STATUTE:

Title XIV. Public Ways and Works Chapter 90. Motor Vehicles and Aircraft. Section 7. Brakes, braking systems, mufflers, horns, lights, audible warning systems, and other equipment; compliance with safety standards; stickers and emplems. :

"Every person operating a motorcycle or riding as a passenger on a motorcycle or in a sidecar attached to a motorcycle shall wear protective head gear conforming with such minimum standards of construction and performance as the registrar may prescribe, and no person operating a motorcycle shall permit any other person to ride as a passenger on such motorcycle or in a sidecar attached to such motorcycle unless such passenger is wearing such protective head gear,. . ."

FINE:

The fine is $35.00 under Chapter 90 section 7, for not wearing a helmet in the State of Massachusetts while riding a motorcycle.

STANDARDS:

Title XIV. Public Ways and Works Chapter 90. Motor Vehicles and Aircraft. Section 7. Brakes, braking systems, mufflers, horns, lights, audible warning systems, and other equipment; compliance with safety standards; stickers and emplems. :

" . . . conforming with such minimum standards of construction and performance as the registrar may prescribe, . . ."

COURT DECISIONS:

"Provision of this section requiring motorcyclists to wear protective headgear is not violative of due process, notwithstanding claim that police power does not extend to overcoming right of an individual to incur risks that involve only himself, since public has an interest in minimizing resources directly involved, in that from moment of injury, society picks the person up off the highway, delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal doctors, provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job, and, if injury causes permanent disability, assumes responsibility for his and his family's continued subsistence." Simon v. Sargent, D.C.Mass.1972, 346 F.Supp. 277, affirmed 93 S.Ct. 463, 409 U.S. 1020, 34 L.Ed.2d 312.

This is pure Socialist bullshit!! In countries where socialized medicine is allowed, and not forbidden -- as in a nation where the rights of the individual are NEVER to be waved for something as flimsy as the "public interest" -- such language has a place. But the United States is NOT a Socialist state, at least not under the Constitution, so such a ruling is nothing more than a legal fiction. If they can act on such a basis with motorcyclists, they can start checking your receipt at Safeway any day now to make damned sure that you have not created an injury against the "public interest" in your better health by consuming too much sugar. Get outta here! Nobody takes a decision like this seriously. At least not in this country!)

"Provision of this section requiring motorcyclists to wear protective headgear does not deny equal protection, in that rational basis exists for legislature's distinction between motorcyclists and, for example, automobile drivers, whose vehicle affords them substantially more protection than does a motorcycle." Simon v. Sargent, D.C.Mass.1972, 346 F.Supp. 277, affirmed 93 S.Ct. 463, 409 U.S. 1020, 34 L.Ed.2d 312.

This opinion was obviously written by the same "grasping at staws" bunch that wrote the one above. A blind man could spot that one, even if the case weren't cited under the same name.

"In enacting provision of this section requiring motorcyclists to wear protective headgear, it was not unreasonable for the Legislature to link protective headgear to safer motorcycling." Simon v. Sargent, D.C.Mass.1972, 346 F.Supp. 277, affirmed 93 S.Ct. 463, 409 U.S. 1020, 34 L.Ed.2d 312.

Not unreasonable, perhaps, but certainly uninformed. At one point in Massachusetts is was not "unreasonable" to burn people convicted of witchcraft at the stake.

"Requirement of this section of protective headgear for a motorcyclist but not for a rider of a "motorized bicycle * * * which is capable of a maximum design speed of no more than twenty-five miles per hour" was not a classification unjustified by any conceivable set of facts or findings such as would violate equal protection." Com. v. Guest (1981) 425 N.E.2d 779, 12 Mass.App.Ct. 941.

Right.

"This section and implementing regulation requiring motorcyclists to wear protective headgear did not conflict with nor were preempted by 15 U.S.C.A. s 1392 which merely set standards for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists." Com. v. Guest (1981) 425 N.E.2d 779, 12 Mass.App.Ct. 941.

Fifteen years ago this was the case. However, this opinion has nothing to do with the state of the law in 1996.

"This section, which requires operator of motorcycle to wear protective headgear does not result in an unconstitutional denial of the right of privacy." Com. v. Cowan (1976) 344 N.E.2d 419, 4 Mass.App.Ct. 796.

"Although issue of right of privacy was not explicitly mentioned in Supreme Judicial Court's decision upholding, as against constitutional challenges, this section requiring that operator of motorcycle wear protective headgear, where the defendant in the prior case raised the issue by brief and quoted from relevant United States Supreme Court decisions, Appeals Court would treat the Supreme Judicial Court's decision as authoritative on the right to privacy issue." Com. v. Cowan (1976) 344 N.E.2d 419, 4 Mass.App.Ct. 796.

"This section requiring motorcyclist to wear protective headgear conforming with certain minimum standards bears real and substantial relation to public health and general welfare and is a valid exercise of police power." Com. v. Howie (1968) 238 N.E.2d 373, 354 Mass. 769, certiorari denied 89 S.Ct. 485, 393 U.S. 999, 21 L.Ed.2d 464.

See Simon v. Sargent above.

"It lies within power of Legislature to adopt reasonable measures for promotion of safety upon public ways in interests of motorcyclists and others who may use them." Com. v. Howie (1968) 238 N.E.2d 373, 354 Mass. 769, certiorari denied 89 S.Ct. 485, 393 U.S. 999, 21 L.Ed.2d 464.

So what's their point?

None of these decisions, or any other we can find, say that motorcyclists don't have a right to know, with certainty, what "protective headgear" is, if the law is going to them to "wear protective headgear".

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.

Although the Massachusetts Legislature may believe that they can authorize the "registrar" to adopt "minimum standards of construction and performance" of safety equipment used in interstate travel, the registrar is confined, by law, to adopting only those standards established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If the registrar has exceeded his authority and adopted anything other than Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 218 -- the Federal standard for, or definition of, protective headgear (aka: "a safety helmet") -- the Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts 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 you will write to the "registrar" for Massachusetts and ask for the list of helmets approved for use in Massachusetts. Tell them you are attempting to determine how to comply with the helmet law, "with certainty." Someone can take whatever answer (or, more likely, a refusal to answer) to the courts, and Massachusetts bikers will be 100% FREE of the helmet law!

Questions or Comments