Modern Vespa

Which is why, if I lived in the US, I'd be very wary of the 'Snell rating'. Non-profit - perhaps - self perpetuating with an importance above the status of the science? Perhaps indeed.

No test can tell you how your helmet will perform in a real-life impact. So I just wear what is comfortable, quiet, and and at a price I'm willing to pay. At the end of the day, most riders will choose to wear helmets - what I don't like is being told by (probably non-bike-riders) what helmets I'm allowed to wear, and I like even less that in the UK we were forced to wear helmets before *any* real evidence was collated.

Rider's choice, every time. Next thing you know they'll be mandating automatic speed limiters, or insisting all outer garments are leather. Try doing that in Barbados or BVI - or Greece!

Fight these b'stards who try to tell us what we can do - if in the UK I urge you to join MAG (Motorcycle Action Group):
http://www.mag-uk.org

If elsewhere there may well be a similar Rider's Rights group. Bikers are voters too!

Have a friend who tested the double impact theory a few years ago while doing some filming with his new helmet cam Very experienced MC rider had a Shoei FF helmet. Took a corner fast but we had just had a storm and there was sand on the road. Head first at about 80mph into a tree the helmet was toast but still on when he hit the second tree. don't know which one FX his neck C2 but i think the initial impact one was the culprit. He wore a halo and is none the worse as i write this. Wife made him sell the MC when she had to come back from Iraq to be in the hospital with him. The helmet cam recorded the whole thing. The housing made it thru unscathed

It's still a confusing mess for US buyers. A non-SNELL helmet may be just as hard as a certified one. On top of this, SNELL M2010 helmets will be sold alongside SNELL M2005 helmets through 2012, when SNELL will full stop applying M2005. DOT is more of a poorly-enforced consumer protection than a reliable measure that a helmet has passed any sort of testing. Some pretty poor helmets pass DOT, some that might not pass are sold because they're never tested and some that have failed continue to be sold as DOT helmets.

SNELL has benefitted manufacturers more than consumers; it's greatest value has been as a sales tool. Many riders bought into it and still do. Others will go by what they're told be retailers: "This helmet has passed a series of stringent tests and has been certified by a nonprofit organization. This other has not." There are safety standards and regulations for automobiles, seat belts, child car seats, airplanes, toys, appliances, food, apparel and most other vehicles and consumer products. I seldom hear people complain that they can't dress their children in highly flammable clothing that uses carcinogenic dyes, that they aren't allowed to eat contaminated meat and that they're forced to travel in airplanes which meet a number of standards designed to protect travelers.

I'm not sure why motorcycle helmets should be any different than other products. They're sold on the basis of providing a modicum of protection in the event of a crash. Of course there are no guarantees and, as you say, "No test can tell you how your helmet will perform in a real-life impact." Since they're sold on this basis-regardless of laws mandating their use-don't you think they should be able to meet a set of minimum requirements for performance? Personally, I don't find that overly restrictive.

The problem (as I see it) is when any standard is used to offer riders false assurances and expectations.

SNELL, unlike DOT and ECE, is not a government program. It's a privately run and funded add on. Any of us could start our own, the MV Standard. And I betcha we could up the sales of some helmets by certifying them, even if our testing methods comprise strapping a bowling ball in the helmets and dropping them off my roof. "It's an alternative to SNELL, using unique testing methods because SNELL was deemed inadequate." Kaching! Sale!

I beg to differ with the gist of this statement. Tests can very well tell me which helmet is more likely to protect me vs another helmet, so your statement is not helpful. I understand that you are a maverick and don't like to be told what to use, but that doesn't mean that tests can guide an open mind to select the better product.

Probably the most profound statement so far, and as I have posted previously, applies to any and all "protective equipment", whether or not standards are in existence. If false expectations of protection influence riders toward higher risk behaviors, that is downright deadly.

Add to the above: and you have the situation in a nutshell. There is no way you can predict the impact, abrading and crushing forces in a mishap you haven't had yet. All the standards offer is a stated minimum level of protection against specified forces in specified manners. And as "minimalistic" as that sounds, it is the only rational way for it to be done. Governments establish minimum standards simply because there is a far lesser chance that the standards will be driven by a profit motive. I am comfortable with that, especially in light of the current Snell standards change and implementation schedule.

If the issue were simply Snell vs the DOT, there might be a case that DOT is simply a case of "you can't trust the government". But, for years, Snell stood alone, not because they were making advances (they didn't change), but in rejecting emerging science and medical data from a wealth of respected sources. And in the end, Snell caved to DOT and ECE, yet saw fit to allow it's obsolete standard be applied to products of royalty paying manufacturers for a couple of years after the new standard was adopted. Ensuring that new level of protection for our heads doesn't seem urgent enough to make the changeover faster or the labeling more readily found. That truly diminishes Snell's stature in my view.

All of that said, gear will protect you within the gear's design limitations. Just keep in mind that it cannot protect you against forces for which it wasn't designed, or from forces which exceed its design limits. As long as you limit your mishaps to ones which limit the forces involved to the design limits of your gear, you will be in tall cotton. If you figure out how to do that, let me know.

And, while we are on the subject of gear and expectations, let me point those who are more recent members to this thread on "Safety and Survivability"

Al