Motorcycle Safety and The Repeal of Universal Helmet Laws

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Motorcycle Safety and the Repeal of Universal Helmet Laws

| David J. Houston, PhD, and Lilliard E. Richardson Jr, PhD
Since 1975, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began
compiling traffic fatality censuses, more than
100 000 motorcycle riders in the United States
have died in crashes. In 2004 alone, about
4000 motorcyclist fatalities were recorded,
accounting for 8.6% of all traffic-related
deaths.1 Estimates for 2005 indicate that
such fatalities increased for an 8th straight
year, with more than 4300 deaths accounting
for approximately 10% of all motor vehicle
crash fatalities.2
Head injuries are a major cause of fatalities sustained in motorcycle crashes.3 An examination of death certificate data on motorcyclist fatalities that occurred between 1979
and 1986 revealed a head-injury diagnosis
in 53% of these fatalities.4 Of these head
injuryassociated deaths, head injury was the
sole medical condition listed in 34%.5 Among
fatalities with more than 1 medical diagnosis,
head injury was listed as the primary cause of
death in 83% and as 1 of the top 2 causes of
death in 95%.5
Motorcycle helmets are effective in reducing the probability of severe head and neck
injuries, thereby reducing the likelihood of
death in the event of a crash.613 For instance,
results of a study conducted in Washington
State showed that crash victims not wearing
helmets were 3 times as likely as helmeted
riders to sustain head injuries and 4 times as
likely to incur severe head injuries,14 and a
Colorado study revealed that individuals not
wearing helmets were 2.4 times more likely
as those wearing helmets to suffer a head injury in a crash.9 According to NHTSA estimates, motorcycle helmets are 37% effective,
meaning that for every 100 motorcyclists
who die in a crash while not wearing a helmet, 37 would have survived if they had
been wearing a helmet.15 Despite the evidence on helmet safety effects, observational
research has shown that helmet use rates declined from 71% in 2000 to 58% in 2004.15
The sharp contrast between increasing
crash fatalities and decreasing helmet use,
Objectives. We assessed the implications for motorcyclist safety of recent repeals of universal helmet laws in 6 US states.
Methods. We examined cross-sectional time-series data from the 50 states and
the District of Columbia for the period 1975 through 2004.
Results. On average, when compared to state experience with no helmet mandate,
universal helmet laws were associated with an 11.1% reduction in motorcyclist fatality
rates, whereas rates in states with partial coverage statutes were not statistically different from those with no helmet law. Furthermore, in the states in which recent repeals of universal coverage have been instituted, the motorcyclist fatality rate increased by an average of 12.2% over what would have been expected had universal
coverage been maintained. Since 1997, an additional 615 motorcyclist fatalities have
occurred in these states as a result of these changes in motorcycle helmet laws.
Conclusions. Motorcyclist safety has been compromised in the states that have
repealed universal coverage and is likely to be compromised in other states that
abandon these statutes. (Am J Public Health. 2007;97:20632069. doi:10.2105/
AJPH.2006.094615)
combined with the demonstrated safety effects of helmets, has led many to push for
laws requiring helmet use. In the United
States, however, such laws have been controversial as a result of concerns over infringement of personal rights.16,17 Although research
shows that universal helmet laws increase helmet use,15,18,19 varying views on the balance
between safety and personal rights have led
to considerable policy changes over time.20
For instance, the 1966 Highway Safety Act
(80 Stat 731) authorized the US secretary of
transportation to withhold up to 10% of federal highway funds from states that did not
adopt a law mandating that all riders wear a
helmet. Within 2 years, 36 states had adopted
universal helmet laws, and by 1975, this number had grown to 47 states and the District of
Columbia.21 However, Congress amended the
act in 1976, making the sanction applicable
to only those states that did not require riders
younger than 18 years-old to wear a helmet
and leading to the repeal of universal coverage in 27 states shortly thereafter.20
Federal policy shifted again in 1991, when
Congress passed the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (105 Stat 1914),
which offered grants and imposed sanctions
to induce states to adopt universal motorcycle
helmet laws. However, with the passage of
November 2007, Vol 97, No. 11 | American Journal of Public Health
the National Highway System Designation Act

(109 Stat 568) in 1995, Congress eliminated
the sanction established by the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.11
In response, several states modified their
existing universal laws to require only
young riders to wear a helmet, effectively
repealing universal coverage and instituting
partial coverage. Arkansas and Texas were
the first to do so in 1997, and they were
followed by Kentucky (1998), Louisiana
(1999), Florida (2000), and Pennsylvania
(2003).22 With the exception of Louisiana,
in which helmet use was required for riders
younger than 18 years before universal coverage was readopted in 2004, these partial
coverage laws mandate helmet use only for
riders younger than 21 years. In addition,
partial coverage statutes often require insurance minimums (e.g., in Florida and Texas)
or safety courses for less-experienced riders
(e.g., in Pennsylvania).
As of the end of 2004, 20 states and the
District of Columbia had universal motorcycle
helmet laws that required all riders to use a
helmet, and 26 states had laws that required
only partial coverage of motorcycle riders.21
The remaining 4 states (Colorado, Illinois,
Iowa, and New Hampshire) did not require
any motorcyclists to use a helmet.
Houston and Richardson | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 2063
Although most research indicates that universal laws are effective in increasing helmet
use15,18,19 and reducing motorcyclist fatalities,11
less is known about the effects of the recent
repeals of universal coverage. In several of
the states in which recent repeals have been
instituted, observational surveys have shown
rates of helmet use near 100% the year before the repeal and 50% to 66% a year or 2
later.20,22 Similarly, simple before-and-after
comparisons showed that motorcyclist deaths
increased 21% in Arkansas and 30% in
Texas the year after these states switched
from universal to partial coverage.22
In Florida, an interrupted time-series study
of the number of monthly fatalities per registered motorcycle revealed a 21% increase in
the fatality rate.23 Another study indicated a
25% increase in the likelihood of death in the
event of a crash24 after the repeal of universal
coverage; however, a similar study conducted
by Stolzenberg and DAlessio did not produce
the same results.25
A major limitation of these single-state
time-series studies has been their inability to
control for factors that correlate with the
adoption of helmet laws, helmet use, and traffic crashes across states.11 Cross-sectional
time-series analyses allow for such controls to
be included in model estimates, but recent
studies involving such analyses have produced mixed results.
Two such studies conducted before the recent set of repeals showed significant reductions in fatalities associated with universal
laws,26,27 but another did not reveal statistically significant differences.3 The former 2
studies failed to include control variables, so
coefficients may have been biased, and the
latter study covered only 3 years and employed a random effects model that did not
account for differences in state-specific attributes such as culture, preferences for safety
laws, and riding habits. Finally, a more recent
study involving data from the years 1976 to
1997 indicated that per capita motorcyclist
fatality rates are 29% to 33% lower in states
with universal laws.11
Because none of the previous cross-sectional
time-series studies included a sufficient number of postrepeal observations, these studies
are of limited utility for evaluating the recent
repeals. Furthermore, these investigations
failed to distinguish states with partial coverage from those with no legislation. The argument has been that a partial coverage statute
is no different from the absence of a helmet
law. Riders without helmets are very conspicuous in states with universal coverage; in
states with partial coverage, however, law enforcement officers must quickly judge the
likelihood of whether riders without helmets
fall in the age range covered by the helmet
law, making enforcement far more problematic.3,11,28,29 It would be useful to test the assumption that partial coverage laws are ineffective so as to avoid biased estimates of the
effects associated with repealing universal
coverage.
Our goal was to overcome these limitations
in the extant research. We used cross-sectional,
time-series data from the 50 states and the
District of Columbia for the period 1975
through 2004 to examine the relationship between state helmet laws and motorcyclist fatality rates. We highlighted the recent repeals
of universal coverage in 6 states in a multistate context by including a variable representing these repeals. The estimated multivariate model allowed us to control for other
factors correlated with motorcycle safety and
changes in helmet laws. In addition, we used
separate variables to distinguish the effects of
universal and partial coverage statutes on motorcycle safety.
METHODS
Data
We gathered data for each year over a 30year period for each state and the District of
Columbia; our unit of analysis was state-years,
meaning that in the case of each state, a separate observation was created for each year in
the time period. There were 30 observations
(each corresponding to a different year) for
each of the 51 cross sections (a total of 1530
state-year observations).
We derived annual fatality data from
NHTSAs Fatal Accident Reporting System
files for the years 1975 through 2004.1 To
partially control for exposure to crash risk because of variations in the number of motorcyclists across states, we divided fatality
counts by the annual number of registered
motorcycles in each state (these data were
2064 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Houston and Richardson
obtained from the Federal Highway Administrations annual Highway Statistics30). The dependent variable was the annual number of
motorcyclist fatalities per 10 000 registered
motorcycles.
Fatality Rate Covariates

To assess the effects of motorcycle helmet
laws, we used 2 binary variables representing
whether a state law requires all riders to wear
a helmet or requires only some riders to do
so (states with no laws represented the omitted reference category).21 In addition, we included several other state policies in our
analyses that may influence motorcycle
safety: a minimum legal drinking age of 21
years, a 0.08 blood alcohol concentration illegal per se law (i.e., a law prohibiting driving a
motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration at or above 8 g alcohol per 1000 g
blood), and a maximum speed limit of 65
miles (104 km) per hour or higher on any
state roads. Previous studies indicate that the
2 alcohol-related policies are negatively correlated with motorcycle fatality rates.31,32
By contrast, higher maximum speed limits
would be expected to compromise traffic
safety, especially among motorcyclists.33 We
coded midyear changes in all policies as the
proportion of days in a year on which a law
was in effect. We gathered information on
these traffic safety laws from the Insurance
Institute of Highway Safety and NHTSAs annual Traffic Safety Facts.15,21
Beyond policies, several other state characteristics may be related to motorcyclist fatality rates. For instance, motorcycle riding
is a highly seasonal activity that is more frequent in states with longer warm, dry seasons.34 We characterized state climate in
terms of normal annual daily mean temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit) and normal
annual precipitation (in inches).35 Because
warm temperatures increase motorcycle riding, but precipitation decreases riding, we
expected motorcyclist fatality rates to be
positively related to higher temperatures
and negatively related to higher precipitation levels.3,11,34 Although the individual
probability of an accident may increase
during travel in poor weather conditions,
the aggregate effect of cold temperatures
and high amounts of precipitation is likely
American Journal of Public Health | November 2007, Vol 97, No. 11
to reduce the amount of motorcycle travel

throughout a state.
Our models included several demographic attributes related to traffic safety:
percentage of the young adult population
aged 15 to 29 years, percentage of the adult
population aged 50 to 69 years, percentage
of the adult population that is male, income
per capita (in constant $1000s), apparent alcohol consumption per capita (in gallons of
ethanol), and population density (number of
residents per square mile).36,37 We expected
that percentage of young adults, percentage
of the adult population that is male, and
alcohol consumption would be positively

correlated with motorcyclist fatality rates.
Conversely, we hypothesized that income
per capita and population density would be
negatively related to these rates. We included percentage of the population aged
50 to 69 years to reflect the trend toward
more baby boomers riding motorcycles
and the potential for more serious consequences when someone in this age group
ends up in a crash.
We derived data for the variables just described from annual editions of the Statistical Abstract of the United States.35 The only
TABLE 1Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables, by Type of Helmet Law (n = 1530
state-years): United States, 19752004
Mean (SD)
Universal helmet law (state-yeara n = 723)
Motorcyclist fatalities per 10 000
8.37 (5.00)
Normal annual daily temperature, F
56.25 (7.48)
Normal annual precipitation, inches
40.05 (12.68)
Adult population male, %
47.91 (1.07)
Young adult population aged 1529 y, %
30.82 (4.94)
Adult population aged 5069 y, %
23.33 (1.78)
Income per capita, constant $1000s
13.92 (3.17)
Per capita alcohol consumption, gallons of ethanol
2.51 (0.84)
No. of residents per square mile
554.86 (1788.02)
Partial helmet law (state-yeara n = 658)
7.31 (4.23)
53.30 (9.65)
30.24 (14.30)
48.78 (1.23)
30.90 (4.81)
22.47 (2.14)
13.97 (2.48)
2.50 (0.60)
129.84 (198.35)
No helmet law (state-yeara n = 149)
6.22 (2.82)
50.45 (3.17)
29.87 (9.38)
48.35 (0.69)
31.33 (4.45)
22.91 (1.61)
14.74 (2.35)
2.65 (0.54)
147.65 (170.77)
a
For each state, a separate observation was created for each year in the time period.
Minimum
Maximum
1.14
40.30
7.05
45.33
22.19
14.13
7.81
1.60
0.63
49.97
82.00
66.98
54.00
46.51
29.24
27.42
6.92
10 601.55
0.46
40.00
7.05
46.76
22.13
14.06
9.40
1.20
0.67
33.22
77.50
64.16
53.83
46.18
28.64
24.23
5.76
890.14
1.37
45.00
14.55
47.47
23.12
19.72
10.22
1.80
20.20
15.92
62.30
44.39
50.25
40.21
26.58
20.71
4.13
655.50
exception was alcohol consumption data,

which were derived from the National Institutes of Health.38 Descriptive statistics for
all of the continuous variables included in
the analysis are reported in Table 1, separately for years in which states had universal, partial, or no helmet laws. Clear differences exist between these categories on
several variables, further suggesting the
need to control for state characteristics to
properly estimate the effects of helmet laws
on motorcyclist fatality rates.
Statistical Analysis
Our primary motivation for using crosssectional, time-series data was to address the
problems posed by unobserved factors that
differ across states but are time invariant
within a state. State attributes such as culture
may influence the adoption of a helmet use
law as well as helmet use regardless of legal
mandate. Failure to address this endogeneity
problem regarding helmet laws could lead to
biased parameter estimates for model variables. To represent these unobserved factors,
we included state fixed-effects parameters in
the models in the form of 50 separate binary
variables (1 for each state and the District of
Columbia with a single exception). In a fixedeffects model, the coefficients for the independent variables are assumed to be constant
across each cross section, whereas each cross
section has a unique intercept as represented
by its state binary variable.39
In addition, traffic safety is influenced over
time by national forces such as technological
advancements and economic factors that influence amounts of travel. To better isolate
the effects of helmet laws on motorcyclist fatality rates, our models included year fixed effects, which were essentially intercepts for
each year of the data, to capture these unobserved factors that may have relatively uniform influences across all states but change
over time.39 Diagnostic tests provided statistical support for the decision to include both
state and year fixed effects in the estimated
models. Finally, to avoid bias in our estimates
because of systematic patterns in regression
error terms (heteroskedasticity across states
and first-order autocorrelation over time), we
estimated all models using a feasible generalized least squares regression routine.39
Note. The 6 repeal states were Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
FIGURE 1Motorcyclist fatality rates in 6 repeal states versus all other states, 19752004.
RESULTS
Trends in Fatality Rates
Figure 1 presents trends in motorcyclist
fatality rates in the states in which recent
repeals have been instituted (repeal states)
and in all other states. As the group of repeal states switched from universal to partial coverage, the fatality rate in this group
began to increase and continued to increase
as more of these states repealed universal
laws. From 1996 to 2004, the rate for the
repeal states rose from 7.2 to 8.9 fatalities
per 10 000 registered motorcycles, a
23.6% increase.
It is also evident that during the same
period the fatality rate increased among
states that had not modified their helmet
laws since 1997. In these states, the rate
rose from 5.2 in 1996 to 6.2 in 2004, a
19.2% increase. The slightly higher fatality
rate increase in the group of repeal states
during this period was probably because of
contributions from factors other than modifications to helmet laws. To properly evaluate the effects of the recent repeals, it is
necessary to control for other factors that
may influence fatality rates in different
states.
Effects of Helmet Laws

The fixed-effects, cross-sectional time-series
regression models shown in Table 2 provide a
more complete picture of the relationship between helmet laws and fatality rates. The first
model compared fatality rates in states with
universal helmet laws with rates in all other
states. It is clear that requiring all riders to
wear a helmet enhances motorcyclist safety.
On average, approximately 1 less fatality per
10 000 registered motorcycles occurred in
states with universal coverage than in states
with partial laws or no laws (95% confidence
interval [CI] = 1.44, 0.66). This translates
into an 11.1% fatality rate reduction after we
controlled for other policies and demographic
variables (Table 3).
Model 1 implicitly assumed that a motorcycle helmet law covering only a portion of the
riding population does not lead to safety benefits. If this assumption is incorrect, the model
probably underestimated the actual safety
benefits of universal coverage because the estimated coefficient represented the difference
between the average experience of states
under a universal law and the average experience of states under either partial coverage or
no law. To test this assumption, the second
model (Table 2) included a binary variable
representing the presence of a partial coverage helmet law. The only category in model 2
not represented by a variable was the absence of a helmet law, which served as the
reference category. For this reason, we interpreted the 2 helmet law parameter estimates
as the reductions in fatality rates attributable
to type of coverage as compared with what
would be expected if no law existed.
Once partial coverage states were included
in the model, the effect of universal helmet
laws on motorcyclist fatality rates was slightly
greater than initially estimated. Universal laws
were associated with 1.3 fewer fatalities than
would be expected without any law (95%
CI = 1.92, 0.74). This translates into a
13.7% reduction in the fatality rate attributable to implementing universal coverage
(Table 3). Furthermore, the partial helmet law
coefficient was not statistically significant,
meaning that the fatality rate associated with
partial coverage was not statistically different
from that associated with no helmet law.
As a means of examining the safety consequences of the recent repeals of universal
coverage, 2 additional binary variables were
included in model 3 to separate the effects of
partial and universal helmet laws in the 6 repeal states (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas) from the
effects of these laws in nonrepeal states. One
binary variable represented the presence of a
universal coverage statute in the repeal states,
and the other captured the presence of a partial postrepeal coverage statute in these states.
Two more binary variables indicated the presence of a universal or partial coverage law in
all other states. Once again, because no law
was the only category in the model not represented by a variable, we interpreted the coefficients for the helmet law variables as the differences between a states experience under
the type of policy represented by the variable
and the experience of a state without any
mandatory helmet law.
In the 6 repeal states, on average, the fatality rate was 2.7 points lower under universal coverage than what would have been
expected if these states had no helmet law
(95% CI = 4.14, 1.34). In the 6 states,
the presence of a universal helmet law was
associated with a 22.3% reduction in fatality rates (Table 3). By contrast, the partial
TABLE 2Unstandardized Parameter Estimates From Regression Models of Motorcyclist

Fatalities per 10 000 Registered Motorcycles: United States, 19752004
Model 1,a b (SE)
Universal helmet law
All states
6 repeal statesd
All nonrepeal states
Partial helmet law
All states
6 repeal statesd
All nonrepeal states
Minimum legal drinking age 21 y
0.08 blood alcohol concentration law
Roads with maximum speed limits 65 mph
Normal annual daily mean temperature, F
Per capita alcohol consumption, gallows of
ethanol
No. of observations
Model 2
Adjusted R2
Model 2,b b (SE)
Model 3,c b (SE)
1.0451 (0.1987)**
...
...
1.3293 (0.2995)**
...
...
...
2.7403 (0.7167)**
1.1806 (0.3106)**
...
...
...
0.5390 (0.2016)**
0.0374 (0.1966)
0.4853 (0.3182)
0.0242 (0.0336)
0.0842 (0.0528)
0.5960 (0.3377)
0.1361 (0.0675)*
0.3719 (0.0884)**
0.2221 (0.0885)*
1.1874 (0.3289)**
0.3695 (0.2937)
...
...
0.5824 (0.2039)**
0.0399 (0.1960)
0.4995 (0.3171)
0.0205 (0.0329)
0.0880 (0.0529)
0.5922 (0.3355)
0.1481 (0.0677)*
0.3670 (0.0883)**
0.2197 (0.0882)*
1.1825 (0.3282)**
...
1.3786 (0.7707)
0.4829 (0.2989)
0.5400 (0.2047)**
0.0693 (0.1972)
0.4934 (0.3161)
0.0273 (0.0330)
0.0733 (0.0534)
0.5476 (0.3363)
0.1463 (0.0678)*
0.3691 (0.0883)**
0.2156 (0.0885)*
1.1983 (0.3286)**
0.0108 (0.0025)**
1530
2516.6**
0.6328
0.0108 (0.0025)**
1530
2533.5**
0.6318
0.0110 (0.0025)**
1530
2546.1**
0.6361
Note. State and year fixed-effects parameters were estimated but are not reported here. Values in parentheses are SEs
corrected for groupwise heteroskedasticity and first-order serial correlation.
Model 1 compared fatality rates in states with universal helmet laws with rates in all other states.
b
Model 2 made the same comparison as model 1 but included a binary variable representing the presence of a partial
coverage helmet law.
c
Model 3 was the same as model 2 but included 2 additional binary variables to separate the effects of partial and universal
helmet laws in the 6 repeal states (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas) from the effects of these
laws in nonrepeal states.
d
Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Texas.
*P .05; **P .01.
a
coverage coefficient for these states was not

statistically significant, indicating that, after
repeal of universal coverage, fatality rates
were not significantly different from what
would be expected in the absence of a helmet law.
On average, during the postrepeal period
under partial coverage, 10.7 fatalities per
10 000 registered motorcycles occurred in
the 6 repeal states. Had these states maintained universal coverage up through 2004,
their predicted average fatality rate would
have been 9.5 per 10 000 (based on model
3). Thus, these states experienced a 12.2% increase in motorcyclist fatality rates as a result
of repealing universal coverage and implementing partial coverage.
Universal helmet laws also resulted in

lower fatality rates in the other states and the
District of Columbia, where universal coverage was associated with 1.2 fewer deaths per
10 000 registered motorcycles relative to absence of coverage (95% CI = 1.79, 0.57).
Similar to what was found in model 2, the
partial coverage variable was not significant.
In these states and the District of Columbia,
the presence of universal coverage translated
into a 12.7% reduction in motorcyclist fatality
rates (Table 3), whereas fatality rates under
partial coverage were not appreciably different from fatality rates in the absence of a law.
In summary, motorcyclist fatality rates in
the 6 repeal states, as a group, were higher
after they switched from universal to partial
coverage. An estimated 615 more motorcyclist fatalities (a 15% increase) occurred in

these states after the repeal than what would
have been expected under universal coverage (based on model 3). In 2004 alone, an
estimated 135 (or 5.8%) fewer fatalities
would have occurred in these 6 states and
the 25 others without universal coverage had
a universal helmet law been in effect for the
entire year.
Other Fatality Rate Covariates

In terms of other factors that influence motorcycle safety, the 3 models indicated that a
minimum legal drinking age of 21 years was
correlated with lower fatality rates. The parameter estimates for a 0.08 blood alcohol
concentration law and maximum speed limits
of 65 miles per hour or higher, however,
were not statistically significant. Among state
demographic attributes, percentage of young
adults and percentage of the population aged
50 to 69 years were positively correlated
with motorcyclist fatality rates, as were per
capita alcohol consumption and income per
capita; these rates were negatively correlated
with population density. Neither climate variable emerged as a statistically significant correlate of motorcyclist fatality rates.
DISCUSSION
Our findings highlight the need to evaluate
repeals of universal coverage motorcycle helmet laws in a multivariate, multistate context.
Although we found that fatality rates increased in the 6 states that have changed
from universal to partial coverage since 1997,
the estimated size of this effect was lower
than that observed in previous studies. Motorcyclist fatality rates have risen in all states in
this postrepeal era, something that previous
single-state evaluations have not addressed.
However, our findings must be tempered
by the fact that the postrepeal period is relatively short. As discussed, only 6 states have
repealed universal coverage since 1997, and
data on no more than a few postrepeal years
are available for any of these states. Furthermore, motorcyclist fatality rates in the 6 repeal states tend to be higher than average.
This situation raises the question as to
whether repeal of universal coverage in states
TABLE 3Estimated Fatality Rate Reductions Associated With Helmet Laws: United States,
19752004
Universal helmet law

All states
6 repeal statesd
Nonrepeal states
Partial helmet law
All states
6 repeal statesd
Partial helmet law: nonrepeal states
Model 1,a %
Model 2,b %
Model 3,c %
11.1
...
...
13.7
...
...
...
22.3
12.7
...
...
...
NS
...
...
...
NS
NS
Note. NS = nonsignificant (P > .05). Ellipses = not applicable.

a
Model 1 compared fatality rates in states with universal helmet laws with rates in all other states.
b
Model 2 made the same comparison as model 1 but included a binary variable representing the presence of a partial
coverage helmet law.
c
Model 3 was the same as model 2 but included 2 additional binary variables to separate the effects of partial and universal
helmet laws in the 6 repeal states (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas) from the effects of these
laws in other states.
d
Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Texas.
with historically lower fatality rates will have

a similar impact on safety.
Even so, the repeals of universal coverage
since 1997 have compromised motorcyclist
safety. Our findings appear more significant in
light of the current political environment that
indicates momentum may be building to reduce universal coverage in other states. At
the state level, legislative will seems poised to
modify more laws; for example, in 2005, bills
were introduced in 15 of the 21 universal
coverage states mandating only that young
riders must wear a helmet.40
Furthermore, although NHTSAs 2006
Motorcycle Safety Program Plan indicates
that motorcycle helmet use laws are the
most effective way to get all motorcyclists
to wear helmets, it focuses only on rider
education and training, licensing, rider impairment, and motorist awareness in outlining initiatives designed to enhance motorcyclist safety; it does not include a strategy
for encouraging states to maintain or adopt
universal coverage laws.41(p10) Together, the
circumstances just described do not bode
well for the future of universal helmet laws
in the United States. Our analysis indicates
that motorcyclist safety has been compromised in the states that have repealed universal coverage and that safety is likely to
be compromised in other states that abandon these statutes as well.
About the Authors

David J. Houston is with the Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Lilliard E.
Richardson Jr is with the Institute of Public Policy, Truman School of Public Affairs, University of Missouri,
Columbia.
Requests for reprints should be sent to David J. Houston,
PhD, Department of Political Science, 1001 McClung
Tower, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 379960410 (e-mail:dhouston@utk.edu).
This article was accepted January 7, 2007.
Contributors
and head injury prevention. JAMA. 1992;267:

16491651.
6. Evans L, Frick MC. Helmet effectiveness in preventing motorcycle driver and passenger fatalities.
Accid Anal Prev. 1988;20:447458.
7. Weiss AA. The effects of helmet use on the severity of head injuries in motorcycle accidents. J Am Stat
Assoc. 1992;87:4856.
8. Fleming NS, Becker ER. The impact of the Texas
1989 motorcycle helmet law on total and head-related
fatalities, severe injuries, and overall injuries. Med Care.
1992;30:832842.
9. Gabella B, Reiner KL, Hoffman RE, Cook M, Stallones L. Relationship of helmet use and head injuries
among motorcycle crash victims in El Paso County,
Colorado, 19891990. Accid Anal Prev. 1995;27:
363369.
10. Sarkar S, Peek C, Kraus JF. Fatal injuries in motorcycle riders according to helmet use. J Trauma. 1995;
38:242245.
11. Sass TR, Zimmerman PR. Motorcycle helmet laws
and motorcyclist fatalities. J Regulatory Econ. 2000;18:
195215.
12. Deutermann W. Motorcycle Helmet Effectiveness
Revisited. Washington, DC: Department of Transportation; 2004. DOT publication HS 809 715.
13. Keng SH. Helmet use and motorcycle fatalities in
Taiwan. Accid Anal Prev. 2005;37:349355.
14. Rowland J, Rivara F, Salzberg P, Soderberg R,
Maier R, Koepsell T. Motorcycle helmet use and injury
outcome and hospitalization costs from crashes in
Washington State. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:4145.
15. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Traffic Safety Facts, 2004 Data: Motorcycles. Washington, DC: Department of Transportation; 2004. DOT
publication HS 809 908.
Both authors originated and wrote the article. D. J.

Houston conducted the statistical analysis.
16. Baker SP. On lobbies, liberty, and the public good.

Am J Public Health. 1980;70:573575.
Acknowledgments
17. Weisbuch JB. The prevention of injury from motorcycle use: epidemiologic success, legislative failure.
Accid Anal Prev. 1987;19:2128.
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful

comments.
Human Participation Protection
18. Phillips BM. Motorcycle Helmet Usage. Washington,

DC: Department of Transportation; 1980. DOT publication HS 805 398.
References
19. Berkowitz A. The Effect of Motorcycle Helmet Usage

on Head Injuries, and the Effect of Usage Laws on Helmet
Wearing Rates. Washington, DC: Department of Transportation; 1981. DOT publication HS 805 851.

Fatal Accident Reporting System. Available at: http://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/fars.html. Accessed
February 12, 2006.
20. Ulmer RG, Preusser DF. Evaluation of the Repeal of

Motorcycle Helmet Laws in Kentucky and Louisiana.
Washington, DC: Department of Transportation; 2003.
DOT publication HS 809 602.
2. Shankar U, Varghese C. Recent Trends in Fatal Motorcycle Crashes: An Update. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation; 2006. DOT publication
HS 810 606.
21. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. History of

U.S. motorcycle laws and changes in coverage. Available at: http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/
helmet_history.html. Accessed January 27, 2006.
No protocol approval was needed for this study.
3. Branas CC, Knudson MM. Helmet laws and motorcycle rider death rates. Accid Anal Prev. 2001;33:
641648.
4. Sosin DM, Sacks JJ, Holmgreen P. Head injuryassociated deaths from motorcycle crashes. JAMA.
1990;264:23952399.
5.
Sosin DM, Sacks JJ. Motorcycle helmet-use laws
22. Preusser DF, Hedlund JH, Ulmer RG. Evaluation

of Motorcycle Helmet Law Repeal in Arkansas and Texas.
23. Muller A. Floridas motorcycle helmet law repeal
and fatality rates. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:
556558.
24. Kyrychenko SY, McCartt AT. Floridas weakened

motorcycle helmet law: effects on death rates in motorcycle crashes. Traffic Inj Prev. 2006;7:5560.
25. Stolzenberg L, DAlessio SJ. Born to be wild: the
effect of the repeal of Floridas mandatory motorcycle
helmet-use law on serious injury and fatality rates. Eval
Rev. 2003;27:131150.
Public Health Management of

Disasters: The Practice Guide
By Linda Young Landesman, DrPH, MSW
26. DeWolf VA. The Effect of Helmet Law Repeal on

Motorcycle Fatalities. Washington, DC: Department of
Transportation; 1986. DOT publication HS 807 065.
2nd Edition
Now Available!
27. Graham JD, Lee Y. Behavioral response in safety

regulation: the case of motorcycle helmet-wearing legislation. Policy Sci. 1986;19:253273.
28. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. A
Report to Congress on the Effect of Motorcycle Helmet Use
Law RepealA Case for Helmet Use. Washington, DC:
Department of Transportation; 1980. DOT publication
HS 805 312.
Safety Belt and Helmet Use in 2002Overall Results.
30. Federal Highway Administration. Highway Statistics. Washington, DC: Department of Transportation;
19952004.
31. Shults RA, Elder RW, Sleet DA, et al. Reviews of
evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcoholimpaired driving. Am J Prev Med. 2001;21:6688.
32. Tippetts AS, Voas RB, Fell JC, Nichols JL. A metaanalysis of .08 BAC laws in 19 jurisdictions in the
United States. Accid Anal Prev. 2005;37:149161.
he 2nd edition of this landmark book consolidates

important information on disaster-related resources into one source. It is designed to help the public health profession plan for tasks for which on the
job is the chief teacher.
Additional information has been added on management of mental health issues during disasters,
disaster preparedness for those with disabilities,
hospital preparedness, and ADA and FCC rules.
American Public Health

Association
800 I Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20001
www.apha.org
TO ORDER:
web www.aphabookstore.org
email apha@pbd.com fax 888.361.APHA
phone 888.320.APHA M-F 8am-5pm EST
33. Baum HM, Wells JK, Lund AK. The fatality consequences of the 65 mph speed limits, 1989. J Safety Res.
1991;22:171177.
34. Morris CC. Generalized linear regression analysis
of association of universal helmet laws with motorcyclist fatality rates. Accid Anal Prev. 2006;38:142147.
35. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; 19752005.
36. Houston DJ, Richardson LE, Neeley GW. Legislating traffic safety: a pooled time series analysis. Soc Sci
Q. 1995;76:328345.
37. Houston DJ, Richardson LE. Reducing traffic fatalities in the American states by upgrading seat belt use
laws to primary enforcement. J Policy Anal Manage.
2006;16:645660.
38. Lakins NE, Williams GD, Yi HY, Smothers BA.
Apparent per Capita Alcohol Consumption: National,
State, and Regional Trends, 19772002. Bethesda, Md:
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism;
2004. Surveillance report 66.
39. Wooldridge JM. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press;
2002.
National Conference of State Legislatures online legislative tracking database. Available at: http://www.
nhtsa.gov/ncsl. Accessed April 2, 2006.
2006 Motorcycle Safety Program Plan. Washington, DC:
Department of Transportation; 2006. DOT publication
HS 810 615.

Motorcycle Safety and The Repeal of Universal Helmet Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motorcycle Safety and The Repeal of Universal Helmet Laws

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motorcycle Safety and The Repeal of Universal Helmet Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE