 |
FReeper Motorcycle Hooligans |
| Visit the FMH Swag Store & support FR! | |
| Send FReepmail if you want on/off FMH list | |
| The List of Ping Lists | |
Posted on 06/09/2010 7:42:00 AM PDT by martin_fierro
Myrtle Beach helmet law quashed
High court backs state standard
By Lorena Anderson - landerson@thesunnews.com
The S.C. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Tuesday that the city's helmet law is invalid, saying that the state has already answered the question of who must wear motorcycle helmets, and that the city of Myrtle Beach doesn't get to make that decision.
"I love it. I think it's awesome," said motorcyclist Anthony Spinnato of Myrtle Beach.
The S.C. Supreme Court today unanimously ruled Myrtle Beach's motorcycle helmet law is invalid because it is superseded by state law.
But also, the court said it found the city impliedly repealed the law itself when it repealed its own administrative court ordinance after the court's chief justices opined that was unconstitutional.
The decision was posted moments ago on the court's website.
The five South Carolina Supreme Court justices had questions for all sides of the Myrtle Beach helmet lawsuits heard Wednesday, but so far have offered no opinion on whether the controversial law will stand.
During two hearings related to the issue Wednesday, they questioned attorneys supporting and opposing the city's right to pass a local motorcycle helmet law, as Myrtle Beach did in 2008. The law was one in a series of ordinances designed to push the May motorcycle rallies outside city limits after years of complaints from residents about traffic, noise and lewd behavior.
The controversy over Myrtle Beach's helmet law for bikers reaches the state Supreme Court today.
Beginning at 3 p.m., the S.C. Supreme Court will hear arguments for and against Myrtle Beach's motorcycle helmet law.
The state is taking up the cases of Bart Viers and Business Owners Organized to Support Tourism vs. The City of Myrtle Beach, and Aakjer, et al., vs. The City of Myrtle Beach.
Bikers coming to Myrtle Beach for annual rallies can once again ride their motorcycles without helmets or eyewear.
The South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously ruled Tuesday that the city cannot mandate the protective gear in the absence of a state law. The Myrtle Beach city council adopted the ordinance in 2008 after years of complaints from residents about noise, lewd behavior and congestion along the 60-mile Grand Strand, and the helmet ban had an almost immediate effect: rallies saw double-digit percentage drops in attendance last spring.
Individual cities each making distinctive rules on helmets and eyewear would lead to chaos for motorcycle riders, the justices ruled.
Of the five motorcycle rally related lawsuits filed against Myrtle Beach, a recent court ruling has left only two moving ahead.
According to U.S. District Court records, Judge Terry Wooten has dismissed local business owner Don Emery's suit for lack of action.
The suit - filed in October 2008 on behalf of Emery, the Dog House, The Steel Horse Saloon, Maximus Entertainment [The Masters Club] and Sonny Copeland, a North Carolina motorcycle rally promoter - contended many of the city's rally related ordinances violated free enterprise and interstate commerce laws and the U.S. Constitution, among other arguments. The suit took exception to the helmet ordinance, though Wooten declined to order a temporary injunction to stop the city from enforcing that law in spring 2009.
In its decision, the court said the need for uniformity in the traffic regulations is strong.
"Were local authorities allowed to enforce individual helmet ordinances, riders would need to familiarize themselves with the various ordinances in advance of a trip, so as to ensure compliance," Justice Costa M. Pleicones wrote in his opinion. "... local authorities might enact ordinances imposing additional and even conflicting equipment requirements. Such burdens would unduly limit a citizen's freedom of movement throughout the state."
City Attorney Tom Ellenburg said the helmet law's repeal takes effect immediately. He said he will issue an order for the municipal court to dismiss all pending helmet tickets, that records be expunged for those who have received tickets and paid fines, and that all fines be returned to the people who paid them.
City spokesman Mark Kruea said 389 tickets have been issued since the helmet-eyewear law took effect in February 2009 - one of several rules the city approved in 2008 to push the May bike rallies outside the city. Some of the tickets were dismissed and some were adjudicated, he said, while some were on hold pending the Supreme Court's ruling. He said the information on how many of the $100 fines were paid was not available Tuesday. Kruea said the process of expunging records will involve regular staff time, and refunding fines will cost the city less than $200 for postage. The city paid about $64,000 to defend itself in the lawsuit. By Tuesday afternoon, the city's sign shop had already replaced the words "helmets required" on signs at the city's borders with the words "helmets encouraged."
"A unanimous ruling says a lot," said Robert Kelley, founding member of Business Owners Organized to Support Tourism.
Though the court issued the ruling in response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of nearly 50 people ticketed for riding without helmets during a protest on the first day the helmet law took effect, BOOST had joined a second lawsuit filed by ticketed rider Bart Viers, both represented by attorney and S.C. House majority whip Thad Viers. Both lawsuits went before the Supreme Court on Feb. 3.
"This is a nation of laws, not men," said BOOST spokesman Tom Herron. "We don't pass laws that we think are unconstitutional just to accomplish an end. I object to that kind of government."
The justices' ruling does not use the word unconstitutional.
"The fact is, we were right, the city was wrong," Kelley said.
Thad Viers could not be reached for comment.
Myrtle Beach passed the helmet law in 2008 as part of a package of ordinances designed to gain control over the May Harley-Davidson and sport bike rallies, which had drawn about 500,000 people to the area in peak years. The city's goal was to push the rallies outside city limits after years of listening to residents complain about noise, trash and lewd behavior.
The helmet law has been by far the most controversial rule the city passed. It generated several lawsuits by people who said the ordinance could not stand because it supersedes state law, which says people younger than 21 must wear helmets, but makes no requirement for people 21 or older.
All the other lawsuits have either been dropped or dismissed by lower courts.
The high court also said it found the city had repealed the helmet law itself by implication when it repealed its own administrative court ordinance after the court's chief justice opined that it was unconstitutional.
Tuesday's ruling also affected ordinances 2008--61--67, invalidating those that are attached to the administrative court ordinance. The city had already amended 2008--61, 63 and 65 - the rules dealing with hotel check-in procedure, parking-lot parties and parking oversize vehicles on city streets - making violations of those rules into misdemeanors. The council said it will amend the others at the next council meeting in two weeks.
The court traditionally issues rulings on Mondays, but Clerk of the Court Daniel Shearouse said the decision was finalized too late to make Monday's "book" of rulings that is prepared every Monday morning.
"All I know is it came too late for the book, but [the justices] knew there is some public interest, so they asked us to get it out today," Shearouse said Tuesday.
Many people have said the ruling didn't matter, because the city got what it wanted. Last year, the rallies' attendance was far below peak years, though rally organizers have acknowledged that attendance was slowly declining anyway.
Spinnato said he doesn't think big crowds will return to Myrtle Beach. Many of the people who chose to boycott the city because of its decisions will still choose to do so, he said.
"They hurt too many people's feelings and damaged what they had with the biker community," he said. "The law has changed, but Myrtle Beach hasn't. The city doesn't want the rallies, and it doesn't want bikers, either."
Randy Smith, of The Weasels bike club in Murrells Inlet, agreed.
"You done burned your bridges," he said of the city.
Kelley, a hotelier in Horry County, said he has already gotten calls from regulars who want to come back next year now that they have heard about the ruling.
The Myrtle Beach City Council was philosophical about the loss.
"It's not going to change much," Mayor John Rhodes said. "We've already made it clear we don't support rallies and won't support rallies. We're very pleased that we had very few accidents and no deaths within the city this year during the rallies, and our residents were able to sleep and teachers were able to teach.
"And the bikers who did stay in the city and patronize our businesses respected our laws, our residents and our business community," he said. "That's all we've ever asked."
|
FReeper Motorcycle Hooligans |
| Visit the FMH Swag Store & support FR! | |
| Send FReepmail if you want on/off FMH list | |
| The List of Ping Lists | |
Law'n'Order: You can ride without a helmet if you like -- just don't expect the rest of us to foot your medical bills after a riding injury turns you into a vegetable.
Ironically, both are right.
A fact that was already known by virtually every person who had read the state law EXCEPT, apparently, the Myrtle Beach City Council.
I shudder to think what the Obama Health Care Barackracy is going to rule on head injuries caused by not wearing a helmet.
You forgot you only need to wear a helmet if you have some brains to protect.
IBTDCM
What I forgot was to mention the annoying posts beginning with, “You forgot...”
Ya, you did forget that didn’t you...
Now, if we could only get the seat belt laws invalidated across the country, that would be hugh!
It takes a real special kind of @sshole to live at Myrtle Beach and expect peace and quiet.
“The law was one in a series of ordinances designed to push the May motorcycle rallies outside city limits after years of complaints from residents about traffic, noise and lewd behavior. “
Hmmmm... didn’t read anything in that sentence about bikers ‘breaking the law’ during the rallies...
Wonder why? /s
What’s with these city idiots? There’s already a simple solution to the annoyances. Simply ticket and impound every bike with open drag pipes or open race cans. That would eliminate 90% of ‘em.
Excellent!
another solution. insurance companies don’t give polocies to non helmet riders and don’t pay for injuries incurred when injured without a helmet.
now the choice is fiscal responsibility vs individual freedom.
this would be a private company decision. I WOULD NOT SUPPORT the government, any government, doing this.
Ditto.
If Mayor Quigly insists on treating the bikers like lawless hooligans, I say give 'em hooligans.
Playing nice and flooding the town with cash sure didn't work.
Absolutely, but why stop with motorcycles? Requiring helmets in automobiles would protect far more people. I
That sounds like the basic framework of a pretty sensible solution. Question though- what’s the hospital supposed to do with a no-helmet, still-alive smashed head that comes into the ER? They’ll treat him, because that’s what they do. Who’s on the hook for the tab?
I’d be surprised if many of the no-helmets crew are independently wealthy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.