Date of Conferral

7-30-2025

Degree

Ph.D.

School

Public Policy and Administration

Advisor

Paul Rutledge

Abstract

Policymakers are elected to create, amend, or repeal legislation that impacts public welfare; however, little is known about the specific criteria used when making public health and safety decisions, particularly regarding motorcycle helmet laws. In 2012, Michigan repealed its universal helmet law (UHL) after 35 years, replacing it with a partial helmet law specifying requirements for helmetless riding. Despite an increase in unhelmeted fatalities, the UHL has not been reinstated, raising questions about the legislative decision-making process. Prior research has found that factors such as budgeting, statistical data, interest groups, education, income, political stability, and public opinion may guide these decisions. However, current literature lacks studies on the specific criteria legislators use in this context. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore the criteria Michigan legislators consider when making public health and safety decisions and to identify the conditions necessary for reinstating a UHL. Guided by policy feedback theory data were collected through an email interview with a current Michigan legislator, analysis of voting records, a review of motorcycle fatality statistics, and the researcher’s journal. Thematic coding revealed that the policymaker considered constituent preferences, various perspectives, evaluations of past policy outcomes, statistical evidence, interest group influence, finances, and political affiliation. The implications for positive social change include enhancing civic engagement, offering a framework to hold elected officials accountable through transparent and evidence-based policymaking, and supporting the development of laws that reflect constituent concerns.

Download

Included in

Public Policy Commons

Share

 
COinS