Motorcycles - Protective Headgear Requirement - Exception (In Remembrance of Gary "Pappy" Boward)
Summary
SB 195 would create a new exception to Maryland’s motorcycle helmet law. Under current law, a person may not operate or ride on a motorcycle without protective headgear that meets state standards. This bill would allow an individual who is at least 21 years old to ride without a helmet if the person has been licensed to operate a motorcycle for at least two years or has completed an approved motorcycle rider safety course. The exception would also extend to a passenger riding with a qualifying operator. The bill is titled in remembrance of Gary “Pappy” Boward.
The bill also makes conforming changes to the Transportation Article provisions governing motorcycle eye protection and the treatment of helmet nonuse in civil litigation. It preserves the rule that failure to wear required headgear cannot be used as evidence of negligence or contributory negligence, cannot reduce recovery, and generally cannot be referenced in unrelated civil trials. It keeps intact the ability to bring product-liability claims involving defective helmets and the requirement for separate trials when helmet-defect claims are joined with other defendants.
Impact
SB 195 would amend Section 21-1306 of the Transportation Article to narrow the universal motorcycle helmet requirement by adding an age-, experience-, and training-based exemption. If enacted, Maryland law would no longer require protective headgear for all motorcycle operators and riders, but would instead permit helmetless riding for qualifying adults and their passengers. The bill would not change the existing eye-protection or windscreen requirements, and it would leave the civil-liability protections around helmet nonuse largely unchanged. The act would take effect October 1, 2026.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive in framing. The measure is presented as a targeted exception rather than a broad repeal of safety rules, and its title suggests a commemorative purpose. No opposition or formal support is documented in the supplied context, so there is no clear evidence of legislative controversy from the available record.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be motorcycle safety versus personal choice. Supporters would likely view the bill as a limited freedom-based exception for experienced adult riders who have either substantial licensing history or formal safety training, while opponents would likely argue that removing helmet requirements increases the risk of serious injury and death for riders and passengers. A secondary issue is whether the passenger exemption is appropriate when the passenger may not independently meet the same experience or training criteria. The bill also preserves existing litigation rules, so there is little apparent dispute over the civil-liability provisions themselves.
State Boards, Committees, Commissions, Task Forces, and Workgroups - Elimination of Citizenship Requirements and Establishment of Diversity Requirements
State Boards, Committees, Commissions, Task Forces, and Workgroups - Elimination of Citizenship Requirements and Establishment of Diversity Requirements