California Judge Sides With Biker

[snowmonkey]

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.

 

[sparky3008]

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.

I don't understand how the Judge could rule in his favor when he committed a crime.

Wearing a helmet is law so how can a Judge do this?

 

[pawtracks]

I'm pretty sure this is the same guy, here is one of his other "helmets"

 

[Shadowfax]

I don't understand how the Judge could rule in his favor when he committed a crime.Wearing a helmet is law so how can a Judge do this?

California doesn't define "helmet" - just requires that you wear one that straps on, doesn't move much and has a "certification of compliance" label.

I'll bet this leads to a CARB-type situation where California adopts actual helmet rules requiring 10" of vegan-approved ecofriendly padding and these guys wish they'd left it alone.

More info

https://usff.com/hldl/hlstatutes/californiahl.html

 

[sparky3008]

I don't understand how the Judge could rule in his favor when he committed a crime.

Wearing a helmet is law so how can a Judge do this?

California doesn't define "helmet" - just requires that you wear one with a "DOT" label.

I'll bet this leads to a CARB-type situation where California adopts actual helmet rules requiring 10" of vegan-approved ecofriendly padding and these guys wish they'd left it alone.

More info

https://usff.com/hldl/hlstatutes/californiahl.html

You telling me that beany has a DOT label?

Nevermind I can see it.

I guess it doesn't mean it actually had to meet the real requirements you can just stick it on there yourself!!!

Great loophole. Another law put in so fast that it is worthless...

 

[Ignacio]

I don't understand how the Judge could rule in his favor when he committed a crime.Wearing a helmet is law so how can a Judge do this?

Umm. Last time I checked and took a civics class the judicial branch of our government has the express task of interpreting laws. They're exactly the ones who decide if someone has broken a law! Oh, and I don't think not wearing a helmet is a crime.....it's probably an infraction in California.

By the way, it's refreshing to see a political post that is ACTUALLY about motorcycling.

 

[sparky3008]

I don't understand how the Judge could rule in his favor when he committed a crime.

Wearing a helmet is law so how can a Judge do this?

Umm. Last time I checked and took a civics class the judicial branch of our government has the express task of interpreting laws. They're exactly the ones who decide if someone has broken a law! Oh, and I don't think not wearing a helmet is a crime.....it's probably an infraction in California.

By the way, it's refreshing to see a political post that is ACTUALLY about motorcycling.

Ignacio, my question was answered in an actual useful way already.

I understand what the f**king judicial branch does.

You can be a real sometimes...

My use of the word crime was not so it could be put on trial here, give me a fing break...

I don't understand how the Judge could rule in his favor when he committed a crime.

Wearing a helmet is law so how can a Judge do this?

California doesn't define "helmet" - just requires that you wear one that straps on, doesn't move much and has a "certification of compliance" label.

I'll bet this leads to a CARB-type situation where California adopts actual helmet rules requiring 10" of vegan-approved ecofriendly padding and these guys wish they'd left it alone.

More info

https://usff.com/hldl/hlstatutes/californiahl.html

I see you edited it and took out DOT.

Wouldn't the DOT sticker be the certification of compliance?

If you are trying to say that you can't just slap a sticker on then that would mean that his little beany actually meets this certifications requirements?

 

[Ignacio]

Ignacio, my question was answered in an actual useful way already.I understand what the f**king judicial branch does.

You can be a real sometimes...

My use of the word crime was not so it could be put on trial here, give me a fing break...

A real what? A real "stickler" when somebody displays ignorance about what judges do? Yeah, I'm OK with that.

A real "*******"? I'm fine with that too. At least I know that when a judge overturns throws out a case of a vaguely written law that I gotta then convince a legislator to change it and probably do my homework that withstands judicial review.

...btw, I didn't move this thread to NEPRT. Another admin did and now I'm just as ******** as everybody else for blathering on....maybe I should go study for the BAR instead.

 

[sparky3008]

Ignacio, my question was answered in an actual useful way already.

I understand what the f**king judicial branch does.

You can be a real sometimes...

My use of the word crime was not so it could be put on trial here, give me a fing break...

A real what? A real "stickler" when somebody displays ignorance about what judges do? Yeah, I'm OK with that.

A real "*******"? I'm fine with that too. At least I know that when a judge overturns throws out a case of a vaguely written law that I gotta then convince a legislator to change it and probably do my homework that withstands judicial review.

...btw, I didn't move this thread to NEPRT. Another admin did and now I'm just as ******** as everybody else for blathering on....maybe I should go study for the BAR instead.

Ignacio I was asking a real question on what part of the law in particular did the Judge rule on that made it legal. I didn't realize I had to spell it out, he got it..

The other poster got it and posted something that actually showed legal reasons for the Judges ruling.

I didn't then need your lecture on what a Judge does.

Didn't even know or care that it got moved.

By the way Pluto is no longer a planet. Scientist changed the rules on this too.

 

[Shadowfax]

I see you edited it and took out DOT.Wouldn't the DOT sticker be the certification of compliance?

If you are trying to say that you can't just slap a sticker on then that would mean that his little beany actually meets this certifications requirements?

Yes exactly. I removed my reference to "DOT" when I read the stature refering to it as a "cert of compliance" I thought the statue did refer to a sign or symbol that said "DOT". The stature doesn't require the helmet to meet any other specification, just show a label that it does. California doesn't want to define a helmet themselves (yet).

the "slap a sticker on" is I believe the normal way to get around this. I would be interested in the judges actual ruling if the guy had "an embroidered DOT" - this met the "label" requirement?

'course I enjoy petty semantics when I'm bored, almost always wear a $400 Shoei and appreciate the fact that I can legally ride my bike down the cul-de-sac after a repair or to warm it up without a helmet.

But I would trade (as was offered earlier this year) the lack of a helmet law for a legal lane-splitting law

 

[sparky3008]

I see you edited it and took out DOT.

Wouldn't the DOT sticker be the certification of compliance?

If you are trying to say that you can't just slap a sticker on then that would mean that his little beany actually meets this certifications requirements?

Yes exactly. I removed my reference to "DOT" when I read the stature refering to it as a "cert of compliance" I thought the statue did refer to a sign or symbol that said "DOT". The stature doesn't require the helmet to meet any other specification, just show a label that it does. California doesn't want to define a helmet themselves (yet).

the "slap a sticker on" is I believe the normal way to get around this. I would be interested in the judges actual ruling if the guy had "an embroidered DOT" - this met the "label" requirement?

'course I enjoy petty semantics when I'm bored, almost always wear a $400 Shoei and appreciate the fact that I can legally ride my bike down the cul-de-sac after a repair or to warm it up without a helmet.

But I would trade (as was offered earlier this year) the lack of a helmet law for a legal lane-splitting law

My interest is not so much just in this case but also in the many laws that get passed way to quickly allowing real "criminals" back on the street such as in gun crime.

Just wondering what this one said.

Thanks

Even if they did away with the helmet law here in MD I would still wear mine. When I was younger I wouldn't have said that but I have gotten to like it.

 

[Toecutter]

I'll bet this leads to a CARB-type situation where California adopts actual helmet rules requiring 10" of vegan-approved ecofriendly padding and these guys wish they'd left it alone.

But they'll never leave it alone. And CA will outlaw lane-sharing to boot. Not good to embarass the CHP. :agent:

 

[Bounce]

You can be a real sometimes.

A real what? A real "stickler"... Yeah, I'm OK with that.

A real "*******"? I'm fine with that too.

I think he meant you were a real "sometimes".

I take that as a compliment. Think how bad it would be if you were a real "always"!

 

[twowheelnut]

By the way, it's refreshing to see a political post that is ACTUALLY about motorcycling.

[debate topic]

It's not a political post... It's a law vs. interpretation post. Politics is altogether a different dealio, yo.

[/debate topic]

[argument]

I believe Mark Dickerson and Thomas Flanagan (neither of whom rode motorcycles, by the way) defined it (politics) most simply and best in An Introduction to Government and Politics or as it is sometimes referred; Better Motorcycling Through The Halls of Congress 'n ****... "[Politics is the] process of conflict resolution in which support is mobilized and maintained for collective projects." (Pretty good for a couple of Canadians, eh?) By that definition, the political process happens before the law is enacted; bunt quid maldo con plato, elucidation turned to consternation, thereby rendering the topic 'non-political'.

[/argument]

[smart-ass concluding statements]

This has been an educational post brought to you by:

-One of the Bozo's on the bus motorcycle... :grin:

[/smart-ass concluding statements]

 

[Shadowfax]

By that definition, the political process happens before the law is enacted; bunt quid maldo con plato, elucidation turned to consternation, thereby rendering the topic 'non-political'.

What about post-law-creation politics to change the existing law? Or post-law-creation politics to convince judges to "interpret" the law the way that you want?

 

[SkooterG]

Damnit!

I can't believe I read this thread. There's three minutes I can't get back.

 

[twowheelnut]

By that definition, the political process happens before the law is enacted; bunt quid maldo con plato, elucidation turned to consternation, thereby rendering the topic 'non-political'.

What about post-law-creation politics to change the existing law? Or post-law-creation politics to convince judges to "interpret" the law the way that you want?

Irrelevant to my point. You're beyond the fact with the mere mention of 'post', just as 'pre' is in the theoretical arena of politics. Also, theory exists only in a perfect world. Alas, in the world though I may be, I remain perfect, therefore, still a theory.

Damnit!
I can't believe I read this thread. There's three minutes I can't get back.

Three minutes?! Might I suggest Evelyn Wood?

 

[odot]

Well....I guess I am the only forum member here that is happy with the judicial results thus far. You nazi's and your helmet laws really yank my crank. And your hookers do, too. Except, they yank my wallet.

 

[sparky3008]

Well....I guess I am the only forum member here that is happy with the judicial results thus far. You nazi's and your helmet laws really yank my crank. And your hookers do, too. Except, they yank my wallet.

Odot, I viewed it completely outside of Helmets myself and tried to view it more of how groups in this country push our politicians constantly for new laws for crimes. In doing so many times the laws are made without really completely thinking them through. This is just an example of a biker who understood the loophole and took advantage of it.

It may be trivial but so often it happens with gun crime, rape cases, and I am sure the lawyers on the forum could go on and on with examples of poorly written laws.

If you have been around this site long enough I am sure you have read enough of the helmet threads to not want to read one more. I know I don't. This one from a legal stand point had my interest.

My quick response was a result of my being on another forum at the same time reading a young mans thread on learning how to corner that was only started in July and when I got to the end it was posted yesterday that he had died. I then went in search of the down rider section to read about it.

This contributed to my interest here but also not typing out my entire thoughts.

Sorry...