Should kids and adults wear a lightweight helmet in a car?

Dear Members,
I am curious to know how you would feel about adults and/or children wearing a lightweight helmet to reduce head injuries and deaths? I did several Google searches with various key words and found one study from Australia at the link below. By extrapolating the data to US statistics, it suggests that thousands of lives could be saved in the US every year, and many more injuries minimized with the use of helmets or special protective headbands.
I am interested in developing a special lightweight helmet (like a bike helmet only not as thick) that could be worn by children and adults to save lives and reduce injuries, but first I would like to know what people think about the idea, and if they would be willing to wear one, or put one on their kids in the car, if US research confirmed that it would save lives?

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb160.pdf

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Best Regards,
Brent

Obviously, it would need to be a very lightweight helmet. Kids' heads are already disproportionate to their bodies and that weight can stress the neck and spine in a crash. Beyond that, I haven't seen any studies about this. I suspect that simply having kids properly restrained would also be very effective at reducing head injuries. Most of these injuries are probably to unrestrained and improperly restrained (loose carseat, loose harness, shoulder belt behind their back, etc) kids.

Yes I agree the helmet should be lightweight, maybe 4 to 8 ounces depending on size and it could use air packets under a plastic shell rather than foam to keep it very lightweight

The research at the link below says that "The most serious injuries to children in car crashes are head injuries," said Dr. Winston, "and these are the most important injuries to prevent."

We would like to think that car seats are enough but the reserach goes on to say that "37% of children killed in 1997 were restrained".

These points combined together and some other initial research makes me wonder if a lightweight helmet could reduce those numbers. It should be a low cost solution as well. I can imagine that many kids would not be excited about wearing one, but that's where the marketers could come in and make them cool with pictures of their favorite friends (I.e. Hello Kitty, Elmo, Dora the Explorer, etc.)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990607173710.htm

Thank you and please keep the comments or ideas coming..

Does anyone know if that 37% of restrained children, were actually "Properly Restrained"?

And of those 37%, how many were in "unsurvivable" crashes - (ie car vs. semi / vehicle fire, etc., multiple fatalities)?

Re: helmets I'd think a helmet would mess up the protection offered by the existing head/neck support/restraints in use now. I'm thinking of the head restraints in my car. . .they are contoured to fit CLOSE to the head/neck. The helmet could act like a bulky coat and push the head/neck out of position.

Not to mention we can't get a significant proportion of drivers to wear a seat belt, much less remember to strap on a helmet.

I'd be worried about drivers' ability to see/notice everything, too.

I think teaching drivers how to effectively reduce/secure projectiles in the vehicle would be more effective at reducing head injuries than a helmet would be.

I agree that the likelihood of putting the helmet on is a major issue, but if research and crash studies show that it could save thousands of lives in the US alone every year, then with a little education we shoud be able to achieve at least a portion of the potential.

My vision for the helmet is for it to be fairly thin, 1/4 to 1/2 inch, or about the thickness of a knit ski cap, except it would have air pockets under a thin plastic shell to absorb energy upon impact. I am assuming this should enable it to fit easily within the head restraint area in most car seats as our childrens' heads can vary in circumference by at least that much.

My next thought is that the target market might be children aged 3 to 14. The children at the low end of this range are either in booster seats or just barely fitting in the regular seat with a regular seatbelt, and most of those children typically do not have any type of head restraints or protection. All the children in the 3 to 14 age range are more likely to be sitting by a door instead of the middle like an infant, and therefore they are more vulnerable to head injuries from the side windows and pillars.

Here are a couple of statistics from 1990 to 2000:
(taken from http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/SR0002.pdf )

• More than 90,000 children, infants to teenagers, were killed in motor
vehicle crashes, and over 9 million were injured.
• Six out of 10 children who died were not buckled up.

I believe that getting parents to simply buckle their kids up (and to do it properly) is the most simple and effective solution, but I also think there is something to the helmet idea to supplement continued seatbelt education.

Ok, now for the bottom line...

Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that an organization like the NHTSA does a formal research project and the results show that for children aged from 3 to 14, there are 6,000 annual fatalities with a head injury, and 60,000 more children in the same age range suffer a serious head injury ever year. Next let's assume that their study showed that the type of helmet we are talking about here could reduce the number of fatalities and serious head injuries by 25% (in the ballpark of the Australian study).

That would result in the potential for 1,500 saved lives, and 15,000 fewer injuries each year. Of course this potential savings is not realistic since many parents would not put helmets on their kids (despite the good evidence), but even if just 10% of the parents did, then that 'early adopter' group would still be saving 150 childrens' lives and 1,500 serious head injuries every year... or 3 lives and 30 head injuires every week.

Finally, I have two questions that I would appreciate your answer on in addition to any other comments or thoughts you may have on this subject:

1. If these results/statistics were found to be accurate by an independent organization like the NHTSA, would you put a helmet on your child in the car? If yes, at what age range?

2. Would you wear a helmet yourself if the statistics suggested similar life and injury savings were possible with adults?

Honestly, I'm not sure I would. IMO, most head injuries are do to either the passenger not being in an optimum seating position (which a helmet would make worse) or the passenger being struck by a projectile.

Not to mention, far more common than head injuries are spinal column injuries (whiplash, internal decapitation, ect), which a helmet would do nothing to prevent.

I really do not think a helmet is the solution. I think proper restraint of passengers and teaching drivers how to limit & secure projectiles is a much better solution.

Well thats a tough one.
The one situation I can see this as a definite advantage is vehicles or seating locations which have only lap belts or no seat belts altogether. If a child or adult is properly secured with both lap and shoulder belt or appropriate child seat, a helmet may not protect where it's inteded to. If a person gets a blow in the head that is fairly substantial, brain damage could be avoided, but the damage could go down the spine leaving the person paralyzed or internaly decapitated. With only a lap belt available the body moves fairly vigorously in a sharp stop or crash, and the head could hit the windshield. Remember though to it has to be an all or nothing law in the vehicle. If only the person in the middle seat is wearing the helmet, it could crash someone elses head beside them, causing brain damage to them. Personaly I would probably not wear one.

Ok, in the spirit of absolute and complete honesty....

I would NEVER wear a helmet in a car or any other type of motor vehicle no matter how superbly it is marketed!

As a parent and as an adult, I believe there's a point of ridiculousness of trying to protect 100% from any of life's risks. IMO, this has reached it. Paranoia will destroy you!
I am not a race car driver. I have driven over 20 years in a variety of international + national road and traffic conditions for work and pleasure without any accidents, minor or otherwise. Yes, I realize that could change any day. But I am in a metal shell designed for impact. I am cocooned enough with a seatbelt and air bags for pretty much most fender benders out there. I'm not planning on going head to head with the local freight train. Oh, it could happen. Anything could... but it's not realistically likely.

I am also not going to try to battle my daughter into putting on a helmet in the car either. Side protection wings in her carseat shelter her very well imo. She'd be absolutely miserable and pass her feelings easily on to me, thus distracting my ability to focus on the road.

Perhaps instead of trying to comfort ourselves into believe that more cushioning and protections will make us 100% safe, we should push for more drivers participating in a campaign to keep attentions focused on the road.

Give me a 4pt seatbelt any day and I'll happily wear it . A helmet? Only if I can drive Le Mans

Yeah -- I'm not into the helmet thing.... 4-point belt I would run naked through the streets in celebration over! (Well, not really )

Yeah, I don't think I"d wear one either.
Also, in your discussion of carseats, there are some flaws. You said -
"My next thought is that the target market might be children aged 3 to 14. The children at the low end of this range are either in booster seats or just barely fitting in the regular seat with a regular seatbelt, and most of those children typically do not have any type of head restraints or protection. All the children in the 3 to 14 age range are more likely to be sitting by a door instead of the middle like an infant, and therefore they are more vulnerable to head injuries from the side windows and pillars."

1 - No, children in the lower range should NOT be in boosters and most certainly not in the vehicle seat with just a seatbelt!! The lower range should be in harnesses, the middle range in harnesses or boosters, and only the upper range (passing the 5 step test) would be in seatbelts. Up until around 8 yrs/80 lbs, these kids should be in carseats/boosters, all of which offer head protection already.
2 - They are not more likely to be sitting next to the door, especially if the parent has come to this site! The least protected passenger goes in the middle. If you've got a kid out of a booster and an infant in a RF seat, then the kid in the booster is the least protected, and belongs in the middle, unless that seat is a lapbelt only position. Sitting in the middle protects the older kid's head, the carseat protects the infant's.

"Here are a couple of statistics from 1990 to 2000:
(taken from http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/SR0002.pdf )

• More than 90,000 children, infants to teenagers, were killed in motor
vehicle crashes, and over 9 million were injured.
• Six out of 10 children who died were not buckled up.
"

This alone says a lot to me. I just think it's near pointless to come out with MORE safety things for parents to learn about and remember, if 6/10 kids are unbuckled as it is!! We also know that on average, 8/10 seats are not installed properly. We know that lots of kids that should be in carseats are not, or who should be RF are FF, etc. I say we need to work on educating the public on the existing safety features available, and then think about adding more.

I also think that having these helmets available wouldn't significantly reduce the rates. Why? Because the parents who'd use them are the ones who are safety fanatics as it is. People who are already rearfacing to the limits of the seat, harnessing to 65-80 lbs, then keeping the kid in a booster until they pass the 5 step test. The parents whose kids are already most at risk for injury are not the ones who would use this, therefore, I don't believe it would change the rates much. Getting the non-safety-concious to use their seats properly, would.

I don't know if anyone brought this up... but I'd like to add something to this thread. MY DS has a DOC band which is a helmet to reshape his head because he has a small flat area. The helmet weighs 6 ozs. I've often wondered what this would do to him in an accident. He is supposed to wear it 23 hours a day so taking it off for car rides would be out of "compliance." Should I take it off of him in the car? DS is 9 months and RFing in a Boulevard.

Thanks!!

Interesting question. . . what happens to brain/neck in skull in helmet in CR?

Also, is this the one with a hard plastic shell?

Have you asked your doctor? It would be interesting to hear the opinion of a ortho or neuro dr. or a PT on this ONLY if they have reading/study on CPS and crash dynamics. [There's too many doctors that give OLD recommendations for CR use and/or don't look beyond THEIR specific issue to the WHOLE child.]

It is a helmet with a plastic shell. I haven't asked my doc but I can't imagine they'd have a problem with it as they know he wears it 23 hours a day. The Cranial Therapies people have not told me to keep him out of it in he car either. I have an appointment for him with his ped tomorrow to check for an ear infection and he gets his helmet adjusted tomorrow so I'll ask them then. I know his PT wouldn't really know either. Hmm... Maybe I should just keep him out of it in the car just to be safe.

I see no reason for him not to wear it, especailly in a RFing seat. His entire head and neck would be very well supported in a collision just because he is RFing. Also, the helmet is very light. Some children's hair, bows, headphones, etc probably weigh that much!

I agree with Joy - as long as he's RF I do not see a problem, and from what I understand about the helmets, but the time he's ready to FF he should not need it any longer.