Motorchcle Helmet Law in California

Beginning on January 1, 1992, motorcycle riders in California had to wear helmets or risk receiving a moving violation citation. The helmet law was controversial on several fronts, with hard-core motorcycle riders concerned about the loss of freedom that goes with not wearing a helmet, helmet manufacturers interested in an increase in sales and insurance companies concerned both that the helmet law would reduce the seriousness of injuries received by riders while increasing the number of product liability cases that were filed against manufacturers of helmets. This research examines the motorcycle helmet law and considers its economic effects both to individual riders and to society as a whole.

At the heart of the controversy surrounding the helmet law is where an individual's personal freedom to enjoy a leisure activity in the way he desires ends, and the responsibility of that individual to society begins. Helmets are designed to lessen the degree of injuries, or prevent death, as a result of motorcycle accidents. Unlike passenger vehicles, which provide a confined "cage" for drivers and passengers, motorcycles offer little structural protection in the event of an accident. Riders are generally thrown off the bike and head injuries are both common and serious.

Some motorcycle riders cite the increased sense of freedom that they receive when not wearing a helmet, and suggest that since injuries that helmets mitigate occur only to the rider, it should his left to his

ds. If a motorcycle rider has citations for failing to wear a helmet, his rates are likely to increase. This increases the cost of operating a motorcycle, and so increases the likelihood that the consumer will invest in and wear a helmet. Other riders will find that the cost of not wearing a helmet does not exceed the benefit derived, and will be willing to not wear helmets and risk the increased financial liability. For these consumers, riding without a helmet has a relatively inelastic demand schedule, meaning that they are willing to pay the higher price for the perceived increase in enjoyment that riding helmetless provides. For the helmet market as a whole, the California helmet law effectively shifted the demand curve to the left, with the result that consumers are willing to pay additional amounts for helmets because of the increase in costs to them if they do not purchase the helmet. With an increase in demand, one would expect an increase in prices as manufacturers seek to take advantage of the new market situation. Under traditional economic theory, there might also be an increase in the number of manufacturers entering the market to take advantage of the surge in demand. However, that situation is not likely

Category: Government - M