STATUTE:

Chapter 169. Traffic Regulations -- Micellaneous Provisions. Section 169.974 Motorcycles, motor scooters and motor bikes. . . . :

"Subd. 2. License requirements. No person shall operate a motorcycle on any street or highway without having a valid standard driver's license with a two-wheeled vehicle endorsement as provided by law. . . . No person who is operating by virtue of a two-wheeled vehicle instruction permit shall: . . .
(d) Drive the motorcycle without wearing protective headgear that complies with standards established by the commissioner of public safety. . . ."

"Subd. 4. Equipment for operators and passengers.

"(a) No person under the age of 18 shall operate or ride a motorcycle on the streets and highways of this state without wearing protective headgear that complies with standards established by the commissioner of public safety; . . ."

FINE:

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

STANDARDS:

We are currently researching the Minnesota regulations to determine exactly what standard they have adopted to define "protective headgear". Apparently the "Commissioner of Public Safety" determines which "protective headgear" with standards established by their office, so we will locate the "Commissioner of Public Safety" for Minnesota and ask which standards they have created or adopted. When we get an answer, you will find it here.

COURT DECISIONS:

"Th(e) section requiring motorcyclists to wear safety helmets does not unfairly discriminate against motorcyclists and is based on proper classification." State v. Edwards, 1970, 287 Minn. 83, 177 N.W.2d 40. State v. Edwards, 1970, 287 Minn. 83, 177 N.W.2d 40.

"A city may not require the use of protective headgear by motorcycle operators and passengers, as highway traffic regulations are to be uniform throughout the state and this section occupies the field of regulation." Op.Atty.Gen., 989-b-5, June 13, 1977.

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 "protective headgear" is vague; which means the Minnesota statute requiring motorcyclists to wear "protective headgear" is vague; which means the Minnesota helmet law is unconstitutional . . . State v. Edwards notwithstanding.

COMMENTARY:

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

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

We believe that if you will write to the head of the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety and ask how to comply with the helmet law, "with certainty," you can take their answer (or, more likely, refusal to answer) to the courts and Minnesota bikers will be 100% FREE of the helmet law!

Questions or Comments