I would disagree. I think they (Motorcyclist) were just stirring the pot. They adjusted the DOT ratings down to 250g . DOT allows 400g. Snell is 300G. All the Snell were below 250 anyway. All the Snell meet DOT (I have a DOT label on my Snell Helmet). All helmet sold as motorcycle helmets have to meet DOT. So my Snell meets DOT. A DOT helmets meets DOT. How can a Snell Helmet be worse than a DOT helmet if it meets DOT in the first place. A DOT only helmet, though some models offer somewhat reduced impacts to the brain, may not meet any standard as it may not have been tested. Eight models (in Motorcyclist news) failed to meet the DOT standard despite being labeled. A Snell Helmet model is tested first beofre the design is approved.cb360 wrote:You somehow drew a completely different conclusion than Motorcyclist did. Not that it matters much. Hell if I had a Snell rated helmet that I liked, I sure as hell wouldn't toss it. But I would never buy a new one either, given that I can get a safer helmet for less. Snell is basing their ratings on bad science and I think that is unequivocal based on the info I've seen. The manufacturer's random tests are fine for me - they are in business to sell helmets. One recall or big lawsuit judgement could put them out of business. I think you might have 'underread' the article - you selected a paragraph that said the DOT was 'just as good' as the Snell rating, but didn't include any of the passages where they definitively proved the rating was faulty.
I prefer a helmet that is tested to meet a standard. A DOT only helmet probably wasn't tested and may not even actually pass a test. To me, a slightly higher risk of the harder Snell is better risk management to me than the really dangerous possibility of a helment failure such as the eight DOT only models that recently failed.
The article, while quoting some people who disagree with Snell, at the end, said ALL the Helmets were good and were getting better. See my last quote in the previous message. That was their (motorcyclist's) summary of the article.
