Stan Perez: Thank you if I might start, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Stan Perez. As those who are with me will be joining me in a moment . . .

Senator Kelley: Could we take the conversations outside please, it's hard for us up here to hear. Alright, please proceed.

Stan Perez: Thank you again. I'm Stan Perez representing the California Highway Patrol. I'll tell you that the department has nothing to gain by opposing this measure. I too have ridden a motorcycle.

I was a motorcycle officer the better part of my career thus far. Have been in accidents that . . . and I firmly believe that helmets saved at least my upper body, my head. I will tell you that there are those who are going to join me that are much more an expert on all these studies that have produced, some forty two approximately on the matter, all in agreement that helmets do in fact save lives and reduce head trauma.

I will also tell you that the department has prepared several statistics, and we have not, as has been alleged, doctored any of those. All of our annual statistics are available to the public. They are just raw data and you can interpret them in any fashion. I met with Senator Russell earlier and he asked me to do just that. There was no coloring of those numbers. It was, you know, again, just raw data.

I'll tell you first there was a document that's been passed out. If we can go over that we'll go over that quickly. The top document I believe that you have is a comparison of accidents beginning 1989 through 1995, and what we took was a couple years before the helmet law which actually took effect in 1992, and a couple years to date thereafter. We compare accidents per one hundred collisions. And that's the way we've been doing it for quite a number of times. Do we do it other ways? Sure, there's doing it other ways.

We can measure it by county. We can measure it by city. We can measure it by time of day. We can measure it any way you'd like based on the raw data that's provided from our accident reports. This raw data that you have in front of you, on the extreme right hand column, and it's a column that's labeled "motorcycle fatalities per one hundred collisions." So what we did is back in 1989 compared the number of collisions. There were 620. This is while there was no helmet requirement. Back then the number of fatal accidents per one hundred total crashes was 2.9. The very year the motorcycle helmet passed, 1992, that figure dropped down to as you'll see, 2.4. Or to be exact as again the sponsors have indicated that we have not been exact with these number or rounded them unfairly, that was exactly 2.38 accidents or fatal accidents per one hundred collisions.

The only things that's changed here from the periods of 1989 to 1995 is that in 1995 again the helmet law came about. We also made sure, or want to point out that it has been said that we measure these inappropriately. We measure them against registration. Registration does not factor into our accident rate. We measure it against the one hundred accidents, one hundred collisions. And again that a pretty constant figure that we've used for a number of years.

And turning the page and looking at the number of motorcycle registrations, what the sponsors of this bill have not pointed out is that in fact motorcycle ridership or registration has not decreased since the helmet law took effect in 1992. It began a decrease well before we suspect we even began keeping statistics. The chart that I have asked to be passed out, and you have with you, shows that in 1986 for example from that period on, motorcycle registrations have fallen. Well in 1987 is the first year that the California Motorcycle Safety Program actually took effect so that the helmet law wasn't even legislation at that time. The mandatory for adult riders, the registration period had fallen. So the statement that motorcycle helmet requirements have resulted in a reduction in the sale or registration cannot be shown as accurate given the data that we've given to you, and can be verified through the Department of Motor Vehicles which we have already done.

Lastly, on the last couple of points I wanted to point out and then turn it over to my friends here, is again the Highway Patrol doesn't benefit from this. We don't receive additional money for investigating fatal collisions. It's not something that's very enjoyable. It's difficult to tolerate. It's hard to keep control of yourself, your composure as you're investigating somebody who'd lying dead on the ground and their motorcycle helmet is attached to the side of their motorcycle doing them absolutely no good.

Are there those cases where motorcycle helmets didn't do any good? Sure there are.

Are there cases where they helped? I'd say much more, much more of those cases than the first.

I'll add that as the registration document that we passed out, showed that there's been a steady decrease of about twenty thousand motorcycles since back in 1986. The fatality rate is something that we've used for some time. They're not doctored. And lastly, our officers wear three-quarter helmets. The only better helmet on the market is a full-face helmet. We have never had, and I repeat never had an officer claim a disability as a result of wearing a helmet, and we have been wearing helmets since helmets since helmets first become available to the patrol.

I was a victim of an accident. I slid for several hundred feet. My helmet was completely destroyed. And I am again confident that helmets save lives, or at least in my case that it definitely saved mine.

With respect to vision impairments, we teach our officers, as any good motorcyclist school teaches, you don't ride with your eyes just in front of you. You maintain a high visual horizon. That keeps you out of accidents. Those that claim vision impairment we suspect are those that don't look far ahead where the hazards are coming toward them instead wait 'til the last moment because their eyes are peeking just down at the road in front of them.

If I would, I'd like to turn it over to some guests that we've brought with us. Doctor Wendy Max is with us. Doctor Corinne Peek. All of those folks that will follow them are experts in many of these areas. Thank you.

Senator Kelley: Thank you. The next witness please.

Senator Ayala: I have a question.

Senator Kelley: Senator Ayala.

Senator Ayala: Perez, the largest arguments that I've heard against the helmet, and in support of the bill is that it impairs the vision of the motorcyclist and that your figures are not correct. How are we going to change those, if you really believe that your numbers are correct and that helmets do no impair the driver's vision? Who are we going to believe the Highway Patrol? You say you have nothing to gain by opposing this bill.

Stan Perez: Right Senator. Very good point. And we've heard it frankly for the last couple of years year after year and this year is no different. The statistics that we publish in our state-wide integrated traffic reporting system come from all law enforcement of departments in California as well the Highway Patrol.

Senator Ayala: All of them, not just the Highway Patrol?

Stan Perez: Not just the Highway Patrol sir. So it's data that is extremely raw in nature in that our key data folks take the back of the accident report and input the number of people that were injured, the number of people that were killed. Whether or not they were wearing a helmet and the time and day, city and county that it occurred in. So we don't fudge with those numbers and we publish the reports in that raw form. What occurs thereafter is we start doing the comparison much like we did here. Per one hundred accidents we have "x" number of fatalities. Well that's data that's or that's an analysis that we've done from the raw data. So I don't think that anybody can dispute the raw data that's derived from the accident reports that are submitted to us. It's how you interpret that data later.

Now what I'm suggesting is that the data in any form that you analyze it properly suggests that something has caused motorcycle fatalities to reduce. To become less than they were back let's say in 1986. Well, in 1987 the training program and the raw data shows that suddenly in 1992 suddenly there is a huge drop in the number of fatal accidents. And the only that changed during that year was the motorcycle helmet. We assume that in all likelihood that drop is a result of the motorcycle helmet law.

Senator Ayala: Again the opposition for the support of the bill, the supporters say that the number are down because the ridership . . . you heard it said here this morning are down as well. You say that that started prior to the helmet year?

Stan Perez: Right sir. The number of registered motorcycles has been decreasing since 1986. And again the motorcycle helmet issue it wasn't even around.

Senator Ayala: Those that oppose the helmets feel that this is what's causing less riders.

Stan Perez: It's our belief that that's an inaccurate statement. Thank you.

Senator Ayala: Thank you.

Senator Kelley: Senator Polanco.

Senator Polanco: Officer Perez, can you share with the committee a little bit more information, with more detail with reference to the chart that you provided. You have there the M-C fatalities. Do you keep the statistics with reference to those that were wearing the helmet. And if so, can you break that information down.

Stan Perez: I can't break that down for you sir. Unfortunately I didn't publish those charts. What I can do is the proponents are testifying, I can factor those in and come back quickly and give those to you. What we do show is that of all the motorcycle accidents over eighty percent of them involved those who are over twenty-one years of age. I have that data broken down already. This data is again just very raw numbers.

Senator Polanco: So eight percent over the age of twenty-one?

Stan Perez: Over eighty percent of motorcycle accidents . . . or fatalities.

Senator Polanco: Wait wait there's a difference though. There's an accident and I distinguished fatalities so . . . give me what the eighty percent represents.

Stan Perez: The eighty a year represents the number of motorcycle injuries, just raw injuries, that occur for those we found that are over the age of twenty-one.

Senator Polanco: Thank you.

Senator Kelley: Alright, next witness please.

Next Speaker | Back to Speaker's List