CHP and Helmets; Judge rules law unconstitutional

Awwww, but that's like saying that a visit from the Easter Bunny is
required. DOT doesn't certify anything, regarding motorcycle helmets.
That's probably why the judge ruled that the law was too vague to be
enforced. The guy printing "DOT" on just about anything worn on the head
would meet the requirements of the law. Literally. And that's how the
judge ruled, as the judge followed the law, for a change. -Dave

 

There's no such thing as a "DOT-approved helemet". The DOT does not
approve helmets. They set standards. The manufacturers self-certify that
they meet the standards and put DOT spec markings on their helmets to show
it.

The DOT can test to show certain manufacturers fail to meet the
standards, and they have done this a couple of times.

So if you make your own hat, you are a manufacturer, and can self
certify. It is then upto the CHP and/or DOT to prove you wrong by lab
testing your hat. The CHP did not do this in Richard Quigley's case,
they just claimed that it didn't look like a real helmet with no proof.
The judge ruled correctly.

 

What I was addressing was not judges ruling (which may yet be overturned
by a senior court) but rather your mistaken assertion that only
legislatures could effect laws. However, you snipped that portion of my
post, either through ignorance of standard newsgroup etiquette, or in a
crude but incompetent attempt to support your repeatedly disproved
contention.

 

Certified by whom, though? DOT doesn't test helmets, and they don't

You are right, as far as you go. But you haven't carried your argument to
its logical conclusion. (What happens on the street?) Let's assume You are
a cop on traffic patrol. You see a motorcycle rider wearing something on
his head. It doesn't quite look like a helmet, so you decide to
investigate. You pull over the motorcycle rider, check his
license/registration/insurance, and all of the paperwork looks to be up to
snuff. If the rider is wearing a proper helmet, he is (at this point) doing
NOTHING wrong. So, you examine his helmet. It looks really fricking ODD,
for lack of a better word, but it does have a "DOT" sticker on it. WHAT DO
YOU DO at that point?

Some would advocate that the motorcyclist should be cited for lack of proper
helmet (because the cop thought it didn't look like a proper helmet), and
let the judge decide. Only problem is, THAT HAS BEEN TRIED ALREADY. It has
been weighed, measured, and found lacking. Until the law is changed,
there is no motorcycle helmet requirement in the state of CA. If you don't
like it, talk to the judge. It wasn't MY ruling. -Dave

 

Don't have it handy, but I am pretty certain I have a sticker on mine
that does in fact say "DOT approved" or "certified", or some similar
verbiage. Now, if you are arguing that entities other than the DOT
actually do the testing, then you are merely playing semantics. And I
doubt the manufacturers self-certify either. Underwriters Laboratories
(there is also another company who's name I cannot recall) does the
testing of just about anything and everything that needs to pass a
government standard from toasters to firefighting equipment (including
ladders, protective clothing, and, yes, helmets.)

 

So very wrong. See above replies.

 

Theoretically, the CHP could pull a regulation out
of their ass tomorrow,

What's your point? The judge ruled that to be too vague to be enforced.
Posting in a newsgroup won't make it any less vague. -Dave

 

Not according to the judge's decision quoted in the Mercury News.

 

Actually, the law is vague enough that it DOES count. What you are missing
is that DOT doesn't test or certify helmets. It's left to the manufacturer
to do so. I can put a DOT sticker on a baseball hat and claim that I
manufactured a DOT certified motorcycle helmet. I am NOT required to prove
that it is "DOT certified" (no helmet ever made IS, BTW), and I am NOT
required to prove that the helmet passed any kind of tests, related or
unrelated to any DOT specification. The burden of proof is (as always) on
the party alleging that wrongdoing has occurred. Since you can't prove a
negative, the law is not enforceable.

Oh, and ironically, that is how the judge ruled on the matter. -Dave

 

There's no such thing as a "DOT-approved helemet". The DOT does not

Thank YOU! Finally, someone who understands that the burden of proof is not
on the defendant. -Dave

 

Yes, but when he embroidered "DOT" on the cap, was
he sincere ?

He may very well be guilty of riding a motorcycle while not
**believing** he was wearing a helmet.

Ain't it awful ?? (snicker)

 

Bullshit.

Uhhh, I know what the standard is. But as I wrote before, it is up to the
prosecution to prove wrong-doing, if wrong-doing is alleged. Because of
this, there is a loophole in the law large enough to ride a motorcycle
through. That's all the judge is saying. -Dave

 

Don't have it handy, but I am pretty certain I have a sticker on mine that

Doubt it all you want. But the DOT doesn't test helmets, and the DOT
doesn't hire anybody else to test helmets. -Dave

 

Certified by whom, though? DOT doesn't test helmets, and they don't

No, absolutely right. It would be up to the prosecutor to prove that
testing had not been done. That's impossible to do. Thus, the judge ruled
that the law was too vague. -Dave

 

Well, I suppose we should at least be grateful to you for letting us
know where and how you went so terribly wrong...

 

Probably, but the point is moot.

Well yes, but there is no law against that yet. Oh shit, I just gave
someone an idea.

Yeah. Terrible. I'm going to lose sleep over the matter. -Dave

 

Me too, Rob. Doesn't moral indignation feel *GOOD* ???

 

He may very well be an asshole. He's right, though. -Dave

 

May I be frank? This is what happens weinerever you start in on this
subject. You act like your onionpinion is the only one that counts.
Horseradish! That's not kosher. I've never sausage foolishness except
in reeky. You won't last very footlong around here. You're such a
corndog.

 

More entertaining Quigley funnies from the past.
If the helmet doesn't meet the CHP approval, should it be
a fixit ticket ?

http://tinyurl.com/h3bvl

3. Mr. Quigley had, in his possession, the minute orders of this
court and a motorcycle helmet (headgear) with a hard shell and
padding, as well as a retention device (a chin strap) and a DOT
sticker affixed to the headgear in the proper location
..
4. After a short wait, a Sergeant Jim Glucan approached Mr. Quigley
and me. Mr. Quigley explained to the Sergeant that he was there to
get the helmet law citations "signed off" in accordance with the order
of the court.

5. Sergeant Glucan, without even looking at the helmet in Mr. Quigley's
possession, stated that the Watsonville Police Department did not
believe that the helmet law citations were correctable offenses. When
Mr. Quigley attempted to show Sergeant Glucan the minute order of
this court declaring them to be correctable, the Sergeant ignored the
attempt and instead stated that the Watsonville Police Department
"did not agree" with the decision of this court.

ROTFLMAO

I'd like to buy Mr. Quigley a beer or three.