Bonneville America Forums Forums Rider Safety Forums Legislation DOT Approved = joke?

Here's a link to the Biker's Rights website concerning DOT approval on equipment. A quote from there:

"Below are 16 quotes linked to their corresponding NHTSA letters taken from NHTSA's webside (Acrobat PDFs). As you can see, the NHTSA/DOT does NOT approve equipment. As such, "DOT Approved" helmets do not exist... Still doubtful? Call NHTSA 202-366-9511."

The quotes & letters make for interesting reading...

http://www.bikersrights.com/nhtsa/notapproved.html

Hey Phil,

Looks like government double speak for limiting their own liability since they don't "Approve" them, just set the standard for testing. This standard they relate to, FMVSS #218 sounds like the "standard" that the manufactures have to make it to, and the DOT rating something that just says it meets that standard (a manufacturing label) , which who knows what that really is?

I just checked out the NTHSB site and it does "test" them to meet the FMVSS 218 standard but does not say what it is, that I can find. Here is a result of the 2004 tests results, which confirms my orginal thought about the quoates that they don't Approve or dissapprove helmets, they just test them to see if they meet the "standard" again whatever that is!
NHTSB Helmet testing

ed

To further add to the mix, Motorcyclist magazine has this article in their June issue about helmet performance. Summing it up in a nutshell, a harder helmet that's Snell 2000 compliant isn't necessarily better than a softer shell DOT only helmet. So those top dollar Arai and Shoei helmets might be offering less protection for your noggin than some cheap plastic helmet.

Yes, it's true, there is no such thing as DOT certified. However, there is a DOT standard. What that standard is, I do not know. If it isn't listed on the web, I am willing to bet that if asked the U.S. Department of Transportation, would tell you exactly what the standard is and how it's tested. It is up to each helmet manufacturer to test their own helmets before they place that all important DOT sticker on their helmets. I would think that because of legal liabilities (especially nowadays when it seems that everyone is suing everyone), a helmet manufacturer isn't going to just place that sticker on a model that does not meet the DOT standards.

Soren

So is it safe to say....After reading the above articles, that I would probably be better off with a helmet meeting DOT standards rather than one meeting Snell standards, and be able to save myself some bucks?

I'm not trying to start a pissing match oil type thread- I will be in the market for a new lid soon seeing as mine are 5 years old. Just looking for someone else's interpretation.

Quote:

---

I would probably be better off with a helmet meeting DOT standards rather than one meeting Snell standards, and be able to save myself some bucks?

---

Not necessarily, some helmets that do meet the DOT standards suck. Some may be uncomfortable, some may have poor ventilation, some may be very noisy. The helmet I currently have is a good example. I bought it off of eBay last year. It's a Zeus brand helmet. It fits ok, the ventilation could be much better and the wind noise it allows is terrible (I will be replacing it soon). However, some inexpensive helmets that are DOT only, are terrific helmets.

Here is a link for the actual FMVSS 218 standard http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/fmvss218.htm

I found this article. It talks about the standard and how the NHTSA does its own testing. As far as I can tell the NHTSA does not test all helmets every year. I am thinking that they do testing to keep an eye o the manufacturers. http://www.friction-zone.com/HelmetTesting.pdf

Soren

Your right Soren and thanks for the link to the DOT "Standard" as the article in the lead post indicates, kind of erroniously that the DOT standard is no standard, actually what the Gov says is they don't "Apporve" or Diss-approve" of helmets, that is the liability of the manufacturer. The government does set a standard for them to meet as laid out in the referances to FMVSS 218. The Snell rating is one that they hope exceeds the DOT Standard and that has been brought into question by former Snell people (scientists or engineers)

Like the Standard says regarding the label: "The symbol DOT, constituting the manufacturer's certification that the helmet conforms to the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." FMVSS 218 S5.6.1e

Helmets that pass DOT standard have a purpose of decreacing the death and brain injury rate in accident. So, your in better shape with one than without one or one that doesn't pass either.

IMHO

ed

This is just a bit of sneaky politics. The DOT develops some sort of standard, then demands that manufacturers certify that they have tested their product according to the standard. This way, there is no direct path back to the DOT. If any liability problems come up, the DOT shrugs, says, "Well, our standard is faultless because it is ours. Therefore, they didn't test their stuff right.", and the manufacturer eats their shorts.

In my opinion, there isn't anything sneaky about it. I think having a strongly suggested standard is much better than having a mandatory certification. It places the responsibility for helmets to meet the standard on the companies that manufacture the helmets. Personally, I think it makes more sense for a manufacturer to do their own testing and ensure that it does meet (or exceed) the standards, rather than send it in for certification as it accomplishes a couple things.
Manufacturers can create and market new models more quickly and inexpensively because they are not waiting on some government agency to do the testing.
It helps manufactures to stay honest rather than be controlled by the government. If a manufacturer gets caught placing labels on helmets that do not conform to the standard, they will either get a "talking to" from the NTHSA (for help on product development to meet the standard) or get sued from consumers (the latter may be scarier for most manufacturers).

If a helmet doesn't meet the DOT Standard, then don't put the sticker on it. Companies do not have to meet the DOT standard, any other standard or certification. There are lots of helmets out there that do not meet the FMVSS 218 standard, no big deal. It's all about choice, honesty and responsibility rather than government control.

Soren

The sneaky part is the 'certified by us but we don't certify it' bit. The country would be a lot better off if the government was bound by the same product liability as everyone else.

I have to agree with Soren on this. The DOT standard is basically a "Minimum Performance Spec", which when adhered to or tested to, should, in most circumstances, prevent head injuries. There are the equivalent of this type of Specification in every facet of our lives, in Germany, it's the DIN and TüV, which sets the minimum standard for ALL kinds of stuff, with regards to not only performance, but also standardisation, so that if I buy a Fastener or Connector that is DIN 912 for instance, from any supplier, it will work interchangably and up to a certain load rating in my application. Same goes for SAE here in the states, JASO in Japan, and CE in Europe. It is not intended to say "if you meet DOT, then it is perfect", but rather, sets the same bar for everyone to reach, but it is a MINIMUM bar. Snell was supposed to improve upon that, and some manufacuturers meet both, the idea being that if you also meet Snell, you not only meet the bare minimum required by NHTSA, but some higher performance level, and so are somewhat safer. They test with different methods to different levels, so are not exactly an apples to apples comparison. SO, don't take a DOT as a guarantee of performance or safety, because it isn't, it is a guideline, like OSHA, for trying to design better and safer products, based on a series of tests and their results. Are those results indicative of the real world. Maybe the real world with regard to some situations, but not all. There are always accidents that have circumstances no one can predict or test for. We are required all the time by our customers to test really outlandish circumstances, that we feel are not really applicable to the real world, and when we protest, or suggest alternatives, they have some test engineer who will say "Oh, this is what our data shows" or "this is what we feel will cause a failure in our vehicles" and totally disregard our experience.

There is no liability on the part of government employees or government bodies themselves due to the concept of Sovereign Immunity. Pretty much whatever they do they are immune to liability unless you can prove deliberate malfeasance. Incompetence is not sufficient. If they do something stupid and it kills people they cannot be held responsible.