STATUTE:

Chapter 60. Motor Vehicles. Article 6. Nebraska Rules of the Road (W) Helmets. Section 60-6, 279. Protective helmets; required; when.:

"A person shall not operate or be a passenger on a motorcycle or moped on any highway in this state unless such person is wearing a protective helmet of the type and design manufactured for use by operators of such vehicles and unless such helmet is secured properly on his or her head with a chin strap while the vehicle is in motion. . . ."

FINE:

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

STANDARDS:

Chapter 60. Motor Vehicles. Article 6. Nebraska Rules of the Road (W) Helmets. Section 60-6, 279. Protective helmets; required; when.:

". . . protective helmets shall be designed to reduce injuries to the user resulting from head impacts and shall be designed to protect the user by remaining on the user's head, deflecting blows, resisting penetration, and spreading the force of impact. Each such helmet shall consist of lining, padding, and chin strap and shall meet or exceed the standards established in the United States Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, 49 C.F.R. 571.218, for motorcycle helmets."

COURT DECISIONS:

The list required by section 39-6,212 (transferred to section 60-6,280) acts as a limiting construction of this section by enumerating some of those helmets which meet the criteria of this section; when taken together, the helmet law and list are not vague. Claims that this section violates constitutional rights to due process and equal protection are without merit, since the helmet law implicates neither a fundamental right nor a suspect classification and is rationally related to a legitimate legislative aim. Although the State may promulgate and enforce motorcycle helmet standards only if the state standards are identical to those promulgated by the federal Department of Transportation, the helmet law is constitutional, since the visor requirement is properly severable from the remainder of this section. Robotham v. State, 241 Neb. 379, 488 N.W.2d 533 (1992).

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.

I realize that the decision above might lead bikers to give up, but not us. We believe the decision is flawed in more ways that we have time to address. It's sufficient to say that the court excuses the defects in the statute by acknowledging that the standards must be identical to FMVSS-218, which they are NOT. It's the type of legal double-speak usually reserved for states like California or Florida -- hardly worthy of the Mid-West. If "the helmet law and list are not vague," where's the list? And if there's no list? Why?

Questions or Comments