Jump to content
IGNORED

No SNELL or DOT rating on European Schuberth's???


velomoto

Recommended Posts

So I'm reading this thread: Schuberth Concept 2 - is it worth the extra money?

 

And Delboy posts a couple links to on-line retailers who he says have good prices on Schuberths. thumbsup.gif

Moto-Plus Helmets and Accessories

 

Well the prices there are about $200 (USD) less for an S1 than I can get at the local dealers (read: US importer probably is making a nice profit, but I'd do the same if I could). So I'm all excited and getting ready to pull the trigger on one of these and then I notice the below message:

 

A word to our US customers:

Please be aware that all helmets on offer do not have the DOT or SNELL approval and are for Off-Road use only! Our helmets are designated for the European market and have ECE approval.

So my question to The Board: Does anyone know if there is an actual difference between the European and American versions of the S1, or is this just a case of different stickers for different markets? I've sent an email to the company but have not heard anything.

 

Fortunately living in Colorado there is no helmet requirement so anything I purchase would not need a SNELL or DOT rating, but I would like to know if there is any differences in the models.

 

Oh, and BTW, the other link Delboy provided has even LOWER prices but didn't have the warning, and appears to be a link (store front?) to a business on a German site.

Helmets and More

 

As always, thanks in advance! clap.gif

Greg

Link to comment

I can't imagine there is a production differecne.

Here's the Federal motor safety law for U.S.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #218

 

49 CFR Sec. 571.218

 

 

Title 49

Subtitle B

CHAPTER V

PART 571

Subpart B

 

 

Sec. 571.218 Standard No. 218; Motorcycle helmets.

 

 

S1. Scope. This standard establishes minimum performance

requirements for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and

other motor vehicle users.

S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths and

injuries to motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users resulting

from head impacts.

S3. Application. This standard applies to all helmets designed

for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users.

S4. Definitions.

Basic plane means a plane through the centers of the right and

left external ear openings and the lower edge of the eye sockets

(Figure 1) of a reference headform (Figure 2) or test headform.

Helmet positioning index means the distance in inches, as

specified by the manufacturer, from the lowest point of the brow

opening at the lateral midpoint of the helmet to the basic plane of

a reference headform, when the helmet is firmly and properly

positioned on the reference headform.

Midsagittal plane means a longitudinal plane through the apex of

a reference headform or test headform that is perpendicular to the

basic plane (Figure 3).

Reference headform means a measuring device contoured to the

dimensions of one of the three headforms described in Table 2 and

Figures 5 through 8 with surface markings indicating the locations

of the basic, mid-sagittal, and reference planes, and the centers

of the external ear openings.

Reference plane means a plane above and parallel to the basic

plane on a reference headform or test headform (Figure 2) at the

distance indicated in Table 2.

Retention system means the complete assembly by which the helmet

is retained in position on the head during use.

Test headform means a test device contoured to the dimensions of

one of the three headforms described in Table 2 and Figures 5

through 8 with surface markings indicating the locations of the

basic, mid-sagittal, and reference planes.

S5. Requirements. Each helmet shall meet the requirements of

S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 when subjected to any conditioning procedure

specified in S6.4, and tested in accordance with S7.1, S7.2, and

S7.3.

S5.1 Impact attenuation. When an impact attenuation test is

conducted in accordance with S7.1, all of the following

requirements shall be met:

(a) Peak accelerations shall not exceed 400g;

(b) Accelerations in excess of 200g shall not exceed a cumulative

duration of 2.0 milliseconds; and

© Accelerations in excess of 150g shall not exceed a cumulative

duration of 4.0 milliseconds.

S5.2 Penetration. When a penetration test is conducted in

accordance with S7.2, the striker shall not contact the surface of

the test headform.

S5.3 Retention system.

S5.3.1 When tested in accordance with S7.3:

(a) The retention system or its components shall attain the loads

specified without separation; and

(b) The adjustable portion of the retention system test device

shall not move more than 1 inch (2.5 cm) measured between

preliminary and test load positions.

S5.3.2 Where the retention system consists of components which

can be independently fastened without securing the complete

assembly, each such component shall independently meet the

requirements of S5.3.1.

S5.4 Configuration. Each helmet shall have a protective surface

of continuous contour at all points on or above the test line

described in S6.2.3. The helmet shall provide peripheral vision

clearance of at least 105 degrees to each side of the mid-sagittal

plane, when the helmet is adjusted as specified in S6.3. The vertex

of these angles, shown in Figure 3, shall be at the point on the

anterior surface of the reference headform at the intersection of

the mid-sagittal and basic planes. The brow opening of the helmet

shall be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm) above all points in the basic

plane that are within the angles of peripheral vision (see Figure

3).

S5.5 Projections. A helmet shall not have any rigid projections

inside its shell. Rigid projections outside any helmet's shell

shall be limited to those required for operation of essential

accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm).

S5.6 Labeling.

S5.6.1 Each helmet shall be labeled permanently and legibly, in a

manner such that the label(s) can be read easily without removing

padding or any other permanent part, with the following:

(a) Manufacturer's name or identification.

(b) Precise model designation.

© Size.

(d) Month and year of manufacture. This may be spelled out (for

example, June 1988), or expressed in numerals (for example, 6/88).

(e) The symbol DOT, constituting the manufacturer's certification

that the helmet conforms to the applicable Federal motor vehicle

safety standards. This symbol shall appear on the outer surface,

in a color that contrasts with the background, in letters at least

3/8 inch (1 cm) high, centered laterally with the horizontal

centerline of the symbol located a minimum of 1 1/8 inches (2.9 cm)

and a maximum of 1 3/8 inches (3.5 cm) from the bottom edge of the

posterior portion of the helmet.

(f) Instructions to the purchaser as follows:

(1) 'Shell and liner constructed of (identify type(s) of

materials).

(2) 'Helmet can be seriously damaged by some common substances

without damage being visible to the user. Apply only the

following: (Recommended cleaning agents, paints, adhesives, etc.,

as appropriate).

(3) 'Make no modifications. Fasten helmet securely. If helmet

experiences a severe blow, return it to the manufacturer for

inspection, or destory it and replace it.'

(4) Any additional relevant safety information should be applied

at the time of purchase by means of an attached tag, brochure, or

other suitable means.

S5.7 Helmet positioning index. Each manufacturer of helmets

shall establish a positioning index for each helmet he

manufactures. This index shall be furnished immediately to any

person who requests the information, with respect to a helmet

identified by manufacturer, model designation, and size.

S6. Preliminary test procedures. Before subjecting a helmet to

the testing sequence specified in S7., prepare it according to the

procedures in S6.1, S6.2, and S6.3.

S6.1 Selection of appropriate headform.

S6.1.1 A helmet with a manufacturer's designated discrete size or

size range which does not exceed 6 3/4 (European size: 54) is

tested on the small headform. A helmet with a manufacturer's

designated discrete size or size range which exceeds 6 3/4, but

does not exceed 7 1/2 (European size: 60) is tested on the medium

headform. A helmet with a manufacturer's designated discrete size

or size range which exceeds 7 1/2 is tested on the large headform.

S6.1.2 A helmet with a manufacturer's designated size range which

includes sizes falling into two or all three size ranges described

in S6.1.1 is tested on each headform specified for each size range.

S6.2 Reference marking.

S6.2.1 Use a reference headform that is firmly seated with the

basic and reference planes horizontal. Place the complete helmet

to be tested on the appropriate reference headform, as specified in

S6.1.1 and S6.1.2.

S6.2.2 Apply a 10-pound (4.5 kg) static verticle load through the

helmet's apex. Center the helmet laterally and seat it firmly on

the reference headform according to its helmet positioning index.

S6.2.3 Maintaining the load and position described in S6.2.2,

draw a line (hereinafter referred to as 'test line') on the outer

surface of the helmet coinciding with portions of the intersection

of that service with the following planes, as shown in Figure 2:

(a) A plane 1 inch (2.5 cm) above and parallel to the reference

plane in the anterior portion of the reference headform;

(b) A vertical transverse plane 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) behind the

point on the anterior surface of the reference headform at the

intersection of the mid-sagittal and reference planes;

© The reference plane of the reference headform;

(d) A vertical transverse plane 2.5 inches (6.4. cm) behind the

center of the external ear opening in a side view; and

(e) A plane 1 inch (2.5 cm) below and parallel to the reference

plane in the posterior portion of the reference headform.

S6.3 Helmet positioning.

S6.3.1 Before each test, fix the helmet on a test headform in the

position that conforms to its helmet positioning index. Secure the

helmet so that it does not shift position before impact or before

application of force during testing.

S6.3.2 In testing as specified in S7.1 and S7.2, place the

retention system in a position such that it does not interfere with

free fall, impact or penetration.

S6.4 Conditioning.

S6.4.1 Immediately before conducting the testing sequence

specified in S7, condition each test helmet in accordance with any

one of the following procedures:

(a) Ambient conditions. Expose to a temperature of 70 degrees

F(21 degrees C) and a relative humidity of 50 percent for 12 hours.

(b) Low temperature. Expose to a temperature of 14 degrees F(-10

degrees C) for 12 hours.

© High temperature. Expose to a temperature of 122 degrees

F(50 degrees C) for 12 hours.

(d) Water immersion. Immerse in water at a temperature of 77

degrees F(25 degrees C) for 12 hours.

S6.4.2 If during testing, as specified in S7.1.3 and S7.2.3, a

helmet is returned to the conditioning environment before the time

out of that environment exceeds 4 minutes, the helmet is kept in

the environment for a minimum of 3 minutes before resumption of

testing with that helmet. If the time out of the environment

exceeds 4 minutes, the helmet is returned to the environment for a

minimum of 3 minutes for each minute or portion of a minute that

the helmet remained out of the environment in excess of 4 minutes

or for a maximum of 12 hours, whichever is less, before the

resumption of testing with that helmet.

S7. Test conditions.

S7.1 Impact attenuation test.

S7.1.1 Impact attenuation is measured by determining acceleration

imparted to an instrumented test headform on which a complete

helmet is mounted as specified in S6.3, when it is dropped in

guided free fall upon a fixed hemispherical anvil and a fixed flat

steel anvil.

S7.1.2 Each helmet is impacted at four sites with two successive

identical impacts at each site. Two of these sites are impacted

upon a flat steel anvil and two upon a hemispherical steel anvil as

specified in S7.1.10 and S7.1.11. The impact sites are at any point

on the area above the test line described in paragraph S6.2.3, and

separated by a distance not less than one-sixth of the maximum

circumference of the helmet in the test area.

S7.1.3 Impact testing at each of the four sites, as specified in

S7.1.2, shall start at two minutes, and be completed by four

minutes, after removal of the helmet from the conditioning

environment.

S7.1.4 (a) The guided free fall drop height for the helmet and

test headform combination onto the hemispherical anvil shall be

such that the minimum impact speed is 17.1 feet/second (5.2

m/sec). The minimum drop height is 54.5 inches (138.4 cm). The

drop height is adjusted upward from the minimum to the extent

necessary to compensate for friction losses.

(b) The guided free fall drop height for the helmet and test

headform combination onto the flat anvil shall be such that the

minimum impact speed is 19.7 ft./sec (6.0 m/sec). The minimum drop

height is 72 inches (182.9 cm). The drop height is adjusted upward

from the minimum to the extent necessary to compensate for friction

losses.

S7.1.5 Test headforms for impact attenuation testing are

constructed of magnesium alloy (K-1A), and exhibit no resonant

frequencies below 2,000 Hz.

S7.1.6 The monorail drop test system is used for impact

attenuation testing.

S7.1.7 The weight of the drop assembly, as specified in Table 1,

is the combined weight of the test headform and the supporting

assembly for the drop test. The weight of the supporting assembly

is not less than 2.0 lbs. and not more than 2.4 lbs. (0.9 to 1.1

kg). The supporting assembly weight for the monorail system is the

drop assembly weight minus the combined weight of the test

headform, the headform's clamp down ring, and its tie down screws.

S7.1.8 The center of gravity of the test headform is located at

the center of the mounting ball on the supporting assembly and lies

within a cone with its axis vertical and forming a 10 degrees

included angle with the vertex at the point of impact. The center

of gravity of the drop assembly lies within the rectangular volume

bounded by x = -0.25 inch (-0.64 cm), x = 0.85 inch (2.16 cm), y =

0.25 inch (0.64 cm), and y = -0.25 inch (-0.64 cm) with the origin

located at the center of gravity of the test headform. The

rectangular volume has no boundary along the z-axis. The x-y-z

axes are mutually perpendicular and have positive or negative

designations in accordance with the right-hand rule (See Figure 5).

The origin of the coordinate axes also is located at the center of

the mounting ball on the supporting assembly (See Figures 6, 7, and

8). The x-y-z axes of the test headform assembly on a monorail drop

test equipment are oriented as follows: From the origin, the x-axis

is horizontal with its positive direction going toward and passing

through the vertical centerline of the monorail. The positive

z-axis is downward. The y-axis also is horizontal and its

direction can be decided by the z- and x-axes, using the right-hand

rule.

S7.1.9 The acceleration transducer is mounted at the center of

gravity of the test headform with the sensitive axis aligned to

within 5 degrees of vertical when the test headform assembly is in

the impact position. The acceleration data channel complies with

SAE Recommended Practice J211 JUN 80, Instrumentation for Impact

Tests, requirements for channel class 1,000.

S7.1.10 The flat anvil is constructed of steel with a 5-inch

(12.7 cm) minimum diameter impact face, and the hemispherical anvil

is constructed of steel with a 1.9 inch (4.8 cm) radius impact

face.

S7.1.11 The rigid mount for both of the anvils consists of a

solid mass of at least 300 pounds (136.1 kg), the outer surface of

which consists of a steel plate with minimum thickness of 1 inch

(2.5 cm) and minimum surface area of 1 ft (FOOTNOTE 2) (929 cm

(FOOTNOTE 2) ).

S7.1.12 The drop system restricts side movement during the impact

attenuation test so that the sum of the areas bounded by the

acceleration-time response curves for both the x- and y-axes

(horizontal axes) is less than five percent of the area bounded by

the acceleration-time response curve for the vertical axis.

S7.2 Penetration test.

S7.2.1 The penetration test is conducted by dropping the

penetration test striker in guided free fall, with its axis aligned

vertically, onto the outer surface of the complete helmet, when

mounted as specified in S6.3, at any point above the test line,

described in S6.2.3, except on a fastener or other rigid

projection.

S7.2.2 Two penetration blows are applied at least 3 inches (7.6

cm) apart, and at least 3 inches (7.6 cm) from the centers of any

impacts applied during the impact attenuation test.

S7.2.3 The application of the two penetration blows, specified in

S7.2.2, starts at two minutes and is completed by four minutes,

after removal of the helmet from the conditioning environment.

S7.2.4 The height of the guided free fall is 118.1 inches (3 m),

as measured from the striker point to the impact point on the outer

surface of the test helmet.

S7.2.5 The contactable surface of the penetration test headform

is constructed of a metal or metallic alloy having a Brinell

hardness number no greater than 55, which will permit ready

detection should contact by the striker occur. The surface is

refinished if necessary before each penetration test blow to permit

detection of contact by the striker.

S7.2.6 The weight of the penetration striker is 6 pounds, 10

ounces (3 kg).

S7.2.7 The point of the striker has an included angle of 60

degrees , a cone height of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm), a tip radius of

0.02 inch (standard 0.5 millimeter radius) and a minimum hardness

of 60 Rockwell, C-scale.

S7.2.8 The rigid mount for the penetration test headform is as

described in S7.1.11.

S7.3 Retention system test.

S7.3.1 The retention system test is conducted by applying a

static tensile load to the retention assembly of a complete helmet,

which is mounted, as described in S6.3, on a stationary test

headform as shown in Figure 4, and by measuring the movement of the

adjustable portion of the retention system test device under

tension.

S7.3.2 The retention system test device consists of both an

adjustable loading mechanism by which a static tensile load is

applied to the helmet retention assembly and a means for holding

the test headform and helmet stationary. The retention assembly is

fastened around two freely moving rollers, both of which have a 0.5

inch (1.3 cm) diameter and a 3-inch (7.6 cm) center-to-center

separation, and which are mounted on the adjustable portion of the

tensile loading device (Figure 4). The helmet is fixed on the test

headform as necessary to ensure that it does not move during the

application of the test loads to the retention assembly.

S7.3.3 A 50-pound (22.7 kg) preliminary test load is applied to

the retention assembly, normal to the basic plane of the test

headform and symmetrical with respect to the center of the

retention assembly for 30 seconds, and the maximum distance from

the extremity of the adjustable portion of the retention system

test device to the apex of the helmet is measured.

S7.3.4 An additional 250-pound (113.4 kg) test load is applied to

the retention assembly, in the same manner and at the same location

as described in S7.3.3, for 120 seconds, and the maximum distance

from the extremity of the adjustable portion of the retention

system test device to the apex of the helmet is measured.

APPENDIX TO SEC. 571.218

 

Table 1 - Weights for Impact Attenuation Test Drop Assembly

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Test headform size Weight (FOOTNOTE 1) - 1b(kg)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Small 7.8 (3.5 kg).

Medium 11.0 (5.0 kg).

Large 13.4 (6.1 kg).

-------------------------------

(FOOTNOTE 1) Combined weight of instrumented test headform and

supporting assembly for drop test.

*** ILLUSTRATION OMITTED ***

(38 FR 22391, Aug. 20, 1973, as amended at 39 FR 3554, Jan. 28,

1974; 45 FR 15181, Mar. 10, 1980; 53 FR 11288, Apr. 6, 1988; 53 FR

12529, Apr. 15, 1988)

Link to comment

I wouldn't worry about it. Even in states with helmet laws, no officer is going to ticket you because you are wearing an ECE-approved helmet which probably exceeds DOT standards. Even in the People's Republic of California, the crusier guys (you know who I'm talking about) are rarely ticketed for wearing tupperware bowels (aka novelty helmets) on their heads.

 

GW

Link to comment

So my question to The Board: Does anyone know if there is an actual difference between the European and American versions of the S1, or is this just a case of different stickers for different markets? I've sent an email to the company but have not heard anything.

 

Unless something's changed, the S1 isn't Snell-approved, anyway. So, we're only talking DOT. With the ECE approval in place, the difference between the two (DOT approval isn't actually difficult) is going to be the required DOT labeling: sticker on the back and label on the inside.

 

Well the prices there are about $200 (USD) less for an S1 than I can get at the local dealers (read: US importer probably is making a nice profit, but I'd do the same if I could). So I'm all excited and getting ready to pull the trigger on one of these and then I notice the below message:

 

I bought mine from http://ant-racing.com, for slightly cheaper than their current $629 price (free shipping over $250.) Nonetheless, that's still really only around $100 more, when you figure an order from Moto-Plus will be 424 Euros with shipping, or around $520. That still makes DOT certification $109.

 

Helmets and More appears to have cheaper shipping, but the difference still won't be $200.

Link to comment
Dances_With_Wiener_Dogs

I doubt you'd get hassled by the authorities for not having a DOT helmet. There has been some question about Snell ratings and Snell being too stiff for street use. If the helmet you want has been certified by a European testing agency, that'd be good enough for me. Even if you did get pulled over for a different traffic infraction in a helmet-required state you wouldn't get hassled for it, unless you were driving so horribly or recklessly that the officer was going to nail you for anything he/she could.

 

If you like the helmet and it fits your noggin and wallet, then buy it and ride! thumbsup.gif

Link to comment

I have done a lot of research in this area. My city enforces the helmet law to the letter with the focus on the "novelty helmet." Novelty helmets are the 1/4" thick skull caps that have been popular with the American Chopper set. We had four fatal collisions in one year with the novelty helmets.

 

I went to the Snell labs and watched them test the helmets. Although technically possible there are no Snell helmets in production that also aren't DOT certified.

 

Snell is a foundation sponsored mainly by the helmet manufacturing companies. Its kind of like the ISO for the electronics industry. The guys that I talked to are very professional and adhered to the standards to the letter. The realize that their reputation is everything.

 

You could submit your own helmet for certification to DOT or Snell standards but you would have to have at least two of the same because it is a destructive process. In fact, they use a log splitter at the end to keep the dumpster divers out. The cost would be prohibitive. I checked because I wanted to try to get a System 4 certified to DOT standards. I remember them saying something about no SNELL certification for the flip up helmets.

 

Anyway to the point, I would not issue a citation to you if you had a european spec helmet. Where I think you might end up in trouble would be in the civil arena if you were trying to recover damages from a head injury.

Link to comment

Euro helmet ratings fall between DOT and SNELL in severity, being closer to SNELL than DOT. The cost of certification for any helmet maker is high and I suspect that the US market for thais style of helmet is seen as too small to justify the costs. Being a Eurpean maker, Schuberth have no chioce about the EC rating.

FWIW, from a safety perspective the helmet will perform, although some people have issues regarding the hinges on all flip-fronts. From a legal perspective however you may have difficulties. I suggest you check with that local dealer that the helmets he sells really do come with DOT certification.

 

Cya, Andy thumbsup.gif

Link to comment

Meeting DOT standards is a legal thing.

They're selling them for 'off-road' or other uses to get around U.S. Code barring anyone from manufacturing or selling a street motorcycle helmet that doesn't meet DOT spec's.

 

With regards to JohnNorCal's post, the Cali courts have already decided that LEOs, engineers, and even the courts themselves, cannot determine if a helmet meets DOT spec's just by looking at it. This can only be determined by destructive testing of multiple helmets. Some may come back with a statement regarding the sticker, to which I'd reply thus:

  1. No law prevents you from removing the sticker or placing emblems over it.
  2. Nothing prevents you from adding a 'simular' sticker on your helmet, so long as you're not trying to resell it.

 

The real question is; do you feel comfortable with the level of protection afforded by it?

Link to comment

With regards to JohnNorCal's post, the Cali courts have already decided that LEOs, engineers, and even the courts themselves, cannot determine if a helmet meets DOT spec's just by looking at it.

 

Fine and dandy, but an LEO only needs probable cause that the rider had the specific intent to wear an non-compliant helmet to cite.

 

Some may come back with a statement regarding the sticker, to which I'd reply thus:

 

1. No law prevents you from removing the sticker or placing emblems over it.

2. Nothing prevents you from adding a 'simular' sticker on your helmet, so long as you're not trying to resell it.

 

Sure, one could remove it. There are two components to DOT certification, and the sticker's the other one. Now, the label could be removed, too, but it leads to the question, "Why?"

 

If the sticker and label are there, then the LEO must show specific intent to wear a non-complying helmet, which requires knowledge that the helmet was non-compliant.

 

One may certainly affix a sticker, but that won't include the DOT certification label. Buying a non-complying helmet and then affixing a sticker to it would be a pretty good indicator of actual knowledge, and therefore specific intent.

 

Is it likely that any of that is going to happen with a full-face helmet? No. All of the case law (which pretty much ended in 1996; I'm not really sure where the "Cali courts" "decided" anything about who can determine the compliance of a helmet) has been related to beanies. Some people complained of having been stopped 4 or 5 times wearing non-complying beanies. After a while, you'd think they'd just buy a better helmet.

Link to comment

I don't want to turn this into an A.B.A.T.E. debate but an officer can stop you in California based on visual observation/probable cause. At one time there was an injunction, against the CHP only, that has since been overturned on appeal. Then there was a question as to whether or not this was a correctable citation or not. The CA Judicial Council has stated that it is not.

 

You are right the end user/consumer can remove all of the stickers and compliance labels but then it would be up to him to prove compliance.

 

Another common mis-conception is that the DOT tests the helmets. They do not. They set a standard (FMVSS 218) and the manufacturers self-certify to meeting the standard. This is usually done at an independent laboratory. I know of two, both in CA. One is run by Dr. Hurt in southern CA, and the other is SNELL(Sacramento) which tests to both the DOT and the SNELL standards. The DOT does buy helmets off of the shelf and has them tested to make sure that they meet the standards. SNELL does the same thing. They want to make sure that the submitted helmets are the same as the manufactured helmets. You might remember a few years ago there was a group of HD helmets that met the standards but DOT forced a recall due to improper labeling when sold.

 

Most of the citations that we deal with are the beanie style. The ones with the 1/4" fiberglass shell, no polystyrene lining and a chin strap that looks like a shoe lace. Most of these helmets have "Novelty Use Only" stickers on the inside. It's kind of hard to claim ignorance. It's also silly to waste your money when you can buy a beanie style helmet that meets the DOT standard for about $40.

 

Back to the topic, I agree with Greg, the Schuberth helmet is visually identical to a DOT standard helmet. Therefore, the officer wouldn't be able to establish probable cause to further investigate. (nor would he waste his time) There are civil cases where monetary claims have been reduced or denied due to non-conforming helmets.

Link to comment

I'll go back and check, but as I recall it didn't hinge on 'correctable offense', but on whether an officer had the proper knowledge to determine if a helmet met DOT spec's. The onus is not on the rider, but upon the state to prove guild, e.g. the helmet doesn't meet spec's. They can only prove this through destructive testing.

BTW, I am referring to beenies in this discussion.

 

For a specific example that I happen to have at my fingertips, check out City of Newport News v. Dennis Wolf. I know that's not Cali, but I'll find theirs as well. It was a simular finding.

 

Mike

Link to comment

BTW, that was Newport News, VA.

 

And the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled:

 

California motorcyclists were entitled to permanent injunction against California Highway Patrol's official policy of allowing officers to stop motorcyclists and issue citations under helmet law for substandard helmets based solely on officer's subjective opinion of whether helmet would, if tested, conform to federal safety standards; based on California courts' interpretation of helmet law, both issuance of citation and effectuation of stops under that policy would violate Fourth Amendment, and motorcyclists lacked alternative means to remedy injuries caused by Highway Patrol's conduct. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4: 42 U.S.C.A. s 1983; West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code s 27803.

 

This is not related to the 'correctable' issue, and has been used as a basis for successful defense in multiple cases across the country.

 

The need for the injunction was due to the stated policy of the CHP which, in effect, resulted in the harrassment of any rider who's lid 'looked' like it might fail, including the lightweight, manufacturer-certified, DOT-stickered beenie style helmets you've recommended.

 

Mike

Link to comment
And the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled . . . .

 

Well, that's a friendly reading of what the 9th Circuit said.

 

What that snippet leaves out is that an officer may still stop a rider to inspect a helmet that appears not to be certified, so long as the officer has resonable suspicion to believe that it does not. All this injunction really prevents is the pulling over of all riders wearing beanie helmets.

 

The end result is, an officer would probably need to have reasonable suspicion that a Schuberth S1 was not DOT-certified at the time of sale to pull over a rider for that charge. However, if one were to be pulled over for some other reason and an officer chose to inspect the helmet, this case (which is a federal court, not a "Cali court") wouldn't do much but force the officer to show probable cause that the rider knew the helmet wasn't certified at the time of sale.

Link to comment

They can only prove this through destructive testing.

 

Based on your theory, the only way that you could prove that a car met the 5 m.p.h. Federal bumper impact requirement would be to crash it at the dealer before you drove it off of the lot. The manufacturers submit exemplar helmets for testing, a destructive process. The manufacturer then certifies that the design/materials meet the standard.

 

A more recent case: Bianco v. CHP 24 CAL.APP.4TH 1113, 29 CAL.RPTR.2D 711 No. D019372. The Court of Appeal, Todd, J., held that: (1) although federal law preempted California from establishing its own motor vehicle equipment safety standards, it did not preempt California's enforcement of those standards

 

Buhl v. Hannigan 16 CAL.APP.4TH 1612, 20 CAL.RPTR.2D 740

No. G012245 The Court is expressly allowed to rely on common objective experiences to determine what constitutes a helmet. Presumably the arresting officer is also entitled to do so.

 

Anyway this dead horse has been beat for too long...I can't wear a Schuberth anyway because my chin rubs the front. tongue.gif

Link to comment

Have a look at this site, European standards differ very little from American.The British Motorsport association allows Snell and BSI kite marked helmets but not ECE and will also not allow ACU gold helmets to be used in Karting ,Racing or rallying, I personally always buy Helmets that are ACU gold as this is generally accepted in Britain at Trackdays or Sprints. I dont think there is any difference in construction between helmets manufactured in either continents, i believe its just down to differing testing regimes.Most Police forces in UK use a flip front type helmet so it must be a good enough specification.

 

 

http://motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/

Link to comment

I think you are correct, the standards are pretty much the same. It's not a matter of meeting the standards, its about whether or not it is cost effective to pay for testing in each market. I imagine in the future there will be something in the way of an international standard. Hopefully the ANSI/ISO will set one.

Link to comment

I'd imagine that the number of riders pulled over with a full, flip, or 3/4 helmet to check for DOT compliance can probably be counted on all the thumbs on one hand.. wink.gif

Link to comment
I doubt you'd get hassled by the authorities for not having a DOT helmet. There has been some question about Snell ratings and Snell being too stiff for street use.

 

Indeed there has been. Check out the full story at http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/index.html

 

It's quite an eye opener. Sounds like the Snell organization has become more interested in bureaucracy and self-preservation, than it should be.

 

Bob.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...