Jackassalope

Head Games Revisited: SNELL vs DOT

Four years ago I published an article through Motorcycle USA that compared DOT and SNELL testing standards on motorcycle helmets. Since then, my article has been quoted in many online debates about which test is better. After re-reading my original article, I want to point out a couple of things.

First, I simply said SNELL regulations require that a helmet be able to absorb a greater impact. I didn’t say this meant is they were undeniably safer. There’s a debate inferring that more rigid helmet may not absorb enough impact from a lighter crash, thus causing more damage. This is a possibility and should be looked into further.

Second, I mentioned that SNELL performed the tests on each helmet, and that DOT tests were done by the manufacturer. I’m surprised that this information is left out of most debates. I believe this is a more pertinent point in the argument. My focus was to show the checks and balances of having a third party do all of the testing, rather than relying on internal manufacturer ethics. It’s always easier to trust someone that doesn’t have a monetary interest in the outcome.

Finally, I want to state that this article was written four years ago. SNELL modifies their testing standards on a regular basis, and I’m not sure about DOT. The point is that referencing more recent articles on the subject would naturally create a stronger argument. Standards for testing and acceptable results could easily have changed since 2004.

Despite the lack of resolution in these heated debates, I’m glad to see that people are talking about the issue of motorcycle safety. Having a certified helmet is, by far, better than a non-certified one. I wrecked a bike going 60-mph and was thankful that my helmet passed not only DOT and SNELL regulations, but the real world test as well.