Helmet Safety · Standards · Technology

ProtectYour Head.

This website has been created to educate you as a consumer when buying a helmet, by providing you with all of the information you need to make the correct purchase. Primarily aimed at motorcyclists, it also covers helmets for cyclists.

All information published on this site has been obtained from people in the helmet industry and publicly available sources. We have not been sponsored or contracted to provide this information by any manufacturer, marketing company, or testing facility. Any opinions or recommendations are our own. Standards and buying guidance were last reviewed in September 2026.

Scroll

The Problem

An Industry That Keeps You in the Dark

When a helmet is sold, or even displayed by a retailer, there is no legal requirement to let the consumer know how well a helmet performs. If everyone buying a helmet bought the one offering the highest level of protection, many more lives would be saved.

The UK's SHARP scheme provides model-specific motorcycle-helmet performance ratings, but retailers have no obligation to display them. Its current star calculation incorporates results from oblique surface-friction tests, although the published protocol does not directly score measured headform rotational acceleration or velocity.

All of this needs to change.

Photo credit: Tom Sykes crashing at Thruxton — a powerful reminder that a crash can happen to anyone, at any speed. The helmet you choose matters.

Mechanics

How a Helmet Works

Cross-section helmet diagram labelling the outer shell, impact-absorbing liner, comfort padding and retention system — Open diagram at full size

A traditional helmet consists of three layers. From the outside: the shell (visible outer layer), the EPS (expanded polystyrene) layer, and the comfort liner — the padded inside. More modern helmets feature layers of differing-density EPS, and some add a fourth layer to handle rotational forces.

As the helmet impacts, the outer shell spreads the force over a wider area, distributing it across the EPS layer. The EPS then absorbs and disperses the impact energy — reducing the peak acceleration force your head experiences because it decelerates over a longer time. This hopefully keeps your brain from slamming into the inside of your skull.

Slow your head too quickly (EPS too hard) → deceleration forces become injurious or lethal. Not slow enough (EPS too soft) → your skull effectively hits the outer shell. The EPS is the magic that saves lives — but not all EPS layers are equal.

It's worth noting that the exterior shell also plays a vital role: it needs to work with the EPS layer. Shells can be too thick, too hard, too thin or too soft in any given circumstance, so manufacturers try to cover a broad range which means it might not be optimal under all specific circumstances.

Brain Science

Rotational Forces

Diffuse axonal injury (DAI) is associated with rapid acceleration and deceleration that strains white-matter tracts. Rotational motion is especially important in the injury mechanism, but the forces, direction and duration all matter; a crash motion alone cannot diagnose DAI.

DAI ranges in severity and is a clinical diagnosis. Severe cases can cause prolonged unconsciousness and major disability. See the NCBI clinical overview.

Why This Matters for Motorcyclists An oblique impact can combine linear and rotational head motion and can strain brain tissue. Helmet tests use controlled impacts to compare aspects of that response; they do not predict the diagnosis or outcome of an individual crash.

ECE 22.06, the FIM FRHPhe standards and Snell M2025D/M2025R include oblique-impact testing to assess rotational response. These tests assess helmet performance without prescribing a particular branded technology. See the standards comparison for ECE 22.06, the original FIM FRHPhe-01 and its successor FRHPhe-02.

Innovation

Technology

Helmet makers use a range of construction and slip-layer approaches to manage linear and rotational motion. The examples below describe design concepts and manufacturer claims; a technology name alone does not establish how a particular helmet performs in independent testing.

Conehead EPS

Invented by physicist Don Morgan, this uses interlocking cones of different-density EPS. As the cones crush, their resistance changes through the impact. Read the developer's description at Conehead Helmets.

Brands using Conehead: Kali, Head, Scott Sports SA, Mammut, Cannondale, POC, Triple Eight, Fly Racing, Acerbis, Leatt, Foxhead and more.

In-Shell Moulding Construction

Some helmets mould the EPS liner directly into the outer shell instead of assembling the parts separately. Kali markets its version as Composite Fusion; performance should still be judged model by model.

Crumple Zones Claimed

Claimed to be present in Shark helmets — borrowing from automotive safety engineering. The idea is that like a modern car, the helmet structure progressively absorbs impact energy. No supporting technical data appears to be publicly available from Shark on how this is implemented.

MIPS Rotational

A low-friction layer between the comfort liner and EPS layer. In a collision, it allows the helmet to slide independently around your head — reducing the rotational energy transmitted to the brain. Best understood by visiting the MIPS protection website.

LDL Rotational + Linear

Another Kali Protectives invention — the Low Density Layer. Similar in goal to MIPS but vastly different in design. It's more than just a slip layer; it offers reduction in both rotational and linear forces. Read real-world data on Pinkbike →

Glancing Off Arai

Arai's claim is that by making helmets smoother and rounder, the helmet glances off an object rather than digging in, lowering the coefficient of friction. This would only benefit oblique impacts. Any change in velocity due to the glance still results in acceleration — and there doesn't appear to be any data publicly available to support the effectiveness of this approach.

Safety Certification

Standards

Standards reviewed September 2026. This is a selected comparison, not an exhaustive list of every national approval route. See independent helmet ratings for model-by-model comparisons.

Terminology: g = g-force. The conventional standard acceleration of gravity is 9.80665 m/s²; actual local gravitational acceleration varies slightly.

Helmet approval involves a series of tests, not a single g-force threshold. Impact speed, anvil shape, impact location and the measures used all matter when comparing results. The figures below describe laboratory tests, not a safe crash speed or a guarantee against injury.

ECE 22.06 is the 06 series of UN Regulation No. 22 for motorcycle helmets and visors. FIM FRHPhe-02 adds competition homologation on top of an accepted helmet certification. Both assess rotational response through oblique impacts.

Road approval and racing eligibility are separate checks. In Great Britain, government guidance recognises both ECE 22.05 and ECE 22.06 for road use; the newer standard does not itself make an existing 22.05 helmet illegal to wear. See the official helmet guidance, and check your event's rules before riding on track.

Snell designations identify certification standards, rather than star ratings. Check the exact version on the helmet's certification label against Snell's certified helmet lists. A Snell mark does not automatically establish compliance with another standard or eligibility for a particular event.

Motorcycling Standards

Successor to FRHPhe-01, extending the programme beyond circuit racing to off-road disciplines.
The August 2025 manual makes FRHPhe-02 mandatory from 2026 for covered FIM competitions, with exceptions for Trial, pedelecs, SSV and Land Speed World Records streamliners. Check the current discipline regulations for the event.
Additional tests follow an accepted base certification, such as ECE 22.06 for a full-face helmet.
Flat-anvil impacts at 8.2 m/s; hemispherical-anvil impacts at 7.5 m/s; lower-face-cover impact at 6.0 m/s.
Oblique impacts at 8.0 m/s and 5.0 m/s, depending on direction, assess rotational response.
Includes shell penetration and quick-removal cheek-pad tests, with criteria for linear acceleration, rotational acceleration and injury measures.
Check the FIM homologation list for the model and size, plus the QR-coded label sewn onto the chin strap. FIM approval alone does not establish road legality.

Sources: FIM FRHPhe-02 Homologation Manual, August 2025 (PDF) · Technical comparison (PDF) · FIM homologated helmets

Introduced in MotoGP in 2019 and other FIM circuit-racing disciplines in 2020.
Flat-anvil impacts at 8.2 m/s and 5.0 m/s; oblique impacts at 8.0 m/s.
Tests low-, medium- and high-severity linear impacts, oblique impacts and shell penetration, in addition to an accepted base certification.
Retained here for comparison with the newer standard. FRHPhe-01 approval is not FRHPhe-02 approval; check the current rules for the event you plan to enter.

Source: FIM: history of FRHPhe-01 and introduction of phase 2

Supersedes ECE 22.05 with a wider range of impact conditions and additional test locations.
Linear impact tests include 6.0, 7.5 and 8.2 m/s, with requirements specific to each test.
Oblique impacts at 8.0 m/s measure rotational response; this does not require a particular brand of rotational-protection technology.
Includes checks of the retention system, rigidity, visors and field of vision. It does not include the FIM shell penetration test.
Look for the E approval mark and an approval number beginning 06. Confirm the helmet's approval and configuration, rather than relying on a generic “ECE” description.

Sources: UN Regulation No. 22, 06 series · FIM comparison of ECE and FIM tests (PDF) · SHARP: approval and assessment

Impact velocity: 7.5 m/s (16.8 mph)
Peak acceleration limit: 275 g; Head Injury Criterion (HIC) limit: 2,400
Defined impact points plus an additional site selected by the technical service
One impact at each test site
No penetration test

Source: UNECE — UN Regulation No. 22, 05 series

Peak acceleration limit: 400 g
Accelerations >200 g must not exceed 2.0 ms cumulative duration
Accelerations >150 g must not exceed 4.0 ms cumulative duration
Four impact sites in the area above the test line, with two successive impacts at each site
Flat anvil at a nominal 6.0 m/s and hemispherical anvil at 5.2 m/s, at two sites each
Includes penetration, retention-system and minimum peripheral-vision requirements
DOT marking is a manufacturer self-certification; NHTSA does not pre-approve each model

Sources: 49 CFR 571.218 · NHTSA consumer guidance

Great Britain guidance still recognises helmets meeting BS 6658:1985 and carrying the BSI Kitemark.
This is a legacy legal route, not the current benchmark for new helmet design or a comparative performance rating.

Source: UK government helmet guidance

FRHPhe-02 accepts JIS T 8133:2015 Type 2 full-face certification as one eligible base route.
FIM eligibility does not by itself establish road legality in another country; check local marking and approval rules.

Source: FIM FRHPhe-02 Homologation Manual, August 2025 (PDF)

New South Wales accepts compliant, correctly labelled AS/NZS 1698 helmets as well as UN Regulation No. 22 helmets.
Do not assume one Australian or New Zealand rule applies everywhere; confirm the accepted standard and label in the jurisdiction where the helmet will be used.

Source: NSW Government helmet guidance

India's 2020 Quality Control Order requires covered two-wheeler helmets to conform to IS 4151:2015 and bear the BIS Standard Mark under licence.
The order took effect on 1 June 2021 and excludes goods intended for export.

Sources: Bureau of Indian Standards · Quality Control Order (PDF)

Continues M2020D, adding oblique-impact testing to the earlier requirements.
Oblique tests: 8.0 m/s onto a 45° abrasive surface, with at least five impacts across at least two samples and no more than three impacts per sample.
Rotational acceleration limit: 10,000 rad/s²; Brain Injury Criterion (BrIC) limit: 0.78.
D and R are different certification routes, not a ranking of protection.

Sources: Snell M2025D standard (PDF) · M2025 explanatory cover (PDF)

Continues M2020R with requirements intended to allow a helmet to also meet ECE 22.06. Separate ECE approval must still be checked.
Adds the same 8.0 m/s oblique-impact tests as M2025D, with limits of 10,000 rad/s² rotational acceleration and 0.78 BrIC.
The M2025D and M2025R standards took effect on 1 August 2024.

Sources: Snell M2025R standard (PDF) · M2025 explanatory cover (PDF)

The D option was designed to accommodate DOT and JIS requirements.
Flat and hemispherical anvils: two impacts at each test site, starting at 7.75 m/s; the second speed depends on the test headform.
Edge anvil: one impact at 7.75 m/s. Peak acceleration limits depend on the headform.
The M2025 successor adds oblique-impact testing.

Source: Snell M2020 standard (PDF)

The R option was developed to accommodate ECE 22.05 requirements; it does not automatically confer ECE or FIM approval.
Flat anvil: one impact at 8.2 m/s. Hemispherical anvil: two impacts, starting at 7.70 m/s; the second speed depends on the headform.
Edge anvil: one impact at 7.75 m/s. Headform-specific peak acceleration limits apply, with a Head Injury Criterion (HIC) limit of 2,880.

Source: Snell M2020 standard (PDF)

Effective from 1 October 2014; retained here as a historical comparison.
Tests impact management, helmet stability and retention-system strength, along with shell penetration and removability.
Includes chin-bar and face-shield tests where applicable, and testing after hot, cold and wet conditioning.
M2020D continued its impact-test requirements; the M2025 standards later added oblique-impact tests.

Source: Snell M2015 standard (PDF)

Nominal first-impact velocity: 7.75 m/s (17.3 mph); second-impact speeds depend on the test headform
Peak acceleration limits: 275 g for headforms A/C/E/J, 264 g for M and 243 g for O
Test sites are selected within the specified area on or above the test line
Flat and hemispherical sites receive two impacts; edge-anvil sites receive one
Penetration test: 3 kg dropped from 3 m
Impact attenuation uses flat, hemispherical and edge anvils

Source: Snell M2010 standard (PDF)

Identifies a helmet model approved by the ACU for applicable motorcycle sport
The ACU says its assessment adds competition-specific fit and impact checks beyond ECE 22.06
Required at ACU-permitted competition except where discipline rules provide otherwise; the ACU also says Gold is required for track days operating to ACU technical standards
Approval is not a comparative consumer star rating. Confirm the approved model, sticker and current requirements with the organiser.

Sources: ACU helmet-sticker Q&A · ACU helmet-sticker announcement

Cycling Standards

General-purpose, discipline-specific and regional routes are not interchangeable. Match the helmet's certification to the activity and local rules. Snell lists B2024 and BE2024 under Draft Snell Standards; the proposed requirements are included below for comparison but are not final certification standards. See the official standards index.

Flat-anvil impact velocity: 5.42 m/s, equivalent to a theoretical drop of about 1.50 m
Kerbstone-anvil impact velocity: 4.57 m/s, equivalent to a theoretical drop of about 1.06 m
Peak acceleration limit: 250 g

Sources: BSI catalogue entry · EN 1078 text (PDF)

Minimum flat-anvil impact velocity: 6.2 m/s (about a 2.0 m theoretical drop)
Minimum hemispherical- and curbstone-anvil impact velocity: 4.8 m/s (about a 1.2 m theoretical drop)
Delivered velocity may not exceed the specified minimum by more than 2%
Peak acceleration limit: 300 g

Source: US Consumer Product Safety Commission guidance

Discipline-specific standard for downhill mountain biking, where head and face risks differ from recreational street riding
Requires greater impact protection and includes performance criteria for chin bars when fitted; it does not require every helmet to be full-face
ASTM lists the 2026 edition as the active version

Source: ASTM F1952-26 catalogue and scope

Discipline-specific standard for BMX, with protection over a larger head area than ASTM F1447 and CPSC
Includes performance criteria for helmets equipped with chin bars
ASTM lists the 2026 edition as the active version

Source: ASTM F2032-26 catalogue and scope

Developed for speed-pedelecs with pedal assistance up to 45 km/h
Builds on EN 1078 with higher test speeds and greater head coverage
Check local law and the helmet's certification marking; an ordinary EN 1078 helmet is not automatically NTA 8776 certified

Source: NEN speed-pedelec helmet certification

Current joint standard identified by Standards Australia for bicycle and wheeled-recreational-device helmets
The 2020 edition has Amendment 1:2022; check the required certification and marking in the relevant jurisdiction

Source: Standards Australia

Specialised standard for young children in environments where the helmet could become trapped
Uses a self-release retention system intended to reduce strangulation risk
It is a different use case, not a stronger general-purpose cycling certification

Source: BSI EN 1080 catalogue/project entry

Draft status: Snell lists B2024 as a draft, not a current certification standard. The November 2023 proposal may change before any final version is published.
Proposed certification impacts for headforms A/C/E/J: 6.20 m/s onto a flat anvil and 5.42 m/s onto a hemispherical anvil. Lower headform-specific nominal speeds apply to M and O, and delivered speeds are adjusted for the test assembly mass.
Proposed peak acceleration limits: 275 g for headforms A/C/E/J, 264 g for M and 243 g for O.
Proposed oblique impacts at 6.00 m/s, with limits of 10,000 rad/s² angular acceleration and 0.78 BrIC.
The draft calls for at least six oblique impacts across at least two samples, alongside stability, retention and guided-fall impact testing.

Sources: Snell B2024 draft, 27 November 2023 (PDF) · Snell standards index

Draft status: Snell lists BE2024 as a draft, not a current certification standard. The November 2023 “R22 Light” proposal may change before any final version is published.
Proposed certification impacts for headforms A/C/E/J: 6.71 m/s onto a flat anvil and 6.00 m/s onto a hemispherical anvil. Lower headform-specific nominal speeds apply to M and O, and delivered speeds are adjusted for the test assembly mass.
Proposed peak acceleration limits: 275 g for headforms A/C/E/J, 264 g for M and 243 g for O.
Proposed oblique impacts at 6.00 m/s, with limits of 9,000 rad/s² angular acceleration and 0.78 BrIC.
The draft calls for at least six oblique impacts across at least two samples, alongside stability, retention and guided-fall impact testing.

Sources: Snell BE2024 draft, 14 November 2023 (PDF) · Snell standards index

B-90A updates the original B-90 standard with additional and revised requirements. Snell lists the augmented standard among its current bicycle standards.
Impact energy: 100 J onto a flat anvil, 65 J onto a hemispherical anvil and 58 J onto a kerbstone anvil.
Includes helmet stability (roll-off), retention-system strength and coverage requirements.
Test energy is specified directly; the drop height depends on the test assembly.

Source: Snell B-90A standard (PDF)

B-95 specifies certification impacts of 110 J onto a flat anvil and 72 J onto hemispherical and kerbstone anvils.
For subsequent testing, the specified energies are 100 J and 65 J respectively. These are test energies, not fixed drop heights.
Includes helmet stability (roll-off) and retention-system tests.
B-95A retains the base requirements except where amended, including a replacement dynamic retention-system test and labelling provisions aligned with CPSC requirements.

Source: Snell B-95 standard (PDF) · B-95A addendum (PDF)

The child addendum extends the tested area lower on the brow, sides and back of the head.
The relevant B-90 or B-95 impact requirements apply throughout the expanded test area; other base requirements remain unless specifically changed.
The C suffix identifies the child variant. It is not an extra star or performance score.

Source: Snell child-helmet addendum (PDF)

An addendum to B-90A and B-95A for time trials, velodrome racing and comparable competition.
Allows aerodynamic features such as long tails that conflict with the usual restrictions on external projections, while retaining the other adult-standard requirements.
Helmets certified under this addendum carry a warning restricting them to supervised competition; they are not intended for recreational riding.

Source: Snell time-trial addendum (PDF)

Use approval as a starting point.

ECE 22.06 and FIM FRHPhe-02 expand the impact testing covered by their predecessors. Passing an approval standard is not a ranking of every helmet that passes it, and racing homologation serves a different purpose from road approval.

Check the certification, fit and condition of the specific helmet. Use independent helmet ratings, where available, to compare tested models, and confirm the required homologation with your race or track-day organiser.

Model-by-model comparison

Independent Helmet Ratings

Certification establishes minimum requirements; these programmes compare the performance of specific helmets beyond a pass or fail. Start with SHARP for UK motorcycle models, then check the other programmes for the exact helmet and market you are considering.

SHARP — UK Motorcycling

SHARP was established in 2007 by the British Department for Transport after research (COST 327) revealed huge differences in real-world safety performance of available helmets. Its objective is to give clear, impartial advice on the relative safety performance of helmets. It rates helmets on a 1–5 star scale.

SHARP conducts 30 linear impact tests onto flat and kerb-shaped anvils, plus 2 oblique surface-friction tests. Their measured coefficient of friction contributes to calculated equivalent oblique results in the star score. The 8.5 m/s test speed corresponds to about 28% more kinetic energy than 7.5 m/s for the same test mass.

ECE 22.05 tests at 7.5 m/s (27 km/h). SHARP tests at 6.0, 7.5 and 8.5 m/s — covering low, standard and high-energy scenarios.

DfT is developing an updated protocol through the SHARP 2025 project. This page describes the protocol published by SHARP as of September 2026.

SHARP Test Matrix

Official example matrix; SHARP uses a minimum of seven helmet samples across a range of sizes.

#	Speed	Anvil	Test Site	Helmet Sample

Impact Zone Colour Code

Colours represent peak acceleration in SHARP's 8.5 m/s flat-anvil test. That is about 13% higher velocity than ECE 22.05's 7.5 m/s test, or about 28% more kinetic energy for the same test mass.

Colour	Peak Acceleration
	Up to 275 g — the ECE 22.05 test limit at 7.5 m/s
	Up to 300 g — British Standard limit, max for 5-star rating
	Up to 400 g
	Up to 420 g
	Up to 500 g
	In excess of 500 g

How SHARP Calculates a 5-Star Rating

32 linear and oblique impact tests are completed for each helmet model.
Coefficient of friction of the helmet shell is calculated using oblique impact test results.
Linear peak g and coefficient of friction are used to calculate the equivalent oblique peak g.
Peak g values are used to predict the risk of fatal injury for 30 linear and 15 oblique impacts.
"Importance" weighting for impact configuration is calculated using distributions of impact location, shape and speed.
Injury risks are weighted according to the impact configuration "importance".
Total risk for each helmet at each speed is calculated.
Exposure population is applied to the risk.
Final SHARP safety rating is assigned.

"Any helmets falling within the 5 Star rating band are subject to additional criteria; if the peak acceleration seen in any valid linear impact test performed against the flat anvil is equal to or greater than 300 g, the rating is modified to 4 Stars." — DfT: The Safety Helmet Assessment and Rating Programme – Procedure for calculating the SHARP safety rating

SHARP's published protocol uses shell-friction measurements to calculate equivalent oblique peak linear acceleration and includes those results in the star rating. It does not directly report or separately score measured headform rotational acceleration or velocity. The protocol and its treatment of oblique impacts have also been the subject of academic debate.

See the Further Reading section for links to the critical evaluation by Dr N.J. Mills and the DfT's published response.

→ Visit the SHARP website

Other Motorcycling Ratings

Australia · motorcycle

CRASH

Government-backed Consumer Rating and Assessment of Safety Helmets. Its model pages publish separate protection and comfort stars, including impact and oblique testing. Results are for Australian-market helmets. Explore CRASH helmet results ↗

France · motorcycle and cycling

Certimoov

Publishes model scores from 0–5 using straight and oblique impacts and a brain-injury model developed with the University of Strasbourg. Motorcycle scores do not assess chin or facial protection. Explore Certimoov results ↗

Cycling Ratings

Australia · cycling

Helmet STAR

Independent government-backed 1–5-star ratings for bicycle, mountain-bike and children's helmets. Testing includes linear and oblique impacts, coverage and retention. Explore Helmet STAR results ↗

United States · cycling

Virginia Tech Helmet Ratings

Searchable model ratings based on 24 impacts per helmet, measuring linear acceleration and rotational velocity. The STAR score estimates relative concussion risk under its test scenarios. Explore bicycle ratings ↗

United Kingdom · cycling

Hiper

Imperial College London's rating of 30 adult cycle helmets, using oblique impacts and estimated linear and rotational injury risk. Published ratings derive from 2022–23 testing. Explore Hiper ratings ↗

Sweden · cycling

Folksam

Recurring adult and children's helmet comparisons with straight and oblique impacts. Downloadable reports give model results; each test batch is compared within its own group. Explore Folksam helmet tests ↗

Certimoov also publishes cycling helmet results. Compare only the exact model, size and market version where possible. Each programme uses its own test method and scoring scale, so ratings from different programmes are not interchangeable. A missing result means that programme has not published a rating for that model; it is not a failure.

Buying Advice

Which Helmet?

The million dollar question — but if you've read through all of the above, you're beginning to realise it's not that simple.

Which Brand is the Best?

No brand name establishes the performance of every model it sells. Compare the exact helmet's certification, intended use, independent test result where available, fit and condition. Marketing claims about materials or named technologies are not substitutes for model-specific evidence.

Track and competition approval

Check the exact model and size against the organiser's current approval rules before buying. For ACU events, confirm the model appears on the applicable approval list and carries the required valid sticker.

How to Choose a New Helmet

Buying a new helmet is difficult. There are so many options and price gaps between upper and lower ends can be as much as £800.

Professional sponsorship and replica graphics do not establish that a retail helmet has the same construction or performance as race equipment. Check the certification label and independent result for the exact retail model.

Comfort and fit matter because they affect whether the helmet sits securely and can be worn correctly. Visibility, noise and ventilation also matter to usability, but they do not replace impact protection evidence.

So Which Helmet Should I Buy?

Start with helmets that fit securely, are comfortable and carry the approval required for your use. Within that set, compare the highest model-specific independent rating available within your budget.

For UK motorcycle helmets, SHARP provides an independent comparison for tested models. A missing SHARP result means the model has not been rated by the scheme; it is not a pass or fail.

What About Helmet Fit?

A helmet should make firm, even contact around your head and stay in place when you move or try to roll it, without pressure points, pain or red marks. Fasten the strap and wear it for several minutes before deciding. Follow SHARP's fit guide and the manufacturer's instructions.

What About Price?

Price alone is not a reliable measure of protection: lower-priced helmets can achieve high independent ratings, while price may also reflect finish, weight, noise control or features. Compare the exact model's certification and test results, then choose the one that fits correctly and suits the intended use.

Resources

ContactUs.

Have a question, found an error, or want to contribute information? We'd love to hear from you.

crashhats (at) ping (dot) me (dot) uk

Obfuscated to reduce spam — replace (at) with @ and (dot) with .

About this site

Crash Hats was created to educate motorcycle and cycling helmet buyers. All information is sourced from people in the helmet industry and publicly available research.

We have no commercial relationships with any helmet manufacturer, marketing company, or testing facility. All opinions are our own.

Find the SHARP database at sharp.dft.gov.uk to check ratings for specific helmets.