O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-6-315 (2019)

Headgear and eye-protective devices for riders

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No person shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle unless he or she is wearing protective headgear which complies with standards established by the commissioner of public safety. (b) No person shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle if the motorcycle is not equipped with a windshield unless he or she is wearing an eye-protective device of a type approved by the commissioner of public safety. (c) This Code section shall not apply to persons riding within an enclosed cab or motorized cart. This Code section shall not apply to a person operating a three-wheeled motorcycle used only for agricultural purposes. (d) The commissioner of public safety is authorized to approve or disapprove protective headgear and eye-protective devices required in this Code section and to issue and enforce regulations establishing standards and specifications for the approval thereof. The commissioner shall publish in print or electronically lists of all protective headgear and eye-protective devices by name and type which have been approved.

History

(Ga. L. 1969, p. 732, § 3; Code 1933, § 68A-1306, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 633, § 1; Ga. L. 1984, p. 1329, § 2; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 5; Ga. L. 2000, p. 951, § 5A-8; Ga. L. 2005, p. 334, § 18-11/HB 501; Ga. L. 2010, p. 838, § 10/SB 388.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Protective headgear required for operators and passengers upon a moped, § 40-6-352 Administrative rules and regulations. - Specifications for Protective

Headgear for Vehicular Users, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Department of Public Safety, Chapter 570-13.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - O.C.G.A. § 40-6-315 is a valid exercise of police power. Ritter v. State, 258 Ga. 551, 372 S.E.2d 230 (1988). There is no First Amendment right to ride a motorcycle wearing a baseball cap, a bandanna, or bareheaded. ABATE of Ga., Inc. v. Georgia, 137 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (N.D. Ga. 2001), aff ’d, 264 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2001). O.C.G.A. § 40-6-315 does not violate due process on grounds that a motorcyclist cannot determine whether the motorcyclist is meeting the headgear requirements of the statute. ABATE of Ga., Inc. v. Georgia, 137 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (N.D. Ga. 2001), aff ’d, 264 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2001). O.C.G.A. § 40-6-315 does not violate the equal protection rights of motorcycle riders under the Fourteenth Amendment. ABATE of Ga., Inc. v. Georgia, 137 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (N.D. Ga. 2001), aff ’d, 264 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2001). Motorcycle helmet law, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-315, does not require that the Georgia Board of Public Safety issue a list approving specific types of headgear and,

therefore, the failure of the board to publish a list of approved headgear and eye-protective devices did not violate the plaintiff ’s rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. ABATE of Ga., Inc. v. Georgia, 264 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 924, 122 S. Ct. 2592, 153 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2002). Motorcycle helmet law, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-315, is not unconstitutionally vague. ABATE of Ga., Inc. v. Georgia, 264 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 924, 122 S. Ct. 2592, 153 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2002). Headgear. - O.C.G.A. § 40-6-313 does not require the Board of Public Safety to approve specific types of headgear; the statute does require the establishment of compliance standards through regulations. Dowis v. State, 243 Ga. App. 354, 533 S.E.2d 34 (2000). Although it may be debatable whether particular types of headgear comply with standards established by the Board of Public Safety, it is absolutely clear that a cloth bandana does not. Dowis v. State, 243 Ga. App. 354, 533 S.E.2d 34 (2000).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 252. 8 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 599. ALR. - Motorcyclist’s failure to wear helmet or other protective equipment as

affecting recovery for personal injury or death, 85 A.L.R.4th 365. Validity of traffic regulations requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets or other protective gear, 72 A.L.R.5th 607.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1988–2017 · leading case: ABATE of Georgia, Inc. v. State of Georgia, 137 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (N.D. Ga. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

ABATE of Georgia, Inc. v. State of Georgia, 137 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (N.D. Ga. 2001). · cites it 26× “At the time this action was filed, the statute, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-315, provided: (a) No person shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle unless he or she is wearing protective headgear which complies with standards established by the Board of Public Safety.”

Dowis v. State, 533 S.E.2d 434 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “Mark Dowis was convicted of operating a motorcycle without the headgear required by OCGA § 40-6-315 (known as Georgia’s motorcycle helmet law) based on evidence that he was wearing nothing more than a cloth bandanna as a head covering.”

Ritter v. State, 372 S.E.2d 230 (Ga. 1988). · cites it 6× “This appeal concerns the constitutionality of OCGA § 40-6-315 (a), which provides that “[n]o person shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle unless he is wearing protective headgear which complies with standards established by the Board of Public Safety.”

Jarrett v. State, 441 S.E.2d 843 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “10 grams or more within three hours after operating a moving vehicle in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (4); driving without a license in violation of OCGA § 40-5-20 (a) and operating a motorcycle without a helmet in violation of OCGA § 40-6-315 (a). The case was tried before a…”

Abate of Georgia, Inc. v. State of Georgia, 264 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “The district court did not err in granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

The State v. Nicholson, 803 S.E.2d 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “3 See OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1) and (5) and OCGA § 40-6-315. 4 In Williams , the Supreme Court clarified that, “[wjhether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.”

State v. Carraway, 554 S.E.2d 602 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “10 grams (OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5)), 1 and operating a motorcycle without a helmet (OCGA § 40-6-315 (a)). Carraway moved to suppress all evidence obtained after his *470 arrest because he was not warned of his Miranda rights.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.