Comments on: How To Legally Beat Helmet Laws…

By: Car Accident shocking

Car Accident shocking — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 08:01:27 +0000

Undeniably believe that that you said. Your favorite reason appeared to be at the web the easiest factor to consider of. I say to you, I certainly get irked at the same time as folks consider concerns that they just don’t recognize about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and also defined out the entire thing without having side effect , other people could take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thank you

By: Tony of Delta County MI.

Tony of Delta County MI. — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:30:09 +0000

How about when you are sold a helmet that was labeled as “DOT” when you bought it new, and then a few years later you are stopped and ticked for it because it turns out to be a novelty helmet that was impropperly labeled by either the manufacture or the shop that sold it? I bought it shortly after getting my first motorcycle and was only informed from the Michigan law that I was required to wear a helmet model that has passed testing approved by the ‘DOT’. I was never informed how to spot a phoney helmet, the ‘DOT’ sticker was on it before I bought it. Yes, I do know that a half/shorty helmet doesn’t offer as much protection as my fullface does, just the same as I know my bike doesn’t offer as much protection as my Towncar does.

By: Bruce Arnold

Bruce Arnold — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:19:34 +0000

So I take it this means you have nothing to do with your empty life other than write endless forum postings protesting laws that are not much more difficult to defy than speed limits, and which would have been taken off the books years ago if posers like you had the balls to take it to the streets and show the Man it would cost more to enforce the laws than it was worth.

By: Helmet Maker

Helmet Maker — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:20:40 +0000

So I take it this means you are still not interested in trying to understand the federal regulatory scheme and how it limits what enforcement officers are allowed to do in states with mandatory helmet laws.

By: Bruce Arnold

Bruce Arnold — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:54:31 +0000

“Helmet Maker”:

My postings, here and elsewhere, are based on facts. And nothing posted, here or elsewhere, disputes those facts. My suggestion to you personally, “Helmet Maker” (LOL), is this:

Get a life. Grow a pair. Apply yourself to something that makes a real difference in this world. Then maybe, just maybe, you won’t be ashamed to sign your real name when you write something. Plus maybe, just maybe, what you’re signing your name to won’t be gibberish.

Bruce Arnold

By: Helmet Maker

Helmet Maker — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:36:42 +0000

It is pointless and detrimental to bring this type of childish tantrum into a public forum.
This is not the main reason Benedict Arnold was removed from membership in BOLT, but it was one of the important factors.

I’m beginning to wonder if the B. Arnold I’ve seen isn’t purposely distracting real soldiers in the Rights War – like a guy whose mission it is to camophage himself as a Rights guy while splintering coalition bonds and taking Rights workers off task. One who might be considered doing “Containment” of the Rights Movement.

The most distracted and least effective our group has ever been was when we had to read the tiny Arnold typing any given day. Our group’s effectiveness does not depend on self promotion, as Bruce’s tiny thing does. I’d recommend that we stay on message and – Tiny Arnold stays on message. Just quit stalking the Rights Movement that refused to fall for your Tiny distractions.

By: Bruce Arnold

Bruce Arnold — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:53:15 +0000

Jan,

I am not distracted from reality by ad hominem attacks, and the reality here remains as follows:

The fact that the Myrtle Beach protest “was not organized by BOLT” is no excuse for only 3 “Boltsters” showing up. And the fact that your personal bike was broke down is no excuse for the many others that never left the safety of their garages that day.

“Freedom Fighters” my ass…

Bruce

By: janboltnc

janboltnc — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:27:55 +0000

Grow up! The Myrtle Beach SC protest ride was NOT organized by BOLT or any other organization. It was organized by many good and decent independent bikers. My motorcycle has been off the road with mechanical difficulties for over a year or I would have very much enjoyed being there. There is no shame in that. Again, it’s none of your business. You humiliate only yourself. There was a good debate going on here until you came along, making irrelevant and false claims as though anyone really cares, and picking fights in the safety of cyberspace. If you were to ride with an MC and started blabbering your head off, and talking out of turn with disrespect, someone would shut you up. Since you have many miles in the saddle you should know better. I kicked you off the boltusa list for making false accusations, picking fights, and making threats. Prior to that, I didn’t allow you on the boltcarolinas list because I know you are a troublemaker and not to be trusted. Now you follow BOLT into this discussion forum like a stalker. Take your tiny url and your tiny whatever else is causing you to overcompensate like a pre-pubescent teenager, and go away.
That is all I have to say to you. OVER.

I apologize to the rest of the people for my part in this interruption of a good debate in order to correct vengeful, false statements made as though they are fact. Let’s hope we can get back on track without further interruption.

Jan MacKay
Director, BOLT of NC

By: Bruce Arnold

Bruce Arnold — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:30:25 +0000

For the record, Jan MacKay, I disclosed nothing that is not published openly on your Yahoo Groups pages, or that could not be known from having participated in the Myrtle Beach protest, which you did not. And you and I both know I could list the names and addresses of more than enough BOLT members living within 300 miles of Myrtle Beach to more than substantiate my assertion.

But I won’t humiliate your little band of gutless wonders more than the distance between what you say and what you do already has. Unless, of course, I am given further reason to…

By: janboltnc

janboltnc — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:52:11 +0000

For the record, Bruce Arnold, you have no business publicly disclosing the number of members in B.O.L.T. within a 5 hour ride to Myrtle Beach. A motorcyclist with many miles on the road, such as yourself, should know better than to open your yap about such things in a public forum.

Besides that, Benedict, you are totally incorrect. I administer a mailing list called “boltcarolinas”. If you got your figure of 60 people from looking at the number of people on that list, there is NO DIRECT CORRELATION between the number of people who subscribe to that mailing list and the actual number of B.O.L.T. members. It is a list which allows members and non-members in any geographical region, I never let you on that list, because I know you as a troublemaker looking for a fight,

By: Bruce Arnold

Bruce Arnold — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:03:00 +0000

—–Original Message—–
From: Bruce Arnold [mailto:Bruce@LdrLongDistanceRider.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 6:59 PM
To: ‘Cyril Huze Blog’
Subject: IF YOU DON’T WANT TO WEAR A HELMET, DON’T!

Hi Cyril,

In response to the posting and comments on this blog entry…

http://www.cyrilhuzeblog.com/2009/09/08/how-to-legally-beat-helmet-laws/

…I offer the following:

I FREELY CONCEDE that most of our “Founding Fathers” (a.k.a. “terrorists” by the British) were lawyers (a word considered by many to have a pronunciation and meaning similar to “liars”):

http://tinyurl.com/52typb

But other than having their legal practice suspended by choice or mandate (e.g. 91-C-02674)…

http://tinyurl.com/yb7r85l

…I suggest we draw no further parallels between the words and actions of the likes of Thomas Jefferson and those of Raymond L. Henke.

I FURTHER SUGGEST that the American public in general, and American motorcyclists in particular, have much bigger fish to fry than frigging helmet laws. H.L. Mencken once wrote:

“All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow.” ( http://tinyurl.com/y8ba4b3 )

And you should all take H.L.’s advice: IF YOU DON’T WANT TO WEAR A HELMET, DON’T!

I usually don’t wear a lid riding across Missouri on my way to Sturgis. I didn’t wear one crossing Nebraska from Julesberg Colorado through Chadron to South Dakota this year, either:

http://tinyurl.com/yc2gkxt (see Day

And don’t think for a minute you need to hire a friggin’ attorney, or play at being a friggin’ attorney, to do so. There are plenty of other ways to successfully defy the system and assert your independence. In fact, the more the fabric of our society crumbles as the scared Sheeple look to shock jocks and media clowns like Glenn Beck for leadership and salvation, the easier it is to ride by any courthouse with finger extended yelling “Fuck You!” And if you need help figuring out what to do or how to do it, then the virtual bad-ass freedom fighter image you are vainly attempting to project across the Internet must be a far cry from the reality of your Sheeple-in-wolf’s-clothing existence.

Where were all you bad-ass keyboard cowboys (and cowgirls) on 28 February 2009? Well I can say with certainty where you WEREN’T … and that was putting it on the line as part of the Myrtle Beach Freedom Ride:

http://tinyurl.com/c67rwe

Most of the comments I take exception to were from members of B.O.L.T., the “Bikers Of Lesser Tolerance”, who despite having over 60 forum members supposedly within five hours’ ride of Myrtle Beach, had only ***3*** show up on one of the few days when they had a real chance to prove their convictions and “make a difference”. And I can assure you that the disappointment and disgust that led to my separation from those posers began at noon on that Saturday…

Bruce Arnold

By: Tony Pan

Tony Pan — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:36:24 +0000

I’m quite amused at reading the responses to Ray Henke’s article. Some of the commenters poke fun at the freedom fighters because they think we can’t tell what a helmet is, presumably because we’ve already hit our heads. Well, the joke is that these readers can’t understand basic tenets of law and how our system is supposed to work. I don’t wear a helmet, don’t believe in them and never try to convince others not to wear one. I don’t care. Why does every rider who thinks helmets work try to convince others to do what they do? Leave me alone.
And as for question of whether it’s a helmet or not, this is where you really lose sight of what Ray was saying. Of course none of us believe a baseball cap is a helmet. In fact, Quigley referred to his BOLT cap as head protection. Well, it does protect from wind and sun, so it meets that description. The important thing to know is, although Quig could not convince the judge that his cap was a helmet, the DA could not convince the judge it wasn’t. Take helmets out of the question and insert any item you want here. If there is a law prohibiting an action, like speeding, there has to be a distinct and direct description of the prohibited action. No speeding means nothing. 65 mph gives you direction to follow. Wear a DOT approved helmet? There is no such thing. Meet 218 standards? That’s a manufacturing standard for performance. Nothing tells you what a helmet is, what it’s made of, how thick the padding is, etc. Are we nit picking here? Damn right. Some of you need to get some backbone and start standing up for your rights, one of which is clear laws that are being forced upon you. If a law is vague, it’s unenforceable. What ever happened to “question authority”? We’re moving further away from a free people and closer to a compliant flock. Read the article again and try to grasp the meaning of what Ray is putting forth. If you can’t understand that concept, maybe it is you who have already been hit on the head.
I’m haunted by the same demons that posessed our founding fathers….or blinded by the same light.

Tony “Pan” Sanfelipo
Founder, BOLT

By: Helmet Maker

Helmet Maker — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:31:30 +0000

justmyopinion,

The following is NOT Just My Opinion:
The state can not rewrite the law so it is any less vague.
Because of the federal pre-emption regulation in CA, and the way the title 49 US regulations are framed, and because of federal case law to back up the legislated verbage, it just about doesn’t matter what CA law says. They can not enforce anything except the actual federal standard. By now you know the standard DESCRIBES the TEST PROCEDURE.

In other words, if the cops would just quit breaking the law and violating our Rights, they would not be able to write a ticket, unless you actually didn’t have some object on your head that had a symbol on it that looked like this: “DOT”
If you go bare headed, you are violating the state law and the police can enforce that law by writing a ticket.

You have advice on how we should go about attacking the law here. There really is alot that we have accomplished, that first gets ignored by the average rider. So if your legal knowledge level is back in 1993, the police can quickly figure out that you don’t know shit and will pay the ticket.

If your knowledge level reflects current and complete legal information, the police can not ticket you even if you wear a bottle cap labelled “DOT” strapped to your head with elastic string.

If a police officer has a 1993 era knowledge base (which is usuallu the case), he will eventually write a ticket to someone who can make the legal process extremely difficult, and he will realize that what he just did could have gotten him fired and fined by the Civil Court and/or the federal Court.

Because we are such benevolent bastards, that has yet to happen. But when will I lose my patience? Probably soon, since the economic situation has placed a burden on me and I could really use some of that Big Money the cops have been raking in at our expense over the years.
If the cop has a really nice house I might try to include that in the Civil settlement. I could use a good 2nd house as rental income.

The answer to your question is: Who will dare light me up just because my legal helmet is so small no cop can even tell if there is one on my head. There are bigger fish to fry, money wise, for the cops to deal with. Right now there are 3 or 4 problem cops in the whole state of CA. We know who they are and our video camera is coming for them. I hope I’m the guy they write the ticket for.

Here’s the other point – No attorney. We, in CA, teach this method to riders which is intended to be done without the negative, chaotic downside of relying on a lawyer that is taking your money, but is responsible only to the Court. If you’d investigate the successes, it would blow your mind and you’d quit using your keyboard for ridiculous assertions such as are found on this blog.

By: just my opinion

just my opinion — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:59:32 +0000

There has been many good comments posted on this subject but nobody has answered my original question. Let me repeat it.
If the state of California rewrites this law so that it is not vague. Then what has been acomplished?
I believe the riders in California will still have to wear a helmet.
As I see it the only thing that will have changed is that the attorney’s for abate will have gotten richer and the tax payer’s of California will have payed to fight yet another lawsuit. And nothing has changed for the riders of motorcycles.
I have one more question who decided that this was the best arguement for changing the helmet law? I think going at it as a right to not wear a helmet issue is a better aguement but maybe that has been tried and lost. It seems to me that you all are going about this all wrong and because of that nothing will change on this issue. Maybe you should argue that motorcycles are the same as any other form of transportation and therefore we are being singled out by forcing us to wear a helmet. There are probably tons of facts availible to support car wrecks were the driver would have survived if they had a helmet on, so why are motorcycle riders singled out? That would be a better arguement than this lame BS of the law being to vague. Fighting for rights is all well and fine but use your heads for more than a hat rack and you might have a chance of winning.

By: stephen

stephen — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:15:51 +0000

Great debate! Good to see free speech in action.

Here in Australia we have a national helmet law and every helmet must meet the Australian standard and have the standards Australia compliance sticker. Now our standard boys test the approved helmets at random and if a helmet fails then approval is withdrawn and the helmet company is fined and all the product has to be recalled. OK so if a cop pulls you up and your helmet does not have the approval sticker with the approval number for that exact helmet then you will get a ticket. So there is no place for the cop to decide if the helmet is legal or not. For us it is black and white.

The danger as I see it in the USA is that the cop is making a decision if the helmet is legal or being used legally and that is a big problem. The police should not be making a judgement call.

I don’t believe you can let the respective govts get away with letting the cop make the call if the helmet is legal or not. As I read it this is not about a law forcing you to wear a helmet. Stand up now and be counted while you still can. Don’t let your country end up like us downunder.

By: nicker

nicker — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:16:18 +0000

RE:
“…Why is this not a major concern for more people?…”

Simple.
Most Americans are under the erroneous impression that our Republic can survive when most of it’s citizens opt-out of the political process.

And so that power vacuum has automatically been filled by “those who would be king.”
Because “Nature abhors a vacuum.”

-nicker-

By: janboltnc

janboltnc — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:04:27 +0000

Helmets are the best excuse for cops to stop, detain, search, harass, provoke, and bully motorcyclists, that has ever been invented.
I have learned how to fight helmet tickets in court because it is the last legal method open to me to attempt to overturn the mandatory helmet law in a state where the legislature has knowingly enacted and the governor has knowingly signed into law, a law that is unconstitutional as enforced, in violation of Amendment XIV. I am concerned about the loss of liberty and the powers of the police state in what used to be a free country. When the government tells us what to wear, then sends their trained apes with guns and tasers after us, darn near running us down, claiming this is all for our own safety, it just doesn’t make any sense. This is far too oppressive to be the America I know.
When you dig into it and find out the truth about the government lies, legislatures not caring if the laws they make are constitutional or not, and how the cops routinely lie their a** off, and the states pay the salaries of the traffic judges, so you have to study hard in order to get a fair trial as a pro se, it all seems like it is a bad nightmare. It just goes on and on; the more you dig, the more you understand, and the more obvious it all becomes. When you realize that there is no such thing as a DOT approved helmet, yet people are getting pulled over and searched by boisterous cops who are sure there is, there should be something inside any normal person saying there is something very wrong. It should be enough to make any normal person want to mount or join a concerted effort to get the justice system to use their injunction powers to order the cops to stop their unconstitutional enforcement of this vague law. They are using their subjective opinions which are incorrect, based on their suppositions and falsified information handed down to them, rather than fact. To quote Judge Barton, there is no such thing as a DOT approved helmet, in fact or in law.

It seems to me that all normal people who have a strong sense of justice should understand that laws should not be vague and this kind of arbitrary enforcement is wrong and needs to stop. It is very frustrating when there is public support for the police state when they stomp all over the constitution. The public might be confused, thinking that absolute maximum compliance rather than absolute minimum compliance to the letter of the law is what is proscribed. The only explanation I can come up with is they have not studied case law such as Grayned v City of Rockford, mentioned in Rays’ article, and have not learned important concepts of our constitution. I won’t call them all stupid, though some are not as intelligent as others, but do hope all people develop an interest in finding out their constitutional rights and insist on them, for if they do not, we all face the threat of losing them. It has been proven time and time again within the last few decades, that those in authoritative government positions take the constitution lightly. The constitution is being stomped on. Why is this not a major concern for more people?

By: Rogue

Rogue — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:31:15 +0000

I know that no matter what I or others do we will never please all of the people all the time.
With that being said I am happy to read all the comments and hope that people were educated by them.
I personally am against Mandatory Helmet Laws, But do not have a problem with those who wish to wear them. Hopefully people will get enough information to make a good decision on what is best for them.
Just because a indivual believes a specific law is in their best interest, others that do not believe that way are intitled to their position as well.
If you go back to when the Federal Goverment tried to Blackmail states into passing Mandatory Helmet Laws and Motorcycle Rights People and Organizations went to Federal Hearings in Washington and got that threat removed. The Goverment has never gotten over getting beat by a bunch of motorcyclist and that is whay they are still trying to push Mandatory Laws.
You should also note that the other items in the blackmail threat were Mandatory 55 Mile Per Hour Speed Limit, Mandatory Seatbelt Laws, Uniform Blood Alcohol Content of 1.4, and some school bus legislation.
Many of the laws that were passed were poorly written, like in Connecticut where it said you had to wear a helmet. What it did not say is on your head. Some will assume that everyone would have figuered that out. Well many people wore them on their knee and of course were ticketed and went to court over the issue. Yes the judges threw the cases out because the law did not specify clearly where to wear it. The court cases became many as those who did not want to be told what to wear for their own safety from others who in most cases did not ride.
I should note that there became so many court cases that numerous judges ordered the police departments in their district to stop issuing helmet tickets.
While this was going on motorcyclist were lobbying their legislators and haveing rally’s (helmet law protests) This led to that states legislature repealing the Mandatory Helmet Law.
I see what is going on in California, North Carolina and other states as the same kind of action, People trying the cases in court and eventually appeal cases and or their legislature returning the right for indivuals to decide what to wear or not wear for their own personal protection.
What I would like to suggest is that you decide what is right for you But to also support the rights of others to decide for them selves.
There are also other laws that are not in the best interest of those who ride and if everyone who does gets together and helps each other it will be better for all of us.
Thank You
Rogue

By: Dave Blevins

Dave Blevins — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:23:31 +0000

My take on it is this, I know a lot of cops, truth is they don’t know much about the law in general… they are simply bouncers with a badge and gun, and while they like to make people think they know the law, they don’t. That is a job performed by lawyers, judges, juries, and the folks on capital hill that write the laws.
This case took a while but ultimately proved that this helmet law (in its current form) doesn’t hold water. I would suggest anyone riding without a lid in California keep a Xerox copy of this case ruling in their wallet or saddlebag to remind the ignorant cops of this case, if they happen to stop you. Let’s hope that the broke-ass California legislature does’t have the funds or energy to pursue re-writing the law to make it enforcible.

By: Nuke 'n Pave Dave

Nuke 'n Pave Dave — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:43:39 +0000

Well hell… A few thoughts come to mind here:
1) The cops think we’ve beat them at their own game every time we get one of their laws reversed. When that happens, they strike back out of what can only be described as schoolyard spite in order to make all those even remotely involved suffer. This is childish of course, but it doesn’t make it any less true.
2) About the time all of this has come to resolution reversing the helmet law y’all will probably wake up only to find a brand spanking new helmet law rewritten and in place . . . and will most probably have to start the whole process over once again.
3) If all of the states ever manage to do away with helmet laws, the insurance companies will lobby the feds to pass a national law in place of all those lost state laws. That the feds don’t actually have standing to create such a law is irrelevant; just look at what they’ve done with guns and most anything else that we untrustworthy citizens find to be fun…
4) Most every time I’ve gone off my bike I’ve landed on my ass, and I will brook no-one telling the feds that. God forbid that they should decide we needed one of those insidious lids on both ends!
5) Or if you want a helmet that actually works, look into the archives at Magri HD for Armando’s old racing helmet. That leather thing took many a hit for that fine man while he raced the board tracks and left him just fine and unhurt!
6) As long as they have a law, they’ll find a way to impose it on us. As a result, the only truly effective way to deal with this problem is to eradicate the offending law at its source: the legislature. At least then they have to start all over again.

By: Mike Greenwald

Mike Greenwald — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:22:25 +0000

notme,

Your question is valid when you ask;
so which is it:
1) to stop harassment from swat and the other LEOS?
2) to defend the constitution and our rights to due process?
3) to get the government to make it more clear what is legal or not?
4) to get rid of the helmet law

Your separation of issues is certainly meant to confuse people or yourself that these are separate issues. I assure you that the issues are all connected and dependent on one another.

I am heartened at your quest for knowledge.

The flagrant intent of the helmet law and other laws that are motorcyclist specific have been fabricated with the specific intent of taxing and/or limiting motorcycling to an extent that it is profitable for the government and cost prohibitive to the consumer.

I am not about to start taking crap from you or anybody about whether or not I can ride a motorcycle on any public roadway at any time of the day or night in any weather or season.

There are some of you that ride that do not have the stones nor experience to standup for what you believe in and I know that compliance for you is the easy way out. Stay out of my way. If you have issue with what I say and how I say it, remember this, don’t start a fight with an old guy ’cause he has neither the time nor the energy to waste on you and he will just kill you.

I enjoy riding now and have enjoyed doing it since the 50s.

Quite easily, the government should leave the motorcyclists alone. If you have a problem with that, then I have a problem with you.

By: Thorsblood

Thorsblood — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:35:25 +0000

1) to stop harassment from swat and the other LEOS?
2) to defend the constitution and our rights to due process?
3) to get the government to make it more clear what is legal or not?
4) to get rid of the helmet law

ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!

NO LESS, NO MORE. Well maybe more, lol

By: notme

notme — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:29:53 +0000

there’s a lot of passion involved here.

a problem many ‘freedom’ fighters seem to have is muddying the waters, going off on tangents, and attacking anyone that doesn’t agree completely.

this case, to me, is about semantics. the court did not say in any way, shape, or form that the spirit of the law was in question. did they?

the courts ruled that the wording, and therefore the enforcement was deemed unconstitutional. No? seems like a big difference in how you want to argue this- the law was not deemed unconstitutional. No? Can you admit that or will you attempt to attack and besmirch me?

yet, the freedom fighters turn this into taking away rights and resort to name calling. you can confuse the issue as much as you want, and insult me for my views.

if you want to fight for rights, why the smokescreen about your true intentions? you want to choose- plain and simple. how is challenging the wording that will lead to getting the law written in a more clear manner that you cannot skirt going to help? i’m not seeing how your approach, in this case presented here, is going to win rights.

so which is it:
1) to stop harassment from swat and the other LEOS?
2) to defend the constitution and our rights to due process?
3) to get the government to make it more clear what is legal or not?
4) to get rid of the helmet law

each of you has made those arguments, just confusing what your goal really is.

i believe it’s #4- your transparency is obvious. so why not just say it? i think your approach will backfire if you continue to make this about the wording of the law and how to “legally beat helmet laws”.

By: Bones

Bones — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:21:46 +0000

I find your words inspiring and helpful in our fight for freedom in Nevada. I hope you will allow me to use them.

By: Thorsblood

Thorsblood — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:34:25 +0000

MICHIGAN HELMET LAW UNLAWFUL
The MSP, (Michigan State Police) is mandated by the Michigan legislature to approve helmets and promulgate rules for the implementation of the states helmet law. In an attempt to fulfill this mandate the MSP has adopted the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 guidelines by reference.
In the Administrative rules, the MSP rules state; Motorcycle helmets shall meet the model specifications established by the United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Administration. These specifications, located at and identified as “Motorcycle Helmets”, 49 C.F.R. § 571.218, published April 15, 1988 in the Federal Register (53 FR 12529), effective October 3, 1988, are adopted in these rules by reference.
A careful examination of the entirety of FMVSS-218 reveals that it is a testing protocol created for manufacturers of motorcycle helmets to have their helmets tested for compliance, thus allowing them to self certify their helmets as compliant with FMVSS-218. Nothing in FMVSS-218 specifies any model designation, specification, or construction criteria. While a careful reading of the standard may allow a layman to have a vague notion of what the standard is seeking to accomplish, it seems clear that only an engineer trained in the laboratory nomenclature and scientific criteria involved would have a complete understanding of this standard as it is written, and as it applies in determining the legality of a particular motorcycle helmet in the State of Michigan.
The vague nature of trying to determine whether a helmet is legal by virtue of compliance with this standard in Michigan does not end there.
Over the past 10 or so years the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (NHTSA), has annually selected about 40 – 50 helmet models at random off store shelves and had them independently tested for compliance.

http://ww.nhtsa.dot.gov/Cars/testing/comply/fmvss218/index.html

On average about 50% of all helmets tested FAIL. If 50% tested fail then it stands to reason that 50% not tested would fail also. That’s thousands of non-compliant helmets on store shelves, and motorcyclists heads, with no way of distinguishing them from compliant ones. Further, of those failing NHTSA testing only a notice for recall and an order for fixing the defects is sent to the manufacturer. I have been able to find most of the 2007 list of “fail” helmets still for sale on the internet with no notice of recall mentioned. I even purchased one in September of 08 that failed the “impact attenuation” portion of the testing. It is illogical to assume that anyone would be able to identify a helmet that absolutely meets compliance with FMVSS-218. It is illogical to assume that anyone would therefore be able to absolutely meet the requirements of the Michigan Helmet law.
I have taken the time to attend many Helmet Law violation court cases across Michigan. The only consistency in the interpretation of the Michigan Helmet Law by judges and prosecutors has been the inconsistency of their interpretations. This law as written is Vague. Worse, it is enforced in an ad hoc and arbitrary manner forcing law enforcement to guess according to their personal perceptions what is and what is not a legal helmet in Michigan. Some courts have presumed that the labeling requirements of the standard directed to the manufacturer apply to the consumer. This has been refuted numerous times by NHTSA. These labeling requirements do not apply to consumers. Some courts presume that there are specific physical construction requirements of helmets that are required. Nothing in the FMVSS-218 can be found addressing this, and this also has been refuted by DOT. I have had personal contact with DOT engineer Claudia Covell who is in charge of FMVSS-218 verifying this.

Dear Ofcr. Bongard: Thank you for your inquiry. It was forwarded to me because I am the Safety Compliance Engineer responsible for FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle helmets. The answers to your questions are listed below. If you still have questions after reviewing my responses, please feel free to contact me directly at claudia.covell@dot.gov or (202) 366-5293 and I will be happy to assist you further.
Question 1. Does any of the criteria in FMVSS-218 regarding helmets apply to the consumer or purchaser of the helmet, ie; DOT sticker, interior labeling, etc?
Please refer to the interpretation drafted by our Chief Counsel or go HERE for a complete response to your question. In summary, FMVSS 218 does not govern actions by consumers or purchasers of helmets.

2. Does the DOT have any specifications for motorcycle helmets that explicitly describe the construction and retention straps of an approved helmet?
We have guidelines for recognizing novelty helmets but nothing that definitively addresses the physical construction material requirements of approved helmets. The standard does not specify the type of material or design that manufacturers must use to comply with FMVSS 218. In general, FMVSS 218 is a performance based standard, so as long as the manufacturer ensures that the helmet is designed and manufactured to meet or exceed the requirements of FMVSS 218, they may use any materials they wish.

3. Does the DOT have access to a list of approved helmets other than those annually tested and passing?
No; we do not maintain a list of helmets that are certified to FMVSS-218. Also, please be aware that publication of our test results on our website does not constitute a list of “approved helmets”.

4. Are there ANY roadside tests that an Officer can conduct on a helmet to verify its compliance with FMVSS-218?
There are no performance tests that can be done “roadside”.

Regards, Claudia Covell Safety Compliance Engineer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Phone: (202) 366-5293 Fax: (202) 366-7002 E-mail: claudia.covell@dot.gov mailto:claudia.covell@dot.gov

There have been assumptions made by police officers, prosecutors, and judges that the requirements of the federal standard can be applied to the citizens of Michigan by virtue of the State Police specifying that they apply. The MSP has never made this specification and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution disallows it anyway.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/preemption.htm

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
In the legal system of the United States, preemption generally refers to the displacing effect that federal law will have on a conflicting or inconsistent state law. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, section 2) of the United States Constitution states that The Laws of the United States, (which shall be made in Pursuance to the Constitution), shall be the supreme Law of the land. Thus, when there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, the federal law (subject to the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Fifth Amendment and other Constitutional Law) trumps – or “preempts” – the state law, according to this theory. The term is also sometimes used to refer to the displacing effect state laws might have on ordinances enacted by municipalities. The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the “Constitution and the laws of the United States…shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” This means of course, that any federal law–even a regulation of a federal agency–trumps any conflicting state law.

Preemption disallows the state to alter the intent or meaning of the adopted federal law or standard.

No average citizen of Michigan can with certainty go out and purchase a helmet that will comply with these standards. They can purchase one that has the APPEARANCE of compliance, and law enforcement can issue tickets based on the APPEARANCE of Non-compliance, but certainly the intent of the law in the first place was not to force citizens to maintain an “appearance” of lawfulness nor for law enforcement to ticket citizens for the unjustifiable “appearance” of unlawfulness.
Truly, only those motorcyclists who take the time to study and research the complexities of, and testing of various motorcycle helmets, can make an educated, personal decision on the merits of a particular helmet and avail themselves of any safety benefits attributable to motorcycle helmets.
Hmmmm, adults making an intelligent choice, as opposed to the unconstitutional mandate of a vague law which accomplishes little more than the draconian enforcement of the appearance of compliance to a testing protocol for manufacturers. (How American would that be?)

Due Process Clause:
A doctrine derived from the DUE PROCESS CLAUSES of the FIFTH and FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS to the U.S. Constitution that requires criminal laws to be drafted in language that is clear enough for the average person to comprehend.
If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutionally vague. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that no one may be required at peril of life, liberty, or property to speculate as to the meaning of a penal law. Everyone is entitled to know what the government commands or forbids. The void for vagueness doctrine advances four underlying policies. First, the doctrine encourages the government to clearly distinguish conduct that is lawful from that which is unlawful. Under the Due Process Clauses, individuals must be given adequate notice of their legal obligations so they can govern their behavior accordingly. When individuals are left uncertain by the wording of an imprecise statute, the law becomes a standardless trap for the unwary.
Second, the void for vagueness doctrine curbs the arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of criminal statutes. Penal laws must be understood not only by those persons who are required to obey them but by those persons who are charged with the duty of enforcing them. Statutes that do not carefully outline detailed procedures by which police officers may perform an investigation, conduct a search, or make an arrest confer wide discretion upon each officer to act as he or she sees fit. Precisely worded statutes are intended to confine an officer’s activities to the letter of the law.

http://ww.nhtsa.dot.gov/Cars/testing/comply/fmvss218/index.html
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FAQ Site/pages/page3.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.d7975d55e8abbe089ca8e410dba046a0/?javax.portlet.tpst=4670b93a0b088a006bc1d6b760008a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_4670b93a0b088a006bc1d6b760008a0c_viewID=detail_view&itemID=f1fd61db8a390010VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&overrideViewName=Article
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/preemption.htm

Rusty “Thorsblood” Bongard
B.O.L.T. (Bikers of Lesser Tolerance) of Michigan
Region 21 Coordinator, Abate of Michigan
Asst. State Rep. MRF
Member C.O.C.
Member Sawtooth Wolves MC