I don't want to start another helmet debate (there are enough of those) but I'm wondering about the enforceability of local mandatory helmet laws.

The article:
City of St. Charles requires bike helmets for kids 15 and under (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/1647C60866AA2C3186257190001CE57C?OpenDocument)
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH - 06/18/2006

got me wondering about the legality of local helmet laws that would seem to conflict with state law.

I'm especially wondering how a community can enforce a mandatory helmet law against an adult, especially an adult who doesn't live in that municipality.

From the article:
"At least 26 municipalities in St. Louis County have such laws. So does St. Louis County for its unincorporated areas..."

"Some communities, such as Town and Country, impose the requirements on adults as well. Town and Country also forgives its fine if a violator buys a helmet and shows the city a sales receipt."

How in Sam Hill can a city require someone passing through that city to have equipment not required by state law?

Missouri has no state helmet law for children or adults.
State law specifically gives municipalities the right establish some local traffic regulations (set speed limits on some roads, one way streets, etc.) but I don't see where it gives municipalities the right to add to vehicle equipment requirements.

How can that Town and Country law stand up in court?

Even the St. Charles law seem a little suspect:

"Police have yet to announce how it will be enforced..."

"Chief Tim Swope says... he expects that officers who encounter kids without helmets will simply contact parents to tell them about the new law."

I wonder what would happen if a parent challenged the fine.

And another thing:
The St. Charles law authorizes fines of as much as $50 for parents of children caught riding without helmets. How can that be when, if I'm reading it correctly, state laws sets a maximum fine for an equipment violation of $25?

Are these laws are enforceable or are these municipalities just blowing smoke?

Unless the state law specifically says that adults do not have to wear helmets ("no person over 15 shall be required to wear a helmet in any municipality within this state"), there's no conflict. Cities can impose laws that are more strict than state.

EDIT: Oh, I see you're talking about vehicle requirements. You're right, from that angle, it seems odd, but it also sounds perfectly legal to me. Don't lots of cities do it? I know Austin did, although neither Texas nor Travis County did.

The local authorities who write these laws are generally either ignorant of the fact that one can ride a bike from one city to another, or don't care what hardship that local equipment requirements cause for people traveling from outside the municipality. Local ordinances requiring registration, bells, or other equipment not requried in neighboring towns are unfortunately common for bicycles. By contrast, a NC court ruled unconstitutional a city ordinance that required taxi cabs traveling to or through the city from outside to have a local city registration. The court ruled that this kind of local regulation unreasonably restricted the right to travel due to the potential number of regulations and registrations that would affect through travelers, making taxi travel over significant distances impossible.

I can't speak for communities in the U.S., but up here in Toronto there is a provincial law that states childen must wear a helmet (although I have never heard of it being enforced) and any regulation requiring an adult to wear a helmet, at least locally, would be a by-law enforcable by by-law enforcement officers only, because police won't go near a by-law infraction if their life depended on it. The great thing is you can never find a by-law enforcement officer and when you do, they're only after bars and restaurants violating the strict no-smoking policy we have here. Me and my helmetless bald head are safe.

The great thing is you can never find a by-law enforcement officer and when you do, they're only after bars and restaurants violating the strict no-smoking policy we have here.

Even as a wearer of helmets, I think many more deaths are prevented with the above-noted enforcement policy.

I'd still like to see more emphasis on kids helmet use though. It's a bit surreal when I see a bunch of helmetless 5-year olds wobbling down the street as I cruise through with my full-face on.

All i know is that local laws are trumped by higher laws (city trumped by state state by federal etc) Normally this is the case. Im old enough to remember when seat belts laws started being put in to place by some local cities prior to country wide laws and state laws. Cities could legallyenforce these laws because they had studies showing seat belts saved lives. A city could argue that the helmet law is for your protection and safty and point at the dozens of studies out there. You could counter argue that other studies do not show that helmets save lives and go on a nice circular arguement.


Best bet dont own a helmet go buy one from wally world for 20 bucks and carry it with you on a seat mounted rack. Personaly i use mine all the time any how law or no law.

California law requires helmets for bicyclists and skaters under 18 and is at least occasionally enforced.* I am not aware of any municipalities with more stringent requirements, such as mandatory helmet laws for adults.

___
This strikes me as a reasonable compromise. Raise kids to put on helmets (or buckle seatbelts, for that matter) to maturity, then give them a free choice as adults.