BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2427
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jenny Oropeza, Chair
AB 2427 (Canciamilla) - As Introduced: February 23, 2006
SUBJECT : Motorcycle helmets
SUMMARY : Exempts from the motorcycle helmet law any rider or
driver who is 18 years of age or older and has either completed
a motorcycle rider training program that meets the standards of
the California Highway Patrol (CHP) or been issued a class M1
license or endorsement, or a comparable license from another
jurisdiction, for two years or more.
EXISTING LAW : Requires riders and drivers to wear an approved
helmet when riding on a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or
motorized bicycle.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the author, California's motorcycle
helmet requirement impacts freedom of choice for adults without
reducing motorcycle fatalities. He contends that today's
motorcycle fatality rate is higher than before the law was
enacted, that motorcycle deaths were declining before approval
of the law, and that any reduction in motorcycle accidents is
due to the helmet law having discouraged riding.
Requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets has been a contentious
and controversial matter that the Legislature has confronted a
number of times over the past thirty years. The issue dates
back to federal legislation in 1966 that authorized the
withholding of highway funds from any state that failed to enact
a mandatory helmet requirement. The vast majority of states
complied with the federal requirement, but California was one of
three states that long held out. Only by 1991 did California
achieve full compliance through the enactment of AB 7 (Floyd),
Chapter 32, Statutes of 1991.
In 1995, however, the federal government repealed the penalty
sanction for states without helmet laws, and it is presently the
prerogative of the individual states as to whether to require
the use of motorcycle helmets. Currently, 19 states and the
District of Columbia require safety helmets for all motorcycle
AB 2427
Page 2
riders, and 28 states have helmet laws that apply to some
riders, generally riders younger than 18 years of age. In
addition, three states, Colorado, Illinois, and Iowa, have no
laws mandating helmet use.
The sponsor of this bill, ABATE, argues that wearing safety
helmets is essentially a freedom of choice issue. They, and
other supporters, contend that mandatory helmet requirements
have proven ineffective in reducing motorcyclist fatalities and
accidents, that unhelmeted operators do not represent an
economic burden on public jurisdictions, and that motorcycle
sales, and the resulting positive economic activity, have been
discouraged by the helmet law. They argue that helmet use
increases the likelihood of neck and spinal injuries, reduces
peripheral vision, restricts hearing, and contributes to
operator fatigue. According to the supporters of repealing the
statute, fatality rates in non-helmet states are lower than in
states that require helmets and the incidence of motorcycle
fatalities has actually declined in some states after they
rescinded the mandatory motorcycle helmet requirement.
Opponents counter that motorcycle injuries and fatalities and
hospitalization and medical costs have been significantly
reduced as a direct result of the mandatory helmet requirement.
Helmets are widely believed to reduce the severity and frequency
of head injuries, which are the leading cause of death for
motorcycle operators. Opponents cite a study conducted by the
University of Southern California which reviewed nearly 4,000
motorcycle accident reports and concluded that helmet use was
the single most important factor affecting survival in
motorcycle collisions. They contend that an unhelmeted
motorcyclist is 40% more likely to incur a fatal head injury and
15% more likely to suffer a nonfatal injury than a helmeted
motorcyclist when involved in a collision.
Commenting on the impact of eliminating or reducing mandatory
helmet laws, Joseph Cindrich, Regional Administrator for
National Highway Safety and Traffic Association (NHSTA), noted
that "in states where helmet laws were repealed or limited to 21
or 18 years, significant increases in fatalities resulted."
Since 1997, six states (Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Florida, and Pennsylvania) have acted to limit mandatory helmet
use to riders under the age of 21. NHSTA reports the following
impacts of the helmet law changes in some of these states: In
Arkansas, motorcycle fatalities increased by 21%. In Texas,
AB 2427
Page 3
motorcycle fatalities increased by 31%. In Kentucky: motorcycle
accident injuries increased by 37%. And in Louisiana, the
average annual number of motorcycle fatalities increased from 26
to 55.
Opponents of this bill further argue that safety helmets do not
impede the ability of a motorcyclist to operate in a safe
fashion, nor do they impair vision or hearing. They point out
that the public bears considerable financial costs for
unhelmeted operators through tax-supported medical and
rehabilitation programs and private insurance premiums. Law
enforcement personnel engaged in motorcycle patrol throughout
the United States, including CHP, are routinely and universally
outfitted with motorcycle helmets. The CHP itself contends that
"helmets are effective in reducing motorcycle rider head
injuries and death rates. There is ample safety, scientific,
and medical data supporting helmet use requirements." The CHP
also asserts that limiting helmet requirements to only one
particular age group would have the same effect as having no
helmet law at all.
Finally, the California Research Bureau, which did a
comprehensive review of the various studies and claims offered
by advocates and impartial observers alike, concluded the
following: Helmet use decreases head injuries, the severity of
injuries overall, and fatalities. States with partial use
helmet laws (such as proposed in this bill) have high fatality
and injury rates comparable to states without any helmet law.
States that repeal or soften their helmet laws subsequently
experience radically increased fatality and severe injury rates.
Clearly, supporters and opponents of this bill each can cite
numerous studies, reports, and analyses in support of their
respective positions. While proponents can demonstrate that the
decline in motorcycle accident and fatality rates of the 1990's
began before passage of AB 7, and that there has been an
apparent increase in fatality rates since 1998, the scientific,
safety, and medical communities seem largely to agree that
helmets are effective in reducing motorcycle rider head injuries
and fatalities and their associated medical and societal costs.
For example, NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the
risk of death in a motorcycle collision by nearly 30% and the
risk of a fatal head injury by 40%. Opponents also point out
that the recent increase in fatalities coincides with an
AB 2427
Page 4
increase of over 50,000 motorcycle registrations from 1998 to
2000.
Beyond the competing claims, anecdotes, and rhetoric, the issue
seems to be reducible to a simple question. How shall the
Legislature balance the evidence, which appears to point to the
clear safety benefit of helmet usage, against the rights of
adult motorcyclists to make informed choices regarding the
manner in which they ride?
Related legislation : Previous similar bills -- AB 2331
(McDonald) of 1993, AB 373 (Morrow) of 1995, SB 1197 (Morrow) of
1999, SB 1057 (Morrow) of 2001, AB 1200 (Longville) of 2004, and
SB 969 (Ducheny) of 2005 all failed in their first policy
committee. AB 224 (Morrow) of 1996 and AB 1412 (Ducheny) of
1997 passed out of the Assembly but failed in Senate
Transportation. AB 2700 (Mountjoy-2002) passed out of this
committee after being amended so that it exempted from the
helmet law motorcyclists 21 and over who carry proof of at least
$1 million in medical insurance on their persons. That bill was
subsequently defeated on the Assembly floor. SB 685
(Hollingsworth-2003) would have exempted from the helmet law
persons who file a physician's certificate with the Department
of Motor Vehicles (DMV) substantiating a disability that renders
them unable to wear a helmet. That bill was defeated in the
Senate Transportation Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Motorcyclist Association
ABATE of California, Local #10
ABATE of California, Local # 14
ABATE of California, Local #23
ABATE of California, Local #25
ABATE of California, Local #28
ABATE of California, Local #36
ABATE of California, Local # 44
BAJA Consultants
California Motorcycle Dealers Association
District 37 AMA Road Riders
Letters from 84 individuals
Petition signed by 125 individuals
AB 2427
Page 5
Opposition
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Association of California Insurance Companies
Automobile Club of Southern California
California Highway Patrol
California Hospital Association
California Medical Association
California Psychological Association
California State Automobile Association
Emergency Nurses Association, California State Council
Insurance Agents and Brokers of the West
Nationwide Insurance Company
San Diego Trauma Center
Analysis Prepared by : Howard Posner / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093