Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: dilligaf on July 12, 2015, 03:33:43 PM
-
doesn't meet your construction standards? :copcar:
http://www.mrf.org/2015/news_release/15NR18.htm
:boozing:
Matt
-
I had to laugh at the part: "The Motorcycle Riders Foundation believes that motorcycle helmet enforcement is a state issue and not a federal issue." Everyone who has ever wanted weaker rules about anything has made similar statements, you know,
"state's rights".
My comment isn't about MRF's position on the issue itself.
-
It is aimed at those "beanie" helmets worn to comply with state laws w/o really wearing a helmet. A co-worker of mine went down while wearing one of those and it didn't end well.
-
I agree that any national standard should address performance, and not the specific construction to meet that performance.
About 30 years ago the German Industrial Standards organization came up with a set of standards for ski binding performance, subsequently endorsed by other standards organizations (ASTM for instance). In theory it was a performance standard -- bindings had to release under a specific set of torques and vectors -- but it all hinged on a standard boot-sole shape and boot plastic durometer. Because of that, binding design has been frozen for three decades -- attempts to improve function have largely gone nowhere because the shapes of the mechanical bearing surfaces can't be changed.
We now see progress in ski helmet (and bike helmet) design based on new foam layers that deform in shear, helping to reduce torque on the skull and therefore shearing of nerve tissue near the surface of the brain. If specific construction details were spelled out in standards, I can see that this improvement in safety might be off the table.
-
It is aimed at those "beanie" helmets worn to comply with state laws w/o really wearing a helmet. A co-worker of mine went down while wearing one of those and it didn't end well.
Oh! You sure? Where does it say that? The way I read it, it's up to the :police:.
and what Testarossa said. :thumb: :boozing:
Matt
-
It might also be aimed at states that allow no helmet required for riders over 21 yo too like Arizona. But 'beanie' helmets are not really DOT approved and DOT approval for open, open face, modular, full face helmets are not all the same. If you wear a DOT approved helmet I don't see where this can interfere with you unless you have altered your helmet like adding a spike to it. SNELL approval is really for race car drivers.
-
Oh....a helmet thread........ :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Riding since 1970 and I've never had a law officer show the tiniest, ittiest-bittiest iota of interest in the qualifications of the helmet I was wearing, so it's hard for me to get behind a helmet-certification thing ..... Any helmet I buy that's even close to the value of my head is going to pass muster anywhere ....
Lannis
-
:1:
-
Ditto :thumb:
Riding since 1970 and I've never had a law officer show the tiniest, ittiest-bittiest iota of interest in the qualifications of the helmet I was wearing, so it's hard for me to get behind a helmet-certification thing ..... Any helmet I buy that's even close to the value of my head is going to pass muster anywhere ....
Lannis
-
I should think it would be easy enough to establish a Federal standard without implying a Federal use mandate on the states.
The downside would be the momentous number of lawsuits once a percieved "safe" standard is set and still injuries/death occur. I can see the Feds looking at this as a hot potato rolling down a slippery slope:
Helmet
ABS
Traction Control
Airbags
Roll bars...
Just cut to the chase and outlaw motorcycles all together.
'Course then, many would be denied their high-horse from which to spew venomous condescension, derision and judgment with regards to individual's decision as to what - if anything - to wear.
As far as LE scrutiny of particular headgear - there's at least one MP and one Mass. Statey took umbrage at my choice of Army aviator and armor helmets for motorcycle use. To be sure, they weren't up to being used at any speed. Lesson learned.
Todd.
-
I had to laugh at the part: "The Motorcycle Riders Foundation believes that motorcycle helmet enforcement is a state issue and not a federal issue." Everyone who has ever wanted weaker rules about anything has made similar statements, you know,
"state's rights".
My comment isn't about MRF's position on the issue itself.
So what Federal Agency do you think is in charge of helmet use enforcement? The FBI?
-
All this just shows the wisdom of throwing out helmet laws completely.
Voluntary use saves lives. Good enough.
-
DOT.
-
So what Federal Agency do you think is in charge of helmet use enforcement? The FBI?
Nah, it'd be the TSA -
"Now sir, whatchu wanna do is putchure hemet on the ground, remove your footswear and spread your cheeks. Doan sass me now, this is for your safetys. As soon's I checka your stickers, you free ta go."
Todd.
-
DOT.
Federal DOT has no enforcement arm, patrolling the Country's highways.
-
Federal DOT has no enforcement arm, patrolling the Country's highways.
Maybe not, but it does set the standards for what safety MC helmets can be legally sold in the USA. If a helmet is not DOT approved it's not legal in the USA.
-
(http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag77/Penderic/police2_zpszfheiajy.jpg)
I hope they don't find my mousetrap.
Its not so much the police, it will be the liability lawyers and insurance agents that will be swarming over any evidence, after an accident, in order to help or hinder the payout of any claims.
The details will be in the tiny fine print. Is your bike completely stock? Maybe those mods make your bike legally unfit and so the insurance wont cover what you thought it would.
-
Riding since 1970 and I've never had a law officer show the tiniest, ittiest-bittiest iota of interest in the qualifications of the helmet I was wearing, so it's hard for me to get behind a helmet-certification thing ..... Any helmet I buy that's even close to the value of my head is going to pass muster anywhere ....
Lannis
Same here...
-
Maybe not, but it does set the standards for what safety MC helmets can be legally sold in the USA. If a helmet is not DOT approved it's not legal in the USA.
Sure they can be sold in The USA. If not, then there would be no novelty helmets or DAVIDA helmets in The USA.
And, there are.
-
Pedantic I know, but isn't it the case that DOT has some helmet certification standards, but they DO NOT approve helmets. The helmets are tested by the manufacturers and labeled as certified or novelty depending on the purpose?
-
:thewife: If this becomes law then (http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.K4qHgjqfZS9VkDhlKlJH/Q&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0) will have the last word. And what Kev said. :boozing:
Matt
-
The Federal gummint enforces nothing regarding helmets. DOT provides guidelines for manufacturer labeling. States may require helmets to meet DOT guidelines. States and municipalities may authorize LEOs to enforce state requirements.
http://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-dot-takes-action-address-unsafe-motorcycle-helmets
-
I had to laugh at the part: "The Motorcycle Riders Foundation believes that motorcycle helmet enforcement is a state issue and not a federal issue." Everyone who has ever wanted weaker rules about anything has made similar statements, you know,
"state's rights".
My comment isn't about MRF's position on the issue itself.
Except gun control in California. There they argue that the states rights are what gives them the foundation for tougher, not more lenient rules.
-
if we wanted to get real sticky about it, SNELL requires that helmets be within 5 years old of standard (IIRC). The thinking is that UV and age will cause a helmet to deteriorate.
So some one can be riding with a 50 year old Buco and still be legal. Not that I care about enforcement.
-
Like someone here already said, in 50+ years never had any cop/sheriff question the quality of my helmet. I'm smart enough to not wear a fake helmet for head protection. In fact I wore a helmet before any law said I had to. Legally don't have to here in Arizona but I'm smarter than that. :smiley:
-
Right now the burden of proof is on the :police: and proving the helmet in question doesn't meet DOT 218 is hard to do without destroying the helmet. Unless you voluntarily give the :police: your helmet they have no legal right to it. Opinion, construction and appearance are not proof. Should this become law opinion, construction and appearance will trump certification. Not what I want. I wonder if the Governor has an opinion?
(http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q692/2jabam3/DSC_0026_zps8006fb02.jpg) (http://s1354.photobucket.com/user/2jabam3/media/DSC_0026_zps8006fb02.jpg.html)
:boozing:
Matt
-
Your governator has had some applaudable opinions recently. I think she is smart enough to figure out that if a helmet model is blessed under whatever rules might emerge, the blessing will trump the need to core sample individual lids of the same model. So you wouldn't have to give up your shoei voluntarily or otherwise. There would be a list and the shoei will either be on it or not.
All that being said, I still don't give a rat's ass about helmet laws one way or another -- unless they are banned altogether. I have my own helmet law.
I'm confronted by bare-headed riders a lot on my travels who feel it's their mission to inform me that helmets aren't MANDATORY in some state I'm passing through. Then they pause as though I'm supposed to react by tossing mine in the ditch. It's like they think 'not mandatory' means 'not allowed'.
We lost another rider up near FBKS last week. A soldier. You can't ride on a military base without one, and this clown was headed to work. His custom was to charge up to the gate bare-headed and put the bucket on because he was crossing the security checkpoint. The boys manning the gate confirmed that he'd pull over once exited from the base and remove it before riding on. Excessive speed and excessive stupidity made him go airborne in a curve, and Darwin won -- massive head injury. From a procreation point-of-view, some people maybe shouldn't wear a helmet . . .
With all that in mind I'm in a quandary about riding the trike without one. :boozing:
-
Pedantic I know, but isn't it the case that DOT has some helmet certification standards, but they DO NOT approve helmets. The helmets are tested by the manufacturers and labeled as certified or novelty depending on the purpose?
That's my take on it. The manufacturer "certifies" that the helmet meets DOT standard. While the manufacturer submits & pays the fee for Snell certification, the DOT endorsement is the only one that is singularly acknowledged / approved for where a helmet is required.
What I'm unclear on is:
If DOT is required to be road motorcycle legal, are there Snell helmets that are NOT DOT? Possibly for off road or auto racing only?
I'm trying to rationalize somehow that "all Snell certified helmets are also DOT by default. . .
http://www.bikebandit.com/community/guides/dot-snell-ece-motorcycle-helmet-certification
-
Snell says all Snell helmets meet DOT recommendations.
http://www.smf.org/docs/articles/dot
-
Snell says all Snell helmets meet DOT recommendations.
http://www.smf.org/docs/articles/dot
I like the last line on this Snell article,"Without our sticker, it's purely a gamble that the helmet meets any standard at all." What a cheap shot!
I've crash tested both Snell & DOT helmets and they all protected my noggin' as advertised. It seems to me any mfg. that sold a non DOT helmet as if it was a DOT helmet and the rider(or his family) wearing it got hurt could sue the mfg. if it could be proven the helmet was inferior to DOT standards when new.
-
I like the last line on this Snell article,"Without our sticker, it's purely a gamble that the helmet meets any standard at all." What a cheap shot!
I've crash tested both Snell & DOT helmets and they all protected my noggin' as advertised. It seems to me any mfg. that sold a non DOT helmet as if it was a DOT helmet and the rider(or his family) wearing it got hurt could sue the mfg. if it could be proven the helmet was inferior to DOT standards when new.
"Cheap shot" I like it.
I recall the article a few years ago in one of the cycle rags that challenged the "standards" and seemed to imply that some of the inexpensive DOT only test samples were able to dissipate energy more effectively that the Snell standard at the time. Since then, the Snell evaluation criteria have changed.
Here's some of the article(s) & fallout - it's good reading.
http://jalopnik.com/5582380/how-the-truth-about-motorcycle-helmets-got-a-journalist-fired
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/automobiles/27SNELL.html?_r=0
-
With just the DOT sticker, it's purely a gamble that the helmet meets any standard at all. How does that work for you? :boozing:
Matt
-
The organizations controlling the racing I do, ECTA, SCTA, only accept the latest Snell rating and or the European equivalent...
-
The organizations controlling the racing I do, ECTA, SCTA, only accept the latest Snell rating and or the European equivalent...
Which makes sense doesn't it.
Isn't the gist of the articles about Snell vs. Dot that the Snell rating was designed for racing, where the chance of a harder or repeated impact is greater, necessitating a harder shell?
It's just that the research seemed to suggest that an unintended consequence of the standard is that it may transmit more force from a single impact to the brain.
At least that's my basic understanding of the controversy, no?
-
For me the Snell sticker means someone other than the manufacture has certified the helmet. :boozing:
Matt
-
They are gonna need really BIG ugly stickers that stand out!
(http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag77/Penderic/IMG_0906_zpsci9n0mj3.jpg)
Maybe an flashing green light on top will be the next logical step.
-
Nolan helmets (DOT) are not Snell approved and Casey Stoner, Moto GP world champion has always raced wearing 1. According to some here anyone who rides outside the USA must be a fool since they don't have a Snell sticker on their helmet. :cheesy:
-
I don't think anyone here believes that DOT helmets are unsafe.
-
For me the Snell sticker means someone other than the manufacture has certified the helmet. :boozing:
Matt
And that's all I need. For most of the things that I use that have a safety component to them, I don't even have that. I trust the reputation of the manufacturer, which might be dodgy, who knows, but we all do it anyway ...
Lannis
-
I have a Nolan & it's probably my favorite. DOT yes / Snell no. I was told at one time that Snell did not certify any modular helmets. Maybe that's changed.
One of the articles mentioned that should a helmet carrying the DOT certification be challenged for any reason and found not to meet the standard, that the manufacturer was liable @ $5,000 per unit for each helmet of that model produced. So while the onus is on the manufacturer, there was significant motivation to ensure that their products remain compliant.
Heck- my company even pays to certify that we've documented the complete chain of custody of certain harvested materials. While it's also "the honor system" the liability for failing to do so keeps us on a damn tight straight & narrow. There's too much to risk to screw around with it.
-
Actually if a DOT helmet is found to be nom complaint DOT sends them a letter and tells them to correct it. The mfg can appeal and continue to sell the helmet during the appeals process. Sadly, USDOT relays on the mfg to do the right thing and does very little testing. DOT 218 is a joke as USDOT's enforcement. Let the buyer beware = DOT 218. :boozing:
Natt
-
Some helmets fail because their straps dont hold the helmet tight and others have failed due to the location of the DOT sticker being incorrect.
Easy to remove helmet = for a reason.
(http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag77/Penderic/voztec0002_zps4ammeojs.jpg)
Other safety issues, like ease of removal from an accident victim are often not considered by the rider....
-
Actually if a DOT helmet is found to be nom complaint DOT sends them a letter and tells them to correct it. The mfg can appeal and continue to sell the helmet during the appeals process. Sadly, USDOT relays on the mfg to do the right thing and does very little testing. DOT 218 is a joke as USDOT's enforcement. Let the buyer beware = DOT 218. :boozing:
Natt
I don't disagree. DOT relies on the mfg to subscribe to the testing standards. Buyer beware. My RXQ is the most plush can I've ever put on my noggin - Snell & DOT. I still prefer the Nolan for convenience. It seems there's a potentially lucrative career to be had enforcing the penalty that's expressed for failing to voluntarily meet & maintain the standard. Now if it's the govt's preference NOT to enforce the penalty for non-compliance in favor of sending a friendly "get it together" letter, then that's a different thing altogether. You'd think that a litigious commune like the US of A would be hot for any chance to sue the $#!t out of someone at every opportunity. Especially if that someone's a big greedy company ripe for the suing.
From NHTSA- http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FAQ%20Site/pages/page3.html#Q12
12. What are NHTSA�s penalties for importing non-compliant helmets or failing to cooperate with an investigation?
A person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motorcycle helmet for on-road use unless the helmet complies with FMVSS No. 218. A person that violates this regulation is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation. A separate violation exists for each motorcycle helmet that does not comply with the standard. The maximum penalty for a related series of violations is $16,050,000.
Furthermore, NHTSA is authorized to conduct any investigation that may be necessary to enforce Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code and requires a manufacturer to make reports to NHTSA if requested. A manufacturer's failure to respond promptly and fully to such a request could subject the manufacturer to civil penalties pursuant to 49 U.S.C. � 30165 or lead to an action for injunctive relief pursuant to 49 U.S.C. � 30163. Under 49 U.S.C. � 30165, NHTSA is authorized to impose penalties up to $5,000 per day for failure to provide requested information in accordance with 49 U.S.C. � 30166.
-
It is aimed at those "beanie" helmets worn to comply with state laws w/o really wearing a helmet. A co-worker of mine went down while wearing one of those and it didn't end well.
and that co-worker is part of Darwins kids.