Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.37
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.37.530 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) It is unlawful:
(a) For any person to operate a motorcycle, moped, or motor-driven cycle not equipped with mirrors on the left and right sides which shall be so located as to give the driver a complete view of the highway for a distance of at least two hundred feet to the rear of the motorcycle, moped, or motor-driven cycle: PROVIDED, That mirrors shall not be required on any motorcycle or motor-driven cycle over twenty-five years old originally manufactured without mirrors and which has been restored to its original condition and which is being ridden to or from or otherwise in conjunction with an antique or classic motorcycle contest, show, or other such assemblage: PROVIDED FURTHER, That no mirror is required on any motorcycle manufactured prior to January 1, 1931;
(b) For any person to operate a motorcycle, moped, or motor-driven cycle which does not have a windshield unless wearing glasses, goggles, or a face shield of a type conforming to rules adopted by the state patrol;
(c) For any person to operate or ride upon a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or moped on a state highway, county road, or city street unless wearing upon his or her head a motorcycle helmet except when the vehicle is an antique motor-driven cycle or when the vehicle is equipped with all of the following:
(i) Steering wheel;
(ii) Seat belts that conform to standards prescribed under 49 C.F.R. Part 571; and
(iii) Partially or completely enclosed seating area for the driver and passenger that is certified by the manufacturer as meeting the standards prescribed under 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.216.
The motorcycle helmet neck or chin strap must be fastened securely while the motorcycle, moped, or motor-driven cycle is in motion. Persons operating electric-assisted bicycles and motorized foot scooters shall comply with all laws and regulations related to the use of bicycle helmets;
(d) For any person to transport a child under the age of five on a motorcycle or motor-driven cycle;
(e) For any person to sell or offer for sale a motorcycle helmet that does not meet the requirements established by this section.
(2) The state patrol may adopt and amend rules concerning standards for glasses, goggles, and face shields.
(3) For purposes of this section, "motorcycle helmet" means a protective covering for the head consisting of a hard outer shell, padding adjacent to and inside the outer shell, and a neck or chin strap type retention system, with the manufacturer's certification applied in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.218 indicating that the motorcycle helmet meets standards established by the United States department of transportation.
[ 2009 c 275 s 5; 2003 c 197 s 1; 1997 c 328 s 4; 1990 c 270 s 7. Prior: 1987 c 454 s 1; 1987 c 330 s 732; 1986 c 113 s 8; 1982 c 77 s 7; 1977 ex.s. c 355 s 55; 1971 ex.s. c 150 s 1; 1969 c 42 s 1; 1967 c 232 s 4.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule—IRLJ 6.2.
Short title—1990 c 270: See RCW 43.70.440.
Construction—Application of rules—Severability—1987 c 330: See notes following RCW 28B.12.050.
Severability—1982 c 77: See note following RCW 46.20.500.
Severability—1977 ex.s. c 355: See note following RCW 46.37.010.
Maximum height for handlebars: RCW 46.61.611.
Riding on motorcycles: RCW 46.61.610.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1969–2019 · leading case: State v. Maxwell, 74 Wash. App. 688 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Maxwell, 74 Wash. App. 688 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 10× “In 1990 the Legislature enacted the Head Injury Prevention Act, amending RCW 46.37.530 to require all persons riding motorcycles on the public highways to wear protective helmets: (1) It is unlawful: (c) For any person to operate or ride upon a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or…”
State v. Laitinen, 459 P.2d 789 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 6× “There thus exists a reasonably manifest connection between the use of protective helmets by motorcycle riders and the public health, welfare and safety.”
City of Bremerton v. Spears, 949 P.2d 347 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 4× “RCW 46.37.530. Each of the notices of infraction listed the fine as $66.”
City of Bremerton v. Spears, 134 Wash. 2d 141 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 4× “RCW 46.37.530. Each of the notices of infraction listed the fine as $66.”
State v. Zektzer, 533 P.2d 399 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 7× “On appeal to us, Zektzer’s principal contention is that RCW 46.37.530 (1) (c), which mandates the wearing of a helmet, “is devoid of public purpose and therefore violates the due process guarantee of the fourteenth and ninth amendments of the U.”
Commonwealth v. Hull, 705 A.2d 911 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “In Maxwell, the defendant was charged with violating a statute, RCW 46.37.530(1)(c), which required motorcyclists to wear approved protective headgear, because his helmet did not conform to the requirements of a Washington state patrol regulation, WAC 204-10-040.”
State v. Eckblad, 98 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 46.37.530, as implemented through WAC 204-10-040, fails to provide citizens with the fair notice required for due process.”
City of Kennewick v. Henricks, 927 P.2d 1143 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “Diven were cited in January and February 1995 for violation of RCW 46.37.530. Both men concede they were not wearing helmets of any kind when they were cited.”
State v. Davis, 126 P.3d 827 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “” Former RCW 46.37.530(l)(c) (emphasis added). The state patrol adopted Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 as the standard for protective helmets.”
State v. Eckblad, 98 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 46.37.530, as implemented *1189 through WAC 204-10-040, fails to provide citizens with the fair notice required for due process.”
Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Herrera (W.D. Wash. 2019). “CODE § 46.37.530 (“[p]ersons operating electric-assisted bicycles and motorized foot scooters shall comply with all laws and regulations related to the use of bicycle helmets” as compared to helmet requirements of motorcycle riders); WASH.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.37.530(1) — 1 case
State v. Zektzer, 533 P.2d 399 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “On appeal to us, Zektzer’s principal contention is that RCW 46.37.530 (1) (c), which mandates the wearing of a helmet, “is devoid of public purpose and therefore violates the due process guarantee of the fourteenth and ninth amendments of the U.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.37.530(1)(c) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Hull, 705 A.2d 911 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). “In Maxwell, the defendant was charged with violating a statute, RCW 46.37.530(1)(c), which required motorcyclists to wear approved protective headgear, because his helmet did not conform to the requirements of a Washington state patrol regulation, WAC 204-10-040.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.37.530(2) — 1 case
City of Kennewick v. Henricks, 927 P.2d 1143 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Diven were cited in January and February 1995 for violation of RCW 46.37.530. Both men concede they were not wearing helmets of any kind when they were cited.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.37.530(3) — 2 cases
State v. Laitinen, 459 P.2d 789 (Wash. 1969). “There thus exists a reasonably manifest connection between the use of protective helmets by motorcycle riders and the public health, welfare and safety.”
State v. Maxwell, 74 Wash. App. 688 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “In 1990 the Legislature enacted the Head Injury Prevention Act, amending RCW 46.37.530 to require all persons riding motorcycles on the public highways to wear protective helmets: (1) It is unlawful: (c) For any person to operate or ride upon a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.37.530(l)(c) — 4 cases
State v. Maxwell, 74 Wash. App. 688 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “In 1990 the Legislature enacted the Head Injury Prevention Act, amending RCW 46.37.530 to require all persons riding motorcycles on the public highways to wear protective helmets: (1) It is unlawful: (c) For any person to operate or ride upon a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or…”
Commonwealth v. Hull, 705 A.2d 911 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). “In Maxwell, the defendant was charged with violating a statute, RCW 46.37.530(1)(c), which required motorcyclists to wear approved protective headgear, because his helmet did not conform to the requirements of a Washington state patrol regulation, WAC 204-10-040.”
City of Kennewick v. Henricks, 927 P.2d 1143 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Diven were cited in January and February 1995 for violation of RCW 46.37.530. Both men concede they were not wearing helmets of any kind when they were cited.”
State v. Davis, 126 P.3d 827 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “” Former RCW 46.37.530(l)(c) (emphasis added). The state patrol adopted Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 as the standard for protective helmets.”
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.