Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 89
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
EXHIBIT V-46 (Continued)
Strategy Attributes for Identifying and Promoting Visibility-Enhancement Methods and Technology
Training and Other Identifying and promoting visibility-enhancement methods and technology does not
Personnel Needs necessarily require training or additional agency personnel, but it does require
awareness of the conspicuity issues, knowledge of visibility-enhancement methods
and technology, a priority to address conspicuity issues, and a willingness to partner
with key stakeholders to begin the process of effecting change.
Legislative Needs Some states prohibit the use of pulsing auxiliary brake lights. Products that serve
to improve visibility and reduce the likelihood of crashes should be evaluated.
When appropriate, laws should be revised to promote these safety measures.
Other Key Attributes
Public education and information activities complement this strategy. Educational
materials may be required to inform those implementing this strategy of effective
treatment methods.
Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy
An Oregon law enforcement agency installed auxiliary LED brake light bars on their fleet
of police enforcement motorcycles. The LED lights flash to draw attention to the stopping
motorcycle. However, the state's Attorney General ruled that state law prohibits flashing
red lights for use in any circumstance other than on emergency vehicles where allowed. The
LED devices were removed. The state law was subsequently changed to allow such devices.
Objective 11.1 E--Reduce the Severity of Motorcycle Crashes
Strategy 11.1 E1--Increase the Use of FMVSS 218 Compliant Helmets (P)
General Description
The objective of this strategy is to reduce the severity of motorcycle crashes by increasing
the use of FMVSS 218 compliant helmets among motorcycle riders.1 When worn, helmets
are estimated to be 37 percent effective in preventing fatalities in crashes. Enactments of
universal helmet laws have consistently been associated with a 90- to 100-percent increase
in helmet usage, a 20- to 40-percent decrease in fatalities and fatality rates, and approximately
a 67-percent decrease in serious head and brain injuries. Universal helmet laws are the only
proven way to increase the use of FMVSS 218 compliant helmets. On the other hand, the
repeal or weakening of such laws has been associated with a 40- to 50-percent decline in
usage and a 20- to 100-percent increase in fatalities and serious injuries, particularly head
and brain injuries. These findings have been replicated over several cycles of legislative
activity, including two periods of law enactments (19661975 and 19901995) and two periods
of repeals (19771981 and 1996present).
1
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has developed and enforces Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 218 (FMVSS 218) which provides minimum performance requirements for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists.
V-74
OCR for page 90
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
Recently, there has been a decline in nationwide helmet usage, particularly from 2000 to 2006,
when compliant usage declined from 71 to 51 percent. Coupled with this decline, there has
been a dramatic increase in rider fatalities, which have more than doubled since 1995. While
factors other than declining helmet use have contributed to the increase in fatalities, state-
specific studies consistently show large and significant reductions in helmet use and
increases in fatalities and injuries associated with recently repealed or weakened universal
helmet laws. Thus, the potential for helmet use to ameliorate the negative impact of the other
factors contributing to the increase in motorcycle fatalities has not been realized during this
recent period of repeals and declining usage.
With regard to strategies for increasing helmet usage, there is compelling evidence regarding the
impact of universal helmet use laws but little or no evidence to suggest that partial laws or other
approaches have the potential to achieve high use rates.
In addition to declining helmet use, it appears that FMVSS 218 non-compliant helmets
are being worn with greater frequency in recent years. Because such helmets provide
no protection in a crash, they do not have fatality-reduction potential.2 Nationwide
non-compliant helmet use was observed to be between 13 and 15 percent in 2006, and
there is evidence that non-compliant use is higher in some universal helmet law states.
Thus, a second important objective of this strategy is to eliminate the use of non-compliant
helmets.
Helmet Effectiveness
Fact: Motorcycle helmets are effective in reducing fatalities and injuries, particularly serious head
injuries.
A 1991 study, conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office (U.S. GAO, 1991)3 found that:
· Helmets were 28- to 29-percent effective in reducing fatalities. Helmeted riders suffered
fewer serious and critical injuries because of a lower incidence of head injuries.
· Fatality rates among helmeted riders involved in crashes were 32- to 73-percent lower
than among non-helmeted riders (median: 55 percent).
More recent studies based on CODES data4 reported that:
· Helmets are 35-percent effective in reducing fatalities and 26-percent effective in reducing
serious injuries (Johnson and Walker, 1996).
· Helmets are about 65-percent effective in preventing brain injuries (NHTSA, 1998).
· Unhelmeted riders are three times more likely to have head injuries requiring EMS trans-
port or hospitalization or resulting in death (Finison, 2001).
2
In 2006, the last year for which such data were available, there was no significant difference in non-compliant helmet usage
between states with universal helmet laws and those with partial or repealed laws.
3
More recently called the U.S. General Accountability Office.
4
The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) links data from police crash reports, emergency medical services,
hospital emergency departments, hospital discharge files, claims and other sources. States are funded by NHTSA to link
statewide crash and injury data. The purpose of the linkage is to find out who is injured in motor vehicle crashes, what types
of injuries occur, and how much it cost to treat these injuries over time.
V-75
OCR for page 91
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
Most recently, a 2004 study of FARS data (Deutermann, 2004)5 concluded that:
· The effectiveness of helmets against fatalities was 37 percent, an increase from 29 percent in
the late 1980s, likely associated with improvements in helmet design and materials.6
Myth: Motorcycle helmets increase the incidence of neck injuries.
Fact: Research has refuted these claims. Studies that have examined this issue have found fewer head
and neck injuries among helmeted riders than among non-helmeted riders.7
Myth: Motorcycle helmets cause crashes by restricting the operator's field of vision or by inhibiting a
rider's ability to hear warning signals
Fact: Research has consistently found such claims to be untrue.8 The most recent in a series of studies
concluded that wearing motorcycles helmets does not restrict a rider's ability to hear auditory signals
or see a vehicle in an adjacent lane (McKnight and McKnight, 1994).
As a result of the compelling evidence of the safety benefits of helmet use, the National
Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS) concluded that:
· In the event of a crash, no existing strategy or safety equipment offers protection comparable to a
FMVSS 218 compliant helmet (NHTSA, 2000).
Strategies to Increase Helmet Usage
Conceptually, strategies to increase helmet usage can be dichotomized into mandatory and
educational approaches. Within the mandatory approach, there have been universal helmet laws,
which require use among all age groups and under all conditions; and there have been partial
helmet laws, which generally require use only among riders under age 21 or under age 18.9
Effectiveness of Universal Helmet Laws
Fact: Observed usage among riders in universal helmet law states is 60- to 100-percent greater than
in other states. Examples include:
· Thirteen years of observations in 19 U.S. cities documented that motorcycle operator
usage averaged about 96 percent in states with universal helmet laws and 45 percent in
all other states.10
5
FARS refers to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a census of all
crash-related fatalities occurring on public roadways.
6
According to the 2004 report, one of the more significant improvements in helmet material has been the use of Kevlar,
expanded polypropylene, and carbon fiber in helmet shells and linings.
7
These studies included Newman (1974), Nebraska Dept. of Public Roads (1975), Carr, Brandt and Swanson (1981), Hurt et al.
(1981), Kelley et al. (1989), Sakar, Peek, and Kraus (1995), and Rowland et al. (1996).
8
Early research included studies by Gordon and Prince (1975), Henderson (1975), Van Moorhem et al. (1977), Lummis and
Dugger (1980), and by Hurt et al. (1981).
9
Some states also have other provisions or contingencies, such as having a minimum of $10,000 in medical insurance.
10
Data collected in 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982 were from surveys conducted by Opinion Research Corp. and reported
by Phillips (1980 and 1983). Data collected from 1983 through 1991 were from surveys conducted by Goodell Grivas Inc.
They included the following years of data and reports: 1983 use rates (Perkins, Cynecki, and Goryl, 1984); 1984 use rates
(Goryl and Cynecki, 1985); 1985 use rates (Goryl, 1986); 1986 use rates (Goryl and Bowman, 1987); 198788 use rates
(Bowman and Rounds, 1988 and 1989); and 198991 use rates (Datta and Guzek, 1990, 1991, and 1992).
V-76
OCR for page 92
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
· The 2006 National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) found 83-percent helmet
use overall in states with universal helmet laws and 50-percent use in all other states.11
· In addition to these survey results, at least 19 studies conducted in individual states have
shown this large difference in observed usage between states with universal helmet laws
and other states, leading the U.S. General Accounting Office to conclude that helmet use is
consistently higher under universal helmet laws (U.S. GAO, 1991).
Fact: Helmet usage among crash-involved riders in states with universal helmet laws is generally twice
the rate of usage among such high-risk riders in states with partial helmet laws and no helmet laws.
· Results from the GAO review show usage among crash-involved riders in universal helmet
law states to be more than twice the usage among such riders in partial helmet law
states. Median usage rates were 95 and 42 percent, respectively.
Fact: When a universal helmet law is enacted (or re-enacted), observed usage generally doubles and
fatalities decline by 20 to 40 percent. Examples include:
· In Louisiana, following a 1982 re-enactment, observed usage increased from 50 to
96 percent (McSwain, and Willey, 1984).12 Following a subsequent downgrade in 1999,
usage again declined to 50 percent (Ulmer and Preusser, 2003).
· Texas twice enacted and twice repealed its universal helmet law. Usage increased from
50 to 95 percent with its initial law in 1968, then declined to below 45 percent following a
repeal in 1977 (Lund et al., 1991). Usage increased for a second time, to near 100 percent
following a 1989 universal helmet law re-enactment, then fell to 66 percent following a
1997 repeal (Preusser, Hedlund, and Ulmer, 2000). Two studies suggested that the 1989
re-enactment was associated with a 55-percent reduction in serious head-related injuries
(Mounce et al., 1992, Fleming and Becker, 1992).
· In California, usage increased from 50 to 99 percent following enactment of a universal
helmet law in 1992. Fatalities declined by 37 percent and the fatality rate (per registered
motorcycle) declined by 26 percent (Kraus et al., 1994; 1995b). Another study found that
the average annual number of rider fatalities was 54 percent lower in the 5 years after the
law than in the 5 years prior to the law (Ulmer and Preusser, 2003), providing evidence
of a long-term impact of the law.
· In Maryland, a 1992 re-enactment was followed by a 42-percent decline in average
annual fatalities (5 years before the law versus 5 years after the law), based on autopsy
reports (Mitchell et al., 2001).13
Fact: Partial helmet laws, resulting from downgrades of universal helmet laws, are associated with
large declines in observed usage (by as much as 50 percent), declines in usage among crash-involved
riders (of about 40 percent), and by increases in fatalities. Examples include:
· The 1980 Report to Congress, which reviewed all studies prior to 1980, reported that
repeals or downgrades were followed by 50-percent declines in observed usage14 and
11
Usage rates include 15 percent non-compliant use in universal law states and 13 percent non-compliant use in other states.
12
Note that the Louisiana law was again repealed in 1999 resulting in another decline from near 100 percent usage to about
50 percent usage (Ulmer and Preusser, 2003).
13
After the 5-year post-law period, fatalities increased in Maryland, as they did nationwide (Ulmer and Preusser, 2003).
14
These results are identical to those of the 19-cities surveys conducted throughout the 1980s.
V-77
OCR for page 93
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
declines of more than 40 percent in usage among crash-involved riders (from near 90 to
50 percent).15
More recently, universal helmet laws have been repealed in Arkansas and Texas (1997),
Kentucky (1998), Louisiana (1999), Florida (2000), and Pennsylvania (2003). Evaluations
have been conducted in nearly all of these states. These evaluations found:16
· Significant declines in observed usage, from pre-repeal levels of 95 to 100 percent to
post-repeal levels of 50 to 60 percent.17
· A 35-percent median decline in usage among crash-involved riders in Arkansas, Texas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, and Florida, from 60- to 93-percent usage under universal helmet
laws to 30- to 60-percent usage after repeals.
· More importantly, a median 50-percent increase in fatalities (range: 20 to 100 percent).
Fatalities per registered motorcycle increased as well.
Fact: Usage among young riders covered by partial helmet laws is substantially lower under such
laws than under universal helmet laws. Examples include:
· In Texas, only 29 percent of injured riders under age 18 were found to be helmeted
under a partial helmet law (U.S. GAO, 1991).
· In North Dakota, only 44 percent of young riders involved in crashes were helmeted
under a partial helmet law (Heilman et al., 1982).
· A 2000 downgrade in Florida was associated with a 26-percent decline in usage among
young riders killed, along with nearly a 200-percent increase in fatalities among such
riders (Ulmer and Shabanova-Northrup, 2005).
Myth: Changes in fatalities associated with universal helmet law enactments or repeals are the result
of changes in motorcycle registrations, rather than a result of the law changes.
Facts: During some time periods, such as when there are large changes in registrations, some of the
changes in fatalities have been associated with increases or decreases in motorcycle registrations.
Many studies have controlled for such changes by reporting impact in terms of fatalities per registered
motorcycle and by comparing changes in state rates (post-law versus pre-law and/or state versus
national changes in rates).
These studies show substantial increases in usage associated with universal helmet law enactments,
despite downward trends nationwide, and they show large and significant reductions in fatality rates,
compared with national trends. Examples include:
· Eight GAO-reviewed studies showed a median 33-percent reduction in fatalities per reg-
istered motorcycle under universal helmet laws, compared with pre-enactment periods
(range: 20 percent to 58 percent).
15
These early studies included Krane and Winterfield (1980) and Struckman-Johnson and Ellingstad (1979).
16
These studies included: Preusser et al. (2000); Ulmer and Preusser (2003); Muller (2004); and Ulmer and Shabanova-
Northrup (2005).
17
The high rate of use in Florida, prior to repeal, included a substantial percent of riders wearing non-compliant helmets.
V-78
OCR for page 94
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
· Twelve GAO-reviewed studies showed a median 35-percent lower rate of fatalities per
registered motorcycle under universal helmet laws, compared with subsequent repeal or
downgrade periods (range: 12 to 62 percent).
It should be noted that, as a result of these findings, the GAO reviewers concluded that
"Congress may wish to consider encouraging states to enact and retain universal helmet
laws; and that . . . this could be accomplished via the use of penalties, incentives, or a
combination of the two" (U.S. GAO, 1991, page 31).
More recent studies of enactments have also controlled for changes in registrations.
For example:
· Following the California enactment, fatalities declined by 37 percent and the rate of fatalities
per registered motorcycle declined by 26 percent (Kraus et al., 1994).
· The 1989 universal helmet law re-enactment in Nebraska was accompanied by a sharp
decline in the number and rate of injuries per registered motorcycle (Muelleman et al., 1991).
Similarly, recent studies of repeals or downgrades have found that:18
· The 1998 repeal in Kentucky was followed by a 38-percent increase in fatalities per registered
motorcycle.
· The 1999 repeal in Louisiana was followed by a 75-percent increase in fatalities per registered
motorcycle.
· The 2000 repeal in Florida was followed by a 21-percent increase in fatalities per registered
motorcycle.
Thus, while some change in fatalities (and injuries) can be explained by changes in registrations,
large and significant changes are also associated with law changes.
Nationwide Changes in Fatalities, Registrations, and Fatality Rates Since 1975
The number of registered motorcycles has generally increased over time. As indicated, these
changes are important when considering the impact on fatalities and injuries associated with
helmet legislation. Following are trends in rider fatalities, motorcycle registrations, and
fatalities per registered motorcycle since 1975 (when initial repeals began):
· 19751980 (26 repeals): Registered motorcycles increased by 20 percent, fatalities increased
by 55 percent, and fatalities per registered motorcycle increased by about 35 percent.
· 19811990 (little change in laws). Registrations declined by 20 percent, fatalities declined
by 25 percent, and fatalities per registered motorcycle declined by about 5 percent.
· 19901994 (modest number of enactments). Registrations declined by 20 percent, rider fatalities
declined by 26 percent, and fatalities per registered motorcycle declined by 12 percent.
· 1995 to 2005 (modest number of repeals): Registered motorcycles increased by 60 percent,
fatalities doubled, and fatalities per registered motorcycle increased by 28 percent.
18
These data come from studies conducted by Ulmer and Preusser (2003).
V-79
OCR for page 95
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
EXHIBIT V-47
Motorcycle Rider Fatality Rates by Legislative Phase
EXHIBIT V-48
Motorcycle Fatalities, Registrations, Mileage, and Fatality Rates (2-Year Intervals)
Number of MC Number of Registered Number of Fatalities
Legislative Phase Year Rider Fatalities Motorcycles (1,000s) Per 100K MCs
Initial Repeals 1976 3,312 4,933 67.1
1978 4,577 4,868 94.0
1980 5,144 5,694 90.3
Little Activity 1982 4,453 5,754 77.4
1984 4,608 5,480 84.1
1986 4,566 5,262 86.7
1988 3,662 4,584 79.9
Re-Enact 1990 3,244 4,259 76.2
1992 2,395 4,065 58.9
1994 2,320 3,757 62.4
Repeals And Downgrades 1996 2,161 3,872 55.8
1998 2,294 3,879 59.1
2000 2,897 4,346 66.7
2002 3,270 5,004 65.4
2004 4,028 5,781 69.7
2005 4,553 6,227 73.1
Summary of Effectiveness: Universal and Partial Helmet Laws
· There is strong evidence of the effectiveness of universal helmet laws in that they are associated
with large and significant increases in usage and declines in fatalities, fatality rates, injuries
(particularly head and brain injuries), and reduced medical costs.
· Partial helmet laws have been shown to be ineffective in maintaining high usage rates; these
repeals or downgrades to universal helmet laws have been associated with substantial declines in
usage (observed and among crash-involved riders) and with increases in fatalities and injuries.
V-80
OCR for page 96
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
As a result of these facts, in September 2007, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
has recently issued a recommendation that all states with partial or no helmet laws enact a
universal helmet law to increase helmet use and decrease fatalities and serious injuries.
Costs Associated with Helmet Non-Use
Fact: Repeals of universal laws have consistently been followed by substantial declines in usage
(observed and among crash-involved riders) and increases in serious head and brain injuries. As such,
these law changes have also been followed by increased costs associated with such injuries.
· The most common finding is that crashes involving non-helmeted riders result in more
serious head and brain injuries and that these injuries are generally the most expensive
to treat.
· The costs associated with brain injuries range from $42,000 to more than $1.4 million
per injured rider, depending upon the seriousness of the injury and the range of costs
included (Zaloshnja et al., 2004).
· The 1998 CODES study found helmets to be 65 percent effective in reducing brain
injuries (NHTSA, 1998).
Fact: Studies that have looked at the impact of universal helmet laws on costs have generally concluded
that enactment (or re-enactment) of such a law significantly reduces head and brain injuries and total
costs incurred by riders involved or injured in crashes.
For example, a critical review of this literature entitled, Costs of Injuries Resulting from Motorcycle
Crashes found that:
· Helmet use reduced the fatality rate, the probability and severity of head injuries, the
cost of medical treatment, the length of hospital stay, the necessity for special medical
treatments (including ventilation, intubation, and follow-up care), and the probability
of long-term disability (Lawrence et al., 2003).
In addition, this review found that:
· Slightly more than one-half of motorcycle crash victims had private health insurance
coverage.
· For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs were paid by govern-
ment sources.
Costs and Barriers Associated with Universal Helmet Laws
The actual costs associated with enacting universal helmet laws are minimal, particularly in
comparison with the cost-savings associated with reductions in fatalities and injuries.
However, while the effectiveness and benefits associated with universal helmet laws are
large and consistent, the barriers to enacting such laws have become formidable as well.
Some motorcycle rider groups oppose such laws on the grounds that they violate personal
freedoms. These groups have, in the past, mounted organized campaigns for the elimination
of such laws.
V-81
OCR for page 97
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
If a state proposes a universal helmet law, it can be expected that some rider groups will
work hard to oppose it. In addition to the issue of personal freedom, it is likely that such
groups will again raise issues regarding helmet causation of neck injuries, restricted vision,
and diminished ability to hear warning sounds, issues that have not been supported in the
research literature.19
On the other hand, public support for universal helmet laws is strong. The 2000 Motor
Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey (MVOSS), the last MVOSS that surveyed this issue, found
that just over 80 percent of the public supported a universal helmet law. Support was lower
(51 percent) among current or recent riders of motorcycles (NHTSA, 2006a).
In spite of objections by some riders, it is clear that helmet use and universal helmet laws
have been proven to reduce motorcycle head injuries, fatalities, and associated costs. From
an evidence-based perspective, a recent review of Countermeasures That Work found
universal helmet laws to be the only proven effective strategy for increasing helmet use
(GHSA, 2007).
Elements of a Strategy to Enact Universal Helmet Laws
Work with Motorcycle Rider Organizations. Enacting or re-enacting a universal helmet law will
likely face stiff opposition from some rider organizations. It is important to work with such
organizations, to the extent possible, to convince them of the proven life-saving and injury-
prevention potential of such laws. That will likely be a difficult task but every effort should
be made.
Form Broad-based Coalitions. Nearly all successful efforts to enact universal helmet laws have
involved broad-based coalitions that have included law enforcement, insurance, medical,
public health, advocacy and safety organizations.
Hire Someone to Coordinate Your Campaign. Opposition to universal helmet laws is strong and
very well-organized. In order to present your case and convince a sufficient number of
legislators to vote for your bill, you must also be well-organized and have someone to spear-
head the activity. This will require the coordination of support and resources from many
potential allies and advocates.
Gain Bipartisan Support in the State Legislature. Many successful coalitions have been able to
gain sponsors from both parties.
Use Paid Lobbyists. It is important to enlist the services of paid lobbyists. They understand the
dynamics of the legislature and they have existing relationships, usually among both parties.
Gain the Support of the Governor and His/Her Staff. This is a critical element in efforts to obtain
a universal helmet law. There have been cases where such legislation has been enacted but
the Governor failed to sign it and there have been examples where such laws have been
repealed but the repeal was vetoed by the Governor. Work with the Governor's staff early to
make sure they understand the strength of the evidence in support of such a law, public
opinion with regard to such laws, the costs associated with helmet non-use and the cost-
savings associated with helmet use.
19
At the end of this section there are links to websites representing some of the groups and arguments in support of and oppo-
sition to universal helmet laws.
V-82
OCR for page 98
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
Conduct Public Opinion Polls. Measure the support for a universal helmet law. This may help
to convince legislators that the vast majority of the public supports universal helmet laws.
Conduct Evaluations and Cost-Savings Analyses. It is important to understand and be able
to communicate the current status of usage rates (observed and among crash-involved
and injured motorcycle riders), fatalities, injuries (particularly severe head injuries), and
costs associated with existing law and to predict likely changes if a universal helmet law
is enacted.
Make Use of Existing Resources. Many organizations have conducted research and developed
materials to aid advocates of universal helmet laws. Make use of these organizations, their
websites, and the materials that they have developed.
Increasing Helmet Use Through Education
Conceptually, an alternative strategy for increasing motorcycle helmet usage is to communicate
the benefits of helmet use to riders and rider groups and to promote use of FMVSS 218
compliant helmets.
The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NHTSA, 2000) for example, states that, "All
motorcyclists should choose to wear protective apparel because they understand that such
apparel can reduce injuries in a crash. All motorcyclists should want to wear FMVSS 218
compliant helmets while riding to reduce head trauma resulting from a crash."
Effectiveness of Strategies to Increase Helmet Use Through Education
Evidence to Support the Potential for Impact. We found no research to suggest that riders
will voluntarily choose to use safety helmets, regardless of the frequency or type of
messages communicated to them, particularly messages regarding safety benefits. Such
benefits have been known for more than 60 years and they have been communicated to
motorcycle riders.
Efforts to Increase Seat Belt Use Through Education. Experience with safety belt usage provides
some interesting parallels. Prior to 1984, when the first safety belt use law was enacted, more
than 20 years of efforts to promote safety belt usage had little or no impact.20 Usage
remained well below 30 percent in any community that implemented a comprehensive
communications effort. The most publicized examples were:
· In Oakland County, Michigan, where a campaign consisting of print, radio, and televi-
sion ads increased usage (temporarily) from 18 to 21 percent (Oakland County Traffic
Improvement Association, 1969)
· In Southeast Michigan, where a $900,000 media campaign was associated with an
increase in usage from 12 to 17 percent (Motorists Information Inc., 1978)
20
This was also the case in more than 20 foreign nations, including Australia, Canada, and several European nations, including
France, Germany, Great Britain, etc. In several of these countries extensive multi-year public information and education efforts
were mounted, sometimes with expensive paid media campaigns and incentive programs. None of these nations was able to
attain a usage rate greater than 40 percent until a mandatory safety belt use law was enacted. After such enactment, usage
immediately increased to 7090 percent in nearly every case (Nichols, 2002).
V-83
OCR for page 99
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
· In California, public service campaigns in three moderate-size towns resulted in no sig-
nificant increase in safety belt usage (Fleischer, 1973)
· Another controlled evaluation of an extensive cable television campaign in New York
resulted in no measured impact on safety belt usage (Robertson et al., 1974)
At the national level, an intensive, 5-year program to promote safety belt usage was
implemented by NHTSA in 1980. This effort included a multi-million dollar outreach
and education effort, involving scores of national organizations, to educate targeted
constituencies about the benefits of safety belt use. It also included one of the most popular
and widely known public-service media campaigns ever implemented in the United States,
the "Vince and Larry" crash dummy campaign. Outreach efforts, media campaigns, and
incentive programs were implemented in many states and communities as well. As a
result of these efforts, national safety belt usage increased by three percentage points
(from 11 percent in 1979 to 14 percent in 1984), as measured by NHTSA's 19-city surveys
(Nichols, 2002). At the time, these same surveys were documenting decreases in motorcycle
helmet usage associated with law repeals and they were finding the large and significant
differences in usage in states with universal helmet laws, compared to states with partial
helmet laws and states with no helmet laws.
The single greatest benefit from the 19801984 media and outreach campaign may have
been that it facilitated the enactment of safety belt laws. Whether or not that was the case,
extensive nationwide lobbying for such laws began in 1985, and by 1992, 43 states and the
District of Columbia had enacted a safety belt law. National usage increased rapidly and
did not return to pre-law levels. In fact, subsequent media and high visibility enforcement
campaigns have resulted in sustained increases in national usage to over 80 percent, with
some states exceeding 90 percent.
Costs and Barriers to Increasing Helmet Use through Education
The primary barrier to promoting helmet use through education is the fact that there is no
research-based evidence, domestically or internationally, that such a strategy is effective. In
fact, based on research and experience in other areas of safety, there are consistent
indications that a public education campaign, based on some combination of media,
education, and incentives, would not significantly increase helmet usage.
Another barrier is cost. Any comprehensive media campaign would likely involve repeated
waves of media, education, and outreach with (per wave) costs of about 3 to 6 cents per capita
for paid advertising alone (based on current Click It or Ticket campaigns in various states).
That would translate to $10 to 20 million per wave and, unless such a campaign was
designed to support enforcement of a universal helmet law, existing evidence suggests that
it would not have a significant impact on usage.
Should a public education campaign be undertaken, the following elements should be
included:
· Safety organizations and agencies could partner with the motorcycle community to promote
knowledge of helmet effectiveness (and of universal helmet law effectiveness). It is
important that all motorcyclists understand how FMVSS 218 helmets perform to protect
them from injury.
V-84
OCR for page 100
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
· Additionally, it may be important to convey that helmets provide comfort from exposure
to the elements (e.g., sun, wind, rain, temperature extremes, wind-borne insects and
debris, etc.), thus allowing riders to concentrate more on the task of riding than on
discomforts or distractions.
· A public information effort should also address common myths regarding the dangers of
FMVSS 218 helmet use (i.e., helmets cause neck injury, restrict vision and hearing), and
inform riders about the lack of protection afforded by non-compliant helmets.
In the end, however, unless such a campaign increases support for enactment of universal helmet
laws, it is unlikely that it will have any significant impact on the use of safety helmets, particularly
among riders most likely to be involved in a potentially fatal crash.
Improve Effectiveness of Enforcing Helmet Standard FMVSS 218
Fact: Surveys suggest that there has been an increase in the use of helmets that are not compliant with
the current FMVSS 218 helmet standard (Peek-Asa et al., 1999; Turner and Hagelin, 2000).
· Non-compliant helmets, sometimes referred to as novelty or `beanie-style' helmets, are
intended to give the appearance that the rider is wearing a compliant helmet, thereby
minimizing the chances of being stopped for a universal helmet law violation.
· Many non-compliant helmets carry a fake DOT label, but they do not comply with the
FMVSS 218 standard due to minimal coverage area, lack of impact-absorbing material,
and inadequate retention systems.
· At the present time, it is not clear how prevalent such helmets are among crash-
involved riders.
Fact: Non-compliant helmets make enforcement of universal helmet laws more complicated.
· While some resources have been provided to help law enforcement officers identify non-compliant
helmets, more needs to be done.
· Because of difficulties in such identification and in the interpretation of FMVSS 218, which is
an engineering standard, some law enforcement agencies have reduced their level of enforce-
ment of universal helmet laws.
· While non-compliant helmets may be obvious to the trained eye, providing proof that a
helmet is non-compliant in court can be difficult.
Possible Strategy Components
· NHTSA is currently working with appropriate national, state, and local law enforcement
organizations to train law enforcement officers to identify noncompliant helmets while
also developing training for judges and prosecutors to adjudicate universal helmet law
violations.
· NHTSA is currently preparing a proposed revision to the FMVSS labeling requirement
to strengthen the enforceability of the standard. The objective is to enable officers to
distinguish and provide evidence of non-compliance more readily.
V-85
OCR for page 101
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
· All stakeholders should work with the U.S. Department of Transportation to develop
strategies to ensure that all helmets offered for sale meet the FMVSS 218 standard.
· Another strategy component would be for interested stakeholders, in cooperation with
NHTSA and motorcycle helmet manufacturers, to develop a comprehensive and regularly
updated list of FMVSS 218 compliant motorcycle helmets. This list could be available through
the Internet as a tool for enforcement, consumers, training providers, and other groups
seeking information on compliant helmets.
EXHIBIT V-49
Strategy Attributes for Increasing the Use of FMVSS 218 Compliant Helmets
Technical Attributes
Target The targets of this strategy include all stakeholders in efforts to increase motorcycle
helmet use and thus reduce fatalities, injuries, and costs associated with motorcycle
crashes. These targets include, but are not limited to, state agencies; public and
private sector organizations; medical, public health, and safety advocacy groups;
insurance companies; enforcement entities; motorcycle operators and their
passengers; the motorcycle industry; and the motorcycle safety and rider training
community.
Expected Effectiveness The effectiveness of FMVSS 218 compliant helmets in reducing head injuries is
proven and the implementation of a universal helmet law has consistently been
shown to increase helmet usage to nearly 100 percent and to reduce fatalities by
20-40 percent (U.S. GAO, 1991).
Enforceable legislation requiring the use of FMVSS 218 Compliant Helmets is the
only proven means of increasing use of such helmets. Legislation and its effects
on usage have been proven to reduce motorcycle fatalities when enacted, and to
increase fatalities when such legislation in place is repealed. Specifically, recent
universal helmet laws enacted or re-enacted in California, Maryland, Nebraska, and
Washington have provided evidence of the impact of such laws. Recent repeals in
Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida have again shown that repeal
or downgrading of such laws results in significant reductions in usage among
motorcyclists on the road and in crashes and a significant increase in fatalities.
There is no comparable body of research evidence of the potential for educational
strategies to increase helmet use or therefore to reduce fatalities and injuries
associated with increased helmet use. Such strategies have been tried but are
unproven.
Keys to Success Success should be viewed as the increased usage of FMVSS 218 compliant
helmets by riders of all ages and skill levels and associated reductions in fatalities,
injuries, and costs.
One important factor that could contribute to success in this area is to involve the
motorcycle rider and safety community in the development and implementation of
this strategy and to make riders aware of the positive benefits of wearing a FMVSS
218 compliant helmet and of the evidence supporting the effectiveness of universal
helmet laws.
Other important components include: formation of a broad-based coalition including
the enforcement community; hiring someone to coordinate the campaign; obtaining
bipartisan support in the legislature; enlisting the aid of a paid lobbyist; working with the
Governor and his/her staff to obtain their support; conducting public opinion polls,
evaluations, and cost analyses; and making maximum use of existing resources.
V-86
OCR for page 102
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
EXHIBIT V-49 (Continued)
Strategy Attributes for Increasing the Use of FMVSS 218 Compliant Helmets
Potential Difficulties Universal helmet laws are unpopular with some segments of the motorcycle riding
community and these segments have made such laws very divisive and contentious
issues. Where universal helmet laws exist, some motorcycle rider groups can be
expected to campaign for their elimination. Similarly, when a state proposes a
universal helmet law, opposition to such a law by these groups is immediate and
well coordinated.
In spite of their opposition, efforts should be made to work with the motorcycling
community in any universal helmet law initiative. Although working relationships
may be difficult in states where current universal helmet laws exist and where the
rider groups are actively engaged in repeal or downgrade legislation, efforts should
continue to gain the respect, understanding, and support from as broad a segment
of that community as is possible.
An apparently emerging problem involves the difficulty of enforcing the use of
FMVSS 218 compliant helmets. Law enforcement officers often cannot determine
if a helmet is indeed non-compliant and courts are sometimes unable to conclude
whether a helmet complies with the standard. When this occurs, violations are
frequently dismissed.
Appropriate Measures There are several important measures of effectiveness of any program intended
and Data to increase FMVSS 218 compliant helmet usage. The first is the percent of riders
using such helmets, the second is the frequency and severity of head injuries
among motorcycle riders and passengers involved in crashes, and the third is the
number and rate of fatalities (per licensed motorcycle and/or per vehicle miles
traveled). As with other occupant protection strategies, the "bottom-line" objective
is a reduction in fatalities and injuries.
Efforts to promote helmet usage should be held to the same standards and
measures as those described above. The bottom-line is the same for any strategy
or approach.
Associated Needs NHTSA is currently working with appropriate national, state, and local law
enforcement organizations to train law enforcement officers to identify non-
compliant helmets while also developing training for judges and prosecutors
to adjudicate universal helmet law violations. However, this task will prove
challenging. Enforcing universal helmet laws that reference or incorporate
FMVSS 218 has been difficult for local and state law enforcement officers.
Law enforcement officers find it challenging to prove a helmet is non-compliant
under state law due to the accessibility of counterfeit DOT stickers. NHTSA will
continue to provide technical assistance to states, when requested, with regard
to legislation and laws relating to compliant helmet use.
NHTSA is also considering amending FMVSS 218 to address the falsification of
helmet certifications resulting from the non-specific labeling requirements of the
motorcycle helmet standard. NHTSA is also planning to implement an outreach
program directed at motorcycle helmet manufacturers.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, To the extent possible, all key stakeholders should be involved in any universal
Institutional and helmet law initiative. This includes motorcycle rider groups; law enforcement;
Policy Issues insurance; the motorcycle and helmet industries; and medical, public health,
advocacy, employer, youth, and safety organizations.
V-87
OCR for page 103
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
EXHIBIT V-49 (Continued)
Strategy Attributes for Increasing the Use of FMVSS 218 Compliant Helmets
Issues Affecting Depending on the magnitude of opposition, the time required to enact universal
Implementation Time helmet legislation can be extensive. When such legislation is enacted, however,
benefits are immediate and substantial.
There is no known timetable for implementing a successful program to promote
helmet usage because there is no documented history of success with such efforts.
Based on efforts with safety belts, acceptably high usage will not be obtained until
strong and unambiguous laws are enacted and enforced.
Costs Involved The costs associated with enacting a universal helmet law include lobbying, whether
paid or donated by stakeholders, law enforcement training, and costs for evaluating
the impact of the law change. Other potential costs could include a public information
campaign to inform riders about the new law.
A public information campaign, implemented to publicize a law or its enforcement,
or to make the public aware of the benefits of helmet use, can be implemented at
different levels, using different combinations of broadcast, cable, print, or outdoor
advertising and/or coupled with other actions. Campaigns have generally not resulted
in significant behavioral change unless they have been coupled with legislation,
enforcement, or sanctions. Even in these cases, costs should be anticipated for
message and materials development, for the purchase of media time, and for
evaluation.
Training and Other With regard to universal helmet laws, training is necessary for law enforcement
Personnel Needs personnel to identify compliant and non-compliant helmets and to properly enforce
such laws. NHTSA has created a video and training sheet, "Fake Helmets, Unsafe
On Any Head," for law enforcement. This 12 and 1/2 minute instructional video,
suitable for roll-call training, teaches law enforcement officers how to identify
non-compliant motorcycle helmets. It also shows examples of non-compliant
helmets. A link is available in the following section.
Legislative Needs Universal helmet laws require legislative action.
Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy
NHTSA has created a training video and brochure, "Fake Helmets, Unsafe On Any
Head" (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/21qp/html/program_
pubs/moto_safety.html). This 12 and 1/2 minute instructional video teaches law
enforcement officers how to identify non-compliant motorcycle helmets. It also shows
some examples of non-compliant helmets. Police agencies and the military are currently
using this video.
Current status of motorcycle helmet legislation is summarized by the National Conference
of State Legislatures. For more information, visit http://www.ncsl.org/.
The Wisconsin Motorcycle Safety Program promoted protective apparel in this promotional
piece targeting riders--http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/vehicle/motorcycle/.
V-88
OCR for page 104
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) has EXHIBIT V-50
developed PSAs promoting helmet usage and MSF Helmet Usage PSAs
web applications in a variety of sizes and formats
and will provide them at no cost. Contact the
MSF for more information--http://www.
msf-usa.org/.
There have been cases of motorcycle dealer-
ships instituting a "beanie buy-back" program,
where discounts are given to riders who turn in
non-compliant helmets and purchase a helmet that
meets FMVSS 218.
Washington State Police have developed a
brochure which describes some of the
differences between non-compliant helmets and FMVSS 218 compliant helmets. They
have developed public awareness campaigns to promote usage of FMVSS 218 compliant
motorcycle helmets: http://www.wsp.wa.gov/traveler/helmets.htm.
Additional information is available from the FHWA Motorcyclist Advisory Council:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/mac/index.htm.
Websites
The following websites are listed to provide information on the arguments in support of and
opposition to universal helmet laws.
Organizations That Support Universal Helmet Laws
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety:
http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-helmets.htm
American College of Emergency Physicians:
http://www.acep.org/
American College of Surgeons:
http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-35.html
Trauma Foundation:
http://www.traumaf.org/featured/7-28-04motorcycle%20helmet%20laws.html
Governor's Highway Safety Association (GHSA):
http://www.statehighwaysafety.org/
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/helmet.html
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/6000/6200/6285/fs_mcycl.pdf
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB):
www.ntsb.gov
V-89
OCR for page 105
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
Organizations That Oppose Universal Helmet Laws
American Motorcyclist Association position paper in support of promoting helmet use:
http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/positions/helmet.asp
Motorcycle Rider Foundation White Papers on Helmets:
http://www.mrf.org/whitepapers.php
Strategy 11.1 E2--Increase the Use of Protective Clothing (T)
General Description
Constant exposure to the elements is physically dangerous, but wind, weather conditions,
and temperature extremes can also affect a rider's concentration. Furthermore, dehydration,
overheating, and hypothermia can compromise a rider's judgment and cause decreased
vision, light-headedness, and impaired coordination.
Safety is the main reason to wear protective apparel, but comfort is important also.
Motorcycle riding gear is designed specifically for this activity. Arm and leg lengths
are cut longer to provide comfort in the seated position. Sleeves can be zipped tight
and collars can be either closed (with Velcro), to block cold wind, or opened, for
ventilation.
Most riding gear is constructed of leather or ballistic nylon--tough material for tough
conditions. It has to be able to resist abrasion and stay affixed while sliding along the
roadway or roadside surface. Body padding or body armor built into the gear dissipates
impact forces and provides greater protection. The European Union has devised testing
standards: CE EN1621-1&2 for elbow, shoulder, knee and spinal armor. No such armor
standards exist in the United States.
Typical protective riding gear includes:
· FMVSS 218 compliant helmet
Helmets come in three basic styles--full face, three-quarter shell, and half-shell.
The full face provides the most protection and includes a face shield to protect the
face and eyes and a chinbar to protect the jaw and teeth.
· Eye protection
Face shields or goggles provide the most protection from wind, insects and flying
debris.
· Jacket and long pants
Fabricated out of abrasion-resistant materials such as leather or ballistic nylon,
motorcycle gear provides ventilation and closures and often comes with body
padding or body armor.
· Gloves
Motorcycle gloves are usually made of leather. Winter gloves with gauntlets keep
cold wind from going up the sleeve.
V-90
OCR for page 106
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
· Boots
Boots provide solid ankle support at a stop and better protection than low-cut shoes.
Boots should also provide a good grip with the road when stopped.
· Raingear
Raingear has to stand up to the wind and seal out driving rain to keep the rider
warm and dry.
The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety identified several ways to increase use of protective
apparel (NHTSA, 2000):
Educate motorcyclists about the value of protective apparel by providing an informa-
tion source on related research and a forum for the exchange of information.
Conduct research regarding protective apparel and its effectiveness, and consider
development or adoption of existing standards, if research justifies.
The objective of this strategy is to convince riders to wear clothing that provides protection
and comfort from the elements as well as from the dangers of a fall from the motorcycle.
Wearing protective clothing can make the difference between an uncomfortable slide and
severe injury along with months of rehabilitation.
The motorcycle safety and rider training communities should be involved in this strategy to
assist in the development of public information and education resources for motorcyclists to
understand the benefits of helmets and protective gear.
EXHIBIT V-51
Strategy Attributes for Increasing the Awareness of the Benefit of Protective Clothing
Technical Attributes
Target The target of this strategy is motorcycle riders and passengers, as well as the
motorcycle safety and rider training community.
Expected Effectiveness The effectiveness of increasing the awareness of the benefits of protective clothing
has not been satisfactorily quantified.
Keys to Success The key to success is to involve the motorcycle rider and safety community in the
development and distribution of the materials resulting from this strategy.
Potential Difficulties A potential difficulty with this strategy is accurately targeting the appropriate group
of motorcyclists. That is, it may be difficult for highway agencies, and the group of
stakeholders with which they are working, to identify where motorcyclists congregate
and can be expected to view the public information material. Motorcyclists may be
effectively reached at rallies and similar events.
Another potential difficulty is effecting change in a long-established culture. Riders
may be very reluctant to put aside the traditional attire in favor of protective clothing.
Appropriate Measures Depending on the scope of effort, process measures could include the existence
and Data of a coordinated system, number of meetings held, number and type of materials
produced, number of postings, and contacts made. Roadside evaluations can be
conducted before and after the campaign to measure effectiveness in increased use
of protective apparel.
V-91
OCR for page 107
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
EXHIBIT V-51 (Continued)
Strategy Attributes for Increasing the Awareness of the Benefit of Protective Clothing
An advanced level of analysis could include an evaluation of motorcycle crashes
and the effect of protective clothing on injury outcome. Such a study would
require data linkage between crash records and hospital records as well as
follow-up activities to determine what type of protective clothing was worn at
the time of the crash.
Associated Needs None identified.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Central to the success of any motorcycle safety initiative is to form alliances with
Institutional and key stakeholders in transportation and motorcycle safety, licensing, enforcement
Policy Issues and the motorcycle community. Many state governments support a Motorcycle
Safety Advisory Committee (MSAC) through statute or rule. Often, these committees
comprise motorcycle leaders, authorities and activists from across the state, and
include representatives from state police, DMV, transportation safety and the state's
motorcycle safety program.
Partnering with MSAC groups is essential to begin to (a) understand the problems
motorcyclists face and (b) provide a mechanism to convey information between
researchers, policy makers and the state leaders and activists within the motorcycling
community.
Broadening organizational involvement to include the private sector, such as those
that produce motorcycles and motorcycle-rider wear may add a needed dimension
to the effectiveness of the strategy, through effective marketing.
Issues Affecting A public awareness campaign aimed at motorcyclists should be targeted around the
Implementation Time prime riding season, when motorcyclists are most likely to be congregating where
the public awareness material is distributed (e.g., riding events, etc.).
The timing of the campaigns is most effective when it coincides with the riding
season. This will entail highway agencies beginning to work on information
programs well in advance of the prime riding season in order to have the public
awareness campaign ready.
Costs Involved Costs vary depending on the scope of effort.
Training and Other Increasing the awareness of the benefit of protective clothing does not necessarily
Personnel Needs require training or additional agency personnel, but it does require knowledge of
how clothing can protect motorcycle riders and a willingness to partner with key
stakeholders.
Legislative Needs None identified.
Other Key Attributes
None identified.
V-92
