[maxerickson]

The helmet buys you t. Lower density foam buys you less t.

Pondering it briefly, I think it is difficult to arbitrarily change the size of the compressed zone of the helmet, as that depends on the contact patches (helmet head and helmet ground) and so the shape of the helmet more than the density of the foam. It can be optimized for a given foam thickness, and then you're done.

[msandford]

You've assumed constant foam density which I don't believe is a given. That's how all helmets are made right now, but nothing would prevent someone from making two separate pieces and bonding them together, except cost. And what's the incentive to increase cost (and thus price) unless you can use that to differentiate somehow?

[maxerickson]

You say cost, I see perception of market. A article in Wired (or whatever) talking about how you worked with Snell to develop a new testing standard that accounted for lower energy crashes would be great marketing. The problem is that the helmet would be more expensive and assuming it used crushing foam, more fragile than existing helmets.

[msandford]

I guess I think cost and perception of the market as the same thing. If you increase cost but don't increase perceived value, then you're lowering profits for a noble reason, but not one that's defensible to shareholders. If you increase cost and increase perceived value at least you maintain profits and you don't get fired.

But if the CSPC doesn't give manufacturers any incentive by having different protection classes or levels or any way to differentiate whatsoever, well, what's the point of spending more money to achieve a good societal outcome if it means that you get fired? Incentives matter and you can look at it from either side of cost but ultimately a lot of what we're talking about here is dollars.

[maxerickson]

My point is that manufacturers can respond to the incentive provided by the market, they don't have to wait for the CSPC to drop a certification.

A simple thesis coming from that point of view is that there isn't much of a market for (presumably) more expensive helmets that protect better in low energy crashes.

[msandford]

Ah, I see what you're saying. And I agree to a certain extent.

I guess what bugs me is that the CSPC is causing (by inaction) many thousands of people who are involved in lower energy bike crashes to get concussions.

Whether there is no market or not I think is debatable though, because the CSPC standard has definitely "warped" the market. In other words, all the helmets pass the standard and it's very difficult to tell if one is "better" than another. And because of that, differentiation is only based on looks.

Because the minimal level of protection is so high it's very hard to effectively market that one helmet is "safer" than another in that it'll protect you in the common but not life threatening crash that most people encounter. And because it's so difficult, nobody does it.

It's not hard to imagine that marketing your helmet as "safer" in some way might result in getting fines from the CSPC or lawsuits from your competitors for libel, since all helmets have to pass the CSPC test.

Given the choice between some risk of getting fired, going to jail, bankrupting your company, etc or just doing nothing, most people with the power to actually make a difference aren't going to risk anything. And I can't really blame them for it.

[maxerickson]

I am assuming that Snell Foundation would not be resistant to developing such a standard, as long as it was somewhat meaningful.

An affirmative statement that a helmet passed a standard could not be construed as libel, and I think the CSPC wouldn't be bothered about it.