A few days ago, I was traveling home with friends from a youth group meeting at my local church. It was a pickup truck and due to limited space, two other friends had to sit in the cargo area. I asked the driver if that was legal, because in the distant past, my mom told me it was illegal. He said he checked online and said in Ohio (where we live) it is legal. When he dropped me home, my mom said, “You know, sitting back there is illegal.” I told her what the driver said and I looked it up online, and Ohio “prohibits people under the age of 16 from riding in an unenclosed area of a vehicle traveling faster than 25 mph. Both of the students were over 16 so what they did was perfectly legal.
I did some more research and according to this, all US states allow riding in the cargo area of pickup trucks in some way (whether there’s an age or occupation restriction or not) except for California, Indiana, and New York. Given my mom was born in 1966, the Ohio law might have been different when she was a teenager, which may be why she originally thought it was illegal.
So given this backstory, my question is when (and why) did it become legal in most US states to ride in the cargo area of pickup trucks? If these states’ laws were more the less the same since the beginning of automobiles, why do California, Indiana, and New York ban the practice completely while everyone else allows it in some way?
Thanks!
Edit: To those saying a better question would be "when it became illegal." Only 3 states have it completely illegal so the better question would be when it became legal.
In 1979, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended the creation of model guidelines to prohibit passengers from riding in the cargo areas of pickup trucks. The first seatbelt laws had swept the country about 15 years before, so the regulation of truck bed passengers seemed like a logical next step. As a result, states began to pass truck bed legislation in the 1980's (the only state to prohibit open cargo passengers before then was New Jersey, which had already prohibited "inappropriate riding" for about 50 years). It was perfectly legal to ride in a truck bed before these laws. These 'open cargo' or 'open bed' laws vary wildly from state to state and generally contain so many exceptions as to nullify the safety benefits they intend (such as Ohio's).
As to why the language between statutes is so variable and generally weak, I can only speculate. One, there are a variety of interest groups in all states who oppose such legislation, particularly the agricultural and construction industries. Two, some lawmakers and voters are cautious of what they perceive to be over-regulation (see for example this article from 2011, which describes an Arizona lawmaker's objections to a proposed bill that would tighten the state's law). Three, not all of these laws are necessarily designed to increase safety; interestingly, Ohio's law (Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.51) dates back to 1975 (before the NTSB's recommendation) in some form or another and is technically part of the anti-hitchhiking code. Perhaps all of this confusion helps explain the popular misconception that truck bed riding is somehow uniformly illegal in the US.
I do not have any knowledge about why California, Indiana, and New York have the only near-absolute bans, other than to suggest that those were the only states where the above factors were overcome or were irrelevant at the time of enactment. They appear to be relatively recent laws, dating from the last 15 or so years.
Source: Christoffel, Tom. et al. "Developing a Model Law Restricting the Transporting of Passengers in the Cargo Areas of Pickup Trucks." Journal of Public Health Policy, vol. 21, no. 1, 2000, pp. 61-81.
The three states which /u/HomeAliveIn45 notes as exceptions are interesting because agriculture is a substantial part of the economy of all of them. It seems to me that entirely prohibiting riding in the bed of a truck was not the stated intention of the legislature.
This Indiana AG opinion strongly suggests that the core of it is simply a poorly drafted seat belt law.
"Occupant" [of a vehicle] is not defined under Title 9. Words used in a statue should be taken in their plain and usual sense. [...] However, as of July 1, 2007, section 9-10-10-2 states: Each occupant of a motor vehicle equipped with a safety belt... shall have a safety belt properly fastened about the occupant's body at all times when the vehicle is in forward motion.
Their use of "each", failure to define "occupant," and failure to further that the law applies to riders in seats which are "equipped with safety belts" prohibits riding in a truck bed if the vehicle is new enough to have seat belts.
However, there are a few notable exceptions. IC 9-19-10-1 exempts mail carriers and delivery persons, as well as occupants of a "farm truck" when the vehicle is being used for "farming operations," per the AG opinion linked above.
Would "farming operations" extend to driving into town for a tank of gas? Probably not. But driving workers in the bed of a truck on public roads from one field to another during the work day would probably be legal. A cop would still issue the citation - it's too nuanced for a side-of-the-road argument, most likely - but it could be dismissed if taken to court based on the above.
It's also perfectly legal - though arguably rather less safe - to ride in the living space of an RV in Indiana. It's not inherently less safe, but someone out there right now likely thinks it's a good idea to fire up the stove and cook dinner while cruising down I-65. There are other exceptions as well, noted in both the relevant code section and the opinion.
I can't speak for CA or NY, but Indiana has, from time to time, passed draconian laws that they believe the voters want but which are poorly considered and hurried through the process only to find later problems.
Edi: typo
(Are these sources appropriate for a top-level comment? Mods, please tell me to move it to a reply comment if necessary. While the sources are not academic in nature per se, they are reasonably authoritative)