STATUTE:

Title 56. Motor Vehicles. Chapter 5. uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways. Article 29. Motorcyclists; Rights and Duties Thereof. Section 56-5-3660. Helmets shall be worn by operators and passengers under age twenty-one; helmet design; list of approved helmets. :

FINE:

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

STANDARDS:

Title 56. Motor Vehicles. Chapter 5. uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways. Article 29. Motorcyclists; Rights and Duties Thereof. Section 56-5-3660. Helmets shall be worn by operators and passengers under age twenty-one; helmet design; list of approved helmets. :

When the statute says "department" is means "South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation". (Change in the language of the statute took place in 1993.)

COURT DECISIONS:

We have been unable to uncover any court decision from a court of record, either from the South Carolina Appellate or Supreme Courts, which indicates that the question of whether or not the language of South Carolina's helmet law is constitutional has not been addressed in the courts.

COMMENTARY:

We realize that most motorcyclists in South Carolina 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 South Carolina 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.

Although the South Carolina did adopt regulations requiring the making and maintenance of a list of approved helmets, the South Carolina Legislature is as a matter of law confined to adopting only those standards for helmets set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which does not include a list. The South Carolina helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten , 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))

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






Questions or Comments
or go back to United States Map | Main Page.


Last updated: April, 1997
© Copyright 1996 HLDL. All Rights Reserved.
Webmaster: quig