Talk:Motorcycle helmet

message: Are no longer in force, and haven't been for several years. All countries in the EU are regulated by ECE2205, with each individual testing country indicated by a number outside the E mark circle.
:I've removed the relevant references. Todd Vierling (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BS standards 

message: DOT standards differ from SNELL standards, however, inadequate evidence exists demonstrating that riders wearing a Snell certified helmet are less injured in similar accidencts than those wearing DOT helmets. Anecdotal evidence may even indicate the opposite; that softer helmets cause lower G's on the brain - a leading cause of damage.
208.59.127.132 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOT "Lax" 

message: the word "DOT" is linked now to the disambiguation page. 216.183.92.253 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOT link 

message: Maybe we could add a section specifically about visors? Cheers. 87.194.223.183 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be Bold and add it.  Keep in mind that "visor" is generally referring to that forward-pointing, mostly flat piece of plastic extending from the front top of a helmet that has one (off-road, and some of the newer on/off-road hybrid varieties not yet mentioned in this article), but the word is also used to refer to retractable sun tint shields (arguably a valid use of the word), as well as face shields (an improper use of the word).  Todd Vierling (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Visor is one of those weird terms. I've seen it refer to the off-road "peak" or bill, as well as the faceshield. Tedder (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right -- the "peak" or "bill" (e.g. in a baseball cap, or even the stubby one found on most 3/4 helmets that is sometimes affixed with three metal snaps) is what I referred to above.  The term "visor" most properly refers to this part; helmet manufacturers are careful to call a face shield a "face shield" and not a "visor" to avoid exactly this confusion.  Of course, explaining this confusion in the article itself might be worthwhile....  Todd Vierling (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Or even a simple illustration showing these parts.. Tedder (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visors 

message: So I finally got off of my hump and did the legwork to identify exactly what is tested on modular helmets for the three major standards (DOT, Snell, ECE).  Added a bunch of related text and references, and finally linked directly to the FMVSS and ECE standards documents.  This should finally clear up the confusion once and for all.
Of course, it's unfortunate that Snell has yet to certify a modular of any kind.  ECE seems to have it right; though the standard was last updated in 1995, it already covers a distinction between protective and non-protective "lower face covers", allowing a modular to be tested for equivalency to a full-face or not.  Todd Vierling (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modular chin bar standards testing 

message: I'm not smart enough to describe this but I think it is an important study to reference:
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.125.194 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Already cited in the article.--Dbratland (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motorcyclist magazine Snell testing standards criticism 

message: The origins section needs to be replaced.  Dr. Cairns did not invent the helmet, he worked to make them required in GB.  
The first "helmet" was used by the inventor of the motorcycle, Gottlieb Daimler - he wore a leather skullcap lined with wool.  The modern motorcycle helmet was invented by Prof. C.F. "Red" Lombard at the University of Southern California in 1953.
Stevesneed (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have reliable sources for this? It'd certainly be nice to clear it up. It's also interesting that helmets came from the same uni that did the Hurt Report. tedder (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: What? The origins section doesn't state that Cairns invented the helmet, it states that his work led to their wider adoption. No claim is made in the article about invention by anyone - and certainly helmets existed long before Lawrence's death. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: Since helmets are by no means limited to motorcycles (can you say Formula One, Champ car, NASCAR, NHRA...?), it seems obvious this should be moved to Crash helmet.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  23:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose Since not all crash helmets are motorcycle helmets, I changed the redirect at Crash helmet to point to Helmet. If you wish to expand Crash helmet and write an article that covers other kinds of motorsport helmets, by all means, go ahead. But Motorcycle helmet is fine where it is. --Dbratland (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose for the same reasons as Dbratland. Develop an actual Crash helmet article rather than hijacking this one. AndroidCat (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose for the same reasons as the above. No new article is needed, no real improvement is needed either as helmet covers everything related to safety/crash helmets IMHO. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the move? 

message: I keep trying to edit the article to include an external link to the norm, but people edit it back. There are no official links of it, simply because people have to pay to see it, even thought there is no doubt that the norm text is not copyrightable. Since I'm guessing no one cares about the brazilian norm, no one will discuss this unless I edit the article with the link again, so if you feel like removing the link once more, please include a reason here and let's make this a discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.55.168 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Violates WP:ELNO. It's a link to a nasty spam/adware popup site that makes your web browser go bananas. Also, it's impossible to know the provenance of the PDF file linked to, and it's likely full of PDF viruses. Such links should be kept off Wikipedia. Please do not add it back to the article again. --Dbratland (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Nobody asked you to host the file. There is no need for a link to it to begin with. The verifiability policy has no requirement that a link to anything be included in order to cite an article. Wikipedia:Citing sources has instructions on how to cite a document. --Dbratland (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

text: It's not the role of an encyclopedia to give legal advice to motorcycle riders. See item #1 at WP:NOTHOW, or Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer where it says in big fat letters "Wikipedia does not give legal opinions". All caps, even. If the government of Brazil is not properly publishing their regulations on helmets, the last place to address that is an online encyclopedia.<P>As far as who is or is not a "noob", I think that is obvious .<P>Your best bet to discuss helmet laws in Brazil is to stay away from primary sources anyway. Seek out secondary sources to give layman's explanations, and cite those. If you can't find secondary sources on the subject, be patient and keep looking. Most of the challenge of Wikipedia is locating good sources.--Dbratland (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBR 7471 external link 

message: I edited this section in an attempt to give a more professional tone. I do not actually have reference materials for or know much about motorcycle helmet testing standards, so I will leave those improvements to someone more knowledgeable.
Eurasian Dreamer (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards Testing 

message: This entire article is biased and not supported by any facts.  According to the California Highway Patrols own records since the start of the mandatory motorcycle helmet law in 1994 deaths per 1000 motorcycle accidents have INCREASED.  You want facts versus "studies" google abate of California.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.118.216 (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: POV complaint 2013

message: Has any native speaker of English ever heard open face (3/4) helmets called 'jet helmets' in English? Would that be understandable or recognized? --Cancun771 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The term may be more common in Europe, I'm not sure. For instance this online store in Germany uses the term for a whole category: . — Brianhe (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Roemer is German, so perhaps they introduced it -- but it was introduced to the US market by 1957, so it's pretty much global by now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Jet was widely known and regularly used in 1960s UK. It is still known and used, as here. The earliest citation I can find presently is Motorcycle Mechanics, May 1962:I have a Stadium semi-jet from that time having shallower sides and back with a deeper neck-curtain. My brother had a Kangol Space (or Spaceman, I would have to confirm via an advert) new in 1964, added on to the repayments of a bike.So there was variation - jet, full jet, half-jet, semi-jet, space, etc. and not just a generic descriptive but could be incorporated into the branded name. I don't know the actual origins and date in UK.It's interesting that the Bell TX500 goes back to pre-1960; the earliest I can recall was Mike Duff riding AJS/Matchless I think around 1962, pre-Yamaha.--86.11.200.51 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an earlier source in the house - Motorcycle Mechanics, August 1961:--86.11.200.51 (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jet helmet

message: The starting study is absolutly wrong.
you are able to compare the REAL datas of the usa before the half US made the laws for wearing helmets and after.
the data shows its absolutly wrong that helmets reduce the chance of death about nearly 50% like its written here all over the article.
the datas show there is nearly no diffrents at all.
for example - see this
http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150702/hinpxbup.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.245.78.135 (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't tell where you got that graph but it looks like it's the number of annual motorcycle deaths. The article says helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 69% and death by 42%. It doesn't claim that the number of annual rider deaths will be decreased by that amount. Number of rider deaths is affected by rider behavior, and number of riders and how much they ride, which can be affected by helmet laws. See here for one example of the increase in deaths in the wake of Florida's helmet law repeal.  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety studies 

message: Per WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:RAWDATA, we need to delete the extensive list of EU helmet vs country codes in the Motorcycle_helmet#ECE_22.05 section. It's what WP:NOT calls a "Simple listings without context information". 
:* E1: Germany
:* E2: France
:* E3: Italy
:* E4: the Netherlands
:* E5: Sweden
:* E6: Belgium
:* E7: Hungary
:* E8: Czech Republic
:* E9: Spain
:* E10: Yugoslavia
:* E11: United Kingdom
:* E12: Austria
:* E13: Luxembourg
:* E14: Switzerland
:* E16: Norway
:* E17: Finland
:* E18: Denmark
:* E19: Romania
:* E20: Poland
:* E21: Portugal
:* E22: Russia
:* E23: Greece
:* E24: Ireland
:* E25: Croatia
:* E26: Slovenia
:* E27: Slovakia
:* E28: Belarus
:* E29: Estonia
:* E31: Bosnia and Herzegovina
:* E32: Latvia
:* E34: Bulgaria
:* E36: Lithuania
:* E37: Turkey
:* E39: Azerbaijan
:* E40: Macedonia
:* E42: European Community (unused, as approvals are made by the member states)
:* E43: Japan
:* E45: Australia
:* E46: Ukraine
:* E47: South Africa 
:* E48: New Zealand
*05: The series of amendments (effectively, the version number) of the standard tested (at present, normally 05)
*: The approval number issued by the approving authority
*c: The type of helmet:
:*"J" if the helmet does not have a lower face cover ("jet-style helmet")
:*"P" if the helmet has a protective lower face cover
:*"NP" if the helmet has a non-protective lower face cover
*: The continuous production serial number of the individual helmet
We can replace this with a summary of what the EU system is and what purpose it serves. There's no reason why an encyclopedia needs to tell anyone whether or not their helmet is certified by Macedonia or France. Even if this is useful for helmet shoppers, Wikipedia is not a shopping guide, per Wikipedia:NOTSALES.<P>The section above, lisging the name of the regulation or legal code in each country is similarly a list of context-free information:
* ACU gold or silver badge (Auto-Cycle Union, UK)
* AS/NZS 1698, (Australia and New Zealand)
* BSI 6658 (British Standards Institute, UK)
* CMVSS (Canada)
* CRASH (Consumer Rating and Assessment of Safety Helmets, Australia)
* CSA CAN3-D230-M85 (Canadian Standards Association, they no longer certify motorcycle helmets since )
* DOT FMVSS 218 (USA)
* ECE Regulation 22 (Europe)
* GOST R 41.22-2001 (ГОСТ Р 41.22-2001, based on ECE 22.05, Russia)
* ICC, (Import Commodity Clearance, Philippines)
* IS 4151 (Indian Standard, Bureau of Indian Standards, India)
* JIS T 8133:2000 (Japanese Industrial Standards, Japan)
* MS 1:2011(Previously MS 1:1996. Revised standard based on ECE 22 but with added penetration test. Department of Standards Malaysia, Malaysia)
* NBR 7471 (Norma Brasileira by Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, Brazil)
* SHARP (UK)
* Snell M2005 & M2010 (USA)
* SNI (Standar Nasional Indonesia)
* TCVN 5756:2001 (test and certify by QUATEST 3) (Vietnam)
It is encyclopedic to discuss and summarize differences or contradictions between overlapping standards, such as in the US, Snell and DOT. If there were any similar issues where JIS conflicts with SHARP. Without saying anything about the names of each of these countries' helmet standards, the information is meaningless labels. If we had reason to think that this information could be added to in some what that would make it relevant and meaningful, then it's worth keeping to build upon. But what would that be? And why wouldn't we tag it as  to let editors know it needs work? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not context-free information. The text around it gives it context. It's also not a shopping list. You can't buy things from it. As an encyclopedia, we cover things people want to look up. This includes interpreting labels on helmets. It might save somebody's life.  Sandstein  22:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete complete list of EU helmet codes 

message: I could be mistaken, but I believe that in New Hampshire, you are required to wear a helmet if you are under the age of 18. 
This is as per http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxi/265/265-122.htm
173.44.81.115 (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: New Hampshire update