Over 20 yrs. without one!

[RTSR1/FJR]

After over 20 yrs. without a ticket, I get this ******** one today! Looking for a little advise whether to fight it or not. It's not about the money, $80, it's the principle of it! I'll tell you what happened:

Coming home today from Daytona through Edgewater (So. of Daytona/New Smyrna) on US1 on the FJR with the wife on back. We're with friends on their bikes. Get to, I think it's called Last Chance Saloon. Cops are stopping traffic to let people cross. Roadway was packed! We're stopped, so I raise my shield on my ARAI to get some air. Traffic starts to move (<5mph), but before I can reach up to pull the visor down, they flag me over in the median and write this ******** ticket. No points he says, no moving violation he says, just says no eye protection. I told him I didn't have time to pull it down after we started to move. He didn't want to hear it, just trying to get the city's revenue I guess! You can ride all over with no helmet, but don't ride 50 ft. with your visor up! Did I mention that's ********! I guess my question is, any chance of fighting this, or should I not even bother? Just pissed! Look out for the Cops out there!

 

[E1Allen]

Every ticket I fought was at least knocked down some. Always worth a shot. He might not even show up.

 

[ponyfool]

Dude, I've been a cop for 18 years and I've heard people bitching and complaining about BS tickets for years. Usually it's related to speeding and how unjust the laws are and how much a **** the cop was. But in all those years, this is one of the first ones I have to say, I completely agree with you, that is about as BS as you can get.

About 15 years ago, lasting until about 5-7 years ago, we had a real problem with the "cruising" crowd on a downtown street. These were the cars with the stereos blaring, cars racing, stopping in the middle of the street causing traffic tie ups, etc. We did "high intensity" enforcement where we would write every thing we could find, but ONLY on cars and people that were drawing attention to themselves, not people just passing through.

Even if your ticket was one of those "high intensity" enforcement type places, if you didn't do anything to draw attention to yourself, I'd love to sit down with the cop (or more importantly, his supervisor) that would encourage such tickets.

However, having said that, fighting it may cause you more heartburn, because if the law is on the books, you probably did violate it. And, in a courtroom, the legal standard is "without passion", thus it only boils down to "did you or didn't you." And in this case, you did (violate the law)- remember, common sense isn't always allowed.

My suggestion would be to go through the police department's complaint process, but even then, it may be futile.

Good luck. Just know that I wouldn't have written you a ticket under the circumstances you described.

 

[pickax]

Totally agree with you, that is BS! Like PF said, you were technically in violation, but bring your helmet to court and the judge has got to show some empathy here.

Shame on Edgewater, thousand of drunk riders dog paddling down the road and they pick on you. Had a friend deal with the same thing in Sturgis. She had to pay long distance to keep a clean license. Hope you come back to fight it in court.

 

[nusman68]

Okay, I'm curious now...what does it say on the citation? "No visor", "No eye protection" ? If so, (regardless) I'd show up in court, with the helmet in hand; the judge could see that the helmet does in fact have a visor. If the cop shows up and tells his side, I'd tell the judge the visor started to fog a bit, and being a safety conscious rider (your honor) , raised it to clear it, then I got pulled over. Talk about BS!!...

EDIT: Wasn't quick enough...pickax had the same idea...good luck with it and send us a follow-up report....

 

[evil_henchman]

100% pure revenue generation. He's banking that you're from out of town and you'll just pay up. Don't count on him not being in court though, cops generally set aside days for court and write all their tickets for those days and if he's not in court some DA will have his ***.

 

[Thug]

It's ******* coppers like that, that give the rest a bad name....he obviously needs some attitude adjusting.....

Fight it all the way I say (easy for me though it's your money) And anyway there is no such "Law" that I am aware of that states a helmet will provide the ultimate in "Eye Protection"? **** still gets in there!

 

[Rogue]

+1 on it being a BS ticket but per this:

Per s. 316.211(2), a person may not operate a motorcycle as defined in s. 316.003(22), unless the person is wearing one of these Department approved eye-protective devices over his or her eyes; goggles, face shields designed for use with, and as part of an approved helmet or eyeglasses including sunglasses. Contact lenses are not acceptable. Each device must be in good repair, free of sharp edges or projections and made of material suitable for ophthalmic use. It shall be free from cracks, waves, bubbles or any other defect which may impair its normal visibility. Any tinted device should not impair the wearer's ability to see color and shall not be used at night.

You are guilty. :angry2:

 

[trimmantom]

They've got a ****** no helmet law down there and they're stupid enough to pull your *** over and give you a ticket?

That's total ******* ********!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sir I'm sorry I've gotta give you a ticket cause you weren't wearing sunglass's.

You got a helmet but that don't matter sir you gotta have eye protection so yer eyes don't git sunburned down here.do you comprenda?Fight it all the way.

 

[Charlie Hoss]

I say fight it if you have the time. 20 years of ticket free riding/driving should help your case. Seems like one of the NE states has a similar law, but the windscreen may serve as eye protection. Your shield must have been all the way up and auto-retracted when you turned off the bike.

I like the official complaint route. I hear it should be done quickly before it goes too far in the system, easier to correct.

Complain to the local media.

Keep us posted.

 

[exskibum]

Well, while giving deference to ponyfool's comments and the strict interpretation of the statute posted, I'd still fight it. If I were a traffic commissioner or judge pro tempore hearing the matter, I'd be impressed at how much of a BS ticket that is if I believed you were sincere and truthful in your statement of the facts. I'd be looking for a way not to have to convict you, and might find it in two or three ways.

First is the defense of necessity. That is, if I was convinced that you only violated the letter of the law because in the reasonable exercise of judgment, you felt it was better to start rolling (you said <5mph) to obey the officers' directions than to put down a visor to protect you from being blinded by objects like bugs that are normally only a problem at higher speeds than 5 mph (the clear reason for such a law), I might find that you acted out of what you perceived as reasonable necessity and let you off. After all, the statute does not appear to criminalize having raised your face shield when you were at a stop. Similarly, if you raised it at 35 mph to get a bee out, no judge would convict you.

Second, and related to the first, might be the idea that you didn't have the requisite mens rea (guilty mind), even though you committed the prohibited act (actus reus). (These are the two components typically necessary to find one guilty of a crime, although there are a couple exceptions, and the lack of mens rea is why you will typically get off for pinning the accelerator to the floorboards under the influence of a seizure, but it's not limited only to those circumstances.) You committed the act of beginning to move with eye protection in an up position, but with no intent of riding with it up (i.e., you intended to put it down as soon as you had a spare second and hand not devoted to obeying the officers' commands to go). You simply argue politely that your intent was to obey the officers' traffic movement directions post haste (noting that was the apparent exigent problem at the scene, and the reason for their presence was traffic control), and since you didn't have 3 hands, you were simply trying to accommodate the officer's instructions first, not to violate the law.

Lastly, I'd be mindful that it is just about impossible to forge bright line rules into laws that do not depend for their fairness and the fulfillment of their objectives, to some extent, on the reasonable exercise of discretion by whomever is charged with their enforcement. Ponyfool couldn't have done a better job of illustrating that in his comments. It is often said that the first task of a lawyer is to convince the decision maker that a certain decision should be made, and then to give him the reasons or the tools to make that decision.

So, it may depend on who is doing the judging, whether that person likes you or motorcyslists in general and what kind of mood he or she is in. Certainly, if you get a judge pro tempore (a lawyer volunteering his time to take some of the burden off the court staff), I can pretty well assure you that there are no penalties for exercising his discretion as he deems justifiable, and this is NOT a big enough case for it to be appealed. BS is BS, and discretion should be exercised reasonably. I'd take a shot and plead my case in as reasonable and sincere a fashion (without accusations or retributive remarks about the officer) as possible.

Honest to God -- the system is not supposed to be unfair, and the smell test is often used to gauge that. Sometimes it IS unfair, but here, the cost of contesting it isn't high, so I'd set aside my cynicism for a day and give the system a shot at fixing this one. It's not like the cost of the citation is going to go up for unsuccessfully contesting it.

Just my 2 cents, and worth little more.

 

[RTSR1/FJR]

I believe all they were doing is generating revenue for any and all infractions! Personally, I think it was entrapment! They create a Traffic controll issue and then cherry pick! Block off a 4 lane road (with median), in front of a bar, stop traffic so pedestrians can cross, and then wait till someone lifts their shield! Pay no mind to the drunk chick on her chopper, with no helmet (but she had eye protection), weaving all over the road in front of me, trying to smoke a cigarette with her right hand! Nooo, let's get the guy that just raised his visor to get some air! I'm still pissed and it's 2:40 in the morning! Haven't decided what I'm going to do yet.

Here's Fla. Statute, 316.211 (2).

316.211 Equipment for motorcycle and moped riders.--

(1) A person may not operate or ride upon a motorcycle unless the person is properly wearing protective headgear securely fastened upon his or her head which complies with Federal Motorcycle Vehicle Safety Standard 218 promulgated by the United States Department of Transportation. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall adopt this standard by agency rule.

(2) A person may not operate a motorcycle unless the person is wearing an eye-protective device over his or her eyes of a type approved by the department.

(3)(a) This section does not apply to persons riding within an enclosed cab or to any person 16 years of age or older who is operating or riding upon a motorcycle powered by a motor with a displacement of 50 cubic centimeters or less or is rated not in excess of 2 brake horsepower and which is not capable of propelling such motorcycle at a speed greater than 30 miles per hour on level ground.

( B) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person over 21 years of age may operate or ride upon a motorcycle without wearing protective headgear securely fastened upon his or her head if such person is covered by an insurance policy providing for at least $10,000 in medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of a crash while operating or riding on a motorcycle.

(4) A person under 16 years of age may not operate or ride upon a moped unless the person is properly wearing protective headgear securely fastened upon his or her head which complies with Federal Motorcycle Vehicle Safety Standard 218 promulgated by the United States Department of Transportation.

(5) The department shall make available a list of protective headgear approved in this section, and the list shall be provided on request.

(6) Each motorcycle registered to a person under 21 years of age must display a license plate that is unique in design and color.

(7) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.

 

[RTSR1/FJR]

Thanks for all the advise guys! Going to weigh it all over! There will be a complaint at a minimum though!

 

[ponyfool]

If you do decide to fight it, attempting to bring common sense into it could help, but like I said before, courts are weird that way. My point is though, if you were only going 1 or 2 mph (or hell, even up to 10-15 mph), ask the judge what the point is? You don't need eye protection while running track, or walking to the grocery store.

You were stopped in traffic, had your visor up (and a visor had better qualify as eye protection) because it was hot and you were putting along. The granny in a motorized wheel chair that could have passed you due to the traffic back up didn't have eye protection, and you most certainly would have pulled the visor down once you were clear of the traffic should illustrate the point that this is a BS ticket that is not in the spirit of what the law was intended.

Oh, and if you take some advice given and say your visor was fogged up when it actually wasn't, well, that's perjury and even more BS than the ticket IMO.

 

[JJP XX]

3)(a) This section does not apply to persons riding within an enclosed cab or to any person 16 years of age or older who is operating or riding upon a motorcycle powered by a motor with a displacement of 50 cubic centimeters or less or is rated not in excess of 2 brake horsepower and which is not capable of propelling such motorcycle at [/b]a speed greater than 30 miles per hour on level ground.

Well, seems to me you were doing under 5mph which is less than 30mph. Seems like you were legal to me! Also, you probably had your clutch in w/left and throttle w/right. And until you actually get rolling, you couldnt safely close your visor til you moved.

 

[FJRottie]

Sounds like you got a ****-head who hasn't got laid in a while.

Fight the abuse.

 

[zzzzip]

Thought #1: What a BS ticket... some supervisor needs to bag slap this boy.

Thought #2: If you want to take the time, present a common sense case to the prosecutor, and if necessary to the judge... I would expect common sense to prevail.

Thought #3: What a BS ticket... somebody needs to bag slap this boy.

An ex-Florida cop.

B)

 

[DucatiSSsp]

One would think that the windshield on your bike would be considered eye protection. Back in my youth, the police would like to hand out tickets like yours and for "blipping the throttle". I would have someone take a picture of you on your bike from the front with the windshield raised and take it to court. I would also take your wife and be polite and well mannered. Remember, you can't BS someone who deals with **** on a regular basis.

Good Luck!

Bryce

 

[pickax]

a speed greater than 30 miles per hour on level ground. ] [/quote

Honest your Honor, my FJR wont go over 30mph! Better not go there either, I would still bet that seeing the helmet with a flip up face shield attached, and cicumstances involved, will get this thrown out. Good luck and keep us posted.