Talk:Motorcycle helmet

BS standards

Are no longer in force, and haven't been for several years. All countries in the EU are regulated by ECE2205, with each individual testing country indicated by a number outside the E mark circle.

I've removed the relevant references. Todd Vierling (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Open face or 3/4 face

No mention of visibility preferences? A lot of people prefer open face, because of greater visibility. Hazard and risk.. /edit.>

I'm not a biker, but I'm researching helmets, and while looking at the websites of motorcycle manufacturers, almost none of them call their helmets 3/4 face. They all said open face. Also, out of the first 10 results of a Google search for 'open face', 4 of the results referred to motorcycle helmets, while a search for 3/4 face only had 1. Thus, it seems to make sense to change the text to refer to open face instead of 3/4 face.

128.187.0.165 01:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been a motorcyclelist for over 30 years. I've taught training classes for the MSN for approx 10 years and wore a helmet for appox 20 years. I do NOT wear one now. Be aware of the helmet manufacturers lobby. There are pro's and con's of use. Head injures in autos are also significant yet non-driver are not compelled to insist that auto occupants wear a helmet. If you asked the average car driver to wear a helmet he would say "that's silly" there hot, uncomfortable, clumsy, obstruct your vision, heavy, itchy, and would lessen the enjoyment of driving. Those are the same reasons some motorcyclist don't want to ware one. Many cyclist have a false sense of security while wearing a helmet. They are given a feeling of safety that just isn't there. They tend to drive faster at inappropriate times: rain dust etc. And contrary to Harry Hurts helmet film your peripheral vision IS effected. In order to look to the side for a lane check, you need to turn your head much further while taking your attention from forward where you should be looking. Helmet weight issues and accident are ignored.--Felpetlin 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been riding for several years, and wearing a helmet the entire time. While I won't dispute all your points in this forum (although I do not completely agree with them) your comparison to automobile drivers is not a valid point. In most states, it is mandatory that everyone inside of a car wear a safety belt. There is also considerable protection given to the occupants because of the fact that the passenger compartment is enclosed in structural steel and also by the sheer weight of the car. My bikes don't have safety belts, and I wouldn't want them to. If I do put one down, my best chance of survival is for the bike to not come down on top of me. I've never put down a road bike, but I have flipped quads and been seriously injured in the process.

My favorite bike weighs 671 pounds when it has a full tank of gas. My truck weighs 4200 pounds. If my bike was in a collision with my truck at 45mph the truck would sustain moderate damage but the driver would probably come out of it with a few bumps and bruises. The bike, on the other hand, would be pulverized and the rider would probably be dead. If wearing a helmet increases my chance of survival by even only 35% (which is the lowest estimate I have seen) I'm going to wear one.

In addition, bikers are a danger to both themselves and others when they are unable to keep up with the flow of traffic. I travel 45 miles one way to work and I ride my bike except for in the winter. In order to make the trip in under an hour, I have to go on the interstate for about 30 miles. Even at 75mph not having face protection is both miserable and dangerous. Especially when you consider the number of trucks on the interstate that are throwing sand and stones around. It's even worse if it starts to rain. Rain drops hurt at 35mph. At 75, they are agonizing. Primium mobile (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DOT "Lax"

DOT standards differ from SNELL standards, however, inadequate evidence exists demonstrating that riders wearing a Snell certified helmet are less injured in similar accidencts than those wearing DOT helmets. Anecdotal evidence may even indicate the opposite; that softer helmets cause lower G's on the brain - a leading cause of damage. 208.59.127.132 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

DOT link

the word "DOT" is linked now to the disambiguation page. 216.183.92.253 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Quit with the POV-heavy preaching.

In particular, User:65.78.108.234 has changed wording significantly with unsourced claims and severely biased language that is not presented in a factual manner in order to bias the reader. "A Snell helmet is also significantly heavier than a DOT helmet" (as a replacement for a statement indicating that any certification is better than no helmet at all) and "There is anecdotal evidence that heavy helmets have contributed to neck injuries" -- you smoking some of the good stuff lately? Standards don't dictate weight; they dictate allowed G-force and distance of travel to outer shell.

Listen, folks, I wear a full face helmet for safety reasons too, but it's not up to us to use an encyclopedic context to preach to the masses. I'm reverting edits back to 30-May-2008 to bring the article back to a more factually neutral state. If you'd like to contribute something useful, how about adding statistics with citations? Todd Vierling (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

An unsigned post from User:65.78.108.234 moved from User talk:Todd Vierling to here: "Bias the reader, no shit. The source was an emergency room nurse who told me virtually every patient she saw wearing a Snell had neck injuries. If I find a WRITTEN refeence I'll post it again and you can revert it again. This is a waste of time."

"Oh really, now?" A friend of mine works as an ER attending in Atlanta (unfortunate home of excessive novelty helmet use in one particular ethnic community), and has told me that certification appears to have nothing to do with neck injury in all the cases he's worked. Cases of neck injury, where a full-face helmet was involved, were always related either to improper fit or to unusually excessive speed and impact force (e.g., 135mph on a standard Interstate highway).

I crashed at speed just this past May, with broken ulna and internal knee injuries, and enough head impact force to make the soft rubber lip on the base of my full-face helmet gouge a two-inch-long flap out of my chin that had to be Dermabonded back into place. My neck, however, was perfectly intact. The helmet happened to be DOT+Snell rated, but who's counting? Remember that helmets are designed to be able to survive as many common impact scenarios as possible -- even while many of us know that there are some oddities to the certification processes.

My point here: I leave open the question of what certification process(es) may be "best", and I may personally agree with you that one process may have major drawbacks that adversely affect its certified products. Regardless, this is a currently active, controversial subject. So any claims declaring one process to be superior over another must include citations, should explain the cited result in at least a little technical detail to give a "why" background, and should declare that the cited result is not necessarily an industry-wide determination at the current time. Todd Vierling (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to reiterate above: Whether a helmet is "heavier" still has absolutely nothing to do with standards processes. There are plenty of FMVSS-only ("DOT") helmets that weigh more than Snell-rated models of similar size. The statement is a logical fault as written, as a helmet sold in the US for safety purposes must carry a DOT certification in addition to other certs (such as Snell). So a Snell helmet is almost always a DOT helmet too, by definition. Todd Vierling (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Visors

Maybe we could add a section specifically about visors? Cheers. 87.194.223.183 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Be Bold and add it. Keep in mind that "visor" is generally referring to that forward-pointing, mostly flat piece of plastic extending from the front top of a helmet that has one (off-road, and some of the newer on/off-road hybrid varieties not yet mentioned in this article), but the word is also used to refer to retractable sun tint shields (arguably a valid use of the word), as well as face shields (an improper use of the word). Todd Vierling (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Visor is one of those weird terms. I've seen it refer to the off-road "peak" or bill, as well as the faceshield. Tedder (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Right -- the "peak" or "bill" (e.g. in a baseball cap, or even the stubby one found on most 3/4 helmets that is sometimes affixed with three metal snaps) is what I referred to above. The term "visor" most properly refers to this part; helmet manufacturers are careful to call a face shield a "face shield" and not a "visor" to avoid exactly this confusion. Of course, explaining this confusion in the article itself might be worthwhile.... Todd Vierling (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Or even a simple illustration showing these parts.. Tedder (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In some markets the words "visor" and "face shield" mean the same thing.Face shields have developed considerably since they were first used on open face helmets.The early shield was just a piece of flat plastic bent into a curve and fastened with domes.They often had large gaps which let in rain and cold air and created noise at high speed.The plastic was realitively soft and thin.It could scratch quite easily but was cheap to make and replace.Since the 1990s many face shields have been made from moulded polycarbonate often called Lexan. The moulding gives a streamlined appearance and is much closer fitting to the helmet. The pivot point is often adjustable to make the gaps smaller. Some riders have noted that wet lexan is harder to see through.This may be due to the moulding process or the surface tension of the material itself.One firm that carried out tests found that the material called Plastex or PlastX was excellent in keeping the shield clean compared to other commercial products.They said it is best to reapply the polish every 3 months. Shields come in different colours but clear is the most common.In some countri es it is illegal to use coloured visors at night as they restrict vision. Some shields change their colour with increased light.Recently some manufacturers have produced helmets with both a clear and a tinted visor that can be used together. If the shield fogs, open the shield a little when going slowly or open the vents in the helmet . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.152.247 (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Modular chin bar standards testing

So I finally got off of my hump and did the legwork to identify exactly what is tested on modular helmets for the three major standards (DOT, Snell, ECE). Added a bunch of related text and references, and finally linked directly to the FMVSS and ECE standards documents. This should finally clear up the confusion once and for all. Of course, it's unfortunate that Snell has yet to certify a modular of any kind. ECE seems to have it right; though the standard was last updated in 1995, it already covers a distinction between protective and non-protective "lower face covers", allowing a modular to be tested for equivalency to a full-face or not. Todd Vierling (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Motorcyclist magazine Snell testing standards criticism

I'm not smart enough to describe this but I think it is an important study to reference: http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.125.194 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Already cited in the article.--Dbratland (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Origins

The origins section needs to be replaced. Dr. Cairns did not invent the helmet, he worked to make them required in GB.

The first "helmet" was used by the inventor of the motorcycle, Gottlieb Daimler - he wore a leather skullcap lined with wool. The modern motorcycle helmet was invented by Prof. C.F. "Red" Lombard at the University of Southern California in 1953.

Stevesneed (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for this? It'd certainly be nice to clear it up. It's also interesting that helmets came from the same uni that did the Hurt Report. tedder (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What? The origins section doesn't state that Cairns invented the helmet, it states that his work led to their wider adoption. No claim is made in the article about invention by anyone - and certainly helmets existed long before Lawrence's death. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the New Rear-View helmet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.126.17 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

On the move?

Since helmets are by no means limited to motorcycles (can you say Formula One, Champ car, NASCAR, NHRA...?), it seems obvious this should be moved to Crash helmet. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Since not all crash helmets are motorcycle helmets, I changed the redirect at Crash helmet to point to Helmet. If you wish to expand Crash helmet and write an article that covers other kinds of motorsport helmets, by all means, go ahead. But Motorcycle helmet is fine where it is. --Dbratland (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as Dbratland. Develop an actual Crash helmet article rather than hijacking this one. AndroidCat (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as the above. No new article is needed, no real improvement is needed either as helmet covers everything related to safety/crash helmets IMHO. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

NBR 7471 external link

I keep trying to edit the article to include an external link to the norm, but people edit it back. There are no official links of it, simply because people have to pay to see it, even thought there is no doubt that the norm text is not copyrightable. Since I'm guessing no one cares about the brazilian norm, no one will discuss this unless I edit the article with the link again, so if you feel like removing the link once more, please include a reason here and let's make this a discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.55.168 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Violates WP:ELNO. It's a link to a nasty spam/adware popup site that makes your web browser go bananas. Also, it's impossible to know the provenance of the PDF file linked to, and it's likely full of PDF viruses. Such links should be kept off Wikipedia. Please do not add it back to the article again. --Dbratland (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediafire is one of most known free file hosting services available, and as far as I know, the only one that doesn't have a waiting time for downloading(to free users). I'm not paying to host this single file in a server, this is stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.55.168 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 January 2011

Nobody asked you to host the file. There is no need for a link to it to begin with. The verifiability policy has no requirement that a link to anything be included in order to cite an article. Wikipedia:Citing sources has instructions on how to cite a document. --Dbratland (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's not required, how doing it would make it no longer reliable? The sole reason I'm adding the link is that this is a pretty obscurus norm that people should have open access to, even in several motorcycle forums I was the only one that had access to it(since no one would pay what it costs, about $50, just to have acess to it). I can't use it as a citation, as it's not an official link, my intention is to speak about the norm to an extent that can't be on the article as it's too long, which is an acceptable reason to host external links according to wikipedia guidelines, and I believe external links don't need to be verified as citation links must be, if it doesn't contain any virus(which it doesn't, you must be a computer noob by the way you talked about the site and "pdf viruses"), what's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.55.168 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not the role of an encyclopedia to give legal advice to motorcycle riders. See item #1 at WP:NOTHOW, or Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer where it says in big fat letters "Wikipedia does not give legal opinions". All caps, even. If the government of Brazil is not properly publishing their regulations on helmets, the last place to address that is an online encyclopedia.

As far as who is or is not a "noob", I think that is obvious [23].

Your best bet to discuss helmet laws in Brazil is to stay away from primary sources anyway. Seek out secondary sources to give layman's explanations, and cite those. If you can't find secondary sources on the subject, be patient and keep looking. Most of the challenge of Wikipedia is locating good sources.--Dbratland (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no secondary sources, no one gives a shit about these norms, only those who have to comply their products to them, so they pay the fee to have access to it. I really had no idea wikipedia had became so full of red tape, I can't even blame you personally, since in all three edits I did it was different person that came to censor it. Guess I will still be the only one end customer with access to the norm. Red tape wins.

Standards Testing

I edited this section in an attempt to give a more professional tone. I do not actually have reference materials for or know much about motorcycle helmet testing standards, so I will leave those improvements to someone more knowledgeable. Eurasian Dreamer (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

POV complaint 2013

This entire article is biased and not supported by any facts. According to the California Highway Patrols own records since the start of the mandatory motorcycle helmet law in 1994 deaths per 1000 motorcycle accidents have INCREASED. You want facts versus "studies" google abate of California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.118.216 (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Deaths per thousand accidents, by itself, isn't related to helmet laws at all. Deaths **directly from head and neck injury** per thousand could begin to be relevant. But even then, if most people are going a lot faster than they used to, or making a lot more bad decisions than they used to, you'd have to calculate how much of the increase in death rate was purely an issue of impact velocity (in other words, it could have been even still worse without that helmet law), how much was worse skills, etc. A simple glance at one statistic can't give a useful answer. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Jet helmet

Has any native speaker of English ever heard open face (3/4) helmets called 'jet helmets' in English? Would that be understandable or recognized? --Cancun771 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• It dates to 1957[24], and more recently here and [25]. It's somewhat uncommon, but still it's out there. Even if you've never heard it before, it's self-explanatory. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The term may be more common in Europe, I'm not sure. For instance this online store in Germany uses the term for a whole category: [26]. — Brianhe (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Roemer is German, so perhaps they introduced it -- but it was introduced to the US market by 1957, so it's pretty much global by now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Jet was widely known and regularly used in 1960s UK. It is still known and used, as here. The earliest citation I can find presently is Motorcycle Mechanics, May 1962:

• p.17 Corker Full Jet and Corker Grand Prix [Smartly styled half-jet design] (manufacturer's advert)
• p.61 Jet style helmet...Britax Jupiter (Shop Talk - new products)
• p.69 Mastergard Space Helmet (manufacturer's advert)
• p.82 Aviakit Super-Jet (manufacturer's advert)

I have a Stadium semi-jet from that time having shallower sides and back with a deeper neck-curtain. My brother had a Kangol Space (or Spaceman, I would have to confirm via an advert) new in 1964, added on to the repayments of a bike.

So there was variation - jet, full jet, half-jet, semi-jet, space, etc. and not just a generic descriptive but could be incorporated into the branded name. I don't know the actual origins and date in UK.

It's interesting that the Bell TX500 goes back to pre-1960; the earliest I can recall was Mike Duff riding AJS/Matchless I think around 1962, pre-Yamaha.--86.11.200.51 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I found an earlier source in the house - Motorcycle Mechanics, August 1961:

• p.5 Dear Ed. (readers' letters) USA Prices. "I have just bought an AGV (Italian) helmet of the 'jet' type...here the price is (including 3% state sales tax) $27.80...a Bell or McHall helmet sells for up to $38..." W.H. Hill. Meriden, Conn, U.S.A.
• p.44 Technical Topics by David Frost. "Visor v. Goggles. The thoughtful looking character above is me trying to make up my mind about visors. They became popular with the introduction of the space helmet, but people are using them on ordinary helmets as well".
• p.62 Aviakit Super-Jet (manufacturer's advert)

--86.11.200.51 (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The concept of "jet helmet" is definitely not self-explanatory, unless it means the helmet has a jet engine attached. Even a very basic word or two on why it's called that would help people who don't already know. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Safety studies

The starting study is absolutly wrong. you are able to compare the REAL datas of the usa before the half US made the laws for wearing helmets and after. the data shows its absolutly wrong that helmets reduce the chance of death about nearly 50% like its written here all over the article. the datas show there is nearly no diffrents at all. for example - see this http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150702/hinpxbup.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.245.78.135 (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell where you got that graph but it looks like it's the number of annual motorcycle deaths. The article says helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 69% and death by 42%. It doesn't claim that the number of annual rider deaths will be decreased by that amount. Number of rider deaths is affected by rider behavior, and number of riders and how much they ride, which can be affected by helmet laws. See here for one example of the increase in deaths in the wake of Florida's helmet law repeal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete complete list of EU helmet codes

Per WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:RAWDATA, we need to delete the extensive list of EU helmet vs country codes in the Motorcycle_helmet#ECE_22.05 section. It's what WP:NOT calls a "Simple listings without context information".

ECE 22.05

E1: Germany E2: France E3: Italy E4: the Netherlands E5: Sweden E6: Belgium E7: Hungary E8: Czech Republic E9: Spain E10: Yugoslavia E11: United Kingdom E12: Austria E13: Luxembourg E14: Switzerland E16: Norway E17: Finland E18: Denmark E19: Romania E20: Poland E21: Portugal E22: Russia E23: Greece E24: Ireland E25: Croatia E26: Slovenia E27: Slovakia E28: Belarus E29: Estonia E31: Bosnia and Herzegovina E32: Latvia E34: Bulgaria E36: Lithuania E37: Turkey E39: Azerbaijan E40: Macedonia E42: European Community (unused, as approvals are made by the member states) E43: Japan E45: Australia E46: Ukraine E47: South Africa E48: New Zealand 05: The series of amendments (effectively, the version number) of the standard tested (at present, normally 05) bbbb: The approval number issued by the approving authority c: The type of helmet: "J" if the helmet does not have a lower face cover ("jet-style helmet") "P" if the helmet has a protective lower face cover "NP" if the helmet has a non-protective lower face cover dddd: The continuous production serial number of the individual helmet

We can replace this with a summary of what the EU system is and what purpose it serves. There's no reason why an encyclopedia needs to tell anyone whether or not their helmet is certified by Macedonia or France. Even if this is useful for helmet shoppers, Wikipedia is not a shopping guide, per Wikipedia:NOTSALES.

The section above, lisging the name of the regulation or legal code in each country is similarly a list of context-free information:

Laws and standards

ACU gold or silver badge (Auto-Cycle Union, UK) AS/NZS 1698, (Australia and New Zealand) BSI 6658 (British Standards Institute, UK) CMVSS (Canada) CRASH (Consumer Rating and Assessment of Safety Helmets, Australia) CSA CAN3-D230-M85 (Canadian Standards Association, they no longer certify motorcycle helmets since ) DOT FMVSS 218 (USA) ECE Regulation 22 (Europe) GOST R 41.22-2001 (ГОСТ Р 41.22-2001, based on ECE 22.05, Russia) ICC, (Import Commodity Clearance, Philippines) IS 4151 (Indian Standard, Bureau of Indian Standards, India) JIS T 8133:2000 (Japanese Industrial Standards, Japan) MS 1:2011(Previously MS 1:1996. Revised standard based on ECE 22 but with added penetration test. Department of Standards Malaysia, Malaysia) NBR 7471 (Norma Brasileira by Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, Brazil) SHARP (UK) Snell M2005 & M2010 (USA) SNI (Standar Nasional Indonesia) TCVN 5756:2001 (test and certify by QUATEST 3) (Vietnam)

It is encyclopedic to discuss and summarize differences or contradictions between overlapping standards, such as in the US, Snell and DOT. If there were any similar issues where JIS conflicts with SHARP. Without saying anything about the names of each of these countries' helmet standards, the information is meaningless labels. If we had reason to think that this information could be added to in some what that would make it relevant and meaningful, then it's worth keeping to build upon. But what would that be? And why wouldn't we tag it as {{Overly detailed}} to let editors know it needs work? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not context-free information. The text around it gives it context. It's also not a shopping list. You can't buy things from it. As an encyclopedia, we cover things people want to look up. This includes interpreting labels on helmets. It might save somebody's life. Sandstein 22:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

New Hampshire update

I could be mistaken, but I believe that in New Hampshire, you are required to wear a helmet if you are under the age of 18.

This is as per http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxi/265/265-122.htm

173.44.81.115 (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)