STATUTE:

Title 47. Motor Vehicles. Highway Safety Code. Chapter 40. Highway Safety Code Ancillaries. Section 40-105. Required Equipment. :

"The following equipment shall be required on all motorcycles and all motor scooters except on actual trail rides conducted outside of public roads and highways:

"G. Headgear: No person under eighteen (18) years of age shall operate or ride upon any vehicle covered under this section unless such person is equipped with and wearing on the head a crash helmet of a type which complies with standards established by the Department of Public Safety. . . ."

FINE:

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

STANDARDS:

Title 47. Motor Vehicles. Highway Safety Code. Chapter 40. Highway Safety Code Ancillaries. Section 40-105. Required Equipment. :

"G. Headgear: . . . All crash helmets shall consist of lining, padding and chin straps and be of the type as not to distort the view of the driver. The Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety is hereby authorized to approve or disapprove protective headgear and eye-protective devices sold and required herein, and to issue and enforce regulations establishing standards and specifications for approval thereof.

"The Commissioner shall publish lists of all approved protective headgear and eye-protective devices by name and type. Provided, however, the Department may not recommend one brand in preference to another if quality is identical."

This is one of those statutes that is so far outside the law as it has developed since the statute was enacted that it's almost ludicrous. No state can define a "crash helmet" or "protective headgear" as consisting of "lining, padding and chin straps" (except perhaps NHTSA) or by any other such criteria. Nor can a state publish a "list" of approved protective headgear. (see below)

COURT DECISIONS:

"Subsection G of this section as enacted by laws 1967, c. 140, s 3, requiring all operators and riders of motorcycles to wear a crash helmet while operating a motorcycle was unconstitutional since it had no relationship to general public health, safety and welfare. Op.Atty.Gen. No. 68-267 (Dec. 31, 1968).

Well, well, well. This is a legal opinion that has not had a lot of press. It would appear that in 1968, in Oklahoma, somebody still respected the rights of the individual over government. Nice ruling.

COMMENTARY:

We realize that most motorcyclists in Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma Legislature has caused any other standard to be adopted, anything other than Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 218 -- which does not include a list of approved headgear -- the Oklahoma helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten , 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))

If the Oklahoma Legislature had adopted FMVSS 218, the Oklahoma helmet law would be 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 Oklahoma Department of Public Safety and ask how to comply with the helmet law, "with certainty" (or ask for the list), you can take their answer (or, more likely, refusal to answer) to the courts and Oklahoma bikers will be 100% FREE of the helmet law!

Questions or Comments