Helmet ratings

[Cormanus]

As a follow on to the earlier discussion on what helmets people wear, I've come across a couple of web sites that provide independent testing of helmets. One in the UK, the other in Australia, both run by government. I can't find a similar site in the USA; if there is one, I'd be interested.

The UK one is: http://sharp.direct.gov.uk
The AU one is : http://www.crash.org.au/

I'd appreciate hearing about any others people know about.

[HikerToo_imp]

Hmmm...neither sites have my Shoei J-Cruise or GT Air.

[SanPete_imp]

I fail to see the correlation between the word "independent and run by goverment." This argument is best left alone for we do not want to open a can of worms.
Getting back to the topic there is a site called http://www.helmetcheck.org based out of California. Here in the states we have two standards for testing. One being DOT (http://www.nhtsa.gov) which is run by goverment. The other one is SNELL which is based out of California and it is independent (http://www.snell.org). Out of the two only DOT approval is required for a helmet to be considered legal.
This link has some information about DOT: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbi.../page2.htm
This link is a small write up about the differences
http://silodrome.com/snell-vs-dot-vs-ece...throwdown/
Hope this helps.
P.S. I can't find any site in the states that rates helmets.

[Cormanus]

Thanks for the links, Pete.

I'm not sure about the point you're trying to make about a correlation between "independent" and run by "government". I wasn't trying to create one. My point was that the sites and the tests are run by governments in Australia and the UK. They are independent of manufacturers. That doesn't mean they're unbiased in the form of testing they consider appropriate. However, they are clear how about their testing methodology and, rather than simply testing for compliance with the relevant standard, offer a comparative result. The UK site makes the point the their tests showed a 70% variation between helmets that complied with the UK standard.

Like you, I'm not necessarily interested in cans of worms, but I'd quite like to understand what you meant.

Cheers

[flynrider]

In the U.S., the Snell Foundation does independent testing of motorcycle helmets. Their current standard is M2010 and helmets must pass their testing before earning the Snell rating.

DOT requires manufacturers to meet their standard, but doesn't actually test them before they hit the shelves. They test random samples of DOT rated helmets that are already in the market.

The Euro standard for motorcycle helmets is ECE.22.05. Those helmets are tested before getting the ECE.22.05 stamp.

All three of those have slightly different standards, with none being generally considered significantly superior to the others. You can review the standards and take your pick.

In my racing days, all AMA sanctioned events required a Snell rated helmet. Nowadays I hear that both Snell and ECE.22.05 are acceptable for AMA racing, but not DOT.

[the Ferret]

Cormanus...here nobody trusts the US govt and would prefer independent of the govt's involvement which could be considered unbiased in testing and reporting.

[Cormanus]

Cormanus...here nobody trusts the US govt and would prefer independent of the govt's involvement which could be considered unbiased in testing and reporting.

Ferret, I'm not certain it's just there that no-one much trusts the US Government.

Seriously, though, there are probably two things here: the first is who tests the helmets to ensure they comply with the standard. I'm not sure who that is in Australia, although a number of laboratories is accredited to test various things to ensure compliance with mandatory standards. It's likely to be one of those.

The second is the two sites I've referred to which actually test the performance of accredited helmets. What I found interesting about both is that they find what looks like a reasonable difference in the protective value of different helmets, and that performance doesn't necessarily equate to cost.

In the Australian case, [url=http://www.crash.org.au/home.html]CRASH is funded by the [url=http://www.mynrma.com.au/default.htm]National Roads and Motorists Association (NRMA) perhaps like your AAA, the [url=http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/]Victorian Transport and Accident Commission (TAC) and the New South Wales [url=http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au]Department of Transport. NRMA is a membership organisation independent of Government. TAC is a government-owned insurance business that provides no fault insurance cover to anyone injured in a traffic accident. It is funded by a premium compulsorily included in everyone's registration charge.

All these parties have an interest in keeping accidents and the harm flowing from them to a minimum. I'd have some confidence in the results of their work.

Finally, I suspect we and the Brits generally have a higher regard for the public servants (not politicians) who undertake this sort of work and report on it than appears to be the case in the USA. That might depend on who you talk to.

A disclaimer: I worked for government, not as an elected official, for most of my working life. I don't think that leads me to any bias here, but you can draw your own conclusions.

Please tell me if this is too much information for the forum.

Cheers

[redbirds_imp]

I remember back in 2004 I think, that Motorcyclist ran an article wherein they tested various helmets for their ability to absorb impacts with the least amount of force being transmitted to the head. Their results were very surprising to them as the Snell approved helmets were deemed the least effective because of the hard shells needed to pass the Snell standard for helmet penetration. The two top performers in their tests were also two of the least expensive helmets on the market. This caused an uproar with a couple of premium brand helmet makers who quickly cancelled their ads in the magazine. Their conclusion (Motorcyclist) was that most helmets that meet the DOT or better yet, the Euro standard for helmets would give adequate protection provided the helmet was sized properly for the wearer. Which gets to my choice in a helmet, that being the Nolan. Seems it's the only helmet that fits my weird shaped skull snugly all round without any hard pressure points. IMO, the best helmet is the one that fits properly.