The forgotten protection factor: A nationwide score-based assessment of motorcycle eye protection legislation.

Motorcycle accidents cause millions of deaths and injuries globally. It is estimated that billions of dollars would be saved in the United States alone if safety equipment, such as helmets and eye protection, was ubiquitously worn. Legislation concerning eye protection specifically is understudied and poorly characterized. We reviewed all motorcycle-related safety equipment laws in all 50 states of the United States for information regarding eye protection. We graded the rigor of each statute using our six-category Eye Safety Metric and performed a comparative analysis of statutes across all jurisdictions. Fourteen states did not have any statutes regarding eye protection. Among states that did, 23 states had weak statutes (0-2 points), 20 states had moderately stringent statutes (3-4 points), and 7 states had strong statutes (5-6 points). States in western United States tended to have less strict eye protection laws. Twenty-six states had eye protection exemptions for windshields, which are a poor form of eye protection. Six states that had universal helmet laws had no laws requiring eye protection. We characterized eye protection legislation across the country and found great diversity in the stringency of laws across all jurisdictions. Despite only two states lacking helmet laws, we found that 14 states lacked eye protection laws. These findings from our Eye Safety Metric can be used as a springboard for future research, which can be used to determine the need for and significance of eye safety legislation for motorcyclists and to inform legislative decision-making. With this research, we hope to further the understanding of legislation regarding eye protection for motorcyclists and help policymakers identify states that need improved eye safety standards.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.