STATUTE:

Title 31. Motor and Other Vehicles. Chapter 10.1. Special License for Motorcycles, Motor Scooters, and Other Motor Driven Cycles. Section 31-10.1-4. Equipment. :

FINE:

Title 31. Motor and Other Vehicles. Chapter 10.1. Special License for Motorcycles, Motor Scooters, and Other Motor Driven Cycles. Section 31-10.1-4. Equipment. :

STANDARDS:

Title 31. Motor and Other Vehicles. Chapter 10.1. Special License for Motorcycles, Motor Scooters, and Other Motor Driven Cycles. Section 31-10.1-4. Equipment. :

We are currently researching the Rhode Island regulations to determine exactly what standard they have adopted to define "protective headgear". Apparently the "administrator of motor vehicles" approves Rhode Island's so-called safety equipment, so we will locate the administrator of motor vehicles for Rhode Island and ask. When we get an answer, you will find it here.

COURT DECISIONS:

"As flying objects, such as loose stones kicked up by passing vehicles or windblown tree branches, striking the operator of a motorcycle in the head could cause him to lose control of his cycle and become a menace to other vehicles on the highway, this section bears a reasonable relation to highway safety generally and, therefore, is not unconstitutional as an improper exercise of the police power of the state attempting to protect people from the consequences of their own carelessness." State ex rel. Colvin v. Lombardi, 104 R.I. 28, 241 A.2d 625 (1968).

"The word "helmet" when considered in the context of this section is sufficiently definite in meaning to prevent this section from being unconstitutional as improper delegation of police power to the registrar on the theory that it would permit regulations calling for helmets of glass, papier-mache, or concrete, useless for the purpose of safety, or require helmets of such materials and construction as to serve only decorative purposes." State ex rel. Colvin v. Lombardi, 104 R.I. 28, 241 A.2d 625 (1968).

"The registrar may adopt standards and specifications for helmets that have their origin elsewhere if he finds them proper for use in this state and the fact that they originated elsewhere and that he relied on the expertise of others does not amount to a delegation of authority so that a conviction for operating a motorcycle on the highway without wearing a helmet is valid under this section." State v. Lombardi, 110 R.I. 776, 298 A.2d 141 (1972).

"The conviction of defendants for operating motorcycles on the highway without wearing a helmet is not invalid because the regulations were promulgated without holding a public hearing prior to their promulgation and adoption as there were no requests for a hearing or for notices and notice of the proposed regulations was published." State v. Lombardi, 110 R.I. 776, 298 A.2d 141 (1972).

These decisions have to do with the limited question of the State's right to impose safety regulation on individuals under the police powers, and not on the subject of unconstitutional vagueness as it exists today. In other words, the definition of "protective headgear" is vague; which means the Rhode Island statute requiring motorcyclists to wear "protective headgear" is vague; which means the Rhode Island helmet law is unconstitutional . . . State ex rel. Colvin v. Lombardi and State v. Lombardi notwithstanding.

COMMENTARY:

We realize that most motorcyclists in Rhode Island do not feel impacted by the helmet law in any real way, at this time. There are two reasons, we believe, that it is important to maintain a constant vigilance regarding the Rhode Island helmet law: 1) We believe that helmets are dangerous in many situations, in that in addition to all the commonly accepted problems -- vision and hearing impairment, heat retention, and others -- the weight and design of most of the traditionally accepted helmet styles make then a serious threat to the neck, particularly a young neck. And, 2) a modification of the statute to include adults is much more of a threat when the statute is already on the books, and there are no complaints about it. We think it is very very important that motorcyclists complain, early and often. The price of freedom is, after all, eternal vigilance.

From our beginning in 1993, it has been the position of the Helmet Law Defense League that all helmet laws are unconstitutional , in the absence of clear guidelines on how to comply with the statute -- like, for instance, with a list of "approved helmets."

NO LIST? NO LAW!

If a state, any state, cannot answer the question:

"How can a motorcyclist comply,
with certainty ,
with the provisions of the helmet law?"

that state's statute(s) requiring the wearing of
a "helmet," "safety helmet," or "protective headgear"
is unconstitutionally vague.

The Rhode Island Legislature is as a matter of law confined to adopting only those standards for helmets set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If the Rhode Island Legislature has caused any other standard to be adopted, anything other than Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 218, the Rhode Island helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten , 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))

If the Rhode Island Legislature has adopted FMVSS 218, the Rhode Island helmet law is thereby unconstitutionally vague. (see Washington v. Maxwell , 74 WASH.APP. 688, 878 P.2D 1220 (1994))

We believe that if you will write to the head of the Rhode Island administrator of motor vehicles and ask how to comply with the helmet law, "with certainty," you can take their answer (or, more likely, refusal to answer) to the courts and Rhode Island bikers will be 100% FREE of the helmet law!





Questions or Comments or go back to United States Map | Main Page.

Last updated: April, 1997
© Copyright 1996 HLDL. All Rights Reserved.
Webmaster: quig