Why does this statute raise equal protection issues instead of substantive due process concerns?

Practice and Review Pg 26A state legislature enacted a statute that required any motorcycle operator or passenger on the state’s highways to wear a protective helmet. Jim Alderman, a licensed motorcycle operator, sued the state to block enforcement of the law. Alderman asserted that the statute violated the equal protection clause because it placed requirements on motorcyclists that were not imposed on other motorists. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.Answer the below questions:1. Why does this statute raise equal protection issues instead of substantive due process concerns?2. Which level of scrutiny or test would apply to this situation? Why?3. Under this standard or test, is the helmet statute constitutional? Why or why not
Respond to the bellow postings:
post # 1 (please respond)The statute raise equal protection issue because the state is imposing the rules on just one party (motorcyclist) rather then all of the people in the highway like the motorists cars, but the state is trying to enact statute that targets a specific trait in this case it is being on a motorcycle.This level classifying of scrutiny cause it has specific trait being motorcyclist just to be a user in the highway and its the mindset of a motorcyclist traveling in the interstate.The standard to this we have some disadvantage and advantages cause for motorcyclist we have to wear helmets only but most of our body is exposed and being in a car your %70 protect cause your in the car with a seatbelt.
Post # 2 (please respond)This statute raises equal protection issues because the state is targeting a specific group of individuals such as motorcyclist instead of all motor vehicles. The state’s objective is to minimize the risk of motorcyclist.
I identify this as strict scrutiny because it targets the specific trait of motorcyclist which interrupts their methods of operation.
Under this standard, the helmet statute is constitutional because the state’s objective is to protect the motorcyclist. In comparison we can relate this statute to the enforcement of motor vehicles requiring seatbelts. Regardless of the inconvenience for the drivers, the state had a great responsibility and interest in the safety of motorcyclist which considers the helmet statute as constitutional.