The Scene
THE SCENE
IVAN J. WAGAR
IN THE September 1971 issue of Cycle World I wrote a special report I pointing out the possibility of defective and inferior motorcycle rider helmets. The article was not intended to deal in editorial sensationalism, but rather to make you aware of a very grave problem and hopefully encourage some dubious helmet manufacturers to build better head protection, or at least helmets that met the standard under which they were certified.
To better inform you of what standards are, where they are, and what they should be, this issue features an article on Mr. Head Protection, George Snively. Author Krol brings out the down-toearth gut feelings of the world’s acknowledged expert on head protection. In the article Snively is himself. He admits that even he does not have all the answers, but he has dedicated his life to trying to find them. Completely divorced from industry financial pressure, Snively can afford the luxury of honesty, and he is honest almost to a fault. That probably is why he doesn’t have many friends, but everyone shows him respect.
In the Letters column in this issue you will find a letter from Snively exposing an Italian firm that has counterfeited the prestigious Snell sticker.
My original article, besides prompting the Snively story in this issue, has had both good and bad side effects; good for you, but bad for us. I would like to tell our bad part first because it can be told quickly. Two manufacturers (I expected more) threatened us with lawsuits, and some others stated that they would never advertise in Cycle World again. So be it. The article was never intended to win a popularity contest but, as stated ealier, to wake people up and hopefully make them face up to a bad issue.
As a result, the Safety Helmet Council of America (SHCA) now has more members. And the members now are trying to find ways to eliminate bad helmets from the marketplace. Most of the member firms are registered to take part in the SHCA certification program. This means that they are entitled to affix the SHCA sticker, providing they agree to random policing by the Council on the aftermarket. Thereby the Council will purchase helmets at random and submit them to Z90.1 testing in any one of three independent test labs. If the testing reveals inferior production, the manufacturer can lose the privilege of the SHCA sticker. So, there is some degree of guarantee in buying a helmet with the SHCA sticker, because no obviously crooked helmet manufacturer is going to agree to having his product checked at random on the marketplace.
Another benefit from the article is that the American Motorcycle Association, long noted for permitting any sort of junk to be worn for head protection, has passed a rule that only SHCA certified helmets may be used in AMA events.
The article further pushed the Safety Helmet Council into doing something about the susceptibility of some helmet shell materials, particularly polycarbonates, to even casual chemical damage, and protection degradation. Thus you will find a hang tag on all SHCA certified helmets pointing out that you should not expose the helmet to paints or chemicals not approved by the manufacturer. Very little can be done, at least at this time, about the careless polycarbonate helmet manufacturer that creates stresses in the shell during the molding process. These stresses can, after aging or exposure to common chemicals, actually cause the shell to become as brittle as glass. Hopefully the SHCA will police the member firms to the point where we may not be faced with that problem in the future.
The best contribution to better head protection that the article achieved was with the Federal government. I have been at odds with the Feds over the helmet issue for about six years. I don’t want to argue the rights or wrongs of being made to wear helmets, but rather the complete irresponsibility of government to require the states to promulgate helmet laws without a Federal helmet standard. And this goes back to the Traffic Safety Act of 1966, whereby the states could lose up to 10 percent of Federal highway aid if they did not adopt and enforce certain guidelines handed down to them. One requirement was motorcycle rider head protection. Some states, particularly New York, had a helmet law before they had decided what they should do about the quality of helmets sold in that state. The state of California, on the other hand, felt the responsibility of guaranteeing some minimum degree of protection to the consumer who is forced by law to buy a device to save his life. It is for that reason that California now is developing its own helmet standard because the Federal government is six years overdue, and there still is no mandatory helmet law in California. That’s democracy.
At this point in time, thanks to the article, the National Highway Safety Administration came up with some $30,000 to purchase and test about 60 models of helmets currently available.
These helmets are being tested to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z90.1, 1966 standard, the most rigid standard required by the states at this time.
Thanks for this positive step toward finding out what is good or bad about presently available helmets must go to Douglas Toms, the NHTSA Administrator, and fellow motorcyclist. In the days of his predecessors, as previously stated, there appeared to be no concern for the quality of what was being sold, only that riders wore helmets. Toms is concerned about the quality of helmets that must be worn in those states with compulsory helmet laws. Under Tom’s guidance and support we now are close to having a Federal helmet standard. Unfortunately, at the time of this writing, the standard is being “massaged” in the legal department of NHTSA, and has been there for more than three months. While this is a frustrating period for those people concerned with the possibility of bad helmets being sold to the motorcycling public, it may be good news in the end. The Federal standard will be more in line with the injury criteria permitted for car occupants under standard 208, which is considerably more rigid than current motorcycle helmet standards.
Even when the Federal helmet standard is issued it will still be a piece of paper with a bunch of figures for the manufacturers to go by for compliance to the standard. The real gut issue, and the one that Snively really looks for, is the integrity of the manufacturer. Hopefully the Feds will provide the funds necessary to police their standard when it finally does become effective. (Ô]
