CHAPTER
ONE
PURPOSE
AND FORMAT
MISSION
Legislation is pending in the
Michigan
legislature to modify the present mandatory motorcycle helmet law.
The mission of this report is to consider a sometimes ignored aspect of
law modification---the economic impacts that potentially will be created by
the increases in sales and tourism.
The document analyzes the likely increases in motorcycle registrations,
sales and ownership, retention of tourism dollars of
Michigan
motorcycle enthusiasts, and attraction of visitors from other states. The
analysis is based upon
Michigan
data, results in other states, and discussions with those involved with
motorcycle events and sales.
The report places the proposed modifications to the
Michigan
law in its proper context compared to other states. As the narrative
discusses, the impetus to modify the
Michigan
law follows a national trend.
Even
though at one time during the past thirty-five years essentially all states
had some form of mandatory helmet legislation on the books, at present
Michigan is one of only nineteen that still do. All of the states bordering
Michigan
,
Ohio
,
Indiana
,
Wisconsin
,
plus
Illinois
no longer have mandatory helmet requirements for adults.
Even if passed, by requiring helmet usage by those under twenty-one,
and by those without recent training and experience, the
Michigan
law will still be more restrictive than many if not most states.
PREVIOUS
FOCUS ON OTHER ASPECTS
In
the past, advocates for modifying the law have focused their position on the
“rights” or “freedom of choice” of adult motorcycle operators.
Advocates have also argued that better training of motorcycle and
automotive drivers would have a higher impact on safety than any helmet law
mandate. Some supporters of helmet freedom of choice question the actual
safety benefits of helmets and believe that the results of state helmet laws
are less than clear when all factors of usage, training and operator age are
considered.
The
arguments and debates are often passionate, and have been the subject of a
wealth of previous legislative testimony in
Michigan
and at the national level. Even though the “rights,”
and “training and safety” issues will continue to be key elements of the
position of law modification advocates, the economic impact issues also merit
inclusion in the discussion.
This document, for the purposes of proper context, also provides summary
information on other elements of the overall debate, but the primary focus of
the material and findings is the economic impacts.
FORMAT
Section
One describes the mission and identifies the past focus of helmet law
modification advocates.
Section Two provides an overview of the modifications being proposed,
and reviews the trends in others states.
Section Three is the heart of the document, analyzing and estimating the
economic impacts from increased sales and tourism that will likely ensue from
a modification to the present law.
Section Four offers brief summaries of the other issues that in the past
been the dominant elements of the helmet law modification. The summaries are
provided solely for context. Other studies and legislative testimony address
those concerns in much greater detail.
SECTION
TWO
HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE AND
OVERVIEW
OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
MICHIGAN
SITUATION
How
Michigan
compares to other states is seen as vital information.
Michigan
is now in the minority of states that mandate helmet usage by adults.
None of the three states with land bordering
Michigan
(
Ohio
,
Indiana
,
Wisconsin
)
require
helmet usage by adults (neither do
Illinois
or
Minnesota
).
The reality that
Michigan
has very restrictive helmet usage laws, while the national trend has been to
allow adult choice, has several ramifications for this study. It means that
data from states with similar geographic and demographics can be used for
statistical analysis of modifications to the existing law.
It also means that there are direct differences in the attractiveness
of states for motorcycle tourism.
Understanding
Michigan
in the national context also places the modification issue into one of
reasonableness. It is fair to suggest that helmet law modification advocates
of two decades ago were not always taken seriously in
Lansing
,
regardless of the legitimacy of their positions. This may have been due to the
“colorful” characterization that was placed upon them by outsiders, or
even sought after by the enthusiasts themselves.
Regardless, the reality is that adult choice for helmet usage is now
the common position of the majority of states, and that the average age and
income of motorcycle owners has been steadily increasing. Motorcycle users
come from all age, income, and education attainment levels. Simply
put, the views of the individuals who actually
operate motorcycles, many for decades, merit valid consideration.
NATIONAL
TREND
The impetus for the original passage of mandatory usage in most states,
including
Michigan
,
was created in 1966 when the United States Department of Transportation
threatened that federal highway funds would be withheld from states that did
not enact such legislation.
Michigan
,
along with forty-eight additional states (the exception at the time was
California
)
relatively soon had some form of helmet usage requirement enacted into law.
The past federal pressure as the impetus for mandatory helmet laws is a
valuable historical note. The attitudes and reasoning of legislators over
twenty-five years ago cannot be viewed with certainty. Yet, there
obviously is reason to believe that the pressures for the
Michigan
law stemmed to a significant degree from the federal funding requirement,
rather than any perceived safety analysis.
It was also part of a national trend, one that has since gone in the
opposite direction.
Even though the federal Department of Transportation never reduced
funding to any states dues to the policy, the power do to so was
challenged by several states as well as motorcycle groups. By 1976, the United
States Congress took action to formally invalidate any power the DOT had to
hold back funds. Since that time,
a majority of states have significantly modified or repealed their mandatory
helmet use laws. At present,
Michigan
is one of only 19 states that mandate helmet usage by adults. None of the four
states bordering
Michigan
mandate helmet usage by adults.
Pennsylvania
was the most recent state to modify their motorcycle helmet law, with the
change becoming effective in September, 2003.
KEY
PARTS OF THE LEGISLATION AS NOW PROPOSED
Other documents are available that detail the proposed legislation.
Obviously, the specifics of the actual language under consideration in
legislative committee, and perhaps eventually for a vote of the legislature,
may go through a series of refinements. The legislation being supported by
ABATE (American Bikers Aiming Toward Education) of
Michigan
incorporates the following primary characteristics.
¨
Operators
20 years of age or younger would be required to wear helmets.
¨
Operators
of any age with limited experience would need to wear helmets.
¨
Operators
21 years of age or older with experience would have freedom of choice
regarding helmet usage.
It
is important to note that if passed as proposed,
Michigan
would still have more restrictions than over one-half of the states.
The proposed modifications do not change the existing
Michigan
requirements involving brakes, mirrors, headlights, passenger seats, and other
features.
PRESENT
USAGE AND GROWTH
Nationally
Motorcycles have enjoyed renewed popularity in the
United
States
.
In 1998 there were 6.57 million motorcycles (including off-road cycles) in use
by approximately 5.7 million owners. Nationally, motorcycle registrations
increased every year during the eleven year period through 2002, the last year
for which totals are available.
A
key influence has been the aging baby boomers, now with more disposable
income, returning to motorcycle enjoyment. The median age for motorcycle
owners was 38.0 in 1998, and the mean age 38.1 years.
These figures represent dramatic increases from a few decades ago.
In 1980, for example, the median age was 24.0 years and the mean age
was 26.9 years.
In the report America at Leisure,
June, 2001 As Bear, Sterns & Co. Inc. noted “we
believe that the strong industry sales that we’ve seen since the mid 1990s
and are currently experiencing should continue for the better part of this
decade, if any credence is to be given to the demographics argument.”
Rather than the old stereotype of societal outcasts, motorcycle owners
are now more likely to be mainstream
America
.
Within the findings of the “1998
Survey of Motorcycle Ownership and Safety” conducted for the Motorcycle
Industrial Council (MIC) by Irwin Broth & Associates, the following
characteristics were found:
¨
Median
income of motorcycle owners was over $44,000.
¨
Almost
three-fifths were married.
¨
Over
one-half had attended college or technical school after graduation from high
school.
¨
“Professional/technical”
was the most frequently reported category of occupation (this category was
third in a similar 1980 survey, behind mechanic/craftsman
and laborer/semi-skilled).
Given the national increase in income from 1998 and 2003 the median
income of motorcyclists today very possibly exceeds $50,000 annually.
Michigan
In 2002, the State reported total motorcycle registrations of 197,735.
Even a modest growth of 6% for the entire period covering 2003 and 2004
will bring the total to approximately 209,600 for the year 2004. This number
serves as a base to calculate potential growth induced if the law is modified.
The MIC estimates that in 1998 the motorcycle population in
Michigan
266,700, with 203,200 being used on-highway
(at some time) and 82,000 being used off-highway
at some time.
A survey sponsored by the MIC estimated that in 2002 there were 528
motorcycle retail outlets in
Michigan
,
with 5,624 employees. Of the
outlets, 256 were classified as “franchised” and 272 were classified as
“non-franchised.” The total
payroll at motorcycle outlets in 1998 was estimated to exceed $138.9 million
annually in
Michigan
and over $3.55 billion nationally.
Even these substantial figures do not include the economic activity
generated at multi-purpose retail and automotive supply stores that sell
motorcycle related fluids, parts, cleaning materials, tools, and other
products.
Michigan
usage compared to other states
After the State of
Florida
eased their helmet restrictions a significant increase in total registrations
quickly occurred. ABATE of
Florida
,
using state data; found that a 20.4% increase in total registrations occurred
over the previous year. Would
such an increase happen in
Michigan
?
Total registrations in
Michigan
can be compared on a per capita basis with the other
Great
Lakes
states. As noted,
Michigan
is the only one of these six states to require helmet usage by adults.
Table
"A"
provides comparisons for registrations and population for the six states.
|
Table "A"
COMPARISONS
OF REGISTRATIONS IN GREAT LAKES STATES
|
|
State
|
2000
motorcycle registrations
|
2000
population
|
Registration
per 1,000 residents
|
| Illinois |
196,000 |
12,419,293 |
15.78 |
|
Indiana |
118,000 |
6,080,485 |
19.41 |
|
Minnesota |
143,000 |
4,919,479 |
29.07 |
|
Ohio |
255,000 |
11,353,140 |
22.46 |
|
Wisconsin |
180,000 |
5,363,675 |
33.56 |
|
5 State Total |
892,000 |
40,136,072 |
22.22* |
|
Michigan |
184,000 |
9,938,444 |
18.51 |
*
Weighted average, simple average is 24.06
Per
capita motorcycle registrations in the other five states, using a weighted
average, were 20.1% higher than in
Michigan
during the year 2000.
Four of the five states have registration figures significantly higher
than
Michigan
’s.
Using an unweighted average for the five states generates a figure of 24.06
registrations per 1000 residents, or over 29% higher than that of
Michigan
.
If
Illinois
was excluded from the data the percentage difference between
Michigan
and its four land
border
states
would be ever greater.
The total “Motorcycle population” estimates for each state can also
be used for comparison, although registrations are viewed as more appropriate.
This alternative data still yields the finding that motorcycle sales in
Michigan
are significantly below neighboring and similar states.
Michiganders are known for their enjoyment of motor vehicles, and have a
similar or above level of household income compared to neighboring states.
Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that if the law is modified,
allowing freedom of choice for adults, overall registration could increase by
at least 20%. This may not occur in the first year as it did in
Florida
,
but over time (and perhaps quickly) a level of equilibrium would be reached
consistent with neighboring states.
SECTION
THREE
DISCUSSION
AND ESTIMATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS
INTRODUCTION
This
Section utilizes the potential impact of a 20% increase in registrations and
generates estimates of the economic impact within the states. Tourism impacts
are then calculated, including both the retention within
Michigan
of the tourism spending of
Michigan
motorcycle enthusiasts, and the attraction of motorcycle tourism to
Michigan
.
The overall totals are presented in terms of economic activity, payroll,
direct and indirect jobs, and state revenues.
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS OF SALES/REGISTRATION GROWTH
Increased sales and sales tax
Sales
growth will mirror growth in registrations. If modification to the law creates
a 20% growth, this represents an increase in registrations of 41,920.
This figure is additive to whatever growth or decline would have otherwise
occurred based on such factor of the economy, aging of
America
,
and consumer trends.
The
national average sales price for an on-highway motorcycle in 2001 was
approximately $10,140. Given
price inflation, and the likelihood that the new cycle purchases induced by
law modification would be in the higher engine displacements, the price for
the vehicle purchases induced by the law modification in Michigan would
probably average at least $11,000. Using
the $11,000 figure, the additional sales of new vehicles could represent $461
million in direct economic activity. The
6% sales tax on these vehicles could total $27.7 million.
In
addition to the new and used vehicle purchases, the increased number of owners
will result in increases in annual purchases of accessory items.
Nationally in 2001, “Parts,
Accessories, & Riding Apparel” and “Service
labor” and “Other Motorcycle Related Sales” (excluding purchases of
new and used vehicle) averaged over $611 per operator. Former owners returning
to motorcycling may spend even more.
For estimation purposes, a $625 per year average for the 41,920 new
sales is suggested as appropriate when the impact of the modification takes
complete effect and is responded to in the marketplace.
This represents over $26.2 million in annual activity and over $1.5
million in state sales tax. These
are annually recurring items that will rise with inflation.
The increase in registrations and sales will also energize the resale
market. Firm figures from other
states are not available, but it is prudent to assume that a 20% increase in
sales can result in at least a 10% increase in resale's. This would be a
recurring item, and may further increase as the number of registrations and
existing vehicles increased. Using the existing base of 209,600, a 10%
increase in resale's, at an average price of $6,000, generates an estimates
direct impact of $125.8 million, and sales tax revenues of over $7.54 million.
Even though not included in any monetary estimates, it is possible that
the new and used sales figures will be further heightened by more people from
neighboring states purchasing their vehicles in
Michigan
.
Such sales are of particular economic benefit by bringing out-of-state dollars
into
Michigan
.
Employees and payroll
The increase in registration will create an increase in
employment and payroll. A
factor of 15% is chosen, less than the 20% sales factor because the management
and facility system is reasonably well-established. An estimated 6,406
positions were involved in motorcycles retail sales and maintenance during
2003. This does not include individuals involved with motorcycle services that
are listed in other employment categories or operate on a cash-only basis.
A 15% increase represents 961 direct jobs.
Use of a conservative multiplier of 1.8 to represent induced jobs
created by sequential rounds of spending by individuals in the direct jobs
increases the gross employment impact to 1,730 jobs. The direct total payroll
would increase by over $20.8 million, with the impact on the state income tax
directly being $730,000, with the multiplier effect further increasing the
overall impact.
TOURISM
IMPACTS
Background
A variety of stories have appeared in the media pertaining to the
incredible popularity, and economic impact, of major motorcycle rallies in
other states. It cannot be predicted that in the near future
Michigan
will duplicate such success. Yet,
as long as the helmet law restrictions
continue, it is certain that many Michigan motorcyclists will decide to
vacation in other states, and the full potential of attracting motorcycle
tourists to Michigan will be restricted.
A
popular magazine of avid motorcyclists is Horse
Backstreet Choppers. It is
published in
Sterling
Heights
,
Michigan
.
They sponsor a motorcycle
rally/event each year---but never in
Michigan
.
The most recent event, in
Salesbury
,
North
Carolina
,
attracted over 30,000 individuals. The majority used hotel/motel rooms in the
area. The function has probably outgrown the area, and new sites are being
considered.
In
an interview with the event sponsors, it was unequivocally stated that
Michigan
locations would not be considered due to the present helmet law.
Simply put, a
Michigan
location would attract fewer people.
Some motorcycle rallies/events are held in
Michigan
each year, but nothing of the magnitude of the major events held in other
states. Typically,
Michigan
events do not attract many motorcycle enthusiasts from others states.
Meridian Entertainment, organizers of an event in West Branch each year
called the Hog Rendezvous provided
insight into the situation. In
2003, of 5,157 paying attendees at the Hog Rendezvous, only 57 (or 1.1%) were
from out-of-state. The percentage was 1.25% in 2002 and 1.9% in 2001. The
organizers strongly believe that a modified helmet law allowing adult choice
would significantly increase the number of out-of-state visitors.
Estimation of tourism impacts
Increased tourism spending will occur through two interrelated aspects:
¨
Retention
of the spending of
Michigan
motorcyclists.
¨
Attraction
into
Michigan
of motorcycle tourists from other states.
Modest factors are utilized to estimate the economic impacts.
Retention of
Michigan
motorcycle tourists
ABATE members and other
Michigan
motorcycling enthusiasts report that they typically choose other states for
motorcycle based vacations due to the helmet restrictions in
Michigan
.
This creates a substantial loss of spending for
Michigan
tourism based firms.
The
197,735 motorcycle registrations in
Michigan
are estimated to represent 179,759 individual owners, using a factor of 1.1
cycles per owner. If the change
in the helmet law is able to retain one vacation trip in the state for only
20% of the owners, this represents almost 36,000 trips. For calculation
purposes, a modest figure of $600 per trip is used to derive an estimate of
$21.6 million in retained spending in
Michigan
.
This also would create $1.3 million in state sales taxes, plus additional
state and local taxes on such things as motel rooms, alcohol, gasoline, and
even tobacco products, plus and income and other taxes paid by the employees
in the jobs created.
Increased attraction of out-of-state motorcycle tourists
The modifications to the law will attract more out-of-state motorcycle
enthusiasts to take vacations in
Michigan
.
The trips may range from relatively short one day visits to areas near
the borders, to extended week long journeys. The number of trips into
Michigan
can modestly be estimated to at least equal the number retained by
Michigan
residents. The 35,952 figure is viewed as conservative. In addition to the
independent trips, even a handful of modest motorcycle events can attract much
of the figure. If one or two major events were to be located in
Michigan
,
they alone could approach much of the number.
Using a figure of $900 per trip by out-of state residents generates an
attracted spending figure of $32.4 million and sales taxes of $1.9 million.
Other forms of tax revenues would also accrue to the state and local
governments.
It
is reiterated that the out-of-state tourism potential is far higher than the
modest estimates used here.
Michigan
is known for fine roads, beautiful shorelines, and northern scenery.
There is a pent-up demand by
motorcycle enthusiasts to visit
Michigan
.
The change in the law is very likely to encourage sponsors of existing
or potential motorcycle events to market heavily to tourists of other states.
As
an ultimate reference point, researchers at the
University
of
New
Hampshire
estimated that the economic impacts of the famous Laconia Motorcycle Race Week
that takes place annually in the state pumps “$200 million into the
region’s economy.” Findings
of similar magnitude can be found for the famous motorcycle events in
Daytona
,
Florida
,
Milwaukee
,
Wisconsin
,
and
Sturgis
,
South
Dakota
.
It is not suggested that
Michigan
will ever replicate events of such size, but the potential clearly exists to
reap significant tourism dollars from motorcycle events located in
Michigan
.
Tourism totals
Added together, the retention and new attraction calculations total
$53.9 million in new tourism spending in
Michigan
,
and $3.2 million in sales taxes. Other
forms of tax revenues, elusive to quantify, will also be generated.
It is possible to translate the revenue figures into job estimates.
Using a factor of one job created for each $60,000 in tourism spending
generates a direct job increase estimate of 539. These jobs also create
additional jobs in the community through sequential rounds of spending.
This multiplier effect will be at least 1.8 or .8 induced jobs created
for each direct job. This
brings the total tourism job impact to 970.
OTHER
CONSUMER AND BUSINESS EXPENDITURES
There are other aspects as well. For
example, registration fees to the state would be increased proportionately.
National advertising from motorcycle companies and local motorcycle businesses
would increase. Major motorcycle
events attract national sponsorship money. A portion of the new employees
hired may now be receiving State income maintenance benefits, thus relieving
the state of that cost.
IMPACT
TOTALS
The impacts from the increased sales and tourism activities are
summarized below:
Economic activity--direct
New sales.......................................................................
$461.2 million
Resale's increased...........................................................
124.8 million
Accessory sales increased...............................................
27.7 million
Tourism ..............................................................................
53.9 million
Total
direct..............................................................
$667.0 million
Impact including ripple effect.....................................
$1.2 Billion
Sales tax direct.............................................................
$40.0 million
Employment
Direct (sales and tourism) jobs..................................
1,500 new jobs
Total
jobs, including from multiplier...............
2,700 new jobs
A significant portion of the economic impacts will be annually
recurring, as well as the majority of the employment. As repeated several
times, the actual potential for motorcycle tourism is far higher than the
modest figures used in this report.
Florida
found that dramatic impacts occurred the first year after the modifications in
their law were enacted.
The speed of the impacts in
Michigan
may or may not differ, probably relating more to the regional economy than the
ultimate results. It is clear that the law is appealing to a segment of the
economy with disposal income and an interest in travel.
It is also a segment that is certain to grow due to the graying of the
baby boom generation.
SECTION
FOUR
NOTES
ON RELATED CONCERNS
REITERATION
OF
MISSION
As stated at the beginning, the mission of this study is to analyze the
economic benefits of modification of the existing law that will stem from
increased vehicle sales and tourism. This beneficial impact has been an
under-appreciated element in past debates.
It is not claimed that the economic benefits identified in this report
should be viewed as dominant considerations in the legislative deliberations;
but they merit inclusion in the discussions.
Given that other elements have usually been central to the debate, it is
useful to at least identify within this document those aspects in order to
provide a context for the economic impacts discussion.
A wide variety of material and testimony has previously been submitted
by various groups and researchers pertaining to these other aspects.
The narrative below simply provides capsule summaries.
NOTES
ON ADULT CHOICE
The past focus of modification proponents, at least as reported by the
media, has been that an adult should have the right to choose whether or not
to use a helmet. Even in states
that allow adult choice, many still decide to use a helmet at all times or
during inclement weather. Some motorcyclists believe that their vision is
improved without a helmet, and thus are safer---while some will always use
helmets, seek out the best ones for their needs, and wear them correctly.
For most proponents of modification, it is not a matter of being
anti-helmet, but the fundamental right of an adult to choose.
It is important to repeat that even if the modifications are enacted,
Michigan
would still be one of the more restrictive states in the nation.
All operators under the age of 21 would still need to use a helmet.
Even adult operators without experience (as proposed the length is two
years) would need to use a helmet.
The law would also enhance training requirements.
NOTES
ON CRASH DATA
It
is not the mission of the study to analyze in depth motor vehicle crash
statistics. Proponents of
modification point to a variety of data that suggests the value of a helmet in
crashes is of little consequence, while opponents claim there is a safety
benefit. Given that in a major accident with a fatality there likely are a
variety of critical injuries, the applicability of common crash data can be
questioned by analysts on both sides of the issue.
It is valuable to place the motorcycle crash figure in a proper context.
Table "B" provides the
motorcycle fatality figures in the State of
Michigan
for a 10 year period. In 2002, there were 82 fatalities involved in 81 crashes
involving motorcycles.
|
TABLE
"B"
MOTORCYCLE
CRASHES AND FATAL CRASHES
MICHIGAN
--1993
THROUGH 2002
|
|
Year |
All Crashes |
Fatal Crashes |
| 1993 |
2,768 |
51 |
| 1994 |
2,982 |
66 |
| 1995 |
2,651 |
80 |
| 1996 |
2,468 |
61 |
| 1997 |
2,465 |
63 |
| 1998 |
2,931 |
52 |
| 1999 |
2,820 |
80 |
All accidental deaths are tragic. On purely a comparative statistical
basis, however, the 82 fatalities are not a large figure, particularly
considering that there were over 1,279 fatalities in motor vehicle related
accidents in
Michigan
,
and an overall population that now exceeds 10,000,000.
Pedestrian deaths represented more than twice the number of
fatally-injured motorcyclists. Motorcycles
simply are not a major component of the vehicles safety challenges faced in
Michigan
or any other state.
It is noteworthy that the number of fatalities changes significantly
each year. The figure of 94 in
2001 was more than 80% higher than the 1998 figure, but then the 2002 figure
dropped by 14%. Therefore, attempting to predict the absolute change in
fatalities from a modification in the helmet law is extremely problematic.
Claims of a “5%” or “10%” increase or decrease in fatalities due to
any change in law or state programs simply are overwhelmed by the statistical
chaos in the yearly data.
Furthermore, the proposed modification actually involves only a subset
of the motorcycling operating population.
As noted, those under 21 and operators without significant experience
would still be required to use a helmet.
Thus, statistically, the purported protection provided by a helmet
would continue to apply to those most at risk and less able to make an
informed personal judgment. Moreover, many adults would continue to use a
helmet.
Advocates for forcing usage of helmets claim they save lives and prevent
serious injury. This has never been accepted as an established fact by many
motorcyclists. The official standards for a helmet only require that it must
withstand a crash of a speed of 13 miles per hour or less. This also assumes
that the helmet is appropriately chosen to fit snugly and worn correctly.
NOTES
ON EDUCATION AND STATE PRIORITIES
The reality is that the State of
Michigan
has not made motorcycle operator training a priority, nor has it made
motorcycle awareness by automobile operators an integral part of training and
licensing. Passage of the legislation should enhance cooperation between the
State and ABATE and other motorcycle groups, thus serving to place a higher
and potential more effective emphasis on driver education and training.
The
training component of the proposed legislation would emphasize the problem of
drinking and driving of all vehicles, a major factor in both automotive and
motorcycle accidents.
INFORMATION
SOURCES
A
wide variety of sources were reviewed during the preparation of this study.
Those of most direct relevance to the findings are identified below.
¨
American
Motorcycle Network, statement of Louisiana Governor Mike Foster, October,
2003.
¨
Bear
Stearns & Co. Inc.
America
at Leisure, 2001.
¨
Biker
Rights Online, States and Helmet Laws
(list).
¨
Greater
Milwaukee Convention and Visitors Bureau, website, information on impacts of
National Motorcycle Rally.
¨
Michigan
Department of Education, Traffic Safety
Education Program, 2003.
¨
Michigan
State
Police,
Michigan
Office of Highway Safety Planning, 2002
Michigan
Traffic Crash Facts.
¨
Michigan
Secretary of State, Motorcycle License Information Website.
¨
Motorcycle
Industry Council, Statistical Annual
2002.
¨
National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Evaluation
of the Repeal of the Motorcycle Helmet Laws in
Kentucky
and
Louisiana
.
¨
National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
National
Center
for Statistics and Analysis, Vehicles,
Crash Data Report, 1990-1999.
¨
National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
National
Center
for Statistics and Analysis, Motorcycles,
Crash Data Report, 1990-1999.
¨
National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
National
Center
for Statistics and Analysis, Traffic
Safety Facts, 2001.
¨
National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
National
Center
for Statistics and Analysis, Fatality
Analysis Reporting System, Web Based Encyclopedia.
¨
Standard
& Poors, Harley-Davidson STARS
Report.
¨
SYSTAN,
Under contract with the California Highway Patrol, California
Motorcyclist Safety Program,
¨
United
States
Census Bureau,
County
Business
Patterns,
Michigan
,
Employees, Payroll, and Establishments
by Industry, 2001.
¨
United
States
Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Motorcycle,
Bicycle, & Parts Manufacturing.
¨
University
of
New
Hampshire
,
Robert Gittell, Project Director, Economic Benefits of New Hampshire Primary
(includes references to Laconia Motorcycle Race Week).
¨
University
of Wisconsin-Madison,
Wayne
Bigelow
,
Wisconsin
CODES Project, Motorcycle Crashes in
Wisconsin
,
1994-1998.
¨
A
variety of material appearing on the WebPages of the various state
ABATE associations throughout the country.
¨
A
variety of testimony given to state legislatures in other parts of the country
both from those advocating mandatory helmet laws and those advocating adult
choice.
¨
A
variety of media reports on motorcycle helmet legislation in other states.
¨
A
variety of media reports on economic impacts of motorcycle rallies/events in
other states.
