SS Brake lines

[crazy steve]

Those helmets are self certified by the helmet manufacturers who themselves state that the helmets meet DOT standards, DOT does NOT test or certify helmets EVER!

Actually, DOT does test helmets, but it's on a strictly random basis simply to check to see if 'representive' self-certified samples really do meet their standards; they don't test every model from every manufacturer. You can look here: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/testing/comply/fmvss218/ ... to see if yours was tested but if it's not it doesn't mean anything one way or the other.

[DGXSER]

Regarding all this chatter about DOT, the mfg is required to verify that their equipment meets the DOT established standard. Reality check here is that this is no different than pretty much every other component on your bike, car, or anything else you buy. Almost every thing you buy that is stated to meet a standard, with the exception of UL ratings, is only tested by that mfg and then stated if it meets the standard or not.

So while there is room for skepticism about the DOT sticker, or how to phrase the compliance, The application of the sticker is as good as it gets. As Steve stated, the DOT does test some helmets, and other components. IMHO, if the mfg tested their equipment to confirm it meets the DOT standards, then using the term "DOT Approved" is not misleading. Sure one can argue that the MFG could put that sticker on anything and never test or skew test results, reality of that is that the same could be true if DOT were doing the testing.

As to DOT vs Snell, HERE is the MSF info on it. Pretty much what I recall from my MSF Course.

[CaptonZap]

IMHO, if the mfg tested their equipment to confirm it meets the DOT standards, then using the term "DOT Approved" is not misleading. Sure one can argue that the MFG could put that sticker on anything and never test or skew test results, reality of that is that the same could be true if DOT were doing the testing.

.

That was my point. If the hose manufacturer says it is DOT approved, that would be as good as a helmet manufacturer saying its helmet is DOT approved.
And quibbling over who tested/didn't test it, approve/not approve it, strikes me as about the same as Slick Willy debating what the definition of "is, is".
Mostly indulged in by mall cops and unemployed geeks.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled arguments. CZ

[crazy steve]

The problem with 'DOT approved' items is there's little or no enforcement except at the federal level, and that's pretty much restricted to vehicle manufacturers, interstate trucking, and commercial passenger vehicles. The states take responsiblity for everything else and enforcement is spotty at best. Really what it all boils down to is by stating that a particular item is 'DOT approved', the seller and/or manufacturer is accepting legal liability if their product is proven to not meet that standard and that resulted in a loss and/or injury. But the burden for proving that is on whoever suffers the loss, and that's not easily done.

The UL label is a different deal; there is enforcement through local inspection agencies, and if a manufacturer gets caught 'cheating' there's very real consequences. Federal-Pacific was a major panelboard manufacturer that made a design change in their circuit breakers without UL notification or testing. They got away with it for a few years, but when finally tested and it failed, facing a recall of literally millions of breakers they went out of business. Cadet heaters had the same issue some years ago, and barely survived the repair/replacement of non-complying heaters.