CHAPTER 3

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This section presents the analysis, interpretation, results, and discussion of the data

gathered.

Level of Knowledge of BS Criminology Motorcycle Rider Students on the

‘’Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009”.

Table 1. Level of Knowledge of BS Criminology Motorcycle Rider Students on the

‘’Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009”.
Indicators Weighted Descriptive Equivalent
Mean
1. Mandatory use of a standard 3.44 Very Much Knowledgeable
protective helmet.
2. Motorcycle drivers and back riders are 3.36 Very Much Knowledgeable
required to wear a standard helmet.
3. Rider must wear a helmet whether it 3.38 Very Much Knowledgeable
is long or short drive on any type of
roads.
4. Rider must use the standard helmet 3.00 Much Knowledgeable
prescribed by the authorities.
5. Rider uses the standard helmet with 3.01 Much Knowledgeable
ICC (Import Commodity Clearance)
mark.
6. Tricycle is exempted from using 3.03 Much Knowledgeable
helmet.
7. The penalty for not wearing a helmet 2.57 Much Knowledgeable
st
is 1,500 pesos for 1 offense.
8. The penalty for not wearing a helmet 2.57 Much Knowledgeable
is 3,000 pesos for 2nd offense.
9. The penalty for not wearing a helmet 2.59 Much Knowledgeable
rd
for the 3 offense shall be 5,000
pesos.
10.The penalty for not wearing a helmet 2.5 Much Knowledgeable
for the 4th offense shall be 10,000
pesos and confiscation of driver’s
license.
Grand Mean 2.95 Much Knowledgeable

Table 1 presents the level of knowledge of B.S Criminology riders on Motorcycle

Helmet Act of 2009. The findings revealed that the respondents are much

knowledgeable on the mandates of R.A. 10054 evidenced by the grand mean of 2.95.
This implies that these students or respondents are informed about the mandatory

wearing of helmet when driving a motorcycle, at some point however, it reflects that

the respondents are probably not fully aware and or not academically informed on the

whole legal context of the law particularly on the provision of penalties which is why

the result comes on the level of much knowledgeable.

Analysis on this finding would somehow attribute to the mindset of some riders

that wearing of helmet is a positive attitude in a quest for safety. On the other hand,

however, some riders are caught unaware of the other applicable provision on the

penalties during violation. This is perhaps because in the locality, it is seldom that

enforcers would monitor compliance of wearing a helmet.

Meanwhile, the indicator with the highest mean of 3.44 is the Mandatory use of

a standard protective helmet. This connotes that the BS Criminology motorcycle rider

students are very much knowledgeable about the law being implemented here in the

Philippines. This is attributed that as a motorcycle rider, they need to ensure

themselves by using quality helmet as prescribed by the Bureau of Product Standards

(BPS) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Consistently, the use of

helmets with certain quality standards is important (Rakhmawati et al., 2019).

The standard quality is what matter most, because it is used to protect life in

case of imbalance situation particularly during accidents and collision. It is for this

reason that riders are encouraged to use the standards quality as prescribed and

tested that can possibly save individual in a life-threatening incident, rather than

using any other helmet products w/c may compromise safety of the riders.

There is so much information about wearing of helmet obtained in different

platforms. Some are in the form of testimonies, other are taken from reports, while
some came from observations. The statements are common to all of which would sum

up to how helmet was significant in their incidents it was used. A lot of accidents

involving motorcycle has been seen and heard, and lot of its riders were probably been

served by their helmet, while the other side of the stories is unfortunate because the

riders perhaps did not used his/her helmet.

On the final analysis it is a commonsense principle that the respondents would

choose a quality product specially so that is used for their safety. Helmet does not

prevent accidents, it serves as protector and lessen the impact of accidents on the

possible injurious consequences, in other words it decreases the number of

incapacitating injuries of motorcycles (Mayrose, 2008).

The indicator that obtained the 2nd highest mean is “Riders must wear a helmet

whether it is a long or short drive on any type of road” with 3.38 interpreted as very

much knowledgeable, this implies that the respondents are fully oriented on the

mandatory use of helmet regardless of whether a short or long drive.

Analysis on this finding would somehow lead to the assumptions that their

respondents have undergone series of seminar in their attempt to secure a

motorcycles driver’s license, which definitely include among others the topic/lesson on

mandatory wearing of helmet, and other matter relating proper driving behavior.

Furthermore, their knowledge, on helmet law has perhaps been supplemented

by other available source from different platforms such as the social media, television,

radio and others. In an informed conversation with one of the respondents he

mentioned
 “Saankounaynaawatan jay dadumanga lecture ti seminar mi, ngem na

basak ijay cellphone

kotidadumangainformasyonsungaisotinangammuakditoylintegti helmet”

(translation)”.

Moreover, based on the findings of the study, the indicator which is the penalty

for not wearing a helmet is 1500 pesos for the first offense and 3000 for the second

offense have the lowest means of 2.57 which has a descriptive equivalent of much

knowledgeable. This implies that the criminology rider students are still

knowledgeable on the penalties if they are not going to wear their helmets. Knowledge

on this allows the students to be forced to use helmets to avoid these fines from traffic

police and most importantly, to ensure their safety. This implies that the B.S

Criminology Motorcycle Rider Students are very much knowledgeable in some rules as

prescribed in the citation ticket, Municipal/City Ordinances and those prescribed by

national laws, however, they just often complied. Traffic rules, regulations and

guidelines must be set in place and must be strictly followed by motorists so that

serious accidents and injuries can be prevented (NilkamalPvt Ltd, 2018).

There are consequences to those who do not comply on the ordinance, such as

paying fines or worst is the confiscation of a driver’s license. The fourth offense a

violator shall pay 10,000.00 pesos followed by the confiscation of his driver’s license is

one of the indicators with the lowest mean of 2.5 which has a descriptive equivalent of

much knowledgeable. This means that B.S Criminology Motorcycle Rider Students are

much aware of the ordinance but when it comes to actual, if they are travelling, they

are not even using their helmets. Another interview with the motorists is some

personnel like local police who are having checkpoints do not imposed the real amount
of the offense. Thus, the knowledge of the students on this offense is highly dependent

on the implementation of the authorities (Pathway, 2017).

Level of Compliance of BS Criminology Motorcycle Rider Students on the

‘’Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009”

Table 2. Level of Compliance of BS Criminology Motorcycle Rider Students on the

‘’Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009”.
Indicators Mean Descriptive Equivalent
1. Mandatory use of a standard protective 2.98 Much Complied
helmet.
2. Motorcycle drivers and back riders are 3.01 Much Complied
required to wear a standard helmet.
3. Rider must wear a helmet whether it is 2.53 Much Complied
long or short drive on any type of roads.
4. Rider must use the standard helmet 3.09 Much Complied
prescribed by the authorities.
5. Rider uses the standard helmet with ICC 3.02 Much Complied
(Import Commodity Clearance) mark.
6. Tricycle is exempted from using helmet. 3.08 Much Complied
7. The penalty for not wearing a helmet is 2.63 Much Complied
st
1,500 pesos for 1 offense.
8. The penalty for not wearing a helmet is 2.55 Much Complied
3,000 pesos for 2nd offense.
9. The penalty for not wearing a helmet for 2.58 Much Complied
rd
the 3 offense shall be 5,000 pesos.
10.The penalty for not wearing a helmet for 2.6 Much Complied
the 4th offense shall be 10,000 pesos and
confiscation of driver’s license.
Grand Mean 2.81 Much Compliance

Table 2 presents the level of compliance of B.S. Criminology riders on

Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009. The findings revealed that the respondents are much

complied on the mandates of R.A. 10054 evidenced by the grand mean 2.81. This

implies that respondents are complying on the previsions stipulated under R.A.

10054.Motorcycle crashes are the cause of severe morbidity and mortality especially

because of head injuries. It seems that wearing a helmet has an effective role in
protection against head injuries. (Faryabi, 2014). Motorcycle riders complies with the

helmet act since they are afraid to such accidents. Helmet is effective in reducing head

injuries wherein wearing a helmet helps to reduce the impact of an accident on your

head. While riding your two-wheeler, it is very likely that if you are involved in an

accident, then the resulting head injuries can be fatal, if you are not wearing a helmet

(Bajaj, 2019). Moreover, with the mandate of wearing a helmet in place, traffic police

are on high alert to fine people riding their bikes without wearing a helmet. Thus,

motorcycle riders wear a helmet while driving which prevents them from paying hefty

fines & spoiling their driving record.

Analysis on these findings would somehow affect the compliance of the riders

because of their behavior since some of them are not wearing their helmet and would

only wear their helmet if there’s a presence of a police enforcers.

The indicator with the highest mean of 3.09 is Rider must use the standard

helmet prescribed by the authorities. This means that BS Criminology Motorcycle

Rider Students are much compliant to this provision. According to one respondent,

when they buy a helmet it must be checked and contains the IIC mark. There are two

stickers that must be checked, one the ICC or Import Community Standard for

imported helmets to recognize that the product passed through local DTI offices and

labs and the PS mark for locally manufactured products. If the helmet is local it will

only bare the PS mark, if it is an imported helmet it must have the ICC sticker

showing that the commodity passed through legal avenues and not illegally imported

by importers. Unfortunately, a lot of motorcycle riders still see wearing a helmet just

for compliance, and not actually for head protection in the event of a crash. Because of
that mistaken belief, many riders simply buy the cheapest helmet they can find. These

are often sub-standard in quality.

In the Philippines, the "Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009," also known as Republic

Act 10054, was passed. This is an act that requires all motorcycle riders to wear

helmets while driving and imposes penalties on violators. It was signed by President

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in March 2010 and states that all motorcycle riders,

including their passengers, must always wear the standard protective helmet whether

traveling a long or short distance on any road or highway. It also stated that the DTI

will issue instructions for motorcycle riders that include specifications for the

standard protective helmet.

Thus, to ensure helmet quality, the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) and the

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) shall conduct mandatory testing on all

domestically manufactured and imported motorcycle helmets. Prior to the sale and

distribution of their products, all manufacturers and importers of standard protective

motorcycle helmets must obtain a PS license or ICC (Batin et al., 2017).

Those who do not comply with Republic Act 10054 face the following penalties:

For the first offense, the violator must pay 1,500.00 pesos; for the second offense,

3,000.00 pesos; for the third offense, 5,000.00 pesos; and for the fourth and

subsequent offenses, 10,000.00 pesos in addition to the confiscation of their driver's

license (Batin et al., 2017).

According to the data collected or result of the survey, the indicator no.6 has

the 2nd highest weighted mean with a mean of 3.08, which indicates that it is much

complied with "Tricycle drivers being exempted from using helmet”. Under the

Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009, Section 4, drivers of tricycles shall be exempted from

complying with the mandatory wearing of motorcycle helmets as provided in this Act.
Moreover, as per interviewed the respondents stated that tricycle drivers don't need to

wear helmets because their motorcycles are already reinforced with steel cages.

Wherein driver has a roof and windshield so in case of a collision, drivers and

passengers are more protected as compared to motorcycles. Thus, they are no longer

required by law because they are no longer 2 wheeled vehicles. This simply proves that

tricycles drivers are not required and hassled to wear helmets and they are not

covered by the ordinance or they are exempted from the ordinance. This is

corroborative to the study of Bachani (2017), stating that only two-wheeled vehicle

riders are obligated to wear helmets.

Meanwhile, the indicator that obtained the lowest mean is “Riders must wear a

helmet whether it is a long or short drive on any type of road” with 2.53 interpreted as

much complied in which this connotes that B.S Criminology Motorcycle rider students

in MPSPC are much complying to the helmet law.

Analysis on this finding would break their complaint because, there are times

that they disregard wearing a helmet. According to one of the respondents, they

disregard wearing helmet whether long or short ride when they are in a rush, if the

weather is too hot, burden to carry a helmet especially on a short ride and if there is

no presence of a police officer or LTO. This is consistent with the study of Muhammad

Adnan and UnebGazder(2019) which states that the non-compliance to wearing of

helmet is a burden to carry a helmet, vision, hearing problem, vision, hearing problem

and hot weather are major reasons because of which helmet is not worn regularly by

riders.

Also, according to Hasan et al, 2022, the majority do not wear helmets when

they ride for a short trip, this is followed during hot weather, when they don’t
anticipate meeting police when riding on a local road. The leading reason for not

wearing a helmet is related to the comfortability of wearing a helmet. Around 22%

claim that they do not wear helmet because they ride on low-speed local road and

cause suffocation, users feel asphyxiated when they wear helmets.

 CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. Indeed, knowledge of the Motorcycle Act of 2009 is significant to the

Criminology students who ride a motorcycle this act’s main goal was to

safeguard them from any danger or accident. Furthermore, according to the

findings of the study, the Bachelor of Science in Criminology motorcycle rider

students are much more knowledgeable on the said law. It was found that the

students have enough knowledge of the compulsory helmet law for riders and

their passengers that is potentially attributable to the high prevalence of helmet

use. Moreover, this implies the considerable efforts that are being given by the

authorities to increase information dissemination to avoid the perceived risk of

apprehension for non-helmet use like more police presence and random

scheduling of enforcement activities that help in improving the awareness of the

existing helmet law for the student riders and ensuring that helmet wearing by

their passengers is more strictly enforced.

2. It has been discovered through this study that the criminology student

motorcycle rider respondents are neither innocent nor ignorant of the

Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009 and fortunately being knowledgeable of this act

enables them to be always compliant. Based on the findings of the study, the

students complied with this act. This appears to be a good thing because the

vast majority of drivers are both informed about the act and compliant at the

same time. Unfortunately, the findings suggest that being aware of the law does

not always result in compliance. Some students continue to break the law by

without wearing helmets on occasion. This jeopardizes the purpose of improving

 quality of life through safe travel, especially for vulnerable road users such as

motorcycle riders. Yet, most student riders strictly adhere to the act.

Recommendations

Based on the derived conclusions, the following are recommended:

1. The researchers want to recommend higher fines for riders to comply or

cooperate to the said law, since they are knowledgeable. According to the

survey gathered, it was found that students have enough knowledge of

the compulsory helmet law for riders and their passengers that is

potentially attributed to the high prevalence of helmet use.

2. A copy of this research will be given to the authorities to increase

information dissemination.

3. The researchers recommend immediate action and more police presence

and random scheduling of enforcement activities.

 Reference

Hasan et al., (2022). Motorcyclist safety risk and attitude to using

helmet.https://www.banglajol.info/index,php/JES/article/view/63722/43521

Kulanthayan et al., (2001) Knowledge, attitude and behavior of motorcyclist toward

helmet wearing. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Knowledge-attitudes-
and-behavior-of-motorcyclist-toward-helmet-wearing_tbl4_23643641

Batin et al., (2017) Implementation of no helmet no travel in

Candonhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/3245284400_Implementaionof_the
_no_helmet_no_travel_inCandon

Hung, Stevenson et al., (2007) Prevalence of helmet use among motorcycle riders in
Vietnaamhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/6630245_Prevelence_of_he
lmet_use_among_motorcycle_riders_in_vietnam.

Adnan and Gazder (2019) Investigation of helmet use behavior of motorcyclist and
effective of enforcement campaign using CART
approach.pdf.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S038611121
8300220.

S. Kulantayan et al., (2007) Modeling of compliance behavior of motorcyclist to proper

usage of safety helmet in Malaysiahttps://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-
1739477.ISSN0973-0508.

James Mayrose (2008) The effects of a mandatory motorcycle helmet law on helmet
use and injury patterns among motorcyclist fatalities.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23251094_the_effects_of_a_mandat
ory_motorcycle_helmet_law_on_helmet_use_and_injury_patterns_among_motorc
yclist_fatalities

Rakhmawati et al., (2019) Intention to use helmet with quality standard label; an
integration model of the hierarchy of effect theory and the information signaling
theoryhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235214652030536
6/pdf?md5=1-S2352146520305366-main.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4276706/ Evaluation of the Use

and Reasons for Not Using a Helmet by Motorcyclists Admitted to the Emergency Ward
of ShahidBahonar Hospital in Kerman

S Kilawa and DV Nyongole (2015) injury prevention; Motorcyclists’ responses and

practices on the use of helmet in Mwanza,
Tanzaniahttps://www.ajol.info/index.php/ecajs/article/view/121452/110917

Bechani et. Al., (2012) Helmet use among motorcyclist in Cambodia: a survey use,
knowledge, attitudes, and
practices.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15389588.2011.630
763
NilkamalPvt Ltd. (2018) The importance of Road Safety Products to Prevent Accidents
and Injuries.

Vandamme, E. (2009) Concepts and Challenges in the use of Knowledge-Attitude-

Practice Survey: Journal of Transportation Technologies, Vol.6 No. 5, October
12, 2016.
 ABSTRACT

This study explores on the level of knowledge and compliance of the BS

Criminology Riders on the Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009. A quantitative-descriptive
approach was used where questionnaire checklist was utilized as the main data
gathering tool. A total of ___ BS Criminology students enrolled at Mountain Province
State Polytechnic College, who are using motorcycle, and with driver’s license, are the
respondents of this study. The survey found that Bachelor of Science in Criminology
motorcycle riders knew the law better. The high helmet use among students may be
due to their understanding of the mandatory helmet law for riders and passengers.
This also implies that the authorities are making significant efforts to increase
information dissemination to avoid the perceived risk of apprehension for non-helmet
use, such as more police presence and random scheduling of enforcement activities
that help student riders become more aware of the helmet law and ensure that their
passengers wear helmets. This survey found that criminology student motorcycle
riders know about the Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009 and are always compliant.
Because most drivers are aware and obedient, this seems ideal. Unfortunately, the
data imply that legal awareness does not necessarily lead to compliance. Some
students continue to violate helmet laws. This undermines the goal of safe travel to
improve quality of life, especially for motorcycle riders.

Keywords: Compliance, Criminology students, Knowledge, and Motorcycle Law,

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In appreciation to the support given to this quantitative research study titled:

"Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009" among Bachelor of Science in Criminology Motorcycle
Rider Students, the researchers would like to give sincere thanks to the people behind
the triumph of this research study. In particular, the researchers would like to express
their sincere heartfelt gratitude to the following:

The Almighty Father who gave enough strength and wisdom to finish this work
and who is always there to guide us;

Dr. June S. Biangdan, the research adviser and instructor of the said research,
as well as the chairperson of the defense panel for guiding the researchers and
nurturing them with support, knowledge and immense care. His unending efforts led
to the completion of this study;

Dr. Veneranda P. Depayso, a member of the defense panel, for her

circumstantial criticisms, thorough evaluation, and massive assistance for the
improvement of the study;

Dr. Joni L. Pagandiyan, as one member also of the defense panel, for his
constructive criticisms, comments and suggestions for the improvement of this study.

Ma'am Claire K. Lafadchan, our research 1 and 2 instructor for sharing her
knowledge related to our study and for unending helping and guiding us to finish the
study;

To all BS Criminology students who served as our respondents for sharing their
precious time to the researchers during the conduct of the study; and

To those whose names are not mentioned here, but in some way contributed to
the realization of the study, their heartfelt thanks; and

THE RESEARCHER