website describing the benefits of M2010, and how it compares
to other National standards
- Voluntary and Mandatory
Motorcycle Helmet Standards, by Edward Becker for the International
Motorcycle Conference (Cologne, German), October 2012 (pdf), presentation (pdf)
- Snell Certification and Enforcement Testing , August 28, 2011 (pdf)
Snell's response to
New York Time Article “Sorting Out Differences
in Helmet Standards”, September 24, 2009.
Snell Presention to
Motorcycle Training Instructors in Connecticut - March 2009
requires MS Powerpoint
by Dr. Randal Ching on Head Mass Versus Circumference
Proceedings and Summary from
the Medical College of Wisconsin-Snell meeting on HIC (Head Injury
StayinAlive "Use Your Head" article from Ability 2008
Response to Motorcyclist Magazine "Blowing The Lid Off Article" (May 12, 2005)
Response to Motorcyclist Magazine "Blowing The Lid Off Article" (September 9, 2005)
Pediatric Head and Neck Injury: Implications for Helmet Standards.
Summary of a Conference held at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
Implications of Testing, Policies and Methods Used in the Snell M2000
Information about the Snell certification and testing programs.
An Excerpt by Ed Becker From "Frontiers In Head And Neck Trauma -
Clinical and Biomechanical"
Bicycle Helmet Retention
Strength Test Procedures Comparison
Snell's new study comparing the CPSC and the Snell bicycle helmet
Injuries to Bicyclists
From a monograph by The Johns Hopkins Injury Prevention Center.
Snell vs DOT
Motorcycle helmet standards comparison in the United States.
Helmet Softness vs
Should bicycle helmet standards be rewritten to favor softer headgear
than those currently available?
Summary Report of
Harborview Helmet Studies
The largest study conducted to date on the circumstances of bicycle
injuries and the protective effect of helmets.
Bicycle Injury Data
From a monograph by the Johns Hopkins Injury Prevention Center.
Snell's response to CSA
Child Helmet Standard
The CSA amendment for children's bicycle helmets may be unnecessary and
burdensome to the industry and the public. Unless compelling evidence
can be assembled in its support, the amendment should not be