Edit: You read it faster than I could reply 
Yes, in the US if it's SNELL rated it's DOT approved. All helmets sold in the US for highway use have to be DOT approved. There are many other certifications. Europe has much better standards than we do.
If you read the link I posted you'll see why. SNELL isn't more stringent in a good way.
It's like having a standard for bandaid stickiness. If the adhesive is made out of crazy glue then it must be better than other bandaids on the market since it'll stick better, right? I think of it like crumple zones in a car. You're safer off with a crumple zone than the solid designs of old.
Here's are some quotes from the article:
What the Snell advocates won't tell you is that when these same makers sell their helmets in Europe, Japan and the U.K., they are not the same helmets they sell here, and they're not Snell rated. They are built softer, tailored to conform to exactly the same ECE or BSI standards as the European makers.
The killer?the hardest Snell test for a motorcycle helmet to meet?is a two-strike test onto a hemispherical chunk of stainless steel about the size of an orange. The first hit is at an energy of 150 joules, which translates to dropping a 5-kilo weight about 10 feet?an extremely high-energy impact. The next hit, on the same spot, is set at 110 joules, or about an 8-foot drop. To pass, the helmet is not allowed to transmit more than 300 Gs to the headform in either hit.
Tough tests such as this have driven helmet development over the years. But do they have any practical application on the street, where a hit as hard as the hardest single Snell impact may only happen in 1 percent of actual accidents? And where an impact as severe as the two-drop hemi test happens just short of never?
Dr. Jim Newman, an actual rocket scientist and highly respected head-impact expert?he was once a Snell Foundation director?puts it this way: "If you want to create a realistic helmet standard, you don't go bashing helmets onto hemispherical steel balls. And you certainly don't do it twice.
"Over the last 30 years," continues Newman, "we've come to the realization that people falling off motorcycles hardly ever, ever hit their head in the same place twice. So we have helmets that are designed to withstand two hits at the same site. But in doing so, we have severely, severely compromised their ability to take one hit and absorb energy properly.
"The consequence is, when you have one hit at one site in an accident situation, two things happen: One, you don't fully utilize the energy-absorbing material that's available. And two, you generate higher G loading on the head than you need to. "What's happened to Snell over the years is that in order to make what's perceived as a better helmet, they kept raising the impact energy. What they should have been doing, in my view, is lowering the allowable G force.
"In my opinion, Snell should keep a 10-foot drop [in its testing]. But tell the manufacturers, 'OK, 300 Gs is not going to cut it anymore. Next year you're going to have to get down to 250. And the next year, 200. And the year after that, 185.'"
The COST 327 results showed that some very serious and potentially fatal head injuries can occur at impact levels that stiffer current helmet standards?such as Snell M2000 and M2005?allow helmets to exceed.
And remember, these guys are investigating crashes in Europe, where Snell-rated helmets are a rarity because they can't generally pass the softer ECE standard required there.
Yes, in the US if it's SNELL rated it's DOT approved. All helmets sold in the US for highway use have to be DOT approved. There are many other certifications. Europe has much better standards than we do.
If you read the link I posted you'll see why. SNELL isn't more stringent in a good way.
It's like having a standard for bandaid stickiness. If the adhesive is made out of crazy glue then it must be better than other bandaids on the market since it'll stick better, right? I think of it like crumple zones in a car. You're safer off with a crumple zone than the solid designs of old.
Here's are some quotes from the article:
What the Snell advocates won't tell you is that when these same makers sell their helmets in Europe, Japan and the U.K., they are not the same helmets they sell here, and they're not Snell rated. They are built softer, tailored to conform to exactly the same ECE or BSI standards as the European makers.
The killer?the hardest Snell test for a motorcycle helmet to meet?is a two-strike test onto a hemispherical chunk of stainless steel about the size of an orange. The first hit is at an energy of 150 joules, which translates to dropping a 5-kilo weight about 10 feet?an extremely high-energy impact. The next hit, on the same spot, is set at 110 joules, or about an 8-foot drop. To pass, the helmet is not allowed to transmit more than 300 Gs to the headform in either hit.
Tough tests such as this have driven helmet development over the years. But do they have any practical application on the street, where a hit as hard as the hardest single Snell impact may only happen in 1 percent of actual accidents? And where an impact as severe as the two-drop hemi test happens just short of never?
Dr. Jim Newman, an actual rocket scientist and highly respected head-impact expert?he was once a Snell Foundation director?puts it this way: "If you want to create a realistic helmet standard, you don't go bashing helmets onto hemispherical steel balls. And you certainly don't do it twice.
"Over the last 30 years," continues Newman, "we've come to the realization that people falling off motorcycles hardly ever, ever hit their head in the same place twice. So we have helmets that are designed to withstand two hits at the same site. But in doing so, we have severely, severely compromised their ability to take one hit and absorb energy properly.
"The consequence is, when you have one hit at one site in an accident situation, two things happen: One, you don't fully utilize the energy-absorbing material that's available. And two, you generate higher G loading on the head than you need to. "What's happened to Snell over the years is that in order to make what's perceived as a better helmet, they kept raising the impact energy. What they should have been doing, in my view, is lowering the allowable G force.
"In my opinion, Snell should keep a 10-foot drop [in its testing]. But tell the manufacturers, 'OK, 300 Gs is not going to cut it anymore. Next year you're going to have to get down to 250. And the next year, 200. And the year after that, 185.'"
The COST 327 results showed that some very serious and potentially fatal head injuries can occur at impact levels that stiffer current helmet standards?such as Snell M2000 and M2005?allow helmets to exceed.
And remember, these guys are investigating crashes in Europe, where Snell-rated helmets are a rarity because they can't generally pass the softer ECE standard required there.
Facebook
Twitter