Honda CBR 500 Riders Forum banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The ECE 22.05 regulations will start to be replaced by ECE 22.06 from this summer. These are the legal requirements for helmets in many countries including the U.K. and Europe, and are also accepted in others like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

This will update the standards from 2000 based on the latest medical and scientific research into head trauma. In the U.S., FMVSS 218 (DOT) regulations were last updated in 2013.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Thanks for posting this. Nice to know. IMHO, these ECE regulations have surpassed both the US DOT and Snell standards regarding the safety requirements for helmets. I'm aware all three tests' requirements differ, and one could present a strong argument for any one of the certifications being superior to the others. But the fact the ECE has been addressed by numerous groups and countries for, what appears to be a common good, instead of an effort to benefit an industry with vested interests and profits.. Is enough to satisfy my concerns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
It is a few years old, so does not cover the new standard, but the ECE produced "The United Nations Motorcycle Helmet Study" which explains a bit of history about regulations and why theirs exists.


It is a shame, though unsurprising, that the U.S. does not adopt them as any U.N. member can join their World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, the group responsible for regulation 22. Also the U.S. is an ECE member. But given how many countries already apply or accept that helmet standard, it would avoid manufacturers having to meet different standards, and often having to produce separate models, for sale in the U.S. So it would be very business friendly.

From the U.N. document: "When countries have different standards in regulation for protective helmets, or even indeed vehicles and products in general, it creates barriers to trade and progress, and thwarts safety improvements. Differences in standards cause expenses to manufacturers and may delay technological progress by diverting finite research and development
resources into multiple directions.
"

In some ways the whole document seems a criticism of the U.S. position, as they are one of the only countries not to accept the U.N. regulations at all. So a European car cannot be imported, for example. Even in countries which has their own separate standards like Canada (presumably to be harmonized with the U.S.), they still allow most of the U.N. ones too.

It will be interesting to see what SHARP will say about these changes. Their tests are designed to go beyond ECE 22.05 but I do not know how different the new standards are from their own methods. They may already be covering some of the new requirements, or they may now be contradicted by them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
From the U.N. document: "When countries have different standards in regulation for protective helmets, or even indeed vehicles and products in general, it creates barriers to trade and progress, and thwarts safety improvements. Differences in standards cause expenses to manufacturers and may delay technological progress by diverting finite research and development
resources into multiple directions.
"

In some ways the whole document seems a criticism of the U.S. position, as they are one of the only countries not to accept the U.N. regulations at all. So a European car cannot be imported, for example. Even in countries which has their own separate standards like Canada (presumably to be harmonized with the U.S.), they still allow most of the U.N. ones too.
I think your critique is spot on. In many cases, US federal and state regulators have turned over testing, and verifying those results, to private industry that represents the products they're testing. Fox watching the Hen's house?? Probably, but it is what it is. If these businesses can keep an advantage by having separate standards, by all means they will. Seems a contradiction to our "Free Market System of Supply and Demand"? Maybe it's not.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top