Motorcycles are the most hazardous form of motor vehicle transportation.1 In 2013, 4,668 motorcyclists were killed. Additionally, 88,000 more were injured on our nation’s roads in 2013. NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,630 motorcyclists in 2013 and that 715 more lives in all states could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets. The number of motorcycle crash fatalities has more than doubled since a low of 2,116 motorcycle crash deaths in 1997. All-rider helmet laws increase motorcycle helmet use, decrease deaths and injuries and save taxpayer dollars. Helmets Save Lives & Reduce Health Care Costs According to a 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, “laws requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets are the only strategy proved to be effective in reducing motorcyclist fatalities.”In states without an all-rider helmet law 59% of the motorcyclists killed were not wearing helmets, as opposed to only 8% in states with all-rider helmet laws in 2013.

Annually, motorcycle crashes cost $12.9 billion in economic impacts, and $66 billion in societal harm as measured by comprehensive costs based on 2010 data. Compared to other motor vehicle crashes, these costs are disproportionately caused by fatalities and serious injuries. Motorcycle helmets are currently preventing $17 billion in societal harm annually, but another $8 billion in harm could be prevented if all motorcyclists wore helmets. Per vehicle mile traveled, motorcyclists were more than 26 times more likely to die in a traffic crash than occupants of passenger cars. In Michigan, which repealed its all-rider law in 2012, there would have been 26 fewer motorcycle crash deaths (a 21% reduction) if the helmet mandate was still in place, according to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Additionally, in the remainder of the year after the helmet repeal was enacted (April of 2012), only 74% of motorcyclists involved in crashes were helmeted, compared to 98% in the same time period of the previous four years.

In states with an all-rider helmet law, use of a helmet resulted in economic costs saved to society of $725 per registered motorcycle, compared with $198 per registered motorcycle in states without such a law.motorcycles for sale dothan Helmets are currently saving $2.7 billion in economic costs annually.red sidewall motorcycle tires In 2013, motorcyclists represented 14% of the total traffic fatalities, yet accounted for only 3% of all registered vehicles in the United States.motorcycles for sale scarborough uk By an overwhelming majority (80%), Americans favor state laws requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets.motorcycle dealership edison nj

Motorcycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 69% and reduce the risk of death by 42%. When crashes occur, motorcyclists need adequate head protection to prevent one of the leading causes of death and disability in America — head injuries.dainese grip motorcycle boots For a full list of citations, please download our Motorcycle Helmet Fact Sheet.motorcycle dealer in fredericksburg va Motorcycle Helmet Fact Sheet (PDF)honda blackbird motorcycle for saleResponse: If true, this would be a serious drawback of helmet laws. Anyone who has observed the difference in riding in a city or country with many, many bicycles on the road understands how increasing the number of riders improves safety.

The cyclic trend reducing bicycle use that began here in 1999 was related to fashion, to the rise of other forms of exercise and to safety concerns as car traffic was becoming worse. We had a decade of experience prior to that with states and cities passing helmet laws, and did not observe declines in cycling related to the laws. The decline that did take place was not limited to the areas that had helmet laws, and the subsequent recovery in cycling and sharp rise in bicycle use when gas prices spiked in 2008 was not related to helmet laws either. In urban areas there has been a change in the attitudes of parents, who are concerned about traffic and crimes against children, and no longer allow their children the freedom to roam that bicycling used to facilitate. In addition, our helmet laws are so spottily enforced in most states that there would have been minimal effect in any case. In the last ten years the cycle has reversed. The current boom in bicycles for both transportation and sport use has coincided with trends in urban living, changes in attitudes toward car ownership, emphasis on fitness and improvements in bicycle facilities.

All of this growth in bicycling in the U.S. has occurred in the presence of the bicycle helmet laws passed between 1987 and 2010, most of them not including adults. Cost is not much of an obstacle to acquiring a helmet here, since our market supplies helmets at very low prices. We require seatbelts here in most of our states, but drivers do not stop driving because of that requirement. People do not move out of their homes to another state when smoke detectors are required by law. There is no statistical evidence that large numbers of motorcyclists quit riding in states that adopt mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, although it is certainly clear that some individuals in that group are extremely resentful. On the other hand, the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute found indications that helmet laws can reduce cycling there in some age groups: see this abstract of their study for more info. But a research project in Toronto before and after their law came into effect showed that "although the number of child cyclists per hour was significantly different in different years, these differences could not be attributed to legislation.

In 1996, the year after legislation came into effect, average cycling levels were higher (6.84 cyclists per hour) than in 1995, the year before legislation (4.33 cyclists per hour)." We are convinced that the answer to the question will lie in observational studies, and most of them will be local. In 2009 a paper published on the Web site of the University of California at Irvine's School of Education used statistical analysis of national data to reach the conclusion that helmet laws resulted in a ridership decline of 4 to 5 per cent in the age group they covered. They do not seem to have realized that cycling overall declined in the US during the measured period. The data was collected from parents in telephone conversations, and we don't think that method is valid for helmet use studies. They did not control for traffic increases or parents' crime concerns in the states with laws, and those included California, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida and others where traffic grew the most.