OFF THE WIRE
SOUTH CAROLINA:
http://florence-myrtlebeach.injuryboard.com/motorcycle-accidents/sc-supreme-court-invalidates-myrtle-beach-helmet-ordinance.aspx?googleid=282162 S.C. Supreme Court Invalidates Myrtle Beach Helmet Ordinance Brad Hewett Contributor Posted by Brad Hewett June 11, 2010 9:25 AM The South Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled that Myrtle Beach’s motorcycle helmet law is invalid. The Court found that the Helmet Ordinance is preempted by State law and that the city impliedly repealed the law itself when it repealed its own administrative court ordinance. The state law provides that riders younger than 21 must wear helmets but does not a similar requirement for older riders.
City Attorney Tom Ellenburg provided that the helmet law’s repeal will take effect immediately and that an order will be issued that the municipal court dismiss all pending helmet tickets, that all records be expunged for those who have received tickets and paid fines, and that all fines paid be returned to the people who paid them.
Myrtle Beach passed the helmet law in 2008 as part of a package of ordinances designed to gain control over the May motorcycle rallies, which attracted nearly 500,000 people to the area at times. The rallies reported double-digit drops in attendance following the ordinance.
“It is regrettable that the city of Myrtle Beach felt the need to alienate motorcyclists with the law, especially since motorcyclists had supported businesses in Myrtle Beach for years during rallies,” said Ed Moreland, American Motorcyclist Association senior vice president for government relations. “But we’re pleased that the South Carolina Supreme Court struck down the Myrtle Beach law, sending a clear message to all jurisdictions that discriminatory laws against motorcyclists are unacceptable.”
South Carolina’s high court issued the ruling in response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of riders who were ticketed for riding without helmets shortly after the new law went into effect.
To read the opinion, visit http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=26825.
