BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1205
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Mike Eng, Chair
AB 1205 (Logue) - As Introduced: February 27, 2009
SUBJECT : Motorcycle helmets
SUMMARY : Exempts motorcycle drivers 18 and over from the helmet
law under specified conditions. Specifically, this bill :
Exempts from the requirement to wear a helmet, motorcycle
drivers who are 18 or older and have either completed a
motorcyclist safety training program meeting standards
established by 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 motorcycle drivers and their passengers
to wear approved helmets when traveling on a public roadway.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill is essentially a reintroduction of AB 425
(Adams), which was introduced in 2007 and died in this committee
in 2008 without being taken up for a vote.
The author of this bill asserts that although California's 1991
mandatory helmet law was intended to save lives and money by
reducing injuries and fatalities among motorcyclists, its
initial effect was to cause many riders to simply stop riding
rather than be forced to wear a helmet. Because fewer people
were riding, the number of accidents did temporarily decrease.
Since 1996, however, the author notes, the number of deaths per
accident among motorcyclists has risen every year. The ratio of
deaths per 100 motorcycle accidents has increased from 3.22 in
1991 to 4.25 in 2006. Additionally, according to the author,
the state has lost money due to decreased ridership. Starting
from 1996, the state has lost an estimated $10 million per year
in registration fees.
The author further cites a report from the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) which noted: "Although rising
motorcycle use may partly explain this trend, increases in
fatalities have outpaced increases in activity measures such as
motorcycle registrations and vehicle miles traveled." The
AB 1205
Page 2
sponsor of this bill, ABATE, and other supporters argue that
helmet use increases the likelihood of neck and spinal injuries,
reduces peripheral vision, restricts hearing, and contributes to
operator fatigue.
Requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets has been a controversial
issue that has been debated by the Legislature a number of times
over the past thirty years. In 1966, federal legislation
authorized the withholding of highway funds from any state that
failed to enact a mandatory helmet requirement. A majority of
states complied with the federal requirement, but California
remained one of three states that did not comply. It was not
until 1991 that California achieved full compliance through the
enactment of AB 7 (Floyd), Chapter 32, Statutes of 1991.
Subsequently, in 1995, the federal government repealed the
penalty sanction for states without helmet laws, giving
individual states a choice in deciding as to whether to require
the use of motorcycle helmets. Currently, 20 states and the
District of Columbia require safety helmets for all motorcycle
riders, and 27 states have helmet laws that apply to some
riders, generally riders younger than 18 years of age. In
addition, three states, New Hampshire, Illinois, and Iowa, have
no laws mandating helmet use.
Opponents contend that helmet laws have proven to be a very
effective means of reducing motorcycles fatalities and point to
studies that have shown that a rider not wearing a helmet is 40%
more likely to suffer a fatal head injury and 15% more likely to
suffer a nonfatal injury in a crash than a helmeted rider. They
cite a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
study conducted in 1997, showing that when states repeal their
helmet laws, motorcycle fatalities and injuries increase
significantly. Fatalities increased in every state for which
there are data: Arkansas - 29%; Florida - 21%; Kentucky - 58%;
Louisiana - 109%; Texas - 37%. Fatalities per registered
motorcycle also increased in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas, but
not in Arkansas. From 1984 through 1997, NHTSA estimates that
helmets saved the lives of 8,474 motorcyclists. If all
motorcycle operators and passengers had worn helmets during
those years, NHTSA estimates that 6,817 additional lives would
have been saved. Analysis of linked data for three states with
universal helmet laws in the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation
System (CODES) showed that without the helmet law, the total
extra inpatient charges due to brain injury would have been
AB 1205
Page 3
almost doubled from $2.3 million to $4.1 million.
It is evident that supporters and opponents of this bill each
can cite numerous studies, reports, and analyses to defend their
point of view. Beyond the competing claims, anecdotes, and
rhetoric, the issue seems to be reducible to a simple question.
How shall the Legislature balance the belief of the scientific,
safety, and medical communities, which seem largely to agree
that helmets are effective in reducing motorcycle rider head
injuries and fatalities and their associated medical and
societal costs, against the rights of adult motorcyclists who
wish to be able to make informed choices regarding the manner in
which they ride?
Previous legislation : In 2006, AB 2427 (Canciamilla), which was
identical to this bill, failed passage in its first policy
committee. Also in 2006, SB 969 (Ducheny) would have made
compliance with the mandatory motorcycle helmet law voluntary
for the motorcycle operator, providing certain minimal licensing
and other requirements were met, and for the motorcycle
passenger if certain medical insurance coverage were maintained.
That bill failed passage in Senate Transportation and Housing.
AB 2700 (Mountjoy) of 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) of 2003 would have exempted from the helmet law
persons who file a physician's certificate with the Department
of Motor Vehicles 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 Brotherhood Aimed Toward Education - ABATE (sponsor)
ABATE Local 14, Alameda County
Ridgecrest ABATE, Local 58
Letters and postcards from approximately 150 individuals
Opposition
AB 1205
Page 4
Association of California Insurance Companies
Automobile Club of Southern California
California Hospital Association
California Medical Association
California Psychological Association
California State Automobile Association
Analysis Prepared by : Howard Posner / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093