nebraska motorcycle information packet · nebraska motorcycle information packet contents nebraska...
TRANSCRIPT
NEBRASKA MOTORCYCLE INFORMATION PACKET
Contents
Nebraska Motorcycle Fatalities 1982-2017
Nebraska Motorcycle Fatalities and Injuries
1998-2017
Nebraska Cost Estimate for Motorcycle Crashes in
2017
Nebraska Motorcycle Licensed Operators (Age
Groups: 20 & Under vs. 21 & Older) 2013-2017
Nebraska Motorcycle Fatalities/Injuries
(Age 21 & Older vs. 20 & Under) 1998-2017
Nebraska Motorcycle Statistics 2008-2017
Nebraska Motorcycle Registrations vs. Licensed
Drivers 2008-2017
Nebraska Motorcycle Basic Rider Course Training
Certificates Issued 2008-2017
Nebraska Motorcycle Helmet Use Rates 2009-2018
Motorcycle Injuries and Fatalities, Nebraska
2008-2014—DHHS
Helmet use associated with reduced risk of cervical
spine injury during motorcycle crashes—March 2018– Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group
Insurance payouts still rising for motorcyclist injuries
under Michigan’s weak helmet law—IIHS Status Re-port
Motorcycle Helmet Use Laws—Map / Laws —
July 2018-IIHS
Q&As: Motorcycles — Helmets - May 2018—IIHS
NTSB Recommended Legislation - September 2007
Motorcycles -Traffic Safety Facts - 2016 Data -
NHTSA
Motorcycle Helmet Use in 2017-Overall Results -
Traffic Safety Facts Research Note—NHTSA
Lives and Costs Saved by Motorcycle Helmets, 2015
– June 2017 — NHTSA
Traffic Safety Facts—Florida’s Motorcycle Helmet Law
Repeal — NHTSA 2005
According to NHTSA motorcycle helmets
are estimated to be 37 percent effective in preventing fatal injuries to motorcycle riders
and 41 percent for motorcycle passengers. In
other words, for every 100 motorcycle riders killed in crashes while not wearing helmets, 37
of them could have been saved had all 100 worn helmets.*
Studies show that unhelmeted riders in-
volved in crashes are less likely to have insur-
ance and more likely to have higher hospital
costs than helmeted riders in similar crashes.*
In States without universal helmet laws,
60 percent of motorcyclists killed in 2016 were not wearing helmets, as compared to
8 percent in States with universal helmet laws.*
According to a May 2018 survey of 900
Nebraskans conducted by Research Associ-ates, “75% indicated the Nebraska law requir-
ing motorcycle helmets should be continued; 20% indicated it should be repealed; 5% had
no opinion.” +
In 2017, less than 1% of the licensed
Nebraska motorcyclists are under the age of
21.#
*National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—NHTSA– 2016 Traffic Safety Facts
+NDOT-Highway Safety Office
#Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles
Nebraska Department of Transportation Highway Safety Office, P.O. Box 94612
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
402/471-2515 FAX: 402/471-3865 http://dot.nebraska.gov/safety/hso/
MOTORCYCLE HELMETS
As of August 2018
In 1974, the Motorcycle Safety Education Courses began.
On January 1, 1986, the Financial Responsibility (Proof of Insurance) Law became effective.
On January 1, 1989, the Nebraska Motorcycle Helmet Law became effective.
Provided by: NDOT-Highway Safety Office, PO Box 94612, Lincoln, NE 68509
As of April 18, 2018
2726
2526
23
31
19
13
6
15
9
6
9
6 65
6
8
3
12
15
13
21
1718
15
20
1514
2322
14
20
26
20
27
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
Nebraska Motorcycle Fatalities
1982 - 2017
In 1974, the Motorcycle Safety Education Courses began.
* 1974 Motorcycle Safety Education Courses Started
* January 1, 1986 Financial Responsibility (Proof of Insurance) Law
*January 1, 1989 Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet Law
Prepared by: NDOT-Highway Safety Office, PO Box 94612, Lincoln, NE 68509
Last Date Modified: July 10, 2018
6
8
3
12
15
13
21
1718
15
20
1514
2322
14
20
26
20
27
0
5
10
15
20
25
301
99
8
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
NEBRASKA MOTORCYCLE FATALITIES
1998 - 2017
258 258269
319 317
369394
433
471490
595
509521 512
576
486 496
444
496 488
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
NEBRASKA MOTORCYCLE INJURIES
1998 - 2017
NEBRASKA COST ESTIMATE
FOR MOTORCYCLE CRASHES IN 2017
The cost of each type of motor-vehicle crash includes wage and productivity losses, medical expenses, administrative expenses, motor vehicle damage, and uninsured employer costs for crashes involving workers. The information below indicates the average economic costs in 2015 per death (not each fatal crash), per nonfatal disabling injury (A) (not each injury crash), visible, but not disabling injury (B), visible, but not disabling injury (C), and per property damage crash.
Type of Injury/Crash Number of each type of Injury/Crash
Cost Per each type of Injury/Crash
Total Cost of all types of
Injuries/Crashes
Death 27 $1,550,000 $41,850,000
Disabling Injury 166 $90,000 $14,940,000
Visible, but not Disabling Injury
220 $26,000 $5,720,000
Possible Injury 102 $21,000 $2,142,000
Property-damage crashes 65 $4,200 $741.00
Total Projected Costs in 2017 $65,393,000
PDO – Property Damage Only Source: National Safety Council, Injury Facts 2015 Edition Prepared by: NDOT-Highway Safety Office, PO Box 94612, Lincoln, NE 68509 Revised 7/10/18
Prepared by: NDOT-Highway Safety Office, 5001 South 14th, PO Box 94612, Lincoln, NE 68509
Last Date Modified: July 10, 2018
101,057
874
99,749
946
98,090
1,016
96,160
1,172
93,615
1,202
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
21 & OLDER
20 & UNDER
Nebraska MotorcycleLicensed Operators
Age Groups: 20 & Under vs. 21 & Older
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Prepared by: NDOT-Highway Safety Office, PO Box 94612, Lincoln, NE 68509 Last Date Modified: July 13, 2018
Includes Motorcycles, Dirtbikes, Motorscooters with A, B, C Injuries Only
A = Suspected serious injury, B = Visible, but not disabling injury, C = Possible injury
Source: Standard Summary of Nebraska Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents
68
3
12
1513
21
1718
15
20
1514
2322
14
20
23
19
27
02
01 1
0
4
01
31
0 0
32
1 13
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
Nebraska Motorcycle Fatalities (1998 - 2017)(Age 21 & Older vs. Age 20 & Under)
Ages 21 & Older Ages 20 & Younger
258 258 269
319 317
369394
433471 490
595
509 521 512
576
486 496
444
513488
47 45 32 35 39 4080 82 95 78
106 90 80 74 87 8160 52 68 51
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
Nebraska Motorcycle Injuries (1998 - 2017)(All Age Groups vs. 20 & Under)
All Ages Ages 20 & Younger
NEBRASKA MOTORCYCLE STATISTICS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Fatalities 20 15 14 23 22 14 20 26 20 27
Injuries (A, B & C) 595 509 521 512 576 486 496 444 496 488
Fatality Helmet Usage 18 10 11 20 20 14 19 22 16 26
Fatality Illegal/No Helmet Usage 0/2 1/4 1/1 1/2 1/1 0/0 0/1 1/3 2/2 2/1
Unknown Head Injuries 3 7 5 2 4 3 5 10 8 4
Passengers Killed 0 1 2 2 3 0 2 0 1 5
Females Killed 1 2 2 3 5 2 1 0 1 5
Average Age of Fatality 48 41 37 44 44 36 36 39 39 46
15 11 8 18 18 12 17 15 10 15
Total Crashes 624 539 548 562 588 550 535 490 514 540
Fatal Crashes 20 15 12 22 22 14 20 25 20 22
Injury Crashes 535 464 472 472 502 469 454 408 450 453
Property Damage Only 69 59 64 68 64 67 61 57 44 65
Interstate Crashes 35 26 33 41 41 31 28 25 34 32
Alcohol-Related Fatal Crashes 6 11 3 6 9 3 9 9 11 1
Alcohol-Related Fatalities 6 11 4 7 9 3 9 9 11 1
Unknown BAC, No Test, etc. 6 1 2 3 5 2 3 2 1 8
30% 73% 25% 27% 41% 21% 45% 36% 55% 5%
30% 73% 29% 30% 41% 21% 45% 35% 55% 4%
Average Blood Alcohol Content 0.164 0.081 0.153 0.141 0.096 0.153 0.101 0.141 0.156 0.142
78,625 82,638 85,515 88,728 92,244 94,817 97,332 99,106 100,695 101,931
20 & Under Licensed Drivers 1,467 1,424 1,320 1,288 1,259 1,202 1,172 1,016 946 874
1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9%
53,171 53,259 54,349 53,773 55,461 55,833 55,475 55,585 55,360 54,880
~Note: Registration information is under reported due to a delay in entering data into the system.
* 1974 Motorcycle Safety Education Courses Started
* January 1, 1986 Proof of Insurance at time of Registration
* January 9, 1989 Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet Law
Source: NDOT-Highway Safety Office, P O Box 94612, Lincoln, NE 68509
Last Date Modified: July 10, 2018
Motorcycle Registrations
Motorcycle Operator Fatality with
"M" Endorsement on Drivers License
Licensed Drivers
% 20 & Under
Alcohol-Related Fatal Crashes
as a % of all Fatal Crashes
Alcohol-Related Fatalities
as a % of all Fatalities
In 1974, the Motorcycle Safety Education Courses began.
On January 1, 1986, the Financial Responsibility (Proof of Insurance) Law became effective.
On January 1, 1989, the Nebraska Motorcycle Helmet Law became effective.
Prepared by: NDOT-Highway Safety Office, PO Box 94612, Lincoln, NE 68509
As of August 22, 2018
53,171 53,259 54,349 53,77355,461 55,833 55,475 55,585 55,360 54,880
78,62582,638
85,51588,728
92,24494,817
97,33299,106 100,695 101,931
45,000
55,000
65,000
75,000
85,000
95,000
105,000
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
NEBRASKA MOTORCYCLEREGISTRATIONS VS. LICENSED DRIVERS
2008 - 2017
Motorcycle Registrations Motorcycle Licensed Drivers
1987 289 57 60
1988 123 98 99
1989 155 26 26
1990 189 21 43
1991 270 16 40
1992 303 39 75 71
1993 288 29 63 58
1994 330 35 56
1995 368 43 54
1996 457 43 54 43
1997 315 38
1998 536 44
1999 595 67
2000 718 44
2001 967 64
2002 1,001 72
Prepared by: NDOT- Highway Safety Office, PO Box 94612, Lincoln, NE 68516
Source: Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles, Driver Licensing Date Modified:January 8, 2018
2,058
2,211
2,0342,056
2,408
2,200
1,966
1,718
1,520
1,419
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Nebraska MotorcycleBasic Rider Course Training Certificates Issued
2008 - 2017
Nebraska
Motorcycle Helmet Use Rates
In 1974, the Motorcycle Safety Education Courses began.
On January 1, 1986, the Financial Responsibility (Proof of Insurance) Law became effective.
On January 1, 1989, the Nebraska Motorcycle Helmet Law became effective.
Prepared by: NDOT - Highway Safety Office, PO Box 94612, Lincoln, NE 68509
As of August 21, 2018
Note: The percent (%) of Helmet Use includes the % of Illegal Helmet Use.
Source: Nebraska Helmet Use Observation Reports - Health Education, Inc.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%97.0%
100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.8% 99.8%
20.6%
28.3%
23.2%
14.3%10.8%
13.8%
8.3%10.3%
15.2%11.2%
% of All Helmet Use % of Illegal Helmets
In Nebraska, family and community is our priority. Keeping all citizens safe on our states highways is a vital part of maintaining a healthy family and community. From 2008-2014 there were 177 deaths resulting from a motorcycle crash, of those 101 (57%) were the result of a head injury
3.
NOVEMBER 2015
Motorcycle Injuries and
Fatalities, Nebraska 2008-2014
NEBRASKA INJURY PREVENTION AND CONTROL FACTS
During 2008-2014, Nebraskans 45-54 years old had the highest motorcycle fatality rate
3.
In Nebraska, for hospitalizations due to a motor-cycle injury the primary injury for 1 in 3 riders (30%) was a head injury
3.
Per vehicle mile traveled, motorcyclists fatalities occurred 26 times more often than passenger car occupant fatalities in traffic crashes.
1
From 2008-2014, the total charges for all riders hospitalized as a result of a motorcycle injury was $74 million, $6 million (8%) was charged to Medi-care or Medicaid
3.
Motorcycle Safety Tips2
Always wear a DOT-approved helmet
Never ride your motorcycle after drinking alcohol
Wear protective clothing that provides some level of injury protection, with bright colors or reflective materials
Avoid tailgating
Maintain a safe speed and exercise caution when traveling over slippery surfaces or gravel.
Impact of Helmets
Helmets are estimated to prevent 37% of crash deaths among motorcycle riders and 41% of crash deaths for motorcycle passengers.
2
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
References
1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Traffic Safety Facts Motorcycles, 2013 Data
2. Centers for Disease Control—Motorcycle Safety: http://www.cdc.gov/features/motorcyclesafety/
3. Data Source: Nebraska Vital Statistics and Nebraska Hospital Discharge Data
Injury Prevention Program
Phone: (402) 471-2101
Fax: (402) 471-6446
Website: http://dhhs.ne.gov/InjuryPrevention
Figure 2: Median Charges for Motorcycle
Hospitalization, Head Injury vs. Other Injuries, NE,
2008-20143 (N=1,046)
Figure 1: Motorcycle Fatality Rate per Licensed Driver,
NE, 2008-2014 (N=177)3
3.9
3.02.9
3.0 3.0
1.6
2.7
2.32.2
1.81.6 1.6
0.8
1.3
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
per
10
,00
0 li
cen
sed
dri
vers
Fatality Rate per licensed driver TBI Fatality Rate per licensed driver
Linear (Fatality Rate per licensed driver)
$48,400
$34,595
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
Head Injury Other Injury
Me
dia
n C
ha
rg
e
Weak helmet law leads to worse injuries
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/53/3/3[7/10/2018 8:17:13 AM]
Highway safety research& communications
RATINGS NEWS TOPICS VIDEO STATUS REPORT
Status Report, Vol. 53, No. 3 | May 8, 2018
Insurance payouts still rising for motorcyclist injuries under Michigan's
weak helmet law
It's springtime in Michigan, and that means motorcyclists will be pulling their bikes out of storage
and, in many cases, hitting the road without a helmet. Six years after the state weakened its
helmet use law to exempt most riders, a new HLDI analysis indicates that the average insurance
payment for injuries to motorcyclists in crashes has risen by 40 percent, compared with losses in
nearby control states.
May marks the start of the seventh riding season in Michigan since lawmakers relaxed the
motorcycle helmet law to cover only riders younger than 21. Motorcyclists 21 and older may ride
without a helmet if they have either passed a motorcycle safety course or have held the
motorcycle endorsement on their driver's license for at least two years. In addition, riders who
choose not to wear helmets must have at least $20,000 in medical payment coverage and higher
coverage for any passengers who ride unhelmeted, too. More motorcyclists are opting for the
higher policy limits since the law change, HLDI has found.
This is HLDI's third look at the effects of Michigan's partial helmet law repeal. A 2013 HLDI
analysis found that the average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim rose 22 percent
in Michigan after the helmet law change took effect (see "Watch your head: Michigan's weakened
helmet use law leads to costlier injury claims," May 30, 2013). The analysis controlled for policy
limits to account for the new medical payment insurance requirement. HLDI updated the study in
2016 to add three more years of loss data and found a 37 percent increase in insurance losses.
The latest study adds a fifth year of data to cover the 2010–16 May-to-September riding seasons.
HLDI examines motorcycle insurance loss data under collision and medical payment, or MedPay,
coverages. Motorcycle collision coverage insures against physical damage to a motorcycle in a
crash when the rider is at fault. MedPay covers injuries sustained by the motorcycle operator.
Insurance losses are measured as claim frequency, claim severity and overall losses. Claim
frequency is the number of claims for a group of vehicles divided by the exposure for that group,
expressed in the study as claims per 1,000 insured vehicle years. An insured vehicle year is one
vehicle insured for one year, two vehicles insured for six months each. Claim severity is the
These motorcyclists traveling I-75 near Gaylord, Michigan, opted for the protection of helmets. Effective
April 2012, Michigan implemented a partial helmet law that requires riders younger than 21 to wear
helmets but makes helmets optional for riders 21 and older who meet certain criteria.
The effects of Michigan's weakened
motorcycle helmet use law on insurance
losses – five years later
HLDI Bulletin Vol. 34, No. 36
More on motorcycles
Home » Status Report » 2018 » Article Em PrinAdd
IIHS and HLDI logos
Subscribe
Weak helmet law leads to worse injuries
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/53/3/3[7/10/2018 8:17:13 AM]
average loss payment per claim.
For all three analyses, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin were used as control states because
their laws on helmet use didn't change during the period. Analysts controlled for motorcycle age
and class, rider demographic factors, geographic factors and weather. They also controlled for
insurance policy limits for MedPay coverage.
A separate analysis that didn't take into account policy limits found that MedPay claim severity
was 68 percent higher in Michigan after the law change, compared with the control states.
"With each year, the evidence against Michigan's weakened motorcycle helmet use law
continues to mount," says Matt Moore, senior vice president of HLDI. "If lawmakers in Lansing
are committed to the Wolverine state's 'Toward Zero Deaths' goal, requiring all motorcyclists to
wear helmets is one proven way to save lives."
HLDI data don't include information on the type of injury or where a crash occurred. In this
analysis, Michigan crashes are crashes of motorcycles insured and garaged in the state.
Likewise, the control-state crashes are only crashes of motorcycles insured and garaged in those
states. There also is no way to know how many of the claims involved unhelmeted motorcyclists.
Weakening Michigan's helmet law also has been associated with increases in the number of
head injuries among hospitalized trauma patients and the proportion of injured riders with skull
fractures, a 2016 study by IIHS and the University of Michigan found (see "Head injuries rise as
riders ditch helmets in Michigan," Sept. 1, 2016). A separate study published in The AmericanJournal of Surgery in 2016 found that the average acute care cost of unhelmeted riders at a
single Michigan trauma center was nearly $28,000, 32 percent higher than for helmeted riders.
What is more, the Spectrum Health Butterworth Hospital study found that 10 percent of riders
involved in a crash who weren't wearing helmets died, compared with 3 percent of riders involved
in a crash who wore helmets.
Michigan is one of 28 states that have helmet laws covering only some riders, usually those
under 18. Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire have no helmet requirements. Only 19 states and
the District of Columbia require helmets for all motorcyclists.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that helmets cut the risk of a
motorcycle fatality by 37 percent.
Estimated increase in medical payment claim severity after Michigan helmet law change
Michigan vs. control states, 2010–16
Michigan bikers 21 and older who ride bare-headed must carry at least $20,000 in MedPay coverage. The
average payout under this coverage rose 68 percent after the law change, compared with the control states.
Adjusting for the higher policy limits, the average payout rose 40 percent.
Created with Highcharts 4.0.1without adjusting for policy limitsadjusting for policy
limits0%20%40%60%80%100%
Also in this issue
Study examines rising pedestrian deaths
SIDEBAR Subaru EyeSight cuts pedestrian crashes
Volume 53, Number 3
Media contact
Russ RaderSenior Vice President, Communications
office +1 703 247 1530
mobile +1 202 257 3591
For more information, visit our press room.
ACCESS MORE ISSUES
Map of motorcyle helmet laws
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/helmetuse/mapmotorcyclehelmets?topicName=Motorcycles#map[7/10/2018 3:03:02 PM]
Highway safety research& communications
RATINGS NEWS TOPICS VIDEO STATUS REPORT
Home » Topics » Motorcycle helmet use » Map
MotorcyclesHelmets and antilock brakes make riding less dangerous. SELECT ANOTHER TOPIC
Overview
Q&As
Fatality Facts
State laws
News releases
and articles
Public
presentations
Regulatory and
legislative policy
HLDI research
Selected IIHS
bibliography
Motorcycle helmet use
July 2018
Motorcycle helmet laws vary widely among the states and have changed a lot in the past half a century. Currently, 19 states and
the District of Columbia have laws requiring all motorcyclists to wear a helmet, known as universal helmet laws. Laws requiring
only some motorcyclists to wear a helmet are in place in 28 states. There is no motorcycle helmet use law in three states (Illinois,
Iowa and New Hampshire).
In the past, many more states had universal helmet laws, thanks to pressure from the federal government. In 1967, states were
required to enact helmet use laws in order to qualify for certain federal safety programs and highway construction funds. The
federal incentive worked. By the early 1970s, almost all the states had universal motorcycle helmet laws. However, in 1976, states
successfully lobbied Congress to stop the Department of Transportation from assessing financial penalties on states without
helmet laws.
Low-power cycle is a generic term used by IIHS to cover motor-driven cycles, mopeds, scooters, and various other 2-wheeled
cycles excluded from the motorcycle definition. While state laws vary, a cycle with an engine displacement of 50 cubic centimeters
or less, brake horsepower of 2 or less, and top speeds of 30 mph or less typically is considered an low-power cycle. Twenty-three
states have motorcycle helmet laws that cover all low-power cycles. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have laws that
cover some low-power cycles.
Table Map Table: motorcycle helmet laws history
Hover over map for more detail.
Em PrinAdd
IIHS and HLDI logos
Motorcycle helmet use
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/helmetuse?topicName=motorcycles[7/10/2018 3:00:29 PM]
Highway safety research& communications
RATINGS NEWS TOPICS VIDEO STATUS REPORT
Home » Topics » State laws
MotorcyclesHelmets and antilock brakes make riding less dangerous. SELECT ANOTHER TOPIC
Overview
Q&As
Fatality Facts
State laws
News releases
and articles
Public
presentations
Regulatory and
legislative policy
HLDI research
Selected IIHS
bibliography
Motorcycle helmet use
July 2018
Motorcycle helmet laws vary widely among the states and have changed a lot in the past half a century. Currently, 19 states and
the District of Columbia have laws requiring all motorcyclists to wear a helmet, known as universal helmet laws. Laws requiring
only some motorcyclists to wear a helmet are in place in 28 states. There is no motorcycle helmet use law in three states (Illinois,
Iowa and New Hampshire).
In the past, many more states had universal helmet laws, thanks to pressure from the federal government. In 1967, states were
required to enact helmet use laws in order to qualify for certain federal safety programs and highway construction funds. The
federal incentive worked. By the early 1970s, almost all the states had universal motorcycle helmet laws. However, in 1976, states
successfully lobbied Congress to stop the Department of Transportation from assessing financial penalties on states without
helmet laws.
Low-power cycle is a generic term used by IIHS to cover motor-driven cycles, mopeds, scooters, and various other 2-wheeled
cycles excluded from the motorcycle definition. While state laws vary, a cycle with an engine displacement of 50 cubic centimeters
or less, brake horsepower of 2 or less, and top speeds of 30 mph or less typically is considered an low-power cycle. Twenty-three
states have motorcycle helmet laws that cover all low-power cycles. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have laws that
cover some low-power cycles.
Table Map Table: motorcycle helmet laws history
State Motorcycle helmets Does the motorcycle helmet law cover all low-power cycles?
Alabama all riders yes
Alaska 17 and younger1 yes
Arizona 17 and younger all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 1 1/2, or can attain speeds greater than 25 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Arkansas 20 and younger yes
California all riders yes
Colorado 17 and younger and
passengers 17 and
younger
yes
Connecticut 17 and younger yes
Delaware 18 and younger2 all low-power cycles defined as a moped or triped if the operator is 17 or younger; bicycle helmet
acceptable for motorized scooter
District of
Columbia
all riders all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 1 1/2, or can attain speeds greater than 30 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Florida 20 and younger3 all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 2, or can attain speeds greater than 30 mph and all low-power cycles operated by those 15
and younger are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Em PrinAdd
IIHS and HLDI logos
Motorcycle helmet use
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/helmetuse?topicName=motorcycles[7/10/2018 3:00:29 PM]
Georgia all riders all low-power cycles are covered by the motorcycle helmet law except bicycle helmets are
acceptable for electric assisted bicycles
Hawaii 17 and younger all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 2, or can attain speeds greater than 30 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Idaho 17 and younger all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 5, or can attain speeds greater than 30 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Illinois no law no law
Indiana 17 and younger yes
Iowa no law no law
Kansas 17 and younger all low-power cycles except electric assisted bicycles are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Kentucky 20 and younger4 all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 2, or can attain speeds greater than 30 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Louisiana all riders yes
Maine 17 and younger5 all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc or more than 1,500 watts are
covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Maryland all riders yes
all low-power cycles designed to travel at speeds exceeding 35 mph, scooters with with engine
displacement greater than 50cc or brake horsepower greater than 2.7 and mopeds with an engine
displacement greater than 50cc or brake horsepower greater than 1.5 are covered by the
motorcycle helmet law
Massachusetts all riders yes
Michigan 20 and younger6 all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc or can attain speeds greater
than 30 mph and all low-power cycles operated by those 18 and younger are covered by the
motorcycle helmet law
Minnesota 17 and younger7 yes
Mississippi all riders yes
Missouri all riders all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 3, or can attain speeds greater than 30 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Montana 17 and younger all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 2, or can attain speeds greater than 30 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Nebraska all riders yes
Nevada all riders all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 2, or can attain speeds greater than 30 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
New Hampshire no law no law
New Jersey all riders yes
New Mexico 17 and younger all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc or can attain speeds greater
than 30 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
New York all riders all low-power cycles designed to travel at speeds of 20 mph or greater are covered by the
motorcycle helmet law
North Carolina all riders yes
Motorcycle helmet use
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/helmetuse?topicName=motorcycles[7/10/2018 3:00:29 PM]
North Dakota 17 and younger8 yes
Ohio 17 and younger9 yes
Oklahoma 17 and younger all low-power cycles are covered by the motorcycle helmet law except bicycle helmets are
acceptable for electric assisted bicycles operated by those 18 and younger
Oregon all riders yes
Pennsylvania 20 and younger10 all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 1 1/2, or can attain speeds greater than 25 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Rhode Island 20 and younger11 all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 4.9 or can attain speeds greater than 30 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
South Carolina 20 and younger yes
South Dakota 17 and younger yes
Tennessee all riders yes
Texas 20 and younger12 all low-power cycles, except motor assisted scooters with an engine displacement less than than
40cc, are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Utah 20 and younger yes
Vermont all riders all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 2, or can attain speeds greater than 30 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Virginia all riders all low-power cycles operated at speeds greater than 35 mph or with an engine displacement
greater than 50cc are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Washington all riders yes
West Virginia all riders all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 2, or can attain speeds greater than 30 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
Wisconsin 17 and younger13 all low-power cycles designed to travel at speeds exceeding 30 mph or a Type 1 motorcycle with
an automatic transmission with an engine displacement greater than 50cc are covered by the
motorcycle helmet law
Wyoming 17 and younger all low-power cycles with an engine displacement greater than 50cc, brake horsepower greater
than 2, or can attain speeds greater than 30 mph are covered by the motorcycle helmet law
1 Alaska's motorcycle helmet use law covers passengers of all ages, operators younger than 18, and operators with instructional permits.
2 In Delaware, every motorcycle operator or rider age 19 and older must carry an approved helmet.
3 In Florida, the law requires that all riders younger than 21 years wear helmets, without exception. Those 21 years and older may ride
without helmets only if they can show proof that they are covered by a medical insurance policy.
4 In Kentucky, the law requires that all riders younger than 21 years wear helmets, without exception. Those 21 and older may ride without
helmets only if they can show proof that they are covered by a medical insurance policy. Motorcycle helmet laws in Kentucky also cover
operators with instructional/learner's permits.
5 Motorcycle helmet laws in Maine cover operators with instructional/learner's permits and operators in their first year of licensure. Maine's
motorcycle helmet use law also covers passengers 17 and younger and passengers riding with operators who are required to wear a helmet.
6 In Michigan, the law requires that all riders younger than 21 wear helmets, without exception. Those 21 and older may ride without helmets
only if they carry additional insurance and have passed a motorcycle safety course or have had their motorcycle endorsement for at least two
years. Motorcycle passengers who want to exercise this option also must be 21 or older and carry additional insurance.
7 Motorcycle helmet laws in Minnesota cover operators with instructional/learner's permits.
8 North Dakota's motorcycle helmet use law covers all passengers traveling with operators who are covered by the law.
9 Ohio's motorcycle helmet use law covers all operators during the first year of licensure and all passengers of operators who are covered by
the law.
Motorcycle helmet use
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/helmetuse?topicName=motorcycles[7/10/2018 3:00:29 PM]
10 Pennsylvania's motorcycle helmet use law covers all operators during the first two years of licensure unless the operator has completed
the safety course approved by PennDOT or the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.
11 Rhode Island's motorcycle helmet use law covers all passengers (regardless of age) and all operators during the first year of licensure
(regardless of age).
12 Texas exempts riders 21 or older if they can either show proof of successfully completing a motorcycle operator training and safety course
or can show proof of having a medical insurance policy. A peace officer may not stop or detain a person who is the operator of or a
passenger on a motorcycle for the sole purpose of determining whether the person has successfully completed the motorcycle operator
training and safety course or is covered by a health insurance plan.
13 Motorcycle helmet laws in Wisconsin cover operators with instructional/learner's permits.
Press roomBroadcast-standard
video and info for
the media
About us
Contact us
FAQ
Our Vehicle
Research Center
Member groups
& funding associations
Vehicle testing &
highway safety links
Recent IIHS & HLDI
presentations
Consumer safety
brochures
Institute careers
IIHS-HLDI in the Classroom
An educational resource for students and teachers
©1996-2018, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute, 501(c)(3) organizations | Copyright information and privacy policy | Help page
Q&As
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcycles/qanda#motorcycles--helmets[7/10/2018 2:59:12 PM]
Highway safety research& communications
RATINGS NEWS TOPICS VIDEO STATUS REPORT
Home » Topics » Q&As
MotorcyclesHelmets and antilock brakes make riding less dangerous. SELECT ANOTHER TOPIC
Overview
Q&As
Fatality Facts
State laws
News releases
and articles
Public
presentations
Regulatory and
legislative policy
HLDI research
Selected IIHS
bibliography
General Helmets
May 2018
- close all answers
1. Why is it important for motorcyclists to wear helmets?
Compared with cars, motorcycles are an especially dangerous form of travel. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) estimates that per mile traveled, the number of deaths on motorcycles in 2015 was nearly 28 times
the number in cars. 1 Motorcycles often have high-performance capabilities, including rapid acceleration and high top
speeds. They are less stable than cars in emergency braking and less visible to other motorists. Motorcyclists are more
prone to crash injuries than car occupants because motorcycles are unenclosed, leaving riders vulnerable to contact with
hard road surfaces, other vehicles and fixed objects such as trees. This is why wearing a helmet, as well as other protective
clothing, is so important.
2. How effective are helmets?
Helmets decrease the severity of head injuries, the likelihood of death and the cost of medical care. Helmets are highly
effective in preventing brain injuries, which often require extensive treatment and may result in lifelong disability. NHTSA
estimates that in the event of a crash, unhelmeted motorcyclists are 3 times more likely than helmeted riders to suffer
traumatic brain injuries, and that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a crash fatality by 37 percent. 2 Norvell and
Cummings found a 39 percent reduction in the risk of death after adjusting for the effects of rider age, gender and seat
position. 3 A literature review estimated that helmets reduce the risk of death in a crash by 42 percent and the risk of head
injuries by 69 percent. 4
3. Are some helmets more effective than others?
Helmets that are sold as head protection for motorcyclists are required to meet federal performance standards. Helmets that
don't meet the standards are known as "novelty helmets." A recent study found riders using novelty helmets were about
twice as likely to die in crashes than riders wearing certified, full-face helmets. 5
NHTSA laboratory tests also suggest that head injuries are much more likely with novelty helmets than with certified ones. 6
Certified helmets are available in different styles, including half-coverage (covering the upper half of the head, generally
above the ears), open-face and full-face. One study evaluated the effectiveness of these different styles and found that
crash-involved riders wearing half-coverage helmets were twice as likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries than riders wearing
open-face or full-face helmets. 7
4. Are there drawbacks to helmet use?
Claims have been made that helmets increase the risk of neck injury and reduce peripheral vision and hearing, but there is
no credible evidence to support these arguments. A study by J.P. Goldstein often is cited by helmet opponents as evidence
that helmets cause neck injuries, allegedly by adding to head mass in a crash. 8 More than a dozen studies have refuted
Goldstein's findings. A 1994 study analyzed 1,153 motorcycle crashes in four Midwestern states and determined that
"helmets reduce head injuries without an increased occurrence of spinal injuries in motorcycle trauma." 9 More recently, a
review of cases from a national database found that, among motorcyclists treated for trauma, helmeted riders were less
likely than unhelmeted ones to have cervical spine fractures. 10
Regarding claims that helmets obstruct vision, studies show full-coverage helmets provide only minor restrictions in
horizontal peripheral vision. A 1994 study found that wearing helmets does not restrict the ability to hear horn signals or to
see a vehicle in an adjacent lane prior to initiating a lane change. 11 To compensate for any restrictions in lateral vision, riders
Em PrinAdd
IIHS and HLDI logos
Q&As
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcycles/qanda#motorcycles--helmets[7/10/2018 2:59:12 PM]
increased their head rotation prior to a lane change. There were no differences in hearing thresholds under three helmet
conditions: no helmet, partial coverage and full coverage. The noise typically generated by a motorcycle is so loud that any
reduction in hearing capability that may result from wearing a helmet is inconsequential. Sounds loud enough to be heard
above the engine can be heard when wearing a helmet.
5. What is the history of helmet laws in the United States?
In 1967, the federal government began requiring states to enact motorcycle helmet use laws to qualify for certain federal
safety and highway construction funds. By the end of 1969, 39 states had universal helmet laws. By 1975, all but three
states mandated helmets for all motorcyclists.
As the U.S. Department of Transportation moved in 1976 to assess financial penalties on states without helmet laws,
Congress responded to state pressure by revoking federal authority to assess penalties for noncompliance. Between 1976
and 1978, 20 states weakened their helmet use laws to apply only to young riders, usually those younger than 18. Eight
states repealed helmet use requirements for all motorcyclists.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, several states reinstated helmet laws applying to all riders. In 1991, Congress created
incentives for states to enact helmet use and safety belt use laws. States with both laws were eligible for special safety
grants, while states that had not enacted them by October 1993 had up to 3 percent of their federal highway allotment
redirected to highway safety programs.
Four years after establishing the incentives, Congress again reversed itself. In the fall of 1995, Congress lifted federal
sanctions against states without helmet use laws, paving the way for state legislatures to repeal helmet laws. Now only 19
states and the District of Columbia have helmet laws covering all riders, and 28 states have laws covering some riders,
usually people younger than 18. Three states (Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire) do not have any helmet requirements.
6. How do helmet laws affect helmet use?
In 2017, 97 percent of motorcyclists observed in states with universal helmet laws were wearing helmets. In states without
such laws, helmet use was 48 percent. 12 Use of helmets judged to be compliant with federal safety regulations was 87
percent among motorcyclists in states with universal helmet laws and 44 percent in states without such laws.
In a national telephone survey of motorcyclists, 22 percent of those who said they believe helmets keep riders safer reported
not always wearing helmets while riding. 13 However, only 6 percent of motorcyclists in states with universal laws reported
not always wearing helmets, suggesting that education alone would not be as beneficial in increasing helmet use as a
universal helmet law.
7. How do helmet laws affect deaths and injuries?
In states that either reinstated or enacted universal motorcycle helmet laws, deaths and injuries of motorcyclists decreased.
In states that repealed or weakened their universal helmet laws, deaths and injuries typically rose.
Some examples of the effect of helmet laws on helmet use and death and injury rates:
When California's helmet use law covering all riders took effect on January 1, 1992, helmet use jumped to 99 percent
from about 50 percent before the law, 14 and the number of motorcyclist fatalities decreased 37 percent. 15
Nebraska reinstated a helmet law on January 1, 1989, after repealing an earlier law in 1977. The state then saw a 22
percent reduction in serious head injuries among motorcyclists. 16
From 1968 to 1977, Texas had a universal helmet use law estimated to have saved 650 lives, but the law was amended
in 1977 to apply only to riders younger than 18. The weakened law coincided with a 35 percent increase in motorcyclist
fatalities. Texas reinstated its helmet law for all motorcyclists in September 1989. The month before the law took effect,
the helmet use rate was 41 percent. The rate jumped to 90 percent during the first month of the law and rose to 98
percent by June 1990. 17 Serious injury crashes per registered motorcycle decreased 11 percent. 18 But in September
1997, Texas again weakened its helmet law, requiring helmets only for riders younger than 21. Helmet use in Texas
dropped to 66 percent by May 1998, and operator fatalities increased 31 percent in the first full year following the repeal.
19
Kentucky repealed its universal helmet law in 1998, followed by Louisiana in 1999. These actions resulted in lower
helmet use, and motorcyclist deaths quickly increased in these states by 50 percent and 100 percent, respectively. 20
In 2000, Florida's universal helmet law was weakened to exempt riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of
medical insurance coverage. An Institute study found that the motorcyclist death rate in Florida increased by about 25
percent after the state weakened its helmet law. 21 The death rate rose from 31 fatalities per 1,000 crash involvements
before the law change (1998-99) to 39 fatalities per 1,000 crash involvements after (2001-2002). An estimated 117
deaths could have been prevented during 2001-02 if the law had not been changed. Another study of the Florida law
found a similar effect. Motorcyclist deaths per 10,000 motorcycle registrations increased 21 percent during the two years
after the law was changed compared with the two years before. 22
Q&As
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcycles/qanda#motorcycles--helmets[7/10/2018 2:59:12 PM]
Michigan weakened its universal helmet law in 2012 to exempt riders 21 and older who have at least $20,000 of medical
insurance coverage and have either passed a motorcycle safety course or held a motorcycle license endorsement for at
least two years. After controlling for policy limits to account for the new medical insurance requirement, this law change
was associated with a 22 percent increase in the average insurance payment for injuries to motorcyclists. 23 The
weakened law also was associated with increases in head injuries and neurological interventions, but no significant
change in deaths. 24
In two studies, researchers modeled state motorcyclist fatality rates by helmet law type, after controlling for factors such as
per capita income, population density and annual precipitation amounts. 25, 26 Death rates were lowest in states with helmet
laws that cover all riders. Rates in states with helmet laws that cover only some riders were lower than those in states with
no helmet law, but not as low as rates in states with helmet laws that cover all riders. These results held for all three types of
rates considered: deaths per 10,000 registered motorcycles, deaths per 100,000 population and deaths per 10 billion vehicle
miles traveled.
8. How do helmet laws impact health care costs?
Unhelmeted riders have higher health care costs as a result of their crash injuries, and many lack health insurance. A 2002
review of 25 studies of the costs of injuries from motorcycle crashes reported that helmet use reduced the cost of medical
treatment, length of hospital stay and probability of long-term disability for riders injured in a crash. 27 Studies that looked at
who pays for injured riders' medical care found that just over half of injured riders have private health insurance coverage.
For those without private insurance, most of the medical costs are paid by the government. A more recent study confirmed
the earlier findings that unhelmeted riders had much higher hospital charges than helmeted ones. 28
Here are a few examples of how states' helmet law changes affected health care costs:
A recent study in Michigan found that unhelmeted rider's hospital costs averaged $27,760, compared with $20,967 for
helmeted riders. 29
After California introduced a universal helmet use law in 1992, health care costs associated with head-injured
motorcyclists declined. 30 The rate of motorcyclists hospitalized for head injuries decreased by 48 percent in 1993
compared with 1991, and total costs for patients with head injuries decreased by $20.5 million during this period.
When Nebraska reinstated its universal helmet use law, acute medical hospital charges for injured motorcyclists declined
38 percent. 16
When Florida weakened its universal helmet law in 2000 to exclude riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of
medical insurance coverage, hospital admissions of motorcyclists with head injuries increased 82 percent during the 30
months following the law change. 22 The average inflation-adjusted cost of treating these injuries went up from about
$34,500 before the helmet law was weakened to nearly $40,000 after — 4 times as high as the $10,000 minimum
medical insurance requirement.
Studies conducted in Nebraska, Washington, California and Massachusetts illustrate the burden that injured
motorcyclists place on taxpayers. Forty-one percent of motorcyclists injured in Nebraska from January 1988 to January
1990 lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare. 16 In Seattle, 63 percent of trauma care for injured
motorcyclists in 1985 was paid by public funds. 31 In Sacramento, public funds paid 82 percent of the costs to treat
orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists during 1980-83. 32 Forty-six percent of motorcyclists treated at
Massachusetts General Hospital during 1982-83 were uninsured. 32
9. Are helmet laws that apply only to young motorcyclists effective?
No. Helmet use laws that apply only to young riders are virtually impossible to enforce. Helmet use for all riders is low in
states where partial laws are in effect, and death rates are 20 to 40 percent lower in states with universal laws than in those
with weak laws or no laws. 33
In 2000, Florida weakened its helmet law to exclude riders 21 and older with at least $10,000 of medical insurance
coverage. Even though riders younger than 21 still were required to wear helmets, an Institute study found that they were 97
percent more likely to die in crashes after the law change than before. 21 Helmet use among fatally injured motorcyclists
younger than 21 declined from 72 percent before the law change to 55 percent after.
10. How have courts resolved challenges to helmet laws?
Courts have repeatedly upheld motorcycle helmet use laws under the U.S. Constitution. In 1972, a federal court in
Massachusetts told a motorcyclist who objected to the law: "The public has an interest in minimizing the resources directly
involved. From the moment of injury, society picks the person up off the highway; delivers him to a municipal hospital and
municipal doctors; provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job; and, if
the injury causes permanent disability, may assume responsibility for his and his family's subsistence. We do not understand
a state of mind that permits plaintiff to think that only he himself is concerned." The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this
Q&As
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcycles/qanda#motorcycles--helmets[7/10/2018 2:59:12 PM]
decision without hearing arguments in the case. 34
11. Do people support mandatory helmet use laws?
According to a 2000 national telephone survey, 81 percent of respondents reported that they favored mandatory helmet use
laws for motorcyclists. Support was more prevalent among females (88 percent) than males (72 percent) and among non-
motorcyclists (83 percent) than those who drove motorcycles (51 percent). Support was higher in states requiring all riders
to wear helmets (84 percent) compared with states with lesser requirements (75 percent) or no requirements (79 percent). 35
In an Institute survey of motorcyclists conducted in 2009, 45 percent said they favor universal helmet laws. 13 Those who
favor universal laws were more likely to report that they believe helmets keep riders safer than those who do not favor
universal helmet laws (87 percent vs. 65 percent). Among motorcyclists who reported not always wearing helmets while
riding, 57 percent said that a helmet law would encourage full-time helmet use.
References
1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2018. Traffic safety facts, 2016: motorcycles. Report no. DOT HS-812-492. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2008. Traffic safety facts, laws: motorcycle helmet use laws. Report no. DOT HS-810-
887W Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
3 Norvell, D.C. and Cummings, P. 2002. Association of helmet use with death in motorcycle crashes: a matched-pair cohort
study.American Journal of Epidemiology 156(5):483-7.
4 Liu, B.C; Ivers, R.; Norton, R.; Boufous, S.; Blows, S.; and Lo, S.K. 2009. Helmets for preventing injury in motorcycle riders
(Review), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 1. Oxfordshire, England: The Cochrane Collaboration.
5 Rice, T.M.; Troszak, L.; Erhardt, T.; Trent, R.B.; Zhu, M. 2017. Novelty helmet use and motorcycle rider fatality. Accident Analysis andPrevention 103:123-128.
6 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2007. Summary of novelty helmet performance testing. Traffic safety facts, research
note. Report no. DOT HS-810-752. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
7 Yu, W.; Chen, C.; Chiu, W.; and Lin, M. 2011. Effectiveness of different types of motorcycle helmets and effects of their improper use on
head injuries. International Journal of Epidemiology 40(3):794-803.
8 Goldstein, J.P. 1986. The effect of motorcycle helmet use on the probability of fatality and the severity of head and neck injuries: a latent
variable framework. Evaluation Review 10(3):355-75.
9 Orsay, E.M.; Muelleman, R.L.; Peterson, T.D.; Jurisic, D.H.; Kosasih, J.B.; and Levy, P. 1994. Motorcycle helmets and spinal injuries:
dispelling the myth. Annals of Emergency Medicine 23(4):802-6.
10 Crompton, J.G.; Bone, C.; Oyetunji, T.; Pollack, K.M.; Bolorunduro, O.; Villegas, C.; Stevens, K.; Cornwell, E.E. 3rd.; Efron, D.T.; Haut,
E.R.; and Haider, A.H. 2011. Motorcycle helmets associated with lower risk of cervical spine injury: debunking the myth. Journal of theAmerican College of Surgeons 212(3):295-300.
11 McKnight, A.J. and McKnight, A.S. 1994. The effects of motorcycle helmets upon seeing and hearing. Report no. DOT HS-808-399.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
12 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2018. Motorcycle helmet use in 2017 — overall results. Report no. DOT HS-812-512.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
13 McCartt, A.T.; Blanar, L.; Teoh, E.R.; and Strouse, L.M. 2011. Overview of motorcycling in the United States: a national telephone
survey. Journal of Safety Research 42(3):177-194.
14 Kraus, J.F.; Peek, C.; and Williams, A.F. 1995. Compliance with the 1992 California motorcycle helmet use law. American Journal ofPublic Health 85(1):96-9.
15 Kraus, J.F.; Peek, C.; McArthur, D.L.; and Williams, A.F. 1994. The effect of the 1992 California motorcycle helmet usage law on
motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries. Journal of the American Medical Association 272(19):1506-11.
16 Muelleman, R.L.; Mlinek, E.J.; and Collicott, P.E. 1992. Motorcycle crash injuries and costs: effect of a re-enacted comprehensive
helmet use law. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 21(3):266-72.
17 Lund, A.K.; Williams, A.F.; and Womack, K.N. 1991. Motorcycle helmet use in Texas. Public Health Reports 106(5):576-8.
18 Mounce, N.; Brackett, Q.; Hinshaw, W.; Lund, A.K.; and Wells, J.K. 1992. The reinstated comprehensive motorcycle helmet law in
Texas. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
19 Preusser, D.F.; Hedlund, J.H.; and Ulmer, R.G. 2000. Evaluation of motorcycle helmet law repeal in Arkansas and Texas. Washington,
DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
20 Ulmer, R.G. and Preusser, D.F. 2003. Evaluation of the repeal of motorcycle helmet laws in Kentucky and Louisiana. Report no. DOT
HS-809-530. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Q&As
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcycles/qanda#motorcycles--helmets[7/10/2018 2:59:12 PM]
21 Kyrychenko, S.Y. and McCartt, A.T. 2006. Florida's weakened motorcycle helmet law: effects on death rates in motorcycle
crashes. Traffic Injury Prevention 7(1):55-60.
22 Ulmer, R.G. and Northrup, V.S. 2005. Evaluation of the repeal of the all-rider motorcycle helmet law in Florida. Report no. DOT HS-
809-849. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
23 Highway Loss Data Institute. 2013. The effects of Michigan's weakened motorcycle helmet use law on insurance losses. HLDI Bulletin30(9).
24 Carter, P.M.; Buckley, L.; Flannagan, C.A.C.; Cicchino, J.B.; Hemmila, M.; Bowman, P.J.; Almani, F.; Bingham, R.C. 2017. The impact
of Michigan’s partial repeal of the universal motorcycle helmet law on helmet use, fatalities, and head injuries. American Journal of PublicHealth 107:166-172.
25 Houston, D.J. and Richardson, Jr., L.E. 2007. Motorcycle safety and the repeal of universal helmet laws. American Journal of PublicHealth 97(11):2063-9.
26 Houston, D.J. and Richardson, Jr., L.E. 2008. Motorcyclist fatality rates and mandatory helmet-use laws. Accident Analysis andPrevention 40(1):200-8.
27 Lawrence, B.A.; Max, W.; and Miller, T.R. 2002. Cost of injuries resulting from motorcycle crashes: a literature review. Report no. DOT
HS-809-242. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
28 Heldt, K.A.; Renner, C.H.; Boarini, D.J.; and Swegle, J.R. 2012. Costs associated with helmet use in motorcycle crashes: the cost of
not wearing a helmet. Traffic Injury Prevention 13(2):144-9.
29 Striker, R.H.; Chapman, A.J.; Titus, R.A.; Davis, A.T.; Rodriguez, C.H. 2016. Repeal of the Michigan helmet law: the evolving clinical
impact. American Journal of Surgery 211(3): 529-533.
30 Max, W.; Stark, B.; and Root, S. 1998. Putting a lid on injury costs: the economic impact of the California motorcycle helmet
law. Journal of Trauma 45(3):550-6.
31 Rivara, F.P.; Dicker, B.G.; Bergman, A.B.; Dacey, R.; and Herman, C. 1988. The public cost of motorcycle trauma. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association 260(2):221-3.
32 Bray, T.; Szabo, R.; Timmerman, L.; Yen, L.; and Madison, M. 1985. Cost of orthopedic injuries sustained in motorcycle
accidents. Journal of the American Medical Association 254(17):2452-3.
33 U.S. General Accounting Office. 1991. Highway safety: motorcycle helmet laws save lives and reduce costs to society. Washington,
DC.
34 Simon v. Sargent, 346 F. Supp. 277 (D. Mass.), aff’d, 409 U.S. 1020 (1972).
35 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2000 Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey. Report no. DOT HS-809-389.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
Press roomBroadcast-standard
video and info for
the media
About us
Contact us
FAQ
Our Vehicle
Research Center
Member groups
& funding associations
Vehicle testing &
highway safety links
Recent IIHS & HLDI
presentations
Consumer safety
brochures
Institute careers
IIHS-HLDI in the Classroom
An educational resource for students and teachers
©1996-2018, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute, 501(c)(3) organizations | Copyright information and privacy policy | Help page
NTSB News
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 11 , 2007 SB-07-44
NTSB RECOMMENDS LEGISLATION TO MANDATE ALL MOTORCYCLISTS USE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FMVSS 218-COMPLIANT HELMETS
Washington, DC-The National Transportation Safety Board today issued recommendations to states to require all motorcyclists and their passengers to wear Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 218-compliant helmets.
Currently, only 20 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 territories have universal helmet laws requiring all riders to wear a helmet. Twenty-seven states and 1 territory have partial laws that require minors and/or passengers to wear such helmets. Three states have no helmet laws.
"The facts are very clear- head injuries are a leading cause of deaths in motorcycle crashes," said NTSB Chairman Mark V. Rosenker. "The most important step riders can take in terms of protecting themselves and staying alive is to wear a DOT- compliant helmet every time they ride."
FMVSS 218-compliant helmets are designed with a hard outer shell, an impact-attenuating liner, and a retention system to protect the head, especially the brain, in a variety of impact scenarios.
"Universal helmet laws have proven effective in the mitigation of injuries and the prevention of fatalities. Implementing these recommendations will take strong leadership in the States," Rosenker said. "I hope that the Governors and legislative leaders in the States will act promptly and decisively to implement the universal helmet laws recommended today by the Board."
Since 1997, motorcycle fatalities have increased 127 percent. Last year, 4,810 motorcyclists died in crashes, and accounted for more than 10 percent of all motor vehicle crash fatalities.
Last September, the Safety Board held a public forum and gathered information on ongoing motorcycle research and initiatives, as well as countermeasures that may reduce the likelihood of motorcycle accidents and fatalities. The meeting included participants
representing government, motorcycle manufacturers, motorcyclist associations, state motorcycle rights organizations, researchers, trauma physicians, law enforcement, and insurance companies.
As a result of today's meeting, the National Transportation Safety Board issued the following recommendations:
To the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Reprioritize the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety recommendations based on objective criteria, including known safety outcomes.
Following completion of the reprioritization of the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety, implement an action plan for states and others, such as federal agencies, manufacturers, insurance organizations, and advocacy groups, to carry out those recommendations that are determined to be of high priority.
To the Federal Highway Administration:
Following the 2007 Motorcycle Travel Symposium, develop guidelines for the states to use to gather accurate motorcycle registrations and motorcycle vehicle miles traveled data. The guidelines should include information on the various methods to collect registrations and vehicle miles traveled data and how these methods can be put into practice.
To the three states with no motorcycle helmet laws:
Require that all persons shall wear a Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218-compliant motorcycle helmet while riding (operating), or as a passenger on any motorcycle.
To the 27 states and 1 territory with partial motorcycle helmet laws:
Amend current laws to require that all persons shall wear a Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218-compliant motorcycle helmet while riding (operating), or as a passenger on any motorcycle.
To the 8 states, the District of Columbia, and the 4 territories with universal motorcycle helmet laws/regulations not specifically requiring FMVSS 218- compliant helmets:
Amend current laws to specify that all persons shall wear a Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218-compliant motorcycle helmet while riding (operating), or as a passenger on any motorcycle.
To all states:
Provide information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the effectiveness of your motorcycle safety efforts to assist NHTSA with its effort to reprioritize the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety recommendations.
Full copies of the recommendation letters will be available in a few days on the NTSB website, www.ntsb.gov.
NTSB Media Contact: Terry N. Williams (202) 314-6100 [email protected]
NTSB Home | News & Events
NTSB Home | Contact Us | Search | About the NTSB | Policies and Notices | Related Sites
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis
Traffic Safety Facts2016 Data
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.Washington, DC 20590
February 2018 DOT HS 812 492
Key Findings• In 2016, there were 5,286 mo-
torcyclists killed—a 5.1-percent increase from the 5,029 motorcy-clists killed in 2015.
• Per vehicle miles traveled in 2016, motorcyclist fatalities occurred nearly 28 times more frequently than passenger car oc-cupant fatalities in traffic crashes.
• Twenty-seven percent of mo-torcycle riders involved in fatal crashes in 2016 were riding without valid motorcycle licenses.
• In 2016, motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes were found to have the highest percentage of alcohol-impaired drivers than any other vehicle types (25% for motorcycles, 21% for passenger cars, 20% for light trucks, and 2% for large trucks).
• Thirty-seven percent of motor-cycle riders who died in single-vehicle crashes in 2016 were alcohol-impaired.
• Motorcycle riders killed in traffic crashes at night were three times more frequently alcohol-impaired than those killed during the day in 2016.
• NHTSA estimates that helmets saved 1,859 motorcyclists’ lives in 2016, and that 802 more lives could have been saved if all motor cyclists had worn helmets.
MotorcyclesThe following definitions apply to terms used throughout this fact sheet:
■■ For the purposes of this fact sheet, motorcycles include two- or three-wheeled motorcycles, off-road motorcycles, mopeds, scooters, mini bikes, and pocket bikes.
■■ The motorcycle rider is the person operating the motorcycle; the passenger is a person seated on, but not operating, the motorcycle; the motorcyclist is a general term referring to either the rider or passenger.
■■ Drivers or motorcycle riders are considered to be alcohol-impaired when their blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) are .08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher.
In this fact sheet for 2016, the information on motorcycles is presented as follows.
■■ Overview■■ Registration■■ Environmental Characteristics■■ Crash Involvement■■ Speeding
■■ Age■■ Motorcycle Engine Size■■ Licensing and Previous Driving Records■■ Alcohol■■ Helmet Use and Effectiveness
This fact sheet contains information on fatal motor vehicle crashes and fatalities based on data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). FARS is a census of fatal crashes in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico is not included in U.S. totals). Crash and injury statistics are based on data from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES). The NASS GES is a probability-based sample of police-reported crashes from 60 locations across the country, from which estimates of national totals for injury and property-damage-only crashes are derived.
NASS GES was discontinued in 2016 and replaced with a new system called the Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS). The 2016 data year is the first data collection year of CRSS. However, the 2016 estimates are not currently available. Thus, injury and property-damage-only crash estimates for 2016 will not be presented in this publication. For more information, read Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) Replaces the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES) at the end of this publication.
2 NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTS MOTORCYCLES | 2016 DATA
OverviewIn 2016:
• There were 5,286 motorcyclists killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes—an increase of 5.1 percent from the 5,029 motorcyclists killed in 2015.
• Two-wheeled motorcycles accounted for 93 percent of all motorcycles in fatal crashes.
• Motorcyclists accounted for 14 percent of all traffic fatalities and 17 percent of all occupant (driver and passenger) fatalities.
• Of the 5,286 motorcyclists killed in traffic crashes, 94 percent (4,950) were riders and 6 percent (336) were passengers.
Table 1 presents information about motorcyclists killed from 2007 to 2016 and motorcyclists injured from 2007 to 2015. Motorcyclist fatalities increased for the second consecutive year in 2016 and have now reached levels last seen during the 2007–2008 time period. The number of registered motorcycles and motorcycle vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are also presented in Table 1, along with the respective fatality and injury rates.
Table 1Motorcyclists Killed and Injured, and Fatality and Injury Rates, 2007–2016
Year Killed Registered Vehicles Fatality Rate* Vehicle Miles Traveled (millions) Fatality Rate**
2007 5,174 7,138,476 72.48 21,396 24.18
2008 5,312 7,752,926 68.52 20,811 25.52
2009 4,469 7,929,724 56.36 20,822 21.46
2010 4,518 8,009,503 56.41 18,513 24.40
2011 4,630 8,437,502 54.87 18,542 24.97
2012 4,986 8,454,939 58.97 21,385 23.32
2013 4,692 8,404,687 55.83 20,366 23.04
2014 4,594 8,417,718 54.58 19,970 23.00
2015 5,029 8,600,936 58.47 19,606 25.65
2016 5,286 8,679,380 60.90 20,445 25.85
Year Injured Registered Vehicles Injury Rate* Vehicle Miles Traveled (millions) Injury Rate**
2007 103,000 7,138,476 1,443 21,396 481
2008 96,000 7,752,926 1,238 20,811 461
2009 90,000 7,929,724 1,130 20,822 430
2010 82,000 8,009,503 1,024 18,513 443
2011 81,000 8,437,502 965 18,542 439
2012 93,000 8,454,939 1,099 21,385 434
2013 88,000 8,404,687 1,052 20,366 434
2014 92,000 8,417,718 1,088 19,970 459
2015 88,000 8,600,936 1,028 19,606 451
2016 N/A 8,679,380 N/A 20,445 N/A*Rate per 100,000 registered vehicles. **Rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.N/A – Not available.Source: Fatalities – FARS 2007–2015 Final, 2016 Annual Report File (ARF); Vehicles miles traveled and registered vehicles – Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Injured – NASS GES 2007–2015.
RegistrationMotorcycles made up 3 percent of all registered vehicles in the United States in 2016 and accounted for only 0.6 percent of all vehicle miles traveled. Per registered vehicles, the fatality rate for motorcyclists in 2016 was six times the fatality rate for passenger
car occupants, as shown in Table 2. Per VMT in 2016, motorcyclist fatalities occurred nearly 28 times more frequently than passenger car occupant fatalities in motor vehicle traffic crashes.
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 3
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTSMOTORCYCLES | 2016 DATA
Table 2 Occupant* Fatality Rates, by Vehicle Type, 2015 and 2016
Fatality RateVehicle Type
Motorcycles Passenger Cars Light Trucks
2015Per 100,000 Registered Vehicles 58.47 9.58 7.75
Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled 25.65 0.90 0.73
2016Per 100,000 Registered Vehicles 60.90 9.94 7.80
Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled 25.85 0.93 0.73
*Occupants include both riders/drivers and passengers.Sources: Fatalities – FARS 2015 Final File, 2016 ARF; Vehicle miles traveled and registered motorcycles – FHWA
Environmental Characteristics
1 Definitions for the different roadway function class can be found at www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_classifications/fcauab.pdf.
Figure 1 displays information about the setting surrounding the motorcyclist fatalities in 2016 including land use, motorcyclist location, weather, light condition, and roadway function class. In 2016 (based on known values):
• 57 percent of the motorcycle fatalities occurred in urban areas, compared to 43 percent in rural areas.
• 66 percent occurred on non-intersection locations, compared to 34 percent on intersections.
• 59 percent occurred during daylight, compared to 36 percent in the dark, 4 percent during dusk, and 1 percent during dawn.
• 97 percent occurred in cloudy/clear conditions, compared to 2 percent in the rain, and 1 percent in other conditions.
• 91 percent occurred on non-interstate roads, compared to 9 percent on interstates.1
Figure 1 Motorcycle Traffic Fatalities, by Land Use, Motorcyclist Location, Weather, Light Condition, and Roadway Function Class1, 2016
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Interstate
9%
21% 20%
12%
6%
32%
Non-InterstatePrincipal Arterial
Non-InterstateMinor Arterial
Non-InterstateCollector
Non-InterstateLocal
Non-InterstateFreeway/Expressway
Roadway Function Class1
Light Condition
Dawn 1%
Dark36%
Daylight59%
Dusk 4%Motorcyclist Location
Intersection34%
Non-Intersection
66%Clear/Cloudy
97%
Rain 2%Other 1%
Land Use
Rural43%
Urban57%
Weather
Source: 2016 FARS ARFNote: Unknowns were removed before calculating percentages.
4 NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTS MOTORCYCLES | 2016 DATA
Crash Involvement Data shows in 2016 that the most harmful event for 2,976 (55%) of the 5,421 motorcycles involved in fatal crashes were collisions with motor vehicles in transport.
In two-vehicle crashes, 72 percent of the motorcycles involved in motor vehicle traffic crashes were impacted in the front. Only 7 percent were impacted in the rear.
Motorcycles were more frequently involved in fatal collisions with fixed objects than other vehicle types. In 2016, 23 percent of the motorcycles involved in fatal crashes collided with fixed objects, compared to 17 percent for passenger cars, 13 percent for light trucks, and 4 percent for large trucks.
In 2016, there were 2,625 two-vehicle fatal crashes involving a motorcycle and another type of vehicle. In 41 percent (1,081) of these crashes, the other vehicles were turning left while the motorcycles were going straight, passing, or overtaking other vehicles. Both vehicles were going straight in 594 crashes (23%).
SpeedingNHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if the driver was charged with a speeding-related offense or if an investigating police officer indicated that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash. In 2016, 33 percent of all motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes were speeding, compared to 19 percent for passenger car drivers, 15 percent for light-truck drivers, and 7 percent for large-truck drivers.
AgeFrom 2007 to 2016, motorcyclist fatalities increased by 2 percent. The 40-and-older age group made up 49 percent of motorcyclists killed in 2007, as compared to 54 percent of the motorcyclists killed in 2016. Over the 10-year period from 2007 to 2016, fatalities among the 40-and-older age group increased by 12 percent (from 2,545 to 2,841). In 2007, the average age of motorcycle riders killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes was 39, whereas in 2016 the average age was 43.
Weekday is defined as 6 a.m. Monday to 5:59 p.m. Friday, and weekend is defined as 6 p.m. Friday to 5:59 a.m. Monday. Table 3 shows that in 2007 and 2016, roughly half of the motorcyclists were killed in traffic crashes during the weekend versus weekday.
Based on the difference in the number of hours between weekday and weekend, there were more than 1.6 times as many motorcyclist fatalities in traffic crashes in 2016 during the weekend (19.1) versus weekday (11.9), which is similar to 2007 (19.7 versus 11.1). Among the different age groups in 2007, the 30-and-younger motorcyclists were found to have the highest rate of motorcyclists killed in traffic crashes during the weekend (5.8) versus weekday (3.5). In 2016, the 50-and-older age group had the highest rate during the weekend (6.9) versus weekday (4.4).
Table 3Motorcyclist Fatalities, by Age Group, Year, and Day of Week, 2007 and 2016
Age GroupWeekday
(6 a.m. Monday to 5:59 p.m. Friday)Weekend
(6 p.m. Friday to 5:59 a.m. Monday) Total*
2007
<30 824 751 1,581
30–39 520 519 1,043
40–49 564 604 1,173
50+ 691 680 1,372
Total* 2,601 2,557 5,174
2016
<30 815 670 1,488
30–39 501 446 952
40–49 437 462 901
50+ 1,038 900 1,940
Total* 2,793 2,481 5,286
Source: FARS 2007 Final File, 2016 ARF*Total includes unknown age and unknown time of day.
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 5
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTSMOTORCYCLES | 2016 DATA
Motorcycle Engine SizeTable 4 presents motorcyclist fatalities by the engine sizes of the motorcycles. Twenty-seven percent of motorcyclists killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2016 were riding motorcycles with engine sizes from 1,001 to 1,500 cubic centimeters (cc), down from 36 percent in 2007. In 2016, 22 percent of motorcyclists were killed while riding motorcycles with engine sizes of 1,501 cc or higher, up from just 8 percent in 2007.
Overall, the total number of motorcyclist fatalities, including all engine sizes, increased by 2 percent over the same period from 5,174 in 2007 to 5,286 in 2016.
The number of motorcyclist fatalities on motorcycles with engine sizes of 1,000 cc or less showed a decrease of 9 percent during this time period. Motorcyclist fatalities on motorcycles with engine sizes between 1,001 and 1,500 cc decreased by 23 percent (from 1,839 to 1,418), while the number of motorcyclists killed on motorcycles with engine sizes of 1,501 cc or higher increased by nearly 186 percent (from 403 to 1,151).
Table 4Motorcyclist Fatalities, by Engine Size (cc), 2007 and 2016
Year
Engine Displacement (cc)TotalUp to 500 501–1,000 1,001–1,500 1,501 & Higher Unknown
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent2007 233 5% 2,280 44% 1,839 36% 403 8% 419 8% 5,174 100%2016 339 6% 1,959 37% 1,418 27% 1,151 22% 419 8% 5,286 100%
Source: FARS 2007 Final File, 2016 ARFNote: Other motorcycle characteristics besides engine displacement influence power and speed capability. NHTSA has not determined that there is a causal relationship between displacement and fatality risk. FHWA motorcycle registration data not available by engine size.
Licensing and Previous Driving RecordsTwenty-seven percent of motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes in 2016 were riding without valid motorcycle licenses at the time of the collisions, while only 13 percent of passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes did not have valid licenses. (Passenger vehicles include passenger cars and light trucks.) A valid motorcycle license includes a rider having a valid driver license (non-CDL license status) with a motorcycle endorsement or motorcycle-only license.
As shown in Figure 2, motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes had the highest percentages of drivers with previous driving convictions (driving while impaired [DWI], speeding, and revocation) as compared to other vehicle drivers. Motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes were 1.2 times more likely than passenger car drivers to have previous license suspensions or revocations (20.4% and 16.5%, respectively). Note that FARS records drivers’ previous driving records that occurred up to five years prior to the date of the crash starting in 2015.
Figure 2 Previous Driving Records of Drivers Involved in Fatal Traffic Crashes, by Vehicle Type, 2016
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Recorded Crashes
21.0%
16.3%
20.3%17.9%
26.8%
19.7%22.1%
20.1% 20.4%
14.0%
9.1%
16.5%
5.4%3.8%
1.0%
3.6%
DWI Convictions Speeding Convictions Recorded Suspensionsor Revocations
Motorcycles Passenger Cars
Light Trucks Large Trucks
Source: 2016 FARS ARFNote: Excludes all drivers with a previous record that were unknown.
6 NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTS MOTORCYCLES | 2016 DATA
AlcoholIn 2016, there were 4,950 motorcycle riders killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes. Of those, 1,259 (25%) were alcohol-impaired (BAC of .08 g/dL or higher). In addition, there were 355 (7%) fatally injured motorcycle riders who had lower alcohol levels (BACs of .01 to .07 g/dL).
Motorcycle riders involved (killed or survived) in fatal crashes in 2016 had higher percentages of alcohol impairment than any other type of motor vehicle driver (25% for motorcycle riders, 21% for passenger car drivers, 20% for light-truck drivers, and 2% for drivers of large trucks).
The highest percentages of fatally injured, alcohol-impaired motorcycle riders were in the 35-to-39 age group (38%), followed by the 45-to-49 age group (37%) and the 40-to-44 age group (32%), when compared to other age groups.
As shown in Table 5, 37 percent of the 1,970 motorcycle riders who died in single-vehicle crashes in 2016 were alcohol-impaired, as compared to 41 percent in 2007. Fifty-five percent of those killed in single-vehicle crashes on weekend nights were alcohol-impaired.
Table 5Motorcycle Riders Killed With BACs of .08 or Higher, by Crash Type and Day of Week, 2007 and 2016
Crash Type and Day of the Week
2007 2016
Total Motorcycle Riders Killed
With BAC=.08+ Total Motorcycle Riders Killed
With BAC=.08+
Number Percent Number Percent
Total Total* 4,853 1,357 28% 4,950 1,259 25%
Weekday 2,459 536 22% 2,650 554 21%
Weekend 2,380 812 34% 2,289 699 31%
Single-Vehicle Total* 2,190 894 41% 1,970 720 37%
Weekday 989 330 33% 918 288 31%
Weekend 1,189 556 47% 1,041 425 41%
Multiple-Vehicle Total* 2,663 463 17% 2,980 539 18%
Weekday 1,470 207 14% 1,732 265 15%
Weekend 1,191 256 22% 1,248 274 22%
Source: FARS 2007 Final File, 2016 ARF*Includes riders involved in fatal crashes when time of day was unknown.
Motorcycle riders killed in traffic crashes at night were three times more frequently found to be alcohol-impaired than those killed during the day (40% and 12%, respectively).
The reported helmet use rate for alcohol-impaired motorcycle riders killed in traffic crashes was 50 percent, as compared to 65 percent for those with no alcohol (BAC=.00 g/dL).
Table 6 presents the percentage of motorcycle riders killed who were alcohol-impaired, by States where the crashes occurred. The percentages ranged from a low of 9 percent (Mississippi) to a high of 47 percent (Nebraska), compared to the national average of 25 percent.
Additional State/county-level data is available at NHTSA’s State Traffic Safety Information website: https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/stsi.htm.
Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) Replaces the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES)
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) redesigned the nationally representative sample of police-reported traffic crashes, which estimates the number of police-reported injury and property-damage-only crashes in the United States. The new system, called CRSS, replaced NASS GES in 2016. However, the 2016 estimates are not currently available. NHTSA
is currently processing the file to ensure the data is accurate and complete, and is finalizing the new weighting and calibration procedures to produce national estimates. Once completed, NHTSA will release the data and publish the estimated number of police-reported injury and property-damage-only crashes that occurred during 2016.
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 7
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTSMOTORCYCLES | 2016 DATA
Table 6Motorcycle Rider Fatalities, by State and Rider’s BAC, 2016
StateTotal Motorcycle Riders
KilledPercentage of Motorcycle Riders Killed, by Their BAC
BAC=.01+ BAC=.08+ BAC=.15+Alabama 96 32% 25% 14%Alaska 5 26% 24% 20%Arizona 136 34% 27% 14%Arkansas 69 29% 18% 11%California 529 31% 24% 14%Colorado 114 29% 21% 14%Connecticut 50 44% 32% 16%Delaware 13 48% 39% 23%District of Columbia 6 45% 45% 22%Florida 555 34% 28% 16%Georgia 167 25% 21% 10%Hawaii 24 28% 21% 11%Idaho 21 41% 29% 23%Illinois 139 31% 27% 19%Indiana 90 31% 25% 11%Iowa 55 31% 19% 11%Kansas 48 24% 20% 9%Kentucky 107 24% 19% 12%Louisiana 88 35% 31% 23%Maine 18 35% 28% 13%Maryland 71 32% 21% 7%Massachusetts 39 34% 22% 12%Michigan 141 29% 22% 11%Minnesota 49 27% 18% 10%Mississippi 49 19% 9% 5%Missouri 118 31% 23% 15%Montana 16 44% 44% 35%Nebraska 19 58% 47% 26%Nevada 73 31% 24% 11%New Hampshire 17 31% 25% 18%New Jersey 69 31% 20% 13%New Mexico 42 37% 26% 19%New York 128 24% 16% 7%North Carolina 176 31% 21% 13%North Dakota 12 26% 17% 17%Ohio 178 41% 32% 19%Oklahoma 81 36% 32% 21%Oregon 51 40% 33% 15%Pennsylvania 174 27% 23% 13%Rhode Island 4 25% 25% 25%South Carolina 168 33% 26% 19%South Dakota 21 20% 20% 7%Tennessee 135 32% 24% 16%Texas 458 40% 33% 19%Utah 39 21% 17% 4%Vermont 10 32% 31% 11%Virginia 78 31% 28% 18%Washington 78 36% 30% 18%West Virginia 26 35% 23% 14%Wisconsin 79 44% 31% 21%Wyoming 21 33% 28% 17%U.S. Total 4,950 33% 25% 15%Puerto Rico 42 40% 25% 10%Source: FARS 2016 ARF
8 NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTS MOTORCYCLES | 2016 DATA
Helmet Use and EffectivenessNHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,859 motorcyclists in 2016. If all motorcyclists had worn helmets, an additional 802 lives could have been saved.2
Helmets are estimated to be 37-percent effective in preventing fatal injuries to motorcycle riders, and 41 percent for motorcycle passengers. In other words, for every 100 motorcycle riders killed in crashes while not wearing helmets, 37 of them could have been saved had all 100 worn helmets.
According to results from the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), the overall rate of DOT-compliant motorcycle helmet use in the United States was 65.3 percent in 2016. Helmet use continued to be significantly higher in States that required all motorcyclists to be helmeted than in other States (see Figure 3 in Motorcycle Helmet Use in 2016 – Overall Results, Report No. DOT HS 812 378, available at crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812275).
Reported helmet use rates for fatally injured motorcyclists in 2016 were 60 percent for riders and 44 percent for passengers, compared with 61 percent and 48 percent, respectively, in 2015. Table 7 shows that 41 percent of the 5,286 motorcyclists killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes were not helmeted, based on known helmet use. The State-level percentages ranged from a high of 100 percent (Rhode Island) to a low of 0 percent (District of Columbia).
All motorcycle helmets sold in the United States are required to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218, the performance standard that establishes the minimum level of protection for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists.
In 2016, only 19 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico required helmet use for all motorcyclists. Excluding the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, the “known” helmet use percentages in fatal crashes ranged from 66 percent (West Virginia) to 96 percent (Washington) for these 19 States.
In 28 States, helmet use was required for only a subset of motorcyclists (typically, motorcyclists under age 18), and 3 States (Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire) did not require helmet use for motorcyclists of any age. The “known” helmet use percentages in fatal crashes ranged from 0 percent (Rhode Island) to 69 percent (Delaware) for these 31 States.
The most current information on helmet use laws is available on the GHSA website at http://www.ghsa.org/state-laws/issues/motorcyclists. In States without universal helmet laws, 60 percent of motorcyclists killed in 2016 were not wearing helmets, as compared to 8 percent in States with universal helmet laws. According to NOPUS, in 2016, DOT-compliant motorcycle helmet use in States requiring all to use helmets was 79.6 percent, compared to 53.5 percent in other States.
The suggested APA format citation for this document is:
National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2018, February). Motorcycles: 2016 data (Updated, Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 812 492). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
For more information:Information on traffic fatalities is available from the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, NSA-230, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. NCSA can be contacted at 800-934-8517 or by e-mail at [email protected]. General information on highway traffic safety can be found at www.nhtsa.gov/NCSA. To report a safety-related problem or to inquire about motor vehicle safety information, contact the Vehicle Safety Hotline at 888-327-4236.
Other fact sheets available from the National Center for Statistics and Analysis are Alcohol-Impaired Driving, Bicyclists and Other Cyclists, Children, Large Trucks, Occupant Protection, Older Population, Passenger Vehicles, Pedestrians, Rural/Urban Comparisons, School Transportation-Related Crashes, Speeding, State Alcohol Estimates, State Traffic Data, Summary of Motor Vehicle Crashes, and Young Drivers. Detailed data on motor vehicle traffic crashes are published annually in Traffic Safety Facts: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. The fact sheets and annual Traffic Safety Facts report can be found at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/.
2 National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2017, October). Lives saved in 2016 by restraint use and minimum-drinking-age laws (Traffic Safety Facts Crash•Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812 454). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812454.
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 9
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTSMOTORCYCLES | 2016 DATA
Table 7Motorcyclist Fatalities, by State and Helmet Use, 2016
State
Helmet UseTotal
Percent “Known” Helmeted
Percent “Known” UnhelmetedHelmeted Unhelmeted Unknown
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Percent PercentAlabama 93 90% 10 10% 0 0% 103 100% 90% 10%Alaska 4 67% 2 33% 0 0% 6 100% 67% 33%Arizona 53 36% 86 59% 7 5% 146 100% 38% 62%Arkansas 23 29% 57 71% 0 0% 80 100% 29% 71%California 511 93% 25 5% 12 2% 548 100% 95% 5%Colorado 42 34% 82 66% 1 1% 125 100% 34% 66%Connecticut 14 27% 36 69% 2 4% 52 100% 28% 72%Delaware 9 64% 4 29% 1 7% 14 100% 69% 31%District of Columbia 5 83% 0 0% 1 17% 6 100% 100% 0%Florida 288 49% 283 48% 15 3% 586 100% 50% 50%Georgia 154 90% 9 5% 9 5% 172 100% 94% 6%Hawaii 9 38% 15 63% 0 0% 24 100% 38% 63%Idaho 7 32% 14 64% 1 5% 22 100% 33% 67%Illinois 38 25% 116 75% 1 1% 155 100% 25% 75%Indiana 24 24% 72 71% 5 5% 101 100% 25% 75%Iowa 13 22% 47 78% 0 0% 60 100% 22% 78%Kansas 21 40% 30 58% 1 2% 52 100% 41% 59%Kentucky 35 32% 76 68% 0 0% 111 100% 32% 68%Louisiana 80 85% 11 12% 3 3% 94 100% 88% 12%Maine 6 33% 12 67% 0 0% 18 100% 33% 67%Maryland 63 84% 11 15% 1 1% 75 100% 85% 15%Massachusetts 38 90% 2 5% 2 5% 42 100% 95% 5%Michigan 63 41% 78 51% 11 7% 152 100% 45% 55%Minnesota 17 30% 36 64% 3 5% 56 100% 32% 68%Mississippi 39 78% 7 14% 4 8% 50 100% 85% 15%Missouri 108 85% 15 12% 4 3% 127 100% 88% 12%Montana 5 29% 12 71% 0 0% 17 100% 29% 71%Nebraska 9 45% 3 15% 8 40% 20 100% 75% 25%Nevada 59 80% 12 16% 3 4% 74 100% 83% 17%New Hampshire 11 58% 8 42% 0 0% 19 100% 58% 42%New Jersey 63 89% 3 4% 5 7% 71 100% 95% 5%New Mexico 25 53% 22 47% 0 0% 47 100% 53% 47%New York 119 89% 9 7% 6 4% 134 100% 93% 7%North Carolina 168 91% 14 8% 3 2% 185 100% 92% 8%North Dakota 2 17% 10 83% 0 0% 12 100% 17% 83%Ohio 53 27% 145 73% 1 1% 199 100% 27% 73%Oklahoma 24 27% 64 73% 0 0% 88 100% 27% 73%Oregon 46 85% 3 6% 5 9% 54 100% 94% 6%Pennsylvania 87 46% 97 51% 7 4% 191 100% 47% 53%Rhode Island 0 0% 4 100% 0 0% 4 100% 0% 100%South Carolina 52 28% 133 72% 0 0% 185 100% 28% 72%South Dakota 6 27% 15 68% 1 5% 22 100% 29% 71%Tennessee 133 90% 13 9% 1 1% 147 100% 91% 9%Texas 213 43% 265 54% 12 2% 490 100% 45% 55%Utah 18 44% 21 51% 2 5% 41 100% 46% 54%Vermont 9 82% 2 18% 0 0% 11 100% 82% 18%Virginia 75 95% 4 5% 0 0% 79 100% 95% 5%Washington 76 94% 3 4% 2 2% 81 100% 96% 4%West Virginia 19 66% 10 34% 0 0% 29 100% 66% 34%Wisconsin 17 20% 65 76% 3 4% 85 100% 21% 79%Wyoming 8 33% 16 67% 0 0% 24 100% 33% 67%U.S. Total 3,054 58% 2,089 40% 143 3% 5,286 100% 59% 41%Puerto Rico 20 44% 25 56% 0 0% 45 100% 44% 56%Source: FARS 2016 ARF Note: Shading indicates States requiring helmet use for all motorcyclists.
13405-020518-v3
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTSResearch Note
Motorcycle Helmet Use in 2017—Overall ResultsUse of DOT-compliant motorcycle helmets1 was 65.2 percent in 2017, not statistically different at the 0.05 level from 65.3 percent in 2016. This result is from the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), the only sur-vey that provides nationwide probability-based observed data on motorcycle helmet use in the United States. The NOPUS is conducted by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Figure 1 shows the motorcycle helmet use trend since 2000. Figure 2 shows the percentages of motorcyclists using DOT-compliant helmets, non-compliant helmets, and no helmet in 2016 and 2017.
The 2017 survey also found the following:■■ Helmet use continued to be significantly higher in States that require all motorcyclists to be helmeted than in other States (Figure 3)■■ Helmet use among motorcyclists on expressways increased significantly to 88.9 percent in 2017, up from 69.8 percent in 2016. (Table 1) ■■ Helmet use among motorcyclists traveling in fast traffic increased significantly to 80.1 percent in 2017, up from 66.7 percent in 2016 (Table 1)■■ Helmet use among motorcyclists traveling in heavy traffic increased significantly to 78.5 percent in 2017, up from 64.0 percent in 2016. (Table 1)
Figure 1Motorcycle Helmet Use, 2000 – 2017 (Data Source: NOPUS*)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2000 2001
71.0%57.7% 58.4%
48.3% 50.9%58.5% 62.7% 67.0%
54.3% 60.4% 59.5% 64.3% 60.7% 65.3% 65.2%66.5%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Helm
et U
se, i
n Pe
rcen
t
* Prior to 2004, motorcycle helmet use data were collected every other year since the NOPUS began in 1994. Data on motorcycle helmet use was not collected in 2001 and 2003.
Figure 2Motorcyclists, by Helmet Type (NOPUS)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DOT-CompliantHelmets
20172016
65.3% 65.2%
8.6% 7.1%26.1% 27.7%
NoncompliantHelmets
No HelmetPerc
ent o
f Mot
orcy
clis
ts U
sing
Figure 3Motorcycle Helmet Use in 2017, by State Law and Helmet Type (NOPUS)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
87.0%
9.9%
43.7%
4.3%
States RequiringAll to Use Helmets
DOT-CompliantHelmets
NoncompliantHelmets
Other States
Helm
et U
se in
201
7
DOT HS 812 512 April 2018
1 DOT-compliant motorcycle helmets are those helmets meeting the safety requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218. Throughout this Research Note the term helmet use refers to the use of DOT-compliant motorcycle helmets unless otherwise stated.
2
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
Table 1Use of Helmets Compliant With Federal Safety Regulations by Major Motorcyclist Characteristics
Motorcyclist Group
2016 2017 2016–2017 Change
Helmet Use1
95% Confidence
Interval2Helmet
Use1
95% Confidence
Interval2
Change in Percentage
Points6
95% Confidence
Interval3 P-Value4
All Motorcyclists 65.3% (57.6, 72.2) 65.2% (56.6, 72.9) -0.1 (-11.0, 10.9) 0.99Riders 67.8% (59.2, 75.4) 68.0% (60.1, 75.0) 0.2 (-10.7, 11.0) 0.98Passengers 52.5% (38.5, 66.1) 51.1% (37.0, 65.1) -1.4 (-23.3, 20.5) 0.90
Motorcyclists in States Where5 Use Is Required for All Motorcyclists 79.6% (67.4, 88.0) 87.0% (79.4, 92.0) 7.4 (-4.6, 19.4) 0.22Other States 53.5% (43.3, 63.4) 43.7% (33.2, 54.9) -9.8 (-20.0, 0.4) 0.06
Motorcyclists on Expressways 69.8% (54.2, 81.9) 88.9% (81.2, 93.7) 19.1 (3.9, 34.2) 0.02Surface Streets 63.5% (55.3, 70.9) 55.0% (46.7, 63.0) -8.4 (-19.5, 2.6) 0.13
Motorcyclists Traveling in Fast Traffic 66.7% (54.3, 77.2) 80.1% (72.6, 86.0) 13.4 (0.3, 26.5) 0.05Medium-Speed Traffic 68.5% (58.4, 77.1) 56.8% (44.1, 68.7) -11.7 (-24.4, 1.1) 0.07Slow Traffic 58.6% (46.6, 69.7) 44.2% (35.8, 52.9) -14.4 (-28.9, 0.0) 0.05
Motorcyclists Traveling in Heavy Traffic 64.0% (53.9, 73.0) 78.5% (69.3, 85.5) 14.5 (2.6, 26.3) 0.02Moderately Dense Traffic 64.8% (55.8, 72.9) 58.4% (46.0, 69.8) -6.4 (-21.4, 8.6) 0.39Light Traffic 69.9% (54.1, 82.1) 47.3% (31.8, 63.3) -22.7 (-46.4, 1.1) 0.06
Motorcyclists in Light Precipitation 74.2% (21.3, 96.8) 59.8% (41.9, 75.4) -14.5 (-72.2, 43.2) 0.61Light Fog NA NA NA NA NA NA NAClear Weather Conditions 64.7% (57.6, 71.3) 65.4% (56.7, 73.3) 0.7 (-10.6, 12.0) 0.90
Motorcycle Riders When They Are the Sole Rider 70.1% (61.1, 77.7) 72.1% (64.4, 78.7) 2.0 (-7.6, 11.6) 0.67They Have a Passenger 58.9% (46.3, 70.5) 51.3% (37.3, 65.1) -7.7 (-29.8, 14.5) 0.48
Motorcyclists in the Northeast 70.7% (46.8, 86.9) 70.6% (53.7, 83.3) -0.1 (-10.1, 9.9) 0.98Midwest 53.8% (44.8, 62.6) 41.0% (27.9, 55.4) -12.8 (-26.4, 0.7) 0.06South 67.5% (50.7, 80.7) 76.7% (64.3, 85.8) 9.2 (-10.3, 28.8) 0.34West 90.9% (81.1, 95.8) 83.8% (67.8, 92.7) -7.1 (-25.0, 10.9) 0.43
Motorcyclists in Urban Areas 56.7% (48.9, 64.1) 65.3% (56.5, 73.1) 8.6 (-0.2, 17.3) 0.05Rural Areas 72.4% (61.2, 81.4) 65.2% (52.1, 76.3) -7.2 (-26.6, 12.1) 0.45
Motorcyclists Traveling During Weekdays 69.6% (60.1, 77.7) 71.7% (61.9, 79.8) 2.0 (-6.5, 10.5) 0.63Weekday Rush Hours 71.1% (62.6, 78.3) 71.6% (60.2, 80.7) 0.5 (-10.5, 11.5) 0.93Weekday Non-Rush Hours 68.6% (55.4, 79.4) 71.7% (60.1, 81.1) 3.1 (-11.0, 17.3) 0.65Weekends 60.4% (49.5, 70.3) 58.8% (47.9, 68.9) -1.6 (-17.1, 13.9) 0.84
Motorcycle Riders Who Are Riding Alone 70.1% (61.1, 77.7) 72.1% (64.4, 78.7) 2.0 (-7.6, 11.6) 0.67Have a Passenger Using a DOT-Compliant Helmet 83.9% (58.4, 95.1) 89.3% (79.4, 94.8) 5.4 (-15.0, 25.8) 0.59Have a Passenger Using a Noncompliant Helmet NA NA NA NA NA NA NAHave an Unhelmeted Passenger 29.2% (10.5, 59.1) 5.3% (1.9, 14.1) -23.9 (-53.2, 5.4) 0.11
Passengers on Motorcycles on Which The Rider Is Using a DOT-Compliant Helmet 74.8% (52.4, 88.9) 89.1% (79.5, 94.5) 14.3 (-8.6, 37.2) 0.21The Rider Is Using a Noncompliant Helmet NA NA NA NA NA NA NAThe Rider Is Unhelmeted 22.5% (6.5, 54.9) 9.1% (4.0, 19.3) -13.4 (-38.9, 12.0) 0.29
1 Use of helmets meeting the safety requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218, observed between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. among motorcycle riders and passengers.2 The Wilson Confidence Interval is used in the estimated percentages in the motorcyclist group (e.g., motorcyclists in urban areas), which is in the form:
{(2nEFFp + t2) ± t√(t2 + 4nEFFpq)} ⁄ 2(nEFF + t2), where p is the estimated percentage of Helmet Use, nEFF = n ⁄ DEFF is the effective sample size (where n is the sample size and DEFF is the design effect), t ≡ t1–α ⁄ 2(df), is a multiplier from the t-distribution with df degrees of freedom, and q = 1 – p. For percentages these endpoints are multiplied by 100.
3 The regular symmetric interval was used for the estimated change in percentage point, which is in the form: p ± t1–α ⁄ 2(df)√v(p), where p is the estimated change in percentage point, v(p) is its estimated variance, and t1–α ⁄ 2(df) is a multiplier from the t-distribution with df degrees of freedom. The degrees of freedom used in 2017 is different from that used in 2016.
4 A p-value of 0.05 or less indicates that there is a statistically significant difference (at the alpha=0.05 level) between the 2016 and 2017 estimates for the group in question, indicated with bold type.
5 Use rates reflect the laws in effect at the time data was collected.6 Belt use rates, 95% Confidence Interval, annual changes have been rounded to the nearest tenth. Annual changes have been computed based on unrounded estimates and may
not equal those based on displayed values.NA: Data not sufficient to produce a reliable estimate.Source: National Occupant Protection Use Survey, NCSA
3
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
Table 2Use of Noncompliant Helmets by Major Motorcyclist Characteristics
Motorcyclist Group
2016 2017 2016–2017 Change
Helmet Use1
95% Confidence
Interval2Helmet
Use1
95% Confidence
Interval2
Change in Percentage
Points5
95% Confidence
Interval3 P-ValueAll Motorcyclists 8.6% (4.8, 14.9) 7.1% (4.7, 10.6) -1.5 (-7.5, 4.4) 0.60
Riders 7.4% (4.0, 13.4) 7.1% (4.5, 11.0) -0.4 (-6.3, 5.5) 0.90Passengers 14.5% (7.8, 25.3) 7.1% (3.8, 13.0) -7.4 (-17.9, 3.2) 0.16
Motorcyclists in States Where4 Use Is Required for All Motorcyclists 14.9% (7.0, 28.8) 9.9% (5.7, 16.6) -5.0 (-16.9, 6.8) 0.39Other States 3.5% (1.8, 6.4) 4.3% (2.4, 7.8) 0.9 (-2.4, 4.1) 0.59
Motorcyclists on Expressways 8.5% (4.5, 15.2) 5.3% (1.9, 13.7) -3.1 (-10.9, 4.7) 0.42Surface Streets 8.7% (4.3, 16.6) 7.8% (4.9, 12.2) -0.8 (-7.9, 6.2) 0.81
Motorcyclists Traveling in Heavy Traffic 9.0% (5.2, 15.1) 5.6% (3.0, 10.4) -3.3 (-9.8, 3.1) 0.30Moderately-Dense Traffic 6.6% (2.6, 15.6) 7.9% (4.5, 13.4) 1.3 (-6.3, 8.9) 0.73Slow Traffic 10.5% (4.3, 23.3) 9.1% (4.0, 19.5) -1.4 (-12.7, 10.0) 0.81
Motorcyclists Traveling in Heavy Traffic 12.3% (5.9, 24.0) 7.6% (4.2, 13.2) -4.8 (-15.8, 6.2) 0.38Moderately Dense Traffic 4.9% (2.7, 8.8) 9.1% (5.2, 15.6) 4.2 (-1.1, 9.6) 0.12Light Traffic 7.2% (2.9, 16.8) 3.0% (1.2, 7.3) -4.2 (-10.6, 2.2) 0.19
Motorcyclists in Light Precipitation NA NA 20.6% (10.1, 37.5) NA NA NALight Fog NA NA NA NA NA NA NAClear Weather Conditions 9.1% (5.1, 15.7) 6.4% (4.2, 9.8) -2.6 (-8.8, 3.6) 0.39
Motorcycle Riders When They Are the Sole Motorcyclist 7.7% (4.5, 12.9) 7.9% (5.0, 12.5) 0.2 (-5.7, 6.1) 0.94They Have a Passenger 6.3% (1.8, 19.7) 3.5% (1.2, 9.7) -2.8 (-12.2, 6.6) 0.54
Motorcyclists in the Northeast 12.7% (5.0, 28.9) 17.4% (7.6, 35.1) 4.7 (-11.1, 20.5) 0.55Midwest 3.3% (1.6, 7.0) 2.4% (0.7, 7.3) -1.0 (-4.7, 2.8) 0.60South 14.3% (5.2, 33.8) 7.6% (4.9, 11.6) -6.7 (-22.6, 9.2) 0.39West 5.9% (2.5, 13.3) 6.0% (1.6, 19.8) 0.1 (-9.0, 9.3) 0.98
Motorcyclists in Urban Areas 11.4% (6.7, 18.8) 9.2% (5.0, 16.5) -2.2 (-10.3, 5.9) 0.59Rural Areas 6.3% (2.9, 13.2) 5.6% (3.1, 9.9) -0.7 (-6.9, 5.5) 0.82
Motorcyclists Traveling During Weekdays 8.0% (4.9, 13.0) 5.5% (3.6, 8.3) -2.6 (-7.5, 2.4) 0.29Weekday Rush Hours 9.7% (5.3, 17.1) 7.3% (4.0, 13.1) -2.4 (-9.8, 5.0) 0.51Weekday Non-Rush Hours 6.9% (3.8, 12.1) 4.2% (2.4, 7.4) -2.6 (-7.6, 2.3) 0.29Weekends 9.3% (4.3, 18.7) 8.7% (5.1, 14.4) -0.6 (-9.0, 7.8) 0.89
Motorcycle Riders Who Are Riding Alone 7.7% (4.5, 12.9) 7.9% (5.0, 12.5) 0.2 (-5.7, 6.1) 0.94Have a Passenger Using a DOT-Compliant Helmet NA NA NA NA NA NA NAHave a Passenger Using a Noncompliant Helmet NA NA NA NA NA NA NAHave an Unhelmeted Passenger NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Passengers on Motorcycles on Which The Rider Is Using a DOT-Compliant Helmet 8.9% (4.5, 16.9) 6.6% (3.0, 13.9) -2.3 (-10.4, 5.9) 0.57The Rider Is Using a Noncompliant Helmet NA NA NA NA NA NA NAThe Rider Is Unhelmeted NA NA 3.4% (0.9, 12.1) NA NA NA
1 Use of helmets meeting the safety requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218, observed between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. among motorcycle riders and passengers.2 The Wilson Confidence Interval is used in the estimated percentages in the motorcyclist group (e.g., motorcyclists in urban areas), which is in the form:
{(2nEFFp + t2) ± t√(t2 + 4nEFFpq)} ⁄ 2(nEFF + t2), where p is the estimated percentage of Helmet Use, nEFF = n ⁄ DEFF is the effective sample size (where n is the sample size and DEFF is the design effect), t ≡ t1–α ⁄ 2(df), is a multiplier from the t-distribution with df degrees of freedom, and q = 1 – p. For percentages these endpoints are multiplied by 100.
3 The regular symmetric interval was used for the estimated change in percentage point, which is in the form: p ± t1–α ⁄ 2(df)√v(p), where p is the estimated change in percentage point, v(p) is its estimated variance, and t1–α ⁄ 2(df) is a multiplier from the t-distribution with df degrees of freedom. The degrees of freedom used in 2017 is different from that used in 2016.
4 Use rates reflect the laws in effect at the time data was collected.5 Belt use rates, 95% Confidence Interval, annual changes have been rounded to the nearest tenth. Annual changes have been computed based on unrounded estimates and may
not equal those based on displayed values.NA: Data not sufficient to produce a reliable estimate.Source: National Occupant Protection Use Survey, NCSA
4
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
Survey MethodologyThe NOPUS is the only survey that provides nationwide probability-based observed data on motorcycle helmet use in the United States. The survey observes helmet use as it actually occurs at randomly selected roadway sites, and thus provides the best tracking of helmet use in this country.
The survey data is collected by sending observers to prob-abilistically sampled roadways to observe motorcyclists between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Observations are made either while standing at the roadside or, in the case of express-ways, while riding in a vehicle in traffic. In order to cap-ture the true behavior of motorcyclists, NOPUS observers do not stop motorcycles or interview motorcyclists. The 2017 NOPUS data was collected from June 5 to July 1, 2017, while the 2016 data was collected from June 6 to June 25, 2016.
The NOPUS uses a complex multistage probability sam-ple, statistical data editing, imputation of unknown val-ues, and complex estimation procedures. Table 3 shows the observed sample sizes of the 2017 NOPUS Moving Traffic Survey. A total of 998 motorcyclists were observed on the 839 motorcycles at the 1,887 data collection sites.
Table 3Sites, Motorcycles, and Motorcyclists Observed
Numbers of 2016 2017 Percentage Change
Sites Observed* 1,893 1,887 -0.32%
Motorcycles Observed 797 839 5.27%
Motorcyclists Observed 939 998 6.28%
* The number of sites observed reflects the number of sites in the sample frame minus those sites unavailable due to restricted access, traffic problems, or safety issues.
Because the NOPUS sites are selected probabilistically, we can analyze the statistical significance of its results. Statistically significant changes in helmet use between 2016 and 2017 are identified in Table 1 by a p-value that is 0.05 or less in the table’s far-right column.
Data collection, estimation, and variance estimation for the NOPUS are conducted by Westat, Inc., under the direction of the National Center for Statistics and Analysis in NHTSA under Federal contract number DTNH22-13-D-00284.
DefinitionsNHTSA established standards for motorcycle helmets to ensure a certain degree of protection in a crash in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 (Code of Federal Register, Title 49, Volume 5, Part 571, Section 218, October 2003). DOT-compliant helmets are helmets that meet this safety standard, while noncompliant helmets are helmets that do not.
DOT-compliant helmets are marked with an identifying sticker on the back of the helmets. However because of the prevalence of counterfeit stickers, NOPUS data collectors categorize DOT-compliant helmets as helmets that cover the motorcyclists’ ears or are at least 1 inch thick.
NHTSA defines helmet use as the use of DOT-compliant helmets.
At the time the 2017 survey was conducted, 19 States and the District of Columbia required all motorcyclists to be helmeted. Table 4 provides a list of States with laws requir-ing helmet use for all motorcyclists. Twenty-eight States required only a subset of riders or motorcycle passengers to use helmets (such as those under age 17, 18, or 20). Three States, Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire, had no motor-cycle helmet requirement.
Table 4States With Laws* Requiring Helmet Use for All Motorcyclists
Alabama Mississippi Oregon
California Missouri Tennessee
District of Columbia Nebraska Vermont
Georgia Nevada Virginia
Louisiana New Jersey Washington
Maryland New York West Virginia
Massachusetts North Carolina
*States and the District of Columbia with laws in effect as of May 31, 2017
“Expressways” are defined to be roadways with limited access, while “surface streets” comprise all other road-ways. “Rush hour” is defined as 7 to 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 6 p.m.
A roadway is defined to have “fast traffic” if during the observation period the average speed of passenger vehi-cles that pass the observer exceeds 50 mph, with “medium-speed traffic” defined as 31 to 50 mph, and “slow traffic” defined as 30 mph or slower.
5
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
A roadway is defined to have “heavy traffic” if the average number of vehicles on the roadway during the observa-tion period is greater than 5 per lane per mile, with “mod-erately dense traffic” defined as greater than 1 but less than or equal to 5 vehicles per lane per mile, and “light traffic” as less than or equal to 1 vehicle per lane per mile.
The survey uses the following definitions of geographic regions, which are defined in terms of the States contained in the region below:
Northeast: CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT
Midwest: IA, KS, IL, IN, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, WI
South: AL, AR, DC, DE, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV
West: AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY
Please note that NHTSA employs the following data reporting guidelines for the NOPUS publications:
Estimates whose numerator is based on fewer than five observations in the sample, and/or whose denominator is based on fewer than 30 observations in the sample, or that are not statistically different from zero percent are reported as “NA” in publications, including any related estimates.
For More InformationThis Research Note was written by Hongying (Ruby) Li and Timothy M. Pickrell, mathematical statisticians in the Mathematical Analysis Division, NCSA, NHTSA. For questions regarding the information presented in this doc-ument, please contact [email protected].
Additional data and information on the survey design and analysis procedures will be available in upcoming publica-tions to be posted at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#/
Helmets are estimated to be 37 percent effective in pre-venting fatal injuries to motorcycle riders and 41 per-cent for motorcycle passengers (Deutermann, W. [2004] Motorcycle Helmet Effectiveness Revisited, Report No. DOT HS 809 715, and Deutermann, W. [2005] Calculating Lives Saved by Motorcycle Helmets, Report No. DOT HS 809 861, Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).
NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,859 motorcyclists in 2016 (Traffic Safety Facts: Lives Saved in 2016 by Restraint Use and Minimum-Drinking-Age Laws, Report No. DOT HS 812 454, Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). For more infor-mation on the campaign by NHTSA and the States to raise helmet use, see www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/motorcycles.
The NOPUS also observes other types of restraints, such as seat belts and child restraints, and observes driver elec-tronic device use. This publication is part of a series that presents overall results from the survey on these topics. Please see publications in the series, such as “Seat Belt Use in 2017 – Overall Results,” for the latest data on these topics.
This research note and other general information on highway traffic safety may be accessed by Internet users at: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/CATS/index.aspx
13541-032918-v4
The suggested APA format citation for this document is:
Li, R., & Pickrell, T. M. (2018, April). Motorcycle helmet use in 2017—Overall results. (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 812 512). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Published by NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTSCrash • Stats
DOT HS 812 388 A Brief Statistical Summary June 2017
Lives and Costs Saved by Motorcycle Helmets, 2015FindingsIn 2015, the use of motorcycle helmets saved an estimated 1,772 lives. An additional 740 lives would have been saved if all motorcyclists had been wearing helmets. More than $3 billion in economic costs and over $19 billion in comprehensive costs were saved by the use of motorcycle helmets. If all motorcyclists had been wearing helmets, an additional $1.4 billion in economic costs and $8.3 billion in comprehensive costs could have been saved. Economic costs include lost productivity, medical costs, legal and court costs, emergency service costs (EMS), insurance administration costs, congestion costs, property damage, and workplace losses. Comprehensive costs include economic costs, plus the valuation for lost quality of life.
MethodologyThe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) National Center for Statistics and Analysis provides annual esti-mates of lives saved by motorcycle helmets, as well as the costs saved by injuries and fatalities that were prevented by the use of motorcycle helmets. The estimates are obtained using the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets in preventing death (37% for operators and 41% for passengers) and injuries (8% for minor and 13% for serious injury). Information on the methodology of estimating the lives and costs saved, as well as injury details, is available in the NHTSA documents listed in the references.
The estimated number of lives saved is based on the num-ber of helmeted motorcyclist fatalities, while the estimate of additional lives that could have been saved is based on the number of unhelmeted motorcyclist fatalities. Therefore, in years when there are fewer applicable motorcyclist fatalities, the corresponding estimates are lower.
NHTSA does not have State-level data on motorcyclists who have been injured. They are estimated from national and State
totals of motorcyclist fatalities from the Fatality Analysis Report-ing System (FARS) and from national estimates of motorcyclists injured from the General Estimates System (GES). The number of injured motorcyclists in a State is estimated by using the national ratio of motorcyclists injured to motorcyclists killed. The average ratio over the most recent 5 years is used to account for annual sample variance. Because the number and types of injuries motorcyclists experience depends greatly on the use of helmets, injury counts are estimated separately by helmet use status. Table 1 shows the national fatality and injured counts, and the ratios derived from them, for each of the most recent 5 years of available data, along with the 5-year-average ratio values for helmeted and unhelmeted motorcyclists. Note that these average ratios will vary somewhat each time a new year of data replaces the oldest year.
Costs are adjusted using the Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index (CPI). The report by Blincoe, Miller, Zaloshnja, and Lawrence (2015) provides cost data for 2010. These costs are multiplied by the CPI ratio of the current data year (in this case, 2015) to the base year (2010). These values, taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website at www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm, are 218.056 for 2010, and 237.017 for 2015. The dollar values are multiplied by 237.017/218.056, or 1.087, to get current year dollars.
Table 2 provides, for 2015, for each State as well as the Nation, the number of motorcyclist fatalities (total and by helmet use), the helmet use rate in fatal crashes, the number of lives saved by motorcycle helmets, and the number of additional lives that could have been saved at 100-percent helmet use.
Table 3 provides the economic and comprehensive costs saved due to the lives saved and injuries prevented by the use of motorcycle helmets, as well as how much additional could have been saved if all motorcyclists had been wearing helmets.
Table 1: National Annual Motorcyclists Killed and Injured, Known Helmet Use, and Injury-to-Fatality Ratios
YearFatalities Injured Injury-to-Fatality Ratio
Known Helmeted Known Unhelmeted Known Helmeted Known Unhelmeted Helmeted Unhelmeted2011 2,737 1,893 54,669 26,730 19.98 14.122012 2,813 2,039 58,365 29,324 20.75 14.382013 2,679 1,861 53,934 27,482 20.13 14.772014 2,733 1,717 53,597 32,434 19.61 18.892015 2,922 1,938 55,160 26,104 18.88 13.47
Average 19.87 15.13Source: FARS 2011–2014 Final Files; 2015 Annual Report File (ARF). GES 2011–2015.
Published by NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
2
Table 2: Motorcyclist Fatalities by Helmet Use, Helmet Use Rates, Lives Saved, and Additional Lives Savable at 100-Percent Helmet Use, by State, 2015
State
Motorcyclists Fatalities Helmet Use Rate in Fatal Crashes
(Known)Number of
Lives Saved
Additional Lives Savable at
100% Helmet UseTotal Motorcyclist
Fatalities Helmet UsedHelmet Not
UsedHelmet Use Unknown
Alabama 67 57 9 1 86% 34 3Alaska 11 6 4 1 60% 4 2Arizona 136 55 74 7 43% 34 29Arkansas 79 29 48 2 38% 18 18California 462 432 22 8 95% 259 8Colorado 106 39 67 0 37% 23 25Connecticut 53 20 31 2 39% 12 12Delaware 19 13 6 0 68% 8 2District of Columbia 3 2 1 0 67% 1 0Florida 616 316 283 17 53% 193 109Georgia 152 138 10 4 93% 84 4Hawaii 26 10 16 0 38% 6 6Idaho 31 10 21 0 32% 6 8Illinois 147 40 105 2 28% 24 40Indiana 108 17 79 12 18% 11 33Iowa 41 9 31 1 23% 5 12Kansas 44 15 28 1 35% 9 11Kentucky 91 30 61 0 33% 18 23Louisiana 91 78 12 1 87% 47 5Maine 32 8 24 0 25% 5 9Maryland 75 69 6 0 92% 41 2Massachusetts 46 39 7 0 85% 23 3Michigan 141 75 57 9 57% 48 23Minnesota 61 18 38 5 32% 12 16Mississippi 37 29 8 0 78% 17 3Missouri 97 86 7 4 92% 53 3Montana 24 5 18 1 22% 3 7Nebraska 25 18 4 3 82% 12 2Nevada 55 41 11 3 79% 26 4New Hampshire 26 10 16 0 38% 6 6New Jersey 50 43 7 0 86% 25 3New Mexico 38 19 18 1 51% 12 7New York 160 143 14 3 91% 87 5North Carolina 192 176 14 2 93% 105 5North Dakota 8 5 3 0 63% 3 1Ohio 168 55 112 1 33% 33 42Oklahoma 89 26 62 1 30% 15 23Oregon 61 55 3 3 95% 34 1Pennsylvania 178 87 89 2 49% 52 33Rhode Island 9 5 4 0 56% 3 1South Carolina 184 55 129 0 30% 33 48South Dakota 31 9 22 0 29% 5 8Tennessee 123 109 12 2 90% 65 5Texas 443 201 231 11 47% 122 88Utah 36 15 18 3 45% 10 7Vermont 11 11 0 0 100% 7 0Virginia 79 75 3 1 96% 45 1Washington 77 72 4 1 95% 43 1West Virginia 32 25 7 0 78% 15 3Wisconsin 81 15 65 1 19% 9 25Wyoming 24 7 17 0 29% 4 6National 4,976 2,922 1,938 116 60% 1,772 740
Source: FARS 2015 Annual Report File (ARF).Shaded States are those with laws requiring helmet use for all motorcyclists, at the time of publication.
Published by NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
3
Table 3: Economic and Comprehensive Costs Saved by Helmet Use, and Costs Savable by 100-Percent Helmet Use, by State, 2015
State*Economic
Costs Saved*Additional Economic Costs
Savable at 100% Use**Comprehensive
Costs Saved**Additional Comprehensive Costs Savable at 100% Use
Alabama $51,728,874 $5,348,042 $317,988,809 $32,549,687Alaska $7,788,406 $3,378,807 $47,649,265 $20,449,114Arizona $53,833,889 $47,334,525 $329,825,984 $287,060,230Arkansas $26,050,881 $28,064,696 $160,130,562 $170,871,256California $501,416,739 $16,638,567 $3,073,614,879 $101,018,409Colorado $43,825,384 $48,496,322 $270,244,138 $296,182,907Connecticut $29,660,566 $29,901,946 $183,262,566 $183,211,001Delaware $13,572,694 $4,068,227 $83,433,026 $24,753,037District of Columbia $3,534,474 $1,143,011 $21,935,284 $7,029,797Florida $333,898,677 $193,947,455 $2,055,638,048 $1,182,748,462Georgia $132,829,860 $6,214,122 $816,552,615 $37,788,784Hawaii $11,152,154 $11,807,621 $67,779,060 $71,147,958Idaho $8,827,642 $11,790,995 $54,176,777 $71,536,724Illinois $45,159,386 $77,075,187 $278,699,065 $471,506,153Indiana $17,339,738 $53,465,461 $106,518,911 $325,583,099Iowa $9,163,963 $20,585,647 $56,436,065 $125,675,085Kansas $15,993,480 $19,152,123 $98,770,970 $117,130,430Kentucky $26,222,109 $34,818,817 $161,052,809 $211,848,474Louisiana $78,975,964 $7,980,039 $486,438,198 $48,703,490Maine $8,103,900 $15,625,908 $49,662,258 $94,716,700Maryland $87,271,506 $4,889,370 $538,300,363 $29,848,365Massachusetts $51,805,184 $5,979,603 $320,042,774 $36,565,719Michigan $75,059,617 $36,871,436 $461,807,658 $224,553,305Minnesota $22,196,838 $30,073,843 $136,973,146 $183,814,731Mississippi $24,152,056 $4,310,918 $147,994,703 $26,125,172Missouri $87,062,692 $4,594,015 $536,050,871 $28,037,543Montana $4,907,517 $11,538,159 $30,088,302 $70,159,531Nebraska $20,770,501 $2,992,763 $128,157,737 $18,286,163Nevada $42,535,456 $7,384,957 $261,177,878 $44,851,864New Hampshire $11,654,824 $12,043,571 $71,757,903 $73,450,654New Jersey $56,322,125 $5,926,822 $347,171,720 $36,163,259New Mexico $17,642,135 $10,830,313 $108,154,985 $65,707,139New York $190,064,712 $11,966,647 $1,166,451,774 $72,665,674North Carolina $167,806,162 $8,633,752 $1,030,158,744 $52,432,153North Dakota $5,406,021 $2,041,512 $33,375,865 $12,453,776Ohio $53,033,052 $69,702,736 $326,374,509 $424,654,378Oklahoma $24,915,238 $38,813,841 $153,351,616 $236,811,088Oregon $57,591,837 $2,052,066 $352,612,942 $12,482,686Pennsylvania $94,244,254 $62,357,826 $580,515,769 $380,315,668Rhode Island $5,764,646 $2,908,924 $35,441,685 $17,660,064South Carolina $49,148,023 $74,369,032 $301,261,885 $451,011,033South Dakota $9,259,413 $14,606,082 $57,022,497 $89,103,807Tennessee $102,274,639 $7,358,216 $629,249,765 $44,902,650Texas $210,754,034 $156,900,245 $1,300,225,336 $958,930,842Utah $14,141,777 $11,025,648 $86,683,138 $66,920,490Vermont $12,005,401 $0 $73,732,338 $0Virginia $87,737,490 $2,253,432 $542,342,115 $13,786,768Washington $82,768,434 $2,978,618 $509,615,233 $18,153,484West Virginia $21,977,231 $3,929,822 $134,870,576 $23,830,900Wisconsin $15,263,643 $43,123,993 $93,848,622 $262,676,975Wyoming $8,674,498 $13,475,495 $53,740,807 $82,710,172National $3,163,996,030 $1,360,407,608 $19,496,058,104 $8,303,850,132* Economic costs include lost productivity, medical costs, legal and court costs, emergency service costs (EMS), insurance administration costs, congestion costs, property damage, and workplace losses.
**Comprehensive costs include economic costs, plus valuation for lost quality of life.Cost data from from Blincoe, Miller, Zaloshnja, & Lawrence.Sources: FARS 2015 Annual Report File (ARF); Bureau of Labor Statistics; Blincoe et al., 2015.Shaded States are those with laws requiring helmet use for all motorcyclists, at the time of publication.State costs are adjusted for relative per capita income; dollar amounts for the Nation will not equal the sum of the States.
Published by NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
4
12831-070617-v5a
ReferencesBlincoe, L. J., Miller, T. R., Zaloshnja, E., & Lawrence, B. A. (2015,
May). The economic and societal impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2010 (Revised) (Report No. DOT HS 812 013). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812013.pdf.
National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2015, October). Estimating lives and costs saved by motorcycle helmets with updated economic cost information (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 812 206). Washing-ton, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812206.pdf.
National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2011, March). Determining estimates of lives and costs saved by motorcycle hel-mets (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 811 433). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811433.pdf.
Suggested APA format citation for this document:
National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2017, June). Lives and costs saved by motorcycle helmets, 2015 (Report No. DOT HS 812 388). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
For questions regarding the information presented in this document, please contact [email protected]. Inter-net users may access this Crash•Stats and other general information on traffic safety at https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data. To report a safety-related problem or to in-quire about motor vehicle safety information, contact the Vehicle Safety Hotline at 888-327-4236.
Florida's Motorcycle Helmet Law Repeal
.
Number 299 August 2005
On July 1, 2000, Florida repealed the legal requirement that all motorcyclists wear protective helmets. State law now requires helmet use only by riders under the age of 21, and by older riders who do not have a minimum of $10,000 medical insurance coverage.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) contracted with Preusser Research Group to evaluate the effects of the motorcycle helmet law repeal in Florida.
Helmet Use - Observational Surveys
Virtually all observed riders were wearing helmets in a 1998 Florida helmet use observation survey. Only 65 percent of the observed sample, however, wore compliant helmets (helmets that meet the requirements for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218) while 35 percent were wearing noncompliant helmets (headgear that does not meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218). These weighted figures compare to 84 percent approved helmets and 15 percent noncompliant helmets observed in a 1993 survey that noncompliant helmet use was increasing over time.
A 2002 post-law change survey found 47 percent compliant helmet use, 6 percent noncompliant helmet use and 47 percent no helmet use. These results indicate that use of compliant helmets has declined significantly following the law change while wearing noncompliant helmets has largely been abandoned.
Helmet Use - Crash Reports
Among the 515 motorcyclists killed in traffic crashes in the 3 years before the helmet law change (1997-1999), 9 percent were recorded in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) as not wearing a helmet. In the 3 years following the law change (2001-2003), 61 percent of the 933 fatally injured motorcyclists were reported as not wearing a helmet. In 1997-1999, there were 35 motorcyclists under the age of 21 killed in Florida. Of these, 26 percent were not helmeted. In 2001-2003, 101 motorcyclists under age 21 were killed (+ 188 percent) with 45 percent of them not wearing a helmet.
Motorcyclist Fatalities (note 1)
There has been a substantial increase in motorcyclists killed in Florida beginning in the first 6 months of 2000 (the repeal of the all-rider helmet law went into effect on July 1, 2000). Fatalities in the two years following the law change (2001-2002, N=575) were 71 percent greater than the two years before the law change. This is almost double the increase in fatalities for the nation as a whole. Fatalities in Florida per 10,000 registered motorcycles increased 21 percent compared to 13 percent nationally for the 2 years before and after the law change - 75 percent higher than the national rate.
There was an average of 181 motorcyclists killed annually in the 30 months before the law change, and an average of 280 in the 30 months after the law change. Registrations increased an average 33.7 percent in this time period in Florida (219,486 to 293,393). The expected average annual number of motorcycle fatalities as a result of the increase in registrations was 242. The actual number who died in 2002 was 301, 24 percent (59) more motorcycle fatalities than expected as a result of increased registrations alone. The actual number who died in 2003 was 358.
When the increase in motorcycle registrations after the law change is taken into account, the unhelmeted fatality rate per 10,000 registered motocycles increased from 0.7 fatalities in 1998 to 6.1 fatalities in 2002. The rate for helmeted motorcyclist fatalities, on the other hand, fell from 7.6 in 1998 to 3.2 in 2002.
Note 1 - All fatality numbers used in this study are based on FARS vehicle body type code 80 only in order to maintain consistency with the other data sources used such as the Florida motor vehicle crash database. In contrast, NHTSA typically uses FARS body type codes 80-89 when discussing motorcycle crashes. Thus, in its publications about motorcycles (for example, Traffic Safety Facts) NHTSA fatality numbers will differ slightly from the numbers and rates reported in this study. These small differences in no way alter the findings or implications of the results.
Motorcyclist Injuries
The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles produces an annual database of information taken from police motor vehicle crash reports. In the first full year following the law change (2001), there were 1,890 motorcyclists who sustained incapacitating injury and 3,886 who sustained lesser injury. These figures are 32 percent and 28 percent higher, respectively, than the comparable figures in 1999. Injuries per 10,000 registered motorcycles increased in 2000, but decreased in 2001. Although the injury rate per registered motorcycle in 2001 is less than the rate in 1999, the previous downward trend of non-fatal injuries per registered motorcycle appears to have slowed following the law change.
Hospital Discharge Data
The Hospital Discharge database maintained by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration shows that in the 30 months immediately following the helmet law change, there were 4,986 motorcyclists admitted to hospitals for acute care treatment. This figure is 40 percent greater than the 3,567 admissions during the 30 months just before the law change. Head injury admissions increased by more than 80 percent.
Total gross costs charged to hospital admitted motorcyclists with head, brain or skull injury more than doubled from $21 million to $44 million, adjusted for inflation, and the average cost per case rose from $34,518 to $39,877 in the 30 months after the law change. In 1998 and 1999, the acute care hospital charges for head-brain-skull principal injury cases per 10,000 registered motorcycles were $311,549 and $428,347 respectively. The comparable figures for 2001 and 2002 were $605,854 and $610,386, adjusted for inflation.
In the post law change period, 75 percent of the head, brain, skull injured admitted motorcyclists were charged approximately $12,000 or more while the remaining 25 percent of patients were charged less than this amount. That is, less than one-quarter of the injured would be covered by the $10,000 medical insurance requirement for those who chose not to use helmets. The hospital discharge data indicate that in the post law change period, approximately 63 percent of admitted motorcyclists were covered by commercial insurance ($31 million), 16 percent were classified as "self pay" because they were under insured or uninsured ($8 million), while the remaining 21 percent had their costs ($10.5 million) billed to charitable and public sources (e.g., Medicaid).
Limitations of the Study
National data suggest that as motorcycle registrations increase, motorcyclists' deaths and injuries increase. In Florida, motorcycle registrations increased substantially beginning in the year of the repeal of the all-rider helmet law, an outcome seen in other states that repealed helmet laws in recent years. The increases in motorcycle registrations alone do not account for the size of the increases in fatalities or the hospital admissions for head injuries. The decline in helmet use contributed significantly to the increase in deaths and head injuries. Other factors that may have contributed to the fatality increase are alcohol use, speed, increased exposure, and the likely contribution of a change in motorcycle ridership.
Nationally, motorcycle vehicle miles of travel (VMT) increased gradually throughout the 1990s, but decreased in 2001 and 2002. The VMT measure, provided by the Federal Highway Administration, is regarded as a good indicator of trends year to year, but cannot be broken down reliably to the individual state level for motorcycles.
Head-Brain-Skull Injury Treatment Costs
Period Number of Cases
Costs*Total
Costs* Average
Case Cost*
1998 1999
2000 pre
188 263 151
$6,460,620 $9,463,172 $4,845,147
Pre Law (30 Months) $20,779,939
Pre Law (30 Months)
$34,581
2000 post 2001 2002
178 445 474
$6,455,558 $17,555,237$19,733,833
Post Law (30 Months) $43,744,629
Post Law (30 Months)
$39,877
* Adjusted by Consumer Price Index (DOL) for medical care, 1999-2002, expressed in 1998 dollars. Source: Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, Department of Labor
In 1998, the average motorcycle traveled 2,645 miles, while in 2002 this figure had declined to 1,909 miles.
Summary
The effects of Florida's repeal of its all-rider motorcycle helmet use law are similar to those seen in the other states that have repealed such laws (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas).
• Deaths increased by 24 percent above what was expected from the increase in motorcycle registrations.
• Helmet use declined from near 100 percent to near 50 percent after the all-rider helmet law was repealed.
• The decline in helmet use likely contributed to the increase in fatalities. • Deaths in riders <21 years, who were still required to wear helmets, increased by 188
percent. • Motorcycle fatalities and fatality rates rose in Florida much more than nationally. • Costs to treat injured motorcyclists with head injury as primary diagnosis more than doubled -
to $44 million in 2002. • Fewer than 25 percent of the hospitalized cases for head, brain or skull injuries cost less than
$10,000, the required level of insurance to ride without a helmet. • One out of five hospital-admitted motorcyclists had costs (total $10.5 million) billed to
charitable and public sources (e.g. Medicaid).
How To Order
For a copy of Evaluation of the Repeal of the All-Rider Motorcycle Helmet Law In Florida (30 pages) write to the Office of Research and Technology, NHTSA, NTI-130, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington D.C. 20590 or send a fax to (202) 366-7096 or download www.nhtsa.dot.gov. Patty Ellison-Potter, Ph.D. was the contract manager.
TRAFFIC TECH is a publication to disseminate information about traffic safety programs, including evaluations, innovative programs, and new publications. Feel free to copy it as you wish. If you would like to receive a copy, contact Melissa Cheung, MPH, Editor, fax 202-366-7096, e-mail: [email protected].