BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 192 Hearing Date: 4/28/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Liu |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/20/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Christine Hochmuth |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Bicycles: helmets
DIGEST: This bill requires the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS),
in coordination with the California Highway Patrol (CHP), to
conduct a comprehensive study of bicycle helmet use.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Requires children under the age of 18 to wear a helmet while
operating, or acting as a passenger upon, a bicycle,
nonmotorized scooter, inline skates, or skateboard. A
violation of this provision is punishable by a fine of not
more than $25.
2)Requires any report mandated or requested by law to be
submitted by a state or local agency to the members of either
house of the Legislature generally, to be submitted as a
printed copy to the Secretary of the Senate, as an electronic
copy to the Chief Clerk of the Assembly, and as an electronic
or printed copy to the Legislative Counsel.
This bill:
1)Requires OTS, in coordination with CHP, to conduct a
comprehensive study of bicycle helmet use.
2)Requires the study to include, at a minimum, a determination
SB 192 (Liu) Page 2 of ?
of the percentage of California bicyclists who do not wear
helmets and the fatalities or serious injuries that could have
been avoided if helmets had been worn.
3)Requires the findings of the study to be submitted to the
Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing and the
Assembly Committee on Transportation by January 1, 2017.
4)Sunsets on January 1, 2021.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of the bill. Existing law (since 1997) requires
anyone under 18 to wear a helmet when they are riding a
bicycle. A youth riding without a helmet can be cited for an
infraction and fined up to $25. California has not had a
comprehensive examination of helmet use since the bill for
youth helmets passed almost 20 years ago. Limited data is
available from other countries with mandatory adult helmet
laws, but the author contends that California would benefit
from data specific to this state.
The author believes all bicycle riders should wear a helmet,
but a wide variety of opinions currently exists about the
potential benefits of helmet use. The author states that data
from a study will help guide the Legislature in making
decisions to protect bicycle riders and expand bicycle use.
2)Bicycle crashes and helmet studies. According to the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 741 bicyclists across
the United States were killed in crashes in 2013. Sixty-three
percent of these bicyclists were reportedly not wearing
helmets. More than half a million emergency department visits
were due to bicycle-related injuries. Adolescents (aged 15-24
years) and adults aged 45 years and older have the highest
bicycle death rates, yet only children under the age of 18 are
subject to mandatory helmet laws in certain states. (No state
law requires adult bicyclists to wear helmets. Young riders
are required to wear helmets in only 21 states and the
District of Columbia.)
The Center for Disease Control reports that bicycle helmets
reduce the risk of head and brain injuries in the event of a
crash. However, opponents argue that while helmets may be
safer in the event of a crash, they actually contribute to an
SB 192 (Liu) Page 3 of ?
increased likelihood of crashing. In fact, a study in the
Journal of Accident Analysis & Prevention showed that drivers
passed bicyclists wearing helmets an average of 3.5 inches
closer, making helmeted cyclists more likely to get hit.
A comprehensive study that accounts for the unique challenges
of California's bicycle infrastructure will help legislators
to determine whether a mandatory helmet law is beneficial for
bicyclists.
3)The right people for the job? If this bill passes, CHP and
OTS will be required to gather and provide data, but are they
well suited to perform some of the statistical analyses that
would be required? Tallying the incidence of crashes and
whether or not a bicyclist was wearing a helmet would be
within CHP's jurisdiction; however, determining whether or not
an injury or death could have been prevented by a helmet may
be beyond the purview of both departments.
4)Submitting reports to the legislature. This bill requires
that the findings of the report be submitted to the Senate
Committee on Transportation and Housing and the Assembly
Committee on Transportation. However, existing law requires
that mandated reports be submitted to the Secretary of Senate,
Chief Clerk of the Assembly, and Legislative Counsel.
The committee may wish to make an amendment requiring the
report to be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the
Government Code.
5)Other amendments. This bill currently sunsets four years
after the study findings are due to the legislature.
The committee may wish to make an amendment revising the
sunset date to January 1, 2018.
Related Legislation:
SB 1924 (O'Connell, Chapter 475, Statutes of 2002) - requires
that persons under 18 years of age wear a helmet while operating
a nonmotorized scooter or skateboard, while wearing inline or
roller skates, or while riding upon a nonmotorized scooter or
skateboard as a passenger.
AB 2268 (Caldera, Chapter 1000, Statutes of 1997) - prohibits a
SB 192 (Liu) Page 4 of ?
person under 18 years of age from operating or riding upon a
bicycle as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, or other public
bicycle path or trail, unless the person is wearing a helmet
meeting specified standards. Prior to this statute the limit
was 4 years of age or under 40 pounds.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 22, 2015.)
SUPPORT:
None received
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --