Greybeard
Monkey Butt
Reged: 01/11/05
Posts: 7855
Loc: Charming Clovis NM
|
|
The sneaky part is the 'certified by us but we don't certify it' bit. The country would be a lot better off if the government was bound by the same product liability as everyone else.
--------------------
Pain is nature's way of saying, "We know where you live".
|
Soren
Should be Riding
Reged: 01/12/05
Posts: 12034
Loc: Beaverton, OR
|
|
Quote:
The sneaky part is the 'certified by us but we don't certify it' bit.
If there was a certification at all. DOT helmet certification does not exist. It is a standard, not a certification. It is misleading by manufacturers to say that a helmet is DOT "certified" rather than saying that their helmet meets DOT "standards".
Quote:
The country would be a lot better off if the government was bound by the same product liability as everyone else.
I completely agree. Except that in this case the government is not manufacturing anything, so, liability has to lie with the manufacturer.
If the DOT sticker actually meant that the helmet was certified by the government, instead of what it actually means (that the helmet is supposedly manufactured to meet DOT standards), then that would an entirely different scenario. For example: Snell is a certification. For a helmet to legally get a Snell certification sticker, it must be tested and passed by the Snell Foundation. If a helmet is certified by Snell and it actually does not meet the Snell certification requirements, then the liability falls with Snell and not the manufacturer. If a manufacturer places a Snell sticker on their helmets and it has not been tested by Snell or it failed the certification process, then the liability is with the manufacturer.
So, it actually isn't double speak at all. If a manufacturer wants to put a DOT sticker on their helmet, the NTHSA has a set of standards that a helmet must meet (or exceed) to be able to put that sticker on.
Soren
--------------------
•Triumph Connection
|
Greybeard
Monkey Butt
Reged: 01/11/05
Posts: 7855
Loc: Charming Clovis NM
|
|
Quote:
I completely agree. Except that in this case the government is not manufacturing anything, so, liability has to lie with the manufacturer.
Ah, but they do manufacture idiotic law and regulations, and huge quantities of BS and hot air. I would not be at all surprised if there were some study that found global warming was completely the result of the large, ever expanding, number of politicians in the world.
--------------------
Pain is nature's way of saying, "We know where you live".
|
Soren
Should be Riding
Reged: 01/12/05
Posts: 12034
Loc: Beaverton, OR
|
|
Quote:
I would not be at all surprised if there were some study that found global warming was completely the result of the large, ever expanding, number of politicians in the world.
I thought that was already a proven fact. 
Soren
--------------------
•Triumph Connection
|
Gregu710
Loquacious
Reged: 01/11/05
Posts: 3911
Loc: Longmont, Colorado
|
|
I have to agree with Soren on this. The DOT standard is basically a "Minimum Performance Spec", which when adhered to or tested to, should, in most circumstances, prevent head injuries. There are the equivalent of this type of Specification in every facet of our lives, in Germany, it's the DIN and TüV, which sets the minimum standard for ALL kinds of stuff, with regards to not only performance, but also standardisation, so that if I buy a Fastener or Connector that is DIN 912 for instance, from any supplier, it will work interchangably and up to a certain load rating in my application. Same goes for SAE here in the states, JASO in Japan, and CE in Europe. It is not intended to say "if you meet DOT, then it is perfect", but rather, sets the same bar for everyone to reach, but it is a MINIMUM bar. Snell was supposed to improve upon that, and some manufacuturers meet both, the idea being that if you also meet Snell, you not only meet the bare minimum required by NHTSA, but some higher performance level, and so are somewhat safer. They test with different methods to different levels, so are not exactly an apples to apples comparison. SO, don't take a DOT as a guarantee of performance or safety, because it isn't, it is a guideline, like OSHA, for trying to design better and safer products, based on a series of tests and their results. Are those results indicative of the real world. Maybe the real world with regard to some situations, but not all. There are always accidents that have circumstances no one can predict or test for. We are required all the time by our customers to test really outlandish circumstances, that we feel are not really applicable to the real world, and when we protest, or suggest alternatives, they have some test engineer who will say "Oh, this is what our data shows" or "this is what we feel will cause a failure in our vehicles" and totally disregard our experience.
|
ladisney
Loquacious
Reged: 01/12/05
Posts: 3165
Loc: Des Moines, Iowa, USA
|
|
There is no liability on the part of government employees or government bodies themselves due to the concept of Sovereign Immunity. Pretty much whatever they do they are immune to liability unless you can prove deliberate malfeasance. Incompetence is not sufficient. If they do something stupid and it kills people they cannot be held responsible.
--------------------
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
