STATUTE:

Title 46. Motor Vehicles. Chapter 46.37. Vehicle Lighting and Other Equipment. Section 46.37.530. Motorcycles, Motor-driven Cycles, or Mopeds--helmets, Other Equipment--Children--Rules. :

"(1) It is unlawful:

"(c) For any person to operate or ride upon a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or moped on a state highway, county road, or city street unless wearing upon his or her head a protective helmet of a type conforming to rules adopted by the state patrol except when the vehicle is an antique motor-driven cycle or automobile that is licensed as a motorcycle or when the vehicle is equipped with seat belts and roll bars approved by the state patrol. The helmet must be equipped with either a neck or chin strap which shall be fastened securely while the motorcycle or motor-driven cycle is in motion; . . ."

FINE:

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

STANDARDS:

Title 46. Motor Vehicles. Chapter 46.37. Vehicle Lighting and Other Equipment. Section 46.37.530. Motorcycles, Motor-driven Cycles, or Mopeds--helmets, Other Equipment--Children--Rules. :

"(2) The state patrol is hereby authorized and empowered to adopt and amend rules, pursuant to the administrative procedure act, concerning the standards and procedures for conformance of rules adopted for glasses, goggles, face shields, and protective helmets."

COURT DECISIONS:

"State patrol regulation regarding safety standards for protective motorcycle helmets, adopted pursuant to Head Injury Prevention Act, failed to provide fair notice or ascertainable standards of types of helmets which would comply with Act and, thus, portion of Act requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets was unconstitutionally vague where ordinary citizen of average intelligence would not have known how to locate federal standard for helmets adopted by state patrol regulation and even if ordinary citizen could have found federal regulation, he or she would not have understood what was required to comply with Act." State v. Maxwell (1994) 74 Wash.App. 688, 878 P.2d 1220, reconsideration denied.

"Based upon the plain language of the regulation and on authority from other jurisdictions, we conclude the law is not unconstitutionally vague. The federal law, quoted in the Washington rule, requires that manufacturers certify that their helmets comply with the federal standards by applying a permanent label, reading "DOT," in a prominent manner on the outside of the helmet. Several other states have held that a motorcyclist can avoid violating similar laws by buying any motorcycle helmet which is labeled "DOT" by the manufacturer. . . . In the current regulation adopted by the Washington State Patrol, the labeling requirements from the federal law are included so that a purchaser will know to buy a helmet which is so labeled. . . . We hold that the regulation adopted by the State Patrol is sufficiently clear to put a person of normal intelligence on notice of what conduct is prohibited." Washington v. Spears (1998)

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.

The State has exceeded it authority by adopting standards that are not exactly the same as the Federal Regulations -- and labeling of a helmet is not a "requirement" of FMVSS 218. So the Washington 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 Washingtonhad adopted FMVSS 218 exactly, which the law insists that they ultimately must, the Washington 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 State Police for Washington 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 Washington bikers will be 100% FREE of the helmet law!

Questions or Comments