Motorcyclists represent one of the most vulnerable road user groups in the UK. Typically, motorcyclists represent just 1% of road traffic but account for 19% of fatalities. Of the motorcyclists that are killed, 80% receive impacts to the head and in 70% of these the head injury is the most serious injury (Chinn, 2001). The Safety Helmet Assessment and Rating Programme (SHARP) motorcycle helmet rating scheme was launched by the Department for Transport in 2007. The aim of the scheme Is to provide motorcyclists with: • clear advice on how to select a helmet that fits correctly and is comfortable • clear, impartial and objective information about the relative safety of motorcycle helmets available to riders in the UK. While all helmets have to meet minimum safety standards, research in 2007 estimated that up to 50 lives could be saved each year if all motorcyclists wore the safest helmets available to them. In order to be granted a SHARP rating, a helmet model undergoes 32 different impact tests, including various impact types, severities and helmet sizes. The test and assessment protocols are based on the findings of the COST327 study (Chinn, 2001), which is the largest and most up-to-date real-world road accident information for motorcycle helmets in Europe. The importance of each of the 32 tests is weighted according to its relevance to head injuries sustained in road accidents. The Department for Transport commissioned the present study in order to assess the degree to which SHARP has influenced the UK motorcycle helmet market, including consumers, retailers, distributors and manufacturers. The report provides the method for each task, the key findings, discussion, recommendations, limitations and suggestions for future research. Tables and graphs showing the full findings from the desk study are provided in Appendix 1, along with a more detailed methodology. Tables showing the responses to the CATI survey are provided in Appendix 2. These are accompanied by some descriptive text and, where applicable, a brief description of some corresponding in-depth interview responses and some quotes. Tables showing the responses to the consumer survey are provided in Appendix 3. A summary of the interviews and focus groups with trainers, police and RSOs is provided in Appendix 4. Appendices 5 to 12 contain the research materials used. (Author/publisher)
Abstract