Archive of BMW Motorrad Club Cape (2006 - 2019)

Yolandi I really dont pay too much attention to these tests. A few years back my nephew got a new bike and new helmet .... as it turns out it was the cheapest helmet on the shelf. This was after was already riding for almost a year with another bike and helmet. A month later he was involved in a nasty accident - he basically came down on his face and the helmet showed serious abrations. It DID its job and he suffered NO damage to his head or face.

Padlangs, I agree that the expensive helmets are not necessarily safer than cheaper ones. Also, just because a helmet passes the minimum standard does not make it equally safe with another helmet that also passes the test. However, the arguament that ''XYZ helmet is safe because my cousin had a bad crash with one and didn't die'' is just false logic. By similar logic you could argue that Mercedes makes unsafe cars because 'Joe Soap' had a crash in one and died. The test Yolandi is referring to is an attempt to be able to show more than just the minimum standards. But a helmet that is not on there is just a helmet that has not been tested - not a helmet that isn't good enough. I notice that there are no enduro-style helmets there, as an example. Anyway, a site to watch. What it does seem to show is that the best helmets are indeed also expensive, but not necessarily the other way around. Website Administrator [http://honeybadger.net Honey Badger IT Services]

Gotcha ;-) ...Stand up, look up and open up!!...

Did not look at the report but have seen similar. Arai comes out tops however does not specifically mention the DS option. Same helmut maybe? I just got my GF the Airoh 4 which i think is a good lid & would wear myself.

There are a few different tests out there, Snell, DoT,SABS?? etc, and each suggests that it is 'the one' The same helmet( quiet a few cases) fairs well in one and poorly in the other. So no real certain guarantee, just another opinionated view of what is safe via a test method. Price certainly is no guide either. This one (Sharp) claims that "in 599 fatalities surveyed, up to 50 lives would/might have been saved if a safer helmet were to have been worn"....more opinionated, self-serving bumf, as those 50 may have been Vespa/ Harley piss-pot helmets....jabber, but not facts. Any reasonable helmet, (not a head decorative device as worn by some of the Vespa /Harley crew) will, I'm fairly sure, be fine, some more comfortable to wear(expensive), yes, but +- similarly safe.

I'm inclined to agree with this (subjective) view. I am of the opinion, that a helmet is only half the job though. A helmet without a Leatt Brace is like a shoe without a sole.

The only real and good bit of safety equipment is what is inside the helmet!!! ALL the rest is secondary! All the kit and stickers , reflective tape and Rosaries and St Francis medallions are passive, in that they cannot prevent the accident. In fact I feel they often subtly help cause accidents, in that, like drink, often a sense of invincibility over-rides common sense in the wearing of them.

Yes yes, but the axons don't always work fast enough to be able to apply evasive procedures when one is under attack from a suicide bomber. When one finds oneself head butting a guinea fowl at 130km/h, as I did last week, I can assure you, a neck brace is something that you don't want to be without. And in cases like this, it also helps to have as heavy a helmet as possible, so that conservation of momentum works in your favour. That said, it was probably the rocks in my head that saved me.

Couple of very valid points here: - The brain being the most important safety device. - A well fitting, proper helmet, that does not come off during an accident WILL be better than "decorative P-pots". - YES, my nephew was lucky. And his experience does not mean that a R600 helmet is as safe as a R6k state of the art helmet. .... For the same token, the fact that Yolandi's helmet does not appear on the list does not make it a "bad" helmet. Personally I believe that most full face helmets are now very similar in design. With the differences being in the materials and manufacture, ie more expensive products to save a few grams. Better fitting visors and better padding to make the helmet quieter. But I would like to believe that the worst helmet on the shelf today is better than most helmets of 15 years back.

There is another factor to consider when undertaking longer rides and/or multi-day tours. Safety is not just about what happens to a rider during an accident but should also focus on enabling the rider to "operate optimally" under varying conditions. A more comfortable (lighter, better ventilated, lower noise, etc) helmet fitted with a good quality visor (less distortion, esp around periphery) leads to reduced rider fatigue. The real question is whether helmets which meet these requirements are always the more expensive ones? Its also very difficult to quantify these benefits. Rider fatigue may not necessarily directly cause accidents but can certainly be a contributing factor. The extra "split second" reaction time is often the difference between a scary moment and an accident. This argument naturally assumes that all other variables (rider skill, etc) are equal. Tony We should learn from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.

Tony VERY valid points. I use a Schuberth dual visor helmet - I need (want) the second tinted visor for those times I ride in bright light. This is not a cheap helmet, yet it is one of the noisiest helmets I have ever owned. In fact, for longer trips I use ear plugs. Helmet noise is VERY tiring on longer runs.