LAB Helmet Law Position
May, 1991
Summary: This article was published in 1991, when LAB was still known as the League of American Wheelmen. It is still one of the best on the subject, and we are grateful to LAB for permission to put it up.
Helmet Issue Gets Hot
It is hard to find League members who don't agree that all bicyclists
should wear helmets, including children who are passengers on
bicycles. The league has taken a public position very strongly
in favor of wearing helmets, specifically:
The League of American Wheelmen, as part of its mission to support
bicycling as safe recreation and transportation for people of
all ages, reiterates standards developed by the Snell Memorial
Foundation or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI
Standard Z90.4). A helmet is an important protective device, which,
when coupled with safe and responsible bicycle riding, has the
potential for greatly reducing the risk of accidental injury.
While helmets protect against injuries, law enforcement and education
prevent accidents. All three carefully designed and complementary
elements are necessary for a truly effective injury prevention
program. The League recommends as the first priority a comprehensive
bicycle safety education program initiated at the elementary school
level and taught by certified instructors according to the principles
of Effective Cycling.
Such a program naturally would include promotion
of helmet use and active enforcement of laws.
In contrast to their opinions on helmet use, League members' opinions
about laws which require bicyclists to wear helmets are divided.
Members surveyed at the 1990 National Conference of Bicyclists
split three ways among those who supported mandatory helmet laws
(18 percent), those who opposed them (46 percent), and those who
did not have a strong opinion (36 percent).
Meanwhile, events have overtaken the League's initiatives on the
helmet issue. Strong lobbying groups, including the American Academy
of Pediatrics and the Safe Kids Coalition, have been promoting
bills requiring children to wear helmets when riding as passengers
on bicycles, and setting standards for child carriers. The child
carrier industry has also played a part in drafting these bills.
Such bills became law in California (1986) and New York (1989),
and were introduced in 1990 in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Missouri,
Washington, and probably several other states-maybe yours. A bill
requiring all bicyclists to wear helmets almost became law in
Howard County, Maryland. Such a bill has been introduced in New
York and may well pass. Proposed helmet legislation, often drafted
by non-bicyclists, may include requirements for informational
tags (hangtags) affixed to all bicycles sold, for reflectors that
are incorporated as part of the helmet design, or even other measures
that cannot be foreseen. You can help greatly by forwarding copies
of pending helmet legislation from your jurisdiction to the L.A.W.
National Office with your comments allowing us an opportunity
to evaluate it.
We bicyclists are the constituency for helmet laws, and we must
look out for our own interests. No matter how good the intentions
of the proponents of the legislation, the legislation may fail
to achieve its purpose of increasing helmet use or may have unintended
and damaging side effects.
The League is an advocate for the rights of all bicyclists, including
those who do not wear helmets-still the majority of the general
bicycling population. Helmet legislation must be written very
carefully to avoid some very serious unintended consequences for
people who have not yet been convinced to wear helmets, and for
all bicyclists.
All of the helmet and child passenger bills the League has reviewed
fail to take this into account, and the Board has taken a position
opposing them. However, the Board has agreed to have this background
document circulated to League volunteers, so volunteers can steer
the development of mandatory helmet bills in order that they not
create unreasonable problems for bicyclists.
This policy gives the League leverage with organizations lobbying
for helmet use in their development of improved law enforcement
and education programs. The Safe Kids Campaign and the American
Pediatric Association are already developing such programs, but
a review of the materials which they are distributing makes it
clear they need the League's expertise to make these programs
effective.
Mandatory helmet laws may be unstoppable; helmets have become
a "Mom and apple pie" issue, due to widespread publicity
in the media, and to recent studies which strongly confirm the
point that helmets are effective. In this light, the important
issue is no longer whether you support or oppose mandatory helmet
legislation, but how to achieve an outcome which works best to
protect bicyclists' rights. If you are personally in favor of
mandatory, helmet laws, do not give your support too easily to
a potentially damaging law; if you are opposed to these laws,
please understand that you may need to compromise in order to
avoid enactment of a truly damaging law and to avoid making the
League look unreasonable in opposing all helmet bills.
It is in the interest of bicyclists, however, to oppose enactment
of any proposed mandatory helmet law which fails any of the following
tests:
1 ) A bill should specifically require that helmets meet the ANSI
Z90.4 or Snell Memorial Foundation standards. Child carriers should
be required to protect the passenger from contact with moving
parts of the bicycle, should have a safety harness, and should
meet current industry standards. Most bills introduced this year
do mention these standards.
2) It is reasonable for a law to set a maximum age or weight limit
for a child transported in a child seat on a bicycle, but, a provision
requiring the bicycle operator to wear a helmet must apply to
all, with no exemption based on age or experience. To cite a bad
example, the Illinois motorcycle helmet law requires helmets only
for learners; for Illinois motorcyclists, getting rid of the helmet
becomes a rite of passage and a sign of "maturity."
3) A bill should provide an incentive for use of protective equipment.
A fine or other penalty should be revocable upon proof of acquisition
of the equipment. This is the case with the current California,
New York, and Howard County, Maryland laws.
4) A bill should address the issue of making helmets available
to all of the bicyclists required to wear them. To provide a comparison:
although all cars are equipped with the seat belts that are mandated
by law as standard equipment, bikes are not equipped with helmets.
A suddenly passed helmet bill may exhaust the supply of helmets
in the stores.
Also, poor people may be hard-pressed to afford helmets. The American
Pediatric Association has a laudable helmet discount campaign
operating through doctors' offices, and there are other similar
programs, but it is only reasonable to acknowledge that not everyone
will be able to afford a helmet even after a law is enacted.
In states and communities with an active bicycle program, it may
be possible to address the availability problem directly with
helmet discount programs. One suggestion is that helmets be made
available free to any children who are in subsidized school lunch
programs. These helmets should be on loan rather than outright
gifts, to avoid the incentive for children to sell them.
A helmet loan program requires substantial funding, and should
be one part of a comprehensive bicycle/pedestrian education program
in the schools. Such a comprehensive program is the only truly
effective way to reduce the nation's approximately 1,600 yearly
child pedestrian fatalities and 350 child bicyclist fatalities:
a helmet law without such a program may be a step in the right
direction, but, in fact, will have only a limited effect. The
state of Florida is the leader in developing such comprehensive
education programs. The League office or the Florida Bicycle/
Pedestrian Coordinator's office can provide more information about
them.
5) A bill must not set a blanket minimum age limit for passengers
on bicycles, for example a prohibition against transporting a
child below one year of age on a bicycle.
The American Pediatric Association justifies such a prohibition
on the grounds that an infant unable to hold the head up can not
yet safely wear a helmet. The League strongly opposes this provision
for the following reasons:
a) It is necessary to distinguish between passengers carried "on"
a bicycle and those transported "by" a bicycle. While
current child seat carriers and helmets are not appropriate for
carrying infants on a bicycle, a blanket prohibition against passengers
under one year of age will close off the development and marketing
of other suitable carriers (for example, a bassinet-type carrier
which would enclose and protect the entire baby without the need
for a separate helmet supported by the neck). Consequently, any
infant-based prohibitions should be revocable upon the development
of an approved device.
b) Alternate means to transport infants by bicycle currently exist,
for example, bicycle trailers with roll-bar protection and a safety
harness for the passenger(s). These are used by many League members
and other cyclists. Therefore, a blanket prohibition against passengers
under one year of age will damage the bicycle trailer industry
and discourage further trailer development. c) Bicycling is necessary
transportation for many, not a luxury which may arbitrarily be
denied on the basis of age. When legislatures grappled with dangers
to young children in automobiles, the solution was not to prohibit
children from riding in cars but to promote the development and
marketing of child car seats. Bicycling deserves the same treatment.
d) The number of injuries in bicycle accidents to infants under
one year of age is relatively small and not a significant public
health problem. In fact, they constitute less than 0.1 percent
of all bicycle-related deaths and injuries.
e) In the minority of states that have not yet adopted the rule
of comparative negligence, a contributory negligence problem arises
when carrying a child below the age permitted by a law. This problem
is discussed in section eight.
6) A law should not require a restraint device for a child "passenger"
astride a regular seat of a tandem bicycle. Children pedaling
on the rear of tandems do not represent a serious public-safety
problem; most people who take the trouble to set up a tandem for
a child stoker are very experienced and safe cyclists. A child
riding on a tandem, which is controlled by the adult and is made
for stable riding characteristics with two persons aboard, is
far safer than a child riding his or her own bicycle or tricycle.
Also, tandeming is an unequaled way for a child to learn safe
bicycling skills.
7) A model bill should be the basis of any legislation which is
introduced. If requirements of helmet and child passenger laws
being introduced in various states are different, they may cause
difficulties for the child carrier industry as well as for bicyclists.
Model bills are included below. The bill should not be loaded
down with legislators' or lobbyists' pet ideas about bicycling,
which are often not carefully worded and not consistent with the
Uniform Vehicle Code and/or League position statements. Such language
should be removed.
Requirements for items to be supplied as part of equipment, or
provided with such equipment (warning stickers, hangtags, contents
of the owner's manual) should not be included in state laws. These
requirements should be established by Federal regulation rather
than on a state-by-state basis, so that manufacturers, distributors,
and dealers will not be faced with the burden of providing a different
product for each state. The League is working with the Federal
Consumer Products Safety Commission and with industry to develop
suitable regulations.
8) In the few states which apply the rule of contributory negligence
(viz., Massachusetts, Maryland,...), the bill should include a
provision to the effect that failure to use a helmet shall not
be admissible as evidence of negligence in a court of law. It
is a good idea to check with an attorney familiar with the traffic
laws of your state. The wording should be parallel with that of
existing helmet and safety belt laws.
In these states, such provisions have been included in the laws
requiring the use of protective devices such as seatbelts and
motorcycle helmets. The question of who caused an accident and
the question of avoiding injury are different questions. If a
helmet law does not have such a provision, a driver who-for example-
runs a stop sign and injures a helmet less bicyclist can avoid
having to pay anything towards the cyclist's medical expenses
or other damages. The League, defending the rights of all bicyclists,
feels that this is unjust. Child passenger and child helmet laws
without this provision would victimize children who are not yet
able to decide for themselves about wearing a helmet. This too,
is unjust.
What to Do
Find out what helmet bills have been introduced in your state.
Do this soon. There may be a bill which you have not heard about.
Many states have computerized indexes: look for the key words
"bicycle" "safety," "helmet," and
"passenger." The public safety committee of your state
legislature is also a good place to start looking. Find the district
of the author of the bill, and of the chairman and ranking minority
member of the committee to which it has been referred, and concentrate
your lobbying efforts in their districts. Obtain the names, addresses
and phone numbers of organizations and individuals who have been
promoting the bill. Explain the League's concerns to the legislators
and try to get these concerns written into the bill. Contact League
members and affiliated clubs requesting them to call or write
their state legislators as necessary. Keep the League's Government
Relations Director informed of your actions.
Remember that lawmakers truly don't want to push bad bills, and
they may welcome your ability to work privately to hammer out
a better bill. Legislators may be quite surprised and dismayed
to find that a bill is controversial. Explain to the legislators
how it is possible to reduce the controversy. Contact the organizations
lobbying in favor of the bill. Describe the League's strong position
in favor of helmet use, but explain the League's concerns to them.
Try to get the lobbying organizations to accept the League's suggestions,
and indicate that the League opposes any bill which fails properly
to protect the rights of bicyclists. Suggest to the lobbying organizations
that the League develop a long-term working relationship with
them to promote helmet use, education, and law enforcement. Review
the programs which the organizations have initiated in these areas,
and offer the League's assistance to strengthen these programs.
Note that the national office is maintaining contact with national
organizations and providing information on materials and programs
being developed at the national level. You may contact the Government
Relations Director to coordinate with this effort. Since most
actual education and law-enforcement programs are developed at
the state or local level, the work of local volunteers and Effective
Cycling instructors will be extremely important in strengthening
and guiding these programs.
Sample Bills
California: (Vehicle Code 21024) a) No person operating a bicycle
on a highway shall allow anyone to ride other than on a permanent
and regular attached seat.
b) No person operating a bicycle on a highway shall allow anyone
to ride as a passenger other than on a separate attached seat.
If the passenger is four years old or younger, or of 40 pounds
or less, the seat shall adequately retain the passenger in place,
and protect him/her from the bicycle's moving parts.
c) No person operating a bicycle on a highway shall allow anyone
four years old or younger, or of 40 pounds or less, to ride as
a passenger who is not wearing a helmet of good fit, fastened
securely with straps, and meeting ANSI Z90.4 bicycle helmet standards,
or the Snell Memorial Foundation's 1984 Standard for Protective
Headgear for Use in Bicycling.
d) The first violation of (c) shall be dismissed if the person
charged proves that a helmet meeting the standards has been purchased
for use by the passenger. Otherwise. any violation of (c) is punishable
by fine, including all costs, of not more than $20.
Comments: This law has no liability exclusion. Provision (d) is
creative, in providing an incentive to purchase a helmet. The
law does not address the question of trailers which do not require
infant to wear a helmet.
New York: (Vehicle and Traffic code, para. 1238)
1. No person operating a bicycle shall allow a person who is under
one year of age to ride as a passenger on a bicycle nor shall
such person be carried in a pack fastened to the operator. A first
violation of the provisions of this subdivision shall result in
no fine. A second violation shall result in a civil fine not to
exceed fifty dollars.
2. No person operating a bicycle shall allow a person one or more
years of age and less than five years of age to ride as a passenger
on a bicycle unless:
(a) such passenger is wearing a helmet meeting the standards of
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z90.4 bicycle
helmet standards) or the Snell Memorial Foundation's 1984 Standard
for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling. For the purposes
of this section, wearing a helmet means having a helmet of good
fit fastened securely upon the head with the helmet straps; and
(b) such passenger is placed in a separate seat attached to the
bicycle and such scat shall have adequate provision for retaining
the passenger in place and for protecting the passenger from the
moving parts of the bicycle.
3. Any person who violates the provisions of subdivision two of
this section shall pay a civil fine not to exceed fifty dollars.
4. The court shall waive any fine for which a person who violates
the provision of paragraph (a) of subdivision two of this section
would be liable if such person supplies the court with proof that
between the date of violation and the appearance date for such
violation such person purchased or rented a helmet which meets
the requirements of paragraph (a) of subdivision two of this section.
Further, the court shall waive any fine for which a person who
violates the provisions of paragraph (b) of subdivision two of
this section would be liable if such person supplies the court
with proof that between the date of violation and the appearance
date for such violation such person purchased or rented a seat
which meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of subdivision two
of this section. Such waiver of fine shall not apply to a second
or subsequent conviction under paragraphs (a) of (b) of subdivision
two of this section.
Comments: The blanket prohibition against children under one year
of age is unreasonable, though the prohibition against carrying
a child in a pack is reasonable unless packs become available
which protect the passenger without potentially injuring the operator-considerably
more difficult than making a child sent to cradle and protect
an infant. The law does not address the question of trailers.
The warning on first offense and revocable fine are good. The
amount of the fine is rather large.
Two models follow which are suggested for helmet bills to avoid
serious infringements on the rights of bicyclists.
Model Helmet Bills for Child Passengers on Bicycles
Whereas the major cause of death and permanent disability in bicycle
accidents is head injury;
Whereas helmets and child carrying devices which meet nationally
recognized standards have been demonstrated significantly to reduce
the numbers of head injuries in accidents;
Whereas many cyclists do not use the appropriate equipment;
Whereas incentives are necessary to encourage bicyclists to wear
helmets;
Therefore, be it enacted that: a) No person operating a bicycle
on a highway shall ride other than on a permanent and regular
attached seat.
b) No person operating a bicycle on a highway shall allow anyone
four years old or younger, weighing 40 pounds or less, to ride
as a passenger on the bicycle, other than in a seat which shall
adequately retain the passenger in place, and protect the passenger
from the bicycle's moving parts; or else astride a regular seat
of a tandem bicycle.
c) No person operating a bicycle on a highway shall transport
a passenger as defined in (b) who is not wearing a helmet of good
fit, fastened securely and meeting ANSI Z90.4 or subsequent bicycle
helmet standards, or the Snell Memorial Foundation's 1984 Standard
for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling or subsequent standard,
unless the passenger is in an enclosed trailer or other device
which meets or exceeds current nationally recognized standards
of design and manufacture for the protection of the passenger's
head from impacts in an accident without the need for a helmet.
d) A passenger exceeding 40 pounds or four years of age may only
ride astride a regular seat of a tandem bicycle or in a trailer
or other device towed by the bicycle.
e) The first violation of (b), (c), (d) or (e) shall be dismissed
if the person charged submits proof that a equipment meeting the
standards in (b), (c) or (d) has been acquired for use by the
passenger. Otherwise, any violation of (b), (c), (d) or (e) is
punishable by fine, including all costs, of not more than $20.
Failure to observe the provisions of sections (b) through (d)
shall not be admissible as evidence of negligence in a court of
law. g) The provisions of this bill shall become effective six
months from the date of its enactment.
~ Provision fl is included only for those few states retaining
the rule of contributory negligence.
Model Helmet Bill - All Ages
Whereas the major cause of death and permanent disability in bicycle
accidents is head injury;
Whereas helmets and child carrying devices
which meet nationally recognized standards have been demonstrated
significantly to reduce the numbers of head injuries in accidents;
Whereas many cyclists do not use the appropriate equipment;
Whereas incentives are necessary to encourage bicyclists to wear
helmets;
Therefore, be it enacted that:
a) No person operating a bicycle on a highway shall ride other
than on a permanent and regular attached seat.
b) Every person operating a bicycle on a highway shall wear a
helmet of good fit, fastened securely and meeting ANSI Z90.4 or
subsequent bicycle helmet standards, or the Snell Memorial Foundation's
1984Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling or subsequent
standard.
c) No person operating a bicycle on a highway shall allow anyone
four years old or younger, weighing 40 pounds or less, to ride
as a passenger on the bicycle, other than in a seat which shall
adequately retain the passenger in place, and protect the passenger
from the bicycle's moving parts; or else astride a regular scat
of a tandem bicycle.
d) No person operating a bicycle on a highway shall allow anyone
to ride as a passenger unless the passenger is wearing a helmet
as defined in (b) or else is in an enclosed trailer or other device
which meets or exceeds current nationally recognized standards
of design and manufacture for the protection of the passenger's
head from impacts in an accident without the need for a helmet.
e) The first violation of (b), (c), or (d) shall be dismissed
if the person charged submits proof that equipment meeting the
standards in (b), (c) or d) has been acquired for use by the operator
or passenger. Otherwise, any violation of (c), (d) or (e) is punishable
by fine, including all costs, of not more than $20.
~ Failure to observe the provisions of sections (b) through (d)
shall not be admissible as evidence of negligence in a court of
law. g) The provisions of this bill shall become effective six
months from the date of its enactment.
~ Provision f) is included only for those few states retaining
the rule of contributory negligence.
This position paper was developed by the League's Helmet Law Task
Force, chaired by Marc Weiss, with major contributions from John
Allen, Michael Gessel, and Anne Markham. For further information,
contact the League's Government Relations Director, Anne Markham,
at the League's National Office. [Note: The Government Relations
Director in 1997 is Alan Greenberg, labdc@aol.com to reflect his
office address in Washington, DC. (202) 462-8376.]
This paper has been prepared by the League of American Wheelmen
for its State Legislative Representatives (SLRs) to assure that
mandatory helmet laws enacted by state legislatures will not have
unintended side effects which unduly restrict the rights of bicyclists.
This paper can also be helpful to advocates of bicyclists' rights
on the local level, as well as to children's safety advocates
who are concerned about safe bicycling.
Reprinted with permission of the League of American Bicyclists.
The League's Web page has lots of good info, but not this paper.
This page was last revised on: August 22, 2006.
Contact us.
|