Research Council Under the Sponsorship of the

FINAL
REPORT
REPEAL AND MODIFICATION OF MANDATORY
MOTORCYCLE HELMET LEGISLATION
A
Review
of
Available
Information
by
C. W.
Research
Report
Lynn
Analyst
Virginia Highway and Transportation
Research Council Under the Sponsorship of the
Highway Safety Division of Virginia
Prepared by
the
(The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
report are those of the author and not necessarily
the
(A
sponsoring agencies.)
Virginia Highway g Transportation Research
Cooperative Organization Sponsored Jointly by
Department of Highways $ Transportation
the University of Virginia)
Charlottesville, Virginia
January
VHTRC
1978
78-R30
in this
of
those
Council
the
and
Virginia
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Pa•e
ABSTRACT
SUMMARY
v
OF
CONCLUSION
vii
FINDINGS
AND
ix
RECOMMENDATION
INTRODUCTION
HELMETS
ARE
MOTORCYCLE
ARE
THE
MOTORCYCLE
WHY
ARE
STATES
AND
HELMET
REPEALING
HELMET
LAWS
THEIR
LAWS
CONSTITUTIONAL?
HELMET
POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCE OF REPEALING
MOTORCYCLE HELMET LAWS
THE
POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCE OF REDUCING THE
TO APPLY TO A SPECIFIC AGE GROUP
LAWS?
5
15
20
MANDATORY
24
HELMET
LAWS
28
29
S UMMARY
APPENDIX
EFFECTIVE?..
A-I
A
iii
1599
ABSTRACT
1 91
In 1975, Congress relieved the Secretary of Transportation
of the power to impose sanctions upon states for not having a
law requiring the use of helmets by motorcyclists.
Shortly
afterward, the states having such laws began repealing or
modifying them. This report reviews the available literature
subject of mandatory motorcycle helmet legislation,
on the
and presents the results of a survey of states that have
repealed their laws.
From the information available, iZ was determined that the
of motorcycle helmets reduces the incidence of serious and
fatal head injury among motorcyclists without interfering with
their ability to operate their vehicles safely.
Additionally,
it was determined that the mandatory motorcycle helmet laws are
constitutional and that they have the support of both the general
public and motorcyclists in Virginia.
use
.V
159.•
SUMMARY
cycle
Over 60
helmet
journals
1.
were
FINDINGS
OF
concerning mandatory motorusage published by research organizations or in
reviewed.
The findings are as follows:
scientific
The use of
method for
studies
motorcycle helmets
is
an
effective
reducing the incidence of serious
injuries, particularly head injuries, and
fatalities.
Helmet usage does not cause increased neck injuries in accidents, does not
handicap the rider auditorily or visually,
does not encourage risk-taking, and does not
discomfort which
accidents.
cause
would
result
in in-
creased
2.
The courts have concluded in over 25 cases that
the motorcycle helmet laws are constitutional.
These laws do not constitute denial of due
process or equal protection, nor do they violate
the first amendment right of personal expression.
The laws protect the public interest in that there
is more than a reasonable relationship between
helmet usage and the public health, welfare, and
safety.
states that have conducted public opinion polls,
majority of motorcyclists and the general public
have been found to favor some form of helmet law.
In Virginia, 81% of all motorcyclists and 92% Of
the general public favor the current mandatory
helmet legislation.
In spite of the evidence that the helmet laws reduce injuries and fatalities, that they are generally
held to be constitutional, and that they have public
support, nine states have repealed their laws and
14 have modified them to apply to a particular age
In
a
4.
Safety personnel in the states that have
group.
repealed their helmet laws attribute the repeal
the
5.
impact
of
the
lobbies
Very little data are
impact of the repeal
repealed its law in
cycle fatalities per
against
them.
available for judging the
of the laws.
Rhode Island
1975, and since then motoryear
vii
have
doubled
and
the
to
severity
of
Connecticut
motorcycle crashes has increased.
repealed its law in 1978 and has
both twice as many head injuries
before
repeal
and five times as many
as
head injuries among nonhelmet users.
It is
possible that repeal of the law in Virginia
could result in similar outcomes.
experienced
motorcyclists involved in acci20 years old
usually beare
over
modifying legislation to
tween 20 and 30
apply only to persons 18 years old and under
leaves the majority of crash victims unproWhile this
tected in terms of head injuries.
option retains protection for some portion
of motorcycle riders, it is not a viable
Since
most
dents
solution•
viii
CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATION
from the evidence presented in this
passage and enforcement of the Virginia
laws requiring the use of helmets by motorcyclists have
increased public safety with a minimum of public restriction.
It is recommended that the Virginia General Assembly not repeal
is concluded
It
report
or
that
modify
the
the
current
statutes
on
ix
mandatory
helmet
use.
•596
FINAL
REPORT
REPEAL AND MODIFICATION OF M•NDATORY
MOT0.RCYCLE HELMETLEGISLAT!0N
A
Review
of
Available
Information
by
Cheryl
Research
Lynn
Analyst
INTRODUCTION
Motorcycle
accidents have long been considered to represent
of the most serious and certainly one of the most pressing
one
highway safety problems in this country. Motorcycle registrations
have been increasing nationwide due to the convenience and economy of motorcycle operation; however, alarming increases in
fatalities from
have accompanied this trend
of increasing
Motorcycle accidents are of particular concern because of the severity of their consequences.
high probability
"Once a motorcycle accident occurs, there is
that 50%
that a serious injury or fatality will occur,
of all single vehicle and 80% of all multivehicle crashes result
in such injuries and deaths. (3)
Over 70% of all motorcyclists
involved in crashes experience some permanent restriction of
activity; 40% undergo enforced inactivity lasting between 29 and
175 days.
Over 55% are admitted to hospital emergency rooms and
43% are hospitalized. (4)
The severity of motorcyclecrashes has
prompted researchers to examine the characteristics and types of
injuries involved in motorcycle accidents and to search for
motorcvc• •)crashes
ridershi•.
9(2)in
countermeasures
It
always
usually
has long
the most
the most
to
prevent
been
these
recognized
type
injuries.
that head injuries, while not
injury in motorcycle crashes, are
injuries are estimated to be in-
of
Head
volved in between 50% and 75% of all fatalities from motorcycle
crashes(3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11) and in between 15% and 75% of all
Even in studies
such crashes.(4,5,7,!2,13,14,15,16,17, 18)
substantiating that nonfatal head injuries are twice as common
fatal ones, it has been demonstrated that such nonfatal inas
juries are more serious than injuries to other regions of the
"cri
li•ng., paraplegia, and
anatomy and that they often lead
20)
permanent, disabling brain damage.
common
severe.
to(13,, I•p,
easy to see why head injuries in motorcycle crashes
and severe when one examines the sources of such
are
common
injuries. In clinical studies of motorcycle/car collisions it
has been found that head injuries result from"
is
It
temporal,
Frontal,
I.
on
the
hood
occipital
2.
or
or
of
and
vertex
windshield/roof
impact on
tangential impact
frontal
3.
4.
occipital
head
automobile•
the
impact on
junction;
the
ground;
and
the
impact
windshield
skidding. (21)
found that multiple
or
Additionally, it has been
head impacts are
extremely common,(16,21, 22) and that the forces exerted on the
While the
head during these collisions can exceed I00 g's. (21)
it
collisions,
injury
has been
above sources of
apply only to
found that head injuries resulting from nonco!!ision, off the
road accidents are even more serious, (23) and often involve
fixed objects such as signposts and lamp standards.
Motorcycle head injuries resulting from the above mentioned
(i) localized trauma•
be classified into two-groups"
sources
can
such as skull fracture or depression of the brain, and (2) major
acceleration injury to the brain, such as a concussion.
Due to
the severity of motorcycle head injuries, researchers began
looking for countermeasures which would alleviate both of these
Dr. William Haddon of the
very different types of injury.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety proposed a solution in
his paper "Energy Damage and the Ten Countermeasure Strategies."
He
suggested
the
tween
that
the
rider
mechanical
susceptible
energy
structure."(•4)
"Interpose
a
material
barrier
[in the crash] and
motorcycle crash helmet,
transmitted
bethe
The
as
a
absorb the energy or impact from the
This solution had been
crash and thus protect the rider's head.
proposed years earlier in 1943, and had been voluntarily used to
from danprotect individuals from head injury for centuries
occupational
incurred
incurred
in
wartime
from
hazards
and
gers
diverse
construction
professions,
from
by many
worker to footmandating
idea
of
ball player.
The
helmet usage for motorcyclists, however, was a much more recent innovation.
material
On
signed.
would
September 9, 1966,
It
directed
each
the
state
Highway Safety
to
develop
a
Act of
program
1966 was
of counterin accordance
to reduce traffic accidents and fatalities
standards to be set by the Secretary of Transportation
measures
with
barrier,
Secretary of Commerce).
As a direct result
1967,
July i0,
the Secretary promulgated
on
(then the
this Act,
of
the
in-
standards to be applied to the state programs,
cluding Highway Safety Standard #3, which provided in part
that "each motorcycle operator wears an approved safety
helmet and eye protection when he is operating his vehicle
each motorcycle passenger
streets and highways and
on
safety
wears
47
an
states
approved safety helmet. "(25) Within seven years,
plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had
legislation pertaining to the use of helmets. For
the most part, the state laws required compliance with the
California was the only state not to pass
federal standards.
such a law, while Utah's legislation applied only to motorcyclists operating their vehicles in excess of 35 mph.
Illinois originally passed an acceptable law only to have it
declared unconstitutional by its State Supreme Court in 1969. (26)
lllinois is the only state to take such action.
passed
Since these three states were not in compliance with
federal standards, the Secretary of Transportation gave public
notice on July 13, 1975, of his intention to impose a sanction
"The basis for the proposed action
upon the states in question.
failure
the
of the states to enact a constitutionally acwas
ceptable helmet law for motorcycle drivers and passengers as
required by Highway Safety Program Standard #3 ,, •_(25) The
sanction to be imposed would have involved the loss of all
Highway Safety funds plus the loss of 10% of each state's federal
aid highway funds.
Congress, in an attempt to prohibit the imposition of this harsh sanction, amended the Highway Safety Act
in 1976, as follows:
highway safety
program approved by the
shall not include any require
merit that a state implement such a program
by adopting or enforcing any law, rule, or
regulation based on a standard promulgated
by the Secretary under this section requiring
any motorcycle operator 18 years of age or
older or passenger 18 years of age or older
to wear a safety helmet when operating or
riding a motorcycle on the streets and high(P. L. 94-280, May 5,
ways of that state.
A
Secretary
1976)
While
law
this
standard,
states
been
amendment
essentially
apparently was
repeal their helmet
it
would
demonstrated
time
and
time
took
not
the
teeth
Congress's
laws.(•5)
again that
In
the
out of the helmet
intention that the
fact, since it had
use
of
motorcycle
•b•helmets
serious head injuries and fatalities and
laws were constitutional, Congress assumed
states would leave the helmet laws intact.
Howthe time of this writing, 9 states have completely
repealed their helmet laws (making a total of i0 states with
helmet requirements) and 14 others have modified their
no
helmet laws to apply only to specific age groups, usually
those persons under 18 years of age (see Table I).
In 4
states, the legislation repealing zhe helmet laws were
vetoed by the governor, with this veto being overridden in
prevented
that the
that the
ever, at
only
one
helmet
case.
Table
Status
With
of
States
No
State
the
Requirements
Island
Connecticut
iowa
Colorado
Washington
Oregon
Haine
States
Laws
Under
18
Years
Date
Modified
Arizona
Oklahoma
5/75
5/76
7/76
7/76
10/76
2/77
a/77
6/77
6/77
7,'77
7/77
7/77
7/77
8/77
Alaska(d)
Kansas (e)
5/75
6/76
7/76
5/77
9/77
10/77
10/77
Whe•=
Riders
State
197•
1969
Illinois(c)
Helmet
Requiring Usage 0nly
States
P•non•
Date
Repealed
California (a)
Nebraska (b)
Rhode
Mandatory Motorcycle
Louisiana
Utah
Hinnesota
Hawaii
•[ew Mexico
Indiana
!•[ontana
North Dakota
Sou•h Dakota
Hew Hampshire
Lecislat:ve
)
•nea•
Vetoe
•(f)
Maine(g
Nevada
Texas
South Carolina
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Declared
Declared
(e)
(f)
Repealed
(g)
California
never
passed
a
law.
unconstitutional by S•ate Supreme Court.
unconstitutional by Sta•e Supreme Court.
Repealed for •ersons with a Class • mctorcFcle license and
All passengers required tc wear helmets.
19 Fears cid.
over
From
Veto
for persons
reference 27.
overridden.
16
and
over.
[•.6'•<i
PURPOSE
The
this
of
purpose
is
report
relating to the helmet law question
the following questions.
i.
Are
motorcycle
effective in
saving lives?
in
(and
helmets
reducing
review
to
serious
helmet
head
Are
the
helmet
laws
3.
Why
are
states
repealing
their
are
repealing
helmet
ARE
the
or
answers
to
legislation)
injury and
mandatory
helmet laws in direct contradiction
the available evidence?
What
major issues
constitutional?
2.
4.
the
developing
possible
otherwise
consequences
modifying
of
of
the
laws?
MOTORCYCLE
HELMETS
AND
HELMET
LAWS
EFFECTIVE?
order to determine the efficacy of motorcycle helmet
laws, over 60 reports or papers from scientific journals and
research organizations were reviewed, including many documents
presenting findings from original research. Summary data on
It is
the original research studies are given in Table 2.
literature
clear from the
these studies that the use of
on
motorcycle helmets reduced serious and fatal head injury.
In
As early as 1943, it w•s recognized that helmet wearers
less likely to incur injuries than nonwearers, and that
the risk of being killed in a motorcycle crash was significantly
reduced by helmet
Later research corroborated
these findings and found that nonwearers were from 50% to 400%
likely to incur head injuries than •wearers. For further
more
information see references 6, 8, 9, 13, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,
for nonHead injuries incurred were
and 36.
severe
more
(9,13,30,32)
opinion
of
The
wearers.
consensus
among medical
and epidemological researchers endorsed the motorcycle helmet
were
usage.(22,28,29)
as
an
efficient
Determining
life
saving device.(3?, 38)
whether the motorcycle helmet laws have been
somewhat more difficult.
Enactment of the helmet
in
increase
in
law results
helmet usage, shown in Table 3.
an
In those areas where helmet laws have been passed, usage has
increased 26% to 80%.(8,12, 29 ) Additionally, differences in
effective
is
Table
2
Original
of
Date
1943
Research on the Effectiveness
Motorcycle Helmets and Helmet Laws
Authors
Cairns
Finding§
Location
Great
(I)
Britain
(2)
Hospital
injuries
treated motorcycle
of all types were
reduced 50% after legislation.
Skull fractures were reduced
25%.
1957
Chandler
and
Great
Britain
(I)
Helmet wearers were 30%-40%
less likely to incur head injury
than nonwearers.
Victoria
(i)
The
Thompson
1964
Foldvary
and
Lane
(3)
Crancer
of
being killed
motorcycle crash is
helmet wearers than
(2)
1§67
risk
Washington
(i)
wearers.
The risk
less for
Fatality
in
a
less
for
non-
of injury is about 70%
helmet wearers.
rates decreased more for
Victoria (which instituted legislation) than for the rest of
Australia during the same period.
There
cycle
State
40%
for
was
head
a
decrease
injuries
in motorafter legis-
lation.
1967
Allsop
Great
(I)
Britain
An
70%
20%
a
increase in helmet usage from
to 100% would result in a
reduction in fatalities and
3.7% reduction in serious
injuries.
1969
New
DMV
York
New York
State
(i)
(2)
40% reduction in motorcycle
fatalities after legislation.
33% reduction in severe to fatal
motorcycle
face, and
1970
U.S. Dept.
of Trans.
46-51
States
(depending
the
year )
on
(i)
injuries
to
the
head,
neck.
States with motorcycle helmet laws
showed a greater decrease in the
fatal crash rate (fatalities/
I0,000 registrations) than states
without such laws.
Table
(Cont.)
2
Date
Authors
1971
Traffic
Accidents
Findings
Location
Japan
(i)
Study
(2)
Committee
1973
Jamieson
Nonwearers
to
Brisbane
(I)
and
Kelly
incur
were
a
head
twice
injury
helmet wearers.
Head injuries were less
for helmet wearers.
as
likely
than
severe
major head injuries and all
injuries were reduced significantly after legislation,
while other injury types in-
Both
head
creased.
1973
Scalone
Selected
States
(i)
(National
Safety
Council
Data)
1973
Nakamura
Tokyo
legislation, 75% of all
fatalities involved
injury.
After legislation,
head
45.9%
of the fatalities inonly
volved head injuries.
Prior
(I)
Nonwearers
more
helmet
1973
Hight
Southern
to
motorcycle
(I)
Calif.
(2)
serious
more
and
than
wearers.
Nonwearers
likely
experienced
injuries
to
were
sustain
4
times
a
more
to
severe
fatal injury.
Persons wearing helmets sustained lower injury levels than
nonwearers.
1974
Richardson
Michigan
and
Illinois
(i)
63% reduction in serious to fatal
head injury in Mighigan after
legislation.
54% reduction in all types of
head injury in !!linois.
(3) Nonwearers were three times as
likely to incur a serious to
fatal head injury as helmet
wearers, and twice as likely to
incur any head injury.
(2)
1975
Singh
et
al.
New
Zealand
(i)
(2)
Motorcycle
fatalities were 40%
lower after legislation than would
have been expected based on previous trends.
Helmet wearers were less likely
to incur a fatal injury than
nonwearers.
Table
2
(Cont.)
Date
Authors
1975
Robertson
Findings
Location
Matched
States
(I)
Effects
of
the
rates
for
than
such
laws
1976
Siegel
Newman
Calif.
(I)
Keleher
west
wearers.
fatal
to
(i)
A
injury
percentage
lower
than
Head
to
head
incurred
wearers
did
times
a serious
than
of helmet
head injury
a
nonwearers.
injuries
Gloucester
(2)
among helmet
less severe (mostwearers
were
minor
contusions)
ly
than those
for nonwearers.
Arizona
(I)
Nonwearers
likely
(2)
to
helmet
as
Nonwearers
likely
to
skull
or
wearers.
1977
in
without
time
same
four
incur
were
likely
more
Nepean
1977
Nonwearers
and the
South-
Ottawa
Vanier
laws
states
the
over
period.
1975
helmet
reducing fatalities were significant; i.e., fatality rates
(fatalities/registrations) in
states initiating helmet laws
decreased significantly more
Waddington
New
and
Jersey
(!)
The
Winston
a
wearers.
1.5
were
incur
a
fracture
fatality
driver)
lation.
2.5 times as
head injury
were
incur
rate
decreased
times as
concussion
as
helmet
(per
after
licensed
legis-
experienced a 28%
fatalities and a
40% decrease in injuries, along
with a 24% decrease in head
injuries.
(3) Nonwearers were 1.5 times more
likely to be killed in a motor(2)
New Jersey
decrease in
cycle
crash
than
helmet
wearers.
•
=stimates
Enactment
Locat
of
of
• on
Motorcycle
able
3
He_met
Usage
Mandatory Legislation,
Such Legislation
Before
Before
and With
Legislation
After
and
and
Withouz
Af..ter Legislation
Victoria
56%
Brisbane
16.6%
96%
New
73.2%
96.6%
Zealand
100%
Legislation
(Voluntary U.s a.g.e
Without
Ontario
98.7%
70.0%
99.8%
I00.0%
Japan
Georgia
Maryland
California
Illinois
60.7%
36.8%
Utah
rates
laws
(Voluntary use
35 mph)
of
are
Leg •.s•_•ation
With
94%
under
(Mandatory
over
35
Use
mph)
between states with and states without helmet
significant.(3!,39,40,41,42,43)
Several states have
usage
experienced
decreases in head injuries after the oassage of
helmet
and states
with helmet laws have experienced a greater decrease in the
fatal motorcycle crash rate and in serious to fatal head injuries than matched states without such !aws.(31,39,4•) While
there are many problems in these "matched states" studies,
their results provide an indication of the positive effect the
helmet laws have had on the motorcycle safety environment.
motorcycle
legis!ation,(!O,i5,28,29,33,37,•8)
The finding that accidents were less severe •.o__
=
•owing
An analpassage of the helmet laws also applies ro Virginia.
ysis of the :==^
of the helmet laws upon accident severity
_•=cts
time was conducted using the total accident/fatal accident
over
ratio as the measure of the seriousness of accidents.
This
ratio was calculated =or the years 1961 through 1976 and the
_•=su!ts• e•=ar•=,• •n :a•l=• 4.
It should be remembered in ex=,,•,•_,•=,
"-•{•
this zabie that the •r• the tot:• accident/fata• acc{dent •atio
the •ss se•r• the motorcycle accident environment was during tha•
year.
Table
Virginia Motorcycle
Year
1961
!962
1963
1964
1965
!966
1967
!968
1969
4
Accident
Information
Total Number
of Accidents
Number of
Fatal Accidents
344
8
8
Accident/Fata
Ratio
1,421
1,471
1,486
1,321
5
i!
18
23
48
36
23
43.00
38.88
69.00
39.73
53.56
61.78
30.65
41.28
57.43
1970
1,585
27
58.70
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
2,0•4
2,559
3,342
3 ,518
2,807
2,895
36
57
58
62
56
65
56.78
44.89
57.62
56.74
311
345
437
964
Before
After
Law
Me
Police,
Law
5!.78
an
.698
Significance
Virginia
r
48.37
t-Value
Source"
Aft
n•w
50.13
44.54
Mean
Law
Befcre
p
Crash Facts,
1961-1976.
!0
<
.001
Virginia Department
of
State
Since
first
in the
the
data
are
based
performed to detect any
einal analysis.
One of
on
a
time
series,
an
analysis
was
trends which should be considered
the major contentions of the antihelmet laws groups has been that the severity of accidents was
decreasing even before enactment of the laws, so that documented
decreases in severity after passage were due to this histcrica!!y
decreasing trend and not to the effects of increased helmet usage.
preexisting trends, either increasing or decreasing,
analysis.
noted
Once the absence of trends was dewere
termined, the data were analyzed by simply comparing the severity
of motorcycle accidents before passage of the laws with the
severity afterwards. The before period was designated as 1961
(1970 is not included
to 1969 and the post period as 1971 to 1975
in either period, since the helmet law was not enforced for the
whole year).
The mean severity ratio before passage of the helmet
Following enactment of mandatory helmet legislalaws was 48.4.
tion, the mean severity ratio was 51.8, which indicates that
motorcycle accidents were less severe following enactment of the
This decrease in severity was significant at
laws than before.
However,
the
.001
no
level,
which
this
great
difference
The
and
in this
means
occur
that only
by chance
answer, then, to the question
motorcycle helmets themselves
one
time
in
!,000
could
a
alone.
whether the helmet
effective life saving
are
is ye•
This =inding was confirmed in all of the
countermeasures
scientific studies reviewed, in the accident data for other states,
and in the accident data for qirginia.
laws
of
•
from the questions of their effectiveness, the motorlaws have been attacked on the grounds that they
safety
hazard.
These arguments against the helmet
represent a
laws have been examined and the literature searched to dete.m.n_
their validity.
The arguments themselves and the research concerning them are presented below.*
Apart
cycle helmet
Arzument
#I"
Motorcycle Helmets, While
in Crashes, Increase
•.r.•.•urmes incurred
of
Neck
Injuries
Reducing
the
Head
Incidence
This argmment stems from a study done in New York in 1969
in which neck injuries increased from 4 the year preceding the
(Faenactment of helmet legislation to 14 the year after. (15)
ta!•+ies• decreased significantly during the same •er•c,d.).
•.._s
detailed explanation of these arguments, the reader
a more
is referred to the proceedings of an •m.erican Medical Association
Panel entitled "Head }ro:ection for the Cyclist." (Reference 9!9.)
*For
ii
is the only study to record an increase in neck injuries after
As demonstrated in most studies,
passage of helmet legislation.
the incidence of neck injury is so rare that it usually does
not exceed 6% of tota • injuries, and is usually less than
47)
Since the number of neck injuries
mentioned in the New York study is in keeping with the small
numbers mentioned in other studies, it is very difficult to
Statistically,
draw conclusions concerning changes over time.
small numbers of anything are expected to fluctuate over time
just as a matter of chance happening. This is particularly true
in the case of accidents and crash related injuries, which are
relatively rare events in the general population. It is
certainly possible that the increase in neck injuries experienced in New York could have been attributable to chance factors,
and in light of the fact that no other research has found such
increase, the change is probably a chance fluctuation..
an
2%.(4,5,6,16,44,45,46•
problems with
the New York study.
For
whether a helmet was worn at the time
Thus, it is impossible to
any of the neck injuries occurred.
attribute the increase in neck injuries to helmet usage, since
it's possible that helmets were not worn. (40)
Additionally, it
is possible that passage of the motorcycle helmet laws and the
study of their effect drew attention to head and neck injuries,
Finally, since more
and thus more neck injuries were found.
deaths from motorcycle accidents are more often the result of
multiple trauma than of a single injury, (4) it is difficult to
determine the role these neck injuries played in the fatal
There
other
are
unknown
was
instance, it
accidents
discussed.
It can be concluded from this review of pertinent studies
that neck injuries are rare in relation to motorcycle accidents,
and that there is no evidence to.support the argument that helmet
As concluded by
usage increases the probability of neck injury.
of experts assembled by the •erican Medical Association,
a panel
"Based on the evidence, the likelihood of neck injury caused by
the helmets is almost impossible. ''{19)
Argument
#2:
Motorcycle
Pe-•pheral
Create
Helmets Reduce the
and Thereby
Safety Hazard
V•sion
a
Cyclists'
The validity of argument #2 has recently been studied in
and it has been determined that "with regard to restriction
of the total field of view in the horizontal plane, it can be concluded that full coverage helmets [the most common type in use]
provide only minor restrictions, less than 3 percent from that of
detail
12
unhelmeted
erage helmet,
an
most
most
the
look
person.
''(48)
As
mentioned
above,
the
full
representing 95% of those now in use, is thecovAdditionally, it has been determined that
type.
common
motorcycle accidents occur within 40 of direct front of
cyclist and that most experienced cyclists periodically
from side to side to compensate for the 3% loss.
Finally,
°
with a full coverage helmet, the field of view is still
The most strict state standard
greater than 2000. (48)
peripheral vision necessary in the operation of a motor onvehicle
is 140°. (19)
Thus, it can be concluded that helmet usage results in only a nominal decrease in peripheral vision and that
this decrease does not affect the driver's ability to operate
his vehicle safely. (48)
even
Argument #3: Motorcycle Helmets Significantly Reduce
Cyclists' Ability to Hear Other Vehicles in Traffic•
Thus Creating a Safety Hazard
the
The assertion made in argument #3 has been studied in detail and it has been determined that the ability to hear warnings
in traffic is reduced more by rolling up the windows in an automobile than by wearing a motorcycle helmet.
This reduction in
hearing ability is essentially the same as that experienced by
the average 46-to 55-year-old person in this country through
aging alone.(49)
In
similar
addition,
those
to
scientific
encountered
studies conducted under conditions
in street riding have found that
given
sound will be heard by a cyclist if
loud enough when it reaches his ear to
be above his hearing threshold,
and if it is
not "masked" or hidden by other sounds or noise
Motorcycles create
present at the same time.
high levels of noise. For a rider to hear any
other sound in the presence of this high noise
level, the sound must be as loud or louder than
that emitted by the motorcycle itself.
Helmets
reduce the loudness of both the sound of interest
and the motorcycle noise by an equal amount, and
therefore, do not alter the signal-to-noise ratio
between the two sounds.
Consequently, as long as
the rider can hear the motorcycle itself while
wearing a helmet, he or she can also hear any
other sound with a favorable signal-to-noise ratio
•least
well as a driver who does not wear a
helmet.
A
it
is
(•)
13
has been found that helmet usage reduces the possiof hearing damage due to wind and traffic noise, and
that usage actually makes it easier for the rider to distinguish warning signals from other traffic noises because the
signal-to-noise ratio discussed above may be more favorable
with helmet usage than without. (51)
It
also
bility
Thus,
impair
safe
it
be
can
concluded
motorcyclist's
the
helmet
that
ability
to
usage
operate
his
does
not
vehicle
in
a
manner.
Argument
Which
#4Causes
Helmet Use Creates a Sense
the Motorcycle •perator. to
of Overconfidence
Take More Risks
evidence to indicate that helmet wearers differ
in
relation to risk
From the Multinonwearers
disciplinary Accident Investigation in California, it has been
determined that the most common cause of motorcycle crashes is
not overconfidence or risk taking on the part of the cyclist,
but the violation of the motorcycl•st's right-of-way by another
vehicle and the cyclist's subsequent inability to make evasive
quickly
Additionally, there is evidence
maneuvers
to indicate that cyclists who wear helmets when not required to
safer drivers than those who do not wear helmets.
Thus,
are
it is possible that helmet users would exhibit less risk taking
behavior than would nonusers.(19)
is
There
taking.(19)
no
from
enough.(52)
Argument
Warm
Motorcycle
#5"
Weather
and
This
Helmets
Tend
to
Discomfort Increases
for Accidents
Overheat During
the Potential
There is no documentation of a relationship between warm
weather discomfort and accident potential.
However, along the
line,
it
could
also
be
argued
that
helmets
keep the head
same
during
cold
weather
and
that
they
keep
the
head dry in
warm
inclement weather, since helmet usage in states where such
is voluntary increases as much as 10% when it rains. (41)
use
Argument
#6"
The weight of the Motorcycle Helmet
Rider Fatigue and Thus Causes Accidents
is
There
in
light
has much
helmet as
no
evidence
the fact
to do with
the weight
of
that
a
to
the
support
center
this
of
driver's nercention
itself. {i$)
14
Increases
argument,
gravity
of
the
of
especially
his
weight
helmet
of the
#7.
Personnel
After
There is a
could aggravate
of Surgeons has
to
include
a
an
Accident
possibility that improper
injury. However, since
an
recently revised
section
on
cease
to
should
removal
of the Helm.et by
Can Exacerbate
Improper Removal
Argument
E_.mer$.ency
Injury
removal of the
the #_merican
Emergency Training
its
manual
helmet
improper
removal,
proper
be a potential source of
helmet
helmet
College
problems.(19)
In summary, from an examination of the literature it has
been shown that motorcycle helmets are effective in reducing
injuries and fatalities,that they do not place the rider under
additional risk of neck or other injuries, and that they do not
impair the driver's visual or auditory sensory capabilities.
It can be concluded, then, that "Motorcycle helmet use laws
in achievin•
represent social policy that has
•=
the purpose of reducing fatal injury.
been,,•f4•jctive
#_RE
The
THE
MOTORCYCLE
constitutionality
of
challenged unsuccessfully
been
LAWS
HmL•.E•
CONSTITUTIONAL?
motorcycle helmet
in the appellate
legislation
has
of 35
The issue
five
courts
and in the courts of last resort in 27 states.
has been introduced in the United States Sunreme Court
times. (53)
A partial listing of these cases, complete through
December of 1976, appears in Appendix A.
In the Supreme Court
rulings, the court affirmed one lower court ru!i•g without opinion, denied three petitions for certiorari in cases upholding
headgear legislation, and dismissed an appeal in one case "for
want of a substantial federal •uestion".($ 4)
As mentioned
earlier, only one challenge to the constitutionality of helmet
legislation has been successful, in !969,the state court of last
in !liinois declared its helmet law unconstitutional.
mesort
Peqple v. Fries, 42 IIi. 2d 446, 250 N.E. 2d 149 (1969).
states
The
against
even
two
standards.
•_t restricts
criteria'
(i)
(2)
!egisla•_ion is generally judged
be const•tutional!y exercised,
personal freedom, i•_ it meets the following
constitutionality
•wo
A
of
law
"The public interest,
particular person or
may
not
the
interests
of
a
group, requires the interference with individual rights," and
"The means of carrying out the Dub!ic inmerest
both reasonably necessary to acccmp!ish iz
are
and are not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
purpose of this section of the report is to review the
of the various courts in relation to these criteria
and to reflect their consensus in relation to the mandatory
This purpose will be accomplished by
motorcycle helmet laws.
presenting the major arguments to challenging the constitutionality of the legislation and reviewing the rulings in
relation to each argument, including (i) lack of public
purpose, (2) restriction of personal expression, (3) denial
(4) denial of due process through illegal
of equal protection,
delegation of powers, and (5) vagueness in the statutes.
(It
should be noted that many of these arguments are interrelated
and should be expected to overlap somewhat.)
The
rulings
Argument
The Use of a Motorcycle Helmet Does Not Prevent
from
Rather, the Helmet is Desi.•ned
for the Protectmon of the Motorcyclist.
Since the
is the Only Party Who Stands to Suffer as a Result
Accident, it Should Be Up to the CyClist to Decide If
He or She Wants Thi• Protection
#I:
Crashes
Solely
Cyclist
of
the
Occurrin.•:
This argument can be summed up through a statement made
in the only State Supreme Court decision still standing which
declares a state's motorcycle helmet law unconstitutional.
"The manifest function of the headgear requirements in issue is
to safeguard the person wearing
whether it is the operator or
the passeng#r
from the injuries.
Such a laudable purpose,
however, cannot justify the regulation of what is essentially a
matter of personal safety."
People v. Fries, 42 IIi. 2d 446,
450, 250 N.E. 2d 149, 151 (1969).
Similarly, the plaintiff in
the case of •imon vs. •.argent argued that "police power does not
extend to overcoming the right of an individual to incur risks
that involve only himself. 'T
346 F. Supp. 278 (D.C. Mass. 1972), aff'd
409 U. S. 1020, 93S.Ct. 463, 34 L. Ed. 2d 312.
the court in question ruled that "the public does
interest
if public resources are directly involved in
an
risks."
Ed. at 279.
The public resources involved in
motorcycle accidents were well established by the District
Court's initial ruling in the above mentioned case:
However,
have
these
injury, society picks
highways; 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 family's subFrom the moment of the
the person up off the
stinence.
Ed.
at
279.
16
Other
costs
may
also
to
accrue
society
as
a
result
of
Insurance rates may rise.
motorcycle accidents.
People v.
Bennett, 391 N.Y.S. 2d 506, Co!onie Justice Ct. (197'7).
Also,
(However, it has been
for medical insurance could rise.
shown that the group most often in serious motorcycle accidents,
those 20-25 years old, are also those least likely to have
health insurance. (17)
In these cases, the cost of medical attention would revert back to the victim's family or to the
state.)
There is also the ultimate loss to society of the
contribution the accident victim would have made had the crash
Commonwea•*h_• v. Coffman, 453 S.W. 2d 75 •, Ky
not occurred.
(1970).
Thus, it is all too true that "when the individual
health, safety and welfare are sacrificed or neglected, the
169 U. S. 366, 397 (1897).
In the case of
state must suffer."
motorcycle helmets, the state does have sufficient public
invested in its citizenry's welfare to mandate helmet
resources
rates
usage.*
There
are,
however,
o•her
flaws
in
the
logic
of
this
argu-
designed solely for the proare
tection of the cyclist.
They can, in rare instances, prevent
Occasionally, a cyclist is struck by
crashes from occurring.
roadway debris such as gravel or loose pavement, or is temporarily blinded by roadway dust.(26, 55) Helmet usage could prove
instrumental in preventing accidents resulting from these s•tuations.
State v. Babbs, Martin City Ct., Fla. (1968).
Also,
while the motorcyclist is the party most likely to be injured
when he is involved in a collision, he is not the only one to
suffer some loss.
Often some property damage is sustained by
of
the owner
the other vehicle and there is a possibility of
other damages resulting from the postcrash actions taken by the
driver of the other vehicle.
"Anything that might cause a driver
i•
to lose control may well tragically affect another driver,
the loss of cyclist control occurs on a crowded freeway with its
fast moving traffic, the veering of a cyclist from his path of
Bisenius v. Karns, 42
trav •_• may pile up a dozen vehicles."
Wisc. 2d 42, 48, 165 N.W. 2d 377, 380, app. dismd. 395 U.S. 709,
ment.
$9
Motorcycle
S. Ct.
2033,
23
helmets
L.Ed.
not
2d
655
(1969).
states have, in their rulings on motorcycle helmet
legislation, chosen to distinguish this case from the general
involving enforced safety standards and behaviors, such
case
*Several
as
mandatory
seat
belt
usage.
17
It
can
sufficient
be
cycle helmet
of
increased
usage
interest
accident
directly through
consequence of
helmet usage.
from these
involved
both directly
concluded
public
potential
expenditure
the
the crash
to
findings
in the
that
issue
through
derived
the
there is
of motor-
possibility
and inof public resources as a
enable the courts to mandate
from
nonusage,
Arsument
Personal
#2:
The Motorcycle Helmet Laws Restrict the
Freedom of Choice of the Motorcyclist and Restrict
His or Her First Amendment Freedom of Speech
This
All laws, by definition, restrict personal freedom.
restriction is tolerated by individuals in light of the benefits
to the individual and to society derived from the legislation.
However, the freedom of individual expression cannot be amended
without strong justification, in that
Freedom of choice, if that choice does
affect the public welfare, includes the
right to make what the majority believes to
be the wrong or unintelligent choice as well
the right of intelligent choice.
For if
as
the majority can set itself up as judge, in
matters of individual welfare, between right
and wrong, and enforce those judgements with
criminal sanctions, then all areas of personal
liberty will be jeopardized.
City of Seattle
Zektzer, Seattle Municipal Court, Washington
not
v.
(1967).
of
The key phrase to be considered in relation
personal freedom in the motorcycle helmet laws
to
the
is,
violation
"if that
does not affect the public welfare
"
It has been
demonstrated that the outcome of motorcycle accidents
affects the public interest, in that society bears many of the
"costs" of these crashes.
Additionally, there is precedent for
the state to protect its citizens from relative risk, and even
from their own indiscretions, in that "many states require safety
devices to be worn by window cleaners, eye protection for welders,
hard hats for those involved in demolition work, life preservers
to be worn while water skiing and nets protecting aerial performers from the effects of accidental falls.
Headgear legislation belongs to this class of
Again, it can
be concluded that sufficient public interest exists to justify
amendment of an individual's freedom of choice.
choice
clearly
legislation."(54)
18
It has also been argued that by limiting the motorcyclist's freedom of choice in vehicle, the state limits his
freedom of expression, thus violating his first amendment
right to free speech. The courts have ruled that the nonspeech characteristics of this form of expression are the
significant factors in its definition, and thus that the
choice of vehicle or choice of head protection does not
constitute a "speech" per
not violate freedom of
1032 (Me. 1977).
do
Argument
A
#3:
Denial
The
of
and
se,
speech.
thus the helmet restrictions
State v. •ui•.an
67 A. 2d
Mandato..ry Motorcycle
Equal
Unr.easohab'l• Single
Protection
Under
Helmet
Law,
Laws
in That
Represent
They
Ou't and Dis'•riminat'e Asainst Motor6ycle
Riders as a Class
most often given to this argument states that
answer
is
increased risk under which motorcycle riders operate
there
an
and this difference in risk offers a rational basis for their
differential treatment.
Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589, 522
p. 2d 1291, (1974).
The literature supports the idea that
cyclists operate at greater risk than do operators of other
due to the riding characteristics of the vehicle
motor vehicles,
of their choice and due to the cyclist's greater vulnerability
For instance, while motorcycles account for only
to injury.
3 7% of all motor vehicle registrations, they account for 6.8%
This overall fatalities from motor vehicle crashes. (39)
representation in accidents becomes especially meaningful in
light of the high probability of serious injury or death once a
motorcycle accident has occurred.(12)
It has even been estimated
that the risk of death in a motorcycle crash is 5.12 times as
high as the risk of death in other motor vehicle crashes. (56)
Thus, it can be concluded that
The
o•
motorcycles
form
a
distinct
class
of
vehicles, that motorcycle operators,
since uninc!osed, have considerably
less body and head protection than inclosed vehicle operators; and that therefore the headgear requirement for motorcyclists as distinguished from operators
of other types of motor vehicles constituted a r•a80n•b•e •e•n8 to protect
of the highway from the greater
users
hazards caused by the motorcyclist's
increased vulnerability to loss of
(32 A.L.R. 3d 1270)
control.
19
Arsument
#4:
An
The Motorcycle Helmet
lllesal Del.egation of
Laws
Power
Represent
It has been argued that the state legislatures do not
have the right to pass helmet laws and to delegate authority
for the enforcement of such laws, nor do they have the right
to give administrative bodies
to set standards for
motorcycle helmets themselves.
However, "the police power
of the state is the power vested in the legislature to make,
ordain and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable
laws, statutes and ordinances, either with or without penalties,
not repugnant to the constitution as they shall judge to provide the greatest welfare to the state. ''•55)
This reasoning
extends not only to the suppression of activity but also to
Tre•$1e v. Acme Homestead Assn.,
the encouragement of activity.
297 U. S. 189, 197 (1936).
This reasoning also applies to the
regulation of highway travel, in that "motor vehicles are
dangerous machines, and, even when skillfully and carefully
operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons
and property.
In the public interest, the state may make and
enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on
the part of all who use its highways."
Hess v. Pawloski, 274
(1927).
it
is
within
S.
352,
U.
356
the power of the
Thus,
legislature to make laws governing motorists, including motorcyclists, and it is within the police power of the state to
legally enforce such laws.
•)p°wer
In relation to delegating the responsibility for making
standards for helmet design to administrative units, the legislatures have specifically defined the scope of authority of the
standardizing organization to encompass only certain specific
decisions.
This action does not constitute illegal delegation
of
power.(53)
Argument
The Helmet Laws Are Essentially Penal
Constructed.
and
Thus Must be
in
The Mandator.y Helmet Use Standards Are Vague and
Indefinite, and Do Not Give the Rider Adequate Notice
As to What is Expected of Him or Her
#5:
Strictly
Nature
legislation, in lawfully delegating the
to "administrative officials,"
clearly describes the job •o be done, who will do it, and the
The laws make reasonably clear
scope of their authority. (4)
i.e. that headgear be
what is expected of the motorcyclist
while
riding.
The courts have also ruled that "headgear"
worn
is not a vague term but has a special meaning when applied to
Cesin v. State, 288 So. 2d 473, Fla. (1974).
motorcycles.
Thus,
this type of legislation is not vague in the legal sense.(53, 55)
Motorcycle helmet
responsibility
for
its
enforcement
2O
in addition to the successful defense against the constitutional challenges presented in these arguments, there is an
additional argument which supports the constitutionality of
mandatory helmet laws; namely, the general assumption
constitutionality afforded statutes passed by the !egisiatures.(53,54, 55) In the case of mandatory helmet use, the
legislatures have passed the statutes at the express wish
the
of
of
Congress.
be sa•d that "all in all, the great
summary,
c=n
of judicial authority has concluded that the motorcycle
These statutes
helmet laws raise no constitutional issues:
within
legislature
of
and
the opponents'
the scope
were
power;
legislature
and not the courts
arguments are for the
to
weight
In
consider. ''(53 )
WHY
ARE
STA•.S
REPEALING
TW•IR
HELMET
LAWS?
preceding sections,
it has been concluded that
the helmet laws have been effective in
reducing serious injury and fatalities, and that the helmet
laws are constitutional and do not violate personal freedom
of expression.
Why, then, in spite of the vast body of evidence,
have state legislatures repealed their helmet laws so freely?
In order to answer this question, a survey of states repealing
their helmet laws was conducted.
The Office of the Governor's
Representative for Highway Safety in each state was contacted,
and each state's specialist in this area was asked why he felt
that helmet legislation was repealed.
In
the
two
motorcycle helmets
and
very enlightening.
the helmet laws
states
mentioned the impact made by the very vocal, very visible antihelmet lobby, which often included both in state and out of state
These groups,
components, as a most infiuencial factor in repeal.
including most often ABATE (The •am•erican Brotherhood Against
Totalitarian •_•=c•ment),
•
very active during the legislative
were
session flooding com_mittee meetings with as many members of their
groups as possible, conducting mail campaigns, contacting legislators personally, and organizing large-scale demonstrations.
The effects that these demonstrations had on the legisla•u.e (as
indicated by the Governor's representatives' staffs) fall largely
into two categories as discussed in the fo!lowine naraeranh.
The
results
Respondents
of
in all
these
of the
interviews
were
repealing
21
I.
in relation to perceived public opinion.
It was
contention of several of the safety specialists that
legislators were influenced by the obvious size of the
demonstrations and by the extent to which the group members
participated in the legislative process. It is possible
Influence
the
that
these
either
interpreted by legislators,
were
informally,
to mean that a significant
or
their constituents held opinions similar to those
two
factors
formally
number of
held by the
would favor
antihe!met
repeal.
the
groups
and
that
their
constituents
In relation to influencing legislation, it should be
pointed out that a strong lobby does not necessarily reflect
the majority opinion o5 either the general public or of the
motorcycle riders themselves.
In this case, it can be shown
that the public sentiment is not represented by the antihelmet law lobby, either nationally or in Virginia.
As shown
in Table 5, many states have conducted public opinion polls
in relation
their
helmet laws.
Three states conducted
surveys of motorcycle operators who had survived a crash.
As would be expected, a majority of the accident involved riders felt that helmet usage increased (or
This feeling
would have increased) their chances of survival.
the same for helmet wearers and nonwearers in
was
but was considerably less prevalant among nonwearers in
Nebraska.(5)
In Idaho, 77% of the injury accident involved
motorcyclists favored some form of mandatory helmet law.(57)
While these studies were scientifically conducted, they reflect only the views of accident involved cyclists.
Several
other polls have been conducted which sample the opinion of
the general public, the opinion of motorcyclists, or the
opinion of both. In both the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
the vast majority of the general public favored
the mandatory helmet laws (87% and 97%, respectively) while
majority of motorcyclists held a similar opinion
a lesser
(55% and 62%).
In Missouri, 70% of the motorcyclists favored
the mandatory helmet laws, (•6) while in Utah 75% favored Utah's
version of th• mandatory laws, which exempts riders travelling
under 35 mph. <42)
However, only 29% of the Utah motorcyclists
favored a blanket motorcycle helmet law.
to
telephoneor mail
Arizona,(6)
polls,(25,46)
A public opinion poll concerning this issue was also
conducted in Virginia and included both the general public
and motorcyclists.
As seen in Table 6, 81% of all motorcyclists in the state feel that motorcyclists should be
required to wear helmets while they are riding, while 92%
of the nonmotorcyclists expressed this opinion.
Thus, an
overwhelming majority of Virginians, including cyclists,
do not agree with the antihelmet groups in the state, and
would not favor repeal of the current mandatory motorcycle
helmet laws.
22
TABLE 5
RESULTS OF PUBLIC OPINION POLLS CONDUCTED ON THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF MOTORCYCLE HELMETS
Arizona
eher
77)
Findings
Group Surveyed
Location
•hor
Accident involved
operators
motorcycle
(!)
In
all
felt
operators
In
the
same
felt
wearers
would
duced
,tasks
of
't.
Lho
Nebraska
involved
Accident
motorcycle
(I)
operators
Roads
have
by
Traffic
Idaho
Injury
accident
motorcycle
involved
a
helmet
the
injury.
situation,
all
that serious
been avoided or
helmet.
non-
i•.jury
re-
80% of the helmet wearers fe!t
that the helmet avoided or re-
injuries.
serious
duced
!ety
that
serious
averted
(2)
where an impact
helmet-wearing
accidents
all
occurred,
Only
(2)
20% of the nonwearers felt
•hat a helmet would have avertci
reduced serious injury.
or
(i)
77.3% of these motorcyclists
favored some. form of mandatory
helmet law.
(i)
.Among motorcyclists,
operators
•ission
176)
Pennsylvania
.met
•77)
General public
motorcyclists)
(including
78.8%
that helmets reduce the
91.8% of the
of injury.
public agreed.
(2)
55%
of
the
motorcyclists
felt
potentia_
general
favored
87.1%
mandatory he!met law.
of the general public agreed.
a
'.hanan
Wisconsin
General public
mo•orcyciiszs)
Utah
Motorcyclists
.iginal
.earch
7)
(!)
62% of the motorcyclists and 98%
of the automobile opera•ors
favored a mandatory helmet law.
(i)
2$% favored
law.
(2)
75% favored mandatory helmet
usage, az least at speeds ex-
in
:hanan
,igina!
catch
(including
involvement
(accident
unknown)
in
ceeding
Missouri
Lie
Motorcyclists
(I)
70%
favored
law.
helmet
anknown)
23
35
a
mandatory
he!met
mph.
Missouri's
mandatoru
Table
Opinion
Favor
in
mandatory
Do not
law
favor
Undecided/no
Virginia Concerning the Helmet
Motorcyclists
helmet
mandatory
Nonmotorcyclists
law
81.0%
91.9%
helmet
18.5%
6.1%
0.5%
2.0%
opinion
N
2.
Laws
=
205
N
:
1,519
Influence in relation to the effectivness of motorcycle
helmets.
In addition to claiming that the motorcycle helthe antimet laws restrict their freedom of expression,
helmet groups in several states introduced "scientific
research" into the record which they claimed showed that
helmet usage was ineffective in protecting riders during
crashes and that it even had deleterious effects.(58,59,60,61)
This "research" claimed everything from usage causing neck
injuries and reducing sensory effiency (these arguments have
been discdssed and rejected in previous sections) to the
fact that usage caused ear callouses which could result in
(62)
"Although some of this information.is obviously
cancer.
emotional in nature and substance, a significant portion
purports to be scientific fact, data, or studies which
conflict with those of safety professionals."(25)
According to the Governor's Representatives and their
staffs, while legislators were not won over by these arguthese "studies" were
ments against helmet effectiveness,
enough to cast doubt upon the previously accepted facts,
since the legislators did not have the time to check out
the sources and merits of the antihelmet "research".
It
is safe to say that these "studies" are not sufficiently
adequate methodologically to allow any definitive statement on the issue in question, much less to conclude that
helmets are actually dangerous to the user*.
They do not
isolate the effects of helmet usage through proper study
design, and thus are statements of speculation. These
"studies" were not conducted by scientists specially
trained in the various fields of endeavor but rather by
laymen (by and large members of antihelmet groups), lacking
the necessary expertise to adequately study the various
(For instance, one study claims
aspects of helment usage.
•ce
inadequacies
of these "studies" are too numerous to
here, the reader is referred to "An Analysis of the
Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet Issue", by H. E. Balmer (reference
25) for a detailed critique of the antihelmet "research".
the
discuss
24
determine that helmets are ineffective based upon "a
detailed description of high school physics equations. "(51)
The author of this study made invalid assumptions about
the real world accident environment and, thus, the
to
used were found to be "whollv inadequate to deactual accident contact".
Due to these
an
inadequacies, the findings of these "studies" must be
set aside in favor of the scientific studies already
formulas
(51))
scribe
reviewed
in this
report.
far,
the scientific literature supports the use of
helmets as an effective highway safety countermeasure.
Helmet usage is also supported by a majority of Virginians.
However, this rather large body of scientific evidence has
failed to avert the repeal of the helmet law in many other
It is pertinent to this issue to examine what would
states.
happen should the helmet laws be repealed in Virginia.
Thus
motorcycle
POSSIBLE
CONSEQUENCES
OF
MOTORCYCLE
REPEALING THE
HELMET LAWS
MANDATORY
likely to happen in Virginia if the motorcycle
repealed? The best indication comes from the
are
experiences of other states. First, from the literature (63)
and from interviews with members of the governor's represent-
What is
helmet laws
staffs it has been found that repeal results in a dein helmet usage.
It could be interpolated that decreased
crease
helmet usage should result in increases in head injuries among
motorcyclists.
However, such a conclusion should not be accepted.
without empirical evidence from states that have repealed their
helmet laws.
atives'
tively
Since
the
recent
repeal of
issue,
impact
the
mandatory helmet
little data have
of this action on the
very
laws is a relabeen collected to
determine the
motorcycle safety
environment.
Many states have informally reported increases
in fatalities thus far, but they have not collected a full
Of the nine states that have
year of accident data as yet.
repealed their helmet legislation at this writing, only three
have had sufficient time to collect post-repeal accident data.
In one of these three, lowa, the helmet law was in effect for
only ten months, and went unenforced for a portion of that time.
These factors disqualify lowa's inclusion in this analysis.
Post-repeal data for Connecticut are not yet available, except
for the data from a special study which will be discussed later.
is
Rhode Island repealed its helmet law in May 1975, and thus
in the best position to determine the impact of repealing the
helmet
laws.
25
those used to examine the impact of
the helmet law in Virginia were solicited from
the Office of the Governor's Representative in Rhode Island
for the years 1963 through 1976.
As shown in Table 7
the
total accident/fatal accident ratio was calculated for each
year to determine the overall severity of the motorcycle
safety situation in Rhode Island before, during, and after
This index was chosen for
enforcement of the helmet laws.
analysis since helmet usage should logically affect the
severity of injuries in crashes which occur rather than
Again, it should be remembered
the causation of accidents.
that the larger the ratio, the less severe the accident
Data
enforcing
similar
to
environment.
From Table 7 it can be seen that although motorcycle
accidents were less severe during the time the helmet laws
in effect (1969-1974), compared to the prelaw period
were
(1963-1967), this change was not significant. However,
there was a significant increase in the severity of motorcycle accidents during the year following repeal (1974).
Thus, repealing the helmet law in Rhode island is associated
with a significant reduction in motorcycle safety in that
While this analysis involved only one year's
state in 1976.
post repeal accident data, it can provide an indication of
Additional accident inforthe possible outcomes of repeal.
mation should be studied as it becomes available.
It should
also be noted that the absolute number of motorcycle fatalities
in 1976 was the highest ever experienced in Rhode Island, almost
double the number for any other year.
So far in 1977, 21 perhave been killed in motorcycle crashes, an increase over
sons
already high 1976
figure.
While a full year's accident data were unavailable for
Connecticut, the only other state repealing their long-term
helmet law in 1976, a special study was conducted to compare
the
data for June through September 1975 with those for June
through September 1976 (see Table 8 ). While head injuries
for helmet wearers decreased, such injuries for nonwearers
increased fivefold.
Regardless of helmet usage, head injuries
Again, based on preliminary data, it
doubled after repeal.
appears
that
the
repeal of the motorcycle
helmet
laws
is
asso-
injuries.
an
Thus, two states have experienced increases in numbers
of head injuries and increases in the severity of motorcycle
accidents, both associated with the repeal of the helmet law.
It is possible that Virginia would experience similar problems
if its helmet legislation was repealed.
ciated
with
of
In order
the helmet
to
apply only
old
or
happen
less.
should
increase
in head
circumvent
problems relating
to total repeal
have modified their legislation
to particular age groups, usually persons 18 years
Another pertinent question involves what would
Virginia simply modify its helmet law.
to
laws,
many
states
26
Table
Rhode
Year
Island
7
Motorcycle Accident
Total Number
of Accidents
Number
Information
Accident/FatalitF
of
Fatalities
Ratio
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
195
219
218
318
199
3
5
7
5
6
65.00
43.80
31.14
63 60
33.17
1968
iS0
2
75.0
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
187
253
231
333
339
537
2
3
8
6
8
9
93.5
84.33
28.88
55.50
42.25
49.67
1975
470
i0
47.00
1976
490
19
25.79
Prehelmet
He!ment
Mean
Law
Law
Posthe!met
.•
•
--•-••
•.
47.34
60.73
Mean
25.79
Law
(Standard)
t
value
(prehelmet
p
t
value
(helmet
p
law/helmet
law)
=
1.08
.!3
law/post!aw
standard
:
3.49
.0!
sunn!ied•, by Wi!7_iam Dodd, Governor's
Safety, Rhode Island.
Data
27
0 =:fice
on
Hi_ghway
Table
Fatal
8
Injury Distributions During
of
the
Mandatory
and
Helmet
After
Law
Enforcement
(Connecticut)
During
(June
Helmet
Laws
1975-Sept. 1975)
After Repeal of
the Helmet Law
(June
1976-Sept.1976)
Head Injuries
Helmet users
Helmet nonusers
4
0
20
Neck Injuries
Helmet users
Helmet nonusers
0
0
I
0
4
i
5
Other Injuries
Helmet users
Helmet nonusers
6
0
supplied by Robert Whitney, Office of the Highway Safety
Program Administrator, Connecticut Department of Transportation.
Data
28
CONSEQUENCES
POSSIBLE
APPLY
ONLY
OF MODIFYING
TO A SPECIFIC
THE
AGE
HELMET
GROUP
LAWS
TO
there are no direct data available on the
of modifying the helmet laws to apply to certain age
Of those states reducing their laws, five did so mn
1976, and have had sufficient time in which to collect impact
Of these, two, Kansas and Oklahoma, changed
crash data.
their helmet laws several times after initial passage and
thus were not suitable for inclusion in this analysis.
Two
Arizona
Louisiana,
disqualified
and
due
states,
to
more
were
At
present,
effects
groups.
insufficient
to
statutory
modified
data;
and
and
a
third, Alaska,
regulatory
conflicts
was
over
disqualified
enforcement
due
of
its
law.
Since there are so little data available from states
that have modified their helmet laws, the best estimation of
the consequences of reduction comes from the available literaIt is generally accepted that applying the helmet laws
ture.
only to persons 18 and under leaves a large proportion of
riders unprotected.
However, the magnitude of this unprotected segment of the motorcycling population has been somewhat underestimated.
It has been determined in this country
and abroad that the majority of the accident-involved riders
not under 18 but are over 20 years or between 20 and 30
are
Thus, although young people 18
years old.(5,9,17,32,42,64)
substantial
make
and
under
part of the group
years
up a
experiencing accidents, and thus needing protection from head
injury, a larger percentage of young adults between 20 and 30
years old need this protection and would not necessarily get
it under a reduced law.
Additionally,
experience has much
it
has
been
to do
shown
that
general motorcycle
with accident causation than
more
does age, and that experience with the particular motorcycle
in question has more to do with accident involvement than either
of these variables.
In Arizona, for instance, it was found that
while 64% of the motorcyclists involved in accidents had less
than 6 months of experience on the cycle in question, and often
less than one day, almost all (91%) had more than one year of
This was also true in Utah, where
general riding experience.(6)
74% of the cyclists involved in accidents had less than one year
experience on the motorcycles they crashed.(42) While many new
riders would fall into the under 18 age group, this is not
If any group is to be singled out for inclusion
always the case.
in the helmet laws, it should be those riders using a particular
motorcycle for the first time, not just those in a given age
group.
29
Thus,
apply only
two
very
and
(2)
majority
the
consequences
of
reducing
helmet
the
laws
to
riders 18 years old and under involve leaving
(i) the
substantial groups of riders unprotected:
of accident-involved riders aged 20 to 30 years old,
to
those
persons
18
over
years
riding
a
particular
Thus, while
motorcycle they have little experience with.
helmet
law at
is
mandatory
preferred
reduced
law
over
no
a
all, it is still not a viable solution in terms of highway
safety.
SUMMARY
From this review of the literature, it has been determined that motorcycle helmet usage reduces the probability
of being seriously injured or killed in a motorcycle accident.
Enactment of the helmet laws has been associated with
reduced accident severity in many states, including Virginia.
It has been shown that helmet usage does not impair hearing
vision, does not encourage risk-taking, and does not inor
the
the probability of incurring a neck injury
as
crease
Thus, requiring the use of
result of a motorcycle crash.
motorcycle helmets is a logical, reasonable, and effective
method for improving motorcycle safety.
Additionally, the
in the courts of
being introduced
helmet laws have been ruled constitulast resort in 27 states, with such
in
the U. S. Supreme Court five times.*
cases
These cases establish that the helmet laws do not constitute
of the first amendment right of free speech, the
a violation
right of due process, or the right of equal protection. Also,
these laws appear to have public support in many states among
In Virginia, 81% of
both motorcyclists and nonmotorcyclists.
nonmotorcyclists
motorcyclists
92%
favor the
of
the
and
the
current mandatory helmet law.
tional
In the face of this large body of evidence supporting
the helmet laws, many states have repealed or modified their
Highway personnel attribute these actions
helmet legislation.
campaign carried on by the antihelmet
to the public relations
lobbies.
The consequences of repealing the helmet laws have
been analyzed in only two states, Rhode Island end Connecticut,
but the analyses have shown increases in the severity of motorcycle accidents and increases in the numbers of fatalities and
head injuries incurred.
It is possible that the repeal of the
helmet laws could result in similar problems in Virginia
that
It has been concluded from the review
the mandatory motorcycle helmet laws
highway safety countermeasure
itspotential.
It is recom•mended that the
repealed in Virginia.
example
of
a
*The Supreme Court declined
times and has affirmed one
of
are
the
an
which
helmet
literature
excellent
has fulfilled
laws not be
review state decisions four
state's ruling without opinion.
to
3O
REFERENCES
i.
2.
P., Levi, P.,
Safety
Johnson,
Lives",
Reiss,
M.
R.,
Voas,
and
(April 1976).
Traffic
"Helmet
Laws
Save
"The
L., Berger, W. G., and Vallette, G. R.,
of a Motorcycle Accident Typology, "BiotechFalls Church, Va.
Inc.,
Utilization
nology,
3.
Griffin, L., "Motorcycle Accidents: Who, When, Where,
and •Thy", Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill,
4.
5.
6.
Ke!eher,
of
C.
E.,
and
Collisions",
Riggins,
Journal
"Summary of Data Regarding Motorcycle
Incapacitating Injuries", Arizona DepartTransportation, Office of Highway Safety, Phoenix
J.,
T.
with
Automotive
Nakumura,
N.,
Proceedings,
Medicine
"The
Role
Second
(November
of
Helmets
International
1975).
in Motorcycle Accidents",
Congress on Automotive
(July 1973).
Crancer, A., "Motorcycle Fatality Study, 1965
Washington State Department of Motor Vehicles
Safety,
!0.
Franti,
in Motorcycle
2 (1975).
(February 1977).
Inayoshi, H., "Characteristics of Motorcycle Accidents in
Japan", Proceedings Second International Congress on
Automotive Safety, Paper #73004 (July 1973).
Siegel, A. W., Hight, P. V., Nahum, A. M., and Lent-Koop,
D. B., "Motorcycle Kinematics and Injury Patterns", Proceedings, Nineteenth Conference on the American Association of
of
9.
F.,
J.
"A Study of Motorcycle Traffic Accidents in Nebraska",
Safety Division, Department of Roads, Lincoln (January 1975).
ment
8.
1974).
Drysdale, W. F., Kraus,
R. S., "Injury Patterns
of Trauma, Vol. 15, No.
Accidents
7.
(March
Carolina
North
Paper #73014
and
1966
Data",
(January 1967).
Motorcycle Accidents",
ii.
Bothwell,
P.
12.
Jamieson,
Injuries",
K. G., and Kelly, D., "Crash Helmets Reduce Head
The Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 2 (0ctober
Practitioner,
27
13.
"The Problem of
Vol. 188 (1962).
1973)
"Characteristics
Study Committee,
(December
14.
W.,
of
The
Motorcycle Accidents", Traffic Accidents
Japanese Council of Traffic Safety
1971).
Parenti, R. F., "Utah Turns Spotlight
dents", Traffic Safety (June 1977).
31
in Motorcycle
Acci-
15.
"Motorcycle Accidents:
Evaluation
An
Involving Motorcycles
Safety Regulations",
Accidents
Effects of
Division of
Motor Vehicles,
Report No. 1969-12 (1969).
16.
of
Motor
Severity,
New York
Research and
Vehicle
Characteristics,
Department of
Development,
Newman, J. A., "The Protective Value of Contemporary
Motorcycle Helmets in the Prevention of Head Injuries",
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ottawa
(May 1974).
17.
"Motorcycle Head Injuries", Maryland DepartSafety (May 5, 1977).
Buchanan, L. S., Bischoff, D. C., and Richardson, H. A.,
"A Preliminary Analysis of Safety Helmet Effectiveness",
Proceedings, Second International Congress on Automotive
Safety, Paper #73013 (July 1973).
Verace,
ment
18.
of
S.,
Traffic
19.
"Head Protection
American Medical
1977).
20.
Hames,
L.
for the Cyclist
A Medical Inquiry",
Association, Washington, D. C.(April 14,
N., and Petrucelli, E. A., "What the Experts
Motorcycle Helmets", Traffic Safety (September
Think About
1977).
21.
Bothwell, P. W., "Safety Technical Design of Motorcycle,
Motorcycle Helmets and Clothing in Relation to Experimental Crash Tests", Proceedings, Second International
Congress on Automotive Safety, Paper #73016 (July 1973).
22.
Cairns, H.,
cyclists"
23.
24.
25.
and
Holbourn,
British
Medical
F., Riggins,
H., "Head Injuries in MotorJournal, Vol I (1943)
S., and Franti, C. E., "Some
of Motorcycle Collision Injuries-Factors Associated with Severe Injuries", American Journal
of Epidemiology, Vol. 102, No. I (1975).
Kraus,
J.
Epidemiological
Haddon,
W.,
Strategies",
R.
Features
"Energy Damage
Journal
of
and
Trauma,
the Ten Countermeasure
Vol. 13 (1973).
Balmer, H. E., "Analysis of the Mandatory Motorcycle HelIssue", Governor's Traffic Safety Council, Harrisburg,
met
(September 1977).
Yaw, E. E., "Laws Requiring Helmets and Eye Protection for
Motorcyclists", Traffic Laws Commentary, Vol. !, No. 4,
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances
(August 1972).
Pennsylvania
26.
27.
"More States Repeal Helmet Laws", Status Report,
Institute for Highway Safety (October 13, 1977).
32
Insurance
28.
Singh, B. E., Robson, S. H., and Toomath, J. B., "ComSafety Helmet Legislation and Motorcyclist Accidents", Transportation Research Section, Road Transport
Division, Ministry of Transport, Wellington, New Zealand
pulsory
(1975).
29.
30.
Foldvary, L. A., and Lane, J. C., "The Effect of Compulsory Saeety Helmets on Motorcycle Accident Fatalities"
Australian Road Research, Vo!. 2, No. ! (September 1964).
Hight,
Siegel,
V.,
P.
and
Nahum,
M.
Motorcycle
Safety
Helmet
A.
W.,
"Injury
D.,
in Motorcycle Collisions", Proceedings, _]7th
Annual Meeting of the American Association of Automotive
Medicine (November 1973).
Mechanisms
31.
Richardson,
Department
137
32.
(March
Newman,
Traffic
33.
A.,
H.
of
"A
Transportation,
NHTSA
Study"
Technical
#HS-801-
Note
1974).
A.,
J.
Injury
"Characteristics of Motorcycle
Foundation of Canada
Research
Waddington,
J. A., and Winston, C. A., "New
Helmet Effectiveness Study, 1965-1975, "New
of Motor Vehicles, Office of Highway Safety
Accidents",
(September 1976).
Jersey Safety
Jersey Division
(Revised
January 1977).
34.
Chandler,
Present
Research
K.
Day Crash Helmets
Quarterly,
Al•sop,
R. E.,
Wore
Report No.
cyclists
RRL
N., and Thompson,
Vo!.
J.,
"The
Effectiveness
of
for Motorcyclists", 0•eration.
8, No. 2 (June 1957•
"Costs and Benefits Arising if all MotorSafety Helmets", Road Research Laboratory,
LR72, Crowthorne, England (1967).
36.
"Staff Memorandum on the Analysis of Fatal Motorcycle
United States
''_
Crashes in the United States, 1966-7970
Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety
Bureau (December 1970).
37.
Jamieson,
K.
G.,
and
Kelly,
D.,
HosDita!s Over One Decade"
Queensland, Australia (December
bane
38.
"Traffic
Injuries
Department
of
in
Bris-
Transport,
1975).
A. A., "Development in Motorcycle Helmet Testing
Their rffects on Future Designs", Proceedings, Second
Lnternatiorm! Congress on Automotive Safety (July
1973).
Scalone,
and
39.
Robertson,
Use
Laws"
Institute
Leon S., "'•otorcyc!e Helmet and Daytime Head•am•
Effects on Use and =ata!iries"
Insurance
for Highway Safety, Washington (November 1975).
33
40.
Robertson, L. S., "An Instance of Effective Legal Regulation: Motorcycle and Daytime Headlamp Laws", Law and
Society Review, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Spring 1976).
41.
Ellinger, M., "Illinois Motorcycle Helmet Use Study",
lllinois Department of Transportation, Division of
Traffic Safety (May 1976).
42.
"Motorcycle Accident Investigation 1975: An Analysis of
Safety in Utah", Utah Highway Safety Division,
Salt Lake City (1976).
Motorcycle
43.
Korkea-Aho,
Motorcycle
Organization
44.
Cowley,
Aspects
and Raymond, A. G., "Paper No. 5;
the Influence of Legislation on Road
Road Research Board (1972).
E.,
J.
of
Australian
45.
"Use of Safety Helmets and Goggles by
Moped Riders in Finland in 1973", Central
for Traffic Safety in Finland, #6 (1975).
M.,
and
P., Buchanan, L., and Levi,
for Helmet Use", Department
Johnson,
47.
(November
48.
Gordon, S., and Prince, J., "Field of View With and WithMotorcycle Helmets", United States Department of Trans-
portation,
NHTSA
Report
Technical
#HS-801-758
(October
1975).
L., "Effect of Safety Helmets on Auditory
United States Department of Transportation,
Technical Note #HS-801-759 (September 1975).
Henderson,
Capability",
NHTSA
50.
of
1976).
out
49.
"Motorcycle Safety--
Transportation,
Note #HS-801-836 (February 1976).
Buchanan, L., "Statement to the Senate Transportation
Committee of the South Carolina Legislature" (May 4, 1972).
Hurt, H. H., and 0uellet, J. V., "An Analysis of Accident Involved Safety Helmets", Proceedings, 20th Annual
Meeting of the American Association of Automotive Medicine
The Case
NHTSA Technical
46.
P.,
Some
Safety",
"NHTSA
R.
Official Presents
Institute for
15, 1977).
Insurance
(March
Helmet Arguments", Status Report,
Highway Safety, Vol. 12, No. 5,
51.
Hearing Risk, Help
Motorcycle Industry (May 1977).
52.
Campbell, Lane, "The
(February 16, 1977).
"Helmets
Lower
Hurt
Report
34
Riders
Part
Hear
Warnings",
II", Cycle
News
53.
Ruschmann,
A
Review
of
P. A., "Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet
the Law", HR!S Research Review, Ann
Michigan (August 1977)
54.
"Staff
Memorandum
Question
Constitutional
the
Arbor,
Presented
by State Motorcycle Headgear Requirements", United States
Department of Transportation, NHTSA, Washington (Revised
1976).
December
55.
on
Legislation:
Kogan,
Law
"Motorcycle
I.,
Bruce
Helmet
Legislation", Dickinson
(1968).
Review
56.
Kraus, J. F., Franti, C. E., Johnson, S. L., and Riggins,
R. S., "Trends in Deaths Due to Motorcycle Crashes and
Risk Factors in Injury Collisions", Accident Analysis and
Prevention, Vol. 8 (December 1976).
57.
"A Study of Idaho Motorcyclists
Idaho Traffic Safety Commission,
58.
59.
"Factors
be
to
Considered
in
in 1974 Accidents",
Idaho (January 1976).
Injured
Boise,
Connection
Repealing Mandatory Motorcycle
cycle Association, Westerville,
Ohio
Legislation
With
Laws", American
Helmet
Motor-
(1976).
R., "A Graphic Study of Motorcycle
Statistics in Pennsylvania", M.A.U.L., Sharon
slvania (August 1976).
Halverson,
Accident
Hill,
Penn-
60.
Davy, B. R., "Virginia Motorcycle Accident and Fatality
Rates", ABATE of Virginia, Vienna (in correspondence to
John T. Hanna, July 28, 1976).
61.
Armstrong,
62.
E.,
(April 1976).
York
James
You
Ride,
You
Decide",
Laws Requiring
on
Rights
Organization
Motorcycle
Tranquill).
"Additional
New
Mr.
"If
Comments
Traffic
the
(in
Use
a
of
Safety
Helmets",
mailing
from
63.
"Minnesota Survey:
Helmets Lose Appeal With Repeal of
State's Compulsory Law", Bulletin, American Association
Administrators (July 1977).
of Motor Vehicle
64.
Graham,
Forensic
J.
W.,
"Fatal
Science,
Vol.
Motorcycle Accidents",
14
(January 1969).
35
Journal
of
Appendix
CHALLENGES
STATE
AS
Taken from
Presented
"Staff
A
TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
MOTORCYCLE HELMET LAWS
OF DECEMBER i, 1976
Memorandum
Constitutionality Question
the
on
OF
by State Motorcycle Headgear Requirements" (U. S. DOT,
With Supplemental Information from "Mandatory Motorcycle
1976)
Helmet
Legislation:
A Review
of
Law",
the
(HSRI
Review,
Research
August 1977).
!.
United
i.
States
Court
Karns, 395 U. S. 709,.:89 S. Ct. 2033•
v.
Ed. 2d 655 (1969), appeal dismissed "for
of a substantial federal question".
Bisenius
23
L.
want
2.
Suprem e
Everhardt
89 S. Ct.
v.
City
of
L.
1775,23
Orleans,
New
Ed.
214
2d
395
(1969),
212,
S.
U.
certiorari
denied.
3.
Krafft
24
4.
5.
New York, 396
2d 145 (1969),
Massachusetts v.
21 L. Ed 2d 464
Simon
34
Federal
III.
v.
Ed
L.
Ed.
2d
312
393
aff'd,
mem.
Supp.
277
198
S.
Ct.
485-
denied.
i020•93
S.
(1972)
Ct.
999,89
S.
U.
certiorari
U.
409
S.
denied.
certiorari
Howie,
(1968),
Sargent,
v.
L.
24,90
S.
U.
S.
463,
Ct.
Cases
i.
Simon
v.
Sargent,
2.
Bo$ue
v.
Faircloth,
316
F.
State
Supreme Court
(or
Hishest
F.
346
Supp.
1972)
(Mass.
(Fla.
486
1970)
State
A.
I.
Arutanoff
223 Tenn.
2.
Bisenius
2d
3.
Metropolital
535, 448 S.W. 2d
v.
v.
Karns,
42
Wis.
377, Appeal dismissed,
Cesin
1974)
v.
State,
288
A-I
So.
2d
Court)
Nashville,
Government of
408 (1969)
2d
90 S.
474
42, 165
Ct.
(Fla.
N.
198
Sup.
W.
(1969)
Ct.
4.
City
5.
City
City
469
Commonwealth
(Ky. Ct. App.
v.
8.
Commonwealth
N.W. 2d 373,
v.
i0.
Elliot
(0kla.
Ex.
App.
ii.
12.
13.
Kingery
1972)
Love
(1970)
14.
City
P.
944,
2d
Crim.
(Tex.
544
2d
v.
455
City
S.
17.
State
2d 49
v.
State
v.
Cushman,
v.
Cotton,
v.
Darah,
State
(1973).
State
1969).
26
Anderson,
(i96'9)
Utah
2d
93
Ida.
451
S.
446
A-2
S.
W.
2d
17
516
745
118
248
166
Ar•.
2d
P.
470
168,
2d
138,
Haw.
485
640,
W.
2d
Rock,
I0,
C.
N.
P.
465
Sup.
(Atlas
831
Little
(1970)
275
55
2d
27,
of North
W. 2d 132
State v. Albertson,
3OO (1970)
1970).
P.
504
Colo.
171
16.
20.
(1968)
253 La.
New Orleans,
cert. den., 89 S. Ct.
of
400,
Chapple,
Bell,
v.
Penny
1158,
v.
2d
State v. Acker,
1038 (1971)
19.
S.W.
441
15.
18.
238,
485
1968)•
Everhardt v.
285, 217 So.
1775 (1969)
Ct.
769,
Mass.
S. Ct.
471
759
2d
1970)
Smith,
Parte
S.W.
453
Oklahoma,
App.
2d
408,
Kan.
205
Howie, 35•
den.,89
of
Wis.
54
(1972)
462
Cert.
Crim.
897
2d
Dosemagen,
v.
Coffman,
•970)
City
v.
So.
252
!971)
of Witchita v. White,
P. 2d 287 '('1970)
7.
9.
Lee,
v.
Sup.
of Kenosha
195 N.W. 2d
269,
6.
Jackson
Ct.
of
(Miss.
P.
2d
S.
E.
(S. Ct.
P.
(Mo.
2d
Mo.
709
Sup.
CZ.
21.
State v. Edwards,
4O (19'70).
22.
State
State v. Fetterly,
996 (1969).
24.
State
2d 789
v.
25.
State
v.
26.
State v. Lombardi,
Ct. 1972).
27.
State v. Merski,
825 (1973).
28.
State
241 A.
Lee,
ex
2d
51
30.
State
i.
128
307
3.
4.
28,
R.i.
104
(N.D.
197,
260
A.
Sup.
2d
377
Courts
Motorcycle
American
ii Mich.
Association
v.
App. 351, 158 N. W. 2d
by People of the City
Poucher, 67 Mich. App. 133,
2d
298
Commonwealth
(Appeals Ct.
People
P.eople
N.Y.S.
v.
72
of
240
Davids,
(1968),
Adrian
N. W.
(1976).
Commonwealth
258 A. 2d 885
Justice
5.
2d
677
overruled
2.
Sup.
2d
N.W.
Vt.
573(1970).
A.
Lombardi,
v.
P.
(R.I.
141
Ct.
2do
459
2d
P.
323,
N.H.
164
Solomon,
2d
P.
130,
465
A.
298
113
State v. Ode•aard,
Ct. 1969 ).
v.
516,
Sup.
456
2d
2d
N.W.
(Fla.
47,
Ore.
Haw.
177
489
Wash.
77
Colvin
(1968).
rel.
625
2d
254
Laitinen,
(19'69)•
29.
Appellate
So.
227
23.
(1969).
B.
Eitel,
v.
1969).
83,
Minn.
287
v.
Arnold,
v.
of
Cowan,
Mass.,
Bennett,
v.
Ct.
215
Super.
Pa.
444,
(1969).
391
344
N.
E.
2d
2d
506
419
1976).
N.Y.S.
(Colonie
1977).
v.
272
Carmichael, 53 Misc.
(1967), rev'd.,288
2d. 584,
N.Y.S. 2d
v.
Crago,
3d
279
931
(1968).
6.
People
18
A-3
Iii.
App.
396
(1974).
i6 6
7.
8.
People v. Kraft,(0nondaga City Ct. 1969),
upholding subdivision 6, section 381 of
vehicle
and
Ct.
(1969).
People
City
2d
9.
i0.
198
v.
Schmidt,
People
v.
Thoreson,
People
Mich.
Arizona
of
State v. Also,
122 (196•).
12.
State v. Beeman,
409 (1975).
13.
State
v.
Brady,
State
v.
Burzycki,
den.,
252
15.
State
2d 75
16.
State v.
A. 2d2'33
17.
State
2d 176
v.
A.
Poucher,
Ariz.
25
290
2d
37
19
Krammes,
Law
Ohio
83,
322
(De!.
2d
P.
541
P.
2d
1972).
2248,
Week
cert.
1969).
App.
29,
2d
249
345,
Super.
N.J.
105
463
App.
(Conn.
312
Craig
2d
A.
67
(19•76).
227,
App.
Ariz.
ii
(19'69).
v.
290 (Erie
295 N.Y.S.
2d
of Adrian v.
240 N.W. 2d 298
133,
S.
(Maricopa Cty. Ct. 1969),
unconstitutional.
law
Ii.
14.
N.Y.S.
283
City
the
App.
den.•90
cert.
appeal dismissed,
Ct. 1967),
936 (1938).
holding
law;
traffic
N.E.
252
(1969),
Mele,
103
Super.
N.J.
353,
247
A.
(1968).
18.
State v. Myers, (Balto. Cty. 1969), aff'•d.,
1968 decision of Magistrate Ct. upholding
Md. headgear and goggle legislation.
19.
State
20.
State v. Stouffer,
N.E. 2d 651 (1972).
21.
Zektzer, Sup. Ct. King City. No.
v.
47101 (Wash. 1967) upholding Ch. 232, Sec.4
Subd. 3, Laws of 1967, and reversing City
of Seattle v. Zektzer, Seattle Mun. Ct.(1967).
22.
State
2d 399
v.
Quinnam,
367
28
A.
Ohio
2d
1032
App.
(ME•977).
2d
229,
276
State
v.
Zektzer,
13
(1975).
A-4
Wash.
App.
25,
533
P.
C.
Trial
i.
Courts
City
Hutchinson v. Silvey,
(D Ct. Reno City, Kansas
of
8081
2.
4.
People
v.
Bielmeyer,
N.Y.S.
2d
797
New
54
York
Misc.
2d
court).
•eg•.le
v.
Newhouse,
N.Y.S.
2d
713
v.
Smallwood, 277 N.Y.S.
Sess., Irondequoit,
55 Misc. 2d 1064, 287
of Ithaca, N.Y. 1968),
upholding subdivision 6, section 381 of
Vehicle and Traffic Law.
People
Spec.
(Reversed
(City
381
of
Vehicle
by higher court).
and
2d 429
Monroe
Ctyo
subdivision
Traffic Law.
People v. Wattle, (Buffalo City Ct. 1967)
holding unconstitutional subdivision 6,
section
S.
D.
H•ight
381
of
Vehicle
Motorcycle
Parker,
v.
Dealers
(S.D.
upholding
1967
section 4 of
Session Laws.
Sheneman
C 2d
D•&
holding
Ii.
up-
of
Law.
by higher
(Reversed
6, section
i0.
4667282
381
1967), holding unconstitutional
9.
58,
People v. Da•$herty, (West Plains Mun.
Ct., 1968) holding Missouri Law unconstitu-
(Ct.
8.
Ct.
P.L.
City Ct., 1967)
6, section
subdivision
and Traffic
tional.
7.
CR
City
Commonwealth v. Molter, (Delaware
Pa. 1969), No. S. A. #7, upholding
section 625.1 as amended,
Vehicle
6.
No.
45676•
No.
holding
5.
1967),
upholding city ordinance.
City of Wichita v. White, 205 Kan. 408,
469 P. 2d 287 (1969), upholding city
ordinance; on appeal Kansas Supreme Ct.
(Case
3.
Case
State
v.
and
Traffic
Law•
Association and
Cir. Ct. 1968),
chapter
215
of
the
Commonwealth ex rel Depuy, 49
91 Dauph
349 (1969), upP.L. 58, section 625.1 as amended,
v.
107,
Babbs,
(Martin
Cty.
holding unconstitutional F.
(Reversed by higher court).
A-5
Ct.,
S.
Fla. 1968)
317.981.
12.
13.
State
2d 866
N.W.
III.
Ohio
21
Misc.
175• 252
(Mun.
Poucher,
v.
2d
Ct.
298
67
Mich.
App.
133•.
240
(1976)).
State v. Schlegel, (Mun. Ct. City of Toledo,
Ohio 1970), holding unconstitutional §4511.53
Revised Code. (Reversed by higher court).
Opinions of
Opinion
i.
Feb.
New
Attorneys
States
General
of Attorney-General of
25, 1969.
In response to
Mexico legislative Counsel,
position taken in
"we are unwilling to completely
position".
cases
contra
Mexico,
Attorney
the opinion
New
No.
an
for
No. 66-15
abandon
2.
Opinion of Attorney-General of Oklahoma,
68-267, Dec. 31, 1968, that 470 S. Supp.
§40-I05(b), is unconstitutional.
3.
Opinion•of Attorney-General
15,
Feb.
Cases (not later
Unconstitutional
i.
as
to
reversed)
People v. Fries,
149 (1969X
of
New
but
42
A-6
Ill.
citizens
Holdinz
2d
446,
State
250
No.66-
18.
Statute
N.E.
notes
states
No.
1967
Mexico,
over
69-14
the
past
our
Proposed city ordinance
i, 1966.
unconstitutional
D.
N.E.
City of Franklin, Ohio,
1969), holding unconstitutional§ 4511.53
Revised Code. (Reversed by higher court).
State v. Duncan, No. 44835 (Wayne Cty.
1967), holding Michigan statute unconstitutional. (Reversed in People of the City of
Adrian
14.
Betts,
v.
2d
Download PDF
Similar pages