This is partly the basis of my doubts on the scheme too.

What may provide perfect protection for city commuters and scooter riders may be totally inadequate for a track day junkie, even those in the slow group. Most of us will seek out country roads for a nice Sunday ride out and you're looking at the closing speed of oncoming traffic being at least 100mph.

And lets not forget, it's only in recent years that a non-sportsbike has been able to break in to the top 5 best sellers in the UK, i.e. BMW GS, due to the "Ewan and Charley" phenomena. Maybe the scheme has chosen to ignore that but to sum up, we have a ratings system assessed at less than 20mph, where as the top 4 best sellers in the UK can all double the national speed limit with ease!

RIDE mag, unlike MCN, has no obvious affiliation with a helmet manufacturer and they use an impact speed of 120mph in their independent tests. Not realistic you may say but I see a regular indicated (and perfectly legal) 150mph+ on the autobahn's every time I go to Germany and that's with luggage and still accelerating. Some helmets (even the cheap ones) came off better in RIDE's tests, some worse, and yes, Arai did throw their toys out of the pram as expected. Whether you favour RIDE's or SHARP's results would depend on your definition of reasonable road use and being fit for purpose.

What is worrying is that if a helmet is capable of absorbing such a low speed impact so well and apparently so much better than an carbon or composite lid, are they able to retain these same characteristics after a minor drop, off a chair for example, or does the deformation (like a crumple zone) make the helmet unsafe? Like I've said before, I respect Neil's viewpoint but I think the tests leave a lot of questions unanswered. One thing is certain and that is more people will give more thought to their choice of helmet, whether they choose to trust the SHARP ratings or not. Do your own research before you buy and make an informed choice.