SlashGear Article Explaining NHTSA Motorcycle Helmet Testing with Rank

[exgman]

I saw an item on "SlashGear" website which gives the ratings of motorcycle helmets derived "from NHTSA data: https://www.slashgear.com/1699145/best-worst-motorcycle-helmets-ranked/

I then looked at the NHTSA website for the same data and didn't find it, but did find this statement:

"Check Safety Ratings​

Make sure your helmet has the DOT symbol on the outside back; this means it meets our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218.
NHTSA does not approve helmets, or any other motor vehicle equipment, instead relying on a self-certification process. However, we conduct tests on some helmets to make sure they meet our standard. While our selection is typically random, we do take into account feedback and complaints from consumers in determining which helmets to test each year. If a helmet does not meet our standard when tested, we can issue a formal recall of the helmet, requiring that it be removed from stores. Our findings are posted to an online database."

Anyway, I guess this means: Caveat Emptor!

 

[crna59]

The best helmet? It's the one that fits your head properly......

 

[bc1100s]

The best helmet is the one you're actually wearing. As opposed to not wearing one.

The DOT rating is ancient, self-certifying and virtually useless these days. Snell 2025D or ECE 22.06 are the latest standards.

I wonder if we're starting the equivalent of an oil thread?

 

[dduelin]

The best helmet is the one you're actually wearing. As opposed to not wearing one.

The DOT rating is ancient, self-certifying and virtually useless these days. Snell 2025D or ECE 22.06 are the latest standards.

I wonder if we're starting the equivalent of an oil thread?

This is just clickbait. The test methodology of lumping labeling and performance failures is ludicrous.

If the NHTSA in the process of randomly testing self-certified DOT helmets finds one that has the DOT sticker applied without meeting the FMVSS 218 standards the fine of $5,000 per helmet likely would grab the manufacturer's or importer's attention.

 

[bc1100s]

This is just clickbait. The test methodology of lumping labeling and performance failures is ludicrous.

I'm not sure I see your point. Are you saying that lower performance is better?

 

[dduelin]

I'm not sure I see your point. Are you saying that lower performance is better?

Every so often there is a discussion over what is the best standard for helmets and every time there is no new evidence that one is superior over the others in all areas of testing or if which of the current testing methodologies best resemble the random impacts suffered in an motocycle accident. However there is no evidence that riders are dying unnecessarily because they bought a helmet with a DOT sticker vs. a Snell or ECE sticker. Buy one that fits properly and wear it along with other protective apparel.

 

[robsryder]

I'm not sure I see your point. Are you saying that lower performance is better?

In my view an answer could well be "Yes!". If the so-called lower performing helmet was less expensive and/or more comfortable then it would be "better" if that meant that the owner would be more inclined to wear the helmet. I also do not believe in government mandated helmet laws - I do believe that the government should either develop or endorse standards for helmets (and other safety gear) and manufacturers should be required to identify if that piece of safety gear meets the standard.

I have seen many folks wearing "novelty" helmets that do little to provide protection in the event of a motorcycle crash, but such helmets are very unlikely to result in a ticket from most law enforcement officers. Even an inexpensive 3/4 helmet with some amount of impact absorbing material and a hard, load spreading, outer shell will offer some level of protection.

And there is no "magic" helmet that will prevent a fatality in all crashes. It is about personal risk management and proper safety gear is but one component of a risk management strategy. So is proper training, having a "safe" bike (e.g., brakes, tires, lights, etc.), and riding in a manner within one's capability for the specific environment. The drunk driver at 10 in the morning that crosses the center line and plows head on into a bike rider (or group of riders) is difficult to avoid or "manage" such a risk factor. We all have to take responsibility for our own risk management, including acceptance of risk.

Wearing safety gear is an important component of one's risk management. Selection of protective helmets should be based on one's personal preferences. Standards and test data are but some of the factors to consider. Fit, cost, styling, and availability are other factors that an individual may give a higher weight to over some one's idea of a performance test.

 

[bc1100s]

.... If the so-called lower performing helmet was less expensive and/or more comfortable then it would be "better" if that meant that the owner would be more inclined to wear the helmet.

Like I said, the best helmet is the one an individual chooses to wear versus not wearing one.

As far as standards are concerned, a Snell or ECE certified helmet is a definite advantage over a DOT helmet when it comes to survivability. DOT allows for a peak energy transfer of 400g whereas Snell and ECE allow for 300g and 250g, respectively. In case you're interested, one does not survive a 400g hit to the head.

But wear whichever helmet you want, or don't - its your choice gentlemen.

 

[motorhead1977]

Wear one or choose not to. Personal preference is fine so long as you are precluded by law from monetary recovery should you choose to not wear protective gear and are injured/more severely injured as a result of the choice. After all, isn't that really personal responsibility for your actions/choices?
Flame away

 

[PGlaves]

How in the world did a pseudo-analytical article purporting to rate motorcycle helmets turn into a discussion of folks not wearing helmets?

 

[collingsbob]

In 2022 I slid down the road on my face after being thrown off my bike at 60mph. When I healed enough to drive I went to the dealer and bought myself another Shoei RF1400.
Just buy the best you can afford…and wear it all the time.

 

[88bmwjeff]

How in the world did a pseudo-analytical article purporting to rate motorcycle helmets turn into a discussion of folks not wearing helmets?

The world may never know

 

[motorhead1977]

Because someone's (robsryder) post brought it up;-)

 

[oldcamper]

I think it’s good someone is actually testing the various helmets and publishing results. Importers can source new, full face motorcycle helmets from low cost providers for less than $20 each, but a full face helmet the importer paid as little as 12 bucks for may not provide the protection one needs in a crash. Then again, it actually might! That’s why testing to standards is a good thing for all of us.

 

[100rider]

I agree with Robsryder about the government not mandating helmets. Yet here is where I think things will be going.

You have a life insurance policy? Oh didn't wear a helmet - not paying. Your health insurance, oh didn't wear, not paying - because the rider did not do everything within their power to prevent or help reduce your injuries. Shouldn't matter if you were hit or you hit something.

Same could be applied to car insurance, driving drunk - sorry not paying for your car or medical, will pay damages to others involved.
Not wearing seatbelt and die in a car accident - life insurance could say - no.

But what do I know