Bicycle Helmet Use Laws: 

Lessons Learned 

From 

Selected Sites 

Austin, Texas 

Jacksonville and Duval County, Florida 

State of Maryland 

State of Oregon 

Port Angeles, Washington 

Seymour, Connecticut 
2

Table of Contents Page 

 

 

I. Executive Summary.................................................................................................4

II. Introduction and Objectives...................................................................................10

III. Method of Approach..............................................................................................11 

IV. Chart Summarizing Jurisdictions Profiled.............................................................13 

V. Analysis..................................................................................................................15

VI. Analysis Conclusion ..............................................................................................33 

VII. Profiles ...................................................................................................................35

A. Austin, Texas......................................... .............................................35

B. Jacksonville/Duval County, Florida.................................................................47

C. Maryland .........................................................................................................62

D. Oregon .............................................................................................................89 

E. Port Angeles, Washington .............................................................................100

F. Seymour, Connecticut....................................................................................104

VIII. Legislative Language ..........................................................................................108

A. Austin, Texas ................................................................................................108 

 1. Original ordinance 

 2. Modified ordinance 

B. State of Florida ..............................................................................................114

 1. 1994 legislation (HB 651) 

 2. 1995 legislation (HB 775) 

 3. 1996 legislation (adopted) (SB 2370) 

C. State of Maryland and Maryland Counties ....................................................124

 1. House bill 974 as introduced 

 2. House bill 974 as adopted 

 3. Allegany County ordinance 

 4. Howard County ordinances 

 5. Montgomery County ordinance 

D. State of Oregon ..............................................................................................141

 1. Legislation, final version (SB 1088 engrossed) 

E. Port Angeles, Washington ............................................................................145

 1. Ordinance 
3

F. Seymour, Connecticut.............................................................................148

 1. Ordinance (repealed) 

 2. State Of Connecticut Legislation, Adopted 1993 

 3. Amended 1997 

IX. Appendices ..........................................................................................................154

A. Helmet Use Laws for Bicycle Riders (Source: Bicycle Helmet ...................154

 Safety Institute) 

B. Request for Information..........................................................................159

C. Matrix Used for Information Collection....................................................161

D. National SAFE KIDS Campaign Model Mandatory Helmet ........................164

 Legislation for Bicycle, In-Line Skating, Roller Skating and Skateboarding 

E. Oregon Bicycle Helmet Campaign Community Planning Guide..................168 

 

F. Bicycle Helmet Sale Order Form, Duval County, Florida.............................186

G. Bicycle Helmet Sale Procedure Guidelines, Duval County, Florida ............187 

H. Observation guidelines for the Duval County ..............................................189

 Bicycle Helmet Use and Behavioral Survey 

I. Coding Instructions And Form For Bicycle Helmet Use ..............................191

 Observational Study, Duval County, Florida 

J. Dental Visit/Bicycle Helmet Use Program Evaluation and .......................203 

“My Bike Safety Contract,” Duval County, Florida 

K. Bicycle Safety Helmet Proclamation, Duval County School Board .............212 

L. “High Expectations,” performance standards for Duval...............................213

County schools 

M. A Bike Helmet Law Could Save Lives of 26 Kids a Year,”..........................214 

Tallahassee Democrat editorial, March 10, 1996 

N. Washington Post editorial about Montgomery County Law, .......................215 

June 10, 1991. 

 

O. Information Resources...................................................................................216
4

Section I. Executive Summary 

This report presents the experiences of six jurisdictions in enacting and implementing bicycle 

helmet use laws. In brief, this report explored: 

 The introduction, passage, and implementation of bicycle helmet use laws, with a focus 

on enforcement issues; 

 Significant factors in the passage and implementation of these laws; 

 Whether or not the effectiveness of these laws was being measured; and 

 Those factors that influenced whether or not these laws were evaluated.

The following chart provides a general profile of the six jurisdictions. 

 

Profiles of the Six Jurisdictions (as of 2000) 

Site Jurisdiction 

Law 

Effective 

Age Covered by 

Helmet Law Penalty 

Agency 

Enforcing 

The Law 

Section for 

Legislative 

Language 

Population 

Make-up 

Austin, TX City of 

Austin 

05/19/96 

Modified 

10/97

Originally all ages, 

then amended to ages 

17 and under 

Original ordinance: 

$50 for first offense, 

$100 for subsequent 

offenses. 

Modified ordinance: 

$20 for first offense, 

$40 for subsequent 

offenses. Charges can 

be dropped with proof 

of purchase of helmet 

within 30 days. 

City of 

Austin 

Police Dept. 

Section 

VIII A. 

Page 108

Population 

642,992 

Urban/Suburban 

Econom. 

Diverse. 

54.5% white 

28.4% Hispanic 

11.5% Black 

5.6% Asian and 

other 

Jacksonville/ 

Duval 

County, FL 

State 

Law, 

Countywide 

activities 

01/01/97 Children under 16 State Law: $15; 

counties have the 

authority to levy an 

additional monetary 

penalty (i.e. Duval 

County added an 

additional $8 for total 

penalty of $23.) 

In Duvall 

County, the 

Jacksonville 

Sheriff’s 

office 

Section 

VIII B. 

Page 114

Population 

~ 773,000 

State of MD State 

Law 

10/01/95 Children under 16 

(one exemption: 

sections of the 

boardwalk in Ocean 

City, MD) 

No Fine. 

Warnings and 

educational materials 

State, 

county, city, 

park police 

agencies 

Section 

VIII C. 

Page 124 

Not provided 

State of OR State 

Law 

07/01/94 Children under 16 $25 which can be 

waived with proof of 

bicycle helmet 

ownership 

Any sworn 

police officer 

Section 

VIII D. 

Page 141 

Not provided 

Port 

Angeles, 

WA 

City 01/01/94 

Penalty 

Provisions 

Effective 

01/01/95

All ages and 

guardians of persons 

under 16 

$15 City Police Section 

VIII E. 

Page 145 

Population 

~ 19,000 

Predom. midIncome, white 

Seymour, CT Town 07/01/98 

Suspended 

07/21/98 

Repealed 

09/98

All Riders $25 first offense 

(could be waived with 

proof of helmet 

ownership); $100 for 

subsequent offenses 

 Section 

VIII F. 

Page 148 

Population 

~ 15,000 

Predom. midIncome white 

Suburban/Rural 
5

For more information on the background and scope of this report, see Section III, “Method of 

Approach.” Readers are urged to read the full analysis and the profiles on which the executive 

summary is based. 

Common threads found in these profiles include: 

 The presence of coalitions that were focused on child safety, injury prevention, bicycling 

or brain injury prevention was a key factor in program delivery, bill introduction, bill 

passage, and implementation of the bicycle helmet use law. 

 Pediatric and emergency medicine professionals were identified as key constituencies in 

support of bicycle helmet use laws. 

 The enactment of bicycle helmet use laws followed the conventional legislative process, 

supplemented by concerns unique to the bill (described below). 

 The law enforcement community was generally not deeply involved in the law’s 

introduction, passage, or evaluation. 

 These laws routinely allow the fine to be waived if a bicycle helmet is purchased. 

 Bicycle helmet use laws led to unique enforcement issues (described below), compared 

with infractions committed by motor vehicle operators. 

 Effectiveness was not formally defined and informal descriptions of effectiveness varied. 

The Legislative Experience: 

 Bill Introduction. The local-level jurisdictions usually had bicycle safety education and 

bicycle helmet giveaway programs in place so pursuing a bicycle helmet use law was 

seen as a natural next step. The most common factor leading to a bill’s introduction was 

the presence of an active coalition, as mentioned above. High-profile bicycle crashes or 

elected officials independently initiating legislative efforts were less common factors 

cited as triggers for introduction of the bill. 

 Arguments Pro And Con. The most common issues raised in opposition to bicycle 

helmet use legislation were: 

 The law would undermine individual rights and parental prerogatives; 

 The law could place a burden on low income residents by requiring bicycle 

helmet use (bicycle helmet use law proponents indicated this concern was 

relatively easy to address through bicycle helmet subsidy and giveaway 

programs); and 

 The law could lower bicycle ridership (little data exist to support or rebut this 

argument). 

 The issues raised most often in support of such legislation were: 

 Statistics describing the high costs of head and brain injuries; 

 Statistics on the effectiveness of bicycle helmets; and 
6

 Personal stories about deaths and injuries that could have been prevented or were 

prevented by using a bicycle helmet. 

 Constituencies. The posture of the bicycling community on these laws was mixed: some 

groups supported legislation (usually minors-only laws); some were opposed; and some 

were divided on the issue. 

 

 Law enforcement’s involvement, when it occurred, usually involved technical assistance 

to lawmakers, such as in the drafting of enforcement provisions. Though law 

enforcement officials were seldom at the forefront of the debate on these laws, legislators 

often wanted their position on proposed legislation. 

 In several jurisdictions, motorcyclists who opposed motorcycle helmet use laws also 

actively opposed bicycle helmet use laws. 

 Process and Timing. At the local level, ordinances were adopted relatively quickly. At 

the state level, bicycle helmet use laws often, but not always, required a multi-year effort 

for legislative adoption. 

 All-Rider Versus Children-Only Laws. In three jurisdictions, legislative proposals that 

were initially introduced as all-rider laws were subsequently modified to cover only 

minors. 

 Two of the local laws that began as all-rider laws were later scaled back: one was 

completely repealed while the other was modified to cover only minors, a year after its 

enactment. 

 To some bicycle helmet advocates, the all-rider proposal was a negotiating tactic and they 

anticipated that the likely outcome would be a compromise to a minors-only bill. Others 

saw a rollback from all-riders to minors-only as a substantial or total defeat. 

Implementation: 

In most cases, the law provided for a delay of six months or more after passage before its 

provisions took effect. 

In several cases, additional phase-in steps were taken, such as prohibiting fines for an additional 

year after the law’s effective date. 

During the phase-in period, activities at the local level usually consisted of an expanded version 

of existing programs, such as bicycle helmet giveaways and subsidies, bike rodeos, and other 

education programs. The degree of effort at the state level varied. While some statewide efforts 

were undertaken, most activities were locally based. 

In some jurisdictions, little or no activity occurred through the schools to assist with 

implementation. In others, schools sponsored a variety of activities to support the law, such as 

educational efforts and adopting bicycle helmet-use policies. 
7

Enforcement: 

With some exceptions, the law enforcement agencies in these jurisdictions were not deeply 

engaged in enforcing the bicycle helmet use law. 

The law’s language reflects the general perception that the intent of the bicycle helmet use law is 

to increase bicycle helmet use, not penalize violators. 

 Fines are low (or non-existent) and are rarely imposed. 

 As mentioned above, the laws routinely allow fines to be waived upon bicycle helmet 

purchase. 

Unique enforcement issues for bicycle helmet use laws emerged. 

 Officers cited challenges in ticketing children (“Who do you give the ticket to? Do you 

put the bike in the trunk and drive the child home?”). 

 The law conjures the distasteful image of “troopers ticketing kids.” 

 Some officers use the law as an opportunity for positive interaction and education. One 

common mechanism is for officers to give positive reinforcement (such as coupons for 

free ice cream) to children who are wearing bicycle helmets rather than citations to those 

who are not. 

Effectiveness: 

Effectiveness was informally described variously as: 

 Changes in bicycle helmet use; 

 Changes in bicycle crash-related deaths or injuries or fatality or injury rates; 

 Level of enforcement (citations or warnings issued); and 

 The law’s value as a tool for parents. 

Challenges to measuring effectiveness included: 

 Difficulty in obtaining injury, crash, citation and use data; 

 An annual incidence of bicycling deaths and serious injuries in a jurisdiction too low for 

conducting a statistically valid analysis; and 

 Difficulty in separating the impact of the law from the impact of concurrent, related 

education and give-away programs. 

Where measures of bicycle helmet use were reported, increases in bicycle helmet use were 

observed after bill passage. For example: 

 A 316 percent increase in bicycle helmet use occurred among children ages 5 to 14 in 

Austin, TX (see the Austin, TX, profile’s Chart 1, “Bicycle Helmet Usage Rates in 

Austin”); 

 From 1996 to 1999, the bicycle helmet usage rate increased 393 percent among children 

ages 12 and under in Jacksonville/Duval county, FL (see the Duval County, FL- profile’s 

Table 1, “Duval County, FL, Bicycle Helmet Usage Rate Comparison by Age, 1996-

1999”); and 

 Bicycle helmet use in Oregon after the law took effect was about twice as high as pre-law 

use, increasing from 24.5 percent to 49.3 percent in those under 18, and from 20.4 

percent to 56.1 percent among those under 16. 
8

Several jurisdictions that tracked deaths, injuries, and fatality and injury rates reported 

improvements in these measures after bill passage. For example: 

 From 1996 to 1999, the Jacksonville/Duval county, FL, bicycle injury rate (per 100,000 

population) decreased from 51.07 to 33.62, or 34 percent (see the Duval County, FL, 

profile’s Charts 1 and 2, “1996-1999 Duval County Comparison & Correlation of Bicycle 

Helmet Usage Rates and Bicycle Injuries Involving a Motor-Vehicle, Fatal & Nonfatal 

for the 0-12 Age Group”); and 

 A sharp decline in bicycle-related head injuries (BHIs) was observed in Oregon; in the 

first full year after the bicycle helmet use law was in effect, actual BHI cases were 70, 

compared to 121, the number of cases predicted. 

Evaluations: 

Evaluations of these laws are not routinely conducted. When evaluations are done: 

 Federal funds (from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration) frequently are used to conduct these evaluations; 

and 

 The injury prevention communities, such as health departments, usually conduct these 

evaluations. 

Barriers to conducting evaluations that were identified included: 

 Time; 

 Resources; 

 Difficulty in obtaining data (injury, bicycle helmet use, citations issued); 

 Challenges of conducting observational bicycle helmet use studies; and 

 Lack of interest by government leaders. 

The tradition and culture of relevant agencies were identified in some jurisdictions as 

encouraging evaluations and, in others, as impeding evaluations. 

Emerging Issues: 

Respondents emphasized several trends that they believed would be influential in shaping future 

activities related to bicycle helmet use laws. 

 Changes in transportation and lifestyle (e.g., concerns about obesity and other health 

issues and changes in land use to address sprawl such as through the “Smart Growth” 

movement) were predicted to change cycling’s role, likely increasing bicycling 

participation as well as institutional support for bicycling. 

 Most bicyclists are adults, yet bicycle helmet use laws typically focus on children. 

 A growing cadre of bicycling/pedestrian professionals is emerging in the transportation 

and planning fields. 

An issue often raised, chiefly by those in the bicycling community, was that bicycle safety 

efforts are (or are perceived to be) singularly focused on the adoption of bicycle helmet use laws. 

They observed that bicycle helmet use laws do not “solve” all bicycle safety problems yet they 
9

are concerned that the focus on bicycle helmet use laws distracts attention and resources from 

other bicycle safety issues. 
10

Section II. Introduction And Objectives 

Introduction: 

Bicycle helmet use laws are a relatively recent addition to the toolbox of state and local traffic 

safety countermeasures in the United States. The earliest such laws are less than 15 years old. 

As of May 2004, 20 states, the District of Columbia, and 131 localities have enacted some form 

of bicycle helmet use requirement (see Section IX. A. “Helmet Use Laws for Bicycle Riders”). 

These laws were enacted with varying provisions (some are for minors only, some for all 

bicyclists) and at different levels of government (state, city, and county jurisdictions). 

However, little is known about the passage, enforcement, and effectiveness of bicycle helmet use 

laws in the United States. Few reviews of these laws are available to detail the different 

experiences of communities that have considered a legal requirement to increase bicycle helmet 

use. 

Objectives: 

This report was designed to investigate some basic questions about bicycle helmet use laws: 

How do different facets of bicycle helmet use laws influence a law’s effectiveness? Is the 

effectiveness of bicycle helmet use laws being measured? Which factors may be most 

significant in increasing the effectiveness of bicycle helmet use laws? Why do some 

jurisdictions evaluate their laws and others do not? In summary, what is working and why? 

This report does not offer definitive answers to these broad questions, but details the experiences 

of several jurisdictions as examples. This report seeks to recount the experiences of six 

jurisdictions and to provide some analysis of these different stories. Hopefully, these narratives 

will illuminate avenues for future study. These compiled experiences may also provide lessons 

for those who are considering the adoption of a bicycle helmet use law in their community or 

state. 
11

Section III. Method Of Approach 

Six jurisdictions were selected for this report to reflect the wide range of experiences that 

jurisdictions have had with bicycle helmet use laws. They were selected based on interviews 

with national bicycle safety experts, including National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) officials. The profiles include state and local laws, all-ages laws as well as minorsonly laws, laws with different approaches to enforcement, jurisdictions that have used education 

and/or awareness efforts as a part of a law’s implementation, and even jurisdictions with laws 

that were not successfully implemented in their communities. For a chart of the jurisdictions and 

the major provisions of their laws, see Section IV, “Chart Summarizing Jurisdictions Profiled.” 

 

For each profile, we sought to gather information from those knowledgeable about the law’s 

passage, its enforcement, and the area’s overall bicycle safety effort. We asked key individuals 

involved in the law’s passage and implementation to describe their experiences and provide 

insight. These profiles reflect the personal observations and opinions of the individuals 

interviewed. See Section VII for the profiles and Section VIII for the statutory or ordinance 

legislative language considered and adopted in each jurisdiction. 

For every jurisdiction, specific areas were explored to provide additional insight into these basic 

questions: 

 What leads a jurisdiction to consider adopting a bicycle helmet use law? 

 How did the specific provisions of the law emerge? 

 How did the law move through the legislative process? 

 What were the most persuasive arguments for and against the proposal? 

 How was it implemented and enforced? 

 Who are the key community actors and what were their roles? 

 What was the relationship between the law and other bicycle safety efforts in the state or 

community? 

 Is the law or ordinance effective? 

 Was it evaluated? 

 If it was not evaluated, what changes might lead to its evaluation? 

Section IX C, “Matrix Used for Information Collection,” lists the topics investigated for each 

jurisdiction. 

It is hoped that the views of these knowledgeable observers will prove enlightening to others. 

For additional information about bicycle helmet use laws, bicycle helmet promotion programs, 

and bicycle safety, see Section IX O, “Information Resources.” 

Author’s Note/Clarification: 

This report is based on the experiences of observers and participants who were identified as 

knowledgeable and credible. The author is indebted to the dozens of individuals who gave of 

their time and provided the insights that made this report possible. Their contributions are 

greatly appreciated. 
12

The greatest challenge of this assignment was securing relevant and accurate information. 

Another major challenge arose in determining how and what to include in the report in the rare 

instances when information or memories conflicted. 

Where possible, confirmation was sought from more than one observer or participant or from a 

reference source. In situations where differences could not be reconciled and were closer to 

opinion, perception, or other similarly unverifiable quality, the report attempts to make clear that 

conflicting opinions existed among those interviewed. 

Obviously, limited resources did not permit the participation of every individual who could have 

made a contribution in these six communities. Therefore, readers are urged to recognize that 

truth, as with beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder, and these profiles are built on the 

contributions of a finite number of individuals with varying perspectives. 

It is hoped that this report, even with these limitations, can serve as a useful tool to decrease 

bicycle-related head and brain injuries. 
13

Section IV. Chart Summarizing Jurisdictions Profiled 

Site 

Summary of 

BICYCLE 

HELMET USE 

Law

Jurisdiction 

Type 

Ages 

Covered Timing Enforcement/ Penalties 

Austin, 

Texas 

All-rider law 

modified 

to minorsonly/local level 

City Originally 

all ages 

Modified to 

under 18 

Passage: 5-1996 

Effective date: 

10 days after passage; 

90-day “grace period” 

Modified: 10-1997 

(effective immediately) 

Original version: 

$50 first offense 

$100 succeeding offenses 

Dismissal with bicycle 

helmet purchase on first 

offense 

Modified version: 

$20 first offense 

$40 succeeding offenses 

Dismissal with bicycle 

helmet purchase 

Florida/ 

Jacksonville

/Duval 

Counties

Minors-only law/ 

state level; array 

of county 

programs 

State 

Countylevel 

programs 

Under 16 Passage: 4-1996 

Effective date: 

1-1-1997 

Penalties beginning: 

1-1-1998 

Before 1-1-1998: 

Safety materials and 

verbal warnings 

Beginning 1-1-1998: 

Fine: $23: 

$15 (state) 

$ 8 (Duval County) 

Dismissal with bicycle 

helmet purchase on 

first offense 

Maryland Minors-only 

law/state level; 

preceded by 

county laws 

State Under 16 Passage: 5-1995 

Effective date: 10-1-1995 

Warnings and educational 

materials; no fine 

Oregon Minors-only 

law/state level 

State Under 16 Passage: 7-1993 

Effective date: 7-1994 

Fine: $25 

Waived with bicycle helmet 

purchase on first offense 

Port 

Angeles, 

Washington 

All-rider 

law/local level 

City All ages Passage: 5-1993 

Effective date: 1-1994 

Penalties beginning: 

1-1995 

Before 1-1-1995: Warnings 

After 1-1-1995: Fine 

$15 plus court costs 

Dismissal with bicycle 

helmet purchase on first 

offense 

Seymour, 

Connecticut

All-rider 

law/local level 

(repealed) 

City All ages Effective date: 7-1- 1998 

Suspended: 7-21-1998 

Repealed: 9-1998 

(Repealed) 

$25 first offense 

$100 succeeding offenses 

Dismissal with bicycle 

helmet purchase on first 

offense 
14

This page intentionally left blank.
15 

Section V. Analysis 

Bicycle helmets are proven to be effective in preventing head and brain injuries. One often-cited 

study found that bicycle safety helmets reduce the risk of head injury from a bicycle crash by 85 

percent.i

Thus, not surprisingly, increasing bicycle helmet use is a primary focus of many bicycle safety 

and injury prevention efforts. 

The effectiveness of bicycle helmets in preventing death and injury has led policymakers and 

safety advocates to pass laws requiring bicycle helmet use as one way to increase the number of 

bicyclists who wear helmets. The past decade has seen great interest in such laws and 

ordinances. Since 1987, 19 states, the District of Columbia, and dozens of local jurisdictions 

have adopted some form of bicycle helmet use requirement as of May 2002 (see Section IX A, 

“Helmet Use Laws for Bicycle Riders”). 

*As of March 2004, 20 States, including the District of Columbia have enacted age-specific 

bicycle helmet laws and more than 131 localities have enacted some form of bicycle helmet 

legislative. 

These ordinances and statutes vary, from the populations subject to the law, penalty provisions, 

the approach to implementation, to the law’s relationship to other bicycle safety efforts. 

This report seeks to detail the experiences of several jurisdictions to better understand the 

enactment and implementation of bicycle helmet use laws and their effectiveness. For a chart of 

the jurisdictions and the key provisions of their laws, see Section IV, “Chart Summarizing 

Jurisdictions Profiled.” 

See Section III, “Method of Approach” for information on the methodology used for this report. 

Section IX C, “Matrix Used for Information Collection,” outlines the topics investigated for each 

jurisdiction. 

See Section VII for the profiles of each jurisdiction’s experiences and Section VIII for the 

statutory or ordinance language considered and adopted in each jurisdiction. Model ordinance 

language developed by the National SAFE KIDS Campaign is in Section IX D. For additional 

information about bicycle helmet use laws, bicycle helmet promotion programs, and bicycle 

safety, see Section IX O, “Information Resources.” 

Existing Efforts: 

This review sought to determine what bicycle helmet promotion and other bicycle safety 

activities, if any, were underway in these jurisdictions before a bicycle helmet use law was 

enacted. 

In local jurisdictions, bicycle helmet promoters had usually conducted education and giveaway 

programs before they began seeking laws. For example, in Seymour, CT, the community’s 
16 

injury prevention coalition saw an ordinance as a next step in bicycle safety. The Injury 

Prevention Program of the Duval County (FL) Health Department had a Traffic, Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Safety Education Program (TBPSEP) in place for several years before the adoption of 

the state bicycle helmet use law. TBPSEP conducts a wide array of bicycle safety and helmet 

promotion activities. 

Injury prevention coalitions in the jurisdictions reviewed were frequently affiliated with nonprofit organizations that focused on childhood injury prevention (such as the National SAFE 

KIDS Campaign), preventing head and brain injuries (such as THINK FIRST and Brain Injury 

Association chapters), or community-based safety efforts (such as the NHTSA-sponsored Safe 

Communities program). 

At the state level, the degree of activity appeared to be more varied. Oregon conducted a number 

of bicycle safety activities and helmet promotions around the state, including bicycle safety 

education programs in many schools. Maryland conducted some activity, which increased as 

serious legislative consideration of a bill emerged during a period of several years. Maryland’s 

local SAFE KIDS coalitions were reported to be more involved in the bill’s passage than the 

state SAFE KIDS coalition, which was described as more focused on child safety seat and seat 

belt use. There did not appear to be “state-wide” programs as there were “community-wide” 

programs. Delivery of bicycle helmet programs was primarily local. Even in states where a 

variety of activities were taking place, the activity was primarily locally based. 

The interest level of the relevant agencies shapes the resources for bicycle safety programs and 

their delivery. Some government agencies dedicate few resources to bicycle safety, according to 

spokespeople, because their traffic data do not show bicycle crashes to be a problem. For 

example, one official said: “We don’t do a lot in bicycle safety. We use an outcome-based 

planning process. We look at data, which says that we don’t have a bicycle safety problem 

relative to other areas. We’re at or below the national average in bicycle accidents.” 

Some of the bicycle safety programs were supported by Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) grants and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 402 

highway safety funds. 

Impetus For Legislation: 

This review gathered information on the “initiating factors” that led to the consideration of a 

bicycle helmet use requirement. For example, was an ordinance triggered by a highly visible 

bicycle crash or did an elected official propose it without community input? 

Based on the jurisdictions reviewed, a bicycle helmet use requirement is usually proposed when 

some sort of coalition effort is in place. The coalition frequently is focused on child safety rather 

than on injury prevention for all ages, but it may be focused on bicycling and/or on injury 

prevention generally. 
17 

Tragic crashes were generally not the motivating factors for pursuing a bicycle helmet use law in 

the jurisdictions that were reviewed. One exception was Seymour, CT, where two factors were 

identified as initiating the law. An active coalition was in place promoting bicycle helmet use, 

and two children were killed in different bicycle crashes, both of which received widespread 

community attention. Fatal crashes were an initiating factor for the bicycle helmet use law in 

Howard County, MD. Given that this county ordinance is given some credit for leading to the 

state law, it could be said that a crash was an indirect initiating factor in Maryland. 

Another, less common, initiator of a law or ordinance is the elected official or staff person who 

decides to pursue legislation. In Oregon’s case, a state-sponsored coalition was “originally set 

up to treat the entirety of bicycle safety.” Then a state legislator, unaware of this nascent effort, 

introduced a bicycle helmet use law. “Once a bill with possibilities came to the fore, the group 

leapt on the task of passing the law.” 

A law that results from an elected official’s vision without a corresponding support network in 

place appears to be less effective, based on the limited examples available in the jurisdictions 

reviewed. One cannot assume that a constituency will emerge to support the provision and its 

effective implementation. According to one observer: “You’ll have a city council person that’s 

supportive of the helmet law and will work to get it passed. Then that person will leave office, 

so that after a while the support is not there. The police can’t do it alone.” 

Frequently, the legislation initially developed would require bicycle helmet use by all ages. In 

every jurisdiction reviewed in which a coalition launched the process and an all-rider bill was “in 

play,” the provisions ultimately enacted were for minors only. In one case the all-rider 

provisions were in place for a year before being scaled back due to community opposition. 

An interesting contrast was the community in which an active coalition approached the town 

council seeking a minors-only law. The council changed the law, without input from the 

coalition, to an all-rider law. Within a few weeks, and influenced by complicating factors, that 

bicycle helmet use law was repealed. 

The “major players” in these coalitions were medical professional individuals and organizations 

(emergency nurses and pediatricians, for example), and frequently SAFE KIDS coalition 

members and government employees in health agencies. 

The Process Of Adoption: 

In many ways, the legislative process to enact a bicycle helmet use law is like any other. Key 

considerations include legislative and executive branch leadership, committee assignments, 

partisan issues, opposition arguments, the process of bill development and compromise, and the 

“savviness” of supporters. 

However, one legislative staff member described the effort as different in one way. In her 

experience, a bill’s author could usually be successful by working with a few powerful 

legislators in key leadership posts. In contrast, the bicycle helmet use law effort was fought “one 

legislator at a time.” 
18 

At the state level, supporters often need to go to the legislative body for several years before 

achieving success, as in Florida and Maryland. But this is not always the case: Oregon’s bill 

took a single session (surprising even the bill’s supporters). 

At the local level, ordinances were all adopted relatively quickly, but sometimes “un-adopted” 

quickly as well. 

Local laws appeared to aid efforts to enact a state law both directly and indirectly, based on the 

situation. In Maryland, the three county-level laws provided evidence that a legal requirement 

would be effective in increasing bicycle helmet use and also that such a requirement would be 

politically acceptable. The local ordinances were also indirectly effective because they limited 

the ability of legislators from those districts to oppose the state law, according to a 

knowledgeable observer. 

All-Rider Versus Minors-Only Provisions. 

Some bicycle helmet advocates saw an all-rider proposal as a negotiating tactic in the 

law-making process and were ready to compromise to a minors-only bill at the proper 

moment. Others saw a rollback from all-riders to minors-only as a substantial loss; in at 

least one case, believing it was as significant as a full repeal. 

Two of the local laws reviewed began as all-rider laws and then were scaled back. 

Austin, TX amended its all-rider law to a minors-only requirement after a months-long 

effort by vocal opponents and after the all-rider provisions had been in place for about a 

year. Seymour, CT had its all-rider law suspended within three weeks and repealed in 

full by referendum within a few months. 

The only all-rider requirement that is still in place among the jurisdictions reviewed is a 

local law (which was initiated by an elected official, not by a coalition). 

The Legislative Debate: 

The argument made most frequently in legislative debates in opposition to bicycle helmet use 

laws was that the law would be an unwarranted government intrusion that infringed on individual 

rights. 

Another frequent argument concerned economics. Lawmakers were often concerned about 

bicycle helmet availability and cost for low-income families. They required assurances that 

bicycle helmet giveaway and subsidy programs existed or would be established before agreeing 

to support bicycle helmet use legislation. This was a condition that was easily met by bicycle 

helmet proponents in the jurisdictions reviewed, especially since such programs were usually 

already in place. 

Another frequent contention was that requiring bicycle helmet use would decrease bicycle 

ridership, that cyclists would stop cycling rather than wear a helmet. 
19 

A different argument was raised outside of the legislative chambers in some cases, such as 

among the various stakeholder groups. Some were concerned that a focus on requiring bicycle 

helmet use would create the perception that a bicycle helmet use law would “solve bike safety 

problems.” This concern, raised primarily by those in the bicycling community, was that a law 

would detract from other bike safety efforts such as training, bike paths and access, and sharingthe-road activities. 

The arguments identified as “most effective” in persuading lawmakers to support bicycle helmet 

use laws were statistics on the costs of head and brain injuries and the effectiveness of bicycle 

helmets in preventing injury (for example, the 85 percent reduction in the risk of head injury 

cited earlier).ii

Frequently, the experiences of disabled crash victims were presented to put a human face on the 

statistics, although observers in general believed that the benefit of these efforts appeared to be 

secondary to the statistical and cost figures and the breadth of support for the law demonstrated 

by the bicycle helmet coalition. 

Constituencies. 

This report investigated the roles of different communities in the legislative process. 

Which constituencies were the most involved and the most effective? 

The “key actors” in the successful coalitions working for bicycle helmet use laws varied 

slightly from community to community. However, medical professionals were always 

involved, usually from the field of emergency medicine and/or pediatrics. Experts in 

these areas were the most frequently mentioned as the most active constituencies in 

support of bicycle helmet use laws, along with SAFE KIDS coalition members. 

Government employees (frequently in the health department) often played a key role in 

educating officials and/or supporting the coalition in support of bicycle helmet use. (One 

long-time advocate, however, noted a recently emerging trend of decreased involvement 

and participation in the process by government employees in her state). 

Medical and health professionals were often identified as the most persuasive with 

legislators. 

State laws in particular involved large and “ever-growing” coalitions, consisting of a 

variety of professional associations, service groups, business groups, etc. (See the 

Maryland profile’s Box 3, “Maryland’s Bicycle Helmet Legislation Partner 

Organizations,” for a sample list of partner groups, page 71). 

The role of the bicycling community was mixed. This community sometimes actively 

supported the laws, but was often opposed to them. This opposition was most frequently 

raised against all-rider laws. In Austin, some bicyclists organized and led a successful 

effort to scale back the city’s all-rider law. At times, the bicycling community in a 

jurisdiction was split. 
20 

Several observers mentioned bicyclists who would wear helmets themselves but who 

opposed bicycle helmet use laws, believing that “government had no business forcing 

people to wear helmets.” One expert described as both a challenge and a contradiction 

that some “people opposed to the helmet laws acknowledge that they choose to wear their 

helmets.” 

One observer said that the “pediatric and motherhood community child safety specialists” 

who were promoting bicycle helmet use laws often “did not touch base as effectively 

with the cycling community as could be.” 

The importance of coalitions consisting of an array of organizations implies that grass 

roots efforts were undertaken to support these laws and that elected officials would hear 

from constituents who also were members of groups in the coalition. Yet few examples 

of such grass-roots activities were mentioned. 

Involving children in the process, as either constituents or activists, was one strategy 

suggested by a variety of observers. Perhaps most memorable was the letter from a grade 

school class to its state legislator, who was a staunch opponent of a proposed bicycle 

helmet use bill. This letter was credited with getting the bill out of a committee where it 

would have otherwise languished. As one observer noted: “Legislators are hard pressed 

to not do the right things when it’s a bunch of kids they have to answer to. The adults 

they can reason with . . .” 

Constituencies rarely mentioned, among groups that might be expected to be active, were 

the law enforcement and education communities. Transportation agencies, when 

mentioned, were described as being slow to support a bicycle helmet use law but 

ultimately as being supportive. 

The coalitions supporting bicycle helmet use laws did not always include law 

enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies and officials did not usually offer 

active and affirmative support of the legislation. Yet the law enforcement community 

usually had a vital role. The opposition of law enforcement agencies or officials could, 

as one observer said, “derail” the legislation. Elected officials would seek the opinion of 

law enforcement officials about the proposal and would often turn to law enforcement 

experts to ask questions such as: Can it be enforced? Are the proposed penalties 

appropriate or enforceable? 

Not surprisingly, the opinion of law enforcement was frequently given great sway on 

these laws. In several efforts, supporters believe that law enforcement opposition to the 

proposal would have been fatal. But law enforcement opposition did not necessarily halt 

a bicycle helmet use law. In one case, a law enforcement chief executive opposed the 

law but it was adopted nonetheless. 

One constituency mentioned in several jurisdictions was that of motorcyclists who were 

opposed to motorcycle helmet use laws. At times, bicycle helmet proponents 

encountered legislators who were fresh from heated battles over motorcycle helmet use 
21 

laws, which increased legislators’ reluctance to adopt bicycle helmet legislation. In some 

cases, motorcyclists testified and lobbied on bicycle helmet use laws, usually in 

opposition to all-rider laws. 

One knowledgeable observer related the experience in one state (not included in this 

review) where the legislature was reportedly poised to adopt an all-rider bicycle helmet 

use law. The day before the bill was up for consideration, motorcyclists had a rally at the 

State Capitol to protest the motorcycle helmet use law. According to one observer, that 

rally led the legislature to amend the bicycle helmet use law to cover those under age 18 

so as “not to affect any voters.” 

Implementation: 

This review focused on the time period between adoption and enactment of these laws. How 

long was this time period? What programs were instituted during this time period? Were fines 

or other penalties phased in? 

Most of the jurisdictions reviewed set effective dates for their bicycle helmet use law ranging 

from six months up to 12 months after the bill’s passage. In two cases, the law allowed for the 

issuance of warnings while further deferring penalties for a year after the effective date to allow 

for education about the law and to give residents time to obtain bicycle helmets (as well as for 

bicycle helmet distribution programs to work). For example, in Port Angeles, WA, the ordinance 

was passed in May 1993 with an effective date of January 1, 1994. However, for the first year, 

only warnings could be issued; the fines allowed under the law ($15) could not be imposed until 

after January 1, 1995. 

Some jurisdictions undertook substantial activities during the phase-in period. The Oregon state 

health division created the position of bike helmet coordinator for a three-year period. This 

coordinator undertook a multi-disciplinary approach to promoting the law. 

In communities with active bicycle safety programs in advance of a bicycle helmet use 

ordinance, such as Austin, TX and Jacksonville/Duval County, FL, activities during the phase-in 

of their ordinances were a continuation and expansion of existing activities. 

When state level laws were enacted, some statewide efforts were undertaken. In Oregon, a 

community-planning guide was distributed. (The guide is reprinted in Section IX E, page 144). 

But most of the activities appeared to occur at the local level. 

Schools did not appear to be deeply involved in the law’s adoption in the jurisdictions reviewed 

but some activities promoting bicycle helmet use and the law were reported. In 

Jacksonville/Duval County, FL, the school board passed a proclamation in support of the law and 

stated that bicycle helmets should be worn when bicycling to and from school. (The 

proclamation is reprinted in Section IX K, page 212). 
22 

In Oregon, the bike helmet coordinator worked through the state Department of Education to 

ensure that children were wearing bicycle helmets. For example, they contacted schools to 

determine if the school had policies requiring bicycle helmet use by children bicycling to school. 

Some schools had bicycle safety activities that promoted bicycle helmet use but may not have 

been related to the law. The Jacksonville/Duval school district added a bicycle and pedestrian 

safety component to their standards, which was later phased out. (See Section IX L, page 213, 

for these performance standards.) In Austin, many grade school children are taught a bicycle 

safety curriculum that includes an entire lesson on bicycle helmets. In Maryland, before the state 

law was adopted, the state received CDC funds to compare school-based bicycle education to 

community-based bicycle safety/helmet wearing programs.iii

In addition to bike helmet distribution programs, other activities such as bicycle safety rodeos 

and bike safety classes were often held to promote the law and to distribute and fit bicycle 

helmets. (Sections IX F, G, H and I illustrate, respectively, Duval County, FL, bicycle helmet 

sale order forms, bicycle helmet sale procedure guidelines, observation guidelines for their 

bicycle helmet use and behavioral survey, and coding instructions and form for the survey, pages 

189 through 202). 

In Maryland, NHTSA 402 funds were used to promote the law and to distribute bicycle helmets. 

Every county receives injury prevention monies, which some counties have used for bicycle 

helmet efforts. 

Enforcement: 

An important element of most highway safety countermeasures is the role and commitment of 

the law enforcement community. This review investigated the role of law enforcement, 

specifically during the initial phase-in of the law and after the law’s effective date, including the 

level of enforcement of the law. 

Penalties. 

The intent of the laws and ordinances that were reviewed is uniformly on increasing 

bicycle helmet use, not punitive measures. Language to this effect is included in some of 

the laws. The penalties in the laws and ordinances reviewed were modest, with fines of 

no more than $25 for a first offense or, in the case of Maryland, only warnings and 

educational materials. All of the laws reviewed that allowed for a fine provided for 

dismissal of the offense if proof of a bicycle helmet purchase was provided (usually only 

on the first offense). 

The Florida statute allows the court to “waive, reduce, or suspend payment of any fine 

imposed under” this law “and may impose any other conditions on the waiver, reduction, 

or suspension. If the court finds that a person does not have sufficient funds to pay the 

fine, the court may require the performance of a specified number of hours of 

community-service or attendance at a safety seminar.” In Oregon, it was reported that 

one of the penalties imposed on violators by teen peer courts was community service. 
23 

The language of the Austin, TX ordinance emphasizes bicycle helmet use over punitive 

actions: “The municipal courts are urged to consider deferred dispositions.” 

Phase-In of the Law. 

In some cases law enforcement agencies were involved in implementation efforts such as 

bicycle rodeos, but not always, and usually not as the lead agency. 

The jurisdiction reporting the greatest involvement of law enforcement during the phasein period was Oregon. The state’s bicycle helmet coordinator worked with the law 

enforcement community to secure their understanding of and support for the law. The 

coordinator attended statewide gatherings of law enforcement officials to highlight the 

importance of the new law. The state of Oregon produced a training video for officers, 

which is still being used. Because of the “top-down” tradition of law enforcement 

agencies, the video includes statements by the state’s top law enforcement officials as 

well as the governor (who also is an emergency physician). 

Officers were trained in how to fit bicycle helmets properly and carried bike helmets in 

the trunks of patrol cars. Police agencies and the “THINK FIRST” program jointly held 

bicycle rodeos at low-income housing projects, bringing along Spanish-speaking 

interpreters. Officers were encouraged to consider the law as a way to interact positively 

with children. 

Enforcing The Law: 

In general, the law enforcement agencies in these jurisdictions were not deeply involved in 

enforcing the bicycle helmet use law, few tickets are issued under these laws and respondents 

believed the law to be rarely enforced. 

During the year in which Austin, TX had an all-rider law, a number of citations were issued. 

Enforcement decreased, however, when the law was scaled back to a minors-only law. Law 

enforcement officers interviewed often state that enforcing the law is not a high priority for them 

or their agency. In some jurisdictions, information on the citations and/or warnings issued was 

difficult to obtain. 

The Austin Police Department “is supposed to but does not write tickets for the offense,” in the 

words of one bicycle helmet use law supporter. A few individual officers, such as the bicycle 

patrol or those assigned to schools, are exceptions. 

When elected officials in a community, not a coalition, initiated the ordinance, the local police 

department was responsible for implementing the ordinance. This lack of community or 

organizational involvement is believed to undermine the effectiveness of the law. 

A number of reasons were cited for the limited enforcement of these laws. Some injury 

prevention experts believe that law enforcement officers “don’t understand” the need for the law. 
24 

Few jurisdictions reported taking steps similar to those taken by Oregon to educate officers about 

the impact of traumatic brain injury and the effectiveness of bicycle helmet use. In Oregon, 

bicycle helmet supporters believe that law enforcement’s commitment to the law remains 

relatively high, perhaps due in part to this educational effort. 

Officers “have enough to do” already and don’t want to be “the bad guys” so those 

considerations also discourage officers from enforcing the law. Some jurisdictions instituted a 

“positive” approach to enforcement, such as having officers give coupons for free food (at fast 

food restaurants) to children wearing bicycle helmets rather than citing un-helmeted children. 

In one community, a law enforcement spokesperson said that most of the area’s fatalities, 

including bicycling fatalities, were the fault of motor vehicle drivers, so the police department 

chooses to place its traffic safety emphasis on the behavior of motor vehicle drivers. 

In a few jurisdictions, disinterest in the courts or lack of consistency in adjudicating these 

offenses was mentioned as a factor for the lack of enforcement. 

In some cases, confusion existed about the basic provisions of the law. In one state, several 

individuals who had been deeply involved in the law’s passage complained, several years later 

(in the words of one): “I bet no citations have ever been issued.” However, that jurisdiction’s 

law did not allow citations to be issued. 

In another community, where the bicycle helmet use ordinance had been changed from an allrider to a minors-only requirement, a police officer, when asked about the law, declared that it 

had been repealed. 

Minors-only laws raise unique enforcement problems, according to a variety of observers. 

“What do you do? Have the officer take the kid home, put the bike in the trunk? It’s a 

complicated thing.” 

In one jurisdiction with a minors-only law, police officers were reported to believe that if they 

stopped a child younger than 14, the ticket would have to be written to the parents, which 

discouraged officers from enforcing the law. 

The image of “troopers giving tickets to children” was mentioned as being distasteful to 

lawmakers and the general public, as well as to the officers themselves. 

One officer stated: “It is hard to enforce. You have to write the citation to the violator; most are 

6, 7, 8, 10 years old. Writing a ticket for someone that age is hard for the police officer.” As a 

result, officers “do more education” about bicycle helmet use and the law than citation writing. 

“Our enforcement effort is very minimal.” 

In one community, a charge of selective enforcement based on race and ethnicity, was leveled, 

although a review of the citations issued disputed that contention (See the Austin, TX, profile’s 

Charts 2 and 3, “Ethnic Breakdown of Bicyclists Receiving Citations for Riding Without 
25 

Helmet,” page 43). However, according to one observer, this controversy convinced the police 

chief not to enforce the law. 

The picture presented in the jurisdictions reviewed is of a commitment to the law by the injury 

prevention community but limited interest and/or understanding of the law by enforcement 

agencies. (Certain individual officers, or bike patrols, were commended for their promotion and 

enforcement of the law.) One observer commented that “buy in” to these laws is needed from 

senior levels of law enforcement. 

This picture should also take into account that these laws are generally described to be 

“educational.” For some respondents, the level of enforcement is not necessarily an indication of 

success or effectiveness. Some bicycle helmet use law supporters, while wanting greater 

enforcement of existing law, also commented that “the focus is not on citations” and “I didn’t 

care if they didn’t write a single ticket as long as helmet use went up.” Therefore, analyzing law 

enforcement’s role as a component of the effectiveness of a law depends upon how one defines 

effectiveness. 

Effectiveness: 

The review sought to better understand the impact of bicycle helmet use laws. For instance, how 

is effectiveness defined? Is it being measured? Are these laws effective? Lawmakers did not 

define “effectiveness” for the bicycle helmet use laws in the jurisdictions under review, nor did 

they require that the laws be studied or evaluated. None of the statutes or ordinances reviewed 

contained provisions covering these topics. 

Defining Effectiveness.

The respondents interviewed offered differing measures of how they would judge a 

bicycle helmet use law’s effectiveness: 

 Changes in bicycle helmet use; 

 Changes in bicycle crash-related deaths or injuries, or fatality or injury rates; 

 Level of enforcement (e.g., citations or warnings issued); and 

 As a tool for parents and caregivers. 

Measuring Effectiveness. 

Some of the jurisdictions conduct observational surveys to track bicycle helmet use 

(primarily those that had been awarded grants for this purpose); some do not. A few 

jurisdictions looked at the impact of bike helmet use on bicycle crash-related head 

injuries. However, several respondents reported difficulty in obtaining data or that the 

necessary data were not collected. 

Several experts noted a low incidence of bicycle fatalities in their jurisdictions, and stated 

that the low incidence of (or lack of data on) bicycle-related deaths and head and brain 

injuries make it difficult to get statistically significant data on bicycle injuries and deaths. 
26 

One activist believed that it would be difficult and require a lot of resources to correlate 

bicycle helmet use with the head and brain injuries prevented resulting from the law. “I 

think the goal of (proving that a bicycle helmet use law is) decreasing head injury is a 

little pie-in-the-sky because the numbers are such that you couldn’t measure effectively. 

Usually head injuries are a relatively small number. If kids fall and hit their heads and 

they’re fine, you don’t hear anything about it. You can’t get a hold of those statistics. 

Even if a child has a minor injury with a helmet, you don’t hear about it. We don’t 

collect doctor visits or emergency room (ER) visits. A person has to be injured enough 

so that they are admitted to the hospital. We use helmet use as a proxy for it, because of 

the Washington state study,” referring to the 1989 report by Thompson and Rivara that 

found bicycle safety helmets reduce the risk of head injury from a bicycle crash by 85 

percent.iv

The belief that bicycle helmet use prevents head and brain injuries would appear to be 

generally accepted by those interviewed and was not challenged in the process of 

adopting the law. Therefore, in some jurisdictions, as one expert said, “there was an 

underlying assumption” that requiring bicycle helmet use “is a good thing.” So it was not 

a high priority in those jurisdictions to use resources to study that relationship. 

A separate concern is the challenge of isolating the impact of a bicycle helmet use law in 

a jurisdiction with an active bicycle safety program. With a variety of activities 

underway concurrently, such as bike helmet giveaway or bicycle safety education 

programs, it may be difficult if not impossible to separate out the law’s impact from that 

of the other activities. In Jacksonville/Duval County, FL, for example, the county’s 

many activities address bicycle helmet use in a wide variety of approaches, making it 

difficult to identify the law’s precise effect. Among the jurisdictions reviewed, those 

with resources and interest to conduct bike helmet use observation studies and analyze 

fatality and injury data usually had the resources to undertake other bicycle safety 

activities. 

Another complication to measuring the impact of a bicycle helmet use law is a “sea 

change” in public opinion identified by several respondents, where acceptance of bicycle 

helmet use has greatly increased, due to influences such as a national effort to link bike 

sales with helmet sales and design changes to bicycle helmets that made them “a little 

cooler so public resistance (to wearing bicycle helmets) went down.” 

Findings: 

Where measures of bicycle helmet use were reported, increases in bicycle helmet use were 

observed after bill passage: 

 Austin, TX saw a 316 percent increase in bicycle helmet use among children ages 5 to 14. 

(See the Austin, TX profile’s Chart 1, “Bicycle Helmet Usage Rates in Austin,” page 37). 

 Jacksonville/Duval County, FL observed substantial increases in bicycle helmet use among 

children; from 1996 to 1999, the bicycle helmet usage rate increased 393 percent among 
27 

children ages 12 and under. (See the Duval County, FL profile’s Table 1, “Duval County, 

FL- Bicycle Helmet Usage Rate Comparison by Age, 1996-1999,” page 59). 

 In Oregon, bike helmet use after the law took effect was about twice as high as pre-law bike 

helmet use, increasing from 24.5 percent to 49.3 percent in those under 18, and from 20.4 

percent to 56.1 percent among those under 16. 

Several jurisdictions that tracked deaths, injuries, and fatality and injury rates reported 

improvements in these measures after bill passage. For example: 

 From 1996 to 1999, the Jacksonville/Duval County, FL bicycle injury rate (per 100,000 

population) decreased from 51.07 to 33.62, or 34 percent. (See the Duval County, FL 

profile’s Charts 1 and 2, “1996-1999 Duval County Comparison & Correlation of Bicycle 

Helmet Usage Rates and Bicycle Injuries Involving a Motor-Vehicle, Fatal & Nonfatal for 

the 0-12 Age Group,” page 58). 

 An evaluation of the Oregon law by the state’s Department of Human Resources Health 

Division found a sharp decline in bicycle-related head injuries (BHIs). In the first full year 

after the bicycle helmet use law was in effect, actual BHI cases were 70. The number of 

cases predicted was 121, meaning a total of 51 BHI cases avoided.v

Some respondents offered their opinions on their law’s effectiveness. A number of people said 

they believed their bicycle helmet use laws were effective. To paraphrase one bike helmet 

supporter, these respondents believe that as long as bike helmet use goes up, the law is effective 

“especially since the (before-law usage) rate was so low. Even if we only get to 6 or 10 percent 

helmet use, it would still be better” than before the law. 

One bicycling activist in a jurisdiction with a minors-only law said he was “not a real proponent 

of the law originally,” but now observes: “It’s very clear to me that (the law) is very effective. I 

think it’s highly successful with children. I see a lot of helmet use and it’s rare for me to see a 

child without a helmet now. Something did happen. I see helmets on kids in rural areas, where I 

least expect it; helmets on kids using training wheels; when they’re just going up and down the 

driveway. I’m always impressed when I see it and glad that it happened. There was an impact. 

I think it's promising.” 

A few believe the law made no difference or that the lack of enforcement or penalties renders it 

ineffective. One observer said that “people who want to wear helmets will do so whether there is 

a law or not” and believes that the law is not effective because it “has no teeth. By that I mean 

no ticket, just the educational materials.” This observer also believes another reason why his 

jurisdiction’s law is not very effective is a lack of follow-through by the government agency that 

had been deeply involved in the law’s passage. During the law’s implementation, the agency did 

not continue its high level of activity in support of the effort. 

One person questioned whether there is “an issue of unintended consequences,” believing that 

bicycle helmet use laws decrease bicycle participation at the same time that the nation is facing a 

burden to the health care system due to obesity and lack of exercise. 
28 

Another believed that, in some communities, “with an educational program we would probably 

have gotten about 50 percent compliance already (without a law). An awareness campaign has 

gotten them where they are.” 

However, even though criticisms were offered about a law’s lack of effectiveness or 

enforcement, no respondent advocated that their law be repealed. A few had concerns about 

bicycle helmet use laws being the sole focus of bicycle safety efforts. “We must consider other 

aspects of bike safety; not take a one-shot approach to bike safety.” 

Few suggested changing the age coverage of their laws. In fact, only one respondent wanted to 

expand their minors-only law to cover all riders and only one respondent proposed further 

lowering the age on their minors-only law to cover a smaller population of children. Several 

observers did express concern that minors-only laws will keep today’s children from translating 

their experience into wearing a bicycle helmet as an adult. (Specific suggestions are detailed in 

the “retrospective analysis” section.) 

Even when a law is not being enforced, measured or somehow proven successful, some 

respondents see its existence as an important tool to help parents get their children to wear a 

bicycle helmet. Even a bicycling activist who is critical of some aspects of his jurisdiction’s law 

said: “I think it should still stay on the books. It gives parents a great lever. One of the biggest 

benefits of passing a law is giving a tool to a parent . . . it gives a parent the opening to talk about 

it. When you explain to a kid as young as 9 or 10 years old that it’s against the law, they’re 

much more likely to wear a helmet.” 

Evaluation: 

In addition to examining a bicycle helmet use law’s effectiveness (however defined), this report 

sought to identify factors influencing whether or not an evaluation was conducted. What factors 

would encourage a jurisdiction to undertake an evaluation of its law? What barriers exist? 

The jurisdictions that conducted the most complete evaluations of their laws did so using grant 

funding from the CDC or state highway safety funds apportioned by NHTSA. These evaluations 

were products of the injury prevention community, generally with little coordination with law 

enforcement agencies. 

Several barriers to evaluation were suggested by those interviewed. Primarily and most 

frequently cited was a lack of fiscal resources and time. Some jurisdictions had difficulty 

obtaining injury data. In some cases, statistics on citations were not available or were hard to 

obtain. Crash forms did not collect data on bicycle helmet use; nor did summaries of citations 

provide such data in some jurisdictions. 

Conducting an observational survey on bicycle helmet use was described as more challenging 

than a seat belt use observational survey. In the opinion of one observer, there is simply not 

interest by government agency leaders to conduct any evaluations. Another said that “buy in” by 

law enforcement leadership and others in the community is needed to evaluate the law. 
29 

Before the Maryland bicycle helmet use law was passed, state officials, supported by the CDC, 

conducted a three-county comparison of bicycle helmet use. This studyvi (summarized in the 

Maryland profile’s Box 1, “Bicycle Helmet Use Among Maryland Children: Effect of 

Legislation and Education,” page 63) found that a law was more effective in increasing bicycle 

helmet use than educational programs. This study appeared to lessen interest in conducting postlaw evaluations. 

Attitude and tradition also appear to play a role. In one jurisdiction that regularly conducts 

program evaluations, agency employees cited state and local traditions, individual leadership, 

and employee attitudes as reasons for these practices. Alternatively, some government 

employees, in describing their agency’s responsibilities, might mention education, advocacy, and 

awareness, but not evaluation. 

In one jurisdiction, no clearinghouse of information or mechanism for announcing relevant 

studies conducted by various government entities exists. Therefore, “only a few people (in an 

agency) would know about a study,” making such information hard to get, according to one 

employee. “The data could be existing somewhere; perhaps some entity has done such a study. 

It is easier for me to get it through NHTSA than to ferret it out” from colleagues. 

One approach to increase the likelihood that a law would be evaluated is to require evaluations or 

reporting in the law itself. However, one expert advised that such a strategy should be carefully 

weighed. While such a provision could generate important information down the road, it may 

also delay or jeopardize the bill’s chance of passage. 

In one jurisdiction, the agencies charged with implementing the law took it upon themselves, 

without a statutory mandate, to report to legislators and the governor about the impact of the law. 

In addition to filling an important educational role, such reports may forestall challenges to or 

complaints about the law. 

Retrospective Analysis: 

As part of the questions about their jurisdiction’s bicycle helmet use requirement, respondents 

were asked for general observations and to suggest changes that they would have made to the 

adoption and implementation of their bicycle helmet use law to increase its effectiveness. 

Not surprisingly, since the experience of every jurisdiction varied and the provisions of the laws 

differed, the opinions expressed were sometimes contradictory. As mentioned above, one 

respondent suggested expanding their minors-only law to cover all riders and one respondent 

suggested further lowering the age on their minors-only law to cover a smaller population of 

children. When discussing their law’s penalty provisions, some proponents said, “decriminalize 

it” or “make education the sanction instead of a fine.” Others called for imposing a fine where 

currently none exists, believing that the lack of a penalty provision rendered their law ineffective. 

One local official believes a state law would be more effective than local laws. “I believe until 

we have a state law, it will be a problem for jurisdictions for getting the word out. If there is a 

state law, then education efforts would come forward from the state.” However, the experience 
30 

in jurisdictions with state laws indicates that most efforts would be conducted at the local level 

and state resources and programs dedicated to the law would not necessarily emerge. 

The two communities that scaled back or repealed their laws may serve as examples that these 

laws, like any other, are affected by community attitudes and politics. 

In virtually all cases, a key component of legislative success was establishing a coalition as the 

organizational structure for pursuing and implementing a law, similar to the experience of 

enacting safety belt anti-impaired driving, or other highway safety provisions. 

Some of the suggestions for increasing effectiveness post-enactment are common to other safety 

countermeasure programs: 

 Law enforcement must make the law a priority; if the law is not enforced, it loses its 

effectiveness. 

 On-going efforts in education and awareness are needed, similar to those supporting 

safety belt laws. 

 Proponents should educate the news media about the need for the law. 

 The public needs to be better educated on the physics of injury. 

 Those implementing the law must “continuously deliver the message” about bicycle 

helmet use and the law. 

Citing themes familiar to highway safety activists, one bicycle helmet use law supporter said that 

experience taught him that, “just throwing a helmet out there isn’t enough. Coordinated 

activities are needed.” 

Jurisdictions that reported increased bicycle helmet use after adopting a bicycle helmet use law 

had undertaken additional interventions, such as education, awareness efforts, bike helmet 

distribution and enforcement. 

However, other areas mentioned may be unique to bicycle helmet use laws. 

Economic Burden. 

Bicycle helmet law proponents can anticipate that lawmakers will be concerned about the 

economic burden a law places on low-income families by requiring them to obtain 

bicycle helmets. However, although this issue arose in many jurisdictions, it was also 

reported as relatively easy to address through giveaway and subsidy programs. At least 

one expert declared there are a variety of sources for low cost or free bicycle helmets. 
31 

Bicycle Ridership.

Bicycle helmet use law proponents should anticipate questions about the potential impact 

of a bicycle helmet use requirement on participation in bicycling. Some bicycle helmet 

use law opponents contend that requiring bike helmet use would decrease bicycle 

ridership, that cyclists would stop cycling rather than wear a bike helmet. 

This topic was raised in several of the jurisdictions reviewed and is likely to be of greater 

interest in the future, given the concerns about physical fitness, as well as increasing 

interest in “bike-able” communities and “smart growth.” 

Few of the jurisdictions reviewed measure bicycle ridership. One jurisdiction with a 

minors-only law reported that ridership by adults was increasing and ridership by 

children to school had been decreasing since before the law’s enactment, but the reasons 

for these changes were not known. 

To address these concerns, one expert advised: “Any implementation of a bicycle helmet 

law should be paired with an effort to promote ridership. Helmet law supporters should 

measure ridership and support ridership.” 

Bicycle Helmets as a Part of the Whole. 

One category of comments related to integrating bicycle helmet efforts with overall 

bicycle and bicycle safety issues. 

One criticism offered was that focusing on bicycle helmet use laws may create a 

perception that “helmet use is the beginning and end all of bicycle safety,” frustrating 

some in the bicycling community and/or those with different bicycle safety priorities. 

One respondent said that working only on bike helmet use would be analogous to acting 

as though “safety belts are the only aspect to look at in auto safety.” “Helmet use doesn’t 

hurt, it’s cheap insurance to have,” but bicycle helmet use law proponents should also be 

supporting other facets of bicycle safety, such as bicycle safety education “to help 

prevent crashes in the first place.” 

Related comments included support for an emphasis on enforcement of all bike safety 

laws, not just those relating to bike helmet use, and to balance the emphasis on bicycle 

helmets with other safety concerns, such as “civil engineering, potholes,” and barriers to 

bicycling. 

A Legitimate Part of the Transportation Mix.

Some observers noted changing role of bicycling in the transportation network, which 

affects all bicycling issues. 
32 

“Often we portray cycling as a juvenile activity, a play activity, but most cyclists are 

adults. It is a weakness when helmet advocates just focus on children; we’ve targeted 

only one segment of the cycling community, not the majority of the community.” 

Another long-time bicycling activist said: “It used to be that the bicycle was thought of 

as a toy, it shouldn’t be on the street. Our aim all along was to make the bike part of the 

transportation system.” He observed that bicycling advocates now include not only 

volunteers, but also “a new breed” of professionals whose full-time job is to promote 

these issues. This professionalism will result in, he hopes, more resources and respect for 

bicycling and bicycle safety. 
33 

Section VI. Analysis Conclusion 

In general, bicycle helmet use laws can be effective in increasing bicycle helmet use and 

decreasing injuries. The effectiveness of these laws can be difficult to define and measure. 

Enactment of bicycle helmet use laws is subject to the political considerations common in the 

legislative process (e.g., role of committee assignments, political leadership) encountered in 

efforts to adopt other traffic safety countermeasures. However, enacting and implementing 

bicycle helmet use laws differ in some key aspects. Debates will emerge focusing on protecting 

children, bike helmet access for low-income residents, infringing on individual rights, and other 

issues. Proponents must be prepared for these differences, as well as for issues that may be 

specific to a community. 

Though the experience of every jurisdiction varied, and recommendations were sometimes 

contradictory (e.g., “impose a fine,” “repeal the fine,” “lower the ages covered,” “make it allrider”), several themes emerged in this review: 

 The major stakeholders in enacting a law are usually emergency medicine professionals, 

pediatricians, and a coalition (focused on children’s safety, injury prevention, or 

bicycling and bicycle safety); the bicycling community, also a major stakeholder, has 

been divided at times on this issue; and law enforcement, though usually not deeply 

involved, may have a “make-or-break” role; 

 Typically, few citations are issued under these laws and they are not a priority for 

enforcement agencies; 

 Even though the laws may be little enforced, they are seen as valuable leverage 

(especially for parents) for increasing bicycle helmet use; 

 The evolving role of bicycling and the bicycling community in the changing 

transportation mix will influence the strategies, issues and constituents involved in future 

bicycle safety efforts (for example, the issue of a bicycle helmet use law’s impact on 

ridership), so bicycle helmet proponents should consider these concerns; and 

 Bicycle helmet use laws are unlikely to be evaluated without outside financial support. 

A piece of advice from John Overstreet, a long-time volunteer proponent and teacher of bicycle 

safety in Maryland, on promoting bicycle helmets and bike safety: “Nobody can do it by 

themselves; just keep trying.” 
34 

Some of the more creative ideas encountered in these communities include: 

Crossing Guards as a Resource: In Jacksonville, FL, elementary school crossing guards were 

trained to recognize correct and incorrect bicycle helmet fit. On designated days, the crossing 

guards would distribute two types of bookmarks. One bookmark congratulated a bike-riding 

student for wearing a bicycle helmet and the bookmark was a ticket for a prize drawing. The 

other bookmark encouraged a bike-riding student who was not wearing a bicycle helmet to go to 

the physical education teacher to get a session on bike helmet safety. The bookmarks given to 

these students were a different color. After a student had participated in the bicycle helmet 

safety session, s/he could then submit the bookmark for a prize drawing. 

Engaging Law Enforcement: The state of Oregon produced a training video where line 

officers would hear “from the top down” that enforcing the law was important and would learn 

about head and brain injury. In the video, “Putting Safety on Top,” the Governor (on a bike and 

wearing a bicycle helmet) and his wife, the honorary chair of the SAFE KIDS coalition, spoke 

about head injury and bicycle helmet use. The state’s top law enforcement officials were also 

interviewed. The experiences of two bicycle crash survivors were contrasted. One was a 17-

year-old who had been in a bike crash, with no helmet, at age 12 and had suffered a brain injury. 

He and his grandmother talked about what it is like to live with a brain injury. The other 

survivor, the son of a patrolman, had been in a crash under identical circumstances but had been 

wearing a bicycle helmet. He walked away from the crash. 

Officers receive continuing education credit for watching the video. The video, described as 

“powerful” and “emotional,” was well received and is still being used. 

Peer Courts: In some jurisdictions, bicycle helmet use law supporters complained about 

disinterest in the courts or lack of consistency in adjudicating these offenses. One 

unconventional approach to enforcement is reportedly successful in Oregon. Jurisdictions with 

Peer Courts are reported to have “real” enforcement. The students on those courts are willing to 

cite and give community service to fellow students found to be in violation of the law. 
35 

Section VII. Profiles 

A. Austin, Texas 

Jurisdiction: City of Austin. 

Effective date: May 19,1996; modified October 1997. 

Ages covered: Originally all ages, then amended to ages 17 and under. 

Penalty: Under original ordinance: Fine for first offense: $50; subsequent offenses, $100. 

Under modified ordinance: Fine for first offense: $20; subsequent offenses, $40. 

The charge can be dismissed upon proof of purchase of a bicycle helmet within 30 days of the 

citation. 

 

Agency enforcing the law: City of Austin Police Department. 

Legislative language is reprinted in Section VIII A., page 108. 

Austin, Texas’ state capitol, is described as an urban/suburban community, economically, 

ethnically and racially diverse. Austin’s population as of January 2000 was 642,994: 54.5 

percent white, 28.4 percent Hispanic, 11.5 percent black and 5.6 percent Asian and other. 

Austin has an active bicycling community. One expert said: “There are very strong bicycle 

riding advocates here in town. Bicycles are widely used in this community, both for getting 

around and recreational purposes.” Several observers mentioned that bicycling champion Lance 

Armstrong’s presence in Austin has had a strong influence. “Lance Armstrong coming from 

here has done a lot to promote bicycle safety” and bicycling. 

Researching Austin’s experience in moving from an all-rider to a minors-only bicycle helmet use 

law reveals a variety of areas where community members differ, on the process, on the 

enforcement, and on the effectiveness of the law. 

Knowledgeable observers of and participants in the adoption and implementation of the 

community’s bicycle helmet use law hold a spectrum of opinions and interpretations about the 

law. These differing perspectives at times even involved disagreement about factual matters. 

At least two safety professionals, when asked about the Austin law, replied, “it was repealed 

several years ago.” One of them, when pressed, clarified that the law had not been fully 

repealed, but it covered “only children.” Another, who stated, “we don’t have that law any more 

in Austin,” also said that the partial repeal was as significant as a full repeal. Others see the 

bicycle helmet use law as in place and working, with varying degrees of effectiveness. 
36 

Impetus For Legislation: 

In late 1995, the Travis County Bicycle Helmet Coalition was created to pursue a bicycle helmet 

use ordinance in Austin. The group was formed through the Austin SAFE KIDS coalition. The 

Austin/Travis County Health & Human Services Department was implementing a “Helmet 

Power” initiative promoting helmet use, under a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC). The city’s “Helmet Power” employee was a key member of the bicycle 

helmet coalition. Other members included a paramedic and the head of the Head Start program. 

The group also received support from the county’s EMS director. 

Bicycle helmet supporters in the state had been trying to get a state law passed, without success, 

so this new coalition decided to focus on a local goal. 

One of the first things that the coalition did was to set up meetings with members of the city 

council. In these meetings, coalition representatives “presented the city council members with a 

lot of statistics evidence, anecdotal reports,” said one coalition member. “We put together a 

packet that had information on the number of head injuries, deaths, helmet effectiveness. We 

tried to get as much local data as we could.” 

Several other factors aided their effort. In 1995, the city of Houston had adopted a bicycle 

helmet use law for children under the age of 18. Austin’s mayor and a city council member both 

had relatives who had suffered head injuries (although not bike-related) so they understood firsthand the burden that head injuries place on the victim, the family and the community. 

 

In spring 1996, the mayor sponsored the ordinance, with another council member as cosponsor. 

Bicycle helmet use law proponents cited the involvement of emergency medicine professionals, 

the local SAFE KIDS coalition and other local children’s groups (primarily led by doctors) as 

very helpful in the introduction of the proposal. 

The Bicycle Helmet Environment And Existing Efforts: 

In 1994, the city of Austin had launched “Helmet Power,” mentioned above, an “intensive” 

program to increase bicycle helmet use, staffed by a health department employee and funded by 

a CDC grant. 

The program involved “doing education in the schools, giving away helmets,” according to a 

former staff member. “It was an intensive program. We gave away 6-7,000 helmets in two 

years.” 

The bicycle helmet give-away programs were “concentrated in under-served neighborhoods.” 

Brackenridge Hospital, at that time city-operated, participated through the SAFE KIDS coalition 

and worked in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) 

programs and the Texas Department of Health Safe Rider programs. They held events such as 
37 

school health fairs, bicycle rodeos, and SAFE KIDS coalition events where activities included 

distributing bicycle helmets. 

The city program was also conducting bicycle helmet surveys throughout the community to track 

changes in usage. According to these surveys, bicycle helmet use at the beginning of the 

program was 18 percent among children ages 5-14 and 68 percent among adults. (See Chart 1, 

“Bicycle Helmet Usage Rates in Austin.”) 

Chart 1 

Bicycle Helmet Usage Rates in Austin

H

e

l

m

e

t

U

s

a

g

e

R

a

t

e

s

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

10%

0%

20%

30%

Bicycle helmet use

ordinace for all ages

passed by City Council

May, 1996

Ordinace modified to

include only children

under 18 in Oct., 1997

COA “Helmet POWER”

Project begins

68%

18%

35% 36%

39%

75%

63%

73%

69%

47% 49%

56% 54% 55% 57%

62% 61%

82%

55%

48%

67%

80%

May-94 May-98 Nov-94 May-95 Nov-95 Sep-96 Nov-00 May-97 Dec-97 May-99 May-00

Survey Dates Children ages 5 to 14

Adults

Source: Austin/Travis Co. Health & Human Svcs. Dept. 

When asked about the high rate of bicycle helmet use by adults (often higher than that of 

children) as observed in these surveys, one DHHS employee hypothesized: “We have a pretty 

well educated community here, I guess adults are just more aware. We have an active cycling 

community, a lot of recreational cyclists. I think most of those serious recreational cyclists wear 

helmets. People who ride with cycling clubs, teams, avid cyclists” may be more likely to wear 

bicycle helmets and “that may contribute.” 
38 

The Legislative Experience: 

Supported by the local bicycle helmet coalition, the mayor and a council member agreed to 

introduce and support a bicycle helmet use ordinance. City resources were sustaining an active 

bicycle safety program that promoted bicycle helmet use. 

Two participants in the process had different recollections of the next steps in the process under 

which the all-rider ordinance emerged. 

According to one activist, the coalition members “used the Houston ordinance as kind of a 

model, and reworded it to include adults. We presented the idea to the council members, and 

they took and ran with it. They were all for it (an all-rider ordinance), to our surprise.” 

In the ordinance’s initial passage, “there was no process of debate. We spoke with city council, 

and they ran with it. Everybody (supporting the ordinance) was pushing for an all-ages 

ordinance, not thinking we were going to get it. We were ready to go to a child-only. (The 

council) said, yeah, we need it for all ages.” There was a brief hearing the day it was passed and 

several ordinance supporters “were allowed to speak on the day it came up for council action.” 

Another activist recounted that the council was presented with a proposal “based on a minorsonly ordinance in Houston. The Council, without me knowing it, wrote it as a universal 

ordinance (changing it from a minors-only law). They slipped it in on a consent agenda, 

indicating there was no controversy. They had us (bicycle helmet use law supporters) talk for 

about 45 minutes and passed it.” This observer said that the resulting ordinance was one that 

some bicycle helmet proponents “didn’t intend” and that this unannounced switch was “what 

irritated the cycle activists the most.” Both observers agree the process of passage was relatively 

brief, and that opposition to the all-rider ordinance emerged after passage. 

Hearings on the ordinance were held after its May 1996 passage but before the end of the 90-day 

“grace period” when the ordinance specifically allowed warning notices. Strong opposition to 

the ordinance emerged at these hearings. Additionally, “every week during public comment,” 

opponents would “sign up to speak before the city council why the ordinance wasn’t good,” 

remembered one observer. 

One organization, “Citizens for Cycling Freedom,” was formed to oppose the ordinance. 

Observers said that opposition to the ordinance “was really getting organized” around the time 

when the all-rider ordinance went into effect. According to one activist, some opponents may 

have been “okay with a child-only helmet law, but for the most part, opponents were against any 

helmet law period.” 

The next city council election occurred several months after the all-age law was in effect. As the 

election approached, opponents to the all-rider law “leaned all over the candidates” to change the 

law, according to one observer, who described the unfolding of the political process as “fairly 

typical.” Ordinance opponents “tried to get it repealed.” However, “the city council wouldn’t go 

that far.” The next session, “the city council went back and had it put back to a kid-only law. A 

lot of candidates went in thinking they would repeal it, but they only rolled it back.” 
39 

The October 1997 change to a minors-only law took effect immediately. 

Constituencies And Arguments Pro And Con: 

Bicycle helmet supporters cited a variety of helpful factors in convincing city council members 

to back the ordinance: statistical evidence, anecdotal reports, the leadership of elected officials, 

and the involvement of emergency medicine professionals. 

Bicycle helmet use law supporters agreed that the statistics that lawmakers found the most 

persuasive were “local and statewide injury data” – “traumatic brain injury (TBI) statistics” – 

not fatality data. Area bicycle fatalities are low, “averaging about 2.4 per year, and did not seem 

to be a real pressure point,” according to one activist. 

In the debate, this observer said, “lots of data were presented but it was not a critical item.” 

What he believed to be more helpful was anecdotal information, such as the crash survivor who 

testified before the city council meeting. 

The local SAFE KIDS coalition and other children’s groups continued their support of the 

proposal. The executive director of the local HeadStart project had contacts on the city council 

and was also a bicyclist. 

Involvement by emergency medicine professionals and by pediatricians was cited as being very 

helpful. “A lot of doctors and others were involved. The head of emergency medical service 

(EMS) in Austin (the Medical Director of Austin/Travis County EMS) known as ‘Dr. Ed,’ a 

young doctor, very aggressive doctor, was on our side,” recalled one proponent. “One of the 

council members’ pediatricians told him it was something that had to pass. We had a kid testify 

who had gone over the hood of a car with a helmet on; we had a lot of those people.” 

One injury prevention expert spoke on behalf of the SAFE KIDS coalition, Brackenridge trauma 

services (the local public hospital at the time), and the Emergency Nurses Association. 

“On the other side, we had doctors stand up and say this is not a public health problem” because 

“there weren’t enough bicycle injuries to represent a public health issue.” 

One concern that emerged was “how to find helmets for the kids who can’t afford them.” 

As described elsewhere, substantial efforts were undertaken to meet this need before and after 

the bill’s adoption. 

The most influential arguments made by those who opposed the legislation were summarized as: 

“personal rights -- always big in Texas,” “we don’t need more laws to dictate how we conduct 

our private life,” and “helmets would reduce (bicycle) ridership.” 
40 

The main opponents of the legislation were “local bicycle activists between (the ages of) 25-35,” 

according to a former city employee, although another observer indicated the opposition didn’t 

emerge until after the passage of the ordinance: “Twenty-something transportation cyclists 

organized to oppose the ordinance when they discovered it passed.” 

City leaders appeared to respond to the argument that the all-ages ordinance could decrease the 

amount of bicycling. In modifying the ordinance, the city council prefaced the language to roll 

back the age coverage with: “In recognition that punitive bicycle helmet laws may reduce 

ridership and to encourage the use of helmets through non-punitive means . . .” 

Phase-In To Implementation: 

The original law was adopted by the city council in May 1996, with a 90-day “grace period” 

allowing for warning notices rather than fines. The ordinance was modified to “minors-only” in 

October 1997. 

 

The Austin/Travis County Health and Human Services’ “Helmet Power” program, funded by 

CDC, ran from 1994 through 1996. It was continued as the Travis County “SuperCyclist” 

project funded by NHTSA 402 (highway safety) grant money through the Texas Department of 

Transportation from 1996 to 2000. A current project, the Youth Traffic Safety Project, also uses 

402 funds. 

Promotions specifically mentioned in connection with the implementation of the law included 

bicycle safety classes, bike rodeos, and appearances at health fairs reaching about 10,000 

children and their parents per year. 

As one person put it: “We held bike safety classes for the general public, and had the media 

promote those. Then we were giving away helmets in schools and at events that people in the 

community would organize. Currently, we do a whole lesson on helmets that is part of a 

comprehensive bicycle safety curriculum” that many grade school children in Austin receive. 

Bicycle safety activists report that bicycle helmet give-away efforts are ongoing. One activist 

describes the enthusiasm for and versatility of this activity: “Real estate agents give them away. 

The Texas Medical Association statewide has a program, ‘Hard Hats for Little Heads,’ which is 

a source of bicycle helmets through the county medical associations. I can go to my medical 

association, say I’m doing a program for kids and I need 50 helmets, the helmets will show up. 

We just did a ride in Austin and raised enough money for 1,000 helmets through a local cycling 

club. Lots of people will put up money for helmets. It’s a good cause.” 

 

The city’s bicycle program sought law enforcement involvement in non-enforcement activities 

such as education and bicycle helmet give-away efforts, but in general, the Austin Police 

Department (APD) was “not receptive,” according to one employee. The police department 

declined to have police officers carry bicycle helmets with them to give to children or to have 

officers distribute coupons from McDonalds to reward children who were wearing bicycle 

helmets. “As a department, they have not been organized in promoting helmet use. But there are 

certain officers who have been supportive in promoting bicycle safety. In fact, we did a training 
41 

in the SuperCyclist curriculum, we trained some APD officers to teach this course,” said a 

county DHHS employee. 

Another observer said that “some of the officers, especially those associated with the schools,” 

promoted education activities, adding that some in the bicycle patrol “were active in education, 

especially at health fairs. The pediatricians and the real estate associations donated helmets to 

the police department community stations. Those helmets were available for kids who didn't 

have one.” However, he agreed there was “relatively little coordination with law enforcement 

agencies.” 

A bicycle safety activist described one other step in the implementation of the law: a meeting 

with the Austin Police Department to encourage the enforcement of all traffic laws, including the 

bicycle helmet use law, for cyclists. Representatives of the health and police departments, and 

other departments such as public works, met “to discuss the helmet ordinance and ticketing. We 

wanted them to enforce the law.” Health & Human Services Department (HHS) bicycle safety 

employees urged increased enforcement of laws for bicyclists, but they didn’t see a change in 

enforcement by the police department. 

Bicycle Helmet Use Law Enforcement: 

The penalty language of both versions of the city’s ordinance includes this provision, which 

emphasizes bicycle helmet use over punitive actions: 

“The purpose of this article is to encourage the use of helmets. In keeping with that 

purpose, the municipal courts are urged to consider deferred dispositions under Article 

45.54 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure whenever the circumstances warrant 

deferred dispositions.” 

Knowledgeable observers disagree about the impact of enforcing the all-rider version of the 

ordinance and about concerns raised by some regarding recent enforcement of the law. In the 

words of an injury prevention expert who supports greater enforcement of the existing ordinance: 

“When the (all ages) ordinance was first passed, law enforcement wrote a lot of tickets for ‘no 

helmet’ in that first period. Then once the ordinance was modified to include only children 17 

and under, that number went down to fewer than two or three per year. They were writing adult 

tickets for no helmets while they could.” 

Another activist was critical of the ordinance’s enforcement during the time period when the allrider provisions were in effect. “I don’t know if anyone has looked at the citations given that 

year; but that was a bad scene. There was no upper echelon pressure to enforce the law and the 

courts were not consistent in the penalties they handed down.” 

The injury prevention expert pointed out that once the ordinance was changed to children only, 

police officers said that if they stopped a child younger than 14, “they would have to write the 

ticket to their parents.” This complication thus kept officers from writing citations. The police 

department “is supposed to but does not write tickets for the offense,” in the words of this 

bicycle helmet use law supporter. 
42 

When asked about enforcement efforts or policies, a police department spokesperson said: “We 

have 42 traffic fatalities a year so our focus is on educating drivers. We’ve had only two or three 

accidents this year with bike fatalities, all of them caused by a vehicle. As far as issuing tickets 

(for non-helmet use), I don’t think that’s a big priority for our officers. If an officer sees it, if he 

has time, he will say ‘hey, where’s your helmet?’” He agreed that not a lot of citations for 

violating the ordinance are issued, “not that we don’t feel it’s important, it’s more of a time, 

resource issue.” 

One bicycle helmet proponent said that police officers don’t understand the need for a bicycle 

helmet use law. They “don’t think there is a reason for a police officer to enforce a helmet law; 

it just gets kids angry at them.” 

But rather than issue citations, this activist would rather that officers would take an un-helmeted 

child to the station to get a bicycle helmet, fit them with a helmet, and then send the child home 

with a note to the parents encouraging bicycle helmet use. 

One Emergency Medical Services (EMS) professional believes that the law enforcement 

community has been visible in promoting bike safety in the media in connection with a few 

“dramatic” local bike crashes in recent years, using the crashes “to highlight need for a variety of 

things including a helmet.” 

Complicating the enforcement of the law, some individuals have released statistics about the 

citations charging improper enforcement; others disagree. 

One long-time bicycling activist and bicycle helmet supporter said: “In three (3) years, a total of 

13 citations have been issued. Those citations were all issued to kids more than 15 years of age; 

12 were Hispanic or black; 10 or 11 were at night. This ordinance was not being enforced the 

way we had expected it to be enforced. It was being used as a cause to pick somebody up in the 

barrio at night. You can’t tell me that 12-year-old kids aren’t riding without helmets on the 

white side of town.” According to this activist, when these concerns were raised with the police 

chief, “he told his officers if you won’t do it (enforce the law) right, don’t do it,” and 

enforcement stopped. 

However, an injury prevention expert deeply involved in the law reviewed the citations issued 

and found that the alleged pattern of selective enforcement “was not the case. I looked at it 

myself and got the data from the municipal court” that showed the racial and ethnic background 

of those cited. “The number of tickets issued was proportional” to the city’s population, broken 

down by race and ethnic group. (See Charts 2 and 3, “Ethnic Breakdown of Bicyclists Receiving 

Citations for Riding Without Bicycle Helmet, ” page 42). 

According to this bicycle helmet supporter, people who opposed the bicycle helmet use 

ordinance “made some statements that were not correct,” and these statistics were presented as 

“one of their main arguments” in their efforts to get the bicycle helmet use law repealed. 
43 

Chart 2 and 3 

Ethnic Breakdown of Bicyclists Receiving Citations for Riding 

Without Helmet 

 Chart 3 

Chart 2 Ethnic Composition of Bicyclists Receiving

Travis County Ethnic Composition “No Bicycle Helmet” Citation 1996-2000

Other

3.5%

Black

9.2% Hispanic

23.3%

Anglo

62.5%

Other

3.5%

Black

9.2% Hispanic

16.3%

Anglo

71.0%

Source: Austin/Travis Co. Health & Human Svcs. Dept. 

Effectiveness Of The Law: 

The Health & Human Services Department is responsible for overseeing evaluation of the 

bicycle helmet use law and conducts observational surveys of bicycle helmet use. The survey is 

structured to obtain a representative sample from the entire community. Observations are made 

both at schools and local cycling areas, including some made while roaming neighborhoods to 

"catch" cyclists. 

The surveys have found a 316 percent increase in bicycle helmet use among children ages 5 to 

14 (see Chart 1, “Bicycle Helmet Usage Rates in Austin,” page 36). Bicycle helmet use appears 

to be relatively high in the community in the years surveyed. Observed bicycle helmet use by 

adults often exceeded observed use by children. 

One activist noted: “Helmet use in the city varied by area, age and economic level, ranging from 

12 percent (for children under 15 in some underserved neighborhoods) up to as high as 80 

percent among regular recreational club bicyclists. During the time the law has been in effect 

this 12 percent use rate (among children under 15) increased to 46 percent.” 

According to the Health & Human Services Department, there has been no change in bicycle 

fatalities in the jurisdiction since the law took effect. Another observer says that there has been a 

slight decline in fatalities, but it is “statistically insignificant. They have gone down but with 

only 2.4 per year it is hard to claim helmet use as the cause.” 

Table 1, “Admissions to Brackenridge Hospital for Bicycle-related Injuries,” provides 

admissions for bicycle crashes at Austin's trauma hospital. It compares inpatient admissions for 

all bicycle crash-related injuries to bicycle crash-related head injuries. The numbers are 

relatively small and may not be statistically significant, but they may indicate a decrease in the 

rate of head injuries among those admitted. 
44 

Table 1 

Admissions to Brackenridge Hospital for Bicycle-related Injuries

Travis County Residents Only 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

All Ages 28 50 35 41 55 N/A 

Patients Age <18 11 15 15 14 22 23 

Patients Age 17 or Under 

 With Head Injury 5 6 9 7 9 9 

Inpatient admissions for bicycle crashes at Austin’s Trauma Hospital, Brackenridge, increased slightly in 2000. This 

increase, however, could be attributed to Austin’s growth rate and the related increase in traffic. While actual 

numbers of head injuries have also increased slightly, the rate of head injuries among those admitted has actually 

declined. This could be attributed to increased helmet use among those admitted. Brackenridge does track use of a 

protective device by the patient, but admits that this data could be unreliable; i.e. if the admitting nurse does not see 

a helmet when the patient is admitted, the report would show that the patient was unhelmeted. 

Source: Austin/Travis County Health & Human Services Department

A flight medic on STARFlight, the air medical component of the Austin-Travis County EMS 

System, said, “We see a number of severely-injured people in accidents. We have noted a 

definite decrease (in bicycle crash-related head injuries). A lot of people will give us the helmet, 

where we are able to show this is the helmet, this is the damage to the helmet, and this person is 

talking to you.” Whereas, the medic says, the person without a helmet is not conscious, has 

suffered more severe injuries, and “is not talking to you.” 

The Health & Human Services Department also reports a reduction in motor vehicle/bicycle 

crashes since the law took effect. 

The EMS professional also notes other factors to be taken into account that may affect these 

numbers. The community also has improved bicycle facilities in recent years: “more bike lanes, 

wider bike lanes, restricted roads.” 

 

No measures were available of the level of bicycling in the jurisdiction to determine if it 

increased or decreased after the bicycle helmet use law took effect. However, several observers 

agreed that bicycle riding is on the rise, at least in some age groups. “The level of riding in the 

older groups has been increasing. Austin is the U.S. home of Lance Armstrong and the older 

population is probably impacted by his success,” said one bicycling activist, also noting that “the 

level of cycling to schools has been declining for the last six years.” 

When asked if the law is effective, one bicycling activist who is critical of some aspects of the 

ordinance says: “I think it should still stay on the books. It gives parents a great lever. One of 

the biggest benefits of passing a law is giving a tool to a parent . . . it gives a parent the opening 

to talk about it. When you explain to a kid as young as nine or ten years old that it’s against the 

law, they’re much more likely to wear a helmet.” 
45 

Bicycle helmet use law proponents believe the existing law, if properly enforced, has community 

support. “I think community members would like to see greater enforcement,” said one. 

Evaluation: 

The city of Austin undertook its evaluation of the bicycle helmet use law as part of the CDC 

grant for its program to promote bicycle helmets. The grant provided funds for observers to 

conduct helmet use surveys. One observer suggested the evaluation could be improved through 

adding a review of injuries and fatalities pre- and post-law and a review of tickets issued for all 

types of bicycle infractions pre- and post-law. 

When asked about the factors involved in evaluation efforts, an injury prevention expert said 

undertaking an evaluation is “not difficult, just time consuming and expensive. The protocols 

are well known and effective.” To undertake an evaluation, this expert advises: “You have to 

know the community well enough to know where to look for people with bikes. You need to go 

about it systematically and try to get a sample population that will reflect as closely as possible 

the entire population. You just have to find the cyclists, find the different age groups, types of 

cyclists. You’re going to look for recreational cyclists at a different place than transportational 

cyclists, look for children in a different place than adults.” This expert continued: “We tried to 

make an honest effort in trying to get the best survey results we could with what we had. I 

enlisted the help of volunteers, members of the SAFE KIDS Coalition, coworkers, crossing 

guards at specific schools that we surveyed. It’s very time consuming.” 

The county’s bicycle helmet program has encountered challenges in obtaining injury data. “The 

data we have gotten from (the local trauma center) has been very difficult to obtain.” The 

number of bicycle injuries resulting in hospital admissions is low, so that data would probably 

not be statistically significant. This expert believes emergency department data would be much 

more valuable, however, “as far as emergency room visits, you can’t get that (data) at all.” 

Retrospective Analysis: 

When asked what could have been improved to more effectively support bicycle helmet use, one 

bicycle safety expert said: “Greater enforcement would make a difference.” 

Another individual proposed changing the ordinance to cover children “under 16 years of age 

(not 18)” and changing the penalties so that acquisition of a bicycle helmet would “automatically 

waive the ‘criminal’ penalty and wipe it off the record. Enforcement must be aimed at getting 

children in helmets and not at penalizing them for not wearing helmets.” 

This activist also expressed concerns about the potential burden of a bicycle helmet use law 

requirement on low-income families, and of the need to combine education with an ordinance. 

“If you educate and provide helmets, then a law can work, but a law by itself, like what happens 

in Austin, when there’s no way for kids to get helmets, when families can’t even afford five or 

six dollars a kid, and not educating them, it doesn’t work.” 
46 

Other suggestions included: 

 The ordinance “needed to be better publicized. Though the bike activists were out in force, 

the common citizen, who would feel the cost and benefit of the regulation, almost didn't take 

part in the discussion.” 

 More education before bicycle helmet legislation was introduced. “Texas is the state of the 

individual and better knowledge of ‘why’ instead of you ‘shall’ would have helped.” 

 Consistent, area-wide enforcement. 
47 

Section VII. Profiles 

B. Jacksonville/Duval County, Florida 

Jurisdiction: State law, countywide activities. 

Effective date: January 1, 1997. 

Ages covered: Children under age 16. 

Penalty: State law established a $15 fine; counties have the authority to levy an additional 

monetary penalty. Thus, in Duval County, which has an added $8 fine, the total penalty is $23. 

Agency enforcing the law: In Duval County, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. 

Legislative language is reprinted in Section VII B. 

Duval County, FL, is an urbanized county that includes the city of Jacksonville, FL. The county 

population is approximately 773,000. 

Duval County has embraced the state bicycle helmet use law (especially in comparison to some 

Florida counties, described below). This profile examines Duval County’s experience with the 

state law and the county’s approach to the law’s implementation. The city and county merged in 

1968, so the government structure consists of a single entity covering Duval County, where the 

bulk of the population resides (several small beach communities continue to have local 

jurisdictions within the county). 

Impetus For Legislation: 

Elizabeth “Budd” Bell created a coalition on children, family, and health issues in 1970 “which 

grew quickly into a statewide clearinghouse (a group of agencies interested in learning advocacy 

for change).” The organization, the Clearinghouse on Human Services, to date has almost 300 

participating agencies. 

Bell remains its volunteer coordinator, active in advocating on a variety of children’s issues. In 

addition to her professional knowledge of state government and programs and her work as a 

social worker working with head-injured children, she has learned a lot about the benefits of 

bicycle helmets from colleagues who were pediatricians, and from her son, who was a safety 

specialist in Sweden. 

“A number of pediatricians had talked to me, pediatric neurologists. They asked, ‘why don’t you 

do something about preventing head injury?’ And I was in Sweden almost every year” seeing 

the high rates of bicycle helmet use there. Then, a retail executive for Target Corp. who had 

moved to the area from California worked with her to help publicize bicycle helmets and bike 

safety in the parking lot of his store. 
48 

A bicycle helmet awareness project was launched, and from that, a coalition to work for passage 

of a bicycle helmet use law began in 1993. Its leaders included the state’s pedestrian/bicycle 

coordinator and Bell. “It was very natural for the Florida Department of Health and other 

agencies to look to the Clearinghouse for help with pressing injury prevention issues,” she said. 

A variety of organizations were approached to participate in this effort, including the THINK 

FIRST Foundation and Florida SAFE KIDS. The coalition began meeting in late 1993 to discuss 

draft legislation and to prepare for the upcoming legislative session. 

The Legislative Experience: 

Bell, a skilled volunteer lobbyist, emphasizes the coalition effort in support of bill passage as the 

foundation of legislative success. In her words: “Our first coalition developed in 1993 and from 

that legislative session on, 1994, 1995, and 1996, we increased the understanding of the helmet 

issue with the help of the media that resulted in the statute we have today. The bicycle helmet 

bill became a yearly pilgrimage with widening circles of support throughout the state.” 

The wide-ranging coalition included the Bicycle Safety Office of the Florida Department of 

Transportation, the Developmental Disabilities Council, Florida State Highway Patrol, the Junior 

League State Public Affairs Committee, the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, the Florida 

Junior Chamber of Commerce, SAFE KIDS coalitions, and every county Bicycle Safety 

Coordinator in the state. Bell noted that the American Academy of Pediatrics was “a great ally.” 

She wrote: “many medical societies including the pediatric groups came to the capital in 

Tallahassee frequently to testify and joined us in countless press conferences.” 

However, Bell also noted one drawback in working with the many professional associations in 

the coalition. Given that the leadership of many of these associations changes annually, there can 

be a loss of institutional memory, expertise, and level of involvement. 

The legislative sponsors also were important; in this case, both were physicians. “Both 

legislative sponsors stayed with us the entire four years. Dr. Don Sullivan, an orthopedic 

surgeon from St. Petersburg and Dr. Robert Casey, a family physician from Gainesville, carried 

the torch for us.” 

Bell summarized the process, attributing part of the success to a change in the governor’s office: 

“We lost it three years in a row after a good deal of lobbying. Finally in the fourth year, it was a 

combination of the weariness (of the legislators), and we had a different governor. We had (the 

late Governor Lawton) Chiles who believed in children.” 

Advancing the bill was a step-by-step process. Supporters would work to win the bill’s support 

in one committee and then move to the next battle in the next committee. Though bicycle helmet 

use legislation made some progress in every session in which it was introduced, it took “four 

long years” before the enactment of the law. Both houses of the legislature enacted the law near 

the end of the 1996 legislative session. Bell wrote in a letter to supporters following passage of 

the bill: “After the failure we experienced in the 1994 and 1995 sessions, this is a sweet victory 

for all of us.” 
49 

The coalition was active in educating legislators about the need for the legislation. Fact sheets, 

posters, and handouts were developed and distributed. One 1995 hand-out urged legislators to 

“Use Your Head - Vote Yes” on the bicycle helmet bills, listing the coalition members. A poster 

from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration was illustrated with a photo of a child 

on a bicycle, wearing a bicycle helmet, with the legend: Do the Math 

Safety Helmet = $11.95 

Child’s Health = Priceless 

A Bicycle Helmet Fact Sheet, referencing information from the Florida Department of 

Transportation Safety Office and the State Bicycle Coordinator, listed a variety of statistics and 

arguments in support of the bill. Many of these arguments showed up in other venues, such as in 

columns and editorials printed in state newspapers. 

One frequently used argument was that Florida was the most dangerous place to ride a bicycle in 

the nation. According to data from the state Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 

Floridians were almost three times as likely to be killed in a bicycle crash as the national 

average. 

Another frequently raised argument was: “The world has changed since many of today’s adults 

were children. There is more traffic, more concrete, and more complexity in even a simple 

bicycle trip.” 

A May 1995 open letter from Richard E. Weibley, the Director of the Tampa General Hospital 

Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), was widely distributed, including to the capital’s press 

corps. Some excerpts from the letter: 

“As an example of the cost of treatment for injuries rather than prevention, I want you to 

know about the 12 (year old) child we have had in the PICU since February 7, 1995. He 

was hit by a car while riding his bicycle without wearing a helmet. He suffered multiple 

injuries, including a head injury. All of his injuries EXCEPT the head injury have 

essentially resolved. As of today, his movements are not purposeful; he does not ‘fix and 

follow,’ but stares blankly. His accumulated hospital charges (without physician fees) 

are $130,000.00 to date [May 1995]. He will be discharged to a skilled nursing facility 

until (and if) he reaches rehabilitation potential. The State of Florida is paying the bill 

through Medicaid. I am certain there are others like him around the State. 

“The use of a helmet in this case may or may not have prevented a closed head injury. 

Almost without question, it would have lessened the severity of the injury. More 

importantly, at $10.00/helmet, this same State expenditure could have purchased 13,000 

helmets and distributed them to Medicaid clients as a health prevention benefit!” 

News conferences and bike safety fairs also were held. A November 1995 news conference to 

kick off the 1996 session included the bill’s sponsors as well as representatives of the medical, 

insurance and legal communities. Speakers included representatives of the Florida Medical 

Association, Neuroscience Center of the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital, Florida Brain & Spinal 
50 

Cord Injury Advisory Council, Florida Association of Professional Emergency Medical 

Technicians (EMT’s) and Paramedics, Florida Developmental Disabilities Council, and the 

Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers. 

Events would respond to concerns raised by legislators. For example, an April 1995 news 

conference sought to answer legislators’ concerns about access to bicycle helmets by children in 

low-income families. The news release announced: 

“Representatives from such diverse groups as the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, the 

Florida Insurance Council, and private insurers like Blue Cross-Blue Shield and AETNA, 

said today they will purchase bicycle helmets to give to low income children who might 

not otherwise be able to afford them . . . 

“During discussion of the bill last year some opponents raised the issue of affordability. 

Supporters arranged with helmet manufacturers to purchase helmets at a discounted price 

and so far more than $25,000 has been pledged. The helmets will be distributed statewide 

to those children whose family incomes make them eligible for the school lunch 

programs.” 

A number of editorials and columns in major newspapers around the state clamored for the bill, 

especially as the 1996 legislative session looked like it might end without bill passage. A March 

10, 1996 editorial in the Tallahassee Democrat in support of the bill raised many of the 

arguments and statistics developed by the bicycle helmet coalition and called the legislature’s 

lack of action on the legislation “shameful.” A March 31, 1996 editorial in the Miami Herald, 

titled “Protecting Little Noggins,” began with “the docs know best,” referring to the bill’s 

sponsors. 

Bell emphasized the benefits of getting out your message through the media. “The press will 

always do something decent if you give them materials,” by assuring that a copy of whatever is 

distributed to legislators is also put into each reporter’s box in the capital’s press room. Social 

work students at the Clearinghouse aided Bell in these and other efforts. 

Statistical evidence was very helpful throughout the process of moving the bill through the 

legislature, including the information that Florida’s bicycle fatality rate was much higher than the 

national average. 

After the bill had not advanced in several legislative sessions, Stephen McCloskey of the Duval 

County Injury Prevention Program Office undertook a focused effort to make state legislators 

aware of the statistical evidence supporting bicycle helmet use early in the legislative session. 

He described it as “deciding to walk on the wild side.” Working with Ted Miller of Pacific 

Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), McCloskey developed statistics about the cost of 

injuries and a cost/benefit analysis for the state and Duval County. McCloskey compiled a list of 

all of the legislators who hadn’t supported the legislation in the earlier sessions. He then spent 

several days in the state capital in Tallahassee to meet with those legislators, presenting them 

with the materials he had compiled and answered their questions about government intrusion, 

transfer of payments, and other issues raised during the debates on the legislation. “We went to 
51 

the legislators and educated them on the injury epidemic, leaving the statistics and documents 

with them in each office,” McCloskey said. 

One legislator representing a low-income area was worried about her constituents’ ability to 

afford bicycle helmets. McCloskey described for her the sources for free and low-cost bicycle 

helmets, such as funding that his program had recently been awarded to provide 50,000 bicycle 

helmets. 

In every office except for one, McCloskey’s education effort resulted in a commitment from the 

legislator to support the bill. 

Anecdotal evidence, such as the letter from Dr. Weibley excerpted earlier, also was used. 

After the law passed, in a letter to coalition members, Bell discussed effective components of 

their strategy. In this paragraph, she described the impact of bringing forward crash victims: 

“It may be dangerous to identify any one strategy in the passage of the law without 

minimizing all the other contributions that were made, but I want to especially thank the 

two boys, age ten and fourteen, who are survivors of bad bicycle accidents and their 

mothers. They were able to describe, like none of us, the fright, the very long recovery 

periods and the many hospital bills still being paid. Three SAFE KIDS coordinators 

accompanied these families and went with them to every one of the 160 offices.” 

One recommended strategy as to “bring children up over and over” as a way of reminding and 

educating legislators. In addition to the active involvement of children in the process, witnesses 

also included parents who had lost children in bicycle crashes. “We brought parents of children 

who didn’t survive, parents who wanted to do something, even though it was painful for them 

and for us.” 

Once the legislation started to move, a fatal bicycle crash got the attention of legislators and 

appeared to help the bill’s chances. Margaret Raynal, an avid bicyclist who was instrumental in 

developing the curriculum for Duval County’s highly successful Traffic, Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Safety Education Program (see next section for more information on this program), was killed in 

a crash. Interestingly, it was the death of Raynal, an adult, that helped focus the legislature’s 

interest in requiring children (but not adults) to wear bicycle helmets. 

The strongest arguments against the bill appeared to be concerns about government intrusion into 

private family choices and the idea that it was an individual’s choice whether or not to wear a 

helmet. 

An undated Associated Press story about the House bill included some of these arguments: 

“Some lawmakers questioned the legislation, saying it was an example of government 

trying to mandate changes in the public’s behavior. ‘The problem is the government is 

trying to save lives but what they’re going to do is create more regulations,’ said Rep. 

Luis Rojas (R-Hialeah), who voted for the bill despite his concerns.” 
52 

The story also quoted the response of the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Robert Casey (R-Gainesville): 

“This is an immunization shot against childhood injury.” 

Bill supporters believed they disproved the “government intrusion” arguments by transfer cost 

analysis of long-term traumatic brain injury victims; that is, by illustrating how this “individual 

choice” frequently resulted in substantial, and preventable, costs to society at large, especially 

taxpayers. 

The issue of the cost of bicycle helmets was a strong and recurring concern. One newspaper 

columnist criticized the argument raised by one legislator “who worried about ‘selective 

enforcement in poor neighborhoods where children can’t afford to get to the Wal-Marts to get 

the low-priced helmets.’ So where does he think they get their bicycles? Last I heard, helmets 

cost a good deal less.” 

As mentioned above, a news conference to respond to these concerns was held. Bell had 

tremendous resistance from some legislators because bicycle helmets were so costly at the time. 

They told me “the only children who will die are low income children because they can’t afford 

the helmet.” 

Bell looked for a solution. Through contacts with Bell Sports, Inc. (no relation), she was able to 

locate bicycle helmets at a substantial discount. 

“Bell Sports was very available to us when there were problems like legislators protesting that 

impoverished parents in their counties could not afford helmets. Bell, as well as other 

manufacturers, responded with very reduced prices for helmets.” 

And, in her post-passage letter to coalition members congratulating them on the victory, the issue 

remained on her mind: “Now we have to start fundraising in your local areas to provide free or 

low cost helmets to all children identified as needing them . . .” 

A variety of bicycle helmet programs, described elsewhere, also responded to these concerns. 

Some bill supporters believe that the most persuasive arguments for the bill were the cost-benefit 

analysis developed by McCloskey and Miller (mentioned earlier) and the availability of low-cost 

(and no-cost) bicycle helmets. 

Some provisions in the legislation were changed over time in response to concerns raised. 

According to Bell, the bill “didn’t change radically” over the years, in part due to the fact that 

“we had the same sponsors” throughout the process. “We used the base of it, lopped off two or 

three things.” 

The bill was always a minors-only law according to Bell. 
53 

In the last session, the bill “was amended slightly to meet some of the 1995 objections about 

private driveways,” as Bell wrote to her coalition members in 1996. Law enforcement officers 

can not issue citations “to persons on private property, except any part thereof which is open to 

the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic,” according to the statute. 

The bill included provisions on other aspects of bicycling, such as not allowing a passenger to 

remain in a child seat or carrier on a bicycle when the rider is not in immediate control of the 

bicycle, but permitting an adult rider to “carry a child securely attached to his or her person in a 

backpack or sling.” 

One unique aspect of the law allowed counties to “opt-out” of the bicycle helmet use 

requirement. To do so, the county government had to hold a hearing, provide notice of the 

proposal, take testimony, and then enact an ordinance to that effect, before January 1, 1998. 

The law took effect January 1, 1997, requiring children under 16 to wear bicycle helmets when 

riding bicycles anywhere traffic passes. For the first year, verbal warnings and information 

pamphlets were given. Beginning January 1, 1998, the state fine for violating the law was $15. 

Counties have the authority to levy an additional amount for county-specific revenue generation. 

When the state law passed, three counties -- Brevard, Citrus, and St. Lucie -- used the “opt-out” 

provision and chose to exempt their residents from the law. Brevard County later reversed that 

decision. 

The Bicycle Helmet Environment And Existing Efforts: 

A wide variety of bicycle helmet promotion activities were in place in Duval County in advance 

of the state law. 

The Duval County Health Department’s Injury Prevention Program has had a Traffic, Bicycle 

and Pedestrian Safety Education Program (TBPSEP) in place since 1995. 

This five-year program is recognized as one of the premier bicycle safety projects in the nation. 

It has received funding from the state of Florida, the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury 

Prevention and Control. The program has resulted in a steady decrease in bicycle-related injury 

mortality and morbidity, demonstrated through rigorous evaluation. This has been accomplished 

through policy changes (in addition to the state bicycle helmet legislation, the program also cites 

school district policies), education, behavior modification techniques, and distribution of 20,000 

bicycle helmets. 

TBPSEP includes training physical education teachers in elementary schools to carry out the 

bicycle safety curriculum developed by the University of Florida. The training is coordinated 

through the school district, using a full-time employee supplied by the district who assists the 

schools in holding bicycle safety classes. One school administrative official believes the 

program would not be a success without having a staff person dedicated to its operation, 

providing support to the teachers. Each school that implements the TBPSEP includes a bicycle 
54 

helmet activity in its lesson plan. Students learn how to determine proper bicycle helmet fit and 

the importance of proper fit. 

TBPSEP has created a framework for distributing subsidized bike helmets. Aided by TBPSEP, 

schools and Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) conduct bicycle helmet sales at their school 

site. The cost of bicycle helmets is 50 to70 percent below retail prices. When a PTA 

representative or a physical education teacher conducts a bicycle helmet sale, they can check out 

a “helmet kit” from the county’s Injury Prevention Program. These kits provide step-by-step 

help for the bicycle helmet sales. 

The kit includes samples of the four bicycle helmets that are offered, a manila envelope with an 

order form, a flyer to send to parents announcing the upcoming bicycle helmet sale, and 

guidelines on how to conduct a sale (see Section IX G for the guidelines, page 187). The 

guidelines illustrate a simple way to measure a child’s head properly, using lengths of string, to 

make sure the bicycle helmet will be the right size. 

After the sale, the organizer provides the order form and money to the Injury Prevention Program 

office, which arranges the bicycle helmet shipment directly to the school. (The bicycle helmet 

sale order form is reprinted in Section IX F, page 186). The bicycle helmets are sold for $4 to 

$5, slightly less than the $6 to $8 price paid by the Injury Prevention program. The difference is 

made up by funds from the program’s state grant. 

The program also provides ideas to schools for raising money for free bicycle helmet 

scholarships. The “scholarships” started when parents asked how they could donate money for 

bicycle helmets for those who might not be able to afford them. These funds are set up and run 

by the parents and schools independent of the county program but are used to purchase bicycle 

helmets through the program. 

Several bike rodeos were conducted at local libraries to help promote bike and helmet safety. 

Phase-In To Implementation: 

The state legislature established a one-year interval between the law’s effective date (January 

1997) and the date that penalties took effect (January 1998), to allow for education and 

awareness efforts. During that year, law enforcement officers only issued verbal warnings and 

passed out information packets. 

A wide variety of state agencies and organizations undertook efforts to educate the public about 

the new law. Groups included the Florida Brain Injury Association and the Florida Department 

of Transportation as well as bicycle helmet manufacturers, bicycle shops, and others. 

In Duval County, the TBPSEP efforts described earlier were already underway and continued 

during the year phase-in period and beyond. To date (May 2001), approximately 20,000 bicycle 

helmets have been distributed in Duval County/Jacksonville. Other activities in the county 

included: 
55 

 Representatives of the Florida Brain Injury Association educated the public about brain 

injury, its permanence and its human and emotional costs, such as the impact on families 

and marriages. Soon after the law’s adoption, the group issued a brochure explaining the 

law, the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet and proper fit, and how to get a low-cost 

bicycle helmet. 

 The Brooks Rehabilitation Hospital provided $100,000 to augment the Duval County 

Injury Prevention program’s TBPSEP to allow the program to increase the number of 

subsidized bicycle helmets available for the 75,000 children at risk. 

 The Community Oriented Police Strategies program (C.O.P.S.) in the county also 

undertook bicycle helmet and bicycle safety efforts. In some cases, officers made visits 

to schools to educate about the bicycle helmet use law and to increase bicycle helmet use. 

In other cases, their programs included both bicycle helmet information as well as bicycle 

skills training. The Duval County Injury Prevention program trained the officers in the 

University of Florida curriculum to maintain standardization throughout the county 

schools and throughout the state. The county program would also loan the bicycle trailers 

to the C.O.P.S. program. Shortly after this C.O.P.S. unit completed the communitytraining course, it received grant money to get its own bicycle trailer. However, this 

group of officers has since been relocated to other units and their bicycle safety education 

efforts have ceased. 

 After the state law was passed, Duval County public schools passed a bicycle safety 

helmet proclamation (to be posted at all elementary schools), signed by the 

superintendent and the school board chair, stating that it is their goal to encourage all 

bicycle riders to comply with the bicycle helmet use law and that bicycle helmets should 

be worn for the protection of bicycle riders as they ride to and from school (reprinted in 

Section IX K, page 212). 

 As part of a Back to School Program, the Injury Prevention Program and the Jacksonville 

Housing Authority participated in a number of bike rodeos at several low-income 

apartment sites to educate children about bike and helmet safety. 

 The Jacksonville Jaguars National Football League (NFL) Foundation provided bicycle 

helmets at Christmas time to accompany bikes that were given to children in foster 

homes. 

One unique approach to encourage proper bicycle helmet use was to train elementary school 

crossing guards to recognize correct and incorrect bicycle helmet fit. Under this 1998 program, 

after their training, on designated days at their respective schools, the crossing guards would 

distribute two types of bookmarks. One bookmark congratulated a bike-riding student for 

wearing a bicycle helmet and the bookmark was a ticket for a prize drawing. The other 

bookmark encouraged a bike-riding student who was not wearing a bicycle helmet to go to the 

physical education teacher to get a session on bike helmet safety. The bookmarks given to these 

students were a different color. After a student had participated in the bike helmet safety session, 
56 

s/he could then submit the bookmark for a prize drawing. This program was through a Florida 

Department of Health program, funded by a CDC grant. 

In 1999, the county also created a unique Bike and Dental Program. This effort uses the 

opportunity of a dental visit, from waiting to examination time, to conduct educational sessions 

for children five to 14 years old. Patients were encouraged to arrive 15 minutes early for their 

appointment using a free bicycle helmet as an incentive; a pre-test was administered to these 

children. After the child's dental examination, the dentist gave a five-minute talk on bicycle 

helmet safety using a poster-board presentation especially developed for this program. 

After the presentation, a health educator was brought in to fit a bicycle helmet properly onto the 

child's head. At the end of the session, a post-test was administered. The effort appeared to be 

successful in increasing the knowledge of proper bicycle helmet usage within the 5-14 age group 

(See Section IX J., Dental visit/bicycle helmet use program evaluation (page 203), and ”My Bike 

Safety Contract,” Duval County, FL, page 203).

After the state law was adopted, Duval County public schools added a bicycle and pedestrian 

safety component to their standards. The standard stated: “by the year 2001, each student in 

every ethnic group will participate by the end of fifth grade . . . in a pedestrian and/or bicycle 

safety education program.” (See Section IX L, “High Expectations,” performance standards for 

Duval County schools, page 213). 

However, this specific standard was later dropped, in part due to changes in school district 

leadership. Although the district does not track whether or not every fifth grader has participated 

in a pedestrian or bicycle safety program, it is continuing its strong support for the bicycle 

program described in the section “The Bicycle Helmet Environment And Existing Efforts,” page 

52. School district employees report strong support for the program and frequent demand for the 

bicycle trailers and the training program. Every time a school conducts a training session, it 

submits a report to the county Injury Prevention program. 

Law Enforcement Involvement During Phase-In: 

As described earlier, law enforcement activity included some awareness and education efforts by 

the C.O.P.S. program in certain zones of the city. Some law enforcement officers were trained to 

recognize correct and incorrect bicycle helmet fit as part of the School Crossing Guard program 

described earlier. The Duval County Sheriff’s department coordinates the school-crossing 

program so the officers who supervised the program also received the training, although the 

crossing guards did the fieldwork. 

Duval County officials involved in implementing the law did not observe consistent involvement 

by law enforcement in educating or enforcing the law. According to one official, “there is 

sporadic involvement but no sustained executive or strategic plan to apply 

enforcement/education on a consistent basis over time.” This official would support this 

approach, believing it to be “the only way to penetrate the psyche of the masses that there is no 

tolerance for breaking the helmet law,” thus resulting in behavior change. 
57 

Bicycle Helmet Use Law Enforcement: 

A March 10, 1996 editorial in the Tallahassee Democrat, in urging legislators to pass the bicycle 

helmet use law, promised: “enforcement will be gentle.” That prediction appears to be accurate. 

Beginning in January 1997, the law allowed officers to issue verbal warnings to offenders; 

beginning in January 1998, officers began issuing citations for violations of the statute. A county 

fine is added to the $15 state fine for a total of $23. According to the Duval County Sheriff’s 

Department, a portion of these fines go toward spinal cord and head injury prevention programs. 

The fine for a first-time offense could be waived if the offender brought evidence of purchase of 

a bicycle helmet to the judge. The judge also has alternative penalties at his/her disposal. 

The Injury Prevention program held a focus group with schoolchildren and found that the 

children believed that the police are not going to enforce the bicycle helmet use law so some 

children choose not to comply. The schoolchildren’s perceptions appear to be realistic. Few 

citations are issued for violation of this law. 

In 2000, the Duval Sheriff’s Department issued 24 citations for violating the bicycle helmet use 

law. One officer stated, “We’ve got some logistical problems with that law. It is hard to enforce; 

you have to write the citation for violator; most are 6, 7, 8, 10 years old. Writing a ticket for 

someone that age is hard for the police officer.” As a result, officers “do more education” about 

bicycle helmet use and the law than citation writing. “Our enforcement effort is very minimal.” 

Effectiveness Of The Law: 

Duval County has measured improvements in a variety of bicycle safety measures beginning 

before the passage of the bicycle helmet use law. The Injury Prevention program staff believes 

that the law has contributed to these improvements. “If you look at the data from 1996 through 

1999, you can see dramatic changes, showing that something is working,” said one official. 

It would be inaccurate, however, to give full credit to the bicycle helmet use law. And it would 

be difficult, if not impossible, to separate changes due to the law from the changes resulting from 

TBPSEP efforts, which began several years before the adoption of the law. Pre-law TBSPEP 

efforts were already generating bike safety benefits in the county. Post-law TBSPEP efforts are 

closely entwined with activities related to implementation of the new law.

The Injury Prevention program conducts an annual evaluation of the effectiveness of the 

TBSPEP, involving annual bike helmet observations at 48 sites, including elementary/middle 

schools and parks. They compare their findings annually with the incidence of bicycle-related 

morbidity and mortality and have found consistent reductions in injury and death. The 

Observation guidelines for the Duval County Bicycle Helmet Use and Behavioral Survey are 

reprinted in Section IX H, page 189. The coding instructions and form for the county’s bicycle 

helmet use observational study are reprinted in Section IX I., page 191. 

From 1996 to 1999, the bicycle helmet usage rate increased 393 percent among children ages 12 

and under. The county’s bicycle injury rate (per 100,000 population) over the same time period 

decreased from 51.07 to 33.62, or 34 percent. (See Charts 1 and 2, this page; also see Table 1 for 

breakdown of bicycle helmet usage rates by year and by age group, (page 59). 
58 

Chart 1 & 2 

Duval County Comparison and Correlation of Bicycle Helmet Usage Rates 

and Bicycle Injuries Involving a Motor Vehicle, Fatal and Nonfatal for 

the 0-12 Age Group (1996-1999)

Chart 2

Duval County Bicycle Injury Rate Involving Motor Vehicle,

Fatal & Nonfatal (Per 100,000 Pop.)

51.07

28.32

32.92

33.62

Bicycle Injuries

Involving MotorVehicle, Fatal

& Nonfatal

Chart 2 Shows a 34% Decrease in Bicycle Injuries Involving 

Motor-Vehicle, Fatal & Nonfatal 

Chart 1

Duval County Bicycle Helmet Usage Rate

1996 1997 1998 1999

13.8

58.7

72.9 68

Bicycle Helmet

Usage by %

70

80

%

Chart 1 Shows a 392.8% Increase in Bicycle Helmet Usage

Source: Duval County Health Department TIPPO Annual Observational Survey Studies, U.S. Census 

Bureau and FL Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle (DHSMV) Crash Data 

Reporting Agency: DCHD/TIPPO

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1996 1997 1998 1999

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

 
59 

FL Table 1 

Duval County, FL, Bicycle Helmet Usage Rate Comparison by Age, 

1996-1999 

Year 0-12 Years 13-18 Years >19 Years 

1996 13.8 4.7 32.6 

1997 58.7 13.2 29.5 

1998 72.9 21.5 33.1 

1999 68.0 7.9 29.9 

Source: Duval County Injury Prevention Program Office 

Overall, the 0-12 age group experienced the most significant increase in bicycle helmet usage, 

followed by the13-18 age group. The over-19 age group experienced the smallest increase in 

bicycle helmet use. 

The Injury Prevention program staff also identified increases in observed “positive safety 

behavior techniques,” such as signaling intent to turn, obeying traffic rules, and wearing highly 

visible clothing. These findings are from observational studies that the program has conducted 

since 1996. 

These observations were derived from a large sample of 103 elementary schools, nearly half of 

the county total. For example, in 1997, the children observed scanning while bicycle riding was 

only 6.9 percent; in 2000 this behavior more than doubled to 15.8 percent. Riders observed 

wearing bright clothing increased from 10.6 percent in 1997 to 55.9 percent in 2000. 

According to the county data collected from the annual bicycle helmet observations, the number 

of students riding bicycles to school decreased from 1996 to 1999. This was determined by 

comparing the total number of bicycle riders observed for each year. However, county officials 

did not research reasons for a decrease, so it is not known if any portion of that ridership 

decrease may be attributed to the law. 

Little information is available regarding the community’s attitudes toward the law. As 

mentioned earlier, the TBSPEP conducted both an attitude survey and a focus group with middle 

school students, chosen because those are ages identified as the hardest to affect. The students 

believed that the police were not going to enforce the bicycle helmet use law and simply didn’t 

like the law. Information characterizing the reaction to the law or its related education or 

enforcement efforts by other age groups was not available. 

Evaluation: 

To evaluate the effectiveness of their bicycle safety efforts, including the implementation of the 

bicycle helmet use law, Duval County uses observational surveys to determine bicycle helmet 

usage rates over time compared to bike injuries over time. As outlined above, the TBPSEP 
60 

program has been able to track its impact over time, beginning with efforts before the adoption 

of the law. 

Program managers would like to add data reflecting the citations issued for bike helmet 

violations to their evaluations. The official statistics for bicycle helmet citations are combined 

with the number of citations issued for a wide range of bicycle violations, so it is difficult to 

measure how many citations were issued to children who were not wearing bicycle helmets. 

Those interviewed provided several reasons for the program’s strong evaluation component. 

One factor is the source of funds: the federal dollars that support some of the TBPSEP’s 

activities come with the requirement that evaluations be built into the activity, so that the 

project’s success in reaching its goals and objectives can be measured. 

Also, the Florida Department of Health and the Duval County Health Department (DCHD) both 

have traditionally supported evaluations of their programs. However, the strongest reason, 

according to those interviewed, is the staff’s commitment to the public health model. Individuals 

working on the project were described (both by themselves and by others) as having a strong 

personal commitment to conducting evaluations of their programs. 

One official said he had seen too many injury prevention programs with poor or missing data. In 

his words: “We did a neat intervention but did it make a difference? I wanted to make sure that 

we had the data to do a valid evaluation of my programs . . . I tried to apply the academic model 

as rigorously as possible.” 

These officials also acknowledged the challenges of conducting sound evaluations. Doing so at 

times required obtaining additional training or bringing in others with the appropriate expertise 

to assure the findings would be valid. Doing evaluations, as one official put it, “is not fun; it’s 

rigorous, tedious, a necessary evil to get the money. But it should be required. Funders should 

be more demanding of the outcomes and the evaluations conducted,” to assure that funds are 

being spent effectively. “Why throw money at a lemon?” 

The motivation of the program managers was also identified as an important determinant. If the 

work is “just a job,” one might be less dedicated to finding the resources and undertaking the 

work needed to measure the outcome. Someone with that attitude may approach the program 

with the philosophy: “Let’s get the money for the program (and do the minimum amount of work 

required) and say we did it.” 

The officials interviewed believed that senior management buy-in from the law enforcement 

community would be a primary condition for a jurisdiction to undertake an evaluation of its 

bicycle helmet use law. A secondary condition would be support from other members of the 

bicycle safety community. 
61 

Retrospective Analysis: 

Duval County officials engaged in bicycle safety efforts had several comments for jurisdictions 

interested in the effectiveness of their bicycle helmet use law: 

 Law enforcement agencies, at the highest levels, should establish zero tolerance for 

noncompliance. This senior-level commitment should be widely disseminated in the 

media, balanced with information about all of the support systems in place to help 

families support the injury prevention intent of the law (such as bicycle helmet subsidies 

and giveaways). 

 The law would be more effective if it were inclusive of all ages. 

 “Most laws will be effective in the first or second year. However, if a law is not enforced 

it may lose its potential due to the public’s awareness of the lack of penalties.” 
62 

Section VII. Profiles 

C. State Of Maryland 

Jurisdiction: State law. 

Effective date: October 1, 1995. 

Ages covered: Children under age 16 (one geographic exemption: sections of the boardwalk in 

Ocean City, MD). 

Penalty: Warnings and educational materials only; no fine. 

Agency enforcing the law: State, county, city, park police agencies. 

Legislative language from both the state and county level is reprinted in Section VIII C. 

Impetus For Legislation: 

Maryland was the scene for early activity regarding U.S. bicycle helmet use laws. In 1990, 

Howard County, MD, was one of the first U.S. jurisdictions to mandate use of bicycle helmets by 

schoolchildren. Soon after the law took effect, the 47 percent bicycle helmet use rate found in 

that community was “the highest rate of use ever recorded for children in the United States.”vii 

Other Maryland counties soon followed, and in 1995, Maryland enacted a bicycle helmet use 

law. (For a brief chronology of events, see Box 2, page 67.) 

Some believe that the beginnings of the Maryland law can be traced to a bicycling tragedy in 

Howard County, a suburban/rural county in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. According 

to a case study of the Howard experience, that local ordinance was fueled by the bicycling crash 

deaths of two students from the same middle school within a nine-month period.viii After the 

death of one child (who was not helmeted) in January 1989, a teacher instituted a bicycling 

safety course as an extracurricular activity. The course was well received. 

Yet, in October 1989, just two weeks before the course was to be implemented countywide, a 

second student was killed in a bike crash. Although this child had participated in the bicycle 

safety activities, he was not wearing a bicycle helmet. Students and teachers at this school, 

joined by others, worked with the county council to enact the ordinance. 
63 

The Howard ordinance caught the attention of the Office of Injury & Disability Prevention 

(OIDP),*

 a part of the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH).** The staff 

conducted a pre- and post-evaluation of the Howard County law, where the injury prevention 

program worked with a CDC-appointed epidemic intelligence service officer. The evaluation 

included two counties as controls: Baltimore County, with no formal program to encourage 

bicycle helmet use, and Montgomery County, which at the time was using education to promote 

bicycle helmet use. The study found a bicycle helmet use rate of 47 percent for children in 

Howard County, as mentioned below.ix (For a summary of this evaluation, see Box 1.) 

MD Box 1 

Bicycle Helmet Use Among Maryland Children: Effect of 

Legislation and Education 

This study compared child bicycle helmet use in Maryland’s Howard, Montgomery and 

Baltimore Counties before and after the effective date of the Howard County bicycle helmet 

law. Montgomery County had an educational program in effect; Baltimore County did not 

have any helmet promotion programs at the time. 

The study found helmet use rates of: 

Pre-law Post-law/ 

Educational Program 

Howard 4% 47% 

Montgomery 8% 19% 

Baltimore 19% 4% 

Prior to the law’s effective date, Howard County police made educational presentations in 

classrooms about the law.

Reference: Coté et al, Pediatrics, June 1992, Vol. 89, No. 6, p 1216-1220

Howard County’s ordinance made news and neighboring Montgomery County soon followed 

Howard County’s lead, adopting a similar law the following year. Both Howard County’s and 

Montgomery County’s efforts included children’s participation at a variety of levels, including 

testifying at county hearings. Then, rural Allegany County, inspired by these activities, 

coordinated a successful effort in 1992 to enact a bicycle helmet use ordinance in that county. 

 

*

 The office that oversees injury prevention programs within the Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene had different 

names during the period covered in this report. For consistency, it will be referred to throughout this report by its current title: 

The Office of Injury & Disability Prevention, or OIDP. 

** Since the completion of this report in 2002, the Office of Injury & Disability Prevention has adopted a new name. It is now

called the Center for Preventive Health Services (2004).
64 

This effort was aided by an injury prevention mini-grant from OIDP. As a result, three Maryland 

counties had enacted bicycle helmet use laws within a short time frame. 

The year after Howard County passed its ordinance, the Maryland Governor’s Bicycle Advisory 

Committee (BAC) was created. This committee is now called the Governor’s Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee. According to a DHMH document, “the concept of the 

Governors’ Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) was initiated by members of the bicycling 

community in Prince George’s County. The legislation to establish the BAC was sponsored by 

Delegates Pitkin, Rosapepe and Hubbard and Senator Dorman. The purpose of the BAC was to 

address the needs of bicyclists throughout Maryland and to make Maryland a bicycle friendly 

state.”x

Therefore, its purpose was not necessarily injury prevention or bicycle safety, but “to promote 

bicycle-friendly roads, access, and that kind of thing,” according to one committee member. 

Several observers cited Maryland Delegate Jim Rosapepe, representing the Prince George’s 

County area, as the legislative leader in committee’s creation. 

When the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reviewed the proposed 

legislation to create the committee, the OIDP director recommended that the department support 

the commission “providing that they put someone from the health department on the committee.” 

That did occur; the Governor’s appointees to the BAC included not only members of the 

bicycling community to represent different regions of the state but also representatives from the 

Maryland State Police and the Maryland Departments of Education, Transportation, Health and 

Mental Hygiene, and Economic and Employment Development.xi 

Several different perspectives emerged regarding the BAC’s decision to pursue a statewide 

bicycle helmet use law. These perspectives follow: 

 One committee member recalls the group talking “about important things that needed to 

be done and the helmet law kept coming up as something that needed to be done. 

Everybody was for it, but how do you do it?” 

This member also believes that the bicycle advisory committee “picked it up because we 

needed something to show that this committee would do something,” after other 

legislative initiatives (directing that sales tax money be put into bicycling programs, 

providing bike safety education in school) failed to move forward. After “we couldn’t 

get these things, the helmet bill was something we could all get behind, a benchmark; and 

the health community really needed it.” 

 Another member’s recollection is that the DHMH representative on the BAC was 

promoting the law “and pushed it for several years; nothing came of it for a while. The 

advisory committee itself had some inherent issues (about a law); how it was constructed, 

how it was working.” 

 A former OIDP employee stated that the BAC, “after discussion, came to the conclusion 

that highest priority was passing a helmet law.” That decision “turned around their 
65 

agenda” (since the BAC was created to promote bike paths, accessibility and similar 

issues) “but everyone agreed. They put effort into that and got support from the 

governor.” 

 “If the health department had not had an injury prevention program, there wouldn’t have 

been people to work on this issue. It is helpful to get people together.” If an OIDP 

representative had not gotten on the committee, the BAC “wouldn’t have gone in that 

direction, they would have gone after bike paths. It wouldn’t have occurred to them.” 

Though different activists hold a variety of opinions about just how the BAC came to the 

decision to pursue a statewide bicycle helmet use law, they all agree the BAC did so. There also 

was a consensus that the state OIDP program’s role was key. As a state highway official put it: 

“The state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene was instrumental in getting it passed.” 

According to a former DHMH employee, bike helmet use legislation had been introduced in 

1991 (before BAC involvement), which would have required bicycle helmet use by minors. That 

legislation did not move forward. Another member believes that bicycle helmet use legislation 

had been brought up in the legislature for eight to 12 years before it was passed. 

Once the BAC decided that a bicycle helmet use law was a priority, members began drafting a 

model bill and developing necessary supporting materials. With BAC involvement, one observer 

said, “new life was breathed into it.” While one committee member credited Del. Rosapepe and 

his staff for research and doing the groundwork for the legislation, others reported that the 

committee members themselves provided the impetus. The BAC representative from the 

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene “really picked it up, got Johns Hopkins University 

involved, got the statistics,” according to another member. 

A variety of other individuals and groups were cited as playing a role during the pre-introduction 

phase of the legislation. One advocate believes it was “just a matter of getting a good group of 

16-18 people; a lot of medical people, and some police officers, who did it as a personal thing.” 

The bicycling community was not united either for or against bicycle helmet use laws, according 

to one bicycling enthusiast who said: “The bike people were evenly split. When the question 

was a children-only helmet law, you’d have 65 to 70 percent in favor; when the question was a 

helmet law for all riders, it went the other way.” According to this observer, two Washington, 

DC area clubs were supportive. Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) actively 

supported it and the Potomac Pedalers Touring Club wrote a letter in support. The main 

Baltimore area biking club did not weigh in because its membership was divided about the 

bicycle helmet use law. 

According to a DHMH document: “In 1993, the BAC assisted in drafting HB 957 which was 

sponsored by Delegates Pitkin, Conroy, and Hubbard. This legislation would mandate helmet 

use for all bicyclists and their passengers. Gil Clarke, representing the BAC from the DC Metro 

Area (also the Executive Director of the League of American Bicyclists) assisted the BAC in 

drafting HB 957.”xii
66 

The activities then moved into the legislative arena. While bicycle helmet use advocates praised 

the political leaders who introduced the bills for their work on achieving passage of the law, they 

did not cite any elected officials as the source of the idea for the law. One advocate maintained 

that when it came to introducing the bill in the legislature, a delegate did so “as a personal favor 

for me,” rather than as the official’s own initiative. 

The Bicycle Helmet Environment And Existing Efforts: 

Bicycle helmet promotion was occurring in a variety of ways in Maryland in advance of the 

adoption of the state law. Some of this activity appeared to be fueled by the legislature’s 

consideration of the law. Another factor was a new source of funds supporting a variety of 

efforts to increase bicycle helmet use and increase bicycle safety. 

“During the years while the legislation was being considered there was increased interest in 

promoting helmet use,” noted a former injury prevention program official. For example, “that’s 

when Cycle Across Maryland (CAM), a bicycle touring event got interested in giveaways. I 

don’t think CAM had giveaways before then.” 

 

The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene received a three-year grant from CDC 

in 1993 for a Bicycle Injury Prevention Program (BIPP). The grant “allowed the department to 

put more effort into helmet efforts. The department began working with Cycle Across Maryland 

in activities such as giving out educational materials and free helmets.” In fact, according to a 

contemporary state document, “Passing mandatory helmet use legislation is one of the goals of 

this grant.”xiii

The CDC grant funded a wide range of activities. One aspect sought to compare school-based 

bicycle education to community-based bicycle safety/helmet wearing programs in their 

effectiveness in encouraging children’s bicycle helmet use. A school-based program, “Bicycle 

Safety Education Program” (BSEP), was developed and pilot-tested, designed as a curriculum 

enhancement for fourth graders. Mini-grants to conduct community-based bicycle safety/helmet 

wearing programs were provided to several local health departments, some of which were in 

counties also implementing the BSEP. Bicycle helmet use was observed in one county that used 

the BSEP alone; three counties that used the community-based bicycle safety/helmet wearing 

programs alone; two counties in which both programs were used; and two counties in which 

neither were used.xiv As part of this program, local health departments distributed small numbers 

of bicycle helmets on the basis of need.xv

One observer noted: “I don’t think there was a lot going on before BAC and the CDC grant 

trying to move this law forward.” Also, “before the state law was passed, county laws had an 

impact as well as the fact that CDC and the state injury prevention program were focusing 

attention on the issue. I was living in Howard County at the time. I know that the county law 

made an impact. Local SAFE KIDS coalitions were doing some helmet education, etc. But bike 

helmet use was not a major focus of the statewide SAFE KIDS coalition. They focused more on 

child safety seats and buckling up. They did support the legislation.” 
67 

Another BAC member remembered there were “a tremendous amount of giveaway programs. A 

lot of police had helmets in their trunks; groups gave them away by the gross.” According to the 

state health department’s final report on the CDC program, a total of 9,640 bicycle helmets were 

distributed through various mechanisms over three years.xvi

“There were bike rodeos. And it’s still happening to a lesser extent,” said one BAC member. 

“Safety groups were giving them away; you don’t see as much of it now,” although perhaps one 

reason for that is that “almost every store has a good line of bike helmets, offered alongside the 

bicycles. I don‘t know” if a giveaway bicycle helmet effort is as productive as it was before. 

Additionally, as mentioned earlier, one state activity involved investigating if education 

programs alone made a difference in bicycle helmet use, through the three-county study (where 

usage rates in the county with an education program did not increase as much as rates in the 

county with the bicycle helmet use ordinance). 

John Overstreet, who provides bicycle safety presentations to schoolchildren, was cited as doing 

“a tremendous amount” to promote bicycle helmet use. He educates thousands of children in 

bicycle safety every year and has been doing so for about 25 years. 

“I pass out helmets in my bicycle safety presentation in my classes and have kids do posters or 

essays to win,” Overstreet said. “I show them hand signals, talk about bike safety,” such as how 

to identify an unsafe bike, the risks of wrong-way riding, the importance of keeping shoe strings 

and other hazards from getting caught in the bike. Children at his presentations do not get a 

bicycle helmet until they go through an education program. 

Overstreet gives presentations to up to 6,000 children a year. He volunteers his time with the 

state reimbursing him only for his travel and for the bicycle helmets. Overstreet’s efforts predate 

the county and state laws. He took part in the effort to pass the Howard County ordinance. 

The Legislative Process: 

BAC activity and support alone was not enough for the bill to progress through the legislature. 

The resources of the BAC and the commitment and organization of its members were identified 

as one key to success. The BAC “had to walk a fine line, and be advocates, not lobbyists,” 

according to one BAC member. Another emphasized: “a lot of us (on the BAC) couldn’t lobby 

because we were state employees.” This section will describe how other players and participants 

would be vital for the next steps. 
68 

MD Box 2 

Maryland’s Bicycle Helmet Legislation Chronology of Events 

1989 

Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) established Injury 

Prevention and Control Program (now known as the Office of Injury & Disability 

Prevention, or OIDP).* 

1990 

Howard County Passed First countywide law requiring bicyclists aged 16 and under to 

wear a bicycle helmet. 

1990-1991 

Howard County law evaluated by DHMH, Injury Prevention and Control Program (OIDP) 

in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Johns 

Hopkins University and Howard County Health Department. Montgomery and Baltimore 

Counties participated as control programs. This evaluation study demonstrated the 

effectiveness of bicycle helmet use among children. 

1991 

Montgomery County passed countywide law requiring bicyclists age 18 and under to wear 

a bicycle helmet. 

1991 

Maryland State Legislature re-established the Governor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee 

(BAC). This legislation was sponsored by members of the Prince George’s County 

delegation. 

1992 

Statewide legislation requiring use of bicycle helmets for children aged 16 and under was 

introduced for the first time. The proposed legislation was defeated in Committee. This 

legislation was sponsored by members of the Baltimore city delegation with strong support 

from the Epilepsy Association of Maryland. 

1992 

Allegany County passed countywide law requiring bicyclists aged 16 and under to wear a 

bicycle helmet. 

1992 

The Bicycle Advisory Committee voted unanimously to draft “model” legislation and to 

support efforts to pass a statewide law affecting all ages of riders. 

*The office that oversees injury prevention programs within the Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene 

had different names over the time period covered in this report. For Consistency, it will be referred to throughout 

this report by its current title – the Office of Injury & Disability Prevention, or OIDP. 
69 

Maryland’s Bicycle Helmet Legislation Chronology of Events (continued) 

1993 

“Model” legislation was introduced in the State Legislature by members of the Prince 

George’s County delegation. This proposed legislation was defeated in committee again. 

1993 

DHMH, Injury Prevention and Control Program (OIDP) received a three-year bicycle 

safety grant from CDC. 

1994 

“Model” legislation was introduced again in the State Legislature by members of the Prince 

George’s County delegation. This proposed legislation was defeated in both committees yet 

again. However, another legislator introduced a bill that affected children only. This bill 

was passed by the House of Delegates but defeated in the Senate. 

1995 

“Model” legislation was again introduced in the State Legislature by members of the Prince 

George’s County delegation. Much discussion resulted in passage of a modified bill which 

reflected the basics of the child-only bill from the 1994 session. This bill was passed by 

both Houses. 

1995 

Implementation of the legislation. 

BAC serves as a coordinating body for all partners. 

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) is funding community projects, 

printing educational materials, evaluating programs and law, and purchasing helmets for 

distribution to low income children. 

Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) is funding educational materials and 

distributing same, and is purchasing helmets for distribution to low income children. 

Cycle Across Maryland sponsors an annual program to provide helmets to children and 

received funding from multiple sources to purchase quantities of helmets (including 

DHMH and MDOT). 

State and local police will receive information to give to children who are in violation of 

the law. 

Source: Maryland Highway Safety Office, State Highway Administration, and Maryland Department of Health and 

Mental Hygiene 
70 

The Legislative Process:

Legislative Supporters. 

The model legislation that the BAC had drafted, which covered bicyclists of all ages and 

included a monetary fine for a violation, was introduced in the 1993, 1994 and 1995 

legislative sessions. The legislators who had supported the creation of the BAC were 

identified as valuable advocates for the bicycle helmet use law. 

One delegate was praised for his savvy leadership by one of the activists working for the 

law. This legislator “really kept us apprised. He knew the system, how to work it.” 

He’d advise the supporters, “Get this one, get that one,” in terms of key legislators to ask 

for support. He offered the BAC and other supporters strategic advice. “He knew how 

the committees work. ‘Let’s get a price tag on this because there’s support in the finance 

committee.’” (A bill with a fiscal note, a “price tag” so to speak, would be referred to the 

finance committee and thus potentially provide a venue for a friendly hearing). 

Another observer said that the bill’s authors were more important than the chairs of the 

committees that the bill would pass through. In addition, “the fact that the governor had 

created this BAC” and that the bill was a BAC priority also helped. “The governor was 

on board right from the beginning.” 

The bill was bottled up in committee in both sessions. A bicycle helmet use bill covering 

children ages 16 and under had also been introduced in both 1993 and 1994. In the 1994 

session, this bill was passed by the House of Delegates but died in the Senate Judicial 

Proceedings Committee.xvii

Supporters tried again in 1995, re-introducing the BAC model bill. Ultimately, the 

legislature adopted a minors-only bill, different from the BAC version, which was signed 

into law. 

One activist working on the legislation presented an anecdote that summed up how the 

bill finally moved forward: “The key to the whole thing had been this very conservative 

legislator from the Eastern Shore, who would have never have voted for the helmet bill in 

a million years. Except Mrs. so-and-so’s second grade class wrote him a letter. I went in 

to visit with him; he was in deep pain. He didn’t want to vote for it, but how could he go 

back and explain it to Mrs. so-and-so’s class? His vote got (the bill) out of committee. 

Otherwise it would never have gotten out of committee.” 

In effect, “Legislators are hard pressed not to do the right things when it’s a bunch of kids 

they have to answer to. The adults they can reason with by offering adults ‘the reason we 

can’t do this is because . . .’” 

Compromises. 

Two compromises were necessary for the law to pass. One was to limit the bicycle 

helmet requirement to children. As one observer noted, summarizing comments from 
71 

several key players, “the only way to get it passed in Maryland was to take off the 

requirement that it be for adults.” That step “was able to get it enough support.” Another 

said: “The legislature wouldn’t go for all ages.” The attitude of some legislators was 

described as follows: “Adults are supposed to know better.” 

However, one proponent acknowledged that the “all-riders” model legislation was 

designed as a starting point. Bicycle helmet use law supporters “would have cut back to 

children-only” in an earlier legislative session if doing so, “would have been successful. 

We needed to have the pieces in place,” which was not the case until 1995. 

A state document stated: “Efforts to educate legislators during the 1993, 1994, and 1995 

legislative sessions have been organized by the Governor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee 

(BAC). The BAC has been unanimously in favor of legislation affecting all age groups. 

Not all members are in favor of a law affecting only children. The BAC legislative task 

force believes that a fall-back position may be necessary as an initial step in moving the 

issue forward.”xviii

This compromise then led to a change to the penalty provisions. Although police agencies 

in general were not deeply involved in advocating for the bill, on this issue, the 

legislature listened closely to the opinion of law enforcement in shaping the law. 

Law enforcement’s position on the bill was described as “supportive but not ‘rah, rah, 

rah, let’s do this,’” according to one activist. “Law enforcement officers were not right 

there all the time. They sort of had to be convinced.” Once the bill was changed from 

“all-rider” to “minors only,” the attitude toward the penalty changed. 

As originally drafted, the 1995 bill would have levied a fine on violators ($25 for first 

offense; $50 for second and subsequent offenses), which would go to county bicycle 

safety education programs, in consultation with the state bicycle advisory committee. 

The bill included provisions that would allow the fine to be waived upon proof of bicycle 

helmet purchase. 

Officers “were not real keen on having something more to do. Moreover, they couldn’t 

see giving a citation to a 5-year-old; I think that’s still an issue,” according to a BAC 

member. As someone else put it: “We brought the police down, asked them, ‘should we 

fine them (for violating the law)?’ The police said, ‘we couldn’t enforce that.’ What do 

you do? Have the officer take the kid home, put the bike in the trunk? It’s a complicated 

thing. We weren’t trying to criminalize it.” These concerns led to an approach that 

would “instead, compliment the kids who were doing the right thing.” (See “Bicycle 

Helmet Use Law Enforcement” this section, page 78). 

One law enforcement officer agreed that many people were uncomfortable with giving 

the impression of “troopers giving tickets to children.” The final version of the law says 

that violations “shall be enforced by the issuance of a warning that informs the offender 

of the requirements of this section and provides educational materials about bicycle 

helmet use.” 
72 

Constituencies. 

The BAC worked with a large number of partner groups and individuals in support of the 

bill, both in and out of the state house. (For a list of partner groups, see Box 3 below.) 

MD Box 3 

Maryland’s Bicycle Helmet Legislation Partner Organizations 

Bicycle Advisory Committee – Cycling Groups (testimony) 

State Agencies – Health, Education, Transportation, Police (testimony, education, funding, 

data, evaluation) 

Maryland Chapter, Academy of Pediatrics (lobbyist, testimony, education) 

Epilepsy Association of Maryland (poster contest, lobbyist, education, victims testimony) 

Maryland Head Injury Foundation (victims, testimony, education) 

SAFE KIDS (testimony, education, incentive programs) 

Johns Hopkins Injury Prevention Research Center (testimony) 

Maryland Institute For Emergency Medical Services Systems (testimony, data) 

Prudential Insurance Company (testimony, incentives, education) 

Kaiser Permanente Insurance Company (testimony, incentives, education) 

Bicycle Shop Retailers (discount programs, fitting, testimony) 

Cycle Across Maryland (free helmet distribution, education, testimony) 

Bicycle Helmet Manufacturers (discount programs) 

Schools/Teachers (testimony, letters, visits, education, press) 

Parents (testimony, letters, visits, education) 

Local Health Departments (testimony, grass roots) 

Local Police Departments (testimony, experiences, enforcement) 

Hospitals (Washington County grant) 

Physicians (testimony, education) 

Victims (testimony and legislative visits) 

Children – MOST IMPORTANT! (testimony, letters, visits) Kids are hard to turn down 

Source: Maryland Highway Safety Office, State Highway Administration, and Maryland Department of Health and 

Mental Hygiene
73 

“Lots of different people were involved, the bicycling community, all that,” said one 

bicycle helmet advocate, “but one of the turning points, to me, was when we involved the 

person who was hired by the Maryland chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics 

(AAP) and the person working for the Epilepsy Association of Maryland. 

“Their lobbyists worked toward this goal; their influence with the committees and their 

work with the legislature was the turning point to get this bill passed. They taught the 

BAC what they needed to do to get support for the legislation,” such as compiling 

packages of materials. “The lobbyist for the AAP knew all the people, and who to talk 

to. She made a lot of difference in it. Without the partners, I think it would have been 

tough to pass.” 

 “We didn’t need a big group to move the law forward,” said another activist. We “had a 

small group that became amateur lobbyists.” This same activist described grass roots 

activities helpful in getting legislative support, such as a post card campaign. Groups 

supporting the bicycle helmet use law sent out post cards asking people to contact their 

legislator in support of the law. Since “bicyclists are organized,” mechanisms were in 

place to locate bicyclists and urge them to act. “While you’re on this ride, why don’t you 

sign this letter?” was one example offered. 

Additionally, a statewide symposium was held about the law that attracted representatives 

from many counties, demonstrating broad support for the bill. It was especially 

important in illustrating that the support wasn’t solely in large urban areas. These types 

of activities were undertaken, the activist explained, because “politicians had to be 

assured that they had support for the law.” 

The medical community, especially emergency medicine, was very active and persuasive. 

One BAC member said the effort took off once they “brought the doctors in.” He said 

emergency medicine professionals “came out real, real high on it.” Confirmed another: 

“This community was deeply involved in promoting passage.” They were “definitely 

part of the whole.” 

Children who were associated with the Epilepsy Foundation handed out materials to 

legislative offices, using data and educational materials from the state health department. 

Insurance companies and retailers who sold bikes and helmets also received credit for 

their support. One proponent pointed out that the retailers “had discount programs (to 

lower the cost of the bicycle helmet to the buyer), so it wasn’t just that they would make 

money from this.” 

Outside Groups and Efforts. 

Activities inside the State House were joined by efforts outside the state house. The 

Center for Disease Control (CDC) grant mentioned earlier supported media activities, 

including a Office of Injury & Disability Prevention/Department of Health and Mental 

Hygiene (OIDP/DHMH) and Cycle Across Maryland joint media campaign, which began 

in April 1994. The campaign theme was “Protect Your Melon...Wear Your 
74 

Helmet...Correctly.” The program distributed sport bottles, buttons, bumper stickers and 

labels, a guide to bike rodeos, bicycle safety brochures, and bicycles.

The first year’s efforts included ten billboard displays, a news conference announcing the 

distribution of 3,000 bicycle helmets statewide, and the production and airing of public 

service announcements (PSAs). These efforts continued into and beyond the year in 

which the legislature ultimately adopted the state law. 

“We talked about what would happen with and without a helmet. We had bumper 

stickers. We did PSAs. We had a campaign called Protect your Melon campaign. We 

used a watermelon and put a helmet on it,” said one advocate. The melon was dropped 

and it didn’t break. The program “talked about how to properly wear a helmet, keep the 

straps straight, make it as bright as you could,” remembered another activist. 

Testimony. 

Bicycle helmet use law proponents also approached the legislative hearings strategically, 

carefully considering who would testify and their messages. Although many members of 

the BAC did not have direct contact with the legislature because they were state 

employees and didn’t lobby, some were very involved in setting up the panels of 

witnesses and providing relevant data to legislators. 

A panel of medical people might precede a panel of bicyclists who supported the bill. 

Using these panels, proponents would have five people at the table testifying at a time, 

which could quickly convey the breadth of support for the bill. For one “health” panel, 

the head of the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Service Systems brought a 

broken helmet to the hearing. 

A DHMH document reported on the 1994 session: “Favorable testimony was heard from 

members of both the public and private sector and included the following: members of 

the BAC, bicycle clubs, the American Academy of Pediatrics - Maryland Chapter, the 

Epilepsy Foundation, Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Service Systems, the 

Montgomery County Police Department and the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. 

Supporting testimony was given by DHMH and the Department of Education. The 

(state) Department of Transportation did not take a position.” Other witnesses included a 

representative of the Montgomery County Health Department. xix

According to one injury prevention professional, it is also “important to have victims, as 

much as one hates to do that. But it works; people have to see this (the impact of a 

traumatic brain injury); it puts a real face on it. It makes a real difference. Legislators do 

have soft hearts in some cases, when you get children up there who were seriously brain 

damaged.” One of the witnesses was a child who had had “a fabulous future,” a very 

bright child who had received a substantial scholarship, but then had suffered a severe 

brain injury in a bike crash. Before the crash, the child had asked his father for a bicycle 

helmet and his dad had responded: “I didn’t have one, you don’t need one.” Once injured, 

the child not only lost the scholarship and was facing a life of vastly diminished potential, 
75 

but his father eventually abandoned the family, reportedly out of guilt. That testimony 

was described as extremely moving for everyone at the hearing. 

Process - Role of County Laws. 

Many proponents believed that the existence of the three county bicycle helmet use 

ordinances was key. “The fact that these three jurisdictions passed the law really 

influenced the state,” said one bicycle helmet advocate. The local laws helped. It would 

be hard for legislators from those areas to vote against what was clearly supported 

locally,” said another proponent who worked 

with the legislature to pass the law. One activist who worked on passage of both a county 

and the state law added: “I think it helps, it builds credibility. The state doesn’t like to be 

the first in doing something. It certainly had to help at the state level that we had the law 

(at the county level).” 

Process - Motorcycle Helmets. 

One complication to the legislative process was the state’s recent enactment of an allrider motorcycle helmet use law, which had some extremely vocal opponents and was 

subject to a repeal effort around the time that the bicycle helmet use law was being 

considered. “At that time there was an awfully big fuss to repeal the motorcycle helmet 

law, so we were in a context where it was not just bicycling and bicycling safety that was 

going on,” said one bicyclist. The motorcycle helmet effort was receiving “a fair amount 

of press, and there had been at least three years of major effort on each side of it (the 

motorcycle helmet use law). We were coming in on the end of it.” 

When the BAC “decided to go for” the bicycle helmet use law, as one BAC member 

remembered, “they got into motorcycle helmets, seat belts. Some of the same people 

who were testifying for (bicycle) helmets on kids were against motorcycle helmets. We 

had to stop using the word bike, needed to use bicycle” because of the confusion with 

motorcycles. Bicycle helmet advocates had to factor in these political considerations in 

their strategies, in developing materials, and when discussing the issue with legislators. 

Arguments in Favor of the Bill.

A constellation of arguments were cited as being persuasive to legislators: 

 The concept that some children were seriously and permanently impaired because 

they didn’t wear a bicycle helmet (which was connected to the need to have 

children testify at every hearing, both injured children and children whose bicycle 

helmets had prevented injury); 

 “The three counties passing the laws” and the fact that the legislators from those 

counties were saying that the ordinance has been a good thing for their county; 
76 

 “Just that one important statistic about helmets being 85 percent effective in 

preventing head injury”;xx and 

 “The safety aspect of it” and related societal burdens – “when people ride their 

bikes without a helmet, whether they had insurance or not, society would be 

responsible for the costs” of resulting injuries. 

Additionally, during consideration of the bill, the tragic death of a child in Baltimore who 

wasn’t wearing a bicycle helmet helped to convince some legislators. 

When asked about the importance of statistical information in moving the bill forward, 

one expert said, “It’s the advocacy groups and the partners that get it passed. The data – 

you need it but it wouldn’t have carried it, in and of itself.” 

One argument that “we were told to say” was that in moving forward on this issue, 

Maryland would be one of the leaders in the country but “how much of an influence that 

truly has, I don’t know,” said one skeptical activist. 

Opponents and Arguments Against the Bill. 

One BAC member advised: “Make sure you deal with your opposition. The legislature 

does not want to make one group happy by angering another.” One key factor was 

assuring that “the cycling community for the most part was in agreement” or at least not 

uniformly opposed. “As long as we didn’t go after adults, cycling enthusiasts didn’t have 

a problem with it. They had rules requiring helmet use (in their clubs) but they didn’t 

want the state telling them they needed it.” Therefore, “there was very little opposition 

by the time we passed it. No one came and said this is a bad idea, don’t do it.” 

However, another advocate remembered a variety of legislative opponents, such as the 

legislator who commented that a group of nurses supporting the bicycle helmet use law 

were “like Hitler,” or the chair of a committee that was one of “the stumbling blocks.” 

As one advocate put it: “Injury prevention programs had a difficult time getting out of his 

committee.” 

One argument cited by legislators was that there were “too many laws. People should be 

able to make their own decisions. That’s why it wouldn’t fly for all ages. It didn’t seem 

to make a difference that a child could become an orphan” as a result of a parent’s death. 

“The issue of personal rights was a barrier.” 

There were other arguments as well, such as: “It was a nuisance. How are you going to 

enforce it?” But, according to a BAC member, some legislators realized, “Hey, I can tell 

my kid that the law says they have to” wear a helmet, which takes the pressure off of 

parents, which the legislators saw as a benefit. However, some legislators who weren’t 

parents “couldn’t relate to it.” 

Another issue was the cost of bike helmets for low-income children. “We had a problem 

with folks in Baltimore city that feared that kids who were low income would not be able 

to afford helmets,” another BAC member noted. 
77 

But this was a concern that was easy to address because bicycle helmet use law 

promoters had already recognized and moved to meet this need. “We had a mechanism 

to deal with low-income communities. We had a giveaway program, a subsidy program, 

educational materials, and data. It was multifaceted; everybody was working together to 

make this happen. We had to write up and give to the legislators our plan to show that 

we will deal with children in low income areas, that we had money dedicated for this, had 

discount programs, etc.,” to assure the legislators that if the law was passed, “we would 

get helmets out to the community,” said a former injury prevention program official. 

Although some had hoped to get the support of educators, “we couldn’t get school groups 

behind this. They thought they would be the ones who would have to enforce it. There 

was resistance to kids bringing bikes to school, so then schools would have to deal with 

storage, theft, etc.,” said another BAC member. 

Summary. 

Bicycle helmet use law activists described the legislative experience as routine or 

expected. A list of “building blocks” was developed to describe the key steps and 

strategies needed (See Box 4 below). 

MD Box 4 

Building Blocks 

Consistent support from agency and organizations 

National, state and local data – deaths, injuries and costs 

Proven effectiveness of intervention 

Start small – uncomplicated legislation is usually more appealing to legislators for a new 

issue 

Always takes more than one year to pass legislation 

Each session allows for the building of support, improving data, providing education and 

obtaining resources 

Demonstrate to legislators why this legislation would be good for them politically 

Use of media can be both positive and negative. Be aware of consequences so that they can 

be dealt with proactively 

Have a mechanism in place to provide helmets to low income children 

Involve the community 

Educate, educate, educate 

Persevere 

Source: Maryland Highway Safety Office, State Highway Administration, and Maryland Department of Health and 

Mental Hygiene
78 

The former state injury prevention official said: “We really learned from year to year the 

kinds of things we needed to do. In Maryland it’s frequent that you have to go a couple 

of years before you can get your legislation through. It took us four years to get a law 

passed. We kept going to the legislature saying we want a law; they kept saying no, no, 

no. But as more jurisdictions were passing these laws, showing that these laws were 

acceptable,” the legislature came along. 

“I’m an advocate of being multifaceted, covering all your bases. A lot of it is timing, 

making sure the people who support the law are in the right position,” such as key 

committee chairs, cabinet officials, etc., advises one activist. Another advocate was not 

discouraged by the multi-year effort: “When we formed the group (BAC) I knew it 

would take 12, 15 years to make changes occur. The helmet law came in a time when it 

was needed.” One injury prevention activist noted: “It was much easier (passing the 

law) at the county level.” 

Phase-In To Implementation: 

The Maryland bicycle helmet use law was signed into law in May 1995 and became effective in 

October 1995. “There was a lot of activity (to promote bicycle helmet use) once the law 

passed,” according to several bicycle helmet use proponents. The state highway administration 

used National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 402 highway safety grant funds 

“to purchase helmets which they gave away or gave to people to give away several years ago,” 

said one BAC member. “They may still be doing it for all I know.” 

Activities funded under the CDC grant included the display of 10 billboards throughout the state 

with language publicizing the bicycle helmet use law, supported by corporate sponsors (First 

National Bank of Maryland and Value Food Markets). The “Protect Your Melon” message 

appeared on a Greenspring Dairy milk carton. 

The state received federal preventive block grant funds, which it sent to local communities to 

fund injury prevention programs; these activities can include bike helmet promotions. 

One BAC member remembered “a lot of different individual efforts. Cycle Across Maryland 

(CAM) gave a lot of bike helmets away and had programs with at-risk youth. They gave them 

bikes as well as helmets.” If you hold a bicycling event and “the kids don’t come with a helmet, 

you have to give them one, you’re almost liable if you don’t.” 

Law enforcement officers preferred to use a positive approach, so some officers distributed 

McDonalds’ certificates for free food items to children who were wearing bicycle helmets. 
79 

Some of these efforts are still continuing, such as safety fairs that include bicycle helmet fittings, 

giveaways, and coupon programs. The federal funds are still being distributed to local 

jurisdictions by the state, according to an injury prevention expert. For example, one police 

officer said: “Personally, I’ve given out many helmets. Last Sunday we did a bike rodeo and 

gave out 25 or 30 helmets. I never give out helmets without educating and fitting the helmet. 

We do an educational thing before we give out the helmets.” 

One community, however, that apparently is not involved in promoting or implementing the laws 

is the education community. Given that it is a state law, one volunteer “tried to get the school 

board to pass a rule to require helmet use when riding on school property and riding to school” 

but was not successful. A former BAC member noted, “You still don’t see pressure from 

schools to wear a helmet.” However, the final report on the CDC three-year grant activities 

reported an enthusiastic response from a number of school districts for the “Bicycle Safety 

Education Program” (BSEP), curriculum enhancement.xxi

As part of the CDC three-year grant, the BAC, in cooperation with the Office of Injury and 

Disability Prevention (OIDP), mailed the BSEP to every Maryland public and private school as 

well as to all preschools that offered Kindergarten-level classes.xxii

Bicycle Helmet Use Law Enforcement: 

Under the Maryland law, police officers are not able to cite a child who is not wearing a bicycle 

helmet while bicycling. The law allows them to issue a warning and provide educational 

material. One law enforcement official explained that the law was “not written for enforcement 

but as an educational law. The law is intended to educate children and parents that you’re 

supposed to be wearing helmets. If a child takes home a warning, it may bring attention to the 

parents” about the need for the child to wear a bicycle helmet. 

Just as the legislature found it difficult to accept the image of officers giving tickets to children, 

law enforcement officers don’t think the general public would accept strong enforcement of the 

law. This same officer believes: “the perception would be the problem here in Maryland. I 

don’t think the public would appreciate officers giving children tickets. If it was an all-rider law, 

then it may be acceptable to issue tickets and we would see more enforcement.” 

One police officer said: “As far as enforcement of the bicycle helmet law, I don’t think we’ve 

been really strictly enforcing the helmet law. Usually I threaten, but more of what we do is 

educate. I’ve probably educated hundreds of kids and given out thousands of helmets, thanks to 

SAFE KIDS.” 

One observer believes that some opportunities to encourage enforcement of the new statute were 

missed. “After the law was passed, the health department disappeared” from participating in the 

law’s implementation. “They were helpful in getting it passed, but not in implementing it. And 

police have so many other issues to deal with,” and thus little enforcement occurred. 

Few police departments appear to be making enforcement a high priority. One state safety 

official added: “I’m not aware off-hand of any police departments that are really enforcing this.” 
80 

However, even some long-time bicycling activists appeared confused about the law’s provisions. 

Several bicycle helmet use law proponents believe, in the words of one, that there is “supposed 

to be a $25 fine; first time you get a warning and get into the computer. They really have never 

enforced it. I don’t think a fine has ever been extracted. I bet there’s never been a ticket written 

in Maryland.” 

 

This confusion about a fine may contribute to the complaints from some bicycle helmet 

proponents that the enforcement is meager. One reason for the confusion may be the fact that 

individual jurisdictions can go beyond the state law and impose a fine. For example, one 

proponent reported that Howard County had given out tickets in the past, “maybe nine citations 

in the first year of the Howard County ordinance.” (The Howard County case study reported that 

warnings but no fines had been issued in the first nine months after the effective date).xxiii It may 

also be due to the fact that the model legislation included a $25 fine for a first offense. 

Others say that it’s more a matter of different jurisdictions’ approaches to enforcing the state law. 

For example, “the Montgomery County National Capitol Park Police unit has a very active 

program. They get (the bicycle helmet use rate) up” on park property, according to one 

knowledgeable observer. 

The National Capitol Park Police in Prince George’s County have a volunteer program and one 

volunteer “did a wonderful video for kids; it was articulate, concise, easy for kids to understand 

the proper use of helmet and why. I know there are strong programs for the Park Service, but 

beyond that in individual counties, I can’t tell you. I know some officers who are very vigilant” 

about enforcing the law. 

Some bicycle divisions in some police departments “take it on. And if a child is injured or 

killed, that particular law enforcement agency gets inundated by parents, and then they do 

something.” However, implementing the bicycle helmet use law “is not up high on the priority 

list of police chiefs because they can’t enforce it.” 

Whether warnings, educational materials or citations are the tools used, some bicycle helmet use 

law supporters believe more enforcement of the law should occur. In the words of one activist: 

“Enforcement of the law is probably lacking. I’ve never heard of anybody being stopped. I 

don’t know what education is being done that the law even exists. My suspicion is, if anything, 

they’ll stop someone and say you should have a helmet on. I’ve never really seen them go out of 

their way to stand at a street corner and hand out education materials. If something needs more 

looking at, it’s enforcement of these laws. If there was a presence where you started getting 

verbiage on the news, ‘did you hear about the cop that stopped that cyclist on the path?’ maybe 

you’d start seeing better behavior overall, not just helmets.” 

The “educational materials about bicycle helmet use” that officers are to provide to offenders 

received different reviews. After passage of the law, sources of educational materials included 

NHTSA products distributed by the Maryland Department of Transportation and SAFE KIDS 

coalitions, and other materials used by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 

“When we did that first big blitz, we gave materials to CAM, SAFE KIDS had materials, the 
81 

health department gave grants,” said one BAC member. “We had T-shirts and involved the 

bicycling clubs.” 

The state transportation department has distributed bicycle safety materials since before the 

passage of the bill. The bicycle safety packets that the department has “distributed in the 

thousands” includes “three NHTSA brochures that have been reproduced, on the benefits of 

helmet use, information on how to properly fit a helmet, and tips for safe cycling for children,” 

according to a state transportation official. 

Those brochures go out in the bicycle safety packet (which now also includes pedestrian 

information), which is distributed “to schools, police departments, service groups, churches, 

whoever requests it.“ However, the office distributes materials only by request. Additionally, 

“each county has a transportation safety coordinator; 23 counties plus Baltimore. Those people 

work with police departments, schools,” informing them about the law, available materials, and 

other issues, “so I'm sure the word has gone out. We get a lot of calls from police departments 

requesting information.” Law enforcement agencies “are also conducting safety rodeos for the 

kids.” 

According to a state injury prevention activist, “the educational material varies from department 

to department, from officer to officer.” 

The bicycle helmet use law and its enforcement is not specifically targeted when state police 

officers are trained; it is covered in general training as part of motor vehicle laws. 

One state police officer was apparently unaware of the educational materials distributed. “We’re 

supposed to hand out educational material with the warning; but I have been on the job 16 years 

and have yet to see the educational materials.” The statute calls for educational materials but 

“doesn’t explain what type, who is supposed to supply it.” However, since much of the 

enforcement by the state police takes place on Interstate highways where children will not be 

bicycling, the officer acknowledged that the experience of state police might be less relevant 

than that of local police departments. 

Although some bicycle helmet proponents were dissatisfied with the low level of enforcement of 

the law, they believed it did not outweigh the law’s positive benefits. “The biggest thing (about 

having the law) was that the parents could tell kids, ‘hey, you have to do it because it’s the law.’ 

It assists the parents.” 

One bicycle helmet advocate believes the educational approach and availability of free or 

subsidized bicycle helmets should mitigate officers’ concerns about issuing warnings. “If we are 

buying helmets, and the police are helping to fit the helmet on the child, how could the parent be 

mad?” 

Effectiveness Of The Law: 

The state law did not define effectiveness, nor require the tracking of the law’s implementation 

or other aspects of the law. The final report on the CDC project included some statistics on 
82 

bicycle-related head injuries in 1994 and 1995, but did not have 1996 data. The report provided 

data from the Maryland Department of Transportation on bicyclist fatalities (See Table 1, 

below.) The report states: “It is interesting to note that the apparent decline of fatalities in 

Maryland generally corresponds with the peak of program activities.”xxiv

MD Table 1 

Bicyclist Fatalities in Maryland 

Fatalities 1993 1994 1995 1996 

Ages 15 or less 3 6 1 5 

Ages 16 greater 12 10 7 1 

Total 15 16 8 6 

Source: Bike Helmet Promotion Program Executive Summary, MDDHMH/OIDP, updated, p 15. 

A Montgomery County safety expert used anecdotal information to point out that of the three 

biking fatalities in the county in 1998 and 1999, all three were adolescents and none was wearing 

a bicycle helmet. Efforts to acquire additional data, however, were unsuccessful. State officials 

stated that the health department does not currently measure bicycle helmet use nor track 

bicycle-related head and brain injuries. The state’s motor vehicle crash statistics do not capture 

information on helmets on bicyclists in their reports. No expert questioned could provide 

statewide statistics or studies in these areas and most were unaware of the report done for the 

CDC cited in this profile. 

According to a state transportation official: “I’m not aware anyone has done a formal survey, 

either of helmet use or reduction of injuries. I know the health department has discussed it, but 

I’m not aware that they have ever done a formal survey. I’m not aware of any other source of 

information.” A member of BAC said: “I’m not aware of any evaluation or implementation 

that’s going on around the state. I’d be interested if you were finding any.” 

A state injury prevention program employee says that the state does “collect some statistics” and 

“we also rely on CDC and NHTSA information. Our office does not collect information on 

helmets . . . we only have one epidemiologist” who relies on NHTSA data on bicycle helmets. 

One injury prevention expert says that proving that a bicycle helmet use law is decreasing head 

injuries is a difficult challenge because “usually head injuries are a relatively small number. If 

kids fall and hit their heads and they’re fine, you don’t hear anything about it, you can’t get a 

hold of those statistics. Even if a child has a minor injury with a helmet, you don’t hear about it. 

We don’t collect doctor visits or (emergency) ER visits. A person has to be injured enough so 

that they are admitted to the hospital. We use helmet use as a proxy for it, because of the 

Washington state study,” referring to the 1989 report by Thompson and Rivara that found 

bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury from a bicycle crash by 85 percent.xxv

Another expert concurs that Maryland experiences “fortunately a tremendously low number of 

bicycle fatalities” annually, increasing the difficulty of measuring before-and-after changes to 

bicycle crash deaths due to the law. 
83 

When asked about the effectiveness of the Maryland law, most activists believe the law is 

effective, and offered their reasons why, using a variety of definitions of “effectiveness.” 

Several said they were looking for the law to increase bicycle helmet use and believe, based on 

their observations, that use had increased. “I would say (the bicycle helmet use rate) would be 

have to be 20-30 percent,” observed one bicycle helmet use law proponent. He said the general 

philosophy had been, “as long as (bicycle helmet use) kept going up,” the law was effective, 

“especially since the beginning rate was so low. They kind of figured, if they only get to 6, 8, 10 

percent (use), it would still be better than what we have now.” 

Another offered this opinion: “As I look around the neighborhood, more and more kids are 

wearing them, so it is getting out, I think that parents are getting the message that kids should 

wear them. It’s more acceptable, there’s more understanding, more peer support.” 

One bicyclist considered effectiveness in terms of the number of bicycle helmets that are sold: “I 

think that sales were pretty good.” The message about the law “must have been through the 

vendors and got to the parents.” 

The same activist, self-described as “not a real proponent of the law originally,” added: “It’s very 

clear to me that it’s very effective. I think it’s highly successful with children. I see a lot of 

helmet use and it’s rare for me to see a child without a helmet now. Something did happen. I 

see helmets on kids in rural areas where I least expect it; helmets on kids using training wheels, 

when they’re just going up and down the driveway. I’m always impressed when I see it and glad 

that it happened. There was an impact. I think it's promising.” Several observers also pointedly 

noted with frustration that frequently they observed “a child in a helmet biking with an adult who 

is not wearing a helmet”. 

One state official believes: “My personal opinion is no, the law is not effective. It’s like bicycle 

safety courses: people interested in going to those are interested in safety to begin with. The 

people who are not safe riders are not going to be going to safety courses. I think people who 

want to wear helmets will do so whether there is a law or not. I don’t think anybody’s wearing it 

because of the law.” 

The reason he believes that the law is not effective is that it “has no teeth; by that I mean no 

ticket, just the educational materials.” This official believes the law “had a minor impact on 

bicycling children,” based on “over-the-dashboard” surveys, but the impact was not greater 

because, citing an often-raised argument, “most police we have spoken to don’t want to get 

involved in giving a ticket to a child.” 

One injury prevention expert also has doubts about the bill’s impact. “In jurisdictions that care 

about it, like Howard County and Montgomery County, I’m sure helmet use has increased. But 

we’re looking at two jurisdictions where – with their socioeconomic demographics, the 

educational level of their population – with an educational program we would probably have 

gotten about 50 percent compliance already (without a law). An awareness campaign has gotten 

them where they are.” However, as the three-county Maryland study mentioned earlier found, 

bike helmet educational efforts were much less effective in increasing use than an ordinance.xxvi
84 

Factors other than the bicycle helmet use law were mentioned as contributing to increased 

bicycle helmet use, complicating efforts to isolate the law’s impact on bicycle helmet use. 

Influences mentioned included a national effort to link bike sales with bicycle helmet sales and 

design changes to bicycle helmets that made them “a little cooler so public resistance (to wearing 

bicycle helmets) went down.” 

Another activist noted: “Between the time since before these laws started to get passed and now, 

ten years later, you see a change in behavior. You see helmets on kids in articles, on TV, sold in 

stores, easy to find, many adults find them. Not as many kids are wearing them as you’d like, 

but it’s much more acceptable than it was. I think the law is a marker for bigger awareness. It’s 

hard to tell if it came from SAFE KIDS or CDC putting an effort out there, but more attention 

does seem to be paid to it. People are realizing it is politically incorrect to show a person on a 

bicycle without a helmet on. That’s a change that we’ve seen in the last ten years.” 

These changes, which may be partly due to the law, raise the challenge of how to identify the 

impact of the law on increases in bicycle helmet use versus increases due to other reasons such 

as a change in acceptability and culture. Another potential indication of a law’s effectiveness 

may be an indirect one: if its approach is expanded or adopted in other areas. Recently, the 

Maryland legislature extended the helmet use requirement to children using scooters and in-line 

roller skates. Some bicycle helmet use law proponents cited this step as proof of the law’s 

effectiveness and the growing acceptability of using bicycle helmets. 

The state, according to a BAC member, “just passed a scooter/rollerblade helmet bill which will 

go into effect next October for those 16 and under. Scooters weren’t even in when we were 

working on the helmet law. Had bicyclists not had (the bicycle helmet use law), rollerbladers 

wouldn’t have gotten it.” In the words of another activist: “The bike helmet law made it 

possible this year to pass scooter helmets and in-line skating helmets.” 

Several activists, in general agreement that the law is effective (but not without flaws), also 

expressed concern that acceptance of bicycle helmet use in childhood does not necessarily 

translate into bicycle helmet use as a teen or adult. “I hear kids saying, boy when my head gets 

hard enough I won’t have to wear the helmet,” said one. After noting the generally high use of 

bicycle helmets by children, another activist said: “How that translates to teenagers, teens 

probably still don’t think that’s a good idea.” 

However, one long-time bicycling activist’s “hope is that, with the kids who are born now, it will 

be in their peer pressure groups to wear a helmet. The highest usage right now is in the age 

group of around seventh grade, whereas mom and dad behind them are not wearing their 

helmets. It just took the right time, like seat belts. Compliance for seat belts is up to 80 percent. 

When it first started, it was 10, 12 percent. Everybody under 25 years old today grew up 

wearing seat belts and that generation will have higher use of seat belts.” 
85 

Evaluation: 

A variety of observers expressed interest in evaluations of the bicycle helmet use law and more 

information about the impact of bicycle helmet use on head and brain injuries, the bicycle helmet 

use rate and other related factors. However, existing evaluations, other than the report compiled 

for CDC, could not be located. 

That report’s comments on evaluating its program included: “The question of how to evaluate 

the program cannot be separated from resource issues. The Bicycle Injury Prevention Program’s 

principal evaluation focus was observation of helmet wearing . . . Systematic qualitative followup should be strongly recommended and/or mandated in future Cooperative Agreement 

activities.” 

The report also stated: “Any project is only as strong as its weakest or least controllable links. 

Although collaboration with agencies and organizations must incorporate a significant element 

of organizational trust, critical tasks should be directly overseen by personnel from the lead 

agency (in this case, Office of Injury & Disability Prevention/Department of Health and Mental 

Hygiene. This does not always ensure quality, but enhances its likelihood.”xxvii

In addition, the report indicated: “The principal legacy of the program is Maryland’s bicycle 

helmet law. The interest in bicycle safety and helmet wearing programs which both preceded the 

program and that which was generated as a result of CDC funding in this area fostered an 

atmosphere which was conducive to the passage of legislation in this area. CDC funding and the 

associated technical assistance also enhanced OIDP’s knowledge base and its ability to provide 

technical assistance to state and local officials.”xxviii

A common reaction, when asked for evidence demonstrating the impact of the state-level bicycle 

helmet use law, was to refer to the 1992 study that compared bicycle helmet use in Howard 

County to that in two counties without an ordinance.xxix The implication was that adequate proof 

had been put forward to support the state law through that three-county comparison. No new 

information (from either the national level such as NHTSA or from other jurisdictions) has 

emerged to contradict support for bicycle helmet use and use laws. (One state employee said: 

“There was an underlying assumption that it (requiring bicycle helmet use) is a good thing.”) 

With no indications to the contrary, bicycle helmet use law supporters did not focus on using 

their limited resources to evaluate the state law. 

But, when asked, most activists agreed that there “should have been a better plan for evaluating 

the law.” One BAC member said: “There was discussion about it but I don’t think it went 

anywhere. The biggest talk was to come back later and see if there was interest in having the 

adult law passed.” 

Another said: “I would like to see us do some important things that no one is doing; we’re not 

doing enough evaluation and review . . . We need to have a better sense” of how programs and 

policies are working. “How do we know it’s good? We need better data than we have right now 

on a lot of this stuff.” Policy discussions about bicycling in the state are “getting way too much 

into ‘gotta change the state highway administration, gotta change this attitude, gotta change that.’ 
86 

It would be interesting to evaluate the law in Maryland” because it would help to shape such 

discussions. 

One state employee said: “There was some consideration by the health department at some time 

(to conduct an evaluation), but nothing state-wide as part of the law. Once the law was passed, 

no one really owned the law to be responsible for its implementation.” A former state employee 

attributed this lack of involvement to the loss of grant funds. 

An employee of the state injury prevention program agrees that evaluation would “rightly belong 

in our portfolio to be the custodian, and to evaluate. But with the constraints of the department, 

we are limited to educational and advocacy efforts, we must prioritize our needs.” The program 

faces both financial and staff constraints. “We have a small office of three full-time state 

employees and some part-time interns from the University of Maryland (U-MD).” 

With those limited resources, “what the office does is to continue pushing helmets through 

county injury coordinators in the counties. We do lots of education for the public when we have 

the opportunity to do so, when we see a unique opportunity to do so. We also testify in the 

legislature when such bills come up.” For example, the office testified about the bill to require 

helmet use for scooters and in-line skates. 

“We work mainly through the injury prevention coordinators. There are 24 of them, one in each 

county plus Baltimore city. We give them information on bike helmets, we also sponsor minigrants whereby counties apply competitively for small amount of state public health money. For 

those that succeed, we give them $2,000-$4,000. Almost every year, somebody does something 

on bicycle helmets. Those are our foot soldiers in Maryland with the public. Working with the 

injury prevention coordinators and then testifying in the legislature, those are the two main ways 

that we use to advocate for helmets.” 

To evaluate the bicycle helmet use law, the state injury prevention staff would need “mostly 

financial resources and staff; if we have the money and personnel I can see us conducting such a 

study,” the employee said. One observer stated: “People in the state injury prevention office 

only work on projects on which they are grant funded. It doesn’t matter what other issues need 

to be dealt with, if their staff isn’t funded to work on the issue, it doesn’t happen.” 

Another injury prevention expert said conducting an evaluation would be challenging. “I think 

you’d have to fund an observation study; I don’t know how easy that is to do now. You’d almost 

have to do an observation study, stop somebody and ask, ‘why did you wear a helmet?’ ‘Did you 

know this was a law?’ ‘Did your mother make you wear it?’ Maybe do a focus group.” 

A state transportation department employee said: “Off the top of my head, I’d say there would 

have to be some interest in doing it by the people running the departments. There’s not a whole 

lot of interest in doing it . . . Nobody’s enforcing the law. As much safety information as we’ve 

sent out, people ought to know they need to wear a helmet, but people aren’t wearing them. If 

there had been interest, I think we would have done it by now.” 
87 

Retrospective Analysis: 

Observers had a variety of comments on how to more effectively support bicycle helmet use in 

Maryland, as well as on broader bicycle safety and bicycling issues. 

On the need for follow-through and evaluation: 

“You might have a lot of hoopla for passing the legislation but then they don’t maintain 

information about it. But we know from seat belt laws and child safety seats, you need to 

continuously deliver the message and I don’t think we’re delivering the message about 

helmets.” 

On the penalties and enforcement: 

“The only way to make any law effective is to have some teeth involved, and that would 

be a fine. The proposed bill did include a fine, but legislators would not impose a fine. 

There was the concern that it would be infringing on people’s rights; that’s the only way 

it passed. Legislators did not want to make police the bad guy.” 

“Any time you pass a law with no teeth, no enforcement penalty whatsoever, whether it’s 

taking the bike, fining the family, it’s not going to be nearly as effective. We don’t need 

a huge penalty – financially or points – we need a slow and steady (effort). With 

children, it’s problematic in that what are you going to do, take them home and give the 

citation to their parent? It’s a different ball game than with a motor vehicle and licensed 

driver. I think you need some kind of penalty.” 

“The no-penalty feature of the Maryland law is causing it not to be particularly enforced, 

and even when it is, not to be particularly effective. Would it be more effective to have 

to go through education when you get a ticket?” 

“The state law could do better; it should be more enforceable, like a penalty. Police 

officers should be suggesting to kids, ‘you should be wearing a helmet when you bike.’ 

It’s not a priority; a lot them don’t say anything. It varies with each (police) department, 

each county.” 

Discussion of enforcement was not limited to the lack of penalties in the bicycle helmet use law: 

“Rather than focusing on helmets, we should focus on the enforcement” of all laws for 

bicyclists. “Most injuries and fatalities, at least here in Maryland, are caused by the fault 

of bicyclists. Typically it’s an adult running a stop light or stop sign, or a child coming 

into traffic from a driveway. Education helps everybody, but enforcement, what I see --

cyclists biking the wrong way down the street, going on and off of sidewalks into the 

roadway and back again, blowing through stops – enforcement would be a big help. Of 

course, enforcement would be a big help on all highway safety laws.” 
88 

Non-legislative issues were raised that respondents felt were as important to bicycle safety as the 

state law and its implementation. When the goal is solely increasing bicycle helmet use, other 

problems may emerge as a result of that single focus. For example, several observers were 

concerned about bicyclist visibility and even helmet color. Echoing comments made repeatedly, 

one BAC member said: “I’ve had people complain to me that all the helmets sold today are 

black. We should make it illegal to have black helmets. We should make helmets visible. It’s 

good that helmets are getting more and more comfortable. Comfort and style have historically 

been too much overlooked because of safety. Safety doesn’t sell.” 

One bicycling activist, though a supporter of the bicycle helmet use law, believes that bicycle 

helmet use needs to be considered in a broader context of safety. “We have to be careful not to 

be putting too much emphasis on helmets when we talk safety, when it may be civil engineering 

that needs to be safer . . . potholes and barriers won’t get addressed.” 

A long-time bicyclist and safety advocate sees a new and improved focus on safety and bicycling 

which will change the issues addressed: “A new breed is coming in (to the transportation and 

highway safety community) -- now more committed. It used to be that the bicycle was thought 

of as a toy, it shouldn’t be on the street. Our aim all along was to make the bike part of the 

transportation system,” which is now beginning to happen. In the past, “We did it as a civiliantype thing,” relying on a cadre of volunteers. “Only now it’s moving into a professional 

direction, being taken to a professional level.” It’s “tough to get things moving” when relying 

only on volunteers. Sometimes it is easier to get things done when efforts are supported by 

professionals, whose job it is to represent bicycling, and by volunteers. 
89 

Section VII. Profiles 

D. State of Oregon 

Jurisdiction: State. 

Effective date: July 1, 1994. 

Ages covered: Children under age 16. 

Penalty: A $25 fine, which can be waived upon proof of bicycle helmet ownership. 

Legislative language is reprinted in Section VIII D. 

Agency enforcing the law: Any sworn police officer 

Impetus For Legislation: 

The inspiration for the bicycle helmet use bill introduced in the 1993 session of the Oregon state 

legislature was the son of a legislative aide. The staff member, who worked for a Democratic 

state senator, was faced with an adolescent who balked at strapping on his bike helmet. Wearing 

a bicycle helmet made him feel “like a nerd.” His friends didn’t have to wear helmets, why did 

he? The aide, Claudia Black, thought to herself, “there ought to be a law” to make it easier for 

her to get her son and his friends to use bike helmets. With the support of her boss, she 

researched the issue and found out about the incidence and high costs of head injury and the 

effectiveness of bike helmets in preventing head and brain injuries. 

The bill, however, did not appear in a vacuum. 

The Bicycle Helmet Environment And Existing Efforts: 

At the time of the bill’s introduction, several bicycle safety efforts were underway in 

communities around the state. Two major programs, THINK FIRST and Trauma Nurses Talk 

Tough, were at the two Level 1 trauma hospitals in the state and had chapters in various 

communities. Both programs distributed bicycle helmets through giveaways or subsidies and 

were instrumental in launching bicycle helmet give-away programs in various communities. 

The City of Portland's pedestrian program conducted bike helmet giveaways. Portland 

Wheelmen held bike rodeos that emphasized bicycle helmet use. Various service clubs held bike 

rodeos; some gave away bicycle helmets. The American Automobile Association (AAA) held a 

bicycle helmet poster contest in the Portland metro schools. 

Many elementary schools in Oregon provided ongoing bike safety education programs. Raleigh 

Park, an elementary school in Beaverton, was an early example. The Parent/Teacher Club 

handles the school’s bicycle safety program. The program’s primary goals are to educate 
90 

children and parents about bicycle safety skills and to provide low-cost bicycle helmets. The 

two-week program involves learning bicycle safety skills in gym class, a poster contest, an allschool assembly, and concludes with a Bike Safety Fair/Ice Cream Social for parents and 

children. 

Other efforts included a citywide bike bicycle helmet education effort by the City of Silverton. 

Low-cost bicycle helmets were offered for sale at a series of school assemblies with the cost of 

the helmets offset by fund raising. The project distributed 1,300 bicycle helmets and provided 

school safety messages to 2,365 children, all in a city with a population of 6,000. 

Most programs were targeted to children in schools rather than to parents, who are described as a 

much more difficult audience to reach. One effort to reach parents was through court-ordered 

safety belt classes, where the group, Trauma Nurses Talk Tough included bicycle helmet 

information. 

Perhaps most importantly, the legislative proposal developed by Ms. Black was fortuitously 

timed, emerging in an environment (outside of the state legislature) that had built a framework 

that could provide resources to support bicycle safety policies. Prior to the introduction of this 

particular bill, a lot of behind-the-scenes work helped to set the stage for success. 

An early bicycle helmet use bill, introduced in 1987, resulted in the creation of the bicycle safety 

program within the then Oregon Traffic Safety Commission. 

The Transportation Safety Division (TSD) of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) 

had been working on the possibility of a bicycle helmet use bill for a number of years and had 

supported bills introduced in prior legislatures. A fairly deep body of evidence supporting 

bicycle helmet use was already gathered by the office and was available for quick access when 

the time came to provide it to decision makers. 

The transportation safety office had formed a well-defined bicycle safety coalition prior to the 

1993 legislative session. The coalition had identified a bicycle helmet use law as a primary 

objective, and hammered out compelling arguments and data. In addition to TSD representation, 

the group consisted of Trauma Nurses Talk Tough, THINK FIRST, the Oregon Health Division's 

Childhood Injury Program staff, a bicycle supply wholesaler, AAA Oregon's legislative staff 

liaison, and others. According to one participant, “While the group was originally set up to treat 

the entirety of bicycle safety, once a bill with possibilities came to the fore the group leapt on the 

task of passing the law.” 

The Legislative Experience: 

The path from introduction to adoption was an intricate one, yet it took only one session, which 

surprised even the bill’s supporters. The “conventional wisdom” was that the bill’s passage, if it 

were to happen at all, would take several sessions. Bill supporters were advised that it would be 

a good sign if they just got a hearing on the bill in the 1993 session. 
91 

Several factors were credited for the bill’s unexpectedly speedy adoption; one advocate said a 

mandatory factor was persistence. Another supporter identified the state senator and his 

legislative aide who shepherded the bill, and their strong commitment to the issue, as key in the 

bill’s passage. One supporter said, “You’ve got to have some people with influence willing to 

support it.” 

As mentioned earlier, an existing bicycle safety coalition was in place and had compiled 

evidence supportive of bicycle helmet use. 

One key strategic move was the authorship of the legislation. The two main cosponsors were a 

liberal Democrat from an urban area and a very conservative rural Republican. This bipartisan 

backing brought supporters from both groups. 

Both statistical information and anecdotes, such as personal stories told by victims or health care 

providers, were identified as very helpful to the bill’s passage. One legislator, who was 

considered a “hold out” by the bill’s supporters, changed his mind after a child in his district was 

hit by a car at the time hearings were underway; he also heard from constituents about the crash. 

At an Oregon House of Representatives committee hearing, one witness showed videos of her 

brother taken before and after a bike crash. Before the crash, he was a college student majoring 

in pre-law. The video taken after the crash showed him struggling with questions such as: “How 

many fingers am I holding up?” 

Of the statistical information presented to the legislature, the cost to society of a head injury 

appeared to have the most impact. Information indicating that the cost of a single severe head 

injury could exceed $2.1 million convinced legislators that wearing a bicycle helmet was not 

only a parent’s decision, it was a legitimate government concern, considering the potential cost 

to society. 

State agencies had a role to play. Coincidentally, the spouse of the Democratic co-author also 

was the head of the state Department of Motor Vehicles. 

However, at Oregon’s Department of Transportation (ODOT), an internal struggle emerged 

regarding what ODOT’s message and stance on the bill would be. The Oregon Department of 

Transportation represents a wide range of stakeholders. In this instance, two committees to the 

department (Bicycle Advisory and Transportation Safety) took opposing positions on the matter. 

The bicycle use advocates did not want ODOT to support the law, arguing that it would decrease 

bicycle ridership. ODOT staff carried the committees’ opinions and supporting facts to ODOT 

management. ODOT management made a considered judgment and recommended support for 

the law. This process delayed ODOT’s presence before the legislature in support of the bill. 

The role of the law enforcement community was very important. One objection to the proposal 

was that police officers “have enough to do.” One of the legislative authors brought in the police 

chiefs of two Oregon cities, who testified that the law was not a problem for them. The 

opposition of law enforcement “could have derailed” the bill, according to supporters. 
92 

The Subcommittee Experience. 

Although the legislation was adopted in one session, it did not advance without 

modifications in the committee process. The bill as originally written would have 

required bicycle helmet use by bicyclists of all ages. At one of the first hearings on the 

bill, the authors were urged to limit the bill to cover only minors. They agreed to that 

change. One supporter would have preferred a bill that covered those at least up to age 

18, but the compromise was to require bicycle helmet use for those under age 16. One 

reason for settling on this age were statistics showing a large number of bike crashes 

among boys between 11 and 14 years old. 

Bicycle helmet use legislation had also been introduced in the House of Representatives, 

but those bills did not get scheduled for a hearing. 

Two “last-minute” amendments were added to make the bill acceptable to legislators in 

the House: 

 Bicycle rental businesses would be required to make bicycle helmets available but 

would not be liable if people didn’t wear them. 

 Exceptions were made for children riding tricycles and for three-wheeled nonmotorized vehicles operated on the beach. 

Legislative advisors counseled against “cluttering up” the bill. When asked about 

potential provisions such as directing the use of any fines collected or requiring data 

collection or reports, one supporter said: “Don’t put it in the law. You want the cleanest 

bill possible.” Some supporters wanted to send the $25 fines to a fund for bike paths or 

similar activities, but that would have complicated and “killed the bill.” If the bill had had 

a fiscal impact, it would have gone to the Ways and Means Committee “and it would 

have died.” 

Partisan considerations were taken into account in advancing the bill, not just in its 

introduction. In the 1993 session, the Republicans were in the majority in the House and 

Democrats in the Senate. When Senate supporters needed to visit with House members 

regarding the bill, they always made sure the top GOP Senate co-sponsor was with them. 

The positions of key committee chairs strongly influenced the bill’s movement. Though 

the transportation committee could claim jurisdiction over the bill, that committee’s chair 

was not interested in advancing it. The bill’s supporters found a friendly ear in the 

judiciary committee and the bill was heard there. 

Another very helpful point was the existence of similar laws in other states. Legislators 

asked: “What are other states doing?” Oregon legislators did not want to be the first to 

pass a law like this; they didn’t want to be “mavericks,” according to one supporter. 

After the bill passed, The Oregonian newspaper listed it as one of the top ten positive 

bills of the session. The bill and its authors got “incredible good publicity.” One author 

said was it was biggest bill of his career in terms of long-lasting impact. 
93 

Constituencies And Arguments Pro And Con: 

As mentioned above, a wide range of individuals and groups were identified as supportive of the 

legislation, including the Public Education and Prevention Subcommittee of the Area Trauma 

Advisory Board, Region 1, an active coalition of injury prevention professionals. Nurses 

(especially trauma nurses), emergency medicine professionals, and pediatricians were the 

professionals identified as most helpful in securing the bill’s passage. 

The Oregon chapter president of the American Academy of Pediatrics testified, bringing along 

his son, who was a quadriplegic as the result of a bike crash. The state did not have a SAFE 

KIDS chapter at that time but the national organization sent a letter supportive of the bill. 

Opposition to the bill included the bicycling adult community such as the Bicycle Transportation 

Alliance. They were concerned that the law would decrease ridership. At the time, the Alliance 

saw also it as a barrier to bicycle commuting but they have since moved away from this position. 

Opponents were also concerned that a bicycle helmet use law would create the perception that 

bicycle helmet use alone “solves bike safety problems” and could thus decrease efforts for other 

facets of safe biking such as training, bike paths, and sharing the road efforts. 

The most influential arguments made by those who opposed the legislation were summarized as: 

 The law would decrease bicycling and therefore reduce the health benefits of bicycling; and 

 The law would infringe upon the right of parents to decide their children’s behavior. This 

argument was raised by many of the legislators opposing the bill. 

Another argument presented was the “risk homeostasis theory”: the theory that, for example, 

people who wear seat belts will then drive less safely and take more risks. Noted researcher Dr. 

Frederick P. Rivara of Seattle’s (WA) Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center 

countered that argument, explaining that the theory had no validity. 

The arguments for the bill that were judged to be the most persuasive were: 

 Personal stories told by victims and care providers; 

 The effectiveness of bike helmets in preventing injury and the cost of a single severe head 

injury; and 

 The responsibility that adults have to protect children. 

 

A key legislative staff member working on the bill said the effort was different from the more 

common experience where a bill’s author could be successful just by working with a few 

powerful legislators in key leadership posts. This was a “tough battle” which was fought “one 

legislator at a time.” The bill had several determined opponents who sought to derail it. 

According to that staff member, “so much of it is just one-on-one lobbying, learning your 

members and learning what is important to them.” For one legislator, the most convincing 

argument might be the personal tragedy of a child’s brain being damaged; for another, it may be 

the “hard-nosed” issue of cost and savings resulting from injury prevention. 
94 

The Role of the Media: 

The bill’s supporters took advantage of some media opportunities. First, the introduction of the 

bill served as more than a necessary legislative step. It was the proponents’ first effort at media 

involvement, to begin the process of public education about both the proposed law and the need 

for the law. On the day of the bill’s introduction, the authors held a news conference in the 

Capitol. A local pediatrician gave a demonstration illustrating the fragility of the brain and its 

vulnerability to damage. 

The bill’s authors wrote to the editorial board of every newspaper in the state, providing them 

with background information and a proposed editorial. A large number of papers printed the 

editorial verbatim. After the bill’s passage, the authors also asked for a bill-signing ceremony 

with the Governor. The event was crowded and made a good story, and essentially launched the 

yearlong education process before the law took effect. 

Phase-In To Implementation: 

The bill was passed in July 1993 to take effect in July 1994. The year’s delay was established to 

educate the public about the law and because of concerns about the ability of low-income 

children to afford bicycle helmets. 

Once the law passed, the primary objective of the coalition that had supported the legislation 

evolved into implementation of the new law. 

Transportation Safety Division staff worked with the Childhood Injury program at the Oregon 

Health Division to join this group with the Area Trauma Advisory Board Group to develop a 

bicycle helmet coalition. Supported by a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), the Oregon Health Division created a three-year position for a Bike Helmet 

Coordinator (which has since ended). These funds allowed the Health Division to create and 

coordinate a “synergistic effort statewide,” according to one participant. 

The Oregon Bicycle Helmet Coalition was formed and included a wide range of people and 

groups, such as non-profit organizations, businesses and insurers such as Kaiser-Permanente, in 

addition to government agencies. 

Efforts to educate about the law and to distribute bicycle helmets were both initiated at the state 

level and emerged at the local level due to individual efforts. As a result, some activities were 

coordinated statewide; others were not. 

The coalition conducted rodeos, gave out bicycle helmets, and printed and widely distributed a 

community-planning guide to all schools, hospitals and community organizations. Production of 

the Bicycle Helmet Campaign Community Planning Guide was supported by: State Farm 

Insurance Company, THINK FIRST Program, Safe Child Foundation, Oregon Medical 

Association, ODOT, Area Trauma Advisory Board I, Public Education and Prevention 

Committee, and Oregon Pediatric Society. The guide covers how to conduct bike rodeos and 
95 

bicycle helmet giveaways and obtain subsidized bicycle helmets, and includes success stories, 

worksheets and resources. The guide is reprinted in Section IX E, page 168. 

Bicycle helmet give-away programs that existed in advance of the law’s effective date were 

described as limited. After the law’s passage, THINK FIRST worked with other organizations 

on giveaways at targeted schools. For example, at schools with a high proportion of children 

participating in the school lunch program, Kaiser-Permanente would give a bicycle helmet to 

every child. Trauma Nurses Talk Tough sold bicycle helmets at reduced cost. Community bike 

rodeos were held in low-income schools where bicycle helmets were sold for $5 or given free. 

Some rodeos were held with law enforcement partners, some with fire fighters; many were held 

in conjunction with schools. 

Both education and bicycle helmet give-away programs continued after the law took effect. 

Both Trauma Nurses Talk Tough and THINK FIRST continue to give away hundreds of bicycle 

helmets and sell thousands of bicycle helmets at a cost of $5 every year. 

The new law received substantial media coverage, including stories that highlighted the 

experiences of victims. Retailers also posted information about the new law near bicycle and 

helmet displays. 

In some communities, McDonalds’ restaurants continue to donate certificates for free food for 

law enforcement officers to give to children who are wearing bicycle helmets. 

The bike helmet coordinator also worked through the state Department of Education to ensure 

that children were wearing bicycle helmets. For example, they contacted schools to determine if 

the schools had policies requiring bicycle helmet use by children bicycling to school. 

Law Enforcement Involvement During Phase-In: 

Law enforcement officers and agencies were involved in education and bicycle helmet 

distribution efforts before the law’s effective date. Many law enforcement agencies worked with 

injury prevention programs and Kaiser-Permanente to enforce through education and rewards. 

Officers were trained to fit bicycle helmets on children properly. The bicycle helmet coalition 

provided bicycle helmets to be carried in the trunks of patrol cars, so that an officer could 

provide bicycle helmets to bicycling children on the spot. Officers could "cite" children who 

were wearing bicycle helmets by giving them coupons for free ice cream at the local 

McDonald’s. (The Hillsboro Police Department was mentioned as being deeply involved in this 

approach for several years). 

Police agencies and THINK FIRST paired up in low-income housing projects and held bike 

rodeos in the parking lot of the projects and brought Spanish-speaking interpreters along. This 

model was used in several cities. Some agencies got out information about the law through their 

community service officer, who would talk about the law at community meetings. 
96 

To educate police officers about the need for the law and to encourage their enforcement efforts, 

a variety of steps were taken. The bike helmet coordinator developed a training video for law 

enforcement. A video where line officers would hear “from the top down” that enforcing the law 

was important and would learn about head injury was thought to be the best approach to educate 

and engage peace officers around the state. 

The video, “Putting Safety on Top,” showed the governor (on a bike and wearing a helmet) and 

his wife, who was the honorary chair of the SAFE KIDS coalition, which had since been formed 

in the state. They were filmed at the governor’s mansion and spoke about head injury and 

bicycle helmet use. The Superintendent of State Police and the presidents of the state’s sheriffs’ 

association and police chiefs’ association were also interviewed. The experiences of two bicycle 

crash survivors were contrasted. One survivor was a 17-year-old who had been in a bike crash, 

with no helmet, at age 12 and had suffered a brain injury. He and his grandmother talked about 

what it is like to live with a brain injury. The other survivor, the son of a patrolman, had been in 

a crash under identical circumstances but had been wearing a bicycle helmet. He walked away 

from the crash without injury to his brain. 

ODOT’s Traffic Safety Section funded the 11-minute video and the Department of Public Safety, 

Standards and Training section distributed the video to every law enforcement agency in the state 

with a training curriculum. Officers would get an hour of continuing education credit for 

watching the video. The video, described as “powerful” and “emotional,” was well received and 

is still being used. 

The bike helmet coordinator also made a presentation at the state sheriffs’ association 

conference, asking for their help in enforcing the law. 

One message emphasized to officers was that they could view the bicycle helmet use law as a 

positive way to relate to children, not as “oh, no, here’s another thing that makes us ‘the heavy.” 

Bicycle Helmet Use Law Enforcement: 

In spite of efforts to support enforcement of the bicycle helmet use law, observers report that 

little enforcement occurs. Sample comments included: 

“Parents wish the police would stop and cite children. The police wish the judges would hear the 

cases. Many people think the law is good. Some don't.” 

“Most police agencies don't want to ticket kids, because the Circuit Courts wouldn't hear the 

cases. Many police simply do not cite children for this infraction. Enforcement has been a 

major issue in compliance.” 

“This law is rarely enforced, although some individual officers will drive a child home who is 

un-helmeted and then speak to the parents. I doubt that more than a handful of citations have 

been issued.” 
97 

This observation is difficult to confirm since it is difficult to track how many tickets are issued. 

Individual jurisdictions may compile the information, but it is not done statewide. According to 

one observer, “There is also no record-keeping.” 

But one supporter believes that the number of tickets issued is not a primary concern. “We were 

much less concerned about tickets than helmet use; I didn’t care if they didn’t write a single 

ticket as long as helmet use went up.” 

Several years after the law has been in effect, evidence of law enforcement’s commitment to the 

bicycle helmet effort remains. For example, most police agencies now have a budget line to 

purchase bicycle helmets to distribute to the children with the greatest need. And, as mentioned 

earlier, the training video is still utilized and considered effective. 

One jurisdiction was specifically mentioned regarding enforcement: the Sunriver Police 

Department heavily enforces the law. Sunriver is a large resort community where alternative 

transportation modes were designed as part of the city. The jurisdiction is relatively unique in 

that it has more bike trails than roads and the bike trails are heavily used. 

One unconventional approach to enforcement is reportedly successful. One observer states that 

the jurisdictions where “real” enforcement has been successful, compared with “educational 

enforcement” alone, are those that have peer courts. The students on those courts are willing to 

cite and give community service to fellow students found to be in violation of the law. 

Effectiveness Of The Law: 

The law did not define “effectiveness” nor require tracking, monitoring or reporting back to the 

legislature. However, the state received a grant from the CDC to study the impact of the law, 

resulting in the report, Evaluation Of A Statewide Bicycle Helmet Use Law by the Oregon 

Department of Human Resources Health Division.xxx

The Oregon Health Division conducted pre- and post-law bicycle helmet use surveys using direct 

observational surveys at both community and school sites, statewide telephone surveys of adults 

(as part of a behavioral risk factor survey) and classroom surveys of self-reported behavior. 

Significant findings in that report included: 

 Post-law bicycle helmet use was about twice as high as pre-law bicycle helmet use. 

Bicycle helmet use increased from 24.5 percent to 49.3 percent in youth under 18 years old in 

the community-site observational survey and from 20.4 percent to 56.1 percent among

children under 16 years old in the school-site observations. The increase was higher among 

female students, in urban areas, and in small towns. 

 An abrupt decline in bicycle-related head injuries (BHIs): The data revealed a sharp 

decline for the whole population when the law was implemented. In the first full year after 

the bicycle helmet use law was in effect, actual BHI cases were 70. The predicted cases were 

121, meaning a total of 51 BHI cases avoided. The proportion of injured people wearing 

bicycle helmets at the time of crashes significantly increased from 16.0 percent (1992) to 
98 

30.4 percent (1994), whereas the proportion of BHIs decreased from 62.7 percent to 47.3 

percent. 

 Significant savings in direct medical costs: The estimated annual savings was $2,591,456 

to $3,577,336. Factoring in the cost of the legislation, the cost saving per prevented headinjury was $2,864 to $3,812. 

However, the report’s author cautioned that some of these analyses were limited due to the lack 

of long-term injury death data. 

Fortunately, even in advance of the bicycle helmet use law, the number of bicycle-related 

fatalities in the state was relatively low. During the years studied (1989-1994), fatal bicyclerelated head injuries never totaled more than fifteen in any year and, among children, no more 

than five. The report found no specific pattern in the fluctuation of deaths across the years. 

Another type of evaluation of the law was undertaken and deemed helpful. Although the Oregon 

statute did not require a report on the law, the state agencies implementing the law undertook the 

initiative to report back to legislators. They met with legislators and presented information on 

what was being done to educate the public about the law, bicycle helmet subsidy and give-away 

programs, and other efforts. 

Bicycle Ridership: 

The state evaluation cited above did not look at effects on ridership. In the analysis of bicyclerelated head injuries, the author assumed a steady status of bicycle ridership from 1989 through 

1994, citing data from ODOT observations at four sites in the state. 

These ODOT figures show an increase in the number of bicyclists of all ages observed at these 

sites from 1989 to 1994, but a decrease in the proportion of riders identified as “youth.” 

However, the report does not discuss these figures, whether they accurately reflect ridership in 

the state, nor about factors that may be associated with this possible decline in child ridership. 

According to the observations, bicycling among youth began to decline after 1987, several years 

in advance of the law. 

Evaluation Of The Law: 

The Oregon Health Division’s evaluation was aided by the CDC grant. The agency used existing 

sources of data, but needed to provide resources for staff. Without CDC funding, evaluation of 

the law would have been much more limited. 

The CDC grant had an impact not only on measuring the impact of the law, but directly on its 

effectiveness, according to one state official. The three-year grant also funded the position of the 

bicycle helmet coordinator. Without that position, “the work of the coalition wouldn't have 

moved forward, the legislative follow-up wouldn't have happened, nor the police training, nor 

the evaluation of the effectiveness of the law. The evaluation was at selected schools throughout 

Oregon, in multiple counties, and this work actually boosted bike helmet efforts at those schools, 
99 

so it was an important factor in increasing both the distribution and education of/about helmets.” 

The CDC funds provided resources for the Health Division to provide leadership in creating and 

coordinating this synergistic effort statewide, according to the official. 

Retrospective Analysis: 

When asked what could have been done differently to support bicycle helmet use more 

effectively in the state, the respondents had a variety of responses: 

 In drafting the law, rather then a fine, “I would make education the sanction for violating the 

law. Maybe then law enforcement and the public would be more supportive.” 

 Begin with “a state-wide, organized, coordinated, effort”; look far and wide for partners, 

figuring out a strategy early, working through SAFE KIDS and others. 

 On-going efforts are necessary, even before bicycle helmet use legislation is introduced, to 

provide “information on the physical laws that make helmet use necessary. We don’t have a 

choice about the laws our earth has” yet most people don’t understand that. Once a law is in 

place, the physics behind the law should be emphasized more than the law enforcement 

aspect. 

“I believe, based on my experience with the public, that they truly do not understand the 

physical reasons for the law. They do not really understand, either, why a brain injury is 

such a bad thing. When parents really understand the need and are reminded that the 

most important job they have is to protect their child, they will do it.” 

As the state’s evaluation concluded, “half of child bicyclists are still un-helmeted and do 

not support the law, indicating the need for helmet use education.” 

 “Less emphasis on ‘do it or get a ticket’ and more on the need to protect our children.” 

 “There has to be enforcement of the law on multiple levels--schools mandating that kids 

riding to school wear helmets, neighbors enforcing the law on their own streets, and support 

by judges to allow police to ticket.” 
100 

Section VII. Profiles 

E. Port Angeles, Washington

Jurisdiction: City. 

Effective date: January 1, 1994; penalty provisions effective January 1, 1995. 

Ages covered: All ages and guardians of persons under age 16. 

Penalty: $15 fine. 

Agency enforcing the law: City police. 

Legislative language is reprinted in Section VIII E. 

Port Angeles, WA, is a predominately middle-income white suburban community; population is 

approximately 19,000. 

Impetus For Legislation: 

Port Angeles is among the many local jurisdictions in the State of Washington that have enacted 

a bicycle helmet use ordinance in the absence of a state law. According to the Bicycle Helmet 

Safety Institute, Port Angeles and 16 other Washington communities have adopted bicycle 

helmet use ordinances, most of them for bicyclists of all ages. (For information as of April 2002; 

see Helmet Use Laws for Bicycle Riders, Section IX A, page 154.) 

Jurisdictions considering bicycle helmet use laws may be motivated to do so as the result of a 

serious crash; however, that was not the case in Port Angeles. At the time of the bill’s passage, 

the city manager was an avid bicyclist and, perhaps most importantly, one of the city’s seven 

council members was a physician and a “sometime” bicycle rider. 

The support of this councilman and the city manager, as well as “a very vocal” retired physician 

and others in the medical community were key to the ordinance’s introduction and passage. 

Their interest in preventing deaths and injuries and their awareness of the effectiveness of 

bicycle helmets in doing so motivated their efforts to enact the ordinance. 

The Bicycle Helmet Environment And Existing Efforts: 

Port Angeles is seen as bicycle-friendly, with an active bicycling community and a bicycle club. 

At the time the council was considering the bicycle helmet use law, the community had little in 

place in terms of bicycle helmet education, give-away programs, or activities to encourage 

bicycle helmet use. 
101 

The Process of Adoption: 

Spearheaded by the city council member who authored the ordinance, the council’s consideration 

and adoption of the proposal was not controversial. The city council “batted around” a variety of 

approaches to the law, including requiring bicycle helmet use only by minors, an approach used 

in many jurisdictions. They concluded that the most sensible approach was an ordinance that 

applied to all bicyclists. 

Part of the council’s consideration of the ordinance involved council hearings. According to one 

observer, the hearings did not contain a lot of conflict and not much testimony was submitted. 

The council heard primarily from supporters of a bicycle helmet use law, including health and 

medical experts. Some support also came from the bike community. Emergency medicine 

professionals and pediatricians were very helpful in passage of the bill. Involvement by law 

enforcement officials was somewhat helpful. Other professionals and community groups did not 

play a major role. 

Both statistical and anecdotal arguments were described as somewhat helpful in the process. 

The most influential arguments made by those who opposed the legislation were that the police 

were already overburdened and that the law would infringe on individuals’ rights. 

Implementation of the Ordinance: 

The law was implemented in phases. The bill did not take effect until six and a half months after 

enactment. The ordinance directed the City Manager to work with public and private agencies 

“to develop a program of helmet awareness designed to promote use of helmets by all ages and a 

program to subsidize use of helmets by low-income families.” 

The community also undertook a variety of programs between the bill’s enactment and its 

effective date: education programs, bicycle helmet giveaways, and a news media awareness 

campaign. These efforts were conducted primarily through the police department. The 

education and giveaway programs were continued after the law took effect. The city’s police 

department also sponsors an annual bicycle rodeo. 

The responsibility for educating as well as enforcing the ordinance fell to the Port Angeles police 

department. There has been little community or organizational involvement in promoting 

bicycle helmet use other than police department activities. The police believe this lack 

undermines the effectiveness of the law. “Unfortunately, like many laws, our bicycle helmet law 

was passed with good intentions to address a problem that should involve the community as a 

whole, not just the police,” said one police official. 

Enforcement: 

The penalties for violating the law were also phased in. The ordinance allowed only written 

warnings to be issued for the first year the law took effect. The city police also had discretion in 

enforcing the bicycle helmet use law; officers could continue to issue warnings instead of fining 
102 

violators. A bicyclist’s first infraction for violating the law could be dismissed upon proof of 

bicycle helmet ownership. 

The community reaction to the law seems to be acceptance. One reason for this may be the 

approach to enforcement taken by the police department, which is not focused on issuing 

citations. One official describes enforcement of the law as “casual; we prefer education. 

Increased enforcement might trigger public opposition. The police already make enough 

negative contacts.” 

The many demands on a police department affect the resources that the department can direct 

toward enforcement of the law. “We usually have three or four patrol officers on duty at any 

given time in a city of 19,000 residents,” said a police department official. “Officers do cite 

offenders who are involved in accidents or somehow otherwise blatantly ride a bicycle 

recklessly. Otherwise the officers tend to ignore violations. We also have a number of tourists 

who ride without helmets.” 

Bicycle Helmet Use Law Effectiveness: 

The council’s deliberations during passage of the ordinance did not include discussion of 

evaluating the law once enacted. The community has not undertaken any reviews of the law, 

ridership patterns or the community’s crash statistics to determine the ordinance’s effectiveness. 

No before-and-after measures of bicycle helmet use were gathered. 

One local official stated that it would make sense to look at the law’s effectiveness, “but it has 

not been a priority. We only have so many resources. We should do an evaluation of many of 

our laws.” Local officials did report that bicycle helmet use increased as a result of the 

ordinance, based on anecdotal information. 

Retrospective Analysis: 

From the bill’s introduction (and even before) through its enactment and implementation, one 

observer felt that two facets were missing throughout: news media education and 

acknowledgement of the resources needed by police. The effort necessary for a successful 

bicycle helmet use law was likened to the constant effort many jurisdictions now use to support 

their seat belt law. Once the ordinance is in place, on-going efforts are necessary to inform the 

public about the effectiveness of bicycle helmets, the need for the law, and its provisions for 

enforcement. Getting this information out consistently through the news media is seen as the 

most effective means to meet this need. 

Bicycle helmet use law supporters must also be aware of the many competing demands on law 

enforcement time and resources. “Quite frankly, I don’t think most law enforcement agencies 

will give bicycle helmet laws high priorities. Having said that, I do believe bicycle helmet laws 

are okay, but officers should have discretion in enforcing them. I think a state law would be 

effective or more effective.” 
103 

“I wish we were more effective in addressing the issue. We’re a small jurisdiction; I believe until 

we have a state law, it will be a problem for jurisdictions for getting the word out. If there is a 

state law, then education efforts would come forward from the state. You’ll have a city council 

person that’s supportive of the helmet law and will work to get it passed, then that person will 

leave office, so that after a while the support is not there.” 

“The police can’t do it alone. If you turn it into a state program, then there will be state 

resources behind the law, educational efforts; then all enforcement agencies can enforce the law. 

They will all know this is the law, they know the intricacies. Citizens move from town to town, 

you have tourists coming in, and they don’t know the law (under local ordinances). It has not 

been that effective for us, it’s been a tool. You need a coalition. I think it should be bumped up 

to another level.” 
104 

Section VII. Profiles 

F. Seymour, Connecticut 

Jurisdiction: Town. 

Effective Date: July 1, 1998 (Suspended July 21, 1998; repealed in September 1998). 

Ages covered by the law: All riders. 

Penalty: $25 fine for first offense, which could be waived upon proof of bicycle helmet 

ownership; up to $100 fine for each succeeding violation. 

Agency enforcing the law: Police department. 

Legislative language is reprinted in Section VIII F, page 148. 

Seymour, CT, is a predominately middle-income white community, suburban/rural; population is 

approximately 15,000. 

Impetus For The Law: 

Connecticut has a state bicycle helmet use law requiring bicycle helmet use by those under age 

15 but it includes no penalties for violation other than a verbal warning. 

Bicycle helmet promotion efforts are primarily left up to communities. One state official said: 

“We don’t do a lot in bicycle safety. We use an outcome-based planning process; we look at 

data, which says that we don’t have a bicycle safety problem relative to other areas. We’re at or 

below the national average in bicycle accidents.” 

The Connecticut SAFE KIDS Coalition and numerous community groups have been very active 

in promoting bicycle helmet use, including the Lower Naugatuck Valley (CT) Safe Communities 

coalition. This coalition serves the Seymour area as well as participating in the state-wide SAFE 

KIDS coalition. The coalition’s members decided to pursue an ordinance as a next step in 

bicycle safety after two children were killed in bike crashes over a several-year period. One was 

a high-publicity case involving a drunk driver who had been released by the police just before 

the crash. 

In these fatal crashes, one child was seven (&); one was twelve (12); neither was wearing a 

bicycle helmet. The Safe Communities coalition decided the town deserved a stronger law. 

They approached the local political leadership -- the town’s selectmen -- with the “model” 

minors-only ordinance developed by the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, and asked them to 

enact such an ordinance. 
105 

“Basically, what we wanted was to enforce the state law and give it some bite,” said a local 

supporter. Something quite different happened. 

The Bicycle Helmet Environment And Existing Efforts: 

Before approaching the town’s lawmakers, the Safe Communities coalition conducted a variety 

of bike safety efforts, as mentioned above. They had passed out more than 1,500 bike helmets in 

the 18 months prior to the adoption of the ordinance. The coalition held education programs, 

particularly in middle schools. Every fall and spring, students were reminded of the need to 

protect their heads and brains while biking; one of the presentations taught students about the 

fragility of brain tissue, informally dubbed “Jell-O in a jar.” Bicycle safety was featured at some 

community days where parents attended, but the programs in general were focused on children 

rather than on parents. 

The Process Of Adoption: 

Lower Naugatuck Valley Safe Communities joined with emergency medicine professionals in 

approaching the town council in support of a stronger bicycle helmet use ordinance. Their most 

influential argument was the safety benefit of bicycle helmet use. The town’s police chief, 

however, was opposed to the ordinance because he was concerned about the additional burden it 

would place on his department. 

The ordinance was first considered by the town’s ordinance subcommittee, which consists of 

selectmen and some community members. The subcommittee decided to go ahead with a 

bicycle helmet use ordinance – but to expand the proposal to cover all ages. Then the modified 

ordinance was included in a package with an anti-smoking ordinance. That ordinance prohibited 

smoking by children up to age 18 and imposed a fine on children caught smoking. Both 

ordinances were adopted by the board and took effect July 1, 1998. 

The decision to expand the scope of the ordinance was taken without consulting the supporting 

coalition, according to coalition members. The broader scope of the reworked ordinance 

concerned the members of the Safe Communities coalition. 

Implementation Of The Ordinance: 

When residents learned of the two new ordinances, there was an immediate negative response. 

According the Safe Communities coordinator, “people went ballistic.” He paraphrased the 

opposition as: “When the town says I have to wear a helmet and the state law says I don’t have 

to, that’s a violation of my civil liberties.” 

The town’s charter allows for a petitioning and referendum process. If enough registered voters 

(in this case, 400) signed a petition for reconsideration, then the issue would go to a referendum. 

A petition was circulated and the necessary signatures were quickly gathered. The ordinance 

was suspended 21 days after it took effect, pending the outcome of the referendum. 
106 

The supporters who had approached the selectmen asking for a bicycle helmet use ordinance 

were in a difficult position. Their intent was to establish an improved bicycle helmet use law for 

children, but when the ordinance was extended to all bike riders in the community, “we knew 

there was no way it was going to pass.” 

“It was difficult for us to support a bill that would go so far beyond the state law,” said one local 

activist. “We couldn’t go door to door saying we supported this.” Though some in the coalition 

supported the ordinance in concept, no groups worked to support the ordinance in the 

referendum. 

Meanwhile, opponents to the bicycle helmet use/smoking package organized and worked hard to 

win the referendum. The Seymour Ambulance Service and others successfully submitted some 

articles in the local paper about the benefits of bicycle helmet use from an EMS and injury 

prevention perspective. However, the combination of factors, such as the broader law, the 

linkage with the smoking ordinance, organizations unable to endorse the broader proposal 

encountering well-organized opposition, led to a situation that, according to one leader, “was a 

mess.” 

In September, the community vote to repeal both ordinances was approximately 10 to 1. 

Enforcement: 

Due to the furor over the ordinance and its swift suspension, there is little to report about its 

enforcement. The few days it was in effect allowed little time for education or enforcement. 

Bicycle Helmet Use Law Effectiveness: 

The Lower Naugatuck Valley Safe Communities has several different perspectives from which 

to consider the effectiveness of bicycle helmet use laws. They pursued a stronger local 

ordinance because they believed the existing state law was not effective. They selected and 

advocated for the model SAFE KIDS approach because they believed it would be effective; they 

were unable to determine if it would have been effective because it was not adopted. The 

approach that was adopted was clearly not effective, being swiftly repudiated by the community 

at large. 

Their earlier experience, in seeking to increase bicycle helmet use in their community, taught 

them that, “just throwing a helmet out there isn’t enough. Coordinated activities are needed.” 

The existence of the state law, in the absence of any penalty provision, did little to increase 

bicycle helmet use. Passing a law without also doing interventions such as education and bicycle 

helmet distribution did not work. 

“We were willing to do the intervention, to go into schools, take other steps. The problem was 

that before we could get those programs into place,” the town leaders had broadened the 

ordinance so much that the community rebelled, thus “taking the issue out of our hands.” 
107 

The coalition’s goal is to increase bicycle helmet use, with or without a law. The coalition 

members would consider undertaking programs that other jurisdictions have been shown to be 

effective without requiring bicycle helmet use. However, the coalition’s interpretation of 

“effective” means evidence generated through study and research, not just anecdotal reports. 

The coalition director does not believe such efforts are underway (see next section). 

Evaluation: 

For bicycle helmet supporters in Seymour, the greatest barrier to evaluating their interventions, 

be it education, giveaways, or laws, has been lack of fiscal resources, followed by lack of time. 

The coalition has had experience in doing evaluations of teen seat belt use, where they did an 

intervention, measuring (observing) belt use before and after to see if their effort made a 

difference. 

While the coalition director felt it was rather easy to sit in front of a high school and observe teen 

safety belt use pre/post intervention, a parallel effort on bicycle helmet use was described as 

being more difficult and complicated. The coalition director is unaware of sources of funds for 

such an evaluation. 

Retrospective Analysis: 

The Lower Naugatuck Valley Safe Communities would have preferred that the town’s ordinance 

committee had adopted the model SAFE KIDS ordinance submitted to them. They would have 

put before the community a law that covered only minors, not bicyclists of all ages. 

Bicycle helmet advocates might also have sought the support of a bicycle helmet manufacturer to 

undertake a pilot study of the ordinance. Such a study would have shown if the ordinance was 

effective and/or if it needed to be modified. It would have allowed proponents to provide 

objective information to the community about the law and its effectiveness. 

Safe Communities members do not intend to spearhead another effort to adopt a bicycle helmet 

use law at this time, focusing their resources on other activities. Some leaders of the opposition 

remain active in the community, opposing other measures that they deem to be intrusive. 

The coalition remains involved in injury prevention and has “lots of positive things going on.” 

The lead agency of the coalition, the Seymour Ambulance Association, received the National 

EMT Association’s Leo R. Schwartz Emergency Medical Service of the Year award for 2000. 

In March 2000, the Safe Communities/SAFE Kids Coordinator, Frank Marcucio, was named 

national provider of the year; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and 

Emergency Medical Services to Children also named him a national hero. 
108 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

A. Austin, Texas 

1. Original Ordinance 

CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 

ORDINANCE No. 960509-0 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16-8: BICYCLES, OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE 

BY AMENDING SECTION 16-8-1, DEFINITIONS, BY ADDING DEFINITIONS; ADDING 

NEW SECTION 16-8-27, REQUIRING THE WEARING OF A BICYCLE HELMET; 

ADDING NEW SECTION 16-8-28, REQUIRING WRITTEN NOTICE OF THIS 

ORDINANCE; ADDING NEW SECTION 16-8-30, ESTABLISHING HELMET STANDARDS 

AND PROVIDING A PENALTY. 

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: 

PART 1. That the Austin City Code is amended by adding new definitions to 

Chapter l6-8-l, as follows: 

CHILD means any person fourteen years of age or younger. 

DEALER means any commercial establishment that sells or leases new or used bicycles, 

whether as its principal business activity or in connection with the selling or leasing of other 

merchandise, from a place of business within the city. 

HELMET means a properly fitted bicycle helmet that is not structurally damaged and that 

conformed to the standards of the American National Standards Institute, the American Society 

for Testing and Materials, the Snell Memorial Foundation or any federal agency having 

regulatory jurisdiction over bicycle helmets, as applicable, at the time of the manufacture of the 

helmet. 

PARENT means the natural or adoptive parent or court-appointed guardian or conservator of a 

child. 

PUBLIC WAY means any property that is publicly owned or maintained, including a road or 

highway, a publicly maintained trail, and any public parks facility. 

WEARING A HELMET means that the person has a helmet fastened securely to his or her 

head with the straps of the helmet securely tightened. 
109 

PART 2. That the Austin City Code is hereby amended by adding a new Article III to Chapter 

16-8, which reads as follows: 

ARTICLE III. BICYCLE HELMETS 

Section 16-8-40. Helmet Required. 

(a) It is unlawful for any person to operate or ride on a bicycle or in any sidecar, trailer, child 

carrier, seat or other device attached to a bicycle unless the person is wearing a helmet. 

(b) It is unlawful for a parent to permit a child fourteen years of age or younger to operate or ride 

on a bicycle or in any side car, trailer, carrier, seat or other device attached to a bicycle unless the 

child is wearing a helmet. 

(c) It is a defense to prosecution that the bicycle was not being operated upon a public way at the 

time of the alleged offense. 

(d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section, upon first offense only, that the 

person owned or has acquired a helmet prior to the court hearing and promises the court that the 

helmet will be used in the future. 

Section 16-8-41. Sale or lease of bicycle by dealer.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any dealer to sell a bicycle, bicycle sidecar, trailer or child carrier 

without providing a written statement to the purchaser advising of the terms of this section. The 

statement shall be in a form promulgated by the chief of police. Upon request, the chief of police 

shall provide a sample of the required form to a dealer. However, printing and distribution of 

copies shall be at the dealer’s expense. 

(b) It shall be unlawful for any dealer to lease a bicycle to any person without providing a helmet 

for the use of each person who will operate or ride on the bicycle or determining that each person 

who will operate or ride on the bicycle has a helmet available. The dealer may impose an 

additional fee for use of the helmet if the dealer sells or leases a helmet to the bicycle lessee. 

Section 16-8-42. Penalty.

(a) Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on 

conviction shall be fined an amount not exceeding $50 upon first conviction and an amount not 

exceeding $100 on the second and each subsequent conviction. 

(b) The purpose of this article is to encourage the use of helmets. In keeping with that purpose, 

the municipal courts are urged to consider deferred dispositions under Article 45.54 of the Texas 

Code of Criminal Procedure whenever the circumstances warrant deferred dispositions. 

Section 16-8-42. Approval of Standards. 
110 

The City Council approves the bicycle helmet Standards promulgated by the American National 

Standards Institute, the American Society for Testing and Materials, and the Snell Memorial 

Foundation that are attached to this Ordinance and directs that the standards be placed on file in 

Office of the City Clerk. 

Section 16-8-42. Civil Actions. 

The City Council intends to encourage bicycle safety through the use of helmets and through the 

promotion of educational efforts. It is the desire of the City Council that this Ordinance not be 

used in any manner to prejudice any person, child or parent in any civil action arising out of a 

bicycle accident. The City Council encourages construction of this Ordinance in accordance with 

the legislative intent as provided in this section. 

Section 16-8-45. Warning Notice. 

For a period of ninety days following the effective date of this Ordinance, peace officers of the 

City may issue a warning notice to any person who is operating or riding on a bicycle without a 

helmet to advise him or her of the terms and effective date of this Ordinance. 

PART 3. The City Council waives the requirement imposed by Section 2-2-3 of the Austin City 

Code of 1992. This Ordinance will not be read on three separate days. 

PART 4. The City Council repeals any previous ordinance which conflicts with this ordinance. 

PART 5. The enactment of this Ordinance shall not affect rights that were accrued, penalties 

that were incurred, or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance. 

Prior ordinances effectively repealed by this Ordinance will remain in force for the purpose of 

sustaining any action or prosecution for the enforcement of rights penalties, forfeitures, or 

liabilities. 

PART 6. If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application is held to be invalid, the validity of 

the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application shall not be affected. 

PART 7. This ordinance shall become effective ten days following the date of its final passage, 

namely, May 19, 1996. 
111 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

A. Austin, Texas 

 

2. Modified Ordinance (Please note the following included the original language and 

is included such that the reader is able to how the language was changed)

CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 

ORDINANCE No. 971002-C 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16-8 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING 

BICYCLE HELMETS. 

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: 

PART 1. Section 16-8-l of the City Code is amended to amend the following definition: 

CHILD means a [any] person younger than 18 years of age who is not and has not been married 

or who has not had the disabilities of minority removed for general purposes. [fourteen years of 

age or younger.] 

PART 2. Section 16-8-40 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 

§ 16-8-40. HELMET REQUIRED. 

(a) A child may not [It is unlawful for any person to] operate or ride on a bicycle or in any 

sidecar, trailer, child carrier, seat or other device attached to a bicycle unless the child [person] is 

wearing a helmet. 

(b) A parent may not [It is unlawful for a parent to] permit a child [fourteen years of age or 

younger] to operate or ride on a bicycle or in any side car, trailer, carrier, seat or other device 

attached to a bicycle unless the child is wearing a helmet. 

[(c) It is a defense to prosecution that the bicycle was not being operated upon a public way at 

the time of the alleged offense.]

[(d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section, upon first offense only, that the 

person owned or has acquired a helmet prior to the court hearing and promises the court that the 

helmet will be used in the future.] 

PART 3. Section 16-8-41 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 

§ 16-8-41. SALE OR LEASE OF BICYCLE BY DEALER. 
112 

(a) A dealer may not [It shall be unlawful for any dealer to] sell a bicycle, bicycle sidecar, trailer 

or child carrier unless the dealer provides [without providing] a written statement to the 

purchaser advising of the terms of this article [section]. The statement shall be in a form 

promulgated by the chief of police. On [Upon] request, the chief of police shall provide a 

sample of the required form to a dealer. However, printing and distribution of copies shall be at 

the dealer’s expense. 

(b) A dealer may not [It shall be unlawful for any dealer to] lease a bicycle to a [any] person for 

use by a child unless the dealer [without]:

(1) provides [providing] a helmet for the use of each child [person] who will operate or 

ride on the bicycle; or 

(2) determines [determining] that each child [person] who will operate or ride on the 

bicycle has a helmet available. 

A [The] dealer may impose an additional fee for use of a [the] helmet if the dealer sells or 

leases a helmet to a [the] bicycle lessee. 

PART 4. In recognition that punitive bicycle helmet laws may reduce ridership and to 

encourage the use of helmets through non-punitive means, Section 16-8-42 of the City Code is 

amended to read as follows: 

§ 16-8-42. PENALTY. 

(A) A person commits an offense if the person performs an act prohibited by this article or fails 

to perform an act required by this article. An offense under this article is a class C misdemeanor, 

punishable by a fine not to exceed $20 on a first conviction and a fine not to exceed $40 on a 

subsequent conviction. [Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a 

misdemeanor and on conviction shall be fined an amount not exceeding $50 upon first 

conviction and an amount not exceeding $100 on the second and each subsequent conviction.] 

(B) The Municipal Court may dismiss a charge against a person for an offense under Section 16-

8-40 upon receiving proof that: 

 (1) the defendant acquired a helmet for the child who was operating or 

riding in violation of Section 16-8-40; and

 (2) the defendant acquired the helmet on or before the 30th day after 

receiving the citation for the violation.

[(B)] (C) The purpose of this article is to encourage the use of helmets. In keeping with that 

purpose, the municipal courts are urged to consider deferred dispositions under Article 45.54 of 

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure whenever the circumstances warrant deferred 

dispositions. 
113 

PART 5. The Council waives the requirements of Sections 2-2-3 and 2-2-7 of the City Code for 

this ordinance. 

PART 6. The Council finds that the adverse impact resulting from the restrictions now in place 

regarding this subject matter pose an immediate threat to the normal commerce and 

transportation of the community constitutes an emergency. Because of this emergency, this 

ordinance takes effect immediately on its passage for the immediate preservation of the public 

peace, health, and safety. 

PASSED AND APPROVED October 2, 1997. 
114 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

B. State of Florida 

1. FLORIDA 1994 LEGISLATION 

HB 651 

A bill to be entitled 

An act relating to bicycle regulations; amending s. 316.2065, F.S.; requiring a bicycle rider who 

carries a child passenger to provide certain safety equipment; prohibiting a person who rides a 

bicycle on a highway or in a public place from allowing a child passenger to ride on the bicycle 

or on a bicycle trailer or bicycle semitrailer without a helmet; providing a penalty; providing for 

dismissal of charges under specified circumstances; prohibiting a bicycle rider from allowing a 

child to remain in a child carrier when the rider is not in immediate control of the bicycle; 

requiring a label specifying safety requirements to be affixed to boxes containing certain child 

carriers; providing a definition; providing requirements for the wearing of a safety helmet for the 

operation of a bicycle; providing for enforcement; providing penalties; providing exceptions; 

providing for the disposition of fines; providing for educational programs; providing for 

application with respect to negligence provisions; amending s. 318.18, F.S.; providing for the 

assessment of fines for certain violations; providing an effective date. 

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 

Section 1. Subsection (3) of section 316.2065, Florida Statutes, is amended, and subsection (16) 

is added to said section, to read: 

316.2065 Bicycle regulations. 

(3) (a) No bicycle may be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for 

which it is designed or equipped, except that an adult rider may carry a child securely 

attached to his person in a backpack or sling. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a), a bicycle rider who carries a passenger who is 

less than 4 years of age, or who weighs 40 pounds or less, shall carry that passenger in a seat 

designed to carry a child or in a child carrier which has adequate provision for retaining the 

passenger in place and for protecting the passenger from the moving parts of the bicycle. 

(c) A person who rides a bicycle upon a paved highway or in a public place may not 

allow any person who is less than 4 years of age, or who weighs 40 pounds or less, to ride as a 

passenger on such bicycle or on a bicycle trailer or bicycle semitrailer attached to that bicycle, 

unless that passenger is wearing a helmet which meets the standards of the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 Bicycle Helmet Standards), or the Snell Memorial 

Foundation’s 1984 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling, or other standards that 
115 

supercede these standards. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “wearing a helmet” means 

having a helmet of good fit fastened securely upon the head with helmet straps. 

(d) Until January 1, 1996, law enforcement officers shall issue written warnings to those 

in violation of this subsection. Effective January 1, 1996, any person found to have committed a 

violation of this subsection shall be assessed a fine for a nonmoving traffic violation as provided 

in s. 318.18. The clerk of the court shall dismiss the charges against a person for his first 

violation of paragraph (c) if the violator produces proof that a helmet which meets the standards 

prescribed in paragraph (c) has been purchased for use by the passenger. The clerk of the court 

may assess a fee of $5 for dismissing the case under this paragraph. 

(e) The rider of a bicycle may not allow a child to remain in a child carrier on a bicycle 

when the rider is not in immediate control of such vehicle. 

(f) Effective January 1, 1995, the manufacturer of each bicycle seat designed to carry a 

child as a passenger, or a child carrier, sold in this state must have a label affixed to the front of 

the box containing such seat or child carrier which states that a child who is less than 4 years of 

age, or who weighs 40 pounds or less, must wear a helmet while being transported in the carrier 

and may not be left on a bicycle at any time that the rider is not in immediate control of the 

bicycle. 

(16)(a) As used in this subsection, the term “guardian” means a parent, legal guardian, or 

temporary guardian who maintains responsibility, whether voluntary or otherwise, for the safety 

and welfare of a person under the age of 16 years. 

(b) 1. Any person under the age of 16 operating or riding on a bicycle on a public 

roadway, bicycle path, or any right-of-way or publicly owned facility under the jurisdiction of 

the state, a county, or a municipality shall wear a properly fitted and fastened helmet designed 

for bicycle safety. Such helmet shall meet or exceed the requirements of the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 Bicycle Helmet Standards), or the Snell Memorial 

Foundation’s 1984 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling, or such subsequent 

nationally recognized standard for bicycle helmet use as the department may adopt. The helmet 

shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap that shall be fastened securely while the bicycle 

is in motion. 

2. The guardian of a person under the age of 16 years shall not knowingly allow his child 

or ward to operate or ride a bicycle in violation of the provisions of this subsection, nor shall he 

fail to take reasonable steps to prevent such operation or riding of a bicycle. 

3. It is unlawful to rent or lease any bicycle to or for the use of any person under the age 

of 16 years unless: 

a. The renter possesses a bicycle helmet; or 

b. The rental agency provides a bicycle helmet. 
116 

(c) 1. Any law enforcement officer in the state charged with enforcing motor vehicle 

traffic safety laws may enforce the provisions of this subsection. 

2. Until January 1, 1996, law enforcement officers and school crossing guards shall issue 

written warnings to those in violation of this subsection. Effective January 1, 1996, any person 

found to have committed a violation of this subsection shall be assessed a fine for a nonmoving 

traffic violation as provided in s. 318.18. 

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph 2., the fine for a person’s first 

violation of this subsection shall be waived if: 

a. The person charged is a minor and produces proof to the enforcing authority that he 

has obtained a bicycle helmet which meets the standards prescribed in paragraph (b) for use 

within 10 days of the violation; or 

b. The person charged is the guardian of a minor and he produces proof to the enforcing 

authority that he has obtained a bicycle helmet which meets the standards prescribed in 

paragraph (b) for the use of the minor within 10 days of the violation. 

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, the court may waive, reduce, or 

suspend the monetary penalties provided for in this subsection and impose such conditions on a 

waiver, reduction, or suspension as it deems just. If the court determines that a person has 

insufficient funds to pay the monetary penalty, the court may enter the performance of a 

specified number of hours of community service in lieu of a monetary penalty. 

5. Notwithstanding the requirements of s. 318.21, all proceeds collected under the 

provisions of this subsection and under paragraph (3) (c) shall be deposited in the State 

Transportation Trust Fund. The Department of Transportation shall utilize these funds to 

provide educational programs devoted to bicycle safety. If it is determined that sufficient money 

is available, the department shall utilize a portion of the funds to assist low-income persons in 

purchasing helmets which meet the standards set forth in this subsection. 

(d) Failure of a person to use a bicycle helmet as required by this subsection or evidence 

that a guardian of a minor knowingly allowed the minor to violate the bicycle helmet 

requirements of this subsection shall not be considered evidence of negligence or contributory 

negligence. 

Section 2. Subsection (1) of section 318.18, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 

318.18 Amount of civil penalties.--The penalties required for a noncriminal disposition 

pursuant to ss. 316.2935(6) and 318.14(1), (2), and (4) are as follows: 

(1) (a) Seventeen dollars for all infractions of pedestrian regulations under s. 316.130, all 

infractions of s. 316.2065 (12), and violations of chapter 316, except for violations of ss. 

316.2065 (3) (b) and (c) and 316.2065 (16), by persons 14 years of age or under who are 

operating bicycles. 
117 

(b) Twenty-five dollars for all infractions of ss. 316.2065 (3) (b) and (c) and 316.2065 

(16). 

Section 3. This act shall take effect January 1, 1995. 
118 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

B. State of Florida 

2. FLORIDA 1995 LEGISLATION 

HB 775

A bill to be entitled 

An act relating to bicycling; amending s. 316.2065, F.S.; requiring a bicycle rider who carries a 

child passenger to provide certain safety equipment; prohibiting a person who rides a bicycle on 

a highway or in a public place from allowing a child passenger to ride on the bicycle or on a 

bicycle trailer or bicycle semitrailer without a helmet; providing a penalty; providing for 

dismissal of charges under specified circumstances; prohibiting a bicycle rider from allowing a 

child to remain in a child carrier when the rider is not in immediate control of the bicycle; 

providing a definition; providing requirements for the wearing of a safety helmet for the 

operation of a bicycle; providing for enforcement; providing penalties; providing exceptions; 

providing for the disposition of fines; providing for educational programs; providing for 

application with respect to negligence provisions; amending s. 318.18, F.S.; providing for the 

assessment of fines for certain violations; providing an effective date. 

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 

Section 1. Subsection (3) of section 316.2065, Florida Statutes, 1994 Supplement, is amended, 

and subsection (16) is added to that section, to read: 

316.2065 Bicycle regulations. 

( 3) (a) No bicycle may be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for 

which it is designed or equipped, except that an adult rider may carry a child securely 

attached to his person in a backpack or sling. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a), a bicycle rider who carries a passenger who is 

less than 4 years of age, or who weighs 40 pounds or less, shall carry that passenger in a seat 

designed to carry a child or in a child carrier which has adequate provision for retaining the 

passenger in place and for protecting the passenger from the moving parts of the bicycle. 

(c) A person who rides a bicycle upon a paved highway or in a public place may not 

allow any person who is less than 4 years of age, or who weighs 40 pounds or less, to ride as a 

passenger on such bicycle or on a bicycle trailer or bicycle semitrailer attached to that bicycle, 

unless that passenger is wearing a helmet which meets the standards of the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 Bicycle Helmet Standards), or the Snell Memorial 

Foundation’s 1984 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling, or other standards that 

supercede these standards. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “wearing a helmet” means 

having a helmet of good fit fastened securely upon the head with helmet straps. 
119 

(d) Until January 1, 1997, law enforcement officers shall issue written warnings to those 

in violation of this subsection. Effective January 1, 1997, any person found to have committed a 

violation of this subsection shall be assessed a fine for a nonmoving traffic violation as provided 

in s. 318.18. The clerk of the court shall dismiss the charges against a person for his first 

violation of paragraph (c) if the violator produces proof that a helmet which meets the standards 

prescribed in paragraph (c) has been purchased for use by the passenger. The clerk of the court 

may assess a fee of $5 for dismissing the case under this paragraph. 

(e) The rider of a bicycle may not allow a child to remain in a child carrier on a bicycle 

when the rider is not in immediate control of such vehicle. 

(16)(a) As used in this subsection, the term “guardian” means a parent, legal guardian, or 

temporary guardian who maintains responsibility, whether voluntary or otherwise, for the safety 

and welfare of a person under the age of 16 years. 

(b) 1. Any person under the age of 16 years operating or riding on a bicycle on a public 

roadway, bicycle path, or any right-of-way or publicly owned facility under the jurisdiction of 

the state, a county, or a municipality shall wear a properly fitted and fastened helmet designed 

for bicycle safety. Such helmet shall meet or exceed the requirements of the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 Bicycle Helmet Standards), or the Snell Memorial 

Foundation’s 1984 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling, or such subsequent 

nationally recognized standard for bicycle helmet use as the department may adopt. The helmet 

shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap that shall be fastened securely while the bicycle 

is in motion. 

2. The guardian of a person under the age of 16 years shall not knowingly allow his child 

or ward to operate or ride a bicycle in violation of the provisions of this subsection, nor shall he 

fail to take reasonable steps to prevent such operation or riding of a bicycle. 

3. It is unlawful to rent or lease any bicycle to or for the use of any person under the age 

of 16 years unless: 

a. The renter possesses a bicycle helmet; or 

b. The rental agency provides a bicycle helmet. 

(c) 1. Any law enforcement officer in the state charged with enforcing motor vehicle 

traffic safety laws may enforce the provisions of this subsection. 

2. Until January 1, 1997, law enforcement officers and school crossing guards shall issue 

written warnings to those in violation of this subsection. Effective January 1, 1997, any person 

found to have committed a violation of this subsection shall be assessed a fine for a nonmoving 

traffic violation as provided in s. 318.18. 

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph 2., the fine for a person’s first 

violation of this subsection shall be waived if: 
120 

a. The person charged is a minor and produces proof to the enforcing authority that he 

has obtained a bicycle helmet which meets the standards prescribed in paragraph (b) for use 

within 10 days of the violation; or 

b. The person charged is the guardian of a minor and he produces proof to the enforcing 

authority that he has obtained a bicycle helmet which meets the standards prescribed in 

paragraph (b) for the use of the minor within 10 days after the violation. 

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, the court may waive, reduce, or 

suspend the monetary penalties provided for in this subsection and impose such conditions on a 

waiver, reduction, or suspension as it deems just. If the court determines that a person has 

insufficient funds to pay the monetary penalty, the court may enter the performance of a 

specified number of hours of community service in lieu of a monetary penalty. 

5. Notwithstanding the requirements of s. 318.21, all proceeds collected under the 

provisions of this subsection and under paragraph (3) (c) shall be deposited in the State 

Transportation Trust Fund. The Department of Transportation shall utilize these funds to 

provide educational programs devoted to bicycle safety. If it is determined that sufficient money 

is available, the department shall utilize a portion of the funds to assist low-income persons in 

purchasing helmets which meet the standards set forth in this subsection. 

(d) Failure of a person to use a bicycle helmet as required by this subsection or evidence 

that a guardian of a minor knowingly allowed the minor to violate the bicycle helmet 

requirements of this subsection shall not be considered evidence of negligence or contributory 

negligence. 

Section 2. Subsection (1) of section 318.18, Florida Statutes, 1994 Supplement, is amended to 

read: 

318.18 Amount of civil penalties.--The penalties required for a noncriminal disposition 

pursuant to ss. 316.2935(6) and 318.14(1), (2), and (4) are as follows: 

(1) (a) Seventeen dollars for all infractions of pedestrian regulations under s. 316.130, all 

infractions of s. 316.2065 (12), and violations of chapter 316, except for violations of ss. 

316.2065 (3) (b) and (c) and 316.2065 (16), by persons 14 years of age or under who are 

operating bicycles. 

(b) Twenty-five dollars for all infractions of ss. 316.2065 (3) (b) and (c) and 316.2065 

(16). 

Section 3. This act shall take effect January 1, 1996. 
121 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

B. State of Florida 

3. FLORIDA 1996 LEGISLATION (ADOPTED) 

ENROLLED 

1996 Legislature 

 

 SB 2370

An act relating to bicycling; amending s. 316.2065, F.S.; requiring a bicycle rider who carries a 

young or small child as a passenger to provide certain safety equipment; prohibiting a bicycle 

rider from allowing a passenger to remain in a child seat or carrier when the rider is not in 

immediate control of the bicycle; requiring a bicycle rider or passenger under the age of 16 years 

to wear a bicycle helmet; specifying standards for bicycle helmets; providing a penalty; 

providing for dismissal of charges under specified circumstances; providing requirements for 

parents or guardians of children pertaining to the wearing of a helmet while riding a bicycle; 

prohibiting renting or leasing a bicycle without a helmet; providing for enforcement; providing 

penalties; providing exceptions; providing for the disposition of fines; providing for evidentiary 

application with respect to negligence; amending s. 318.18, F.S.; providing for the assessment of 

fines for certain violations of bicycle safety requirements; authorizing counties not to comply 

with certain provisions of s. 316.2065, F.S.; providing an effective date. 

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 

Section 1. Subsection (3) of section 316.2065, Florida Statutes, is amended, and subsections 

(16), (17), (18), (19), and (20) are added to that section, to read: 

316.2065 Bicycle regulations.-- 

( 3) (a) A bicycle may not be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for 

which it is designed or equipped, except that an adult rider may carry a child securely 

attached to his or her person in a backpack or sling. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a), a bicycle rider must carry any passenger who is a 

child under 4 years of age, or who weighs 40 pounds or less, in a seat or carrier that is designed 

to carry a child of that age or size and that secures and protects the child from the moving parts 

of the bicycle. 

(c) A bicycle rider may not allow a passenger to remain in a child seat or carrier on a 

bicycle when the rider is not in immediate control of the bicycle. 

(d) A bicycle rider or passenger who is under 16 years of age must wear a bicycle helmet 

that is properly fitted and is fastened securely upon the passenger’s head by a strap, and that 

meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 Bicycle Helmet 
122 

Standards), the standards of the Snell Memorial Foundation (1984 Standard for Protective 

Headgear for Use in Bicycling), or any other nationally recognized standards for bicycle helmets 

adopted by the department. As used in this subsection, the term “passenger” includes a child 

who is riding in a trailer or semitrailer attached to a bicycle. 

(e) Law enforcement officers and school crossing guards may issue a bicycle safety 

brochure and a verbal warning to a bicycle rider or passenger who violates this subsection. 

Effective January 1, 1998, a bicycle rider or passenger who violates this subsection may be 

issued a citation by a law enforcement officer and assessed a fine for a nonmoving traffic 

violation, as provided in s. 318.18. The court shall dismiss the charge against a bicycle rider or 

passenger for a first violation of paragraph (d) upon proof of purchase of a bicycle helmet that 

complies with this subsection. 

(16)(a) A person may not knowingly rent or lease any bicycle to be ridden by a child who 

is under the age of 16 years unless: 

1. The child possesses a bicycle helmet; or 

2. The lessor provides a bicycle helmet for the child to wear. 

(b) A violation of this subsection is a nonmoving violation, punishable as provided in s. 

318.18. 

(17) The court may waive, reduce, or suspend payment of any fine imposed under 

subsection (3) or subsection (16) and may impose any other conditions on the waiver, reduction, 

or suspension. If the court finds that a person does not have sufficient funds to pay the fine, the 

court may require the performance of a specified number of hours of community-service or 

attendance at a safety seminar. 

(18) Notwithstanding s. 318.21, all proceeds collected pursuant to s. 318.18 for violations 

under paragraphs (3) (e) and (16)(b) shall be deposited into the State Transportation Trust Fund. 

(19) The failure of a person to wear a bicycle helmet or the failure of a parent or guardian 

to prevent a child from riding a bicycle without a bicycle helmet may not be considered evidence 

of negligence or contributory negligence. 

(20) Effective January 1, 1998, law enforcement officers may issue traffic citations for a 

violation of subsection (3) or subsection (16) only if the violation occurs on a bicycle path or 

road, as defined in s. 334.03. However, they may not issue citations to persons on private 

property, except any part thereof which is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular 

traffic. 

Section 2. Subsection (1) of section 318.18, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 

318.18 Amount of civil penalties.--The penalties required for a noncriminal disposition 

pursuant to ss. 316.2935(6) and 318.14(1), (2), and (4) are as follows: 
123 

(1) Seventeen dollars for all infractions of pedestrian regulations under s. 316.130, all 

infractions of s. 316.2065, and violations of chapter 316 by persons 14 years of age or under who 

are operating bicycles. 

Section 3. A county may exempt itself from the provisions of section 316.2065(3) (d) and 

(16), Florida Statutes, if the board of county commissioners: 

(1) Passes an ordinance to that effect before January 1, 1998; and 

(2) Provides notice, holds a hearing, and takes testimony before passing the ordinance. 

Section 4. This act shall take effect January 1, 1997. 
124 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

C. State of Maryland and Maryland Counties 

1. MARYLAND LEGISLATION, AS INTRODUCED 

HOUSE BILL 974 

(As introduced February 10, 1995) 

By: Delegates Conroy, Perry, Harrison, Hubbard, Love, and Pitkin 

Introduced and read first time: February 10, 1995 

Assigned to: Commerce and Government Matters 

An ACT concerning 

Vehicle Laws - Bicycle Helmets Required 

FOR the purpose of prohibiting a person from operating or riding on a bicycle unless the person 

is wearing a bicycle helmet that conforms with certain standards; providing for the application of 

this Act; establishing certain penalties; authorizing a court to waive a fine assessed under this 

Act under certain circumstances; providing for the distribution and use of the fines collected; 

providing that the failure of a person to wear a bicycle helmet may not be considered evidence of 

negligence or contributory negligence and may not limit liability of a party or an insurer or 

diminish recovery of certain damages; establishing certain requirements for persons regularly 

engaged in the business of selling or renting bicycles; providing that this Act prevails over all 

local laws and regulations; authorizing the issuance of warnings for violations of this Act during 

a certain period; and generally relating to the mandatory use of bicycle helmets. 

BY adding to 

Article - Transportation 

Section 21-1207.1 

Annotated Code of Maryland 

(1992 Replacement Volume and 1994 Supplement) 

HOUSE BILL 974 

SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, That the 

Laws of Maryland read as follows: 

Article - Transportation 

21-1207.1. 
125 

(A) (1) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION APPLY: 

 (I) AT ALL TIMES WHILE A BICYCLE IS BEING OPERATED ON ANY 

HIGHWAY, BICYCLE WAY, OR OTHER PROPERTY OPEN TO THE 

PUBLIC OR USED BY THE PUBLIC FOR PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULAR 

TRAFFIC; AND 

 (II) TO ANY PERSON RIDING ON A BICYCLE INCLUDING ANY PASSENGER 

WHO RIDES ON A BICYCLE: 

 1. IN A RESTRAINING SEAT ATTACHED TO THE BICYCLE; OR 

 2. IN A TRAILER BEING TOWED BY THE BICYCLE. 

 (2) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY TO 

PASSENGERS IN COMMERCIAL RICKSHAWS. 

(B) A PERSON MAY NOT OPERATE OR RIDE AS A PASSENGER ON A BICYCLE 

UNLESS THE PERSON IS WEARING A PROPERLY FITTED AND FASTENED 

HELMET THAT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN 

NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE, THE SNELL MEMORIAL FOUNDATION’S 

STANDARD, OR THE STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TESTING 

AND MEASUREMENTS FOR PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR FOR USE IN BICYCLING. 

(C) (1) A PERSON CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO: 

 (I) FOR A FIRST OFFENSE, A FINE OF UP TO $25 PLUS COURT COSTS; AND 

 

 (II) FOR A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE, A FINE OF UP TO $50 PLUS 

COURT COSTS. 

 (2) A COURT MAY WAIVE A FINE ASSESSED FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS 

SECTION IF: 

 (I) THE VIOLATION IS THE OFFENDER’S FIRST VIOLATION OF THIS 

SECTION; AND 

 (II) THE PERSON CONVICTED OF THE VIOLATION SUPPLIES THE COURT 

WITH PROOF THAT BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE VIOLATION AND 

THE APPEARANCE DATE FOR THE VIOLATION THE PERSON 

PURCHASED A HELMET THAT MEETS THE STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN 

SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION. 

(D) (1) THE CLERK OF THE COURT SHALL DISTRIBUTE ANY FINES COLLECTED 

 UNDER THIS SECTION TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTY 

WHERE THE VIOLATION OCCURRED TO BE USED BY THE GOVERNING 
126 

BODY FOR BICYCLE RELATED PURPOSES INCLUDING THE FUNDING OF 

BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

 (2) THE GOVERNING BODY OF A COUNTY RECEIVING FUNDS UNDER 

PARAGRAPH (1) OF THIS SUBSECTION SHALL CONSULT WITH THE 

BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED UNDER § 21-1307 OF 

THIS SUBTITLE REGARDING APPROPRIATE USES OF THE FUNDS. 

(E) THE FAILURE OF A PERSON TO USE A BICYCLE HELMET AS REQUIRED 

UNDER THIS SECTION MAY NOT: 

 (1) BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE; 

 (2) BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE; 

 (3) LIMIT LIABILITY OF A PARTY OR AN INSURER; OR 

 (4) DIMINISH RECOVERY FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP, 

 MAINTENANCE, OR OPERATION OF A VEHICLE. 

(F) (1) A PERSON REGULARLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING 

 BICYCLES SHALL PROMINENTLY DISPLAY A SIGN AT THE PERSON’S 

PLACE OF BUSINESS SUMMARIZING THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTIONS 

(A), (B), AND (C) OF THIS SECTION. 

 (2) A PERSON REGULARLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RENTING 

BICYCLES SHALL: 

 (I) REQUIRE EACH PERSON SEEKING TO RENT A BICYCLE TO SIGN A 

FORM INDICATING RECEIPT OF A WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF THE 

PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTIONS (A), (B), AND (C) OF THIS SECTION; 

AND 

 (II) PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF EACH PERSON SEEKING TO RENT A 

BICYCLE, A HELMET THAT CONFORMS WITH THE PROVISIONS OF 

THIS SECTION UNLESS THE PERSON ALREADY HAS SUCH A HELMET 

IN THE PERSON’S POSSESSION. 

 (3) A PERSON REGULARLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING OR 

RENTING BICYCLES WHO COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF 

PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (2) OF THIS SUBSECTION MAY NOT BE HELD 

LIABLE IN A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR ANY PHYSICAL INJURY 

SUSTAINED BY A BICYCLE OPERATOR OR PASSENGER DUE TO FAILURE 

TO WEAR A PROPERLY FITTED AND FASTENED HELMET IN VIOLATION 

OF THIS SECTION. 
127 

 (G) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION PREVAIL OVER ALL LOCAL LAWS AND 

REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF BICYCLE HELMETS. 

SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED. That during the first 90 days after the 

effective date of this Act, the provisions of § 21-1207.1 of the Transportation 

Article may be enforced only by the issuance of a warning that: 

(1) Informs the offender of the requirements of § 21-1207.1 of the 

Transportation Article; and 

(2) Provides educational materials about bicycle helmet use. 

SECTION 3. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED That this Act shall take effect 

October 1, 1995. 
128 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

C. State of Maryland and Maryland Counties 

2. MARYLAND LEGISLATION, AS ADOPTED

HOUSE BILL 974 

(Approved by the Governor May 25, 1995) 

By: Delegates Conroy, Perry, Harrison, Hubbard, Love, and Pitkin 

Introduced and read first time: February 10, 1995 

Assigned to: Commerce and Government Matters 

Committee Report: Favorable with amendments 

House action: Adopted 

Read second time: March 16, 1995 

An ACT concerning Vehicle Laws - Bicycle Helmets Required 

FOR the purpose of prohibiting a person under a certain age from operating or riding on a 

bicycle unless the person is wearing a bicycle helmet that conforms with certain standards; 

providing for the application of this Act; providing for the enforcement of this Act; providing for 

an exception to this Act; and generally relating to the mandatory use of bicycle helmets. 

BY adding to 

Article - Transportation 

Section 21-1207.1 

Annotated Code of Maryland 

(1992 Replacement Volume and 1994 Supplement) 

 

BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments 

Article - Transportation 

Section 27-102 

Annotated Code of Maryland 

(1992 Replacement Volume and 1994 Supplement) 

HOUSE BILL 974 

SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, That the 

Laws of Maryland read as follows: 

Article - Transportation 

21-1207.1. 
129 

EXPLANATION: CAPITALS INDICATE MATTER ADDED TO EXISTING LAW. 

 [Brackets] indicate matter deleted from existing law. 

 Underlining indicates amendments to bill. 

 Strike out indicates matter stricken from the bill by amendments or deleted 

from the law by amendment. 

(A) (1) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION APPLY: 

 (I) AT ALL TIMES WHILE A BICYCLE IS BEING OPERATED ON ANY 

HIGHWAY, BICYCLE WAY, OR OTHER PROPERTY OPEN TO THE 

PUBLIC OR USED BY THE PUBLIC FOR PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULAR 

TRAFFIC; AND 

 (II) TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 16 WHO IS RIDING ON A BICYCLE, 

INCLUDING A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 16 WHO IS A PASSENGER 

ON A BICYCLE: 

1. IN A RESTRAINING SEAT ATTACHED TO THE BICYCLE; 

 OR 

2. IN A TRAILER BEING TOWED BY THE BICYCLE. 

(2) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY TO PASSENGERS IN 

COMMERCIAL RICKSHAWS. 

(B) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY IN THE TOWN OF OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND, 

ON THE BOARDWALK BETWEEN THE OCEAN CITY INLET AND 27TH STREET, 

DURING THE HOURS IN WHICH BICYCLES ARE PERMITTED BY LOCAL 

ORDINANCE TO BE OPERATED ON THE BOARDWALK. 

(C) A PERSON TO WHOM THIS SECTION APPLIES MAY NOT OPERATE OR RIDE AS 

A PASSENGER ON A BICYCLE UNLESS THE PERSON IS WEARING A HELMET 

THAT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL 

STANDARDS INSTITUTE, THE SNELL MEMORIAL FOUNDATION’S STANDARD, 

OR THE STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TESTING AND 

MEASUREMENTS FOR PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR FOR USE IN BICYCLING. 

(D) THIS SECTION SHALL BE ENFORCED BY THE ISSUANCE OF A WARNING THAT 

INFORMS THE OFFENDER OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION AND 

PROVIDES EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS ABOUT BICYCLE HELMET USE. 

27-102. 

[Any] EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN § 21-1207.1 OF THIS ARTICLE, ANY person who 

violates a restriction on any license under the Maryland Vehicle Law or who violates any rule or 

regulation adopted under any provision of the Maryland Vehicle Law is guilty of a misdemeanor 

and, in addition to any administrative penalty provided for in the Maryland Vehicle Law, is 
130 

subject to the penalties provided for in § 27-101(b) of this subtitle or, if greater, to the same 

penalties as are provided for a violation of the statute for or under which the restriction is 

imposed or the rule or regulation adopted. 

SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED. That this Act shall take effect 

October 1, 1995. 
131 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

C. State of Maryland and Maryland Counties 

 3. ALLEGANY COUNTY, MD. ORDINANCE 

BILL NUMBER: 2-92 

A BILL ENTITLED: 

“ALLEGANY COUNTY HELMET LAW”

An Act to require any person less than 16 years of age riding a bicycle, or riding as a passenger 

on a bicycle, to wear a helmet while riding on any public roadway or publicly owned facilities 

under the jurisdiction of Allegany County, Maryland. 

SECTION ONE: It is hereby enacted by the County Commissioners of Allegany County, 

Maryland, that the public local laws of Allegany County shall read as follows: 

ALLEGANY COUNTY HELMET LAW 

(a.) It shall be the public policy of Allegany County, Maryland, that the County is concerned 

about the safe operation of bicycles on public rights-of-way; and for this reason, in order to 

protect the health, welfare and safety of the residents of the County, it is necessary that 

reasonable regulations be promulgated to permit the operation of bicycles in a prescribed manner 

and to require the use of safety equipment during their operation. These regulations are in 

addition to the statewide bicycle regulations contained in the Maryland Vehicle Law. 

(b.) The provisions of this Section shall be applicable throughout the County on public rights-ofway and publicly owned facilities under the jurisdiction of the County. 

(c.) The parent, guardian, or legal custodian of a minor shall not authorize nor knowingly permit 

the minor to violate this Section. 

(d.) Any person less than 16 years of age operating or riding on a bicycle as a passenger on a 

public roadway, bicycle path, or any right-of-way under the jurisdiction in control of the County 

shall wear a protective helmet designed for bicycle safety. Such helmet shall meet or exceed 

standards set by the American National Standards Institute or the Snell Foundation. 

(e.) Any person found guilty of violation of this Section, which shall include parents, guardians, 

or legal custodians, knowingly permitting such conduct or authorizing same shall, upon 

conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and be subject to a $25.00 fine. 

(f.) The Court may waive any fine for which a person found guilty of violating the provisions of 

this Section if the person supplies the Court with proof that between the date of violation and the 
132 

appearance date for such violation, the person purchased a helmet which meets the requirements 

of this Section. 

SECTION TWO: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict, or inconsistent, with any part 

of the terms of this Bill are hereby repealed to the extent that they are in such conflict or 

inconsistent. 

SECTION THREE: In the event that any Section, part, or provisions of this Bill shall be held to 

be unconstitutional or invalid by any Court, such holding shall not affect the validity of this Bill 

as a whole, or any part thereof, other than the part so held unconstitutional or invalid. 

SECTION FOUR: This Act shall take effect 45 days from the date of passage. 

PASSED THIS 18th day of March, 1992. 
133 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

C. State of Maryland and Maryland Counties 

4. HOWARD COUNTY, MD. ORDINANCE

Introduced: 4-2-90 

Public Hearing: 4-16-90 

Council Action: 5-7-90 

Executive Action: 5-18-90 

Effective Date: 7-17-90 

County Council of Howard County, Maryland 

 

 

 Legislative Day No. 4 

Bill No. 28*

Introduced by Charles C. Feaga 

AN ACT adding new Subtitle 13, “Special Rules and Equipment for Bicycles” to Title 21 

“Traffic Control and Transportation” of the Howard County Code to require the use of safety 

equipment for bicycle riders when operating a bicycle on public rights-of-way; to provide rules 

for the operation of a bicycle; and to allow for implementation of fines in certain situations AND 

TO MAKE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER 1, 1990. 

Section 1. Be it enacted by the County Council of Howard County, Maryland, that new Subtitle 

13 “Special Rules and Equipment for Bicycles” of Title 21 “Traffic Control and Transportation” 

of the Howard County Code is added to read as follows: 

TITLE 21. Traffic Control and Transportation 

SUBTITLE 13. SPECIAL RULES AND EQUIPMENT FOR BICYCLES 

SEC. 21.1300 POLICY 

 

*

 After the passage of this ordinance but before its effective date of October 

1, 1990, the county council amended the ordinance to cover those under age 

16; amending language follows.
134 

IT SHALL BE THE PUBLIC POLICY OF HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, THAT THE 

COUNTY IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFE OPERATION OF BICYCLES ON 

PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY; AND FOR THIS REASON, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE 

HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY, IT IS 

NECESSARY, THAT REASONABLE REGULATIONS BE PROMULGATED TO PERMIT 

THE OPERATION OF BICYCLES IN A PRESCRIBED MANNER AND TO REQUIRE THE 

USE OF SAFETY EQUIPMENT DURING THEIR OPERATION, THESE REGULATIONS 

ARE IN ADDITION TO THE STATEWIDE BICYCLE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN 

THE MARYLAND VEHICLE LAW. (sic) 

SEC. 21.1301 SCOPE 

(a) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBTITLE SHALL BE APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT 

THE COUNTY ON PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC OWNED FACILITIES 

UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY. 

(b) THE PARENT, GUARDIAN OR LEGAL CUSTODIAN OF A MINOR SHALL NOT 

AUTHORIZE NOR KNOWINGLY PERMIT THE MINOR TO VIOLATE THIS SUBTITLE. 

SEC. 21.1302 EQUIPMENT FOR BICYCLE RIDERS. 

ANY PERSON OPERATING OR RIDING ON A BICYCLE ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY, 

BICYCLE PATH, OR ON ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNDER THE JURISDICTION AND 

CONTROL OF THE COUNTY SHALL WEAR A PROTECTIVE HELMET DESIGNED FOR 

BICYCLE SAFETY. SUCH HELMET SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE STANDARDS SET 

BY THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE OR THE SNELL 

FOUNDATION. 

SEC. 21.1303 USE OF SIDEWALKS AND PATHWAYS 
135 

(A) PURSUANT TO SECTION 21-1103 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ARTICLE, 

ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND, A PERSON MAY RIDE A BICYCLE, PLAY 

VEHICLE, OR UNICYCLE ON A SIDEWALK OR PATHWAY. 

SEC. 21.1304 PENALTY FOR VIOLATION 

(a) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBTITLE SHALL BE ENFORCED WITH CIVIL 

PENALTIES PURSUANT TO TITLE 24, “CIVIL PENALTIES”, OF THE HOWARD 

COUNTY CODE. A FIRST OFFENSE VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF 

THIS SUBTITLE SHALL CONSTITUTE A CLASS E OFFENSE; AND UPON A SECOND 

OFFENSE VIOLATION OF THIS SUBTITLE WITHIN (12) MONTHS, SHALL 

CONSTITUTE A CLASS D OFFENSE. 

(b) THE COURT MAY WAIVE ANY FINE FOR WHICH A PERSON FOUND GUILTY OF 

VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 21.1302 OF THIS SUBTITLE WOULD BE 

LIABLE, IF THE PERSON SUPPLIES THE COURT WITH PROOF THAT BETWEEN THE 

DATE OF VIOLATION AND THE APPEARANCE DATE FOR SUCH VIOLATION, THE 

PERSON PURCHASED A HELMET WHICH MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 

21.1302 OF THIS SUBTITLE. 

SEC. 21.1306 SEVERABILITY 

IF ANY WORD, CLAUSE, PARAGRAPH OR SECTION OF THIS SUBTITLE SHALL BE 

RULED INVALID OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY A COURT OF COMPETENT 

JURISDICTION, IT SHALL NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THIS SUBTITLE AS A 

WHOLE OR ANY PART THEREOF OTHER THAN THAT PORTION SO JUDGED TO BE 

INVALID OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
136 

SECTION 2. AND BE IF FURTHR (sic) ENACTED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF 

HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL 

BECOME EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER 1, 1990. 

Section 3. And be it further enacted by the County Council of Howard County, Maryland, that 

this act shall become effective 60 days after its enactment. 
137 

Council Action: 7-30-90 

Executive Action: 8-2-90 

County Council of Howard County, Maryland 

 

 

 Legislative Day No. 11 

Bill No. 58 

Introduced by C. Vernon Gray 

Co-sponsored by Paul Farragut 

AN ACT amending Section 21.1302, “Equipment for Bicycle Riders” of Subtitle 13, “Special 

Rules and Equipment for Bicycles” of Title 21 “Traffic Control and Transportation” of the 

Howard County Code to limit the requirement for wearing helmets under certain conditions to 

persons less than 16 years of age. 

Section 1. Be it enacted by the County Council of Howard County, Maryland, that Section 

21.1302, “Equipment for Bicycle Riders” of Subtitle 13 “Special Rules and Equipment for 

Bicycles” of Title 21 “Traffic Control and Transportation” of the Howard County Code is 

amended as follows: 

TITLE 21. Traffic Control and Transportation 

SUBTITLE 13. SPECIAL RULES AND EQUIPMENT FOR BICYCLES 

Section 21.1302. Equipment for Bicycle Riders. 

Any person LESS THAN 16 YEARS OF AGE operating or riding on a bicycle on a public 

roadway, bicycle path, or on any right-of-way under the jurisdiction and control of the County 

shall wear a protective helmet designed for bicycle safety. Such helmet shall meet or exceed the 

standards set by the American National Standards Institute or the Snell Foundation. 

Section 2. And be it further enacted by the County Council of Howard County, Maryland, that 

this act shall become effective 60 days after its enactment. 
138 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

C. State of Maryland and Maryland Counties 

 

5. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD. ORDINANCE

Bill No.: 71-90 

Concerning: Bicycle Helmets 

Draft No. & Date: 6 - 6/6/91 

Introduced: October 16, 1990 

Enacted: June 4, 1991 

Executive: June 14, 1991 

Effective: September 13, 1991 

Sunset Date: None 

COUNTY COUNCIL 

FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY

By: Council President Pro Tem Crenca 

AN Act to: 

(1) require a person who is under age 18 to wear a bicycle helmet when riding or being carried 

on a bicycle in the County under certain circumstances; 

(2) require the County Executive to provide the County Council with a certain report; 

(3) make technical and stylistic changes; and 

(4) generally amend the bicycle law. 

By amending 

Montgomery County Code 

Chapter 7 Bicycles 

Sections 7-1, 7-3, 7-4, and 7-12 

By adding 

Chapter 7 Bicycles 

Sections 7-13 through 7-15 

Sec. 1. Chapter 7 is amended as follows: 

7-1. Definitions. 
139 

In this Chapter: 

 (a) bicycle means a vehicle designed: 

 (1) to be propelled only by human power; 

 (2) to carry one or more persons; and 

 (3) with 2 wheels, one of which is at least 16 inches in diameter; and 

 (b) bicycle helmet means a protective helmet designed for bicycle riders that is approved 

by the Snell Memorial Foundation, the American National Standards Institute, or 

found by the Director of the Department of Transportation to meet an equivalent 

standard. 

* * * 

7-3. Bicycle Helmets. 

A person who is under age 18 must wear a bicycle helmet when riding or being carried on a 

bicycle, including a bicycle with training wheels, on a public street, right-of-way, or bicycle path 

in the County. 

7-4. Persons providing bicycles for hire. 

A person who provides bicycles for hire must: 

 (a) not rent a bicycle to a person unless every person who is under age 18 and will ride or 

 be carried on the bicycle has a bicycle helmet; and 

 (b) register under this Chapter every bicycle provided for hire. 

* * * 

7-12. Enforcement - bicycle registration. 

 (a) County Police. The County Police Department must enforce the bicycle registration 

 requirements of this Chapter. 

 (b) Penalties. Any violation of a bicycle registration requirement of this Chapter is a 

 class C violation. 

 (c) Impoundment. The County Police Department may impound any unregistered bicycle 

until the bicycle is properly registered. The Police Department must give an 

impounding receipt to the owner or operator of the unregistered bicycle. The Police 

Department must hold an unregistered bicycle until it is registered or the bicycle is 

disposed of as otherwise provided by law. 

7-13. Enforcement - bicycle helmet. 

 (a) Enforcement. The County Police Department must enforce the bicycle helmet 

 requirements of this Chapter. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning 

 Commission Police may enforce the bicycle helmet requirements on Maryland-

 National Capital Park and Planning Commission property. 
140 

 (b) Penalty. Any violation of a bicycle helmet requirement of this Chapter is a class C 

 violation. 

 (c) Waiver. The fine for a person’s first violation of a bicycle helmet requirement of this 

 Chapter must be waived if: 

 (1) the person charged: 

 (A) is a minor; and 

 (B) produces proof that they have obtained a bicycle helmet for their use; or 

 (2) the person charged: 

 (A) is the parent or guardian of a minor; and 

 (B) produces proof that they have obtained a bicycle helmet for use by 

 that minor. 

7-14. Parental responsibility. 

A parent or guardian of a minor must not knowingly allow that minor to violate this Chapter. 

7-15. Evidence of negligence. 

Failure of a person to use a bicycle helmet as required by this Chapter, or evidence that a parent 

or guardian of a minor knowingly allowed the minor to violate a bicycle helmet requirement of 

this Chapter, must not: 

 (a) be considered evidence of negligence; 

 (b) be considered evidence of contributory negligence; 

 (c) limit liability of a party or an insurer; or 

 (d) diminish recovery for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or operation 

 of a motor vehicle. 

Sec. 2. The County Executive must make information about bicycle helmet discount coupon 

and giveaway programs available to community groups and to the schools. 

Sec. 3. Transition period. 

 During the first 90 days after the effective date of this act, the penalty for violating a 

bicycle helmet requirement in this act is limited to a warning that: 

 (a) informs the minor and the minor’s parent or guardian about the bicycle helmet 

 requirements of the act; and 

 (b) provides educational materials about bicycle helmet use. 

Sec. 4. Evaluation. 

The County Executive must report to the County Council on implementation and experience 

with this act 18 months after the effective date. 
141 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

D. State of Oregon

 1. OREGON LEGISLATION

67th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--1993 Regular Session 

B-Engrossed 

Senate Bill 1088 

Ordered by the House June 29 

Including Senate Amendments dated May 28 and House Amendments dated June 29 

Sponsored by Senators CEASE, COOLEY, Senators McCoy, ROBERTS, SPRINGER (at the 

request of Eric and Jeremy Keim) 

SUMMARY 

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the 

body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief 

statement of the essential features of the measure. 

Punishes failure to wear protective headgear while operating bicycle or while riding as passenger 

on bicycle by maximum fine of $25 if person is under 16 years of age and operates bicycle on 

highway or premises open to public. Provides that legal guardian or child is liable for failure 

of child under 16 to wear protective headgear but legal guardian will be issued citation if child 

is 11 years of age or younger. Punishes renting bicycle for operation on highway or premises 

open to public to person under 16 years of age without protective headgear by maximum fine of 

$50. Requires [Motor Vehicles] Traffic Safety Division to adopt standards for protective 

headgear for bicycle riders. 

Exempts tricycles designed for children and three-wheeled nonmotorized vehicles operated 

on beach from headgear requirements. 

_______________ 

NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is 

existing law to be omitted. New sections are in boldfaced type. 

Relating to protective headgear for bicyclists. 
142 

Prohibits evidence of violation of Act or lack of protective headgear from reducing amount of 

damages or being used as defense to action concerning injured or killed bicyclist or passenger. 

Becomes operative July 1, 1994. 

A BILL FOR AN ACT 

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 

SECTION 1. Sections 2, 3, 3a, 3b, 3c and 7 of this Act are added to and made a part of 

ORS chapter 814. 

SECTION 2. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a bicycle operator or rider 

towear protective headgear if the person is under 16 years of age, 

operates or rides on a bicycle on a highway or on premises open to the 

public and is not wearing protective headgear of a type approved under 

section 6 of this 1993 Act. 

 (2) The offense described in this section, failure of a bicycle operator or 

 rider to wear protective headgear, is a traffic infraction punishable by a 

 maximum fine of $25. 

SECTION 3. (1) A person commit the offense of endangering a bicycle operator or 

 passenger if: 

 (a) The person is operating a bicycle on a highway or on premises open 

 to the public and the person carries another person on the bicycle 

 who is under 16 years of age and is not wearing protective 

 headgear of a type approved under section 6 of this 1993 Act; or 

 (b) The person is the parent, legal guardian or person with legal 

 responsibility for the safety and welfare of a child under 16 years of 

 age and the child operates or rides on a bicycle on a highway or on 

 premises open to the public without wearing protective headgear of 

 a type approved under section 6 of this 1993 Act. 

 (2) The offense described in this section, endangering a bicycle operator or 

 passenger, is a traffic infraction punishable by a maximum fine of $25. 

SECTION 3a. For purposes of sections 2, 3, 5 and 6 of this 1993 Act, “bicycle” has the 

meaning given in ORS 801.150 except that: 

 (1) It also includes vehicles that meet the criteria specified in ORS 801.150 

(1) to (4) but that have wheels less than 14 inches in diameter. 

 (2) It does not include tricycles designed to be ridden by children. 
143 

SECTION 3b. For purposes of the offenses defined in sections 2, 3 and 5 (2) of this 1993 

Act, a person shall not be considered to be operating or riding on a bicycle 

on a highway or on premises open to the public if the person is operating or 

riding on a three-wheeled non-motorized vehicle on a beach while it is closed 

to motor vehicle traffic. 

SECTION 3c. (1) If a child in violation of section 2 of this 1993 Act is 11 years of age or 

 younger, any citation issued shall be issued to the parent, legal guardian 

 or person with legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of the child 

 for violation of section 3 of this 1993 Act, rather than to the child for 

 violation of section 2 of this 1993 Act. 

 (2) If a child in violation of section 2 of this 1993 Act is at least 12 years of 

 age and is under 16 years of age, a citation may be issued to the child 

 for violation of section 2 of this 1993 Act or to the parent, legal guardian 

 or person with legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of the child 

 for violation of section 3 of this 1993 Act, but not to both. 

SECTION 4. Sections 5 and 6 of this Act are added to and made a part of ORS chapter 

815. 

SECTION 5. (1) A person commits the offense of selling unapproved bicycle equipment 

 if the person sells or offers for sale any bicycle headgear that is not 

 approved by the division under section 6 of this 1993 Act. 

 (2) A person commits the offense of unlawfully renting or leasing a bicycle 

 to another if the person: 

 (a) Is in the business of renting or leasing bicycles; and 

 (b) Does not have bicycle headgear approved under section 6 of this 

 1993 Act available for rental for use by persons under 16 years 

 of age. 

 (3) The offenses described in this section are Class D traffic infractions. 

SECTION 6. The Traffic Safety Division shall adopt and enforce rules establishing 

minimum standards and specifications for safe protective headgear to be 

worn by people operating bicycles and by passengers on bicycles. The rules 

shall conform, insofar as practicable, to safety standards and specifications 

for such headgear issued by the American National Standards Institute, 

Snell or the United States Department of Transportation. 

SECTION 7. The first time a person is convicted of an offense described in section 2 or 3 

of this 1993 Act, the person shall not be required to pay a fine if the person 
144 

proves to the satisfaction of the court that the person has protective 

headgear of a type approved under section 6 of this 1993 Act. 

SECTION 8. Evidence of violation of section 2 or 3 of this Act and evidence of lack of 

protective headgear shall not be admissible, applicable or effective to reduce 

the amount of damages or to constitute a defense to an action for damages 

brought by or on behalf of an injured bicyclist or bicycle passenger or the 

survivors of a deceased bicyclist or passenger if the bicyclist or passenger 

was injured or killed as a result in whole or in part of the fault of another. 

SECTION 9. This Act becomes operative on July 1, 1994. Prior to that time, the Traffic 

Safety Division shall adopt and publish the rules described in Section 6 of 

this Act. 
145 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

E. Port Angeles, Washington 

 1. PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE

ORDINANCE NO. 2764

AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, establishing bicycle helmet 

regulations and implementation programs and creating Chapter 10.06 of the Port Angeles 

Municipal Code. 

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN 

as follows: 

CHAPTER 10.06

BICYCLE HELMETS

Sections: 

10.06.010 Purpose 

10.06.020 Definitions 

10.06.030 Regulations 

10.06.040 Enforcement 

10.06.050 Implementation Programs 

Section 1. Chapter 10.06 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code is hereby created to read as 

follows: 

 

10.06.010 Purpose. The City Council is concerned about the safety of bicycle riders on public 

rights-of-way. Pursuant to RCW 35.75.010 the City may by ordinance regulate the riding of 

bicycles upon streets, alleys, highways, or other public grounds within the City limits. In order to 

protect the health, welfare, and safety of the residents of the City, it is necessary and appropriate 

to require bicycle riders to wear protective helmets and to establish programs for public 

education and low-income subsidies to promote the use of bicycle helmets. 

10.06.020 Definitions. The following definitions are adopted for this Chapter: 

 A. “Bicycle” means every device propelled solely by human power upon which a person 

 or persons ride, which device has two tandem wheels, either of which is sixteen inches 

 or more in diameter, or three wheels, any one of which is more than twenty inches in 

 diameter. 
146 

 B. “Guardian” means a parent, legal guardian, or temporary guardian who maintains 

 responsibility, whether voluntary or otherwise, for the safety and welfare of a person 

 under the age of sixteen years. 

10.06.030 Regulations. Beginning January 1, 1994, it is unlawful: 

 A. For a person to operate or ride upon a bicycle on a public roadway, bicycle path, or any 

 right-of-way under the jurisdiction and control of the City unless wearing a protective 

 helmet of a type certified to meet the requirements of standard Z-90.4 of the American 

 National Standards Institute or such subsequent nationally recognized standard for 

 bicycle helmet performance as the state patrol may adopt by rule. The helmet must be 

 equipped with either a neck or chin strap that shall be fastened securely while the cycle 

 is in motion. 

 B. For a person to transport a person upon, in a restraining seat that is attached to, or in a 

 trailer towed by, a bicycle on a public roadway, bicycle path, or any right-of-way under 

 the jurisdiction and control of the City unless the person transported is wearing a 

 helmet that meets the requirements in subsection A. 

 C. For the guardian of a person under the age of sixteen years to knowingly allow that 

 person to operate or ride upon a bicycle on a public roadway, bicycle path, or any right-

 of-way under the jurisdiction and control of the City unless that person is wearing a 

 helmet that meets the requirements in subsection A. 

 D. For a person to sell or offer for sale a bicycle helmet that does not meet the 

 requirements established by subsection A. 

 E. For a person to rent a bicycle for use by a person unless the person possesses a helmet 

 that meets the requirements of subsection A. 

10.06.040 Enforcement. 

 A. It is a civil infraction for any person to do any act forbidden, or fail to perform any act 

 required in PAMC 10.06.030 A. 

 (1) A civil infraction shall be processed as set forth in Chapter 7.80 RCW and the 

 Washington Infraction Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. 

 (2) Any duly commissioned police officer of the Port Angeles Police Department is 

 authorized to enforce this Chapter. 

 (3) Any person found to have committed a violation of this Chapter shall be subject to a

 monetary penalty of $15.00 for each such violation, not including applicable court 

 costs. 
147 

 B. In order to educate the public concerning the provisions of PAMC 10.06.030A during 

 the period from January 1, 1994 to January l, 1995, a person violating PAMC 

 10.06.030A will not be subject to a civil infraction though a written warning of the 

 violation may be issued. After January 1, 1995, a violator may be issued a regular 

 notice of civil infraction. If this is the first tine a person has been issued a notice of civil 

 infraction for a violation of PAMC 10.06.030A and he or she appears in person before 

 the court and provides evidence that he or she has obtained a bicycle helmet in order to 

 comply with PAMC 10.06.030A, the court may dismiss the notice of civil infraction 

 without costs. 

10.06.050 Implementation Programs. In order to provide an effective means of implementing 

a requirement for all bicyclists and their passengers to wear helmets, the City Manager is 

authorized and directed to work with other public and private agencies to develop a program of 

helmet awareness designed to promote use of helmets by all ages and a program to subsidize use 

of helmets by low-income families. Such programs shall be in effect by January 1, 1994, 

provided that the existence or effectiveness of such programs shall not be a defense to a civil 

infraction notice issued under this Chapter. 

Section 2 - Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or 

circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, or application of the provisions of 

the Ordinance to other persons or circumstances, is not affected. 

Section 3 - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect five days after publication. 

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council 

held on the 18th day of May, 1993. 
148 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

F. Seymour, Connecticut 

 1. SEYMOUR, CT. ORDINANCE 

LEGAL NOTICE 

SEYMOUR, CONNECTICUT 

The following Ordinance BICYCLE HELMET ORDINANCE was amended and approved 

according to provisions of section 7.5 of the Charter of the Town of Seymour at a meeting of the 

Board of Selectmen held on Monday, June 29, 1998. 

Chapter 8. Article VIII of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 

Article VIII Bicycle Helmet Ordinance 

Section 8-150 Statement of Purpose 

The purpose of this ordinance is to reduce the incidence of bicycle related death and disability by 

requiring that while riding on public roadways, public bicycle paths, or other public right-ofway, all operators and passengers wear protective bicycle helmets. 

Section 8-151 Definitions 

As used in this section, the following items shall have the meanings indicated: 

BICYCLE - A human powered vehicle with two (2) wheels in tandem designed to transport, by 

the act of pedaling, one (1) or more persons seated on one (1) or more seats on its frame. Bicycle 

includes, but is not limited to, a human powered vehicle designed to transport by the act of 

pedaling which has more than two (2) wheels when the vehicle is used on a public roadway, 

public bicycle path, or other public right-of-way. 

OPERATOR - A person who travels on a bicycle seated on a seat from which that person is 

intended to and can pedal the bicycle. 

OTHER PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY - Any right-of-way other than a public roadway or public 

bicycle path that is under the jurisdiction and control of the State of Connecticut, or Town of 

Seymour. 

PASSENGER - Any person who travels on a bicycle in any manner except as an operator. 

PROTECTIVE BICYCLE HELMET - A piece of headgear which meets or exceeds the impact 

standard for protective bicycle helmets set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 
149 

the Snell Memorial Foundation, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or any 

established safety standard adopted by the federal government. 

PUBLIC BICYCLE PATH - A right-of-way that is under the jurisdiction and control of the State 

of Connecticut, or Town of Seymour, for use primarily by bicyclists and pedestrians. 

PUBLIC ROADWAY - A right-of-way that is under the jurisdiction and control of the State of 

Connecticut, or Town of Seymour, for use primarily by motor vehicle traffic. 

Section 8-152 Helmet Use Requirements 

It is unlawful for any person to use a bicycle on a public roadway, public bicycle path, or other 

public right-of-way, under any one of the following conditions: 

1. For a person to operate or be a passenger on a bicycle unless at all times the person wears a 

protective bicycle helmet of good fit, fastened securely upon the head with the straps of the 

helmet. 

2. For any parent or legal guardian of a person ages 18 and under to knowingly permit the person 

to operate or be a passenger on a bicycle in violation of subdivision 1 of this section. 

Section 8-153 Bicycle Sales or Renting 

1. A person regularly engaged in the business of renting bicycles in Seymour shall require each 

person seeking to rent a bicycle to provide his or her signature either on the rental form or on a 

separate form indicating both of the following: 

a. Receipt of a written explanation of the provisions of this act and the penalties for 

violations. 

b. A statement concerning whether a person ages 18 and under will operate the bicycle in 

an area where the use of a helmet is required. 

2. A person regularly engaged in the business of renting bicycles shall provide a helmet to any 

person who will operate the bicycle in an area requiring a helmet, if the person does not already 

have a helmet in his or her possession. A reasonable fee may be charged for the helmet rental. 

Section 8-155 Penalties 

Violations of Section 8-152 of this act shall be handled in the following manner: 

1. On the first offense, the violator shall be assessed a fine not to exceed twenty five dollars 

($25.00). 

2. On the second, and any subsequent offenses, the violator shall be assessed a fine not to exceed 

one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each offense. 
150 

3. Fines assessed to violators ages 18 and under shall be the legal responsibility of the violator’s 

parent or legal guardsman. 

Dated at Seymour, Connecticut, this 30th day of June, 1998. 
151 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

F. State of Connecticut 

 2. CONNECTICUT LEGISLATION

(Bicycle helmet use legislation adopted in 1993 and amended in 1997) 

1993: 

PUBLIC ACT NO. 93-292 

(Substitute Senate Bill No. 699) 

AN ACT CONCERNING BICYCLE HELMETS FOR CHILDREN. 

Section 1. (NEW) For the purposes of this act, "bicycle" means any vehicle propelled by the 

person riding the same by foot or hand power. 

Sec. 2. (NEW) (a) No child under twelve years of age shall operate a bicycle on the traveled 

portion of any highway unless such child is wearing protective headgear which conforms to the 

minimum specifications established by the American National Standards Institute. Failure to 

comply with this section shall not be a violation or an offense. 

(b) A law enforcement officer may issue a verbal warning to the parent or guardian of a child 

that such child has failed to comply with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. 

Sec. 3. (NEW) A person, firm or corporation engaged in the business of renting bicycles shall 

provide a bicycle helmet conforming to the minimum specifications established by the American 

National Standards Institute or the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for Protective 

Headgear for Use in Bicycling to any person under sixteen years of age who will operate the 

bicycle if such person does not have a helmet in his possession. A fee may be charged for the 

helmet rental. Violation of any of the provisions of this section shall be an infraction. 

Sec. 4. (NEW) The commissioner of consumer protection may establish, within available 

appropriations, a public awareness campaign to educate the public concerning the dangers of 

riding bicycles without helmets and to promote the use of safety helmets while riding bicycles. 

Sec. 5. (NEW) (a) No person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into commerce any child 

restraint system which does not conform to the requirements in 49 CFR Part 571.213. 

(b) The commissioner of consumer protection may (1) detain or embargo any child restraint 

system which does not conform to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.213 and (2) order 

repurchase of any child restraint system which does not conform to such requirements. 

(c) In addition to any other remedies at law, the commissioner may apply to the superior court 
152 

for, and the court shall have jurisdiction upon hearing and for cause shown to grant, a temporary 

or permanent injunction restraining any person from violating subsection (a) of this section. 

Sec. 6. (NEW) (a) A police officer operating a bicycle in response to an emergency call or while 

engaged in rescue operations or in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the 

law shall be exempt from the provisions of sections 14-286, 14-286a, 14-286b, 14-286c and 14-

289 of the general statutes provided (1) the police officer is wearing a distinctive uniform and (2) 

the police officer has completed a course of instruction in basic police bicycle patrol certified by 

the municipal police training council or an equivalent course of instruction. 

(b) The exemptions granted in subsection (a) of this section shall apply only when such bicycle 

is making use of an audible warning signal device, including, but not limited to a siren, whistle 

or bell. 

(c) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the operator of a bicycle from the duty to 

drive with due regard for the safety of all persons and property. 
153 

Section VIII. Legislative Language 

F. State of Connecticut 

3. Amended 1997 

1997: 

PUBLIC ACT NO. 97-46 

(Committee Bill No. 597) 

Referred to Committee on TRANSPORTATION 

General Assembly 

January Session, A.D., 1997 

AN ACT REQUIRING CHILDREN FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE AND UNDER TO WEAR 

BICYCLE HELMETS. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: 

Subsection (b) of section 14-286d of the general statutes is repealed and the following is 

substituted in lieu thereof: 

(b) No child [under twelve] FIFTEEN years of age OR UNDER shall operate a bicycle on the 

traveled portion of any highway unless such child is wearing protective headgear which 

conforms to the minimum specifications established by the American National Standards 

Institute or the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in 

Bicycling. Failure to comply with this section shall not be a violation or an offense. Failure to 

wear protective headgear as required by this subsection shall not be considered to be contributory 

negligence on the part of the parent or the child nor shall such failure be admissible in any civil 

action. 

Approved May 14, 1997 
154 

Section IX. Appendices 

A. Helmet Use Laws for Bicycle Riders 

 

(Source: the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute) 

Excerpts from the BHSI Web site: http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm

Revised immediately upon receipt of new information 

For date of last revision see last line at the bottom. 

There is no federal law in the U.S. requiring bicycle helmets. States and localities began adopting 

laws in 1987, but there is no formal central registry for them. Here are the ones we are aware of 

as of this date. The States are probably all included, but some localities could be missing. 

 Effective 

Jurisdiction Ages/Conditions Date

Alabama 

 State Law Under 16 1995 

 Montevallo All ages 1993 

 Homewood All ages 1994 

Arizona 

 Tucson Under 18 1993 

 Yuma Under 18 1997 

California 

 State Law Passengers under 5 1987 

 State Law Riders under 18 1994 

 Bidwell Park, All ages 1991 

 Chico, CA 

Connecticut 

 State Law Under 16 1993/1997 

Seymour All ages 1998 /REPEALED 1998 

Delaware 

State Law Under 16 1996 

District of Columbia Under 16 2000 

Florida 

State Law** Under 16 1997 

 (excludes Citrus and 

 St. Lucie Counties) 
155 

 Effective 

Jurisdiction Ages/Conditions Date 

Georgia 

 State Law Under 16 1993 

Hawaii 

 State Law Under 16 1/1/2001 

Illinois 

 Barrington Under 17

 1997 

 Inverness Under 16 1999 

Louisiana 

 State Law Under 12 3/1/2002 

Maine 

 State Law Under 16 

 1999 

Maryland 

 State Law Under 16 1995 

 Allegany Co Under 16 1992 

 Howard Co Under 17 1990 

 Montgomery Co Under 18 1991 

 Sykesville All ages 1995 

Massachusetts 

 State Law Passengers under 5 1990 

 State Law Riders under 13 1994 

Michigan 

 E. Grand Rapids Under 18 1995 

 Adrian Under 15 1998 

 Kensington All Ages 1998 

 Metropark 

 Farmington Hills Under 16 1999 

Missouri 

 Creve Coeur All ages 2000 

 St Louis Co Under 17 2002 

 for unincorporated areas 
156 

 Effective 

Jurisdiction Ages/Conditions Date 

Montana 

 Billings Under 16 2001 

New Jersey 

 State Law Under 14 1992 

New York 

 State Law Passengers under 5 1989 

 State Law Riders under 14 1994 

 Chemung Co Under 15 1995 

 Erie County Parks All ages 1993 

 Greenburgh All ages 1994 

 Guilderland Under 14 1992 

 Rockland Co All ages 1992 

 Onondaga Co Under 18 2001 

 (Syracuse) 

North Carolina 

 State Law Under 16 2001 

 Black Mountain All ages 1996 

 Boone All ages 1995 

 Carolina Beach Under 16 1994 

 Carrboro Under 16 1997 

 Cary Under 16 2001 

 Chapel Hill Under 16 1992 

 Greenville Under 16 1998 

 Matthews Under 16 2001 

Ohio 

 Akron Under 16 2001 

 Beachwood Under 16 1990 

 Brecksville Under 18 1998 

 Centerville Under 16 1999 

 Glendale Under 19 2000 

 Orange Village Ages 6 to 15 1992 

 Shaker Heights All ages over 5 1997 

 including passengers 

 Strongsville Under 12 1993 

 Waynesville Under 17 2000 

Oregon 

 State Law Under 16 1994 
157 

 Effective 

Jurisdiction Ages/Conditions Date 

Pennsylvania 

 State Law Passengers under 51991 

 State Law Riders under 12 1995 

Rhode Island 

 State Law Under 9 1996 

 Under 16 1998 

 

Texas 

 Arlington Under 18 1997 

 Austin Under 18 1996/97 

 Bedford Under 18 1996 

 Benbrook Under 17 1996 

 Coppell All ages 1997 

 Dallas All ages 1996 

 Fort Worth Under 18 1996 

 Houston Under 18 1995 

Tennessee 

 State Law Under 16 1994/2000 

 Clarksville All ages 1993 

Virginia 

 Alexandria Under 15 1994 

 Arlington Co Under 15 1993 

 Blacksburg Under 15 1994 

 Fairfax Co Under 15 1993 

 Falls Church Under 15 1993 

 Front Royal Under 15 1996 

 Manassas Under 15 1995 

 Manassas Park Under 15 1997 

 Newport News Under 15 1997 

 Prince William Co Under 15 1995 

 Salem Under 15 2000 

 Virginia Beach Under 15 1995 

 
158 

 Effective 

Jurisdiction Ages/Conditions Date 

Washington State 

 Aberdeen All ages 2001 

 Bainbridge Island All ages 2001 

 Bremerton All ages 2000 

 Eatonville Under 16 1996 

 Fircrest All ages 1995 

 Gig Harbor All ages 1996 

 King Co All ages 1993 

 (excludes Seattle) 

 Lakewood All ages 1996 

 Milton All ages1997 

 Orting Under 171997 

 Pierce Co All ages 1994 

 Port Angeles All ages 1994 

 Poulsbo Under 18 1995 

 Puyallup All ages 1994 

 Steilacoom All ages 1995 

 Tacoma All ages 1994 

 University Place All ages 1996 

West Virginia 

 State Law Under 15 1996 

 Clarksburg Under 18 1993 

 Morgantown All ages 1993 

 South Charleston Under 18 1994 

 St. Albans Under 18 1995 

Wisconsin 

 Port Washington Under 17 1997 

That's a total of 20 State laws (including the District of Columbia as a "state") and 84 local laws. 

** Florida permitted Counties to opt out, and three did so, but Brevard later reversed its decision, 

leaving the Counties of Citrus and St. Lucie not covered by the State law. Private property (a 

driveway, for example) was excluded but all roads and trails are covered. 

This page was last revised on: May 16, 2002. 
159 

Section IX. Appendices 

B. Request for Information Sent to NHTSA Regional Administrators 

and Governor’s Highway Safety Representatives 

The following letter was sent out by the contractor working on this project to solicit information 

for this document: 

Dear: 

To better understand how jurisdictions are enacting and implementing bicycle helmet laws and 

the effectiveness of such laws, NHTSA Traffic Safety Programs (TSP) is planning to profile 

several jurisdictions that have adopted bicycle helmet laws or that have attempted to do so. I am 

working with TSP on this task and am seeking your suggestions for jurisdictions to consider. 

Since so many states and localities have adopted bicycle helmet laws, we will not be able to 

examine all laws. We are seeking examples that are reflective of the wide range of experiences 

that jurisdictions have had with bicycle helmet laws. We would like the profiles to include both 

state and local laws, all-ages laws as well as minors-only laws, laws with differing enforcement 

options, jurisdictions that have used education and/or awareness efforts as part of 

implementation, even jurisdictions with laws that are recognized as ineffective or that have 

repealed a bicycle helmet law. 

We are especially interested in looking at how the laws are enforced, other program components 

that support the helmet laws, and the effectiveness of the law. The profiles will also consider the 

factors behind the introduction and passage of the law. 

Thus, we are asking, based on your knowledge of the laws in your state[s], for your suggestions 

of jurisdictions that would be prime examples of the issues discussed above. We would also ask 

for your suggestions of one or more key contacts in that jurisdiction that could assist our efforts 

(such as the individual most knowledgeable about the law’s enforcement, the individual most 

involved in the area’s overall bicycle safety effort, and the individual who spearheaded the law’s 

passage). 

Your ideas can be e-mailed to [e-mail address] or faxed to [fax number]. To assist you, an 

informal response form follows. If you wish to suggest more than one jurisdiction, just send in 

additional versions of this form. 
160 

Jurisdiction: (State of, County of, City of, etc.) 

Ages covered by law: 

Notable aspects of law: (e.g., unique enforcement, education, or awareness options) 

Contact information: For each key contact, please provide: 

Name 

Address 

Phone 

E-mail (if available) 

Area of expertise 

Carol Stroebel 
161 

Section IX. Appendices 

C. Matrix Used for Information Collection 

This matrix reflects the specific areas and topics examined for each profile. 

1. Jurisdiction 

1.1 Entity (state, city, county, etc.) 

1.2 Effective Date 

1.3 Ages covered 

1.4 Penalty for Non-Compliance 

1.5 Enforcing Agency 

1.6 Community geography (urban, suburban, rural) 

1.7 Community composition (income level, racial/ethnic composition) 

2. Introduction of Legislation: Motivating Factors 

2.1 Statistical Evidence 

2.2 Anecdotal Evidence (e.g., highly publicized crash) 

2.3 Leadership, Political 

2.4 Leadership, Professional 

2.4.1 Emergency medicine professionals 

2.4.2 Law Enforcement 

2.4.3 Pediatricians 

2.4.4 Nurses 

2.4.5 Other 

2.5 Leadership, Community 

2.6 Other Factors 

3. Passage of Law: Influencing Factors 

3.1 Statistical Evidence 

3.2 Anecdotal Evidence (e.g., highly publicized crash) 

3.3 Political Leadership 

3.3.1 Most Influential Elected Officials 

3.4 Leadership, Professional 

3.4.1 Emergency medicine professionals 

3.4.2 Law Enforcement 

3.4.3 Pediatricians 

3.4.4 Nurses 

3.4.5 Other 

3.5 Leadership, Community 

3.6 Most Persuasive/Effective Arguments 

3.7 Least Persuasive/Ineffective Arguments 

3.8 Opponents to Law: Most influential 

3.9 Opposing Arguments to Law: Most influential 
162 

3.10 

3.10.1 Time Between First Introduction and Passage/Number of Sessions Introduced 

3.10.2 Referenda 

3.11 Other Factors 

4. Pre-Passage Bicycle Helmet Programs 

4.1 Education Programs 

4.2 Give-away Programs 

4.3 Parent Programs 

4.4 Other Activities 

5. Post-Passage Implementation 

5.1 Time Between Enactment and Effective Date 

5.2 Education Efforts Between Enactment and Effective Date 

5.3 Helmet Give-away Efforts Between Enactment and Effective Date 

5.4 Other Efforts Between Enactment and Effective Date 

5.5 Education Efforts After Effective Date 

5.6 Bicycle Helmet Give-away Efforts After Effective Date 

5.7 Other Efforts After Effective Date 

6. Bicycle Helmet Use Law Enforcement 

6.1 Law Enforcement Subdivision Responsible for Enforcement 

6.2 Implementation of Penalty Component 

6.2.1 Phase-in 

6.2.2 Discretion in enforcement 

6.2.3 Other aspects of penalties 

6.3 Law Enforcement Involvement in Non-Enforcement Activities 

6.4 Coordination of Non-Enforcement Activities with Law Enforcement 

6.5 Non-Enforcement Activities Not Coordinated with Law Enforcement 

6.6 Community Reaction to Enforcement Efforts (support/opposition) 

7. Bicycle Helmet Use Law Effectiveness 

7.1 Definition of Effectiveness 

7.2 Changes in Bicycle Fatalities 

7.3 Changes in Head Injuries 

7.4 Changes in Other Measures (other than helmet use) 

7.5 Ranking of Effectiveness 

7.6 Agency Handling Evaluation 
163 

8. Post-Passage Bicycle Helmet Use 

8.1 Pre-Law Bicycle Helmet Use Measures 

8.2 Methods of Measuring Bicycle Helmet Use 

8.3 Impact on Bicycle Helmet Use 

8.3.1 Among Ages Covered (or all ages if all-ages law) 

8.3.2 Among Populations Not Covered 

8.3.3 In Neighboring Jurisdictions 

8.4 Bicycling Participation 

8.4.1 Measured Pre-Post Law?/Methods used 

8.4.2 Impact on Participation in Bicycling 

9. Support for Evaluation 

9.1 Factors Supporting Evaluation 

9.2 Resources Used in Evaluation 

9.3 Improving Evaluation 

9.4 Consideration of Evaluation 

9.5 Rejection of Evaluation 

9.6 Arguments against Evaluation 

9.7 Increasing the Likelihood of Evaluation 

10. Retrospective Analysis of Law Implementation 

10.1 Pre-Introduction Changes 

10.2 Changes During Legislative Process 

10.3 Post-Enactment, Pre-Effective Date Changes 

10.4 Post-Effective Date Changes 

10.5 Changes to the Language 

11. Other Factors/Key Points in the: 

11.1 Introduction and Passage of Legislation 

11.2 Implementation of Bicycle Helmet Use Law 

11.3 Bicycle Helmet Use Law’s Effectiveness 

11.4 Additional Contacts 
164 

Section IX. Appendices 

D. The National SAFE KIDS Campaign Model Mandatory Helmet 

Legislation for Bicycle, In-Line Skating, Roller Skating and 

Skateboarding 

 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ____________________________: 

Section 1. Title 

This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Child Helmet Safety Act." 

Section 2. Definitions 

As used in this act, the following words shall have the following meanings: 

(A) BICYCLE. A human-powered vehicle with two (2) wheels in tandem designed to transport, 

by the act of pedaling, one (1) or more persons seated on one (1) or more saddle seats on its 

frame. "Bicycle" includes, but is not limited to, a human-powered vehicle designed to 

transport by the act of pedaling which has more than two (2) wheels when the vehicle is 

used on a public roadway, public bicycle path, or other public road or right-of-way. This 

also includes a tricycle. 

(B) IN-LINE SKATES – ROLLER SKATES. A pair of devices worn on the feet with a set of 

wheels attached, regardless of the number or placement of those wheels, and used to glide or 

propel the user over the ground. 

(C) OPERATOR. A person who travels on a bicycle or tricycle seated on a saddle seat from 

which that person is intended to and can pedal the bicycle. This includes wearers of roller 

blades or roller skates and users of skateboards. 

(D) OTHER PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. Any right-of-way other than a public roadway or 

public bicycle path that is under the jurisdiction and control of the state or a local political 

subdivision thereof. 

(E) PASSENGER. Any person who travels on a bicycle in any manner except as an operator. 

(F) PROTECTIVE BICYCLE HELMET. A piece of headgear which meets or exceeds the 

impact standard for protective bicycle helmets set by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission federal safety standard, those developed by the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI), the Snell Memorial Foundation, or the American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM). 1

 

1

 As of March 10, 1999, all new bicycle helmets manufactured must meet the new U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission federal standard. Helmets meeting ASTM, Snell, or ANSI standards are safe and will be available in 

stores until March 2002. 
165 

(G) PUBLIC BICYCLE PATH. A right-of-way under the jurisdiction and control of the state, 

or a local political subdivision thereof, for use primarily by bicyclists and pedestrians. 

(H) PUBLIC ROADWAY. A right-of-way under the jurisdiction and control of the estate or a 

local political subdivision thereof for use primarily by motor vehicular traffic. 

(I) SKATEBOARD. A set of wheels attached to a platform or flat surface, regardless of the 

number or placement of those wheels, and used to glide or propel the user over the ground. 

Section 3. Purpose 

Bicycling, in-line skating, roller skating and skateboarding are associated with death and 

disability, especially head injury. Head injuries can be prevented by wearing helmets. The 

purpose of this act is to reduce the incidence of bicycle, in-line skating, roller skates and 

skateboarding-related death and disability by requiring that, while riding on a bicycle on public 

roadways, public bicycle paths, or other public right-of-way, all operators, passengers and users 

wear approved helmets. 

Section 4. Helmet Use Requirements 

It is unlawful for any person to use a bicycle, in-line skates, roller skates and skateboards on a 

public roadway, public bicycle path, other public rights-of-way, under any one of the following 

conditions:1,3

(A) For any person to operate or be a passenger on a bicycle, or to use in-line skates, roller 

skates and skateboards unless at all times the person wears a protective helmet of good fit, 

fastened securely upon the head with the straps of the helmet.2,3

(B) For any parent or legal guardian of a person ages 17 and under to knowingly permit the 

person to operate or be a passenger on a bicycle, or to use in-line skates, roller skates and 

skateboards in violation of subdivision (A) of this section.

(C) A local unit of government may adopt standards as strict or more stringent than the 

requirements of this section. 

Section 5. Equipment Sales or Renting

(A) A person regularly engaged in the business of renting bicycles, in-line skates, roller skates 

or skateboards hall require each person seeking to rent one or more of these items to provide 

 

2 It is acceptable to wear a protective bike helmet when using in-line skates, roller skates or skateboards. 

3 Infants under age one do not have neck and back muscles strong enough to support a helmet. Infants should never 

wear a helmet and should never be a passenger on a bicycle. 
166 

his or her signature either on the rental form or on a separate form indicating both of the 

following: 

(1) Receipt of a written explanation of the provisions of this act and the penalties for 

violations. 

(2) A statement concerning whether a person ages 17 and under will be an operator or 

passenger on the bicycle or use in-line skates, roller skates or skateboards in an area 

where the use of a helmet is required. 

 

(B) A person regularly engaged in the business of renting bicycles, in-line skates, roller skates 

or skateboards shall provide a helmet to any person who will be an operator or passenger on 

the bicycle or use the in-line skates, roller skates or skateboards in an area requiring a 

helmet, if the person does not already have a helmet in his or her possession. A reasonable 

fee may be charged for the helmet rental. 

 

(C) A person regularly engaged in the business of selling or renting bicycles, in-line skates, 

roller skates or skateboards who complies with this act shall not be liable in a civil action for 

damages for any physical injuries sustained by an operator, passenger or user as a result of 

the operator's, passenger's or user’s failure to wear a helmet or to wear a properly fitted or 

fastened helmet in violation of this act. 

Section 6. Contributory Negligence 

Failure to wear a helmet as described in Section 4 shall not be considered evidence of 

contributory negligence and shall be inadmissible in any civil action.

Section 7. Penalties 

Violations of Section 4 of this act shall be handled in the following manner: 

(A) On the first offense, the violator shall be assessed a fine not to exceed $25. 

(B) On the second offense and all subsequent offenses, the violator shall be assessed a fine not 

to exceed $100. 

(C) Fines assessed to violators ages 17 and under will be the legal responsibility of the violator’s 

parent or guardian. 

(D) The court may waive the fine on a first offense upon presentation of evidence that the 

violator has purchased or procured an approved helmet and demonstrates the intention of 

using the helmet as required by law. 
167 

Section 8. Bicycle Safety Fund 

The state shall establish a statewide fund known as the “Bicycle, In-line Skates, Roller Skates 

and Skateboard Safety Fund.” All monies in this fund shall be used for the following purposes: 

(A) To create, improve and sustain a program of bicycle, in-line skates, roller skates and 

skateboard safety education offered to the public in each county in the state. 

(B) To assist low-income families in the purchase and procurement of an approved helmet. 

Section 9. Effective Date

This act shall become effective 90 days from its passage and approval by the Governor, or upon 

its otherwise becoming a law. 
168 

Section IX. Appendices 

E. Oregon Bicycle Helmet Campaign Community Planning Guide 

 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 

Section IX. Appendices 

F. Bicycle Helmet Sale Order Form, Duval County, Florida 

 The Injury Prevention Program Office 

HELMET OFFER 

TO ORDER PLEASE FILL OUT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION 

School Name: Teacher Name: Room #: 

Student Name: Student Phone: 

School Address: 

City: State: Zip Code: 

Total Order Amount - $ Units - 

IT’S NOT ONLY SMART TO WEAR A HELMET – IT’S THE LAW.

 

$4.00 Bicycle Helmets (Model 08) 

Color Quantity in Small (19-

20 1⁄4 inches) 

Quantity in Medium 

(20 1⁄4 - 21 1⁄2 inches) 

Quantity in Large 

(211⁄2 -22 3⁄4 inches) 

Red 

White 

Blue 

Black 

Green 

Purple 

$5.00 Multi – Sport (Model 16 - Skateboard – Inline Skates – Bicycles)

Color Quantity in Small (19-

20 1⁄4 inches) 

Quantity in Medium 

(20 1⁄4 - 21 1⁄2 inches) 

Quantity in Large 

(211⁄2 -22 3⁄4 inches) 

Black 

White 

WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS: 

Duval County Health Department • Port of Jacksonville Pilot Club • Florida Department of Transportation • Brooks Health Foundation • University of Florida • Trauma One 

Helmets 

R Us 

• Satisfies and/or exceeds Snell/CPSC. 

• Ultra light design. 

• Custom fit pad system; 8mm pads 

installed (1 set of 5 mm and 12 mm 

pads inside helmet.) 

• Quick release buckle. 

• Bottom microshell for liner protection. 

• Ten vents for maximum cooling. 

• Choose from six brilliant solid colors. 

• Offering a new multi-sport helmet style.
187 

Section IX. Appendices 

G. Bicycle Helmet Sale Procedure Guidelines 

THE INJURY PREVENTION PROGRAM OFFICE

SUGGESTED PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING BICYCLE HELMET SALES 

Procedure 1: This is the preferred method of conducting the sales. 

A. Come to the Injury Prevention Program Office (630-3344) and pick up the display helmets & master 

order forms. 

B. Create a cover letter for students to take home to their parents prior to the sale explaining the what, 

where , when & how specifics of your helmet sale. THE SCHOOL CAN NOT INCREASE 

THE PRICE OF THE HELMETS!!! 

C. Set-up for your sale 45 minutes before & after school for a one week period. 

 Have 2 tables: 1 for display helmets & the other 1 for the volunteers (suggested volunteers: PTA 

mothers, booster club etc., preferably not students). It is suggested to have at least two volunteers. 

 Volunteer # 1 should fill out the order form and measure the child’s head. 

 Materials needed for measuring: a yard stick & 25” pre-cut string sections. This volunteer 

should measure the circumference of the child’s head with the string 1” above the eyebrow. 

Compare the length of the string to inches on the yard stick. Select appropriate helmet size on the 

order form according to each individual student’s measurement in inches and their color choice. 

Volunteer # 2 should account for money and receipts. 

Materials needed: money box & receipts 

REMINDER: Due to economic constraints, some children may not be able to purchase a helmet. 

Please remind parents and/or students of this suggested school bike helmet donation fund, 

pending principal approval.

Note to helmet sale coordinator: Only incorporate this suggestion with principals approval. 

D. At the completion of one week, create a master form by totaling all of the individual order forms 

and fill in the appropriate boxes to create a school total. Make sure that the actual money balances 

with the total order. Write one check, payable to: The Injury Prevention Program / DCHD. 

E. Deliver master order form & check to us with the complete Helmet Sales Kit, including the box 

lid. At this time, we will supply needed # of stickers, from the helmet sponsors. 

address: 900 University Blvd. N., Suite 205, Jacksonville, FL 32211. 

F. Separate order forms by teacher name / room number. 

 Prior to delivery, we will notify you. 

G. Upon delivery, match master order to actual helmet shipment/packing slip. (ie. count helmets 

before distributing them)! If there are any discrepancies with the helmets ordered and those 

received contact SafeTech at the number stamped on your invoice. They will work with you to 

correct any mistakes. Match individual order forms to helmets and group by teacher. Separate by 

class in a box or bag. 
188 

H. On the day of distribution, deliver helmets to teacher’s classrooms. Or call the students to a central 

location. When the students receive their helmets have them place the stickers where they desire 

them on their helmets. At this time, teachers should explain proper fit. 

Alternatives:

If your school chooses an alternate procedure for conducting the helmet sale, please contact us prior to 

conducting the sale at 630-3344. 

Other procedures are a last resort because there will be less control over uniform sizing and less 

opportunity for visual color choice. 

 

PLEASE MAKE ACCURATE COLOR AND SIZE CHOICES THE FIRST TIME, 

BECAUSE WE WILL NOT BE EXCHANGING THE HELMETS.

WE ARE RESTRICTING HELMET SALES TO THE KIDS ONLY DUE TO FINANCIAL 

RESTRAINT AND RESEARCH PURPOSES. 

7/24/98 

DELIVERY OF BICYCLE HELMET ORDERS WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY 6 WEEKS!
189 

Section IX. Appendices 

H. Observation Guidelines For The Duval County Bicycle Helmet Use And 

Behavioral Survey 

(Source: the Injury Prevention Program Office of the Duval County Health Department) 

Observation guidelines for the Duval County Bicycle Helmet Use and Behavioral Survey was 

established by the Duval County Health Department/The Injury Prevention Program Office and 

was fashioned along the lines of helmet-use observation studies conducted in Florida, Maryland, 

Michigan, Texas and Washington. We adapted it to facilitate our study purposes. 

Observation Site Selections: 

Duval County Observed site were broken down into three groups: 

 Elementary Schools – Duval County has 103 Public Elementary Schools. 

 Middle Schools – Duval County has 23 Public Middle Schools. 

 Non-School Sites (Parks & Recreational Areas) - Duval County has numerous Parks. 

Observation Sites: 

To determine our sample for the elementary schools we did a random stratified sample. We 

divided the 103 middle schools into seven parts of town by zip codes. We then randomly took 

30% from each stratum. We have a total of 33 elementary schools being observed. 

We did the same for the middle schools but randomly took 50% of the schools because the 

difference in elementary and middle schools. The total number of middle school being observed 

is twelve (12). 

For the non-school sites we have three sites that we observe. We observe these sites three 

different times, one time during the week and two times on the weekends (one morning and one 

afternoon) to capture more bicyclists. The total number of observed sites in the non-school sites 

is nine (9). 

Observation Procedures

The form to capture all the data was created on Teleform 6.1 by Radley Remo. This will 

eliminate the time it takes to enter the information into a database. Form is enclosed. Three 

people from DCHD/TIPPO are assigned to collect all the data. They have been trained on how 

to use the form and how to observe. We constructed inter-reliability tests to maintain 

consistency. This allowed all data collectors to discuss what they saw and justify it. Two 

variables stuck out, helmet properly worn and bright visible clothing. We addressed this by 

requiring each variable to meet certain criteria. 
190 

For the properly worn helmet bicyclist must 1) have helmet level on head with no more that two 

fingers from eyebrows 2) have chin straps connected snug (no more that a finger under straps) 

and 3) have v-straps under bicyclist’s ears. (depends on the type of helmet) 

For bright visible clothing we took into account all of the bicyclist clothing. We also determined 

that the upper body (torso) will account for 75% of the bicyclist’s body and the legs will account 

for 25%. So to determine if the bicyclist is wearing bright visible clothing he/she must 1) have 

75% of clothing to be bright (shirt or jacket). 

Changes from Past Studies

We have made some significant changes to the age variable. In the past, age was broken down 

by these subgroups: 

<6 = Child 

6-12 = Adolescent 

13-18 = Teen 

19-30 = Young Adult 

30+ = Older Adult 

We felt that these subgroups were not appropriate for our studies and change the subgroups to: 

<5 = Child 

5-10 = Elementary 

11-13 = Middle 

14-17 = High School 

18-30 = Young Adult 

30+ = Older Adult 

Past Years Sample Site Size and Selection

In the past we observed 43 elementary schools, 3 middle schools and 9 non-school sites for a 

total of 55 observed sites. For 2000 we will observe 33 elementary schools, 12 middle schools 

and 9 non-school sites for a total of 54 sites. We changed the sample selection to capture more 

bicyclists in our new target population (middle schools). 
191 

Section IX. Appendices 

I. Coding Instructions and Form for Bicycle Helmet Use Observational Study 

- Duval County, Florida

We want to thank you for agreeing to assist with the Florida Bicycle Helmet Use Survey. 

Your help on this health and child-safety project is invaluable and without it we would not be 

able to gather the necessary data on helmet use. 

Please review these instructions and feel free to call us at the telephone numbers listed below if 

you have questions about coding helmet use or if you encounter some sort of difficulty. Our job 

is to do whatever it takes to make your work go smoothly. 

This set of instructions is organized as follows: 

• “Quick Start”: just the basics you need to know to get started. 

• In-depth set of instructions: the how’s and why’s of what you and we are doing. 

We encourage you to read over this section. 
192 

Quick Start Instructions 

 1 - Coder forms: Begin each observation session – each session when you are at a 

particular location to observe and code (write down) bike-helmet data – with a Page 1 sheet. 

After you use all of the lines on the Page 1 sheet, continue on the Continuation Sheet, using as 

many of these sheets as you need. Please number and staple all the sheets together at the end of 

each observation session. 

 2 - Each observation session requires a new set of coding sheets – One set of coding 

sheets per observation session. 

 3 - Elementary and middle schools: Observe either in the morning (20-30 minutes 

before classes begin) or the afternoon (from the time classes end until the students have left the 

schoolgrounds). Do Not observe at the same school twice – One observation, morning or

afternoon, per school. 

 Also, typically there is one residential road that most student-bicyclists will use when 

riding to and from school each day. Perhaps the school’s main entrance is on this road. 

Whenever possible, please make your observations as these young bicyclists are riding on this 

road or its associated bike lane (if it has one), or on a sidewalk near it. Do not go onto 

schoolgrounds to make your observations. We are most interested in the cyclists’ riding 

behaviors outside of the schoolyard. 

 4 - For bike trails, parks and beaches go on days and at times when there is more likely to 

be a sizable number of bicyclists. Weekends may be the best times. You can return to these spots 

up to four times if you can – but please, vary the time of day and the day of the week that you 

return (e.g., Saturday morning one time, Sunday afternoon the next). 

 5 - Try not to count the same bicyclists twice. The best way to avoid this is to count 

cyclists going in the same direction, and do your counting from a fixed location. 

 6 - On the coding sheet, you either write down the first letter of the choices you are given 

or you place a check mark. 

 

(continued)
193 

7 - Here are some coding definitions that may not be particularly clear from the 

coding sheets: 

• County Code and Observation Code. We will provide you with these. 

• Sunny means hardly a cloud in the sky. Partly Cloudy means there are Clouds 

floating about, but not so many as to blot out the sun. Cloudy means you are not 

likely to see the sun anytime soon. 

• Calm means there is hardly any wind, although there could be a light breeze.

Windy is, well, windy – strong and steady winds and gusts. 

• Helmet Properly Worn means it is fairly level on the bicyclist’s head and the 

straps are fastened. Generally speaking, if the helmet is being worn properly, you 

should be able to see only about a two-finger-width space of the cyclist’s 

forehead. Since you will be trying to make this determination at a glance, then we 

really are most interested in gross examples of improper use – instances of 

improper use that are obvious at a glance. 

• For the Age Range, a Young Child is younger than six years old; an Adolescent 

is 6-12 years old; a Teen-ager is 13-18 years old; a Young Adult is 19-30 years 

old, and an Older Adult is 31 or more years old. 

You will be estimating these ages by your best judgment. 

• For Bike Lane Present, this applies only to standard, residential streets, and 

perhaps will come into play primarily for the elementary and middle school 

observations. A bike trail, for example, will not have a bike lane. If you are 

observing bicyclists on a particular road, and if that road has a clearly marked 

bike lane, then please check this box. By bike lane we mean any portion of the 

side of a road that is clearly and specifically marked by signs and/or roadway 

stripes as a bike lane. 

• Please us the Comments section to record any information you believe will be 

important for us to know about a particular bicyclist which is not covered by any 

of the entries on the coding form. In particular, we would like you to use this 

section to note whether a bicyclist has a passenger, how that passenger is riding 

on the bike (on the handlebars or in a child seat, for example), and whether that 

passenger is wearing a bike helmet. 
194 

Florida Bicycle Helmet Use Observational Survey 

CODING INSTRUCTIONS 

(REVISED 4-3-02)

We want to thank you for agreeing to assist with the Florida Bicycle Helmet Use Survey. Your 

help on this health and child-safety project is invaluable and without it we would not be able to 

gather the necessary data on helmet use. 

Please review these instructions and feel free to call us at the telephone numbers listed below if 

you have questions about coding helmet use or if you encounter any difficulty with this survey. 

Our job is to help make your work go smoothly. 

This set of instructions is organized as follows: 

• “Quick Start”: The basics you need to know to get started. 

• In-depth set of instructions: The hows and whys of what you and we are doing. We 

encourage you to read over this section. 

Quick Start Instructions 

1. Elementary and middle schools: Observe either in the morning (20-30 minutes before 

classes begin) or in the afternoon (from the time classes end until the students have left 

school grounds). DO NOT observe at the same school twice – one observation, morning 

or afternoon, per school. 

Also, typically, there is one residential road that most student bicyclists will use when 

riding to and from school each day. The school’s main entrance may be on this road. 

Whenever possible, please make your observations when these young bicyclists are 

riding on this road or its associated bike lane (if it has one), or on a sidewalk near it. Do 

not go onto school grounds to make your observations. We are more interested in the 

cyclists’ riding behaviors outside the schoolyard. 

2. For bike trails, parks and beaches - go on days and at times when there is more likely to 

be a sizable number of bicyclists. Weekends may be the best time for observations. You 

can return to these spots up to four times – but vary the time of day and the day of the 

week that you return (e.g. Saturday morning one time, Sunday afternoon the next). 

3. Try not to count the same bicyclist twice. The best way to avoid this is to count cyclists 

going in the same direction, and do your counting from a fixed location. 

4. On the coding sheet, blacken in your choices with a permanent black sharpie marker. 

5. Here are some coding definitions that may not be particularly clear from the coding 

sheets: 

• County Code and Observation Code. We will provide you with these. 
195 

• Weather Conditions: 

• Sunny means hardly a cloud in the sky. 

• Partly Cloudy means there are clouds in the sky, but not so many as to blot 

out the sun. 

• Cloudy means you are not likely to see the sun anytime soon. 

• Calm means there is hardly any wind, although there could be a light breeze. 

• Windy means there are strong and steady winds and gusts. 

• Helmet Worn Properly. The helmet is fairly level on the bicyclist’s head and the 

straps are fastened. Generally speaking, if the helmet is being worn properly, you 

should be able to see only about a two-finger-width space of the cyclist’s forehead. 

Since you will be trying to make this determination at a glance, we really are most 

interested in gross examples of improper use – instances of improper use that are 

obvious at a glance. 

• Bike Lane Present. This applies only to standard, residential streets, and will most 

likely come into play primarily in the elementary and middle school observations. A 

bike trail, for example, will not have a bike lane. If you are observing bicyclists on a 

particular road, and if that road has a clearly marked bike lane, then please check this 

box. By bike lane we mean any portion of the side of the road that is clearly and 

specifically marked by signs and/or roadway stripes as a bike lane. 

Florida Bicycle Helmet Use Survey: 

Detailed Instructions

General Information 

• When you see the term “observation session” it refers to that period of time when you are 

at a particular location, observing bicyclists and coding (writing down) data about their 

helmet use. 

• It would be great if you could record information for every bicyclist that passes your 

view. But sometimes there will be so many, you will end up missing one here and there. 

Suppose this happens: You have just started coding information for a cyclist when 

another one catches your eye. What should you do? Answer: It is best to ignore the 

second cyclist and concentrate instead on making a full and accurate entry for the 

first cyclist. 
196 

Note: With practice, you will be able to code more cyclists. 

• The timeline for this survey is: 

Training volunteer coders – From April until the beginning of May. 

Conducting observations – From May 1 through the end of June, with special attention 

to completing observations at elementary and middle schools before the end of May. 

How To Use The Bike-Helmet Observation Coding Sheets (Instructions are for ALL 

coding sheets) 

1. County Code. This is the number that we have assigned to your county. We will 

tell you what it is. 

2. Observation Site Code. This will be a number that is unique to each site in your 

county that has been selected for observation, in consultation with the local 

representative. We will work with the representative to assign these numbers. 

3. Observer’s Name. This is your name – please print it. 

4. Date. This is the Month/Day/Year (04/19/02 for example) that you worked a 

particular observation site. 

5. Start Time, End Time. These are the times you began and finished a particular 

observation session. Write down the time. 

6. Weather Conditions When Observation Began. We are interested in what it 

was like outside at the time you made a particular set of bike-helmet use 

observations. For this part, just bubble in the appropriate choice. Was it sunny, 

partly cloudy or cloudy at the time? Was it a calm day with little to no wind or 

was it a windy day? Here is what we mean by those terms: 

Sunny There is hardly a cloud in the sky and the sun is shining brightly. Scattered clouds – 

the occasional wispy cloud floating by - disregard them. 

Partly There are a lot of clouds in the sky, but not so many as to completely blot out the sun. 

Cloudy The sun still peeks through, sometimes briefly and sometimes for longer periods.

Cloudy The clouds completely blot out the sun, for example, when it is about to rain. 

Calm There is little to no wind blowing. Light breezes count as being calm. 

Windy Can include anything from a fairly steady and strong breeze to an obviously strong 

and gusty wind. 
197 

7. Estimated Temperature. How hot or cool do you estimate it to be outside at the 

time you begin an observation session? A weather station on the radio, a bank 

sign with the temperature in lights – these could help you here. 

8. Bike Lane Present. If you are observing bicyclists riding on or near a standard, 

residential street, and if that street has a clearly designated and marked bike lane, 

then please bubble in the appropriate circle for this item. By “clearly designated 

and marked” we mean that roadway signs and/or strips indicate that one or the 

other shoulder of the road is reserved for bicyclists’ use. 

9. Wearing Helmet. This is the most important issue. If the person is wearing a 

bicycle helmet, please bubble Y in this space. If not, bubble N in this space. 

Carrying a helmet does not count here. It must be worn on the cyclist’s head. 

10. Helmet Properly Worn. If the person wearing the helmet is wearing it properly, 

please bubble in Y for this space. If not, then bubble in N for no and A for nonapplicable. 

Note: What we are looking for here are gross, or really obvious, examples of improper bikehelmet use. Any finer distinction than that is not possible, since you will be trying to 

determine proper helmet use at a glance. 

By wearing the helmet properly, we mean: 

• The bike helmet appears at a glance to be sitting fairly level on the person’s head and the 

cyclist has fastened the chin-straps. 

• Approximately a two-finger-width space of the cyclist’s forehead appears at a glance to 

be showing beneath the helmet. 

A cyclist is NOT wearing the helmet properly, if: 

• The helmet is obviously tilted back on the cyclist’s head 

as to appear to expose a large amount of the forehead 

(more than a two-finger-width space), or the helmet is so 

obviously titled to either the left or right side. 

• The helmet’s chinstraps are not fastened (dangling free), 

or they are obviously loosely fastened. 

Note: The diagram on the last page of these instructions fully explains what we mean. 

Please refer to it. 
198 

11. Female, Male. Bubble in M for boys and adult males, and F for girls and adult 

females. However, if the bicyclist is a child (or an elderly bicyclist) and you 

cannot determine the gender, then bubble in U in this space. 

12. White, Black, Hispanic, Other. This is a standard demographic question that 

will help us determine whether special attention needs to be paid to increasing 

helmet use for any particular racial group. As best as you can determine it, 

bubble in the first letter of the cyclist’s race in this space. 

This next set of questions applies only to standard, residential roads. For example, it would 

apply to school children you might be observing, but not to cyclists riding on a designed and 

recognized bike trail or on the beach. (The following instructions are for ALL coding sheets, but 

only where they apply). 

13. On Road. Is the cyclist riding on a road, like a residential street near a school 

that might be your assigned observation site? If so, bubble in Y for this section. 

If not, then bubble in N for NO. 

14. Bike Lane. Is the cyclist riding in a designated bike lane to one side or the other 

of the road? If so, bubble in Y for YES for this section. If not, then bubble in N 

for NO. 

15. Sidewalk- Is the cyclist riding on the sidewalk? If so, bubble in Y for this 

section. If not, then bubble in N for NO. 

16. Against Traffic. Is the cyclist riding “against” vehicular traffic? If so, bubble in 

Y for this section. If not, then bubble in N. For example, say there is a road that 

runs north and south, and you observe a cyclist who is riding south in the 

northbound lane. As that rider is going against traffic, you would bubble in Y for 

that observation. 

17. Comments. Please use this section to make a quick note of anything you 

observed about a particular bicyclist that you think we should know, and which is 

not covered in any of the coding-form entries. In particular, we would like you to 

use this section to note whether a bicyclist is carrying a passenger, how that 

passenger is riding on the bike (i.e. on the handlebars or in a child seat), and if 

that passenger is wearing a bike helmet. 

 

For Observing At Elementary and Middle Schools

• Observe only once at any one particular school. Please do not return in the afternoon 

to the same school you worked in the morning, and vice versa. What we need for you to 

do is to visit one school in the morning and then visit a school in the afternoon. And 

please schedule the schools for observation only during the weekdays. Remember, they 

are not in session on weekends. 
199 

Note: Keep in mind that most schools end their year by early June. Therefore, please do 

your school observations in May. 

• A morning observation should be accomplished 20-30 minutes before classes begin. 

An afternoon observation should begin from the time classes end for the day to the time 

the students have left the school grounds. 

• You should make your observations from a fixed location. Please select an observation 

location that is both off the school’s grounds and which will afford you the best view of 

the main residential road or roads that schoolchildren use to ride their bikes to and from 

school. Such roads may be the ones that run in front of a school’s main entrance. We are 

interested mostly in students’ bike-riding behaviors outside the schoolyard, as they ride 

to school in the morning and ride home in the afternoon. Please, do not go onto the 

school’s grounds to make your observation. 

For Observing At Bicycle Paths Or Trails, Parks Or At The Beach

• Observe at a bicycle path or trail, a park or a beach primarily during the weekends, but 

some weekday observations are acceptable. The times you go depend on your schedule 

and your judgment as to when the most cyclists will be at any one of these locations. The 

goal is to record information on as many cyclists as you can during any one-observation 

session. To do that, it is best to pick those times when you believe a lot of cyclists will be 

on a bike trail. 

• One concern here is coding the same bicyclist twice. To avoid this, or at least to make it 

less troublesome, pick a direction-left to right, for example, and code information 

only for cyclists who are going in that direction. 

• Another way to avoid coding the same bicyclist twice is to do your observations from a 

fixed location. Pick a spot that in your judgment will offer the best unobstructed view of 

most, if not all, of the cyclists and then do all your coding from there. For example, on a 

bike trail, you might stand near the trail’s entrance – a place where bicyclists must pass to 

use the trail. 

For Observing At Community Colleges And/Or Universities

• Observe at community colleges or universities either in the mornings, say from 8-10 

am, or around noontime, say from 11am – 1 pm. Typically, it is in the mornings when 

the largest numbers of students arrive for classes, and it is around lunchtime that a sizable 

number of them leave campus. 

• Observe bicyclists going in one direction only. For example, in the mornings, code 

only those cyclists you see arriving at campus; around the noon hour, code only those 

cyclists you see leaving campus. 
200 

• Observe bicyclists from a fixed location. For example, one of the main entrances to the 

campus might be good, as would any other entrance that, in your best judgment, will 

afford you the largest number of cyclists for your observation time. 

What To Do With Your Completed Coding Sheets

We ask that you return all of the coding sheets you have completed to the local representative 

twice each month in May and June. The local representative will mail your sheets, along with 

those completed by other volunteer coders in your county, to the FSU Department of 

Communication in the prepaid envelopes we provided. 

Diagram of Proper Bike-Helmet Use

Just for the record, a bicycle helmet is just that – a helmet. It is not a baseball cap or any other 

kind of hat. A bicycle helmet can be described as protective headgear for a bicyclist that have a 

hard outer shell and a cushioned inner shell, and contains chinstraps for fastening the helmet to 

the head. 

In trying to determine if the cyclist is wearing his or her helmet properly, ask yourself: 

• At a glance, does the helmet appear to 

be fairly level on the bicyclist’s 

head? 

• At a glance, are the chin- straps 

fastened? 

At a glance, does it appear that about a twofinger-width space of the helmeted cyclist’s 

forehead is obviously visible beneath the 

helmet? 

Supplemental Coding Instructions 

For Duval County Public School Observations

These instructions pertain only to observations being made at Duval County elementary and 

middle school. Also, these are supplemental coding instructions. They do not replace any 

previous instructions. 

How To Code The Supplemental Duval County Variables

1. Scan. Student bicyclists should be scanning, or glancing over their shoulders with some 

frequency as they ride. Ideally, they should be looking over their left shoulder, but as a 
201 

practical matter, we are interested only in whether they are “scanning” – glancing over 

either their left or right shoulder – to monitor the traffic situation behind them. 

If, in your best judgment, a bicyclist-student reasonably exhibits this “scanning” behavior, 

then bubble in Y for YES for this item. 

2. Used Signals. Student bicyclists should be using standard hand signals to indicate their 

intention to make a left or right turn. For example, if student-bicyclists enter a school’s 

grounds by turning off of a roadway or sidewalk, then they should first hand-signal their 

intention to make that turn. Similarly, as they leave the school’s grounds, they also 

should hand-signal before making a turn out of a school and onto a roadway or sidewalk. 

They should also use hand signals before they make a turn through an intersection that 

may be near the school. 

3. Bright, Visible Clothing. Student bicyclists should be wearing brightly colored, highly 

visible clothing, or clothes that by their coloring makes the cyclists easily visible to 

motorists and other cyclists. Student bicyclists could be wearing a brightly colored safety 

vest instead. This is called, “seeing and been seen.” 

Ideally, what they should not be wearing are clothes that blend in with the background 

environment, such as earth-tone colored clothes, or clothes that otherwise make the cyclists 

hard to distinguish from the surrounding trees, houses, building, etc. 

 

If, in your best judgment, a student bicyclist is wearing brightly colored clothing or because 

of some other factor, makes them readily visible to motorist and other cyclists, then bubble 

in Y for YES for this item. 

Bike Coding Instruction Updates

We have gone with a new form. Instead of writing all the information down, we will just 

bubble in the responses. 

Date: MM/DD/YY 

Start and End Time: You must write it out with AM/PM. 

Age Range: We have updated the age ranges. Here is the list of new ages: 

• Child = <5 

• Elementary = 5-10 

• Middle School = 11-13 

• High School = 14-17 

• Young Adult = 18-30 

• Older Adult = 30+ 

Please note that we have eliminated the comment’s sections. 
202 

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Y Y M W C R Y Y Y Y

N N F W E B N N N N

A U H M S

O H

Y

O Y N

WPGRA L AS SB

V

Wearing Proper Gender Race Location Against Scan Signal Bright

Helmet Traffic Clother

Yes Yes Male White Road Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No Female Black Bike Lane No No No No

Unknown Hispanic Sidewalk

Other

BICYCLE HELMET USE BEHAVIOR SURVEY CODING FORM

County Code ________________ Observer’s Name ________________________________________________________________

Observation Site Code _____________________ Start Time _______________________ End Time _________________

Weather Cond1 Weather Cond2 Bike Lane Date / /

Sunny Calm Yes Age Ranges:

Partly Cloudy Windy No Child <5 High School = 14-17

Elementary = 5-10 Young Adult = 18-30

Cloudy Middle = 11-13 Older Adult = 30+

Estimated Temp _________________
203 

Section IX. Appendices 

J. Dental Visit/Bicycle Helmet Use Program Evaluation and “My Bike Safety 

Contract” – Duval County, Florida
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 

Section IX. Appendices 

K. Bicycle Safety Helmet Proclamation 

Duval County, Florida School Board 
213 

Section IX. Appendices 

L. “High Expectation,” Performance Standards 

Duval County, Florida schools 
214 

Section IX. Appendices 

M. Talahassee Democrat editorial: “A Bike Helmet Law Could Save Lives of 

26 Kids a Year,” March 10, 1996. 
215 

Section IX. Appendices 

N. Washington Post Editorial – Montgomery County Law, June 10, 1991
216 

Section IX. Appendices 

O. Information Resources 

The following Federal and state resources can provide additional information about bicycle 

helmet use laws, bicycle helmet promotion programs, and bicycle safety. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Office of Safety Countermeasures, NTI-121 

400 Seventh Street SW 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Phone: 202-366-2692 

Web site: www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/index.html

Centers for Disease Control Center for Injury Prevention & Control (CDC)

Division of Unintentional Injury 

Phone: 770-488-4652 

Web site: www.cdc.gov/ncipc/bike

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (UPSC)

4330 East West Highway 

Bethesda, MD 20814-4408 

Hotline number: 800-638-2772 

Web site: www.CPSC.gov

NHTSA Regional Offices:

New England Region (Region I) 

Transportation Systems Center 

Kendall Square Code 903 

Cambridge, MA 02142 

Phone: (617) 494-3427 

Fax: (617) 494-3646 

States – CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT 

Eastern Region (Region II) 

222 Mamaroneck Avenue 

Suite 204 

White Plains, NY 10605 

Phone: (914) 682-6162 

Fax: (914) 682-6239 

States – NY, NJ, PR, VI 
217 

Mid Atlantic Region (Region III) 

10 South Howard Street 

Suite 6700 

Baltimore, MD 21201 

Phone: (410) 962-0090 

Fax: (410) 962-2770 

States – DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV 

Southeast Region (Region IV) 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Suite 17T30 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Phone: (404) 562-3739 

Fax: (404) 562-3763 

States – AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN 

Great Lakes Region (Region V) 

19900 Governor’s Drive 

Suite 201 

Olympia Fields, IL 60461 

Phone: (708) 503-8822 

Fax: (708) 503-8991 

States – IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI 

South Central Region (Region VI) 

819 Taylor Street 

Room 8a38 

Fort Worth, TX 76102-6177 

Phone: (817) 978-3653 

Fax: (817) 978-8339 

States – AR, LA, NM, OK, TX and the Indian Nations 

Central Region (Region VII) 

901 Locust Street 

Room 466 

Kansas City, MO 64106 

Phone: (816) 329-3900 

Fax: (816) 329-3910 

States – IA, KS, MO, NE 

Rocky Mountain Region (Region VIII) 

12300 West Dakota Ave 

Suite #140 

Lakewood, CO 80228-2583 

Phone: (303) 969-6917 

Fax: (303) 969-6294 

States – CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY 
218 

Western Region (Region IX) 

201 Mission Street 

Suite 2230 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: (415) 744-3089 

Fax: (415) 744-2532 

States – AZ, CA, HI, NV, American Samoa, Guam, 

Northern Mariana Island 

Northwest Region (Region X) 

3140 Jackson Federal Building 

915 Second Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Phone: (206) 220-7640 

Fax: (206) 220-7651 

States – AK, ID, OR, WA 

State Highway Safety Offices

To access state highway safety offices web sites, visit the Governors Highway Safety 

Association (GHSA) Web site at: www.statehighwaysafety.org

 

i

Thompson RS, Rivara FD, and Thompson DC. A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. 

N Engl J Med. 1989; 320: 1361-1367.) iiThompson RS, Rivara FD, and Thompson DC. A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. 

N Engl J Med. 1989; 320: 1361-1367.) iii Bike Helmet Promotion Program Executive Summary, MD Division of Injury and Disability Prevention and 

Rehabilitation, undated, p. 2-7. 

ivThompson RS, Rivara FD, and Thompson DC. A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. 

N Engl J Med. 1989; 320: 1361-1367.) v

 Hedberg, K. Evaluation Of A Statewide Bicycle Helmet Use Law, September 1995. 

vi Coté et al, Pediatrics, June 1992, Vol. 89, No. 6, p 1216-1220. 

vii “Bicycle Helmet Use Among Maryland Children: Effect of Legislation and Education,” Coté et al, Pediatrics, 

June 1992, Vol. 89, No. 6, p 1216-1220. 

viii “Bicycle Helmet Law for Children: A Case Study of Activism in Injury Control,” Scheidt, PC, Modena HW, 

Stern, MS, Pediatrics, June 1992, Vol. 89, No. 6, p. 1248-1250. ix “Bicycle Helmet Use Among Maryland Children: Effect of Legislation and Education,” Coté et al, Pediatrics, 

June 1992, Vol. 89, No. 6, p 1216-1220. 

x History of the Governor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and Bicycle Helmet Legislation in Maryland, an undated 

document from OIDP officials which appears to be drafted in advance of 1995 legislative session. 

xi History of the Governor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and Bicycle Helmet Legislation in Maryland, an undated 

document from OIDP officials which appears to be drafted in advance of 1995 legislative session. 

xii History of the Governor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and Bicycle Helmet Legislation in Maryland, an undated 

document from OIDP officials which appears to be drafted in advance of 1995 legislative session. 

xiii History of the Governor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and Bicycle Helmet Legislation in Maryland, an undated 

document from OIDP officials which appears to be drafted in advance of 1995 legislative session. 

xiv Bike Helmet Promotion Program Executive Summary, MD DHMH/OIDP, undated, p. 2-7. xv Bike Helmet Promotion Program Executive Summary, MD DHMH/OIDP, undated, p. 1. 

xvi Bike Helmet Promotion Program Executive Summary, MD DHMH/OIDP , undated, p. 10. 

xvii History of the Governor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and Bicycle Helmet Legislation in Maryland, an undated 

document from OIDP officials which appears to be drafted in advance of 1995 legislative session. 
219 

 xviii History of the Governor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and Bicycle Helmet Legislation in Maryland, an undated 

document from OIDP officials which appears to be drafted in advance of 1995 legislative session. 

xix History of the Governor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and Bicycle Helmet Legislation in Maryland, an undated 

document from OIDP officials which appears to be drafted in advance of 1995 legislative session. 

xx Referring to Thompson RS, Rivara FD, and Thompson DC. A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle 

safety helmets. N Engl J Med. 1989; 320: 1361-1367.) xxi Bike Helmet Promotion Program Executive Summary, MD DHMH/OIDP, undated, p. 16, Appendix E, Appendix 

F. 

xxii Bike Helmet Promotion Program Executive Summary, MD DHMH/OIDP, undated, p 9. xxiii “Bicycle Helmet Law for Children: A Case Study of Activism in Injury Control,” Scheidt, PC, Modena HW, 

Stern, MS, Pediatrics, June 1992, Vol. 89, No. 6, p. 1248-1250. 

xxiv Bike Helmet Promotion Program Executive Summary, MD DHMH/OIDP, undated, p 15. xxvThompson RS, Rivara FD, and Thompson DC. A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety 

helmets. N Engl J Med. 1989; 320: 1361-1367.) 

xxvi “Bicycle Helmet Use Among Maryland Children: Effect of Legislation and Education,” Coté et al, Pediatrics, 

June 1992, Vol. 89, No. 6, p 1216-1220. 

xxvii Bike Helmet Promotion Program Executive Summary, MD DHMH/OIDP, undated, p 16. 

xxviii Bike Helmet Promotion Program Executive Summary, MD DHMH/OIDP, undated, p. 16-17. xxix “Bicycle Helmet Use Among Maryland Children: Effect of Legislation and Education,” Coté et al, Pediatrics, 

June 1992, Vol. 89, No. 6, p 1216-1220. 

xxx Evaluation Of A Statewide Bicycle Helmet Use Law Hedberg, K, OR Department of Human Resources Health 

Division, September 1995.