Comments on: Rating Helmets Beyond Pass/Fail (News)

By: Paul_48118

Paul_48118 — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:27:21 +0000

This is a great resource, though I wish I had come across it earlier since it seems like this has been up and running for a couple of years. I think it further shows that in Europe motorcycles are an accepted part of the transportation matrix and therefore safety is a factor whereas here in the US motorcycles are seen as toys and playthings. It also doesn’t help that the AMA is still mired in the debate over helmet use in general. Until we can finally accept that helmets are not optional we aren’t going to see this type of comprehensive testing which is too bad since I for one would rather import a Euro helmet that meets these standards than put my trust in the one dimensional sticker that the US requires. I hope that they continue to test a broad range of helmets; I also hope that the mainstream media picks up on this and starts to push for this kind of program.

Report this comment

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 05:02:00 +0000

I read it, and it’s quite informative, as are many other articles on your great site. What I was getting at (and I think if you re-read your post you’ll agree with me) was that you supported your position here with several ridiculous logical fallacies. You have it in you to provide useful feedback, but when you couch it in that rantish last sentence it takes away from anything valuable you have to add.

On an unrelated note, thanks for your web site. It is a treasure.

Report this comment

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:57:47 +0000

Ya…what you said.

Report this comment

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:24:13 +0000

Sounds like you are the exception and not the rule when it comes to a USA rider.

Report this comment

By: Superchicken

Superchicken — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:45:43 +0000

Well, we can throw out the 610,000 miles as meaningless, I’m not sure why you even included it. Does the fact that the board of directors may not have many (or even any) motorcycle miles under their belts in any way detract from their expertise in the medical realm?

It seems rather telling that SNELL changed their testing with M2010 to bring it more in line with the “junk science” in that article, isn’t it? I know, it was just so that the manufacturers could make helmets that were sold in Europe as well, because that unfortunate ECE spec (which I have no doubt you believe was based on junk science as well) which is in effect there precludes a helmet from passing the SNELL certification. Or that SNELL certification prevents the helmet from passing the ECE spec, however you’d like to look at it. I’m sure the M2010 standard is really a step backwards and results in a helmet that is less-safe than those that met earlier SNELL helmets, right? You can’t have it both ways: it is complete bunk and SNELL is making for safer helmets by adopting the M2010 standard which also brings it more in line with increasing the energy absorbed at lower energy impacts while at the expense of those very high energy impacts you’re so focused on.

Report this comment

By: bikerrandy

bikerrandy — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:34:58 +0000

17 mph ? You guys used to say up to 25 mph. Sounds like the more you learn the less safe a helmet is in that impact.

Report this comment

By: bikerrandy

bikerrandy — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:18:10 +0000

MC/scooter riding has been a way of life for me for over 48 years. I spend more time on them by far than any other mode of transportation.

Report this comment

By: Jeremy in TX

Jeremy in TX — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:42:07 +0000

Fantastic. It is amazing that something like this has taken so long to develop. Wish we had it here in the States.

Report this comment

By: Randy Singer

Randy Singer — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:01:44 +0000

Your choice of speeds that you attribute to various helmet standards are not apropos of anything.

It is a matter of the amount of energy absorbed by a helmet at various speeds. According to this article:

http://www.westcoastweasels.com/archives/PDF/Blowing_the_Lid_Off.pdf

“The European Union recently released an extensive helmet study called COST 327, which involved close
study of 253 recent motorcycle accidents in Germany, Finland and the U.K. This is how they summarized
the state of the helmet art after analyzing the accidents and the damage done to the helmets and the
people: ‘Current designs are too stiff and too resilient, and energy is absorbed efficiently only at values of
HIC [Head Injury Criteria: a measure of G force over time] well above those which are survivable.’ ”

So, in other words, SNELL helmets are designed with an eye towards dealing with impacts where the rider isn’t going to survive in any case, at the expense of doing a better job of dealing with impacts that are survivable. In the case of lower energy, survivable impacts, SNELL helmets don’t do as well as helmets designed with an eye only towards ECE and SHARP.

I suggest that everyone read the cited article.

Report this comment

By: x-planer

x-planer — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:01:33 +0000

I have had real world testing on two Shoei helmets. One, an RF900 in a street incident @ 50 mph. The other, an X-11 on the racetrack @ 80mph+. In each case, the helmet died and I lived. At the racetrack (Oct, ’11), I hit my head (helmet) hard enough to lose consciousness for about 5 minutes. I think that means a concussion but I had no nausea later and had no lasting effects that I ever noticed. I’m not sure how a lesser helmet would have performed but those Snell approved Shoeis have done very well by me. I hope I never “field test” another one.

Report this comment