Will the SNELL Certification Get You Killed?

[painman]

A factor to be considered here and mentioned in the article, is if a helmet is exposed to an impact severe enough to do considerable damage, the rest of the persons body is exposed to just as great an impact or worse. Living in a family of nurses who deal with these type of injuries on a regular basis, they have all said as a rule most trauma deaths on a motorcycle are the result of internal bodily injuries other than the head. While the helmet probablly helped it did not stop that person from death or serious injury. And, most motorcycle accidents according to the nurses, the rider was under 25, excessive speed was involved, and alcohol and or drugs were on board, and the rider was on a sport bike. They have said more accidents with serious injury and or deaths has started to show up with riders average age of 45 to 55 years old usually riding a cruiser type bike because of the greater popularity of these type of rides. Common between both type riders accidents were excessive speed, alcohol, and drugs. But if the rider involved was not wearing a helmet, the press never misses an oportunity to say, "and the rider was not wearing his helmet". I think this could very easily turn into a never ending pointless thread. PM. <>< :blink:

 

[James Burleigh]

Common between both type riders accidents were excessive speed, alcohol, and drugs. But if the rider involved was not wearing a helmet, the press never misses an oportunity to say, "and the rider was not wearing his helmet". I think this could very easily turn into a never ending pointless thread. PM. <>< :blink:

If you don't drink and ride you cut in HALF your chance of being killed in a MC accident.

Never-ending, probably. Pointless, nope.

JB

 

[painman]

Common between both type riders accidents were excessive speed, alcohol, and drugs. But if the rider involved was not wearing a helmet, the press never misses an oportunity to say, "and the rider was not wearing his helmet". I think this could very easily turn into a never ending pointless thread. PM. <>< :blink:

If you don't drink and ride you cut in HALF your chance of being killed in a MC accident.

Never-ending, probably. Pointless, nope.

JB

Touche', +1. Good point, you are correct. As I mentioned eariler, this is some good read. Pointless, no. Another point is there are discussions that have addressed the weight of the helmet, ie what type of material is best, due to the heavier helmets cause more neck injuries. And another item is hitting the back of your head/helmet in an accident on the road surface, or curb that can produce an injury similar to being lynched, ie., the weight of the helmet and the chin bar of the helmet stops on the chest and the neck will hyper extend and cause this type of injury or death. Interesting to me and hope it never happens. PM. <><

 

[Toecutter]

He also got a broken jaw out of the deal.

Okay, here's the rub and why I only wear full-face helmets: There were only two locations that showed two-digit strike probabilities: the left chin area and the right chin area.
Conclusion: if you wear a half helmet you'll protect your brain, but you're gonna break your jaw. No thanks.

Point noted, but as I understand it, the rider in the case I refer to WAS wearing a full-face helmet.

 

[James Burleigh]

Point noted, but as I understand it, the rider in the case I refer to WAS wearing a full-face helmet.

Damnit! It's hopeless! Who wants to buy an FJR? Cheap.

JB

 

[Fencer]

Shoei RF1000 meets both snell & EC certifications.....so explain that one?.....

Challenge accepted:

All giraffes are animals, but not all animals are giraffes.
In other words, all SNELL-approved helmets can pass the EC certifications, but not all EC-certified helments can pass the SNELL certification.

Here's another logical model:

1. Socrates is a man
2. All men are mortal
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
1. If a helmet can pass the SNELL tests, it can pass the EC tests.

2. The Shoei RF1000 passes the SNELL tests.

3. Therefore, the Shoei RF1000 can pass the EC tests.

Logical fallacy (thank you Woody Allen and Mike-H):

1. All men are motral.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, all men are Socrates.
:glare:
1. If a helmet can pass the SNELL tests, it can pass the EC tests.

2. The Shoei RF1000 passes the SNELL tests.

3. Therefore, the EC test is equivalent to the SNELL test.

JB

Certified Philosopher

B.A., Berkeley, 19?? (that would be telling)

Yes, but how would you summarize this debate in 3 pages or less between Kierkegaard and Bentham?

B.A. Psychology AUBURN Uninversity 19xx

B.A. Sociology AUBURN Uninversity 19xx

Two 5 hour credits from a B.A. in Philosophy (or the art of ********) AUBURN Uninversity 19xx

One 5 hour credit from a B.A. in Criminology AUBURN Uninversity 19xx

It was time to gadgeeate, but hell with one more quarter (and a lot more $$) I could have more worthless paper stuck on my wall.

Damnit! It's hopeless! Who wants to buy an FJR? Cheap.
JB

I do! I do! very cheap!

Then this magnificent

example would be the safest helmet by consensus? Well, no chin guard, but you can't have everything......

And Radman IIRC the Spaceballs helmet DID indeed transform into a full-face HELMUT

It would have to be the safest helmet as the wearer survived a sudden impact from Ludicris speed!!!

 

[radman]

And Radman IIRC the Spaceballs helmet DID indeed transform into a full-face HELMUT
It would have to be the safest helmet as the wearer survived a sudden impact from Ludicris speed!!!

Well, as this photo

would indicate, and addendums to the Hurt Report confirm, full face helmets are not a replacement for full head sensibilities....... For those who might be interested, the photo was taken a block from the Kaw dealership where his new ZX-14 had just been delivered.

 

[Fencer]

And Radman IIRC the Spaceballs helmet DID indeed transform into a full-face HELMUT

It would have to be the safest helmet as the wearer survived a sudden impact from Ludicris speed!!!

Well as this photo

would indicate, and addendums to the Hurt Report confirm, full face helmets are not a replacement for full head sensibilities....... For those who might be interested, the photo was taken a block from the Kaw dealership where his new ZX-14 had just been delivered.

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lmaosmiley: :lmaosmiley: :lmaosmiley:

 

[jestal]

Interesting suject and information.

Too bad no one can predict what the helmet impact speed might be in the next crash they have. Then you could buy the helmet/standard that is tailored specifically for that crash. Since I can't I would recommend buying a Snell helmet that has (potentially) a wider range of protection.

Snell also tests helmets samples from production rather than from a sample supplied by the helmet maker. This is a better assurance that the helmet on the shelf meets the standard than a non-Snell standard.

There is no question that a helmet that is "harder" would subject the skull to more g's in a low speed crash. But that is purely hindsight in this case. If the impact speed had been greater then the user would have a completely different perspective of the helmets performance.

Comparing potential impact loads to that achieved by falling 3 feet to the pavement and then sliding is sort of ridiculous. In many cases this is true, sure. But in many others impact with a curb or car or other fixed object might far outweigh the load from the 3 foot fall. Just a slight rotation of the body during the crash could accelerate the head into a fixed object at much greater speed than the sliding speed was. Recomendations to "soften" up a helment in the vein that the extra high speed protection is not needed is BS.

Seems to be like some of the logic presented in this exchange is a bit tortured for the sake of the argument about one specific case and different supposed results if the helment had been different. Good for conversation but not scientific at all.

I know that Snell has done an extensive amount of helment testing and know far more about it than most any organization in the world. I'll continiue to trust them to certify that the helment I buy has the greatest likelyhood to protect my head no matter how I manage to crash.

 

[boogahboogah]

I remember reading the helmet articles a few months ago, and the two points I came away with were: when Snell does their impact testing, they require a helmet to pass their impact test TWICE, and, because of the design criteria needed to pass the impact test twice, more energy was transferred to the inside of the helmet (my brain).

Not claiming specific engineering knowledge or anything like that, I just want the helmet to self destruct before my brain liquefies ...

 

[chornbe]

Snell also tests helmets samples from production rather than from a sample supplied by the helmet maker. This is a better assurance that the helmet on the shelf meets the standard than a non-Snell standard.

Which is why, even tho' I understand the issues with "harder" helmets, when I buy helmets, and it has a snell sticker, I continue to say, "ah, cool". I shop for DOT-approved helmets that fit and provide the features I want. Snell or the Euro approval are just icing on the cake.

$.02

 

[Rogue]

Shoei RF1000 meets both snell & EC certifications.....so explain that one?.....

Challenge accepted:

All giraffes are animals, but not all animals are giraffes.
In other words, all SNELL-approved helmets can pass the EC certifications, but not all EC-certified helments can pass the SNELL certification.

Here's another logical model:

1. Socrates is a man
2. All men are mortal
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
1. If a helmet can pass the SNELL tests, it can pass the EC tests.

2. The Shoei RF1000 passes the SNELL tests.

3. Therefore, the Shoei RF1000 can pass the EC tests.

Logical fallacy (thank you Woody Allen and Mike-H):

1. All men are motral.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, all men are Socrates.
:glare:
1. If a helmet can pass the SNELL tests, it can pass the EC tests.

2. The Shoei RF1000 passes the SNELL tests.

3. Therefore, the EC test is equivalent to the SNELL test.

JB

Certified Philosopher

B.A., Berkeley, 19?? (that would be telling)

You forgot the most important logical argument:

1. God is Love.

2. Love is Blind.

Therefore..........

3. Ray Charles is God!

 

[Feejer/Weejer man]

I guess those chopper beanies are DOT approved not snell but I wouldn't wear one. This debate sounds like Escort of Valentine to me. I bet the track guys don't shy away from Snell approved helmets. If one approved helmet would guarantee you wouldn't have head injuries everyone would use it.

 

[drew231506]

You can still have your shoei or arai EC2205 and/or ACU Gold Approved as opposed to Snell...just order one in from Europe on the WWW. I tried the Shark Helmet and wasn't a fan.

 

[wallypiper]

Somewhere in the press that flew around right after the article came out, I read that most of the big manufacturers build Snell helmets only for sale in the US, not because its more expensive or more difficult but because they don't believe that the Snell design offers the best protection so they have different designs for sale to the rest of the world. This is related to Snell's double impact standard which most manufacturers consider arbitrary and not a good match for what happens in real crashes. To me, they are intuitively correct in the sense that it seems unlikely that your helmet will suffer two impacts in the same spot in a crash but intuition isn't always right. I'm not sure what the basis of that requirement is.

 

[James Burleigh]

they don't believe that the Snell design offers the best protection so they have different designs for sale to the rest of the world.

For me one of the most telling points in the article is when they ask the helmet salesman how important the SNELL certification is for your company [in selling helmets in the United States]."

His answer: "It's our numbers one, two, and three top priorities to get that certification. Without it we can't sell helmets." And here's the telling part: "Only after that can we start worrying about making a safe helmet."

JB

Somewhere in the press that flew around right after the article came out, I read that most of the big manufacturers build Snell helmets only for sale in the US, not because its more expensive or more difficult but because they don't believe that the Snell design offers the best protection so they have different designs for sale to the rest of the world. This is related to Snell's double impact standard which most manufacturers consider arbitrary and not a good match for what happens in real crashes. To me, they are intuitively correct in the sense that it seems unlikely that your helmet will suffer two impacts in the same spot in a crash but intuition isn't always right. I'm not sure what the basis of that requirement is.

 

[jestal]

I think some of the criticism of the Snell rating specifications comes from the multi-use of helmets. Don't forget that helmets are used in car racing as well as on motorcycles. Not to be too obvious with that comment but that is one of the reasons for the "multiple hit" requirement. A perfectly placed multiple hit in a motocycle crash might be low on the priorities but a helmeted driver's head will bang the roll cage in exactly the same spot several times in a violent crash....hence the requirement. Additoinallly, this effects the stiffness of the shell and the liner, too, as a roll bar is fairly small and very hard so the load is not spread out as it would be striking a flat surface. Still, I would put this requirement into the "unknown" category in a motorcycle crash as you could strike a small diameter object (sign post...???) of the edge of a larger object (guard rail, edge of cement barrier, edge of curb) with your head in much the same sort of impact as a driver's head would hit a roll bar.

Many sports have application specific helmets but cars/motorcycles/boats/etc. all seem to get lumped together in the motorsports category when helmets are concerned (for the most part). Probably specific requirements for each would be more applicable but also create much more confusion so the tradeoffs in performance and cost would have to be considered. Since no one can predict the exact loads and crash scenario for an impending accident I am not sure this even matters as the more the helmet meets the strictest load requirements the more it is sure to survive and unknown hit.

In race car crashes the helmet is an integral part of the crash protection system in that many of the crash protection systems are designed to pick up the helmet early in the crash so as to spread the load over the driver's head. Things like a Hans device are very obvious but other things like rollbar placement and other restraint devices are not as obvious. There has been a tremendous amount of crash simulation and actual crash development done on car crashes and Snell is always privy to the results in an attempt to spec a better helmet that covers all situations as best as possible. The car crash development is heavily funded so until someone in the motorcycle industry comes along to fund the similar research it is likely that the car work will apply to motorcycle standards as well. Once again, Snell is the tie-in with this work.

This discussion is reminiscient of the arguement in automobiles about airbags and depowered air bags and such. An airbag capable of controlling a large male with no seat belt in a crash is obviously much more powerful than need be to control a belted small female in the same crash. So the female gets roughed up a little more by the airbag. Is that the airbag's fault or should you look at it like "what would she have looked like without the air bag at all??" Is she better off with the harsh deployment or the depowered bag. Certainly with the depowered bag but still much better off with the full powered bag compared to no bag. You can insert air bag into most of the discussion here and it carries the same sort of logic.....and confusion over the specs and what airbags/helmets can/cannot do....LOL.

 

[user 213]

I think some of the criticism of the Snell rating specifications comes from the multi-use of helmets. Don't forget that helmets are used in car racing as well as on motorcycles.<snip>

Jestal, you haven't gone racing in a long while. Auto racing requires helmets based on different standards. 'M' rated helmets, (motorcycle use), are NOT approved for auto racing. 'SA' rated helmets have fire retardent linings and shells with different impact designs, in most cases. I can't speak about boat racing helmets, but I'd suspect they use auto racing standards rather than the less stringent motorcycle ones.

I have both SA and M rated helmets. Different shells, different types of protection designs for the different types of use.

In the end, people will wear or not wear helmets as they decide to do so. Snell, DOT, EC ratings are just stickers based on lab tests. We may use those ratings to help us decide what we want, but that does not garauntee our safety any more than what bike we choose to ride. We choose to manage our risks by the way we ride, what we ride and the gear we wear. We don't always choose wisely. That realization often comes via hindsight though. ATGATT is one way of looking at things. Most will still choose to protect themselves in some manner. Hopefully we will survive our choices.

 

[tripletango]

A factor to be considered here and mentioned in the article, is if a helmet is exposed to an impact severe enough to do considerable damage, the rest of the persons body is exposed to just as great an impact or worse. Living in a family of nurses who deal with these type of injuries on a regular basis, they have all said as a rule most trauma deaths on a motorcycle are the result of internal bodily injuries other than the head. While the helmet probablly helped it did not stop that person from death or serious injury. And, most motorcycle accidents according to the nurses, the rider was under 25, excessive speed was involved, and alcohol and or drugs were on board, and the rider was on a sport bike. They have said more accidents with serious injury and or deaths has started to show up with riders average age of 45 to 55 years old usually riding a cruiser type bike because of the greater popularity of these type of rides. Common between both type riders accidents were excessive speed, alcohol, and drugs. But if the rider involved was not wearing a helmet, the press never misses an oportunity to say, "and the rider was not wearing his helmet". I think this could very easily turn into a never ending pointless thread. PM. <>< :blink:

I belive you hit the nail on the head.

 

[jestal]

I think some of the criticism of the Snell rating specifications comes from the multi-use of helmets. Don't forget that helmets are used in car racing as well as on motorcycles.<snip>

Jestal, you haven't gone racing in a long while. Auto racing requires helmets based on different standards. 'M' rated helmets, (motorcycle use), are NOT approved for auto racing. 'SA' rated helmets have fire retardent linings and shells with different impact designs, in most cases. I can't speak about boat racing helmets, but I'd suspect they use auto racing standards rather than the less stringent motorcycle ones.

I have both SA and M rated helmets. Different shells, different types of protection designs for the different types of use.

In the end, people will wear or not wear helmets as they decide to do so. Snell, DOT, EC ratings are just stickers based on lab tests. We may use those ratings to help us decide what we want, but that does not garauntee our safety any more than what bike we choose to ride. We choose to manage our risks by the way we ride, what we ride and the gear we wear. We don't always choose wisely. That realization often comes via hindsight though. ATGATT is one way of looking at things. Most will still choose to protect themselves in some manner. Hopefully we will survive our choices.

Well....yes and no....

The tracks I've been to just want to see the Snell sticker. No mention of what it was spec'ed for. Maybe they are just being slack.

The last time I bought a serious helmet for a car Simpson just wanted to know whether it was to be a fire retardent interior or not, no difference between car and bike. Maybe they are now.

Regardless, the repeated hit against a rollbar is what drove that standard initially whether it is still in the standard today is questionable I guess.