Category: Transportation

Are Helmets Required in Pennsylvania and New Jersey?

As most riders know, wearing a helmet is mandatory in New Jersey. Not so in Pennsylvania where anyone 21 years of age or older and has been licensed to operate a motorcycle for not less than two full calendar years OR has completed a motorcycle safety course approved by PennDOT or the Motorcycle Safety Foundation can ride without one. Beyond the arguments for or against mandatory helmet laws is the reality of the dangers associated with riding without one. A few years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an article on the Pennsylvania law that permits riders to forgo a helmet and State Representative Dan Frankel’s effort to reinstate a mandatory helmet law.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute, in New Jersey for the year 2007, there were 85 motorcycle related fatalities of which 82 % were wearing helmets. The National Highway Safety Institute estimated that 42 people’s lives were saved by wearing helmets and that 6 fatalities would have been prevented with 100% use of helmets. In 2008, 82 fatalities with 87% wearing helmets and NHTSA estimates another 42 lives saved because of helmets and 4 fatalities would have been prevented with 100% use of helmets.

In Pennsylvania in 2007 there were 225 motorcycle related fatalities. 46 % were wearing helmets and another 61 people’s lives were saved by wearing helmets. In 2008, 239 fatalities with 49% wearing helmets and another 70 lives saved because of helmets. The NHTSA also estimated that in 2007 45 lives would have been saved and in 2008 45 lives would have been saved if they were wearing helmets.

Across the US there were over 5000 fatalities in both 2007 and 2008 from motorcycle accidents with only 58% wearing helmets. NHTSA estimated that in those two years there were 3615 lives saved by the use of a helmet and another 1627 lives would have been saved if they were wearing helmets. More recently, in 2012, NHTSA estimates helmets saved the lives of 1,699 motorcyclists and that an additional 781 lives could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets. In states without universal helmet laws, 62% of the motorcyclists killed in 2012 were not wearing helmets compared to 9% in the states with universal helmet laws. Think about that for a minute.

In addition, NHTSA sponsored a study in 1996 to assess the effect of wearing a helmet upon the ability of motorcycle riders to: (1) visually detect the presence of vehicles in adjacent lanes before changing lanes and (2) to detect traffic sounds when operating at normal speed. The results indicate that wearing helmets does not restrict the ability to hear auditory signals or the likelihood of seeing a vehicle in an adjacent lane prior to changing lanes.

I have no reason to doubt these figures. A few years ago while traveling to Court in rush hour traffic on I 95 towards Philadelphia I saw a rider go flying over his handle bars onto the roadway. It was shocking to say the least. I thought he was unconscious. I pulled over the side of the road and watched as he got up. Another motorist an I assisted the rider to the side of the road. He had a full face helmet and a motorcycle leather jacket and blue jeans. He was disoriented and almost lost consciousness a few times. His knees were scraped through his jeans and bleeding. His jacket showed the signs of a serious incident. His helmet showed damage that would have caused a serious injury to a rider without one. Despite his protective gear, I was sure that he had suffered serious injuries. I am happy to report that he called me the next day to tell me that but for his bruised/scraped knees, he was fine. It is clear to me that his helmet and jacket had adequately protected him from more serious harm. As a rider I routinely see other riders in Pennsylvania riding without helmets. In both states it is common to see riders in shorts, sneakers and T shirts. I rode for many years in jeans and a T shirt but always with a helmet. It is great to ride on a warm summer day without the bulk of protective clothing. It’s also dangerous. At many of the rally’s I attend I am often engaged by visitors about their right to ride without a helmet. It’s a debate worth having. What is often overlooked are the true consequences of that action. As indicated above, helmets save lives. That’s indisputable.

What is missing from those statistics are the consequences of sustaining an injury as a result of not wearing a helmet and surviving. NHTSA estimates on a national level we would have saved 2.7 billion dollars in 2007 and 2.9 billion dollars in 2008 if there was 100% helmet use. This of course fails to consider the impact to the rider and their families. Many head injuries are quite serious and have long term consequences, job loss, medical bills and other financial strains. Many of the more serious head injuries lead to long term disability and regular care. We see this regularly when representing injured riders. As many of us in the motorcycle community know, motorcycle insurance provides in most cases no medical benefit and in others, very little coverage. Riders without insurance who suffer serious head injuries become dependent on Federal programs such as SSI and Medicaid. Even people with insurance don’t have enough coverage for a lifetime of care.

I urge anyone reading this to reconsider riding without a helmet. I’m sure the families of those who lost loved ones or who are now watching someone suffer because they were not wearing a helmet would join in my request. Every motorcycle rider understands that there is some danger associate with riding but that doesn’t mean that you should not be prudent and take precautions to minimize your risk.

COPYRIGHT © 2015, STARK & STARK     Authored By:  Joel R. Rosenberg

Three Things Commercial Drone Operators Need to Know Regarding the FAA’s Proposed Rules

Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

In a long anticipated move, on February 15, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued proposed rules that are intended to permit the commercial operation of small unmanned aircraft, commonly referred to as “drones.”

Safety is Key

The proposed rules attempt to balance the risk to public safety while providing a regulatory framework that is reasonably (but not overly) burdensome to the industry to avoid stifling advances in technology and economic competitiveness.  The FAA addresses safety in a number of ways, but most obviously by limiting the weight of the drone, limiting the manner of its operation, and by placing restrictions on the people flying the drone. By providing a regulatory path for at least some commercial operations, the proposed rules help those in the industry avoid uncertainty and substantial costs associated with requesting an FAA exemption or special airworthiness certificate.

Only Small Drones Would Have the Green Light 

Under the proposed rules, commercial operators of a small drone (weighing less than 55 pounds) must not fly higher than 500 feet above ground level, faster than 100 mph, over people who are not directly involved in the operation, at night, or when weather visibility is less than 3 miles.  A small drone must undergo a preflight inspection before use, though FAA airworthiness certification would not be required. With some modifications due to its size, small drones nevertheless would be subject to the same aircraft marking and registration requirements that are applicable to manned aircraft.  And although the drone must remain within the visual line-of-sight of the operator at all times, to meet the needs of commercial operators where limited risk to people or property would be incurred, this requirement may be met by also deploying a visual observer, perhaps in radio contact with the operator, to assist the operator to maintain visual contact with the small drone in place of the operator.

Operators (“Pilots”) of Drones Must Meet Minimum Requirements

To establish at least a reasonable degree of uniformity across all potential commercial uses permitted under the rules and to minimize national security risks within the borders of the U.S., commercial operators of small drones must:

Be at least 17 years old;

Pass an initial and recurrent aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge test center;

Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA);

Obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) type rating,

Make available to the FAA the small unmanned aircraft for inspection/testing; and

Report an accident within 10 days of any operation that results in injury or property damage.

To be sure, winners and losers will exist on both sides of the proposed rules.  While crop monitoring, research uses, educational/academic uses, powerline/antenna/bridge inspections, aerial photography, wildlife tracking, and rescue operations may be more easily accommodated under the proposed rules, other commercial uses will remain in the cold, such as anything requiring use of a drone heavier than 55 pounds at takeoff, flights higher than 500 feet, faster than 100 mph, or at distances or under conditions where the operator or visual observer cannot maintain visual line-of-sight with the drone.  Until the FAA obtains data sufficient to warrant expansion of these rules, those who wish to operate a drone outside the proposed rules have the option of pursuing either an FAA exemption or a special airworthiness certificate.

ARTICLE BY

Thomas E. Williams
OF
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP