Helmet Safety..perhaps not what you think

[lukeja1]

Hey gang, this is my first post. I've searched and found this has not been posted yet. It is not designed to start flames, nor am I trolling, but I wanted to start a discussion about helmet safety. Motorcyclist magazine ran an article called "Blowing the Lid Off" in October (at least I think it was in October) testing how well helmets stood up in their lab tests. The article is on line at https://motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/ It's a long article but an interesting read. To summarize, they feel that the Snell certification makes a helmet more likely to allow brain injuries than just DOT helmets. They theorize that this is because Snell requires a helmet to provide protection from a impact with a small object in the same place twice. In order to get the helmet to do it twice, it has to have harder foam, which in turn, transfers more g-forces to the brain.

Let me just say, that I have an Arai Renegade helmet and have not thought about getting rid of it based on this article. I can't find any other helmet as comfortable as the Arai. However, I wanted to open it up for discussion.

 

[MCRIDER007]

Let me just say, that I have an Arai Renegade helmet and have not thought about getting rid of it based on this article.  I can't find any other helmet as comfortable as the Arai.  However, I wanted to open it up for discussion.

I think this issue as well as the Motorycylist article you cited have already been discussed on this forum. Motorcyclist's conclusions are hardly new, Professor Harry Hurt came to the same conclusions about 10 years ago. Hurt felt that a helmet that met the DOT standard would probably provide as much if not more protection than a Snell helmet in about 90 percent of accidents. He also thought that the extra hardness of the Snell helmets would be a desirable thing to have in a very severe collision, such as an impact at very high speeds, and as such racers would probably be more protected with a Snell helmet. He also said that the cheapest DOT full face helmet provided significantly more protection than the most expensive open face helmet.

 

[twowheelnut]

Phew, hell of a first post, newbie...

I don't think any standard can predict the comparability of laboratory testing v. real life scenarios. Therefore, this discussion is rendered moot. Have a nice day and welcome aboard.

-Albert E.

PS You better not be a reincarnation of downer2, or I'm gonna hop a plane to Texas and whoop-up on your sorry ass.

 

[lukeja1]

HMMM.. not sure who downer2 is, but with a name like downer, it can't be good.

I guess the obvious point with the article (and those before it) is any helmet is better than none.

 

[black mamba]

Hey TWN....

This newbie can't be that Down2 idiot, because he can at least spell correctly and knows how to properly punctuate sentences.

 

[BrunDog]

Besides, he's not smart enough to conceal well: he would come in with a new name, "ddown3".

-BD

 

[madmike2]

The bestest thing and prolly the mostest importantest is ta find wun thet fits.

First, if it fits, it will most likely be "quiet" in comparison to an ill-fitting helmet of any manufacturer. Secondly, if it fits, you'll wear it!

The point of the article is that even "DOT Approved" helmets do a very good job. That the more expensive a helme is has no reflection on its ability to protect your head. Some of the cheaper helmets actually did a better job of protecting the brain in some instances than the better known brands.

This is all "old news" and has been discussed at length. Just wear your helmet every time you ride.