Author, Subjects, Keywords

Cited Author

 
 
   » By Author or Editor
 » Browse Author by Alphabet
 » By Journal
 » By Subjects
 » Malaysian Journals
 » By Type
 » By Year
 » By Latest Additions
 
 
   » By Author
 » Top 20 Authors
 » Top 20 Article
 » Top Journal Cited
 » Top Article Cited
 » Journal Citation Statistics
 » Usage Since Sept 2007


 
 
 

Login | Create Account

Exploring the Economics of Motorcycle Helmet Laws — Implications for Low and Middle-Income Countries

Hyder, A.A., and Waters, H., and Phillips, T., and Rehwinkel, J., (2007) Exploring the Economics of Motorcycle Helmet Laws — Implications for Low and Middle-Income Countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 19 (2). pp. 16-22. ISSN 1-800-818-7243

Full text not available from this repository.

Official URL: http://aph.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/16

Affiliations

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. USA. Dept. of International Health
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. USA. Dept. of International Health
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. USA. Dept. of International Health
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. USA. Dept. of International Health
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. USA. Dept. of International Health

Abstract

This paper reviews economic evaluations of motorcycle helmet interventions in preventing injuries. A comprehensive literature review focusing on the e fectiveness of motorcycle helmet use, and on mandatory helmet laws and their enforcement was done. When helmet laws were lifted between 1976-80, 48 states within the USA experienced a cost of $342,047 per excess fatality of annual net savings. Helmet laws in the USA had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.33 to 5.07. Taiwan witnessed a 14% decline in motorcycle fatalities and a 22% reduction of head injury fatalities with the introduction of a helmet law. In Thailand, where 70-90% of all crashes involve motorcycle, after enforcement of a helmet law, helmet-use increased five-fold, the number of injured motorcyclists decreased by 33.5%, head injuries decreased by 41.4%, and deaths decreased by 20.8%. There is considerable evidence that mandatory helmet laws with enforcement alleviate the burden of tra fic injuries greatly. For low and middle-income countries with high rates of motorcycle injuries, enforced, mandatory motorcycle helmet laws are potentially one of the most cost-e fective interventions available. [math mode missing closing $]

Item Type:Journal
Additional Information:This article is based on work funded by the Department of Evidence and Information for Policy, World Health Organization, Geneva. The authors would like to thank Omar H. Amach and Nick Juul for assisting with the preparation of the manuscript.
Keywords:Economic evaluation, cost-benefit analysis, road traffic injuries, motorcycle helmet laws
Subjects:R Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Nursing
ID Code:4728

1. Mathers C, Stein C, Ma Fat D, Rao C, Inoue M, Tomijima N, et al. The Global Burden of Disease 2000: Version 2, Methods and Results (GPE discussion paper No. 50). Geneva: Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy, World Health Organization, 2002. Available at: http://www.who.int/evidence. Accessed 1 July 2005.

2. Murray C, Lopez A. Global Burden of Disease and Injuries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1996.

3. World Health Organization. World Health Report 1998. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2000.

4. World Health Organization. Injury: A Leading Cause of the Global Burden of Disease. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1999.

5. Mohan D. Traffic safety and health in Indian cities. J Transport and Infrastructure 2002; 9: 79–92.

6. United States General Accounting Office. Highway Safety: Motorcycle Helmet Laws Save Lives and Reduce Costs to Society. Washington, DC: US GAO;1991.

7. Preusser F, Hedlund J, Ulmer R. Evaluation of Motorcycle Helmet Law Repeal in Arkansas and Texas. Preusser Research Group, Inc.; September 2000.

8. Watson G, Zador P, Wilks A. Helmet use, helmet use laws, and motorcyclist fatalities. Am J Public Health1981; 71: 297-300.

9. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Report to Congress February 1996: Benefits of Safety Belts and Motorcycle Helmets: Based on data from The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES). Washington, DC: Department of Transportation; 1996.

10. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts 2000. Washington, DC: Department of Transportation; 2000.

11. Hartunian N, Smart C, Willemain T, Zador PL. The economics of safety deregulation: lives and dollars lost due to repeal of motorcycle helmet laws. J Health Polit Policy Law 1983; 8: 76-98.

12. Watson G, Zador P, Wilks A. The repeal of helmet use laws and increased motorcyclist mortality in the United States, 1975-1978. Am J Public Health 1980; 70: 579-85.

13. McSwain N. The Impact of Reenactment of Motorcycle Helmet Laws in Louisiana. Proceedings of the 29th Conference of American Association of Automotive Medicine; Illinois: American Association of Automotive Medicine; 1985: 425-46.

14. Guillen Grima F, Aguinaga Ontoso I, Aguinaga Ontoso E. Helmet use by drivers and passengers of motorcycles in Pamplona (Spain), 1992. Eur J Epidemiol 1995; 11: 87-9.

15. Tsai MC, Hemenway D. Effect of mandatory helmet laws in Taiwan. Inj Prev 1999; 5: 290-291.

16. Royal Malaysian Police. Statistical Report Road Accidents Malaysia – 1997. Traffic Branch, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur:PNMB Publishers; 1998.

17. Kulanthayan, S., Umar R.S., Hariza H.A., Nasir M.T., Harwant, S. Compliance of proper safety helmet usage in motorcyclists. Medical Journal of Malaysia 2000; 55: 0-4.

18. Umar RS, Law TH. Preliminary Evaluation of the Targeted Motorcycle Safety Program in Malaysia. Motorcycle Safety Program Ministry of Transport Malaysia: Road Safety Research Center Research Report 2/99;1999.

19. Ichikawa M, Chadbunchachai W, Marui E. Effect of the helmet act for motorcyclists in Thailand. Accid Anal Prev 2003; 35(2):183-9.

20. Conrad P, Bradshaw YS, Lamsudin R, Kasniyah N, Costello C. Helmets, injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. Accid Anal Prev 1996;28(2):193-200.

21. Brandt MM, Ahrns KS, Corpron CA, Franklin GA, Wahl WL. Hospital cost is reduced by motorcycle helmet use. J Trauma 2002; 53(3): 469-71.

22. Shankar BS, Ramzy AI, Soderstrom CA, Dischinger PC, Clark CC. Helmet use, patterns of injury, medical outcome, and costs among motorcycle drivers in Maryland. Accid Anal Prev 1992; 24(4): 385-96.

23. Rivara FP, Dicker BG, Bergman AB, Dacey R, Herman C. The public cost of motorcycle trauma. J Am Med Assoc 1988; 260(2): 221-3.

24. Muller, A. Evaluation of the costs and benefits of motorcycle helmet laws. Am J Public Health 1980; 70(6):586-92.

25. Rice D, MacKenzie EJ. Cost of Injury in the United States: A Report to Congress, 1989. San Francisco, CA. Institute for Health and Aging, University of California, and Injury Prevention Center, The Johns Hopkins University; 1989.

26. Garbacz C. Traffic fatalities in Taiwan. J Transport Economics and Policy 1989; 23: 317-327.

27. Max W, Stark B, Root S. Putting a lid on injury costs: the economic impact of the California motorcycle helmet law. J Trauma 1998; 45(3): 550-6.

28. Clotfelter C, Hahn J. Assessing the national 55mph speed limit. Policy Sci 1978; 9: 281-294.

29. Haworth N, Ungers B, Vulcan P, Corben B. Evaluation of a 50 km/h Default Urban Speed Limit for Australia. Monash University Accident Research Centre, Discussion Paper; 2001.

30. VanMatre J, Overstreet G. Motor vehicle inspection and accident mortality: A reexamination. Journal of Risk and Insurance 1982:423-435.

31. Fuchs V. Motor Vehicle Mortality and Compulsory Inspection of Vehicles. In: The Health Economy; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1986: 169-180.

32. Lave L, Weber W. A benefit-cost analysis of auto safety features. Appl Econ 1970; 2: 265-275.

33. United States General Accounting Office. Effectiveness, Benefits and Costs of Federal Safety Standards for Protection of passenger Car Occupants. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation;

Report to the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate by the Comptroller General of the United States; Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office; 1976.

34. Miller TR, Levy DT. Cost-outcome analysis in injury prevention and control: eighty-four recent estimates for the United States. Med Care 2000; 38(6):562-82.

35. Peden M, Scurfield R, Sleet D, Mohan D, Hyder AA, Jarawan E et al,( editors). World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2004.

36. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC, (editors). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

37. Zaza S, Carande-Kulis VG, Sleet DA, et al. Methods for conducting systematic reviews of the evidence of effectiveness and economic efficiency of interventions to reduce injuries to motor vehicle occupants. Am J Prev Med 2001;21: 23-30.

Repository Staff Only: item control page
 
 
 
 
 
 
© Copyright 2007 MyAIS Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya – All Rights Reserved. Malaysian Abstracting and Indexing System is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.