I-Like-To-Bike

Is there any evidence that the cyclists who wear helmets that passed the more stringent Snell testing have had any better head injury results than those who wear the CPSC approved helmets w/o Snell Certification? In other words, what is the difference in real world results?

I'll leave any discussion as to the advantages of a Snell Certified helmet over no helmet in risk reduction to the helmet thread.

rekmeyata

Any evidence that it doesn't? Funny, a more stringent testing to pass more severe impacts means nothing to you.

unterhausen

pretty tricky to do double blind testing on helmets. Hate to be the subject that gets the placebo helmet

I-Like-To-Bike

A stringent testing procedure doesn't mean a darn thing if the test procedure is not derived or based on real world use.
If the stringent test procedures result in a "safer" helmet for the users, and it is promoted as safer, than it is the responsibility of the testers and promoters to prove why it is safer.

I-Like-To-Bike

I would think it would be in the interest of the promoters of the Snell "stringent" testing procedures to find out if the helmets actually prove out as "better" in real world accidents. More than likely they haven't bothered because;

one: it very well may be difficult to get a decent sample of accident results that have helmet standard data;
two: the promoters may not trust that the results would show that the "stringent" testing produces a better/safer helmet in practice;
three: the promoters have nothing to gain if they can sell a product as a "better brain bucket" for more money based on its testing procedure and without any evidence of real world "better" results.

CB HI

You make it sound like other helmets failed Snell testing. I suppose that you believe they did.

In fact, most other helmets sold in the USA (except maybe some box store cheapos) would pass a Snell test if the manufacturers paid Snell to perform the testing. Specialized pays for the testing as a marketing tool with the belief that it sells more helmets, others are not convinced they get a reasonable sales return for the cost of testing.

I-Like-To-Bike

Another possibility is that other manufacturers are not convinced that the Snell testing provides any indication that the the helmets perform any "better" or provide "better" protection for cyclists' heads than untested helmets.

wsbob

Here's a link to a page with a lot of information about bicycle helmet testing standards: https://www.helmets.org/standard.htm


Relative to the most recent discussion on this thread, that page explains about four different standards used for testing bike helmets, and notes that the standards are similar to each other in gauging the amount of impact helmets can absorb. Among ways the standards differ, is in requiring slightly greater head coverage (Snell), and in the way test labs get test samples.

Manufacturers that would rather not pay Snell's price for certification, can have their helmet designs meet the CPSC standard, whatever the cost for the latter certification is. The page that I provided a link to doesn't mention penalties in the U.S. for not meeting at least the CPSC standard. Untested helmets wouldn't likely be greeted warmly by consumer watchdogs.

rekmeyata

You read more into my statement then I ever said or alluded to, which is typical around here.

Snell is a volunteer system, the other companies don't want to pay to have the Snell sticker on their helmets. It's not that other manufactures can't pass the Snell tests, but it does provide insight into the manufactures trust concerning their helmets abilities. The cost for the testing is not so prohibitive that no one can afford it, if Specialized can afford it then others can too, therefore there must be some doubt in some of the engineers making helmets whether not they could pass the Snell testing, so instead of having the hassle of paying then failing the test then pay to redesign the helmet to pass then repay for another test, they just don't bother. For those manufactures the CPSC is good enough since that's all the federal government requires.

Question is...is a helmet that is just good enough good enough for your head? Some think so, some think that wearing no helmet is good enough. You have to decide what is good enough. At one time most helmets passed the Snell, but the industry cried about the cost of the construction and the testing to pass the Snell, so our Federal folks in their infinite wisdom reduced the requirement so helmet manufactures could make lower costing helmets and sustain more profit. Funny thing is, Specialized helmets are pretty much on par price wise as other LBS offerings.

wsbob

You don't say to whom it is you're replying, but I'll answer: if you browsed the information on the page I provided the link to, you'll have run across a statement on that page which says the amount of money Snell was asking for certification was a reason many bike helmet manufacturers dropped Snell and went to the voluntary ASTM standard, and the U.S. CPSC standard. In terms of impact absorbency, the Snell, ASTM, CPSC standards are very close to the same. (read pt 3). Also according to this page, Canada has its own test standard, which specifies lower g levels for kids bike helmets.