Apparently an 80s commerical for the helmet manufacturer Bell bore the slogan: "If you've got a $10 head, wear a $10 helmet". Nowadays it's a deeply-ingrained and widely accepted idea among bikers that it's worth spending a lot of money on your headgear. A top-of-the-line Arai can sell for almost four figures, particularly if you want a nice design, but what are you getting for your money and, in particular, is it any safer than a helmet you pickup for a tenth of that price? There are various minimum safety standards for bike helmets. Snell and DOT, whereas the UK requires the snappily named or the European standard, ECE22.05, apparently equivalent to the US DOT. But these are minimum standards that manufacturers must design towards, as such they don't help differentiating between ratified helmets. In the UK, an impartial government safety scheme has been set up with its own forced acronym (the Safety Helmet Assessment and Rating Programme, SHARP)

to try to scientifically assess how protective helmets are in simulated crash-like tests, designed using real-world data. Take a look at this neat animation They condense the data from 32 tests over seven replicates into a simple 5-star rating, with 5 star helmets said to provide "good levels of protection right around the helmet". As of April 2014, their database contains a total of 328 helmet models, a decent set of results for some further analysis.motorcycle repair needles ca A good starting point is to look at the spread of helmet prices, identifying the premiummotorcycle repair brighton ma brands and the cheapies that have been tested by SHARP.motorcycle shops grand forks nd

We can see why Bell might be keen to push the idea that we all need expensive helmets! Helmets in the dataset are spit into two categories: full-face and "system". far as I can tell the latter refer to what I would call "flip-front" helmets. These have a hinged jaw section which you can raise either to use as an open-face helmet or more commonly so as to pay for your petrol without scaring the cashier.motorcycle sell khmer I'm not aware this has been conclusively proven but the general feeling among bikersclassic motorcycle dealers lancashire seems to be that a flip-front helmet offers less protection than a more rigid full-face.motorcycle repairs caboolture

Does the SHARP data agree? There is a greater proportion of top-rated full-face helmets, and the most common rating for flip-front lids is 3 stars, compared to 4 for full-face. full-face helmets dominate the dataset (86% of helmets tested by SHARP), and most brands will only produce a couple of flip models, save the specialists like The main question to be answered with this dataset is: are more expensive helmetsbmw motorcycle service luton more protective, and if so to what degree? Overall yes, there's a non-zero linear regression coefficient that suggests each additional £ spent on a helmet returns 2 × 10-4 SHARP rating points. worth noting that this trend explains a measly 6% of the variance in helmet ratings and, more interestingly, the y-intercept is a fairly decent 3.1 rating, suggesting there are some cheap but highly rated helmets in the dataset.

We can break this relationship trend down by manufacturer: There are some striking differences here. Entry brands like Nitro seem good examples of where a higher outlay is likely to result in significantly betterThe Arai premium brand, however, has little relationship between price and protection, with most of their range scoring the same 3 out of 5 rating. You'll notice the points in these graphs have been jittered to prevent them all stacking at the integer ratings, and give the illusion of a (preferable) continuous rating. At this point any statisticians reading may criticise the use of linear regression here (on unjittered values, of course), as the rating system is really an ordinal variable and so would be better suited to something like an ordered logit model. With these caveats in mind I won't overinterpret the above linear models. So to finish, two important questions: what are the best/worst value for money helmets, and which brands overall output the most protective and reasonably priced lids?

Here I'm plotting the mean SHARP rating across each brand's tested helmets, against their median helmet price which were then ranked 1 to 22, with 22 being the most expensive brand on average. Grey rectangles indicate both the cheapest third of brands, and the safest third. Much to my surprise, the only brand falling in the intersection of these two is Marushin, which is a new brand to me but have been for their highly-rated helmets. I should quickly point out that protection isn't the only reason people splash out onthey can be lighter, more comfortable, quieter and look better — plus with that Shoei symbol above your visor no-one will take you for a Bell advertising slogan seems a bit hollow now, as the crafty consumer can protect their priceless head with a 5-star rated helmet for as little as 60 GBP (100 USD). Full code to reproduce these plots and analysis will be available on You must wear a safety helmet that meets British safety standards when riding a motorcycle or moped on the road.

All helmets worn on UK roads must meet one of the following: British Standard BS 6658:1985 and carry the BSI Kitemark a European Economic Area member standard offering at least the same safety and protection as BS 6658:1985, and carry a mark equivalent to the BSI Kitemark SHARP - the helmet safety scheme The Safety Helmet Assessment and Rating Programme (SHARP) shows you approved helmets and how much protection they offer. If you ride with a visor or goggles they must either: meet a British Standard and display a BSI Kitemark meet a European standard offering at least the same safety and protection as the British Standard and carry a mark equivalent to the BSI Kitemark (UNECE Regulation 22.05) There’s no law about wearing other protective clothing, but specialised motorcycle gear is highly recommended - it could save your life. Download ‘The essential guide to protective gear for bikers’ (PDF, 432KB) Last updated: 3 October 2016