I not so sure that modern helmets are designed down to a weaker standard, to make them cheaper. No it is because the racing crowd want helmets that were more comfortable, with better air flow so that they didn't over heat (i.e. cook their brains).
The total cost of design, manufacture, packaging, distribution and advertising (by the manufactures and wholesalers) is less than £2.50 per unit (this was something which I managed to dig up on a pro helmet website). The materials used to make cycle helmets, they are all pretty the same thing. The material costs are very low. The biggest cost is the tooling for the injection moulding this is much the same for an expensive one as a cheap one, so the incentive is to go for volume.
This really get to the heart of the whole helmet thing, helmets are not really about safety, they are about fashion. There are two ways in which helmets are sold, one is by getting pro cyclist to wear them and the other is by frightening people.
When you look at the marketing none of the manufactures or wholesalers talks about safety in their direct marketing strategy. Why? Simple, they don't want to be sued. No they talk about design and show pictures of racing cyclist. The Pro Cyclists wear helmets because they are paid to, but the older Snell ones are heavier and poorly ventilated. As the Pro Cyclists are racing they are to happy about wearing them. Not a problem for the manufactures as they can sell lids at a higher price to the boy racer wantabies.
Then there is the fear selling technique, this is all done at arms length, the manufactures and wholesalers don't want the situation where someone makes claim against them if the helmet fails to protect a loved one against serious head injury. So they use lobbyists and PR people to put out the story to those who don't question the "science" too closely. How often to you see the claims that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%? It is regularly trotted out, but only one paper has ever claimed a figure that high (Thompson, Rivara & Thompson 1989) and in the succeeding 20 years the methodology used in that paper has been total discredited. Even the original authors have been unable to replicate that result in subsequent studies (1996 & 2000).
Let look at the speed of 12 mph, that is about the average running speed of a top marathon runner, how come one suggest they should wear a helmet is case they trip? And what about Usain Bolt, at peak speed he can hit 30 mph, how come he it not required to has head protection in case he trips??
Most fit adult humans can achieve speeds of over 20 mph when running flat out. Through most of our evolution over the last 700,000 year, humans have been ambush predators running down game. So why in the last 20 years have our skulls suddenly thinned to egg shells? Is this some strange side affect of DDT which science hasn't picked up? Why is it in the past five years human children have suddenly started to need helmets to protect them while they lean to walk? After all humans have only been walking up right for about 3 million year without protection.
posts
