Randy Swart: bike-safety crusader

As a child, Randy Swart viewed his bicycle as his “freedom machine.” After all, he recently recalled, it was the only way to get around the small Virginia town where he grew up. 

Today, even though Swart has plenty of ways to get around, the bicycle has become an even more important part of his life. It’s not just because the 63-year-old Swart bikes 80 to 100 miles a week, partly for exercise, partly for errands and always for pleasure. Rather, bicycling — and more particularly safe bicycling — is a full-time mission for Swart. 

Over the past three decades, Swart has played an instrumental role in bringing safer helmets to U.S. riders. Swart is director of the all-volunteer Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute — with a must-see Web site for anyone in the market for a bike helmet. And currently he is also vice chairman of the helmet and headgear subcommittee for ASTM-International, a nonprofit, voluntary standard setting organization.

Swart runs the 18-year-old helmet institute out of his Arlington, Va., home with a $12,000 annual budget, all from consumer donations. He first became involved in helmet safety in the mid-1970s, when the Washington Area Bicyclist Association began testing helmets. At the time, he said, there were no standards. “There was an awful lot of junk in the market. You couldn’t tell if a given helmet was protective or not.” In fact, he said, initial tests showed that some of the helmets then for sale offered “almost zero protection.”

After a heated battle, the industry adopted a voluntary safety standard in 1984 through ANSI, another standards organization. But this standard was eventually deemed insufficient largely because it wasn’t mandatory. So under orders from Congress, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued mandatory standards in 1999. Today, any helmet sold in the U.S. — no matter if it costs $10 or $150 — must comply.

The Helmet Institute played a critical role in the development of these standards, with Swart, a  former U.S. foreign service officer, at its helm since the very beginning.  Today, much of Swart’s attention is devoted to the Web site, which last year attracted 800,000 visitors. This year, Swart hopes that number will grow to over 1 million.      

Although helmets have come a long way in 30 years, there is still much room for improvement, Swart says. He believes helmets should provide more coverage; they should come further down on the sides and back. Helmets should also provide better protection in incidents with lesser impact. “Today there’s good protection in major impacts but we need anti-concussion helmets” for more minor incidents. “It’s not a simple thing” to do."   

And most importantly, Swart said, helmets need to fit riders better and more easily. “They don’t fit most people as well as they should.”    

To anyone who knows Swart, it shouldn’t be surprising that this modest man declines to take personal credit for the nation's helmet standards. “No one person stood up and proclaimed we need better helmets,” he says. “There were lots of people.” Even so, for Swart’s persistent efforts, we want to make him one of our Safety Crusaders. 

If you know anyone who should join our noble list, please let us know.

By the way, Swart has three bike helmets: a neon yellow for daytime and a white one with lights attached by Velcro for night. The third is another “screaming lime yellow,” which he wears when he and his wife Barbara use their tandem bike. “Our helmets have to match,” Swart says.

Previously: Bike helmets - not wigs - save lives

Comments

[Andrew Mason, ON]

Dear Frank K., Bill W. & all other helmet naysayer’s.
I write this comment from two perspectives; a cyclist who has walked away from 4 crashes with 4 destroyed helmets and as a kinesiology student completing research in the biomechanics field.
Regarding crashes, I am 23 and have enjoyed cycling since my first two wheeler at age 4. Over the years I have impacted two trees and a rock mountain biking hard enough to turn my helmet into a plethora of fragments held together by the nylon straps. One of my encounters with a tree and my encounter with the rock occurred at the bottom or part way down a hill (go ahead and tell me my riding is sub par) where I was traveling in excess of 20kph (I would guess 30+kph). Would either Frank or Bill like to try this head meets rock/tree at that speed without a helmet?
The forth crash involved a car running a stop sign, I was able to miss the car (barely) and slammed into a curb, went over the handle bars and ended in someone’s front yard. I hit the lawn hard enough to destroy yet another helmet. If these bike helmets are as poor as some of the claims in other comments how do you explain my upcoming university graduation (1 month).
Now for the research side, I just completed my thesis doing quantitative research looking at forces attenuated by bicycle helmets. Before you tell me I didn't read your posts, the purpose of the research was to determine the effects of age on the efficacy of bicycle helmets. That is, what is the decrease in safety afforded by a three year old helmet and do you really need to replace your helmet every three years and create more garbage?
As an undergrad thesis I had no funding (self funded), accordingly the number of helmets tested were too low to compare results outside of the study. I will convey this, within this study helmets reduced forces experienced by the headform accelerometers by 79-84% compared to no helmet. I am not sure how many articles and what articles you reviewed but take my word for it HELMETS SAVE LIVES!!!

[Lotus]

Thanks Morten! Those sites were very informative! I didn't know how controversial helmet use actually is. Now I just need to find a site that provides ratings on quality bike lights & mirrors!

[Derek Walton]

While statistically my helmet appears to be useless I am persuaded to use it: on two occasions I have come off my bike and hit my head on the pavement with some force, had I not being wearing a helmet I might not be writing this today.

[Frank Krygowski, PE]

I'm not surprised that Consumer Reports has chosen to laud Randy Swart, who is arguably America's leading proponent of bicycle helmets. This action is entirely consistent with CR's long-standing advocacy of bike helmets.

What surprises me is that CR has taken a strong, and uncharacteristically credulous, position in favor of a device with such a poor performance record, and a device with little evidence of real need.

Consumer Reports, like Randy Swart's website, has repeatedly quoted the effectiveness of bike helmets as "up to 85%," that figure having appeared in only one notoriously faulty study. CR, like Swart, has also spread anecdotal tales of miraculous protection incidents, implying that if not for a helmet, a person would obviously have died - or perhaps worse.

As a result of similar wild claims and appeals to emotion, countless helmets have been sold. Many governments have mandated bike helmets. CR must, by now, know that the promises of protection have failed to materialize. The best population-wide data shows no improvement in safety per remaining cyclist - only drops in injuries caused by drops in cycling associated with fearmongering and helmet mandates.

If a "miracle diet pill" were marketed with the same techniques used by Swart and others, CR would critically examine data, not naively accept promotional factoids. It would rely on the best data available to evaluate effectiveness. CR would savage claims like "Lose 'up to' 85 pounds," and would be skeptical of the need for such a scam product.

In the case of bike helmets, CR has not done the research, or evaluated existing research on both sides of this issue. Instead, CR has promoted an ineffective, unneeded, overpriced, non-recyclable, fashion accessory. Quite literally, CR has been sold a bill of goods, and has failed its mission.

[Bill Wilson]

The bicycle helmet of 20 years ago was a lot more durable than the helmets of today. Helmets are now purchased on the basis of appearance (fashion statement), comfort (lightness, ventilation), and trust that they will protect us.

Yet, most severe cyclist injuries and deaths are a result of the impact with a motor vehicle- bicycle helmets were never designed for that situation and no manufacturer would ever make such a claim.

Is the bicycle helmet just one more disposable, non-repairable, non-recyclable product derived from the petrochemical industry, and sold to us for the apparent health and safety benefit?

[Morten Lange]

Hi,

I suggest anyone who is really interested in cyclist safety and health, check out the following web pages ( http prefix removed ):
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_safety
- www.cyclehelmets.org
- ec.europa.eu/environment/youth/original/air/kids_on_the_move_en.pdf
- ec.europa.eu/environment/cycling/cycling_en.pdf
- bicyclesafe.com/
- www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/forum/story.html?id=ccaeadf5-3c53-4fd0-b899-2156c98c5255&p=1

Best Regards, and keep cycling :-)