BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 685
SENATOR KEVIN MURRAY, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR:
HOLLINGSWORTH
VERSION: 2/21/03
Analysis by: Randall Henry
FISCAL: yes
SUBJECT:
Motorcycle helmets.
DESCRIPTION:
This bill would exempt persons that have a disability that
renders the person unable to wear a safety helmet from the
requirements of the mandatory motorcycle helmet law.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law makes it unlawful to operate, or to be a
passenger on a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or motorized
bicycle if the driver or any passenger is not wearing a
safety helmet that meets certain requirements.
This bill would :
Exempt from the safety helmet requirement a person who
has on file with the Department of Motor Vehicles a
certificate signed by a physician and surgeon or a
licensed chiropractor substantiating a disability that
renders the person unable to wear a safety helmet as
required under existing law.
Require the certificate to include a description of the
nature of the disability, a statement of the reason why
the wearing of a safety helmet is inappropriate for the
person, and the date, if any, that the disability is
expected to terminate.
Require the physician and surgeon or chiropractor who
signs the specified certificate to maintain information
sufficient to substantiate the certificate and, upon
request of the department, to make the information
available for inspection by the Medical Board of
SB 685 (HOLLINGSWORTH)
Page 2
California.
BACKGROUND:
Existing law prescribes various requirements that must be
met in order to operate a motorcycle, including special
licensing and testing provisions for operators as well as
specified equipment provisions for the vehicle. Since
1984, the Legislature has enacted several
motorcycle-related statutes that have been designed to
promote the safer operation of these vehicles, including:
Mandatory helmet requirement (AB 2497, 1984)-Required any
motorcycle passenger or operator under 15 years of age
to wear a safety helmet. This requirement effectively
only applied to motorcycle passengers because it is not
legal to operate a motorcycle under 15 years of age.
Motorcyclist safety program (AB 412, 1985)-Provides
support for motorcycle training projects, classes,
activities, and promotional efforts designed to promote
operator safety, encourage public awareness of
motorcyclists, and support motorcycle safety research.
This program, the California Motorcyclist Safety Program
(CMSP), which is privately conducted under the auspices
of the California Highway Patrol, is funded by the
imposition of a $2 annual motorcycle registration fee and
any interest income accrued from the fund balance. In
1999, the Legislature approved legislation (AB 975) which
required the annual transfer of $250,000 to the safety
program from the State Penalty Fund, a fund repository
for penalty assessments levied on motor vehicle traffic
citations. Since its inception, the program has trained
nearly 250,000 motorcyclists, and training is currently
available at nearly 68 sites located throughout the
state.
Mandatory rider training requirement (AB 3255,
1986)-Requires any person under 18 years of age to
complete the motorcyclist rider training program before
being issued a driver's license to operate a two-wheeled
motorcycle. This requirement became effective January 1,
1988, and the requirement was extended to operators under
20 years of age in 1991.
SB 685 (HOLLINGSWORTH)
Page 3
Mandatory helmet requirement (AB 7, 1991)-Requires all
persons riding on a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or
motorized bicycle on a street or highway to wear a safety
helmet meeting prescribed standards.
Since 1986, California has annually recorded the following
number of motorcycle fatalities, injuries, and
registrations:
Motorcycle
Motorcycle Motorcycle
Year Fatalities
Injuries
Registrations
1986 859
28,997
699,239
1987 744
25,401
674,742
1988 603
21,556
654,365
1989 620
19,527
631,586
1990 569
18,578
628,860
1991 512
16,910
639,388
1992 327 (helmet law in effect) 12,234
583,222
1993 303
11,043
557,986
1994 291
10,238
527,686
1995 261
8,690
518,120
1996 232
7,861
SB 685 (HOLLINGSWORTH)
Page 4
511,637
1997 235
7,416
391,080
1998 200
6,330
397,032
1999 230
6,933
413,676
2000 275
7,663
450,303
2001 295
8,357
495,271
(Source: California Highway Patrol)
Travel by a motorcycle is considerably more dangerous than
travel by automobile, and motorcycle safety remains a
significant concern for traffic safety authorities and law
enforcement agencies throughout the nation. According to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
for example, a motorcyclist is approximately 15 times more
likely to be killed in a fatal collision than someone
traveling in an automobile (based on a per-mile basis).
The NHTSA estimates, however, that being equipped with a
motorcycle helmet reduces the risk of death in a collision
by nearly 30 percent and suffering a fatal head injury by
40 percent.
Despite the documented benefits of motorcycle helmets, the
requirement that all motorcycle drivers and passengers in
California be equipped with a prescribed safety helmet
while operating the vehicle has been a very contentious and
controversial issue that has confronted the Legislature a
number of times over the past thirty years. The issue
initially dates back to the enactment of the federal
Highway Safety Act of 1966 which authorized the federal
Department of Transportation to withhold the highway funds
of any state that failed to enact a mandatory safety helmet
requirement. The vast majority of the state (47) complied
with the federal requirement in a fairly short time frame,
but California, Illinois, and Utah balked at imposing such
a requirement. The State of California, however,
SB 685 (HOLLINGSWORTH)
Page 5
eventually came into compliance with the passage of
Assembly Bill 7 in 1991.
Concerning the effect of these laws, the federal General
Accounting Office in 1991 conducted a wide-ranging
literature review of studies related to motorcycle helmet
laws in the various states and it concluded that the
studies "consistently showed that fatality rates were
(20-40 percent) lower when (mandatory) helmet laws were in
effect."
The federal government, however, repealed the penalty
sanctions for states without helmet safety laws in 1995,
and presently it is the prerogative of the individual
states whether to require the mandatory use of motorcycle
helmets. Currently, 20 states and the District of Columbia
have laws that require safety helmets for all motorcycle
riders, and 27 states have laws covering some riders,
generally riders younger than 18 years of age. In
addition, three states, Colorado, Illinois, and Iowa, have
no laws whatsoever regarding the mandatory use of
motorcycle helmets.
Commenting on the impact of eliminating or reducing
mandatory helmet laws, Joseph M. Cindrich, Regional
Administrator for NHSTA, noted that "in states where helmet
laws were repealed or limited to under 21 or 18 years,
significant increases in fatalities resulted."
Specifically, four of the five states that have repealed or
softened their helmet laws since 1997 have reported
noticeable increases in motorcyclist fatalities.
Regarding California's helmet law, the California Highway
Patrol notes that the level of compliance has been
virtually universal, and in a recently released report on
the effectiveness of the law, the California Research
Bureau concluded that the mandatory helmet requirement has
resulted in "decreased fatalities, decreased severe
injuries, decreased hospital stays, and decreased costs
associated with those injuries."
In conclusion, both the proponents and opponents of
mandatory safety helmets cite various studies, reports, and
analyses in support of their respective positions. In some
instances, the authoritatively documented evidence cited by
one side may appear to be in direct conflict with the
SB 685 (HOLLINGSWORTH)
Page 6
contentions of those on the other side of the issue.
Nevertheless, a thorough review of the safety, scientific,
and medical literature on helmet use and performance
reveals that these academic and scholarly communities and
sources overwhelmingly conclude that safety helmets are
effective in reducing motorcycle rider head injuries and
fatalities and the associated medical and societal costs.
COMMENTS:
1.The author points out that a "medical exemption for
wearing a seat belt is provided for persons that have
undergone surgery or have any other condition where the
seatbelt may create discomfort or be harmful to the
wearer. Some motorcyclists have head or neck injuries
that make the use of a helmet painful or dangerous. This
measure simply extends the same medical exemption to
helmets that is currently provided for motorists."
(Vehicle Code Sec. 27315 (g) provides that the mandatory
seat belt law does not apply to a "passenger or operator
with a physically disabling condition or medical
condition which would prevent appropriate restraint in a
safety belt, if the condition is duly certified by a
licensed physician and surgeon or by a licensed
chiropractor who shall state the nature of the condition,
as well as the reason the restraint is inappropriate.")
2.This bill would exempt certain specified motorcycle
operators from the requirements of the state's mandatory
motorcycle helmet law. These operators would include :
Persons that have on file with the Department of
Motor Vehicles a certificate signed by a physician or
chiropractor "substantiating a disability that renders
the person unable to wear a safety helmet as required
(under existing law) ."
The certificate would be required to include:
(1) a description of the
nature of the disability; (2) a statement
explaining the reason that a
safety helmet is inappropriate for the
person; and (3) the date, if any,
when the disability is expected to terminate.
SB 685 (HOLLINGSWORTH)
Page 7
The physician or chiropractor that signs the
certificate would be
required "to maintain information sufficient
to substantiate the
certificate and, upon request of the
department, to make that
information available for inspection by the
Medical Board of
California."
1.In light of this exemption to the mandatory safety helmet
law, the Committee may wish to consider the following
policy questions:
Is this bill necessary? Are there that many
potential motorcyclists with a "safety helmet
disability"? What specific physical disabilities
would preclude a person from wearing a safety helmet?
If a person is afflicted with such a disability,
should that person be operating a motorcycle? Could
that operator in any way be a danger to himself or
herself and the motoring public?
Will this bill create a compliance problem? How
will law enforcement officers know that a motorcyclist
operating without a helmet has submitted a signed
certificate to the Department of Motor Vehicles? Will
law enforcement be able to verify that an operator has
been exempted from the helmet law even after a traffic
stop investigation has been initiated? Will this
exemption cause increased workload for the California
Highway Patrol and the other law enforcement agencies?
Should exempted motorcyclists be clearly identified
in some fashion?
Could this exemption lead to a serious erosion in
the effectiveness of the mandatory helmet law? In
light of the universal compliance level, should the
Legislature refrain from considering any exemption to
the law?
Will this bill possibly encourage sympathetic
physicians and chiropractors to unduly provide
certificates to motorcyclists seeking to evade the
mandatory helmet law, and in turn potentially enjoy
SB 685 (HOLLINGSWORTH)
Page 8
lucrative fees? Could a physician or chiropractor be
the subject of a malpractice lawsuit from a
motorcyclist that has been granted a disability
certificate and later suffers a head injury in a
traffic accident?
Will this bill result in increased costs to the
State of California for the treatment of brain and
neck-injured motorcyclists? (Between 1991-2000, the
California Department of Health Services reported that
$523,041,183 in public funds were expended for the
payment of medical expenses related to motorcycle
crash injuries.)
Because there is a medical disability exemption as
part of the mandatory seat belt law, does that
necessarily mean a similar exemption is appropriate
and needed in the mandatory motorcycle helmet law?
1.Writing in opposition to this measure, the California
Medical Association noted that "(p)hysicians have seen
the devastation to the victims and their families when
motorcycle riders do not wear helmets. SB 685 is just
one more attempt to try and circumvent the historic and
lifesaving helmet law."
2.Technical amendment
The bill provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles
may request the information from a physician or
chiropractor substantiating the helmet disability and
make it "available for inspection by the Medical Board of
California." Chiropractors have an equivalent licensing
board, the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, and the bill
should reflect this entity in reference to any inspection
of examination records compiled by a chiropractor.
3.This measure was considered by the Committee on April 29,
2003, and it was defeated, 6-7. The Committee granted
reconsideration to the bill.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
December 17, 2003)
SB 685 (HOLLINGSWORTH)
Page 9
SUPPORT: None received.
OPPOSED: California Highway Patrol
California Medical Association
California State
Automobile Association
Automobile Club of
Southern California
Association of California Insurance
Companies
County Health
Executives Association of California
Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety