Transition from right turn to left turn in a Lee Parks Total Control clinic

Navigation

Links


Motorcycle Helmet Standards

One of the questions in the MSF's beginner rider class is about stickers that may be found on motorcycle helmets. The answer (in the USA) is that there must be a sticker from the US Department of Transportation, and there may be a sticker from the Snell Memorial Foundation. Many people have heard that a Snell sticker indicates a better helmet than a helmet with only a DOT certification. This is questionable. One of the most interesting debates to emerge in recent years is just what standards should be met by motorcycle helmets.

Why the debate? Because if a helmet is too stiff it can be less able to prevent brain injury in the kinds of crashes you're most likely to have. And if it's too soft, it might not protect you in a violent, high-energy crash. What's just right? Well, that's why it's called a debate. If you knew what your head was going to hit and how hard, you could choose the perfect helmet for that crash. But crashes are accidents. So you have to guess.

I am not qualified to have an opinion on helmet standards. Many people who are qualified believe that the standards of the Snell Memorial Foundation produce a helmet that is too hard. Motorcyclist Magazine did two articles in 2005 inquiring into this issue. I think they did a good job of asking questions of various experts and reporting their opinions, without inserting their own (unqualified) opinions. The quote above is from their article on their investigations and inquiries, including a response from the Snell Memorial Foundation. It's interesting and important. It has test results on various helmets, with the g-force passed by each helmet. Take it into account in your next helmet purchase. If that factor gets popular, helmet makers will take note and we might get better helmets — or at least better information on what makes a better helmet.

The folks at Motorcycle Cruiser recognize that not only do helmets not kill riders, but full helmets protect riders better than half or three-quarter helmets. But how about the modular helmets — the style which has a moveable chin bar so you can push it up to talk or eat? They did an article in April 2003, available here, on some tests they commissioned on such helmets.

Motorcycle Consumer News is another magazine with some good investigation on the subject over the last several years. They have the good sense to talk to people like Harry Hurt, of the famous "Hurt Report" of the early 80s (do a web search on "hurt report motorcycle crash"), and David Thom, who worked with Dr. Hurt and who now runs a lab testing helmets for helmet makers. Their articles aren't available free like the Motorcyclist article above, but you can search for the required articles and then purchase them for $5 each.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

There's a vocal subset of the motorcycling community which is against mandatory helmet use. I don't have a problem with that. I'm against helmet laws myself, though I wouldn't be caught dead without a modern full helmet. I am against people who spread misinformation — lies, that is — about helmets. To counter the lies, you need information. That information comes in the form of statistics. You have to be careful with statistics. But without statistics, you have only "war stories" of dubious truth and relevance. The best source of statistics on motorcycle crashes that I know of is the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. This federal agency collects information on US highway crashes and publishes the data and conclusions drawn from the data. They are strongly in favor of mandatory helmet laws; that is, they know that it's safer to ride a motorcycle while wearing a helmet than to ride without a helmet, and conclude that it's a good idea to forbid people to ride without a helmet. Feel free to reject that chain of reasoning, but don't ignore the data leading them to that conclusion.

It's impossible to list all the crap that can be heard about the hazards of helmet use. But here is a sample, along with examples of how to find out whether they're true or false.

Nutty. Helmetless riders are 3.4 times as likely to die as helmeted riders. (Source: Braddock, Schwartz et al. (1992)) A laughable argument. Head injury is the leading cause of death among unhelmeted motorcyclists. So these geniuses are taking a result that demonstrates the effectiveness of helmet use, and trying to make it show that helmets aren't useful. Both false and irrelevant. According to DOT report 809 360, 46% of motorcycle fatalities are the result of single-vehicle crashes. Even if every multi-vehicle crash is the fault of the other motorist, half of all crashes cannot be blamed on the actions of others. In addition to being false, the argument is specious. Regardless of who caused the crash, a helmet provides protection from head injury. Do these people actually believe this crap? Tune in to a motorcycle race sometime. Watch the racers crash at speeds from 40 to 140mph, jump up, run to their motorcycles, and resume the race. Then tell me that helmets are useless at speeds over 15mph. But ok, there are obstacles on the street that don't exist on the track: oncoming cars, trees, stone walls. Still, according to Johnson, Walker, and Utter (1996), helmets are 67% effective in preventing brain injuries.

I'm not here to tell you to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. I don't care whether you wear a helmet or not. You're an adult; you decide. But don't kid yourself about their usefulness, and don't lie to others about it.