The use of motorcycles in Mexico has grown significantly in recent years. According to motorcycle registration data from INEGI, there were 2.6 million registered motorcycles in 2015, a figure that increased to 6.8 million by 2022. This rise in motorcycle usage has been accompanied by a concerning increase in traffic accidents involving motorcyclists. Mortality rates have shown a steady rise, going from 2,620 in 2015 to 5,955 in 2023. Likewise, the number of people severely injured in motorcycle accidents has escalated from 12,364 in 2015 to 27,568 in 2023.
Motorcyclists are 11.8 times more likely to suffer serious injuries compared to other vehicle occupants and are 48 times more likely to lose their lives. Furthermore, 17% of injuries occur to the head, highlighting the critical importance of wearing a certified protective helmet. However, in Mexico, less than 40% of motorcyclists use a certified helmet, exacerbating the risk.
Using a certified helmet is not just a preventive measure; it significantly impacts reducing mortality and injury severity. It decreases the likelihood of death by 39% and the probability of suffering serious injuries by 89%. Despite these evident benefits, noncompliance remains a significant issue. Authorities have implemented specific fines and penalties for those who fail to wear helmets, aiming to encourage their use and reduce the number of road accident victims.
Legal Framework
Under the General Law of Mobility and Road Safety, wearing a helmet is mandatory for both motorcycle riders and passengers, and the helmet must comply with the applicable Mexican Official Standard. Additionally, the law emphasizes the responsibility of authorities to conduct control operations, including monitoring helmet use, speed enforcement, and sobriety checks.
In Mexico City, the Traffic Regulations state in Article 27 that motorcyclists must wear a protective helmet specifically designed for this purpose. The fine for noncompliance is MXN 2,171.40, equivalent to 20 Units of Measure and Update (UMA).
Penalties in various states
- State of Mexico: In the State of Mexico, the fine for not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle ranges from 10 to 20 times the daily value of UMA, amounting to MXN 1,085.70 to 2,171.40. This penalty applies to both drivers and passengers.
- Puebla: In Puebla, the fine for not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle ranges from 8 to 12 UMA, equivalent to MXN 1,523.70 to 2,171.40.
- Jalisco: Starting August 5, 2024, motorcyclists in Jalisco who fail to wear a certified helmet or wear it improperly will face fines ranging from MXN 1,850 to 3,257, as stipulated by the state’s Mobility and Road Safety Law.
- Nuevo León: In Nuevo León, the fine for not wearing a helmet ranges from MXN 1,628.60 to 2,171.40, equivalent to 15 to 20 UMA.
- Veracruz: In Veracruz, the fine for not wearing a protective helmet for motorcycle drivers and passengers in 2024 ranges from 16 to 30 UMA, or MXN 1,737.12 to 3,257.10. Not wearing a helmet is considered a serious infraction intended to prevent and reduce accidents that affect the health and physical integrity of Veracruz residents.
- Guanajuato: In Guanajuato, the fine for not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle ranges from 10 to 20 UMA, or MXN 1,085.70 to 2,171.40. Passengers are also required to wear helmets; if they fail to comply, the driver is held responsible and must pay the fine.
Impact of fines on user behavior
Despite the fines, the use of certified helmets is not as widespread as it should be. Studies indicate that motorcyclists’ perception of risk remains low, particularly among younger riders. This issue is compounded by a lack of enforcement and a perception of impunity, leading many motorcyclists to avoid wearing helmets altogether or use low-quality helmets that do not meet safety standards.
The use of helmets by motorcyclists has been widely studied in various contexts worldwide, and the findings are consistent: implementing effective penalties is crucial for improving compliance with this regulation.
Scientific evidence on the impact of penalties
Deterrence through financial penalties: Various studies have demonstrated that imposing substantial financial penalties has a significant deterrent effect on dangerous behaviors. For instance, a systematic review by Ivers et al. (2007) found that increasing the severity and certainty of penalties is associated with higher helmet use among motorcyclists. This effect is especially pronounced when fines are combined with high visibility of police enforcement, which heightens the perceived risk of being fined.
Perception of risk and compliance: The Theory of Planned Behavior suggests that penalties influence behavior by altering the perceived risk of sanction. If motorcyclists believe they are likely to be fined for not wearing helmets, they are more likely to comply. A study conducted by Adams and Povey in New Zealand, where stricter penalties were introduced, showed an immediate and sustained increase in helmet use, correlating with a decrease in severe injury and mortality rates among motorcyclists.
Effectiveness of graduated penalties: Evidence also supports the use of graduated penalties, where fines increase with successive infractions. This not only discourages repeat offenses but also reinforces the perception of risk with each violation. This was observed in a World Health Organization (WHO) study evaluating road safety policies in middle-income countries.
Combination with awareness campaigns: However, penalties alone are not enough. It is crucial that fines are part of a comprehensive strategy that includes awareness campaigns. Evidence suggests that educational campaigns accompanying the imposition of penalties reinforce behavioral changes. A meta-analysis by Zaza et al. showed that combined interventions (penalties plus awareness campaigns) are significantly more effective in increasing helmet use than penalties or campaigns alone.
Penalties, when effectively implemented and accompanied by strict enforcement and awareness campaigns, can significantly impact motorcyclists’ behavior, reducing severe injury and mortality rates. However, the perception of risk and the consistency of penalty enforcement are key factors determining the effectiveness of these measures.
