Why is it the US has an expiration on helmets sold in the US, but most European countries do not? I know they have different safety standards, but are the helmets made of a material that doesn't degrade?

It's just a recommendation by the helmet manufacturers and the Snell Memorial Foundation; it's not a requirement to replace them.

It's a recommendation that was not made in the US (and Canada) until helmet sales leveled off.

In the first number of years when helmet sales started to take off (the 90's) there were no recommendations.

Sales leveled off, recommendations to replace.

It's a recommendation that was not made in the US (and Canada) until helmet sales leveled off.

In the first number of years when helmet sales started to take off (the 90's) there were no recommendations.

Sales leveled off, recommendations to replace.
Are there any current major brand bicycle helmets even offered in North America anymore that are Snell Certified. Don't see any of the popular brand names listed on the Snell site. It seems their sales marketers found a better way to promote sales than paying for Snell Testing or meeting any higher standards than the minimum necessary to get a CPSC label. Pretty neat, huh? Talk about imaginary improved designs while scamming with an expiration/deterioration ploy.

So, what you are saying is that when helmet sales bombed in the mid-1990's, that was when expiration dates started?

I just read an article online from the Wall Street Journal about the drop in helmet sales in 1996 and the search by manufacturers to find other sports that "needed" helmets. I didn't realize that expiration suggestions coincided with that also.

It's all speculation on my part.

I do know there never used to be replacement recomondations when they were first marketed, then it was, replace every 7 years, then every 5 years, then every 3 years.

It does correspond with the leveling off of wearing rates and redesigning for "sexier" designs (and poorer protection) for better sales and like I said earlier, if the helmet does degrade, why is it a recomondation? if they do degrade it should be replaced, period. Does it work or not?

The fact is, they do work because they do not degrade unless the helmet has been damaged in some way.

The fact is, they do work because they do not degrade unless the helmet has been damaged in some way.

Exactly right.
Caruso

Why is it the US has an expiration on helmets sold in the US, but most European countries do not? I know they have different safety standards, but are the helmets made of a material that doesn't degrade?

No. It's money. If the right lobbyists had the right amount of money, there would be expiration dates on humans.

Humans do have expiration dates. We're just not privy to them.

:p

yeah. Thank god or whomever or whatever for that. 'Cause I don't want to know.

Hmm I think there is a real misinterpretation here. Coming from a bit of a background in chemistry I will try to clear things up here.

Let's see, Styrofoam, a plastic. In normal conditions, this material (along with a lot of plastics) will degrade chemically, but so slowly that you probably won't see the difference in your lifetime. Just look at any “save the [insert marine animal here]” campaign. UV light and chemicals (especially chemicals) will increase the rate if degradation. If you have an old helmet or Styrofoam box around try putting some households products on it and see what happens. Some of my favourites are superglue and facial toner but there are plenty around. But, helmets aren’t normally in contact (or very little) with these chemicals and as people have been saying, many coatings are UV treated.

What really effects helmet life is not ‘degradation’ but accumulative damage. Simple things such as throwing it around, shoving it in your car and not treating it as gently as you could. And there are a lot of people around who treat their helmets much worse on a day to day basis.

Basically, in an impact a helmet is designed to cushion your head to some extent. The Styrofoam that they are made from is very light and this is because it is filled with lots of air. So in an impact it sort of acts like an air bag. It gets compressed as it impacts (with something hard), and pushes air out, at the same time it spreads the force of the impact across a larger surface area of your head. After an impact (large or small) the foam, because it has been compressed is thinner and loses the ability to be as compressible as it was when you first bought it. After years of not being treated with kid gloves and silk cushions the day to day damage accumulates so the helmet does not offer as good a protection as it did when you first bought it. Look around the internet for pictures (I’ve seen some) of peoples helmet after they were in a crash, they will show a thin spot where the helmet hit. These crashed helmets are unable to absorb any impact anymore and if crash again in the same spot will not absorb any of the force, instead passing it all straight on to your head. Day to day abuse can also cause cracks, even though you might not be able to see them that will also reduce the safety of the helmet.

The same idea is used with seatbelts in cars (coming from a country where seatbelts AND bike helmets are law). It is suggested that they are replaced after a car crash. This is because they are weakened and in the event of another crash have a higher risk of breaking and letting you fly out the windscreen or something just as nasty. It’s also suggested they are replaced after a certain amount of time due to accumulative damage of sharp stops, pulling and just general driving. From memory I think it was every 20 years without an accident to replace them but don’t trust me on this figure.

To a certain extent I believe that limits supplied by manufacturers are there to encourage you to continuously buy a new one. But knowing this, I still think 3 years is a reasonable time in which to buy a new one. I would be tired with the colour by then anyway. I will always believe that if you are wearing a helmet for safety, forget price, fit means everything. If the helmet is not stuck to your head properly, it won’t work. If you’ve got a nice expensive one and it doesn’t fit and so is very uncomfortable, you aren’t going to wear it. Everyone has a different sized head, so try lots on, yes even the cheapest and most expensive. Think…all helmets sold (in Australia anyway, not sure about America but I think it’s the same) have to pass safety regulations. If some superdooper expensive helmet was somehow safer than others, don’t you think they would advertise it until you were sick of it, eventually caved in and bought it? Note: yes this last paragraph is my opinion, please don’t blaze me for it unless you try and convince my otherwise with your reasons why I am incorrect.

Thanks for reading.

...What really effects helmet life is not ‘degradation’ but accumulative damage. Simple things such as throwing it around, shoving it in your car and not treating it as gently as you could. And there are a lot of people around who treat their helmets much worse on a day to day basis.

... Day to day abuse can also cause cracks, even though you might not be able to see them that will also reduce the safety of the helmet.


To a certain extent I believe that limits supplied by manufacturers are there to encourage you to continuously buy a new one. But knowing this, I still think 3 years is a reasonable time in which to buy a new one. ..

Thanks for reading.

It was good to read.

I agree with your assesment that it's the day to day treatment that can cause damage and I also think many people don't take the care they should with helmets. That probably has a lot to do with the recomondations for replacement, but I don't think it takes a great deal of effort or thought to handle a helmet with care and have it last for a long period of time.

If people are of the type to mistreat their helmets, they can do so on day one after their purchase and a recomondation could be made to replace them far more frequently (after mistreatment) to be sure they work when needed.

I'm fond of the rule of thumb that was introduced to me in rock climbing.
"Examine your equipment before, during, and after each time you use it, and stop using it when you don't trust it and/or lose confidence in it. This includes gut feelings."

I like this rule. I apply it to lots of things. It's saved me from horrific bodily harm many, many times in many and varied conditions/activities. :)

We shouldn’t lump helmet manufacturers into one interest group. Remember we have a free market and they are all in competition with each other. If I were a helmet manufacturer and I could claim my helmets last four years instead of three (for the same price) wouldn’t I grab that competitive advantage. Sounds like other factors are regulating the three year replacement regulation.

Does price-fixing mean anything to you? sometimes it's better to be with your competitor than to actually tell the truth about things.

Does price-fixing mean anything to you? sometimes it's better to be with your competitor than to actually tell the truth about things.
Or own your competitor. Bell and Giro are owned by the same company.
http://www.helmets.org/belg9903.htm

After reading that, I now know why my tea has tasted like spearmint.

Does price-fixing mean anything to you? sometimes it's better to be with your competitor than to actually tell the truth about things.

Price fixing is illegal. Do you know of evidence?
I doubt there is much profit margin in helmets so competition may appear limited. I think for about $30 you get an excellent product that performs as advertised.

Competition is definitely limited when you own your competitors. Price-fixing is illegal, but it's done quite a bit.