CHP and Helmets; Judge rules law unconstitutional

Because there's only so much room on a helmet to begin with and

"This helmet has been tested by ACME Laboratory, 12334 LIKENUFF AVENUE,
Raleigh, North Carolina. It has been found to meet or exceed all
specifications listed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
as outlined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218, Page 10, Paragraph
7, Sentences 7 and 8. Certified testers for this examination were Mrs.
Robert Smith and DR. Albert Sendton. (See credentials on file at address
listed above or call 800-555-9999 for more information) The testing was
conducted on July 9th (between 9:00 A.M and 5:00 P.M. and July 10th (between
9:00 A.M and 3:37 P.M) of the year Nineteen Hundred Ninety-Seven."

In other words, it is an abbreviation, that leaves a lot to be desired

WHy

The DOT, or "DOT-approved" you mean? Oddly, they don't, so I don't get your
point. But then I only searched the document listed under 2005 in the link
you provided. -Dave

 

ROTFLMAO

I'll see your beer or three, and raise you a case. -Dave

 

Easyriders vs. Hannigan says that doesn't cut it.

California motorcyclists brought s 1983 action seeking permanent
injunction against California Highway Patrol's enforcement of policy
allowing officers to stop motorcyclists and issue citations for
substandard helmets based solely on officer's subjective opinion
of whether helmet would, if tested, conform to federal safety
standards applicable under California mandatory motorcycle
helmet law. On motion for summary judgment, the District Court,
Jones, J.,. held that: (1) under California courts' interpretation
of law, citation could only be issued when helmet did not bear
certification of compliance or when rider actually knew that helmet
did not conform to federal standards; (2) under such reading
of law, policy in question violated Fourth Amendment; and
(3) motorcyclists were entitled to permanent injunction.

Judgment granted; permanent injunction issued.

http://www.bikersrights.com/states/california/courtcases/easyriders95.html

 

Yes we are "playing semantics".
The law is all about semantics, and so is this case.
That's what lawyers do for a living.

The UL analogy isn't the same thing at all. Different group, different
rules.

 

So he should plead the 5th when asked if he was "sincere" or believed he
was wearing a helmet. The burdern of proof is on the prosecution. No
lab test = no proof.

 

Not yet. I haven't finished embroidering "DOT" on my cowboy hat. Be done
soon, though. -Dave

 

No, that wasn't the part ruled on. You'll note that this section
refers to selling or offering for sale, not to using motorcycle
helmets. The State Legislature needs to add similar language to the
section that says motorcyclists must wear such helmets.

Al Moore
DoD 734

 

^^^^^^^

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/muster

<snip>

 

I've always been especially fond of laws having to do with
states of mind.

For example, if you're burning an old and tattered flag,
this is either an act of respect like they taught you in scouts
or something which rightfully would be a crime when we pass
the president's flag burning law.

"Thoughtcrime is the only crime that matters."

Clearly Quigley was guilty of it.

 

If a hundred people a day agreed, it would be a movement.

But since just Timberwoof and you agree, you know what that makes you?

 

You mean like this one?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=94155916100+0+0+0&WA
ISaction=retrieve

CALIFORNIA CODES
VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 27800-27803

27802. (a) The department may adopt reasonable regulations
establishing specifications and standards for safety helmets offered
for sale, or sold, for use by drivers and passengers of motorcycles
and motorized bicycles as it determines are necessary for the safety
of those drivers and passengers. The regulations shall include, but
are not limited to, the requirements imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 218 (49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.218) and may include
compliance with that federal standard by incorporation of its
requirements by reference. Each helmet sold or offered for sale for
use by drivers and passengers of motorcycles and motorized bicycles
shall be conspicuously labeled in accordance with the federal
standard which shall constitute the manufacturer's certification that
the helmet conforms to the applicable federal motor vehicle safety
standards.
(b) No person shall sell, or offer for sale, for use by a driver
or passenger of a motorcycle or motorized bicycle any safety helmet
which is not of a type meeting requirements established by the
department.
[/QUOTE]


So where are the department's published regulations?

 

CA VC section 27803 says you have to wear one...

Partial quote: "(a) A driver and any passenger shall wear a safety
helmet meeting requirements established pursuant to Section 27802 when
riding on a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle."

Link: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27803.htm

CA VC section 27802 specifies what the DMV regulations will be. As of
now, they simply defer to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218.

TW already quoted it, but here's the relevant text: "(a) The department
may adopt reasonable regulations establishing specifications and
standards for safety helmets offered for sale, or sold, for use by
drivers and passengers of motorcycles and motorized bicycles as it
determines are necessary for the safety of those drivers and passengers.
The regulations shall include, but are not limited to, the requirements
imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 (49 C.F.R. Sec.
571.218) and may include compliance with that federal standard by
incorporation of its requirements by reference. "

Link: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27802.htm

So what is a helmet, anyway? Here's a link to the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 218:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/fmvss218.htm

It's pretty long, so I won't quote it. In my view, it's not vague. I'm
frankly mystified as to why the judege thought it was.

ab

 

Because there's only so much room on a helmet to begin with and

"This helmet has been tested by ACME Laboratory, 12334 LIKENUFF AVENUE,
Raleigh, North Carolina. It has been found to meet or exceed all
specifications listed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
as outlined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218, Page 10, Paragraph
7, Sentences 7 and 8. Certified testers for this examination were Mrs.
Robert Smith and DR. Albert Sendton. (See credentials on file at address
listed above or call 800-555-9999 for more information) The testing was
conducted on July 9th (between 9:00 A.M and 5:00 P.M. and July 10th (between
9:00 A.M and 3:37 P.M) of the year Nineteen Hundred Ninety-Seven."

In other words, it is an abbreviation, that leaves a lot to be desired[/QUOTE]

Have you ever read a Snell label?

It is illegal to sell helmets that have fake DOT labels on them.

 

Oh, no! I'm not singin' harmony with him!

 

seems clear enough to me.

 

Like the difference between assassination, first-degree murder,
second-degree murder, and manslaughter?

When they do that, send your flags to the Boy Scouts so they can burn
'em for you.

Thoughtcrime is considering making the Boy Scouts carry out your protest
for you because you'll get arrested if you do it yourself.

You're in pretty good civil-rights shape when the worst thing you worry
about is your right to not wear a helmet when you ride. (Ooh, is saying
that a thoughtcrime?)

 

Since some have been cited for not having "d-rings", does that mean Schuberths are illegal?

 

There is some info here you might be interested in:
http://tinyurl.com/m28xm

The first paragraph:
One widely circulated rumor is that the United States Department of
Transportation (DOT) does not perform any testing of motorcycle helmets
certified to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218, better
known as the "DOT standard." In fact, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA, a division of the DOT) contracts
independent labs to purchase motorcycle helmets from retail outlets and
test them for compliance to the standard.

End quote.

Some helmets have been recalled for not meeting government standards.

Dean

 

No. You ought to read the law and the court's finding of fact,
conclusions of law, and order after hearing.

No, the statutes specify what vehicles shall have turn signals and
what those signals shall consist of:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=24001-25000&file=24950-24953

 

That DMV link is to the law. How about a link to the "reasonable
regulations establishing specifications and standards for safety
helmet"? The Judge wrote that "'DOT approved' has no meaning in fact
or in law."