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 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 2 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 3 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) Agency Section for Juris- Law Age Covered by Population Site Penalty Enforcing Legislative diction Effective Helmet Law Make-up The Law Language Austin, TX City of 05/19/96 Originally all ages, Original ordinance: City of Section Population Austin Modified then amended to ages $50 for first offense, Austin VIII A. 642,992 10/97 17 and under $100 for subsequent Police Dept. offenses. Page 108 Urban/Suburban Modified ordinance: Econom. $20 for first offense, Diverse. $40 for subsequent 54.5% white offenses. Charges can 28.4% Hispanic be dropped with proof 11.5% Black of purchase of helmet 5.6% Asian and within 30 days. other Jacksonville/ State 01/01/97 Children under 16 State Law: $15; In Duvall Section Population Duval Law, counties have the County, the VIII B. ~ 773,000 County, FL County- authority to levy an Jacksonville wide additional monetary Sheriff’s Page 114 activities penalty (i.e. Duval office County added an additional $8 for total penalty of $23.) State of MD State 10/01/95 Children under 16 No Fine. State, Section Not provided Law (one exemption: Warnings and county, city, VIII C. sections of the educational materials park police boardwalk in Ocean agencies Page 124 City, MD) State of OR State 07/01/94 Children under 16 $25 which can be Any sworn Section Not provided Law waived with proof of police officer VIII D. bicycle helmet ownership Page 141 Port City 01/01/94 All ages and $15 City Police Section Population Angeles, Penalty guardians of persons VIII E. ~ 19,000 WA Provisions under 16 Effective Page 145 Predom. mid- 01/01/95 Income, white Seymour, CT Town 07/01/98 All Riders $25 first offense Section Population Suspended (could be waived with VIII F. ~ 15,000 07/21/98 proof of helmet Repealed ownership); $100 for Page 148 Predom. mid- 09/98 subsequent offenses Income white Suburban/Rural 4 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 5 Personal stories about deaths and injuries that could