SHARP ratings

[Stenno]

Had a response back regarding criticism of SHARP ratings by retailers and org'ers. Sharing is caring...


Thank you for your e-mail and for your interest in SHARP.

It is true that at the time that the Department for Transport issued the first SHARP ratings in 2008 the programme received scrutiny and criticism from some commentators. You will not be surprised to learn that we do not agree with those criticisms.

The SHARP initiative is based upon the “COST 327” study into motorcycle road accidents and motorcyclist injuries; the most extensive study of its kind ever conducted in Europe. The report of this cooperative international research is available on the web at:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/projects/cost_327.pdf.

The criticism was directed toward the distribution of impacts to the head that were observed in road accidents (this alignment with road casualties is important as the dynamics of a road crash cannot necessarily be compared with those experienced in the relatively benign environment of the race track). The Department for Transport took great care in understanding this research and indeed commissioned additional research to guide the development of the SHARP initiative. The accuracy of SHARP’s interpretation of, and response to, the specific recommendations of “Cost 327” has been confirmed by its Editor in Chief, Dr Bryan Chinn.

A second criticism was made in an academic paper authored by Dr N.J. Mills. The Department took these criticisms very seriously and commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) to independently review the paper and to issue its findings as a published report. The review countered the views expressed by Dr. Mills and endorsed SHARP’s methodologies. Interestingly paragraph 8 of the conclusions of the review relates to the impact distribution data that was the subject of the earlier criticism that is discussed above. The conclusion confirmed that SHARP had interpreted the report correctly.

I have attached a copy of this report to this e-mail but further copies can be obtained from TRL:

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_vehicle_engineering/report_technical_response_to_the_unpublished_paper _critical_evaluation_of_the_sharp_motorcycle_helme t_rating_by_nj_mills.htm

I hope that this response answers fully the question that you have raised. With almost 250 helmet ratings published, and more on the way, SHARP continues to offer clear, objective and independent advice about the safety potential of this most important piece of equipment.

Regards

The SHARP Team

[embee]

My main niggle with the SHARP ratings is that the results are dumbed down too much.

Giving star ratings is all very well if you have some idea of what the stars mean, but in their results we have no idea what the sliding scale is. For example if 5*="100%", what does 1* equal, 10% or 90%? If it's 10% then I don't want a 1* helmet, if it's 90% then it might not bother me too much.

They measure accelerations so why not publish them? Why convert it to some unknown arbitrary scale?

Still, it's always good to have more info I suppose, and it does tend to concentrate the minds of the manufacturers. At least it was a decent reply to your question.

[SUPERSTARDJ01]

I think it's pretty transparent, and most people that criticise the tests have bought an expensive helmet and don't like to be told it may not do a good job, but that's not to say your helmet will perform the same as the impact could be different, just remember it's a guide only.

[SUPERSTARDJ01]

RATINGS

SHARP is the only assessment of helmet performance that results in a safety rating.

Once a helmet has been subjected to our rigorous testing process, we award it a SHARP rating of between 1 and 5 stars.

A 5-star helmet offers good levels of protection right around the helmet. That’s not to say a lower rated helmet won’t protect you. Regardless of its SHARP rating, every helmet on sale in the UK must meet at least one regulatory standard, ensuring it offers at least a minimum level of protection.

Our tests have shown that not all helmets offer the same level of impact protection. Individually, we can all judge the price, extra features and build quality of a helmet. SHARP offers you independent advice on that often hidden property of a motorcycle helmet - how well it can protect you in the event of a crash.

During testing we’ve found differences in performance of as much as 70% between high and low scoring helmets. That’s why the SHARP scheme is so important. Our independent advice can help to ensure you choose a helmet that offers the best protection possible.

Remember, fit comes first. The secret is finding several helmets that fit you best, and then selecting the helmet with the highest SHARP rating.

[SUPERSTARDJ01]

MPACT ZONE DIAGRAMS

We listened to your feedback, which told us that you’d like more information regarding the performance of helmets; in particular those areas where a helmet has performed well or could be considered as lacking protection. We have responded by providing an IMPACT ZONE DIAGRAM as part of each helmet data page.

In each diagram, the SHARP test point has been attributed a colour to show the level of performance measured against a flat surface in our high speed test (8.5m/s). You are able to cycle through the images to get a better understanding of the all round protection offered by each helmet.

The impact zones have been graded in six colours which are marked as being from 'Very good' to 'Poor'. The boundary for each colour is linked to understanding of the risk of injury established in the “COST 327 Research” (the most thorough investigation of motorcycle crashes conducted in Europe).

Analysis of more than 350 individual crashes was supplemented by further research that reconstructed a sample of those crashes to determine the relationship between the forces experienced by the rider’s brain and the injury received.

The impact zone colours are based upon discrete brain acceleration values:

Green - Peak acceleration up to 275g: the ECE 22.05 test limit at 7.5 m/s.
Yellow - Peak acceleration up to 300g: the British Standard 6658:1985 test limit at 7.5 m/s used by SHARP as the maximum permitted value for a 5–Star rating.
Orange - Peak acceleration up to 400g
Brown - Peak acceleration up to 420g
Red - Peak acceleration up to 500g
Black - Peak acceleration in excess of 500g.

Manufacturers are advised of the SHARP rating before it is published and they are able to lodge an appeal if our measured data does not match what they have seen in development or production testing. This process ensures that the SHARP rating is representative of their helmet’s performance.

It should be remembered that SHARP carries out 32 impact tests on a helmet model before awarding the SHARP star rating. Helmets that offer good levels of protection uniformly around the head rate highly in SHARP. That’s not to say a 1-star helmet won’t protect you. Regardless of its SHARP rating, every helmet on sale in the UK meets at least one recognised standard, ensuring it offers at least a minimum level of protection.

[embee]

That's a lot more info than I've seen before, cheers for posting it. Looks like they are actually responding to criticisms..........which is nice.

[punyXpress]

. . . but none of that answers embee's question:
" Giving star ratings is all very well if you have some idea of what the stars mean, but in their results we have no idea what the sliding scale is. For example if 5*="100%", what does 1* equal, 10% or 90%? If it's 10% then I don't want a 1* helmet, if it's 90% then it might not bother me too much. "
although 70% difference between high and low scores, which is a worry!