HELMET LAW FACTS
By Warren Woodward, Chair,
State Legislative Committee
Street Bikers United Hawaii, 2007
If helmets have significant safety benefits, then the ratio of deaths to
accidents should decline as the use of helmets increases, such as after a
mandatory helmet law is enacted. Yet in
most states the Death to Accident
Ratio (DAR) averages between 2% to 3% both
before
and
after
helmet
laws have been enacted.
Below is a table prepared from information supplied by the Maryland
Department of Transportation for the years 1985 to 2000.
The Maryland data looked at another way:
Maryland is not an isolated case. Here is a table of total motorcyclist fatalities
nationwide in 1994 (data from the Motorcycle Industry Council). Note the
similarities in the DAR at
the right of the table.
Registrations
Reported
Accidents
Fatalities
Accidents per 10,000
Registrations
Fatalities per 100
Accidents
Mandatory
Helmet Use
2,352,293
52,270
1,557
222.21
2.98
Voluntary
Helmet Use
1,497,923
29,062
844
194.02
2.90
Totals
3,850,216
81,331
2,401
211.24
2.95
Another example is from California before and after their helmet law
enactment on January 1, 1992 (data from CHP). Note that the Death to
Accident Ratio is little changed. If helmets worked, there should be a
dramatic decrease in the DAR for years 1992 & 1993, but there isn’t.
1990 1991 1992 1993
Fatalities 565 509 328 302
Accidents 20,386 18,402 13,708 12,269
DAR 2.896 2.896 2.496 2.596
Note that the
total number
of accidents and deaths in both Maryland and
California
did
decline after helmet law enactment. This is what helmet law
proponents always point to as proof that “helmet laws save lives”. What they
2Inevitably fail to mention is that this overall decrease has been accomplished,
not because of helmets (which are incapable of preventing accidents), but
because many people simply quit riding. Fewer riders = fewer accidents =
fewer deaths.
Look at the dramatic decline in motorcycle registrations in California—a state
with great roads and great weather—after their helmet law went into effect in
1992.
California Motorcycle Registrations 1991 - 99
Year
Annual
Year
to Year
%
1991
to Year
%
1991
639,388
-
-
-
-
1992
583,222
-56,166
-8.78%
-56,166
-8.78%
1993
557,986
-25,236
-3.95%
-81,402
-12.73%
1994
527,666
-30,320
-4.74%
-111,722
-17.47%
1995
518,120
-9,546
-1.49%
-121,268
-18.97%
1996
511,637
-6,483
-1.01%
-127,751
-19.98%
1997
391,080
-120,557
-18.86%
-248,308
-38.84%
1998
397,032
5,952
0.93%
-242,356
-37.90%
1999
413,676
16,644
2.60%
-225,712
-35.30%
Source:
California Department of Motor Vehicles
In other states, new motorcycle sales dropped 41% in Nebraska, 36% in
Oregon, and 20% in Texas in the first full year following enactment of their
mandatory helmet laws.
Conversely, when states remove mandatory helmet laws, registrations soar.
Helmet law proponents constantly point to Florida’s increase in motorcyclists’
fatalities after helmet law repeal in that state in 2000, yet never mention the
fact that, in the first seven years after repeal, motorcycle registrations
increased by a whopping 157% !
3
Speaking of Florida, below are the Florida Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles' motorcycle accident statistics for 2005.
No
Injury
%
Possible
Injury
%
Non-
Incapac-
itating
Injury
%
Incapac-
Itating
Injury
%
Fatal
%
Injury
Not
Stated
%
Total
With
Helmet
Driver
392
47.75
812
49.57
2,069
53.55
1,313
50.27
252
52.83
0
0.00
4,838
Passenger
44
5.36
88
5.37
185
4.79
129
4.94
20
4.19
0
0.00
466
SUBTOTAL
436
53.11
900
54.95
2,254
58.33
1,442
55.21
272
57.02
0
0.00
5,304
Without
Helmet
Driver
307
37.39
630
38.46
1,415
36.62
1,019
39.01
189
39.62
0
0.00
3,560
Passenger
78
9.50
94
5.74
187
4.84
149
5.7
16
3.35
0
0.00
524
SUBTOTAL
385
46.89
724
44.2
1,602
41.46
1,168
44.72
205
42.98
0
0.00
4,084
Helmet Use
Not Stated
Driver
0
0.00
14
0.85
8
0.21
2
0.08
0
0.00
3
100.0
27
Passenger
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
SUBTOTAL
0
0.00
14
0.85
8
0.21
2
0.08
0
0.00
3
100.0
27
TOTAL
821
100
1,638
100
3,864
100
2,612
100
477
100
3
100
9,415
Note that riders without helmets have the better numbers across the board.
Percentages of injuries and fatalities are less for riders involved in accidents
who aren’t wearing helmets.
The following is an economic impact report for the first seven years after
Florida’s repeal. The regi
strations are compiled from
the Florida Department
of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The registration and title fees come
from the Florida License and Registration Bureau. From 1999 to April 2007,
Florida motorcycle registrations went from 198,601 to 509,036, a 157%
increase.
310,435 motorcycles at an average of $10,000 each 3,104,350,000
Sales tax on Motorcycles at 6% 186,626,100
Registration Fees and Tags for Motorcycles 11,330,877
Change of title ___
9,235,441
Total
$3,311,542,418
This is over
three billion dollars
in seven years that has been put into the
economy of the State of Florida. Over
two hundred million dollars
went
directly into the Florida State Treasury. This does not include the tourist
money that has increased because of Florida being a freedom of choice state.
4
According to the Daytona Beach Chamber of Commerce, in the past seven
years almost
four billion dollars
has been spent at Bike Week and
Biketoberfest.
Motorcyclists being labeled a “public
burden” therefore,
is particularly
irksome and has at its basis ignorance and prejudice.
According to the National Center for
Health Statistics, approximately 1.16%
of total U.S. Health costs are attributable to motor vehicle accidents, and the
costs associated with the treatment of motorcyclist injuries account for
less
than 0.001%
of total U.S. health care costs. Only a portion of that
less-than-
0.001%
cost is attributable to un-helmeted motorcyclists, and the majority of
that cost is paid by privately purcha
sed health insurance. What remains,
spread across the taxpayer base (which includes millions of taxpaying
motorcyclists), is insignificant.
People who don’t ride, and especially the media reporters among them,
persist in portraying un-helmeted motorc
yclists as, at best, freedom-loving
souls who ‘like the wind in their hair
’. While we would hope freedom is
important to all, having ‘the wind in our hair’ is not what’s it all about.
No one knows our safety better than we do. Some feel safer in a helmet;
others do not. Helmets can help in some situations and maim and kill in
others. This is why riders lobby for freedom of choice, and why our slogan is
“Let Those Who Ride Decide”.
It took the deaths of several high-profile racecar drivers culminating with
Dale Earnhardt in 2001 for NASCAR and Formula 1 to realize what
motorcycle riders have been saying for years: Helmets snap necks and cause
basal skull fracture which almost always results in instantaneous death.
NASCAR and Formula 1 now require helmet restraining devices for drivers,
an impossibility on motorcycles.
Due to the laws of physics, a 4 pound
helmet, at 50 mph, weighs 200 pounds
at impact. Motorcycle racers generally do not “impact”, having a closed
course with little or nothing to run into if they fall. Street riders on the other
hand have all kinds of objects to collide with if they come off. The body can
stop abruptly then, but the head, because of the added weight of the helmet,
can keep going causing neck breakage and basal skull fracture.
Unfortunately, most government studies do not look for this occurrence and
so it has gone unnoticed among policy
makers. As I mentioned, NASCAR and
Formula 1 were very slow to realize the danger and did not call for helmet
restraints until recently. There is one study from New York State however,
which although old, tells the story.
The New York Department of Motor Vehi
cles did a study in 1969 comparing
accident data from the years 1966 and 19
67 in order to detect the effects of
that state’s mandatory helmet law, which became effective Jan. 1, 1967.
5
They found that while head injuries
decreased after the helmet law,
neck
injuries increased.
Injuries Sustained by Motorcycle Occupants Killed
Injury
1966
Fatalities
1967
Fatalities
Head - fracture, bleeding wound,
concussion
75.4%
45.9%
Neck - fracture, broken
5.8%
37.8%
Another interesting finding of that study is revealed in the following table.
Note that the Death to Accident Rate (DAR) is exactly the same
before
and
after
the helmet law. Again, if helmets “save lives”, shouldn’t there have
been a marked decrease in the DAR?
Frequency Of Motorcycle Accidents
1966
1967
Severity
Number
% of Total
Number
% of Total
Fatal
85
1.6
51
1.6
Personal Injury
4,792
92.4
2,983
94.4
Property Damage
307
5.9
127
4.0
Total
5,184
100.0
3,161
100.0
To summarize, helmet laws succeed in preventing deaths only by decreasing
riders. Helmet laws may decrease head injuries in some instances but
increase neck injuries in others. Riders know the risks inherent in riding and
must be free to choose whether or not to wear a helmet.
6
Postscript:
The best safety solution is ac
cident avoidance. This can be
accomplished through increased driver awareness of motorcyclists and
through motorcycle rider safety training.
A study of motorcycle accidents (the Hurt Report) found that in multiple
vehicle accidents involving motorcycle
s, the driver of the other vehicle
violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in
two-thirds
of
these accidents. Drivers must be taught to look for motorcycles. Right-of-
way violations, especially those result
ing in injury and death, must have
consequences greater than a slap on the wrist.
States with the best overall safety record for motorcyclists also have
comprehensive rider education courses in
place. Evidence to the value of
safety programs comes from the fact that in California, their award winning
safety program accounted for a 43% decrease in fatalities and a 40%
decrease in injuries from 1986 throug
h 1991, before the helmet law was in
effect. The decrease in injuries alone amounted to 12,258.
Addendum 1: Testimony of Shannon Laughy -
Reproduced below is an
official transcript of testimony given by Shannon Laughy, a rider paralyzed by
a helmet, before the California Senate Transportation Committee on May 7,
1996, when repeal of that state’s mandatory helmet law was being
discussed. I was there to witness her deliver her testimony from the
wheelchair to which she is permanently confined. Read her testimony and
see if you could look her in the eye and tell her she should have to wear a
helmet.
Shannon Laughy:
My name is Shannon Laughy an
d I'm one of your statistics.
I am an orthopedic technician. I was trained by the U. S. military during the
Viet Nam War. I served in Plei Ku in 1969.
Senator Kelley:
Could you speak a little closer to the microphone?
Shannon Laughy:
I served in Ku Che for an additional year in 1970. By the
time I got out of the military, I was discharged in Washington State. I
practiced medicine as a general sur
gery technician up there working on
cardiac and orthopedic cases.
I came to the bay area in 1973. I started working with the San Francisco
Orthopedic Residency program in San Francisco and ultimately ended up at
Kaiser Hospital in San Rafael.
On September 30th, I joined your statis
tics, because as a motorcyclist I had
been riding since the age of three. My father was compulsive about safety
and so I have always worn a helmet. I was so compulsive that in Los
Angeles, because the ozone depletion of my helmet and sun damage, every
two years I backed over my helmet and
destroyed it myself and replaced it
with another DOT or Snell approved helmet.
7
At the time of my accident, it was 5:29 in the afternoon. We were traveling
in a direction that has no sun glare involved. I was in a school zone so I
knew I was doing 24 miles an hour. And a woman made a left turn in front of
me. I slammed on both front and rear brakes and tried to swing my bike to
the left in the hopes that the wheels would hit first. Unfortunately the wheels
didn't hit first, I did.
From the shoulder down I impacted at
the passenger's side door. My body
ended up laid across this lady's back trunk. My helmet, which weighs a little
over four pounds since it was a Shoei complete full-face helmet, it continued
moving at 24 miles an hour when my body stopped against that car, and the
right side leading edge of that helmet impacted my cervical spine at the
transference processes of C-3, took out the C-3, 4, 5 and 6 and three and a
half inches of my collar bone and shr
edded three cervical nerves that exit
through that area, and those three nerv
es completely inervated my dominate
side and my whole upper right quadrant. As a result, at the age of forty-four,
I became a permanently disabled person
because of my honest belief that a
safety helmet was to my advantage.
I am not with any organization at this particular point. I am speaking from
my own standpoint when I say that as a medical professional, using
something that improves the quantity of my life without assuring me a
quality to my life is not something I want to support. I won't tell you that I
wish I had died in that accident. I will te
ll you that if I had known then what I
know now, I never would have put that helmet on, and as a result I would
have been back to work for Kaiser Hospital providing services that Kaiser has
had to stop providing. I was the only technician in the county that made neck
braces. That made fittings for artificial
legs for amputees. That dealt with
quadriplegic and paraplegic motorcycle riders as a specialist. They don't have
me any more so that means those people don't have me any more either.
I would really really appreciate your considering my own personal story when
you consider the vote that you cast on this helmet law.
Senator Kelley:
Thank you very much.
Senator Russell:
If you'd not had a helmet, woul
d your head have struck the
car?
Shannon Laughy:
No. My helmet was sent down to the USC primate helmet
lab to be studied to see what kind of
damage it incurred in the accident. My
helmet sustained no damage at the time of the accident. The damage to my
helmet was sustained when the paramedics tore my face shield off and they
broke two plastic screws on the right
side of my helmet. My helmet is
completely unmarred and undamaged, and if I ever ride again, I can
guarantee you that that is one helmet that will not be on my head.
Senator Russell:
Your head did not strike the automobile?
8
Shannon Laughy:
No, I had not impact with the car at all in any place but the
shoulder, down on the right side, and I had a grade 3 open semi-traumatic
amputation of the right leg. That would
have been my only injury if I had not
been wearing that helmet. And I honestly
believe that it is a design in a
helmet, that by increasing the weight and mass of my head and by putting
an artificial fulcrum, it caused the accident to my neck. It caused the fracture
to my neck. My doctor that I worked fo
r at Kaiser, John Tote, felt that that
was the only thing that could have caused it because I never hit anything
with my head or my neck.
Senator Kelley:
Thank you very much; I apprec
iate your comments. Alright,
I'd like to have the opponents come forward. Assemblyman Morrow, the
proponents went over a little bit so I'm going to authorize a little bit of extra
time for the opposition also.
Assemblyman Morrow:
By all means, thank you.
Addendum 2: Vehicle Miles Traveled -
The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) bases much of its analysis of traffic accidents
and fatalities on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VM
T). It sounds very scientific and is
unquestioningly repeated both by government officials and by the media in
general.
Our investigation into VMT, however,
has uncovered the sort of legendary
sloppiness one can only expect from a federal bureaucracy.
VMT is derived by NHTSA from information supplied by the states. But many
states do not even provide VMT for mo
torcycles. Or some years they might
and others not.
For example, South Dakota, the home of the world’s largest motorcycle rally
with half a million participants yearly, reported the deaths of 26 motorcyclists
in 2006 yet also reported no VMT for that or any other year. How can there
be a rally, how can riders die, if no one is riding, not even one mile?
Any statistician knows that discrepancies such as these render conclusions
invalid; yet NHTSA persists in perpetuating their VMT fraud.
Information supplied by states that
do
report VMT is highly inaccurate. Have
you ever seen the black hoses stretched across the road? Those are counting
the number of wheels going across, and there is a magic formula to
determine how many are from cars, buses, trucks, and motorcycles, and how
far they are traveling. Equally magical
is that from a few hoses, VMT can be
determined for an entire state!
If you believe the hoses then you will believe the telephone surveys that are
also used to derive VMT. Never been called and asked about your yearly
mileage? That is because only two or
three hundred people in any given state
are called.
9
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation has questioned NHTSA about their sloppy
