SHARP Helmet Safety Scheme – Government PR or a positive contribution to the safety of motorcyclists?

Do you spend the minimum you can get away with when buying a crash helmet or as should be your answer, you spend the maximum you can afford to ensure you are getting the safest possible motorcycle helmet your money can buy?

But what constitutes the safest helmet, when there is a multiplicity of motorcycle crash helmets for sale in the UK; all of which should meet at a minimum the ECE 22.05 Motorcycle Helmet Standard? With some costing as little as £30 and some costing many hundreds of pounds are price and may be the manufacturer’s reputation and information the only deciding factors?

This is where SHARP (http://sharp.direct.gov.uk), the government’s Safety Helmet Assessment and Rating Programme aims to help. This relatively new helmet safety scheme for motorcyclist started testing helmets in 2007 (the first results were in June 2008) to provide us consumers with an independent assessment of the safety performance of helmets sold in the UK based on upon a 5 star rating award similar to the recognised NCAP safety ratings used for cars.

But no sooner had the scheme been launched and the first results published, when criticisms appeared in the public forum. Manufacturers who had doubtless expected their helmets to get a top 5 star rating didn’t necessarily do so and yet some cheaper brands of helmets achieved higher ratings than would have been expected based upon the price. This obviously ruffled many feathers in the motorcycle helmet market!

The validity of the SHARP tests was even called into question when a leading academic in the helmet safety field, N J Mills of the University of Birmingham produced an unpublished paper entitled ‘Critical Evaluation of the SHARP Motorcycle Helmet Ratings”? that was critical of the SHARP motorcycle helmet rating scheme.

Add in a healthy dose of scepticism about information published by the Government and you soon start asking the question is the SHARP Helmet scheme just government PR or is it really trying to make a positive contribution to the safety of motorcyclists?

To this end www.inter-bike.co.uk was invited along to the independent testing laboratory that conducts the tests for the Department for Transport, to see the testing being performed and more importantly talk to the Government officials responsible for the SHARP scheme.

The SHARP scheme was launched at the NEC Bike Show in 2007 as a consumer information programme, solely aimed at us motorcycle helmet buying motorcyclist and scooterists. It was not aimed at the motorcycle helmet manufacturers and stands independent of the manufacturers being funded entirely by the Department for Transport.

The scheme only assesses helmets for sale in the UK market place and this includes non-current helmet models if they are still available for sale in sufficient numbers in retailers.

In 2005 the Department for Transport created its Motorcycle Safety Strategy against a background of powered two wheelers contributing to 19% of all road traffic deaths but only making up 1% of road traffic based on miles ridden.

With approximately 500 motorcyclists a year killed in accidents and the average financial cost of a death being estimated at £1m to £1.2m, the small expense apparently to fund the SHARP scheme bears little comparison to the financial costs of all these deaths which of course do not include the personal loss and emotional costs of these tragic deaths.

Apparently 80% of all motorcycle fatalities are due to head injuries and 70% of all seriously injured motorcyclists have suffered head injuries.

With the government committed to improving motorcycling safety through its motorcycle safety strategy they initially decided to access some 15 to 20 helmets and discovered a divergence in performance in certain areas by as much as 70%.

So clearly not all helmets are equal, despite them all having met the ECE 22.05 standard.

Much of the additional helmet testing carried out by SHARP is based upon the findings of the COST 327 report?. This showed that helmet accident impacts are distributed fairly evenly with 26.9% lateral right, 26.3% lateral left, 23.6% frontal and 21.0% to the rear, the crown only receiving 2.2% of impacts.

However is not possible to directly map external helmet damage directly to the site of injuries to the brain, because in-fact our brains float within our skulls and an impact to one part of the skull can cause damage to a different part of the brain as the brain moves within the skull in response to the impact.

SHARP carried out a further 20 simulated accidents above and beyond the information contained in the COST 327 report before they set out their additional testing regime.

However the SHARP officials told us that the temporal fossa area of the skull is very susceptible to damage and can splinter and fracture easily and in this area more helmet protection is required.

If the impact absorbing capabilities of helmets in general could by improved by 30% SHARP estimates it would reduce 50% of AIS? scale 5/6 casualties to AIS 2/4.

Following on from the COST 327 report the TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) funded by the Department for Transport created an advanced performing crash helmet, which to some extent the current FIA Formula One crash helmet is based on, however the cost of putting this helmet into mass production so us ordinary motorcyclists could wear it is high, with the retail cost being estimated at £1000 a helmet.

It has been estimated that were all motorcyclists to be wearing this advanced helmet that 100 lives a year could be saved. Whilst if we were all to be wearing 5 star SHARP assessed helmets 50 lives a year could be saved.

This one fact shows how far we still have to go on the whole issue of helmet safety, the best helmets (as assessed by SHARP) you and I can buy will reduce current fatalities by approx 10% (50 less deaths out of 500). If we could all buy the helmet commissioned by the TRL this would reduce fatalities by 20% (100 less deaths out of 500).

The SHARP officials were at pains to impress upon us that buying a correctly fitting helmet is paramount; otherwise the safety benefits of the helmet may be nullified or greatly reduced. It is estimated 15-18% of all helmets purchased are one size to big and 3-5% of helmets purchased are 2 sizes too big.

SHARP has produced a video about correct helmet fitment which can be downloaded from http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/resources/video/complete-video.wmv.

Correct helmet fitment is complicated by the fact that we all have different head shapes and it is important to find a helmet that actually fits your head shape. Also head shapes are global in that head shapes generally in the US market for instance are different form those in the UK market and yet crash helmets are global products.
(Picture below: Rig for marking up helmet test impact points)

It is important to understand that the SHARP helmet tests are additional tests to those minimum tests carried out under the ECE 22.05 regime and tests are carried out at 3 velocities which are approximately 15.4 mph, 16.8 mph (which is the ECE 22.05 velocity) and 19mph. The additional speeds that SHARP tests helmets at are based upon the research in the COST 327 report. The 19mph velocity equates to an increase in energy input of 30%.

Lower speed testing is carried out to counter helmets being produced which are too stiff to pass the 19mph test, because due to their stiffness they increase the shock load.

The SHARP test facility uses a twin wire rig with constant tension on wires. This is a SHARP improvement and is considered to be a more severe test setup than under ECE 22.05.

Acceleration in G of the brain of 500G is most cases is fatal, at 420G there is a 50/50 chance of serious brain injury or death. A SHARP 5 star assessed helmet is supposed to expose the brain to a force no greater than 300G hence greatly improving the survival rate.

Prior to testing helmets are checked to ensure they have not been rigged to pass the SHARP tests. Currently SHARP has published 175 ratings which covers some 80-90% of the available UK helmet market.

Unlike the ECE 22.05 tests, the SHARP results give the percentage of chin bar lock mechanism failures when testing helmets, a useful additional piece of information given the increasing number of us wearing flip front helmets.

SHARP randomly purchases its helmets from pre-agreed suppliers and needs a minimum of 7 of a particular helmet to complete its full testing regime on that helmet.

Each helmet is tested at 5 impact points and in all 32 tests are conducted necessitating the purchase of 7 helmets.  Manufacturers are able to challenge the eventual rating published by SHARP, that is to say there is an appeals process and we were told that so far one appeal has been successful.

(Picture right: Rig for marking up helmet test impact points)
(Picture left: Oblique test rig with test head form)

Now these next points are perhaps the most crucial, as they demonstrate why SHARP testing is more comprehensive then that conducted for the ECE 22.05 standard. The impact points that SHARP tests are the same as those tested under ECE 22.05, but with two fundamental differences. Both sides of the helmet are tested, left and right, whilst the ECE 22.05 test only impacts either the left or right side. Secondly as mentioned earlier the SHARP tests at velocities above and below the one fixed velocity at which the ECE 22.05 tests are conducted.
(Picture below: Flat anvil and rounded anvil)

The oblique test of which there are two conducted is more stringent than the ECE 22.05 test in that the helmet is dropped against the sandpaper surface which provides a more realistic test. We all need to be wearing helmets whereby the lower the surface friction as your helmet slides along the road surface the better. Such testing is leading to the development of innovative surface materials for helmets; we were told that one manufacturer is soon to release a new helmet with a protective skin surface.
(Picture below: Helmet about to impact flat anvil in linear impact test)

The linear tests which consist of dropping the helmet in a controlled fashion on to either a flat or curved anvil again are more stringent than the ECE 22.05 test as there is no free fall allowed at the end of the drop ( as under ECE 22.05 which also allows the helmet to freely rotate hence changing the impact point). Hence the worst case or maximum helmet damage potential is tested at a given velocity, with approximately 22% more force being applied in the 30 linear tests which SHARP conducts. (Picture right: Helmet being raised for linear impact test)

If a helmet fails testing, it is withdrawn and is referred to the statutory enforcement arm of the Department for Transport for them to consider what action to take.

(picture right: Helmet being raised for linear impact test)

Much discussion during the visit centred on the test head forms which are used inside helmets when testing, particularly as this does not simulate hair or flesh. A full head form is used in the oblique test because there is head rotation whilst a half head form (no face/chin but has same weight as whole head) is used in the oblique tests as there is no head rotation.

Apparently the use of these head forms is a rational testing decision. The head forms used are industry standard recognized. The head forms are used by manufacturers in their own testing. The time to set a new standard internationally for a more realistic head form would be a big issue and would have impacted on the tests being carried out using the accepted head forms, but even more significant the technology does not yet exist to perfectly replicate the human head as a test head form.

As has been said earlier the SHARP tests are based extensively on the evidence of the COST 327 report which did not recommend an enhanced chin bar test other than that carried out under ECE 22.05.

Despite this, it was surprising to find that SHARP carries out no chin bar testing and that currently there is no thought to including such a test going forward. The justification being that this would risk introducing something into the testing that is not based on the findings of the COST 327 report. However what was more surprising was that is was revealed that manufacturers can opt out of the ECE 22.05 chin bar test. Yes, the helmet you might be wearing now, may not have had its chin bar tested!! Now why a manufacturer may want to opt out of the chin bar test we leave open to conjecture, but regretfully this does seem to be a weakness in both the ECE 22.05 and SHARP testing regime. The SHARP officials did point that manufacturers have to tell you somewhere on the helmet the chin bar is not tested and that on their own ratings they put a red cross graphic across the chin bar if it has not been tested under ECE 22.05, but is this good enough?

Surely we should have confidence that the chin bar will protect you and has always been tested!

(Picture left: Helmet impacting flat anvil in linear impact test)

This led onto the contentious issue as to how the SHARP system will rate open-face helmets when it comes on to testing them, as plainly they cannot have the same star rating as a full face helmet as they are missing that all important lower face protection. It was admitted that a dialogue will have to be had with the helmet manufacturers as to the rating of open face helmets.

So is the SHARP scheme Government PR or a positive contribution to motorcycle helmet safety. On balance the answer has to be a “Yes”, because:-

1.       The SHARP testing is based on established scientific research as detailed in the COST 327 report;

2.       The SHARP Testing regime is more stringent than that carried out under ECE 22.05;

3.       THE SHARP tests conduct impacts at both a higher and lower velocity than those carried out under ECE 22.05;

4.       SHARP includes flip front helmet lock failure data in its ratings;

5.       The SHARP campaign stresses the importance of a correctly fitting helmet;

6.       The SHARP campaign is aimed at the consumer and not the industry and the information it publishes is designed to help you in buying the best possible helmet you can afford instead of having to rely just on the information from manufacturers;

7.       SHARP is making a positive contribution to motorcycling safety by raising the awareness of buying a safer helmet;

  (Video below of SHARP linear impact test)

Note: All facts and figures detailed in this article are as provided during discussions with the SHARP officials.

1.       Cost 327 Report  - European Co-operation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research, Action 327 (COST 327). Report covers motorcycle accident causes, distribution of injuries over the body, detailed information on head injuries, information on tolerance to head impacts and an assessment of test tools and test procedures.

2.       Critical evaluation of the SHARP motorcycle helmet rating – N.J. Mills (Metallurgy and Materials, University of Birmingham, UK)

3.       AIS – Abbreviated Injury Scale –

AIS Score Injury