United States: Repeal of Helmet Laws Compromise Safety

In the United States, for the past 40 years, there has been an ever changing pattern of helmet laws. Although each state develops and enforces its own traffic safety laws, the federal government has, at times, influenced state law making by requiring the inclusion of mandatory motorcycle helmet laws as a condition for receiving highway funding from the federal government. Since the 1970s, federally mandated requirements for states’ helmet laws have been changed several times. At present, no federal regulation exists requiring states to have mandatory helmet laws. As a result, many states have changed their helmet laws, either abolishing them or requiring helmets for only certain groups of riders.  At present 20 states and the District of Columbia have universal motorcycle helmet laws. Four states – Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire – have no helmet wearing requirement, and 26 states require only certain riders to use helmets.

Not surprisingly, the number of motorcyclist fatalities continues to rise each year, and now it accounts for nearly 10% of all traffic fatalities. To test the effect that helmet laws have on fatalities, David Houston from the Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Lilliard Richardson from the University of Missouri, conducted a time-series cross sectional analysis using data from 50 states for the period 1975-2004.

Taking into account variables such as state blood alcohol levels, climate, age of population, and helmet wearing requirements, several predictive models were developed and overall data was compiled. Fatality rate trends: In states that shifted from universal to partial coverage laws, the fatality rates in those states increased. In states with universal laws there was about 1 less fatality per year, compared to other states. This translates to an 11.1% fatality rate difference when demographic and other factors were controlled.

In the six states that changed from universal to partial coverage laws since 1997, the fatality rate increased, but according to the predictive models the increase was lower than expected. The authors of this study state that this finding must be tampered by the fact that the post-repeal period of observation has been relatively short. Motorcycle fatality rates have risen in all states since 1997. The authors believe, however, that repeal of helmet laws have compromised safety.

They are pessimistic, too, that changes will be made in light of the current political climate and the federal highway safety agency’s 2006 motorcycle safety programme plan. This plan, although stating that helmet use laws are an effective way to get mototcyclists to wear helmets, does not provide any concrete plans to do this. Instead the plan emphasizes rider education, training, licensing, rider impairment and motorcycle awareness action steps. The plan does not include a strategy for encouraging states to maintain or adopt universal coverage laws.

Their conclusion: “motorcyclist safety has been compromised in the states that have repealed universal coverage and that safety is likely to be compromised in otheer states that abandon these statues as well.”

Houston J, Richardson LE. Motorcycle safety and the repeal of universal helmet laws. Am J Pub Health 2007;97(11):2063-9.

back to Headlines