The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are tasked with monitoring compliance of standards for crash helmets sold in the U.S. for on-road motorcycle use. All must meet the performance standards in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 (FMVSS 218). That is done through ACT Labs, an independent testing company under contract with NHTSA. Examples of helmets selected by NHTSA marked as “DOT FMVSS 218 Certified” are purchased from retailers for testing, so helmets found to fail the tests are already on the market.
Theoretically, this “post-marketing” approach to gathering sample products for compliance testing prevents manufacturers from making special one-off helmets that can pass the tests, while selling lesser quality helmets to the public. The catch is that the NHTSA does not perform any pre-market testing. Additionally, the federal regulation neither requires completion of compliance testing by the manufacturer before marketing a product nor is any documentation required to prove that pre-marketing testing was performed. The process assumes it is economically feasible to make a few higher-spec helmets just for testing.
We have covered what the DOT FMVSS218 standards require, along with an explanation of what some of the other most common current standards require previously, so we will not revisit that here.
We also have been tracking annual testing results, tabulating the results of helmet tests reported by NHTSA on its website. We now have data compiled from CY2014 through CY2022, though the small number of helmets tested and reported this year for CY2022 will not be complete results for last year. We will update the test data as it becomes available.
The failure rate of helmets unable to meet the minimal physical performance standards in DOT’s FMVSS 218 remains shockingly high—nearly four out of every ten helmets tested failed. Remember that DOT performance standards are considered the lowest among the current international standards, allowing less effective impact attenuation (energy absorption) than any of the other standards.
That means more impact energy reaches the wearer’s skull than is acceptable under the other standards. The FMVSS 218 standard allows up to 400 g peak acceleration energy to reach the test headform. Each other standard allows peak acceleration energy of only 275 g, depending on the test mode. So, the DOT standard allows 31.2 percent more impact energy to be transmitted to the rider’s skull.
That raises the question of how much greater the risk of traumatic brain injury is to riders using helmets “certified” to DOT standards alone compared to those choosing helmets that have been certified to higher standards, in addition to the lower DOT standards.
Since 1974, under federal law, any helmet sold in the U.S. intended for on-road motorcycle use must be labeled as “DOT Certified.” Note that the standard requires labeling, though not actual, verified testing, even though labeling the helmet with the required “DOT FMVSS 218 Certified” language would probably lead consumers to believe the helmet has been tested and has passed.
The federal standards rely on self-certification and no documentation that the self-certification testing is completed as required. The dismal failure rate suggests that at least some of the helmets on the market may not have been tested to verify compliance before being placed on the market.
Other possible explanations are that the helmet was improperly tested, the results misinterpreted, or the designers used archival material strength data to estimate the performance of the helmet on the required criteria but did not back it up with compliance testing. Regardless, the failed helmet will not offer the protection the purchasers thought they were buying.
This table below summarizes the data for the entire nine-year period:
Self-certification is allowed, for example, under ECE rules, though only on certain products that are not considered high-risk; helmets are not in that category. Even for those products where self-certification is allowed under ECE rules, the required testing must be completed and documented. However, it does not have to be done by a specified independent third party.
Snell Memorial Foundation certification testing is done only by Snell. Claiming and labeling achievement of SMF certification cannot be done until the testing is completed and all the tests passed. A list of motorcycle helmets that have achieved Snell Memorial Foundation certification is available on the SMF website.
How bad are some of the helmets the NHTSA allows to stay on the market? One brand’s model, tested in 2021 by NHTSA’s independent test lab under contract, failed the impact attenuation test in all four conditions (ambient temperature, low temperature, high temperature, and water immersion). No failures are allowed on any of the tests.
It is difficult to believe that the helmet would have been tested for compliance and still put on the market with performance like that. However, the NHTSA entry states the helmet is “under review”; no recall or “stop sale” of the product is noted as having been ordered.
The same is true of another model of the same brand, which failed the retention system tests on three out of four conditions. Again, it is marked as being “under review.” No “stop sale” or recall is listed as ordered.
In contrast, self-certification is not allowed under any of the other standards. In each, a production batch of helmets must be tested by an independent third-party lab, or in the case of Snell, by Snell itself. A motorcycle helmet must pass all of the standardized tests prior to the helmet being labeled as compliant for street use and placed on the market.
No other certification system allows self-certification or relies on post-market testing of tiny quantities of product samples. The DOT/NHTSA system does not work, and the astounding failure rate proves it.
Thus, not only are helmets certified under the other systems required to be more effective in protecting the wearer from impact energy, no helmet that has not been proven by testing to perform to the required levels is allowed to be marketed with the certification label (ECE 22.06, Snell, or FIM) displayed.
Two steps can be taken to avoid the self-certification problem.
The first is to buy a helmet manufactured by a well-known, reputable company. The second is to buy a helmet that has earned one of the other certifications, in addition to being labeled as “DOT Certified.”
Fortunately, many manufacturers already provide models that have achieved dual certification (depending on model), including AGV (DOT/22.05, DOT/ECE 22.06), Arai (DOT/Snell, DOT/22.05, DOT/22.06), Bell (DOT/ECE 22.06, DOT/Snell), Icon (DOT/ECE 22.05, ECE 22.06), Scorpion (DOT/ECE 22.05, DOT/ECE 22.06), Schuberth (DOT/22.05, DOT/ECE 22.06), Shoei (DOT/Snell, DOT/ECE 22.06), and others. Note that all models from any manufacturer may not hold dual certification. When buying, check the certifications for the model being considered.
Unfortunately, many riders are not aware of the option to select helmets compliant with the other standards in addition to DOT. The DOT-certified helmet test failure rate suggests that considering that option is a good idea.
A broader, permanent solution is necessary to protect riders more effectively. That can be accomplished by adding two paragraphs to the current FMVSS 218 regulation. The two paragraphs would allow NHTSA to use a process already used for many years in federal oversight of healthcare facilities and services called “deeming.”
Deeming allows federal regulators to recognize other standards as substantially equivalent to the existing regulatory standards. In this case, deeming would allow the NHTSA to recognize ECE 22.05 or 22.06 (which is a recent update to 22.05), Snell Memorial Foundation standards, FIM FRHPhe standards, and perhaps others that the NHTSA identifies as substantially equivalent to the DOT FMVSS 218 standards. This would make a motorcycle helmet acceptable for sale in the United States without concurrent DOT certification.
A properly written new rule would impose no new costs or mandates. Instead, it would have the opposite effect. It would eliminate the current mandate for DOT certification labeling if the helmet complies with any of the deemed standards.
Consumers would no longer be required to buy helmets labeled as “DOT Certified” with no certainty that the product purchased meets the performance standards the label implies. This would open a broad range of new options for consumers, allowing them to purchase helmets proven that have met the higher performance standards and are properly certified.
Retailers would be permitted to sell helmets certified to any of the deemed standards, with or without DOT certification labeling. This would greatly simplify the purchasing function and expand the options they could offer customers.
Manufacturers could continue to produce helmets for DOT compliance only, or with dual compliance such as DOT/ECE, DOT/Snell, or DOT/FIM, if that is what they already do. The manufacturer would also have the option to produce helmets compliant with ECE, Snell, or FIM standards alone for sale in the United States. Under the proposal, they would be allowed to market helmets certified to any of these standards with or without concurrent DOT certification.
Here is how that could be done in what is called a Notice of Proposed Rule-making:
DEEMED STATUS FOR ALTERNATIVE CERTIFICATIONS: Any helmet having been certified by recognized testing laboratories as defined by the certifying authority as meeting the applicable performance standards for motorcycle helmets intended for use on public roads shall be deemed as compliant with all provisions of this part. Helmets approved under this provision must display labeling indicating the certification or approval the helmet has, but are not required to bear the FMVSS 218 “DOT Certified” label if certified under any of the other deemed standards. This provision shall apply to helmets compliant with any of the following standards: UNECE 22.05, (UNECE 22.06 commencing in 2023), Snell M2020 D or R, FIM FRHPhe-1 or 2. (and/or others as may be recognized by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that substantially meet or exceed FMVSS 218 performance on similar requirements).
Nothing in this part shall be interpreted as requiring manufacturers to comply with the deemed standards in addition to FMVSS 218 standards. Rather, this allows manufacturers to market helmets proven compliant with any of the deemed standards in the United States for road-going use as meeting FMVSS 218 standards with or without evidence or labeling as compliant with DOT Certification standards. The manufacturer, at its option, may continue to utilize DOT Certification and labeling alone or in addition to certification under any of the deemed standards. In addition, nothing in this part shall be interpreted as mandating helmet use in any state where such use is not required under state law.
If you would like the options this type of change would provide, feel free to share a link to this article with legislators in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Here is how to find them: U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.
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”
This article is the latest in our continuing coverage of helmet safety standards and issues:
- 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.
