Snell-Approved Helmets

[bigboystoys]

Tried to search for some info on DOT or snell approved helmets but couldn't really find any.

 

So I've looked around and below are some useful information especially the link on the list of helmets certified by snell.

 

One thing to note is the difference between the Snell standards of SA-xxxx and M-xxxx. The SA-xxxx helmets are not to be used for motorcycling because of the repeatable impact resistance (in short, the helmet absorbs less energy compared to a M-xxxx helmet). The SA-xxxx standard is designed for auto-racing where they have roll-over protection bar within the car's cockpit.

 

Snell M-2000 Approved Helmets

http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_M2000.html

 

Snell M-2005 Approved Helmets

http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_M2005.html

 

Snell Memorial Foundation homepage

http://www.smf.org/home.html

 

 

Hopefully this can make good reading for everyone that is concerned. And not to let dealers or distributors to mislead you on your choice of approved helmets. I've encountered some sales ppl that doesnt even know which of their helmets are Snell or DOT certified and they just assured me that it's certified; they couldn't show me where is the certification sticker or cloth-label.

 

 

[Demon]

Tried to search for some info on DOT or snell approved helmets but couldn't really find any.

 

So I've looked around and below are some useful information especially the link on the list of helmets certified by snell.

 

One thing to note is the difference between the Snell standards of SA-xxxx and M-xxxx. The SA-xxxx helmets are not to be used for motorcycling because of the repeatable impact resistance (in short, the helmet absorbs less energy compared to a M-xxxx helmet). The SA-xxxx standard is designed for auto-racing where they have roll-over protection bar within the car's cockpit.

 

Snell M-2000 Approved Helmets

http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_M2000.html

 

Snell M-2005 Approved Helmets

http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_M2005.html

 

Snell Memorial Foundation homepage

http://www.smf.org/home.html

 

 

Hopefully this can make good reading for everyone that is concerned. And not to let dealers or distributors to mislead you on your choice of approved helmets. I've encountered some sales ppl that doesnt even know which of their helmets are Snell or DOT certified and they just assured me that it's certified; they couldn't show me where is the certification sticker or cloth-label.

 

 

Snell, BSA, DOT, E22-05 standard are all irrelevant in the eyes of the Singapore law. Only PSB certification is recognised

[DM]

Snell, BSA, DOT, E22-05 standard are all irrelevant in the eyes of the Singapore law. Only PSB certification is recognised

 

which is kinda retarded since psb approves helmets that don't pass snell/ dot standards

[Demon]

which is kinda retarded since psb approves helmets that don't pass snell/ dot standards

 

The only logical explanation is that westerners have thinner skulls

[bigboystoys]

Snell, BSA, DOT, E22-05 standard are all irrelevant in the eyes of the Singapore law. Only PSB certification is recognised

 

i shall not even start on the topic of PSB certification...

i guess most share my sentiments...

 

 

anyway..

this thread is hopefully to educate and create awareness to all about the importance of a certified helmets.. and most importantly, to know which helmet is certified and not rely on the sales ppl to tell us..

i've grown to not trust sales ppl anymore... especially when you know that they are not really that professional and are mostly out to earn a commission

[Refugee]

i shall not even start on the topic of PSB certification...

i guess most share my sentiments...

 

 

anyway..

this thread is hopefully to educate and create awareness to all about the importance of a certified helmets.. and most importantly, to know which helmet is certified and not rely on the sales ppl to tell us..

i've grown to not trust sales ppl anymore... especially when you know that they are not really that professional and are mostly out to earn a commission

 

it really depends on which industry you're looking at...

 

helmets sales are essential but not mainstream business in singapore... so L.B.S do not employ proper sales man for it...

 

thus why they, not being educated with the correct info, in turn wrongly sells you something..

 

try being in their shoes... how many forumers in SBF here (presumably being the more 'well informed group') are really interested in DOT vs ECE vs PSB...

 

we, being singaporeans, just want something that wearable, keeps us away from the laws and lastly, keep out head in 1 piece in event of accident.. dead or alive is up to destiny.

 

2 cents.

[Demon]

i shall not even start on the topic of PSB certification...

 

If you don't I will.

 

Snell publishes a comprehensive list of helmet that are tested and met their standards. http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_M2005.html#B. And Snell is a reputable organisation and it's standard is recognised by many sports governing bodies.

 

What I don't understand is why PSB wants to re-invent the wheel by duplicating the effort of a more recognised testing body? In the process, consumers end up paying more, and less variety of brands and models because importers need to bear the cost of batch testing, and cost of helmets used for the destructive testing.

 

we, being singaporeans, just want something that wearable, keeps us away from the laws and lastly, keep out head in 1 piece in event of accident.. dead or alive is up to destiny.

 

There are such people but I am not one.

 

"Dead or alive is up to destiny" but God helps those who help themselves.

 

[Demon]

i shall not even start on the topic of PSB certification...

 

If you don't I will.

 

Snell publishes a comprehensive list of helmet that are tested and met their standards. http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_M2005.html#B. And Snell is a reputable organisation and it's standard is recognised by many sports governing bodies.

 

What I don't understand is why PSB wants to re-invent the wheel by duplicating the effort of a more recognised testing body? In the process, consumers end up paying more, and less variety of brands and models because importers need to bear the cost of batch testing, and cost of helmets used for the destructive testing.

 

we, being singaporeans, just want something that wearable, keeps us away from the laws and lastly, keep out head in 1 piece in event of accident.. dead or alive is up to destiny.

 

There are such people but I am not one.

 

"Dead or alive is up to destiny" but God helps those who help themselves.

 

[Refugee]

........

 

There are such people but I am not one.

 

"Dead or alive is up to destiny" but God helps those who help themselves.

 

 

*deleted*

 

retype: its good that you're not one of them... neither am i... but no spare cash though... thats the despairing fact of being a singaporean.

[bigboystoys]

If you don't I will.

 

Snell publishes a comprehensive list of helmet that are tested and met their standards. http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_M2005.html#B. And Snell is a reputable organisation and it's standard is recognised by many sports governing bodies.

 

What I don't understand is why PSB wants to re-invent the wheel by duplicating the effort of a more recognised testing body? In the process, consumers end up paying more, and less variety of brands and models because importers need to bear the cost of batch testing, and cost of helmets used for the destructive testing.

 

 

 

 

exactly my sentiments bro...

 

SNELL is the most comprehensive and not to mention most stringent standard for helmets... and it's considered illegal to don a helmet that's SNELL approved but lack the PSB sticker..

 

 

 

and i admit... i'm guilty of using those cheapo helmets.. haha..

still looking around for my 'best' helmet..

[contrarian]

Seems like most here believe that Snell certification is the best.

 

I would suggest that you free your minds by reading an alternative research opinion:

 

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/

 

"What the Snell advocates won't tell you is that when these same makers sell their helmets in Europe, Japan and the U.K., they are not the same helmets they sell here, and they're not Snell rated. They are built softer, tailored to conform to exactly the same ECE or BSI standards as the European makers."

 

"If you're going to land on flat pavement when you crash—and you almost always do—you can afford to wear a softer ECE or DOT helmet, because softer helmets do a very good job of absorbing big impacts—even really, really big impacts—on flat surfaces. Remember, the hard part about getting a helmet past the Snell standard involves surviving that mythical steel orange very hard twice in the same spot on the helmet, simulating a monster hit—or two—on, say, a car bumper."

[Demon]

Seems like most here believe that Snell certification is the best.

 

I would suggest that you free your minds by reading an alternative research opinion:

 

I never believe that there is such a thing as one best standard for certification.

 

However, Snell has the most comprehensive standards for helmets, and it also provide a list of approved helmets that meet M2005 (STANDARD FOR PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR).

 

What makes Snell different from others is that information, such testing methodology, helmet standards, are all available online, and it is updated periodically.

 

US is the single biggest market for helmet, and probably also every other thing, so if a product meets US standard, personally it is good enough for me. Even triathlons in Singapore, helmets used in cycling must meet certain standard, and Snell is one of them.

 

My Roof does not have a Snell stickers because the French has their own standard. Does that make my Roof less safe than my Shoei, or Nolan, although none has PSB stickers

 

[Refugee]

no offence but you're speaking like the local aunties and uncles...

 

"wah.. MUI KOK (USA) one ah? good ah! MUI KOK LEH... QC sibei hoh eh... must be good lah"

[bigboystoys]

Seems like most here believe that Snell certification is the best.

 

I would suggest that you free your minds by reading an alternative research opinion:

 

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/

 

"What the Snell advocates won't tell you is that when these same makers sell their helmets in Europe, Japan and the U.K., they are not the same helmets they sell here, and they're not Snell rated. They are built softer, tailored to conform to exactly the same ECE or BSI standards as the European makers."

 

"If you're going to land on flat pavement when you crash—and you almost always do—you can afford to wear a softer ECE or DOT helmet, because softer helmets do a very good job of absorbing big impacts—even really, really big impacts—on flat surfaces. Remember, the hard part about getting a helmet past the Snell standard involves surviving that mythical steel orange very hard twice in the same spot on the helmet, simulating a monster hit—or two—on, say, a car bumper."

 

 

 

very good reading there...

 

i find myself agreeing to some arguments provided too..

but i'm no expert in those matters and i think i'll still stick to the standard that's required by the Motorsports body that is Snell at the moment.. hey we must have some form of reference right? haha

 

i believe that if Snell is found to be detrimental despite its high requirements, they (snell) will amend it accordingly to cater to the large number of motoring/motorsports bodies that uses the Snell Certification..

 

 

[normanlai]

my 2cts worth of thoughts:

 

i have been reading about PSB certified helmets and their implications. Without bothering about certification (my own opinion), put it this way.

 

1. you spend 300 on a ARAI/SHOEI etc etc etc, you feel good, ok great. One fine day, accident. medical bills reach the 10,000s and still increasing. It affects your ability to work, long term liabilities.... Insurance refuse to payout coz u not using approved helmet, die liao lor?

 

2. you buy SUMI or MFizz from somewhere, nice sticker. One fine day accident, medical bills reach the 10,000s and still increasing, long term liabilities, cannot work coz accident caused long term damage. Insurance compensates you, but just takes a while to get the money.

 

if the info on insurance not willing to compensate is true and accurate, seriously, i think just get the PSB helmet. Bike knock car, bike suffer, Car knock bike, also bike suffer. Your ARAI helmet protect your head, but anything can happen from your neck, downwards, no matter u wear armour suit or not.

 

just layman thoughts without considering fancy certification.

[Demon]

1. you spend 300 on a ARAI/SHOEI etc etc etc, you feel good, ok great. One fine day, accident. medical bills reach the 10,000s and still increasing. It affects your ability to work, long term liabilities.... Insurance refuse to payout coz u not using approved helmet, die liao lor?

 

I have read so much talk about insurers will not honour claims arising from the use of helmets without PSB certification.

 

I have read my policies, and there was no mention on this. Are the insurers silenced on this matter ?

 

paging for Mr Contrarian.

[Constructicon]

Shoei/ Arai: Expensive for a reason.

Shoie/Aral; Cheap for a reason.

 

If someone wear Arai, kena acc and cannot claim insurance bcos of that. That will be the joke of the century.

Shoei/Arai passes and exceed the watever DOT/Snell standards and "did not pass' PSB plainly bos the helmets are not sent to PSB for a basically, waste of time testing.

Tested by top labs world the world, proven by numberous crashes, reccomended by Bike mages and still need to pass PSB local 4 million population 'helmet whack into plastic dummy: test.

 

Anyone seen before the Shinya Nakano Kawasaki crash? If he wearing those $30 pisspots, I dun think he will be still racing.

No offense.

[contrarian]

I have read so much talk about insurers will not honour claims arising from the use of helmets without PSB certification.

 

I have read my policies, and there was no mention on this. Are the insurers silenced on this matter ?

 

paging for Mr Contrarian.

 

I would repeat an opinion that I made on this forum 2 years ago in Jan 2006:

 

Blame in any accident is apportioned to the parties involved in the accident.

 

For a claim against you by a third party, your insurer HAS TO PAY a third party claimant if you're at fault. There are few exceptions to this, e.g.

1. driving under the influence of alcohol and causing property damage to the other party

2. non-insured driver such as the thief

 

Note that even if you're drunk driving and cause someone else bodily injury, the insurer HAS TO PAY the third party claimant (but will then recover those damages from you).

 

 

For a claim against another party, the OTHER motorist's liability policy may not pay the full liability IF the court decides that not having an approved helmet is contributory negligence. This would be according to the same principle as if you contributed partially to the fault in any accident.

 

If the injured rider or passenger were wearing an unapproved helmet that failed, and thus contributed to his head injuries in the crash, then the injured person would have some blame apportioned to him for such contributory negligence. His share of the blame - for using an unapproved helmet that led to his head injuries - will reduce the compensation paid by the other party.

 

In another scenario, if the rider or passenger were wearing an approved helmet and don't strap it on, it flies off, then there is contributory negligence on his part.

 

Taking this further, if he were to wear an unapproved helmet and it does NOT fail, there is no contributory negligence for the use of that helmet.

 

If on the other hand, he were to wear an approved helmet and it fails, then his head takes the impact but he (or, more likely, his estate) will get to claim more damages from the other motorist. What a hollow victory that would be.

 

 

All of the above scenarios deal with head injuries and helmets. If it were say a leg injury, I fail to see how a defendant can make a worthy case for contributory negligence arising from an unapproved helmet.

 

Finally, for those who think that insurance will not pay for your own illegal act:

Everyday, there are many motorists who are charged with inconsiderate or dangerous driving etc. You can see that third party claims made against these people - who have admitted to their offence - have been paid to the claimants who have suffered injury or damage as a result.

[warrior.c.o.n.p]

HUH!!!! snell not approved at s'pore??? wat a joke..

[Demon]

I would repeat an opinion that I made on this forum 2 years ago in Jan 2006:

 

appreciate that

 

If the injured rider or passenger were wearing an unapproved helmet that failed, and thus contributed to his head injuries in the crash, then the injured person would have some blame apportioned to him for such contributory negligence. His share of the blame - for using an unapproved helmet that led to his head injuries - will reduce the compensation paid by the other party.

 

In the event of death, will there be any difference in compensation for the deceased between wearing a approved, and an non-approved helmet ?

[contrarian]

In the event of death, will there be any difference in compensation for the deceased between wearing a approved, and an non-approved helmet ?

 

I would suggest that it depends whether the cause of death was head injuries, and whether the head injuries were caused by the unapproved helmet's failure to work properly.

 

Supposing that I am the insurer, and if the answer is yes to both questions, I could make a case that the claimant contributed to his own injury by using an unapproved helmet that failed to absorb the crash impact and thus killed him. If I succeed on this, then the judge could reduce a portion of the blame so that the defendant would only pay a percentage of the total compensation value instead of 100%.

 

I would suggest that this is quite similar to say, if the claimant ran a red light, then his portion of the compensation would likely be reduced if he was hit by another vehicle obeying the traffic signal in his favour.

[Raptor]

Here we go again......

 

So what if you are wearing a PSB approved helmet but you are dead?

 

I'd rather be wearing a DOT or SNELL approved helmet and live to tell.

 

There is more to life than just worrying about how much money can be claimed.

 

None of my helmets are PSB approved anyway and they are not cheap simply because I don't have a cheap head so I don't wear PSB approved cheap helmets.

 

But I think in the end, its a personal choice... its how much you value your current life versus the amount of money you hope to claim.

[Demon]

Here we go again......

 

So what if you are wearing a PSB approved helmet but you are dead?

 

I'd rather be wearing a DOT or SNELL approved helmet and live to tell.

 

There is more to life than just worrying about how much money can be claimed.

 

None of my helmets are PSB approved anyway and they are not cheap simply because I don't have a cheap head so I don't wear PSB approved cheap helmets.

 

But I think in the end, its a personal choice... its how much you value your current life versus the amount of money you hope to claim.

 

i am confident to say that by wearing a DOT or Snell approved helmet or for that matter any approving authority, one is not guaranteed to survive in an accident.

 

If I had understood correct on the postings by Contrarian that the insurer will not "reward" you for being free of head injury in a non-approved helmet. On the contrary, one could be penalised for contributory negligence, if one sustained head injuries for using a non-approved helmet.

 

Whatever standards and methods, available now, adopted for testing by any authorities, they can never guarantee the true performance of any helmet during actual crash.

 

Hopefully, with this knowledge, bikers in SBF can make an informed decision on their helmets.

 

[DM]

i am confident to say that by wearing a DOT or Snell approved helmet or for that matter any approving authority, one is not guaranteed to survive in an accident.

 

If I had understood correct on the postings by Contrarian that the insurer will not "reward" you for being free of head injury in a non-approved helmet. On the contrary, one could be penalised for contributory negligence, if one sustained head injuries for using a non-approved helmet.

 

Whatever standards and methods, available now, adopted for testing by any authorities, they can never guarantee the true performance of any helmet during actual crash.

 

Hopefully, with this knowledge, bikers in SBF can make an informed decision on their helmets.

 

 

yes but wearing an approved helmet which has gone through certain tests that prove that it works does increase the chances of survival. there are some branded helmets that are not approved and during a test by MCN, some of them broke under hard impact which proves that they were designed to look nice and fit but not tested rigorously for function and safety.

 

those that were approved by DOT/ SNELL did not break.

[contrarian]

yes but wearing an approved helmet which has gone through certain tests that prove that it works does increase the chances of survival. there are some branded helmets that are not approved and during a test by MCN, some of them broke under hard impact which proves that they were designed to look nice and fit but not tested rigorously for function and safety.

 

those that were approved by DOT/ SNELL did not break.

 

agree with enfant on the first part.

 

just a correction on a common misconception about DOT:

 

DOT certification is done on the honour system. The helmet's manufacturer determines whether his helmets satisfy DOT and then claims the qualification for himself. There is not even a reporting requirement. The [uS] government does contract for some spot check testing at commercial and private labs but not very much.

 

What if a helmet fails? They publish the data and rely on the manufacturer to bring the product into compliance. In 2001, 20% of the tested helmets failed the performance tests. Helmets manufactured by AFX, Fulmer, HJC, M2R, NEXL and THH. At a 20% failure rate, do you think there are others out there that might fail the performance test?

 

DOT FMVSS 218 Standard Summary: Developed 28 year ago. Very, very limited testing. Based on the honor system.

 

Thus unlike PSB testing which must go through batch destructive testing, seeing a DOT on a helmet doesn't mean that it's been batch tested.