AWARENESS ON MOTORCYCYLE HELMET ACT OF 2001 (Repaired)

AWARENESS ON MOTORCYCYLE HELMET ACT OF 2009
_______________
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the
College of Criminal Justice Education
University of Northern Philippines, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur
_______________
In Partial
Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Science in Criminology
_______________
LAURENCE B. DE LA CRUZ
SANTOS W. BANDOLIN Jr.
JAKE G. VIVIT
ROGELITO U. GONZALES Jr.
MARK JUSTIN C. BERZAMINA
MARK JAY B. PINGEN
CERTIFICATION
This thesis entitled “AWARENESS ON MOTORCYCLE HELMET ACT OF 2009”
prepared and submitted by LAURENCE B. DE LA CRUZ, SANTOS W. BANDOLIN Jr.,
JAKE G. VIVIT, ROGELITO U. GONZALES Jr., MARK JUSTIN C. BERZAMINA,
MARK JAY B. PINGEN, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of
Science in Criminology has been examined and recommended for acceptance and approval on
oral examination.
LORNA C. NAVARRO, MPA-Pol. Ad.
Adviser
APPROVAL SHEET
Approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Science in
Criminology by the committee on oral examination conducted on December 12, 2016 with a
grade ____.
ORAL EXAMINATION COMMITTEE
SINA C. BESTRE, Ph. S. Crim
Chairman
Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Science in
Criminology.
SINA C. BESTRE, Ph. D. Crim
Acting Dean
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher wish to extend their very sincere thanks to the following individual who
helped, contributed and sacrificed for the completion of this study:
Dr. Sina C. Bestre, the Acting Dean of the College of Criminal Justice Education and
the Chairman of the panel of Examines, whose desire and determination to achieve quality
education and academic excellence, has motivated the researchers to quest for excellence;
, our panel members for their constructive criticisms, comments and suggestions for the
improvement of this study;
Mrs. Lorna C. Navarro, our thesis adviser, for sharing her knowledge related to our
study and for helping us completed it;
To all BS Criminology 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year students who served as their respondents for
sharing their precious time to the researchers during the conduct of the study,
To those whose names are not mentioned here, but in some way contributed to the
realization of the study, their heartfelt thanks.
Above all, the Almighty Father who gave enough strength and wisdom to finish this work
and who is always there to guide us.
THE RESEARCHER
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my father CrisencioPingen, who taught
me the best kind of k owledge to have is that which is learned for
its own sake. It is also dedicated to my mother Ofelia Pingen, who
taught me that even the largest task can be accomplished if it is
done one step at a time.
And I would like also to take this opportunity to say warm thanks
to all my beloved friends and relatives, who have been so
supportive in my studies and along the way of doing my thesis.
And last but not the least, I would like to thanks my girlfriend
Mica T. Pacleb for supporting and inspiring me in my studies and
in doing this research work.
M.J.P
DEDICATION
I dedicate all my hardworks to my family, friends, and love one’s,
because of their love and trust, especially to my mother Imelda
Bandolin, to my father Santos Bandolin and to my brothers
AldrineBandolin and Christian Bandolin and also to my sister
Melanie Bandolin to their support that gives me strength to do all
my rrequirements in the school.
And above all I also want to thank our Almighty God for giving us
life and for guiding me in my everyday life.
S.B
DEDICATION
I humbly dedicate this piece of work to my parents Mr. Rogelito T.
Gonzales Sr. and Mrs. Ma. Vilma U. Gonzales, for their love, care
and a lot of sacrifices to finish my studies. Thank you for your
unending encouragement and support. I hope you can appreciate
this and it could fulfill your hearts that I’m also doing my best to
achieve my goals and dreams in life.
To my only sister Katrina Casandra U. Gonzales, for encouraging
me to finish my goals and dreams in life.
To my loving grandparents, uncle, aunt, and cousins who are
always encouraging me to fulfill my study.
To my friends who have been a good example. Thank you for
inspiring me to fulfill our dreams.
I will never the Almighty God who’s been always at our side
guiding us to the right way.
Thank you very much.
R.G
DEDICATION
This piece of work heartily dedicated to all the persons who
encourages, inspired, support and gave me strength to accomplish
this study.
To my parents, Mr. ArnelVivit and Mrs. Gloria Vivit, who
showered me their love, care, and comfort in order to finish this
research, without them, this would be nothing.
To all my friends, who are always there on my side through thick
and thin.
And most important in my life, our Father in Heaven, for giving
me strength and courage, without him, I can do nothing.
Again, Thank you very much!
J.V
DEDICATION
This piece of work is whole-heartedly dedicated to my parents Mr.
Loreto B. De la Cruz and Mrs. Elynor B. De la Cruz, who are
always loving, caring, supporting, encouraging and giving me
strength to accomplish my goals.
To my brother Rene Jan B. De la Cruz and Lorelyn B. De la Cruz
who are always encouraging me to become better person than
them.
To my girlfriend Danice Nicole O. Turqueza who is always giving
me the spirit that I can do all things.
And last but not the least to our Almighty Father who gave me all
what I am.
Thank you very much.
L.D.C
DEDICATION
In a battle is not getting the recognition or the price
But is seeing our love ones in our side supporting us
In a battle we are willing to win!
And there are times we will failed but we know that they were always
In our side to hug us in a lose
To my supporting parents, my lovable sisters and brothers
To all my friends
To my understanding girlfriend
Thank you for the unstop support to me
And I promise that all your sacrifices will pays off
And thank God who give me strength and faith so that I can fulfill my dreams.
M.J.B
ABSTRACT
This study is entitled Awareness on Motor cycle Helmet Act of 2009.
This study aimed to determine the awareness of the respondents on the Motorcycle
Helmet Act of 2009 as perceived by the BS Criminology 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year students in the
College of Criminal Justice Education. A structured questionnaire was utilized as a data
gathering instrument that was formulated by the researchers and was validated by experts in the
field to suit the objectives of the study. It sought to answer the following: 1. Personal profile of
the respondents in terms of age, gender, and type of driver’s license; 2. Are you aware of the
Republic Act No. 10054 also known as “The Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009?”; 3. What is the
extent of awareness of the respondents on the RA 10054?; 4. What are the perceived advantages
of wearing helmet?; 5. What are the perceived disadvantages in wearing helmet?; 6. Is there a
significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and the perceived advantages of
wearing/using a helmet?; 7. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the
respondents and the perceived disadvantages of wearing/using a helmet?; 8. Is there a significant
relationship between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year respondents and the perceived advantages of
wearing using a helmet?; 9. Is there a significant relationship between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year
respondents and the perceived disadvantages of wearing using a helmet?;
The data were gathered, tabulated, and analyzed using frequency and percentage, mean
and simple linear correlation analysis to determine the significant influence of the independent
variables to the dependent variables. The following conclusions were concluded. Majority of the
respondents, who are from the age of 19 years old (67 or 37.22%) are driving motorcycle. It is
highly evident that majority of the respondents are male composed of 153 with the rate of 85%.
Majority of the respondents are holders of a student’s permit (108 or 60.00%) which is not
considered as a license. Majority of the respondents is aware of the RA 10054 or otherwise
known as “The Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009” composed of 154 with the rate of 85.56% mean
rating. Majority of the respondents knows the RA 10054 or otherwise known as “The
Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009” by their school attending to composed of 122 with the rate of
79.22%. There is a significant relationship between age and the perceived advantages of
wearing/using a helmet on to the protection from extremely injurious/fatal effect in case of
accident and protection from too much exposure from heat and sun. There is a significant
relationship between gender and the perceived advantages of wearing/using a helmet on to the
protection from too much exposure from heat and sun. There is a significant relationship
between the gender of the respondents and in the perceived disadvantages on to the mistaken
identity because of the operation of the riding-in-tandem. There is no significant relationship
between the 2nd, 3rd, 4th year respondents and the perceived advantages of wearing/using a
helmet. Therefore, the perception of each year level has no effect even if they came into a higher
year level or lower level. There is no significant relationship between the 2nd, 3rd, 4th year
respondents and the perceived disadvantages of wearing/using a helmet. Therefore, the
perception of each year level has no effect even if they came into a higher year level or lower
level.
As a result of the following are recommended: riders must be aware on the advantages of
wearing a helmet in case of motorcycle accident. They should always think of their safety first
when driving motorcycle to prevent accidents. Student’s driver’s permit must be renewed to non-
professional or professional driver’s license to drive a private or public vehicle on their own.
Aggressive information dissemination with the use of helmet should be undertaken not only to
the students but to all individuals who are using motorcycles.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………………………………
CERTIFICATION……………………………………………………………………………
APPROVAL SHEET…………………………………………………………………………
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………………………………
DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………….
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………….
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………….
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………
CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..
Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………….
Scope and Delimitation………………………………………………………………
Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………....
Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………
Operational Definition of Terms…………………………………………………….
Assumption………………………………………………………………………….
Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………………..
Research Methodology……………………………………………………………...
Research Design…………………………………………………………….
Population and Sample……………………………………………………...
Data Gathering Instrument…………………………………………………..
Data Gathering Procedure…………………………………………………...
Statistical Treatment of Data………………………………………………...
CHAPTER II. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of the following:
a. Age
b. Gender
c. Driver’s License
2. Are you aware of the Republic Act No. 10054 also known as “The Motorcycle Helmet
Act of 2009?”
3. What is the extent of awareness about the RA 10054?
4. What are the perceived advantages of wearing helmet?
5. What are the perceived disadvantages in wearing helmet?
6. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and the perceived
advantages of wearing/using a helmet?
8. Is there a significant relationship between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year respondents and the
perceived advantages of wearing/using a helmet
perceived disadvantages of wearing/using a helmet?
CHAPTER III. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………
FINDINGS…………………………………………………………………………..
CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………………....
RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………………………...
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………..
APPENDICES
Letter Request………………………………………………………………
Validation Letter……………………………………………………………
Sample Questionnaire………………………………………………………
Curriculum Vitae……………………………………………………………
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE

1. Distribution of the respondent……………………………………………..
2. Profile of the respondents……………………………………………….
3. Awareness on RA 10054 otherwise known as “The Motorcycle Helmet Act of
2009”…………………………………………………………………………………
4. Means of awareness on how did they know the RA 10054…………………
5. Perceived advantages of wearing/using a helmet……………………………
6. Perceived disadvantages of wearing/using a helmet ………………………..
7. Relationship Between the Profile of the Respondents and the Perceived
Advantages of Wearing/Using a Helmet…………………………………………………
8. Relationship Between the Profile of the Respondents and the Perceived
Disadvantages of Wearing/Using a Helmet………………………………………………
9. Relationship Between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Year Respondents and the Perceived
Advantages of Wearing/Using a Helmet…………………………………………………
10. Relationship Between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Year Respondents and the Perceived
Disadvantages of Wearing/Using a Helmet……………………………………………..
Chapter I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, in 2008, 5,290
motorcyclists died and 96,000 were injured. Motorcycles make up ∼3% of all registered vehicles
in the United States and account for only 0.4% of all vehicle miles traveled. However,
motorcycle crashes accounted for ∼10% of all motor vehicle crash fatalities, and per mile
traveled, motor cycle crashes are ∼37 times more lethal than automobile crashes.
Head injuries are one of the most common injuries after motorcycle crashes and were
estimated to be the cause of death in >50% of these fatalities. In close to a third of these victims,
the head injury is the sole organ system that is injured. However, in the majority of patients,
estimated as high as 90% of some patient cohorts, a head injury is present along with other
injuries. Despite these facts, it is estimated that only 50% of motorcyclists routinely wear
helmets.
It was intuitive even to our earliest ancestors that a hard shell would protect the head
from injury. However, establishing the effectiveness of the motorcycle helmet remains a
challenging effort especially in light of the powerful opposition to universal helmet laws.
Furthermore, quantifying the protective effect of helmets supports the promotion of helmet
programs regardless of the controversial nature of legislative efforts.
In the United States, an increasing recognition that helmet use is associated with
reductions in fatalities without apparent harm increased the implementation of universal helmet
laws. In response to the 1966 Federal Highway Act, which withheld federal funds from states
that did not enact a helmet law, Georgia became the first state to enact a mandatory universal
motorcycle helmet law in 1967. By 1975, 47 of the 50 states had universal helmet laws.
However, public and political concerns over individual rights versus public safety opened a new
debate. In the following years, political changes reversed and/or limited previous sanctions and
grants that encouraged states to enact universal helmet laws, which further eroded support for
helmet laws. An increasing number of states either repealed their mandatory laws altogether or
significantly reduced the laws to apply only to minors. At present, only 20 states have universal
helmet laws, another 26 states require only partial coverage, and 4 states have no helmet laws
(Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire).
A large volume of literature has quantified the consequences of not wearing a helmet
while riding a motorcycle. Although motorcycle riding and registration are increasing and more
states with universal helmet laws are introducing bills to repeal their laws, the debate continues
on the personal advantages of helmet usage. Therefore, we have reviewed the literature and
summarize the evidence basis for the use of motorcycle helmets. In particular, we have sought to
assess the impact of helmet use on overall mortality, head injury-related mortality, nonlethal
head injury after a motorcycle crash, and the impact universal helmet laws on helmet use.
http://www.yugatech.com/automotive/solon-wants-to-suspend-helmet-law-to-fight-crimes/
Road traffic injuries are a major public health problem and a leading cause of death
around the world. In Lao PDR, motorcycles are a common and integral means of transportation,
making up 81 % of the total vehicle population . As a result of the rapid growth in motorcycle
use, there are increases in fatalities and injuries, particularly head injuries, among motorcyclists.
Motorcyclists make up approximately 84 % of the total injured road users and 74 % of road
traffic deaths in Lao PDR. Across Southeast Asia, mortality from road traffic injuries is
estimated to be 7.4 deaths per 100,000 children.
Injuries to the head and neck are the main cause of severe injury, disability or death
among motorcyclists involved in road accidents; approximately 88 % of motorcycle crash
fatalities are due to head trauma .Proper usage of motorcycle helmets is the single most effective
way of preventing head injuries resulting from motorcycle accidents. On motorcycles, helmets
decrease the risk and severity of injuries by 72 %, decrease the likelihood of death by up to 39 %
and reduce the medical costs of injured riders and length of hospital stay.
Lao law allows a maximum of three riders per motorcycle and states that helmets are
mandatory for all motorcycle riders, with a fine of 30,000 kip (about USD $4) for not wearing a
“standard helmet while driving a motorcycle” However, even with national legislation, the
highest officially recorded helmet-wearing rate in the country’s capital of Vientiane was 76 % in
2008, though recorded rates have also ranged from 30 to 70 % Regional data on child helmet use
rate presents a grimmer picture. In neighboring Vietnam, child helmet use rates were half the
helmet use rates of adults No prior helmet studies have been conducted in LuangPrabang, Lao
PDR, which has experienced a rapid increase in motorization in recent years.
This project aimed to measure the prevalence of motorcycle helmet use among riders
(i.e., drivers and passengers) in the city of LuangPrabang, Lao PDR. Of particular interest was
information about child helmet practices as it is common in Southeast Asia for motorcycles to
serve as families’ primary mode of transportation. A second objective of the current study was to
conduct post-observation surveys of non-helmet wearing riders to identify reasons for non-
helmet use. The study was conducted by healthcare professionals at the Lao Friends Hospital for
Children (LFHC), a new pediatric medical center in LuangPrabang that was built in partnership
with the Lao PDR Ministry of Health. It was anticipated that results would help inform broad-
based public health interventions that target efforts at greater awareness and behavior change
among families seeking primary care services in the area.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4584470/
The municipality of Bantay in Ilocos Sur is rampant in vehicular accidents, and is a well-
known road for traveling. They implemented the Motorcycle Act of 2009 or the R.A 10054 to
lessen the graveness of fatality to a victim when there’s an accident. Specially, that there are
young’s drivers that travelling and we can’t ensure their safety in travelling, so the authorities
have taken their action to this matters and strictly implementing RA 10054 or otherwise known
as the “Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009”.
This study is undertaken to find out whether the students of BS Criminology are aware of
the RA 10054 or otherwise known as “Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009” and to prove that using
helmet is can help one lessen the graveness of an accident.
Through this study, it will be a great help to convince others to use their helmet while
driving motorcycle.
The findings of this is also beneficial not only the students but to all motorcycle drivers to
realize the importance of wearing helmet instead of looking in the negative sides.
Statement of the Problem
This study was conceptualized in order to present the awareness of the Motorcycle
Helmet Act by the BS Criminology students SY 2016-2017
Specifically, it sought to answer the following question:
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of the following:
a. age,
b. gender, and
c. driver’s license
2. Are you aware of the Republic Act No. 10054 also known as “The Motorcycle Helmet
Act of 2009?”
3. What is the extent of awareness of the respondents on the RA 10054?
4. What are the perceived advantages of wearing helmet?
5. What are the perceived disadvantages in wearing helmet?
perceived advantages of wearing/using a helmet
perceived disadvantages of wearing/using a helmet?

Scope and Delimitation
This study was delimited to determine the awareness on the motorcycle Helmet Act of
2009 by the selected Criminology students of the University of Northern Philippines in the S.Y
2016-2017.
Theoretical Framework
The following are the main conclusions of this research: Motorcycle helmets reduce the risk
of mortality and head injury in motorcycle riders who crash, although the effect on death may be
modified by other factors surrounding the crash, such as the speed the motorcyclist was
travelling at when the crash occurred. Crashes at higher speeds may result in multiple injuries
likely to cause death, regardless of how well the head is protected. There was not enough
evidence to determine the effect of motorcycle helmets on face or neck injuries, although some
studies suggest that helmets have no effect on the risk of neck injuries but are protective for face
injuries. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether differences in helmet types
(full-face versus open-face) confer more or less advantage in injury reduction. Further research
should be conducted to determine the effectiveness (and cost effectiveness) of different helmet
types – especially those used in low-income and middle-income countries – on mortality and on
head, neck and face injuries. Increasing motorcycle helmet use in countries where such use has
been low is likely to dramatically reduce head injury and death. Policy-makers would do well to
consider measures to increase helmet use, such as legislation for compulsory helmet use and its
enforcement, along with community education campaigns.
Many people around the world die in motorcycle collisions Road traffic injuries are a major
public health problem and a leading cause of death and injury around the world. Each year nearly
1.2 million people die as a result of road crashes, and millions more are injured or disabled (1).
In many low-income and middle-income countries, where motorcycles and bicycles are an
increasingly common means of transport, users of two-wheelers make up a large proportion of
those • • • • Module 1: Why are helmets needed? injured or killed on the roads. Motorcycle and
bicycle riders are at an increased risk of being involved in a crash. This is because they often
share the traffic space with fast-moving cars, buses and trucks, and also because they are less
visible. In addition, their lack of physical protection makes them particularly vulnerable to being
injured if they are involved in a collision. In most high-income countries, motorcycle fatalities
typically comprise around 5% to 18% of overall traffic fatalities (2,3). This proportion reflects
the combined effect of several important factors including the relatively low ownership and use
of motorcycles in many developed countries, and the relatively high risk of these motorcycles
being involved in crashes involving fatalities. Typically, these risks are much higher for
motorcycle than for vehicle travel (4). In low-income and middle-income countries, car
ownership and use rates are generally much lower than in high-income countries. However, the
ownership and use of motorcycles and other two-wheelers is generally relatively high – for
example, in India 69% of the total number of motor vehicles are motorized two-wheelers,
considerably higher than in high-income countries (3). Reflecting this difference, the levels of
motorcycle rider fatalities as a proportion of those injured on the roads are typically higher in
low-income and middle-income countries than in high-income countries (Figure 1.1). For
instance, 27% of road deaths in India are among users of motorized two-wheelers, while this
figure is between 70–90% in Thailand, and about 60% in Malaysia (3,5,6). In China, motorcycle
ownership between 1987 and 2001 grew rapidly from 23% to 63%, with a corresponding
increase in the proportion of traffic fatalities sustained by motorcyclists rising from 7.5% to 19%
over the same period (7). However, in other low-income and middle-income countries, a lack of
high quality road safety data means that precise levels of motorcycle rider fatalities are still not
known. 1.1.1 Head injuries are a leading cause of death and disability Injuries to the head and
neck are the main cause of death, severe injury and disability among users of motorcycles and
bicycles. In European countries, head injuries contribute to around 75% of deaths among
motorized two-wheeler users; in some low-income and middle-income countries head injuries
are estimated to account for up to 88% of such fatalities (6,8). The social costs of head injuries
for survivors, their families and communities are high, in part because they frequently require
specialized or long term care. Head injuries also result in much higher medical costs than any
other type of injury (9), such that these injuries exert a high toll on a country’s health care costs
and its economy. Globally, there is an upward trend in the number and use of motorcycles and
bicycles, both for transport and recreational purposes. Indeed, most of the growth in the number
of vehicles on the world’s roads comes from an increasing use of motorized two-wheelers. Asian
countries, in particular, are expected to experience a Helmets: a road safety manual 1 | Why are
helmets needed? considerable rise in the number of motorized two-wheeler vehicles on their
roads. This rapid growth in the use of motorcycles in many lowincome and middle-income
countries is already being accompanied by a considerable increase in the number of head injuries
and fatalities that will only continue to increase if present trends continue unchecked.
A helmet protects your head The technical expertise behind the design of high quality
helmets is based on an understanding of what happens to the head in the event of a motorcycle
crash. This section describes what happens in the event of a motorcycle crash, and then explains
how a helmet works to reduce this effect. 1.2.1 The mechanism of head injuries An appreciation
of the anatomy of the head is important in understanding the mechanism of injuries to the head
and brain (Figure 1.2). Briefly, the important anatomical information about the head to note is
the following: The brain is enclosed within a rigid skull. The brain “sits” on bones that make up
the base of the skull. The spinal cord passes through a hole in the underside of the brain. Under
the skull, adhering to the bones, is a tough tissue called the dura that surrounds the brain.
Between the brain and the dura is a space containing cerebrospinal fluid that protects the brain
tissue from mechanical shock. The brain “floats” in the cerebrospinal fluid but it can only move
about 1 millimetre in any direction. The skull is covered by the scalp, which provides some
additional protection.
How a helmet works A helmet aims to reduce the risk of serious head and brain injuries
by reducing the impact of a force or collision to the head. A helmet works in three ways: It
reduces the deceleration of the skull, and hence the brain movement, by managing the impact.
The soft material incorporated in the helmet absorbs some of the impact and therefore the head
comes to a halt more slowly. This means that the brain does not hit the skull with such great
force. It spreads the forces of the impact over a greater surface area so that they are not
concentrated on particular areas of the skull. It prevents direct contact between the skull and the
impacting object by acting as a mechanical barrier between the head and the object.
The shell. This is the strong outer surface of the helmet that distributes the impact over a
large surface area, and therefore lessens the force before it reaches the head. Although the shell is
tough, it is designed to compress when it hits anything hard. It provides protection against
penetration by small, sharp and high speed objects and it also protects the padding inside the
helmet from abrasions and knocks during daily use. These requirements mean that the shell must
be hard, usually with a smooth exterior finish. The impact-absorbing liner This is made of a soft,
crushable padded material – usually expanded polystyrene, commonly called “styrofoam”. This
dense layer cushions and absorbs the shock as the helmet stops and the head tries to continue
moving. The comfort padding This is the soft foam-and-cloth layer that sits next to the head. It
helps keep the head comfortable and the helmet fitting snugly. The retention system, or chin
strap This is the mechanism that keeps the helmet on the head in a crash. A strap is connected to
each side of the shell. Chin and neck straps, which are specifically designed to keep the helmet
on during an impact, must be correctly used for the helmet to function as it is designed to.
Helmet use is effective at reducing head injuries Wearing a helmet is the single most
effective way of reducing head injuries and fatalities resulting from motorcycle and bicycle
crashes. Motorcyclists who do not wear helmets are at a much higher risk of sustaining head
injuries and from dying from these injuries. In addition, riders who do not wear helmets place
additional costs on hospitals (see boxed example below), while the disability that results from
these head injuries incurs costs at an individual, family (or carer) and societal level. There is
considerable research that has been conducted on the effects of wearing a helmet on the risk of a
head injury as a result of a collision. The results show slightly different effects, depending on the
study type, population, situation etc. Consequently it is useful to examine this research
collectively – in what is known as a systematic review on the topic of interest. Systematic
reviews of studies are a means of objectively examining the evidence for a particular claim (in
this case, helmet use in preventing head injury) and combining the results in a way that
minimizes any bias. Reviewers conducting such reviews search widely for all the studies on the
topic and include those of a sufficiently high methodological quality. When the data from all the
studies included in the review are summarized, the result should provide a more accurate
estimate of the effect of the intervention than is possible from individual studies.
http://www.grsproadsafety.org/sites/default/files/1-Why.pdf
Conceptual Framework
This study evolved on the diagram as shown below.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Perceived Advantages of Wearing/Using

Helmet
 Protection from extremely
injurious/fatal effect in case of
accident
 Protection from too much
Profile of the Respondent
exposure from heat and sun
 Avoidance of penalty
 Age
 Sex
Perceives Disadvantages of
 Type of License
Wearing/Using Helmet
 Limited Vision
 Impairment of Hearing
 Uncomfortable
 Mistaken identity because in the
operation of the riding in tandem
Figure 1.0
The Research Paradigm
The research paradigm above shows the independent variables (profile of the
respondents) and the dependent variables (perceived advantages and disadvantages of
wearing/using a helmet) being correlated to one another.

Operational Definition of Terms
For better understanding of this study, the following terms are operationally defined;
Perceived Disadvantages of wearing helmet/using Helmet. This refers to the
negative perception of the respondents in wearing or using helmet of the respondents in
wearing or using helmet.
Mistaken Identity Because of the Operation of the Riding-In-Tandem. This is
used to connote wrong identification of an individual by group of individuals who uses
motorcycle in their illegal result of a crime.
Uncomfortable. This pertains to the feeling of uneasy on the part of the
respondent.
Impairment of Hearing. This refers to the inability of a person to use his sense
of hearing properly because of the presence of the gear.
Limited Vision. This pertains to the narrow widespread use of the eyes of the
respondent due to the use of the protective gear.
Perceived Advantages of wearing Helmet/Using. This refers to the positive
perception of the respondents in wearing or using helmet.
Avoidance of Penalty. This relates to the decision made by the respondents to
evade from paying any penalty by complying with the use of the protective gear.
Protection from Too Much Exposure from Heat and Sun. This pertains to
respondent’s choice of whether or not they see the use of the gear as on way of protecting
themselves from any physical harm.
Protection from Extremely Injurious/Fatal Effect in Case of Accident. This
refers to an individual’s perception on the use of helmet as an important way of of
protecting himself from any possible severe damage in case of accident that may result to
even death.
Profile of the Respondents. This pertains to some of attributed of the individual
such as his age and gender including the type of vehicle license he holds.
Driver’s License. This refers to a document issued to a qualified individual to
operate a motorcycle whether student permit, non-professional, and professional license.
Non-professional Driver’s License. Refers to an issued to drives a private
vehicle and those not receives any monetary for functioning as such.
Professional Driver’s License. It refers to a license issued to a driver who
received income or monetary compensation for his/her function as a driver.
Student Permit. This refers to an issued permit to an applicant allowing him/her
to learn how to drive a motor vehicle and familiarize himself with the rules of road.
Profile. This refers to the age, sex, and type of license.
Sex. This pertains to characteristics of the respondents whether he or she is male
or female.
Age. This refers to how young or how old the respondent is given in the bracket.
Motorcycle. It is a two-wheeled vehicle propelled by an internal combustion
engine.
Assumptions
In this study, the following were assumed:
1. The questionnaire is valid and reliable instrument in gathering the needed data in
the study.
2. The respondents extended their full support on this study by answering the
questions honestly and correctly.
3. That the gathered responses were based on the respondents perception on the
advantages and disadvantages of wearing/using helmet as well as their awareness on the
Motor Cycle Helmet Act of 2009
4. That the result is valid, reliable, and accepted as a means for improvement.
Hypotheses
1. There is no significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and the
perceived advantages of wearing/using helmet.
2. There is no significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and the
perceived disadvantages of wearing/using helmet.
3. There is no significant relationship between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year respondents and the

4. There is no significant relationship between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year respondents and the
Research Methodology
This section presents the research design used in the study, the population and sample,
data gathering procedure, and statistical treatment of data.
Research Design
The descriptive method of research was utilized in the study. This method is very much
appropriate for the study because it presents facts about accurate and meaningful details of the
awareness as well as the perception of the respondents.
Population and Sample
Out of 741 Criminology students only those who belongs to 2nd, 3rd, 4th year serves as the
actual respondents particularly those who are using/driving motorcycles.
The distribution of the respondents is shown in Table 1.
Population of the Study

Respondents N N
2nd year 201 100
3rd year 192 42
4th year 348 38
Total 741 180
Data Gathering Instrument. The main gathering instrument used in this research was a
formulated questionnaire made by the researchers. The structured questionnaire was subjected to
validation by experts along the field coming from the government sectors.
Data Gathering Procedures. To gather the necessary data for this study, the researchers
personally administered the distribution and retrieval of the questionnaires of the questionnaires
to the respondents but prior to this, the approval of the Dean of the academic unit was sought.
Statistical Treatment of Data. The following statistical tools were used in analyzing the
gathered data.
Frequency Count and Percentage. These were employed to describe the personal
profile of the respondents.
Mean. This was employed to describe the ratings on the perceived advantages of
wearing/using helmet as well as the perceived disadvantages of wearing helmet/using helmet.
Simple Correlation Analysis. It was used to determine the relationship between the
respondent’s profile and the ratings on the perceived advantages of wearing/using helmet and the
perceived the disadvantages of wearing/using helmet.
Analysis of Variance.It was used to determine the relationship between the 2nd, 3rd, and
4th year respondents and the perceived advantages and disadvantages of wearing using helmet.
The norms for the interpretation which were used are as follows:
Rating Range Descriptive Equivalent
5 4.21-5.00 Very Much Aware (VMA)
4 3.41-4.20 Much Aware (MA)
3 2.61-3.40 Aware (A)
2 1.81-2.60 Slightly Aware (SA)
1 1.01-1.80 Not Aware (NA)

FORMULA:
Frequency count and percentage:
P=f x 100%
180
P=f x 100%
154
Correlation:
N∑xy-(∑)(∑y)
r=
√[N∑x2-(∑x)2][N∑y2-(∑y)2]
Chapter II
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents analyze and interpret the data gathered in tabular and narrative form
Problem 1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of the following:
a. age
b. gender, and
c. driver’s license
Table 2
Profile of the Respondents
Profile of the Respondents F P%

Age
17 years old 8 4.44
18 years old 39 21.11
19 years old 67 37.22
20 years old 38 21.11
21 years old 15 8.33
22 years old 8 4.44
23 years old 3 1.67
24 years old 3 1.67
Total 180 100.00
Sex
Male 153 85.00
Female 27 15.00
Total 180 100.00
Driver’s License
Student Driver’s License 108 60.00
Non-professional 50 27.78
Professional 22 12.22
Total 180 100.00
The data on the distribution of the respondents in terms of their personal profile
are reflected in Table 2.
Table 2.1
Profile of the Respondents - Age
Age F P%
17 years old 8 4.44
18 years old 39 21.11
19 years old 67 37.22
20 years old 38 21.11
21 years old 15 8.33
22 years old 8 4.44
23 years old 3 1.67
24 years old 3 1.67
Total 180 100.00
On Age. The table shows that among the respondents, the majority is from 19 years old
with a population of 67 or 37.22% and the least is from 23 and 24 years old with a population of
3 respondents each with a percentage of 1.67%
Table 2.2
Profile of the Respondents - Gender
Sex F P%
Male 153 85.00
Female 27 15.00
Total 180 100.00
On Gender. It is highly evident to the majority (85% or 153) of the respondents are
male, and the rest (15% or 27) are females. This further indicates that most of the respondents
who are driving motor cycles are males.
Table 2.3
Profile of the Respondents – Type of Driver’s License
Type of Driver’s License F P%

Student Driver’s Permit 108 60.00
Non-professional 50 27.78
Professional 22 12.22
Total 180 100.00
On Driver’s License. Majority of the respondents (60% or 108) are Student Permit
holder; some (27.77% or 50) are Non-professional License holders and there are about 12.22%
or 22 Professional License holders. This is an indication, that most of the respondents are holders
of the Student Permit/License, because most of them are driving their own vehicle and this is the
primary requirement for driving.
Problem 2. Are you aware of the Republic Act No. 10054 also known as “The Motorcycle
Helmet Act of 2009”?
Table 3
Awareness on RA 10054 otherwise known as “The Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009”
Awareness F P%
Yes 154 85.56
No 26 14.44
Total 180 100.00
Table 3 shows the awareness of the respondents on Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009. As
shown in the table, the respondents that are aware of the RA 10054otherwise known as “The
Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009” is 85.55% or 154 and 14.44 or 26 are not aware of this national
law implemented in the highways.
Problem 3.What is the extent of awareness of the respondents on RA 10054 otherwise
known as “The Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009”?
Table 4
Extent of Awareness of the respondents on RA 10054
Means of Awareness F P%
a. Peers 13 8.44
b. Parents 19 12.34
c. School 122 79.22
Total 154 100.00
As shown in the table, the highest means of awareness is from the school 79.22% mean
rating, followed by from the parents with a 12.33% mean rating and the least is from the peers
8.44% mean rating.
The respondents learn on RA 10054 (The Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009) because it is
included in the curriculum and aside form that faculty members are keep on reminding their
students on safety driving.
Problem 4. What are the perceived advantages of wearing/using helmet?
The data on mean ratings showing the perceived advantages of wearing/using helmet is
presented on table 5.
Table 5
Mean Ratings Showings the Perceived Advantages of Wearing/Using Helmet
Perceived Advantage of Wearing/Using a Helmet x DR

Protection from extremely injurious/fatal effect in 4.66 VMA
case of accident
Protection from too much exposure from heat and 4.36 VMA
sun
Avoidance of Penalty 4.54 VMA
Legend: 4.21-5.00 Very Much Aware (VMA)
3.41-4.20 Much Aware (MA)
2.61-3.40 Aware (A)
1.81-2.60 Slightly Aware (SA)
1.01-1.80 Not Aware (NA)
As can be gleaned from table 5, respondents show that the wearing or using of helmet is
of advantage as a protection from extremely injurious/fatal effect in cause of accident. On the

other hand, the least is they wear or use helmet as a protection from too much exposure from
heat and sun.
Problem 5. What are the perceived disadvantages of wearing/using a helmet?
Table 6
Mean Ratings the Perceived Disadvantages of Wearing/Using a Helmet
Perceived Disadvantages of Wearing/Using a x DR

Helmet
Limited Vision 3.99 MA
Impairment of Hearing 3.93 MA
Uncomfortable 3.76 MA
Mistaken Identity because of the Operation of the 3.94 MA
Riding-in-tandem
Legend: 4.21-5.00 Very Much Aware (VMA)
3.41-4.20 Much Aware (MA)
2.61-3.40 Aware (A)
1.81-2.60 Slightly Aware (SA)
1.01-1.80 Not Aware (NA)
As can be gleaned from table 6, respondent reveal that the perceived disadvantages of
wearing or using helmet is maybe brought by mistaken identity of the operation in riding-in-
tandem along with a limited vision with 3.99 followed by impairment of hearing 3.93 and least
of them said that they feel uncomfortable with 3.76 mean rating.
It is an evidence, that the respondents are that there is a problem of riding-in-tandem in
the province that lead them not to use the helmet for suspicion of their identity and having a
limited vision to the road while driving.

Problem 6. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and the
perceived advantages of wearing/using helmet?
Hypothesis A:
There is no significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and the
perceived advantages of wearing/using a helmet.
Table 7
Relationship Between the Profile of the Respondents and the Perceived Advantages of
Wearing/Using a Helmet
Protection from Protection from too Avoidance from

extremely much exposure from penalty
injurious/fatal effect heat and sun
in case of accident
Age 0.111 * 0.377 * 0.026
Gender -0.256 0.088 * 0.006
Driver’s License -0.002 0.000 0.042
Awareness on RA -0.021 0.107 * -0.008
10054 “The
Motorcycle Helmet
Act of 2009”
Means of Awareness 0.831 * 0.804 * 0.790 *
* - significant at the 0.05 level. (2 tailed)
As presented in table 7, the profile of the respondents in terms of age has a significant
relationship to the perceived advantages of wearing/using a helmet on to the protection from
extremely injurious/fatal effect in case of accident and protection from too much exposure from
heat and sun. Furthermore, the profile of the respondent in terms of gender has a significant
relationship to the perceived advantages of wearing/using a helmet on to the protection from too
much exposure from heat and sun.
Problem 7. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and the
perceived disadvantages of wearing/using helmet?
Hypothesis B:
perceived disadvantages of wearing/using a helmet.
Table 8
Relationship Between the Profile of the Respondents and the Perceived Advantages of
Limited Vision Impairment of Uncomfortable Mistaken Identity

Hearing because of the
operation of the
riding-in-tandem
Age 0.017 0.026 -0.72 -0.0108
Gender -0.082 -0.000 0.037 0.110 *
Type of License -0.044 -0.098 -0.012 -0.111
Awareness on 0.005 0.050 0.003 -0.006
RA 10054 “The
Motorcycle
Helmet Act of
2009”
Means of 0.747 * 0.738 * 0.725 * 0.639 *
Awareness
* - significant at the 0.05 level. (2 tailed)
As shown in table 8, the profile of the respondent in terms of gender has a significant
relationship to the perceived disadvantages of wearing/using a helmet on to the mistaken identity
because of the operation of the riding-in-tandem.
Problem 8. Is there a significant relationship between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year respondents
and the perceived advantages of wearing/using helmet?
Hypothesis C:
perceived advantages of wearing/using a helmet.
Table 10
Relationship Between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Year Respondents and the Perceived Advantages of
Sum of Df Mean F P Decision

squares Squares
Between 8.233333333 2 4.116667 0.459032 0.000148 Accept
Groups
Within 246.5 537 0.459032
Groups
Total 254.7333333 539
As shown in table 9, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th year respondents have no significant relationship
between the perceived advantages of wearing/using a helmet. Therefore, the perception of each
year level has no effect even if they came into a higher year level or lower level.
Problem 9. Is there a significant relationship between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year respondents
and the perceived disadvantages of wearing/using helmet?
Table 10
Relationship Between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Year Respondents and the Perceived Disadvantages of
Wearing/Using a helmet
Sum of Df Mean F P Decision

squares Squares
Between 5.293055556 3 1.764352 2.617342 0.143512 Accept
Groups
Within 697.0944444 716 0.973596
Groups
Total 702.3875 719
As shown in table 9, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th year respondents have no significant relationship
between the perceived disadvantages of wearing/using a helmet. Therefore, the perception of
each year level has no effect even if they came into a higher year level or lower level.
Chapter III
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter summarizes the findings of the study, the conclusions drawn, and
recommendations that will be offered by the researchers.
Summary
The study focused on the use of helmet as a safety gear for motorcycle drivers. This study
was conceptualized in order to know the causes and reasons of not wearing helmet in driving
motorcycle in the road, school 2016-2017. Specifically, it sought to answer the following: 1.
Personal profile of the respondents in terms of age, gender, and type of driver’s license; 2.
Perceived advantages of wearing/using helmet; 3. Perceived disadvantage of wearing/using
helmet; 4. It determine also the significant relationship between the profile of the students and
the perceived advantages wearing/using helmet; 5. Significant relationship between the profile
of the students and the perceived disadvantages in wearing/using helmet; 6. Significant
relationship between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year respondents and the perceived advantages of
wearing/using helmet; and 7. Significant relationship between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year
respondents and the perceived disadvantages of wearing/using helmet
There are 180 respondents that compromise the population of the study that consisted on
selected BS Criminology students of the University of Northern Philippines. A structured

questionnaire checklist was utilized as a data gathering instrument that was formulated by the
researchers and was validated by experts in the field to suit the objectives of the study.
The data were gathered, tabulated, and analyzed using frequency and percentage, mean,
and simple linear correlation analysis to determine the significant influence of the independent
variables to the dependent variables.
Findings
The following are findings of the study:
On the Personal Profile of the Respondents
On Age. The table shows that among the respondents, the majority is from 19 years old
with a population of 67 or 37.22% and the least is from 23 and 24 years old with a population of
3 respondents each with a percentage of 1.67%
On Gender. It is highly evident that majority (153 or 85.00%) of the respondents, are
male and the rest (15%) are females.
On Type of License. Majority of the respondents (108 or 60.00%) are student driver’s
permit type of license holders; some (50 OR 27.78.00%) are non-professional type of license
holders and there are about 12.22% or 22 professional type of license holders.
On the Awareness of the Respondents
Majority of the respondents are aware of the national law that is being implemented in
national highways RA 10054 or otherwise known as “The Motor Cycle Helmet Act of 2009”
which composed of 154 or 85.56% and the rest are not aware that composes of 26 or 14.44%.
On the Means of Awareness
According to the respondents, the highest means of awareness is from the school with a
79.22% mean rating, followed by from the parents with a 12.33% mean rating and the least is
from the peers with 8.44% mean rating.
On the Perceived Advantages of the Respondents
The profile of the respondents in terms of age and the perceived advantages of
wearing/using a helmet has no significant relationship on to the avoidance of penalty regardless
of age. On the other hand, there has a significant relationship between the profile of the
respondents in terms of age and the perceived advantages on to the protection from extremely
injurious/fatal effect in case of accident and protection from too much exposure from heat and
sun.
The profile of the respondents in terms of gender and to the perceived advantages of
wearing/using helmet has no significant relationship on to the protection from extremely
injurious/fatal effect in case of accident and avoidance of penalty. However, there has a
significant relationship between the profile of the respondents in termsof gender and perceived
advantages on to the protection from too much exposure from heat and sun.
The profile of the respondents in terms of type of license and the perceived advantages of
wearing/using helmet along with protection from extremely injurious/fatal effect in case of
accident, protection from too much exposure from heat and sun and as well as avoidance from
penalty, has no significant relationship.
The 2nd, 3rd, 4th year respondents have no significant relationship between the perceived
advantages of wearing/using a helmet
On the Perceived Disadvantages of the Respondents
The profile of the respondents in terms of age and the perceived disadvantages of
wearing/using helmet along in limited Vision, impairment of hearing, uncomfortable, and
mistaken identity because of the operation of the riding-in-tandem has no significant
relationship.
The profile of the respondents in terms of gender and the perceived disadvantages of
wearing/using helmet along in limited vision, impairment of hearing, and uncomfortable, has no
significant relationship. Although, with regards to mistaken identity because of the operation of
the riding-in-tandem, there has a significant relationship.
Theprofile of the respondents in terms of type of license and the perceived disadvantages
of wearing/using helmet in regards to limited vision, impairment of hearing, uncomfortable and
mistaken identity because of the operation of the riding-in-tandem has no significant
relationship.
The 2nd, 3rd, 4th year respondents have no significant relationship between the perceived
disadvantages of wearing/using a helmet

Conclusions
Based from the findings, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. Majority of the respondents, who are from the age of 19 years old (67 or 37.22%) are
driving motorcycle.
2. It is highly evident that majority of the respondents are male composed of 153 with the
rate of 85%.
3. Majority of the respondents are holders of a student’s permit (108 or 60.00%) which is
not considered as a license.
4. Majority of the respondents is aware of the RA 10054 or otherwise known as “The
Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009” composed of 154 with the rate of 85.56% mean rating.
5. Majority of the respondents knows the RA 10054 or otherwise known as “The
Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009” by their school attending to composed of 122 with the
rate of 79.22%.
6. There is a significant relationship between age and the perceived advantages of
wearing/using a helmet on to the protection from extremely injurious/fatal effect in case
of accident and protection from too much exposure from heat and sun.
7. There is a significant relationship between gender and the perceived advantages of
wearing/using a helmet on to the protection from too much exposure from heat and sun.
8. There is a significant relationship between the gender of the respondents and in the
perceived disadvantages on to the mistaken identity because of the operation of the
riding-in-tandem.
9. There is no significant relationship between the 2nd, 3rd, 4th year respondents and the
perceived advantages of wearing/using a helmet. Therefore, the perception of each year
level has no effect even if they came into a higher year level or lower level.
10. There is no significant relationship between the 2nd, 3rd, 4th year respondents and the
perceived disadvantages of wearing/using a helmet. Therefore, the perception of each
year level has no effect even if they came into a higher year level or lower level.
Recommendations
Based in the findings of the study, the following recommendations are strongly
recommended:
1. Riders must be aware on the advantages of wearing a helmet in case of motorcycle
accident.
2. They should always think of their safety first when driving motorcycle to prevent
accidents.
3. Student’s driver’s permit must be renewed to non-professional or professional driver’s
license to drive a private or public vehicle on their own.
4. Aggressive information dissemination with the use of helmet should be undertaken not
only to the students but to all individuals who are using motorcycles.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Electronic Sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_helmet
http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/article_helmets1.html
http://www.grsproadsafety.org/sites/default/files/1-Why.pdf
APPENDICES
Questionnaire for Students
Part I. Personal Profile of the Respondents
Direction: the following are the items to solicit on the profile of the respondents.
1. Name (Optional):______________________________________________
2. Age:______________
3. Sex:______________
4. Type of License:________________________
Part II. Please check the appropriate items that correspond to your answer.
1. Are you aware of the Republic Act No. 10054?
Yes____ No____
2. How did you know about the R.A 10054 otherwise known as “The Motorcycle Helmet
Act of 2009”?
___a. Peers
___b. Parents
___c. School
Part III. Please indicate the extent of awareness on the wearing of helmet by putting a check
mark under the column of each item using the following scale as your guide.
Scale Descriptive Rating
5 Very Much Aware (VMA)
4 Much Aware (MA)
3 Aware (A)
2 Slightly Aware (SA)
1 Not Aware (NA)

A. Perceived Advantages on Wearing/Using a Helmet
Indicators 5 4 3 2 1
(VMA) (MA) (A) (SA) (NA)
a. Protection from extremely injurious/fatal
effect in case of accident
b. Protection from too much exposure from
heat and sun
c. Avoidance from penalty
B. Perceived Disadvantages on Wearing/Using a Helmet
Indicators 5 4 3 2 1
(VMA) (MA) (A) (SA) (NA)
a. Limited Vision
b. Impairment of Hearing
c. Uncomfortable
d. Mistaken identity because of the operation
of the riding-in-tandem
CURRICULUM VITEA
I.Personal Data
Name: Jake GasconVivit
Age: 20 years old
Date of Birth: September 21, 1996
Place of Birth: Surngit, San Juan, Ilocos Sur
Sex: Male
Citizenship: Filipino
Religion: Roman Catholic
Civil Status: Single
Father: Arnel V. Vivit
Mother: Gloria G. Vivit
Brother/s: Mike G. Vivit
Sister/s: Mariel G. Vivit
II. Educational Background
Elementary: Solotsolot Elementary School (2003-2009)
Solotsolot, San Juan, Ilocos Sur
Secondary: Solotsolot National High School (2009-2013)
Solotsolot, San Juan, Ilocos Sur
Tertiary: University of Northern Philippines (2016-2017)
Tamag, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur
Degree: Bachelor of Science in Criminology
III. Membership of Organization
Criminology Student Organization (CSO) Member (2016-2017)
CURRICULUM VITEA
I. Personal Data
Name: Rogelito Urban Gonzales Jr.
Age: 20 years old
Date of Birth: April 25, 1996
Place of Birth: Gabriela Silang General Hospital
Sex: Male
Father: Rogelito T. Gonzales Sr.
Mother: Ma. Vilma U. Gonzales
Brother/s:
Sister/s: Katrina Casandra U. Gonzales
Elementary: Manzate Elementary School (2003-2009)
Manzante, Magsingal, Ilocos Sur
Secondary: St. William’s Institute (2009-2013)
San Ramon, Magsingal, Ilocos Sur

CURRICULUM VITAE
I.Personal Data
Name: Santos William Bandolin Jr.
Age: 20 years old
Date of Birth: Febrary 19, 1996
Place of Birth: Alinaya, Pidigan, Abra
Sex: Male
Father: Santos Bandolin Sr.
Mother: Imelda Bandolin
Brother/s: Adriane Bandolin
Christian Bandolin
Sister/s: Melanie Bandolin
Elementary: Suyo Pilot Elementary School (2002-2008)
Suyo, Pidigan, Abra
Secondary: Suyo National High School 2008-2012)
Suyo, Pidigan, Abra
CURRICULUM VITEA
I.Personal Data
Name: Mark Justin CallejoBerzamina
Age: 19 years old
Date of Birth: May 13, 1997
Place of Birth: Fuerte, Caoayan, Ilocos Sur
Sex: Male
Father: Agustin Berzamina
Mother: Leona Berzamina
Brother/s: Rodolfo Berzamina
VirgilioBerzamina
Sister/s: Magnolia Berzamina
Daisy Berzamina

Elementary: Puro, Caoayan Elementary School(2003-2009)
Puro, Caoayan, Ilocos Sur
Secondary: Puro National High School (2009-2013)
Puro, Caoayan, Ilocos Sur

CURRICULUM VITEA
I.Personal Data
Name: Laurence Barreras De la Cruz
Age: 19 years old
Date of Birth: December 18, 1996
Place of Birth: Bangued, Abra
Sex: Male
Father: Loreto B. De la Cruz
Mother: Elynor B. De la Cruz
Brother: Rene Jan B. De la Cruz
Sister: Lorelyn B. De la Cruz
Elementary: Divine Word College OfBangued (2003-2009)
Zone 6, Bangued, Abra
Secondary: Divine Word College OfBangued (2009-2013)
Zone 6, Bangued, Abra
CURRICULUM VITEA
I.Personal Data
Name: Mark Jay Bataoy-eyPingen
Age: 20 years old
Date of Birth: May 21, 1996
Place of Birth: San. Julian, Bantay, Ilocos Sur
Sex: Male
Father: CrisencioPingen
Mother: Ofelia Pingen
Elementary: Bantay, East Central School (2003-2009)
Bantay, Ilocos Sur
Secondary: Ilocos Sur National High School (2009-2013)
Vigan City, Ilocos Sur

However, as of today, though how good and protective the law is, most of the people
hardly can’t follow and obey as such. There are still people who violate this
law. The implementation and enforcement of the law depends upon each different
location. In big cities like Metro Manila,
C e b u o r D a v a o , t h e r e i s a s t r i c t implementation on this law, but if we go to
provinces and other rural areas, we can
see that there still remain children aboard on a motorcycle even it
a l r e a d y prohibited by the state, because there are no authorities who check and sees them.
The Regional Director of the Land Transportation Office 7 believes it would be
easy to implement the newly signed law which prohibits children from rid
i n g m o t o r c yc l e s

AWARENESS ON MOTORCYCYLE HELMET ACT OF 2001 (Repaired)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

AWARENESS ON MOTORCYCYLE HELMET ACT OF 2001 (Repaired)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AWARENESS ON MOTORCYCYLE HELMET ACT OF 2001 (Repaired)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AWARENESS ON MOTORCYCYLE HELMET ACT OF 2009

This thesis entitled “AWARENESS ON MOTORCYCLE HELMET ACT OF 2009”

prepared and submitted by LAURENCE B. DE LA CRUZ, SANTOS W. BANDOLIN Jr.,

JAKE G. VIVIT, ROGELITO U. GONZALES Jr., MARK JUSTIN C. BERZAMINA,

LORNA C. NAVARRO, MPA-Pol. Ad.

ORAL EXAMINATION COMMITTEE

SINA C. BESTRE, Ph. S. Crim

SINA C. BESTRE, Ph. D. Crim

helped, contributed and sacrificed for the completion of this study:

improvement of this study;

study and for helping us completed it;

realization of the study, their heartfelt thanks.

and who is always there to guide us.

This thesis is dedicated to my father CrisencioPingen, who taught

me the best kind of k owledge to have is that which is learned for

its own sake. It is also dedicated to my mother Ofelia Pingen, who

taught me that even the largest task can be accomplished if it is

done one step at a time.

to all my beloved friends and relatives, who have been so

supportive in my studies and along the way of doing my thesis.

Mica T. Pacleb for supporting and inspiring me in my studies and

in doing this research work.

I dedicate all my hardworks to my family, friends, and love one’s,

because of their love and trust, especially to my mother Imelda

Bandolin, to my father Santos Bandolin and to my brothers

AldrineBandolin and Christian Bandolin and also to my sister

Melanie Bandolin to their support that gives me strength to do all

my rrequirements in the school.

life and for guiding me in my everyday life.

I humbly dedicate this piece of work to my parents Mr. Rogelito T.

and a lot of sacrifices to finish my studies. Thank you for your

unending encouragement and support. I hope you can appreciate

achieve my goals and dreams in life.

To my only sister Katrina Casandra U. Gonzales, for encouraging

me to finish my goals and dreams in life.

To my loving grandparents, uncle, aunt, and cousins who are

always encouraging me to fulfill my study.

To my friends who have been a good example. Thank you for

inspiring me to fulfill our dreams.

guiding us to the right way.

Thank you very much.

This piece of work heartily dedicated to all the persons who

encourages, inspired, support and gave me strength to accomplish

To my parents, Mr. ArnelVivit and Mrs. Gloria Vivit, who

showered me their love, care, and comfort in order to finish this

research, without them, this would be nothing.

To all my friends, who are always there on my side through thick

And most important in my life, our Father in Heaven, for giving

me strength and courage, without him, I can do nothing.

Again, Thank you very much!

This piece of work is whole-heartedly dedicated to my parents Mr.

Loreto B. De la Cruz and Mrs. Elynor B. De la Cruz, who are

always loving, caring, supporting, encouraging and giving me

strength to accomplish my goals.

To my brother Rene Jan B. De la Cruz and Lorelyn B. De la Cruz

who are always encouraging me to become better person than

To my girlfriend Danice Nicole O. Turqueza who is always giving