Helmet Testing Failure Rate Revisited: Summer 2023 Edition

In the past few years, I’ve looked at the data on the motorcycle helmet compliance reporting website of the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I evaluated the number of helmets claiming to be “DOT Certified” tested by the NHTSA’s independent labs that test helmets intended for road-going use in the United States.

Those laboratories are independent third-party entities not connected with helmet manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and other stakeholders. They are ACT Labs and Dynamic Research, both located in California. After they test each helmet specified by NHTSA, acquired at retail, and using test specifications in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 (FMVSS 218), they provide a detailed report on the procedures and results to NHTSA.

From there, the process is less apparent regarding the steps taken, by whom, and when. However, at some point, each result is reviewed. Where failures are documented, some process is used to assess the type of failure. Then it is decided what NHTSA will do about it, if anything. Options include further review, investigation, or enforcement action on up to an order to recall the product and/or civil money penalties.

Each time I have put together a report for a subsequent calendar year, I’ve added the total reports I have found on the NHTSA compliance website for that year, the number of helmets that failed to meet the FMVSS 218 standards on physical performance (impact attenuation, penetration resistance, and retention system strength), and the labeling requirements. I’ve also included data about whether an investigation took place, or a recall was ordered for those helmets that failed.

Unfortunately, in all cases where the site provides an apparent link to an investigation or recall report, where ordered, only an “Error 404—not found” message is returned. When the new data was added, I didn’t go back to prior year reports to see if any additional reports had been added sometime since that calendar year data was analyzed.

On August 9, 2023, after seeing only 11 reports had been posted for the CY 2022 data after that year’s end, it seemed certain that more reports were to come. I looked back at the prior years I had done analytics on to see if there were other years with late-posted data.

It turns out there was a lot of data that had not been reported at the time of my prior analysis—some going back a few years, and the majority from CY 2019 (See Table 1). Because the data does not indicate the date each report was posted, I don’t know when these reports were published. Nearly two-thirds of the reports added were for helmets that had failed on physical performance. That may be merely a coincidence, or there may be some rational explanation. However, it seems not to be attributable to the time required to take corrective action, as only one additional recall was reported as being ordered by the NHTSA. Several reports still said, “under review.”

My most recent previous look at the data, completed on May 17, 2023, found that 38.2 percent of the 228 helmets tested in the nine-year look-back period (to CY2014) failed to meet the physical performance standards in FMVSS 218. With the additional data accessed on August 9, 2023, that percentage went up to 43.9 percent of the 269 helmets NHTSA reports having tested (See Table 2.) Of the 118 helmets that failed, only 15 recalls (12.7 percent) resulted.

A 5.7 percent increase wouldn’t seem to be statistically significant, but considered in the context of how many additional brands and models that represents and the fact that tens of thousands of riders may be put at much higher risk of disability or death due to traumatic brain injury because the helmet failed to provide the level of protection the “DOT Certified” label promised. Worse, none of those helmet users would have been notified of the known defects of the failed helmets unless a recall was ordered or voluntarily undertaken by the manufacturer.

This information, when added to the data available for my last report, looks like this:

The data shows a higher than four-in-ten chance that if you spend your money on a helmet labeled as “DOT Certified” with no other certification, it may not perform to the level claimed by that certification label.

There are several reasons that could happen. For example, the FMVSS 218 standards allow “self-certification” by manufacturers, rather than requiring independent lab verification. Also, no documentation is required to prove any certification testing has been done by the manufacturer or anyone else. Finally, the DOT system is purely retrospective. That is, helmets must be labeled as DOT Certified, but need not be proven certified before they are allowed to be sold in the U.S. The NHTSA independent lab testing happens only after helmets are on the market. This was explained in more detail in our previous coverage at the link below.

While drawing conclusions about the reasons for the reports on so many helmets that failed on critical physical performance standards not showing up timely in public reporting is outside the scope of my work on this, it would be good to have an official explanation.

Instead, my focus in this work is three-fold. First, I’m letting motorcyclists and other powersports helmet users know about the failure rate among helmets claiming DOT Certification. Second, I’m suggesting strategies helmet users can use to improve their chances of paying for a helmet that has been tested before being placed on the market and proven to meet performance standards more rigorous than the DOT standards. Also, I am suggesting a simple, effective method for the DOT/NHTSA to implement rapid regulatory improvement. That strategy is deemed status for Snell Memorial Foundation, ECE 22.06, and FIM helmet standards already in use—all more rigorous than the DOT FMVSS 218 standards, where “self-certification” is not allowed, as explained here.

Consumers can override the DOT standards’ shortcomings by buying a helmet that has earned multiple certifications. The helmet would be labeled “DOT Certified” and display the Snell Memorial Foundation, ECE 22.05, ECE 22.06, or FIM labeling. The government of Canada adopted ECE helmet standards as acceptable helmet safety certification back in 2012.

It is important to note that while DOT requires the claimed certification to be on the back exterior of the helmet, the other standards allow external helmet labeling. Regardless, those standard-setting organizations do not accept that as the correct, official labeling.

Although most helmets that have earned Snell Memorial Foundation certification will be labeled on the exterior of the shell (Image 1), that does not prove the helmet is approved by Snell. That can only be confirmed by the official labeling required by Snell Memorial Foundation—a label applied to the helmet’s interior impact-absorbing liner—usually a layer of expanded polystyrene (EPS) that lies beneath the padded comfort liner (Image 2).

Similarly, most helmets that have earned ECE 22.05 or 22.06 certification will display some notation on the external shell, but that should not be accepted alone as proof of certification (Image 3). Official labeling for the ECE-compliant helmets is sewn to the chin strap (Image 4). FIM-compliant helmets must also have a label on the chin strap, which is a QR code with a hologram (Image 5).

FIM standards pertain to helmets to be used in FIM-sanctioned competition. Only one-piece, full-face helmets are allowed in those events, so no modular or less-coverage style helmets can gain FIM approval. It is conceivable, however, that a few of the FIM-approved helmets could find their way into non-competition consumer use.

Motorcycling is a highly individual sport. From the machine you choose to ride to where, when, and how you ride—it’s all up to you. I encourage you to gear up, ride safe, and enjoy the road, trail, or track. Keep it clicked here for further updates as more data becomes available.

To view the NHTSA helmet test reports that provide results for each helmet tested in detail, follow these instructions:

• Go to the appropriate NHTSA page.
• Select “Equipment”
• Put “FMVSS” in the search box
• Click “Submit Search”
• Select “218” in the FMVSS menu
• Select the desired year
• Click “Submit Choices”

For more of our coverage on helmet safety, see:

• NHTSA Helmet Regulation is a Failure
• DOT Certified Helmet Performance Test Data Update-Failure Rate Increases (2020)
• 4 out of 10 DOT-Certified Helmets Fail Government Performance Tests (2019)
• Helmet Safety Standards 2019: FIM FRHPhe, ECE 22.05, DOT FMVSS 218 & Snell Updates
• ECE 22.06 Motorcycle Helmet Performance Standards Set For 2023
• New University Study Debunks Motorcycle Helmet Neck Injury Risks(2018)
• Motorcycle Helmet Face Shield Performance Standards Explained(2015)
• Helmet Use by U.S. Motorcyclists Trends Higher in Past Decade(2020)
• NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent an official position of Coram Publishing or Ultimate Motorcycling.