Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1980's

Federal nding 01_ rider e ucation progra cause many measures that are believed to improve highway safety are not implemented by the states. In other ~ NHTSA has exercised poor judpent'iD t e scope and type of programs it has n pushing. ThiI gives rise to an important point: Could HTSA be achieving so little sUCCftl in motorcycle safet because it h. chosen to sllppon m21l tielmet rather than rider educanon in orr ~pas.tt tlon versus While GAO 00es not address this question in its report on NJ-rrSA. answer could very well be a resounding yes. Arousing some suspicion is the fact that NHTSA officials reviewed the draft GAO report - critizing their handling of program funds - in June and then unexpectedly released a _l!Jl!!!"c~i.!!acking rider education a few llitoo.laltcJ:. Did the GAO findings e Joan Claybrook ator. toward funding ams appears to be due to inter fighting within NHTSA betwee~ ~ hat coul!! be termed pro- and ~Iaybrook forces. Some analyists be second and third tier agency perso ~volting against Claybrook's approach t motorcycle safety. For example, just months before NHTSA released its report endorsing rider education it submitted a rather reactionary document to Congress entitled, "A Report to Congress on the Effect of Motorcycle Helmet Use Law Repeal - A Case for Helmet Use." In this report, the agency once again attempted to substantiate its claim that helmet use should be mandatory. Motorcyclists who didn't wear helmets, NHTSA contended, were irresponsible citizens. Amidst these strong statements it seemed strange that a couple of months later the agency would flipflop on its stance and back, although grudgingly, rider education. Moreover, NHTSA reported to the General Accounting Office this year that it is calling on the states to reenact mandatory helrne,t laws. At the least, it will urge the states to support voluntary useage programs which, in NHTSA's 'ew, are not promising. GAO, by the ~ atchdog arm of Congress ",,' estigating the agency's 1aanoI&nt of ighway safety grants to The conclusions made in '. er report state NHTSA give further ence to those bureaucrats in NHTS ho have always promot er ~ n over Claybrook's wis 6r ~~A~ coming too close to elll!art 0 ter? If the governm tU - espec}.'l1 ongress and the Office of Man t and Budget belie ing funds, come appro timc;the well could dry up, Nobody at .!'l!JffSA inalking. They w~ GJt6 was appalled when it found that the Departmen.!... of Transponation spent $1.3 billion over the last 13 years in federal grant funds to the states for highway safety programs with little to show in the way of results. Since 1976, GAO noted, death rates due to traffic fatalities have continued to rise. Over the years, NHTSA aggressively pllShed for mandatory helmet laws under the program, giving the states little incentive to use funds for rider education. Although impossible to determine now, if the agency had pllShed rider education over helmet use as a priority, could it have had better results in the accidenrand fatality area? A review of how NHTSA handled the program is a classic example of a bureaucracy promulgating regulations which were not within Congress' intent when it passed the law those requirements were based upon. A clear case of tunnel vision by agency officials. The prospect looms large tha . NHTSA had acted diff~, had promoted rider education,. tne per' centage of fatalities anI! accidiimlS among motorcycles (especiaDy _ rid· ers) may have been reduced. .. ~j~:~~~~~~~~:f=;~:;~;~~.: ed frommandatory r>;~-:~~TIg for NHTSA; , ! its latest report, li~Sif.d to be relaxing its . It appeared NHTSA finally coming out of Stone Age, blinking eot at the prospect of .der education in lieu of . Two states are llSing al-fiIIlds for rider education protwo others ha ve pilot pro-being partially. funded by y say elephants never forget. e sense, giant bureaucracies d to grasp new concepts. possible to replace upper eaucrats. it is almost imrmeate through the ranks stically change a policy 'n place for years. By ny bureaucrats are e. It conflicts with service-induced 1~~=~1~~ eyed for con:, then a ~~1]past ~ jiiliiii~~~~5i~i~!iiii~I~W~he:t~h~er~f~u~n~d;ed~~p;r~oJ~·e~c~ts~1~OO~.~T~a~pp:r~o;ved=~hi~·g~h~w;ay~sa~~:;~;:~=-. cy evaluations have not success in the program which required Congress 10 Back in 1966, each state to include education programs. Be1967 and 1972, the Secretary of Tra~rtation promulgated 18 uniform 'federal standards to be included in the state programs. One of these standards was motorcycle safety. The act also required the Secretary to withhold all ~fety grant funds and 10 percent of a state's federal aid highway ndS"H it did not have a DOT approved program. This waS crucial moment during a time peop1e were just becoming awa~ of ,motorcycle ~ initiativ . Con· gress had sla it wanted lhe agency ~fund education programs, although it lef' ~ to DOE to determine jua what spe. elements those programs would eonsis/; of, DOT followed througti by including motorcycle safety as one of the 18 standards tIiie ~tes should.-i.Dc1ude in their programa. Then, i ea of chosing to proraoteZ:dllCation a safety standard the-a n Clecided ..e. hli to push mandatory other words, DOT's ~

• Cover