Articles archive

• 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   (pdf version)
• Technical Brief by Dr. Randal Ching on Head Mass Versus Circumference  pdf
• Proceedings and Summary from the Medical College of Wisconsin-Snell meeting on HIC (Head Injury Criteria)
• StayinAlive "Use Your Head" article from Ability 2008
• Response to Motorcyclist Magazine "Blowing The Lid Off Article" (May 12, 2005)
• Technical Response to Motorcyclist Magazine "Blowing The Lid Off Article" (September 9, 2005)
• Review of 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 Testing Program.
  Information about the Snell certification and testing programs.
• Helmet Test and Development
  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 retention tests.
• 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 Injury Severity
  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 implemented.