|USFDC Home||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
FLORIDA MOTORCYCLE HELMET OBSERVATIONAL SURVEY Final Report Prepared for The Stato Safety Office, DopartrMnl of Transportation, State of Florida in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic S..foty Administration .ind tht u.s. Department. of Transportation The conclusions and opinions oxprossod In these reports are those of the subgrantee and do not neeessarily represent those of the State of Florida, State Safety Office, Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Transportation or any othor agency of tho State or federal government By Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South F1orida September 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill Introduction .... . . ...... ... ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Sample Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Data Recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Oata Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A: Sampling Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix B: Orientation Agenda ... .. ....... ... ; . . . . . . . . . 17 Appendix C: Motorcycle Data Collection Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ii
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Total Number of Sites in Each County and Site Numbers . . . . . . . . 3 2 Raw Data & Percentages by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 Raw Data & Percentages Total Observations . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 Confidence Interval & Standard Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A-1 State of Florida DVMT by County Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A -2 Breakdown of DMVT within Urban Counties . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A-3 Breakdow n of DVMT with i n Rural Counties . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A-4 Breakdown of Road Type by Urban Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A-5 Breakdown of Road Type by Rural Count ies . . . . . . . . . . 15 iii
INTRODUCTION The Motorcycle Helmet State Observational Study was funded by the Florida Department of Transportation, State Safety Office. The objective of this study was to collect data to estimate the number of Florida motorcyclists wearing both legal and illegal (fake) motorcycle helmets. For purposes of this study, fake helmets were those which do not meet or exceed the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218. Florida has had a mandatory helmet use law for motorcyclists since 1968. Motorcycle crash data reviewed in 1992 revealed that 22.2 percent of the motorcyclists involved in crashes were not wearing helmets and that 17.2 percent of motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes were not wearing helmets. These data did not distinguish between legal and illegal helmets. Thus, it was calculated that legal helmet use in Florida could be below 70 percent. The State Safety Office had no base line data on helmet use in Florida and therefore could not judge the accuracy of the helmet use being reported In the crash data, compliance with the helmet law, or the effectiveness of any future programs that might be conducted to in crease helmet use. The FOOT State Safety Office contracted with the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) to collect data upon which to report estimates of motorcycle helmet use in Florida. This report summarizes the most recent and accurate data on motorcycle helmet in Florida. Elements of the sample plan developed for this study were recommended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The sample plan used for this study was approved by both the State Safety Office and NHTSA. The observational surveys of helmet use were conducted from March to August 1993. A total of 1,559 motorcyclists were observed in this survey. Find ings and recommendations appear in this report. 1
SAMPLE PLAN A two -st age stratified sampling design was to generate the sample The samp l e p la n followed NHTSA's direction t o use daily vehicle mil es of travel as the bases for selecting the sample sites. In the first stage, Florida counties were stratified by type: urban and rural. A county was defined as urban or rural when 50 p e rcent or more of its daily veh i cle miles of travel (OMVT) was class i fied as eit he r urban or rural by the Florida Department of Transportation Counties were selected for samp lin g each stratum us ing probabilities proportiona l to the DVMT of t he co unty In t h e second stage monitoring sites were strat ified by road type: pr i ncipal arterial an d m i nor arterial. Monitoring sites within each road type strata were selected with probabilities proportional to the DVMT of the site The comp l ete samp l e p la n appears in Appendix A. Table 1 shows the allocation of the 25 d ata collection sites in the counties selected for sampling. The sample plan specified that a total of 450 sites be selected among 18 of Fl o ri da' s counties. There were 1 8 counties se le cted (with replacement) for the survey with four count ies be ing selected tw i ce. This resu l ted i n twice as many s i tes (50) being sampled in t h o se f o ur counties. Consequently as shown i n Tab l e 1, on l y 1 4 different Florida counties were selected f or inc lu sion in the survey 2
TABLE 1. Total Number of Sites in Each County and Site Numbers . I Specific Site Observa tion Numbers Sites In Each Assigned Within County County Each County Broward 25 1 25 Clay 25 26.50 Dade 50 51 100 Duval 50 10 1 -150 Hernando 25 151 175 Hillsborough 50 176. 225 . Lake 25 226. 250 Leon 25 251 275 Okaloosa 25 276. 300 Osceol a 25 301 325 Pa l m Beach 25 326. 350 Pinellas 25 351 375 Polk 50 376-425 St. Lucie 25 426.450 3
DAtA COLLECtiON Training Session Agenda Students from the University of South Florida (USF) along with some part-time worl
A letter from CUTR to serve as personal identification for the surveyor explaining to any interested party the purpose of the study and the surveyor's purpose for standing near the street collecting data . Mileage reimbursement form. Site Surveys Site surveys in each county were conducted over a period of one to four weeks. Data collection was dependent on the number of sites within the county the manpower allocation and the days and times in the sHes' data collection schedule. Some counties were assigned one surveyor while others were divided among several surveyors, (for example Hillsborough County was sampled by five surveyors ). 5
DATA RECORDING Recording the Use of Helmets Recording of helmet use, standard and non-standard, was accomplished i n column three of the data collection sheets. A copy of the data collection sheet appears in Appendix C. The data collection sheet contains a complete set of ins tructions for surveyors. Helmets were either recorded as a "1" for a standard he lmet or as a ''2" for a non-standard (fake) helmet, and a "3" for N/A (used when no h elmet was observed). Surveyors co llected additional data concerning the motorcyclist. The additional data were collected because they available and would be reliable and might be of use in future studies. The data add ressed the follow ing areas: Was the helmet wom by the motorcyclist an approved helmet? Was the motorcyclist wearing a jacket or long -sleeved shirt? Was the motorcyclist wearing long pants? -Was the motorcyclist wearing protective shoes (not sandals)? Was the motorcyclist wearing gloves? Was the motorcyclist wearing eye protection (including windshield)? Surveyors observed their assigned sites and submitted completed survey forms, maps, and mileage forms to CUTR. The data was entered by county, using Lotus 1-2-3. Each county file con t ains data from every site surveyed in t hat particular county. The Lotus files were changed Into ASCII format for statistical analysis. 6
DATA ANALYSIS Tabl e 2 presents the sampling results broken down b y county The data were weigh ted by the s ampling sites' final probability of being selected in order to arrive at the weighted estimate of motorcycle helmet usage In the state of Florida. TABLE 2 Raw Data & Percentages by County .._ IJ>ng Eye Obsvt CO!N!!Y Riden Holmet Hflmot J e lflt -Sl!oe$ Glovu Prot 1 Broward 95 95 80 27 75 89 10 9 5 2 Dade 117 116 90 32 81" 103 21 117 3 Hernando 88 88 72 35 85 82 17 83 4 Lake 107 10 7 9 5 1 4 79 100 16 1 0 7 5 Ol
Findings The resuHs showed that 99. 5 percent of all motorcyclists in Florida use helmets and that 84.5 percent of those motorcyclists were wearing iegal helmets Summary totals of the raw data and percentages appear in Table 3. TABLE 3. Raw Data & Percentages, Total Observations Total number of observations 1,559 100% Wearing helmels 1 ,551 99.5% Wearing approved helmets 1 ,317 84.5% Wearing fake hel mets 234 15.0% Wearing eye protection 1,515 97.2% Wearing shoes 1,444 92.6% Wearing long pants 1,152 72.9% Wearing jacket or long s leeved shirt 392 25.1% Wear i n g gloves 298 19.1% Incidence of helmet use showed no large variance by county Motorcyclists in Broward Hernando, Lake, Okaloosa Palm Beach, Leon Osceola Pinellas and St. Lucie counties were recorded as having 100 percent helmet usage. Data taken i n Dade Polk and Hillsborough counties showed 99.1 percent helmet usage. Helmet usage in the two remaining counties Clay and Duval was recorded as 98. 7 percent and 98. 5 percent respectively. The data for motorcyclists wearing fake helmets had a range of 37.1 percent with a statewide average of 15 percent. St. Lucie county has the highest rate of fake helmet use, 39. 8 percent. Other counties with higher than average (15 percent) fake helmet usage rates were: Dade 23 1 percent; Okaloosa, 16 9 percent; Hernando 18.2 percent; Pinellas and Hillsborough 16 1 percent, and Broward, 15.8 per cent. Those counties where fake helmet usage was below average were: Polk 14. 9 percent; Clay 13 1 percent; Leon, 11.4 percent ; Lake, 11.2 percent ; Duva l 9.5 percent; Palm Beach 5.9 percent and Osceola, 2 9 percent. 8
Confidence In terval and Standard Error Est i mat i on of the variation associated wHh this weighted estimate of the population proportion . was done using the Professional Software for SUriley DAta ANalysis for muHi-stage s ample designs (SUDMN). SUDMN utilizes a first-order Taylor series approximation of the deviations of estimates from their expected values to estimate the standard er r o r of the ratio estimate Using a 95 percent confidence limit for the estimate, the confidence interval is 0 9955 0.0039 wh i ch y i e lds values from 0 .991 6 to 0.9994 This means tha t there is a strong reason to believe tha t t he survey results are a very ac c ura t e estima t e of helmet use by mo t orcyclists in Florida Table 4 p rovides the confi d ence interva l and standard error measurement. TABLE 4 Confidence Interval & Standa r d Error Appr Long Helmet/ Helmet/ Jacket/ Pan lsi Shoes/ G l o ves/ Eye Prot/ Riders Riders Riders Riders Riders Riders Riders Weig h ted 10.68 10.88 10.88 10 88 1 0 .88 1 0.88 1 0.88 Weighted 10.S3 9.18 2.83 Y-SUM 7 9 1 10.03 2.2 0 1 0.55 Ratio 0 995508 0.844149 0.260486 Estab. 0.726701 0.922225 0.201777 0 969670 SE Ratio 0.001950 0.014414 0 017706 0.016370 0 008373 0 013835 0.005996 Confidence lnteNal 95% Standard E rror +1% 9
DISCUSSION The results of this survey-99.5 percent helmet use-clearly indicate that Florida's mandatory motorcycle helmet law is working The use of legal motorcycle helmets in F l orida is only 85.4 percent, an Indication that more efforts to assure compliance by wearing legal helmets i s necessary The high use of'fake helmets (15 percent ) was an unexpectedly h i gh finding. Unfortunate l y fake helmets may be perceived by motorcycle operators to provide equiva lent protection to l ega l helmets. Fake helmet use may result from one or more of t he following reasons : confusion about w hat constitutes a lega l he l met high cost of legal helmets p r essure from pee rs, gangs, or other groups to use an illegal helmet expression of deviant behavio r perception of ineffective enforcement of helmet l aw(s) perception of i neffective sanctions imposed by courts on illegal helmet use percept i ons however unrealistic of operators that their superior skills w ill always keep them out of crashes del usions of i ndestructi b ility (survive the cras h ) de lu sions o f immortality (too young to die) 10
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Results of the observational survey indicate the following conclusions and recommendations: 1. Emphasis on removing fake helmets from the marketplace should be promoted by the State Safety Office. 2. Research should be performed to learn who is buying and using fake helmets and why they are using them. 3. Information and education programs should be devised to educate motorcycle operators on safe riding attitudes and the safety advantages of using le gal helmets. These programs should be targeted to those motorcyclists using fake helmets. 4. Supplemental informatio n and training on the need to enforce the use of legal helmets should be provided to law enforcement personnel. 5. Training programs should be developed to provide additional technical informat ion to help law enforcement officers detect fake helmets. 6. Sample case preparation documents should be provided t o assist both law enforcement officers and prosecutors in making cases against fake motorcycle helmet use. 7. Research should be performed to account for the difference between observed motorcycle helmet use in Florida and motorcycle helmet use data recorded on Florida Traffic Accident Reports. 8. Research should be performed to estimate the public and private economic loss resulting from fake helmet use in Florida. 9. It is recommended that the State Safety Office conduct a motorcyc le helmet statewide observational study on a bi-annual basis. 11
Sample Design APPENDIX A Sampling Plan for State Observational Survey of Motorcycle Helmet Use Florida is made up of 67 diverse counties. Since these counties encompass both urban an d rural areas, it is important to use a stratified sampling design with two stages. As per the NHTSA sampling guidelines ten percent of the Florida counties corresponding to the 10% lowest popu lated co unties were eliminated. In the first stage the counties were split into two distinct groups, urban and rural counties. The number of counties sampled from each strata were proportional to the total Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (DVMD for the strata. Counties were randomly selected from within the two strata, with the probability of being selected proportional to DVMT for the counties. Using the sample size information set forth in the NHTSA guidelines it was determined that 18 counties would be sampled for i nclusion in the survey. Table A-1 provides the DVMT of urban and rura l counties within the state of Florida. From Table A-1 it was determined tha t 70 percent or 13 counties should be urban counties to be sampled and 30 percent or 5 counties should be rural. TABLE A-1: State of Florida DVMT by County Type County Type DVMT Praportion Urban 138,231. 5 .6974 Rural 59,973.1 3026 Table A-2 shows the DVMT for each of t he urban counties, as well as the probabilities and random numbers used in selecting the sample. Table A-3 does the same for the r ural counties i n our sampling frame (Note: Many of the rural counties were eliminated w ith t he 10% o f t h e counties that were deleted from the sampling frame). 12
TABLE A-2. Breakdown of DMVT within Urban Counties Urban Counties DVMT Pro portion Lee 3,483 6 .0 25201 Manatee 3,04 1.6 .022004 Polk 6,499 8 047021 Sarasota 3 ,6 94.5 026727 Duval 13 011 .5 094128 Bay 2,295 2 .016604 Escambia 3,756 8 .027178 Leon 2 762 6 .019 985 Okaloosa 2,498.7 .018076 Br o ward 16,236.9 117462 Palm Beach 11,613.8 084017 Brevard 6,734.2 .048717 Oran ge 11,615 0 .084 026 Seminole 3 575.9 025869 Vol usia 6 ,86 6.5 .04 9674 Dade 21,838.2 157983 Hillsborough 12, 257 .6 088674 Pin ellas 6,449.1 046654 TOTALS 138,2 3 1.5 1.000000 i nd icate the count i es t h at were sele c ted for sampling i ndicates a county t hat will be sampled twice 13 Random Number 000000 025200 025201 047204 047205 094225 094226 120952 12095321508 0 .. 215081 231684 231685 258862 258863-278847 278848 296923 296924 414385 414386 498402 498403-547119 547120-631145 631146-657014 657015 706688 706689-864671 .. 864672 953345 953346 999999
TABLE A-3. Breakdown of DVMT with i n Rural Counties Rural DVMT Proportion Random Number Charlotte 1,384.2 .053906 000000 053905 Collier 2,022.6 078768 053906 132673 Alachua 4,026.8 0156819 13267 4 289492 Clay 1,264.3 .049237 289493 338729 St. Lucie 2,633.9 .102574 338730 441303 lake 2,815.0 109627 441304 550930 Marion 3,549.9 .138247 550931 689177 Osceola 2,964 7 .115457 689178 804634 Hernando 1,561.8 .060822 804635 865456 Pasco 3 ,4 54.8 .134543 865457 999999 TOTALS 25 678 0 1.000000 i ndicates the counties that were selected for sampling In the second stage the monitoring sites within a selected county will be stratified by road type.' Two strata were utilized pr incipa l arterial and minor arterial. The sample was allocated to these two strata by the annual DVMT for each road type w i thin the county. Monitoring sites were se l ected with probability proportional to the OVMT of the site. There are approximately 7800 des i gnated (by the state DOT) monitoring sites the state of Florida Using this information, a lon g with the NHTSA study guidelines, 25 monitoring sites were selected from within each county Tables A-4 and A-5 detail the principal arterial and minor arterial OVMT for each of the counties included in the sample It a l so shows the number of each type of roadway in cluded in the sample from each county 14
TABLE A-4. Breakdown of Road Type in Urban Counties Urban County Prinicpal Minor Arterial # in Principal #in Minor Polk 5,169.4 1,184.5 20 5 Duval 10,216.7 2,282.8 20 5 Leon 2,444.6 287.5 22 3 Okaloosa 1,717 .6 737.1 18 7 Broward 14 108.8 2,128.1 22 3 Palm Beach 9 913.8 1 434.0 22 3 Dade 16 ,980 .6 4,601.2 20 5 Hillsborough 9,745.3 2,512.2 20 5 Pinellas 5,902.9 2 546.2 17 8 TABLE A-5. Breakdown of Road Type in Rural Counties Rural County Principal Minor Arterial # in Principal #in Minor Clay 525.4 718.3 11 14 St. Lucie 2 062.7 608.5 19 6 Lake 2,108.0 709.0 19 6 Osceola 2 921.2 0 0 25 0 Hernando 1,473.5 88.3 24 1 Data Collection An observation period consisted of a one-hour interval of the day. For each observation site selected a day of the week and a start time were randomly selected Every day of the week and all daylight hours were eligible for sampling. 15
For each observational site selected, a predetermined (randomly) direction of traffic flow was monitored by the observer. If traffic flow was too heavy to accurately record information the observer was instructed to record every second motorcycle. If trafiic was still too heavy, every fourth motorcycle was observed. Each county had a list of alternate sampling sites for both pr i ncipal and minor roadways (each with a randomly selected t ime and day) If an observational site is not available for sampling, the observer moved to the first availab le alternate location of the same road type. For each motorcycle sampled, three measurements were recorded: 1. Number of drivers and passengers. 2. Number of these wearing helm ets 3. Number of approved he lmets. Estimation The observations at each monitoring site were weighted by the site's final probability of se le cti on These weighted observations were used to estimate motp rcy cle helmet use statewide. A 95 percent confidence interval of th is estimate was ca l culated. The proportion of riders wear ing approved helmets was estimated with 95 percent reliability. 16
Appendi x B ORIENTATION AGENDA I. Discussion of Study A. Use of B Funding source C. Definition of "motorcycle II. Discussion of Helmets A Purpose of study B He l mets and their differences C Magazines/pamphlets conta inin g p ic tures of helmets 0 Demonstration of legal and illeg al (fake ) helmets Ill. NHTSA Video A Discussion B Questions IV. Disc u ssio n of Paperwork Requirements A Survey form B M ileage form C Permission letter D Survey instruction s v. He lpful Hints A Map read in g B. Location ass ignments VI Questions/Answ ers 17
Appendix C MOTORCYCLE DATA COLLECTION SHEET 1. Survey ObJective To estimate the he l met usage for motorcycle users in the corridor 2. Population to be samRied Driver and passenger (riders) on all mot orcy cles. 3 Dependent Variable: Helmet use I H elmet non-use 4. Independent Variables : A. Rider: 1 Driver 2. Passenger B Helmet: 1. Yes 2 No c Approved He lm et: 1 Yes 2 No 0 Jacket: 1. Yes 2. No E. Pants: 1 Yes 2 No F Shoes: 1 Yes 2 No G. Eye Protect i on: 1. Yes 2 .No H Gloves: 1 Yes 2. No 18
5. Observation Methods A. When: Observations should begin at or as close to the time in dicated by the helmet survey team leader. All observations must be made for the tully specified time of one hour. B. Who: Observe the motorcycle operator first, then the passenger. If you encounter a group of motorcycles where there are too many to observe at one time, observe every second motorcycle. If there are still too many motorcycles, observe every fourth motorcycle, etc. C. What: Observe and record the number of drivers and passengers using helmets along with the other relevant variables. Marl< your sheets as you make each observation. D. How: Make sure to observe motorcycles that are traveling i n the assigned direction (north south, east or west). Observe only the motorcyclists nearest you in the far righ t lane of traffic. The codes for direction of traffic flow to observe are as follows: 1 = North or East traffic flow 2 = South or West traffic flow Do not observe or record traffic in both directions. Stay out of traffic observe from right curb-DO NOT make any observations while walking in traffic or in any part of the right-of way At Stop signs observe vehicles as they come to a stop at the intersections. Do not guess -If you cannot see a motorcycle, or did not have enough time to see clearly simp ly do not sample the motorcycle (do not record it in any way) and begi n again with the next motorcycle. 1 9
6. Sample Units The sample frame will co nsist of controlled intersections with exclusivity to t he corridor. All eligible sample units will be identified and coded for intersection location and traffic direction. 7. Personal Safety A. Stay out of the roadway at all times B. Wear normal clothes; do not wear clothing thatwill call attention to yourself (noTback swimsuits, no parts of uniforms, no bright orange vests, etc.) C. For your comfort, consider packing fresh drinking water, a hat, sunglasses and rainiJear We will survey rain or shine. D. Make your observation and move away from the area of the vehicle. Do not stare at people or thei r vehicles. If challenged, say you are part of a university research study, and qu ickly move away from the vehicle. Under no circumstances should you engage in or provoke a confrontation If questioned by an y authorities p r esent them with your authorization letter and have them call Dr. Miller if they have any furthe r questions. 8. Reimbursement A. You will be paid for survey time only, not including travel t ime B You will be paid $.20 per mile to and from survey site, or from site to site C You are responsible for keeping accurate mileage and turning in your timesheet and mileage on time. 20
: N I Ot
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 nam 2200337Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 028708893
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110823s1993 flu o 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00319
Florida motorcycle helmet observational survey
h [electronic resource] :
b final report /
by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida ; prepared for the State Safety Office, Department of Transportation, State of Florida, in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the U.S. Department of Transportation.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1 online resource (iii, 21 leaves).
Title from e-book t.p. (viewed Aug. 23, 2011).
x Law and legislation
Law and legislation
Equipment and supplies
Law and legislation
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Dept. of Transportation.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
y USF ONLINE ACCESS