Legality of Mohawks on helmets

Moderators: Radar Identified, Reflections, admin, hwybear, Decatur, bend

User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

Legality of Mohawks on helmets

by: FiReSTaRT on
Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:39 pm

I've seen a few younger riders with those mohawks on their helmets and was wondering if that's in some sort of violation of the HTA.
As for me, it's bad enough that I ride a supersport with blown muffler packing. I don't need any more attention :twisted:
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Orillia
Contact:

by: Squishy on
Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:08 pm

According to "R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 610", motorcycle helmets can meet any of these certifications:
-CSA Standard D230
-Snell
-British Standards Institute
-DOT FMVSS 218

The DOT standards were easy too look up, and they only seem to prohibit rigid cosmetic projections. I'm not sure if just the act of modification voids the DOT certification, but otherwise the mohawks don't seem to be outside the standards.

Regardless, we were cautioned against decorating our hard hats because several glues will react with the plastic and make it brittle, rendering it useless during impact. I'm guessing the same applies to motorcycle helmets.
         Image


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

by: FiReSTaRT on
Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:35 pm

One of those kids complained that he got pulled over and the cop told him to either remove it or that he'll get a ticket for it. So I'm wondering what the charge would be in that case. For all I know, he could be talking smack.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:47 am

"Fail to wear proper helmet on motorcycle"

Thanks to Squishy was able to find the Oreg 610 faster...
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

What I did learn here is that a "motor assisted bicycle" also requires a motorcycle helmet and that a bicycle helmet will not suffice.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

by: FiReSTaRT on
Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:13 am

Too bad.. It would have been a nice way for the occasional squid to divert even more attention away from me and towards him/herself 8)
So if there's an accident with enough of a head impact to deform the lining, I wouldn't be able to ride the bike home (assuming both the bike and I don't sustain any serious injuries) because the helmet would technically be "damaged"?
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Orillia
Contact:

by: Squishy on
Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:28 am

I can't find the definition for it, but I'm pretty sure a "motor assisted bicycle" refers to gasoline-powered bicycles, the ones that require the new low-speed M license. An electric bicycle is called a "power assisted" bicycle and doesn't require a license to operate, and the only helmet difference between that and a normal bicycle is the over-18 exemption doesn't apply (covered in OREG 473/06).

EDIT: Unofficial definitions from the MTO website were the best I could come up with:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/ ... /emerging/
I'm guessing the distinction is made in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, but the justice.gc.ca site is down right now.
FiReSTaRT wrote:...
So if there's an accident with enough of a head impact to deform the lining, I wouldn't be able to ride the bike home (assuming both the bike and I don't sustain any serious injuries) because the helmet would technically be "damaged"?
I wouldn't ride a bike with a wrecked helmet, unless it was at low speeds and at the side of the road. Even if the helmet didn't crack, the impact-absorbing foam is single-use and won't expand after it is compressed. The wrecked bike may have some hidden damage that would lead to another wipeout, and now your helmet with a used up crumple zone will just transfer the impact energy to your head.
         Image


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:35 pm

Squishy wrote:
FiReSTaRT wrote:...
So if there's an accident with enough of a head impact to deform the lining, I wouldn't be able to ride the bike home (assuming both the bike and I don't sustain any serious injuries) because the helmet would technically be "damaged"?
I wouldn't ride a bike with a wrecked helmet, unless it was at low speeds and at the side of the road. Even if the helmet didn't crack, the impact-absorbing foam is single-use and won't expand after it is compressed. The wrecked bike may have some hidden damage that would lead to another wipeout, and now your helmet with a used up crumple zone will just transfer the impact energy to your head.
Similiar note went to a collision couple weeks ago....2 kids in child seats....owner asks if they can be used again.....highly recommend they both be replaced as the manufacturer states so.....but I just spent $200 on them 2 days ago, that was a waste of money :shock: ...your children are not injured the seat did its job! $200 or your child's life??
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

by: FiReSTaRT on
Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:21 pm

That's why I have a spare in addition to also having a bi..., I mean passenger lid :P
It's just in certain circumstances, the CAA takes forever to get to the spot, assuming the cell didn't get wrecked.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Orillia
Contact:

by: Squishy on
Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:45 pm

hwybear wrote:Similiar note went to a collision couple weeks ago....2 kids in child seats....owner asks if they can be used again.....highly recommend they both be replaced as the manufacturer states so.....but I just spent $200 on them 2 days ago, that was a waste of money :shock: ...your children are not injured the seat did its job! $200 or your child's life??
:lol: Wow. Do motorcycle/bike helmets expire like child seats and hard hats do?

And I could see someone making the argument that lots of people ride with no helmets and many of them survive just fine - except the chances of the bike having a mechanical failure are much greater if you just took a tumble.
         Image


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

by: FiReSTaRT on
Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:32 pm

They're good for about 5 years of use, before you can't quite trust that the lining will absorb the impact and compress. That's assuming you wear it on a regular basis (body heat deteriorates it).
Also if I did decide to ride the bike home, I'd throw out the lid and pick up a new one. The el-cheapo spare would allow me to ride while shopping around for a new one.
As for those people making the arguments.. Let's put it this way.. Would you rather fall on your head from 6' height while doing 100km/h and with a chance of getting clipped by an inattentive driver who's right behind you with or without a DOT/Snell/ECE approved helmet?
That's why I always wear my full gear, including jackets/pants with CE-rated armour inserts.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.


User avatar
racer
VIP
VIP
Posts: 959
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Contact:

by: racer on
Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:10 pm

Squishy wrote: An electric bicycle is called a "power assisted" bicycle and doesn't require a license to operate, and the only helmet difference between that and a normal bicycle is the over-18 exemption doesn't apply (covered in OREG 473/06).
Electric bicycles don't even need to have insurance :lol:


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

by: FiReSTaRT on
Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:23 pm

Another couple of questions of this topic. Both of my lids have pop-up vents. Technically that would not be a "smooth hard outer shell."

1) Can I get ticketed for that even though my regular lid is DOT+ECE certified and the spare is DOT+Snell certified?
2) What would be the difference between a pop-up vent and a mohawk in the eyes of the law?
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:53 pm

Probably because one helmet is manufactured with the vents in. The mohawks things are either glued or bolted on after market thus wrecking the dexterity of the helmet with holes and/or glue thus voids the DOT/CSA certification. Removing foam liner also voids the helmet.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

by: FiReSTaRT on
Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:07 pm

Thanks Bear. I have been pulled over by one of your colleagues once on the 407. He didn't ticket me for the helmet, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't shootin' craps, especially since just about every decent lid on the market has popup vents.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

by: FiReSTaRT on
Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:17 pm

On another note, I'm assuming sticking a self-adhesive reflective marker on the back of my lid for better visibility would leave me in the same legal trouble as a mohawk?
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.


Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests