the protective performance of bicycle helmets introduced at the … · 2015-05-20 · cameron, m.h....

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

glenda

Stamp

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

APPENDIX A

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


ATOM Airlite108

PRO HEADGEARPro-Ultracool 888

1110ATOM Airlite

111

ATOM Airlite

112


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


ATOM Airlite144

MET Lucci145

ATOM Airlite146

BELL Cyclone147


KIN YONG LUNGTriat

149

MET Lucci150

HEADWAY701151

NOLAN Zephyr New Max152




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

PATIENT INTERVIEW FORM

APPENDIXB


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 .

PATIENT INFORMATION FORM

APPENDIXC

MONASH UNIVERSITY

ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE

VICTORIAN INJURY SURVEIlLANCE SYSTEM


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

HELMET IMPACT TEST REPORTS

FROM TECHNISEARCH

APPENDIXD

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


PROJECT

CLIENT

I TESTMEmOD

HELMET CODE

Post-crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.


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


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD



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


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.


Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE

MANUFACTURER

TRADEMARK

STANDARD

liD NUMBER



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


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.


Technlsearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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.


HELMET PERFORMANCE

EPS foam severely cracked at thin cross-sections - old cracking.Contributed to injury? No.

RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

No head injury.

PROJECT NUMIlER 16653,981-3100.

Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


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


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


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.


Jechnisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE

MANUFACTURER

TRADEMARK

STANDARD

liD NUMBER



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


RETENTION CONDITION

OK.


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

!


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

Lacerated upper and lower lip. Grazed nose.

PRO.JECTNuMRER 16653,981-3100.

Jechnisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

Fractured tibia. Bruised L calf, grazed elbow. Nil head injury.


Technisearch

rI


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE

EPS foam severely cracked at thin cross-section - old damage.Contributed to injury? No.

RETENTION CONDITION


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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

No head injury. Torn L shoulder muscles. Abrasion L elbow. Bruising L shoulder.

PRO.JECTNuMBER 16653,981-3100.

Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE

Post -crash eval uation of bicyclists' helmets.


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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

No head injury. Generalized grazes.


7echnisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

No head injury. Fracture L arm, grazes.

PROJECT NUMHER 16653,981-3100.


Technisearch

I

I

PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE

MANUFACTURER

TRADEMARK

STANDARD

liD NUMHER



AS 2063.2-1990.

HELMET DATA

20.


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


HELMET PERFORMANCE

EPS fusion failure.Contributed to injury? No.

RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

No head injury. Fractured elbow, chipped bone in hip, grazed elbow.


Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE

MANUFACTURER

TRADEMARK



AS 2063.2-1990.

HELMET DATA

22.


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


HELMET PERFORMANCE

OK.


RETENTION CONDITION

OK.


INJURY

No head inj ury. Cuts, left eye, left elbow, left ear.

PROJECT NUM8ER 16653,981-3100.

Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE

MANUFACTURER

TRADEMARK

STANDARD

liD NUMBER



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


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.


Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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.


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

L.O.C. period not indicated. Slight memory loss. Compound fracture R leg. Broken nose.Grazed top right forehead.


Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

L.O.C. period not indicated. Slight memory loss. Compound fracture R leg. Broken nose.Grazed top right forehead.


7echnisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


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


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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.


HELMET PERFORMANCE


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


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

No head injury. Lacerations forehead. Bruised neck. Lacerated knee.

PRO.JECTNUM8ER 16653,981-3100.

7echnisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE

Post -crash evaluation of bicyclists' helmets.


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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONOITION


INJURY

No head injury. Sprained ankle, bruise forearm and upperback.


Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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.


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

Concussion. Dislocated R elbow. Abrasions R arm.


Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE

Post -crash eval uation of bicyclists I helmets.


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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

Concussion. Fractured L collarbone. Sprained neck (whiplash type injury).

PRO.JECTNuMnER 16653,981-3100.

Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION

OK.


INJURY

No head injury. Fractured L wrist. Bruised L shoulder. Lacerations R elbow, L elbow.

PROJECT NUMIJER 16653,981-3100.

7echnisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONnITION


INJURY

No head injury. Bruised chest, shoulders and hands.


Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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.


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION

OKContributed to injury? No.

INJURY

Concussion. Lacerations R side face. Bruised legs, thighs and knees.

PRO.JECTNuMHER 16653,981-3100.

7echnisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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.


HELMET PERFORMANCE

OK.


RETENTION CONDITION

OK.


INJURY

Mild concussion, headaches. Strained neck, L knee. Sprained wrist.

PROJECT NUMIJER 16653, 981-3100.

Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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.


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

No head injury. Contusion R arm, abrasions L elbow. Bruised L hip.


Jechnisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

No head injury. Bruised L knee. Fractured L big toe. Abrasions face and legs.

PRO.JECTNUMBER 16653,981-3100.

Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE

EPS fusion failure. Liner cracked and collapsed.Contributed to injury? Yes.

RETENTION CONI>ITION


INJURY

Concussion, headaches for 5 days. Possible brief L.O.c. Scalp lacerations, abrasions to bothknees.


7echnisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE

EPS liner extensively cracked before these minor impacts. Poor EPS fusion.Contributed to injury? No.

RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

No head injuries. Four fractures of R leg. Fractured wrist.


Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


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


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE

EPS helmet collapsed into five pieces. Poor fusion.Contributed to injury? Yes.RETENTION CONOITION


INJURY

Possible L.O.C. confused at scene. Fractured L ribs (2 & 4), fractured pneumo thorax.Dislocated L a-c joint (hand).


Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

No head injury. Fractured ribs, punctured lung. Fractured collarbone.


7echnisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE

MANUFACTURER

TRADEMARK

STANDARD

liD NUMBER



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


. HELMET PERFORMANCE


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.


l ~

Technisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE

EPS fusion failure.Contributed to injury? No.

RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

No head injury. Lacerated L skin. Fractured rib. Bruised shoulders/arms.

PROJECT NUMUER 16653,981-3100.


Technisearch

I

PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

No head injury but amnesia of event. Bruised R temple. Lacerated R occipit scalp. Fracturedpubic ramii, sacral foramina, avulsion L3L4L5 transverse processes.


Jechnisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

No head injury. Lacerated chin. Abrasions chest.

PROJECT NUMnER 16653,981-3100.

7echnisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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.


HELMET PERFORMANCE


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

Contusion R eye. Abrasions cheek, L hip, R buttock. Headaches since.


lechnisearch


PROJECT

CLIENT

TEST METHOD

HELMET CODE



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


HELMET PERFORMANCE

OK.


RETENTION CONDITION


INJURY

Contusion R eye. Abrasions cheek, L hip, R buttock. Headaches since.


the protective performance of bicycle helmets introduced at the … · 2015-05-20 · cameron, m.h....

Documents