Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3510 (2026)

Pedalcycle helmets for certain persons.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 3510. Pedalcycle helmets for certain persons.

(a) General rule.--A person under 12 years of age shall not operate a pedalcycle or ride as a passenger on a pedalcycle unless the person is wearing a pedalcycle helmet meeting the standards of the American National Standards Institute, the American Society for Testing and Materials, the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standards for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling or any other nationally recognized standard for pedalcycle helmet approval. This subsection shall also apply to a person who rides:

(1) upon a pedalcycle while in a restraining seat attached to a pedalcycle; or

(2) in a trailer towed by a pedalcycle.

(b) Helmet to be labeled.--Any helmet sold or offered for sale for use by operators and passengers of pedalcycles shall be labeled in accordance with the standard described in subsection (a), which shall constitute the manufacturer's certification that the helmet conforms to the applicable safety standards.

(b.1) Sale of helmet.--No person shall sell or offer for sale for use by an operator or passenger of a pedalcycle a helmet which is not of a type meeting the requirements established by this section.

(b.2) Waiver of fine.--If a person receives a citation issued by the proper authority for violation of subsection (a), a magisterial district judge, magistrate or judge shall dismiss the charges if the person prior to or at the person's hearing displays evidence of acquisition of a helmet meeting the standards prescribed in subsection (a) to such magisterial district judge, magistrate or judge. Sufficient evidence shall include a receipt mailed to the appropriate court officer which evidences purchase or transfer of such a helmet from another helmet owner, evidenced by a notarized letter.

(b.3) Exemption.--This section shall not apply to a child under 12 years of age who can produce a statement from the family's church authorities attesting that it is against the tenets of the family's religion to wear a helmet.

(c) Civil actions.--In no event shall a violation or alleged violation of subsection (a) be used as evidence in a trial of any civil action; nor shall any jury in a civil action be instructed that any conduct did constitute or could be interpreted by them to constitute a violation of subsection (a); nor shall failure to use a pedalcycle helmet be considered as contributory negligence nor shall failure to use a pedalcycle helmet be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action.

(d) Penalty.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, any violation of subsection (a) is punishable by a fine, including all penalties, assessments and court costs imposed on the convicted person not to exceed $25. The parent or legal guardian having control or custody of a person under 12 years of age whose conduct violates this section shall be jointly and severally liable with the person for the amount of the fine imposed.

(e) Definitions.--As used in this section, the term "wearing a pedalcycle helmet" means having a pedalcycle helmet of good fit fastened securely upon the head with the helmet straps.

(July 19, 1991, P.L.88, No.20, eff. 90 days; Dec. 28, 1994, P.L.1441, No.170, eff. 60 days; Dec. 15, 1995, P.L.655, No.72, eff. 60 days; Nov. 30, 2004, P.L.1618, No.207, eff. 60 days)

2004 Amendment. Act 207 amended subsec. (b.2). See section 29 of Act 207 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to construction of law.

Cross References. Section 3510 is referred to in sections 3513, 3582 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1991–2003 · leading case: Nykiel v. Heyl, 838 A.2d 808 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nykiel v. Heyl, 838 A.2d 808 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). · cites it 3× “¶ 13 Although Appellee does make a reasonably convincing argument that the evidence was relevant to prove the propositions stated, we believe that 75 Pa.C.S. § 3510(c) precludes introduction of this evidence.”

East v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 828 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 2003). “out of the performance of his or its duty under this act in fighting a fire after entering State premises on proper request” Query: could this obligation reasonably be interpreted to include free legal assistance when the fire company is the defendant in a workers' compensation…”

Cory v. Stroudsburg Area Sch. Auth., 13 Pa. D. & C.4th 27 (1991). “Prior to enactment of Act 20 of 1991, 75 Pa.C.S. §3510, the legislature required only motorcyclists to use helmets.”

Livesay v. Dick, 13 Pa. D. & C.4th 70 (1991). “Prior to enactment of Act 20 of 1991, 75 Pa.C.S. §3510, the legislature required only motorcyclists to use helmets.”

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3510(c) — 2 cases

Nykiel v. Heyl, 838 A.2d 808 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). “¶ 13 Although Appellee does make a reasonably convincing argument that the evidence was relevant to prove the propositions stated, we believe that 75 Pa.C.S. § 3510(c) precludes introduction of this evidence.”

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.