PART IV.
SAFETY EQUIPMENT
Cross References
Neighborhood electric vehicles, see §291C-134.
Street rod vehicle requirements, see §286-26.5.
§286-81 Motorcycle, motor scooter, moped,
etc.; protective devices. (a) No person shall operate a motorcycle or
motor scooter, on any highway in the State unless the person and any passenger
the person carries on the motorcycle or motor scooter wears:
(1) Safety glasses, goggles, or a face shield, in the
case of a motorcycle or motor scooter that is not equipped with windscreens or
windshields; and
(2) Any other protective devices, other than a safety
helmet, required by rules adopted by the director.
For the purpose of meeting the requirements of this
subsection, a required device shall meet the specifications and requirements
established by rules adopted by the director.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), no person
shall operate a moped or motor scooter leased from a rental company on any
roadway in the State unless the person wears a safety helmet, which shall be
provided by the rental company unless the person provides the person's own
safety helmet; provided that this subsection shall not apply to persons who
possess a valid license under this chapter to operate a motorcycle or an
equivalent license issued from another state. To meet the requirements of this
subsection, the safety helmet shall meet the specifications and requirements
established by rules adopted by the director.
(c) In addition to the requirements of
subsection (b), no person shall lease or rent a motorcycle or motor scooter to
another person unless the person furnishes:
(1) Safety glasses, goggles, or a face shield, in the
case of a motorcycle or motor scooter that is not equipped with windscreens or
windshields; and
(2) Any other protective devices required by the
rules adopted by the director for the use of the person or persons intending to
operate or ride as a passenger on the motorcycle or motor scooter; provided
that any person to whom a motorcycle or motor scooter is leased or rented may
furnish for the person's own use the protective devices required by this part.
For the purposes of meeting the requirements of this
subsection, a required device shall meet the specifications and requirements
established by rules adopted by the director.
(d) No person shall sell, offer for sale, or
furnish any safety helmet, safety glasses, goggles, face shield, windscreen,
windshield, or other protective devices represented to meet the requirements of
this part unless the device meets the specifications and requirements
established by rules adopted by the director.
(e) No person less than eighteen years of age
shall operate or ride as a passenger on a motorcycle or motor scooter on any
highway in the State unless the person wears a safety helmet securely fastened
with a chin strap.
(f) A safety helmet shall not be required for
any person who operates or rides as a passenger on a motorcycle or motor
scooter; provided that the motorcycle or motor scooter:
(1) Has three wheels;
(2) Is powered by an electric motor;
(3) Has a roll bar, roll cage, or full body enclosed
cab; and
(4) Has a seat belt assembly or a child restraint
system for the driver and passenger;
and the operator and passenger uses the seat belt or
child restraint system pursuant to sections 291-11.5 and 291-11.6. [L 1967, c
214, pt of §2; HRS §286-81; am L 1968, c 48, §2(d); am L 1977, c 183, §1; am L
Sp 1977 1st, c 20, §12; gen ch 1985; am L 1994, c 120, §2; am L 2021, c 130, §2
and c 214, §5; am L 2025, c 222, §1]
Cross References
Additional prohibitions regarding minors, see §291-11.
Rulemaking, see chapter 91.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1970–2000 · leading case:
State v. Mallan, 950 P.2d 178 (Haw. 1998).
State v. Mallan, 950 P.2d 178 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 30× “The Lee majority took notice of the legislature's expressly stated purpose in first enacting HRS § 286-81: Deaths of persons and injuries to them and damage to property with the other losses suffered on account of highway traffic accidents are of grave concern to the State and…”
State v. Cotton, 516 P.2d 709 (Haw. 1973).
· cites it 38× “The defendant attacks the constitutionality of the portion of HRS § 286-81, requiring a motorcyclist to wear a helmet on the ground that the wearing of a protective helmet is only for an individual's own personal safety and, therefore, is not a reasonable exercise of the State's…”
State v. Lee, 465 P.2d 573 (Haw. 1970).
· cites it 20× “" This concept should not be extended to uphold the constitutionality of HRS § 286-81 (1) (A). It appears that the majority, in upholding the constitutionality of the statute, is adopting the concept that an individual's liberty the right to be let alone may be abridged or…”
State v. Cotton, 516 P.2d 715 (Haw. 1973).
· cites it 10× “Cotton, was charged with and convicted of, operating a motorcycle without goggles or face shield in violation of HRS § 286-81 (1) (B). 1 He appealed from the judgment and sentence entered.”
Kealoha v. Cnty. of Hawaii, 844 P.2d 670 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 2× “7 In 1977, Act 183 specifically deleted the helmet requirement for motorcyclists from HRS § 286-81. The Senate standing committee reporting on the bill, which became Act 183, stated that the fatality rate for motorcycle accidents nationwide had remained constant, despite the…”
State v. Kelekolio, 14 P.3d 364 (Haw. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “apply to the director of finance of the county where the *358 vehicle is to be operated, for the registration thereof”); HRS § 286-81(a) (Supp.1999) ("[n]o person shall .”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 286-81(1): 3 cases
State v. Mallan, 950 P.2d 178 (Haw. 1998).
“The Lee majority took notice of the legislature's expressly stated purpose in first enacting HRS § 286-81: Deaths of persons and injuries to them and damage to property with the other losses suffered on account of highway traffic accidents are of grave concern to the State and…”
State v. Lee, 465 P.2d 573 (Haw. 1970).
“" This concept should not be extended to uphold the constitutionality of HRS § 286-81 (1) (A). It appears that the majority, in upholding the constitutionality of the statute, is adopting the concept that an individual's liberty the right to be let alone may be abridged or…”
State v. Cotton, 516 P.2d 709 (Haw. 1973).
“The defendant attacks the constitutionality of the portion of HRS § 286-81, requiring a motorcyclist to wear a helmet on the ground that the wearing of a protective helmet is only for an individual's own personal safety and, therefore, is not a reasonable exercise of the State's…”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 286-81(1)(A): 2 cases
State v. Cotton, 516 P.2d 709 (Haw. 1973).
“The defendant attacks the constitutionality of the portion of HRS § 286-81, requiring a motorcyclist to wear a helmet on the ground that the wearing of a protective helmet is only for an individual's own personal safety and, therefore, is not a reasonable exercise of the State's…”
State v. Mallan, 950 P.2d 178 (Haw. 1998).
“The Lee majority took notice of the legislature's expressly stated purpose in first enacting HRS § 286-81: Deaths of persons and injuries to them and damage to property with the other losses suffered on account of highway traffic accidents are of grave concern to the State and…”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 286-81(a): 1 case
State v. Kelekolio, 14 P.3d 364 (Haw. App. 2000).
“apply to the director of finance of the county where the *358 vehicle is to be operated, for the registration thereof”); HRS § 286-81(a) (Supp.1999) ("[n]o person shall .”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 286-81(b): 1 case
State v. Kelekolio, 14 P.3d 364 (Haw. App. 2000).
“apply to the director of finance of the county where the *358 vehicle is to be operated, for the registration thereof”); HRS § 286-81(a) (Supp.1999) ("[n]o person shall .”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 286-81(l)(A): 1 case
State v. Mallan, 950 P.2d 178 (Haw. 1998).
“The Lee majority took notice of the legislature's expressly stated purpose in first enacting HRS § 286-81: Deaths of persons and injuries to them and damage to property with the other losses suffered on account of highway traffic accidents are of grave concern to the State and…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.