Interesting article in the NY Times about Snell rated helmets. Apparently, if you fit a small sized helmet, their level of safety is somewhat questionable. They will have a fix for 2010 Snell rated helmets, but these won't become available for a couple of years.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=445225&f=62

 

Very interesting. If its this much of an issue then you would think that they would move more quickly

Heres the article from the regular site

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/au...nted=2&_r=1&em

 

This has been a long standing criticism of Snell rated helmets. The argument is that they are simply too stiff and the result is scrambled brains in an impact.

Personally, I won't buy one, if I have the choice of a DOT rated helmet. think that the Snell name is simply a marketing gimmick that allows helmet makers to up the price for a helmet that provides inferior protection, compared to a dot rated helmet.

I think it was Motorcycle Cruiser magazine that had an extensive article on this issue several years ago. Snell didn't like the article, but apparently they are now acknowledging that the critics have been correct and are waking up to the fact that their standard is way to stiff.

 

ECE-22-05 rating here... I think we will see a rise in the ECE rated helmets.

 

The Snell rating has been around forever, and there is no 'fix' coming or needed. The new rating will jibe with the European rating(s) like C.E., so people who race here or in Europe can use one helmet for both places. They're incorporating different tests and modifying their own to stay ahead of the curve. They've been doing this since the beginning however, which is why you see a new Snell rating every 5 years or so. They're not 'fixing' anything, they're just improving as more data and technology comes on line, which is what you'd want them to do.
There was a huge study done by Motorcyclist mag (IIRC) a few years ago, which tested Snell and DOT rated helmets. Their conclusion was that with some DOT helmets, they acted like crumple zones on cars, and while they totally disintegrated, they absorbed the energy of the hit(s), and moved it aware from the rider's head. They felt the Snell helmets, while they resisted damage a lot better, simply transfered the energy of the impact(s) into the rider's head. Having road raced for the past 17 or so years, and having obviously then crashed a multitude of times, I'm a believer in the Snell rating, and also believe that the helmets I've worn have saved my life on more than one occasion. If I had been wearing simply a DOT rated helmet, I'm convinced I would either not be here, or have serious brain damage. There's not one single racing org here in the U.S, that'll let you race with only a DOT rated helmet, as well, so they're of the same thinking. Every single one requires Snell rated helmets.
It's a debate that's gone on for a very long time, with extremely smart people on both sides of the argument. Because of my personal experience, I've been able to make my decision on what I'll wear from my own 'testing'. I'll wear one of two brands of helmets, and that's it. That doesn't mean I'm right however....It's simply what I feel is best for me.
It's an interesting subject to be sure, but one that can leave you with more questions than answers after you've studied it for a while.
In the end, you make your choice based on what you feel is important. Unfortunately, way too many people buy in to what the 'cheap' helmet manufacturers try to get people to pay attention to, which is simply aesthetics. The make really 'cool' looking helmets, and people buy 'em based on that fact alone. You'd be surprised how many people buy helmets without even trying them on first. The bigger companies(Arai, Shoei etc.) try to discourage this from happening by making it really hard to sell their product(s) on the internet, but it still happens.
People who buy helmets are predominatly adults.. They have the tools to make the right decision, but they also have the right to ignore 'em, which they do..