|
Abstract
|
The burgeoning use of motorcycles in the United States has given rise to a great problem of safety. The fatality rate among motorcyclists is substantially higher than the rate for the drivers of all other motor vehicles,with head injuries the most frequent cause of death. In response to this situation, the legislatures of at least thirty-four states have passed special laws regarding motorcycle safety; of these states, thirty have regulations that require the wearing of helmets. These helmet regulations have given rise to a great deal of controversy, and the constitutionality of such statutes has been challenged on the ground that they unduly restrict the individual cyclist's freedom without benefiting the community.
A recent Michigan case, American Motorcycle Association v. Davids, confronted the issue directly. In a proceeding instituted by the Association,the Michigan court of appeals held unconstitutional a statute which required a person operating or riding on a motorcycle to wear a crash helmet of a type approved by the department of state police. The decision was based primarily on a finding that the statute was intended only for the protection of the individual motorcyclist not for the safety and well-being of the general public -- and that it thus went beyond the permissible scope of the state's police power.
The Michigan decision is representative of the initial reaction by various courts to such statutes. In early 1967, two New York cases held that the New York law requiring the wearing of helmets was unconstitutional.In People v. Smallwood, a local level trial court held that such a statute takes from the individual his right to exercise his judgment in the use of personal adornment, a right which, according to the court,cannot be waived. In People v. Carmichael, another local court defined the police power of the state as the power to regulate the conduct of one person so that his actions do not unreasonably restrict the rights of or endanger others. Concluding that a helmet-less driver or rider would not endanger the safety of others,the court found in the New York statute an attempt to enlarge the state's police power beyond federal constitutional bounds. In Everhardt v. City of New Orleans the Louisiana court of appeals held unconstitutional a city ordinance requiring helmets to be worn by all motorcyclists; this court found that the requirement was a denial of due process and equal protection.
The majority trend, however,has been to hold helmet statutes constitutional. The New York courts appear to have changed their view, and three recent local court cases -- People v. Bielmeyer, People v. Schmidt, and People v. Newhouse -- have held that the state has the right to regulate how riders and passengers of vehicles susceptible to special dangers should protect themselves on public property. |