STATUTE:
Title 28. Transportation Chapter 6. Uniform Act Regulating Traffic On Highways. Article 16. Equipment. Section 28-964. Motorcycles; motor driven cycles; equipment; exception; prohibition:"A. An operator or passenger of a motorcycle or motor driven cycle who is under eighteen years of age shall wear at all times a protective helmet on the operator's or passenger's head in an appropriate manner that is safely secured while operating or riding on the motorcycle or motor driven cycle. . . ."
FINE:
If you have information about the amount of the fine for violating Arizona's helmet law, please e-mail it to us. Thanks.
STANDARDS:
We are currently researching the Arizona regulations to determine exactly what standard they have adopted to define "protective headgear". Apparently the "director" approves their so-called safety equipment, so we will locate the "director" and ask. When we get an answer, you will find it here.
COURT DECISIONS:
"There is valid state interest in requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets while driving, and therefore provision of this section prohibiting driving of motorcycle without helmet is valid constitutional extension of state's police power." State v. Beeman (App. 1975) 25 Ariz.App. 83, 541 P.2d 409."Primary purpose of provision of this section requiring wearing of protective headgear while operating a motorcycle is to prevent injury to motorcyclists from cranial trauma." (therefore) "In light of highway dangers, provision of this section requiring wearing of protective headgear while operating a motorcycle is constitutional exercise of police power in area of highway safety." State v. Also (App. 1969) 11 Ariz.App. 227, 463 P.2d 122.
(Note: These decisions have to do with the question of the State's right to impose safety regulation on individuals under the police powers, and not on the subject of unconstitutional vagueness. In other words, the definition of "protective headgear" is vague; which means the Arizona statute requiring motorcyclists to wear "protective headgear" is vague; which means the Arizona helmet law is unconstitutional . . . State v. Beeman and State v. Also notwithstanding.)
COMMENTARY:
We realize that most motorcyclists in Arizona 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 Arizona 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 Arizona 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 Arizona Legislature has caused any other standard to be adopted, anything other than Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 218, the Arizona helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten , 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))
If the Arizona Legislature has adopted FMVSS 218, the Arizona helmet law is thereby unconstitutionally vague and can be challenged on that basis, and removed. (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 Arizona Highway Patrol and ask how to comply with the helmet law, "with certainty," you can take their answer (or, more like, refusal to answer) to the courts and Arizona can be 100% FREE of its helmet law!
