|
| |
|
AGE
REQUIREMENT MOTORCYCLE
HELMET LAW IN OHIO |
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:
The
fine for "no safety
equipment" under the
current Ohio law according
to Middletown Municipal
Court, Middletown, Ohio, is
$75.00.
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."
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.
WEBSITES:
|
|
|
|
