Call For A Free Consultation(602) 345-1818
Call For A Free Consultation(602) 345-1818
If you ride in Arizona, the helmet law is simpler than most people think, and more nuanced than most competitors’ pages let on. This article walks through what the helmet law in Arizona actually says, what people miss (there is a piece that applies to adults too), and what happens if an insurance adjuster tries to use a missing helmet to shrink an injured rider’s claim.
We handle these cases regularly through our motorcycle accident practice, and the pattern is consistent: riders lose money not because the law is against them, but because they don’t know the argument to push back with.
Arizona requires a helmet only for motorcycle riders and passengers under 18. If you are 18 or older, wearing a helmet is your choice.
But the statute does not stop there, and this is where most riders get tripped up. All riders, regardless of age, must wear protective eye gear unless the motorcycle has a windscreen. That rule applies to adults.
So the accurate short answer is: helmets are optional for adults; eye protection generally is not.
Arizona’s motorcycle equipment law is A.R.S. § 28-964. Here is what it actually covers:
Helmets. Every operator and passenger under 18 must wear a protective helmet on the head. There is no helmet requirement for adult riders.
Eye protection. Every operator (regardless of age) must wear protective glasses, goggles, or a transparent face shield unless the motorcycle is equipped with a protective windscreen. This is the piece competitors leave out. If your bike has no windshield and you are riding in a t-shirt and sunglasses, sunglasses may or may not qualify depending on how they are constructed and how a court reads the statute in your specific situation. A cracked pair of gas-station sunglasses is not going to satisfy anyone.
Footrests. If the motorcycle is carrying a passenger, it must be equipped with footrests for the passenger.
Handlebars. Handlebars cannot rise above the height of the operator’s shoulders when the operator is seated on the motorcycle. That is the “ape-hanger” rule.
That is the whole statute. It is short. It is specific. And it is one of the more permissive motorcycle equipment laws in the country.
Ninety percent of the “Arizona helmet law” pages online tell you helmets are optional for adults, and stop there. That is incomplete.
If you are over 18 and riding a motorcycle in Arizona without a windscreen, you need to be wearing glasses, goggles, or a face shield. Full stop. This is a traffic violation on its own, and after a crash it becomes something an insurance adjuster will bring up if it applies to how the injury happened (facial trauma, eye injury, glass laceration).
Most competent riders wear eye protection anyway, because riding at 65 mph on the 202 without something in front of your eyes is not survivable in the long run. The point here is legal, not stylistic: adult eye protection is a statutory duty in Arizona, not an option.
Arizona repealed its universal helmet law decades ago. The current under-18-only rule is what most states with partial helmet laws look like. This is not the article to debate whether that is good policy. What matters for an injured rider is that the legislature made a specific choice: adult riders are allowed to decide for themselves.
That legislative choice matters legally, and we come back to it below.
The safety data is not close. Motorcyclists are roughly 28 times more likely than car occupants to die in a crash per vehicle mile traveled, according to NHTSA. Helmets are the single biggest factor in surviving head impact.
That is not a legal argument. It is a reason a lot of Arizona riders wear helmets even though the state does not force them to. In the cases we see, the injuries that end up driving claim value on the medical side are the injuries you would expect: traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, complex orthopedic fractures, road rash requiring skin grafts, and internal injuries from the initial impact and the tumble that follows. These are the common motorcycle injuries we see most in Phoenix crash cases.
None of that changes the legal question of who caused the crash. But it explains why motorcycle claim files are heavier than car-crash files, and why the insurance side pushes back harder.
Here is where the informational article turns practical.
If you were not wearing a helmet, and you were in a motorcycle crash, and now you are dealing with the other driver’s insurance company, expect this: the adjuster will bring up the missing helmet. They will suggest, sometimes softly and sometimes not, that your injuries would have been less serious if you had been wearing one. They will use that to justify a lower offer.
Here is what they are not telling you:
Arizona does not require you to wear a helmet. You were not breaking the law. The legislature deliberately allowed adults to ride without one. An insurance adjuster does not get to override that legislative choice by treating your legal behavior as fault.
The helmet argument only makes sense if the injury is head-related. If you broke your femur, tore your rotator cuff, or crushed your pelvis, a helmet would not have prevented any of it. An adjuster who blames a missing helmet for your leg fracture is making an argument that does not survive contact with the medical records.
Even for head injuries, the argument is contestable. It requires the insurer to prove, with actual medical evidence, that a helmet would have prevented or reduced the specific injury you sustained at the impact speed and angle involved. That is a fact question, not a foregone conclusion.
The adjuster’s job is to close your claim cheaply. Yours is to make sure that does not happen.
Arizona uses pure comparative negligence under A.R.S. § 12-2505. That means damages are reduced by the injured person’s percentage of fault, but you can still recover something even if you are mostly at fault. If a jury finds you were 30% responsible, your damages are reduced by 30%. If they find you 80% responsible, they are reduced by 80%. You can read a fuller breakdown at Arizona’s pure comparative negligence rule.
The insurer’s strategy with an unhelmeted rider is to try to assign some percentage of fault to the rider for the injury (not the crash) based on the missing helmet. In legal terms, this is closer to a “failure to mitigate damages” or “seatbelt defense” theory than a traditional fault argument.
The problem for the insurer is that Arizona has no adult helmet requirement. Using a legal choice as evidence of fault is not the slam dunk they want it to be, and it can be pushed back on with:
None of this is automatic. Every case turns on its own facts. But “no helmet” is not the case-ender the adjuster wants you to think it is.
Most motorcycle cases are not decided on helmet use. They are decided on how the crash happened. The patterns we see most often:
Left-turn crashes. A driver making a left turn across your lane is the number-one killer of motorcyclists. Under A.R.S. § 28-772, the turning driver is required to yield to oncoming traffic. When a car turns left into a motorcycle, the turning driver is typically at fault, and we treat that as the working presumption in when a car turns left into a motorcycle.
Lane-change and blind-spot crashes. Drivers merge into a motorcyclist because they did not check, or because they assume the space next to them is empty.
Lane filtering. Arizona now allows limited lane filtering at intersections under specific conditions (speed limits, lane counts, filtering speed). Full lane splitting on the freeway remains illegal. This matters because insurers frequently claim a rider was doing something illegal when they were not. Details on the lane filtering rules in Arizona are worth understanding before you talk to any adjuster.
Rear-end crashes at stoplights. A motorcycle stopped at a light gets hit from behind. The following driver is presumed at fault under Arizona’s basic rules of the road.
Notice what these have in common: none of them are caused by the rider’s headgear.
Here is the part that hurts motorcyclists more than the helmet question ever will.
Arizona’s minimum liability limits are 25/50/15 under A.R.S. § 28-4009: $25,000 bodily injury per person, $50,000 per accident, $15,000 property damage. For a motorcycle crash with a serious injury, that $25,000 is often gone before the first hospital bill clears.
That is why UM/UIM coverage matters so much for riders. Under A.R.S. § 20-259.01, Arizona insurers are required to offer uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist coverage. You can reject it in writing, but you have to reject it in writing. If it was not offered, or if it was on your policy and you did not know, that changes the math on your case fast.
Two more things worth knowing:
The full picture of what riders should carry, and how UM/UIM stacks up against real crash economics, is in our page on motorcycle insurance issues in Arizona.
Arizona’s 2-year statute of limitations applies to motorcycle injury claims. Under A.R.S. § 12-542, you have two years from the date of the crash to file a personal injury lawsuit. Miss it and the claim is gone, regardless of how strong the underlying case was.
If a government vehicle or a government road-maintenance issue is involved, the notice-of-claim deadline under A.R.S. § 12-821.01 is 180 days, which is much shorter. Do not wait on those.
Practical steps, in order:
Only if you are under 18. Adult riders and passengers can legally ride without a helmet under A.R.S. § 28-964. But all riders must wear eye protection (glasses, goggles, or a face shield) unless the motorcycle has a windscreen.
Yes. Because Arizona does not require helmets for adult riders, you were not breaking the law. Insurance adjusters may try to reduce your recovery by arguing a helmet would have prevented some of your injuries, but that argument is contestable, especially when the injuries are not head-related. Every case is fact-specific.
A.R.S. § 28-964 requires operators to wear protective glasses, goggles, or a transparent face shield unless the motorcycle has a protective windscreen. This applies to adults, not just minors, and is separate from the helmet requirement.
Arizona allows limited lane filtering at intersections under specific conditions. Full lane splitting between moving cars on a freeway is not legal. The distinction matters because insurers often mislabel one as the other after a crash.
Two years from the date of the crash under A.R.S. § 12-542. If a government entity is involved, the notice-of-claim window is 180 days under A.R.S. § 12-821.01, which is much shorter.
No. It gives the insurance company an argument, but that argument only has weight if your injuries are actually the kind a helmet could have prevented, and even then it has to be proven with medical evidence. Most motorcycle claims turn on how the crash happened, not what the rider was wearing.
If you were hurt in a motorcycle crash in Phoenix, the sooner you get an attorney involved, the harder it is for the other driver’s insurance company to trim your claim. That is true whether or not you were wearing a helmet.
Free case review with Jared J. Pehrson: (602) 345-1818. We answer 24/7. No attorney’s fees unless we recover, subject to the terms of the written fee agreement.
By Jared J. Pehrson | Impact Legal Car Accident Attorneys
We're Here To Help 24/7
(602) 345-1818