Originally Posted by
Troul
with this, I often wondered how an organized event require a person to have a helmet to cover liability issues when the rating used to eval the safety equipment is subjective?
Given legal liability concerns and the existence of legally recognized standards, subjective or otherwise, how far would you expect the organizers of an event to get in a court case brought against them by an injured (or worse) participant with the claim that "We didn't require the use of certified helmets because the certification is based on subjective impressions"?