THE UNION Opinion Sports Media Center Election 2006 Community Obituaries Today's Feature Entertainment In-Depth Series Special Sections Health Search Homes Events Calendar Weather |
October 9, 2006 Helmet law debated Critics say rule 'vague,' subjectively enforced -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Jill Bauerle, jillb@theunion.com October 9, 2006 Although many people think California's motorcycle helmet law saves lives, Don Blanscet likens it to a speeding law that merely asks motorists to "drive safely" rather than sets a safe speed limit. "A good helmet versus a bad helmet is subject to an officer's subjective opinion," said the Penn Valley resident, who has challenged all 63 of the tickets he's received for helmet violations since the law went into effect in 1992. He has won 60 cases. For the past seven years, Blanscet has ridden his Harley-Davidson motorcycle wearing a beanie-like helmet of his own construction, not the typical hard plastic helmet. Blanscet isn't the only one who thinks the law contains a "Catch-22" that leaves open the exact definition of what constitutes a safe helmet. In an Aug. 16 ruling for California vs. Quigley, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Michael Barton described the law as "vague" and "unworkable" and concluded that it was unconstitutional. After the controversial ruling, the state Department of Justice blocked Barton's order until an appeal in the 6th District Court of Appeals can be heard, according to the state attorney general's communications director Nathan Barankin. Barton's ruling will have to be confirmed by an appeals court before it can affect other courts. "No other jurisdictions in the state have reached the same conclusion," Barankin said. "If you live in Nevada County, the law is still the law." California Highway Patrol spokesman Steve Kohler confirmed that CHP officers will continue to enforce the existing law. Don Blanscet wears the motorcycle helmet he constructed and has used since 1999. Freedom fighters protest law Although motorcyclists shouldn't count on riding bare-headed anytime soon without risking a ticket, the court case and pending appeal brings up long-standing concerns with the state's motorcycle helmet law. One is the vague wording of the vehicle code that CHP officers follow when issuing helmet violations. Another is that the federal government does not test helmets for safety, even though the Department of Transportation requires that all helmets carry a sticker that reads "DOT approved." Blanscet has been aware of the shortcomings within statutes 27802 and 27803 of the California Vehicle Code since the state Assembly passed the legislation. He went to the first rally on the Capitol steps to protest the law in May 1991. At that rally, Blanscet met Richard Quigley, the defendant in the recent Santa Cruz case, and joined a group of motorcyclists who joined together as fellow "freedom fighters" to protest a law they felt was "conceived in bigotry and born in deceit." "The perception is, if you're on a motorcycle, you're a gangster, you're a criminal, you're a scumbag," said Blanscet. "I'm none of those things. But I am a self-educated, aware American who understands how this whole thing works." The deceit that the "freedom fighters" reference in their motto is based on possibly misleading data cited by Rep. Richard Floyd (D-Gardena), author of the motorcycle helmet bill. Floyd made his case for the bill when he said that it would save taxpayers $65 million to $100 million a year in medical costs for head-injured motorcycle crash victims. According to the San Jose Mercury News in a May 17, 1991, article, the two sources cited by Floyd - the National highway Traffic Safety Administration and the San Francisco Injury Center for Research and Prevention - denied that they had provided those numbers to him and said such statistics didn't exist. When asked to comment on the discrepancy, Floyd told the paper, "'I don't care what the figures are.'" After promising to investigate the discrepancy, Gov. Pete Wilson signed the bill a week later. One lawmaker who voted against the bill back in 1992 was state Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), now the state attorney general. Although as the state's attorney his job is to enforce existing laws, Lockyer's view as a legislator was that wearing a helmet is a personal choice, a belief that he holds today, according to Barankin, the attorney general's communications director. "The counterargument is that it's much more than just a personal choice because there are costs to society, whether it's the emergency health care costs or ancillary expenses that come with tragic accidents and deaths," said Barankin. Statistics vs. personal choice In 2001, the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration said helmets reduce the risk of death by 29 percent and are 67-percent effective in preventing brain injuries to motorcycle riders. After the law went into effect, the number of motorcycle fatalities in California fell to 322 in 1992 from 512 in 1991 and hit a decade low of 200 in 1998, according to the CHP. Critics of the law call the statistics misleading. They point out that motorcycle registrations fell 30 percent between 1991 and 2000 and credit the lower fatality rate to a safety course that has been offered to riders since 1987. As motorcycle registrations have increased since 1999, so have fatalities, which numbered 404 statewide in 2005, they add. No matter whose figures you believe, Nevada City resident Bud McKinley said it all boils down to personal freedom. "I love riding motorcycles," McKinley said. "I just don't like people telling me how to get dressed before I do." According to McKinley, most motorcycle helmets are guaranteed only up to 15 miles per hour. He thinks that at a speed of 20 miles per hour, the law of physics will transform an eight-pound head into 80 pounds, a weight that could break a driver's neck in a collision. California's motorcycle law also is being challenged because of the inconsistent way that tickets are written. In many cases, helmetless riders are issued a moving violation, which incurs a fine dependent on the driver's record. But in others, officers merely issue a $10 "fix-it" ticket to the offender, according to motorcycle riders. If he or she provides the officer with a DOT-approved motorcycle helmet, the ticket is dismissed after a $10 fine. In Grass Valley, the CHP writes all tickets as moving violations, not "fix it" tickets, according to officer Earl Cummins. "Bottom line, you break the law and I see you, I'm going to write you," said Cummins. Blanscet said he received a "fix it" ticket of his own on Aug. 17 in Placer County. He is determined to keep fighting the law. "Firemen wear helmets, pro football players wear helmets, soldiers wear helmets - all our law abiders in society wear helmets," he said. "We've been brainwashed into this thinking." ooo To contact Staff Writer Jill Bauerle, e-mail jillb@theunion.com or call 477-4219. |
Most recent CHP policy regarding helmet law enforcement
1. PURPOSE. Laws relating to the operation of certain other modes of transportation require unique handling procedures when taking enforcement action. This chapter provides direction to officers contemplating enforcement action against the operators of these modes of transportation. 2. MOTORCYCLE HELMET REQUIREMENTS. a. Authority. (1) Section 27803 of the Vehicle Code (VC) was enacted to help reduce injuries to passengers and operators of motorcycles, motor-driven cycles, and/or motorized bicycles (including mopeds). Section 27803 VC requires all operators and passengers of these vehicles to wear a motorcycle safety helmet, certified by the manufacturer at the time of sale to meet federal standards, while on a highway. NOTE: Effective January 1, 1998, Section 27803(f) VC exempts a person operating or riding in a fully enclosed three-wheeled motor vehicle that is not less than seven feet in length and not less than four feet in width and has an unladen weight of 900 pounds or more, if the vehicle meets or exceeds all of the requirements of the VC, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for motorcycles, and the rules and regulations adopted by the United States Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from the requirement to wear a safety helmet. (2) A motorcycle safety helmet is any helmet certified by the manufacturer at the time of sale to meet FMVSS. The specific requirements are contained in FMVSS 218 (49 CFR, Part 571). This standard requires that each helmet be labeled permanently and legibly so that the label(s) can be read showing: (a) Manufacturer's name. (b) Model designation. (c) Size. (page) 4-1 HPM 100.68 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (d) Month and year of manufacture. (e) The symbol "DOT" should appear on the outer surface, in a color that contrasts with the helmet color, on the bottom edge of the posterior portion of the helmet. (3) Proper use of the safety helmet is defined in Section 27803(e) VC. The helmet shall be worn on the head with straps fastened and be of a size that fits the wearing person's head securely, without excessive lateral or vertical movement. b. Policy. Enforcement of Section 27803 VC shall apply to all persons whether they are the operator of, or the passenger on, a motorcycle, a motor-driven cycle, or a motorized bicycle operated on a highway. This includes an operator or passenger of a three-wheel motorcycle and passengers seated in a sidecar attached to a motorcycle or motorized bicycle. c. Procedure. (1) Section 27803(b) VC should be used to cite the operator of a motorcycle, a motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle for not wearing a safety helmet that meets federal standards, or for allowing a passenger to ride without a motorcycle safety helmet. (2) Section 27803(c) VC should be used to cite the passenger of a motorcycle or motorized bicycle for not wearing a motorcycle safety helmet. (3) As the result of several court decisions and the terms of a partially-vacated injunction placed against the Department, it is extremely difficult to cite motorcyclists for wearing helmets not in compliance with FMVSS 218. Therefore, officers shall not attempt to make this determination prior to or during an enforcement stop. Additionally, officers shall not seize any helmet, or purported helmet, as evidence to prove that a particular helmet worn by the violator does not meet FMVSS 218. (4) Officers shall focus enforcement action on the following: (a) Motorcyclists not wearing a helmet. (b) Motorcyclists wearing helmets which are obviously not motorcycle helmets, such as styrofoam bicycle helmets or football helmets. (5) Officers should not cite operators or passengers of a motorcycle, a motordriven cycle, or motorized bicycle for nonuse of a helmet if that nonuse was incidental to the off-highway use of the vehicle while crossing the highway. HPM 100.68 4-2 |
Here is a ticket that was written for the rider wearing no helmet. He was wearing no helmet
at all. The officer needed to be politely directed to check the correct box, but after showing
the officer it is required by law to write it as correctable, he made it clear it was correctable,
and initialed the change. He made sure there would be no confusion at the court by writing
the word CORRECTABLE on the ticket. A good, law abiding officer.
at all. The officer needed to be politely directed to check the correct box, but after showing
the officer it is required by law to write it as correctable, he made it clear it was correctable,
and initialed the change. He made sure there would be no confusion at the court by writing
the word CORRECTABLE on the ticket. A good, law abiding officer.
Here is the back of the ticket, signed off a few days later, with proof of correction, i.e. a
helmet shown as correction. Another good Cop. And the Superior Court Judge agreed it is
a correctable citation. Case dismissed.
Placer County. Great job, Don. Read the News article below, from a while back, about
Don.
helmet shown as correction. Another good Cop. And the Superior Court Judge agreed it is
a correctable citation. Case dismissed.
Placer County. Great job, Don. Read the News article below, from a while back, about
Don.
| The problem arises when an officer follows a policy that conflicts with the law, such as a policy officers were taught years ago, that a helmet violation is not a fixable violation. The law says a helmet violation IS a fixable violation, and the law must take priority over policy when the two conflict. |
Bikers Of Lesser Tolerance 8-4-08 112291
| Good Cop Also noting the honorable officers who understand that it is their job to enforce the laws as written. Good Cop. CHP Officer S.B. Wright #12241 wrote fix-it ticket (Name not legible?) Badge #14478 signed off ticket Elk GrovePD officer Hinkson #2001 signed off ticket Folsom Police Lt. Sterling, who says all the right words that leads a person to believe he understands and will not violate the Federal injunction, and if a helmet ticket gets written in Folsom, might be correctable. |
| CHAPTER 4 REVISED APRIL 2006 ENFORCEMENT GUIDELINES. OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION |
| Bad Cop CHP Officer D. Ricks #12146. After learning at the trial, how writing a ticket for my helmet was outside the authority of law and CHP policy, he said he would write another ticket again for the same helmet. He fits the definition of "Rogue"? Citrus Heights Officer J. Marquez is on the list for ignoring the law with more than one rider. He wrote a ticket for no helmet when I was wearing certified headgear, and refused to write it as a fix-it ticket, which is a violation of law. He has written helmet tickets even after learning everything that keeps most cops FROM writing them. |
| So, a helmet is a helmet because the manufacturer says it is a helmet by placing the symbol "DOT" on it, and a police officer shall not try to disagree with a helmet manufacturer that a helmet is not a helmet by giving the helmet wearer a ticket for violating VC 27803. |
This helmet, on display at the
Harley Davidson lot in Auburn,
carries the DOT seal of approval
required by the Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218.
The Union photos/Jill Bauerle
Harley Davidson lot in Auburn,
carries the DOT seal of approval
required by the Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218.
The Union photos/Jill Bauerle
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Don is a Co-Plaintiff in the Civil law suit that
will eliminate the California helmet law.
Read the actual complaint that was filed.
will eliminate the California helmet law.
Read the actual complaint that was filed.
It is a pdf file. you must have Adobe
Reader or Acrobat to read this file.
Reader or Acrobat to read this file.
The difference between a good cop and a bad cop is -
one follows the law, and the other ignores the law or violates the law to
achieve the goal he has set in his mind.
The bad cop may even have good intentions, but uses improper procedure.
one follows the law, and the other ignores the law or violates the law to
achieve the goal he has set in his mind.
The bad cop may even have good intentions, but uses improper procedure.
The California Public Records Act allows you to ask a Public Agency questions, and they must respond
within 10 days.
I asked many police departments, in writing, for any
1.) results of independent laboratory tests done on motorcycle helmets,
2.) recall notices on helmets from the manufacturers,
3.) NHTSA Determinations of Non-Compliance.
What I received, in writing, was they had no information like that (in other words, no Probable Cause) but
people still get tickets written for a helmet considered by the officer to be illegal.
That's commonly called, false arrest.
within 10 days.
I asked many police departments, in writing, for any
1.) results of independent laboratory tests done on motorcycle helmets,
2.) recall notices on helmets from the manufacturers,
3.) NHTSA Determinations of Non-Compliance.
What I received, in writing, was they had no information like that (in other words, no Probable Cause) but
people still get tickets written for a helmet considered by the officer to be illegal.
That's commonly called, false arrest.
------
| BOLT of California |
Bad cop is right. This guy just got caught.
There should be more honest people
filming or audio taping their own traffic
stops. I record the officer any time I get
pulled over.
Check out how it went down in Missouri
a short while ago.
There should be more honest people
filming or audio taping their own traffic
stops. I record the officer any time I get
pulled over.
Check out how it went down in Missouri
a short while ago.
When done with care, a helmet ticket has the chance of preventing any more unconstitutional
enforcement of a state helmet law, such as this case in PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
enforcement of a state helmet law, such as this case in PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA