Ohio AIM Attorneys

Ralph C. Buss
168 East High St
Painesville, OH 44077-0705

As an engineer, Buss designed & tested metals for use in buildings. He retired from engineering, then began to study law. Additionally, Buss studied karate, becoming a black belt. He opened, owned and operated a martial arts school.Ralph Buss was a teen when he (and his family) left Riga, Latvia. They made their home in the USA just after WWII. He learned that education is important to success. Buss studied engineering.

It was in the parking lot of Buss’ martial arts school that he first became interested in motorcycles & their riders. A group of motorcyclists tended to congregate nearby, and conversation soon followed. The motorcyclists talked Buss into riding one of their bikes around the parking lot. After he dropped the H-D & everyone laughed, he learned to ride correctly. The friendships developed into occasional legal work. It was not long before Buss became known as a “biker lawyer”.

Buss is the A.I.M. (Aid to Injured Motorcyclists) attorney for Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky. He is also a tireless defender of motorcyclists’ rights. Much of the work he does is pro bono (free of charge).

Buss recently hosted a conference to explain many of the new “anti-gang” laws and their impact on motorcyclists. Buss prepared an excellent reference book (summarizing several state’s gang laws) for attendees, lined up speakers (including the sponsor of Ohio’s gang law), and talked the publisher of Classic Parts Hotline into buying lunch for the over 250 attendees. At the conference, Buss explained the gang laws, how best to use the reference book, and answered all questions.

Buss is the author of the USA’s first anti-biker anti-discrimination bill, introduced in Buss’ home state of Ohio. Though Buss’ bill failed to pass, other bills modeled after it have been introduced in several states (Minnesota recently passed a similar one, becoming the first state to do so).

Buss spends a lot of time on the road (preparing for & going to court). He makes time to work out regularly. Buss enjoys continuing education, taking more classes than required. He pursues physical and mental fitness with devotion to living each day to its fullest.

Ohio Helmet Law


  • Helmets Required for all riders up to age 18. Helmets Required for novices or permit holders.

Other Ohio Motorcycle Laws

State Funded Rider Education

  • Available for all eligible applicants.
  • Required under age 18.

Eye Protection

  • Required unless equipped with wind screen.

Daytime Use Of Headlight

  • Modulating headlight permitted.

Passenger Seat

  • Required if carrying a passenger.

Passenger Footrests

  • Required if carrying a passenger.


  • Required by law.

Periodic Safety Inspection

Random inspections, required by law.

65 MPH Speed Limit

  • In effect on designated rural interstate highways.

NCOM Region

REGION IV : Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin

Anti-Discrimination Law


The Ohio Revised Code, 4112.02 (G) provides that It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any proprietor or any employee, keeper, or manager of a place of public accommodation to deny to any person, except for reasons applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, handicap, age or ancestry, the full enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof.

The purpose of R C 4112.02 (G), is to afford every person or individual a guarantee against arbitrary discrimination of any kind, whether or not specifically expressed in the code. All arbitrary discrimination is prohibited by it and all persons are protected from stereotypical discrimination. Class based generalization as a justification for differential treatment is a type of practice that is prohibited by the Ohio Revised Code.

The standard for determining whether there has been unlawful discrimination is not whether an exclusionary policy is rational and/or reasonable, but whether it is based upon stereotype as established in Ohio Civil Rights Commission v, Lysyk, at page 221 Therefore; unless a blanket exclusion serves a compelling societal interest, a private exclusionary policy is violative of Ohio law.

The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) that individuals have the constitutional right under the First Amendment to wear clothing which displays writing or designs. A citizen has the right to move about freely and peaceably in public places, without protected by the United States Supreme Court.

Don’t subject yourself to civil and criminal penalties and to expensive and time consuming lawsuits. Don’t discriminate against people wearing colors or motorcycle attire.