Industry News
Ski helmets worn by the vast majority of skiers offer far less protection at real-world speeds than many assume, according to new testing by Swiss public broadcaster RTS. While the majority of skiers and snowboarders across the globe now wear helmets—and Italy just introduced the mandatory wearing of ski helmets within resort boundaries—the current European standard only requires helmets to protect against impacts equivalent to 20 km/h (12.4 mph)—a fraction of the speeds reached on modern pistes. The American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) F2040 defines helmet safety by testing impacts at specific lab-controlled speeds of 6.2 m/s (22.3 km/h or 14 mph) onto a flat anvil, to ensure helmets absorb force and protect against head injury, with peak G-forces kept under 300 G.Â
The investigation, conducted for RTS’s consumer program A Bon Entendeur, tested 16 helmet models from major brands including Oakley, Uvex, Atomic, Head, Salomon, Albright, Giro, POC, and Wedze. Not a single helmet provided adequate protection in crash simulations at 50 km/h, or in frontal collisions between two skiers each traveling 35 km/h. At 50 km/h, the force transmitted to the brain can reach 2,400 G, a level described as “likely lethal” by Fabien Breda of Geneva’s HEPIA engineering school, who led the testing.
The findings align with growing concerns about speed on the slopes. A SUVA analysis from 2019–2023 found that 75% of recreational skiers in a measured sample skied faster than 50 km/h (31 mph), with 18% reaching 75 km/h (46.6 mph)—far beyond what helmets are certified to withstand.
All helmets tested were compliant with the current EN 1077 standard, which has not kept pace with skiing habits. Experts say that is the core issue. Dominique Pioletti, professor at EPFL’s biomechanics laboratory, says the standard must be updated both to reflect higher impact speeds and to include rotational forces, which are more damaging to the brain than straight-line impacts. While he doubts helmets will ever fully protect at 50 km/h, he believes raising the standard to around 40 km/h is realistic and would push manufacturers to improve safety.
Pioletti also cautioned against over-reliance on anti-rotation technologies such as MIPS, now common in many helmets and marked with familiar yellow stickers. “Having the small yellow or orange sticker will not make the helmet good,” he said, emphasising that current standards still do not test for rotational impacts.
Several helmet brands, including Giro, POC, Head and Decathlon, responded by stressing that the RTS tests exceed regulatory requirements and that their products meet all legal safety standards. They also note that helmets are designed to protect against most falls, but no helmet can guard against every scenario.
Despite the shortcomings, experts agree on one point: wearing a helmet is still strongly recommended for skiing and snowboarding. It may not offer full protection at high speeds but it offers more protection than no helmet at all and can reduce the extent of injuries significantly. Several reviews conducted on the effectiveness of helmets in snow sports have concluded there is strong evidence that helmets decrease head injuries. So while helmet may not protect you fully from head injuries, they can reduce the gravity of head trauma.
When I choose a ski slope, I prefer ones without anvil in the way or skiers traveling at 35kmh upslope. Personal preference…
Jokes aside, I don’t think we should push a narrative that would simply build bigger and stronger helmets for the sake of it, in the sense that no helmet will ever be able to protect perfectly against skier going too fast in weird situation without paying attention to anything. Over protection is not a cure for stupidity. The emphasis should probably be in education and learning to respect others.
In real life scenarios, there are multiple small accidents where a basic helmet can help. As others said, skiing in the woods, in hard conditions or in some case of gear failure, small tumble could cause severe damages that a helmet could protect. That’s personally why I use one. I never say to myself “Well, now I can straightline into a beginner and I’ll be safe”…
I think the point of the study isn’t don’t wear a helmet, it’s trying to make them build better helmets. Nothing wrong with that after you see the limitations based on current testing standards and methodology, which appears to be insufficient.
I makes me laugh that all the evidence (including the Sealey report) basically says they only stop minor cuts, bruises and knocks but still ‘experts’ insist on wearing them. I agree for kids simply because they are likely to get a clout from their friends carrying skis or walk into a chair lift – that’s it. Ignoring the data so as to backup years of a false narrative. Oh and they make them cool by integrating speakers so the helmet wearers are unaware on what is going on around them. It’s a bit like the nonsense around Covid vaccinations – that is now finally being exposed thankfully.
I ski in tight trees, where branches often brush against my head. I’d much rather have them hit my helmet than my skull in just a hat. Early and late season bring another risk: rocks lurking just beneath a thin layer of snow. I don’t fall often, but if I do, I’d prefer my helmet to take the impact instead of my head.
As adults, we all make our own choices, but for me the decision is simple — even a “less than perfect” helmet has already prevented injuries to what I consider the most important part of my body. And as a bonus, when the temperatures drop, I find a helmet keeps my head warmer than a hat. I am going to stick with wearing helmet and will upgrade to a better one when they come along.
Well said
Well, YOU don’t have to wear a helmet or take ANY vaccine. Good luck with that!