STATUTE:

Title 39. Motor Vehicles. Chapter 39-10.2. Motorcycles. 39-10.2-06 Equipment for Motorcycle Riders. :

"1. No person under the age of eighteen years may operate or ride upon a motorcycle unless protective headgear, which complies with standards established by the department, is being worn on the head of the operator and rider, except when participating in a lawful parade. If the operator of a motorcycle is required to wear protective headgear, any passenger must also wear protective headgear regardless of the age of the passenger.

"2. This section does not apply to persons riding within an enclosed cab or on a golf cart.

"3. No person may operate a motorcycle if a person under the age of eighteen years is a passenger upon that motorcycle and is not wearing protective headgear as provided in subsection 1."

FINE:

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

STANDARDS:

Title 39. Motor Vehicles. Chapter 39-10.2. Motorcycles. 39-10.2-06 Equipment for Motorcycle Riders. :

" . . . protective headgear which complies with standards established by the department . . ."

NOTE: We are currently researching the North Dakota regulations to determine exactly what standard they have adopted to define "protective headgear". Apparently the "department" approves North Dakota's so-called safety equipment, so we will contact them and ask what standards (or definition of "protective headgear" they have adopted. When we get an answer, you will find it here.

COURT DECISIONS:

"Former statute requiring crash helmets for motorcycle operators and passengers was not unconstitutional as deprivation of personal freedom and due process on theory that it affected only welfare of operator and passenger and not public welfare; violation of statute was a crime punishable under statute making performance of a prohibited act for which no penalty was provided a misdemeanor." State v. Odegaard, 165 N.W.2d 677 (N.D. 1969).

These decisions have to do with the limited question of the State's right to impose safety regulation on individuals 18 years-old and younger under the police powers, and not on the subject of unconstitutional vagueness. In other words, the definition of "protective headgear" is vague and has not been resolved; which means the North Dakota statute requiring motorcyclists to wear "protective headgear" is vague and can be openly challenged as unconstitutional . . . State v. Odegaard notwithstanding.

COMMENTARY:

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

If the North Dakota Legislature has adopted FMVSS 218, the North Dakota 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 North Dakota Department of Motor Vehicles, or the Highway Patrol, 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 North Dakota bikers will be 100% FREE of the helmet law!

Questions or Comments