|
STATUTE:
Title XIV. Public Ways and Works Chapter 90. Motor Vehicles and Aircraft.
Section 7. Brakes, braking systems, mufflers, horns, lights, audible warning
systems, and other equipment; compliance with safety standards; stickers and emblems. :
"Every person operating a motorcycle or riding as a passenger on a
motorcycle or in a sidecar attached to a motorcycle shall wear protective
head gear conforming with such minimum standards of construction and
performance as the registrar may prescribe, and no person operating a
motorcycle shall permit any other person to ride as a passenger on such
motorcycle or in a sidecar attached to such motorcycle unless such passenger
is wearing such protective head gear,. . ."
FINE:
Fine for 1st offense is $35, with a "step" increase on driving
records resulting in an insurance surcharge for 6 or 7 years. Second offense
is $75 to $100, with another "step" increase as above. Plus
potential costs for towing bike from scene.
STANDARDS:
Title XIV. Public Ways and Works Chapter 90. Motor Vehicles and Aircraft.
Section 7. Brakes, braking systems, mufflers, horns, lights, audible warning
systems, and other equipment; compliance with safety standards; stickers and emblems. :
" . . . conforming with such minimum standards of construction and
performance as the registrar may prescribe, . . ."
COURT DECISIONS:
"Provision of this section requiring motorcyclists to wear protective
headgear is not violative of due process, notwithstanding claim that police
power does not extend to overcoming right of an individual to incur risks that
involve only himself, since public has an interest in minimizing resources
directly involved, in that from moment of injury, society picks the person up
off the highway, delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal doctors,
provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot
replace his lost job, and, if injury causes permanent disability, assumes
responsibility for his and his family's continued subsistence." Simon
v. Sargent, D.C.Mass.1972, 346 F. Supp. 277, affirmed 93 S. Ct. 463, 409
U.S. 1020, 34 L.Ed.2d 312.
"Provision of this section requiring motorcyclists to wear protective
headgear does not deny equal protection, in that rational basis exists for
legislature's distinction between motorcyclists and, for example, automobile
drivers, whose vehicle affords them substantially more protection than does a
motorcycle." Simon v. Sargent, D.C.Mass.1972, 346 F. Supp. 277,
affirmed 93 S. Ct. 463, 409 U.S. 1020, 34 L.Ed.2d 312.
"In enacting provision of this section requiring motorcyclists to wear
protective headgear, it was not unreasonable for the Legislature to link
protective headgear to safer motorcycling." Simon v. Sargent,
D.C.Mass.1972, 346 F. Supp. 277, affirmed 93 S. Ct. 463, 409 U.S. 1020, 34
L.Ed.2d 312.
"Requirement of this section of protective headgear for a motorcyclist
but not for a rider of a "motorized bicycle * * * which is capable of a
maximum design speed of no more than twenty-five miles per hour" was not
a classification unjustified by any conceivable set of facts or findings such
as would violate equal protection." Com. v. Guest (1981) 425
N.E.2d 779, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 941.
"This section and implementing regulation requiring motorcyclists to
wear protective headgear did not conflict with nor were preempted by 15
U.S.C.A. s 1392 which merely set standards for helmets designed for use by
motorcyclists." Com. v. Guest (1981) 425 N.E.2d 779, 12 Mass. App.
Ct. 941.
"This section, which requires operator of motorcycle to wear
protective headgear does not result in an unconstitutional denial of the right
of privacy." Com. v. Cowan (1976) 344 N.E.2d 419, 4 Mass. App. Ct.
796.
"Although issue of right of privacy was not explicitly mentioned in
Supreme Judicial Court's decision upholding, as against constitutional
challenges, this section requiring that operator of motorcycle wear protective
headgear, where the defendant in the prior case raised the issue by brief and
quoted from relevant United States Supreme Court decisions, Appeals Court
would treat the Supreme Judicial Court's decision as authoritative on the
right to privacy issue." Com. v. Cowan (1976) 344 N.E.2d 419, 4
Mass. App. Ct. 796.
"This section requiring motorcyclist to wear protective headgear
conforming with certain minimum standards bears real and substantial relation
to public health and general welfare and is a valid exercise of police
power." Com. v. Howie (1968) 238 N.E.2d 373, 354 Mass. 769,
certiorari denied 89 S. Ct. 485, 393 U.S. 999, 21 L.Ed.2d 464.
See Simon v. Sargent above.
"It lies within power of Legislature to adopt reasonable measures for
promotion of safety upon public ways in interests of motorcyclists and others
who may use them." Com. v. Howie (1968) 238 N.E.2d 373, 354 Mass.
769, certiorari denied 89 S. Ct. 485, 393 U.S. 999, 21 L.Ed.2d 464.
None of these decisions, or any other we can find, say that
motorcyclists don't have a right to know, with certainty, what
"protective headgear" is, if the law is going to them to "wear
protective headgear".
CURRENT ACTIVITY:
HB 206 - 1/20/04 - HB 206 - passed the
Senate and goes to the Governor who has 10 days to sign. HB 206 gives Freedom
of Choice for riders 18 years or older riding in publicly permitted parades.
If he veto's the bill, it goes back to the House where 2/3's of the 160
members must vote to over-ride his veto. If accomplished, then the same
is needed in the Senate.
The Governor's reps advised he would not take a public position on 206 until
it reached his desk. If you ride in MA now is the time to contact the
Governor's Office. For more info and how to get involved, where to write, what
to write visit the Massachusettes
MMA website.
Insurance Lawsuit - 12/12/03 - MMA to
sue the state of MA over unfair insurance practices that withhold discounts
given to car and truck owners.
Helmet Regulations in Conflict -
11/26/03 - Per Paul Cote, regarding their appeal, the Court concluded the MA
Regulation for motorcycle helmets IS IN CONFLICT with the Federal Standards
and the MMA had authority to bring the lawsuit on behalf of its members.
Sept
5 - 7, 2003 - Freedom Ride from MA to PA to celebrate PA's Adult
Freedom of Choice WIN and to promote awareness for Freedom of Choice for ALL
riders in MA, CT, NY and NJ.
July
31, 2003 - ABATE of MA merges into MMA effective 12/31/03; MMA to
Support PAC!
HB 206 allows motor cyclists
participating in public parades to be exempt from the helmet law.
HB 207 regulates the wearing of helmets
for passengers and operators of motorcycles.
HB 208 regulates the use of protective
headgear for persons riding on motorcycles.
RECENT ACTIVITY:
April 22, 2002
- SB1266 - placed with the Senate Way & Means Committee. They indeed
to 'study' the 'burden to society' caused by helmet-less riders.
Specifically, the increased insurance and medical costs they believe will be
incurred. A helmet mod bill has not progressed this far
in 20 years!
April
2, 2002 - SB1266 - the Joint Committee for Public
Safety voted a favorable "Ought to Pass" recommendation for SB 1266!
May
30, 2001 - Helmet confiscation and Bike towing no longer allowed per
MA State Police memo
Jan
3, 2001 SB-1266 - a 21 Helmet Mod Bill. Referred to Public Safety
committee. Bill
Updater.
Jan
3, 2001 SB-1267 - a bill prohibiting ticketing for helmets that may
not be in conformity with FMV218 except with proof the operator has actual
knowledge of a determination of non-conformity. Referred to Public Safety
committee. Bill
Updater.
Jan
3, 2001 HB-1263 Rep Christine Canavan. Petition filed at the request
of Brian Chapman relative to the motorcycle helmet law. 01/03/01 Referred to
the committee on Public Safety. 01/03/01 S Senate concurred Public Hearing date
Mar 29. Bill
Updater.
July
28, 2000 - Press Release: Law Offices of Joseph S. Provanzano about
the Appeals Court win, upcoming Federal lawsuit and fund raiser efforts.
July
28, 2000 - Press Release: Southern District Appellate Division of
District Courts overturns 2 citations issued by the MSP.
STATE WEBSITES:
-- DISCLAIMER --
The foregoing is provided as educational information only and
is not legal advice.
Back
|