Illegal to have things protruding from your helmet?

Advertise with us!
Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum

Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Blind Squirrel

Blind Squirrel

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
180
Location
Lexington, SC
I watched a video of a group of guys getting pulled over by a trooper. The trooper tells the guy wearing a GoPro on his helmet that it is a violation.



Further research led me to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 - Transportation, § 571.218 Standard No. 218; Motorcycle helmets, S5.5 Projections: A helmet shall not have any rigid projections inside its shell. Rigid projections outside any helmet's shell shall be limited to those required for operation of essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm).

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title49-vol6/xml/CFR-2011-title49-vol6-sec571-218.xml

So I guess if an officer wants to, they could site you for things like Bluetooth, GoPros, or any accessory affixed to the exterior of your helmet.

This is the same regulation that deals with the DOT symbol that everyone seems to know about.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whatever happened to Skully? Seems like that's what we really need.

Oh yeah - they closed up shop after lifting a lot of money from Kickstarter backers...

 
This thread could be entertaining. Just a reminder folks that politics (unless they're specifically about pending motorcycle legislation, laws and regulations) are uncool in these parts. And please keep it to the specific subject started by the OP....which is about FEDERAL regulations and this particular cop and jurisdiction ...not what happens in your state or local jurisdiction.

Thanks & pass the popcorn

The Management

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's very interesting and does bring into question most of our com systems. ANy idea just how old that section of vehicle code is? Perhaps a bit outdated and needs to be reexamined?

 
That video documents what I think was a "friendly intervention."

One with no plate. One doing wheelies. One broken away past officer's request to stop.

Note the officer told them that the heads up had been given down the road.

And seriously, does your plate ever fall off so you need to stow it in a back pack? That's just testosterone pack riding BS.

So ... they're lucky. You'd probably never get stopped for a Go Pro or communications device if you weren't in this sort of group.

 
Personally, I have no worries. My Schuberth Bluetooth is integrated into the neck roll of the helmet. I like it for aesthetics and aerodynamics.

 
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems a stretch for the Code to be applied to users of helmets.

As I read it, the code is directly addressing designers of helmets. It includes testing protocols, labeling, all dimensional requirements of any motorcycle helmet design, and similar aspects to control the design of the helmet. The Code appears to be solely about defining design aspects that make a helmet legal (or illegal) to be sold into the US market, and it is silent in regard to restriction upon users of said helmets. If the Code had a section with words to the effect that "Users may not alter the original design as described herein..." or "Users of helmets are under the same obligations as described herein...", then it would seem a valid offense that an LEO could identify.

https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/NoMigrate/fmvss218.htm, last modified October 1 1997.

The first 3 sections are copied here, verbatim:

S1. Scope. This standard establishes minimum performance requirements for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users.S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users resulting from head impacts.

S3. Application. This standard applies to all helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users.
Click to expand...
S1 and S3 both say "designed for use by...". S1 and S3 do not say "designed for use or as used by...".

I think a lawyer could get any such infringement dismissed (of course, with inconvenience and cost).

 
I think you'll lose. All that says is that if a helmet has been designed for use by motorcyclists, then the standard applies to the helmet.

I doubt that this statute is used for anything other than harassment of pack riding young men on sporty bikes.

FWIW, the regulation makes sense if you're sliding along the ground. Anything that can snag your helmet can break your neck.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The cop is citing a federal reg. As Toro points out, it's for designers of helmets:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.218

If there's no local ordinance or state or local statute then I don't think the cops would be able to charge anything. It would literally be the same as charging someone for wearing a helmet without the DOT sticker being "horizontally centered on the label, in letters not less than 0.38 inch (1.0 cm) high" also required by the reg. And no federal prosecutor in the world would give a shit about any of this anyway....

Appears to be a very bored cop with a dubious reason for stopping bikers.

 
As a guess without doing any research into state helmet laws (I'm retired), the key is probably a state law, as Spud notes (which could incorporate or rely upon the Fed Regs and Codes).

E.g., it's possible that a court's interpretation of the Reg cited here is that a helmet not only cannot be certified and labeled as in compliance with DOT requirements, but IS NOT in compliance with those regulations if it has been modified in any way that is contrary to the Fed Reg. Wearing a noncompliant beanie (like a pirate) or using a Sawzall to cut vents in a once compliant helmet are probably not much different.

So in that case, then IF a state law requires a rider to wear a helmet that complies with the specified Fed Reg (i.e., DOT cert. requirements), there's the Fed basis for a citable offense.

Just speculating, but some states' laws do refer to Fed requirements, certifications and stickers for such things as emissions equipment, so that modifying the exhaust system or installing aftermarket exhaust systems is deemed a citable offense because the registered owner is not in compliance with the Fed Reg that the state law relies upon.

EDIT TO ADD: I imagine that the issue of how enthusiastically these things are enforced mostly depends on factors such as perceived hooliganism, the LEO's mood and the riders' attitudes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm with El Toro - he used some obscure law to give these guys a bit of penalty for being total dicks.

If GoPro and BlueTooth devices were an issue, Deals Gap and many other roads in my area would be shut down by the line of motorcycles waiting to receive their award every weekend.

 
eflyguy said:
I'm with El Toro - he used some obscure law to give these guys a bit of penalty for being total dicks.
If GoPro and BlueTooth devices were an issue, Deals Gap and many other roads in my area would be shut down by the line of motorcycles waiting to receive their award every weekend.
Click to expand...
I don't think this bunch was being dicks. They did a few things earlier, but based on the content of the video, they were a fairly sedate group. I think the cop can stop them for any reason. In the video, the guy said the cop did not cite them for any of the violations. They may use it as an "ace in the hole" in case they want to get you for SOMETHING, sort of like having something hanging from the rear view mirror of your car.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Georgia State Patrolman with nothing better to do? You gotta be kidding me. He should be out looking for Interstate bridges on fire.

I don't follow "Southern Biker", but most of the metro Atlanta vloggers are not hoons. They're trying to make a living from their vlogs, so they (mostly) behave. Note that they ALL pulled over, despite not knowing who's getting the ticket. No backtalk, lots of "sir", and everybody chill.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It looks like three of them kept going. That is not really the point of this thread though. Watching the video is what lead me to the Federal Regulation, which (to me) indicates that having anything protruding more than .20 inches (5MM), is a violation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did some research. Note that I am not an attorney.

From 49 CFR 571.218, section 5.5: "Projections. A helmet shall not have any rigid projections inside its shell. Rigid projections outside any helmet's shell shall be limited to those required for operation of essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm)."

What's important here is that 49 CFR 571.128 is for helmet MANUFACTURERS, and lays out the requirements they must meet in order to achieve DOT certification for the helmets they MANUFACTURE. Standard 218 has nothing whatsoever to do with helmet purchasers or helmet wearers.

All of Part 571 is "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards". Standard 218 is about motorcycle helmets, and lists the testing, construction materials, and even the labels required to warn the purchaser of .... well, all the things the Feds feel a need to warn folks about when they buy a motorcycle helmet.

Want to find this section of the Code of Federal Regulations and read it for yourself? Click here. Scroll to the bottom of the first page that magically appears.

<edit, two mins later> For those on this Forum that talk about "US head shape", maybe you should scroll through to Table 2 and take a gander at THAT.

<edit, five mins later> Shit. My research was already covered in earlier posts. I am such an epic failure ......
sadsmiley.gif
.... tequila shots may help me overcome this feeling of inferiority. Let's find out!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, what are these guys going to do when it gets out there that it is possibly illegal to have anything protruding from the helmet?

Mohawks

Pigtails

Spikes

etc.

https://www.helmetsinc.com/mohawks/

Does it also mean that helmet cams are still illegal in places where helmets aren't even required? Tell the cop it isn't a helmet but a very bulky set of safety glasses for riding. No laws for cameras and other stuff attached to safety glasses.

 

Latest posts

Top