Court Opinion

ID: 9723290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:10:29.554522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:46.648386
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(concurring). There is substantial evidence, as set forth in the opinion of the Court, that the wearing of helmets by motorcyclists tends to reduce loss of life and the severity of injury in traffic accidents.
The ordinance, therefore, benefits not only cyclists but also drivers of other vehicles who collide with them and who may be required to respond civilly or criminally for resultant death or injury.
The government may regulate competing uses of the highways, and to this end may reasonably require that helmets be worn with a view to mitigating potential civil and criminal liability of drivers who collide with motorcycles, although the regulation may also reflect a paternalistic concern for cyclists who prefer to assume the risk of not wearing them.
Since this legislation is a reasonable regulation of conflict arising from competing interests of societal groups, there is no need to advert to the question of regulation of a minority in a situation where the character of the legislation is not defined by the societal conflict which it regulates.