STATUTE:
Part III. Operation and Equipment. Chapter 41. Rules of the Road. Subchapter XI. Miscellaneous Rules. Section 4185:" . . . (b) Every person operating or riding on a motorcycle shall have in that person's possession a safety helmet approved by the Secretary of Public Safety and shall wear eye protection approved by the Secretary; provided, however, that every person up to 19 years of age operating or riding on a motorcycle shall wear a safety helmet and eye protection approved by the Secretary."
(Thomas Steele III wrote an informed us that adult riders are required to "display" that they are carrying a helmet on the motorcycle or face with being cited for violating the portion of the statute that states "Every person . . . shall have in that person's possession a safety helmet." If they ever cite you for that one, file an internal affairs complaint against the cop right away for false arrest and making false allegations, and then go to court and explain to the judge that having a helmet in your "possession" does not mean that you are required to "display" that helmet. --quig)
FINE:
If you have information about the amount of the fine for violating Delaware's helmet law, please e-mail it to us. Thanks.
STANDARDS:
We are currently researching the Delaware regulations to determine exactly what standard they have adopted to define "safety helmet". Apparently the "Secretary of Public Safety" approves Delaware's so-called safety equipment, so we will locate the "Secretary of Public Safety" for Delaware and ask. When we get an answer, you will find it here.
COURT DECISIONS:
"The purpose of subsection (b) of this section is to protect motorcyclists and their passengers from head injuries." State v. Brady, Del. Super., 290 A.2d 322 (1972)."Subsection (b) of this section does not violate Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." State v. Brady, Del. Super., 290 A.2d 322 (1972).
NOTE: These decisions have to do with the limited question of the Delaware's right to impose safety regulation on individuals under the police powers, and do not address the subject of unconstitutional vagueness. In other words, the definition of "safety helmet" is vague; which means the Delaware statute requiring motorcyclists to wear a "safety helmet" is vague; which means the Delaware helmet law is unconstitutional . . . State v. Brady notwithstanding.
COMMENTARY:
We realize that most motorcyclists in Delaware 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 Delaware 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 Delaware 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 Delaware Legislature has caused any other standard to be adopted, anything other than Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 218, the Delaware helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten , 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))
If the Delaware Legislature has adopted FMVSS 218, the Delaware 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 someone will write to the head of the Delaware Secretary of Public Safety and ask how to comply with the helmet law, "with certainty," they can take the answer (or, more likely, refusal to answer) to the courts and Delaware can be 100% FREE of its helmet law!
