Ohio Motorcycle Helmet Law
18 Years Old
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. . . .”
The fine for “no safety equipment” under the current Ohio law according to Middletown Municipal Court, Middletown, Ohio, is $75.00.
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.”
“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.
If you know of any current activity regarding efforts to remove or amend Ohio’s helmet law, in the Legislature or the Courts, please e-mail that information to us so we can update this site. Thanks.