STATUTE:

Title 21. Motor Vehicles -- Rules of the Road. Subtitle 13. Operation of Motorcycles. Section 21-1306. Equipment for Riders. . . . (b) Required headgear. :

"An individual may not operate or ride on a motorcycle unless the individual is wearing protective headgear that meets the standards established by the Administrator. . . ."

FINE:

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

STANDARDS:

Title 21. Motor Vehicles -- Rules of the Road. Subtitle 13. Operation of Motorcycles. Section 21-1306. Equipment for Riders. . . . (d) Approval of Protective Devices by Administrator. :

"The Administrator:

"(1) May approve or disapprove protective headgear and eye-protective devices required by this section;

"(2) May adopt and enforce regulations establishing standards and specifications for the approval of protective headgear and eye-protective devices; and

"(3) Shall publish lists of all protective headgear and eye-protective devices that he approves, by name and type."

COURT DECISIONS:

We have been unable to uncover any court decision from a court of record, either from the Maryland Appellate or Supreme Courts, which indicates that the question of whether or not Maryland's helmet law is constitutional has not been addressed in the higher courts. (Mike Lewis has been doing some real interesting stuff in the Maryland traffic courts.)

We did, however, stumble across a Maryland Attorney General's opinion that has some interesting insights available through it. To wit:

"Where Baltimore City, acting under its police power, enacted its own mandatory motorcycle helmet and goggle ordinance in 1968, and that ordinance conflicts with this section, this section takes precedence over the ordinance." 65 Op. Att'y Gen. 483 (1980).

For the same reason that each city within a State cannot adopt its own helmet law regulations, each State within the United States is obliged to confine themselves to the standards offered by the U.S. Department of transportation throughout NHTSA. Therein lies the dilemma for states that want to enact helmet laws. It can't be done, at least not without violating the U.S. Constitution.

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."

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.

This state is almost too easy! The statute states: "The administrator shall publish lists of all protective headgear and eye-protective devices that he approves, by name and type." The last sentence, alone, wipes out the Maryland helmet law. The law is contingent on a "list" adopted by the administrator. In the absence of a "list" of helmets "approved by him", the administrator, there is no foundation for a helmet law in Maryland! The State of Maryland 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.

In addition, for many of the same reasons, although the Maryland Legislature may believe that they can authorize the "administrator" to set standards for helmets, the director is confined, by law, to adopting only those standards established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (which does not include making a list).

If the administrator has exceeded his authority and adopted anything other than Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 218 -- including compiling and maintaining a list -- the Maryland helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten, 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))

If the director had adopted FMVSS 218, which the law insists that he ultimately must, the Maryland helmet law is thereby rendered 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 "Administrator of the Department of Motor Vehicles" for Maryland 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 Maryland bikers can be 100% FREE of the helmet law!

Questions or Comments