|
AGE
REQUIREMENT +
INSURANCE MOTORCYCLE
HELMET LAW IN
FLORIDA |
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,
eff. 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
1.
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).
2.
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.
3.
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
vengness 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"
Sanfelipo
WEBSITES:
|
