|
STATUTE:
Florida Statutes Annotated Title XXIII
Motor Vehicles Chapter 316
State Uniform Traffic Control
Section 1. Subsection (3) of section 316.211, Florida Statutes, is amended to
read:
316.211. Equipment for motorcycle and moped riders
(3) (a) This section does not apply to persons riding within an enclosed cab
or to any person 16 years of age or older who is operating or riding upon a
motorcycle powered by a motor with a displacement of 50 cubic centimeters or
less or is rated not in excess of 2 brake horsepower and which is not capable of
propelling such motorcycle at a speed greater than 30 miles per hour on level
ground.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (l), a person over 21 years of age may operate
or ride upon a motorcycle without wearing protective headgear securely fastened
upon his or her head if such person is covered by an insurance policy providing
for at least $10,000 in medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of a
crash while operating or
riding on a motorcycle.
(4) No person under 16 years of age shall operate or ride upon a moped unless
the person is properly wearing protective headgear securely fastened upon his or
her head which complies with standards established by the department.
Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2000.
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Laws 1985, c. 85-329, s 1, effec. Oct. 1, 1985, added former subsec. (5) and
rewrote former subsec. (4) [now subsec. (5)] which formerly provided:
"The department is authorized to approve or disapprove protective
headgear and eye-protective devices required herein and to issue and enforce
regulations establishing standards and specifications for the approval
thereof. The department shall publish lists of all protective headgear and
eye-protective devices by name and type which have been approved by it."
NOTES OF DECISIONS
- Validity
This section requiring motorcycle riders to wear protective headgear did
not violate constitutional right to privacy or rights characterized by
motorcycle operator as rights "to be let alone" by government and to
be free from "paternalistic" legislation; this section constituted
valid exercise of state's police powers to prevent unnecessary injury to
riders themselves and to prevent public from having to bear costs of such
injury, and there was no broad legal or constitutional right to be let alone.
Picou v. Gillum, C.A.11 (Fla.) 1989, 874 F.2d 1519, certiorari denied 110 S.
Ct.
283, 493 U.S. 920, 107 L.Ed.2d 263.
Considering fact that a flying object could easily strike a bareheaded
cyclist and cause him to lose control of his vehicle, as well as fact that
wind or an insect flying into cyclist's eyes could create a hazard to others
on highway, this section requiring motorcyclists to wear both crash helmets
and safety goggles is in the interests of health, safety and welfare of the
public and constitutes a reasonable exercise of state's police power. Bogue v.
Faircloth, D.C.Fla.1970, 316 F. Supp. 486, appeal dismissed 441 F.2d 623.
This section requiring the operator of a motorcycle to wear protective
headgear has a rational and valid purpose and is not subject to attacks of
vagueness and unconstitutional delegation. Hamm v. State, 387 So.2d 946
(1980).
This section providing that no person shall operate or ride upon a
motorcycle unless he is wearing protective headgear which complies with
standards established by the department and unless he is wearing an eye
protective device of type approved by the department contains no fatal
ambiguity as to the type of protective headgear required to be worn. Cesin v.
State, 288 So.2d 473 (1974).
Portion of former s 317.981 (see, now, this section) prescribing protective
headgear for motorcyclists wherein specific standards for protective equipment
were left to department of public safety did not constitute an
unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, nor was it void for
vagueness. State v. Eitel, 227 So.2d 489 (1969).
Motorcyclists do not have a constitutional right to ride the highways
without wearing headgear prescribed by legislature for their protection. State
v. Eitel, 227 So.2d 489 (1969).
- Protective headgear requirement
Evidence, which indicated that motorcycle passenger wore helmet at time of
accident and that helmet flew off at point of impact, was insufficient to
establish comparative negligence based on alleged violation of statute
requiring persons riding motorcycle to wear protective headgear securely
fastened. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Vosburgh, App. 4 Dist., 480 So.2d
140 (1985).
In negligence action arising out of motorcycle accident, trial court did
not err in precluding defendants from introducing evidence and later arguing
to jury that plaintiffs' decedent was guilty of comparative negligence by
failing to wear protective headgear at time of accident in violation of
statute, since no evidence was adduced that the violation of the statute was
the proximate cause of head injuries sustained by decedent. Rex Utilities,
Inc. v. Gaddy, App. 3 Dist., 413 So.2d 1232 (1982), review denied 422 So.2d
843.
- Municipal regulation
Municipalities are not authorized by law to require that motor-propelled
bicycles or moped operators and riders wear protective headgear and eye-
protective devices while operating or riding such bicycle/mopeds within the
city limits which would otherwise be required by law for motorcycle operators
and riders. Op. Atty. Gen., 077-84, Aug. 22, 1977.
FINE:
The fine for not wearing a helmet is $35.00
STANDARDS:
CR03 (5) The department is authorized to approve protective headgear made to
specifications drawn and devised by, or approved by, the American National
Standards Institute, the United States Department of Transportation, the
United States Consumer Products Safety Commission, the United States
Department of Defense, or any other entity which can provide equally effective
equipment specifications. The department shall publish lists of protective
equipment, and such lists shall be made available by request to all users of
such equipment.
CURRENT ACTIVITY:
HB 0117 -
6/16/00 - Governor Bush Signed HB1911 into law at 3:30 today. It goes
into effect July 1, 2000. A person over 21 years of age may
operate or ride upon a motorcycle without wearing a helmet if they are covered
by an insurance policy providing for at least $10,000 in medical benefits for
injuries incurred as a result of a crash while operating or riding on a
motorcycle.
May 3, 2000 -
HB 117 passed all legislature hurdles and is on the Governor's desk
for signature. It's attached to Bill 1911, which is reportedly a "must
sign bill".
May 1, 2000 -
HOUSE Read 3rd time; PASSED: YEAS 71, NAYS 43
May 1, 2000 -
SENATE In Messages
RELATED INFORMATION:
- Apr 30, 1999
- SB 0958 & HB 0457 - 21 with Medical. Both died on Calendar
-
Apr 26, 1999
- SB 0958 & HB 0457 - have passed all committees and are waiting for
action in the full Senate & full House. A $10,000 Medical Payment
Policy Amendment was added.
-
Feb 4, 1999
- SB 0958 & HB 0457 - filed in Senate and House.
-
Florida
SB224 - 3/23/98 - S Comm. Action: Unfavorable by Banking and
Insurance, laid on Table -SJ 00304 - Helmet modification bill over 21 with
medical insurance.
-
Unconstitutional
in Florida - May 16th, Pinellas Court dismiss 2nd helmet-less ticket!
On May 8th, 1996, a Florida Court Overturned their 30 year old Helmet
Law. The Court ruled the law unconstitutional! Here's the blow by blow
account:
- Unconstitutional
in Florida - Florida vs. Raynal, December 8, 1995, Florida Court
finds Helmet law "overly vague" and dismisses case.
-
Florida
Sheriff Memo - December 27, 1995, Florida memo tells deputies to continue
enforcing the helmet law anyway!
-
State
of Florida vs. Landry - May 8th, 1996, Frank Landry got a ticket
after the December 8th decision and fights the ticket on vagueness as
established in the Raynal Court. Florida's helmet law is dying!
-
Florida
Attorney Ron Smith Letter - May 10, 1996, to the Florida Sheriff's
Office in response to the May 8th decision and the Sheriff's memo of
December 27th.
-
No
List? No Law! - Florida Analysis by Tony "Pan" San Felipo
STATE WEBSITES:
-- DISCLAIMER --
The foregoing is provided as educational information only and
is not legal advice.
Back
|
