Bonneville America Forums Forums Rider Safety Forums Helmets and Gear Surprising Turn In Motorcycle Helmet Battle

Surprising Turn In Motorcycle Helmet Battle
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4472813

Aug. 17 - KGO - The state's motorcycle helmet law has faced many challenges over the years, almost all from riders who don't like being told they have to wear one. Now a judge has sided with one of those bikers.

Richard Quigley has been fighting California's helmet law since it took effect in 1992. And now a judge in Santa Cruz County has thrown out nine citations against Quigley.

Richard Quigley, helmet law opponent: "They would have been $133 dollars a piece so that's about $1,200 dollars worth of tickets."

It is not about the money though. The 62-year-old motorcycle rider feels strongly that the state's mandatory helmet law violates his constitutional rights.

And in an eight page ruling, superior court judge Michael Barton sided with Quiqley saying, the helmet law statutes were unconstitutional as applied and void for vagueness as applied.

The judge's ruling has caught a lot of people off guard. The district attorney here in Santa Cruz County says he is reviewing his options and the CHP is referring all questions to the attorney general's office."

A spokesperson for Attorney General Bill Lockyer told ABC7 late Thursday afternoon the Attorney General's Office will act on behalf of the CHP and take the case to the Sixth District Court of Appeals to block the ruling from taking effect.

Even some people who disagree with California's mandatory helmet law understand the idea behind it.

Chance Toigo, Santa Cruz Harley-Davidson: "It's just safe, it's more secure. I mean if they took away the seat belt law tomorrow, I think most of us would still wear our seat belts."

Helmets meeting state law have the letters DOT on the back, standing for Department of Transportation.

Quigley contends his knit cap with an embroidered DOT meets the letter of the law.

The Attorney General believes CHP policies are clear about what passes for a legal helmet and what doesn't.

Quigley feels after a 15 year battle, he's gaining ground.

Richard Quigley, helmet law opponent: "I got a taste of victory in my mouth now and it's a whole different battle than when it started."

Quiqley is back in court next week fighting two more citations.

In the meantime, the CHP is strictly enforcing the helmet law statewide and in Santa Cruz County.

For more background on Richard Quigley and his 15-year quest to overturn the helmet law, read The Back Story.

OK... I've entered into the pro vs anti helmet debate a number of times and of course it never gets resolved because it's an emotive argument that's subjective. I can understand the point of view of "It's my life and it's my right to risk it" even if I don't agree with it and feel it's too simplistic. However this one has got me bamboozled.

Just to remind folks, I come from a country that doesn't have a Bill of Rights. Our rights are Legislative, not mandated in the Constitution. I also have to admit that I'm not that familiar with the US Constitution & Bill of Rights. However I'm just wondering which of the mandated Rights are seen to be violated by demanding the use of a safety equipment when utilising a comparativley unsafe mode of transport on a public street? I just had a browse through both your Constitution and Bill of Rights and can't say I found anything that remotley relates to it, but I'd be happy to be enlightened.

I suspect the true answer would be found in the preamble where it talks about the right to the pursuit of happiness. Many people just aren't happy when the government tells them what to wear.

Wow ...a CA judge that is not practicing the art of legislating from the bench. This is good to see. I wonder if that judge is OK. Very surprising from the state of Ca at best.

From a 61 year old Californian. I would like the helmet law revised to allow those who wish to not wear a helmet to do so. However, the change I would like to see says that if you are not wearing a helmet while riding a two wheeled vehicle, then a insurance company is not required to pick up your medical costs. Now insurance companies would still be free to cover your medical if you are not wearing a helmet, but not the pubic.

I have always worn a helmet when on any two wheeled vehicle and there have been those times when I was glad I had the helmet on.

In this article about the case, there's a link to a pdf file for the decision by the judge. In it, there's this passage:

"In short, not only did the prosecution fail to make it's case that the defendant - who they admitted was wearing headgear bearing a certification of compliance - had violated the helmet law as it was written and/or interpreted by the California Courts, but the defendant did prove to this court's satisfaction that issuance of eight citations for wearing a headgear bearing a certifcation of compliance with federal standards, violated the injunction issued by the Federal court in Easyriders, thereby violating the defendant's 4th amendment rights as described in Easyriders.

For the Easyriders case, click here.

IMO it was a violation of due process. If you read just after the passage I posted, there's a reference to the vagueness of the law. In California, the way the law was written it was up to the subjective opinion of the CHP(California Highway Patrol) officer whether the defendant knowingly had on a helmet that violated the statute. And since there's no list to be found of which helmets are compliant, it allows the CHP officer to give people tickets to whoever he wants without any basis of fact to go on. And since there's no list, how can a defendant know which helmets are actually compliant since DOT stickers are easy to buy and stick on any kind of headgear. Therefore, a person can't really "knowingly" violate the law if he has some kind of headgear on with a compliant(DOT) sticker on it.

Or at least I think that's what this ruling means.

edited to add: By the way, there's no US agency that actually tests helmets for compliance. AFAIK it's just up to the helmet manufacturers to test them and find them in compliance with the DOT(Department of Transportation) before slapping that DOT sticker on them.

If I shave my head and tatoo "DOT" on the back of it, does that count? Maybe if I paint it on, because paint is technically a protective covering...

how would you feel about the govt. mandateing full leather wear to protect your body, or you must wear over the ankle boots, apropriate gloves and certian pants and jacket??? seat belts and helmets, these are just govt. controling the people, i am sorry but i dont need a big brother telling me what to do to protect myself, my mom and dad did that and now that i am an adult i will make up my own mind thank you. i am old enough to make my own mistakes and live with the consequences thank you. besides i read an article written by one of the founders of the agency that checks helmets and he was saying that a bicycle helmet is safer, a motorcycle helmet, if dropped once, is no longer of any value but a bicycle helmet can take several impacts and stay intact. so what he is saying is that, if you take a spill on your motorcycle and your head bounces more that once, the helmet isnt gonna do much (how many accidents have you seen that the helmet was split open, cuz the guys head bounced more than once?? granted it could have been his head that was split open, but still, shouldnt it be the riders choice??? seat belts?? shouldnt that be an adults choice?? go ahead and tell me to strap my child in, i or the child might not know better, but i am an adult, shouldnt i be old enough to decide what is right for me?? what if i have a phobia against such things, i know someone who has a slight case of clostaphobia and if she puts on a full face, she cant get out of it fast enough...phobia's???? i dont get it but they are real. the point is, I AM AN ADULT, i may not be smart enough to wear a helmet or a seat belt but i am old enough to decide what is right for me and i dont need any govt. or big brother telling me!!!!!!!

Yeah telling someone their medical coverage may change depending on the vehicle they drive is pretty rediculous. I mean how many people in congested cities choose to ride mopeds because it is all they can afford, easier to park, etc? Then after that, how bout denying people because the drive "unsafe" cars? Or SUVs? Where do we stop?

The flip side of all this is that operating ANY vehicle is a privalege, not a right, and there are rules and regulations set up that we must comply with in order to maintain that privalege, so there will always be rules we find annoying or whatever, but they are there. What about people who can't read? Should they be allowed to drive? Can't read the signs!! ?!? It's just one of those things that will never be agreed upon by everyone.

I understand your concern. I really don't have answer. With discussion maybe a resaonable solution could be reached. I understand the argument for and and against helmets. I feel caught inbetween. I myself will always wear a helmet. A helmet has saved my head several times.

Lately most of the motorcycle accidents in my area, a helmet did not help. The individuals suffered internal injuries due to the high impact with trucks and/or cars. They most likely also suffered severe concusions. All were wearing some type of helmet.

A skid lid will at least keep your scalp from getting scrapped off.

I hear ya. One thing that people often forget is that there are plenty of car accidents where the seat belts and airbags didn't prevent death either.

Benny, that "driving is a privilege" is just governmental b.s.
Driving is not a privilege or a right, it is an activity that governments like to regulate very closely so they can make as much money as possible. Granted, some regulation is definitely needed, but driving is a privilege like paying taxes is a privilege, getting building permits is a privilege, buying a dog license is a privilege.....

I hear ya Grump, that is an interesting way of looking at it. Again it is a bit of a grey area because they don't let just anyone drive a bus, or a big rig, or fly a plane, etc. Granted a regular drivers licence is probably the easiest thing to get, it is still a potentially deadly activity, not just for yourself but for others. I mean you can drive an unregistered, uninsured, car all over your own property without a licence, it's the whole public road thing...

I agree with Grump about driveing being a privilege, thats BS! And, I'm still amazed that the safety bozo's out there haven't made a law makeing it illegal to drive a car while not wearing a helmet! Wait a minute, I think they tried, but it proved to limit vision and hearing, and it messed up the hair. What has happened to this country, the government is not responsible for my actions and thoughts, I AM! As long as I harm no one else, I am behaveing in a responsible way. Let me pay my taxes, fight for our freedom, and live my own life. Don't make it your responsibility to make me safe by creating all these BS laws to save me!

These laws are not created to save you. They are created to save the morons, idiots, and stupid, stupid people that should have been eliminated by their moronic, idiotic, and stupid actions.

By the safety freak's actions, we have allowed the dumbing down of the entire country. What really jerks my chain is that I am looked down on because I oppose a lot of the crap (safety laws included). Like any other abberration that has become mainstream through activistism, we have done it to ourselves...

I think the whole issue stems from your legal culture, which is spreading over here unfortunately. People used to be responsible for their own actions. Now if something bad happens they see if they can pin the blame on someone else, sue them and get some compensation. In the bizzare world in which we live, cash in the hand rates more highly as a motivator than anything else, personal injury/dismemberment included.
The government then gets pressurised into legislating all sorts of bollix so that people cannot take risks and thereby end up sueing each other. What about that thing on US car mirrors, "vehicles may be closer than they seem"? What about that numbnuts who spilt the McCoffee on her lap. On a McApple Pie - "the filling is hot" - well fark me with a sequoia.. whoudda thought it!!!!
There are now daily adverts on UK daytime TV by ambulance chaser lawyers promising thousands of pounds because you tripped over a cable in the warehouse and mashed your face. So companies have to have an "Inert cable lying on the ground avoidance procedure - part 1, lift foot over cable" inserted into their personnel handbooks. It's depressing for the rest of us who have learned to walk.

Rich,

You are absolutely right!

Soren

It is a cycle that keeps compounding.

Different subject but, smoking is also legal but plenty of companies are now not only banning smoking in their buildings but forbidding their employees from smoking at all.

Back on Subject;
We have a conflict between two sets of rights. The right of individuals to do whatever legal activity they choose to do, and the right of a company, that pays the medical bills of said individuals, to choose what liabilities they want to assume. This can also extend to the government since they (we) are the medical bill payer of last resort. As free and responsible individuals what responsibilities do we assume and what do we expect employers and taxpayers to assume on our behalf?

As employers and governments assume greater responsibility in bearing the cost of individuals decisions, I think it is only natural they should also seek to have more input into those decisions. How many of us are willing to actually assume total responsibility for our decisions? Riding without a helmet (heck, riding a motorcycle at all), smoking, unprotected sex (especially of the male homosexual variety,) scuba diving, parachuting and all manner of other activities involve inherent dangers that elevate the risks to practitioners of those activities above those faced by people who do not engage in those activities.

Is it fair to expect others to financially assume the greater risks we voluntarily take because we choose to engage in an activity that places us at statistically greater risk than those who do not engage in the activity?

Should a biker who rides without a helmet, a smoker, a para-sailor, a sexually active male homosexual or a scuba diver be assumed to have voluntarily assumed additional personal risks because of their chosen activity and thus no longer be able to avail themselves of the cocoon of the social safety net? Or, must those who do not engage in inherently risky behavior be required to accept the financial and social costs incurred by those who do?

Just a question, but one at the heart of a LOT of social policy.

Right, the same way someone convicted of drunk driving loses their licence. That puts it in the category of privalege.

Like I said before, it is a self compounding cycle. We invent cars, we drive them around, people hurt eachother and cry for someone else to fix it rather than self-regulating, so rules are imposed on everyone, even tho not ALL the drivers NEED the rules, they are still there.

Those who always want "help", later are those who break the rules they ask for as it gets in the way of their lives, they often neglect to say the rules are needed for others, not them.

Look up your local ABATE group if you're at all interested about motorcycle helmet legislation. Everyone who is paying attention knows that helmet laws are not about saftey. Rather, they are about control...and revenue.

Phil, I agree. Used to be on a mtn. search and rescue team where sometimes we(in the field) wanted our motto to be:"We interfere with natural selection". Be careful.

No one has a right to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. Operating a motor vehicle on the public roadways is a privilege. Therefore the State can mandate any rules they like.

Me? I prefer to choose.

Well said.

I wear a helmet most of the time, but I sure am glad that when I decide that I am too hot, or when I feel like riding in the wind without my brain bucket, I can. I know it is risky to ride without one, although I am not so sure about how much more risky it is. After all, we are choosing to straddle a vehicle moving at legal speeds up to 70 MPH on two wheels! Should something happen to dethrone us, chances are pretty good that we are going to be in trouble with or without a helmet. I don't think the government should have the right to mandate helmet use, and I wish lawyers could be mandated to deal only in common sense and true justice!