChallenger Australia
USA
Australia
ItalyAustralia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
AustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustralia
ItalyAustraliaUSAAustraliaTaiwan
ABS/EPS
Thermoplastic/EPSPBT/EPS
EPS
PBT/EPS
PBT/EPS
EPS
EPS
EPS
EPS
PBT/EPS
EPS
ABS/EPSPBT/EPSEPSEPSEPSABS/EPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSABS/EPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSPlastic/EPSPBT/EPSABS/EPS
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) :
Interview Date .
What do you think: caused the injuries? (e.g. hitting the roadway/part of the bicycle/part of acar)
...........................................................................................................................•.................................
............................................ .
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••• ••• • •••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Any other comments about the accident :
.......................................................................................................................................................
•............•...............•.............•............... .
.............................•..•.......... .
Were you wearing any protective clothing (apart from a bicycle helmet)?
If YES, please give details:
HELMET DErAILS
What did the helmet strike in the accident?
YES/NO
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? (e.g. uncomfortable, too loose,etc.)
How old was the helmet? .
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 Time .
Telephone number .
MONASH UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
VICTORIAN INJURY SURVEIlLANCE SYSTEM
MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
BICYCLE HELMET EVALUATION PROJECT
PATIENT INFORMATION
MUARC case No.
PATIENT DETAILS
Age .
HOSPITAL
Sex '" .
1. INJURIES BY BODY REGION
HeadlNeck Injuries(ISS Body Regions, maximumAIS)
1. AIS 85AIS 90
2.
AIS 85AIS 90
3.
AIS 85AIS 90
4.
AIS 85AIS 90
5.
AIS 85AIS90
6.
AIS 85AIS 90
Face Injuries(ISS Body Region, maximumAIS)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
AIS 85
AIS 85
AIS 85
AIS 85
AIS 85
AIS 85
AIS 90 ----AIS 90 ----AIS90 _
AIS90 _
AIS 90 ----AIS 90
26 RAILWA Y AVENUE, CAULFIELD EAST 3145 (pO BOX 191, CAULFIELD EAST, MELBOURNE, VICTORIA 3145) AUSTRALIAFAX: (61X3) 513 2882 TELEPHONE: (03) 513 2880 lOO: +6135132880
Chest Injuries (ISS Body Region, maximum AIS)
1. AIS 85---------2. AIS 85---------3. AIS 85---------4. AIS 85---------5. AIS 85---------6. AIS 85---------
AIS90 _
AIS90 _
AIS 90 ----AIS 90 ----AIS 90
AIS 90
Abdomen and Pelvic Content (ISS Body Region, maximum AIS)
1. AIS 85 AIS 90 _
2. AIS 85 AIS 90 _
3. AIS 85 AIS 90---------- ----- -----4. AIS 85 AIS 90---------- ----- -----5. AIS 85 AIS 90---------- ----- -----6. AIS 85 AIS 90 _
Extremity and Pelvis (ISS Body Region, maximum MS)
1. MS 85---------2. MS 85---------3. MS85 _
4. MS 85
5. AIS 85---------6. MS 85
External Injuries (ISS Body Region, maximum MS)
1. MS 85
2. MS 85----------3. MS 85----------4. MS 85----------5. MS85
6. MS 85
2. HEAD INJURY IDENTIFIED
MS 90 ----MS90 _
AIS 90 ----MS 90 ----MS90 _
MS 90
MS 90 ----AIS90 _
MS90 _
MS 90 ----MS 90 ----MS90 _
1 = yes 2=no D
3. WAS THE CASUALTY RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS IN THE ACCIDENT?FOR THE PURPOSES OF TIllS STUDY, A CASUALTYIS SAID TO BEUNCONSCIOUS IF: FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A BYSTANDE~ THECASUALTY IS UNROUSABLEAND UNRESPONSIVE,
AND/OR
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE VICTIM, HE OR SHE IS ABSOLUTELYUNAWARE OF THEIR SURROUNDINGS,AS IF ASLEEP.
1 = Yes, the casualty was unconscious2 = No, there was no loss of consciousness3 = Don't know
4. DURATION OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS
1 = Only a second or two - transient, momentary2 = Less than a minute3 = More than a minute4 = Less than 1 hour5 = More than 1 hour
D
D
5. DOES THE CASUALTY REMEMBER BEING AT THE SCENE OF THE
ACCIDENT, BEFORE IT OCCURRED?
6.
1 = Yes2 = No3 = Not sure4 = No information available
HEAD CIRCUMFERENCE .. ems
D
7. WAS AN OPERATION PERFORMED ON THE HEAD?
1 = Yes2 = No
Describe briefly if yes:
D
8. GLASGOW COMA CHART READINGS (HEAD INJURY CASES ONLY)I.E. ACTUAL TRANSCRIBINGS FROM THE HOSPITAL OBSERVATIONCHARTS IF AVAILABLE AT THE FOLLOWING TIMES:
GLASCOW PRE-E.D.POSTE.D.POSTE.D.POSTE.D.COMA SCORE
ADMISSIONADMISSIONADMISSIONADMISSIONADMISSIONTime since
Time since4 hours24 hours72 hours
injwy .......injwy .......
mms
mins
EYE OPENING 4 = spontaneous3 =To voice2 = To pain1 = NoneVERBALRESPONSE5 = Oriented4 = Confused3 = fuappropriateWords2 = IncomprehensibleWords1 = NoneMOTOR RESPONSE6 = Obey command5 = Localises pain4 = Withdraw (pain)3 = Reflection (pain)2 = Extension (pain)1 = NoneTOTAL
9.
10.
LENGTH OF STAY IN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT
LENGTH OF STAY IN ACUTE HOSPITAL
................ Hours
... Days................
11. SURVIVAL
1 = Alive
2 = Dead from Head Injury Only3 = Dead from Multiple Injuries (Including Head)4 = Dead from Complications of Treatment for Head Injury5 = Dead from Other Injuries6 = Death Unrelated to Accident
D
04107/9416:12 HELM-PAT.DOe
Technlsearch,~I
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
Bl/l/91.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Atom.
PB2.
AS 2063.2-1990.
F107821.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
M57.
ABS/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(1)
Centre left a*
Roadway.
Flat.
1620mm, 140g.
(lI)
HELMET CONDITION
EPS foam fusion failure.Contributed to injury?
RETENTION CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
Possibly.
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
Fatal. Extensive distributed brain damage. No skull fracture. Bruised scalp top of head.
PROJECT NUMRER 16653,981-3100.
TechnisearchI
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
I TESTMEmOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
B5/2/9l.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Bell.
VI-Pro.
Snell.
B249l254.
(1)
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
IMPACT DATA
(ll)
USA.
S/M.
Thermoplastic/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
HELMET CONDITION
Front left a*
Roadway.
Flat.
l690mm, 134g.
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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. Severe chest injuries and fractured spine.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
HELMET CODE B6/3/9l.
MANUFACTURER
Rosebank.COUNTRYAustralia.
TRADEMARK
Grand Prix.SIZE 60cm.
STANDARD
AS 2063.1-1986.DATE OF PROD'N
liD NUMBER
G732213.MATERIALPBT*/EPS.
* Polybutylenterephthalate.
IMPACT DATA
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
(I)
No impact damage a*
Nil.
N/A.
N/A.
(H)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK. Helmet not damaged while rider sustained severe head injury. Helmet not on rider's headat impact.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
Retention webbing habitually worn very loose. Indicated by creased chinstrap webbing and wearat crease.
Contributed to injury? Yes.
INJURY
Fatal. Comminuted fracture of left parietal and occipital bones with a transverse extension acrossthe middle cranial fossa involving both petrous temporal bones. Subgaleal haematoma over theleft parieto-occipital region. Subarachnoid haemorrhages.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
01.
Nolan. COUNTRY
Zephyr New Max. SIZE
VicRoads Part DATE OF PROD1NAS 2063.2-1990.
MATERIAL
IMPACT DATA
Italy.
Large.
4/90.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
(1)
Rear left a*
Roadway.
Flat.
540mm,60g.
(ll)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
Webbing ends were not doubled over to prevent removal from fittings. Male clip held in placeby granny knot in webbing.Contributed to injury? Yes.
INJURY
No head injury. Severely grazed L knee, L elbow. Bruised ribs.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
Technlsearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
02.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Davies Craig.
Hartop.
AS 2063.1-1986.
G311016.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
57.
10/87.
PBT/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
HELMET CONDITION
IMPACT DATA
(1)
(ll)
Front left b*
Rear left rim b*
Rear s/wagon pillar.
Roadway.
20mm square XS rod.
Flat.
1730mm; 181g; 925N.
360mm; 31g.
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
03.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Davies Craig.
Hartop.
AS 2063.1-1986.
F548957.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
53.
12/87.
PBT/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Front left rim b*
Vehicle panel.
Flat.
80mm, 18g.
(11)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
EPS foam severely cracked at thin cross-section - old cracking. Broken into five pieces.Contributed to injury? No.
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
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
07.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Atom.
Airlite.
Part AS 2063.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
57-59.
EPS foam.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Right rear top a*
Roadway.
Flat.
950mm,83g.
(11)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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. Fractured L femur (transverse, closed). L thigh swollen, pain L shoulder andboth elbows.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
Jechnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
08.
Pro Headgear. COUNTRY
Pro-Ultracool 888. SIZE
VicRoads, DATE OF PROD'NPart AS 2063.2.
No. 15335. MATERIAL
IMPACT DATA
Australia.
57-58
11/90.
EPS foam.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
(I)
Rear centre top a*
Windscreen.
Flat.
140mm,30g.
(ll)
Rear left rim b*
Roadway.
Flat.
280mm; 38g.
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above lest line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
L.O.C. time not specified. LI vertebra crushed. Lacerations skin and hip. Bruised legs andfeet.
PROJECT NUM8ER 16653, 981-3100.
TechnisearchI~---i
i
!
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
10.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMUER
Atom.
Airlite.
AS 2063.2-1990.
1388332.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
59-62.
2/91.
EPS foam.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Front centre upper a*
Rear panel of truck.
Flat.
280mm,42g.
(II)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
11.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
lID NUMBER
Atom.
Airlite.
AS 2063.2-1990.
H889673.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
56-59
11/90.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Rear right upper a*
Flat vehicle panel.
Flat.
90mm, 13g.
(ll)
Left cen tre a*
Wiper pivot knob.
12mm rod end.
320mm; 48g; 152N.
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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
rI
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
12.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Davies Craig.
Hartop.
AS 2063.1-1986.
F020297.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROO'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
57.
3/87.
PBT/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Front centre rim b*
Gutter.
Flat.
230mm,24g.
(ll)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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
II
I
i PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
I PROJECT : Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
I CLIENT : Monash University Accident Research Centre.I
I TEST METHOD: AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
HELMET CODE
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
15.
Atom.
Airlite.
AS 2063.1-1986.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
Large.
1/90.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(1)
Left centre a*
Roadway.
Flat.
80mm,26g.
(ll)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
No head injury. Torn L shoulder muscles. Abrasion L elbow. Bruising L shoulder.
PRO.JECTNuMBER 16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post -crash eval uation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
16.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Atom.
PB2.
AS 2063.1-1986.
E506791.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
57-63.
9/88.
ABS/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Right rear upper a*
Roadway.
Flat.
60mm,20g.
(11)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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. Generalized grazes.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
19.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMHER
Rosebank.
Ultralite.
AS 2063.2-1990.
H125435.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
60.
PBT/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(1)
Front right rim b*
Roadway.
Flat.
240mm,34g.
(lI)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
No head injury. Fracture L arm, grazes.
PROJECT NUMHER 16653,981-3100.
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
Technisearch
I
I
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMHER
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
20.
Pro Headgear. COUNTRY
Pro- Ultracool 888. SIZE
Vic Roads, Part DATE OF PROD'NAS 2063.2-1990.
No. 14354. MATERIAL
IMPACT DATA
Australia.
57-58.
11190.
/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
(I)
Front left a*
Cycle track.
Flat.
140mm,22g.
(ll)
Rear left a*
Cycle track.
Flat.
230mm; 31g.
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
EPS fusion failure.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
No head injury. Fractured elbow, chipped bone in hip, grazed elbow.
PROJECT NUMHER 16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
22.
Pro Headgear. COUNTRY
Pro Ultracool 888. SIZE
Australia.
57-58.
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
VicRoads, PartAS 2063.2-1986.
No. 745.
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Left centre a*
Vehicle roof.
Flat.
120mm,22g.
(H)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
23.
Headway Helmets. COUNTRY
701. SIZE
AS 2063.2-1990. DATE OF PROD'N
1325140. ~ATERIAL
IMPACT DATA
Australia.
58.
6/91.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
(I)
Front right b*
Vehicle panel/rucksack.
Flat.
50mm,20g.
(ll)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
Webbing ends were glued double but bond was broken. Side clip and female buckle notconnected to webbing.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
No head injury. Fractured fibula, bruised calf. Abrasions - R elbow, R knee, R ribs, bothbuttocks.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
27.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Rosebank.
Challenger.
AS 2063.2-1990.
L191082.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
M/L.
12/91.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
HELMET CONDITION
IMPACT DATA
(Ill)
Rear right b*
Roadway.
Flat.
l80mm; 26g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
L.O.C. period not indicated. Slight memory loss. Compound fracture R leg. Broken nose.Grazed top right forehead.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
27.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMUER
Rosebank.
Challenger.
AS 2063.2-1990.
L191082.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
M/L.
12/91.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Front right a*
Windscreen/roof joint.
50mm round.
1170mm; 68g, 151N.
(ll)
Cen tre top a*
Vehicle panel.
Flat.
21Omm; 26g.
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
L.O.C. period not indicated. Slight memory loss. Compound fracture R leg. Broken nose.Grazed top right forehead.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
26.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
I/O NUMHER
Headway.
Freestyle.
AS 2063.2-1990.
H635437.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
55.
10/90.
ABS/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Front right a*
Concrete drive.
Flat.
80mm,22g.
(II)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
Webbing ends were glued double but bond was broken. Webbing could be removed fromfittings.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
No head injury. Fractured R arm, bruised legs.
PROJECT NUMRER 16653, 981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
28.
VicRoads DATE OF PROD'NPart AS 2063.2-1990.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Pro Headgear.
Pro-Ultracool.
15760.
COUNTRY
SIZE
MATERIAL
Australia.
59-60.
12/90.
EPS.
(I)
IMPACT DATA
(ll)
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
HELMET CONDITION
Front right b*
Flat SEC pole.
Flat.
540mm, 52g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OKContributed 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
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
29.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Atom.
Airlite.
AS 2063.2-1990.
H356627.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
57-59.
8/90.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(1)
Left front b*
Bar at rear van.
50mm round.
1270mm, 74g; 199N.
(ll)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
No head injury. Lacerations forehead. Bruised neck. Lacerated knee.
PRO.JECTNUM8ER 16653,981-3100.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post -crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
31.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Headway.
Joey.
AS 2063.2-1990.
L293191.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PIWD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
54.
1/92.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Rear centre b*
Roadway.
Flat.
1340mm; 98g.
(H)
Right centre b*
Roadway.
Flat.
280mm; 42g.
HELMET CONOITION
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONOITION
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
No head injury. Sprained ankle, bruise forearm and upperback.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
32.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Equine Science.
TCB Streamlight252.
AS 2063.2-1990.
H374716.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
M.
1/90.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
HELMET CONDITION
IMPACT DATA
(I)
(H)
Centre left a*
Centre right a*
Roadway.
Wall.
Flat.
Flat.
250mm; 32g.
240mm; 33g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
Concussion. Dislocated R elbow. Abrasions R arm.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post -crash eval uation of bicyclists I helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
36.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Equine Science.
TCB Streamlight252.
AS 2063.2-1990.
J671650.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
Large.
3/91.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Front Centre a*
Roadway.
Flat.
820mm; 71g.
(H)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
Concussion. Fractured L collarbone. Sprained neck (whiplash type injury).
PRO.JECTNuMnER 16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
37.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Headway.
Freestyle 501.
AS 2063.2-1990.
J481035.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
62.
2/91.
ABS/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Front right a*
Roadway.
Flat.
11Omm,22g.
(ll)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
No head injury. Fractured L wrist. Bruised L shoulder. Lacerations R elbow, L elbow.
PROJECT NUMIJER 16653,981-3100.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post -crash eval uation of bicyclists I helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
39.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
I/D NUMBER
Atom.
Airlite.
AS 2063.2-1990.
K578952.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
57-59.
11/91.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(1)
Front right a*
Vehicle panel/window.
Flat.
220mm,3lg.
(Il)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONnITION
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
No head injury. Bruised chest, shoulders and hands.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
40.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
Pro Headgear.
Pro- Ultracool.252.
COUNTRY
SIZE
Australia.
59-60.
STANDARD VicRoads DATE OF PROD'NPart AS 2063.2-1990.
12/90.
liD NUMHER 22599.
(I)
MATERIAL
IMPACT DATA
(II)
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
HELMET CONDITION
Front right b*
Roadway.
Flat.
160mm,25g.
* a = above test line,' b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OKContributed to injury? No.
INJURY
Concussion. Lacerations R side face. Bruised legs, thighs and knees.
PRO.JECTNuMHER 16653,981-3100.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
45.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Atom.
Airlite.
AS 2063.2-1990.
L092943.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
57-59.
1/92.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
IMPACT DATA
(1)
Front rim a*
Roadway.
Flat.
(ll)
TEST RESULT
HELMET CONDITION
220mm,38g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.
Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.
Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
Mild concussion, headaches. Strained neck, L knee. Sprained wrist.
PROJECT NUMIJER 16653, 981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
44.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Met.
Lucci.
ANSI Z90.4.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Italy.
Large.
2/90.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Front rim b*
Roadway.
Flat.
(11)
TEST RESULT
HELMET CONDITION
360mm; 38g.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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. Contusion R arm, abrasions L elbow. Bruised L hip.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653, 981-3100.
Jechnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
43.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
lID NUMBER
Atom.
Airlite.
AS 2063.2-1990.
1578519.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
59-62.
1/91.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(1)
Top rear a*
Roadway.
Flat.
80mm,26g.
(lI)
Front left a*
Roadway.
Flat.
90mm, 199.
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
No head injury. Bruised L knee. Fractured L big toe. Abrasions face and legs.
PRO.JECTNUMBER 16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
46.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Bell.
Cyclone.
AS 2063.2-1990.
K721754.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
U.S.A.
M/L.
12/91.
Plastic/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Left centre a*
Vehicle panel.
Flat.
770mm: 73g.
(H)
Top a*
Roadway.
Flat.
71Omm; 104g.
HELMET CONI>ITlON
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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. Scalp lacerations, abrasions to bothknees.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
47.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Rosebank.
Ultralite.
AS 2063.2-1990.
K304522.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
57.
10/91.
PBT/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Front rim b*
Roadway.
Flat.
180mm,26g.
(H)
Centre right a*
Roadway.
Flat.
240mm,37g.
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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. Four fractures of R leg. Fractured wrist.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
48.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
I/D NUMBER
Kin Yong Lung.
Triat.
Nil.
Nil.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Taiwan.
Large.
11187.
ABS/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
(1)
Nil
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
IMPACT DATA
(ll)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
49.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
110 NUMBER
Met.
Lucci.
ANSI Z90.4Snell B-84.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Italy.
Large.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Rear right a*
Roadway.
Flat.
680mm; 59g.
(ll)
Centre left a*
Vehicle panel.
Flat.
200mm; 34g.
HELMET CONOITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post -crash eval uation of bicyclists I helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
50.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Headway.
701.
AS 2063.2-1990.
J496617.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PRon'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
58.
2/91.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(1)
Rear left b*
Roadway.
Flat.
2140mm, 133g.
(II)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
No head injury. Fractured ribs, punctured lung. Fractured collarbone.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
51.
Nolan. COUNTRY
Zephyr New Max. SIZE
VicRoads DATE OF PROD'NPart AS 2063.2.
Nil. MA TERIAL
IMPACT DATA
Italy.
Large.
4/94.
EPS foam.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
(l)
Front right rim b*
Roadway.
Flat.
420mm,57g.
(ll)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
. HELMET PERFORMANCE
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 Rtemple. Grazed R hip, R shoulder.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
l ~
Technisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
52.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Pro Headgear.
Pro- UItracool.
VicRoads,Part AS 2063.2.
622.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
59-60
7/90.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Left rear a*
Roadway.
Flat.
250mm; 36g.
(II)
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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.
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
Technisearch
I
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
53.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Rosebank.
Ultralite.
AS 2063.2-1990.
G704427.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
57.
PBT/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Left rear b*
Windscreen.
Flat.
470mm; 50g.
(Il)
Left centre a*
Vehicle panel.
Flat.
100mm; 22g.
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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. Fracturedpubic ramii, sacral foramina, avulsion L3L4L5 transverse processes.
PROJECT NUMBER 16653,981-3100.
Jechnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists I helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
54.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Rosebank.
Ultralite.
AS 2063.2-1990.
G707746.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
57.
PBT/EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Centre left a*
Roadway.
Flat.
100mm; 27g.
(H)
Centre right b*
Roadway.
Flat.
180mm; 28g.
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
RETENTION CONDITION
OK.Contributed to injury? No.
INJURY
No head injury. Lacerated chin. Abrasions chest.
PROJECT NUMnER 16653,981-3100.
7echnisearch
PROTECTIVE HELMET EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
55.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Rosebank.
Challenger.
AS 2063.2-1990.
L188176.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PR(m'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
M/L.
12/91.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
HELMET CONDITION
IMPACT DATA
(Ill)
Rear left a*
Pedal end?
20mm H section.
320mm; 28g; 97N.
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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
CLIENT
TEST METHOD
HELMET CODE
Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
AS 2063.2-1990.
HELMET DATA
55.
MANUFACTURER
TRADEMARK
STANDARD
liD NUMBER
Rosebank.
Challenger.
AS 2063.2-1990.
L188176.
COUNTRY
SIZE
DATE OF PROD'N
MATERIAL
Australia.
M/L.
12/91.
EPS.
LOCATION
SURFACE STRUCK
TEST SURFACE
TEST RESULT
IMPACT DATA
(I)
Front left a*
Windscreen.
Flat.
l30mm; 28g.
(H)
Centre left a*
Roadway.
Flat.
190mm; 32g.
HELMET CONDITION
* a = above test line; b = below test line
HELMET PERFORMANCE
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 NUMHER 16653,981-3100.