BOLT was last updated 03/04/09
“I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but it is my chief duty to accomplish small tasks as if they were great and noble.” —Helen Keller |
| As a result of our most recent legal actions against them, Quigley v. CHP and CHP v. Superior Court, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has negotiated an enforcement policy change with us. Management Memorandum 08-071 represents one of three aspects of this negotiated settlement. The CHP petitioning of the California Judicial Counsel represents the second of the three aspects of this negotiated settlement. This resulted in the change to the Bail & Penalty schedule. The CHP's dropping their demand for additional court costs was the third of three aspects of this negotiated settlement. Why did we sue the CHP? an article by Don Blanscet What does this mean for motorcyclists in California? We don't know the future, but we can give our opinion. It is important to note that this policy change is by the CHP and only effects their officers, but it does, in fact, reflect the changes to the Bail and Penalty schedule which sets penalties statewide. Therefore, we would expect all allied enforcement agencies to align their policy with the CHP. However, this new CHP policy ignores the ruling from Buhl v. Hannigan, that says neither an officer nor a consumer is expected to be able to determine compliance by visual inspection, a proposition that the Buhl court said was "absurd" Note the reference in 08-071 to the phrase "obviously not a motorcycle helmet," which assumes a visual inspection enables one to determine proper fabrication. It assumes a motorcycle manufacturer cannot fabricate a helmet that visually resembles another type of headgear. Also ignored are the intent requirements (burden of proof on the people) established in Bianco V. CHP, which requires the following: formal determination of non compliance and proof that the rider knows their helmet is non compliant, regardless of whether LEO is writing a "fix it ticket" or a straight violation. Buhl and Bianco are still in effect and no citation should be issued without the ability to meet the requirements of Buhl and Bianco. While we have no doubt that the CHP is stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to helmet law enforcement, we also see the good faith effort they are showing in an attempt to legally enforce a vague and ambiguous law, both as written and applied. The new policy does take steps to minimize Rights violations by LEO, but it does not fix the problem. The only fix in our opinion would be a list of compliant helmets; thus we return to the cry: No list? No Law! The presiding Judge in Quigley v CHP did not rule that the helmet law was not vague, only that we had not presented ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO MAKE THE CASE. The vagueness issue is still viable. The Judge, on page 165 line 11 of the MAY 20 transcript states that the law needs to be "cleaned up." The transcripts from the May 19, and May 20, 2008 trial. Those requirements in Buhl and Bianco are reiterated by Federal Judge Napoleon Jones in the EasyRiders v. Hannigan case. On May 25, 1995, the district court issued its decision on Easyriders' request for a permanent injunction. Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 887 F. Supp. 240 (S.D. Cal. 1995). The district court found that under the California helmet law as interpreted by Buhl and Bianco, a motorcyclist wearing a helmet that does not comply with Standard 218 can violate the helmet law in two situations: (1) where the helmet did not bear a certification of compliance at the time of sale, or (2) where the helmet did bear a certification but (a) the helmet has been shown, by failing a FMVSS 218 test, not to conform with federal safety standards and (b) the person being cited has actual knowledge of a showing of non-conformity with federal standards. Updates to be continued as schedules allow. Scan and send a copy of any and every helmet ticket whether you fight it, or pay it. |
| The most concise and legally accurate description of the helmet law problem in every helmet law state.... " ....the government cannot make any objective standards for helmets without taking on liability, and since they are expressly forbidden from taking on any liability, they can never make an objective standard for helmets. There it is. Without an objective standard it all becomes ad hoc and arbitrary - Ad hoc and arbitrary is the foundation of vague law - Vague law is Unconstitutional." |
| There is a core group represented here, that had vowed to do "whatever it takes" to protect bikers against bad laws and bad cops. At this HLDL Summit we also hammered out the well known list of 12 questions for the NHTSA/DOT. May 1993. Later, thanks to Don, this jokingly became our salute. |
| A one-time Right thinking Assemblyman and Richard Quigley getting more acquainted on March 10, 2007 |
This helmet (right) is a creation
of the webmaster, BOLT
member, Mark. As you can see,
it is about the size of a music CD.
It is a real brain twister for the
officer who thinks a helmet has to
look a certain way, and he's sure
this isn't what it's supposed to
look like. But it has a "hard shell
and a chin strap" that most
officers believe is required by
law.
No, not required.
of the webmaster, BOLT
member, Mark. As you can see,
it is about the size of a music CD.
It is a real brain twister for the
officer who thinks a helmet has to
look a certain way, and he's sure
this isn't what it's supposed to
look like. But it has a "hard shell
and a chin strap" that most
officers believe is required by
law.
No, not required.
| Official Memorial Patch $10.00 Order yours here |
Proceeds go to the lawsuit to help stop the enforcement of the California helmet law.
Much appreciation to the Freedom minded riders across the country
for contributions to this Fund .
How much of your own freedom are you willing to earn?
for contributions to this Fund .
How much of your own freedom are you willing to earn?
Effective 9-15-07
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Site Navigation
