Head protection for wheeled recreational device riders: finding the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Head protection for wheeled recreational device riders: finding the right standard

David Beck, Andrew McIntosh & Dan Leavy NSW Centre for Road Safety AIPN November 2017

Current problem

2

• No current regulations on

wearing helmets with wheeled recreational devices (WRDs)

• TfNSW provides no advice on

best helmets to use

• Risk of:

– Purchasing ineffective helmets – Mistakenly using non- Australian Standard helmets when riding bicycle

Questions

3

• What are the potential

head injury risks to WRD riders?

• What are the typical

standards that WRD helmets sold in Australia comply with?

• Are any of these

standards best at meeting rider needs?

• Are any design

requirements additional to existing standards required to enhance rider safety?

Method

4

Crash factors

5

• Majority of all WRD

crashes from falls

• About half of scooter

crashes the result of motor vehicle crashes

• Most WRD crashes
• ccurred on bike/footpaths

and roadways

Ideal WRD helmet requirements

6

• Similar protection to bicycle helmets (energy attenuation, retention

strength, dynamic stability) plus additional protection: – across occiput – from multiple low severity impacts

Helmet standards considered

7

Australia/New Zealand Standard

AS/NZS 2063: 2008

European Standard

EN 1078:2012 + A1:2012*

Snell Standards

B95 – 1998 B90 (1998 Augmentation)

US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Requirements for Bicycle Helmets

16 Code of Federal Regulation Part 1203

American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standards

F1447 – 12* F1492 – 15* * Explicitly designed for WRD use

Key differences in standards

8

• Three standards specify protection for WRD riders
• EN 1078 and AS/NZS use different methods to test impact

attenuation

• Snell, ASTM 1447 and CPSC have more comprehensive impact

tests, but at a lower pass level

• Fix head drop masses in CPSC and Snell may result in helmets that

are too stiff for children

• AS/NZS 2063 does not include a kerbstone anvil impact test used in
• ther standards

Benefits of Australian/New Zealand Standard

9

• Most extensive testing

regime

• Explicit requirements for

internal and external projections

• Requires ventilation
• Test area and

performance requirements similar to

• ther standards.

Helmet testing

10

• Tested to Australian Standard

procedures – energy attenuation – retention strength – dynamic stability

• Assess benefit of kerbstone anvil

impacts

• Consider whether WRD-specific

helmets provide: – superior occipital protection – sufficient protection from repeat impacts

Results

11

• All certified helmets provided acceptable levels of protection
• No helmet provided sufficient protection for repeat impacts
• All passed dynamic stability requirements
• Aus/NZ standard helmets

– performed well on the kerb anvil test – performed best in dynamic retention strength testing

Study findings

12

• AS/NZS 2063 helmets provide as

good or superior protection to

• thers
• AS/NZS 2063 therefore preferred

for WRD riders

• Same helmet standard for bicycles

and scooters reduces confusion for users

• Ideally, helmet should

– provide additional occipital protection – allow for repeat impacts (but no helmets provided sufficient repeat impact performance)

Implications

13

• NSW Centre for Road Safety (CRS) has updated consumer

information to recommend using AS/NZS 2063 helmets when riding WRDs

• CRS will advocate for additional performance requirements for WRD

helmets to be incorporated into revised standard

14

Demographics

15

• Most WRD users were aged

under 15 when injured – Scooters and roller skates  0-15 years – Skateboards  10-20 years – Longboards  15-25 years

• Most injured WRD users male