(1)The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the regulations, persons driving or riding (otherwise than in side-cars) on motor cycles of any class specified in the regulations to wear protective headgear of such description as may be so specified.
(2)A requirement imposed by regulations under this section shall not apply to any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban.
(3)Regulations under this section may make different provision in relation to different circumstances.
(4)A person who drives or rides on a motor cycle in contravention of regulations under this section is guilty of an offence; but notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law no person other than the person actually committing the contravention is guilty of an offence by reason of the contravention unless the person actually committing the contravention is a child under the age of sixteen years.
Cases considering section 16 4
[2006] EWHC 1795 (Admin) · 8 June 2006Interprets
Sets out the statutory route for proving the proportion of alcohol in a blood specimen by producing an analyst’s certificate, subject to specified qualifications. The provision frames the unresolved admissibility issue (see para [16]).
Provides that an analyst’s certificate is admissible only if a copy has been served on the accused not later than seven days before the hearing. The court identifies the requirement but leaves its application unresolved pending factual findings (see para [16]).
Provides that an analyst’s certificate is inadmissible where the accused has served timely notice requiring the analyst’s attendance, subject to any extended time allowed in special circumstances. No such notice was served, but the court does not otherwise resolve admissibility (see para [16]).
Confirms that the certificate may be served personally or by registered post or recorded delivery. Its interaction with the postal deeming rule is the legal issue requiring consideration after further factual findings (see paras [17]–[21]).
[2023] EWCA Crim 5 · 13 January 2023Limits
The court held that the Sikh turban exemption balances safety and religious freedom but is not determinative of whether a non-exempt passenger's lack of a helmet is relevant to dangerous driving. (see para [13])
The court relied on the provision as part of the statutory requirement for protective headgear and the driver's responsibility where a passenger under 16 does not wear it. This supported the relevance of the known absence of a helmet. (see paras [14]-[15]; [21])
[2015] EWCA Civ 380 · 22 April 2015Limits
The judgment identified riding a motorcycle without required protective headgear as an example of a road-traffic offence relevant to the unresolved boundary of the illegality doctrine. It did not decide whether the doctrine would apply to that offence. (see para [84])
What each judgment says about section 16 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.