Table of Contents
Introduction
Indiana’s motorcycle helmet law stands as a critical case study in the enduring American policy debate between individual liberty and public safety.
At its heart is Indiana Code § 9-19-7-1, a statute that, on its surface, appears simple but is the focal point of a complex and decades-long struggle.1
This conflict involves the precise language of legal mandates, a contentious legislative history shaped by federal pressure and local resistance, and the fierce advocacy of motorcyclist rights organizations like ABATE of Indiana.2
Pitted against this is the data-driven, evidence-based alarm of the public health and medical communities, which point to the tangible, often tragic, consequences of the state’s policy choices.5
This report provides a definitive analysis of Indiana’s helmet law in its full context.
It moves beyond a mere recitation of the statute to deliver a multi-faceted examination of the issue.
The analysis begins by dissecting the law’s text and its associated technical requirements, revealing nuances that are often overlooked in public discourse.
It then traces the law’s turbulent history, from its initial imposition by federal mandate to its swift repeal by a powerful grassroots movement, providing the essential backstory for the current legislative stalemate.
The report delves deeply into the core arguments that define the controversy, fairly presenting the philosophical tenets of personal freedom alongside the stark statistical imperatives of public health.
A critical section is dedicated to the profound and often misunderstood consequences of the law within the civil justice system, exploring how a rider’s legal choice can become a significant financial liability in the courtroom.
Finally, the report presents a comprehensive statistical review of crash data, fatality rates, and economic costs, using state and national figures to paint an empirical picture of the law’s real-world impact.
By synthesizing these legal, historical, philosophical, and statistical dimensions, this report aims to serve as an exhaustive resource for policymakers, legal professionals, public health advocates, and all citizens seeking a comprehensive understanding of this vital public safety issue.
The Letter of the Law: Indiana’s Motorcycle Equipment Statutes
The legal framework governing motorcycle helmet use in Indiana is more layered than commonly understood.
It comprises a primary statute targeting specific rider populations, exacting technical standards for compliance, and a clear penalty structure.
A full comprehension requires examining not only the helmet law itself but also related regulations that create a complete picture of the state’s approach to motorcycle safety.
The Helmet Mandate: A Detailed Analysis of Indiana Code § 9-19-7-1
The foundation of Indiana’s helmet regulation is Indiana Code § 9-19-7-1.
This statute establishes a clear, age-based mandate, stating that “an individual less than eighteen (18) years of age who is operating or riding on a motorcycle or motor driven cycle on the streets or highways shall…wear a helmet…[and] wear protective glasses, goggles, or transparent face shields”.1
The stated legislative intent behind this requirement is straightforward: to “save lives and prevent severe and permanent traumatic brain and other head injuries”.8
However, the law’s reach extends beyond this simple age limit.
A separate but equally important provision, found in Indiana Code § 9-21-10-9, mandates that any person operating a motorcycle with only a learner’s permit must also wear a helmet, regardless of their age.9
This creates a de facto probationary safety requirement for all new adult riders.
The legislature, through this clause, implicitly recognizes that inexperience, not just youth, is a significant risk factor necessitating additional protection.
This “permit holder” rule functions as a shadow mandate, extending the helmet requirement to a vulnerable class of adult riders who are often overlooked in public summaries of the law.
The statute also explicitly carves out an exception for individuals operating or riding in an autocycle, an enclosed three-wheeled vehicle that offers a different level of occupant protection.1
The following table provides a consolidated view of these requirements for clarity.
Table 1: Indiana Motorcycle Helmet Law at a Glance
| Rider Category | Helmet Required? | Eye Protection Required? | Governing Statute |
| Operator < 18 years old | Yes | Yes | IC § 9-19-7-1 |
| Passenger < 18 years old | Yes | Yes | IC § 9-19-7-1 |
| Operator with Learner’s Permit (Any Age) | Yes | Yes | IC § 9-21-10-9 |
| Licensed Operator ≥ 18 years old | No | Yes (unless motorcycle has a windscreen) | IC § 9-19-7-1 |
Defining Compliance: Federal Standards (FMVSS 218) and Enforcement
The law does not permit just any head covering.
To be compliant, a helmet must meet the rigorous standards established by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 218, as specified in 49 CFR 571.218.1
These federal standards are not arbitrary; they dictate specific performance criteria designed to protect the brain in a crash.
Key requirements include:
- Impact Attenuation: The helmet’s ability to absorb and dissipate the energy of an impact, tested by dropping it onto anvils.10
- Penetration Resistance: The outer shell’s strength to resist being pierced by a sharp object.10
- Retention System Effectiveness: The strength and integrity of the chin strap and its attachments to ensure the helmet remains on the head during a crash.10
A DOT-compliant helmet typically has several distinguishing physical characteristics, such as a weight of approximately three pounds, a thick inner liner of impact-absorbing polystyrene foam at least one inch thick, and a sturdy chin strap secured with solid rivets.12
This technical specificity, while legally sound, gives rise to a significant enforcement challenge.
The market is flooded with non-compliant “novelty” helmets, which may look the part and even bear counterfeit DOT stickers but offer little to no actual protection.12
The crucial safety components—like the thickness of the inner liner and the quality of the construction materials—are not externally visible.
This places law enforcement officers in the difficult position of being unable to reliably distinguish a legal, protective helmet from an illegal, non-protective one during a routine traffic stop.
This creates an enforcement paradox: the law is highly specific on paper but can be difficult to enforce in practice, potentially diluting its public safety impact as some riders may opt for cheaper, non-compliant headwear under the mistaken belief that they are satisfying the law’s requirements.12
Penalties and Infractions
A violation of Indiana’s helmet law—whether by a minor or a permit holder—is classified as a Class C infraction.15
This offense carries a maximum potential fine of $500.16
The actual penalty imposed can vary.
For example, in Marion County, a specific local rule structure allows for a reduced fine of $35.50 plus court costs if the offender admits to the violation.
However, for those who contest the citation and are found to have committed the infraction, the fine can escalate significantly based on their prior five-year driving record, potentially reaching the $500 maximum for those with two or more previous violations.15
This penalty structure also applies to the separate law requiring helmets for children under 18 on off-road vehicles (ORVs) on both public and private property.17
Beyond Helmets: Other Motorcycle Regulations in Indiana
To provide a complete regulatory context, it is important to note that Indiana law governs other aspects of motorcycle operation beyond helmets.
These statutes are designed to enhance rider safety and improve interactions with other vehicles.
Key regulations include:
- Headlamps: Motorcyclists are required to have their headlamps illuminated at all times while their vehicles are in operation.2
- Carried Items: It is illegal for a motorcyclist to carry a package or any other article in their hand while riding.2
- Lane-Splitting: Indiana Code § 9-21-10-6 explicitly prohibits motorcyclists from operating their vehicle between lanes of traffic or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles, a practice commonly known as “lane-splitting”.2
A History of Contention: The Enactment and Repeal of Indiana’s Universal Helmet Law
The story of Indiana’s current helmet law is a story of legislative whiplash, born from a national struggle between federal safety initiatives and a fierce state-level resistance rooted in principles of personal liberty.
Understanding this history is essential to comprehending the deeply entrenched political dynamics that shape the debate today.
Federal Mandates and State Compliance (1966-1975)
Prior to the mid-1960s, the concept of a government-mandated helmet law was non-existent in the United States.18
The landscape changed dramatically with the passage of the federal Highway Safety Act of 1966.3
This landmark legislation was a response to rising traffic fatalities and gave the federal government a powerful tool to influence state-level safety policy.
It authorized the U.S. Department of Transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway construction and safety funds from any state that failed to adopt a universal motorcycle helmet law, which required all riders and passengers to wear a helmet.18
The financial incentive proved highly effective.
Faced with the potential loss of significant federal funding, state legislatures across the country, including Indiana’s General Assembly, complied by enacting universal helmet laws.16
By 1975, a near-unanimous consensus had been achieved through federal pressure, with 47 states and the District of Columbia having universal helmet laws on their books.4
The Repeal Movement: ABATE of Indiana and the Fight for “Freedom of Choice”
Despite widespread adoption, the mandatory helmet laws were immediately and intensely controversial within the motorcycling community.
Many riders viewed the laws not as a safety measure, but as an unconstitutional government overreach into their personal lives and a violation of their individual freedoms.3
This discontent fueled a powerful political backlash.
In 1976, a coalition of states and rider advocacy groups successfully lobbied the U.S. Congress to amend the Highway Safety Act, revoking the Department of Transportation’s authority to impose financial penalties for non-compliance.3
This single federal action opened the floodgates for repeal movements in statehouses across the nation.
In Indiana, the driving force behind this movement was the newly formed organization ABATE (American Bikers Aimed Toward Education) of Indiana.2
Founded on June 25, 1975, by the pioneering Wanda Hummel-Schultz, ABATE of Indiana was established with a core philosophy that remains its guiding principle today: safety is best achieved through rider education and motorist awareness, not through legislative mandates.3
In what stands as a remarkable example of grassroots political power, Hummel-Schultz, leading an organization of just over 350 members, “engineered the repeal of Indiana’s mandatory helmet law in 1976”.4
The repeal was more than a simple policy change; it was the foundational political event that forged ABATE of Indiana into a durable and influential force in state politics.
Their swift success against a federally imposed mandate became a core part of the organization’s identity and a powerful rallying cry for its membership.
Consequently, the current partial helmet law is not merely a statute; it is the enduring symbol of a historic political victory.
This legacy explains the law’s remarkable resilience against decades of challenges from the public health community; any attempt to reinstate a universal mandate is perceived not just as a policy disagreement, but as an attack on the foundational achievement of a dedicated and effective advocacy group.
The Legislative Landscape Today
While sources vary on the exact year the repeal was finalized and the new partial law was codified—with some citing 1977 or 1979—the 1976 lobbying effort by ABATE was the decisive turning point.3
This discrepancy in dates is not an error but likely reflects the multi-stage nature of the legislative process, encompassing the initial lobbying success, the passage of a bill, the governor’s signature, and the final codification into state law.
Since that time, Indiana’s partial helmet law has remained remarkably stable.
The political equilibrium struck in the late 1970s has held firm, with no significant legislative proposals to either strengthen or further weaken the law appearing in recent years, including 2023 and 2024.12
This legislative inertia suggests that for both proponents of choice and advocates for stricter laws, the perceived political cost of challenging the long-standing status quo is greater than the potential benefits.
The following table summarizes this contentious history.
Table 2: Timeline of Indiana Motorcycle Helmet Legislation
| Year(s) | Event | Significance |
| Pre-1966 | No state helmet laws existed. | Motorcyclist safety was not a major legislative focus. |
| 1966 | U.S. Congress passes the Highway Safety Act. | Federal government gains authority to link highway funds to state safety laws.4 |
| ~1967-1975 | Indiana enacts its first universal helmet law. | In response to federal pressure, Indiana mandates helmets for all riders.16 |
| 1975 | ABATE of Indiana is founded by Wanda Hummel-Schultz. | A dedicated advocacy group is formed specifically to oppose the mandatory law.2 |
| 1976 | Congress revokes federal penalty authority; ABATE of Indiana engineers repeal. | The primary tool for federal enforcement is removed; ABATE’s lobbying proves successful.4 |
| 1977-1979 | Indiana’s universal law is officially replaced by the current partial law. | The state formally repeals the universal mandate and codifies the age-based law that exists today.3 |
The Core Debate: Individual Liberty vs. Public Health
The controversy over Indiana’s helmet law is fueled by a deep philosophical divide.
On one side are advocates for personal freedom and individual choice, who argue against government mandates.
On the other are public health and medical professionals, who point to overwhelming evidence of preventable death and injury.
This section explores the core tenets of each position, the evidence they present, and the broader context of this enduring debate.
The Argument for Rider’s Choice
The case against mandatory helmet laws is built on a foundation of constitutional principles and a specific philosophy of safety.
Core Tenet: Personal Freedom: The central argument, articulated by groups like the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and ABATE of Indiana, is that mandatory helmet laws represent an unacceptable government intrusion into the personal decisions of competent adults.3
They maintain that adults are fully capable of assessing risks and making their own informed choices about their safety without state coercion.24
For many, the act of riding is a physical manifestation of freedom, and the helmet is viewed not as a simple safety device like a seatbelt, but as “an accessory of personal apparel” connected to a chosen lifestyle and identity.25
Focus on Crash Prevention: Proponents of choice argue that the policy emphasis is misplaced.
They contend that helmets are a post-crash measure and that the most effective way to improve safety is to prevent crashes from occurring in the first place.24
They advocate for directing resources toward comprehensive safety programs that include robust rider education, licensing and testing improvements, and motorist awareness campaigns designed to reduce the frequency of collisions.25
Rebutting the “Social Cost” Argument: Advocates for rider’s choice actively dispute the claim that unhelmeted riders are a significant financial burden on society.
This rebuttal represents a sophisticated evolution of their argument, moving from pure philosophy to competing data.
The AMA asserts that motorcyclists are just as likely to be privately insured as other motorists and that the costs associated with their injuries account for a “minuscule” fraction of total U.S. healthcare expenditures.25
By challenging the primary economic justification for mandates, they seek to neutralize one of the most powerful arguments of the public health community.
The Public Health Imperative
The position of the public health and medical communities is grounded not in philosophy, but in empirical, evidence-based prevention.
Overwhelming Statistical Evidence: The data demonstrating the life-saving efficacy of helmets is vast and consistent.
Studies have repeatedly shown that helmets are approximately 37% effective in preventing rider deaths and 41% effective for passengers.2
They reduce the risk of any head injury by 69% and the risk of a devastating traumatic brain injury (TBI) by 67%.26
This position is endorsed by a united front of medical and safety authorities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS).5
Societal and Economic Costs: This side argues that the consequences of an individual’s choice not to wear a helmet extend far beyond that individual.
Unhelmeted riders suffer more severe injuries, which leads to longer hospital stays, greater need for long-term rehabilitation, and significantly higher medical charges.32
A major study found that average hospital charges were nearly 50% higher for unhelmeted riders ($40,217) compared to helmeted ones ($27,176).32
These costs are often externalized and become a public burden, absorbed through higher insurance premiums for all motorists and through taxpayer-funded programs like Medicaid, which unhelmeted riders are more likely to rely on.29
For Indiana, one public health analysis estimated that the implementation of a universal helmet law could generate annual economic savings of nearly $285 million.7
The fundamental disagreement between these two camps stems from their focus on different points in the crash timeline.
Pro-choice advocates concentrate their arguments on crash prevention, believing that if an accident is avoided, the helmet issue is moot.
In contrast, public health advocates focus on injury mitigation, operating from the premise that crashes are an inevitable risk of road travel and that the priority must be to minimize harm when they occur.
This core difference explains why the two sides often seem to talk past each other.
Debunking Common Anti-Helmet Claims
In the course of the debate, several claims have been made against the safety of helmets themselves, though these are not supported by scientific evidence.
- Myth of Neck Injuries: The argument that the weight or design of a helmet can cause or worsen neck injuries in a crash is a persistent myth. Multiple scientific studies have debunked this claim, finding instead that unhelmeted riders actually have a higher incidence of severe neck and cervical spine injuries.26
- Myth of Impaired Senses: The claim that helmets dangerously impair vision and hearing is also unfounded. FMVSS 218 requires all DOT-compliant helmets to provide at least a 210-degree field of vision, which is wider than the 160-degree range where over 90% of crashes happen.34 While helmets do reduce the overall decibel level of ambient noise, studies show they do not prevent a rider from distinguishing between critical traffic sounds. In fact, by reducing harmful wind noise, they can help protect a rider’s hearing over the long term.34
- Myth of Unconstitutionality: The argument that helmet laws violate constitutional rights has been consistently rejected by the courts. The highest courts in more than 25 states, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, have affirmed the constitutionality of such laws, finding that the state’s interest in public safety and welfare is a legitimate basis for the regulation.21
Analogous Debates: Contextualizing the Conflict
The motorcycle helmet debate does not exist in a vacuum.
It mirrors other major public health controversies where individual autonomy clashes with the collective good.
The arguments are strikingly similar to those that surrounded the implementation of mandatory seat belt laws, where personal choice was pitted against the proven reduction in fatalities and the societal cost of injuries.35
The debate also shares parallels with more recent controversies over vaccine mandates, which likewise weigh an individual’s right to bodily autonomy against the state’s interest in preventing the spread of disease and reducing the burden on the healthcare system.7
In each case, the core question is the same: at what point does the state’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of the public override an individual’s freedom to choose?
The Courtroom Consequence: Helmet Use and Comparative Fault in Indiana
Beyond the legislative chambers and public debates, Indiana’s partial helmet law has a profound and often financially devastating consequence in the courtroom.
The state’s approach to civil liability creates a legal paradox where a motorcyclist can be exercising a legal right and simultaneously be penalized for it following an accident caused by someone else.
The Doctrine of Modified Comparative Fault
Indiana’s civil justice system operates under a legal principle known as “modified comparative fault,” which is codified in Indiana Code 34-51-2-6.12
This doctrine governs how blame and financial responsibility are assigned in personal injury cases.
Under this system, an injured person can only recover damages from another party if their own share of fault for causing the incident is determined to be 50% or less.
If they meet this threshold, their total financial compensation is then reduced by their assigned percentage of fault.12
For example, if a jury awards $100,000 in damages but finds the injured party was 20% at fault, the final award is reduced to $80,000.
The “Helmet Defense”: A Tool for Insurers and Defendants
This comparative fault system gives rise to a powerful legal tactic known as the “helmet defense.” In the aftermath of a crash involving an unhelmeted adult motorcyclist, the at-fault driver’s insurance company and legal team will almost invariably argue that the rider’s choice not to wear a helmet contributed to the severity of their injuries.8
The argument is not that the lack of a helmet
caused the crash, but that it represents a failure by the rider to take reasonable steps to protect themselves, or to “mitigate their damages”.12
If this argument persuades a jury, the rider can be assigned a percentage of fault for their own head injuries, even if they were 100% blameless for the crash itself.
This can have a catastrophic impact on their ability to recover the compensation needed for medical bills, lost wages, and long-term care.
The state legislature, in effect, grants adults the legal right to ride without a helmet, while the state’s judicial system allows that very choice to be used to assign financial liability to them.
This means the “freedom of choice” is not truly free; it comes with a hidden and potentially ruinous price tag in the form of legal and financial risk.
Judicial Discretion and Evidentiary Challenges
The admissibility of the helmet defense is not automatic and depends heavily on the specific facts of the case.
The defense is generally considered irrelevant if the rider’s primary injuries were not to the head or neck—for instance, if they suffered only a broken leg.8
However, this does not stop defense attorneys from attempting to introduce the lack of a helmet as evidence to portray the rider as generally reckless or careless, hoping to prejudice the jury.8
The existence of this defense systematically disadvantages all unhelmeted riders in the legal system.
It provides insurance companies with an immediate, built-in defense strategy, forcing the injured rider’s legal team to fight a “second battle” over comparative fault in addition to proving the other driver’s negligence.
This adds significant complexity, time, and expense to the litigation process.
It also gives insurance companies powerful leverage in settlement negotiations, as they can use the threat of the helmet defense to pressure an injured rider into accepting a lower settlement than they might otherwise be entitled to.
The partial helmet law thus has a ripple effect through the civil justice system, creating a systemic impediment to full and fair compensation for a specific class of accident victims.
Furthermore, some insurance policies may contain their own contractual clauses that limit payouts for injuries sustained while not wearing a helmet, creating another financial hurdle for riders.36
The Statistical Reality: Analyzing Crash Data in Indiana and Beyond
Moving from legal theory to empirical evidence, an analysis of state and national data reveals the tangible outcomes of different helmet law regimes.
The statistics form an unbroken chain of logic: the type of law on the books directly influences helmet use rates, and those use rates are a primary determinant of death and injury outcomes in the event of a crash.
National Trends: The Unmistakable Link Between Laws and Outcomes
Data from national authorities like NHTSA and the CDC consistently demonstrates that universal helmet laws are the single most effective policy tool for increasing helmet use.5
The difference is not minor.
According to the 2023 National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), the observed use of DOT-compliant helmets was 82.7% in states with universal laws.
In all other states, including those with partial laws like Indiana, that figure dropped to 65.9%.27
This disparity in helmet use translates directly into life-or-death outcomes.
In 2022, across all states that lack a universal helmet law, 54% of motorcyclists killed in crashes were not wearing a helmet.
In stark contrast, in states where helmets are required for all riders, only 11% of those killed were unhelmeted.40
The historical data is just as clear.
Studies of states that have repealed their universal laws show that helmet use rates plummet almost immediately—in one analysis, from 99% down to 50%—and are followed by a swift and significant increase in motorcyclist fatalities and serious injuries.5
A Focus on the Hoosier State: Indiana’s Motorcycle Fatality Profile
Indiana’s motorcycle crash statistics align perfectly with the national trends for states with partial or non-existent helmet laws.
The state’s policy of allowing adult riders to choose whether to wear a helmet has resulted in low usage rates among that population, which in turn leads to a tragically high proportion of unhelmeted fatalities.
In 2022, Indiana recorded 126 motorcyclist fatalities.43
A staggering 70% of those deaths involved unhelmeted riders.43
A separate analysis of 2022 data from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute found a similar figure, with 68% of fatalities being unhelmeted.45
This demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of fatal motorcycle crashes in Indiana involve the very population that the law exempts from protection.
This high rate of unhelmeted death is not a random anomaly but a direct and predictable consequence of the legislative choice made in the 1970s.
The law permits a risk, a large portion of the adult riding population adopts that risk, and the negative statistical outcome inevitably follows.
The following table places Indiana’s fatality data in context with its neighbors and national benchmarks.
Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Helmet Use and Fatality Rates (2021/2022 Data)
| State/Region | Helmet Law Type | Fatality Rate per 100,000 Registered Vehicles | % of Fatalities Unhelmeted (Known Use) |
| Indiana | Partial (Under 18) | 53.2 (2022) 45 | 68% (2022) 45 |
| Illinois | None | N/A (174 fatalities in 2021) 46 | N/A |
| Michigan | Partial (Under 21 + Opt-out) | 71.0 (2021) 47 | N/A |
| National Average | All Types | 65.0 (2022) 40 | 37% (Overall, 2022) 40 |
| Universal Law States | Universal | N/A | 11% (2022) 40 |
| States w/o Universal Law | Partial/None | N/A | 54% (2022) 40 |
While the data strongly supports the effectiveness of universal laws, the comparison between Indiana and Michigan introduces an important nuance.
Both states have partial laws, yet Michigan’s 2021 fatality rate per 100,000 registered vehicles was significantly higher than Indiana’s.
This disrupts a simplistic narrative and suggests that the specific details of a partial law and the local context matter immensely.
Factors such as the nature of Michigan’s insurance-based opt-out for riders over 21, a more recent and dramatic cultural shift following its 2012 repeal, or other variables like road density and riding culture could contribute to this difference.3
For policymakers, this demonstrates that “partial law” is not a monolithic category, and the specific construction of such a law can have a profound effect on its public health outcome.
The Economic Toll: Quantifying the Costs of Unhelmeted Crashes
The physical consequences of riding without a helmet are mirrored by severe economic consequences, many of which are borne by the public.
The cost of treating a traumatic brain injury is substantial and long-lasting.
A landmark study linking emergency medical services records with hospital data found that the average medical charges for an unhelmeted motorcycle or moped rider were nearly 50% higher than for a helmeted rider ($40,217 vs. $27,176).32
The same study revealed a significant disparity in who pays these bills.
Unhelmeted riders were more than twice as likely to be uninsured (self-pay) and were far more likely to rely on public funds like Medicaid to cover their costs.32
This directly shifts the financial burden of their more severe injuries from the individual to the taxpayer and to others in the insurance pool.
Nationally, NHTSA has estimated that helmet use saves the U.S. economy billions of dollars annually in medical costs and lost productivity.29
For Indiana specifically, public health advocates, extrapolating from national data, have estimated that implementing a universal helmet law could save the state’s economy nearly $285 million per year.7
Table 4: The Economic Argument: Helmet Use and Cost
| Metric | Finding/Statistic | Source(s) |
| National Economic Savings from Helmet Use (2002) | $1.3 billion | 29 |
| Additional National Savings Possible with Universal Use (2002) | $853 million | 29 |
| Average Medical Charge (Unhelmeted Rider) | $40,217 | 32 |
| Average Medical Charge (Helmeted Rider) | $27,176 | 32 |
| Payer Source: Unhelmeted (Self-pay / Medicaid) | 19.3% / 13.5% | 32 |
| Payer Source: Helmeted (Self-pay / Medicaid) | 9.8% / 5.0% | 32 |
| Estimated Annual Savings for Indiana with Universal Law | ~$285 million | 7 |
Conclusion and Recommendations
Synthesis of Findings
Indiana’s motorcycle helmet law represents a durable, politically entrenched compromise that creates a significant and perilous gap between an adult rider’s legal rights and their actual physical and financial risks.
The state’s partial helmet law, born from a successful 1970s rebellion against federal mandates, grants the “freedom of choice” championed by personal liberty advocates.3
However, this freedom is exercised in a context of overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating a vastly increased risk of death and traumatic brain injury for unhelmeted riders.2
This report has established that this choice is not without severe consequences.
In the civil justice system, the legal right to ride unhelmeted is directly penalized through the doctrine of comparative fault, which allows juries to hold riders financially responsible for their own head injuries.8
The statistical result of this legal framework is a predictable and tragically high rate of unhelmeted fatalities in the state, with figures showing that roughly 7 in 10 motorcyclists killed in Indiana were not wearing a helmet.43
These more severe injuries carry substantial economic costs, a significant portion of which are borne by the public through higher insurance premiums and taxpayer-funded healthcare programs.7
The law, therefore, maintains a philosophical victory for choice at a high and measurable cost in lives, health, and public funds.
Recommendations for Stakeholders
Given the deeply entrenched political positions and the clear evidence of negative outcomes, progress requires moving beyond the binary debate of mandate versus no mandate.
The following recommendations are targeted at key stakeholders and designed to address the specific problems identified in this analysis.
For Indiana Legislators:
- Commission a State-Specific Economic Impact Study: Rather than relying on national estimates, the General Assembly should mandate a comprehensive study by the Indiana Department of Health, in conjunction with the Family and Social Services Administration. The study’s objective would be to quantify the precise annual costs to Indiana’s Medicaid program, state-funded hospitals, and the overall insurance market resulting from the treatment of unhelmeted motorcycle crash victims. This would provide Indiana-specific data to inform future policy debates.
- Investigate “Rider’s Choice” Legislative Models: As a potential compromise between the stalemated positions, legislators should formally study “Rider’s Choice” or “Economic Responsibility” legislative models. Such a law would allow riders 18 and over to choose to ride unhelmeted only after demonstrating economic responsibility, for instance by paying a significantly higher annual registration fee or providing proof of a high-limit medical and disability insurance policy that specifically covers traumatic brain injury.38 This approach respects individual choice while internalizing the external costs of that choice, directly addressing the public burden argument.
- Clarify the Admissibility of the “Helmet Defense”: The General Assembly should consider legislation that clarifies the role of non-helmet use in civil litigation. This could involve creating a standard that prevents the introduction of non-helmet use as evidence of comparative fault unless the defendant first proves that a compliant helmet would have, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, prevented the specific injuries claimed. This would help resolve the paradox of legally penalizing a citizen for exercising a state-granted right.
For Public Health Officials (Indiana Dept. of Health, County Health Depts.):
- Launch Targeted Risk Awareness Campaigns: Public messaging should evolve beyond the simple “helmets are safe” slogan. New campaigns should be developed to educate adult riders on the specific legal and financial risks they assume by riding unhelmeted. These campaigns should explicitly explain the comparative fault doctrine and use clear language to warn that their choice could result in significantly reduced or denied compensation after a crash, even if the other driver is 100% at fault.12
- Collaborate with the Legal and Insurance Industries: Public health agencies should partner with the Indiana State Bar Association and major insurance carriers to create and distribute clear, concise educational materials for riders. This information, explaining the legal and insurance policy ramifications of helmet non-use, should be provided at key touchpoints, such as vehicle registration, license renewal, and the purchase of a motorcycle insurance policy.
- Utilize Local Research for Targeted Outreach: Leverage the findings of the Indiana University School of Medicine study, which identified that motorcycle passengers are even more likely than drivers to suffer TBIs and be non-compliant with helmet use.49 This data should be used to create specific outreach aimed at passengers, who may not be fully aware of their uniquely elevated risk.
For Motorcyclists and Rider Advocacy Groups (ABATE, AMA):
- Promote Comprehensive Risk Education: While continuing to advocate for crash-prevention education, rider training curricula should be expanded to include a mandatory module on the legal and financial ramifications of Indiana’s comparative fault law. It is essential that riders understand the full spectrum of risk—physical, legal, and financial—associated with their choices.
- Advocate for Insurance Policy Transparency: Urge members to meticulously review their own insurance policies for any clauses that may limit or exclude coverage for injuries sustained while unhelmeted.36 These groups should advocate for legislation that mandates clear, prominent, and plain-language disclosure of any such clauses on the policy declaration page.
- Champion DOT-Compliant Helmets: For all members who are required to wear helmets (minors and permit holders) and for adult members who choose to wear them, advocacy groups should launch educational campaigns on the critical differences between genuinely protective, DOT-compliant helmets and dangerous “novelty” helmets. This ensures that riders who are actively seeking protection are actually receiving it and are in compliance with the law.12
Works cited
- Indiana Code § 9-19-7-1. Minors; Protective Headgear and Face Shields; Exception for Autocycles – Justia Law, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/title-9/article-19/chapter-7/section-9-19-7-1/
- Helmet Laws in Indiana – Blackburn Romey, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.blackburnromey.com/helmet-laws-in-indiana/
- Arguments against the Motorcycle Helmet: Illinois and Indiana Helmet Laws, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.kenallenlaw.com/2020/02/arguments-against-the-motorcycle-helmet-illinois-and-indiana-helmet-laws/
- The History of ABATE – ABATE of Indiana, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://registration.abateonline.org/about/the-history-of-abate/
- MOTORCYCLE HELMET LAWS – Congress of Neurological Surgeons, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.cns.org/Assets/62739a78-218f-42df-930e-06b807a2c384/636976825155800000/aans-cns-position-statement-on-motorcycle-helmets-final-050717-0-pdf
- Helmet Use Among Motorcyclists Who Died in Crashes and Economic Cost Savings Associated With State Motorcycle Helmet Laws – CDC, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6123.pdf
- Motorcycle helmet law: inadequate in Indiana, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://sbfphc.wordpress.com/2019/08/17/motorcycle-helmet-law-inadequate-in-indiana/
- Are Helmets Required for Motorcyclists By Law in Indiana …, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://getthetiger.com/blog/motorcycle-helmets-indiana/
- Does Indiana require motorcycle riders to use a helmet? – IN.gov, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://faqs.in.gov/hc/en-us/articles/115005063587-Does-Indiana-require-motorcycle-riders-to-use-a-helmet
- Importance of Helmet Safety for Indiana Motorcyclists, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.2keller.com/blog/importance-of-helmet-safety-for-indiana-motorcyclists.cfm
- What States Have Motorcycle Helmet Laws? | Law Tigers, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://lawtigers.com/resources/helmet-laws/
- Indiana Motorcycle Helmet Laws | Wagner Reese, LLP, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.wagnerreese.com/blog/indiana-motorcycle-accident-laws/
- Your Guide to DOT-approved Motorcycle Helmets: Indiana Helmet Law – McGlone Law, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://mcglonelawoffice.com/your-guide-to-dot-approved-motorcycle-helmets-indiana-helmet-law/
- Motorcycles – IIHS, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/motorcycles
- Motorcycle Helmet Laws | Accident and injury Attorneys in Indiana and Illinois, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.kelly-lawyers.com/articles/motorcycle-helmet-laws
- Indiana Helmet Laws – Rob King & Associates, Trial Lawyers, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://robkinglaw.com/indianapolis-motorcycle-accident-lawyer/indiana-helmet-laws/
- Off-Road Vehicle Child Helmet Law – Indiana, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.in.gov/dnr/law-enforcement/laws-statutes-and-rules/off-road-vehicle-child-helmet-law/
- Motorcycle Helmet Laws: The Facts, What Can Be Done to Jump-Start Helmet Use, and Ways to Cap Damages, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1156&context=jhclp
- MV PICCS Intervention: Universal Motorcycle Helmet Laws | Transportation Safety – CDC, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/transportation-safety/calculator/mchelmet.html
- Helmet Laws & Motorcycle Accidents: What You Should Know, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.thejdfirm.com/blog/helmet-laws-motorcycle-accidents-know/
- Deadly Motorcycle Accidents: No Mandatory Helmet Laws for Indiana and Illinois, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.kenallenlaw.com/2019/02/deadly-motorcycle-accidents-no-mandatory-helmet-laws-indiana-illinois/
- Universal Motorcycle Helmet Use Laws – NHTSA, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/motorcycle-safety/countermeasures/legislation-and-licensing/universal-motorcycle-helmet-use
- Motorcyclists – Governors Highway Safety Association, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.ghsa.org/state-laws-issues/motorcyclists
- 20131114 – ABATE of Indiana, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://registration.abateonline.org/news-legislation/legislation/latest-state-legislation-news/20131114/
- Voluntary Helmet Use – American Motorcyclist Association, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://americanmotorcyclist.com/rights/ama-board-position-statements/voluntary-helmet-use/
- Understanding Motorcycle Helmet Law Controversy, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.dressielaw.com/blog/why-are-helmets-so-controversial-in-the-motorcycle-community/
- Motorcycle Helmets – Injury Facts – National Safety Council, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/occupant-protection/motorcycle-helmets/
- NACCHO – Motorcycle Crash-Related Injury and Death Prevention, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.naccho.org/uploads/downloadable-resources/02-01-Motorcycle-Crash-Related-Injury-and-Death-Prevention.pdf
- Motorcycle Helmet Use Laws – NHTSA, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/motorcycle-helmet-use-laws
- Motorcycle Safety – CDC, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/motorcycle-safety.html
- Helmets for Riders of Motorized and Non-motorized Cycles H-10.964 – Policy Finder | AMA, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/H%2010.964?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FHOD.xml-0-3.xml
- Impact of Helmet Use on Injury and Financial Burden of Motorcycle and Moped Crashes in Hawai’i: Analysis of a Linked Statewide Database – PubMed Central, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5146975/
- Motorcycle Helmet Use and Head and Facial Injuries: Crash Outcomes in CODES-Linked Data – CrashStats – NHTSA, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/811208
- Common Myths About Motorcycle Helmets and Motorcycle Helmet Laws, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Occupational/AF%20Rider/Myths%20and%20Facts%20Motorcycle%20PPE%20and%20Laws.pdf?ver=2019-02-04-164543-553
- Making cycle helmets compulsory: ethical arguments for legislation – PMC, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1079487/
- Motorcycle Crashes Without Helmets in Indiana – Stracci Law Group, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.straccilaw.com/blog/motorcycle-crashes-without-helmets-indiana
- Will Not Wearing a Helmet Impact a Motorcycle Accident Case in Indiana? – Hurst Limontes, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://hurstlimontes.com/blog/will-not-wearing-a-helmet-impact-a-motorcycle-accident-case-in-indiana/
- Rider’s Choice or Responsibility? Helmet Laws – William Rawlings & Associates, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://rawlingslaw.com/riders-choice-or-responsibility-helmet-laws/
- Motorcycle Helmet Use in 2023 – Overall Results [Traffic Safety Facts – Research Note], accessed on August 8, 2025, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/78160
- Traffic Safety Fact: 2022 Data – Motorcycles – CrashStats – NHTSA, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/813589
- 2022 Data-State Traffic Data – CrashStats – NHTSA, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813627.pdf
- Motor Vehicle Injury Motorcycle Helmets: Universal Helmet Laws – The Community Guide, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/motor-vehicle-injury-motorcycle-helmets-universal-helmet-laws.html
- Indianapolis Motorcycle Accident Lawyer | Yosha Law, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://yoshalawfirm.com/indianapolis-injury/motorcycle-accident-lawyer/
- Motorcycle Accident Statistics 2025 – AutoInsurance.com, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.autoinsurance.com/motorcycle-accident-statistics/
- Indiana Motorcycle Accident Statistics and Trends: A Comprehensive Analysis for 2025 – Stracci Law Group, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.straccilaw.com/blog/indiana-motorcycle-accident-statistic
- Illinois Motorcycle Accident Statistics – Disparti Law Group, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.dispartilaw.com/illinois-motorcycle-accident-statistics/
- Motorcycle Death Accident Lawyer Michigan | Lipton Law | MI, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://liptonlaw.com/michigan-motorcycle-accident-lawyer/wrongful-death-injury-motorcycle/
- Motorcycle helmet use laws – IIHS, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/motorcycles/motorcycle-helmet-laws-table
- Motorcycle passengers more likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries than drivers, IU School of Medicine study shows, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://medicine.iu.edu/news/2017/11/motorcycle-passengers-more-likely-to-suffer-tbis-study-1
