Helmet laws in Ontaro | GTAMotorcycle.com

Helmet laws in Ontaro

Can someone please point me to the actual text of the helmet laws?

What I have found online is this:
104. (1) No person shall ride on or operate a motorcycle or motor assisted bicycle on a highway unless the person is wearing a helmet that complies with the regulations and the chin strap of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 104 (1).

What 'regulations' is it supposed to comply with?

What is the expiration date of a helmet? 5 years, 10 years? Where is this documented?

Is there a specific law that says I cannot have a helmet cam (GoPro) on my helmet?
 

Katatonic

Well-known member
Site Supporter
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900610

This is the English version of a bilingual regulation.

1.*A helmet worn by a person,

(a) riding on or operating a motorcycle; or

(b) operating a motor assisted bicycle,

on a highway shall,

(c) have a hard, smooth outer shell lined with protective padding material or fitted with other energy absorbing material and shall be strongly attached to a strap designed to be fastened under the chin of the wearer; and

(d) be undamaged from use or misuse.* R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s.*1.

2.*The helmet referred to in section 1 shall conform to the requirements of the,

(a) Canadian Standards Association Standard D230 Safety Helmets for Motorcycle Riders and shall bear the monogram of the Canadian Standards Association Testing Laboratories;

(b) Snell Memorial Foundation and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the Snell Memorial Foundation;

(c) British Standards Institute and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the British Standards Institute;

(d) United States of America Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 and shall bear the symbol DOT constituting the manufacturer’s certification of compliance with the standard; or

(e) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 22, “Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Protective Helmets and of Their Visors for Drivers and Passengers of Motor Cycles and Mopeds”, and shall have affixed thereto the required international approval mark.* R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s.*2; O.*Reg. 102/12, s.*1.

3.*A helmet worn by a person operating or riding a bicycle on a highway shall,

(a) have a smooth outer surface, be constructed so that the helmet is capable of absorbing energy on impact and be strongly attached to a strap designed to be fastened under the chin of the wearer; and

(b) be undamaged from use or misuse.* O.*Reg. 411/95, s.*1.

4.*(1) The helmet referred to in section 3 shall conform to the requirements of one or more of the following standards:

1. Canadian Standards Association CAN/CSA D113.2-M89 (Cycling Helmets).

2. Snell Memorial Foundation B-95 (1995 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use with Bicycles).

3. Snell Memorial Foundation B-90 (1990 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling).

4. Snell Memorial Foundation B-90S (1994 Supplementary Standard for Protective Headgear for Use with Bicycles).

5. American National Standards Institute ANSI Z90.4-1984 (American National Standard for Protective Headgear for Bicyclists).

6. American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM F1447-94 (Standard Specification for Protective Headgear Used in Bicycling).

7. British Standards Institute BS 6863:1989 (British Standard Specification for Pedal Cyclists’ Helmets).

8. Standards Association of Australia AS 2063.2-1990 (Part 2: Helmets for Pedal Cyclists).

9. Snell Memorial Foundation N-94 (1994 Standard for Protective Headgear: for Use in Non-Motorized Sports).

10. United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 16 CFR Part 1203 Safety Standards for Bicycle Helmets.* O.*Reg. 411/95, s.*1; O.*Reg. 38/03, s.*1*(1).

(2) The helmet shall bear the mark of the standards authority or the mark of the manufacturer showing that the helmet meets the prescribed standard.* O.*Reg. 411/95, s.*1.

(3) A reference to a standard in subsection (1) includes any amendments made to the standard, whether made before or after February 11, 2003.* O.*Reg. 38/03, s.*1*(2).

5.*A person who is 18 years old or older is not required to comply with subsection 104 (2.1) of the Act.* O.*Reg. 411/95, s.*1.
 
Thanks for taking the time to reply... I have seen this many times, and it is posted in the forum in several locations... but... it does not answer my specific questions.
 

Katatonic

Well-known member
Site Supporter
The section of the legislation that is used against helmet mounted gopro's is:

(c) have a hard, smooth outer shell

The argument is that once a camera is mounted, the outer shell is no longer smooth.

As for when a helmet expires, and someone correct me if you know anything different, legally speaking a helmet never expires. Logically, a helmet should be replaced every 5-7 years, depending on use.
 

JTR

Well-known member
That would be a weak and easily defeated argument. The shell is still smooth, otherwise the gopro wouldn't stick. The shell itself remains unchanged. Done and done.
 
That would be a weak and easily defeated argument. The shell is still smooth, otherwise the gopro wouldn't stick. The shell itself remains unchanged. Done and done.

Good point.. I have to go to court to contest such a ticket

But I would still like to see the so called 'regulations' section 104 (1) refers to!
 

Blackfin

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Good point.. I have to go to court to contest such a ticket

But I would still like to see the so called 'regulations' section 104 (1) refers to!

A cop gave you a ticket for a helmet cam??

Can you provide some backstory to this? Approximate location? All details: You were stopped for speeding, argued with the cop and he nailed you with everything under the sun? Or were you otherwise legal and polite and he stopped you specifically for the GoPro?
 

Robbo

Well-known member
Would you mind posting a pic of the helmet & cam setup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

J_F

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I'll predict it was a traffic stop for something else
and LOE just did not like that he was being recorded
 

PrivatePilot

Ironus Butticus
Site Supporter
Helmet infraction tickets are usually one of two things:

- Rider was being a dick but there was nothing else the officer could find to ticket you with, so he/she "gotcha" on the helmet.
- Officer is a dick and is enforcing a vague part of the law that offered up an easy ticket for him/her.

The "hard, smooth outer shell" thing is pretty much non existant from the start on any modern helmet nowadays, between vents with open/closed controls, design accents, etc. I suspect a good lawyer would get these charges tossed in no time flat..and if it's done enough times it might finally set a precedent so LEO's stop issuing these bogus tickets.
 
A cop gave you a ticket for a helmet cam??

Can you provide some backstory to this? Approximate location? All details: You were stopped for speeding, argued with the cop and he nailed you with everything under the sun? Or were you otherwise legal and polite and he stopped you specifically for the GoPro?

Happened last week. Just south of Lindsay. Was riding back from Peterborough - not speeding, just a leisurely cruise on my HD ElectraGlide. Had the GoPro on my helmet. Noticed an OPP SUV behind me with flashing lights.. thought he wanted to pass, so I pulled over... but so did he. I got off the bike, removed my helmet and turned the cam off, and politely ask what's up as he approaches. Has asks if that is a camera on my helmet. I say it is. He says do you know that is illegal, I reply politely again that I was not aware of that. He says I have modified a DOT approved helmet, and therefore it is no longer DOT approved, so I am riding without an approved helmet. He tells me to remove it from my helmet. He then says, and I quote "give me your license so I can write you a ticket" Never asked for registration or insurance. Not even a warning. He comes back with the $110 ticket and says I seem to have a good driving record - and that I can fight the ticket at the court house across the street. The next day I go to the courthouse and ask for a court date. They say it will take 4 to 6 weeks. The actual text of the infraction is "fail to wear proper helmet on a motorcycle" - which is think is rather subjective.. what constitutes a 'proper helmet'?

So, I am trying to figure out the actual law that is supposed to apply in this circumstance, but have been unable to find anything specifically related to this case.

I have made some online inquiries, and apparently OPP Officer N. Hoogerdyk is well known to making frivolous stops and giving out tickets. If you happen to have an encounter with him, do not argue.. be polite and fight it in court. He is known for taking riders' helmets and putting them in his vehicle, leaving you with no means of driving your bike home. A real dyk!
 
Helmet infraction tickets are usually one of two things:

- Rider was being a dick but there was nothing else the officer could find to ticket you with, so he/she "gotcha" on the helmet.
- Officer is a dick and is enforcing a vague part of the law that offered up an easy ticket for him/her.

The "hard, smooth outer shell" thing is pretty much non existant from the start on any modern helmet nowadays, between vents with open/closed controls, design accents, etc. I suspect a good lawyer would get these charges tossed in no time flat..and if it's done enough times it might finally set a precedent so LEO's stop issuing these bogus tickets.
I was very polite and cooperative, and not speeding.. see my detailed reply to Blackfin.
 
I'll predict it was a traffic stop for something else
and LOE just did not like that he was being recorded
Nope.. I had turned the cam off as he approached. And he had no reason to otherwise stop me.. was not speeding and M/C was in good working order.
 

JTR

Well-known member

He probably saw placement as an issue and thinks it's going to come off at speed and cause an accident when it goes through someone's windshield. I wouldn't have it on top like that. Still can get the ticket dropped though because the article that he charged you under, does not have a provision involving secondary attachments or devices. Guessing you have an Ultra or other big faired HD, being that you have the helmet with the communicator?
 

PrivatePilot

Ironus Butticus
Site Supporter
He is known for taking riders' helmets and putting them in his vehicle, leaving you with no means of driving your bike home. A real dyk!

If that happened to me I'd be making a very polite, but direct and firm phone call to his detachment and asking for a supervisor to pay me a visit on the side of the road where the other officer stranded me, and we'd have a little heart to heart about the legitimacy of what happened.

If it was one of those "pretend" DOT helmets (we've all seen them, IE the "german" ones with the spikes, etc) where they were not actually a legit helmet (aside from a fake DOT sticker) it might be different, but even then, who is the officer to be determining the legitimacy of a DOT sticker on the side of the road somewhere? Give the rider a ticket and make them show up with helmet in court and prove it's legitimacy, sure, but simply confiscating it and leaving the rider stranded is an ultra dick move.
 

Baggsy

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Is that duct tape on the side of the camera?
 

Top Bottom