STATUTE:

Title XLV. Motor Vehicles--Aeronautics--Watercraft. Chapter 4511. Traffic laws--Operation of Motor Vehicles. Bicycles. Section 4511.53 Rules for Bicycles, Motorcycles and Snowmobiles. :

". . . No person who is under the age of eighteen years, or who holds a motorcycle operator's endorsement or license bearing a "novice" designation that is currently in effect as provided in section 4507.13 of the Revised Code, shall operate a motorcycle on a highway, or be a passenger on a motorcycle, unless wearing a protective helmet on his head, and no other person shall be a passenger on a motorcycle operated by such a person unless similarly wearing a protective helmet. . . ."

FINE:

If you have information about the amount of the fine for violating Ohio's helmet law, please e-mail it to us. Thanks.

STANDARDS:

Title XLV. Motor Vehicles--Aeronautics--Watercraft. Chapter 4511. Traffic laws--Operation of Motor Vehicles. Bicycles. Section 4511.53 Rules for Bicycles, Motorcycles and Snowmobiles. :

". . . The helmet, safety glasses, or other protective eye device shall conform with regulations prescribed and promulgated by the director of public safety."

We are currently researching the Ohio regulations to determine exactly what standard they have adopted to define "protective helmet". Apparently the Director of Public Safety approves regulations for Ohio's so-called safety equipment, so we will locate the Director of Public Safety for Ohio and ask. When we get an answer, you will find it here.

COURT DECISIONS:

"Requirements of 4511.53 that motorcycle operators and passengers wear protective helmets and glasses are reasonable, bear substantial relation to public health and general welfare, and are constitutionally valid and require no implementation by regulations adopted by director of highway safety." State v. Stouffer (Ohio App. 1971) 28 Ohio App.2d 229, 276 N.E.2d 651, 57 O.O.2d 342.

"4511.53, as amended and effective January 1, 1968, which requires the operator of a motorcycle on a highway to wear a protective helmet on his head, is constitutional." State v. Craig (Ohio App. 1969) 19 Ohio App.2d 29, 249 N.E.2d 75, 48 O.O.2d 28.

"A demurrer should be sustained to an affidavit charging the operation of a motorcycle without wearing a helmet and glasses as required by RC 4511.53 where such legislative inhibition is not supported by facts demonstrating a compelling public danger arising from its absence, which would violate defendant's rights under US Const Am 14 and O Const Art I, s 1." State v. Betts (Ohio Mun. 1969) 21 Ohio Misc. 175, 252 N.E.2d 866, 49 O.O.2d 22,0 O.O.2d 351.

The vagueness of the definition of "protective helmet" was not resolved in any of these cases, which means the Ohio statute requiring motorcyclists under 18 to wear a"protective helmet" is open to constitutional because it is vague State v. Stouffer , State v. Craig and State v. Betts notwithstanding.

COMMENTARY:

We realize that most motorcyclists in Ohio 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 Ohio 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."

NO LIST? NO LAW! If a state, any state, cannot answer the question: "How can a motorcyclist comply, with certainty , with the provisions of the helmet law?" that state's statute(s) requiring the wearing of a "helmet," "safety helmet," or "protective headgear" is unconstitutionally vague.

The Ohio Legislature is as a matter of law confined to adopting only those standards for helmets set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If the Ohio Legislature has caused any other standard to be adopted, anything other than Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 218, the Ohio helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten , 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))

If the Ohio Legislature has adopted FMVSS 218, the Ohio helmet law is thereby unconstitutionally vague. (see Washington v. Maxwell , 74 WASH.APP. 688, 878 P.2D 1220 (1994))

We believe that if you will write to the head of the Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles, or the Highway Patrol, and ask how to comply with the helmet law, "with certainty," you can take their answer (or, more likely, refusal to answer) to the courts and Ohio bikers will be 100% FREE of the helmet law!

Questions or Comments