CHP and Helmets; Judge rules law unconstitutional

That is unlikely I think. What is much more likely is they will do nothing
and
complain to the legislature, which will make the changes needed in the law.

Why appeal? If they let the ruling stand, it does not set much of a
precedent,
as it's a lower level judge in a minor courtroom. And in any case their
goal
is to write tickets, not to set law. Having a vague helmet law out there
almost
even helps them as now they can pull anyone over they want with the excuse
of
a potential helmet violation, in order to go hunting for insurance and tag
and other
violations and such. If the biker complains of an unwarranted stop, the CHP
can
say that the helmet standard is vague so anything out there could
potentially be
in violation!

This is a fight between the legislative and judicial branches, the judicial
branch is
telling the legislature to go fix the law or else they won't apply it at
all. The CHP
has no desire to get involved in that kind of a fight.

Ted

 

The judge's ruling decides the case that he heard unless and until it is
successfully appealed. As the law has been successfully enforced in
other courts, a judge in a new case may choose to apply this precedent
or the contrary ones. The law isn't settled until the California
Supreme Court says so, and you won't have standing unless you've lost at
the trial and appellate levels. If you win at trial and the CHP doesn't
appeal, you've won a case but not changed the law.

 

Ride a motorcycle through the loophole if you like, but you'd be well
advised to wear a helmet. ;-}

 

No, they don't. They delegated that REGULATION to a chosen

And the CHP has a permanent injunction against citing motorcyclists for
wearing helmets that the CHP officer suspects might not pass DOT standards.
Ironically, that PERMANENT injunction resulted from a totally unrelated case
to the case that started this OP. -Dave

 

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

That's because you don't think like lawyers and judges do. There are very
specific procedures that are followed in a court of law. One of them is
over-simplified as "the burden of proof is on the plaintiff". How that
relates to this case? If you suspect a helmet doesn't meet DOT standards,
you must prove that it doesn't. If you can't prove a helmet doesn't meet
the standards, OR you are unwilling to try to prove it, then you have failed
to make a 'prima facie' case against the defendant for an alleged helmet
violation. And thus, the charge must be dismissed. Too many dismissals for
that specific reason are a waste of the court's time.

So all the judge is saying is, the law is too vague to be enforced. The
judge is absolutely correct. Put yourself in the shoes of the CHP officer
charged with enforcing the law. You see a motorcyclist wearing a helmet
that you are pretty sure does not meet DOT specifications. PROVE IT. If
you can't prove it, what do you do? Keep in mind that there is a permanent
injunction against you (resulting from an unrelated case), prohibiting you
from citing the motorist if there is only doubt about the DOT status of the
suspect helmet.

So, it boils down to, either you KNOW that the helmet doesn't meet DOT
specifications, or you can't cite the motorist for wearing that specific
headgear. But since you can't possibly know that any particular headgear
doesn't meet DOT specifications, you pretty much can't cite anybody, as long
as they are wearing something on their head (remember, guessing that it
isn't compliant isn't good enough, and you are specifically prohibited from
guessing). -Dave

 

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

And he's right, as the DOT doesn't test any helmets, nor does the DOT hire
anybody else to test helmets for the DOT. -Dave

 

Again, this case is not about defining what a proper motorcycle helmet is or
is not. This case is about what can be proven. More specifically, in order
to cite someone, you have to prove a negative, which is impossible to do.
Until that legal conundrum is ironed out, any definition of a proper helmet
is not backed by force of law. -Dave

 

I should hope so!!! Safety issues aside, that would be a form of fraud.

The problem is, even some helmets with real DOT labels do not meet DOT
standards.

And the bigger problem is, if you want to cite someone for not wearing a DOT
standard helmet, you must prove that it doesn't meet DOT standards. If you
are unable or unwilling to do that, you are specifically prohibited from
issuing a citation. All the judge is saying is, fix the law, fix the
regulation, or stop wasting my time bringing me lots of alleged helmet
charges that I must dismiss. -Dave

 

The first paragraph:

Yes, but the point is, the helmet gets the DOT sticker (legally) before the
discrepancy is discovered. Unless and until the DOT does testing on ALL
helmets BEFORE they are sold, then the burden of proof is still on the
plaintiff to prove that any particular headgear does not meet DOT standards.
That is an almost impossible burden of proof (as the state isn't going to
spend many thousands of dollars over a minor traffic ticket), so the judge
said (essentially) stop wasting my time. Until the laws are tightened, or
the "regulations" are tightened, helmet use in CA can't be enforced. -Dave

 

is to write tickets, not to set law. Having a vague helmet law out there

No, they can't. They are specifically prohibited from doing so by permanent
injunction, resulting from a totally unrelated case. I'm talking about
California, and the CHP. They can't hassle you just because they "think"
your helmet doesn't meet a particular standard. They are specifically
PROHIBITED from doing just that. -Dave

 

What you say is true in theory, but doesn't come close to being logistically
possible, and it is specifically FORBIDDEN anyway. You see a 'helmet' with
a 'DOT' sticker on it. Do you have the standards for every helmet ever made
with you in your cruiser, or do you have to guess that the 'DOT' sticker is
legitimate, or that even if it is, this is one of the helmets that would
pass DOT standards, if ever tested by DOT?

And again, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PRESUME THAT THE HELMET IS NOT DOT
STANDARD. That practice is specifically forbidden. There is a permanent
injunction against it. Either you know that it is 'DOT' (somehow?), or you
can not write the citation, as two different judges now have ruled that you
can't, and one has further issued a permanent injunction preventing you from
doing so.

Oh do tell. How do you know a real DOT sticker? How do you know that it
was put there by the manufacturer? You DON'T, and it doesn't matter anyway,
when many helmets with REAL DOT stickers have later been tested not to meet
the DOT standard.

The federal government passes a law stating that all blue jeans sold in the
U.S. need to be stitched/assembled by workers in the U.S.A. Legitimate,
legal blue jeans will have a "USA" label attached to the rear right pocket.
As a cop, you see blue jeans that look to be substandard somehow, but do
have a "USA" label attached to them. How do you prove that the blue jeans
were not made in the U.S.A? You can't, as it is impossible to prove a
negative.

Further complicating things is, a judge in your state has issued a permanent
injunction forbidding you to issue citations to wearers of blue jeans that
you suspect were not made in the U.S.A. Effectively now, there is no way to
enforce the blue jean law in your state. You have a burden of proof that
you can't meet, assuming you were allowed to allege wrongdoing, and you
aren't even allowed to do that!

This helmet issue is exactly as the hypothetical blue jean issue outlined
above. This matter won't be settled until the burden of proof switches from
proving a negative to proving a positive, somehow. It would be easy enough
to say "let the wearer prove the authenticity of the helmet". It would be
easy, except for that pesky Constitution would get in the way. -Dave

 

The printing on the "DOT" sticker on my helmet has worn off. Does
that mean that the helmet is no longer legal? Would it become legal
again if I apply a replacement "DOT" sticker? Does embroidering
"DOT" onto a knit cap make it a legal helmet?

As for "paperwork to prove the test was done" ... I have never heard
of any such crap included with the helmet when it is purchased.

My DOT helmet no longer has the sticker. Quigley's knit cap had "DOT"
embroidered on it. Which is the legal hellmet? According to your
"Either it gots the sticker or it don't" my helmet is crap while
Quigley's cap is certified legal.

 

In which case, you would be guilty of contempt of court. What part of
injunction do you not understand? In California, there is an injunction
forbidding cops to write tickets for helmets that the cops think do not meet
DOT standards. -Dave

 

"Most days, we wish you HADN'T chewed through the restraints."

 

You must be wearing your DOT approved helmet at the keyboard, as it seems
impossible to get anything through that thick skull of yours

 

From FMVSS 218 (http://www.bikersrights.com/nhtsa/fmvss218.html and other
sources). It would seem your beanie fails the "labeled permanently and
legibly" part. The knit cap likely failed all but (e), and undoubtedly all
other tests of effectiveness and commonsense. (My Shoei fails (f)(3),
assuming this is a valid reproduction of the actual text. For that matter,
much of the fine print required in (f) are illegible due to normal wear.)

=======
S5.6 Labeling.

S5.6.1 Each helmet shall be labeled permanently and legibly, in a manner
such that the label(s) can be read easily without removing padding or any
other permanent part, with the following:

(a) Manufacturer's name or identification.
(b) Precise model designation.
(c) Size.
(d) Month and year of manufacture. This may be spelled out (for
example, June 1988), or expressed in numerals (for example, 6/88).
(e) The symbol DOT, constituting the manufacturer's certification
that the helmet conforms to the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. This symbol shall appear on the outer surface, in a color that
contrasts with the background, in letters at least 3/8 inch (1 cm) high,
centered laterally with the horizontal centerline of the symbol located a
minimum of 1 1/8 inches (2.9 cm) and a maximum of 1 3/8 inches (3.5 cm) from
the bottom edge of the posterior portion of the helmet.
(f) Instructions to the purchaser as follows:

(1) 'Shell and liner constructed of (identify type(s) of
materials).
(2) 'Helmet can be seriously damaged by some common substances
without damage being visible to the user. Apply only the following:
(Recommended cleaning agents, paints, adhesives, etc., as appropriate).
(3) 'Make no modifications. Fasten helmet securely. If helmet
experiences a severe blow, return it to the manufacturer for inspection, or
destory it and replace it.'
(4) Any additional relevant safety information should be applied
at the time of purchase by means of an attached tag, brochure, or other
suitable means.

 

"Warm showers"? Arlo never mentioned warm showers.

 

I should hope so!!! Safety issues aside, that would be a form of fraud.

The problem is, even some helmets with real DOT labels do not meet DOT
standards.

And the bigger problem is, if you want to cite someone for not wearing a DOT
standard helmet, you must prove that it doesn't meet DOT standards. If you
are unable or unwilling to do that, you are specifically prohibited from
issuing a citation. All the judge is saying is, fix the law, fix the
regulation, or stop wasting my time bringing me lots of alleged helmet
charges that I must dismiss. -Dave[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the state should require Snell labels.

 

That might work, if there was some kind of grandfather clause. -Dave

 

Don't be so quick to throw out a perfectly good solution to the Social
Security financing problem. ;-}