Place an Ad | Subscribe | Advertise With Us

Myrtle Beach council makes final decision about rallies

Text size: small | medium | large

By Thema Ponton
WBTW News 13 Reporter
Published: September 23, 2008

Myrtle Beach city council approved 15 ordinances designed to curtail the May bike rallies.

The ordinances brought about some spirited discussion from both council members and some people who showed up to hear council’s final decision.

Council talked about the laws in their Tuesday morning workshop and then passed them later in the afternoon at their meeting.

WHAT WAS PASSED

Read more about the ordinances in the official agenda for last night’s city council meeting, click here

All of the ordinances except one passed unanimously.

An ordinance requiring helmets and protective eyewear passed 5 to 1.

Councilman Randal Wallace voted against the ordinance.

Other ordinances include a curfew for teenagers under 18, a 2 a.m. bar closing, and an ordinance regulating the noise from motorcycles.

Don Emery, owner of The Dog House, a bar he calls a biker destination bar, said the ordinances are illegal, unconstitutional, and discriminatory against bikers.

Emery said, “Several of the ordinances I think are specifically geared towards us, we host a large parking lot event, we have it uh we have it managed, we have proper security, we have zero minimal problems year after year.” said Emery.

Emery said his attorney, Suzanne Coe plans to file suit against the city.

Coe said,”We’ll be filing a suit for injunctive relief to try to stop these laws, the sad thing is that these laws are so problematic and hodgepodge that you know it almost looks like they weren’t really though out and they’re going to be very damaging to the businesses and just make no sense so we’re going to have to do something to save the business interest.”

Mayor John Rhodes told News13, “City council’s looked at all the ramifications that could come about from these ordinances and we understand there’s going to be legal actions taken on some of them and some of them there won’t be, we understand that and we’re willing to go forward.”

Coe said she will likely file suit sometime on Wednesday.

Count on News13 to keep you covered as this story develops.

Reader Reactions

Posted by ( fedup ) on September 24, 2008 at 11:18 pm

STATUTE:

If you have information about the amount of the fine for violating South Carolina’s helmet law, please e-mail it to us. Thanks.
STANDARDS:

Title 56. Motor Vehicles. Chapter 5. uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways. Article 29. Motorcyclists; Rights and Duties Thereof. Section 56-5-3660. Helmets shall be worn by operators and passengers under age twenty-one; helmet design; list of approved helmets. :
“ . . . a helmet must be equipped with either a neck or chin strap and be reflectorized on both sides thereof. The department is hereby authorized to adopt and amend regulations covering the types of helmets and the specifications therefor and to establish and maintain a list of approved helmets which meet the specifications as established hereunder.“
When the statute says “department” is means “South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation”. (Change in the language of the statute took place in 1993.)

COURT DECISIONS:

We have been unable to uncover any court decision from a court of record, either from the South Carolina Appellate or Supreme Courts, which indicates that the question of whether or not the language of South Carolina’s helmet law is constitutional has not been addressed in the courts.
COMMENTARY:

We realize that most motorcyclists in South Carolina do not feel impacted by the helmet law in any real way, at this time. There are two reasons, we believe, that it is important to maintain a constant vigilance regarding the South Carolina helmet law: 1) We believe that helmets are dangerous in many situations, in that in addition to all the commonly accepted problems—vision and hearing impairment, heat retention, and others—the weight and design of most of the traditionally accepted helmet styles make then a serious threat to the neck, particularly a young neck. And, 2) a modification of the statute to include adults is much more of a threat when the statute is already on the books, and there are no complaints about it. We think it is very very important that motorcyclists complain, early and often. The price of freedom is, after all, eternal vigilance.

From our beginning in 1993, it has been the position of the Helmet Law Defense League that all helmet laws are unconstitutional , in the absence of clear guidelines on how to comply with the statute—like, for instance, with a list of “approved helmets.“

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( fedup ) on September 24, 2008 at 11:11 pm

state law says i don’t have to wear a helment how can one city tell me i have to wear one?we will be there in may in full force count on it

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( psychobabble ) on September 24, 2008 at 4:25 pm

and to vanquish those who violate our rights or right-of-way.

So by “vanquishing” those who violate your rights and your right of way, aren’t you taking away their right to due process?

Were is it stated that you have a right to loud, irritating pipes, and to ride without a helmet. Operating a vehicle is a privilege, not a right.

These ordinances shouldn’t be needed, but as with most laws, they were passed because certain groups can’t, or won’t respect those around them.

I have seen the same motels that send letters to the BMW and Goldwing riders asking them to come back next year, close for maintenance during those weeks of rallies for other groups,

If ya’ll wouldn’t act stupid and show respect for the businesses and families that are there the same weeks, this wouldn’t have ever came up.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( akarc ) on September 24, 2008 at 8:57 am

Folk this is what passes for government now days. Make law based on whats wanted, ignore whats right, and if individual liberties have been transgressed let those who have been violated seek relief in the court.

Pass the cost of enforcing individual liberties on the individual. In the time it would take to get all the possible permutations of litigation through the courts many of these businesses could be dead. Many individuals will have been fined our worse for engaging in previously legal activities and a great many of them will not have the resources by which to protect their rights.

This is the cost of failure to act.
http://www.bigbendbikersforfreedom.com/

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( bikersrights ) on September 24, 2008 at 4:59 am

The battle for bikers’ rights is not about patches, parties or poker runs. We fight to protect the freedom and promote the interests of American motorcyclists ... to defend our right to choose our own modes of transportation, attire and lifestyle ... to deter and defy discrimination against us ... and to vanquish those who violate our rights or right-of-way.

Report Inappropriate Comment