Bicycling is a popular mode of transportation and an important source of physical activity for many individuals across the U.S. As the number of bicyclists continues to increase, there are concerns about a concomitant increase in bicycle-related injuries and fatalities. Data from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System indicate that 835 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 2016, which represents a small (1%) increase from 2015 and the highest number of deaths since 1991.1
In addition to laws enforcing vehicle speed, minimum passing distance laws for cars, and installing protected bicycle lanes and cycle tracks to prevent crashes from occurring, bicycle helmets are promoted to reduce the risk of head injury and death when a crash occurs. Helmets have been estimated to reduce the odds of head injury when a crash occurs by up to 50%; however, many bicyclists choose not to wear helmets.Reference Elvik2
Evidence supports the impact of bicycle helmet use laws in increasing helmet use rates.Reference Dennis, Potter, Ramsay, Zarychanski, Meehan, Lee, Fischer, Mannix, Debnath, Haworth, Schramm, Williamson and McDermott3 As of January 1, 2018, 21 states and the District of Columbia have bicycle helmet use laws applying to youth riders (variously defined, but typically those under age 16). However, no U.S. state has a law that covers riders of all ages.
Local ordinances in some states require bicyclists of all ages to wear helmets. All-age bicycle helmet laws are controversial and may be opposed by some who argue that forcing cyclists to wear helmets does not make them safer, shifts the responsibility for safety from the transportation system to the individual rider, and reduces bicycle ridership. There is also a concern by some advocates that all-age bicycle helmet laws are not clearly formulated, and are poorly implemented and enforced.Reference Rissel and Wen4
Understanding the elements of all-age helmet ordinances is important to appreciate the potential impacts of these ordinances and ultimately to evaluate their effects on both safety and ridership. Likely due to the difficulty in conducting legal research at the local level, no prior study has assembled and analyzed all-age bicycle helmet laws.
Methods
We sought to identify U.S. localities with all-age bicycle helmet laws and to abstract elements of those laws. We began with a preliminary list of municipalities with all-age (i.e., universal) bicycle helmet ordinances obtained from the Bicycle Safety Institute and the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation.Reference Hugh5 The municipal codes of localities identified on the list as having all-age laws were searched for the all-age ordinance via online sources such as the locality's website or other source of their online municipal code such as Municode Library, Code Publishing, and eCode 360.6 Localities without a town website or online municipal code were called or emailed to obtain the text of the ordinance. The municipal codes of the fifty most populous U.S. cities according to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010 were separately searched for all-rider helmet ordinances or regulations.
Table 1. Local All-Age Bicycle Helmet Ordinances in the U.S.
1 Aberdeen, WA has a program to raise awareness of helmets and to subsidize helmets for “low-income families.” Designed by police and other agencies.
2 Aberdeen, WA ordinance allowed penalties starting 1/1/2001 but citations could begin 1/1/2000.
3 Auburn, WA increases the penalty to a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment for no more than 90 days if violations are repeated three separate times in the same place.
4 Bainbridge Island, WA empowers police to work with public and private partnerships to educate people on the ordinance.
5 Bainbridge Island, WA allows exemptions with a doctor note that the helmet would be harmful to health.
6 Bremerton, WA has a program to pass out information about ordinance at races.
7 Creve Couer, MO defines helmet standards for passengers, but not for drivers.
8 DuPont, WA does (only if under 16).
9 Eatonville, WA provides educational information available at the police station, encourages information where bikes and helmets are sold.
10 Fircrest, WA provides informational materials, as do places where bike helmets are sold.
11 Fircrest, WA penalty can be reduced to $25 with proof of purchase of helmet and no other violations in the year.
12 Gig Harbor, WA has information at police stations, encourages sellers and lenders to have information about helmets and ordinance.
13 In Grantwood Village, MO only parents are able to waive fine for their minors with proof of helmet.
14 Greenburgh, NY states not wearing helmets cannot be used as contributory negligence or have an assumption of risk.
15 Greenburgh, NY allows for the penalty to be waived for economic hardship and if helmet not provided in the free helmet program.
16 Jackson, MS exempts residential cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets.
17 Jackson, MS has a free helmet program outside of the locality.
18 King County, WA is a health department regulation instead of a local ordinance.
19 King County, WA limits liability for police officers or government employees.
20 Lakewood, WA notes that bike shops (or businesses that lease bikes) must provide info and rent helmets to those that do not have one. Info must be included in rental paperwork. Info at City Hall encourages those that sell bikes to provide info.
21 Olivette, MO increases fine for subsequent offenses in a 12-month period: $200 for the first, $275 for the second, $350 for third, and $450 for any other violations. Further, if under 18, bikes can be impounded until parents claim them.
22 Pierce County, WA encourages bike sellers to provide information on ordinance, information about safety at Parks and Recreation.
23 Port Angeles, WA notes the City manager can create awareness campaign and work with businesses to provide subsidized helmets.
24 Port Angeles, WA does not make penalties effective until 1/1/94.
25 Puyallup, WA encourages bike sellers to provide information on helmet use and other safety topics at police and fire departments.
26 Renton, WA requires police and fire departments to make information available.
27 Seatac, WA does not apply to those younger than 1.
28 Shaker Heights, OH does not apply to those younger than 5.
29 Shaker Heights, OH suggests police department and health department work together for educational programs.
30 Spokane, WA encourages bike stores to carry information. Information at health department and police department.
31 In Starkville, MS only parents are able to waive fine for their minors with proof of helmet for first time offenses with proof of helmet purchase.
32 Steilacoom, WA just notes “riding a bicycle” and does not explicitly note passengers.
33 Steilacoom, WA allows for waiving the first offense after purchasing a helmet and then discretion in waive, reduce, or delay offenses that happen greater than one year apart.
34 Tacoma, WA provides information about the helmet at fire stations and police departments and encourages sellers to offer information.
35 Vancouver, WA encourages sellers to provide helmet information.
* Helmet specs refers to whether the ordinance clarifies what qualifies as a helmet.
† Use in civil case refers to the town or its agents are not able to be held responsible for cyclists not wearing their helmets.
‡ Bike Renter Rules refers to the ordinance puts some responsibility on individual/stores that rent bicycles. Can include providing helmets or information about the law.
§ Dates provided in the ordinance were recorded as enactment date unless specified as effective date.
** No Town Liability refers to when the town cannot be held liable for any failure of an individual to comply with the ordinance.
†† Proof of helmet purchase must happen within a set number of days after the offense or before trial.
‡‡ Helmet sellers are only permitted to sell helmets that adhere to certain standards.
§§ Specifies only the first offense is able to be waived with proof of helmet.
*** Penalty can be waived with completion of a class instead of purchasing a helmet.
††† Allows for community service to be reimbursed at minimum wage to pay for fine if unable to afford fine.
‡‡‡ Driver responsibility to ensure passengers wear helmets.
§§§ Date is implied but not written as part of ordinance.
**** Requires one year between violations for the offense to be waived.
†††† Does not only apply to first time offense.
‡‡‡‡ Kids under 17 can have their bike impounded for ≤ 5 days.
After obtaining the text of the ordinances, we abstracted elements of the ordinances deemed salient. These were: 1) effective and enactment dates, 2) places where the ordinance applied, 3) who must wear a helmet, 4) definitions of helmet specifications, 5) rules imposed on renters, 6) ways to promote helmet use, 7) parental responsibility for helmet use, 8) penalties for violations, and 9) options for waiving penalty for violations.
Results
Of sixty-three localities preliminarily identified as having an ordinance, forty-seven ordinances representing eight states were verified and collected. The eight states are: Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Washington, and West Virginia. Four localities were unable to be reached to verify if there was an all-age ordinance. In the remaining ten local jurisdictions, we determined that either no ordinance existed or that it did not apply to bicycle riders of all ages. We have made the full text of local all-age helmet ordinances publicly available at: https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/center-for-law-and-the-publics-health/index.html. This link is the first time a repository of these laws has been made available.
Enactment and Effective Dates
We abstracted the date on which the ordinances became effective and/or were enacted. Enactment date is the date which the ordinance received final approval and the effectiveness date is the date the ordinance takes effect and enforcement of the ordinance can begin. When a separate effectiveness date was not specified, it was classified as the enactment date. These dates range from 1993-2015, with the majority happening in the 1990s to early 2000s.
Location Ordinance Applies
The ordinances were examined for the places that helmet wearing was mandatory in a locality. Understanding where an ordinance applies is important to understanding its comprehensiveness and any exceptions. Thirty-eight ordinances explicitly mentioned the helmet ordinance applied to public property. An additional two ordinances — Port Angeles, WA and Glendale, MO — expanded the applicability of the ordinance to all locations under the city's jurisdiction. Seven ordinances did not indicate a location. In practice, these ordinances likely apply to both public and private spaces. Jackson, MS specifically exempted culde-sacs and dead-end streets.
Helmet Wearers
The ordinances also specify who must wear the helmet, whether bicycle operators or all individuals on the bicycle (e.g., a passenger). In all places but Black Jack, MS and Steilacoom, WA the ordinances applied to both passengers and operators of the bicycle; however, in 25 localities, the driver is specified as responsible for ensuring that any passengers also wear helmets.
Helmet Specifications
All but one of the ordinances we identified require a bicycle helmet to meet a prescribed set of standards, such as meeting American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) voluntary industry standards, the very similar Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) mandatory government standards, and/or the Snell Foundation's somewhat more restrictive standards. Under the local ordinances, therefore, not all head coverings will qualify as approved “helmets” capable of providing adequate protection in a crash.
Rules Imposed on Renters
Twenty-four ordinances place some responsibility on bicycle renting establishments. Typically, these require that the cycling shop provide information to renters about the ordinance or require that helmets be offered for use when a bike is rented.
Ways to Promote Helmet Use
Seventeen localities specify ways the locality will increase either access to helmets or increase use of helmets more generally. Typical examples included in the ordinances are educational campaigns about the existence of the ordinance or the importance of wearing helmets (e.g., Gig Harbor, WA), or programs to subsidize helmet use by offering discounted helmets (e.g., Aberdeen, WA).
Penalty for Violation
All but four ordinances specify penalties for not wearing helmets. These penalties range from warnings for a first offense (Bainbridge, WA) to fines not to exceed $500 and no more than ninety days in jail (Berkeley, MO). Most ordinances, however, impose a nominal fine of $25-$30.
Parents Ensure Use and Pay Fine for Violations
Sixteen ordinances hold parents explicitly responsible for paying penalties as a result of their child not wearing a bicycle helmet and/or more generally hold parents responsible for their child's helmet use (40 ordinances). The nature of that “responsibility,” beyond paying an applicable fine, is typically not specified. The applicable age of the child for whom parents remain responsible for helmet wearing varies across ordinances, ranges from under 15 years old to under 18 years old.
Option for Waiving Penalty for Violation
Thirty-six ordinances have an option to waive penalties with the purchase of the helmet, typically for either the first offense or if there has been more than a year between offenses. Some ordinances require proof of helmet purchase prior to a court date, while others mandate helmet purchase within a specific number of days to avoid the penalties associated with violation. Spokane, WA allows for completion of a class on helmet safety to waive the penalty in lieu of a helmet purchase.
Discussion
All-age bicycle helmet ordinances generally include a core set of elements, including: specifying who must wear a helmet and where; what constitutes a helmet that satisfies the ordinance; and imposing some penalty for violating the ordinance. Parents are usually responsible for ensuring their minor children wear helmets. Beyond the core elements, substantial variation among the ordinances remains.
For other localities considering an all-age bicycle helmet ordinance, information about the elements of existing laws can be very helpful. Policymakers can learn about the range of issues addressed by the ordinances and make better-informed decisions about how best to craft these laws. For example, a penalty of up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail (as in Berkeley, MO) may be acceptable in some jurisdictions but, based on our analysis, may be considered excessive in many others.
From our perspective, other best practice considerations include efforts to provide subsidized helmets for lower-income residents. The benefits of safe bicycle riding should not be limited to those who can more easily afford an approved helmet. Some studies have suggested that helmet laws have differential impacts on use by neighborhood income levels; but the findings from these studies are inconsistent.Reference Macpherson, Macarthur, To, Chipman, Wright and Parkin7 In addition, efforts to both raise awareness of the existence of the law itself, as well as to promote helmet use, are likely to improve compliance.
From our perspective, other best practice considerations include efforts to provide subsidized helmets for lower-income residents. The benefits of safe bicycle riding should not be limited to those who can more easily afford an approved helmet. Some studies have suggested that helmet laws have differential impacts on use by neighborhood income levels; but the findings from these studies are inconsistent. In addition, efforts to both raise awareness of the existence of the law itself, as well as to promote helmet use, are likely to improve compliance.
There are some limitations to this research. Unlike for state laws, there is no systematic way to identify local laws in the United States. Online legal research tools such as Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis generally do not include local laws, especially for smaller municipalities. Our review, therefore, may have missed some localities' ordinances.
Our review is the first effort to systematically identify and examine all-age helmet ordinances. Further research should empirically determine which elements of the ordinances, if any, are most effective at increasing helmet use while reducing deaths and injuries. In addition, examining how these ordinances are implemented and enforced, as well as any differential impacts by income, is critical to determining their effects on ridership as well as the likelihood that they affect helmet wearing. Understanding which localities have these laws and their elements is a first step toward conducting this research.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this study was provided by a grant from the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (grant number 1R49CE002466). The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
