USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

1998 Florida observational motorcycle helmet use study

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
1998 Florida observational motorcycle helmet use study
Alternate Title:
Florida observational motorcycle helmet use study
Physical Description:
66, 13 leaves : charts ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, FL
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Motorcycle helmets -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Motorcyclists -- Attitudes -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Traffic safety -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Motorcycling accidents -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida ; project manager, Patricia Turner ; project team, Issam Charaibi...et al..
General Note:
"Prepared for Florida Department of Transportation."
General Note:
"In cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation"--Cover.
General Note:
"November, 1998"--Cover.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001927279
oclc - 40459560
usfldc doi - C01-00163
usfldc handle - c1.163
System ID:
SFS0032271:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1998 FLORIDA OBSERVAT IONAL MOTORCYCLE HELMET USE STUDY Prepared For Florida Department of Transportation State Sa fety Office 605 Suwanee S treet, MS 53 Tallahassee, FL 32399 (850) 4883546 S tate Safety Engineer : George E. Rice, Jr. Connie Peale Project Manager: P repared By Center for Urban Transportation Research University o f South Flori d a 4202 E. Fowle r Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, FL 33620 (813) 974 Suncom 574120 Fax (813) 974 Project Manager: Patricia Turner Issam Chraibi Tony Ferraro Chris Hagelin Daniela Issa Sloan Schang B rent Stoffle Jeff Zokovitch Project Team:

PAGE 2

The oontents of 1his report reAect the views of ohe auohor.; who are respons i ble for ohe opin i ons. findings, and conclusions presented herein The ooments do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Florida Depanment ofT ransportarion or !he U.S. Department ofT ransportarion. This repon was prepared i n oooperalion wilh ohe State of Florida Oepanmem of T ransportarion and !he U.S. Oepanment ofT ransportarion \ i

PAGE 3

TAB' F OF C0NrENrs 1. INTROOUCTION .. .. .. RESEARCH BACKGROUND ... .. . ...... .... ...... ....... .... .. ...... .. . ... ... .. .... .. .. ........ . ........... ...... .... ... 1 RESEARCH O!lJECTIVES ... .. .. ... ....... . ... . ... ... ...... ...... ... .. ........ ........ ........ ........ ................. .. 3 RESEARCHAPI'ROACH .... ..... .......... .... .. .... ..... .. .. ...... ....... .... ................ .. .. .... .... .... .. .......... .... 3 REPORT ORGANIZATION .... .... ...... .......... .... ...... .. ........ .... .... ........ .. .... .... ........... .. .. ......... ...... 4 2. LITERATURE Revlew ..... .......... .. .................................................................. ....................... ... 5 INTRODUCTION .... .. .... ....... .. .... ... .. .. .. .. ..... ........ .. .... .. .. .... ........ .. .. ............... .. .. .. .... .......... .... 5 PREVIOUS MOTORCYCLE HELMET OBsERVATIONAL STuDIES .. .... .... ..... .. ............ .. ............... 5 MOTORCYCLE HELMET lAWS AND REGULATlONS .. ........ .. ...... .. .. ...... .. .. .... .. .. ...... .. .... .... ...... 8 3. REsEARCH METHODOLOGY .... ,.. ... ..... ........... ... ..... .... ....... ..... .. .. . .. .... ... . ..... ... ...... ..................... . ... 1 1 OVERVIEW .... .... .. .. .. ............ .... .............................. .......... .... ...... .... .... ...... .... ........ .... ........ .. 1 1 SURveY SAMPLING PLAN DES IGN ......... .... .. .... ...... ........ .. .... .. ...... ...... ... .. .... ........ .... ...... .. .. . 11 STEPONE: DETERMINECOUNT1ESTOSURVEY .. .. .. ...................... .. .... .... .... ........ ...... 12 STEP TWo: DETERMINE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONAL SITES FOR EACH COUNTY .. .... 12 STEP THREE: DETERMJNE SPECIFIC SITES, DAYS, AND TlMES OF OBSERVATION .. .... .... 14 STEP FouR: DETERMINE DATA COLlECTION SCHEDULE ..... .... .......... .... .... .... .... ........ 1 4 OBSERVATIONAL SURveY INSTRUMENT DESIGN ...... .... .. .. .. .. .. ........ .......................... ........ 15 OBS ERVER TRAINING .. .... .... .... .... .......... .. .... .. .... ........ .. .... .... .. .... ................................ .... .... 16 4 SURVEYREsULT S ........................ .. .. ....... ...... .... ... ..... .... _, .. ...... ...... ........ .. ....... ... ..... .... ...... 19 INTRODUCTION .. .. ...... .. .... .... .... .... .. ........ ... .. ... .. ...... .... .... .. ...... ............ .. ......... .. .... .. .. .... .. .. 1 9 DATA ENTRY ANDSTA T IS11CALANALY$1S .... ...... .... ...... .... .... ........ ........ .... .... .. ...... .. .... ....... 1 9 SURVEY R ESULTS .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ............ ...... .. .. ...... ........ ... .. ........ .. .. ......... ........ ...... .. .... .. .. .... 20 5. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDAOONS. --. ... .............. .. ...... ...... ....... .... .... . .. .......... .... .-. ....... .... 3 1 BIBltOGRAPHY ,,_, ...... . ..... ... ........ ....... .... ......... ......... .. .. .............. . .... ,_ ..... ..... ........ .......... 33 APPEND IX A F LORID A OBSERVATIONAL MOTORCYCLE HELMET USE SURVEY SAMPUNG PLAN SUPPORTlNG DATA . u_, .................... .............................. ....... ........ -..................... 35 APPEtol1lfX 8 FLORIDA OBSERVA TlONAL MOTORCYCLE HELMET USE SURVEY FORM AND COOEBOOK .. .............. .... ,_ .. .............. ... ... ...... .................. ........ -........ .... ........ 4 2 APPENDIX C FLORID4 OBSERVATIONAL MOTORCYCLE HELM ET USE S U RveY TRAINING MATERIALS . ........ .. .. .... ..... .... ... .. ............... ........... ..... ... .... ...... .... .......... . ..... 46 APPENDIX 0 FLORID A OBSERVATIONAL MOTORCYCLE HELMET US E SURVEY FREQUENCIES ............................... ,., .... ...... .... ..... .... ....... 52 APPE N DIX E FLORIDA OBSERVAT10N4L MOTORCYCLE HELMET USE SURVEY FREQUENCIES BY COUNTY .. .... .............. ....... ,,,_, ............. ... .... .. ..... .... 59

PAGE 4

lJsT OF T.ABI FS TABLE 1. F'LORIDAMOTORCYC<.E OccUPANTS KILLED BY YEAR: 1990 1996 .... .. ........ ...... .... .... .. 2 TABLE 2 1993 FWRIDA OBSERVATIONAL HELMET SURVEY RESULTS .. .... ..... .... ... . .... .... .... .. 6 TABLE 3. 1992-1995 VIRGINIA STuDY FINDINGS ....... ... .............. ....... ........ ... .... .. ... .. .. ........... ...... 7 TABLE 4. CURREtiT MoTORCYC<.E HELMET lAW STATUS BY STATE .................. .. .. .... ..... .... ........ .. 9 TABLE 5 1998 FLORIDA MOTORCYCLE HELMET DATA COU.ECTION SCHEDULE BY COUNTY ...... 15 TABLE 6 MoTORCYClE HELMET Use SURVEY SAMPLE OBSERVATIONS BY COUNTY, 1998 ...... 20 TABLE 7 MoTORCYCL E OcCUPANT GENDER: Au OB SERVATION$ .. .......... .. .... ......... .. .... .... .. ...... 2 3 TABLE 8. MoTORCYCLE OCCUPANT HEADLIGHT USE: Au OBSERVATIONS ...... .... .... ...... .... .... ..... 23 TABLE 9 OBSERVED NOVELTY HELMET Use Bv COUNTY, 1993 AND 1998 ........ ...... .................. 25 TAB L E 10. SUMMARY Of MoTORCYCLE HELMET USE SURVEY FINDINGS, 1998: ALL MOTORCYClE OCCUPAtiTS ........ ......... ........... .......... ...... ........ ........ ........ .... ............ 31 iv

PAGE 5

LisT OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 PER 10,000 FLORIDA, 1991 -1996 ...... .. .... 2 FIGURE 2. FLORIDA COU"'TTES S ELECTED FOR H ElMET USE SURVEY, 1998 .... .... ... 13 FIGURE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF MOTORCYCLE OBSERVATIONS BY DAY O F WEEK ........ ........ .... .......... 21 FIGURE 4. D ISTRIBUTION OF MOTORCYCLE OBSERVATIONS BY TIME O F DAY .... ........ ........ .. ........... 21 FIGURE 5. ROAOWAY DISTRIBUTION OF OBSERVATIONS ..... ... ............ ........ ... .............. ...... ........... .. 22 FIGURE 6 DISTRIBUTION OF MOTORCYCLES OBSERVED: ALL MOTIORCYct.E OCCUPANTS .. .. ........ 23 FIGURE 7. D ISTRIBUTION OF MOTORCYCLE HElMETS OBSERVED .... .... .... ................ ............ .... .... 24 FIGURE 8. OBSERVED HElMET USE BY MOTORCYCLE TYPE: ALL MOTORCYCLE OCCUPANTS ...... 26 FIGURE 9 SAFETY EQUIPMENT USE SUMMARY: ALL MOTORCYCL E OCCUPANTS .......... ................ .. 28 FIGUR E 1 0. SAFETY EQUIPMENT USE SUMMARY: ALL MOTORCYCLE DRNERS ................ ...... .... .... ... 29 FIGURE 1 1. SAFETY EQUIPMENT USE SUMMARY: ALL MOTORCYCLE PASSENGERS ......................... 30 v

PAGE 6

lnboduction Research Background Riding motorcycles is a popular fonn of recreation an d IJ'anSponation. Unfortunately, motorcycle riding also has inherent dangers. Each year. motorcycle crashes claim thousands of bves and several thousand more suffer incapacitating injuries. According to the Natio.W Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2. 1 60 motorcycbsts die d in 1996 and an additio.W 56,000 suffered injuries in traffic crashes i n the United Swes. Although motorcycles represent only two percent of all registered vehicles. motorcyd ists were i nvolwd in six percetlt of all fatal crashes, three pereent of i n juty crashes, and constituted seven pereent of all incapacitating injuries (NHSTA). NHTSA's latest crash statistics indicate that per vehicle mile, motorcycfists are 16 times as l ikely as car occupants to die in a traffic crash and about 4 times as likely to suffer injuries. Many of the deaths and serious disabilities associated with motorcycle crashes result from head trauma. Several studies report that helmet use by motorcycle riders signilicandy decreases the risk of head injUty. death. and disability in the event of a crash. According to NHST A helmets sawd 490 motorcylists' bves in 1996 and if all riders had wom he!me\Ol!SEI\VATtONAI.MOTORC
PAGE 7

SOURCE: R.ORIDA.DEPAATMENT OF Hlo-twAYSA.fETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES. OFACE OF MANAGEMENT AND Pl..ANNINO. Figure 1. per 10,000 Registered Motorcycles Florida, 1991-1996 1991 1992 1993 1994 Year 1995 1996 Source: Florida Department o f Safety and Motor Vehicles, Office of Management and Planning 1996. wearing sak
PAGE 8

2.600 motorcydists suggested helmet usage may be as high as 30 percent '. In spite of the fact that Rorida law requ ires all motorcyde riders to wear protective head and eye gear that complies with DOT standards. a 1993 study found that 15 peroent of all motorcycle riders in Aorida wore helmets'. Some reasons cited for illegal helmet use were confusion over what constitutes a helmet. high costs of legal helme>s, and peroe i ved lack of enforcement. Because crash data do not differentiate between DOT compl i ant and or "novelty .. helmet use'. there is no way to de1ennin e if the use of iUegal helmets among motorcyclists has i ncreased or decreased in recent years Research Objectives I n 1997, the Florida Depattment ofT ransponation (FOOT) State Safety Office contraCted with the Center for Urban T ransponation Research (CUTR) t o conduct a second statewide observational helmet-use survey. The objectives of this research were to determine motorcycle helmec.-ose rates on Aorida roadways, and second . 10 estimate the level of novelty he l met u se among motorcycle oocupants The S1Udy findinss allow the FOOT Safety Office to monitor Statewide complianoo with Florida's helmet law and compare use rates to previous as well as fi.trure results. This is particularly imponant given strong effons t o repeal the States motorcycle helmet law in recent Legislative sessions. The research results also provide insight t o the FOOT for use in developing puboc information and education programs that promote sale motorcyclin g in Aorida. Research Approach CUTR researchers completed several actlvtnes in order to accomplish the research objectives. These activities included developing a field survey plan. training personnel for field data collection. implementing the field obsetvational survey and coOecting and analyzing the survey data. Each of these taSks are oudined below. Developmen t of Field Survey Plan. Researchers devel oped a survey plan according to NHTSA guidelines. The completion of this task required an extensive review of the literature including several obsetvational he l met surveys !Tom other states. Researchers also defined the samp l e population. ourli ned data collection procedures. developed the data colleaion instrument determined the appropriate number of field survey sites, and determined the location of each survey site. NHTSA and the FOOT project manager gave final approval to the sampling plan. 10b$erv.uiooal survey conducted by Dr. David McAnhur, Southern Calit'l:xni3. fniury Preo.ool ofPubtic Hc.kh U:. Angeles, c.5fom;.. 1996. 'Aorian T nnspott>Don Rese=h. College of eng;.-ns. uruvm;, oFSwoh Aorido. s.,...oo-, 1993. ) A ... motOtC)de helmet is a hdmet c:ertified by 3. manuf3.aurer as mtins, or exceeding Federal Mcxor Vhd on 1M bod< of the helmet. Helmecs .,..,;,g DOT aiteria haw an inner 1inins of rum polystyrene foom. usu.lly about an inch lhkk. A nooc:ornplt.an(, .. fake.'"' or "'noo.dty'" helmet does ne< meet the DOT standard, lacks tht "DOl $Ocker or has an unoffic:W one, and w-e sm3.11er i n diamet, and 1hinner than legal headgear. Novdcy helmets: typka]ly have an innet of soft foam or no lining at all.

PAGE 9

Data Collection Pee observational SUIVey sampling plan. Observations were condUCied in thirteen F lo rida cout'lties over a cvvo.-month period to document motorcyc l e helmet l"ales and to estimate novelty helmet.-use rates on Aoridi s roadways Data Analysis. In this task, researchers con\ierted data imo a compute< readable fonnat and conducted the statistical analyses. The analyses included a combinarion of descriptive and inferential statistics. Standard frequency distributions were computed and bivaliate analyses conducted using SPSS, a Standard cross-tabulation program. Finally, researchers used Microsoft Word and Excel and Micrografx Charisma to produce tables and graphs summarizing the statistical OUtput. Prepararion of Final Report. In this rask, researchers documen t ed the study ta.sks and presented the results both graphically and in writing This report conStitutes the project deliverable. Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided i nto four chapters. Chapter 2 presents the infonnarion collected during the literature review, i ncluding observarional suJVeyS conducted by othe r states, as well as Florida. and a discussion of current h elmet laws and regulalions. Chapter 3 details the research methodology, including survey sampling plan and instrument design. surveyor training. and data collection methods and scl>edule. Chapter 4 summarizes the results of the observarional surveys and presents these results graphically. The 6nal chapter includes the research conclusions and recommendations. 1 9'la R.ORIDAOSSERVAT IONAI.I".oTORCYClE HEIJ'IfT USE S URVEY 4

PAGE 10

Introduction An exten sive l iterature review vvas conducted on several relevant topics to assist with the d eve l opment of a research methodology These topics inclu ded previous obse.vario nal motorcycle helmer S
PAGE 11

non .. approved helmet$. In addition to M.lmet use. information was collected on sali!oy practices concerning the use of protective jackets pants, shoes, eyewear. and gloves The repon's complete finding:; are summarized in Table 2 Table 2. 1993 Florida Observational Helmet-Use Survey Results Observation Type Total Observed Percentage Tennessee Observational Survey of Safety Belt and Motorcycle Helmet Use,1992 The I 992 Tennessee observational survey of safety belt and motorcycle helmet use was a Slalewide survey that was administered, analyzed, and documented by the University of Tennessee's T ransponation Center for the Tennessee Oepanment of Transportation Dara were to be collected and analyzed by the UT T ransportalion Center on a yearly basis . during the la1e summer months. The sampling plan data collection techniques, and esrimalion prooedures for the survey were all developed in accordance with NHTSA's survey guidelines. The survey covered I 6 Tennessee counties and included 440 row observation sires . selected primarily acoording to road segment classification as rural or urban interstate. aneri.al. or ooUectorJlocal. The state's four largest counrie$ were chosen for double Virginia Observational Surveys of Safety Belt and Motorcycle Helmet Use, 1992-1995 Between 1992 and 1995, Virginia conducted a series of annual Sta!ewide surveys to estimate safety belt and motorcycle helmer-use rues. These surveys. performed by the Virginia Transportation Research Council were initiated to qualify the stale for incenrive funds in accordance with the req..,;remenrs of the lnrermodal Surfaoe Transportation Efficiency Acr (ISTEA). Section 1 53. By following the specified NHTSA survey guidelines. the stare received approxima1ely S 1.6 m illion in funding between 1 991 and 1993, when the funding provam was d iscontinued. The Virginia Oepanmem of T ransporwion requested that data continue t o be collected using stare funds and a subsequent survey was conducred in 1995. An identical sampling plan was used in all 4 years, and was nearly identical to that which was used in the Tennessee survey, as both conformed ro rhe same NHTSA survey guidelines All four years of the survey revealed 1998FLORJOA OBSERVAT IONAI. MOTC!
PAGE 12

ide n tical estima ti ons that the motorcycl e he lmet-u s e rare in Virginia was I 00 percroc Tabl e 3 summarizes the study find i ngs. T able 3 1992-1995 Virgini a Study Findings Number Drivers Protected Passengers Usc Year Observed Protected Rate 1992 53 4 7 6 100% 1993 236 208 28 100% 1994 105 90 15 100% 1995 247 208 39 100% SOURCE. TECHNJCAJ.ASSJSTANCE REI'OT. SAFElY est. T N-10 MOTORCYO.EHEU'1ET USE JNVJRCINJA; RESIJL TS Of THE 1992THROUGH 199S SURvEYS 6YT H E VIRCI NIA T'AANSPOP.TATION RESEAACH COUNCIL F'oelcl Observation of Helmet Usage In WISCOIISin, 1993 This s urvey c o ncept ualized and performed by th e WISconsin Oepanmem of Transportation vvas cond u cted in order t o d ecennine stateovvide average u se of protective and conspicu ity sear. As is the cose with the previous l y discussed surveys the samp l ing p l an was design in acco rdan c e with NHTSA guideli n es, and divided into two phases : I) a random sam p le of.ocunties. and 2) a random sample of road segments for a total o f I 9 counties and 3 ,000 obseMI!ions. Of all the stud ies examined, the survey form was the most usefu l for our survey i nsll\lment desien. The form collected i nformation on helmet use, other ride r sakty equi pment such as use age and gender o f th e rider and motorcycle type. Tnese elements were inocrporared into the final desien of the Aorida survey instrument form. Connecticut Observational Safety Belt and Motooqcle Helmet......, SUovey 1996 This swewide survey was sponsored by the Joint H i ehway Research Advisory Cou n cil of the Uni versity of Connecticut and the Connecticu t Depanment o f T ransporwion. The Oeparunent of Civil and Environmental Engineering ., !he University of Conn ecticut plan ned. analyz e d and administere d the s u rvey. The primary difference be
PAGE 13

Motorcycle Helmet Laws and Regulations There is no question !hal motorcycle he lmelS reduce a motorcycle rider s risk of premal\Jre death and debiJiwi:ng injury and it is no surprise that head injuries are rhe leading cause of death among motorcycl e rider>. A motorcyclist riding without a helmet is fifieen times more likely to sufl'u a head injury and fony times more likel y to d i e &om a head injury.' Although he lmets canno t protect rider> &om all typeS of bodily injuries. a recent NHTSA study s howed that motorcycle helmets are 67 percent elfective in preventing brain injuries. s According to NHTSA. helmeiS saved the lives o f more than 7,944 motorcyclists between 1 984 and 1996. Moreover. NHTSA estim if all motorcycle drivers and passenger> wore helmeiS. A University of Southem Califorrua Study tha t analyzed 3.600 motorcycle crash reporu concluded !hal helmet use was the single most important factor contributing to one's SUNival in a mototcyele crash 6 There is a tremendous social and economic bunden placed on individuals, govemments. and businesses because of the injuries and deaths that result &om motorcycle crashes. The use of helmets can h elp lower these costs NHTSA estimated that motorcycle helmet use saved $10.4 billion dollar> between 1984 and 1992. During that time, an additional $9.2 billion might have been saved if everyone involved in a motorcycle CTaSh was wearing a helmet Helmet use saved $638 million in 1996 alone The cost ofinpatient care for head injuries to those no t -..vearing helmets is approximately twice as much as lhat for helme t wearers Hospital costs for injuries suffered by unhelmeted rider> are greater and Studies show that these rider> are far less likely to have insurance.' These expenses do not begin to cover the long.-tenn costs of brain injuries. Almost every state has acted to reduce injuries. deaths. and costs associated with failure of motorcycl e riders to wear he lmeiS. Only three states in the United States (Colorado, Illinois. and Iowa) do not have some type of helmet-use legislation in effect. Among the 47 States !hal do have helmet laws, 23 of them along with the DiStrict of Columb i a and Puerto Rico. require helmet use by all motorcycle drivers and passenger>, regardless of age. Califomia and Aorida, the swes with the highest number of motorcycle fatalities. have this strict legislation in place. Helmet-use requirements in the 24 other StaleS are age-specific. with most (19) only requiring helmets on motorcycl e rider> under 1 8 year> old. Wnh an age limitalion set at 2 1 year> old. the Swe of Rhode Island has the highest age requirement while Maine. with its l imit set at 15 year>, has the lowest In addition to age limitalions; Maine, Rhode Island, and Ohio require first-year novice riders t o ride with helmetS. Texas mandates the use of helmet by all riders under 20 year> old and is the only swe that ties minimum insurance coverage and driver safuty training to helmet-use. Motorcycle riders in Texas must complete a training cour.;e 4U.S. o.p.,..em ofT rwupcnalion. N.bcnal Hi&Pw>y T ..ffic Safery AdrrunOir&lion. T ralks.li:ty F..as 1995 Wasrung Traffic S.My Admir>...-..;on. 19% Cr.m Otm:<>mc D.a EVa1wtion S,Ymm (CODES): P.epcn"' CongteSS on BenGtra!icn, Sl1w l.egi1lllive net Sheet Wash!ngwn. D C. : Na!ional Centedor Swisaa & September, 1996. 1U.S. Oepanme:nt ofT ransporwion,. Na.tionaJ H istwvay T S:J'ery Administration,. T talk $Ncty F.sett 1995 t998 Fl.ORJOAOBSERVATia-IAI.MOTORCYClf HEI.Mer USC SURVEY 8

PAGE 14

and carry a1 least $10.000 medi<:al ii'ISUBnCe to ride Table 'I summarizes the C\Jfftnt motOte)'de hefmet laws in a.ch state Tabla 4. Curntnt Motorcycle Helmet Law Status B y State Helmet Law Provisions State H e lmet use required for: Alabama. California. D C . Florida. Ceoda. New Jersey New Yott, North C&rolina. Oregoo, Pueno Rico, Tenn--. Vermont, V..p.ia. w w.,. v,..;.,;. Helmot use requX-ed oriy for. Rhodebbnd RiOOs under 21 ,....,. cl Fint )'t3T novic .. Helmet use required o nly for: Texas Ride!l under 20 )'r. Oda.wue Riders <.nder19 ,....,. cl AD othets mu5l at cany helmet Helmet use required only for: OtUo Riders unde r 1 8 )'. Ariwuas Connea iG\Jt Hawaii, Idaho. Riders under 1 8 )'. SOr. Maine Riders under IS )'OOtS cl&i< Nrc)'Cie helmet lAws. Many swes ha'lle reinswed helmet-use requirements. Since 1989, >ix swes (Oregon. Nelnsb. Texas, Cal ifum ia. and Maryland) have imple m ented full motorcycle helmet la ws. and in che first year each swe e x perienced reduction in fatality ra1es be""""" 15 per cent and 37 US.Ilepanm cnt orT ,.,.,.,....en. NaDonaJ Highw"' T raffle SoJ'ay Admi-.;on, T raiOc s.t"oty has 19% W.,h inston.D.C' 1998 R.ORII>'. 08SERVA T10NAI. MOTo;ocvcu; HELMET USE Sl>OIEY 9

PAGE 15

percetlt. Dara &om slates that have repealed and then readopted full helmet laws wholly reinforce this assertion. In the case of Louisiana. there v..oas an increase in helmet use &om about 50 percent to 96 alter the full helmet law was adopted and the fatality rate dropped 30 percent in the first year The benefits of motorcycle helmets can be easily seen and lesislation compelling the use of helmeiS has enjoyed considerable suppon. Unfortu nately, there is not a unanimous opinion on this subject. Some. vocal interest groups have Started to pressure state legisla!ures to loosen or completely repeal mandatory helme tuse laws. Florida requires all motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Florida statute 316.211. originally es1ablished in 1967. Slates that "no person shall operate or ride upon a mo 1981. t998 FLOOW. ce5ERVATIONALMOTCI
PAGE 16

Resean:h MetiiOdology Overview This chapter describes !he used to design and implement a sta!istically vali d survey for determining moto rcycle helmet-use rates in Florida Several research taSks were comple
PAGE 17

Step One: Detennine counties to be surveyed All 67 counties i n Aorida ranked ac.:ording to 1997 population estimates and the percentage that each coumy contributes to the overall state population was calcuk11ed (see Table A-I in Appendix A). Next the cumulative percentages were calculated and those counties that did not fall within the perell DVMTs fi:< an fOOds. "F"' jor intersections ... 1996 Fl..l MOTORCYCI.f HEU'IET U$1; SURVeY 12

PAGE 18

0 FIGURE 2. FLORIDA COUNTIES SELECTED FOR MOTORCYCLE HELMET USE SURVEY 1998 LEGEND I'll eoonty Double sampled (5) El Coonty Sampled (8) 199$ FI.ORJilA QeSERVA 1"10NA.I. MOTORCYCI. H EL!'IE1" L'SE SURVEY I)

PAGE 19

Based on N HTSA tables, 27 observation sites per co unty was the minimum established threshold for a ,...;stically valid sampl e for counties avero@ng 400 to SOO road segments. For counties selected for doubled sampling, !hat number was doubled Thus, for all 13 counties in the sampl e population, the num.be. r of observarion s ites totaled 486. Step Three: Detet 111ine specifi c observation sites for each county The da!a files used to select count l ocations were obtained &om the FOOT T ransponalion Statistics Office in t h e form of an Arclnfo coverage of the Aorida State H isJ'>way System and its c onn ections. This darabJise consisted of the "BasentAp" linear referen c ed roadway neiWQrl< and associated Info" anribute files ''AtcOOOO.Dat" through "Arc0082.Dat" containing data for county name, fUnctional class, tnters:ecring roacVsrreet. and aveTage daily traffic, all with respect t o roadway identification number and milepost. A merged attribute fil e was created by selecting and merging t ogether intersections on roadways in the target functional classes in the target counties that had named int ersecting publi c roads and streets as weU as n on zero traffic co u nts. This file represented the statistical ut1iverse &om which sample sites were seleaed. The main da!a fil e consisted of approximate l y 70,000 potential intersections on named public roads and StreetS on the Florida State Hishway System along with thousands of additional unnamed aUeyways, driveways, and curb-cuts The project team applied several criteria to generate a list of observation s ites within each cou nty &om the da!a file. Fir;t only intersections l ocated on named pub lic roads or streets with named aoss streets were elisible for sampGng. Second, only intersections o n roads or streets with certain functional classifications were eli g ible for sampling. Next, because the samp ling reAected eac h roadway type's contribution to DVMT for each county only roadways with reported ADT figures (&om which segment DVMT could be calcu lated) were selected (For a complete listing of roadway distributions for each county, see Tabl e A-4 in Append i x A) These criteria were app l ied to each co unty t o select the final observation sites. Final site selections in each county were close l y representative of the ratio that each roadway classification contributed to the overall DVMT. For the counties to be single samp l ed, 27 sites and 6 alternatives were randomly selected For double-sampled counties, 5"! sites Md 12 ahematives were randomly selected Ahematives were selected in case observation sires c o u l d no t be l ocated, recen t road construction had altered roadways, or if the project t eam determined the site to be dangerous in any manner. Step Four. Detet 11oine days and times for data collection and schedule Acconding to NHSTA guidelines, all days of the week and all day lisht hours should be ir\Ciuded in the random selection process. However, to increase cost-effectiveness and project efficiency, clUstering was acceptab le. Therefore, da!a collection sessions in counties tha t required travel and overnight stays were clustered between Thursday and Sunday This included the following counties: Alachua, Brevard, CoUier, Orange, and Monroe. In every case, all daylight hours, between 7 am and 8pm were available for random selection For counties not requirin g ove m ight travel. all days of the week and all hour; between 7 am and 8pm were included in random se l ection process. 1998 FLORIDA OBSERVATIONAL MOTORCYCLe HELMeT USE SURVE'f

PAGE 20

Observen """" assigned to oounties based on availabil il)' In addition, observers -Mth fiiends or family in a particular county were assigned to oonduct obserVations in those ooumies. Initially, twO were assigned to each site. However. after initial observations i.n Hillsborough and Pinellas counlies it became apparent that observations oould be made by a single observer. This, in t um, further reduced project oosts without sacrificing the qu.-lity of data collec ted. Table 5 presents the final data oollection schedule by county along with the data collection teams. Table 5. 1998 Florida Motorcycle Helmet Data Collec:tion Schedule By County County Data Collection Dates Data CollectoT Hilbborou!fh Schan &-Chra.Oi ().>de 514-5/10 Sibi 13.-ow.ro 5/ 1 2 5/18 Stoffie P=o 5112.5114.5/17 Sch-o..,g. 5114' 5117 Clnibi Palm Beach 5/19-5122 Stof& Collier 5!21-5/24 Clnibi Monroe 5/27-5130 T umeo'Stoflle Alachua 5!28-513 1 Zol=;tch Duvall 615-( i'JI Chraibi 6'J-6115 Schang a..v.ro 6118-6121 Schan SOURCE. 1998 FLOR!DAOBSERVATIQ'\W..MOTORCYCL.E USE SUR'VEY, CENTERFORURIW'I TRANSPORTAT ION. UNIVERSITY Of SO:.ITH Fl..ORJM. 001\.'{)l...rcT'ED MA. Y 2. 1998 THROUCH JUNE 21, 1m. Observational Survey Instrument Design During the design phase of the I 998 obseJVational researchers studied several previous state obseJVational SUNe)'S, including the I 993 Rorida survey instrument. The project team identified shortoomiflg< and strOng points of each prior survey and compi led a list of relevant data to include on the 1998 survey form In addition to helmet-use, the project team thai the survey fonn should gaiher information about four general C31egories: the obseJVation site session. rider demowaPhics, motorcycle type, and rider safety measures. Data oolleaed about each survey session were locarion (county and street). road classification rider travel direction. observer name, obseJvation start and end times. date. day of the week. and weather. Rider demographics observed were gender and age group. Motorcycle classifications included sport cruiser, touring, standard, and o.Voff road. A small chan was included on the oboeJVation fonn to provide \Nith visual identifiers to determine motorcycle I)'PeS. Data oollected about rider safel)' measures focused on protective gear and type of helmet wom by each rider and headligh t use Protective gear oboerved included : jackets, pants, 1 $9$ R.O RIOA08S$VATICNALMO TOR.CYClE HELMET USE SURVCV IS

PAGE 21

.shoes, gloves. and eye proe survey fonn was m.iewed a1 the observer training session and practice observation sessions ......ere conducted. survey fonn included revisions made based on the knowledge gained during the practice sessions The final version of the survey form is IOCaJed i n Appendix B Observer Training A well trained, highly motivaled observation team is viral to the success of any observational survey. h was obvious to researchers tha1 data collection for this project would prove to be especially challenging. I n mOil e the observe r would only h ave a few seconds to see and record a large amount of data A training session was held al CUTR on March 19, 1998 and anended by the CUTR principal the FDOT project manager, and student observers A grea1 deal of energy was expended on preparing and organizing the observation training session A manual was developed and used during the session to train observers on observational survey techniques an d data colledion procedunes. In addition, the manual contained information on helmet typeS, n ovelty helmeiS, motorcycle rypes, and other riding safety gear The training session was divided into three sedions: (See Append i x C for examples of uaining materials.) Section I: Helmets and Safely Gear Section 2 : Observational Survey Instructions Section 3 : Plan and Site Seledion The training session began with an overview of the project. The purpose and goals of the project were discussed along with an explanation of the funding sources and how the data collected would be used. Sedion I of the training session focused on identifYing diiferent rypes of he l mets, and specifically, the differences between DOT-approved helmets and "novelty" h elm ets. Printed documents reviewed included those ITem NHTSA. the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. and Bell Helmets The Motorcycle Safely Foundation's "Riding Gear for the Motorcyclists was used to other safety gear such as eye protection, gloves, and riding clothes. To become more familiar with legal and illegal helmets, observers watched two videotapeS. The first video filmed a1 Bike Week i n Dayton a, Aorida. by CUTR researchers, demonSU'aled th e variety of DOT-approved helmetS and novehy helmets used by 1996 Ft..ORJOAoa5ERVATIONAL MOTORCYQ.E HELMET USE SURVEY 16

PAGE 22

motorcyclists. A second -.ideo. "Fake Helmets: Unsafe on Any Head", provided an in depth look into the different typeS of fake helme
PAGE 23

Finally, each item on the oboervarional s uNey instr'Ulnent was explained in detail. Obse.vers were instrUcted on the meaning of each data item to be collected to help ens ure data quality. For example motorcyclists wear many different typeS of footwear. but v.hic:h will be considered appropriate safety gear for thi s sUNey? Section 3 of the training session explained the sampling plan and site selection. The project team felt that it was important for obse.vers to understand the process of selecting the co unries, roads and specific i ntersections. so that they woul d no t deviate from the data collection schedule Following the training session, oboervers were divided into teams and assigned to area intersections for practice dara coUection sessions. The teams reconvened afier an hour of oboervations to provide feedback about the SUNey instrument and refine data collecrion techniques. This result ed in some minor changes to the survey instrument to improve the recording and quality of data. 1998 FLOIUDA.OBSERVATI ONALMOTORCYClE HELMET USE SUI'(IIEY 18

PAGE 24

C h apter 4 Survey Analysis Introduction The purpose of this research was to conduct a second sta1ewide survey of motorcycle helmet use in accordaoce with NHTSA's guidelines to estimate motorcycle helme t usage in Florida. Because of concerns that illegal he l met use may be on the rise in swes with uni ve"'al helmet laws, daJa w.ore also collected to estimate the level of novelty helmet use Motorcycle helmet daJa continue to be collected at the requeSt of the FOOT SafelY Office so that longitudinal daJa can be compared between yem and over a period of yem and used to monitor complian<:e with Florida's motorcycle helmet law. Baseline motorcyc l e helme< data collected in 1993 showed that 99.5 percent of all motorcyclistS in Florida used helme
PAGE 25

Survey Results Motorcycle Observations In 1998, da1a collectors observed movgh 54 51 312 63 375 15. 0 Duval' 54 52 267 103 370 14.8 Brev..td 27 26 43 1 50 2.0 Monroe 21 24 1 4 5 35 180 1.2 Pas<:o 27 26 126 1 3 139 5.6 Alachua 21 23 95 9 104 4.2 Collier 27 24 69 3 2 1 0 1 4.0 Total 486 447 2,037 461 2,498 100% NOTE: IND!CATESCOUNTYWAS DOUBLE.SAMF't.ED SOURCE, 1998 FLORID'-MOTORCYCLE H;ll'IET oesERVATIONI>L SURVEYCCIN TRANSPORTATIONPES&\RCH. UNrvERSITYOFSOIJTHR.ORIOA. TAMPA. MAY JU....,E, 199'8. Data col lectOr$ recorded several items about the observarion session o n the SUJ"\\'eY instrument such as day and rime, roadway classification, an d prevailing weather conditions. As illustrated in Figure 3 the majority (68. 4 percent) of motorcyde h elmet observations took 1998 R..ORJOAOBSEKVATIONAL MOTORCYCI..E HEI,.MEi USE SUR'vEY

PAGE 26

Figure 3. DiS1ribution of Motorcycle Observations By Day of Week 20% 19.9 10% 1; 8 12% u .. 8% 4 % Monday Tuesday Wed Thursday Friday saturday sunday Day of Week Source : Florida Obsec'vational Motorcycle He lmet Use S urvey, Center for Urban Tra0$porlalion Research. Unlvet'$lty of South F!Otida. Tampa, oood u cted May J une. 1998 Figure 4. DiS1ribution of Motorcycle Observat ions By T ime o f Day 40% 30% u :f 20% 10% 0.5 7am-9 : 59am 10am-12:6Spm 1pm..2:5tpm 3pm-$:$9pm After 7pm Time of Day Source : Florida: Ob&ervatklna l Motorcycle Hefmet Use Survey, Center for Urba n Transporta1lon Research, University of South Florida Tampa, condUCted May June, 1 998 1998 fi.CR!tl'. OllSERVAllOI'W. MO"I"Of
PAGE 27

place ThUJ>day throus)> Sunday with almost one 6fih of the observorions conducted on Saturday (19.9 percent) As shown i n Figure 4. a large number of observations occUlTed during the midday (25.4 percent) and in lhe peak PM tra""l hours (40.2 percent) on urbon principle anerials (see Figure 5). Because the survey was conducted i n May and June, the weather was quite cooperative Almost all observations took p l ace on sunny (80.6 percent) and panly cloudY days (18.4 percent). Figure 5. Roadway Distribution of Observations Roadway Type Urban Principle Arterial Urban Minor Arteri.11 Rural Prlndple Arterial 20% 40% Percent 60'11 80 % 100% Florida Observa1ional Mototeyde He'.met Use Survey, Center for Urban Transportation Rtsear c h U niversity of South F1orida. Tampa, oonduded MayJune, 1998. Other data recorded during lhe observations included information about the age and gender of drivers and passengers, type of motorcycle driven, headlis)>t use, type of helmet worn, and use of other sakly equipmen t such as eyegear jackets, gloves, pants, and shoes. Data coOected on driver and passenger age were omitted rrom the analysis d ue to the his)> degree of difficulty in estimating the age of the motorcycle occupant. As expect ed, three out of eve!)' four motorcycle occupants observed were male drivers ( see Table 7). Almost one half of the 2307 riders (46. 1 percent) observed d"'"" cruiser-type motorcycles (see Figure 6) Other popular motorcycle Styles observed i nclude touring bikes (21.2 percent). sponbikes (20 6 percent), and standard-type motorcycles (I 0.7 percent}. Furth..-. 14 percent of all rid..-s without headlights, in spite o f the faa that the law requires motorcyclists to drive wilh the headlisl>ts on at aO times (see Table 8) 1998FLORJDAO
PAGE 28

Table 7 Motorcycl e Occupant Gender. All Observations Gender No. Observed Percentage Mole 1.946 77.9% Female 541 2 1.7% UnkJlo...,n 1 1 0 .4% Total 2,498 100o/. SO'JI\CE; 1998 FLORIDAMOTORCYCI.E HELMET OIISERVATlO<'W. SIJRVEYCONDUCTED BY11-IE CENTER fOR URBAN TIW\ISFORTATIOI'IRESfARCH.UNI\'ERSITYOFSOI.ITHR.ORIDA. Figure 6. Distributio n of Motorcycles Observed: All Motorcycle Occupants SO% 4 6 1 30% 1 20'4 10% 1.2 0.2 Cruise r Touring Standard On/Off Road Other Motoroyole T ype Source: Florida Obsefvational Motorcycle Hefmet Use Survey conducted by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, U niversity Of South Florida, Tampa, MayJ une, 1998. Table 8. Motorcycle Occupant -light Use: All Obsenratiol\s Headlight Use No. Observed Percentage Yes 1662 81.6% No 29 1 14.3% UnknCYWn 84 4.1% Total 2037 100% SOURCE, 1 m R.ORIDA MOTORCYCLE HELM::o OIISERVATIONALSURVEYCONOUCTE08Y11-IECENTER FOR URBAN TAANSPORT A TION Rf'SEAACH. Uf'.'IVERSITY OF SOUTH Fl...ClRJDA. TAMPA. MAY ... JUNE:, 1998. Sumnwy !ab i es U.. bteal
PAGE 29

Motolqcle Helmet Usage Almost al l motorcycle occupants VJCre some type of helmet protection as the state-level observed usage rate for drivm; and passengers is 99.5 percent This figure remains the same as the 1 993 obse:wd state-level helmet usage rate M examination of the d.arA on the type of helmet Vv'Qm provides some interesting findings and is presented in Figure 7. Results indicate that 402 percent of motorcycle occupants observed wore novelty he lmets. This figure represents a 63 percent increase in novelty helmet use over a period (reponed as 15 percent in 1993) Among motorcyclists wearing DOT -<:em pliant helmets, over one-third of the occupants (34 .8 percent) wore open face helmets while about one-fifih of al l drivers and passeng"" (223 percent) wore full-face helmets. Weighted estimates were calculated for the use of helmets and other protective gear. (For estimates of helmet use and the use of other protective gear by occupant type, see Tables D-L D-23 and D-331 ocated in Appendix D). The state l evel estimate for novelty helmet use is 34. 8 percent. This percent is significantly less than the observed rare (40.2 percent) becattse the highestvveighted county, Dade, had one of the lowest reponed uses of novelty h elmets (20.4 percent) Although the survey did not collect infonnation about th e reasons for the i ncrease in novelty helmet use, possible exp l anations include the increased availability of novelty helmets, the reduction in cost of novelty helmets the relatively high price of DO T approved hel mets and the perceived lack of helmet law enforcement. Figure 7. Distribution of Motorcycle Helmets Observed 0.5 0.1 Full face Open face Mol:orcross Novelty None Unknown HelmetTYIM Florida Observational Mctorcyde Helmet Use SuNey Center fOI' Urban TNJnspftation Research. University of South FlOrida. Tampa, conducted May J une. t998. 21

PAGE 30

A 10lal of 12 mo1orcycle oo:upanlS were oboerved riding wi!Mv1 head protection. Thus, overal l helme1-usage rates showed 1irue variance across counties. (See Appendix E fOr a comple1e breakdown of survey resullS by counl)'). However, oboerved i ncidenoe rates for novell)' helmet use varied significandy by oounly !Tom as low as 15 pereem in Alachua 10 as rugh as 61 pereem in Duval Coumy. Other counties wilh h i gher 1han ver>SI' ( 4 0.2 percent) novelty helmet usage rates were: Volusia (54. 1 pereenl), Pasco (43.2 percen1l. Orange (41.3 percenl) and Co l l i.,.. (40.6 pereenl). For a complete breakdown of oboerved and weighted helmet-compliance rates by oounl)'. please see Table E-4 Appendix E Allhough the survey findings canno1 exp l ain whY there is such a difference counties, the low rate of compli ance i n Volusi a County may be associated vvith Daytona's Bike Week and the trends set for motorcycle culture at the event Another reason fOr the d i fferences may be related to perceived risk in congested traffic. For example. the low rate o f novell)' helmet use in Dade Counl)' may be associated with ilS high volume of lraffic, urbanization, and an increased need for mo1orcycle safel)'. Also, differences in d>e way in which police enforce motorcycle helme1 laws in the various counties may be another influential factor. A comparison of the same six counties oboerved in 1993 and 1998 show significant increases i n novell)'helmet usage rates (see Table 9) All counties experience d overall increases in !he proponion of novell)' helmets oboerved exoept for Dade Counl)', which showed a 1 3 percent reduction The highest percent increases w...e i n Duval (84.4) and Palm Beach (82. 1 percent). Table 9. Observed Novelty Helmet U se By County, 1993 and 1998 CQunty Dade Palme...:h Novelty helmet use Novelty helmet use 1993 1998 percent Cttange i.l 20,4 -13.2 IS.B 50.6 6.1 4 .. When driver and passenger data are analyzed separately, resuhs show thar the rate for r10vell)' helmet use is higher among passengers than drivers (47 1 percent versus 38.6 percent, respectively). One poosible explanation for this d i fference is tha1 the second helme1 carried on mOtorcycles may be c heaper, l ess expensive novell)' helmelS insread of !he more expensive DOT -<:ompliant helme1. Anomer reason for h i gher novel!)' helmet use among passengers may be related to motorcycle l)'pe and gender which is discussed under the corresponding section Helmet Use By Motorcycle Type The lYPO of helmet mo10rcydiru choose t o wear may be relared t o the IYPO of motorcycle they drive As shown in Figure 8 almost 90 percent of the motorcycle occupanlS who rode sportbikes vvore full-faoe helmelS. MotorcycliSlS riding touring Sl)'le bikes tend to wear open 199& FLORID.4. OSSERVATIO.'lAI.. MOTORCVClf HELMET USE SUR\IFf 2S

PAGE 31

face helmets (76 percent ) while those that drive standard bikes wear bo th full face and open face helmets (42 percent and 44 respectively.) S urvey results indica1e thai novelty h elme t use is typically associate d with cruiser style mo t orcycles (Harley Davidson manufactu red the m ajority of cruiser -Sl)lle motorcycles observed). DOT-approved helmet com p l iance by motorcycle oocopants on cruiser< was only 29.1 percent, compared to 97.6 percent compliance for sportbike riders. 95.8 perce n t comp l iance fOr orv'off road motorcycle rider<, 86. 7 percent c ompl iance fOr standard mo torcyc l e rider<, and 78.7 perc ent compliance fOr riders of touring mot orcycles. Of al l novelty helmets observed. 83. 8 pe rcent were assoc iated with driver< of cruiser-type motorcycles Moreover. almost three-fourths of all passengers (73.7 percent) wearing novelty helmets were riding o n the back of cruiser .. type motorcycles. Because there is such a high rate of novelty helmet use among occupants of cruiser -type mot orcycles (70.9 percent). it may warrant further StUdies to determine why compl i ance rates are considerably lower compared to riders of other motorcycle typeS. F igure 8. Observed Helmet Use By Motorcycle Type: All Motorcycle Occupants 87 Sportbike Cruiser Touring Motorcycle Ty,. lac e Open lace R Motorcross !liiiN..,.Ity 0None On/Off Road Source: Florida ObservatiOnal Motorcycl e Helmet Use Survey, cente r tor Urban Transportation Untversity of South Florida Tampa, conducted Ma y -June, 1998. Helmet Use By Genclel' Some of the more i n teresting findinBS from the survey involved the relationship between gender and novelty helme< use Some may assome thai fe male mo
PAGE 32

passengers exhibited similar trends. AlmOSI one-half of all female passengers (48.1 percent) wore novelty h elmets. Among those female passengers wearing novelty helmets. 7 4 .I percent were passengers on cruiser type motorcycles. The reason for lower helmec complianoe rates among female drivers, especially when with motorcycles, is not clear. Again, because the survey did not examine motivations for novelty hel met use among male and female ride rs perhaps these findings warrant funher investigation. Safety Equipment Use Figures 9 I I contain summaries of observed safety equipmen t use for mo t orcycle occupants drivers only and passengers only. In addition to results on helmet and headlight use, informatio n is presented on the use of eye gear, jackets. pants and shoes There were few changes regarding the use of other protective safety gear when compared to the 1993 survey findings. Although the use of protective eye gear is mandatory. observed rates of use fell &om 97.2 percent i n 1 993 to 93 peroent in 1 998. G love use also dropped &om 19. I percent to I 6. I percent More were observed wearing long pants (77.2 percent compared to 72.9 percent in I 993) and the use of appropriate footwear increased slightly ITom 92.6 percent to 93. I percent. Jacket use could not be compared because the I 993 survey design induded long-sleeve shins in this category. Among motorcycle drivers and passengers, the greatest varianoe in the use of other protective gear is seen in glove and pant use. Drivers are much more bkely to wear long pants compared to passengers (82.9 percent vs 52.1 percent) as vveU as gloves (19.4 percent vs. I .5 percent). As wth helmet use. the use of other protective safety gear may be related to gender as 92.4 percen t of all passengers were female Survey results regprding d emographic i nformation, helmet use by motorcycle type, helmet use rates, headlight use, and use of other safety equipment for each county are summarized in Figures E-1 through E-13 in Appendix E. 1998 FLORJDAOBSEF:VA110NAL MOTORCYCLE HElMET USE SURVEY 21

PAGE 33

Figure 9. Safety Equipment Use Summary: All Motorcycle Occupants Non-compliant C0.2% Unknown No helmet 0 1V, 0 .5% Helmet Use Compli
PAGE 34

F i gure 10. 5afety Equipment Use Summary: All Motorcycle Drivers Non-compliant 38.6% No 89.9o/ Unknown No helmet 0.1% 0 .6% CompUant 60.7% Helmet Use No s.ao;, Unknown 0.2"!. Yes 93% Eye Gear Use y .. 10.1'.4 No 17. 1% Jacket Use Yes 82.9' / Pant Use y .. 81.6% No 80.6Y, No 14.3% Unknown 4.1% Headlight Use Glove Use No 6.6Y. Yes 19A% Yes 93A% Shoe Use Source: Florida Obse:Mllional Motorcycle Helmet U se S urvey Center for Urban Tran sportation Research, 01 SUlh Florida Tampa, conducted MayJune, 1 996 1998 R.ORIDAOSSERVATlOf\W.. MOTORCYCLE HElMET USE SUR.\'ef

PAGE 35

Figure 11 Safety Equipment Use Summary : All Motorcycle Passengers Non-compll.ant 47.1% Unknown 0.2'4 H elmet Use Compliant 52. 7 % No Unknown 93.7% Jacket Use 1.3 % 0.7% Yes 93V. Eye Gear Use Yes 52.1% Pant Use YU 81 .6% No 47.9% No IU% Unkno'lm 4.1% Headlight Use No 98.5% Yes 1 5 % Glove Use No U % Yes t1. 5% Shoe Use : of Sooth Florida 1998 FI.ORJCIAOI!SERVATICffi!. MOTC>J\CYCUO HELMET USE S U!MY

PAGE 36

Chapter 5 Conclusions & The 1998 R ori d a ob seJValional motorcycle helmet-use survey produ ced many significant findings c oncerning helmet use thai will be of in t erest to the Rorida Department o f T ransporwion safety advocates. and leaislatiw represenwives A summaty of the major fin ding are contai n ed i n Table I 0. Overall. 99.5 percent of all wore he lmeiS. However, as the sommal)l results the last fiv e years have seen a dramati c increase in the use of no n DOTapproved, or n ove lty he lmeos. As i n dicated in Table I 0 the projected Stale-leve l we;ght e d c ompliance ra1e i s 64.6 percent with a standard error of +/ 1.58 percent Although almost all mo 234 1.003 1 5 0 Weatin2 PfQ(cction 1 .51 5 2.324 972 WeMin2 shoes 1.444 2.325 92 6 We.vin& long 1.152 1.929 72. 9 We.>ring ;.dee 392 .. 235 25.1 Weari .... 298 402 19. 1 Total 1,559 2,498 NOTES: "VYElGHTED EST"IM>\TESW'ERE FOR HElMET USE. -JA0I.MOTORCYCL.E HELI'\ET oesERVATIONAL Ill' THE CNTER FOR UR&
PAGE 37

novehy helmet use on head-injuries and medical cos1S and 10 determine wlw factors may have contributed to t h e increase A significam survey finding is thai 1 h e type of he lmet used may be 1 0 the type of mo1orcycle driven and the gende r of drivers and passengers. Thi s sA08SIORVATIONALMOT O!\O'Cl.E HElMCT' USE SU\VEY

PAGE 38

Bibliography Mem>nian S Sala!lOOn, 28 193-200 D..-.: C. E., Owens J C, &-Krone S. (1979 Octobe r ) Effect of motorcycle safioty helmet use on injuty loca!ion and s""'rity : before-and-after helmet law repeal in Colorado. Gabell a B .. Reiner K L., Hoffinan RE .. &-Cook M ( 1 993, November). Relarionship of helmet ose and among moton:)'Cie crash viaims i n El Paso County, Colorado, 19891 990 (371h anl'lual proceedings for association for the advancement of automotive med;cine. San Antonio, Texas} .. Glamser, D. ( 1996, JantJal)>'i'ebnlary), Hardheaded fat:ts about motorcycle he lmoo. Traffic s..t'et,Y-12-15. Global Exchange, Inc.. &-Public Communi=ion Resouroes, Inc. ( 1994, lllh) Motacydealcohol focusgroups,J u lyS 27. 1 994 repon) Kim K .. &-W.lley M R (1991). Improving motorcycle safety in Hawaii : based on a swvey of motorcycle owners operuors T ranspona00n Rese&n:h 62-QS. Kraus J F., Peek C., &-Wd lianl$ A. (1995, Januaty)., Compliance vvith lhe 1992 California. moo
PAGE 39

Lund K A. Williams AF. & Womad< K N. (1991). Motorcycle helmet use in Texas Public Ht..!thReporrs 106.576-578 Mannenng F. L & Grods!ecing and heanng. ond Prevendon, 27. I. National Highwa y Traffic s.fety Administra!ion (1996. Februruy). Benefits of safety belts and motorcycle helmets [Report to Congress]. Peek-Asa C. & Kraus J. F (1996). Injuries sustained by motorcycle riders i n the approaching t u m crash ooofiguta1i on. Accident ond Prevendon, 28, 561-569. Preusser D F .. Wdliams A F & Ulmer R C (1995). off.ual motorcycle crashes : crash typing. Acobetg R M.ier R.. & KoepseU T. (1996, Januruy). Moc:Oc"C}'cle helmet u.se and injury ou t come and hospiWiz.ati on costs &om crashes in Washington state. Amenean Jcurr..J ofPublic He..lth 68, 4 1-45. Rudedge R., & Srutts J. (1993). The associ01ion of helmet use with the otllcome of motorcycle crash injury when con. Jourr..J of thcA!neri<= Swistia/ Assccidon. 87, 48-56. WISCOnsin Depanmem of T ranspottation. & W""""'in Survey Research Lab of University of WlSCO!lSin-Madison (1993. May 1 7th). Field ofhelmet usage i n WIS(X)flSin. 199SR.ORJDA08SERVATIONALMOTCR.CYCLE HElMET SURVeY

PAGE 40

Appendix A Florida Observationall'llotor'cycle Helmet Survey Sampling Plan Supporting Data

PAGE 41

Table A-1. Florida Population and Daily Vehic:le Miles Traveled (DVMT) By County %of Cum. 0/o 0/o of Pop County State of State State Rank County Pop. State Pop. Pop. Pop. Co. DVMT DVMT I D.O.. 2070573 14712922 14.073 14.073 24112.0 10.428 2 ll>w..-d 1423729 14712922 9 .677 23.750 2 1 164.4 9.154 3 PoJme..dl 1003798 14712922 6.823 30.573 14000.3 6 .055 4 Hilbbol 741508 14712922 5 .040 53.423 15201.8 6.575 8 Polk 459010 14712922 3.120 56.543 7656.9 3.312 9 S..V..-d 458035 1 4712922 3.113 59.656 8039. 9 3 .477 10 Volusia. 4 13668 1 4712922 2 .812 62.468 7403.7 3202 II L
PAGE 42

""" PoPIJI.AT!ONS'J\.OS", NC>. 2 &.uE11N 120, UNMRSfTYOf OloJLYVEHn.E MilES OF Reolrr 1 997. )7

PAGE 43

T a ble A-2. Flo rida P opulation and Daily V ehicle Miles Trave led By Registered Moton:yclos Motorcycle Pop. FL Reg. '%. Reg. Rank Rank County Co. Pop. Po p Co. DVMT % DVMT MC MC I I D>de 2070573 14.073 24112.0 10.428 18279 8.977% 2 2 Browa.d H23729 9 .017 21164.4 9.154 16600 8.15:3% 3 10 VoluN. 4 13668 2 8 1 2 7403.7 3.202 13599 6 .679% 4 5 Pinelle.s 888141 6 .036 8502.3 3.677 13077 6.423% 5 3 Palm &am 1003798 6 .823 1 40003 6 .055 12260 6 .021% 6 6 Oran'"' 8036 1 4 5 .462 13438. 7 5 8 1 2 10217 5.018% 7 4 H;!ls 928731 6312 14616.8 6.322 9972 4.898% 8 7 Dvvol 741508 5 .040 15201.8 6.57 5 8753 4.299% 9 9 S..Va.d 458035 3 113 8039. 9 3.477 8626 4.237% 1 0 34 Maln:>e 84743 0 .576 2283.5 0 .988 7 183 3.528% I I I I 1,.., 394244 2 .680 4 1 01.5 1.774 6440 3.163% 1 2 12 s..mnote 337498 2.294 3981.9 1.722 5783 2 .840% 1 3 8 Poll< 4 59010 3 1 20 7656. 9 3.312 5765 2.831 % 1 4 1 3 P...:o 3 15785 2.146 3867.2 1.672 5248 2.577% 1 5 14 s.,.,.,.. 311043 2 .114 4155.2 1.791 49% 2.454% 16 17 Marion 237204 1.612 4262. 8 1.843 3697 1.816% 1 7 19 Alachua 208125 1.415 4502.3 1.947 3471 1.708% 1 8 1 6 Marwee 2 4 1422 1.641 36'24.3 1.567 3293 1.6 17% 1 9 1 5 E.,.,t;,. 291135 !.979 4511.0 1.950 3204 1.574% 20 2 1 Lal. 53684 0365 2228.4 489

PAGE 44

f'oM.A'TlCI-4 S"l'\11)$", VoJ..to'E )I. No, 2. tii..A.l.ET1N ) 2(), 1998. DAl,. Y\11:!-HQ.E MI!ESCFTPA-..Q. FWRES Flt.OM Ft..c:::i&tO\ OF srAnsncs CffiCf: P.eoi\T t : ;\U Rf\-91l.E Pa'ORT. J997.

PAGE 45

Table A-3. Sample P o pul ation of Counties fo r Random Selection Process Motor-cycle Pop. %FL Co. % Reg. Reg. CumMC Rank Rank County Co. Pop. Pop. DVMT DVMT MC MC% I I O>de 2070573 1 4 .073 24112. 0 10.428 18279 I O .OS7% 10.057% 2 2 Browazd 1423729 9 .677 2 1 164. 4 9 154 16600 9 .133% 1 9.190% 3 10 Volusia 413668 2 .812 7403. 7 3.202 13599 7 .482% 26.673% 4 5 Plnelw 88814 1 6 .036 8502.3 3.677 13077 7.195% 33.868% 5 3 Polm Be.ch 1003798 6.823 14000.3 6.055 12260 6 7 45% 40.613% 6 6 00361 4 5.462 13438.7 5.812 10217 5 .621% 46.234% 7 4 Ho]ll>=uoh 928731 6.312 14616. 8 6.322 9972 5 .487% 51.721 % 8 1 Duv.l 741508 5.040 15201.8 6.$75 8753 4.816% 56537% 9 9 Brevatd 458035 3 1 1 3 8039. 9 3 .477 8626 4.746% 6 1283% 10 3 4 Moncoc 84743 0.576 2283.5 0 988 7 183 3 .952% 6 5.235% I I I I Lee. 394244 2.680 4101.5 1.774 6440 3.543% 68.778% 12 1 2 Seminole 337498 2.294 3981.9 1.722 5783 3 .182% 71.960% 13 8 Pdk 459010 3.120 7656.9 3312 5765 3 1n% 75.132% 4 1 3 Pssoo 3 15785 2 .146 3867.2 1.672 5248 2 .887% 7 8 0 19% I S 1 4 s......, .. 3 1043 2 1 1 4 4155.2 1.797 4996 2 .749% 80.768% 1 6 17 Marioo 237204 1.61 2 4262. 8 1.843 3697 2 .034% 82.802% 17 1 9 A!.<:hw. 208125 1.41 5 4502.3 1.947 3477 1.913% 84. 715% 1 8 1 6 M., .... 241422 1.641 3624.3 1.567 3 293 1.8 12% 86.527% 1 9 IS Escambia 291135 1.979 4 5 11.0 1.950 3204 1.763% 88290% 20 2 1 We 188331 1 280 33793 1.462 3149 1.733% 90.023% 2 1 23 Okalcosa 1 7 1038 1.163 3 169. 9 1.371 3095 1.703% 91.726% 22 20 Ccllier 200024 1.360 2395. 4 1.036 2943 1.619% 93.345% 23 2 2 S.. Lucie 179133 1 218 3119.0 1.349 2817 1.550% 94.895% 24 24 &y 144584 0.983 2350.1 1.01 6 2 5 1 8 1.385% 96.280% 25 29 M..tn 116359 0 .791 29385 1271 241 1 1.327% 97.607% 26 26 Clwf<>tte 131307 0.892 1704.1 0.737 2227 1225 % 98.832% 27 18 L:cn 227714 1.548 3217.8 1.392 2123 1.168% 100.000% T o tal 12.970.49G 191,701 181,752 1 00%

PAGE 46

1' ble A-4 Selected Cocmti & N b of SU #of Survey UPA County Sites DVMT Dade 54 18778.3 ilnroc 27 950.6 Pasco 27 1889.8 AJw.... 27 1502. 7 Ccllier 27 856.5 Tota l 486 101 ,090 NoTes: UPA = UVNF'NN::lP..SARTefll.4L UM.o\ UP.MN MNoftAATtN.aL. UMA DVMT 3843.7 2864. 1 295 19082 1582.3 1867. 8 903.5 2877.1 479.6 16.6 88.1 409.3 197.7 17,333 Sit B R adwa F ti nal Cl ificati RPA DVMT Total %UPA '% UMA %RPA 1413 24035 78% 16% 6% 520 20954. 9 84% 14% 2% 2818.8 7 175. 6 57% 4% 39% 0 84802 77% 23% 0% 1187.1 13440. I 79% 12% 9% 1 3 1 I 13329.7 76% 14% 10% 20332 14608.4 80% 6% 14% 614.8 1 5134 77% 19% 4% 2562 7813. 8 61% 6% 33% 1316.4 2283. 6 42% 1% 58% 1864. 7 3842.6 49% 2% 49% 2 1562 4068.2 37% 10% 53% I 128.4 2182.6 39% 9% 52% 18,926 131,349 74%(avg) 13%(avg) 14%(avg) SouRCE: RomCa..Asstf'le:A"OON FIGI..lfaRIOM FOO T S'TA TlSTtCS QCflCf. STA'Il! HICHWAY S'm"EM F.Uofrr I: AU. RoAQS. 0CEMBER.31. 1997. 4 1

PAGE 47

AppendixB Florida Observational Motor'qcle Helmet Use Survey Form & Codebook

PAGE 48

(JiWir..'fi11WD!SJ Slto I DB OS OW( ObKI"''t l Namo(S): @ St.an Trmc: (ZJ E n d Till)f( 1 DAM CPM O AM O I'M """ [! DAy: O M 01\i OW OTh OF OS \@ S41c (C....,) (SO<') (Sind. HIIIM) ll016Cills!nc.uon: ----------l)l r:llon ofTravd tking Ob$C:rvcd: ON Otl OS OW __ _________ Stan DAM OPM t:n d Ti!IW; OAM CJPM Dtle : ::,-:;-:::;;:--::;:;-,=" D.r. O M OTtt O W on OF 0 Sa Q$11 I : Ye\iclfi#l!Rdmet:@ini?J SJIOfl8il:t (Sa) (C) Tour-ingm Stlndud ( $) OII!'OK!Wd (OR) r tlllrn(l) Optll Fa (01 Mol ortron :-IOVtl()'("') MOTORCYCLE HELMET OB SE RVATION FORM P-Pwug.tt fill fau M Motocaou N Novdty (N"' DOT Approvtd) Nll .. No lldm<:t p a Pa;Sen.tcr nee M N .. (Nor NH .. No Htlmet P=P.U S Shoes R-li)>e p .. Pal\ 1 $ s .. SboC$ (; ""Giove.J 1 .. 16-S9 3 .. U .. Unknow n I 1 l6S9 3 ... 6() .. U Unk1 .oy,n C""'O.btt TTOUtirtc sScudurrRolld i='SJ>Otl O l k e Crulur .. ... v .. Yes N=No S>INI)' PC Patlly Cloudy Rblnirl& R Riiniq

PAGE 49

Observational I nstrument Codebook 1. Survey:# Continuous 7. Start time 2. Site Location (Countv) = Use mililary time. e g. 1-Dade 1:30pm= 13:30 18. Gear E (Ey:e 2= Broward Protection) 3=Volu sia 8. End time O=no 4= Pine llas =Use mililary time. as 1=yes 5= Pal m Beacll above 6=0range 19. Age 7= H i llsborough 9 Date 1= 0-15 8= Duva l Enter mmlddlyy 2 = 16 -59 9= Brevard 3=60+ 1 0= Monroe 10 Day: 4 = u n known 11=Pasco 1-Mon day 12= Alachua 2=Tuesday 20. Gender 1 3= Collier 3= Wednesday 1 male 4=Thursday 2= female 3. Site# 5= Friday 3=unknown = the number from 6= Saturday Co. observatio n 7=Sunday 2 1 Cycle form 1 = SB (Sp0f1 Bike) 11. Qbservation # 2= C (Cruiser) 4. Road Classification = from observation form 3= T (Touring 1 = Urban Principle 4= S (Standard) Arterial (FC 14) 1 2. Rider 5= OR (O n /off Road} 2= Urban Minor Arteria l 1 Driver 6= M (Moped/Scooter) (FC 16) 2= Passenger 7= 0 (other) 3= Rural Principle Arterial (FC 2) 1 3. Helmet 22. Ughts O n 0= No Helmet O=no 5 Direction of Travel 1= Full F ace 1=yes 1-North 2=0pen Face 2= East 3= Motorcross 23. Weather 3=South 4= Novelty 1 = C (Clear/Sunny) 4=West 5= Unknow n 2= PC ( P artly Cloudy) S=NIS 3= R (Rain i ng) S=E!W 1 4. Gear.J (Jacket) 7=all O=no 1=yes N<>te: is a passenger 6. Observers dO not fill out anything past 1S l oan 15. Gea r.P (Pants} gender 2=1ssam O=no tr no observations were 3= Chris 1=yes recorded at the ske, fill out 4 = Brent all the info and plaoe a 5= Patty 1 6. Gear-S (Shoes) zero in the observation 6= Jeff O=no number c:oturm.. 7= Sloan and lssam 1=yes 8= Chris and Jeff Come see me to get Road 17. G!!i!r-G (Gloves) Classifications K you can' O=no findlhem 1=yes If you have any other questions, don't heskate lo ask me.

PAGE 50

AppendixC Florida Observational Motorcycle Helmet Survey Training Materials

PAGE 51

TRAINING SESSION AGI!NDA I. MORNING (10AM PM) A Project O..,rview (T umu) I IM1o io. funding and how the collected dOJa will be used 2 ComporiSOfi!O previolions of correctlincorTeCt equipment and use 3. and discuss '-'"Ieos, "Bike Week" and "Fol
PAGE 52

Observational Su.vey Instructions Survey Objectives To eslimate the helmet wage for motorcycle riders in t h e SU an d passengers usi ng helmets and other variables. Observe moally call out the observations while the second makes the wri tten notation s It is highly recommended that each team bring 01 least one pair o f bino<:ulars for closer exam i nalion of the rider's helmet. Each team .....,;u be provided .....,;th a notebook containing th e appropriaJe county maps. .....,;th observation sites dearly mori should not weAT clothing that .....,;u call anention to themselves (bright colors). and should m i nimize their personal 47

PAGE 53

belonwng.s (cash, jeweby, etc.) in case of a criminal confrontation. If the observer's right to conduct this survey is challenged, he or she should very calmly explain the project's purpose and provide copies of all authorizalion lenetS (see sample enclosed in this section). If the situation escala1es, the observer should prompdy leave the observation site, and indicate this action on the observation Remember, no aspect of this survey is worth injury to your person. Observation Fonn (See following sample form for corresponding leaered and numbered sections) (A) Session 1 lnfonnation: You will notice that there is space on the form for information pertaining to t\o\10 separate sessions. A total of 6fieen observations may be made under each session heading. If an observer has more than fifieen observations at one sit e, then the information indtcat:ed under sessk>n one 'v\111 be carried over to session rwo Othervvise, this form is designed so thar the observations fi-om twO different sites may be reeorded on one sh.., of paper reducing the overal l amount of paperwork (1) County: The observer wiU enter the name of the county he or she is conducting observations. (2) Site #: The observer will enter the numerical value assigned to that site/location by the sampling plan. This will be prol.ided in advance. (3) Street/Intersection Name : The observer will enter the actual name of the street or intersection vvhere he or she is observing motorcydes. (4) Road Classification: The observer will enter the road type (principal or minor anerial), which will be prol.ided in advance. (5) Direction of Travel Being Observed: The observer will check the box corresponding to the direction(s) of travel being observed. If possible, the observer should record motorcycles traveling in both directions .., the observation site. If this is not possible (i.e. the road is too wide to observe both directions) then the observer should obserw: the side of the road mat is closest, and record the direction of traffic on the observation form. (6) Observer Name(s): All of the names of the observers participating in each session should be recorded here (7) Start Time: The observer should enter the exact start time of the session here being sure to indicate AM or PM. (8) End Time: The observer should enter the exact end rime of the session h ere, being sure to indicate AM or PM. (9) Date: The observer should enter the numerical calendar dale of the session here. (10) Day: The observer should check the corresponding day of the session here. <8

PAGE 54

(B) Session 1 Observations: It i s in this section of the form thai the actual obseNaJion data ....viii be reoorded The infonnation entered here s houl d c o rrespo n d with what i s entered under the Session I lnfonnation heading. and the same i s true for both of the session 2 sections. (11) Rider: The observer should indicate here whether he or s h e is obseNng the characteristics of a mo torcycle driver or passenger. I nformation on the driver should be recorded first, followed by the passense r and should be recorded i n succession ( If the driver is observation no I then the passenger should be observat i on no. 2}. lnformaJion on the b i k e type, headlights, and weather conditions will remain the same for the dri-and the passenger. (12 ) Helmet: The observer should indicaJe the presence and type o f the be ing used. Answering "N', fO< "novelty helmet will indicate that the rider is wearing a helmet, but one that is not DOT approved. Section (C) on the form provides a qu ick relioren ce illustration of helmet typeS and the i r OO
PAGE 55

' g\'j)2 11li!Wji ; Jif91ij Slc.t (!liGI ) (SUetCI'IMmed.ioft N JMe) -ClatsiGaben:: -----OH DB OS ow O.Krvttl\'wt(s): __ ________ Slt rt Time: End Time: -:::-:<.,-,::,;;,--0/I.M O P M DAM OPM Om: ;:.,:-:::::c:-: ;;;:::; Q M Q T u O W O Th OP OSil OSu Sila l..on!Jo...: ->1 (Sire f ) (SkmH.M} Aot6 ------------Oir cdlo n of1'ravcl D ti..,g Ob$cr\o4: oN DB IJS OW ObiervttNATM($}: ____ ______ Stut Time: ....,,.,.,,_=,.,... aAM o r M lid -'::';;:;CAM O l.,._t :::-:-::=-=:::-::::: 0.,.: OM OTla OW OTh OF OSa 0$1 CW"IIOtt ((:) iD 0,.11Fn To.rtns(f) 101 = ., M .. o rc-rou Slt.Wmt (S) 011JQtfJI. 6tll .. Xovci()'(N') (Oil) MOTORCY C LE HELMET OBSERV ATION I l\rlmtt P=P.U sSlooitlls S ... Shoes G .. Gloves ."'Eye Prottdion 2 S9 3 .. U .. Un.k. oown .!lciC:[ f ... FUPJe 1 c-cn.er TTow"'& f .. fema l e 0 R ., OftK>ff Ro.ad Mopc41ScooLet 16-5!) I U ... Unknown l 60+ U ... VIlknOwJl Yes N""NO SoMy PC Partly Cl
PAGE 56

To Whom It May Concern: Center for Urban Tr-Ms:portation Research University of South Florida <4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tamp> FIO<;
PAGE 57

AppendixD Florida Motorcycle Helmet Use Suovey Frequencies S2

PAGE 58

All Observations: This section includes frequencies for all mo lor<::ycl e OCCUpants observed ""''hich includes drivers and passengers Tabl e D-1. S-rd Em>r and Confidence Intervals : All Motorcycl e .Occupants Eye Helmet Compliant protection Jacket Shoe Pont Category use helmet use use usc Usc Glove use use Pen::em 99.4% 64.6% 942% 7 .7% 94.5% 122% 742% Standard errot 02% 1.6% O.a% 1.1% 1.8% 1.1% 2.5% ConJ\denoe nn....,al95% 0.3% 3.1% 1.5% 22% 3 .5% 2.1% 4 .6% Neies 541 21.7% Unl 1 1 0 .4% TGtal 2498 1 00'1. Table D-5. M otorcycle Occupant Helmet Use: All Observations Observation Type No. Observed Percentage None 12 0.5% Ful lr... 556 22.3% Open(= 870 3 4.8% MOtor c:rou 54 22% NM"' Coot DOT aoo..,.,dJ 1003 40.2% 3 0.1% Total 2498 100% S3

PAGE 59

Table D-6. Motorcycle Occupant Hel-Compliance: All Observations Compliance No. Observed Percentage No helmet 12 O.S% Comoli>n< 1\dmeo 1,480 $9.2% Non
PAGE 60

Driver Observations: This section includes frequency distribt>dozd 218 10.7% On/cJfroad 24 1.2% Othe< 5 0.2 % Total 2 037 100'4 T abla D-15. Helmet Type: Drivers Only Observation Type No. Observed Percentage None 12 0 .6% full f.>oe 517 25.4% Open f..,. 674 33.1% M==ss 46 23% (no< 786 38.6% Unlmpl!om helmet 786 38 .6% Unlown 4 0.2% Total 2037 100%

PAGE 61

Table D18. Glove Use: Drivers Only Glove Use No. Observed Percentage Yes 395 19.4% No 1642 80.6% Total 2037 100 % Table D-1 9 .Jack e t UN: Drivers Only Jacket Use No. Observed Percentage Yes 206 10.1 % No 1831 89.9% Total 2037 100% Table D-2 0 P ant Use: Drivers Only Pant Use No. Observed Percentage Yes 1689 82.9% N o 3-18 17.1% Total 2037 100% Table D-21 Shoe Use: Drivers Only Shoe Use No. Observed Percentage y., 1902 93.4% N o 134 6.6% Unl
PAGE 62

Observations: This section includes &equency d ;Siributioos of survey collected on all motorcycle passenaen observed. Table D-24. Gender: ......._..,.Only Gonder No. Observed Percentage Males 26 5 .6% FtmaJ .. 426 92.4% Unknown 9 2 .0% Total 461 100% Tabla D-26. Helmet Type: Pa.osengen Only Observation Type No. Observed Percentage Nooe 0 0 .0% Full"""' 39 8.5% Openfaoe 196 42.5% MO(oraoss 8 1.7% 217 47.1% Unkno"n I 0.2% Total 461 100% Table D-27. Helmet C onapliance: Passengers Onty Compli3nce No. Observed Percentage No helm .. 0 0.0% Comp&ant helmet 243 52.7% NorK:ompli31\thelmec 217 47.1% U nknO\IVIl I 02% Total 461 100% Table D-28 Eye Protection Use: Passengen Only Eye Protection Use No. Observed Percentage Yes 429 93.1% No 29 6.3% Unkno-An 3 0 .7% Total 461 100% S 1

PAGE 63

Table D-29 Glove Use: Passeng..,. Only Glove Use No. Observed Perce-ntage Yes 7 I S % No 45i 985% Total 461 100 % Table D-30 Jacket Use: Passengers Only Jacket Use No. Observed Percentage Yes 29 63% No 432 93.7% To tal 461 100% Table D-31. Pant Use: Pas._ers Only Pant Use No. Observed Percentage Yes 240 No 221 47.9% Total 461 100% Table D-32.. Shoe Usr. P-ers Only Shoe Use No. Observed Percentage Yes 422 91.5% No 39 85% Total 461 100% Table D-33. Standard Emit' and Confidence Intervals: Passengers Only Eye Helmet protection J3Cket Shoe Glove Pant Category use helmet use usc Use Use US<> Pe""" 99 .9% 58.0'1! 95.2% 6.1% 92.0'1! 1.4% 52.9% s..nd.vd= 0.1% 4 .8% 1.1% 1.8% l.9'l< 5 1 % 02% 93% 22% 3.5% 3.8% I..S% 10.2% Note SWldard en'OI'S and oonMence ,...e;re detetm1 ned U$1ng the NPTS fomtula. for $tla.Diicd wnples. Due to eJrotS in standard SAS formulas for dctcrminiR3 m.ndMd c:rrOt$ ;tnd eonMe:noe: interv.!al.s for stra6fied samples, a new 'Mitten <1Udy.

PAGE 64

AppendixE Florida Motorcycle Helmet Use Sutvey Frequencies By County

PAGE 65

Table E. Total Ob...,..tions By County: All Motorcycle Occupants Drivers Passengers County Observed Observed Total Observed Percentage Dade 122 20 142 5 .7% 85.9% 14.1% Boow.ud 153 25 178 7 .1% 86.0% 14.0% Volusia 3 1 3 66 379 152% 82.6% 17.4% PW-.cllas 150 13 163 6.5% 92.0% 8 .0% Palm Bead\ 71 II 82 3.3% 86.6% 13.4% Oranae 171 64 235 9.4% 72.8% 272% 312 63 375 15.0% 83.2% 16.8% Duval 267 103 370 14.8% 722% 27.8% Brev.ud 43 7 50 2.0% 86.0% 14.0% Monroe 145 35 180 12% 80.6% 19.4% p..., 126 13 139 5.6% 90.6% 9.4% Abell ... 95 9 104 -92% 91J% 8.7% Conier 69 32 1 0 1 4 .0% 68J% 31.7% Total 2037 461 24\lll 100"A 81.5% 18.5% Scv;a: J 99S TAMPA. MAY Ju\e. 1998.

PAGE 66

Table E. Gender Distribution By County: All Motorcycle Occupants Females County Observed Observed Unknowns Total Dade 124 1 7 I 873% 12.0% 0.7% Brow..-d 152 26 0 178 85.9% 14.6% VoJus; 3 1 1 68 0 379 82.1 % 17.9% 148 14 I 163 90.8% 8.6% 0.6% p.m, Beach 71 II 0 82 86.6% 13.4% 150 83 2 235 63.8% 353% 0.9% Hillsborough 293 80 2 375 78.1% 213% 05% Duv.J 227 140 3 370 61.4% 37.8% 0.8% B"""" 43 7 0 50 86.0% 14.0% Monroe 144 35 I 180 80.0% 19.4% 0.6% p...., 128 I I 0 139 92.1% 7.9% Alad>ua 93 I I 0 89.4% 10.6% Comer 62 38 I 101 61.4% 37.6% 1.0% Tota l 1946 541 11 2498 77!Y!. 21 .7% 0.4% 1993 61

PAGE 67

Table E. Helmet Type By County: All Motorcycle Occu.,_ts County No Helmet Full face Open face Motor X Novelty Other D.& I 62 50 0 29 0 0 .7% 352% 20,4% Broword 2 66 53 0 57 0 Ll% 37,1 % 29.8% 32.0% VohJsia. 5 5 2 1 1 6 205 0 13% 13.7% 30.6% 03% 54.1% Pincllas 0 34 75 0 54 0 20,9% '16.0% 33.1% Polm&..:h 0 37 1 7 I 27 0 20.7% 12% 32.9% Onngo I 27 101 8 97 I 0.4% 11.5% '13,0% 3.4% '113% 0.'1% I 101 150 5 118 0 03% 26.9% 40.0% 13% 3 15% Duval 0 37 75 32 225 I 1 0 ,0% 203 % 8.6% 60,8% 03% B.evard 0 8 31 0 II 0 16.0% 62.0% 22.0% Mon.,. 2 52 63 0 63 0 U % 28.9% 35,0% 35.0% Pasco 0 21 58 0 60 0 15.1% 41.7% 432% Abcl>ua 0 50 33 'I 1 6 I '18.1% 31.7% 3.8% 15.4% 1.0% 0 9 '18 3 4 1 0 8 9 % '115% 3.0% 40.6% Total 12 556 870 54 1003 3 0 .5% 22.3% 34.8% 2.2% 40.2% 0.1'% SOJ;a; U'UVERS!TYa::SOU'n-l FlC*!OA. TN-'PA. 1998. Total 178 379 163 82 235 375 370 5 0 180 139 104 101 2498 62

PAGE 68

0 142 Browud 0 178 Vol\nia 0 379 1.4% Pinellas 0 163 Palm Bead> 0 0 82 235 Hibbo=sl> 375 Dv..J 370 0 s o 0 180 0 139 Abdlua 0 104 Colier 0 101 Total 1 2 2 498 0.5% OA% 59.2% 64.7% 1996 l.INI'VEWrYOF SCUTl-t fi.OPJI).t.. T N"J>A MAY-Jt.N:., 1998.

PAGE 69

Table E.S. Slllfvty Eq11lpment Use By County. All Motorcycle Occupants Eyo Protection County Use Glove Usc J3Ckrt Usc Pant Use Shoe Use Llght Use D>de 129 4 5 115 137 116 90!!% 2.8% 3.5% 81.0% 96.5% 95.1% &ow.rd 1n 2 4 138 m !5 3 96.6% 1.1% 22% 1i.S% 972% 100% 348 63 38 289 365 280 91.8% 16.6% 1 0 .0% 76.3% 963% 89.5% Pinellas !50 26 18 146 161 128 92.0% 16.0% 11.0% 89.6% 98.8% 85.3% Palm Beach 81 0 0 5 1 80 71 98.8% 62.2% 97.6% 100% O ranse 228 57 33 194 233 109 97.0% 243% 14.0% 82.6% 99.1% 63.7% H illsO=ugh 336 65 85 3 2 6 353 192 89.6% 17.3% 22.7;o> 86.9% 94. 1 % 61.5% O..val 355 130 7 289 367 245 95.9% 35. 1 % 1.9% 78.1 % 992% 91.8% Brevard 49 6 3 5 0 39 98.0% 12.0% 6 .0% 78.0% 100% 90.7% Monroe 160 6 19 88 66 133 88.9% 3.3% IM% 48.9% 36.7% 91.7% Pasco 131 2 1 1 2 125 139 109 94.2j! 15.1% 8 6,. 89.9% 100% 86.5% Alodw 84 16 9 73 101 30' 80.8% 15.4% 8.7% 70.2% 97.1% 31.6% eou. ... 101 6 2 56 100 57 100% 5.9% 2 .0% 55.4% 99.0% 82.6% Tow 2324 402 235 1929 2325 1662 93.0% 16.1% 9.4% 1i.2% 93.1% 8 1 .6% NOTE: SouftcE: TA'-ttJ\,MAY-JLNE,I998. Total 142 178 379 163 82 235 375 370 50 180 139 104 101 2498

PAGE 70

Table E-6. Moton:yc l e Type B y Drivers Only On! off County Sportbikes Cruisers Tourtng St.andard Road Other Dod. 45 38 1 8 20 I 0 36.9% 31.1% 1 4.8% 16.4% 0 .8% Brow.vd 6 1 43 33 I S I 0 39.1% 28.1% 21.6% 9 .8% 0.7% va..o. 33 203 4 2 33 2 0 10.5% 64.9% 13. 4 % 10.5% 0.6% 25 83 27 1 5 0 0 16.7% 553% 1 8 .0% 10.0% Palm Beaoh 32 19 1 0 9 I 0 45.1% 26.8% 14.1% 12.7% 1.4% Orange 31 8 1 48 1 3 I 18.1% 4 7.4% 2 8.1% 4.1% 1.8% 0.6% Hillsborous)> 63 139 72 3 5 3 0 202% 44.6% 23.1% 112% 1.0% Duwl 54 1 1 8 76 1 7 2 0 202% 44.2% 28.5% 6 .4% 0.7% 5 22 8 8 0 0 11.6% 512% 1&6% 18.6% Moon>< 17 60 36 24 8 0 11.7% 41.4% 24.8% 16.6% 5.5% Pasco 1 5 70 25 1 6 0 0 11.9% 55.6% 19.8% 12.7% AIO
PAGE 71

Table E-7. Moton:ycle Type By County: Passengers Only Onloff County Spor1blkcs Cruisers Tounng Standard Road Other O.Oe 3 I I 4 2 0 0 15.0% 55.0% 20.0% 10.0% llM-..-d 1 2 1 3 0 0 1 2 .0% 28.1% 21.6% 9.8% VoiU$ia 2 34 25 5 0 0 3 0 .0% 51.5% 37.9% 7.6% 0 5 8 0 0 0 35.$% 61.5% Palm Beach 4 3 4 0 0 0 36.1% 273% :lOA% 0l'al'lge 7 33 26 0 0 0 10.6% 50.0% 39.4% Hdlsborougll 6 25 30 2 0 0 9.$% 39.1% 4 7 .6% 3.2% Ouvo! 7 56 37 I 0 0 6.9% 55.4% 36.6% 1.0% B=oo 3 I 7 2 0 0 23.1% 7.7% 53.8% 15.4% Alachua I 6 2 0 0 0 29.5% 31.6% 15.8% CoGe. 3 16 13 0 0 0 9.4% 50.0% 40.6% Total 39 214 189 19 0 0 8.s-/o 46.4% 41.0% 4.1% SouRce: UI\IM:W1YCF SOVTHA..oruOA. T.I'H'A. Mo.v-Jt.N:, 1998. Total 20 25 66 13 II 66 63 1 0 1 7 35 13 9 32 461

PAGE 72

Yes 31.6"/o Figure E 1. Motorcycle Safety Equipment Use Summary: Alachua County 100% 80% J: 64% .... 20% 0% Passengers Drivers 91.3% Oec:upant Type No 3.2% Helmet Typ4t Used By Motoreyc:le Type : All 97 67 m F u ll face Open '""" Moccrou Ou......,.... Sportbike Cruiser Touring Standard On/Otf Road Cn=29) (n;U) ( rr-17) (n=18) (n=3) Moloreycle Type Female 10.6o/, Male 89.4% Occupant Gender No 19.2 % Novlty 15A'!. Unknown 1% Legal 83.6% Safety Helmet Use Yes 1 5.4% Unknown 6.5.2Y. llghl Use No 91.3% Yes 8.7% Jacket Us. Yes 70.2o/ Yes 80.8% EyeGearUs1!' Pan1 Use No 84.6% G tove Us No 2.9% Yes 97.1% Shoe Use Source: f lorida Observationa l Motorcycl e Helmet Use Survey conducted by th e center fOf U rban Transportation Research Uniwrs' tty of South Florida, Tampa, May June, 1998.

PAGE 73

F igure E -2. Motorcycle Safety Equipment Use Summary: Brevard County met By fype: Ad Motorcydo Occupants 100% 1f 80% J: 60% 40% 20% 0% PaSSeft9eTS 14% Drivers 86% Occupant Type Yes No 9.3 '.4 90.7% light Use No 94% Yes 6% Jacket Use 0 0 Spor11>lke 1-=-l 100 0 Cruiser T ourin g {n.=-23) Motorcycle Type Female 14Y. Male Occupant Gender No 2% Yes 98% Eye Gear Use No 22% liiiii!! F ull faee Open face N
PAGE 74

Figure E-3. Motorcycle Safety Equipment Use Summary: Broward County Helmet Typo Used By Motorcydo Type: All Motorcydoe Oecupanu Puse:nger.s 14% Drivers 86% Occupant Type Yes 100% Ught Use No 97.80/ Yes 2.r/. Jacket Use Sportbike (n<$0 ) !ili!il Fulllooe Oponlaee Novelty !Iii None Cruiser Touring SUnda.rd C-=5&) I"""") cn) 0 0 On/Off Road (n=1) Motoreyele Type Male as.S% Female 14.5% Occupant Gondtr Yes 96.6'!. No 3A% Eye Gear Use No 22 5-t. Yes 17..5% Pant Use NorKompliant 32% No holmot 1.1% Safety Helmet Use No 98 9'1 Yes 1.1% Glove Use No z.a-t. Yes 97.2Y o Shoo Us.e $o(lrce : Florida Observat i onal Motofeycl& Hel met Use Survey oonducted by the Center for Urban T ransportation Research, Univ ersity of South Florida Tampa, Jvne, 19:98.

PAGE 75

Passengers 31 .7% Yes 82.6% Figure E-4. M o t o rcycl e Safety Equipmen t U se S u m m ary: Collier County 100% 80% .. - It 60% 40% 20% 0% OCcupant Type UghtUse No 98'!. Yes 2 % J acket Uso Helmet Type used By M o1oreycle TyPO: All Motorc)'Cie 100 Sportbltce (n =l4) Drivers M ale 68.3% 61.4 '1 No 17.4% Yes SSA'/, Cruise r (n=49) Touring (no34) Motorcycle Type Female 37.6% Unknown 1% Occup.Jnt Gonder Yes 100 '!. Eye Gear Use Pant Use No 44.8% F u llfae e Open face MoiO'Cf0$1: lll!lll Novolty 0 0 Standard (n:1) legal 59A% Safety Helmet Use Yes 5.9'/o No 94.1% GJoveUu No 1% Yes sw. Shoe U.se Novelty 4(1.6% Soutce: Aorid a Observational Motorcyc le Helmet Use Survey oonducted by the Center for Urban T raMPQrtation Research, of South Ftorid81; Tampa, May-J u ne 1998

PAGE 76

Figure E-5. Motorcycle Safety Equipment Use Summary: Dade County Pas$enger 14.1'% .. 100% 8<>'11 60'11 40% 20% 0% Driver 8.$.9o/o Occupant Type Unknown 4.9 '.4 Yes 95.1% Light Use No Yes 3..5% Jacket Use He-lmet TYPft US-ed By Motoreye!.e Type: AI Motwcyete Occupants 100 l!iliD Full lace Openfaoe Nowlty None Sportbace Cruiser Touring Standard OniOffRoad {n=48) (n=49) {n=22} (n=22) ( n=1 ) Molorey
PAGE 77

Figure E-6. Motorcycle 5afety Equipment Use Summary: Duval County HerrMt B)' Mototcyc:M Type r AN Motorc)"Cie Occupants 100'.4 -i u 6011 -20% 011 Passengers 27.4 % Drivers 72.2 Occupant Type: No 8.2% YO$ tU% Light Use No Yes 1.9% 11.1% Jacket Use Sportbike (n=61) Crui ser Touring Standard On/Off Road (nr17G) (n) (n=18) ( n=2 ) Motorcyclo Occupant Gender No 4 .1% Yes ts.t% Ey.GurUse Yes No 21.W. 71.1% PantUso Novelly 60.8% No GU% Unknown 0.3% safety Hetmt1 Use Use No o.ay. Yes 91.2% Shoe Use

PAGE 78

Figure E-7. Motorcycle Safety Equipment Use Summary: Hillsborough County Passengers 16.8% c .f. Helmet Type Used B)' Motorcyete Typoe: Al l Occupants 100% 80% 60% 20'.1 0% 36 Sportbike Crulhr (n=CS) (n=1$4) 74 Touring face Open face B Motorcross l!!!!l!i Ncwelty 0 None Standard On/Off Road (na37) (nilS) Motorcycle Type Drivers 83.2% Female 21.3% Unknown Novelty 31.$% No helmet 0 .3% Legal 68.2% Oecupant Type Male 78.2% Occupant Gender Safety Hetmet Use Yes 81.6% No 77.3% Light Use No 38.1% Unknown 0.3% Yos Jacket Use Yes 89.6Y No 10A% Eye Gear Use No 13.1% Yes 86.9% P1nt Use No 82.7% Yes 17.3% Glove Use No 5 .9'/. Yes 94.1'/ Shoe Use Source: Florida Observational Motorcycle Helmet use Survey conducted by the Center rOf Urban Ttansportatlon Reseat"ch. University of South Flor ida, Tam p a My J une, 1996.

PAGE 79

Figure E-8. Motorcycle Safety Equipment Use Summary: Monroe County Drivers 100\\ 80% .. 60% Pas$engers 19.4% 80.6% Oeeupanl Type No 2.1,-. Unknown 6.2'1 Yes 91.7% Llg.h!Use No 89.4% Yes 10.6% Jac::ket: Use Sportbike ( n=1 7} Yes 48.9% fii!'$i Fu n face Open lace Ill Nove11y E No.oe Cruiser Touril)9 Standard On/Off Road Cn=7t) (n=S6) (n:28) (n=8) Motorcycle Type Female 19A% Unknown 0.6% Male 80% Occupant Gende r No 9A% Unknown 1.7% Yes 81.9% Eye Gear Use Pant Use No S1.1% Novelty 35% No 63.3% No helmet 1 1'1. Safety Helmet Use No 96.7% Yes 3.3% Glove Use Shoe Use Legal 63.9% Yes 36.7"!. Source; FIOI"ida ObServ.ational Motorc:yole Helmet Use Survey conducted by the Conter ror Urban T ransporta6on Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, May-June, 1996.

PAGE 80

Figure E-9. Motorcycle Safety Equipment Use Summary: Orange County Passengers 27.2-/ 100% 80% Occupant Type Yes 63,.,.,, No a&,-, LightUH Jacket Use Yes 14Yo Type! Used By Type: All Motorcycle 95 FIAiface Spot1bike (ntl38) No 3&.3% Male 63.1% 81 67 00 01*\lace Mo
PAGE 81

Figure E-1 0. Motorcycle Safety Equipment Use Summary: Palm Beach County Drivers 86.6% Occupant Type No 100% Jac kltt ... lmet Type Used By M otorc)'C:I Motorc)'d Yes 100 100 !'2i:il F .. face .Open .... 0 0 Mc-..llyol South Flolldo. r--. May. Jme. 1 998.

PAGE 82

Figure E-11. Motorcycle Safety Equipment Use Summary: Pasco County Driven: tO. I % OCcupant Type No 13 5,.. Yos 8&.5% U gh! U se No 91.A % Yes 8.8% Jac:Jcet Use M.1l1 92.1 % Occupant Gender Yes No U% 94.2% EyeGnr UM No 10.1% Yes IU% Pant Use m FUifoee Open Moea
PAGE 83

Figure E-12. Motorcycle Safety Equipment Use Summary: Pinellas County Passengers 8% u ; 100% 80% 60% Helmet Typo 8y Motwcyde All Motof'cyc:le Occupants 100 0 0 0 (n-=25) 83 Cruiser Touring (n=88) (n:35) Motorcycle Type 8.6'.4 Unknown 0.6% 0 0 Standard (n=15) Novetty 33.1% ltli! Fullfaee Openfaco N-ty ii!ii None Drivers 92% Occupant Type Male 90.1% Occupant Gender safety Helmet Use No 14% Unknown 0 .7% YH 85.3'/, Ught Use No 89'1. YH 11'.4 Jacket Use No a,-. Yes Eye Gear Use YK 89.6 % No 10.4% Pant use No 84% Yes 16% Glove Use No 1.2 '!. Yes 98.8% Shoe Use Legal 66.9% Source : Florida ObiSeMitional Motorcye'le Helmtl Use Survey conducted by the Center for Urban Transportation Researdl UnMH'S!ly o f Sooth Florida. Tampa, May-June 1996.

PAGE 84

Figure E-13. Motorcycle Safety Equipment Use Summary: Volusia County Helmet Typt Used By Motorcycle Type: All MGtofcyde Panengers 17.4Y, Sport bike {n=35) Drivers 82.6% Oocupant Type No 8.9% Unknown 1.6% Yes 89..5'1. Light Ust No 90% Yeo 10% Jacket Use Cruiser Touring (rr-67) Standard On/Oft Road (n (ns2) Full face Open race .. Mctorcross !1m N""elly QNone Motorcycle Type Male 82.1% Female 17.9% Occupant Gender No 7.7o/ o Unknown 0.5% Yes 91.8% EyeGearu .. No 23.7% Yes 78.3% Pant Use Nove tty $4.1 % Nohetmet 1.3% Safety Helmet Use No 83A% Yes 16.6% Glove Use Yts 96.3% Shoe Use 44.6% Source: Fbrida Obserll'ationat Motorcyde Helmet Use Survey conducted by the Center for Urban Tran&portatio n Research. University o1 South F lorida Tampa. May. J une, 1998.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader cam 2200289Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 001927279
005 20080327153919.0
008 981208s1998 flud b 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00163
2 local
035
(OCoLC)40459560
040
CBT
c CBT
d OCL
FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
HE5614.3.F6
b N56 1998
0 245
1998 Florida observational motorcycle helmet use study /
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida ; project manager, Patricia Turner ; project team, Issam Charaibi...[et al.].
3 246
Florida observational motorcycle helmet use study
260
Tampa, FL :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1998]
300
66, [13] leaves :
charts ;
28 cm.
500
"Prepared for Florida Department of Transportation."
"In cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation"--Cover.
"November, 1998"--Cover.
530
Also available online.
650
Motorcycle helmets
z Florida.
Motorcyclists
Florida
x Attitudes.
Traffic safety
Florida.
Motorcycling accidents
Florida.
1 710
Florida.
Dept. of Transportation.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
994
C0
FHM
8 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.163