INTRODUCTION If your helmet doesnt have an ISI mark, steer clear of traffic cops.

Following orders from Commissioner of Police Arup Patnaik, the traffic department has started fining bikers wearing helmets that dont meet safety standards. In the last three days, they have fined 643 bikers. But offenders who have been slapped with fines say that, while they knew of the rule that made helmets compulsory, they were not aware that the helmets needed to be ISI approved. I was going towards Churchgate station on my bike when the cops stopped me near Azad Maidan and asked me which helmet I was wearing. I was surprised as I was wearing a helmet as per the rules. They told me that I would have to pay a fine since my helmet didnt have the ISI mark, said Asgar Sayed, a resident of Borivali. They took me to Azad maidan police station. I argued with them but they told me that its our commissioners order that I pay the fine. When I refused to pay, they said that if I dont pay the fine, they will put me in the lock-up and if I had a problem I should approach the court, he added. On Friday, the Azad maidan police station had fined more than 10 people for not having ISImarked helmets. May be the commissioner has organised this drive for the safety of the citizen, but when they make such an announcement, they should have advertised it, making it clear that we need to use ISI approved helmets. At least, then, we would be careful to look for the ISI certification while buying helmets, said Sanjay Gurav, a resident of Fort who had also been fined for wearing the wrong helmet. At least for first-time offenders, they should have let us off with a warning. If there is not publice announcement about this, how are we supposed to know about this move? added Gurav. We are following our commissioners orders. We are fining them under section 129 of the

Motor Vehicle Act,said Ashok Thube, a police inspector from the Azad Maidan police station. Director's Message Road traffic deaths and injuries are continuously increasing in all states and union territories of India. More than 100,000 persons are killed and around 500,000 are injured every year in India. An estimated 7000 persons died and 51,000 persons sustained serious injuries during 2004 in Karnataka. Bangalore city witnessed about 900 deaths and injuries among 10,000 persons during the year 2004. Among those killed and injured, nearly 40% occurred among motorcycle riders and pillions, with more than a third due to traumatic brain injuries. For the affected families, it is a time of intense agony and suffering along with huge socio-economic burden. Human brain is the single most important organ in our body responsible for all our activities. Injury to this part can lead to instantaneous death or various types of damage and disabilities. The quality of life among injured is often poor and affects them for the rest of their lives. Prevention of brain injuries should be of great importance in the Indian region. Several proven and cost-effective strategies are available today based on years of scientific research. Helmet legislation is one such strategy, which has demonstrated its effectiveness over a period of time from all around the world including India. There is an unambiguous and direct relationship between presence of a universal helmet law, helmet usage and decline in brain injury deaths and injuries. Undoubtedly, implementation of this intervention can lead to reduction of deaths, injuries and disabilities. The present decision of the State Government is timely, appropriate and a step in the right direction. Citizens need to take note of enormous benefits likely for

themselves and their families with this strategy. Dr. D. Nagaraja Director/Vice-ChancellorNIMHANS, Bangalore.1 Karnataka is experiencing motorization at a rapid pace. Every day, nearly 500 motor-vehicles ( including 375 motorcycles, scooters and mopeds) are added on to the existing roads. Data from both police and hospital sources indicate that nearly 40% of those killed and injured are motorcyclists. Nearly 60% of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are due to road traffic injuries (RTIs). Those injured and killed are predominantly men and in the age group of 15-44 years (75%). The number of women drivers is fast increasing in Karnataka and Bangalore city. Consequently deaths and injuries will increase among women in the coming years. Evidence available till date indicates that helmets decrease the likelihood of death, the severity brain of injury, number of skull fractures, neurological disabilities, and overall cost of medical care and social hardships. The risk of death is nearly 2.5 times more among unhelmeted riders compared with those wearing helmets. Without helmet laws, only less than 5% of riders and pillions wear helmets in Bangalore and might be <1% in other parts of Karnataka state. Helmet use can reach nearly 80-90% when law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets is notified and enforced. This single strategy brings enormous benefits to the society.

Baseless arguments float in the society discouraging helmet law and often leading to withdrawl of notification. Research from all over the world indicates that there is no evidence for these arguments that exists among the public. While educational programmes will be of help to clear these misconceptions, strict-uniform and people-friendly implementation will undoubtedly reduce deaths and injuries. Needless to say political leadership will be the driving force. This initiative of Karnataka should be welcomed by every citizen of the state1. Introduction The recent decision of the Government of Karnataka with regard to reintroduction of Helmet legislation should be welcomed by all citizens of the State. The decision was pending for a long time despite recommendations by technical, academic, statutory and administrative bodies. These include NIMHANS and other academic institutions, professional bodies, health task force of Government of Karnataka, the Honble High Court of the Government of Karnataka, the Department of Transport and Police, and several concerned citizens road safety groups. Even the media has strongly supported reintroduction of the legislation for a long period of time by taking scientific information to the public arena and stimulating a healthy discussion around the issue. The citizens of Bangalore had publicly acknowledged the importance of helmets in

media. In the last 3 years, several campaigns on helmet usage (Friends for Life Campaigns - 2003, Safe Chalao Citi Bajao - 2004, Road Safety Week Celebrations - 2005) have been conducted and newspaper articles have been in the city of Bangalore. Despite these recommendations and suggestions, few had opposed the law for simple and trivial reasons. The time is appropriate at this juncture to clearly examine the scientific issues and societal benefits of helmet legislation and identify mechanisms for smooth and people-friendly implementation of the law during the coming years. The present report has attempted to bring in available scientific evidence on helmet legislation from all over the world and its efficacy to reduce brain injuries. The report examines the current motorization pattern; increasing road traffic injuries and deaths in Karnataka and Bangalore, specially among motorcyclists; nature and pattern of brain injuries among two wheeler rider and pillions along with impact of road traffic injuries on individual, family and society. Secondly, the mechanism of brain injury and role of protective nature of helmets are discussed in brief. Thirdly, the existing Indian Motor Vehicle Act (1988) and its implication are highlighted

along with what works to promote helmet usage in Indian Society. The efficacy and effectiveness of helmet laws are reviewed in Section 11 along with existing myths and facts of helmet usage ( section 12) as the fourth important issue. Lastly the report sets in place series of guidelines for proper implementation and enforcement of helmet laws in Karnataka. Road Traffic Injuries (RTIs) are one of the leading causes of deaths, hospitalizations, disabilities and socioeconomic losses in India, Karnataka and Bangalore. The number of people killed, hospitalized or disabled exceeds the problems of many other emerging health problems like Cancer, HIV/AIDS, Diabetes, Cardiovascular diseases and others (WHO, 2002). With liberalized economic reforms, industrialization, migration and changing values of the large middle class - young and middle age sections of the society, the motorization phenomena in Karnataka has been rapid and marked. Aggressive marketing by vehicle manufacturers, easy availability of loans, the glamour of free and speedy mobility and the bear necessity to travel have resulted in increasing motorization. As t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d mo b i l i t y b e c ome s a n e s s e n t i a l component of our life, motor vehicles have become a

necessity. As there has been no significant increase in mass public transportation systems, two-wheeled motorcycles have become the major choice of people. Considering the constraints of time and the need for travel, individualpersonal modes of transport are becoming the law of the land. Large number of poor and middle-income families are compelled to use two wheelers, as they are not highly expensive. Even though motorcycles are economical for the individual, this motorization has placed considerable problems in the society. An accompanying future of this change has been a consequent increase in RTIs and deaths. Apart from injuries-deaths, other accompanying problems like traffic congestion, air and noise pollution and other psychosocial problems are also placing a huge burden. http://www.nimhans.kar.nic.in/epidemiology/doc/ep_ft24.pdf

China

By default, all of the helmets we list in our Helmets for the Current Season article are made in China if not otherwise indicated. The overwhelming majority of the world's helmets are produced there. There are many

manufacturers, and quality ranges from poor to excellent. In addition, many helmets assembled elsewhere have at least some Chinese-made component parts like buckles and straps. Most of the best known helmet brands in the US market are made in China. Major US companies sourcing there have to be very careful about quality control, and buy most of their helmets from a few producers known for consistent quality.
USA

There are still millions of bicycle helmets made every year in the US. Most are made by Bell in Rantoul, IL, and are marked "Assembled in the USA from components made in China and the USA." They are in Bell's low-cost line, found at Wal-Mart, Toys R Us and other big box discount stores. The higher end includes their Impulse, a round, smooth helmet that is molded in the shell. We do not know of any other major manufacturer making bicycle helmets here in the US. We do not know of any bicycle helmet manufacturer or vendor who would satisfy the Buy America Act requirement that the product is assembled in America and all parts down to the sub-component level must be made in America as well. If you find one, please let us know.
Australia

Tommy Carron has informed us that bicycle helmets are manufactured in Australia by Pacific Brands under the Rosebank brand. Playworks International also manufacture the FLITE 900 in Australia which is a children's helmet (as of 2006). Headstart International also makes a child's helmet- the HEADSTART Skins Flame 325 (as of 2006). Again, we don't know where their components are sourced.
Belgium

Lazer used to make their helmets in Belgium. They may still make some models there, but we don't know which ones.
Canada

At least one Louis Garneau's helmet is made in Canada. Some Garneau models come from China, however, and we don't have a list by origin.
France

The French company BiOS has a Made in France line at the bottom of their Web pages. Their helmets are made to a different drummer design, so you might want to read our writeup on them.
Germany

At least two manufacturers still make helmets in Germany. Uvex makes their most expensive models there. A few of their less expensive models are made in China. KED Helmsysteme, whose helmets we have not seen, advertises on their Web site that their helmets are "garantiert made in Germany." We have more on both manufacturers in our annual helmets for the current season page. Again there may or may not be Chinese-made components.
Israel

We have had reports since the 1990's of a kibbutz-based manufacturer of bike helmets in Israel. The company isPolybid, and they are part of Kibbutz Mismar HaNegev. They have a nicely rounded bicycle model, the Pro 2 and others for youth and toddlers. Their site in is Hebrew, but Google can translate if you need it, or you can use this link to their helmets if it is up.
Italy

Italian manufacturers have been among the last to switch to Asian manufacturing for their helmets. Some have mixed Italian and Chinese origin lines like Limar, but at least three say all of their models are still Made in Italy: MET, LAS andSelev.
Japan

Most helmets made in Japan are for the internal market. We don't have info on them. They would be made to fit the rounder Asian head shape.
Sweden

At least one Swedish manufacturer still makes their helmets there. Others may as well, but we don't see them in the US market.
Taiwan

A number of manufacturers make helmets in Taiwan. Most Expanded PolyUrethane (EPU) helmets come from there. Manufacturers include Ascent and Tirreno, the Performance Bicycle house brand.

The first motorcycle was reported to have been invented by Gottlieb Daimler in 1885. We dont think it was built for speed not like motorcycles today. And with speed not being a factor, nobody really thought of motorcycle helmets. But as people developed their need for speed, motorcycles were made to go faster. Between 1931 and 1953, the American race for the fastest motorcycle was run by two competitors Harley-Davidson and Indian Motorcycles. But as the speed of motorcycles increased, so did the number of accident fatalities. It was only then that University of Southern California (USC) Professor C.F. Red Lombard developed a motorcycle helmet designed to absorb the shock of an impact. Along with the layer of comfort padding in a helmet, this helmet also had another outer layer of padding that not only absorbed, but spread out the energy created by impact. In 1953, Mr. Lombard applied for a patent for his helmet. This was the beginning of the development of the modern-day motorcycle helmet. The standard had been set, and helmet manufacturers quickly followed Lombards lead.

Safety agencies see a need for motorcycle helmets

Since the first motorcycle helmet was introduced, safety agencies, many of them government, recognized the need for head protection for riders. The number of head and neck injuries was increasing, and the use of helmets had been proven to reduce this number. So the safety agencies lobbied for mandatory helmet laws. One safety agency that wasnt government-aided was the Snell Memorial Foundation. It was formed in 1957, in memory of William Pete Snell, a sports car racer fatally injured in a racing accident. His friends and widow formed the Foundation for the purpose of providing independent motorcycle helmet testing, with no bias to the government or the manufacturer. Their testing focused on performance, rather than materials and design. Theyre now recognized and respected as the world leader in helmet testing. Every good helmet has a Snell sticker in it. In 1958, the California Highway Patrol set an example by requiring their motorcycle officers to wear helmets. These examples werent limited just to America. For instance, in Australia, on January 1, 1961, the worlds first mandatory motorcycle helmet law was introduced. Then the safety agencies really got into the act. In 1966, the American National Safety Standard for Motorcycle Helmets was introduced, requiring performance standards for helmets that manufacturers were obligated to meet. The following year, the U.S. federal government introduced the Highway Safety Act of 1966 that required states to have mandatory helmet laws if they wanted to receive federal funds for highway maintenance and construction. This plan had its desired effect by 1975, 47 states had complied.

In 1974, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) introduced their Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 (FMVSS 218) for Motorcycle Helmets. These strict standards were mandatory for helmet manufacturers and every helmet was required to have a DOT-approved sticker inside. In 1997, the USC Head Protection Research Laboratories (HPRL) lobbied the government to upgrade the FMVSS 218.

Mandatory motorcycle helmet laws right or wrong?

But in 1975, for some reason, Congress withdrew the requirement and, within 3 years, half the states had repealed their laws. The number of motorcycle injuries and fatalities again rose sharply. What seemed to have been forgotten is that motorcyclists are injured or killed in over 80% of accidents. A motorcyclist is 21 times more likely to be killed, per mile driven, than a car driver. Wearing a helmet would reduce that risk by 29%. Lets take Louisiana, for example, one of the states that repealed their helmet law. In 1982, they reinstated mandatory helmet use, and the number of motorcycle deaths was immediately reduced by 30%. Those figures were reflected by many other states when they followed suit. Throughout the controversy over mandatory helmet laws, helmet manufacturers did what they could to provide better protection to riders. In 1967, the first full facial helmet was introduced, providing improved vision. Stronger and lighter helmets were developed, giving motorcycle riders more comfort and more protection. In the 1970s, technology created an increased use of energy-absorbing materials and better eye protection. But with all this new technology, there were still those who thought they were becoming more and more restricted by the new motorcycle helmets. Freedom was their cry, and they believed they had the Constitutional right to choose whether they should or shouldnt wear a helmet. They argued that it didnt affect anyone else if they were injured or killed in a crash. Well, they were wrong about that! Many studies were done, measuring the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets, along with the effects of motorcycle crashes. The results emphatically proved that those who chose not to wear a helmet hadnt considered a number of factors. For example, motorcyclists with head and neck injuries didnt carry health insurance, probably for the same reasons they didnt wear a helmet. So those bare-headed riders hospitalization costs were paid for by the taxpayer. And that doesnt include the social ramifications of their accidents, involving family and friends.

Motorcycle helmet use has increased through North America

Some other interesting statistics surrounding motorcycle helmet use were issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). They estimated that over $13.3 billion was saved between 1984 and 1999 from helmet use. And they said that another $11.1

billion could have been saved if all motorcyclists wore helmets. Another fact stood out only 2% of all vehicles are motorcycles, but 8% of crash fatalities are motorcycle riders. Now, only 3 states have no mandatory helmet laws. Many states require only minors (17-21 years old) to wear helmets, but this is hard to enforce. Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have all-rider mandatory helmet laws. Whats the message there? Another sector of motorcyclists is increasing in number whats known as Rubies (rich urban bikers). This category of riders also has an increasing number of motorcycle fatalities. As people get older, they feel a stronger need for freedom, which includes the freedom to ride their motorcycles without a helmet. Again, the results speak for themselves no helmets, more deaths. In the U.S., the federal government cant make national helmet laws because its under the jurisdiction of individual states, according to the Constitution. However, Canada doesnt have that structure, so they have been able to institute a national mandatory helmet law. And its done its job. In 1973, there were 903 motorcycle fatalities in Canada. In 1997, with mandatory helmet laws in place, there were only 120. Does that prove the point? Another positive development in Canada came in 1974, when the Canada Safety Council (CSC) introduced a Motorcycle Training Program called Gearing Up. Its a voluntary program, but by 2001, 19,000 motorcycle riders had completed the course. 70% of all newly-licensed motorcyclists take this training program. In Quebec, motorcyclists are required by law to take the training program. In Ontario, training is voluntary, but there are incentives for those who chose to take it. So it seems that Canada is setting the best example. Keep up the good work, Canada!

Should you, or shouldnt you?

Thats the big question these days for motorcycle riders should you wear a helmet? The statistics lean heavily towards saying Yes. There will always be those who feel that their freedom is under attack, no matter what theyre doing. Its up to the government to regulate those people. And, as weve seen, some state governments choose not to do that. And the results in those states speak for themselves. But our job here, in this history of motorcycle helmets and their governing laws, is just to present the facts. The decision is yours. You do have that freedom (well, in some states, you do). But if you dont want to end up as a statistic, you should follow the Canadian example and wear your motorcycle helmet. Happy riding!