STATUTE:

Title 75. Vehicles. Part III. Operation of Vehicles. Chapter 35. Special Vehicles and Pedestrians. Subchapter B. Special Rules for Motorcycles. Section 3525. Protective Equipment for Motorcycle Riders. :

"(a) Protective headgear.--Except as provided in subsection (d), no person shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle or a motor-driven cycle (other than a motorized pedalcycle) unless he is wearing protective headgear which complies with standards established by the department.
. . .
"(d) Exception.--The provisions of [subsections (a) and (b)] subsection (a) shall not apply to the following:
"(1) The operator or any occupant of a three-wheeled motorcycle equipped with an enclosed cab.
"(2) A person 21 years of age or older who has been licensed to operate a motorcycle for not less than two full calendar years.
"(3) A person 21 years of age or older who has completed a motorcycle rider safety course approved by the department or the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.
"(4) The passenger of a person exempt under this subsection, if the passenger is 21 years of age or older."

STANDARDS:

Title 75. Vehicles. Part III. Operation of Vehicles. Chapter 35. Special Vehicles and Pedestrians. Subchapter B. Special Rules for Motorcycles. Section 3525. Protective Equipment for Motorcycle Riders. :

". . . (c) Approval of equipment.--The department may approve or disapprove protective headgear and eye-protective devices required under this section and may issue and enforce regulations establishing standards and specifications for the approval of the headgear and devices. The department shall publish lists of all protective headgear and eye-protective devices by name and type which have been approved. . . ."

COURT DECISIONS:

"Statute requiring that helmet be worn while operating motorcycle but not while operating automobile or pedalcycle did not deny motorcyclist equal protection of laws in light of additional protection afforded automobile drivers by enclosed vehicles, and reduced risk to pedalcyclers because of lower maximum speed." Com. v. Kautz, 491 A.2d 864, 341 Pa.Super. 374, Super.1985, appeal denied.

"Statute requiring helmets to be worn while operating motorcycle was reasonably related to state's interest in controlling access to highways, and was thus not an unconstitutional exercise of state's police power." Com. v. Kautz, 491 A.2d 864, 341 Pa.Super. 374, Super.1985, appeal denied.

"Statute requiring helmet to be worn while operating motorcycle was not unconstitutionally vague for requiring that helmets comply with standards promulgated by Department of Transportation." Com. v. Kautz, 491 A.2d 864, 341 Pa.Super. 374, Super.1985, appeal denied.

"Promulgation of motorcycle helmet standards by Department of Transportation represents constitutional delegation of authority." Com. v. Kautz, 491 A.2d 864, 341 Pa.Super. 374, Super.1985, appeal denied.

These last quotations are from a 1985 Pennsylvania Court decision which in essence denies a constitutional challenge of their helmet law for vagueness on the premise that the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation may adopt regulations other than those adopted by the Federal Government, which is, in today's arena, simply not true. (See below.)

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.

Although the Pennsylvania Legislature may believe that they can and have side-stepped that problem by authorizing the Department of Transportation to establish and maintain such a list, the Department is confined, by law, to adopting only those standards established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE A LIST OF APPROVED HELMETS!

The State has exceeded its authority and adopted something other than Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 218 -- including compiling and maintaining a list -- so the Pennsylvania helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten, 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))

If the Department of Transportation had adopted FMVSS 218 standards for helmets instead, which the law insists that they ultimately must, the Pennsylvania helmet law would thereby be 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 Transportation for Pennsylvania and ask for the list of approved "protective headgear" -- tell them you are attempting to determine 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 Pennsylvania bikers will be 100% FREE of the helmet law!

CURRENT ACTIVITY: