41 % Of Uk Motorcyclists Wearing Helmets That Should Be Replaced

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/...ists-wearing-helmets-that-should-be-replaced/

Why do I think this is scare mongering to get people to buy new helmets. Has anyone done some actual crash tests on 5 year old helmet compared to the same new helmet?
There is some logic in thinking that a 5 yr old helmet may be stronger in construction due to hardening of materiel and glues etc.
I wonder how long it will be before the Insurance Companies jump on the band wagon, not covering Claims for Injuries if wearing a Helmet over 5 Years old?

 

How many helmets (in use or for sale) actually comply to the current British Standards ?

• British Standard BS 6658:1985 and carry the BSI Kitemark
• UNECE Regulation 22.05
• a European Economic Area member standard offering at least the same safety and protection as BS 6658:1985, and carry a mark equivalent to theBSI Kitemark

 

In answer to your first question, yes, tests have been done, and the answer is that age in itself does not cause the materials to deteriorate, but heat, sweat, wear and tear which causes the styrofoam liner to break down.

I useed to go through 3 helmets a year, because before my illness I used to sweat a lot in the warm to hot weather and 4 months of helmet wear with me was the equal of about 3 years with anyone else.

Age is not the issue. I have inspected some helmets that are 15 + years old, been looked after worn only a couple of times a year and the are fine, in fact my wife has a Shoei GRV Lawson rep which must ne close on 20 years old if not more. She has worn it maybe a dozen times and it is always stored somewhere cool. I examined it the other day and it is still fine and it actually fits my daughter (who is now 24) very well, so I have no problems letting her wear it when I take her for her first pillion ride.

I have just helped the Arai importer with a case in my capacity as a clothing expert where a chap tried to sue them for a helmet that was 17 years old. As they said, they recommend change after 7 years of use, so to suggest 5 years and contradict the manufcaturers is a joke.

On the last point, I would love to see someone state that they are not covering injury claims if wearing a helmet over 5 years old. I for one would take them to the cleaners, and the appeal courts would have a field day, because if........You were silly enough to ride without wearing a helmet or it was not secured properly they can only attribute up to 25% contributory negligence, and then they would have to prove that that the injuries would not have been sustained had the helmet been worn. Some defendants have in the past tried to argue that the age of the helmet contributed to injuries, and they very quickly got thrown out by the courts.

So long as the law is complied with, they are going to struggle to get that point home f they chose to go down that route.

If you chose to ride your bike start naked but you wore your helmet, you wuld lose nothing at all because al the law states is that you must wear a securely fastened crash helmet.

 

Thanks for that T.C

So as all Helmets are not equal, IE My Schuberth, the quality of the interior, with good venting the insides should last longer for the internal deterioration than cheaper helmets etc.
Bit of a Mine field really, and as I guessed, a little bit of scare mongering to get people to change helmets every 5 years.

 

I was at a factory in China where the shells of a major brand were made. The shells cost about 20p a pop but the end product retailed for over £400.

As to whether your expensive Schuberth will last longer is subjective. I have always worn top end helmets and I still went through 3 or so a year.

What you are paying for with a top end helmet is the materials, (carbon fibre for example is expensive), fancy paint jobs, manufacturing costs n general, shipping costs (not cheap to ship from Japan) storage costs on landing in the UK, distrubutors profit margin and then retailers margin. You will n doubt be aware that European manufactured helmets are cheaper by and large.

Generally the mark up is 50% to make a third profit, so you have manufacturer, importer/distributor/retailer all making a mark up

So more expensive does not equate to better protection as tey all have to comply to a minimum standard which now is EC22/05.

So yes, I agree, it is scaremongering in my opinon.

 

Have you ever seen the X-Ray of a helmet? It is a fallacy that anything can be determined from an X-Ray as all you can see is a black blob. Even Moto Direct (The Arai importers) admit they cannot tell anything from X-Rays, and when I was ount at the factory in Japan I was told the same thing, it was used purely as a sales/after sales gimmick.

The only way to determine the condition of a helmet is to strip it down to the base components. The problem is, in order to maintain its compliance with either 6658-85 or EC22/05 they have to go back to the parent factory to be re-assembled.