UNECEThe United Nations
Motorcycle Helmet Study
Part of WP.29,“How it works and how to join it”, series

UNITED NATIONSUNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

The United Nations Motorcycle Helmet Study

This publication is part of WP.29,“How it works and how to join it”, series

UNITED NATIONSNew York and Geneva, 2016

NOTE
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do
not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of
the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area,
or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

ECE/TRANS/252

Copyright  United Nations, 2016

All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may, for sales purposes, be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying orotherwise, without prior permission in writing from the United Nations.

UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION
Sales No.: 16.II.E.9
ISBN 978-92-1-117107-5
e-ISBN 978-92-1-057788-5

Acknowledgements
The publication “United Nations Motorcycle Helmet Study” was produced by the
UNECE Sustainable Transport Divisions’ Vehicle Regulations and Transport
Innovations Section. The Sustainable Transport Division wishes to express its sincere
thanks to all those who contributed to this publication.
Among the major contributors and authors are Nicholas Rogers (Nick Rogers
Consulting), Edoardo Gianotti, Branko Milićević, Heini Salonen and Nikola Šahović(UNECE). Special thanks are extended to Pierre Castaing (UTAC), and to the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Department for Transport.
The authors worked under the guidance of and benefited from significant
contributions by Eva Molnar, Director of the UNECE Sustainable Transport Division,
the former, Juan Ramos Garcia, and the current, Walter Nissler, Chief of the Vehicle
Regulations and Transport Innovations Section, and Miodrag Pešut, Chief ofTransport Facilitation and Economics Section.
In addition, the team would like to express gratitude to all colleagues who
contributed inputs and provided advice and support during the course of preparationof this publication and particularly to the editor Violet Yee (UNECE).

iii

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) is one of the five
United Nations regional commissions administered by the Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC). It was established in 1947 with the mandate to help rebuild post‐
war Europe, develop economic activity and strengthen economic relations among
European countries, and between Europe and the rest of the world.
During the Cold War, UNECE served as a unique forum for economic dialogue andcooperation between East and West. Despite the complexity of this period, significant
achievements were made, with consensus reached on numerous harmonization andstandardization agreements. In the post-Cold War era, UNECE acquired not only
many new member States, but also new functions. Since the early 1990s theorganization has focused on analyses of the transition process, using its
harmonization experience to facilitate the integration of Central and Eastern
European countries into the global markets.
Today UNECE is the forum where the countries of the whole of Europe, Central Asia
and North America—56 countries in all—come together to forge the tools of theireconomic cooperation. That cooperation encompasses economics, statistics,
environment, transport, trade, sustainable energy, timber and habitat.
UNECE offers a regional framework for the elaboration and harmonization of
conventions, norms and standards. In particular, UNECE's experts provide technicalassistance to the countries of South‐East Europe and the Commonwealth of
Independent States. This assistance takes the form of advisory services, training
seminars and workshops where countries can share their experiences and bestpractices.

iv

Transport in the UNECEThe UNECE Sustainable Transport Division is the secretariat of the Inland Transport
Committee (ITC) and the ECOSOC Committee of Experts on the Transport ofDangerous Goods and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification andLabelling of Chemicals. The ITC and its 17 working parties, as well as the ECOSOC
Committee and its sub-committees are intergovernmental decision-making bodies
that work to improve the daily lives of people and businesses around the world, inmeasurable ways and with concrete actions, to enhance traffic safety, environmental
performance, energy efficiency and the competitiveness of the transport sector.
The ECOSOC Committee was set up in 1953 by the Secretary-General of the United
Nations at the request of the Economic and Social Council to elaborate
recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods. Its mandate was extended to
the global (multi-sectorial) harmonization of systems of classification and labelling ofchemicals in 1999. It is composed of experts from countries which possess the relevant
expertise and experience in the international trade and transport of dangerous goods
and chemicals. Its membership is restricted in order to reflect a proper geographicalbalance between all regions of the world and to ensure adequate participation ofdeveloping countries. Although the Committee is a subsidiary body of ECOSOC, theSecretary-General decided in 1963 that the secretariat services would be provided by
the UNECE Transport Division.
ITC is a unique intergovernmental forum that was set up in 1947 to support thereconstruction of transport connections in post-war Europe. Over the years, it has
specialized in facilitating the harmonized and sustainable development of inlandmodes of transport. The main results of this persevering and on-going work arereflected, among other things, (i) in 58 United Nations conventions and many more
technical regulations, which are updated on a regular basis and provide aninternational legal framework for the sustainable development of national andinternational road, rail, inland water and intermodal transport, including the transportof dangerous goods, as well as the construction and inspection of road motor
vehicles; (ii) in the Trans-European North-South Motorway, Trans-European Railway
and the Euro-Asia Transport Links projects, that facilitate multi-country coordinationof transport infrastructure investment programmes; (iii) in the TIR system, which is a
global customs transit facilitation solution; (iv) in the tool called For Future Inland
Transport Systems (ForFITS), which can assist national and local governments tomonitor carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions coming from inland transport modes and toselect and design climate change mitigation policies, based on their impact andadapted to local conditions; (v) in transport statistics – methods and data – that areinternationally agreed on; (vi) in studies and reports that help transport policy
development by addressing timely issues, based on cutting-edge research andanalysis. ITC also devotes special attention to Intelligent Transport Services (ITS),
sustainable urban mobility and city logistics, as well as to increasing the resilience oftransport networks and services in response to climate change adaptation andsecurity challenges.
In addition, the UNECE Sustainable Transport and Environment Divisions, together
with the World Health Organization (WHO) – Europe, co-service the Transport Healthand Environment Pan-European Programme (THE PEP).
Finally, as of 2015, the UNECE Sustainable Transport Division is providing thesecretariat services for the Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Road Safety, Mr.
Jean Todt.

Inland Transport Committee (ITC) – Centre of UN Transport Conventionsv

Contents
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe .............................................................

iv

Transport in the UNECE .........................................................................................................

v

Executive summary ................................................................................................................

xi

1.

Motorcycle markets and accidents .............................................................................

1

1.1
1.2
1.3

1
4

The development of motorcycle markets ........................................................
Estimation of motorcycle fatalities ...................................................................
Estimation of monetary savings as a result of avoided fatalities andserious injuries ....................................................................................................

7

Challenges specific to emerging countries .................................................................

11

2.1. Helmet-wearing ...................................................................................................
2.2. Affordability and availability: two sides of the same coin .............................
2.3. Children and helmets ..........................................................................................
2.3.1. Number of children involved in accidents .........................................
2.3.2. Physical considerations .........................................................................
2.3.3. A standard for children’s helmets? ....................................................
2.4. Counterfeiting and other challenges ................................................................

11
13
17
17
17
18
20

Why are harmonized helmet standards and regulations needed? .........................

22

3.1 The helmet protects the head ...........................................................................
3.2. The evolution of helmet standards and regulations .......................................
3.3. The problem of non-harmonized standards ....................................................

22
23
24

4.

Introducing helmet-wearing policies ..........................................................................

27

5.

UN Regulation No. 22 sets safety requirements for helmets .................................

30

5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
5.5.
5.6.

UN Regulation No. 22 ........................................................................................
The original version UN Regulation No. 22 ......................................................
The technical development of UN Regulation No. 22 ....................................
The most recent version of UN Regulation No. 22 .........................................
Administering UN Regulation No. 22 ................................................................
Joining the 1958 Agreement and implementing UN Regulation No. 22 ......

30
30
31
31
33
33

New challenges: Pedal assisted bikes - Electric bikes .............................................

35

6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.

Electric bikes are becoming a popular means of transport ...........................
Finding a common definition for electric bicycles ...........................................
International harmonization of policies and legislation .................................
Encouraging safe cycling ....................................................................................

35
36
36
38

Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................

40

7.1. Conclusions ..........................................................................................................
7.2. Recommendations for further action and low-hanging fruits .......................

40
41

References ...............................................................................................................................

43

2.

3.

6.

7.

vi

Annexes ..........................................................................................................
I

45

The procedures for joining the 1958 Agreement and implementing
UN Regulation No. 22 ...................................................................................................

47

II

Statistics explained .......................................................................................................

55

III

European Union and UNECE definitions of L category vehicles .............................

65

List of Figures
Figure 1

Development of the powered two-wheeler fleet in Japan ....................

1

Figure 2

Motorcycles in use in Japan ............................................................

2

Figure 3

Growth of motorcycle fleets in Japan and India as a function of income

3

Figure 4

Powered two-wheel vehicle fleets in the world as a functionof economic growth .......................................................................

4

Figure 5

Estimated range of potentially saved lives by helmet-wearing .............

6

Figure 6

Estimated range of potentially avoided serious injuries by
wearing helmets............................................................................

6

Figure 7

Estimated range of potential monetary benefits from lives saved byhelmet-wearing .............................................................................

7

Figure 8

Estimated range of potential monetary benefits from serious injuries
avoided by helmet-wearing.............................................................

8

Figure 9

Motorcycle riders without a proper helmet ........................................

10

Figure 10

A family on a motorcycle in the congested traffic of Karachi ................

16

Figure 11

Elements of a Full Face Motorcycle Helmet .......................................

23

Figure 12

A helmet visor type and a helmet approved according to
UN Regulation No. 22 ....................................................................

32

Figure 13

Pedelec riders with safety equipment ...............................................

39

Figure 14

Examples of the fatalities over fleet regression equations ...................

58

List of Tables
Table 1

Projection of killed and injured motorcyclists until year 2020 indifferent countries, grouped by income, calculated using four
different methods ..........................................................................

5

Table 2Myths and facts of helmet use.........................................................

12

Table 3

Legal age for children to ride as a passenger in selected European
countries ......................................................................................

19

Table 4Comparison of tests included in different motorcycle helmet
standards or regulations .................................................................

25

Table 5Classification criteria for L-category vehicles .....................................

37

Table 6

Estimated range for total lives saved and injuries avoided
in 2015 and 2020 (in thousands) .....................................................

59

Estimated range of potential monetary savings resulting fromavoided fatalities and serious injuries in 2015 and 2020 .....................

60

Total monetary savings as a result of helmet wearing prevented
injuries and fatalities in 2015 (billion USD) .......................................

61

Table 9Total Number of Powered Two Wheelers in countries analysed –per income category (million units) .................................................

61

Table 10

Assumed helmet price ranges in USD in countries analyzed –by income category .......................................................................

61

Table 7
Table 8vii

Table 11

Total helmet cost for price ranges in USD in countries analyzed(one PTW one helmet) – by income category (billion USD) .................

61

Table 12

Low-income countries motorcycle helmet use Benefit-Cost ratio matrix

62

Table 13

Lower-middle income countries motorcycle helmet use Benefit-Cost
ratio matrix ..................................................................................

62

Table 14Upper-middle income countries motorcycle helmet use Benefit-Cost
ratio matrix ..................................................................................

62

High income countries motorcycle helmet use Benefit-Cost
ratio matrix ..................................................................................

62

EU and UNECE definitions of L category vehicles ...............................

65

Table 15
Table 16viii

List of Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation

Definition

BSI

British Standards Institute

CERAM

Centre for Automotive Research and Testing

DENATRAN

National Transport Department of Brazil

DOT

United States of America Department of TransportationEC

The European Commission

ECE

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

ECOSOC

United Nations Economic and Social Council

EU

The European Union

FMVSS

United States of America - Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety StandardGDP

Gross Domestic Product

GNI

Gross National Income

GRSP

Inland Transport Committee Working Party for Passive
SafetyHIC

High-income countries

IMF

International Monterary Fund

ISOInternational Organization for Standardization

ITC

Inland Transport Committee

JAMA

Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association

KFG

Austrian Motor Vehicles Act

LIC

Low-income countries

LMIC

Low-middle income countries

MAIS

Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale

MIC

Middle-income countries

NHTSA

United States National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration

PTW

Powered two-wheeler

TIR

International Transport of Goods

UMIC

Upper-middle income countries

UN

The United Nations

UNECE

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UTAC

Technical Union for the Automobile, Motorcycle and Cycle
Industries

WHO

World Health Organization

WP

Working Partyix

“When your head hits the pavement or the ground your brain is going to move
forward, hitting up against the bones inside the skull. It’s going to deform. It’s goingto stretch nerve fibers. It’s going to tear nerve fibers. And the torn ones are gone.
When you lose a brain cell, there is no replacement for it. So that’s where permanent
damage occurs.
In fact, people who have an accident like that often don’t get better. They’ve lost
something. They may have lost some of their intelligence. They may have lost thecapacity to take care of themselves because of the damage to their system that
controls their muscles. They may have a behavior change – have difficulty dealing
with other people, having proper social relationships. It’s all a consequence of that
unprotected skull, and nothing can take up the shock.
There is no cure for brain injury. A brain injury is forever. We can teach someone
strategies for dealing with the handicaps, but the only effective approach in dealing
with head injury is prevention…not to let the injury occur in the first place.
So, helmet laws -- they are a necessity.”

William D. Singer, M.D., Harvard Medical School
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety/Highway
Loss Data Institute videox

Executive summary
Motorcyclists are 26 times more likely to die in a traffic crash than the drivers ofpassenger cars. Wearing an appropriate helmet improves their chances of survival by
42 per cent and helps avoid 69 per cent of injuries to riders.
A motorcycle crash may result in head injuries, through either a direct contact withhard objects or as a result of excessive acceleration–deceleration. Most traumaticbrain injuries are the result of closed head injuries, when there is no open wound.
The motorcycle helmet is designed to minimize the risks of all kinds of head injuries.
Helmet standards and regulations have been developed to test the effectiveness ofhelmets in providing protection.
Article No. 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that“everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. In this sense, the workof the United Nations aims to protect human life and therefore it has always
encouraged the use of the best helmets available, which offer a high level ofprotection and a fair chance to all riders to survive a crash, regardless of where theylive.
In 1972 the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), following theimplementation of the UN 1958 Agreement, adopted UN Regulation No. 22 which
covers motorcycle helmets. UN Regulation No. 22 has since been periodically updated
to reflect progress in technical, medical and materials research. Now in its fifth seriesof amendments (with each series increasing the level of stringency and protection),
UN Regulation No. 22 provides uniform conditions for the approval of protective
helmets for drivers and passengers of motorcycles.
An important feature of UN Regulation No. 22 is that it requires independent testingand product marking. This ensures that the helmet is of high quality and that it issafe. The approval mark in UN Regulation No. 22 is a key part of enforcing a helmetwearing policy. Recognizing the value of UN Regulation No. 22, the majority ofEuropean countries, as well as many other countries in the world (42 in all), havemade it part of their own legislation and have joined the UN type approval system. In
addition, numerous countries that are not Contracting Parties to the 1958 Agreement
also base their national motorcycle helmet legislation on Regulation No. 22.
The type approval system is based on:Testing of UN Regulation No. 22 annexed to the 1958 Agreement;“Mutual recognition” of the type approval certificate, e.g. “approved once andsold everywhere”, avoiding the need for expensive test facilities;

Maintaining conformity of production to the type tested. Countries involved in
the UN system can, thus, rely on each other in the implementation andmaintenance of their national legislation.

Sometimes a country may find it necessary to introduce additional requirements tothe most recent version of UN Regulation No. 22 in order to address local needs. This
may not affect the principle of mutual recognition. Nevertheless, countries not yet
Contracting Parties to the 1958 Agreement are encouraged to base their national
legislation on UN Regulation No. 22 as it provides the minimum set of requirements
for safe helmets, and would ease subsequent accession to the Agreement.
In many low and low-middle income countries motorcycles are the main form of
motorized transport. In some of these countries, economic progress has caused
sharp increases in the number of motorcycles in circulation. Motorcycle markets in
low income countries have developed particularly rapidly. As a general rule, thepoorer the country the higher the motorcycle fleet growth rate. With more
motorcycles on the road there will certainly be an increased risk of accidents causing
injury or death, in particular if appropriate helmets are not used.

xi

The affordability and availability of appropriate helmets in low income countries areissues of great concern. However, progresses in affordability and availability should
certainly not compromise the quality of helmets or their ability to provide the best
possible protection if they are worn properly.
One of the key objectives of the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety (2011-2020) is
to reduce motorcycle casualties by encouraging the use of safety helmets. This study
exhibits that up to 3.4 million deaths might result from motorcycle crashes between
2008 and 2020. As many as 1.4 million of those fatalities can be avoided with theproper use of safety helmets. A policy on wearing motorcycle helmets is, therefore,
essential for promoting safety.
Up to 3 per cent of victims of motorcycle accident related fatalities worldwide arechildren. UN Regulation No. 22 contains provisions that allow helmets for children to
be tested. The adoption of national laws stipulating mandatory use of helmets forchildren being transported on motorcycles would encourage the development ofmarkets for child helmets. Mass production could expand the availability and induce
affordability of helmets for children, as is already the case with bicycle helmets.
This study recommends:
What countries can do?

How they can do it?

Introduce a helmet-wearing policy

See Section 2: Introducing helmet-wearing
policies

Accede to the 1958 UNECE Agreement

See Section 3.7: How to join and implement
the UN 1958 Agreement; and Annex I

Apply UN Regulation No. 22 on helmets, either
in its current or one of the former versions

See Section 3: UN Regulation No. 22 sets
safety requirements for helmets; and Annex I

Make helmets more affordable in low income
countries

See Section 5.2: Affordability and availability

Increase awareness at the political level toencourage the use of appropriate helmets forchildren of different ages, who are old enoughor tall enough to be allowed to be transported
on a motorcycle

See Section 5.3: Children and helmets

Update transport policies and traffic rules
taking into account the growing use of e-bikes

See Chapter 6: New challenges: Pedal
assisted bikes - Electric bikes (Participate ininternational policy debates and exchange ofbest practices, e.g. the UNECE ITC, THE PEP,
and similar initiatives)

Improve the quality of national statistical dataon motorcycles in use, accidents involving
motorcycles, and deaths and injuries, so thatpolicies are based on sound data

Refer to Annex II: Statistical work, which
describes some of the data needed andmethods appliedxii

1. Motorcycle markets and accidents
1.1 The development of motorcycle markets
Motorcycles can provide a less expensive and a more sustainable form of transport
than cars. They are often the primary, or most abundant, form of transport in low
income countries (LIC)1. Since 1945, new markets for motorcycles have rapidly
developed in a number of countries. They have typically developed through imports,
followed by production in local assembly plants, finally leading to full manufacturingof motorcycles and motorcycle equipment. The rate of market development varies
with local circumstances. Once the production is located in a country, sales and thus
the number of motorcycles in use, i.e. the ‘fleet’ grow rapidly. When people attain acertain level of wealth they move on to driving cars and the rate of increase in the
motorcycle fleet declines, stabilizing at a plateau somewhat below the peak. Figure 1
offers insight exemplifying such developments in the Japanese powered two-wheeler(PTW) market through an overview of PTW ownership relative to individual wealthduring the last 52 years (1962-2014).
Figure 1
Development of the powered two-wheeler fleet in Japan

PTW per 1,000 people

200

150

100

50

0
-

10,00020,00030,00040,00050,000

GNI per capita, USD
Source: Based on data from World Bank and national sources(see Annex II: Statistics explained)

1

Countries are categorized in this section as follows:
Low income countries include India, Kyrgyzstan, Uganda and Viet Nam. Low-middle income
countries include Indonesia, Moldova, the Philippines and Ukraine. Upper-middle income
countries include Azerbaijan, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Malaysia, Poland, the Russian Federation, Romania, Thailand andTurkey. High income countries include Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia,
the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdomof Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. (World Bank , 2011)1

This general trend is very well illustrated by the history of the motorcycle market in
Japan2 (Figure 2). In 1945, the country had a dramatic need for cheap transport andmany companies entered the automotive industry, e.g. Suzuki diversified from textile
machinery, Yamaha from musical instruments, while Mr. Honda, founder of the
Honda Motor Company, began setting small engines on bicycles.

Powered two-wheel vehicles in use (million)

Figure 23
Motorcycles in use in Japan4
5.0

20

4.5

18

4.0

16

3.5

14

3.0

12

2.5

10

2.0

8

1.5

6

1.0

4

0.5

2

0.0

0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2014
51cc-125cc

126cc-250cc

over 250cc

up to 50cc
(right axis)

Total(right axis)

Trends in Japan prior to 1966 are replicated in today’s rapidly growing motorcycle
markets, for example in India, where the fleet is growing with income (GNI per
capita).
The comparison between Japan and India (Figure 3) suggests that countries with adeveloping motorcycle market may be mirroring the Japanese example as theirmotorcycle markets mature.

2

See Annex II for a discussion of the data and statistical methods and sources used in thisstudy.
3
According to today’s definitions, up until 1966 Japan would have been classified by theWorld Bank as a low-income country. Until then, growth of the motorcycle fleet was rapid andvery closely linked to the growth of the average income. From 1967 to 1985, Japan would
have been classified as a middle income country (MIC) and growth of the motorcycle fleet was
slower. Finally, from 1986 onwards Japan has been a high income country (HIC) and the
motorcycle fleet has declined in line with further growth in income.
4
Note: Motor-driven cycle data is as at April 1, and since 2006 motorcycles with engine
capacity of 125cc and under whose owners fail to pay the mandatory motorcycle ownership tax
are not included in this data.

2

Powered two-wheel vehicles per 1,000 people

Figure 3
Growth of motorcycle fleets in Japan and India as a function of income
India

100

Year 2014

JAPAN
Year 1969
80

60

Year 1962
Year 2004

40

20
Year 1962
0
0

400

800
1200
GNI per capita, USD

1600

2000

Source: Based on data from World Bank and national sources.
Note: see Annex II Statistics explained.

Figure 4 shows motorcycle fleets growth trends of as a function of income. If thegrowth in PTW vehicle fleets exactly matched the growth in GNI per capita, the data
points would be along or close to the 1:1 reference line. From Figure 4 one can notethe following trends:


In low income countries, the growth in motorcycle fleets significantly outpaced
economic development. For example, as GNI tripled, the fleet grew more thansix fold.



A similar trend, somewhat less pronounced, can be noted in the case of lowmiddle income countries (LMIC): as their GNI per capita doubled, the size ofthe fleet quadrupled.

The upper-middle income countries (UMIC) show an opposite trend to that in
LIC and LMIC. The UMIC data might be skewed by the fact that among UMIC
there are many East European countries with economies in transition. Typically,such countries have experienced a direct transition from public transport tocars. Even though two members of UMIC group—Thailand and Brazil—have
large markets for motorcycles, the growth in these markets has probably not
been sufficient to offset the weight of other countries in the UMIC group.



The trend in high income countries, which have mature markets, resembles asine wave that has the 1:1 line as its axis.

In conclusion, as GNI per capita rises the motorcycle fleet expands – the poorer thecountry, the higher the growth. In low income countries fleets can grow almost
exponentially, which may result in a rapid increase in the number of motorcycle
crashes.

3

Figure 4
Powered two-wheel
economic growthvehiclefleetsintheworld1asafunctionof1000
Low income countries (LIC)
Powered two-wheel vehicles (index 1993=100)

900

Low-middle income countries (LMIC)
Upper-middle income countries (UMIC)

800

High income countries (HIC)

700

1:1 reference line
600
500
400

300
200
100
0

0

100

200

300

400

500

GNI per capita, USD (index 1993=100)
Source: Based on data from World Bank and national sources.
Note: see Annex II Statistics explained; PTW and GNI per capita time series are
given for the period 1993-2014.

1.2 Estimation of motorcycle fatalities
In this section, different methods are used to estimate the number of motorcycle
accident related fatalities for the period 2008 – 2020. This period was selected
because of the availability of data and because the United Nations Decade of Action
for Road Safety5 ends in 2020. The analysis uses data on killed riders from WHO(2009) and covers the countries mentioned in the above analysis (more details in
Annex I). The link between the size of the motorcycle fleet and the number ofmotorcyclist killed was analysed using four different methods:
1.

Applying the percentage changes for the period 1996 – 2008 to the period 2008
– 2020;2.

A trend analysis to predict the future values for key variables;

3.

The use of regression equations to calculate the trend in the number offatalities;

4.

Application of the trends used in method 3 to the starting point given by the
WHO figures for 2008.

5

The United Nations Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020 was launched on 11 May
2011. Its goal is to reduce the number of road casualties by building road safety management
capacity, improving the safety of road infrastructure and broader transport networks, further
developing the safety of vehicles, enhancing the behaviour of road users, and improving postcrash care.

4As of 2008, the expected percentage change in motorcycle accident induced fatalities
by 2015 and 2020 was calculated using each of these methods. The results arepresented in Table 1.
Table 1
Projection of killed motorcyclists until year 2020 in different countries,grouped according to income (see Annex II for details)
Range of changes in theindex %

Changes in the index when 2008 = 100
Countrygroup

Method 1

Method 2

Method 3

Method 4

2015

2020

2015

2020

2015

2020

2015

2020

2015

2020

Min

Max

Min

Max

LIC

90

83

115

152

118

158

158

199

90

158

83

199

LMIC

90

83

115

152

118

158

158

199

90

158

83

199

UMIC

126

149

152

190

122

141

438

680

122

438

141

680

HIC

124

124

138

129

118

126

122

138

118

138

124

138

Note: Low income countries (LIC), lower middle income countries (LMIC), upper middle
income countries (UMIC), high income countries (HIC)

According to the estimates, in 2020 lower and lower-middle income countries
represented in the sample may see an increase in fatalities of up to 99 per cent. The
growth in fatalities in upper-middle income countries are high, ranging between 41
per cent and 580 per cent. It must be noted that these large numbers may be due todata issues as many UMICs have large motorcycle fleets. High income countries havea much more narrow range of projected“The use of motorcycle helmets
values (between 24 and 38 per cent). All
decreases the incidence of lethal andpredicted trends depend on the assumption
the severity of non-lethal head injury
that the motorcycle fleet will continue to growfollowing general trends.
in motorcycle crashes when compared

to non-helmeted riders”
The minimum and maximum values in Table 1(Macleod et al 2010)
were used to generate the predictions for2015 and 2020 for each group of countries.
From these predictions, the reduction in rider fatalities resulting from wearing anappropriate helmet was calculated using the percentage benefit determined by Liu etal (2009); 42 per cent for fatalities and 69 per cent for injured riders. Estimates forserious injuries in 2015 and 2020 were calculated based on fatality to serious injury
ratios developed by iRAP (Dahdah and McMahon 2008). Table 6 in the Annex II
contains the totals for these calculations.

5Figure 5 presents the potential lives that would be saved by wearing helmets, andFigure 6 the potential prevented injuries, given the predicted total fatalities.
Figure 5
Estimated range of potentially saved lives by helmet-wearing
120

2015

2020

Lives saved (thousands)

100

80

60

40

20

0
Low
Low-middle UpperHighincomeincomemiddleincomecountries countries income countries
countries

Low
Low-middle UpperHighincomeincomemiddleincomecountries countries income countries
countries

Figure 6
Estimated range of potentially avoided serious injuries by wearing helmets

Serious injuries avoided (millions)

2.5

2015

2020

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
Low
Low-middle UpperHighincomeincomemiddleincomecountries countries income countries
countries

6

Low
Low-middle UpperHighincomeincomemiddleincomecountries countries income countries
countries

The conclusion that can be drawn from the analysis above is that regardless ofwhether the minimum or maximum values are considered, many lives could be savedby using appropriate helmets. In 2020 alone, between 122,000 and 250,000 lives
would be saved. Taking the average of the indices, the total fatalities for the period
2008–2020 would be 3.4 million riders worldwide and the number of lives saved by
wearing adequate protective helmets would be 1.4 million.
In terms of injuries, for which statistics are more uncertain, the estimates ofworldwide serious injuries avoided thanks to motorcycle helmets in 2020 are 1.6 to 5
million. Regardless whether the high or low estimates of fatalities and serious injuries
associated with riding motorcycles in each country are considered, there is a
substantial benefit to be gained from implementing and enforcing a mandatory
helmet-wearing law.

1.3 Estimation of monetary savings as a result of avoided fatalities and serious
injuries
The reduction in pain and suffering for the riders and their families and the reductionin the burden on a country’s medical services can also be assessed from a monetary
perspective. When the iRAP (International Road Assessment Programme) economic
appraisal model (Dahdah and McMahon 2008) parameters are applied to the resultsof the above described fatality and serious injury projections for 2015 and 2020, andwhen they are tested for sensitivity, results imply potentially significant monetarysavings from prevention of serious injuries and fatalities through helmet wearing.
Figure 7
Estimated range ofby helmet-wearing

potential

monetary

benefits

from

lives

saved

40

Potential monetary benefit of prevented fatalities(in billion USD)

2015

2020

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Low
incomecountries

LowUpperHigh
middlemiddleincomeincomeincome countries
countries countries

Low
incomecountries

LowUpperHigh
middlemiddleincomeincomeincome countries
countries countries

7Figure 7 presents the potential monetary benefits accrued as a result of lives thatwould be saved by wearing helmets, while Figure 8 shows the potential monetary
benefits stemming from prevented serious injuries (where serious injury is defined as
category 3 or higher on the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS6,7)), given thepredicted number of total fatalities. The same limitations regarding data and results
described as inherent to the projections of fatalities and injuries apply to projectionsof potential monetary benefits.
Figure 8
Estimated range of potential monetary benefits from serious injuries
avoided by helmet-wearing
250

Potential monetary benefit of prevented serious
injuries (in billion USD)

2015

2020

200

150

100

50

0
Low
incomecountries

LowUpperHigh
middlemiddleincomeincomeincome countries
countries countries

Low
incomecountries

LowUpperHigh
middlemiddleincomeincomeincome countries
countries countries

The results show that worldwide aggregate savings of up to 676 billion US dollars canbe achieved in 2020 as a result to fatalities and serious injuries prevented throughenforcement of helmet wearing policies. Low and Upper-middle income countries cansave up to 2.1 and 3 per cent of GDP, respectively, in 2020; High income countries
can save about half of one per cent, while Low-middle income countries can save as
much as 7 per cent of GDP in 2020. Although the potential savings projected for Lowmiddle income countries may seem unrealistically high, they should be understood
bearing in mind that motorcycles constitute between 50 and 80 per cent of all
registered vehicles in the largest countries of this income category that were includedin the analysis.

6

MAIS – Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale categorises casualties according to the most
severe injury suffered. It is widely used do describe the overall injury to a particular body
region or overall injury to the whole body. The scale has a range from 1 to 6, where 1=Minor,
and 6=Maximum.
7
The UNECE acknowledges that the AIS (in all of its versions) is the property of the
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM), owner of the Copyright. The
so-called AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale) is mentioned in this UNECE study for information
purposes only.

8

The analysis also provides projections for 2015, indicating that globally savings
between 126 and 532 billion US dollars can be achieved with the adoption andenforcement of helmet wearing policies that mandate use of certified helmets. Low
and Upper-middle income countries can save up to 2.2 and 2.7 per cent of GDP,
respectively, in 2015 with enforcement of helmet wearing policies; High income
countries can save about half of one per cent, while Low-middle income countries canachieve average savings of 5.7 per cent of GDP
in 2015.
Benefit-cost ratios of society’s investment inmotorcycle helmets can be calculated based on
the projected monetary savings achieved in a
scenario where all motorcycle riders are wearing
helmets. The benefit-cost ratios obtained for thefour different income groups for the year 2015
included sensitivity analysis calculations basedon above presented potential savings range fromavoided fatalities and serious injuries, and on
respective estimated ranges of helmet prices inthe different income category countries8.

“Motorcycle crashes create aburden to society, consuming
public funds for emergency
responses, emergency room costs
and insurance premiums. In theUSA, the economic burden fromcrash related injuries and deaths
in one year amounted to $12
billion.” (CDC 2012)

Considering maximum purchases of high-end helmets, and the upper-end of therange of potential savings resulting from helmet-use avoided fatalities and serious
injuries, a benefit-cost ratio of 2.2:1 is obtained for the group of Low-income
countries. In other words, in the particular scenario, the benefits of purchasing suchhelmets outweigh the costs of not doing so by a factor of 2.2. Conversely, if allhelmets used by riders are low-end products, and considering the lower end of therange of estimated savings stemming from avoided injuries and fatalities, a benefitcost ratio of 1:1 is obtained, indicating that massive use of low-end helmets, apartfrom providing a dangerously false sense of safety, also delivers no monetary
benefits whatsoever to society.
The benefit-cost analysis for Low-middle income countries and for Upper-middle
income countries computes ratios of 4:1 and 4.3:1 respectively, when considering
maximum purchases of highest end helmets, and the upper end of the range ofpotential savings resulting from helmet-use avoided fatalities and serious injuries.
These results indicate that it can be four times more cost-effective for societies in
LMIC and UMIC to dedicate resources to expensive helmets than to continue riding
their motorcycles without head protection. This may present an exceptional casewhere subsidies could be justified.
Achieving economies of scale on the helmet market would certainly improve thebenefit cost-ratio of helmet expenditures in this group of countries. Adoption of typeapproval standards and enforcement of helmet wearing regulations would therefore,apart from contributing initially to decreasing fatalities and injuries (as well as
consequent expenditures) also, stimulate local production of approved helmets at amuch broader scope, helping to decrease market prices of helmets and further
improving the benefit-cost ratio calculated above, even if using modest projectedsavings figures within the obtained range.
High income countries are the most advanced in adoption and enforcement ofmotorcycle helmet related rules and regulations. Nevertheless, there is still room for
improving the negative economic impact resulting from motorcycle accidents. The
benefit cost ratio of 1.2:1 is obtained when considering maximum purchases ofhighest-end, most expensive, helmets, in a scenario of lowest projected savings. Thismeans that even when considering the most conservative projections, the social
monetary savings potential associated with purchasing the most expensive helmets
8

See Statistical Annex – Tables 7 to 15 – for details. All results are based on a one helmet
per motorcycle supposition.

9

in high income countries is 20 per cent higher than the expenses that may be
incurred within those societies as a result of fatalities and serious injuries that are
the consequence of motorcycle accidents in which riders are not wearing helmets.
Helmet-wearing is clearly highly desirable but experience in lower income countries that have introduced a mandatory helmet-wearing policy - shows that it isparamount to have proper helmet regulation which mandates approval marks on the
product. Such a marking facilitates the enforcement of helmet-wearing legislation bye.g. the police.
Figure 9
Motorcycle riders without a proper helmet

102. Challenges specific to emerging countries
2.1. Helmet-wearing
Evidence that wearing a proper helmet significantly improves the chances ofsurviving an accident is overwhelming. Yet a large number of riders persist in riding
without helmets, or with the chinstrap undone. In markets where motorcycles are a
new phenomenon, this reluctance to wear helmets or to wear them correctly is often
the result of a lack of knowledge. Therefore, suitable education programmes would
improve the situation. Where motorcycles have been part of the transport system forsome time, education remains an issue for each new generation of riders, but otherarguments and myths also develop to resist the pressure to wear helmets. The
reasons vary in their content and sophistication according to the type and maturity ofthe motorcycle market and the legislation on protective helmets in place.
Where there is substantial resistance to helmet-wearing, governments tend tolegislate mandatory wearing of helmets at all times while riding motorcycles.
However, this step is a political one because it involves constraints on the freedom of
citizens. Similar opposition has arisen with safety-belt wearing in passenger cars.
Experience has shown that a combination of persuasive/voluntary measures followed
by a second stage of compulsory requirements produces good results. The persuasive
arguments provide understanding and create acceptance, and serve as a justification
for introducing compulsory measures for those who remain resistant.
Some of the reasons for rejecting to wear helmets are:

Peer pressure among young riders, e.g. ridiculing helmet-wearers;Helmets are only needed for long trips (even though most accidents occur close
to home);

Helmets are considered hot and uncomfortable, e.g. in regions with tropicalclimates;

The damaging effect on women’s hairstyles, whether it is a traditional hairstyleor simply fashion;

The issue of special headgear, e.g. turban;

The practical issue of what to do with the helmet when it is not being worn:theft, damage or sheer inconvenience when, for example, shopping;Hygiene, if the helmet is not owned by the rider.

Possible countermeasures include:Improving the image of helmet-wearing (making it “cool”);

Changing helmet design;

Looking for solutions to the “what do I do with it now” problem, e.g. under-seatstorage, top-boxes, helmet parks, helmet-carrying and securing devices;

Educating riders through awareness raising campaigns.

Particularly in mature markets, a number of myths9 surrounding helmet use haveincreased (see Table 2).

9

Most of these myths and facts are summarized in the WHO (2006) manual on helmets.

11

Table 2
Myths and facts of helmet use
Myth: Helmets cause neck or spinal cord injuries.
Fact: Research has proven that helmets conforming to international regulations and correctly worn do
not cause neck or spinal cord injuries.
Myth: Helmets impair hearing and sight.
Fact: Helmets do not affect peripheral vision or contribute to crashes. Helmets may reduce theloudness of noises, but do not affect the ability of a rider to distinguish between sounds. Somestudies have indicated that properly fitted helmets can actually improve the ability to hear by
reducing noise from the wind (UN Regulation No. 2210 covers both these points).
Myth: Motorcycle helmet laws violate individual rights.
Fact: All road safety laws require some action from individuals — e.g. wearing safety-belts, notdriving while impaired, strapping a child into a child restraint system, or stopping at a stop sign.
These traffic rules are accepted, because all motorists recognize that failing to obey them could
create a serious danger to themselves and others. Motorcycle helmet laws have exactly the same
purpose.
Myth: Fatality rates are lower without helmet laws.
Fact: Studies conducted in two states in the United States that recently repealed their motorcycle helmet
laws showed that deaths from head injuries actually increased following the repeal of the law.
Myth: Any helmet is better than no helmet.
Fact: A low quality helmet might give the rider a false sense of protection. In case of a crash, a rider
using a low quality helmet could get more severely injured or even killed, sending the false message
that all helmets are useless, and thus threatening helmet-wearing campaigns.
Myth: UN Regulation No. 22 will encourage the sale of fake helmets.
Fact: The following elements are established within the type approval system: the conformity of
production procedures; exchange of information among T.A.A.s 11 on type approvals granted,
counterfeit products and products not meeting the requirements. All this aims to prevent the deliveryof fake helmets to the market.
Myth: There is no need to make helmet use mandatory for all: age-specificmotorcycle helmet laws are effective / sufficient.
Fact: Age-specific helmet laws are more difficult to enforce, because it is difficult for the enforcement
community to identify the age of a child when he or she is riding past on a motorcycle. Consequently,
age-specific laws are less effective than those which are related to society as a whole.
Myth: Motorcycles are a small percentage of registered vehicles,
thus motorcycle crashes represent a minor burden to society.
Fact: Whether motorcycles make up a small proportion of vehicles (as in some high-income countries) or
the bulk of vehicle fleets (as in many Asian countries), the fact that motorcyclists are about 27 times more
likely than passenger car occupants to die in a traffic crash and about 6 times more likely to be injured,means that crashes are a significant problem in all societies where their use is common. (WHO, 2006)
Myth: UN Regulation No. 22 approved helmets are not suitable for tropical climate.
Fact: The ECE 22 helmet requirements are performance oriented and not design oriented. Therefore
they do not prevent sufficient ventilation making these helmets suitable for tropical climate bykeeping the level of safety.
Myth: Motorcycles helmets in accordance with UN Regulation No. 22
are too expensive for users in low income countries.
Fact: The relative costs of helmets go as low as one per cent and as high as 10 per cent of the
motorcycle price. Therefore, helmets should be affordable for buyers of new or second-handmotorcycles in low-income countries too.

10

UN Regulation 22 and the 1958 Agreement are discussed in detail in section 5, and in
Annex I, hereinafter.
11
Type Approval Authority – see Annex I section: Creation of technical services andconformity of production procedures (paragraph 1)

12

In European countries, by the time helmet-wearing became mandatory, there wasoften already a very high rate of use, resulting from previous education efforts andcampaigns. Such efforts are now widely accepted and the consensus is that voluntary
helmet use should be increased first and then be followed by the introduction of
mandatory legislation.
Some of the measures to increase voluntary helmet-wearing include:

Public education on all aspects of helmet performance, use, benefits, etc. formotorcyclists and even cyclists. Not only do such efforts reach the target groupbut they influence societal views, which is very important if legislation isconsidered;Simple commercial marketing, advertising campaigns and “product placement”
in films can all get the message across;

As a variant of the point above, using role models can be very significant forparticular groups of riders, especially young riders; examples include
motorcycle racers, actors or politicians. The key point is that unanticipatedpeople use motorcycles and if this becomes known they influence “their”
segment of society;

Incentives/instructions to employees, which
employers can add to the role-model point;Government measures to remove barriers, e.g. by subsidising helmets forchildren.

inthe case of well-known

Once the situation has developed to the point that compulsory helmet-wearing
should be introduced by the government, there are some basic activities that need to
be undertaken:


The introduction of a regulation for helmets with a clear marking requirement,
e.g. Regulation No. 22. It creates conditions that thwart riders wearing any kindof helmet to comply with the law, e.g. construction site helmets, children’s toyhelmets, etc., which will have no effect at all;

The dissemination of information before the law is introduced;Once introduced, the law needs to be enforced, with appropriate fines and otherdisciplinary measures for repeat offenders. Enforcement has to be consistentand well-advertised, with repeated efforts on a regular basis. Studies haveshown that the fear of being caught makes people obey laws.

To increase the use of helmets a mix of measures has to be used successively and incombination. However, there is a particular practical issue undermining thewillingness of riders to use helmets in emerging economies — the issue ofaffordability.

2.2. Affordability and availability: two sides of the same coin
There are two distinct perspectives from which the affordability of motorcycle
helmets could be observed. The first perspective is the cost of the non-use of
appropriate helmets, i.e. asking the question: how much does it cost not to use asafe helmet? This question could be answered by analysing possible adverse
consequences—additional fatalities or injuries sustained by motorcycle users involvedin crashes. From this perspective one could analyse affordability by comparing thetotal cost of helmets if purchased by all motorcyclists with the social and economic
cost of injuries and fatalities that would have been avoided if a stricter helmetwearing policy were in place (as carried out and discussed in chapter 1). To calculatesocial and economic cost of human life is very difficult, practically impossible;
nevertheless, an effort can be made to look at the problem of affordability from thisperspective.

13

The second perspective deals with the cost of purchasing a helmet. These costs canbe absolute (e.g., in US dollars) or relative (as compared to other countries or othersimilar passive safety devices). In some countries helmets made to meet moststringent safety standards are almost prohibitively expensive, which results inmeagre sales of such helmets.
The price of a helmet expressed as a fraction of the motorcycle price could be also
used as the indicator of such relative affordability. For example, in many European
countries (where all helmets on sale are in conformity with UN Regulation 22),
motorcycle helmets are sold for as low as $50; highend helmets, designed primarily to provide“Strategies aimed at reducing
additional comfort, are sold at prices over $600. At
the costs of standard helmets,
the same time, most new motorcycles cost between
combined with legislation and$2,000 and $15,000. In other words, motorcyclists
enforcement will be requiredin Europe purchase helmets that cost approximately
to maximize effects of helmet
three per cent of the value of the motorcycle. The
relative cost of helmets may go as low as one per
use programs.”
cent and as high as 10 per cent of the motorcycle(Ackaah., et al 2013)
price.
In low income countries motorcycles are a path to overcoming existing mobility gaps.
Public transport is often underdeveloped and/or unsafe. As a result, people dedicate
their limited resources to procuring new or used motorcycles, which commonly serveas the mobility solution for the whole family and essential to meeting their basic
socio-economic needs. Unfortunately, helmets are quite often left out of the equation
due to on the one hand their prices, while on the other to the simple lack ofadditional funds.
Another challenge that low income countries were faced with is the availability ofhelmets. As Hendrie et al (2004) reveals, in many low income countries motorcycle
helmets were not always available. In China, the Philippines, Thailand, Viet Nam, andVenezuela, motorcycle helmets are considered luxury goods that are primarily sold toforeigners and a small group of wealthy local consumers. In Brazil, no safety devices,
except child restraint systems, are easily available.
When there is no market for motorcycle helmets, the prices at which they are soldare practically irrelevant. For example, as Hendrie et al (2004) found, the price of abooster seat in China is $627. This is equivalent to one and a half times the averagemonthly salary in China. At the same time, the average price of the booster seat in areference group of high income countries is $21 (in most of these countries thebooster seats are, in fact, imported from China). If the use of booster seats in China
was enforced and otherwise encouraged, their market prices could be significantly
less than $21. Helmets manufactured in China but sold in the United States are soldat $8; yet, because of ineffective helmet-wearing enforcement, cultural and otherfactors, even bicycle helmets are not readily available in China at this relatively low
price.
Thus it would not be entirely correct to conclude that in low income countries helmets
are not sold because they are too expensive. In fact, the opposite might be true. In
these countries, the helmets are expensive because no one is buying them.
The high price of motorcycle helmets may result from their low availability. Creating
conditions that would increase helmet availability is of utmost importance. This could
be done through, for example, making the use of helmets mandatory. A strict
enforcement of such legislation would help create a market pull for helmets, which, inturn, through economies of scale, would encourage production and drive prices down
significantly.
In creating helmet legislation, one of the most important pieces of information is ahelmet ranking list, both in terms of the level of protection and the price. Many

14

countries do this, such as Australia and the United Kingdom12. However, theinformation transmitted (e.g. through the internet or pamphlets at rider training
centres, schools, etc.) aims at showing that safe helmets come with a variety of pricetags. The fact that the information comes from an independent source is essential.
In conclusion, there are several ways to make helmets more affordable in low income
countries. A low income country may consider:
1. Introducing a government subsidy programme, perhaps initially for children
only, as proposed by Miller et al (1998). It should be borne in mind that thehospital treatment and other related costs incurred in the case of a crash will
be far greater than the cost of a basic helmet. It would therefore be rational
for governments to become involved by offering some forms of subsidy.
2. Including a helmet in the sale of the vehicle. As motorcycle manufacturers
have nationwide networks and are in direct contact with riders, a country may
agree with the manufacturers that they include a helmet in the sale of thevehicle. This would, of course, only work for new sales.
3. Reducing the number of requirements that the helmet has to meet by
applying an earlier version of UN Regulation No. 22, as described in detail in
section 3 and in Annex I. The basic jet style helmet, covering the ears andmuch of the neck, may not be convenient in hot climates, without redesign ofthe ventilation as focus groups have shown. Such a redesigned helmet,
approved following the latest Version of the UN Regulation No. 22, hasrecently entered the market.
4. Creating conditions for the mass production of helmets. The resulting
economies of scale would drive the cost of helmets down. Announcing that ahelmet-wearing policy will be introduced and enforced starting from a given
date in the future would provide the needed market pull and make mass
production much easier.

12

Sharp – The helmet safety scheme (http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/)

15

Figure 10
Family on a motorcycle in the congested traffic of Karachi

162.3. Children and helmets
In general, the practice of carrying children as passengers on motorcycles iscontroversial. At the same time, the reality in many low income countries is that the
motorcycle is the family’s only means of transport 13. Indeed, in many low income
countries motorcycles are the only way for families to get access to education andhealth care, or meet other social and economic needs.

2.3.1.

Number of children involved in accidents

Accurate data on children involved in motorcycle crashes is not available.
Consequently, the discussion of helmets for children is based on ‘best estimate’
statistics and biomechanical information from medical sources. The two mainreferences in this area are Mohan (2009) and Arbogast et al (2003), which provide
overviews of the literature and the continuing discussion.
Mohan’s (2009) review concludes that, in most countries around the world, theproportion of children involved in fatal motorcycle crashes as passengers seems to beless than 1-3 per cent of all motorcycle fatalities. To some extent this is a surprisingfinding, when, for example, a Malaysian study found that only 26 per cent of children
in urban areas and 40 per cent in suburban areas wore helmets (Azhar et al, 2010).
Furthermore, with the advent of mandatory helmet-wearing legislation, there has
been a growth in the number of children wearing toy helmets or bicycle helmets
which provide or only a very low level of protection or no protection at all.
There is no evidence that children will suffer more, or less, head, neck or otherinjuries than adults. Motorcycle crashes are sufficiently chaotic, with people riding as“loose parcels” being thrown in all possible directions, that adults and children run
the same risks. However, the consequences for children are more severe due to theirmore vulnerable physique.

2.3.2.

Physical considerations

Arbogast et al (2003), identify the main issues regarding the build and size ofchildren:Children are more likely than adults to suffer severe consequences ofconcussions;

The brain and skull of a child are in a more vulnerable developmental stage
than those of an adult;

By the age of four, the size of a child’s head (as indicated by head length, widthand circumference) is 90 per cent that of an adult and by the age of twelve it is95 per cent of adult size. It is not until the age of twenty that the bone platesof the skull fully close;The neck, in contrast to the head, is only 75 per cent of adult size at the age offour and 85 per cent of adult size by the age of 12. The neck muscles ofchildren are weaker than those of adults, and children’s neck ligaments canstretch more. Children’s vertebral joints do not restrict forward motion as muchas in adults and their spinal columns also have more cartilage and less bone.

Nevertheless, Mohan’s (2009) review concludes that there is insufficient information
on how children differ from adults to justify changing the 300g acceleration limit thatis currently the standard for adult motorcycle helmets, when considering a standard
for children’s helmets.

13

For the purposes of this discussion, persons under 16 years of age are considered as
children, as in most countries teenagers older than 16 years of age are allowed to use mopeds.

172.3.3.

A standard for children’s helmets ?

In every country, except Viet Nam, helmets are tested for children and adults using
the same standard. From the beginning, UN Regulation No. 22 has been used as abasis for testing helmets for children. However, as reported by Arbogast et al (2003),
children’s heads are smaller than those of adults in height; and consequently, adultsized helmets do not fit properly. For example an adult’s helmet may actually rest on
the shoulders of a small child.
The technical issues for children’s helmets are the same as those for adult’s helmets.
Providing protection against low impact (resulting in concussion) and protection
against high impact (resulting in permanent brain injury) may be hard toachieve with a single helmet of a reasonable size and mass. Discussions on thisissue have focused on the conclusions of the COST 327 project (European
Union, 2001), and the possibility of introducing multi-density liners as the way
forward (Ford, 2005).

A thicker liner, to increase protection, also means that the mass of the helmet
will increase, increasing the risk of greater neck injuries, particularly forchildren;

The use of new materials that reduce mass but maintain a high level ofprotection may be impossible for reasons of cost, as few customers are able toafford such helmets.

Mohan (2009) concludes that, there remains much disagreement on most major
issues and that consensus is unlikely to emerge in the near future on changing theindices used for setting the severity of helmet impact standards.
The case of motorcycle helmets suitable for children is, therefore, an issue that needs
focused research in order to find the appropriate criteria for creating a dedicatedhelmet regulation for this vulnerable group of riders. So far, Contracting Parties tothe 1958 Agreement have yet to make a proposal on this subject.
Producing a range of helmets to suit children of different ages (starting from 2 years
old) and type approved according to UN Regulation No. 22 is possible. Nevertheless,small children must not be taken on motorcycles. Therefore, many countries
introduced a minimum age and/or a minimum height (see Table 3) for children to betransported on motorcycles, and those countries, e.g. Switzerland and Austria, havea very good child safety record. The aim of the minimum height threshold is to makesure that children are tall enough to take advantage the safety benefits of being able
to adequately use the passenger foot-rest. Having such legislation and securing its
appropriate enforcement is very important in guaranteeing children’s safety.
On the US market, motorcycle helmets designed to fit children of ages 4–12 andmeeting the US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218 are
becoming popular and are being sold at a price similar to that of adult’s helmets. Thisshows how the protection of children is taken seriously by parents and encouraged
by US policy makers and manufacturers. Information for the public that certified
helmets, besides being the only helmets that are legal, are also those that will
actually offer protection in case of an accident, is made available throughmanufacturer’s websites.

18

Table 3
Legal age for children to ride as a motorcycle passenger in selected
European countries
Country

Legal age

Austria

8-12

Belgium

3-8

Czech
Republic

12

Denmark

5

France

5

Italy

5

Additional provisions and comments

SourceThe minimum age for children to be transported
on motorcycles (and tricycles) is twelve years;
furthermore the child has to be able to reach thefoot rests intended for use by the passenger. As
regards mopeds, children younger than eight
may only be transported in an appropriate childseat.
"3<age<8 - allowed only on motorcycles with amaximum of 125 cm3 and if seated in a child
restraint system/ forbidden on motorcycles ofmore than 125 cm3.
Age > 8 - allowed on all motorcycles."Article 106 of theAustrian Motor
Vehicles Act (KFG).

Only a person older than 12 years may betransported on the second seat of the
motorcycle. Such person has to have the helmet
put on his head and properly fastened. This
helmet must be approved type according to thespecial legislation regulation.
"Children with a height less than 135 cm may
not be transported on a two-wheeled
motorcycle, unless the child is at least 5 years
old and using a child seat or other safety
equipment that meets the requirements
established pursuant to article 68. Furthermore,children under 5 years of age shall not betransported on tricycle or in a motorcycle
sidecar, unless the passenger seat is equippedwith safety belts."
Any passenger of a powered two-wheels vehicle
is obliged to wear an helmet, adapted to the sizeof a child if it's the case.
Article R. 431-5 requires that the transport of apassenger be made on a fixed seat, if necessary
different from the one of the driver.
Article R. 431-11 requires that the passenger
can hold a handle and that his/her feet can beon footrests. For children less than 5 years old, a
specific seat is mandatory. The driver shall takecare that the feet of the children cannot bedamaged in the fixed and mobile parts of thevehicle.
"When older in any case it is mandatory for the
carried passenger to be able to hold a safe,
stable position according to the structure andthe fitting of the motorcycle."

Article 35 of theBelgian Royal
Decree on thegeneral regulationof road traffic
policing and use of
the public highway.
Article 7 of the
Czech Republic Law
on Road Traffic.

Article 52 of theDanish Road Traffic
Act.

Article R. 431 of
the Traffic Code.

Articles 170 and
171 of the ItalianTraffic Code.

19

Country

Legal age

Additional provisions and comments

SourceLithuania

12

It is forbidden to transport children under 12 on
moped, motor cycle (except carriage in trailer)and on any quadricycle.

8-12

The passenger on a PTW (motorcycle) has to beat least 12 years old and must be able to use
footrests properly.
The passenger on a moped (50 ccm) has to beat least 8 years old and must be able to use
footrests properly; if the rider of the moped is atleast 18, a passenger of less than 8 years isallowed on the moped when being able to use
footrests properly and if placed in a special seat(adapted to its height and weight and having a
restraint system).
"No children under 7 years old can be carried ona motorcycle unless it has a rigid box destined tohold not only cargo.""Transport of a person younger than 12 years ona motorcycle is forbidden."Road Traffic Rules
201.3 confirmed by
Resolution No.
1950 (December
2002) of theGovernment of the
Republic of
Lithuania.
Article 52 of the
Traffic Code of
Luxembourg.

Luxembourg

Portugal

7

Slovakia

12

Spain

7-12

Switzerland

7

A passenger over 12 years of age may travel on
mopeds and motorcycles, provided that this isstated in the driving licence for the moped or
motorcycle, he/she wears a safety helmet andfulfils the following requirements:
a. To sit astride with both feet on thelateral footrests.
b. To ride pillion, on the proper seat.
Under no circumstances may the passenger sit
somewhere between the rider and themoped/motorcycle handlebar for steering.
As an exception, children over seven years ofage may travel on motorcycles or mopeds riddenby their father, mother or guardian or bypersons legally of age who are authorized bythem, provided that they wear an approved
safety helmet and the above requirements are
fulfilled. (Article 11.4 of the text).
Children younger than 7 years have to be
carried in a specific and authorized child seat.

Article 91 of thePortuguese Road
Code.
Article 46 of the
Slovak Republic
Road Traffic Law.
Article 11.4 of the
Traffic Code.

Article 63 of theOrdinance on Rulesof Road Traffic
741.11.

2.4. Counterfeiting and other challenges
The issue of counterfeit products has extensive implications and solving this problem
is outside the scope of the UN regulatory system. However, the Contracting Parties tothe UN 1958 Agreement can contribute to developing a solution.
The term counterfeiting is used in many ways. In its strictest meaning, it refers to
the copying and selling of another product under the real brand name. Moregenerally, the term covers the marketing of a product that pretends to be of aparticular quality when it is not.

20

There is no information available on whether counterfeit versions of motorcycle
helmets have been sold. In case of such an event, it would lie outside vehicle
regulations and would probably fall in the area of trademark abuse.
The more general definition of counterfeiting is, however, applicable in this analysis.
There have been instances where helmets have been put on the market with a false
type approval mark/number and without type approval. There are also cases where
helmets have been type approved and then subsequently produced but not in
conformity with the type approval. Clearly, both of these cases can be addressed
within the current provisions to re-ensure the conformity of production and thevalidity of approval marks.
Conformity of production is based on two points — quality control and sample
testing. Before applying for type approval, a manufacturer must pass an initialassessment by the authority to obtain approval for his/her quality control system andthe record keeping of batches, sample tests, etc. Once approval has been granted,
the emphasis moves to regular quality control visits and to spot testing products tocheck their conformity. In practice, when a manufacturer has established a goodtrack record of the on-going production,“The use of non-standard helmets
checking is reduced, allowing the authority toundermines multinational efforts
focus on new or suspect producers.

aimed at reducing the burden of road
The enforcement method depends on the
traffic injuries associated withadministrative structures in the country
motorcycle crashes.”
concerned. However, there are certain basic
options for consideration or adaptation to(Ackaah., et al 2013)
local circumstances. The first control point iseither in the factory or, in the case of imports, at the port of entry. Both thesecontrol points have the advantage of controlling the first entry into the market.
Approval certificates and markings can be checked and, in the case of a factory,
samples can be taken for testing.
The main warehouse of the manufacturer or his/her importer is also a good control
point, although possibilities already exist that some stock may no longer be at thatlocation. The next control point is the point of retail sale. This check controls a far
fewer number of helmets, but it is the last point at which products can be prevented
from being used. All controls should be done by special inspectors. Even a few
inspectors can control a large market.
The last control point is the roadside. During an enforcement campaign for helmetwearing, for example, or even a routine control of papers, a police officer can checkhelmet markings. In the event of suspicion, (s)he can then refer the matter to special
control agencies. A police officer can usually do little more, unless there are roadtraffic regulations that allow, for example, confiscating the helmet.
UNECE is working on a database system for exchanging type approval documentation
using the internet and hand-held technology. Once this system is in place, it will
become possible for a police officer to check approval numbers on the move.
Eventually, countries will be able to introduce this system, once they have thestructures in place that can make use of it.

21

3. Why are harmonized helmet standards and regulations needed?
Motorcyclists are 26 times more likely to die in a traffic accident than drivers ofpassenger cars (NHTSA, 2015). The number of fatalities and injuries can however be
reduced by implementing a set of standards and other regulatory activities.
Understanding the importance of standards and regulations14 necessitates anunderstanding of how head injuries occur and how the helmet acts to protect thehead. This section, therefore, describes the injury mechanisms, the role of thehelmet, and the process of drafting regulations and their development over time.

3.1 The helmet protects the head
According
to
the
World
HealthOrganization (WHO) (2006)15 there are
two principal mechanisms through which
injury can be sustained to the brain during
a motorcycle crash: (i) through directcontact or (ii) through acceleration–
deceleration. Both mechanisms cause
different types of injuries.

“Wearing a helmet is the single mosteffective way of reducing head injuries
and fatalities resulting from motorcycle
and bicycle crashes. Motorcyclists who do
not wear helmets are at a much higher
risk of sustaining head injuries and fromdying from these injuries.” (CDC 2012)

Head injuries that result from either mechanism can be further divided into two
categories: open or closed head injuries. Most traumatic brain injuries are the resultof closed head injuries — i.e. there is no open wound to the brain.
The protective helmet is designed to minimize the risk of a rider suffering from eitherof these types of injuries. The main components of a helmet, as shown in Figure 11,are:

The shell, which provides mechanical protection by distributing the impact
energy transmitted to the liner (protective padding); it maintains the liner incontact with the head and provides a mounting for the retention system;The liner, which reduces the deceleration of the skull and therefore the brain bydissipating the impact energy through controlled deformation of its structure

A chin guard, (in full-face helmets);

The retention system, e.g. a chinstrap;

Comfort padding;In addition, helmets may incorporate a face shield (visor) to protect the faceand eyes from airborne objects (grit, stone, insects, etc.).

Helmet materials have been developed and improved over time, resulting in lighter
overall mass and, in some cases, economies of scale in production. Commonly usedplastic materials for the shell are Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS),
polycarbonates (PC) and polypropylene (PP); carbon fibre and Kevlar®. Other
advanced material mixes are increasingly used as an alternative to fibre glass. The
deformable liner (protective padding) inside the shell is usually made from Expanded
polystyrene (EPS), a low-cost material that absorbs shocks and impacts.

14

Regulations are performance-oriented standards, i.e. they include stringency requirements(limit values).
15
Please see WHO (2006) for a step by step guide for introducing a comprehensive
motorcycle helmet policy.

22

Figure 11
Elements of a Full Face Motorcycle Helmet

Source: UN Regulation No. 22, Annex 3

3.2. The evolution of helmet standards and regulations
At first, helmet standards were closely associated with the development ofmotorcycle racing. Subsequent research into crashes and helmet properties has led
to major improvements in the quality of helmets and benefitted both the racer andthe ordinary motorcyclist.
The first systematic investigations of helmet function and effectiveness were done in
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the 1940's. After theSecond World War, the British Road Research Laboratory studied head injury
mechanisms, the mechanical properties of human tissues, potential helmet materials
and helmet test methods. The results of this work provided the basis for the first
performance standards for protective helmets. The first of these standards, based on
applying shock loadings to a helmeted head form, was British Standard 1869:1952 Crash Helmets for Racing Motor Cyclists. It was followed by British Standard
2001:1953 - Protective Helmets for Motor Cyclists. (Yoganandan, 1998).
Qualifying helmets were marked with the British Standards Institute (BSI)
certification mark and had to identify the manufacturer, country of origin, helmet size
and the number of the British standard. This external verification was an essential
step in establishing both the standard and introducing helmets with a defined quality.
Similarly, during the 1960s, the United States of America Snell Memorial Foundation
published their first motorcycle helmet standard and introduced a certification
scheme.

23

In 1973, the British government made it mandatory for motorcyclists to wear
protective helmets meeting the BSI standard. In 1974, the United States
Government introduced a motorcycle helmet standard (US Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218) and every helmet sold for road use in the USA
was required to meet the standard and be marked with the Department of Transport(DOT) symbol. Subsequently, other governments have also used a standard as abasis for legislation.
At the international level, UNECE, in the context of the “1958 Agreement on the typeapproval of vehicles, equipment and parts”16, created a motorcycle helmet regulationin 1972, which is now in its fifth series of amendments (level of stringency). UN
Regulation No. 22 provides uniform conditions for the approval of protective helmets
for drivers and passengers of motorcycles. The UN Regulation requires independent
testing and product marking, and therefore extends the British/USA performancestandard and certification approach into an international context. This Regulation isregularly adapted to reflect the technical progress and advances in research.
Although this international regulation exists, it is not yet universally used. Many
governments still prefer to adopt national standards based on a mix of alreadyexisting ones and thus creating the need to harmonize standards.

3.3. The problem of non-harmonized standards
When countries have different standards in regulation for protective helmets, or evenindeed vehicles and products in general, it creates barriers to trade and progress,
and thwarts safety improvements. Differences“The widespread use of nonin standards cause expenses to manufacturers
standard helmets in low- andand may delay technological progress bymiddle-income countries may limit
diverting finite research and development
potential gains of helmet use
resources into multiple directions.

programs.”(Ackaah., et al 2013)

The main concerns are the varying levels ofstringency
amongstandards.
Different
standards and regulations require different
levels of performance and methods of measurement in tests that appear to be thesame. Some standards may also omit tests that others require. Table 4 illustrates
differences between some existing standards.

16

24

More information on the 1958 Agreement can be found in section 3.

Malaysia
MS 1:1996

Singapore
SS 9:1992

ThailandTIS 369-2520

Viet Nam
TCVN 5756:
2001

Indonesia
SNI 1811-2007

Japan
JIS T8133:2000

United Kingdom
BSI 6658:1985

USA
FMVSS 218

UN Regulation
No. 22.05

Australia
AS 1698-1988

Table 4Comparison of tests included in different motorcycle helmet standards
or regulations

Extent of shell/ extent
of coverage





















Shell stiffness test





























































Visor test





















Peak flexibility test





















Peripheral vision test





















































































































































































Impact test





















Oblique impact test





















Chin guard test
Penetration test































Flammability test





























































Standard test
description

Internal projections
evaluation
External projections test

Retention systemeffectiveness
Retention systemstrength
Retention strap
slippage
Retention strap
abrasion
Retention systemrelease by pressure
Retention systemrelease by inertia
Retention system easeof release
Durability of quick
release retention
systemHelmet marking
requirements
Information label
requirements
Source: Smith (2008).

25

Such differences introduce different levels of stringency in the performancerequirements for helmets and therefore in the protection offered to motorcyclists.
Many consumers may think that a helmet is safe as long as it complies with any
standard. In reality, the safety performance of helmets can differ markedly
depending on the standards according to which they are tested.
Different national regulations also create barriers to trade, requiring manufacturers
to design helmets to meet each individual standard and to test them in each country.
These costs are passed on to the consumer. A harmonized standard creates
economies of scale in production and, as a result, new technologies can be madeavailable to a superior number of helmet users.
Although it might be feasible to design a protective helmet that can meet all existing
regulations, most likely it would be expensive, particularly if it had to be tested
according to many different national standards. UN Regulation No. 22 formotorcyclists’ helmets was developed as part of the effort to overcome these
constraints and obtain the best protection at the lowest possible cost.

26

4. Introducing helmet-wearing policies
Introducing a helmet-wearing policy is acomplex and costly decision. Its enforcement
requires engagement of significant resources.
To make an informed "go/no go" decision,
policy makers need to review a range of datafrom the region where a helmet-wearing
legislation is to be introduced. In theirdeliberations the decision-makers might wish tofollow the following seven steps.

i“The single most effective way forstates to save lives and save money isa universal helmet law.” (CDC 2012)“The USA saved 3$ billion due tohelmet use in 2010 and could havesaved an additional $1.4 billion if all
motorcyclists had worn helmets.”

Determine whether a helmet-wearing policy is needed

The decision on whether a helmet-wearing policy is needed should be based on facts
and accurate statistics on the nature and magnitude of the risk that riders without
helmets may pose to themselves and to the safety of road traffic participants ingeneral. The required statistics are:a)Road traffic crashes and the relative ratio of motorcycle fatalities and injuries.

According to WHO (2006)17, the following indicators may be constructed and used as
diagnostic tools:b)

Number or registered motorcycles as a proportion of all motorized
vehicles;

Rate of motorcycle crashes (per 10,000 vehicles, or per 100,000
people);

Distribution of motorcycle crashes across different road types;

Age and gender of those involved in these crashes.

Head injuries

Data on head injuries is needed to create further indicators such as:

c)

d)



Proportion of motorcycle crashes that involve head injuries;

Socio-economic impact of head injuries;

Geographic distribution of motorcycle head injuries;



Population most vulnerable to head injuries (e.g., certain age or
occupational groups).

Helmet-wearing rates can be accessed through the following indicators:
Proportion of helmet users among the general population;



Distribution of helmet use by age, gender, purpose of travel;Use of correctly-sized and properly fastened helmets.

Helmet affordability

In developing helmet legislation, one of the most important pieces of information is acomparison between the level of protection and the price. The affordability of helmets
could be observed from two distinct perspectives, as described in detail in section 2.2of this study.

17"Helmets: a road safety manual for decision-makers and practitioners", page 29,
www.who.int/roadsafety/projects/manuals/helmet_manual/en/

27

e)

Existing helmet-wearing regulations

Policy-makers also need to assess the current legal landscape, state of law
enforcement and the helmet standards already in force, as well as identify principal
stakeholders.

ii

Establish a working group

In addition to the lead agency in charge of road safety a working group should
include:

Government officials dealing with transport, health, education and law
enforcement;

Public health specialists (physicians);

Engineers;Motorcycle associations;

Helmet and motorcycle manufacturers and distributors;

Employers that own large motorcycle fleets;

Non-governmental organisation.

iii

Prepare a plan of action

A good plan of action should be based on sound data, such as the above describedindicators. Such a plan should include the following steps:
Define objectives and targets;Select indicators;



Determine implementation modalities for activities;

Make an estimate of available and needed resources;

Set up monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

iv

Develop and implement a helmet law

The procedure of implementing the law consists of:

Developing the law;Introducing and implementing legislation;

Setting a timeframe for law implementation.

v

Implement a harmonized helmet standard

There are many standards in use today. Table 4 compares the requirements ofvarious standards.

vi

Improve compliance with the newly introduced law

In general, a combined approach that involves both voluntary and mandatory
measures seems to produce the best results. Voluntary measures include public
education, commercial marketing, use of role models, and various incentives.
Mandatory measures include legislation and law enforcement typically involving
traffic police.

vii

Educate the public, in particular young motorcycle riders andpassengers

For successful introduction of a helmet-wearing policy it is essential to involve thepublic from the very beginning. A public relations campaign is useful in raisingawareness and conveying the right messages to the general public directly or
through the media.
Educating young people, who are first-time helmet users, is the most critical aspectof a public relations campaign.

28

Safety Helmet Assessment and Rating Programme (SHARP)
A case study from the United Kingdom
Safety Helmet Assessment and Rating Programme (SHARP) came into being in 2007,
after the Department for Transport of the United Kingdom (UK) found real differencesin the safety performance of motorcycle helmets available in the UK. Actually, it
constitutes a unique assessment programme of helmets.
While all helmets have to meet minimum safety requirements, research showed thatup to 50 lives could be saved each year in the UK if motorcyclists wore the safest
helmets available to them.
SHARP provides motorcyclists with clear guidance regarding the important issue ofhelmet fit and also provides objective advice about the level of head protection that a
particular helmet can provide.
Using the most rigorous existing requirements from established standards, SHARP
tests motorcycle helmets using rigorous impact scenarios that reflect real world
accidents leading to injury.
Thanks to a simple five star scoring system, SHARP provides motorcyclists withindependent and objective advice, revealing the different safety performances ofmotorcycle helmets available on the UK market.
SHARP routinely adds helmets to its database, the most recent on March 2015, taking
the total number of helmets rated by SHARP to 350 full face and flip-front helmets.

Source: Sharp – The helmet safety scheme (http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/)

29

5. UN Regulation No. 22 sets safety requirements for helmets18
5.1. UN Regulation No. 22
The 1958 Agreement is one of the three agreements administered by the UN World
Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) serviced by the UNECE
Sustainable Transport Division. The 1958 Agreement provides the legal andadministrative framework for establishing international UN Regulations (annexed to
the Agreement) with uniform performance oriented test provisions and administrative
procedures for granting type approvals. The Regulations also cover the conformity of
production and the mutual recognition of the type approvals granted by Contracting
Parties.
All UN countries can join WP.29 and become Contracting Parties to the UN 1958
Agreement. Contracting Parties can apply the UN Regulations at the national leveland propose amendments by participating in the discussions. Through thediscussions countries have the opportunity to have their local needs reflected in theinternational Regulation requirements. UN Regulation No. 22 on helmets is only oneof the 135 UN Regulations annexed to the 1958 Agreement currently in force. The
regulation is supervised and updated by the Working Party for Passive Safety(GRSP), which is one of the subsidiary Working Parties to WP.2919.
Harmonized regulations allow the benefits of economies of scale and the resulting
spread of new technologies to accrue to a greater number of riders. UN Regulation
No. 22 was adopted in response to the need to harmonize different national technicalprovisions on helmet design and testing. Since its adoption in 1972, UN Regulation
No. 22 has been updated to reflect new scientific developments.

5.2. The original version UN Regulation No. 22
The original version of UN Regulation No. 22 (from 1972) contained General
requirements that addressed the coverage of the head and ensured an adequate fieldof vision and adequate hearing for the user, provided for the possibility of ventilation
holes, minimized projections (which may get caught when the helmet slides over a
surface and thus increase the rate of rotation), and ensured the durability ofmaterials used. The requirements at the time also stipulated a maximum helmet
mass of 1 kg20.
Conditioning procedures included cold, heat and moisture treatments, which
replicated typical conditions of use. Furthermore a series of tests, and head-formsizes for their administration, were prescribed to replicate adverse conditions uponwhich the helmet needs to perform its protective role. Those included:






18

A shock absorption test replicating an impact to the head;
A penetration test designed to replicate puncturing of the helmet21;
A rigidity test of the helmet when compressed longitudinally and thenlaterally;
A test for chinstrap deformation and a test for its tearing;
21
Tests for peak flexibility and non-flammability ;See Annex I for a more detailed discussion about 1958 Agreement, the evolution of safety
requirements embedded in UN Regulation No 22 and options available to countries in its
implementation.
19
Other Working Parties include: Working Party on Noise (GRB), Working Party on Pollution
and Energy (GRPE), Working Party on Lighting and Light Signalling (GRE), Working Party on
Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF), and Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG).
20
Modern helmets range in mass from 1.35 kg to 2.05 kg, with an average of 1.66 kg.
21
Tests subsequently dropped from the Regulation as a result of improved testing methods.

30

A helmet is not sufficiently protective if it is not properly secured on the rider’s head;
an obvious reality but one that is apparently not understood by many riders. A
comprehensive study of motorcycle crashes across Europe showed that around 12
per cent of helmets fell off during the course of an impact (EC 2001). Wearing ahelmet that fits correctly dramatically increases the chances of surviving a crash. The
shape of the human head is such that it is quite easy to remove a helmet by pulling
upwards on the back. Though, it was a common opinion that the chinstrap should
fasten tightly, presently it is understood that helmet loss is a more complex issue
and not necessarily limited to the setting of the chinstrap (which, incidentally, should
not be fastened tightly). Compatibility of head shape with the internal shape of thehelmet is paramount. Premium manufacturers produce different liner shapes fordifferent markets reflecting the various physiologies of the consumers in the market(Asia – North America – Europe).

5.3. The technical development of UN Regulation No. 22
Early versions of the regulation contained elements for which a suitable test
procedure was not developed yet. As a result the evaluations were made byinspection. This was the case in the “general requirements” section mentioned above.
This approach has the disadvantage of being subjective and open to different
interpretations. As a result, test procedures were developed and added to theregulation. For example, the potential for the helmet to create rotation of the head
when in contact with another surface, such as the road, is now tested because thedangers of rotational accelerations to the brain are better understood. Rotational
acceleration of the brain destroys the tiny ligaments that hold the brain in place
within the skull, increasing the risk of severe brain damage.
Similarly, testing methods have been developed over time, becoming more precise
and more stringent. It has partly been driven by the need to obtain repeatable
results, particularly in different test centres, partly reflecting an improved
understanding of crash dynamics and the biomechanics of impacts and injuries, andpartly reflecting the improvement of real tests. Thus, for example, modern impact
tests include letting the helmet fall onto the anvil rather than having a striker hit thestationary helmet. The chinstrap deformation test is now also dynamic, with a mass
being dropped to pull suddenly on the chinstrap. Results from tests and research are
crucial in the evolution of the safety of helmets.
Major developments in helmet design have necessitated new methods of testing. For
example, there are now full-faced helmets with integrated visors and chin-guards.
The visor offers protection, but at the same time allows the driver full visibility. These
helmets have also been associated with the introduction of new methods of fastening
the chinstrap, e.g. by means of a device similar to those used in car seatbelts. The
impact absorption test introduced by the 02 series of amendments (April 1983) is afree fall test with a metal head-form (with a three-directional accelerometer) thatchecks the helmet performance even during lateral impacts. This type of test can beadministered and successfully passed by a full face or open face helmet type.

5.4. The most recent version of UN Regulation No. 22
All of the above described factors have over the last 40 years led to considerable
amendments to the original version of UN Regulation No. 22. Today, Regulation No.
22 is considered the most comprehensive regulation on protective helmets in theworld.
The general requirements concerning the basic structure of the helmet and materials
durability, the extent of the helmet’s head coverage visors, peaks and the need to
identify non-protective chinstraps are much more detailed. The same requirements
for hearing and ventilation have been maintained. Additional specific testing has been
introduced, such as shear testing and peripheral vision testing, impact absorption,
surface friction, retention systems test, and variable loads and abrasion tests for31chinstraps. Furthermore, with the introduction of visors, a new series of tests wasdeveloped to evaluate their mechanical impact resistance, light transmission, light
diffusion, scratch resistance and mist retardant properties.
To ensure easy availability of information to the helmet user, UN Regulation No. 22
requires the helmets to be labelled with the size and maximum mass, information on
the proper attachment and fitting of the helmet, a reminder to replace the helmet
after a violent impact, a warning against using or the helmet coming into contact
with petrol, paints and solvents and info on the types of visors approved for use withthe helmet.
Non-protective chinstraps must be marked, thus indicating that they have not beentested or have failed to meet the requirements. Visors have to be labelled with thetype of helmet to which they can be fitted and they shall be accompanied byinformation on cleaning, use at night and in poor visibility, and any mist retardant
properties. Critically, the helmet shall carry the type approval mark (see Figure 12).
This mark shows which type approval authority granted the helmet type, the statusof the Regulation when it was approved (in the first two digits of the approval
number), subtypes and a serial number. The approval mark provides immediate
evidence that the helmet has been type approved and that it meets all of therequirements of the regulation.
Figure 12
Helmet visor type and a helmet approved according to UN Regulation No. 22

Source: UNECE
Note: The “E” mark identifies type approval according to the 1958 Agreement and “13”identifies Luxembourg as the Contracting Party having delivered the type approval of thehelmet and visor.

32

5.5. Administering UN Regulation No. 22
UN Regulation No. 22 has been developed by the UN World Forum on Harmonizationof Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) which is advised by industry, consumers and otherexperts. UN Regulations aim at harmonizing existing requirements to match thestringency level of the participating country that has the highest level of stringency in
its national regulation.
Each new package of changes known as a “series of amendments” has strengthened
the stringency of the UN Regulation. Although the latest version of the Regulation is
the most stringent, other versions are also available. Any country, even if not a
Contracting Party to the 1958 Agreement, can adopt on its national basis the most
updated or, if the cost of meeting the most recent requirements is too high, any
former, less stringent, versions of the Regulation. However, if a Contracting Party to
the 1958 Agreement does not adopt the most recent version of the Regulation, other
Contracting Parties to the Agreement will not recognize its type approval.
A future revision of the 1958 Agreement would allow recognition of type approval ofContracting Parties applying a previous version of UN Regulations. Thus the country
can step onto the most suitable rung of the “ladder” and then advance upwards tomore stringent levels of helmet requirements as their national conditions progress.
Countries that do so, and, at the same time, accept all helmets that meet more
recent versions of the Regulation, set a suitable minimum for their national
legislation and still enjoy the benefit of having type-approved, more advanced
technologies enter the market.

5.6. Joining the 1958 Agreement and implementing UN Regulation No. 22
The 1958 Agreement is open to all United Nations Member States and regional
economic integration organizations. The meetings of the WP.29 are public and open
to representatives of any UN Member State. Representatives may be full members or
observers. Many non-ECE States are already Contracting Parties. To become aContracting Party, States have to deposit an instrument of accession with the United
Nations Secretary General. There is no fee to accede the Agreement. All UN
Regulations that are annexed to the 1958
“Policies directed towards increasing
Agreement are therefore part of it; they
are considered international law.
acceptance of helmets as a protective

device can have a significant impact on
reducing the overall traffic fatality
count.” (NHTSA 2004)

Once a Regulation has been published acountry may use it to develop its nationalrules. The country can use the text as abasis for a national regulation, with nofurther obligation. In such cases the advantages of mutual recognition andinternational type approval are not available to the country. Therefore, any testing
associated with the regulation would have to be carried out at the national level.
Conversely, a country may apply the text of the UN Regulation and also accept typeapproval certificates from other countries that are Contracting Parties to that UN
Regulation. This reduces the need for the country to have their own test facilities andall manufacturers benefit from a reduced test burden. For the industry it means that
only one approval process and one set of expenses is required. Both governments
and industry benefit from the freedom of trade that mutual recognition brings andconsumers benefit from new technologies that are available at a low price.

33

“This happened to James three years ago, and he’s still not coming back. He wasriding along the road, but he did not wear a helmet. And he lost control and hit atree. He was in a coma eight months. I mean, he was so sick that every time I saw
him I didn’t know whether he was going to make it. He had lost so much weight that
he was just a complete skeleton.
They had to weigh in a bag. He looked like he was from a concentration camp,
everything was sunk in. I mean, I was frightened seeing my son like this. It was
horrifying.
His goal is to get back his speech. His goal is to be able to walk again. But it is very
slow and it will never be the same. That will never, ever happen. Before the accident
James used to carve. He did beautiful carving. He was really a craftsman. He doesn’t
have that control that he wants to have. So many things that he does when he finallyfinishes looks like a child did it. But we’re dealing with an adult that’s making thismess.
It’s sad. I have another son and he’s hurt by it too because they were greatcompanions, and there was a loss with the whole family. It’s a hard thing and it’svery hard on the family watching a loved one be destroyed.
He still has a tube in his stomach so he’s just starting to eat very slowly pureed foods
and we don’t know if he’ll ever go beyond that. He’s lost his sense of smell, his senseof taste.
I try to look ahead now because he will never be the way he was before. I just can’t
have the same person back, so I have to deal with James as he is now and progress
and get him as far as he can go. I don’t know if there is a future for him. I think thathurts me more than anything else. A lot of the things that he wanted to do in his life
he can no longer do. And this could probably have been avoided. At worst he could
have hurt his leg, but his brain is something that you can’t replace it. He will wear a
prosthetic but his brain will never come back to the capacity that it was before.”
Mother of James,a brain injury patient who crashed his motorcycle
and was not wearing a helmet
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety/Highway Loss Data Institute video

34

6. New challenges: Pedal assisted bikes - Electric bikes
6.1. Electric bikes are becoming a popular means of transport
Electric bicycles (e-bikes) are bicycles with a battery-powered electric engine
activated by a throttle on the handle bars or assisted by the rider's pedalling. Theselighter and cheaper alternatives to mopeds have been in production for 20 years.
Electric bikes are sold mainly in Asia and Europe. According to estimates (Jamerson
and Benjamin, 2013), 32 million electric bikes were sold in China in 2013, though their
quality could be questioned. Europe is the second largest market for electric bikes.
Compared to China, electric bikes sold in Europe have stricter quality standards andare sold at prices ten times higher (around $3,400 USD). Other countries in Asia, such
as Japan and India, are also likely to become large markets for e-bikes. In the UnitedStates, sales are not yet significant but they are growing. By 2016, annual sales are
expected to be around 400,000 units, as manufacturers and retailers are increasing
the supply of electric bikes. Within the next 20 years, the number of electric bikes soldcould rise to 2 million, making the United States one of the biggest markets for electricbicycles in the world (Jamerson and Benjamin, 2013).
Electric bicycles have many advantages. They offer the consumer a less polluting
mobility alternative and the exercise that people get when pedalling is beneficial for
health. On a larger scale, as the world population is growing and cities are becoming
bigger and denser, e-bikes can potentially become one of the transport solutions for"sustainable cities". As identified within the Transport Health and Environment PanEuropean Programme (THE PEP), cycling as a means of urban transportation has many
benefits for human health and the environment. Shifts from driving to cycling cancontribute to reduce traffic congestion, the costs of road and parking facilities as wellas the environmental impact, and can improve public health. In urban areas with highdensity, cycling is, along with walking, the most convenient mode of transport andprovides better accessibility to the workplace and to leisure activities. Furthermore, in
addition to environment and health benefits, findings of THE PEP indicate that
redirecting urban transport towards the more sustainable mode of biking supports the
local economy and has significant induced job creation potential22.
There is evidence that consumers are finding this new mobility option attractive.
According to a recent survey of U.S. electric bike owners, 74 per cent of respondents
said they had purchased their electric bikes to replace some of their car trips. The
survey revealed that people of different age groups and with physical conditions notallowing the use of conventional bikes showed interest in electric bikes. There areindications that e-bikes could encourage more and more people to bike (Berg, 2014).
As the sale of e-bikes is likely to expand in the future, it will become increasingly
important to protect the safety of e-bike users. The safety of riders of electric bikes
cannot be compromised even if electric bikes promise less congested cities or new
economic assets. Reducing the number of accidents leading to injury involving four
wheeled vehicles, while at the same time allowing the number of accidents leading toinjury involving two-wheelers to increase, is not an option. In order to provide a safeand orderly environment for e-bikes riders, and other road traffic participants, it isessential to determine the most appropriate environment for e-cyclists in urban
settings. Should e-bikes share bicycle lanes with riders of traditional bicycles orshould they, as mopeds and motorcyclists, use traffic lanes dedicated to motorized
vehicles, are questions that need to be addressed urgently. In addition, developing asafe helmet for e-bikers must stand as a primary goal for manufacturers and policy
makers alike.

22

For detailed information on the THE PEP please see www.unece.org/thepep/en/welcome.html

35

6.2. Finding a common definition for electric bicycles
Harmonizing regulations worldwide could bring more electric bikes to the streets andreduce bureaucracy and designing costs, as it has done for cars. However,developing an internationally accepted definition for the electric bicycle has beendifficult. Different countries have different standards concerning speed and theengine power. For instance, in China the maximum speed allowed for an electric bikeis 20 kilometres per hour (12 mph), in the European Union (EU) it is 25 kilometres
per hour, while in the United States of America and Canada it is 32 kilometres perhour (20mph). Electric bike power in the EU can be up to 1000 watts, while in the
United States of America it can be between 750 watts and 1,500 watts (dependingon the State in question).
Accordingly, there are several names for electric bikes around the world: "motordriven cycle", "bicycle with helper motor" (USA), "power-assisted bicycle" (Canada),"power-assisted cycle" (United Kingdom),”electric pedal-assisted cycles”, "pedelecs"(EU) or "electric bicycles". The lack of harmonization in the definition and naming ofelectric bikes can lead to contradicting road and helmet use regulation. Namely, useof electric bicycles with same performance as mopeds with internal combustion
engines should be regulated by law the same way as mopeds. Nevertheless, in somecountries national legislation requires registration of the vehicle or even the helmets,
while in other countries it does not. Harmonization of regulations is therefore
important, but it will take time.

6.3. International harmonization of policies and legislation
The 1968 Vienna Conventions on Road Traffic and Road Signs and Signals establish
standard traffic rules for road users, both for motor vehicles and for bicycles. The
provision of special lanes on urban road, such as contra-flow cycling facilities,
contributes to car drivers respecting the rules of the road by not driving over cycling
lanes. It minimizes stress for cyclists in close proximity to motor vehicles anddecreases risk of accidents. The increasing share of e-bikes on urban roads will requirea rethinking of policies in terms of whether these vehicles have an appropriate spacewithin the current system or whether a new set of lanes, and maybe also introductionof new signs and signals, would be the most optimal solution.
The same is true in terms of head protection. Although motorcycle helmet use ismandatory in the European Union, legislation concerning bicycle helmet use in Europe
is much more varied. Whereas Malta has made cycle helmets mandatory, Sweden andSlovenia mandate only children less than 15 years of age to wear helmets. In Spain
helmets are mandatory only outside urban areas (Avenoso and Beckmann, 2005).
Although there is evidence that a helmet can significantly reduce the risk of brain andhead injuries in the event of a crash (EC 2015), some oppose the mandatory use ofhelmets. In some countries the mandatory use of helmets for cyclists, especially forminors, has been opposed, because it would make cycling look more dangerous than
it is and would reduce the number of cyclists. The opponents argued that “cycling is avery safe and healthy activity and one that has considerable potential to address
illnesses such as obesity and heart disease, which are the principal causes ofpremature death in western countries” (Stephens, 2013).
But does the debate on bicycle helmets apply to electric bicycles? The problem is, aswith the question of where they should be ridden, where to draw the line between
bicycles and motorbikes. The term electric bicycle is generic and includes pedelecs,
e-bikes and combinations of these types. European Union Regulation No. 168/2013
on the approval and market surveillance of two or three-wheel vehicles andquadricycles sets harmonized rules for the type-approval of L-category vehicles. The
Regulation defines and classifies L-category vehicles as shown in Table 5. These
definitions are particularly relevant to identifying whether a vehicle should beconsidered a bicycle or a motorbike.

36

Table 5Classification criteria for L-category vehicles
Category

Category name

L1e

Light
two-wheel
powered vehicle

Subcategories

Subcategory name

L1e-A

Powered cycle

L1e-B

Two-wheel moped

Classification criteria
1. Two wheels and powered by a propulsion aslisted under Article 4(3) of Regulation No.
168/2013
2. Engine capacity ≤ 50 cm3 if a PI internal
combustion engine forms part of the vehicle’s
propulsion configuration
3. Maximum design vehicle speed ≤ 45 km/h
4. Maximum continuous rated or net power 23 ≤ 4000 W
5. Maximum mass = technically permissible
mass declared by the manufacturer
Supplemental sub-classification criteria
6. Cycles designed to pedal equipped with an
auxiliary propulsion with the primary aim toaid pedalling
7. Output of auxiliary propulsion is cut off at avehicle speed ≤ 25 km/h
8. Maximum continuous rated or net power≤ 1 000 W
9. A powered three- or four-wheel cycle
complying with supplemental specific subclassification criteria (6) to (8) is classified as
being technically equivalent to a two-wheel
L1e-A vehicle
10. Any other vehicle of the L1e category thatcannot be classified according to the criteria(6) to (9) of a L1e-A vehicle

Source: Regulation (EU) No. 168/2013, Annex 1.

All electric bicycles, except pedelecs up to 25 km/h and a maximum continuous rated
motor output of 250 watts are subject to type-approval as laid down in Regulation
168/2013. Electric bikes are classified in vehicle category L1e, which is subdivided in
L1e-A for “powered cycles” and L1e-B for “mopeds”. The type approval rules comeinto force on January 1, 2017. L1e-A “powered cycles” are defined as cycles designed
to be pedalled, equipped with auxiliary propulsion with the primary aim to aid
pedalling. The propulsion should be limited at a speed of 25 km/h and its maximum
continuous rated power should not exceed 1000 watts. L1e-A includes two-, threeand four-wheel vehicles, i.e. also electric cargo bikes with more than two wheels.
L1e-B “mopeds” are defined as vehicles with a maximum design speed of more than
25 km/h but up to 45 km/h, and a maximum continuous rated power of in between
1000 watts and 4000 watts. As a result of this categorisation, a pedelec withmaximum speed of 25 km/h and with 750 watts power for instance will come underL1e-A, an e-bike 25 km/h with 500 watts as well, whilst a pedelec up to 45 km/h
with 1000 watts will come under L1e-B. A vehicle that combines pedal assistancewith open throttle will come under L1e-A. Technically, this legislation, does not allow
for e-bikes above 25 km/h.

23

The power limits are based on maximum continuous rated power for electric propelledvehicles and maximum net power for vehicles propelled with a combustion engine. The weightof a vehicle is considered equal to its mass in running order.

37

In the past, EU directives have sometimes been harmonized with United Nations
regulations. For example, in 2006, the EU repealed a number of its Directives
regarding vehicle regulation and replaced them with the corresponding UN
Regulations annexed to the United Nations 1958 Agreement, which concerns the
adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts
which can be fitted to and/or used on wheeled vehicles. This reduced theadministrative burden of the type-approval process, as vehicle manufacturers wereallowed to seek type approval, where appropriate, directly by means of obtaining
approval under the relevant UN Regulations.
It is possible that EU Regulation 168/2013 could also be harmonized with UN
Regulations. This could be a first step in harmonizing regulations and developing
common definitions for electric bikes. Once a clear cut difference between electricbicycles and mopeds is drawn, legislators will find it easier to make laws describing
the proper use of helmets.

6.4. Encouraging safe cycling
If legislation mandates helmet use for electric bikes, it should fulfil a minimum set ofsafety requirements in type and design. However, e-bike riders can easily be put off
if they are required to wear the same type of bulky helmet as when riding a mopedor a motorcycle. Riders of electric bikes are engaged physically and thus sweating,making an aerated helmet more important for them. It is also necessary for thehelmet to be lightweight without compromising on safety. Electric bikes are becoming
particularly popular in emerging economies, which often have a tropical climate. How
can helmet-wearing be encouraged in these countries, where wearing a heavy helmet
is uncomfortable and inconvenient?
The United Nations Regulation No. 22 does not prevent a design oriented solution
tailored for e-bike riders. Dr. Ing Pierre Castaing, Head of Regulatory Affairs Service
at the Center for Automotive Research and Testing (CERAM), which is a part of theUnion Technique de l’Automobile du motocycle et du Cycle (Technical Union for theAutomobile, Motorcycle and Cycle Industries - UTAC) and member of the Frenchdelegation to ITC WP.29 Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP), has been involvedin the design and type approval of helmets for more than thirty years. According tohim:"The lack of a broad range of light and aerated helmets available toconsumers is not a regulatory issue but rather a marketing issue. UN
Regulation No. 22 does not prevent the design of these kinds ofhelmets, as it is technologically neutral. New materials and newtechnologies could allow the construction of extremely light, strong anddurable helmets that correspond to the highest test standards. In the
future, I will not exclude that the market will provide jet helmets,
aerated or not, with shock absorbing composite multi-layer materials
includingplasticorpaperhoneycombs

designed

for

the

most

demanding use on motorbikes or mopeds and all them type approved
according to the most stringent test requirements that is UN Regulation
No. 22."38

In other words, encouraging safe cycling and helmet use does not happen only
through legislation, but also through marketing. Having unified prescriptions, such as
those in UN Regulation 22, would allow easy mass production of helmets that areboth safe and comfortable in use irrespective of climate. Mass production would also
lower the price of helmets and make them affordable for everyone.
As a matter of fact, most recently a helmet manufacturer received typeapproval according to UN regulation No. 22 of its helmet weighing 850
grams (just twice the weight of bicycle helmets) and equipped with six
aeration vents. This exceptionally well aerated helmet is suitable for use
in very warm and humid climates. Although the helmet is typeapproved for motorcycles, it was is also adequate for e-bike andpedelec riders, exactly because of its light weight and its ventilation
capabilities, which make it comfortable for the rider even while peddlingand riding at lower speeds.
Figure 13
Pedelec riders with safety equipment

397. Conclusions and recommendations
7.1. Conclusions
This study estimates that 3.4 million deaths may be caused by motorcycle crashes
during the period 2008-2020. Some 1.4 million of these could be prevented by theproper use of safety helmets. Substantial benefits could therefore be derived from
implementing and enforcing helmet-wearing legislation. Introducing a helmetwearing policy will not only markedly improve the safety of motorcycle riders but will
set the foundations for good national legislation with respect to vehicle safety andenvironmental performance.
Helmet regulations have been developed to test the performance of protective
helmets in case of an impact, in terms of their ability to:Reduce skull deceleration;



Absorb the shock of the impact;Prevent direct contact between the skull and the striking object;

Stay in place on the rider’s head.

These performance requirements are used to introduce national or international
certification and therefore they are an excellent basis for enforcement activities.
In low and lower-middle income countries motorcycles are often the first or only formof motorised transport. As income increases, the number of motorcycles in circulation
also increases. With more motorcycles on the road, the risk of deaths and injuries
rises. Wearing motorcycle helmets can save 42 per cent of lives and avoid 69 percent of injuries to riders.
Different national regulations create different levels of protection, as well as barriers
to trade. Harmonised regulation provides for a high level of protection and allows
manufacturers to benefit from economies of scale and, as a result, more riders canbenefit from the new technologies developed. This is why UN Regulation No. 22 wasestablished in 1972 and has subsequently been adapted to reflect the technicalprogress made in research and new materials and designs. The Regulation has been
conceived so that the different progressive adaptions form the rungs of a “ladder ofprotection”, from which countries may choose the level that best suits their purposes.
The UN type approval system is based on the testing of product types, “mutual
recognition” of the approvals, i.e. “approved once and sold everywhere”, andmaintaining conformity of production to the type tested. Countries involved in the UN
system can therefore rely on each other for support in the creation and maintenanceof their national legislation.
For an active motorcycle helmet policy, experience has shown that a combination of
persuasion/voluntary measures, followed by compulsory requirements produces goodresults. The persuasive arguments provide understanding and acceptance and act as
the justification for taking compulsory measures against those who remain resistantto helmet use.
Affordability is a serious problem especially in low income countries. A helmet
meeting any level of The UN Regulation No. 22 will provide a good level ofprotection; but can be costly in such countries. In addition, the acceptability of evenopen-face helmets may not be great. Alternatives for reducing the cost of thehelmets include government subsidy, motorcycle industry sponsorship or accession
to the 1958 Agreement; all of which should be considered.
It is estimated that 1 to 3 per cent of all motorcycle fatalities worldwide are children.
Children do not have the same resistance as adults to the trauma of a crash. Existinghelmet regulation might have the potential to be improved with regard to testingchild helmets and, therefore, focused research is needed in order to find the40appropriate criteria for this vulnerable group. For the time being production andavailability of protective helmets for children type approved according to UN
Regulation No. 22 should be increased and made affordable on mass scale.
Finally, electric (pedal-assisted) bike markets are experiencing strong growth
worldwide. Persistent strong growth of this vehicle market segment has the potential
to play an important role in efforts aiming at reducing urban traffic congestions andimproving air quality in cities. Developing a safe helmet for riders stands as theprimary goal of manufacturers and policy makers. However, throughout the world
numerous different standards are used to locally define power and speed thresholds
as well as legal names for the vehicles generically called electric or pedal assisted
bikes. As a result, in some countries moped helmet wearing policies apply to e-bikes
while in others bicycle helmet wearing regulations (or lack thereof) apply.
International harmonization of standards to clearly draw the line between bicycles
and mopeds would facilitate developing clear national laws governing e-bike helmet
standards and their road use in general.

7.2. Recommendations for further action and low-hanging fruits
The recommendations arising from this report are:(a)

It is of paramount importance to take measures to increase public awareness ofthe crucial safety benefits of wearing type-approved helmets while riding
motorcycles - by conveying the right messages directly to the beneficiaries
and/or through the media.

(b)Powered two-wheelers are in many developing countries the only economically
viable alternative for personal and family mobility. Measures to improve theavailability, quality and safety of public transport in these countries cancontribute to slow the very dynamic growth in their motorcycle fleets. Suchmeasures will in turn contribute to improving their currently deteriorating roadsafety records.

(c)Special attention needs to be dedicated to the most vulnerable populationgroup in terms of motorcycle safety, namely children, and towards setting andenforcing age thresholds for their transport on motorcycles, while always
maintaining the requirement of appropriate additional measures that contributeto their safe transport on the vehicles, such as child seats and helmets.

(d)

Politicians should be made aware of the benefits of children wearing appropriate
helmets. The policy agenda on road safety should address the protection ofchildren transported on motorcycles to a greater extent. The production ofhelmets for children type-approved in accordance with UN Regulation No. 22 ispossible. Steps should be taken to make helmets for children affordable forboth manufacturers and consumers.

(e)

All countries that do not have a helmet-wearing policy should introduce one.
The steps to follow are outlined in section 2: Introducing helmet-wearing
policies.

(f)Countries may consider acceding to the 1958 UN Agreement. A procedure tofollow is outlined in section 3.6 and in Annex I. More information is available in
the publication, “World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29)– How It Works, How to Join It”.

(g)

Countries may also consider applying UN Regulation No. 22 on helmets, in its
current or one of the former versions, as described in section 3.5 and Annex I.
Once the regulation No. 22 is applied, countries should ensure that the helmets
used in the country comply with it.

41

(h)

Helmets should be made more affordable in low income and low-middle income
countries. Here are four possible avenues to explore, described more
extensively in section 2.2:
1.

Introduce a government subsidy programme, perhaps initially for children
only;

2.

Include a helmet in the sale of the vehicle;

3.

Reduce the requirements the helmet has to meet through using an earlier
version of UN Regulation No. 22;

4.

Create conditions for the mass production of helmets.

(i)Efforts to internationally harmonize electric (pedal assisted) bike standards
would be an important step towards application of appropriate national
legislation and the development of helmets that are suitable for conditions
experienced by e-bike riders and dangers they are exposed to.

(j)

From a broader perspective, it is essential to initiate a more general transport
policy debate, one that will lead to internationally harmonized traffic rules andnew approaches towards infrastructure development that take into account thegrowing use of e-bikes.

(k)National statistical data on motorcycles in use, accidents involving motorcycles,
and deaths and injuries related to motorcycles, needs to be improved, so thatpolicies can be developed on the basis of solid knowledge. Annex II provides
some examples of how such statistical work could be carried out.

42

References
Ackaah., et al Road Traffic Injuries Research Network Multicenter Study 2013;
Arbogast, K.B., S.S. Margulies, M. Patlak, H. Fenner and D.J.Thomas (2003). Review ofpediatric head and neck injury: implications for helmet standards. Philadelphia, The
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia;
Avenoso, A. and J. Beckmann (2005). The Safety of Vulnerable Road Users in theSouthern, Eastern and Central European Countries (The “SEC Belt”), European Transport
SecurityCouncil.
Availablefrom:
http://archive.etsc.eu/documents/The%20Safety%20of%20Vulnerable%20Road%20Us
ers%20in%20the%20Southern,%20Eastern%20and%20Central%20European%20Coun
tries%20(The%20SEC%20Belt).pdf
Azhar, H., A. Yahaya and S.V. Wong (2010). Child Helmet Efficacy for Motorcycle Use in
Malaysia, MRev 04/2009, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research;Berg, N. (2014). If an Electric Bike Is Ever Going to Hit It Big in the U.S., It's This One,
29 July. Available from: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/07/if-an-electric-bikeis-ever-going-to-hit-it-big-in-the-us-its-this-one/375167/
Dahdah, S., and McMahon, K., (2008). The True Cost of Road Crashes: Valuing life andthe cost of a serious injury. International Road Assessment Programme, United
Kingdom;
European Commission (2001). , COST 327 Study, Motorcycle safety helmets (accident
andinjurystudy).
Final
Reportavailablefrom:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/publications/cost327_final_report.pdf
European Commission (2013). Commission Staff Working Document: On the
Implementation of Objective 6 of the European Commission’s Policy Orientations on
Road Safety 2011 - 2020 – First Milestone Towards an Injury Strategy. Available from:http://ec.europa.eu/archives/commission_20102014/kallas/headlines/news/2013/03/doc/swd%282013%2994.pdf
European Parliament and Council (2013). Regulation No. 168/2013 on the approval andmarket surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. Available fromhttp://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:060:0052:0128:EN:PDF
European Commission (2015). Road safety in the European Union. Trends, statistics andmain challenges, March 2015. Available from:http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/vademecum_2015.pdf
Ford, D. (2005). Blowing the lid off, The future of helmets. Where do we go from here?
Available from: www.motorcyclistonline.com
Hendrie, D., T.R. Miller, M. Orlando, R.S. Spicer, C. Taft, R. Consunji and E. Zaloshnja(2004). Child and family safety device affordability by country income level: an 18
country comparison, Injury Prevention, vol 10, pp. 338–343. Available from:http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/6/338.full.pdf+html
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (1991). Helmet Laws: Whose Freedom? –video.
Highway Loss Data Institute. Available from: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/videos
Jamerson, Frank E., Ed Benjamin (2013). Electric Bikes Worldwide Reports, Eleventh
Edition43

Liu, B.C., R. Ivers, R. Norton, S. Boufous, S. Blows and S.K. Lo (2008). Helmets forpreventing injury in motorcycle riders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,
Issue 1.
MacLeod, J. B. A., DiGiacomo, J.C., Tinkoff, G (2010). Helmet Efficacy to Reduce Head
Injury and Mortality in Motorcycle Crashes. Eastern Association for the Surgery ofTrauma. J Trauma. 69(5):1101-1111, Nov 2010.
Miller, T.R., D.T. Levy (1998). Reducing highway crash costs: the cost-outcome analyses
in H. von Holst, A. Nygren, A. Andersson, eds., Transportation, traffic safety, and health:
man and machine. Second International Conference, 1996 (Brussels, Belgium:
Karolinska Institute, Royal Institute of Technology, WHO Collaborating Center for
Neurotrauma, Institute for Futures Studies, Volvo, 1998:171–98).
Mohan, D. (2009). Safety of Children as Motorcycle Passengers. Transportation Researchand Injury Prevention Programme, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, United States Department of Transport(2004). Motorcycle Helmet Effectiveness Revisited. Available from: wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809715.PDF
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, United States Department of Transport(2015).
Traffic
safetyfacts:
Motorcycles.
Availablefrom
http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812148.pdf
Nellhaus, G. (1968). Head circumference from birth to eighteen years: Practical
Composite International and Interracial Graphs, Pediatrics, Vol 41.
Sharp – The helmet safety scheme. Available from http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/home
Smith, T.A., J.W. Zellner (2008). Comparison of motorcycle helmet standards inSoutheast Asia, DRI, Dynamic Research, Inc.
Stephens, T. (2013). Mandatory bike helmet advocates face uphill battle, 6 September.
Available from http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/mandatory-bike-helmet-advocates-faceuphill-battle/36825800.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2012). World Forum for Harmonizationof Vehicle Regulations: How it works, how to join it?, 3rd Edition. New York and Geneva.
Available from:http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29pub.html
United Nations, Universal Declaration
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

of

Human

Rights.

Available

fromWorld Health Organization (2009). Global status report on road safety: time for action.
Geneva. Available from:www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2009.
World Health Organization (2006). Helmets: a road safety manual for decision-makers
and practitioners. Geneva.
Yoganandan N., et al eds. (1998). Frontiers in head and neck trauma, clinical andbiomechanical, IOS Press, OHMSHA.

44

AnnexesI.

The procedures for joining the 1958 Agreement
and implementing UN Regulation No. 22

II.

Statistics explained

III. European Union andL category vehicles

UNECE

definitionsof45

Annex I:

The procedures for joining the 1958 Agreement andimplementing UN Regulation No. 22

The 1958 Agreement is one of the three agreements administered by the World
Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29), serviced by the UNECE
Sustainable Transport Division. The 1958 Agreement provides the legal andadministrative framework for establishing international UN Regulations (annexed to
the Agreement) with uniform performance oriented test provisions and administrative
procedures for granting type approvals. The Regulations also cover the conformity of
production and the mutual recognition of the type approvals granted by Contracting
Parties.
All UN countries can join WP.29 and become Contracting Parties to the UN 1958
Agreement. Contracting Parties can apply the UN Regulations at the national leveland propose amendments by participating in the discussions. Through thediscussions countries have the opportunity to have their local needs reflected inrequirements of the international Regulation.
UN Regulation No. 22 on helmets is only one of current the 135 UN Regulations
annexed to the 1958 Agreement. The regulation is supervised and updated by theWorking Party for Passive Safety (GRSP), which is one of the subsidiary Working
Parties to WP.29.24
Harmonized regulations allow the benefits of economies of scale and the resulting
spread of new technologies to accrue to a greater number of riders. UN Regulation
No. 22 was adopted in response to the need to harmonize different national technicalprovisions on helmet design and testing. Since its adoption in 1972, UN Regulation
No. 22 has been updated to reflect new scientific developments.

The original version UN Regulation No. 22
The original version of UN Regulation No. 22 (from 1972) contained the following
requirements:
General requirements:
These addressed the coverage of the head and ensured an adequate field ofvision and adequate hearing, provided for the possibility of ventilation holes,
minimized projections (which may get caught when the helmet slides over a
surface and thus increase the rate of rotation), and ensured the durability ofmaterials. The requirements also stipulated a maximum mass of 1 kg.

Helmet mass:
On the one hand, the greater the mass of the helmet, the quicker the rider will
tire. The additional mass might also stress the neck in a crash. On the other
hand, adding more material, such as in the helmet liner, could provide better
protection. Modern helmets range in mass from 1.35 kg to 2.05 kg, with anaverage of 1.66 kg.

Conditioning procedures:
These included cold, heat and moisture treatments, which replicated typicalconditions of use.



A shock absorption test:
This was the most important test replicating an impact to the head in a crash.
The principle was that the load transmitted to the head shall not exceed a limitthat is considered safe.

24

Other Working Parties include: Working Party on Noise (GRB), Working Party on Pollution
and Energy (GRPE), Working Party on Lighting and Light Signalling (GRE), Working Party on
Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF), and Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG).

47

A penetration test:
In the beginning of standard helmet development, it was assumed that there
was a risk of the helmet being penetrated by an object or projection during acrash. Subsequent accident investigations showed that this kind of penetration
rarely happens and the test was dropped from UN Regulation No. 22.

A rigidity test of the helmet when compressed longitudinally and then laterally,
and a test for chinstrap deformation:
A helmet is not sufficiently protective if it is not properly secured on the rider’shead; an obvious reality but one that is apparently not understood by manyriders. A comprehensive study of motorcycle crashes across Europe showedthat around 12 per cent of helmets fell off during the course of an impact(European Union, 2001). Wearing a helmet that fits correctly dramaticallyincreases the chances of surviving a crash. The shape of the human head issuch that it is quite easy to remove a helmet by pulling upwards on the back.
Though, it was a common opinion that the chinstrap should fasten tightly,
presently it is understood that helmet loss is a more complex issue and notnecessarily limited to the setting of the chinstrap (which, incidentally, should
not be fastened tightly). Compatibility of head shape with the internal shape ofthe helmet is paramount. Premium manufacturers produce different liner
shapes for different markets which reflect the varying physiology of theconsumers in the various markets (Asia – North America – Europe).

A test for chinstrap tearing:
Clearly, if the strap tears and no longer holds the helmet in place, advantages
are completely lost.

Tests for peak flexibility and non-flammability:
In 1972, there were many helmets with peaks, fitted to protect the face fromrain and the eyes from sunlight (full-face helmets were comparatively rare).
The concern was that in the event of a crash, the peak might collapse andinjure the face, hence the flexibility test. Both tests were later dropped from theRegulation.

Size of head forms:
The head forms on which the helmets were mounted ranged from 50 cm to 64
cm in circumference, thereby covering most common head sizes.

The technical development of UN Regulation No. 22
In early versions of the regulation, there were elements for which a suitable test
procedure was not yet developed. Therefore, the evaluations were made byinspection. This was the case in the “general requirements” section mentioned above.
This approach has the disadvantage of being subjective and open to different
interpretations. As a result, test procedures were developed and added to theregulation. For example, the potential for the helmet to create rotation of the head
when in contact with another surface, such as the road, is now tested because thedangers of rotational accelerations to the brain are better understood. Rotational
acceleration of the brain destroys the tiny ligaments that hold the brain in place
within the skull, increasing the risk of severe brain damage.
Similarly, testing methods have been developed over time, becoming more precise
and more stringent. It has partly been driven by the need to obtain repeatable
results, particularly in different test centres, partly reflecting an improved
understanding of crash dynamics and the biomechanics of impacts and injuries, andpartly reflecting the improvement of real tests. Thus, for example, modern impact
tests include letting the helmet fall onto the anvil rather than having a striker hit thestationary helmet. The chinstrap deformation test is now also dynamic, with a mass
being dropped to pull suddenly on the chinstrap. Results from tests and research are
crucial in the evolution of the safety of helmets.

48

Major developments in helmet design have necessitated new methods of testing. For
example, there are now full-faced helmets with integrated visors and chin-guards.
The visor offers protection, but at the same time allows the driver full visibility. These
helmets have also been associated with the introduction of new methods of fastening
the chinstrap, e.g. by means of a device similar to those used in car seatbelts. The
impact absorption test introduced by the 02 series of amendments (April 1983) is afree fall test with a metal head form (with a three-directional accelerometer) thatchecks the helmet performance even during lateral impacts. This type of test can beadministered and successfully passed by a full face or open face helmet type.

The most recent version of UN Regulation No. 22
All of the above described factors have led to considerable amendments to theoriginal version of UN Regulation No. 22 over the last 40 years. Today, Regulation
No. 22 is considered the most comprehensive regulation on protective helmets in theworld.
The general requirements include:

Requirements on the basic structure, visors, peaks and the need to identify
non-protective chinstraps;

Much more detailed requirements concerning the extent of the helmet’s head
coverage;

The same requirements for hearing and ventilation;



The introduction of shear testing for irregularities of over 2 mm in height,
requirements to smooth projections, and controls on the interior surface of thehelmet shell (i.e. no projections);For chinstraps there are requirements regarding protection from abrasion, theminimum width of the chinstrap, adjustment devices, positioning of thefastening/tensioning devices, and latching and release of fastening systems.
The requirements also ban chin cups;The extent of peripheral vision, which should be tested by a field of vision test;

Requirements for material durability;

General specifications for the visor, e.g. removability, specifications for devices
for lifting the visor out of the line of sight with one hand;Provisions foramendments).

childhelmets(introduced

in

1983

with

02

seriesofSpecific tests for the helmet have been updated and new tests added as follows:Conditioning procedures have been extended to include ultraviolet conditioning
and solvent conditioning (for hydrocarbons, cleaning fluids, paints, transfers orother extraneous additions that may affect the shell material);

The impact-absorption test is based on the measurement of the deceleration ofa head. The Head Injury Criterion (HIC) is calculated for five specific test points(including the protective chinstrap) using a guided free fall helmet drop test;

The new test for surface friction measures the rotation-inducing forces createdby projections, e.g. visor fittings, studs, etc., and friction with other surfaces;

The rigidity test remains the same;The new dynamic test of the retention system assesses the displacement of theretention system under a dynamic and then, over time, a static load;

The new retention (detaching) test checks whether the helmet is likely to “roll”
forward and off the head if struck from behind;49The new test for the micro-slip of the chinstrap checks how much slip occurs
when the strap and fastening are placed under variable loads (as when wearing
the helmet);



The tear test of the strap has been replaced by an abrasion test in which after
an abrading procedure the strap is tested under tension;

For the new quick-release mechanisms, tests are performed for accidental
operation, ease of release, and durability.

With the introduction of visors, a new series of tests was developed:

Prior to any other tests a general ultraviolet conditioning test should be
performed;



The mechanical impact test checks for sharp splinters after impact;Light transmission through the visor is tested and there are specifications fortinted visors that may only be used in daytime;Light diffusion, i.e. the scatter of light towards the eye, is checked as arespectral transmittance and refractive powers;

The scratch resistance test measures the light diffusion after the surface has
been abraded, e.g. the “starring effect” from headlamps;



Recognition of signal lights (not necessary if the transmittance value is veryhigh);



Mist retardant properties, if the visor has been so treated, are measured by the
degree of light transmission lost due to misting. (Misting has always been aphenomenon with full-face helmets, which is why these kinds of coatings areused and why it must be easy to lift the visor out of the field of vision.).

To ensure easy availability of the following information to the helmet user, UN
Regulation No. 22 requires the helmets to be labelled with:The size and maximum mass;



Information on the proper attachment and fitting of the helmet;A reminder to replace the helmet after a violent impact;A warning against using of a helmet coming into contact with petrol, paints andsolvents;



The types of visors approved for use with the helmet.

Non-protective chinstraps must be marked, thus indicating that they have not beentested or have failed to meet the requirements.
Visors have to be labelled with the type of helmet to which they can be fitted andthey shall be accompanied by information on cleaning, use at night and in poor
visibility, and any mist retardant properties.

50

The helmet shall carry the type approval mark (see the image below). This markshows which type approval authority granted the helmet type, the status of theRegulation when it was approved (in the first two digits of the approval number),subtypes and a serial number. The approval mark provides immediate evidence thatthe helmet has been type approved.
E = ECE Reg. No. 22; 2 = certified by French
Authority;
051018 = ECE Reg. No. 22 05 series ofstringency, with Approval Number 1018 issued in
France;P = “Protective”, i.e. chin bar tested
approved as a protective full-face helmet;

andJ – Although not visible in this example, would
for instance signify “Jet” style open faceapproval;
320678 = Batch Test control number – identifies
the production batch for which test results areavailable.

Administering UN Regulation No. 22
UN Regulation No. 22 has been developed by the inter-governmental World Forum on
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29), which is advised by industry,
consumers and experts. UN Regulations aim at harmonizing existing requirements tomatch the stringency level of the participating country that has the highest level ofstringency in its national regulation.
Each new package of changes known as a “series of amendments” has added to thestringency of the UN Regulation. Although the existing version of the Regulation is
the most stringent, other versions are also available. Any country, even if not a
Contracting Party to the 1958 Agreement, can adopt on its national basis the most
updated or, if the cost of meeting the most recent requirements is too high, any
former, less stringent, versions of the Regulation. However, if a Contracting Party to
the 1958 Agreement does so its type approval will not be recognized by the other
Contracting Parties to the Agreement.
A future revision of the 1958 Agreement would allow recognition of type approval ofContracting Parties applying a previous version of UN Regulations. Thus the country
can step onto the most suitable rung of the “ladder” and then advance upwards tomore stringent levels of helmet requirements as their national conditions progress.
Countries that do so, and, at the same time, accept all helmets that meet more
recent versions of the Regulation, set a suitable minimum for their national
legislation and still enjoy the benefit of having type-approved, more advanced
technologies enter their market.

The procedures for implementing UN Regulation No. 22
Once a Regulation has been published a country may use it to develop its nationalrules. The country can use the text as a basis for a national regulation, with nofurther obligation, but in this case the advantages of mutual recognition andinternational type approval are not available to the country. Therefore, any testing
associated with the regulation would have to be carried out at the national level.
In a variation of the first option, a country may apply the text of the UN Regulation
and also accept type approval certificates from other countries that are Contracting
Parties to the UN Regulation in question. This reduces the need for the country tohave their own test facilities and manufacturers benefit from a reduced test burden.

51

A country that has become a Contracting Party to the Agreement and has signed aparticular Regulation shall accept approvals based on that UN Regulation granted byother Contracting Parties. As a final step, the Contracting Party that applies theRegulation may also issue approvals.
The main advantage of all these methods of applying a UN Regulation is that thesame provisions are used in different Contracting Parties regulatory environments.
This facilitates trade and ensures the spread of the most advanced technicalrequirements. An additional advantage of entering the system is that the country
benefits from mutual recognition, from being able to issue type approvals and, moregenerally, from being part of the decision-making process in WP.29.
A Contracting Party may decide to apply UN Regulation No. 22 but not to issue typeapprovals (usually because the necessary testing facilities do not exist in its
territory). In this case, the Contracting Party is obliged to accept the type approvals
or compliance tests issued by another Contracting Party for those UN Regulations.
Once a Contracting Party has applied a UN Regulation, it may grant type approvals
for motor vehicle equipment and parts (including protective helmets) covered by that
Regulation. To be able to grant type approvals, the Contracting Party must have thenecessary technical competence to do so, and to ensure the conformity of
production. This is both a matter of having the necessary administrative structuresand having access to technical testing capabilities, as Contracting Parties may use
technical services situated in another country.
If unable to accede to the 1958 Agreement, countries should consider basing national
legislation on UN Regulation No. 22 or on one of its earlier versions so that the levelof protection for motorcycle riders can be improved over time.
In using UN Regulation No. 22, two options could be considered:
Option 1: Adopt on a national basis at least the 02 series of amendments to UN
Regulation No. 22 dating from April 1983. The impact absorption test introduced bythis series of amendments calls for a free-fall test with a metal head form (with a tridirectional accelerometer) that evaluates the helmets’ performance even in lateralimpacts. This type of test can be conducted on a full-face or open-face style helmetthat is made of energy absorbing material and has an outer shell made of plastic,
such as polystyrene. According to the modern concept of motorcycle helmets, thistype of protective helmet could significantly reduce the risk and severity of a head
injury in a road crash.
Option 2: Phased approach — rungs of a “ladder of protection”. It is suggested thatcountries adopt on a national basis the full text of the original version of theRegulation, including the 02 series of amendments as an intermediate step on thepath to reach the 05 series of amendments. This would encourage countries to strive
for the highest level of stringency of the Regulation. They may also decide to accede
to the 1958 Agreement.

52

How to join and implement the UN 1958 Agreement
This section explains the procedure of acceding to the UN 1958 Agreement. A fully
detailed description of the work of the World Forum and how countries can become
participants is contained in the publication, “World Forum for Harmonization of
Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) – How It Works, How to Join It”.
As mentioned earlier, the 1958 Agreement is open to all United Nations Member
States and regional economic integration organizations. The meetings of the World
Forum are public and open to representatives of any UN Member State.
Representatives may be full members or observers. Many non-ECE States are
already Contracting Parties. To become a Contracting Party, States have to deposit
an instrument of accession with the United Nations Secretary-General. There is no
fee to accede the Agreement. The texts of all the 135 UN Regulations annexed to the1958 Agreement are publicly available and therefore part of it; they are consideredinternational law.
The official procedure for joining the World Forum is to send a letter signed by theauthorized official notifying the secretariat of WP.29 of the desire to send
representative(s) to the meetings and to participate in the activities of WP.29.25
If a country wishes to become a Contracting Party to an Agreement administered by
WP.29, its consent to be bound by that agreement shall be in accordance with theprovisions of that Agreement. Those provisions include signature, and notifications ofratification and acceptance.
Once a country has become a Contracting Party to the UN 1958 Agreement it may
vote on new Regulations, but not on amendments to existing UN Regulations if it
does not apply those Regulation. Contracting Parties are free to apply all, some ornone of the UN Regulations. When a Contracting Party notifies the appropriate bodythat it is applying a UN Regulation it may vote on an amendment to that UN
Regulation. When applying a UN Regulation the Contracting Party also needs toaccept the type approval granted by other Contracting Parties according to that UN
Regulation.
A Contracting Party may decide to apply Regulations but not to issue type approvals(e.g. because the necessary administrative and technical capacities do not exist in
their territory). At this stage, the Contracting Party is obliged to accept the typeapprovals issued by another Contracting Party for those particular UN Regulations.
Once a Contracting Party applies a UN Regulation, it may grant type approvals formotor vehicle equipment and parts covered by that Regulation. To be able to granttype approvals, the Contracting Party must have the necessary technical competence
and be able to ensure conformity of production. This depends on the existence ofnecessary administrative structures in the country and access to technical testing
capabilities.

The type approval system
The UN type approval system is the basis of the 1958 UN Agreement. Contracting
Parties apply the harmonized requirements of the UN regulations to test producttypes of vehicles and their equipment and parts before they enter the market.
Under the 1958 UN Agreement, all the countries signatories of a Regulation arecommitted to accept all products covered by an approval certificate according to that
UN Regulation. This “mutual recognition” of the approvals is a basic requirement, onethat enables the free trade of approved products, i.e. “approved once and soldeverywhere”, in all acceding countries.

25

The letter should be addressed to The Director, Sustainable Transport Division, UN
Economic Commission for Europe, 8-14, Avenue de la Paix, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland.

53

Mutual recognition has several important advantages for both governments andindustry. For the industry, it means that only one approval process and one set of
expenses is required. Both governments and industry benefit from the freedom of
trade that mutual recognition brings and consumers benefit from new technologies
that are available at a low price.
Mutual recognition enables countries to benefit from the Regulation without having to
set up expensive test facilities. This is particularly a benefit for low income countries.
Whether Contracting Parties of the 1958 Agreement or not, they may ask technicalservices accredited with other Contracting Parties to perform tests on their behalf. This
would avoid the need to set up specific test laboratories and premises. Similarly, theprovisions in the 1958 Agreement on the conformity of production ensure that thequality of the products remain at a similar level to that of the type approved prototype.
Based on the described facts and procedures, it is clear that broad participation in
and application of the UNECE agreements, UN Regulation No. 22 in particular, would
strengthen the development of national legislation for helmets.

Creation of technical services and conformity of production proceduresOnce a country is a Contracting Party to the 1958 Agreement, it should establish thenecessary administrative structures to follow the work of the World Forum. When theContracting Party applies UN Regulations, it needs to designate a competentauthority to establish a type approval authority (T.A.A.) and to deal with thecommunication forms for approvals given by other Contracting Parties. Information
provided by the communication forms are the basis for controlling products in theContracting Party’s home market.
When the Contracting Party starts issuing type approvals, it will need to expand thecapacity of the administrative unit dealing with regulatory documents, so that it canreceive and issue all the documentation required for administering the approval
process and granting type approvals. To carry out approval testing, a competent test
facility or technical service has to be designated. Setting up a technical service may
sometimes require huge investments and complex certification or accreditation
procedures. For example, for noise measurement, the tests need to be performed ona test track meeting ISO 10844: 201426 and for emissions testing a chassis
dynamometer with appropriate gas collection and equipment for analysis is needed.
The technical services designated to carry out the regulatory tests may, or may not,be part of a government department. A number of countries have designatedagencies, sometimes from outside the country itself, to conduct the actual tests.
Once the test report has been prepared by the technical services, it is submitted tothe type approval authority, that in turn verifies the test report and, in case all
requirements and especially the limit values are fulfilled, issues the approval
certificate and number.
Once approvals have been issued, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer and of
the type approval authority to organize, if necessary, periodical controls of theconformity of production with the help of its technical services. Similarly, should aquery on the validity of an approval be raised at national level the type approvalauthority that issued the approval is responsible for initiating the appropriate tests ofconformity. In the event that the Contracting Party finds the suspicions correct, it will
initiate corrective actions or withdraw the approval until it is satisfied that necessary
measures have been taken to restore conformity of production. Accordingly, allContracting Parties applying that Regulation are informed about the withdrawal of a
type approval.

26

The International Organization for Standardisation (ISO) develops and publishesinternational standards. ISO Standard 10844:2014 gives specifications for test tracks formeasuring noise emitted by road vehicles and their tyres.

54

Annex II: Statistics explained
1.

Introduction

The statistics used in this report are not intended to give a representative picture ofwhat has happened, nor a fool-proof prediction of what might happen in the future.
Firstly, the data are not representative (i.e. randomly sampled) and so not adequate
for such work; and secondly, the transport needs and culture in each country are
different. What happens in one group of countries may not repeat itself in another.
That being said, the intention here is to provide a general view of the past andpossible future trends, and a methodology that might be useful for countries seeking
to understand their local situation.

2.

Data

General data on population and Gross National Income (GNI) per capita is easily
available from the World Bank.
However, data on national motorcycles fleets or the accidents associated with thatfleet is not readily available online for all countries. The Eurostat database was used
to acquire information on motorcycle fleets in European countries, while data about
fleets in other countries was drawn from the International Road Federation World
Road Statistics 2014, supplemented and validated through national vehicle fleet
registries.
The UNECE database provides data on the number of motorcycles in use and thenumber of accidents leading to fatalities or injury for countries in the region. These
countries include the 56 countries of Europe and Central Asia, plus Canada, Israel
and the United States of America. In terms of data availability, these countries arewell covered, but even so there are gaps and mistakes in the data series. For
example one country had over 6 million motorcycles in circulation in years A and C,
but in year B the number fell to a few hundred thousand; once the 6 million wasadded to this figure, year B fit perfectly into the trend. In some years, othercountries known to have excellent statistics, have not submitted them to the UNECE.
Data for other countries have to be researched on a country by country basis, andfew have complete data series that are easily available, e.g. on the internet. For
these countries, therefore, one relies on research carried out by other authors. For
example, the Asian Development Bank issues country Road Safety Action Plans that
contain statistical information. Other more specific reports, for example on roadbuilding in Africa may also contain simple statistics required for the type of study inthis report. Often the data take the form of a gross total of, say, fatalities and thenlater in the report there is a percentage breakdown by road user type, thus making acalculation possible.
For analytical purposes the countries included in the database, compiled for the
purposes of this study, have been grouped according to the classification of
economies used by the World Bank. These are (at 1 July 2011):


Low income economies: those that had average incomes of 1,005 United States
dollars or less in 2010;

Lower-middle income economies: with an average income of 1,006 US dollars
to 3,975 US dollars;

Upper-middle income economies: with average incomes of 3,976 US dollars to
US dollars 12,275;

High-income economies: with average incomes of 12,276 US dollars or more.

55

The countries included in the database and analysed in this report are those forwhich data sets exist for the main variables. In the two lowest groups, the data isheavily weighted by the size of the Indian, Vietnamese, Indonesian and Philippine
data. This is not necessarily a problem, as these countries represent typical low
income countries that have seen a rapid rise in the use of motorcycles as a cheap
form of transport. Where similar conditions (low income and great transport need)apply it would be reasonable to expect similar trends.
The countries used in the analysis are:

Low income countries (GNI per capita < US$ 1,005)oLow-middle income countries (US$ 1,006 < GNI per capita < US$ 3,975)

Upper-middle income countries (US$ 3,976 < GNI per capita < US $ 12,275)ooIndonesia, Moldova, the Philippines, Ukraine
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Macedonia (FYO),
Malaysia, Poland, the Russian Federation, Romania, Thailand, Turkey

High income countries (US$ 12,276 < GNI per capita)o3.

India, Kyrgyzstan, Uganda, Viet Nam

Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States of America.

Preparation of the data

The collected data that were available had gaps in the series. These were filled bysimple interpolation or by extrapolation, using the techniques available in Microsoft’s
Excel program. Where there were obvious mistakes, such as those referred to above,the data were corrected. Where the extrapolation produced obviously unrealistic
figures (e.g. negative fatalities) the last known figure was used to extend the series
into future years. As most curves increase, this is a conservative estimate of thosetrends.
Though these methods are not really statistical, it should be remembered thatwithout them it would not have been possible to conduct any trend analysis.
Furthermore, the data series concerned are general and, at least in the case of thevehicle fleet, slow to change. The intention is to provide a general indication oftrends, based on the categorization of countries used by the World Bank, andtherefore such methods will not significantly distort the findings. Should new andmore representative data become available, it would be simple enough to repeat theanalysis and update the prognostics.

4.

Analysis
4.1 General

The overall aim of this analysis is to predict the number of deaths and injuries
occurring to motorcycle riders if the current trends continue; and from there toestimate the number of fatalities and injuries that could be avoided by the use ofhelmets, as well as to estimate the benefit-cost ratios of avoiding fatalities andinjuries by wearing helmets.
This section argues that:

Deaths and injuries in motorcycle crashes can be substantially reduced by theuse of safety helmets;

The number of deaths and injuries is related to the number of motorcycles incirculation;

56

The number of motorcycles in circulation depends on the level of wealth in the
country.



The monetary benefits incurred as a result of helmet use outweigh the costs ofpurchasing helmets in all income category countries.

4.2 Establishing trends
The period 1993–2012 was used to generate trends due to availability of data. The
trends were based on the average values for each group of countries, calculated by
the actual number of positive scores per year; so if one country did not have data for
a given year, the number used to divide the total was reduced by one. The trends
were then used to extend the data series to 2020. Verifications were made by using
the trends on known data and by checking the feasibility of the prediction bycomparing the percentage growth for an equivalent period in previous years.

4.3 GNI/capita and the fleet of vehicles
The analysis expressed the figures for the fleet of vehicles as a function of GNI/capita
values. The resulting correlations had R2 values of 0.90 or more. It is thus,
reasonable to conclude that the fleet of motorcycles will rise as the average income
rises.

4.4 Prediction of fatalities and injuries
4.4.1

Fatalities

Based on the tables of the motorcycle fleet and the number of fatalities and injured,
four different methods were used to generate alternative estimates for each country.
These were then totalled, averaged and turned into indices for the purpose ofderiving trends. The key year – 2008 – is the year for which the WHO (2009)
provides authoritative figures for all countries.
Method 1 used the same period before and after 2008 to project the trend for deaths
1996 – 2008 up to the period 2008 – 2020. It, therefore, applies the past percentagechanges to the future. The background to this method provided a feasibility check on
the other methods; i.e. if figures for one group of countries had doubled in the first
period then it would not be unreasonable if the same happened in the second period.
Method 2 first calculated the ratio of killed per 1,000 motorcycles. Both the fleet of
motorcycles and the ratio were then extended by using the TREND function in Excel
to provide a forecast for both variables. The expected number of fatalities was thencalculated from these figures. The method uses simple trend analysis to predict the
future values for key variables so that they can be used for calculation.
Method 3 predicts the fleet values using the TREND function. The killed over fleet
regression equations for 1993 – 2009 were then used to calculate the potential future
number of killed, except for the high income countries where the TREND function wasused because of the obviously false results.

57

Figure 14

Examples of the fatalities over fleet regression equations formethods 3 and 4

LIC index 93-09
y = 0.2043x + 95.973
R² = 0.9656
250
200

killed

150
100
50

0
0

200

400

600

800

PTW parc

Method 4 is based on regression analysis. The future figures for the fleet of
motorcycles were the same as in Method 2. The fatality figures were expressed as afunction of the fleet for the years 1993 – 2008 and the regression equations were
calculated (in Method 3). The equations were then used to generate an estimate of
the number of fatalities, starting from the WHO 2008 figures. (Note: in the case of
the high income countries the regression equation gave very strange results (e.g.
negative deaths) and the trend for these countries was finally established using the
TREND function in Excel.) The predictions from these equations were then used togenerate an index, based on 2008.

4.4.2

Injuries

The data on injuries is very limited and often inaccurate, e.g. injuries figures are thesame as or even lower than fatalities, while reliable figures from some countries
show that injuries are usually far greater, as would be expected, rendering therefore
projections based on historical data quite unreliable. The number of severely injured
riders, where severe injuries are considered as category 3 or higher injuries on the
Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS 3+), were estimated according to theInternational Road Assessment Program (iRAP) ratio range of severe injuries tofatalities.
The MAIS27 is a globally accepted trauma scale used by medical professionals. It
provides an objective and reliable basis for data collection. The injury score isdetermined at the hospital with the help of a detailed classification key. The score
ranges from 1 to 6. Injuries classified ≥3 on the MAIS scale are the most serious
injuries, the types of injuries that cause significant long term damage andconsequences. The scale facilitates international comparison of injury rates. It has
been adopted and is used as a common injury classification and data reporting
system within European Union countries (EC 2013).

27

The UNECE acknowledges that the AIS (in all of its versions) is the property of the
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM), owner of the Copyright. The
so-called AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale) is mentioned in this UNECE study for information
purposes only.

58

5.

Predictions for killed and injured using the WHO 2008 figures as thestarting point

The results from all the methods were applied to the number of motorcycle riders
killed in 2008, as given in the WHO Report. From this, individual country predictions
were created, which were then totalled and averaged.
The intention was then that the lowest and highest changes in the index would betaken to identify the likely minimum and maximum trends for both killed and injured.
However, some of the results had changes that were below 1.00. Desirable though
this might be, when the high income country figures, i.e. the countries with the mostactive road safety measures, are taken into account, it is obvious that such low
figures are not realistic. Therefore, only values above 1.00 were included in theminimum and maximum choices.
The maximum and minimum values selected were used to create a range ofpredicted deaths and injuries in 2015 and 2020.
Table 6
Estimated range for total lives saved and injuries avoided, per country
income group(Thousands of fatalities or injuries)
Injuries fatalities

Estimated total lives lost andinjuries sustained

2008

2015
Min

Expected reduction of fatalities
and injuries in 2015 and 2020

2020

Max

2015

2020

Min

Max

Min
Max
Min
Max
Lives saved by helmet-wearing(42 per cent)Killed riders
LIC

53

68

174

78

260

28

73

33

109

LMIC

107

123

170

163

214

52

71

69

90

UMIC

16

19

68

30

106

8

29

12

44

HIC

15

18

21

18

21

7

9

8

9

Total

191

228

432

289

600

96

182

122

252

Serious injuries avoided byhelmet-wearing (69 per cent)Seriously injured riders
LIC

204

544

2,088

624

3,120

375

1,441

431

2,153

LMIC

928

984

2,040

1,304

2,568

679

1408

900

1,772

UMIC

41

152

816

240

1,272

105

563

166

878

HIC

460

144

252

144

252

99

174

99

174

Total

1,633

1,824

5,184

2,312

7,200

1,259

3,577

1,595

4,968

To generate an estimated figure for the number of lives that could be saved or
injuries avoided by wearing a helmet, the percentages given in Liu et al (2008) wereapplied to the minimum/maximum predicted number of killed and injured. (Liu’s
conclusion is that helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 69 per cent and death by
42 per cent.)

6.

Estimation of potential monetary savings as a result of motorcycle helmet
use and a benefit-cost analysis

Predictions obtained for the number of fatalities were used to estimate the potential
monetary savings of fatalities and serious injuries prevented by motorcycle helmet
use. The iRAP economic appraisal model (Dandah and McMahon 2008) and theembedded sensitivity analysis were used to estimate the range of those potential

59monetary savings within the four income categories assessed in this study. As statedabove, a serious injury is defined as a category 3 or higher injury based on the MAIS
scale.
In addition, International Monetary Fund (IMF) individual countries GDP projections(in current USD) for the years 2015 and 2020 were used to calculate the per cent of
GDP saved as a result of motorcycle helmet use, as described per individual income
group in section 3 of chapter 128.
Table 7
Estimated range of potential monetary savings resulting from avoided
fatalities and serious injuries, per country income group
Injuries
Estimated total lives lost and/fatalities severe injuries sustained(thousands) (thousands)
2008

2015
Min

Max

Potential monetary savings resulting
from helmet use (Billions of USD)

2020
Min

2015

Max

Min

Max

2020
Min

Max

Monetary benefit of lives saved
thanks to helmet-wearing(42 per cent)Killed riders
LIC

53

68

174

78

260

2.36

8.22

2.79

12.27

LMIC

107

123

170

163

214

9.11

16.58

12.08

21.01

UMI
C

16

19

68

30

106

4.68

22.62

7.02

34.32

HIC

15

18

21

18

21

17.70

30.35

20.23

30.35

Total

191

228

432

289

600

33.85

77.76

42.12

97.95

Seriously injured riders (MAIS3+)

Monetary benefit of serious injuries
avoided by helmet-wearing(69 per cent)

LIC

204

544

2,088

624

3,120

6.34

48.66

7.27

72.72

LMIC

928

984

2,040

1304

2,568

23.78

98.59

31.51

124.11

UMI
C

41

152

816

240

1,272

12.27

131.7319.37

205.35

HIC

460

144

252

144

252

50.26

175.9050.26

175.90

Total

1,633

1824

5,184

2312

7,200

92.65

454.90108.41578.08Grand Total

126.5

532.66150.53676.03

The results that were obtained were then used as inputs in the benefit-cost analysisof helmet use29 for all country income group categories in 2015. As a first step, total
projected aggregate USD monetary savings as a result injuries and fatalities
prevented by helmet wearing in 2015 in countries analysed – per income category –were inferred from the above analysis in order to have a basis for a sensitivity
analysis of benefit-cost ratios.

28

International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/download.aspx
29
All estimates consider a one helmet per motorcycle rate.

60

Table 8
Total monetary savings as a result of injuries and fatalities prevented byhelmet wearing in 2015 (billion USD)

LIC

Low
8.70

Medium
32.79

High
56.88

LMIC

32.88

74.03

115.17

UMIC

16.95

85.66

154.35HIC

67.96

137.11

206.25

A number of further inferences were made, as described below.
Table 9Total Number of Powered Two Wheelers in countries analysed – per income
category (million units)
TOTAL PTW
2015

LIC

LMIC

UMIC

HIC

174.6

95.7

60.4

47

Powered-two-wheeler fleet estimates across income category countries were carriedout using available motorcycle fleet data from the period 2002-2012. The individual
countries annual motorcycle fleet rate changes over the decade were averaged andused to project the respective countries’ 2015 motorcycle fleets.
Table 10
Estimated helmet price ranges in USD in analysed countries – per income
category

LIC

Low
50

Medium
100

High
150

LMIC

100

200

300

UMIC

200

400

600

HIC

500

750

1000

Price ranges of approved helmets (according to the latest version of UN Regulation
No. 22) were obtained by researching prices of type approved helmets in countries
included in the analysis.
Table 11
Total helmet price ranges in USD in analysed countries (one PTW one
helmet) – per income category (billion USD)

LIC

Low
8.73

Medium
17.46

High
26.19

LMIC

9.57

19.14

28.70

UMIC

12.09

24.17

36.26

HIC

23.50

35.25

47

The total cost of helmets is the total expenditure that would be incurred if all
motorcycle riders (two per motorcycle) in the countries considered would purchase
one helmet every second year.

61

The benefit-cost ratios for the four country income groups were determined as shownin the following tables:
Table 12
Low-income countries motorcycle helmet use Benefit-Cost ratio matrix

Savings

Helmet cost
Low

Low
1

Medium0.5

Medium

3.8

1.9

High
0.3
1.3

High

6.5

3.3

2.2

Table 13
Lower-middle income countries motorcycle helmet use Benefit-Cost ratio
matrix

Savings

Helmet cost
Low

Medium

High

Low

3.4

1.718

1.146

Medium

7.8

3.9

2.579

High

12

6

4

Table 14Upper-middle income countries motorcycle helmet use Benefit-Cost ratio
matrix

Savings

Helmet cost
Low

Medium

High

Low

1.4

0.7

0.5

Medium

7.1

3.5

High

12.8

6.4

2.4
4.3

Table 15High income countries motorcycle helmet use Benefit-Cost ratio matrix

Savings

Helmet cost
Low

Medium

Low

3.6

1.8

High
1.2

Medium

7.3

3.6

2.4

High

11

5.5

3.7

The results of the benefit-cost analysis are explained and interpreted in section 3 ofchapter 1. Motorcycle markets and accidents.

62

7.

Statistical sources For countries in the UNECE: (Persons Killed or Injured in Road Traffic Accidents by
Country, Category of User, Accident Type, Age Group and Time is available at
http://live.unece.org/trans/main/wp6/wp6.html)
 Brazil:- DENATRAN (Departamento Nacional de Transito);oE. Vasconcellos and M. Sivak (2009). Road safety in Brazil: challenges
and opportunities, Report No. UMTRI-2009-29.

oK. Bhalla, S. Shahraz, J. Abraham, and P. Yeh (2009). Estimating the
global burden of road injuries - Preliminary results, Harvard School of
Public Health, Boston, MA, 02138.

 India: The Indian yearbook 2007
 Indonesia: Ministry of Transport, and Asian Development Bank, Regional roadsafety programme Japan: World Bank and Yearbook of the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers
Association (JAMA) Malaysia: Asian Development Bank, Regional road safety programme, quoting
MOT Philippines: Statistics office and Asian Development Bank, Regional road safety
programme.
 Thailand: Asian Development Bank, Regional road safety programme, quoting
MOT Uganda: J. Leyland, F. Tumwiine and J. Magola Wanume (2002). Road safety
activities in a road maintenance project: the case of the western Uganda roadmaintenance capacity building project.
 Viet Nam: M.B. McDonnell, V.B.T. Van Bich Thi Tran, N.R. McCoy (2010). Helmet
Day, SSRC USA quoting MOT.

63

65

Three-wheel
moped

L2e

Light twowheel
poweredvehicleL1e

Categoryand namemaximum continuous rated power is no
more than 4 kW in the case of an electric
motor



maximum net power output does notexceed 4 kW in the case of other internal
combustion engines, or

maximum continuous rated power does notexceed 4 kW in the case of an electric
motor



cylinder capacity does not exceed 50 cm3 ifof the spark (positive) ignition type, orThree-wheel vehicles with a maximum design
speed of not more than 45 km/h andcharacterised by an engine whose:cylinder capacity does not exceed 50 cm3 inthe case of the internal combustion type, orTwo-wheel vehicles with a maximum design
speed of not more than 45 km/h andcharacterised by an engine whose:

Vehicle Description

EU L category vehicle definitions1

Table 16
EU and UNECE definitions of L category vehicles

L2

L1

CategoryA
three-wheeledvehicle
of
any
wheel
arrangement with an engine cylinder capacity inthe case of a thermic engine not exceeding 50
cm3 and whatever the means of propulsion amaximum design speed not exceeding 50 km/h.

A two-wheeled vehicle with an engine cylinder
capacity in the case of a thermic engine notexceeding 50 cm3 and whatever the means ofpropulsion a maximum design speed notexceeding 50 km/h.

Vehicle Description

UNECE L category vehicle definitions2Annex III: European Union and UNECE definitions of L category vehicles

66

quadri-cycle

Light

L6e

PoweredtricycleL5e

Two-wheel
motorcyclewith sidecar

L4e

Two-wheel
motorcycle

L3eCategoryand nameengine cylinder capacity does not exceed
50 cm3 for spark (positive) ignitionengines, or

maximum net power output does notexceed 4 kW in the case of other internal





L6

L5

Vehicles with three symmetrically arranged
wheels fitted with an engine having a cylinder
capacity of more than 50 cm3 if of the internal
combustion type and/or a maximum design
speed of more than 45 km/h

Quadricycles whose unladen mass is not morethan 350 kg, not including the mass of thebatteries in case of electric vehicles, whose
maximum design speed is not more than 45
km/h, and whose

L4

L3

Two-wheel vehicles without a sidecar fitted withan engine having a cylinder capacity of morethan 50 cm3 if of the internal combustion type
and/or having a maximum design speed ofmore than 45 km/h

Two-wheel vehicles with a sidecar fitted with anengine having a cylinder capacity of more than
50 cm3 if of the internal combustion type and/or
having a maximum design speed of more than
45 km/hCategory

Vehicle Description

EU L category vehicle definitions1

A vehicle with four wheels whose unladen mass
is not more than 350 kg, not including the massof the batteries in case of electric vehicles,
whose maximum design speed is not more than
45 km/h, and whose engine cylinder capacity
does not exceed 50 cm3 for spark (positive)
ignition engines, or whose maximum net power
output does not exceed 4 kW in the case of otherinternal combustion engines, or whose maximum
continuous rated power does not exceed 4 kW in

A vehicle with three wheels symmetricallyarranged in relation to the longitudinal medianplane with an engine cylinder capacity in thecase of a thermic engine exceeding 50 cm3 orwhatever the means of propulsion a maximum
design speed exceeding 50 km/h.

A vehicle with three wheels asymmetricallyarranged in relation to the longitudinal medianplane with an engine cylinder capacity in thecase of a thermic engine exceeding 50 cm3 orwhatever the means of propulsion a maximum
design speed exceeding 50 km/h (motor cycles
with sidecars).

A two-wheeled vehicle with an engine cylinder
capacity in the case of a thermic engine
exceeding 50 cm3 or whatever the means ofpropulsion a maximum design speed exceeding
50 km/h.

Vehicle Description

UNECE L category vehicle definitions2

67

maximum continuous rated power does notexceed 4 kW in the case of an electricmotor.

These vehicles shall fulfil the technicalrequirements applicable to three-wheel mopeds
of category L2e unless specified differently.

combustion engines, or

Vehicle Description

Source: Regulation (EU) No. 168/2013 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the approvaland market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles andquadricycles.

Quadricycles other than those referred to in
category L6e, whose unladen mass is not morethan 400 kg (550 kg for vehicles intended forcarrying goods), not including the mass ofL7ebatteries in the case of electric vehicles, andwhose maximum net engine power does not
Heavy
quadri-cycle exceed 15 kW. These vehicles shall beconsidered to be motor tricycles and shall fulfil
the technical requirements applicable to motor
tricycles of category L5e unless specified
differently.

Categoryand name

EU L category vehicle definitions1

A vehicle with four wheels, other than thatclassified for the category L6, whose unladen
mass is not more than 400 kg (550 kg forvehicles intended for carrying goods), notincluding the mass of batteries in the case ofelectric vehicles and whose maximum continuous
rated power does not exceed 15 kW.

the case of electric engines.

Vehicle Description

Source: Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles(R.E.3) Revision 3 - Economic Commission for Europe, Inland
Transport Committee, World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle
Regulations

L7

Category

UNECE L category vehicle definitions2Photo credits:
Full face helmet. Photo from www.istockphoto.com/; Image ID – 12220358 (Coverpage image 1);
Vintage helmet. Photo from www.istockphoto.com/; Image ID – 000079382481(Cover page image 2);
Background motorcycle rider. Image from www.istockphoto.com/; Image ID –2240225 (Cover page image 3)
Motorcycle riders without a proper helmet. Photo by Mr. Juan Ramos Peris (pp. 10);
A family on a motorcycle in the congested traffic of Karachi. Photo by Mr. Rik
Nuytens (pp. 16);
A helmet visor type and a helmet approved according to UN Regulation No. 22.
Photos by Mr. Nikola Šahović (pp. 32);
Pedelec riders with safety gear: Photo from http://www.gdv.de/2012/08/was-sieueber-den-versicherungsschutz-von-pedelecs-wissen-sollten/,by
GDV
Berlin(pp. 39);
UNECE
motorcycle
helmettype
approval
mark.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Casque_homologation.jpg,(pp. 51);

Photo
from
by
Ŵishmaster

Motorcycle accident. Photo from www.fotolia.com, number 15819626, by Tomas
Svoboda (pp. 63).

68