STATUTE:

Title 59. Oregon Vehicle Code. Chapter 814. Pedestrians, passengers, Livestock, Motorcycles, Mopeds, Bicycles, Motorized Wheelchairs. Mopeds and Motorcycles. Section 814.269 Failure of motorcycle operator to wear a motorcycle helmet; penalty. :

"(1) A person commits the offense of failure of a motorcycle operator to wear a motorcycle helmet if the person operates a motorcycle and is not wearing a motorcycle helmet."

FINE:

Bill Magnie has reported that the fine for a conviction of the above statute is $67 (unless you go to Brookings, where it's rumored fines can reach $300). Thanks Bill.

STANDARDS:

Title 59. Oregon Vehicle Code. Chapter 801.366:

"'Motorcycle Helmet' means a protective covering for the head consisting of a hard outer shell, padding adjacent to and inside the outer shell and a chin-strap type retention system with a sticker indicating that the motorcycle helmet meets standards established by the United States Department of Transportation.

COURT DECISIONS:

The harassment of bikers continued even after the recent changes in the Oregon law. ABATE of Oregon sued the Superintendent of the Oregon State Police and got a simply terrific decision -- ABATE of Oregon v. Howland. (It's in gif, not html, format for now . . . if you can't handle the graphics files, give me a few more days and I should have the html ready and uploaded. --q)

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.

Recently, like in 1995, the State of Oregon amended their helmet law to include the definition found above. However, the State has exceeded it authority by adopting standards that are not exactly the same as the Federal Regulations. So, now the Oregon helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten, 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))

If the State of Oregon had adopted FMVSS 218 exactly, which the law insists that they ultimately must, the Oregon helmet law would be thereby rendered unconstitutionally vague and could be challenged on that basis, and removed. (see Washington v. Maxwell , 74 WASH.APP. 688, 878 P.2D 1220 (1994))

We believe that if you will write to the Department of Public Safety for Oregon and ask how to comply with the helmet law, "with certainty", someone can take whatever answer (or, more likely, a refusal to answer) to the courts, and Oregon bikers will be 100% FREE of the helmet law!

Questions or Comments