Helmet Reviews

Cunobelin
Cunobelin Posts: 11,792
edited October 2007 in Campaign
NOT, and I repeat NOT a thread about whether the wearing of helmets is good or bad - Bear with me and imagine that you are going to makle an informed choice about which helmet you are going to choose....

The review of the new Bell 2D Helmet on this site reads "and meets all the usual standards"!

A quick check on the helmet reviews and the majority do not even mention standards at all!


What is a "usual standard"?


Given that it is possible to fail tests like the Snell B90 or B95 and still pass the much inferior EN1078 tests required for sale in the UK (the only one needed) - this is an invaluable assessment of the protection the helmet could offer in the right circmstances.

Should reviews not list the relevant standrads passsed and hence allow an informed decision as to the level of protection they offer?
<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)

Comments

  • A simple yes answers this thread. We should be informed of which standard has been achieved.

    We should also have a simple guide as to what these standards are. Why is the EN1078 considered inferior? Who made this judgement?
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    Have a look at this, you will see that Snell testing is to roughly twice the total impact energy (313 joules versus 154 joules) c/w EN standards, also Snell continually test "off the shop shelf" helmets rather than manufacturer submitted items as per EN. As far as I know Specialized helmets are the only ones generally available in the UK that are tested to Snell standards (even though they don't carry a Snell label, they are Snell tested).