STATUTE:

Title 41. Motor Vehicles. Chapter 6. Traffic Rules and Regulations. Article 15. Miscellaneous Rules. Section 41-6-107.8. Motorcycle or Motor-driven Cycle -- Protective Headgear -- Closed Cab Excepted -- Specifications and Standards. :

"(a) No person under the age of 18 shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle or motor-driven cycle upon a public highway unless such person is wearing protective headgear which complies with standards established by the commissioner of public safety.

"(b) This section shall not apply to persons riding within a closed cab. . . ."

FINE:

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

STANDARDS:

Title 41. Motor Vehicles. Chapter 6. Traffic Rules and Regulations. Article 15. Miscellaneous Rules. Section 41-6-107.8. Motorcycle or Motor-driven Cycle -- Protective Headgear -- Closed Cab Excepted -- Spedifications and Standards. :

"(c) The commissioner of public safety is authorized to promulgate and enforce specifications and standards for the use of protective headgear required herein."

We are currently researching the Utah regulations to determine exactly what standard they have adopted to define "protective headgear". Apparently the "commissioner of public safety" adopts the standards for Utah's so-called safety equipment, so we will locate the commissioner and ask. When we get an answer, you will find it here.

COURT DECISIONS:

"This section is a valid exercise of police power; standards as to type of headgear to be worn are sufficiently specific; fact that it is applicable only to highways where speeds exceed 35 MPH does not render it invalid." State v. Acker, 26 Utah 2d 104, 485 P.2d 1038 (1971).

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 by today's standards. Things have changed since 1971, a lot! In other words, the definition of "protective headgear" is in fact vague; which means the Utah statute requiring motorcyclists to wear "protective headgear" is vague; which means the Utah helmet law is unconstitutional . . . State v. Acker notwithstanding.

COMMENTARY:

We realize that most motorcyclists in Utah do not feel impacted by the helmet law in any real way, at this time, because it only applies directly to those riders 18 and under. There are two reasons, we believe, that it is important to maintain a constant vigilance regarding the Utah 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 Utah 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 Utah Legislature, through the commissioner of public safety, has caused any other standard to be adopted, anything other than Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 218, the Utah helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten , 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))

If the Utah Legislature has adopted FMVSS 218, the Utah helmet law is 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 Utah Commissioner of Public Safety and ask how to comply with the helmet law, "with certainty," you can take their answer (or, more likely, refusal to answer) to the courts and Utah bikers will be 100% FREE of the helmet law!

Questions or Comments