STATUTE:

Title XXI. Motor Vehicles. Chapter 265. Rules of the Road, Special Rules for Motorcycles. Section 265.122 Protective Headgear. :

"I. No person less than 18 years of age may drive or ride upon a motorcycle unless he wears protective headgear of a type approved by the director. Such headgear shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap.

"II. The director is hereby authorized and empowered to adopt rules pursuant to RSA 260:5 covering the types of protective headgear and the specifications therefor and to establish and maintain a list of approved headgear which meet his established specifications.

"III. If federal law is altered so that the mandatory wearing of protective headgear on motorcycles by persons less than 18 years of age is not required as a condition to the receipt by the state of any federal funds, paragraphs I and II shall be void.

"IV. Any motorcycle operator who transports a person under the age of 18 years, when such person is in violation of paragraph I, shall be guilty of a violation."

It appears from Section III above that New Hampshire helmet law, with passage of ISTEA in 1996, is "void"; making New Hampshire one of only four states that are absolutely, positively 100% helmet law FREE! (We are currently seeking confirmation from the State of New Hampshire . . . they seem reluctant to admit that they don't have a helmet law. This particular freedom is not exactly, it appears, a point of pride for the Department of Public Safety of the "Live Free Or Die" state. Pity.)

FINE:

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

STANDARDS:

We are currently researching the New Hampshire regulations to determine exactly what standard they had adopted to define "protective headgear". Apparently the "director" approved New Hampshire's so-called safety equipment, so we will locate the "director" for New Hampshire and ask about that, too. When we get an answer, you will find it here.

COURT DECISIONS:

"This section was within police power of state and did not violate motorcyclist's right of equal protection and due process." State v. Merski (1973) 113 NH 323, 307 A2d 825. (Decided under prior law.)

This decision has 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 New Hampshire statute requiring motorcyclists to wear "protective headgear" is vague; which means the New Hampshire helmet law, if it were not otherwise "void," would be unconstitutional . . . State v. Merski notwithstanding.

COMMENTARY:

On August 5, 1996, as we were gathering the statutory language of the various states to be uploaded on this web site, we discovered that poison pill section posted above. It appears that there is nothing more to say except congratulations New Hampshire -- the latest of only five states to be completely 100% HELMET LAW FREE!!

HISTORY:

The Helmet Law Defense League is looking for a volunteer from New Hampshire who knows the history of the helmet law in New Hampshire (going back at least 15 years) to write that history down in an article form and get it to us so we can post it here.

CURRENT ACTIVITY:

Discriminatory New Hampshire
Insurance Bill Defeated

---

WESTERVILLE, Ohio -- A bill before the New Hampshire Legislature, HB 1216, which would have required unhelmeted motorcyclists to purchase a million-dollar liability insurance policy to legally ride in that state was defeated by a voice vote on the House floor yesterday, reports the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA).

The bill, introduced by State Rep. Robert Boyce (R-Belknap), would have also raised the annual registration fee for unhelmeted motorcyclist to $25, while helmeted riders would pay $12. As the bill was drafted, the required insurance would have compensated any motorist who suffered bodily injury, death or property damage as the result of being involved in an accident with an unhelmeted motorcycle operator. Motorcyclist injuries and property damage were not addressed under the provisions of the bill. Currently, adult riders in New Hampshire can choose whether to wear a helmet or not when they ride.

"Why would a helmetless motorcyclist be more likely to inflict greater damage in an accident than a helmeted motorcyclist?" asked AMA Washington Representative Rob Dingman, after testifying in opposition to the bill. "There is absolutely no logical explanation for this legislation. This is simply one legislator's attempt to use any means available to discourage motorcyclists from riding without helmets. The New Hampshire Motorcyclist Rights Organization has done a great job of letting legislators in Concord know their views, and AMA members have flooded the capitol with letters in opposition."

State Rep. Sherman Packard (R-Rockingham), a longtime motorcyclist rights activist and the chairman of the House Transportation Committee that voted 16-0 in opposition to HB 1216, agrees.

"The bill was just poorly drafted," noted Packard. "The sponsor wanted to enact a law similar to the helmet modification legislation approved in Texas last year."

Texas modified their mandatory helmet law requirement to exclude riders who had either passed a motorcycle safety course or had purchased a $10,000 health insurance policy to cover the cost of any injuries they might sustain in a motorcycle accident. The legislation was supported by some motorcycle rights groups in the state. Critics at the time pointed out that accepting additional insurance requirements as a prerequisite for operating a motorcycle would suggest -- incorrectly -- that motorcyclists are a social burden of some sort and that society should be protected from the costs associated with their allegedly risky behavior. This argument that has been advanced by many individuals and groups promoting an anti-motorcycling political agenda.

"I am 100 percent convinced that if they hadn't done what they did in Texas we wouldn't be facing these bills right now," explained Packard. "I don't think it's a coincidence. Some of the main testimony in support of HB 1216 came from the New Hampshire Medical Society and the New Hampshire Brain Injury Association. The sponsor of the bill was a past president of that foundation, he's on the board of directors of that foundation, and he's involved nationally with the foundation. What they didn't realize in Texas is that organizations like the Head Injury Foundation and the Medical Society have a national network just like every interest group does. And the minute they win in one state, it's general knowledge across the country."

"If this law had passed in New Hampshire, in essence, unless you put your helmet on you wouldn't be allowed to ride your motorcycle because the insurance required by the bill isn't even available," Packard added. "We're going to see more legislation like this, and the bottom line is that you can ride your bike with a helmet on, but you can't ride your bike if they require an insurance provision that you can't comply with."

Similar legislation to require motorcyclists to purchase additional insurance in exchange for modifying existing helmet laws has been introduced in Florida and California.

(end)

New Hampshire Says No
to PIP Insurance
Freedom of Choice States now facing discriminatory requirement

---

February 2, 1998 - Washington, DC ... On Thursday, January 29, 1998, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted to kill House Bill 1216. Had this bill been passed, it would have required New Hampshire motorcyclists to carry $1,000,000 (one million dollars) in liability insurance if they chose to ride without a helmet. New Hampshire law does not require adults to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Meanwhile, other vehicle operators would have been exempted from carrying similar coverage under the bill. Supporters of the bill, including the New Hampshire Brain Injury Foundation, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, and the NH Medical Society claimed that motorcyclists as a group were likely to be uninsured or underinsured and were therefore a burden to society.

HB1216 was originally heard in the House Transportation Committee on January 20, 1998. Testifying against the bill at that time were representatives of the New Hampshire Motorcyclists Rights Organization (NHMRO), the Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) and the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA). Prior to the hearing, NHMRO spearheaded a statewide grassroots effort to kill HB1216. Working in conjunction with NHMRO, MRF's Vice President of Government Relations Steve Zimmer and AMA's Rob Dingman presented testimony refuting the claims being made by the bill's sponsors. Further testimony indicated that this type of insurance may not be available to everyone and is extremely expensive. Additionally, the committee heard testimony from an attorney whose expertise is in personal injury accident claims. He stated that this type of liability insurance would not insure the policy holder, but rather the other party, thereby asking the victim to bear the cost of the liability caused by the driver of the other vehicle.

Following testimony, the House Transportation Committee voted 16-0 in favor of a motion made by Rep. Letourneau (R-Derry), reporting the bill "Inexpedient To Legislate" (ITL) sending the bill to the house floor on the consent calendar. In the New Hampshire state legislature all bills must be brought to the floor for a final vote, for consideration by the full body, where in some cases a bill is heard as a standalone measure. Bills with a unanimous committee report may be sent to the consent calendar, which is comprised of a number of bills to be voted either Yea or Nay as a group. HB1216 was voted down on the House floor in this manner. Transportation Committee Chairman Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) commented "this piece of legislation was clearly discriminatory towards motorcyclists." Rep. Letourneau added, "This bill was crafted as an insurance provision for un-helmeted motorcyclists claiming that they were a burden to the government for their care and subsistence and that motorcyclists were disproportionately underinsured compared to the rest of society. The committee heard no testimony, nor saw any data that supported that claim."

Remarking on the national implications of the bill, MRF's Steve Zimmer said, "Motorcyclists in all states need to be aware that personal injury insurance requirements are a very real threat to motorcycling. Furthermore, politically active motorcyclists should be aware that these bills are no longer being presented only in states where the repeal of an adult helmet law is in question. Freedom of choice states are being attacked as well. The Motorcycle Riders Foundation is unequivocally opposed to all such measures." MRF President Mark Buckner commented as well, saying "MRF applauds NHMRO and the New Hampshire state legislature for taking a stand on this issue. This shows that if we dig in our heels on these burdensome and unfair insurance requirements we can both maintain our freedom of choice and repeal current helmet laws without compromising our core values."

(end)

Questions or Comments