People under age 21 would be required to wear helmets when driving mopeds on public property — changing the way moped retailers like Robert Sato conduct their business — under Senate Bill 30.
The Senate disagrees with changes that the House made to SB 30, meaning the differences could be resolved in a joint House-Senate conference committee in the final days of the legislative session.
SB 30 also would raise the legal age to drive a moped, from 15 to 16.
Sato, co-founder of Moped Doctors located on King Street, would be particularly affected by SB 30 because many of the shop’s customers are college students at the University of Hawaii,
located 10 minutes away.
Many students at UH are under age 21 and choose to ride mopeds for their ease and affordability.
“We would have to start stocking a lot more helmets,” Sato told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser as he cleaned his work space after his lunch break. “We’d have to ask for ID and sell them to those under 21.”
Sato chooses to wear a helmet, but knows that not all moped riders do.
“We aren’t the big boys on the road, we’re most vulnerable to injury,” he said.
But “about 80 to 90%” of customers who visit the shop for repairs or safety checks choose not to wear helmets, making Sato skeptical of how many would comply if the bill becomes law.
“I don’t think it’s realistic to say that it would be immediately enforceable,” he said.
SB 30 doesn’t detail any penalties for people under 21 who continue riding without a helmet, leaving it unclear if police would issue tickets.
Without the ability to immediately know a rider’s age, Sato asked, “Are they going to randomly pull
over everyone without a
helmet?”
Violations would mean “fines for a community of people who are already disadvantaged,” he said.
Many moped owners are “the most strapped for cash people on this island.”
Sato submitted testimony opposing the original version of SB 30, which would have affected people of any age, writing that the law was “overreaching” and unrealistic and taking away personal choice.
Now, Sato said he “somewhat” supports SB 30, because it targets what he considers a more reasonable age group.
“Traditionally, people 21 and under have been a higher risk category. … Those people statistically get into more accidents.”
Still, he believes that the public should be given time to understand the new law, if passed, before anyone can be held legally responsible.
“I agree with the phased rollout of that,” he said.
Some people are concerned with how SB 30 might affect moped rental companies.
Robert Pitman submitted testimony opposing SB 30, warning that it would
financially burden moped rental companies.
Requiring rental companies to supply helmets would mean “increasing
operational costs,” Pitman wrote.
Kevin Oberhofer also reflected a concern for moped rental companies in his testimony in opposition to SB 30.
Requiring helmet use, Oberhofer wrote, could
“deter visitors seeking the freedom and convenience these vehicles offer, potentially leading to a decline in rentals and associated
revenues.”
The state Department of Transportation submitted testimony in support of SB 30 that highlighted the risks of riding without a helmet.
“According to the Hurt Study, the use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention or reduction of head injury,” according to DOT’s testimony.
DOT cited data from
2023 that showed 11 moped crashes involved riders without helmets that resulted in serious injuries.
“Among the unhelmeted riders, 7 of the 11 sustained head and face injuries,” DOT wrote.
Olivia Heltsley agreed with the DOT’s stance in testimony that she submitted to support SB 30.
“The Hawaii State Department of Transportation
reports 13 deaths of motorcycles, motor scooters, or moped riders on the roads in 2023,” Heltsley wrote.
Under SB 30, “there would be a decrease in moped fatalities, reduced medical
expenses of moped drivers due to less head injuries, and (it) shortens the burden on emergency responders to arrive at brutal moped accidents,” Heltsley wrote.
Thomas Baptiste submitted testimony in opposition to SB 30, although he acknowledged the risk of
injury.
“Forcing helmet use in all situations ignores the fact that responsible riders already take precautions based on their own risk
assessment.”
Opposing the bill, for Baptiste, represents individuals’ right to choose.
“A law like SB 30 sets a precedent for unnecessary government interference in personal choices,” he wrote.
