STATUTE:

Division 1. Government. Title 17. Motor and Other Vehicles. Chapter 286. Highway Safety. Part IV. Safety Equipment. Section 286-81. motorcycle, motor scooter, etc.; protective devices. :

"No person shall:

"(1) Operate a motorcycle or motor scooter, on any highway in the State unless the person and any passenger the person carries on the motorcycle or motor scooter wears (A) safety glasses, goggles, or a face shield, in the case of a motorcycle or motor scooter that is not equipped with windscreens or windshields; and (B) any other protective devices, other than a safety helmet, required by rules and regulations adopted by the state director of transportation. . . .

"(3) . . . No person less than eighteen years of age shall operate or ride as a passenger on a motorcycle or motor scooter on any highway in the State unless the person wears a safety helmet securely fastened with a chin strap."

FINE:

If you have information about the amount of the fine for violating Hawaii's helmet law, please e-mail it to us. Thanks.

STANDARDS:

Division 1. Government. Title 17. Motor and Other Vehicles. Chapter 286. Highway Safety. Part IV. Safety Equipment. Section 286-81. motorcycle, motor scooter, etc.; protective devices. :

"For the purpose of meeting the requirements of this paragraph, a required device must meet the specifications and requirements established by rules and regulations adopted by the director of transportation."

Note: Apparently the "director" establishes regulations regarding Hawaii's so-called safety equipment, so we will locate the "director" for Hawaii and ask. When we get an answer, you will find it here.

COURT DECISIONS:

"Former helmet requirement was proper exercise of police power. -- Former subparagraph (1)(A), which required a safety helmet, and the regulations promulgated pursuant to it were within the proper exercise of police power. The accelerating rate of deaths and injuries due to motorcycle accidents, coupled with the increase in motorcycle registrations, had reached such proportions and the class of motorcycle users had become so large and widespread that the continued viability of society required that they protect themselves from physical injury or death." State v. Lee, 51 Haw. 516, 465 P.2d 573 (1970).

"Former helmet requirement for motorcyclists did not violate equal protection. -- In view of the underlying differences between cars and motorcycles with respect to the protection against head injuries afforded their respective users, a legislative distinction between them in terms of the mandatory wearing of helmet was reasonable and did not violate the equal protection rights of motorcyclists." State v. Cotton, 55 Haw. 138, 516 P.2d 709 (1973).

NOTE: 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. In other words, the definition of "safety helmet" is vague; which means the Hawaii statute requiring motorcyclists to wear a "safety helmet" is vague; which means the Hawaii helmet law is unconstitutional . . . State v. Lee and State v. Cotton notwithstanding.

COMMENTARY:

We realize that most motorcyclists in Hawaii 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 Hawaii 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 Hawaii 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 Hawaii Legislature has caused any other standard to be adopted, anything other than Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 218, the Hawaii helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten , 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))

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

We believe that if someone will write to the Hawaii Director of Transportation 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 Hawaii can be 100% FREE of its helmet law!

Questions or Comments