Motorcycle Safety: Recent Trends, Congressional Action, and Selected Policy Options
Released: 2008-01-04T00:00:00

Introduction

Motorcycle riding, which is both a leisure activity and a form of transportation, is enjoying renewed popularity. Motorcycles first peaked in popularity in 1973, when over 1.5 million were sold; during the 1970s, annual sales of all types of motorcycles averaged over 1 million. After 1980, sales declined, reaching a low point of less than 300,000 annually in the early 1990s. Sales began rising after 1992; sales of on-highway motorcycles rose from 186,000 in 1992 to 662,000 in 2003. The number of motorcycles in use, as measured by motorcycle registration data, has increased by at least 63% since 1997 (from 3.8 million in 1997 to 6.2 million in 2005). According to the motorcycle industry, factors influencing the increase in motorcycle ownership include affluent baby boomers returning to motorcycling after many years of not riding, and rising fuel costs.

This report presents and analyzes crash data, which show that motorcycle fatalities are an increasing share of all motor vehicle fatalities in the United States. It examines the risk characteristics of motorcycles and motorcyclists, and the characteristics of fatal motorcycle crashes. The report then examines what the federal government is doing to try to reduce the rate of motorcycle fatalities. Finally, this report analyzes the issues surrounding what many experts consider to be the single most effective motorcycle safety strategy, the requirement that all motorcyclists wear a helmet that complies with federal safety standards (universal helmet law).

Motorcycle Fatalities are an Increasingly Significant Proportion of all Motor Vehicle Fatalities

The number of motorcycle fatalities has more than doubled over the past decade, from 2,176 in 1996 to 4,810 in 2006. Part of this increase can be attributed to a significant growth in the number of motorcyclists. According to the motorcycle industry, annual sales of on-highway motorcycles have tripled in the past decade. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reports that the number of registered motorcycles increased by over 2 million (63%) during that period. But as Table 1 shows, the rate of increase in fatal motorcycle crashes (116%) and rider fatalities (115%) is almost double the rate of increase in the number of motorcycles registered (63%). By contrast, as Table 1 also shows, the number of passenger vehicle crashes and fatalities has declined (by 2% and 3% respectively) over the past decade, even though the number of vehicles registered has increased by 5%.

In 2006 motorcycles represented less than 3% of all passenger vehicles registered and less than 1% of all VMT, while motorcyclist fatalities represented 14% of all fatalities suffered by operators or passengers in passenger vehicles. Among the factors that contribute to the higher rate of fatal crashes of motorcycles compared to passenger vehicles are the characteristics of both motorcycles and the motorcycle operator population.

Motorcycles are inherently riskier than passenger vehicles. They are more complex to steer and less stable in braking and maneuvering. They also tend to be less noticed by other motorists compared to other passenger vehicles. In a crash motorcycles offer little protection to their occupants compared to a passenger vehicle occupant, who is enclosed in a metal frame, is required by law to be wearing a seat belt, and whose vehicle (if manufactured after 1996) is required by law to have airbags to protect the occupants of the front seat. Virtually the only protection available to a motorcyclist in a crash is a helmet and protective clothing, neither of which is required in most states. Also, an estimated 90% of motorcycle operators are male, compared to the passenger vehicle driver population, which is 50% female. Males are involved in motor vehicle accidents at a higher rate than females. As a result of both vehicle characteristics and operator characteristics, the rate of motorcycle involvement in fatal crashes, both by the number of registered vehicles and by VMT, is several times that of passenger vehicles (see Table 2 ).

Characteristics of Fatal Motorcycle Crashes9

There were 4,489 fatal motorcycle crashes in 2005, which resulted in the deaths of 4,553 motorcyclists. Over half (53% in 2004) of motorcyclist deaths occur on weekends, and about half occur on rural roads. Forty-five percent of the motorcyclists killed in crashes in 2004 were not wearing a helmet. Speeding was judged to be a contributing factor for 37% of the fatalities. In 25% of the crashes, the motorcyclist either did not have a drivers license or lacked a motorcycle endorsement on their license. Over a quarter (27%) of the motorcyclists killed in crashes in 2005 were legally intoxicated (i.e., had an amount of alcohol in their blood (blood alcohol content, or BAC), at or above 0.08 ).

Approximately half (45%) of the fatal motorcycle crashes in 2005 were single-vehicle crashes; in most of these, the motorcyclist ran off the road. Forty-one percent of the 1,878 motorcyclists who died in single-vehicle crashes were legally intoxicated. In the 56% of crashes involving two or more vehicles, the other vehicle(s) was typically a passenger car or light truck. Of two-vehicle crashes involving a passenger vehicle, 74% of the crashes involved the motorcycle striking the passenger vehicle. In more than one-third of the two-vehicle crashes, the motorist was making a left turn across the path of a motorcyclist.

In looking at the characteristics of fatal motorcycle crashes during the decade 1995 to 2004, changing trends can be ascertained. The percentage of motorcycle operators in fatal crashes who had been drinking (i.e., had any alcohol in their system) declined from 42% to 34%, and the percentage who were legally impaired (BAC of 0.08 or more) declined from 34% to 28%.

Likewise, the share of fatal crashes in which speeding was a factor declined from 43% to 37%. The percentage of motorcycle operator fatalities who were properly licensed increased from 63% to 75%. However, while these rates showed improvement, the actual number of fatal crashes in which alcohol or speeding played a role, and in which the driver was not properly licensed, increased.

Other factors showed little or no change. For example, the rate of helmet use observed in motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes was virtually unchanged from 1995 (56%) to 2004 (57%).

Other trends observed in the 1995-2004 crash data were that motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes were becoming older and riding more powerful motorcycles. The share of fatalities in which the motorcyclist was 40 years old or older rose from 25% (1995) to almost 50% (2004), pushing the average age of motorcyclists involved in a fatal crash up 19%, from 32 (1995) to 38 (2004). The share of fatal crashes involving motorcycles with engine displacements of 1,000 cubic centimeters (cc) or more rose from 30% (1995) to 41% (2004), pushing the average engine displacement of motorcycles involved in fatal crashes up 21%, from 841 cc (1995) to 1,015 cc (2004).

Recent Congressional Action On Motorcycle Safety

Congress has given DOT the mission of reducing traffic deaths. As noted above, the number of passenger vehicle traffic deaths has declined over the past decade, while the number of motorcycle deaths has been increasing. In light of this, DOT has declared that motorcycle fatalities are currently the nation's greatest highway traffic safety challenge.

In the most recent surface transportation reauthorization legislation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA) ( P.L. 109-59 , enacted August 10, 2005), Congress included several provisions relating to motorcycle safety. These included funding for a motorcycle crash causation study, the creation of a motorcycle safety grant program, and the creation of a motorcyclist advisory committee.

DOT Motorcycle Crash Causation Study

The precondition for effective crash prevention and crash mitigation strategies is understanding why crashes happen. NHTSA has detailed information about the characteristics of fatal crashes, but without detailed information on the population of motorcyclists who are exposed to the same risks but do not experience fatal crashes, the significance of the factors observed in fatal crashes cannot be established. Such information is acquired through in-depth crash causation studies, where crashes are examined in detail and the at-risk motorcycling population in the same area at the same time is observed and interviewed. The only large scale in-depth motorcycle crash causation study in the U.S. was conducted almost thirty years ago. Since that time there have been significant changes in the characteristics of the motorcycle rider population, the highway vehicle fleet mix, and the highway environment.

Section 5511 of SAFETEA authorized $2.8 million for the federal share of a motorcycle crash causation study, to be conducted jointly by FHWA and the Oklahoma Transportation Center. NHTSA had begun a smaller-scale motorcycle crash causes and outcomes study prior to the passage of SAFETEA, and after passage of SAFETEA revised that study to serve as a pilot for the larger-scale study. The final report from NHTSA's pilot study is expected in February 2008. The final report of the larger crash causation study is expected in August 2010.

Motorcycle Safety Grant Program

Section 2010 of SAFETEA creates a motorcycle safety grant program. To be eligible for a grant, a state must satisfy any two of six criteria:

provide a motorcycle rider training course; provide a motorcyclist awareness program (aimed at motorists); provide an impaired driving prevention program that includes specific measures targeting impaired motorcycle driving; achieve a reduction in annual fatalities and crashes involving motorcyclists; achieve a reduction in annual fatalities and crashes involving impaired motorcyclists; or ensure that all fees collected from motorcyclists for the purpose of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are used for those programs.

States that receive a grant must maintain at least the same level of spending on motorcycle safety as before the grant (that is, the grant must represent additional spending). The program is authorized at $6 million annually ($7 million in FY2009, its final year of authorization). Forty-four states and Puerto Rico received grants in FY2006.

Motorcyclist Advisory Council

Section 1914 directs the Secretary of Transportation to appoint a Motorcyclist Advisory Council to advise the Federal Highway Administrator on infrastructure issues of concern to motorcyclists, including barrier design. This Council has been established and met three times in 2007.

DOT Motorcycle Safety Action Plan

In October 2007 DOT released an action plan to reduce motorcycle fatalities. The key initiatives presented in the plan include conducting the motorcycle crash causation study discussed above, developing national standards for novice motorcyclist training programs, providing guidance to transportation officials on making roads safer for motorcycles, creating a training program for law enforcement officials on enforcement efforts that can reduce crashes, and initiating a campaign to make motorists more aware of motorcyclists.

Additional Sources of Motorcycle Safety Recommendations

National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS)

In 2000, DOT published the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS), a plan for improving motorcycle safety. The document was the result of a cooperative effort between NHTSA and the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, a nonprofit organization funded by motorcycle manufacturers to promote safety.

NAMS discusses a variety of motorcycle safety issues, and makes 82 recommendations, grouped into three categories: Urgent (4 recommendations), Essential (56), and Necessary (22). The Urgent recommendations are

that comprehensive, in-depth studies of critical questions in motorcycle safety should be begun immediately; that efforts to discourage impaired motorcycling should continue; that efforts should be made to increase the use of DOT-compliant helmets; and that efforts should be made to educate motorists to be more aware of the presence of motorcyclists.

NHTSA published an implementation guide for NAMS in 2006. The guide focuses on the roughly half of the NAMS recommendations it identifies as being directed at the states. It presents examples of things states have done to implement those recommendations.

The NTSB has commended the NAMS, but noted that there is no means of tracking the status of the recommendations, no evaluation of the relative priority of the recommendations within the three categories, and no measures provided to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations. The NTSB recommended that NHTSA create a guide for the NAMS recommendations similar to their guide for highway safety measures, which rates the effectiveness, cost, and implementation time of traffic safety measures.

NTSB Recommendations

The NTSB, an independent government agency which investigates accidents and makes non-binding recommendations for safety improvements, has recently begun to examine motorcycle accidents. In addition to investigating several accidents, NTSB convened a forum in 2006 to hear from a variety of experts on the current status of motorcycle safety issues. Based on this information, in September 2007 NTSB announced several recommendations to promote motorcycle safety. These included the adoption by all states of universal helmet laws specifying DOT-compliant helmets, prioritization of the NAMS recommendations and development of an implementation plan as discussed above, and development of uniform guidelines for collecting accurate motorcycle registration and vehicle miles traveled data.

Selected Options for Improving Motorcycle Safety

There are two main approaches to reducing motorcycle crashes and fatalities: reduce the number of crashes (through rider skills training and reductions in risky behaviors, educating motorists to be aware of motorcyclists, improvements to road design, and improvements to motorcycle stability) and reduce the deadliness of motorcycle crashes (through improvements in rider protective gear, reduction in roadside hazards, and improvements in the crashworthiness of motorcycles). Most of the options available under these strategies are of uncertain value. Vehicle improvements such as anti-lock brakes, stability control, and airbags are costly relative to the price of most motorcycles, and are thought likely to have limited safety impacts. Removal of roadside hazards such as trees, signposts, and other fixed objects is not feasible. One option that is viewed to be of proven value, relatively inexpensive, and can be quickly implemented, is a universal helmet law. That option is controversial, and opponents of universal helmet laws call instead for more and better rider training.

Universal Helmet Law

Head injuries resulting in injury to the brain are the leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes. Motorcycle helmets that comply with the federal safety standard are designed to protect the rider in two ways: the hard outer shell of the helmet protects the head from penetrating injuries and abrasion; and the crushable interior padding (expanded polystyrene, also known as styrofoam), by absorbing the force of the head as it comes to a rapid stop in a crash, is intended to allow the head to come to a less rapid stop, and thus protect against injuries caused by the brain hitting the inside of the skull. NHTSA has found that motorcycle helmets are the single motorcycle safety measure whose effectiveness has been specifically proven, and that requiring riders to wear helmets is a relatively low cost measure which can be implemented by a state passing a law requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets and is relatively easy to enforce.

Motorcycle Helmets Save Lives and Reduce Brain Injuries

NHTSA estimates that a motorcyclist without a helmet is three times as likely to die in a crash as a motorcyclist wearing a DOT-compliant helmet, and among motorcyclists who survive a crash, those not wearing a helmet are three times as likely to suffer a brain injury as those wearing a DOT-compliant helmet. NHTSA estimates that 728 of the 4,553 motorcyclists who were fatally injured in 2005 could have survived if all motorcyclists had been wearing helmets. Moreover, an older person is more susceptible to incurring a brain injury from a blow to the head than is a younger person, so as the overall motorcycle rider population ages, the protective value of helmets for motorcyclists increases.

Motorcycle Helmets Save Money

The use of motorcycle helmets also has a significant economic impact. Studies of motorcyclists injured in crashes find that the costs of crashes are much lower for motorcyclists wearing helmets. One recent study found that the average cost resulting from an unhelmeted rider being injured in a crash was $302,000, while the average cost resulting from a helmeted rider being injured in a crash was $71,000. Much of the disparity in costs between the helmeted and unhelmeted riders injured in crashes was due to the long-term impacts of the typically more severe head injuries suffered by the unhelmeted riders. The researchers concluded that motorcycle helmet laws have a benefit-cost ratio of nearly 4 to 1. NHTSA estimated that the use of motorcycle helmets saved $1.3 billion in medical expenses in 2002, and that another $853 million could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.

Opponents of universal helmet laws portray them as unwarranted limitations on an adult's freedom to take risks. Proponents counter that the costs that can result from not wearing a helmet are not borne only by the motorcyclist who chooses to ride without a helmet. Several studies have found that only about half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance. For those without private coverage, a majority of their medical costs are paid by the public. Even for those with private coverage, their insurance may not be sufficient to cover all the costs of their treatment. For those with serious head injuries, the long-term costs of their treatment may be vast, and may be borne by the public. Motorcycle crash victims who are permanently disabled may receive public support from such sources as Social Security's Disability Insurance, as do the minor children of those who are disabled or die in a crash.

Rates of Motorcycle Helmet Use

The most recent survey of helmet use showed that only 58% of motorcyclists were wearing a DOT-compliant helmet in 2007, up from 51% in 2006 but down from 71% in 2000. The DOT Secretary, herself a motorcyclist who speaks of her crash experience, has called on manufacturers to provide free or discounted DOT-compliant helmets (or rider training safety courses) with the purchase of every new motorcycle in an effort to portray helmets as standard safety equipment. However, given that motorcycle helmet use declines significantly in states after repeal of universal helmet laws, the nationwide decline in helmet usage does not appear to be caused by a lack of availability of helmets, nor is it likely to be reversed by manufacturers offering free or discounted helmets to motorcycle purchasers.

Helmet use is higher in states that require all motorcyclists to wear helmets (universal helmet laws): 97% versus 50% in other states in 2007. Twenty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, have universal helmet laws (see Table 3 ). Twenty-seven states require some motorcyclists, usually minors, to wear helmets. Three states have no motorcycle helmet law. Six states have repealed their universal helmet laws since 1997, though one, Louisiana, reinstated its law in 2004.

History of Federal Motorcycle Helmet Use Legislation

Congress's stance on universal helmet laws has varied over time. In 1966, Congress passed legislation to withhold a portion of a state's highway funding if the state had not adopted a universal helmet law by 1976. At that time, no state had a motorcycle helmet law. By 1975, 47 states had adopted such legislation. The motorcycle fatality rate per 10,000 motorcycles declined from 12.7 (1966) to 6.7 (1976). In 1976, Congress repealed the penalty for failure to have a universal helmet law. Part of the reason given for the repeal was that the penalty was about to be enforced against the three states then lacking such laws (California, Illinois, and Utah). By 1979, 27 states had repealed their mandatory helmet laws in the face of opposition to those laws. The nation's fatality rate per 10,000 motorcycles rose from 6.7 (1976) to 9.1 (1979). In 1991, Congress authorized the Secretary of Transportation to provide grants to states with universal helmet laws; beginning in FY1994, if a state did not have a universal helmet law, a portion of its federal-aid highway funds would be transferred to its federal highway safety program. In 1995, Congress repealed that provision. An amendment was offered to what ultimately became SAFETEA that would have reinstated the transfer of a portion of a state's federal aid highway funds to its safety program; that amendment was defeated.

Opponents and Proponents of Universal Helmet Laws

Many opponents of universal helmet laws do not deny the safety value of helmets. The American Motorcyclist Association, for example, encourages riders to wear helmets (and other protective gear), and does not oppose laws that require minors to wear helmets, believing that "many young motorcyclists and passengers may lack the maturity to make an informed decision regarding the use of motorcycle helmets." They do oppose laws requiring adult motorcyclists to wear helmets, contending that adults are capable of making personal safety decisions for themselves and that society should not mandate personal safety.

Some opponents of universal helmet laws, such as the Motorcycle Riders Foundation and various state chapters of ABATE (depending on the state, "American Bikers Aimed Toward Education" or "American Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments"), contend that the safety benefits of helmets are unproven. They contend that helmets actually pose a danger to the motorcyclist, by restricting the cyclist's peripheral vision and hearing, and by increasing the risk of a neck injury (due to the added weight of the helmet) in a crash. But common to both groups of opponents is the framing of motorcycle helmet laws as primarily an issue of personal liberty and free choice rather than an issue of safety.

In 1991, the General Accounting Office (GAO; now the Government Accountability Office) reviewed dozens of studies of helmet use and found no evidence to support the contentions of helmet opponents that helmets significantly impair motorcyclist vision or hearing, or contributed to neck injuries. Subsequent studies have continued to support these findings. Studies of motorcycle injuries and fatalities find that helmets save lives, reduce the severity of injuries in non-fatal crashes, do not cause additional injuries, and save billions of dollars in medical care and lost wages.

Proponents of universal helmet laws include NHTSA and numerous groups representing the transportation safety, medical, law enforcement, and insurance communities. They note that helmets not only save lives, they also reduce the severity of injuries motorcyclists experience in crashes. They respond to the personal choice argument of helmet law opponentsâthat each motorcyclist should be free to decide whether to wear a helmet, since the motorcyclist is the one who bears the risk of injury and deathâby pointing out that the motorcyclist's choice imposes burdens on others, both financial and emotional. Moreover, they contend that universal helmet laws are necessary, because voluntary helmet usage promotion efforts have not proven to be effective. Conversely, universal helmet laws are easy to enforce and result in relatively high rates of helmet usage.

Opponents of universal helmet laws take issue with the "social burden" argument. They contend that motorcyclists have medical insurance at rates similar to the general population, and that the share of the nation's medical burden that is due to medical costs incurred by motorcycle crashes is insignificant. They further contend that the most effective way to reduce motorcyclist fatalities and injuries is to prevent crashes from occurring, through education of motorcyclists and motorists and through crackdowns on illegal behavior by motorcyclists, such as riding while impaired and riding without proper licensure.

In response to the framing of universal helmet laws as an infringement on personal rights, proponents of universal helmet laws contend that when personal choices impose costs on society and on survivors, personal freedoms must be balanced with protecting individuals from preventable injuries and fatalities. They note that when it comes to transportation safety, Congress has chosen to require adults to take actions to protect themselves. For example, opponents of seat belt use laws also contended that such laws infringed on their personal freedom to drive without a seat belt. However, Congress chose to penalize states that do not have, and enforce, laws requiring motorists to wear seat belts, even though all cars manufactured since 1996 are required to have airbags to protect front seat occupants. NHTSA estimates that over 15,000 lives are saved each year as a result of people wearing seat belts.

In some cases, Congress has attempted to protect adults from their inclination to take risks, even at the cost of imposing burdens on bystanders. For example, Congress has required that locomotive horns be sounded at all highway-rail grade crossings, including those already equipped with warning lights and gates, because statistics have shown that collision rates are higher when the horns are not sounded. In response to criticism of the regulation, DOT contended that it was "appropriate to protect even the unwise from the consequences of their misdeeds where those consequences are especially severeâand where society as a whole may bear the burden of those consequences."

In a survey of motor vehicle occupants, NHTSA found that 81% favored universal helmet laws. Support was high even in states without universal helmet laws (75% in states with less than universal requirements, 79% in the three states with no requirements). While support was higher among those who did not ride motorcycles (83%), 51% of the motorcyclists in the survey favored universal helmet laws.

Motorcyclist Training Courses

Opponents of universal helmet laws contend that motorcyclist training courses are the preferred means to reduce the incidence of motorcycle fatalities. Virtually all groups support the provision by some means of motorcyclist training courses. The NAMS report declared that motorcycle rider education and training is the "centerpiece of a comprehensive motorcycle safety program." A spokesman for The Motorcycle Riders Foundation predicted that "once [SAFETEA] is passed and we can have access to training and improved education of motorcyclists, you will see this fatality rate go down."

The long-term safety benefit of motorcyclist training programs has not been conclusively demonstrated. An evaluation of California's training program in the 1990s found that the crash rate for novice riders who had taken the training course was less than half that of novice riders without the training for the first six months after the training; after that, the difference diminished. The program appeared to provide no significant safety benefit for riders with more than 500 miles of prior riding experience. While training programs can improve riders' bike-handling and traffic negotiation skills, they may have little impact on riders' judgement and propensity to take risks. As NHTSA has noted:

There is no evaluation of rider education and training effectiveness or measures to determine if program effectiveness has been compromised due to the lack of resources. It is assumed, yet unknown, that the current programs are teaching necessary skills to survive in traffic.