STATUTE:

Title 40. Motor Vehicles and Traffic. Chapter 6. Uniform Rules of the Road. Article 13. Special Provisions for Certain Vehicles. Part 2. Motorcycles. Section 40-6-315 Headgear and eye-protective devices for riders. :

FINE:

Riding w/o a helmet in Ga has the std misdemeanor maximum fine. This up to $1000 dollar fine and one year in jail. It is usually less. The most severe application of this law that I am ware of was $500 fine and 1000 hrs of community service. --Jose Martinez If you have any additional information, please e-mail it to us. Thanks.

STANDARDS:

Title 40. Motor Vehicles and Traffic. Chapter 6. Uniform Rules of the Road. Article 13. Special Provisions for Certain Vehicles. Part 2. Motorcycles. Section 40-6-315 Headgear and eye-protective devices for riders. :

NOTE: The last sentence, alone, wipes out the Georgia helmet law. The law is contingent on a "list" adopted by the Board of Public Safety. In the absence of a "list" of helmets "approved by him", the Board of Public Safety, there is no foundation for a helmet law in Georgia! The State of Georgia has no such list, nor will they be making one! If they try, you get back to us and we'll show you what to do with that list . . . and I don't mean "comply" with it.

COURT DECISIONS:

"This Code section is a valid exercise of police power." Ritter v. State, 258 Ga. 551, 372 S.E.2d 230 (1988).

(Note: This decision has 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. In other words, the definition of "protective headgear" is vague; which means the Georgia statute requiring motorcyclists to wear "protective headgear" is vague; which means the Georgia helmet law is unconstitutional . . . Ritter v. State notwithstanding.)

AND SURE ENOUGH!
On June 5, 1998

IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Plaintiff, vs.

ACCUSATION

GREG D ALSPACH

Defendant

FILE NO: 97 D4025-2

ORDER OF COURT ON MOTION

The above and foregoing case coming on before the Court on the Motion of the Defendant to dismiss the charge because it is so vague and indefinite that an ordinary citizen could not determine whether he was violating the law or not; the state maintaining that the statute in question is clear and unequivocal; Defendant is charged with a violation of 4O-6-315 (a) of the Official Code of Georgia, which states in pertinent part; "no person shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle unless he is wearing protective headgear which complies with standards established by the Board of Public Safety."

The evidence submitted by both sides in brief and testimony fails to reveal any standard which a person could be certain he was complying with the law.

Vagueness of a criminal law rests on a constitutional principle that procedural due process requires fair notice and proper standards for adjudication. Persons are not required at the peril of life, liberty or loss of property to speculate concerning a penal statute, but are entitled to know what it is that the state commands or forbids by statute.

A person could not look at this statute and be sure what was prohibited or required of them in the judgment of this court, and this court finds that the law as written is so vague and indefinite that a person could not determine what the statute commands or prohibits. It appears that the defendant was wearing a baseball cap with a bill on it that affords protection from the sun, and this could certainly constitute a form of "protective headgear," and since the statute does not command nor prohibit, nor set any standards describing the "approved headgear" no one can determine the meaning of the law nor its requirements for compliance. Since it is clear that the Department of Pubic Safety has formulated no standards as of this time, it is futile to require a trial when it is evident the State cannot support the requirements for prosecution. It appears that the defendant in this case was wearing "protective headgear" in the form of a baseball cap, which arguably protects one from the sun, and which gives him the right to challenge the constitutionality of said statute since he was wearing "protective headgear." Said case is hereby dismissed as the statute on which it is based is too vague and indefinite to be capable of prosecution or defense, because there have been no standards established by the Department of Public Safety.

SO ORDERED this 25th day of June 1998

GENE REEVES, JR., Judge
STATE COURT by designation



COMMENTARY:

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 with a list of "approved helmets."

Georgia is one of the few states that itself insists on a list, which cannot lawfully exist; therefore, in spite of the fact that the law calls for a "list" of approved helmets, the notion of maintaining such a "list" is ridiculous. They can't do it!!

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.

Although the Georgia Legislature may believe that they can authorize the "Board of Public Safety" to set standards for helmets, and make a list of helmets that comply with those standards; the Board of Public Safety is confined, by law, to adopting only those standards established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- and THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE A LIST!!.

If the Board of Public Safety has exceeded its authority and adopted anything other than Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 218 -- which they apparently have -- the Georgia helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten, 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))

If the Board of Public Safety has adopted FMVSS 218, which the law insists that he ultimately must, the Georgia 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 "Board of Public Safety" for Georgia and ask for the list -- tell them you are attempting to determine how to comply with the helmet law, "with certainty" -- they can take whatever answer (or, more likely, a refusal to answer) to the courts, and Georgia bikers can be 100% FREE of its helmet law!

HISTORY:

A Georgia volunteer has provided one of the most comprehensive historical accounts of a helmet law that we have ever seen. You can check out the legislative history virtually from beginning to end by clicking here.

CURRENT ACTIVITY:

ABATE of Georgia members have taken the state to task on their failure to provide a "list" of approved helmets . . . their story is available by clicking here.

If you know of any otheractivity regarding efforts to remove or otherwise amend Georgia's helmet law, in the Legislature or the Courts, please e-mail that information to us so we can update this site. Thanks.





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

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