| Headgear and Helmets
The article by Randy Swart in the November 2004 issue of SN titled “Headgear and Helmets” seriously lacks accuracy. The Snell Memorial Foundation has been testing and writing helmet standards since the late 1950s. The ANSI Z-90 committee wrote helmet standards starting in the 1960s.
These standards were well known to the author as he was part of the ANSI Z-90 committee and he participated in the drafting of the Z-90.4 standard.
The fallacious effort of rewriting helmet standards history to show only ASTM as the major standard drafting organization does not serve the integrity of ASTM well.
Claims of great thermal and weight differences between the DOT helmet and “other independent foundation” is inaccurate. Many DOT helmets are virtually identical in thermal and weight considerations with the “other independent foundation.”
Mr. Swart’s claims that the “other independent foundation” bicycle helmet standard was “very expensive” for manufacturers is a major exaggeration.
I would think ASTM would not tolerate tinkering with the truth and would want a clinically accurate report.
William Chilcott, Ph.D., P.E.
Retired member of ASTM F08.53
Author’s Response
Dr. Chilcott is a respected long-time member of the helmet standards community, and is the current secretary of the Snell Memorial Foundation. I have a great personal debt to Snell and one of its founders, the late Dr. George Snively, a pioneer in helmet standards who mentored me and many others in standards development. But this article was a description of the activities of F08.53 on Headgear and Helmets in a special issue of this magazine commemorating the 35th anniversary of Committee F08 on Sports Equipment and Facilities; it was never intended to be a comprehensive “helmet standards history.” The article’s subtitle was “ASTM Subcommittee Responds to Changing Activities and Perceptions.”
The reference to Snell was oblique because it was a small part of the background for why the subcommittee thought it should be active on two specific standards, and I did not want it to appear critical of an otherwise worthy organization. Certainly if the article had actually been a history of helmet standards, the Snell Foundation would have merited a starring role and a lot of laudatory coverage, as I have given it in other writings. However, for its scope, the subcommittee’s other officers and I believe the article was accurate and fair.
Randy Swart
Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
Letters to the Editor can be e-mailed to Editor in Chief Maryann Gorman or can be addressed to: Standardization News, ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., PO Box C700, W. Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959
|
