STATUTE:

Chapter VI. Obedience To and Effect of Traffic Laws. Operation of Bicycles, Motorcycles and Toy Vehicles. Section 257.658. Bicycles, motorcycles, mopeds, autocycles; operators and riders, seating, number, crash helmets, seat belts; rules. :

FINE:

The fine in Michigan is $50.00. I know because I got one. --JAKE (03/01/01)

STANDARDS:

Title XVI. Motor Vehicles. Chapter 189. Traffic Regulations; Vehicle Equipment and Storage. Section 189.285 Regulations for Operating and Riding On Motorcycles. :

COURT DECISIONS:

"Amendment to Motor Vehicle Code by P.A.1966, No. 207, adding the section requiring motorcyclists and riders to wear crash helmets was unconstitutional since it had no relationship to the public health, safety and welfare, although it had a relationship to protection of individual motorcyclist from himself." American Motorcycle Ass'n v. Davids (1968) 158 N.W.2d 72, 11 Mich.App. 351.

"The state has a substantial interest in highway safety." American Motorcycle Ass'n v. Davids (1968) 158 N.W.2d 72, 11 Mich.App. 351.

"An ordinance requiring a motorcyclist to wear a crash helmet is a creative, relatively nonintrusive response of government to protect the public from detrimental technological change, and since wearing a helmet is a minor burden, the effects of which benefit not only both parties involved in an accident, but society as a whole, since enforcement is open and public, and since cost of the helmet is not only low, but technologically simple to achieve, ordinance does not constitute an unlawful invasion of individual rights, but represents a valid exercise of the police power." People of City of Adrian v. Poucher (1976) 247 N.W.2d 798, 398 Mich. 316.

"The exercise of the police power in respect to highway safety interferes with the personal liberties of some citizens, but changes in transportation, including the increase in the number of motorcycles, have expanded the permissible legislative infringement on individual liberties in the area of highway safety to protect the public safety and the common welfare." People of City of Adrian v. Poucher (1976) 247 N.W.2d 798, 398 Mich. 316.

Well, the history of the helmet law in Michigan must be an interesting one. In 1968 there was no reasonable relationship to a state interest. But by 1976, helmet laws had become a "permissible legislative infringement on individual liberties." Are these folks okay?

Whatever else is going on, the Michigan higher courts have apparently not yet been given the chance to deal with a challenge of the Michigan helmet law as unconstitutional due to vagueness.

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 Michigan Legislature may believe that they can authorize the "Department of State Police" to approve helmets, the Department of State Police is nonetheless confined, by law, to adopting only those standards established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If the Department of State Police has exceeded its authority and adopted anything other than Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 218 -- the Federal standard for, or definition of, a so-called "safety" helmet (aka: "crash helmet") -- the Michigan helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten, 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))

If the Department of State Police has adopted FMVSS 218, which the law insists that they ultimately must, the Michigan 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 "Department of State Police" for Michigan and ask for a "list" of helmets they have "approved" -- 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 Michigan bikers will be 100% FREE of the helmet law!





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

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