(512) 883-0277 
Motorcycle riders can suffer devastating injuries when another driver causes a crash. If the rider was not wearing a helmet, however, the insurance company may use that fact to argue that the rider shares responsibility for the resulting injuries.
That does not automatically prevent someone from recovering compensation. Texas allows certain motorcyclists to ride without a helmet, and even when helmet use becomes relevant to a personal injury claim, there is an important distinction between what caused the crash and what may have contributed to a particular injury.
Understanding that distinction can be critical when an insurance company attempts to reduce the value of a motorcycle accident claim.
Does Texas Have a Helmet Law?
Texas generally requires motorcycle riders to wear protective headgear that meets state safety standards. However, state law provides an exemption for certain riders who are at least 21 years old.
A rider 21 or older is not required to wear a helmet if the rider has completed an approved motorcycle operator training and safety course or is covered by a qualifying health insurance plan. Riders under 21 generally must wear a helmet.
The Texas motorcycle helmet exemption can become important after a crash if an insurance company attempts to characterize the rider’s lack of a helmet as unlawful conduct. Before that argument can be evaluated, it is necessary to determine whether the rider was legally required to wear one.
Can Riding Without a Helmet Reduce Your Compensation?
Potentially, but the answer depends on the circumstances.
Texas uses a modified comparative responsibility system. If an injured person is found partially responsible for their damages, their compensation can be reduced by their percentage of responsibility. A person who is more than 50 percent responsible generally cannot recover damages.
An insurance company may argue that an unhelmeted motorcyclist contributed to the severity of a head or brain injury. Whether the evidence supports that argument is a separate question.
Consider a rider who suffers a traumatic brain injury after being thrown from a motorcycle. Helmet use may become an issue when evaluating the extent of that injury. If the same rider instead suffers a badly fractured leg when a vehicle strikes the motorcycle, the absence of a helmet may have little or no connection to that particular harm.
The injuries, medical evidence, and circumstances of the collision all matter.
Not Wearing a Helmet Does Not Mean You Caused the Crash
Helmet use and accident liability should not be treated as the same issue.
A driver may cause a motorcycle collision by turning in front of a rider, changing lanes without checking a blind spot, running a red light, following too closely, or driving while distracted. Whether the motorcyclist was wearing a helmet generally does not explain why that collision occurred.
Evidence used to determine fault may include:
- Police crash reports.
- Witness statements.
- Traffic or surveillance footage.
- Vehicle damage.
- Photographs from the scene.
- Physical evidence from the roadway.
If another motorist caused the crash, the fact that the rider was not wearing a helmet does not erase that driver’s negligence. Instead, the helmet question may become relevant when determining whether the rider’s actions contributed to the severity of certain injuries.
When Helmet Use Becomes an Insurance Dispute
Motorcycle accident claims can become contentious when insurers attempt to place additional responsibility on the rider.
An insurer may argue that a rider should receive less compensation because a helmet could have prevented or reduced a head injury. The rider’s attorney may need to examine whether medical evidence actually supports that position and whether the claimed injuries could reasonably have been prevented by helmet use.
The distinction is especially important when a crash causes multiple injuries. A motorcyclist may suffer head trauma as well as spinal injuries, broken bones, internal injuries, road rash, or other harm. An argument concerning helmet use should not automatically be applied to injuries that have no meaningful connection to the rider’s head protection.
Medical records and expert opinions may be important when determining how an injury occurred and whether wearing a helmet would likely have changed the outcome.
Are Helmets Required in Texas for Every Adult Rider?
No. The exemption for qualifying riders 21 and older means Texas does not require motorcycle helmets in every circumstance.
But complying with the helmet law and evaluating a personal injury claim are two different matters. A motorcyclist may have been legally entitled to ride without a helmet and still face an insurer arguing that the decision affected the severity of a particular injury.
Likewise, a rider who was required to wear a helmet but was not wearing one does not automatically lose the right to pursue a claim against the driver who caused the crash.
The facts still matter, including how the collision happened, the injuries sustained, and the relationship between helmet use and those injuries.
Get Help After an Austin Motorcycle Accident
A serious motorcycle crash can involve disputes over both who caused the collision and the extent of the resulting damages. When helmet use becomes part of the claim, those questions should be evaluated separately and based on the available evidence.
At Glen Larson Law Injury Attorneys, we investigate motorcycle crashes, challenge efforts to unfairly shift blame onto injured riders, and pursue compensation based on the full circumstances of the accident.
If you were injured in a motorcycle accident in Austin or elsewhere in Texas, call (512) 883-0277 or contact us online to schedule a free consultation today.
