Why not standardize the laws? Hot topic but we believe in ATGATT
(All The Gear All The Time)
December 2011
- Laws requiring all motorcyclists to wear a helmet are in place in 20 states and the District of Columbia
- Laws requiring only some motorcyclists to wear a helmet are in place in 27 states
- There is no motorcycle helmet use law in 3 states (Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire)
- Some bicyclists are required by law to wear a helmet in 21 states and the District of Columbia
- There is no bicycle helmet use law in 29 states
The history of motorcycle helmet laws in the United States is characterized by change. In 1967, to increase motorcycle helmet use, the federal government required the states to enact helmet use laws in order to qualify for certain federal safety programs and highway construction funds. The federal incentive worked. By the early 1970s, almost all the states had universal motorcycle helmet laws. Michigan was the first state to repeal its law in 1968, beginning a pattern of repeal, reenactment, and amendment of motorcycle helmet laws. In 1976, states successfully lobbied Congress to stop the Department of Transportation from assessing financial penalties on states without helmet laws.
No state has a universal bicycle helmet law. Only 21 states and the District of Columbia have statewide bicycle helmet laws, and they apply only to young riders (often riders younger than 16). Local ordinances in a few other states require bicycle helmets for some or all riders.
Low-power cycle is a generic term used by the Institute to cover motor-driven cycles, mopeds, scooters, and various other 2-wheeled cycles excluded from the motorcycle definition. While state laws vary, a cycle with an engine displacement of 50 cubic centimeters or less, brake horsepower of 2 or less, and top speeds of 30 mph or less typically is considered a low-power cycle. Twenty-two states have motorcycle helmet laws that cover all low-power cycles. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have laws that cover some low-power cycles.
- Table
- Map: motorcyclists covered
- Map: low-power cycles covered
- Map: bicyclists covered
- Table: motorcycle helmet laws history
| State | Motorcycle helmet use governs: | Does the motorcycle helmet law cover all low-power cycles? | Bicycle helmet use governs: |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | all riders | yes | 15 and younger |
| Alaska | 17 and younger1 | yes | no law |
| Arizona | 17 and younger | some | no law |
| Arkansas | 20 and younger | yes | no law |
| California | all riders | yes | 17 and younger |
| Colorado | 17 and younger and passengers 17 and younger | yes | no law |
| Connecticut | 17 and younger | yes | 15 and younger |
| Delaware | 18 and younger2 | some | 17 and younger |
| District of Columbia | all riders | some | 15 and younger |
| Florida | 20 and younger3 | some | 15 and younger |
| Georgia | all riders | some | 15 and younger |
| Hawaii | 17 and younger | some | 15 and younger |
| Idaho | 17 and younger | some | no law |
| Illinois | no law | no law | no law |
| Indiana | 17 and younger | yes | no law |
| Iowa | no law | no law | no law |
| Kansas | 17 and younger | some | no law |
| Kentucky | 20 and younger4 | some | no law |
| Louisiana | all riders | yes | 11 and younger |
| Maine | 17 and younger5 | some | 15 and younger |
| Maryland | all riders | some | 15 and younger |
| Massachusetts | all riders | yes | 1–16 (riding with children younger than 1 prohibited) |
| Michigan | all riders | some | no law |
| Minnesota | 17 and younger6 | yes | no law |
| Mississippi | all riders | yes | no law |
| Missouri | all riders | some | no law |
| Montana | 17 and younger | some | no law |
| Nebraska | all riders | yes | no law |
| Nevada | all riders | some | no law |
| New Hampshire | no law | no law | 15 and younger |
| New Jersey | all riders | yes | 16 and younger |
| New Mexico | 17 and younger | some | 17 and younger |
| New York | all riders | some | 1–13 (riding with children younger than 1 prohibited) |
| North Carolina | all riders | yes | 15 and younger |
| North Dakota | 17 and younger7 | yes | no law |
| Ohio | 17 and younger8 | yes | no law |
| Oklahoma | 17 and younger | some | no law |
| Oregon | all riders | yes | 15 and younger |
| Pennsylvania | 20 and younger9 | some | 11 and younger |
| Rhode Island | 20 and younger10 | some | 15 and younger |
| South Carolina | 20 and younger | yes | no law |
| South Dakota | 17 and younger | yes | no law |
| Tennessee | all riders | yes | 15 and younger |
| Texas | 20 and younger11 | some | no law |
| Utah | 17 and younger | yes | no law |
| Vermont | all riders | some | no law |
| Virginia | all riders | some | no law |
| Washington | all riders | yes | no law |
| West Virginia | all riders | some | 14 and younger |
| Wisconsin | 17 and younger12 | some | no law |
| Wyoming | 17 and younger | some | no law |
1Alaska’s motorcycle helmet use law covers passengers of all ages, operators younger than 18, and operators with instructional permits.
2In Delaware, every motorcycle operator or rider age 19 and older shall have in their possession a safety helmet approved by the Secretary.
3In Florida, the law requires that all riders younger than 21 years wear helmets, without exception. Those 21 years and older may ride without helmets only if they can show proof that they are covered by a medical insurance policy.
4In Kentucky, the law requires that all riders younger than 21 years wear helmets, without exception. Those 21 years and older may ride without helmets only if they can show proof that they are covered by a medical insurance policy. Motorcycle helmet laws in Kentucky also cover operators with instructional/learner’s permits.
5Motorcycle helmet laws in Maine cover operators with instructional/learner’s permits and operators in their first year of licensure. Maine’s motorcycle helmet use law also covers passengers 17 years and younger and passengers if their operators are required to wear a helmet.
6Motorcycle helmet laws in Minnesota cover operators with instructional/learner’s permits.
7North Dakota’s motorcycle helmet use law covers all passengers traveling with operators who are covered by the law.
8Ohio’s motorcycle helmet use law covers all operators during the first year of licensure and all passengers of operators who are covered by the law.
9Pennsylvania’s motorcycle helmet use law covers all operators during the first two years of licensure unless the operator has completed the safety course approved by PennDOT or the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.
10Rhode Island’s motorcycle helmet use law covers all passengers (regardless of age) and all operators during the first year of licensure (regardless of age).
11Texas exempts riders 21 years or older if they can either show proof of successfully completing a motorcycle operator training and safety course or can show proof of having a medical insurance policy. A peace officer may not stop or detain a person who is the operator of or a passenger on a motorcycle for the sole purpose of determining whether the person has successfully completed the motorcycle operator training and safety course or is covered by a health insurance plan.
12Motorcycle helmet laws in Wisconsin cover operators with instructional/learner’s permits.
Thank you for compiling this information in one spot. I am also pro helmet on both bicycles and motorcycles especially after hitting gravel in a steep downhill corner on my bicycle. I don’t think I would be here now.
we were shocked to see how many motorcyclists did NOT wear helmets or gear when we traveled across the US in 2010. I mean we saw many doing speeds up to 160KM per hour and almost naked on their Harley’s and sport bikes. We stood out like a sore thumb riding through these states as we always wore our gear even in the Hottest, humid summer on record in the States that summer. makes no sense to me but whatever…it’s their life.
I am a full believer in wearing proper personal protection in everything I do. I promote it as much as I can. However, I am not a strong believer in laws that regulate personal choice and relieve people of the responsibility of thinking through the impact of their choices. To me, that’s government over-reaching.
Merry Xmas
Tom
Just a quick comment regarding Tom’s post. If all people acted responsibly there wouldn’t be a need for laws. Unfortunately, all too many wouldn’t even know the meaning of the word and in cases where their action/inaction places a burden upon other individuals or institutions etc then it is right and proper that as a consequence they forgo their right to personal choice.
In my profession I see far too many cases of serious head injuries that could have been mitigated had adequate protection been worn. These individuals place both a financial burden upon the health system, consume resources that could be put to better use elsewhere and often cause someone on the waiting list for non-urgent surgery to be put back on the list.
So yes, in the ideal world we wouldn’t require laws that regulated personal choice. Sadly, the world is anything but ideal and the intelligence of humankind is still in the developing stages.
same here…I work in healthcare…but even laws are amended..how many drug addicted folks do I see in a given week..in ICU only to be released back into the chaos with our own community offering needles, free drugs and supervision to continue their addiction despite their chronic heart disease that has been as result of the same drug use our society seems to be condoning. Off topic but seriously, laws mean squat in the end if there is no personal accountability and self respect. Without that no one really gives a damn about the costs associated with poor decision do they?
While I am a full gear rider almost all the time now, I would probably not be a rider at all if ATGAT were mandatory when I was young. There’s just no way I could have afforded it back then. (Now I have a set of gear for every season) Today I enjoy the freedom to hop on my antique Honda and ride around home in jeans and t-shirt. I even rode completely naked once. Mid ’70′s, streaking had just been invented, I was in high school… (oops, off topic.)
Politically I believe that the states should have more authority. Smaller groups of people governing themselves is better than a central government deciding for everyone.
I don’t ride a bicycle so I’ll duck that argument. Like the mandatory seat belt, air bag argument. I don’t own a cage so I don’t give my, unsolicited, opinion on that topic.
Perhaps the fact that there are sooo many different, very strongly held, opinions on the subject of motorcycle safety gear is indication that the government should just butt out.
would be interesting if there were no laws governing helmets in general…wonder if this would change human behaviors just because they had choice and no consequences other than being unprotected and possibly catastrophically hurt.
For many motorcyclist riding is an extension of their freedom. They feel that their ability to choose their own destiny is limited when forced to wear a motorcycle. For these folks, any law that limits our own choice is negative. Others believe that helmet laws will lead to other restrictive laws. Personally I always wear a helmet but I like the fact that it is my choice.
just curious then…why have laws?
Laws protecting you from me i.e. Traffic laws, laws pertaining to the discharging of firearms in public, are needed to maintain society. Laws protecting you from yourself can easily start becoming invasive. This is just one of the many sides to this argument that IMO is valid.
On the other hand is the argument that helmets are actually dangerous because they limit visibility, hearing and cause your neck to break. This argument IMO is complete crap and I can’t believe it’s actually used by lobbyists to repeal helmet laws.