velomoto Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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. 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! Greg Link to comment
tallman Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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
GlennW Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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
ghaverkamp Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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! Link to comment
JohnNorCal Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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
Boffin Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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 Link to comment
IT_Mike Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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: No law prevents you from removing the sticker or placing emblems over it. 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
ghaverkamp Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 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
JohnNorCal Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 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
IT_Mike Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 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
IT_Mike Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 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
ghaverkamp Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 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
JohnNorCal Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 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. Link to comment
KLC Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 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
JohnNorCal Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 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
k12steve Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 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.. Link to comment
RFW Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 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
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.