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 • 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 2

Questions • 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? 3

Method 4

Crash factors • Majority of all WRD crashes from falls • About half of scooter crashes the result of motor vehicle crashes • Most WRD crashes occurred on bike/footpaths and roadways 5

Ideal WRD helmet requirements • Similar protection to bicycle helmets (energy attenuation, retention strength, dynamic stability) plus additional protection: – across occiput – from multiple low severity impacts 6

Helmet standards considered Australia/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2063: 2008 European Standard EN 1078:2012 + A1:2012* B95 – 1998 Snell Standards B90 (1998 Augmentation) US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 16 Code of Federal Requirements for Bicycle Helmets Regulation Part 1203 F1447 – 12* American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standards F1492 – 15* * Explicitly designed for WRD use 7

Key differences in standards • 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 other standards 8

Benefits of Australian/New Zealand Standard • Most extensive testing regime • Explicit requirements for internal and external projections • Requires ventilation • Test area and performance requirements similar to other standards. 9

Helmet testing • 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 10

Results • 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 11

Study findings • AS/NZS 2063 helmets provide as good or superior protection to others • 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) 12

Implications • 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 13

14

Demographics • 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 15