Helmets??

[Falcopops]

Good info T.C, very thought provoking, thanks.

This comment surprised me.

The Sharp test is a complete joke and was established after the inroduction of EC22/05.

Can you explain please.

[HowardQ]

Some excellent points, as usual, TC.
I would just like to point out that when talking about people using helmets in racing I was not really talking about Rossi and co., more the club and national racers and in particular road racers who buy their own kit, and have much more chance of hitting something hard than at your average track. You are much more likely to see these people wearing an Arai, Shoei or AGV than a cheapo policarbonate lid, even if the latter did get a 4 or 5 star rating from Sharp. I also think the Sharp test is a good idea, but not much use in the current format, which is why I spent my money on an Arai recently even though none of them get good ratings. I always wear full face helmet, because I believe they are so much safer than an open face. not just in an accident, but because I do not want all the things that hit my viser and chin bar hitting my face.
As for flip front, I was only commenting on how I agree with Pete's view after an accident. I personally would never wear one because I do not believe that they are as safe, I believe Sharp does not test this area comprehensively. I can see the convenience factor, but I feel better in a good quality full face helmet and Arai helmets fit my head best.
Shoei used to do in the past but the latest more pointy versions don't really fit me at all well.
As for what you wear on a bike in general, it's partly an age thing I suppose, but I spend much more on safety kit now than I ever did, so I use it. Not that many years ago, I would still go out on odd occasions in summer on a naked bike in jeans, trainers and sometimes a lightweight jacket rather than a leather one and just have gentle ride around the country roads near where I live, thinking I wasn't going quick and it felt good so would be OK.
Not any more, it ain't worth the risk, although I do miss that part of biking.

[MartDude]

As far as I'm aware, the SHARP testing regime doesn't test chinbars. This article goes some way to filling that gap. However, I'm not competent to judge how realistic these tests were; TC's earlier comments would suggest that they don't match real-life situations. But, on the basis of this article, I went ahead and bought my Schuberth

http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/access ... index.html

[MartDude]

This engaging thread has encouraged me to do a bit of trawling. Noise has become something of a bete noire for me, as I have ever-worsening tinnitus (years of bikes, loud music, woodworking machinery, & probably heredity); some sounds can be very aggravating. Wind noise (no, not that sort ) is particularly irritating, so I'm always on the look-out for quieter helmets. And I hate wearing ear-plugs - they make me feel too isolated from my surroundings.

Anyway, I came across these items. Although dated (1996) they're still relevant, even if they only serve to confirm what we already know/suspect.

http://www.isvr.co.uk/at_work/m_cycle.htm
http://www.isvr.co.uk/reprints/inter96mc.pdf

This is more recent; looks like I'd better get used to ear plugs
http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content ... 6/1/7#SEC2

[Falco9]

This is an excellent thread and makes good reading if a little confusing. Personally speaking though I don't believe all these tests, although very important can ever reproduce the variety of crashes and therefore situations your very precious head can find itself subjected to. For me a helmets performance needs to be demonstrated in "real" world situations and for most crash helmets that means either personal experiences of crashing or watching racers crash and seeing how they fare.

I wear a Shoei (it my second after my little"off" earlier this year) and its a XR1000 my previous one was a Z-One. But over the years I've owned everything from the good old Paddy Hopkirk through Bell Helmets to Arai and HJC. I have to say though that the XR1000 is to date the best lid I've ever owned

But the main reason I wear a Shoei is because if Karl Harris can survive the crashes he does and walk away thats the best endorsment I could wish for. Remember Snetterton at the Bomb Hole? or Oulton Park this year? unbelievable crashes at high speed which thank god he's always been able to walk away from. If you follow bike racing I'd always say look for the regular crashers and see what they are wearing.

So despite all these tests and awards it's the riders who crash and walk away that alway impress me. Good enough for him, good enough for me syndrome I guess and I'm lucky I have a "Shoei" shaped head, I can't get any AGV to fit me.

F9

[Paulh]

the club and national racers and in particular road racers who buy their own kit, and have much more chance of hitting something hard than at your average track. You are much more likely to see these people wearing an Arai, Shoei or AGV than a cheapo policarbonate lid,

Discount also has a lot to do with it (I get 30% on Shoei and Arai also offer a decent discount).

I stick with Shoei (I'm averaging about 1.5 per season) as they fit me and work - but would have no problems with using something like Nitro or HJC if they fitted me - plenty of club racers do and they work.

[Aladinsaneuk]

has been a very good and learning thread - and nice and mature :)

[HowardQ]

I would totally agree with that comment!

[Falcorob]

I must say thatr I wasn't really expecting the number, and maturity if I'm honest, of replies.

The amount of information gleaned from this, though a little confusing at first with the differing opinions, should be of help to anyone choosing a new helmet.

I personally feel that fit and comfort are the 2 most important factors when choosing any helmet. Recommendation is a useful indicator though people are still 'Brand' aware. Look at how many people wear branded T-shirts and jeans when the actual quality benefits are neglible if actual at all. And I'm just as sad as everyone else when it comes to labels. That's not to say that Arai and Shoei aren't of the highest quality. Or that any of the cheaper brands offer lesser protection. My opinion is that it's the quality of the fixtures and fittings that make up the majority of the price difference, with a slighter difference for the materials used. So an Arai will, usually, be made of higher quality materials and will have a plusher interior with more features such as removable lining. It will also be servicable in so much as parts can be replaced/adjusted individually.

If only the people selling (and I'm talking about the retailers here) helmets were as interested in peoples safety as they are in profit then maybe we would actually then see some extra benefits. Scooter riders having helmets that actually fit them for one. Proper instructions for the care of your lid for two. And probably many more.

There will be exceptions to this rule of course, and I can name a few myself, but we've all seen the market type stalls at bike shows that flog helmets like you would potatoes, with no concern for the customer other than to seperate them from their money.

And don't get me started on leathers.

[T.C.]

And don't get me started on leathers.

Ah, now we get to a completely different topic, so likewise, don't get me started

The whole point of wearing any kit is that it is designed to do a specific job whether it be in the lower price bracket or at the upper end, but, and this is the crux of the matter, if it doesn't fit properly, then there is very little point in wearing it.

The biggest problem I have encountered is that many retailers really do not understand how PPE is supposed to perform in a crash scenario and therefore place the sale or profit over the protective values that good fitting kit will provide, whether it be helmets, leathers, boots, gloves or whatever.

I have been pushing for years for clothing retailers, particularly in respect of helmets having to be licensed before they can sell, but this has been resisted by importers and retailers alike, I guess because they are either scared of being found out in respect of just how little they really know, or like many drivers, they do not want to run the risk of being tauught to suck eggs

When I look back at all the case studies I have on file dating back to the early 80's, the majority of serious injuries are caused by the clothing being a poor fit, particularly in respect of helmets.

I did a check at a riding school recently, and of 8 students, all but one helmet was at least 2 sizes too big, and yet they had been told by the retailer that they were a good fit. You cannot blame the youngsters on this occasion as they didn't know any different, but the retailer should have and of course new riders will hang onto the advice provided by the person selling them the kit

It took me over 10 years of investigating, being in the business, going to the major factories in Japan, Italy and Germany before I even considered myself reasonably knowledgeable, and to be honest like with riding and driving I am still learning and will continue to learn, but tgry telling that to some dealers and riders for that matter.

[D-Rider]

Is it not also true that virtually all leathers/bike clothing manufacturers refuse to actually class their products as protective gear? (other than helmets of course)

Obviously they are trying to avoid any responsibility for it failing to protect - so you wear it at your own risk.

I guess that if this is the case, they are bound to resist any attempts to introduced licensed fitting services.

Presumably the first step would be to get manufacturers to introduce gear that is certified as protective.
The problem I see with that is that they have little incentive to introduce this. I don't see how it could be made compulsory to sell things that are only approved as it will still be possible to sell clothing as leisurewear.
So is the solution to make it compulsory to wear full protective clothing every time you get on a PTW ?
Although I despair at the shorts and T-shirt approach and especially the lack of proper gloves, I'd really not want to have to wear full leathers every time I ride the bike (or even a 50cc scooter come to that).

[HowardQ]

I believe they do not class it as protective clothing to stop them being liable for any injuries and also because some kit does not meet all the standards for protective clothing, so has to be sold "leisure wear".
It is difficult to stop this when biker jackets and leather pants become fashionable for everyday wear, although I must admit, they always look good on Susie Perry, (stop it).

The thing that annoyed me for many years was every time anybody ever road a bike on telly, they just shoved on a loose fitting helmet and rode off without ever fastening it. A really bad example to set, I even considered writing to BBC/ITV about it once, but never did. You still see so many young kids on scooters doing exactly the same now.

[BikerGran]

The thing that annoyed me for many years was every time anybody ever road a bike on telly, they just shoved on a loose fitting helmet and rode off without ever fastening it. A really bad example to set, I even considered writing to BBC/ITV about it once, but never did.

It still happens and I feel exactly the same! Haven't ever written tho. I just emailed BBC's Panorama cos they invited comments only to get a generic reply saying 'thanks for the email, we can't read them all' (more or less. That was a waste of my time composing my carefully worded comment then wasn't it.

[HisNibbs]

Like most on here I've had many helmets over the last 35+ years...... Premier,Bell,AGV,Shoie etc.
Currently I have a Schubeth R1 with an integral sun visor. The sun virsor is the particular feature that led me to that selection and is certainly despite the English weather, of value. No more messing with sun glasses or swapping to a dark visor. Both the normal visor and the sun visor are of very good optical quality in fact it is a good helmet all round. Though the scratch resistance has been very good, today particularly I thought I need a new visror because the original's anti fog has long since gone walk about.

I supose my first priority would be avoiding the accident with good visibility & comfort, the second would be protection in the event and third, would be access post trauma. I accept that in any particular circumstance that order of priority might be wrong but generally it seems to make sense to me.

[T.C.]

I believe they do not class it as protective clothing to stop them being liable for any injuries and also because some kit does not meet all the standards for protective clothing, so has to be sold "leisure wear".
It is difficult to stop this when biker jackets and leather pants become fashionable for everyday wear, although I must admit, they always look good on Susie Perry, (stop it).

The thing that annoyed me for many years was every time anybody ever road a bike on telly, they just shoved on a loose fitting helmet and rode off without ever fastening it. A really bad example to set, I even considered writing to BBC/ITV about it once, but never did. You still see so many young kids on scooters doing exactly the same now.

If clothing is submitted to SATRA (http://www.satra.co.uk/portal/index.php) and passes their testing, then it can be called protective clothing and will be given an EU number.

The downside is that SATRA will only test the areas specified by the manufacturers, and providing it meets the specifications laid down then an EU number is issued. So for example if a manufacturer says that a Cordura jacket is waterproof and it passes on the waterproofing test, it gets its EU number and goes on sale. The problem is that the public willl see the EU lable and assume that it is protective even though it has only been tested for waterproofing, but the label does not state this, so assumptions can easily but incorrectly be made.

There is also the Cambridge Standard set up by Dr Rod Woods, but he has some strange ideas and very few if any manufacturers submit clothing to him for assessment.

As far as making clothing compulsory, this could open up a real can of worms. There will be those who don't or won't wear leather, those who will not wear man made materials for protection and those who simply cannot afford, and one persoons idea of what is protective may be another's idea of poor protection.

If the Government was to make PPE VAT exempt as they do with helmets (which I have campaigned for on a number of occasions) it may encourage more to wear the proper kit, but it would still come back to the old question of what is protective?

You guys may have specific ideas of clothing in your wardrobe that would suffice, but people like me would look at it and possibly disagree (army boots for example), so it is difficult to be definitive and IMO should be left to persoonal choice.