ii

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Motorcycle owner rapidly increased in the past years because it has

become necessity especially with the unstoppable increase in fuel prices and

transportation fares. However, because of the increase of motorcycle user,

motorcycle accident has also increases and the death toll rate has been

progressively high (Gumasing & Magbitang, 2020).

Government and policy makers globally setting road traffic safety

measures to educate road users to be aware of safety traffic rules. Preventative

measures are also one of the measures to reduce the gravity of motorcycle

accidents. Preventative measures such as confining the numbers of pillion

passenger to one, stricter rules on implementing of safety helmet users. Stricter

rules on the safety helmet use will significantly reduce the gravity of head

injuries which will lead to reducing the fatality of motorcycle accidents (IMP

Center, 2022).

A helmet is by far the most important and effective piece of protective

equipment a person on a motorcycle can wear. Helmets save lives by reducing

the extent of head injuries in the event of a traffic accident. Because of this

danger associated with driving a motorcycle, motorcycle operators and

passengers in many states are required by statute to wear approved safety

 2

helmets. Mandatory helmet laws for motorcycle operators and their passengers

have, for the most part, proven to be an effective strategy in both increasing

helmet use and reducing head injuries and fatalities in motorcycle accidents

globally. But, while having an unmistakably positive effect on the overall safety

of motorcycle riding, helmet laws have been met by resistance in the

motorcycling community (FindLaw Staff, 2021).

In United States of America, Motorcycle crashes contribute considerably to

fatal and non-fatal injuries. Helmet laws are effective in increasing motorcycle

helmet use and reducing deaths and injuries. These laws are effective for

motorcyclists of all ages, including younger operators and passengers who would

have already been covered by partial helmet laws. Repealing universal helmet

laws decreased helmet use and increased deaths and injuries. Motorcycle helmet

laws require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet while riding on public roads. In

the U.S., these laws are implemented at the state level with varying provisions

and fall into two categories: universal helmet laws (UHLs), which apply to all

motorcycle operators and passengers; and partial helmet laws (PHLs), which

apply only to certain motorcycle operators such as those under a specified age

(usually 18 years), novices (1 year of experience), or those who do not meet the

state’s requirement for medical insurance coverage (Peng et. al., 2017).

Moreover, only 18 states and the District of Columbia have universal

motorcycle helmet laws that require all riders to wear helmets. After the
 3

implementation of the universal helmet law, it shows that it has been effective in

reducing fatality in motorcycle accident. In fact, based on the study of Daniels

(2014), he found out that after the implementation of the California state wide

motorcycle helmet law, fatalities decreased by 37%. Furthermore, helmets

reduce the risk of head injury in motorcycle riders by 69%. In 2010 alone, an

estimated 1550 motorcycle related fatalities is prevented by helmet use and 706

more lives could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets (Moon,

2022).

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, helmets

are approximately 29% effective in preventing fatal head/brain injuries and 67%

effective in preventing head/brain injuries to motorcyclists involved in traffic

crashes. Given this clear and compelling evidence, Advocates urges states to

preserve existing all-rider motorcycle helmet requirements and calls upon state

lacking this lifesaving traffic safety law to take swift action to add it.

(NHTSA.Gov, 2019).

There is strong evidence that universal motorcycle helmet laws

substantially increase helmet use and reduce fatalities and injuries across all age

groups and genders. Such laws are more effective than laws that apply only to

young or novice riders, often referred to as partial laws. States with universal

motorcycle helmet laws have lower rates of motorcycle-related fatalities and

appear to have lower rates of traumatic brain injury (TBI) than states with partial
 4

laws. When states repeal universal laws or replace them with partial laws, helmet

use decreases and fatalities and injuries increase. A Louisiana-based study

suggests that reinstating a universal law that has been repealed can reverse this

trend, decreasing the number of fatal motorcycle crashes (Lee, 2017).

The most common mode of transportation in Vietnam is motorcycle and

also the most common involved vehicle in traffic related accidents. In 2007, they

enacted a law requiring motorcycle rider and passenger to wear helmets known

as the comprehensive helmet legislation. The study shows that the helmet law

has contributed significantly to the reduction of the mortality burden of traffic-

related injuries (Phung, 2020).

In Iran, motorcycle is an important means of transportation and its use is

highly common among men. A report from WHO shows that most of the

motorcycle deaths are from head injuries resulting from improper use of helmet

and non-use of helmet. Iran has safety helmet laws requiring that all drivers

should worn safety helmets at all time. Motorcycle drivers that disobey the rules

are subject to monetary fines and in some cases imprisonment. However even

violating the law it does not necessarily mean that they will be cited for the

violation, which is because of the improper enforcement of the law.

The country of Thailand, head injuries due to motorcycle accidents are the

main cause of death and disability among motorcycle users. Although helmet law

was enacted, the rate of helmet use has not increased in any time of the day
 5

and night and the fatalities due to motorcycle accidents were not reduced. It

shows that four of the major regions in Thailand were significantly low in

complying with the law, however based on the hospital based data from the

patients data suffering injuries from motorcycle crashes, it is found that the

helmet reduce the severity of head injuries for motorcycle crash victims and the

probability of fatality from head injuries in motorcycle crashes reduced

significantly by wearing helmets (Kanitpong, 2013).

Here in the Philippines, as the rate of motorcycle accidents happened in

the Philippines rises, the government has strengthened its implementation of the

law about wearing protective helmets for all motorcycle riders in the entire

country. The Republic Act 10054 (RA 10054), known as the Motorcycle Helmet

Act of 2009, is the primary law mandating all motorcycle riders, including back

riders to wear standard protective motorcycle helmets at all times while driving,

whether long or short distance drives, in any type of road and highway. Any

person caught riding a motorcycle without the standard protective helmet in

violation of RA 10054 shall be punished with the fine and the amount depends

on how many times the riders offend (Cham, 2018).

The World Health Organization (WHO) in the Philippines expressed

support for the nationwide implementation of the Helmet Law in the Philippines

(RA 10054) and reiterates the necessity of effective enforcement of road safety

laws to save lives and prevent injuries from road accidents (Cham, 2018).
 6

Motorcycles were one of the most dangerous modes of transportation in the

Philippines. The use of safety motorcycle helmet is the best way to prevent fatal

accidents in using motorcycle on the road. In road hazards, motorcycles face

higher dangers than cars and other vehicles. It is because of the road conditions

in the Philippines like potholes, dead animals, slick pavement conditions, uneven

lane heights and other objects that pose safety threats to motorcycles (Godoy,

2020).

In Cebu City, The Cebu Provincial Board has called on Cebu’s 51 towns

and component cities to strictly implement Republic Act 10054, also known as

the Helmet Law. They require motorist to wear either half-faced helmet or full

face helmet with clear visor to ensure the protection of the riders in any

motorcycle related accidents (Quintas, 2016).

The City of Dumaguete, has the most number of motorcycle users in the

Philippines and for many years has been the city’s preferred mode of transport.

Local authority in Dumaguete City has agreed with the implementation of the

Republic Act. 10054. The implementation of the mandatory wearing of helmets

by motorcycle drivers and back riders are in full swing (Partlow, 2018).

At Bayambang, Pangasinan, local authority implemented No Helmet No

Travel Policy under the Motorcycle Act of 2009 since 2017. Those motorcycle

drivers who will violate the policy will be apprehended and will be slapped with

the corresponding penalty of the law (Micua, 2018).

 7

At City of Dagupan, Pangasinan, Public Order and Safety Office (POSO)

received an order from Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) of

Region 1 regarding the implementation of Republic Act No. 10054 mandating all

motorcycle riders to wear standard protective motorcycle helmets while driving,

whether long or short drives in any types of road or highways. Any person

caught violating the law will be punish with the complied penalties of the law.

(POSO DAGUPAN, 2018).

Helmet laws and policies increased helmet usage which in turn saves lives.

Laws and policies was passed pursuant to State’s objective which is having a

more proactive and preventive approach to secure the safety of motorist, their

passenger and pedestrians at all times through the mandatory enforcement of

the use of standard motorcycle helmet as part of policy of the State to secure

and safeguard its citizens, particularly operators or drivers of motorcycles and

their passengers, from ruinous and extremely effects of fatal or life-threatening

accidents and crashes (ICDC, 2021).

The municipality of Rosales, Pangasinan, local authority implementing No

Helmet, No Travel Policy, therefore the researchers are motivated to conduct the

study about the policy because they wanted to know the level of the

implementation of the policy. They also wanted to know the level of the

effectiveness of No Helmet, No Travel Policy and the problems encountered and

the degree of seriousness of the problems encountered on the implementation of

 8

the No Helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan. Furthermore, the

researchers also wanted to provide recommendations to improve or enhance the

No Helmet, no Travel Policy of Rosales, Pangasinan.

Theoretical Framework

The following theories were used to serve as the essential foundation of

the study:

The Single Event Theory under the accident causation, this theory is

based on assumption that an accident consist of single event that has a cause.

Find the cause and you can have explained the phenomenon. It is known that

rising of motorcycle accidents happen and eventually found out that many of the

victim of accidents died, primarily due to head injuries. It could have been

prevented by wearing protective gear, a helmet. Accidents happen because of

many reasons, but end up with the same result injuries and fatal injuries.

Wearing helmet does not really help in avoiding accidents, but it gives out a

platform of safety (Batin, 2017).

Health Belief Model by Hochbaum, Leventhal, Kegeles, and Rosenstock

was developed in the 1950s, a behavior change theory that focuses on

individual’s perceptions. It includes constructs such as perceived benefits and

barriers, perceived health behavior decisions. Wearing of helmet of motorcycle

riders constructs with the threat perception which is motorcycle crash, social

influence, health information about severity of motorcycle crash injuries, and

 9

readiness for concern. Helmet wearers perceived more benefits of helmet

wearing, fewer barriers, and identified more cues to action than non-wearers

(VanWormer, 2017).

The Diffusion of Innovation Theory was developed by E.M Rogers in 1962,

one of the first born social theories, can be applied to the passage of helmet

legislation. The diffusion of innovation theory is used to explain how, why and

what rate new ideas spread through social systems. One prominent example of

diffusion of innovation theory is the promotion of helmet laws. This is due part in

to many injury accidents and incidents occurred. The notion of the application of

diffusion theory is used in this fashion to explain how evolving high fatalities

have brought about a system change on the use of motorcycle helmet. The

diffusion of innovation theory’s strength is aimed at hastening the espousal of

vital public health programs, such as the universal helmet statute that typically

aim to change the behaviour of social system (Binji, 2020).

The Single Event theory is related to the study since understanding the

justifications for enacting of No Helmet No Travel Policy is necessary before

moving onto the next stage. The local authority of Rosales was aware of the

rises of motorcycle accidents in the municipality. The Health Belief Model talks

about the impact of wearing helmet than not wearing a protective helmet. It

explains the view of motorcycle rider about their safety of wearing helmet to

reduce the severity of accident occurrences. The Diffusion of Innovation theory is

 10

related to the study because it explains the adaption of motorcycle rider on the

passage of the policy.

These theories are relevant to the present study because local authority of

Rosales, Pangasinan implementing No Helmet No Travel Policy. These theories

explain how motorcycle accident happens and how to prevent fatal injuries from

the head by using motorcycle protective gear which is helmet. It also explains

the perceived benefits of wearing helmet than not wearing helmet, why indeed

local authority need to implement policy regarding on wearing of motorcycle

helmet when riding motorcycle to prevent head injuries or injuries resulting to

death.

Conceptual Framework

In Republic Act no. 9163 Section 2 states that, it is hereby affirmed that

the primary duty of the government shall be to serve and protect its citizen.

Government and Policy makers enacted laws and policies to ensure the

protection of motorcycle riders from unpredictable motorcycle crashes.

Under Republic Act no. 4136 otherwise known as “land transportation and

traffic code” Land transportation Office and its deputized agents apprehend

motorcycle rider for not wearing helmet either the driver or the back rider. In the

Administrative Order AHS-2008-015, it was enacted by the Land of

Transportation Office (LTO) in 2008. The administrative order gave rules on

speed limit, accessories, passenger and cargo load, and helmet use (Batuhan,
 11

2017). Under Republic act no.10054 section 3 states that, all motorcycle riders,

including drivers, and back riders, shall at all times wear standard motorcycle

helmets while driving, whether long or short drives, in any type of road and

highway. This is to secure and safeguard the driver and passengers of

motorcycle from ruinous and extremely injurious effects of fatal or life

threatening accidents and crashes.

The researchers used the Input-Process-Output (IPO) model to present

the framework of the study. The first box presented the INPUT, which contained

level of implementation of No Helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan,

problems encountered on the implementation of No Helmet, No Travel Policy in

Rosales, Pangasinan, and the degree of seriousness of the problems encountered

on the implementation of No Helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan.

The second box presented the PROCESS, which contained the survey,

preparation of survey questionnaire, floating of questionnaire, retrieval of survey

questionnaire, collection of data through questionnaire checklist, and analyzing

and interpreting the data.

Lastly, the OUTPUT is the proposed recommendation to improve or

enhance the implementation of No Helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales,

Pangasinan
 12

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Level of Survey Proposed

implementation of recommendation to
No Helmet, No Preparation of
improve or enhance
travel policy survey
the implementation
questionnaire
Level of of No Helmet, No
effectiveness of No Floating of Travel Policy in
Helmet, No Travel Rosales,
Questionnaire
Policy Pangasinan
Retrieval of floated
Problems questionnaire
encountered and
the degree of Collection of
seriousness of the Data through
problems
encountered on the Questionnaire
implementation of checklist
No Helmet, No Analyze and
Travel Policy interpreting the
data.

Figure 1. Paradigm of the study

 13

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to evaluate the implementation of no helmet, no travel policy

on municipality of Rosales, Pangasinan.

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the level of implementation of n No Helmet, No Travel Policy in

Rosales, Pangasinan?

2. What is the level of effectiveness of No Helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales,

Pangasinan?

3. What are the problems encountered and its degree of seriousness of the

problems encountered on the implementation of No Helmet, No Travel Policy?

4. What recommendation may be proposed to improve or enhance the level of

implementation of no helmet, no travel policy in the municipality of Rosales,

Pangasinan?

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis of the study is formulated based on the problems

stated herein. There is no significant difference between the respondents

assessment on the Level of Implementation and the level of effectiveness of No

Helmet No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan.

 14

Scope and Delimitations of the Study

This study will only focus on the No Helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales,

Pangasinan. This study aims to determine the level of implementation and the

level of effectiveness of No Helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan.

Therefore, this study will mainly identify the different perception of the

respondents on the level of implementation and the level of effectiveness of No

Helmet, No Travel Policy perceive by the respondents. Also, this study also aims

to identify the problems encountered and the degree of seriousness of the

problems encountered on the implementation of No Helmet, No Travel Policy.

The respondents were the PNP officers and POSO officers of Rosales, Pangasinan

and selected motorcycle riders from different barangay of Rosales. The selection

of motorcycle riders as respondents are only limited since there are lot of

motorcycle rider in Rosales, Pangasinan.

Significance of the study

The study will benefit the following:

PNP Rosales. This study will serve as a reference for the PNP Rosales to

enhance or improve the implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy in

Rosales, Pangasinan.

Motorcycle Riders. This study will help the motorcycle riders to identify

the importance and effectiveness of helmet while driving motorcycle.

 15

LGU Rosales. This study will give the local government of Rosales the

information and the condition of the policy they implementing.

Researchers. The output of study will benefit the future researchers as it

will give information and will serve as a reference material and guidance related

to their studies.

Definition of Terms

To have an insight on the study, the researchers defined the following

terms according to how they used in the study.

Helmet. It refers to a piece of protective head gear that is mandatory to

be worn by motorcycle rider and back rider at all times while they are driving.

Implementation. It refers to the enactment of No Helmet, No Travel

Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan.

No Helmet, No Travel Policy. It refers to the policy implemented by

local authority of Rosales, Pangasinan.

Ordinance. It pertains to the policy mandating that all motorist/drivers

shall wear standard protective helmets while driving.

Use of Motorcycle Helmets. It refers to the mandatory act that is

implemented by the local authority of Rosales, Pangasinan.

 CHAPTER II

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter represents the systematic way to solve the problem, presented

science of studying how research be carried out. This chapter includes research

designs, subject of the study, sampling scheme, data gathering instrument, data

gathering procedure and statistical treatment of the data.

Research Design

This research employs the quantitative design utilizing correlational

technique. Quantitative research design is a formal, objective, systematic process

in which numerical data are used to obtain information about the variables (Burns

& Grove, 2005).

The researchers use descriptive survey method of research as the suitable

tool to determine the level of implementation of No Helmet, No Travel Policy in

Rosales, Pangasinan because it involves data gathering procedure. The

researchers used descriptive survey method to gather information; it elicit the

specific data that will help to determine the data or population’s assessment

(Descriptive Survey Design, 2021).

Population and Locale of the Study

The study was conducted at the province of Pangasinan particularly the

Municipality of Rosales. The subjects of the study were composed of PNP Officers,
 17

POSO Officers and selected motorcycle riders from different locations. Cluster

sampling was used to select barangay to gather data since motorcycle rider from

Rosales, Pangasinan have unknown population.

Cluster sampling is a method of probability sampling where researchers

divide a large population up into smaller groups known as cluster and select

among the clusters to form a sample. The purpose of cluster sampling is to reduce

the total number of participants in a study if the original population is too large to

study as a whole (Simkus, 2022).

Within the barangays mentioned there are 100 motorcycle riders, to get the

sample size the researchers used slovin’s formula.

Formula

Data Gathering Instrument

The tool that was used to gather data is questionnaire-checklist this focus

on the level of implementation of no helmet, no travel policy in Rosales,

Pangasinan. The questionnaire-checklist consisted three parts. Part one dealt with

the level of implementation of No Helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan.

Part two dealt with the level of effectiveness of No Helmet, No Travel Policy in

Rosales, Pangasinan. Last part dealt with the problems encountered and the

degree of seriousness of the problems encountered on the implementation of No

Helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan.

 18

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers first needed the permission from the Dean of College of

Criminal Justice Education of Urdaneta City University, to collect and conduct the

study regarding the collection of respondent’s assessments on the implementation

of No Helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan.

Upon approval on collecting the respondent’s assessment, the researchers

were group into three (3) group each group will give questionnaire on different

PNP officers in both station situated in Carmen West, Rosales and in Zone 5,

Rosales and motorcycle riders. The first two (2) members will assign to float

questionnaire in PNP sub-station of Rosales located in barangay Carmen West,

Rosales, two (2) members assigned to float questionnaire in PNP main station in

Rosales, and the remaining three (3) members floated to motorcycle riders in

seven (7) barangays of Rosales.

Upon arrival of the researchers on designated area and started conducting

survey, the researchers will first show the letter to the respondents and the survey

is part of their study. The researchers clarify some terms to the respondents so

that the respondents can answer with full knowledge of their responsibility as the

subject of the study. After the respondents give their consent, the researchers

handed them the questionnaire.

The researchers requested the respondents to answer the questionnaire

with honesty. The researchers instructed the respondents on how to answer the
 19

questionnaire checklist, by putting checkmark on the highest number is for highest

equivalent and the lowest number represents the lowest equivalent. To ensure

retrieval of data, researchers asked the respondents to answer the questionnaire.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The data gathered was counted, analysed and interpreted according to the

specific issues published in this study. Using the appropriate tools below, we found

a valid and reliable interpretation of the data that will answer the questions of the

study.

To answer problem number one (1), what is the level of implementation of

No helmet, no travel policy in Rosales, Pangasinan as perceived by the

respondents, problem number three (3) What is the level of effectiveness of No

Helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan and problem number five (5)

what are the problems encountered by the respondents and the degree of

seriousness of the problems encountered on the implementation of No helmet, no

travel policy in Rosales, Pangasinan. The formula used is Average Weighted Mean

(AWM).

( x 1 ∙ w 1 ) + ( x 2 ∙ w 2 ) + ( x 3 ∙ w 3 ) +(x 4 ∙ w 4)
x=
∑w

Where:
X̅ - Mean
X- Number of responses
W- Scale
Σw- Total number of the respondents
 20

The respondent’s responses are classified according to the Four-point Likert

Scale:

Level of Implementation

Scale Range Verbal Interpretation

4 3.50 – 4.00 Very Much Implemented (VMI)

3 2.50 - 3.49 Much Implemented (MI)

2 1.50 – 2.49 Implemented (MI)

1 1.00 – 1.49 Not Implemented (NI)

Level of Effectiveness

Scale Range Verbal Interpretation

4 3.50 – 4.00 Very Much Effective (VME)

3 2.50 - 3.49 Much Effective (ME)

2 1.50 – 2.49 Effective (E)

1 1.00 – 1.49 Not Effective (NE)

This Likert 4 point Scale used by the researchers in problem number One

(1), three (3) and five (5) as their guide in determining the level of

Implementation of No helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan, the level of

 21

effectiveness of No helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan, the problems

encountered by the respondents and the degree of seriousness of the problems

encountered on implementation of No helmet, No Travel Policy in Rosales,

Pangasinan.

Degree of Seriousness

Scale Range Verbal Interpretation

4 3.50 – 4.00 Very Much Serious (VMS)

3 2.50 - 3.49 Much Serious (MS)

2 1.50 – 2.49 Serious (S)

1 1.00 – 1.49 Not Serious (NS)

ETHICAL CONSIDERATION

All of the gathered data and the names of the respondents will be

confidential and will be used for academic purposes only. The researchers ask for

the consent of the respondents, they have the right to refuse to participate, the

understanding of the limits of confidentiality of this study. The identity will remain

confidential for the background of the respondents. The responses will give a big

help for the study to make successful based on the collected data also this may

consider all the answer of the respondents.

 22

CHAPTER 3

Result and Discussion

This chapter presented the results and discussion of the findings from the

collected data on the study on No Helmet No Travel Policy in Rosales,

Pangasinan. Results were presented in table form.

Specifically, it presented the significant parts of the study which includes

(1) Level of Implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy; (2) Level of

Effectiveness No Helmet No Travel Policy; (3) Degree of seriousness of the

problems encountered on the implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy; and

(4) Recommendation to be proposed to improve or enhance the level of

implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy in the Municipality of Rosales,

Pangasinan.

The first problem considered on this study deals with the level of

implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan.

Table 1 shows the Level of Implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy

perceived by the respondents with the corresponding average weighted mean

and descriptive equivalent.

 23

Table 1

“Level of Implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy”

Indicators PNP POSO CITIZEN AWM
(n=50) (n=20) (n=80)
AWM DE AWM DE AWM DE AWM DE

1. Motorcycle riders at all times shall wear standard 3.94 VMI 3.85 VMI 3.86 VMI 3.88 VMI
protective helmets while driving, whether long or
short drives, in any type of roads an highway.

2. Back riders must mandatorily wear standard 3.94 VMI 3.75 VMI 3.81 VMI 3.83 VMI
protective helmets. (e.g. full face or half face)

3. Helmets should be standard protective equipment 3.9 VMI 3.75 VMI 3.83 VMI 3.82 VMI
for motorcycle riders and must be worn properly.

4. Motorcycle helmets should comply with the 3.2 MI 3.60 VMI 3.88 VMI 3.56 VMI
required specifications issued by the Department of
Trade Industry (DTI).

5. Back riders may use either full face or half face 3.94 VMI 3.75 VMI 3.83 VMI 3.84 VMI
helmet.

6. Motorcycle helmets should bear the Philippine 3.52 VMI 3.50 VMI 3.83 VMI 3.61 VMI
Standard (PS) mark or Import Commodity Clearance
(ICC) of the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) and
complies with the standards set by the BPS.

7. Motorcycle drivers are prohibited to allow back 3.86 VMI 3.85 VMI 3.68 VMI 3.79 VMI
riders without protective helmet.

8. Penalties are imposed to any person caught not 4.00 VMI 3.8 VMI 3.81 VMI 3.87 VMI
wearing motorcycle helmet while driving. (e.g. full
face helmet)

9. Penalties are imposed to a driver with a back rider 3.96 VMI 3.85 VMI 3.73 VMI 3.84 VMI
not wearing the prescribed standard helmet (e.g. full
face or half face).

10. Penalties are imposed to a driver with back riders 4 VMI 3.90 VMI 3.43 MI 3.77 VMI
not wearing helmet.

Overall Weighted Mean (OAWM) 3.82 VMI 3.76 VMI 3.76 VMI 3.78 VMI

Legend: Mean Scale Descriptive Equivalent

3.50 - 4.00 Very Much Implemented
2.50 - 3.49 Much Implemented
1.50 - 2.49 Implemented
 24

1.00 - 1.49 Not Implemented

PNP Personnels. The assessments of PNP respondents were all “Very

Much Implemented” with an overall average weighted mean of “3.82”. This

implied the study that the Police Personnel of Rosales, Pangasinan were doing

their duties on implementing the No Helmet No Travel Policy.

POSO Personnels. The POSO personnel ranked indicator 10 “Penalties

are imposed to a driver with a back riders not wearing helmet” with the average

weighted mean of “3.90” described as “Very Much Implemented” with the

highest rating among the indicators. This implied that this indicator was highly

implemented. According to Punsalan (2021), both driver and back rider should

wear protective helmets to ensure the protectiveness of the head in the event of

crash. Indicator 6 “Motorcycle helmets should bear the Philippine Standard (PS)

mark or Import Commodity Clearance (ICC) of the Bureau of Product Standards

(BPS) and complies with the standards set by the BPS.” Has the lowest rating

assessed by the POSO personnel with the average weighted mean of “3.50”

described as “Very Much Implemented”. This implies that the PNP and POSO

need to cooperate to improve and develop this deficiency.

Overall POSO Personnel assessed the Level of Implementation of No

Helmet No Travel Policy with the overall average of “3.76” means “Very Much

Implemented” This implied that the POSO were doing their job on

implementing the No Helmet No Travel Policy. According to Cham (2018),

 25

implementation of helmet law reiterates the road safety save lives and prevents

injuries from crash events.

Citizens. Indicator 1 “Motorcycle riders at all times shall wear standard

protective helmets while driving, whether long or short drives, in any type of

roads an highway” has the highest rating among all indicators assessed by the

Motorcycle driver. This implied that the wearing of protective helmets in Rosales,

Pangasinan was very much implemented and PNP Personnel and POSO

Personnel were successful in the Policy. Indicator 10 “Penalties are imposed to a

driver with back rider not wearing helmet” with a weighted mean of “3.43”

describes as “Much Implemented” has the lowest rating assessed by the

motorcycle drivers. This implied that PNP and POSO will enhance this deficiency

to assess this lacking.

Overall the respondents assessed the level of implementation of No

Helmet No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan as “Very Much Implemented”

with the overall averaged of “3.76” which means the level of implementation of

No Helmet No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan were highly implemented.

This means the No Helmet No Travel Policy is strongly observed and strictly

follows by the citizens. According to Kamroodi (2021), implementation of

mandatory wearing of helmets has decrease reports of head injuries due to

motorcycle crash events.

 26

Table 2

”Level of Effectiveness of No Helmet No Travel Policy”

Indicators PNP POSO CITIZEN AWM
(n=50) (n=20) (n=80)
AWM DE AWM DE AWM DE AWM DE
1. Motorcycle riders at all times shall wear 3.96 VME 3.85 VME 3.77 VME 3.86 VME
standard protective helmets while driving, whether
long or short drives, in any type of roads an
highway.

2. Back riders must mandatorily wear standard 3.92 VME 3.55 VME 3.8 VME 3.75 VME
protective helmets. (e.g. full face or half face)

3. Helmets should be standard protective 3.88 VME 3.75 VME 3.73 VME 3.78 VME
equipment for motorcycle riders and must be worn
properly.

4. Motorcycle helmets should comply with the 3.92 VME 3.60 VME 3.72 VME 3.74 VME
required specifications issued by the Department of
Trade Industry (DTI).

5. Back riders may use either full face or half face 3.94 VME 3.75 VME 3.71 VME 3.8 VME
helmet.

6. Motorcycle helmets should bear the Philippine 3.7 VME 3.5 VME 3.73 VME 3.64 VME
Standard (PS) mark or Import Commodity
Clearance (ICC) of the Bureau of Product
Standards (BPS) and complies with the standards
set by the BPS.

7. Motorcycle drivers are prohibited to allow back 3.86 VME 3.85 VME 3.67 VME 3.79 VME
riders without protective helmet.

8. Penalties are imposed to any person caught not 3.96 VME 3.8 VME 3.83 VME 3.86 VME
wearing motorcycle helmet while driving. (e.g. full
face helmet)

9. Penalties are imposed to a driver with a back 4.00 VME 3.85 VME 3.77 VME 3.87 VME
rider not wearing the prescribed standard helmet
(e.g. full face or half face).

10. Penalties are imposed to a driver with back 4.00 VME 3.9 VME 3.45 ME 3.78 VME
riders not wearing helmet.

Overall Weighted Mean (OAWM) 3.91 VME 3.74 VME 3.71 VME 3.78 VME

Legend: Mean Scale Descriptive Equivalent

3.50 - 4.00 Very Much Effective
2.50 - 3.49 Much Effective
1.76 - 2.49 Effective
1.00 - 1.49 Not Effective
 27

PNP Personnels. PNP Personnel assessed the level of effectiveness of No

Helmet No Travel Policy with an overall weighted average of “3.91” describes as

“Very Much Effective”. This implied that the No Helmet No Travel Policy were

effective and PNP Personnel were doing their duties.

POSO Personnels. Indicator 10 “Penalties are imposed to a driver with

back riders not wearing helmet” has the highest ranked and rating among all

indicators. This implied that this penalty is effective for motorcycle driver to

encourage them on using protective motorcycle helmet. Indicator 6 “Motorcycle

helmets should bear the Philippine Standard (PS) mark or Import Commodity

Clearance (ICC) of the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) and complies with the

standards set by the BPS” ranked lowest with the average weighted mean of “3.5”

describes as “Very Much Effective”. This implies that there is a chance that these

standards for protective helmet were overlooked. According to Pathway (2015),

wherein all helmets worn by the motorcycle drivers while riding should be the

appropriate and meet the specific requirements.

Overall the POSO Personnel assessed the Level of Effectiveness of No

Helmet No Travel Policy with an overall weighted average of “3.74” described as

“Much Effective”. This implied that the implementation of No Helmet No Travel

Policy by the PNP and POSO is effective and it shows that they are performing

well.
 28

Citizens. Indicator 2 “Back riders must mandatorily wear standard

protective helmets.(e.g. full face or half face)” was ranked highest among the

averaged of the indicators. This implied that full face or half face helmets are

effective and were observed by the passenger of motorcycle. According to Juangco

(2021), wearing proper helmets are the best option when riding a two-wheeled

ride. Wearing proper helmets must not need any prodding reminding.

The overall weighted average mean of PNP, POSO, and Citizens was “3.78”

described as “Very Much Effective”. This implied that PNP, and POSO are

performing well with the No Helmet No Travel Policy as it shows that it is Very

Much Effective. According to Hahn (2022), policies are effective when individuals

abide them or, alternatively, when they do not, but have to face legal penalties for

their non-compliance.
 29

Table 3

“Degree of Seriousness of the Problems encountered on the

implementation of no helmet no travel policy”

Indicators PNP POSO CITIZEN AWM

(n=50) (n=20) (n=80)
AWM VI AWM VI AWM VI AWM VI

1. Motorcycle riders are not complying 2.05 S 1.7 S 3.2 MS 2.46 S

with the protective helmets while driving.

2. Motorcycle back rider not wearing 2.12 S 1.8 S 2.7 MS 2.20 S

standard protective helmets.

3. Insufficient number of implementing 1.86 S 1.7 S 3.1 MS 2.22 S

officers.

4. Helmets worn by the motorcycle riders 2.06 S 1.6 S 3.07 MS 2.24 S

do not comply with the specifications
issued by the Department of Trade
Industry (DTI)

5. Motorcycle riders and back riders are 2.18 S 1.6 S 3.1 MS 2.29 S
not complying with the specific type of
helmet that should be use.

6. Helmets used by the motorcycle rider 1.88 S 1.66 S 3.05 MS 2.19 S

do not bear Philippine Standard (PS) mark
or Import Commodity Clearance (ICC) of
the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS)
and do not complies with the standard set
by the BPS.

7. Motorcycle riders lack of knowledge 2.72 MS 1.6 S 3.2 MS 2.49 S

about the types of helmets that should be
worn.

8. Leniency of implementing officers. 1.84 S 1.25 NS 2.83 MS 1.97 S

9. Lack of knowledge of drivers. 2.32 S 1.4 NS 2.95 MS 2.22 S

10. Fleeing of motorcycle riders from 1.32 NS 1.4 NS 3.1 MS 1.94 S

traffic enforcer.

Overall Weighted Mean (OAWM) 2.08 S 1.57 S 3.02 MS 2.2 S

 30

Legend: Mean Scale Descriptive Equivalent

3.50 - 4.00 Very Much Serious
2.50 - 3.49 Much Serious
1.50 - 2.49 Serious
1.00 - 1.49 Not Serious

PNP Personnels. Indicator 7 “Motorcycle riders lack of knowledge about

the types of helmets that should be worn” has the highest rating among all the

indicators for the degree of seriousness of the problems encountered on

implementing the No Helmet No Travel Policy in Rosales Pangasinan with the

average of “2.72” described as “Much Serious”. This implied that the PNP

Personnel are much serious on the lack of knowledge of the motorcycle drivers on

what specific type of helmets that should be worn. According to Ranaei (2021), the

most common issue on why motorcycle driver not wearing motorcycle helmets is

lack of knowledge on the specific types of helmet. Indicator 10 “Fleeing of

motorcycle riders from traffic enforcers” has the lowest rating with the average

weighted mean of “1.32” described as “Not Serious”. This implied that the PNP

personnel were not serious with the motorcycle riders fleeing.

The overall weighted average of the assessment of PNP personnel was

“2.08” described as “Serious”. This implied that PNP were serious with the Degree

of Seriousness with these with these problems encountered on implementing No

Helmet No Travel Policy.

 31

POSO Personnels. Indicator 2 “Motorcycle back rider not wearing

standard protective helmets” has the highest rating among all indicators with the

average weighted mean of “1.8” described as “Serious”. This implied that POSO

Personnel were serious about the motorcycle drivers with a back rider not wearing

standard protective helmets. According to Aja (2021), standard helmets must have

a PS mark, or an ICC sticker. Helmet rules extend to back rider, if the driver are

required to wear a standard protective helmet, it also implies with the passenger.

Indicator 9 “leniency of implementing officers” rating was the lowest with average

weighted mean of “1.25” described as “Not Serious”. This implied that the POSO

Personnel were not serious about leniency of implementing officers with

implementation of the No Helmet No Travel Policy.

The overall weighted average mean of POSO personnel was “1.5” described

as “Not Serious”. This implied the study that the POSO personnel were not serious

about the Problems encountered on the implementation of No Helmet No Travel

Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan.

Citizens. Indicator 1 “Motorcycle riders are not complying with the

protective helmets while driving” has the highest rating with average weighted

mean of “3.2” described as “Much Serious”. This implied that citizen probably

observe motorcycle drivers not wearing helmet while driving. Indicator 2

“Motorcycle back rider not wearing standard protective helmets” with the average

weighted mean of “2.7” and described “Much Serious” was ranked lowest by the
 32

citizen but still high with its average as a problem on the implementation of No

Helmet No Travel Policy. This implied that citizen were much serious about

motorcycle drivers not wearing helmet while driving. According to Faryabi (2014),

the cause of motorcycle driver for not wearing a protective helmet is because of

heat, weight of the helmet, pain in the neck, and limitation of head movement.

The overall average weighted mean of citizen was “3.02” described as

“Much Serious”. This implied that the citizen is serious about these problems on

the implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy. Implementing agency should

address these problems to resolve the concern of citizens.

 33

CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presented the summary, conclusions and recommendations of

the data gathered from the respondents.

Summary

This study determined the level of implementation of No Helmet No Travel

Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan. The respondents were Motorcycle Riders, PNP and

POSO personnel of Rosales, Pangasinan during the second semester of the school

year 2022-2023.

This study answers the specific questions.

Problem number one (1) the Level of Implementation of No Helmet No

Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan;

Problem number three (2) Level of Effectiveness of the No Helmet No

Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan;

 34

Problem number five (3) dealt with the problems encountered and its

degree of seriousness of the problems encountered on the implementation of No

Helmet No Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan;

Problem number six (4) dealt with the recommendation that may be

proposed to enhance or improve the level of implementation of No Helmet No

Travel Policy in Rosales, Pangasinan.

The respondents of the study were 50 PNP Personnel, 20 POSO Personnel,

and 80 citizens who were chosen through cluster sampling. The following tools for

data were used to answer the problems: Average Weighted Mean, t-test, 4-point

Likert Scaling technique.

The instrument used in this study was the No Helmet No Travel Policy

supported by the Republic Act. 10054. The content of the questionnaire focused

on the Level of Implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy in Rosales,

Pangasinan, Level of Effectiveness of No Helmet No Travel Policy in Rosales,

Pangasinan, and lastly the Degree of Seriousness of the Problems Encountered on

the implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy. The data collected after the

survey was tallied, analysed, and interpreted the data gathered and presented

through table form.

CONCLUSION

With the findings of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:
 35

1. The Implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy in Rosales,

Pangasinan as perceived by the group of respondents is “Very Much Implemented”

2. The Level of Effectiveness of No Helmet No Travel Policy in Rosales,

Pangasinan is “Very Much Effective”.

3. On the Degree of Seriousness of the Problems Encountered by the

respondents on the implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy in Rosales,

Pangasinan is “Serious”

Recommendations

1. The implementers must continue perform their duties effectively and best

effort to implement the policy with the participation of the Citizen to achieve the

desired goals and objective.

2. The implementers must continue to study and undergo proper trainings

related to the policy to add more skills and knowledge.

3. The implementers should continue to give their best duties to maintain

the effective and efficient work on the implementation of No Helmet No Travel

Policy.

4. The implementers should always conduct information dissemination

about the policy.

5. Developed proposed measures to improve or enhance the level of

implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy.

 36

Proposed Measure to improve or enhance the Level of

Implementation of No Helmet No Travel Policy in
Rosales, Pangasinan

Problems Proposed Objectives Target

Measure Participants
Motorcycle back Information To give knowledge  Citizen
rider not wearing dissemination to two-wheeled
standard protective about the specific motor vehicle
helmets. types of helmets rider regarding
that should be the types of helmets.
worn or use by
motorcycle rider
and back rider.
Leniency of Add more For citizen to comply  PNP
implementing strictness on the with the policy  POSO
officers. implementation.
Lack of knowledge Information To give knowledge  Citizen
of drivers. dissemination to the citizen
through flyers, regarding the
tarpaulin and mandatory use of
signage. helmet while driving.
37
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. JOURNALS

Lee, J.O. (2018). Mandatory helmet legislation as a policy tool

reducing motorcycle fatalities: Pinpointing the efficacy of
universal helmet law. Accident analysis and prevention, vol.111,
pp.173-183.

Wobrock, J., Smith, T., Kasantikul V., & Whiting, W. (2003). Effectiveness of
collision involved motorcycle helmets in Thailand. Annual
proceedings. Association for Advancement of Automotive Medicine,
Volume 47, pp. 1-23.

Godoy, C. (2020). Motorcycle System for Optimum Road Safety with Anti
Theft-Capability. International Journal of Innovative Science and
Research Technology, Volume 5, Issue 6, pp. 422-432.

B. INTERNET SOUCE

Aja, A. (2021). Which helmet should you buy? (

https://topgear.com.ph/features//feature-article/motorcycle-
helmet/:[February 1,2023]).
Batin, G. (2017). Implementation of The No-Helmet-No-Travel Policy in
Candon. (DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.14126.61762:[July 23, 2022]).

Batuhan, C. (2017). Helmet Compliance: Condition of Habal-Habal

Drivers in Metro Cebu. (https://www.academia.edu/36368062/Helmet_
ComplianceConditionofHabalhabalDriversinMetroCebu:[June 21, 2022]).

Binji, A. (2020). Diffusion of Innovation Theory and Helmet Legislation.

(https://researchcor.com/diffusion-of-innovation-theory-and- helmet-legisl
ation:[July 23, 2022]).

Cham, C. (2018). HELMET LAWS IN THE PHILIPPINES.

(https://naturesvarietyblog.wordpress.com/2018/06/01/helmet-law-in-the-
philippines-ra-10054/:[June 15, 2022]).

Descriptive Survey Design. (2021). Descriptive Survey Design.

(https://www.voxco.com/blog/descriptive-survey-design/:[July 2, 2022]).
 39

FindLaw Staff. (2021). Helmet Laws and Motorcycle Accident Cases.

(https://www.findlaw.com/injury/car-accidents/helmetlawsandmotorcycle
-accident-cases.html:[July 23,2022]).

Gumasing, M., & Magbitang, R. (2020). Risk Assessment Model Affecting

The Severity of Motorcycle Accidents in Metro Manila.
(DOI:10.1109/ICIEA49774.2020.9102063:[July 25, 2022]).

ICDC. (2021). Gov Catamco Stresses “no helmet, no travel policy”.

(https://cotabatoprov.gov.ph/2021/01/1803/:[August 5, 2022]).

IMP Center. (2022). (https://imp.center/i/road-safety-essay-7367//[August 4,

2022]).

Kanitpung, K. (2013). Helmet Use and Effectiveness in Reducing The

Severity of Head Injuries in Thailand.
(https://doi.org/10.3141%2F2048-09:[July 21, 2022]).

Micua L. (2018). 160 Violators Arrested.

(https://punch.dagupan.com/news/2018/11:[August 4, 2022]).

Moon C. (2022). Which States Have Motorcycle Helmet Laws?.

Valuepenguin. (https://www.valuepenguin.com/motorcycle-helmet-laws:[
June 18, 2022]).

NHSTA.Gov. (2019). Traffic Safety Facts. (https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-

release/nhtsa-releases-2019-crash-fatality-data:[August 5, 2022]).

Partlow, M.J. (2018). Helmet law implementation in Dumaguete now in

full swing. (https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1055097:[June 20, 2022]).

Peng et. al., (2017). Universal Motorcycle Helmet Laws to Reduce

Injuries: A Community Guide Review.(https://doi.org/10.1016/-
j.amepre.2016.11.030:[July 23, 2022]).

Phung, D. (2020). Impacts of helmet laws on the changes in potential

years of life lost due to traffic injury: a multiple- province
evaluation in Vietnam. (https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev- 2018-
043088:[July 23, 2022]).
 40

POSO Dagupan. (2018). Dagupan POSO to implement RA No. 10054.

https://profile-peek.wixsite.com/profile-peek/single- post/2017/10/08/-
dagupan-poso-to-implement-ra-no-10054:[June 20, 2022]).

Punsalang, E. (2021). What do I have to wear to legally drive motorcycle

in Philippines. (https://www.motodeal.comph/motorcyclefeatures:
[February 1, 2023]).

Quintas, K.B. (2016). Full-face helmet ban in Cebu pushed.

(https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/cebu- news/2016/12/01/1646970
/full-face-helmet-ban-cebu-pushed/amp/:[June 20, 2022]).

Ranaei, V. (2021). Barriers to using a helmet among motorcyclist.

(https://doi.org/10.5249/jivr.v13i2.1543:[February 1, 2023]).

Simkus, J. (2022). Cluster Sampling: Definition, Method and Examples.

SimplyPsychology.(https://www.simplypsychology.org/cluster-sampling.
html:[July, 23, 2022]).

VanWormer, E.A. (2017). Applying the Health Belief Model to Michigan

Helmet Use. (https://commons.emich.edu/theses/909:[July 24, 2022]).

C. LAWS

Republic Act No. 9163 – “An Act Establishing The National Service
Training Program (NSTP) For The Tertiary Level Students,
Amending For the Purpose Republic Act No. 7077 and
Presidential Decree No. 1706 And For Other Purpose”.
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2002/01/23/republic-act-no-9163/:
[June 20, 2022]).

Republic Act No. 10054 – “An Act Mandating All Motorcycle Riders To
Wear Standard Protective Motorcycle Helmets While Driving
Providing Penalties Therefor” https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacnts/
ra2010/ra_10054_2010:[July23,20220]).
41