Interesting Helmet Law point of view

[misunderstood]

http://current.com/items/76341002_freedom_rider

I wanna see if better legal minds than mine here can knock a hole in this guy's logic. If I boiled this all down correctly he claims:

1) The government can't make (or evidently enforce) objective helmet standards (ones mandating their construction, and/or what tests they must pass) without incurring liability.

2) The government is expressly forbidden from incurring liability, and therefore from making an objective standard.

3) Without an objective standard for the helmets the helmet law would be ad hoc, arbitrary, and vague.

4) Such arbitrary and vague law is unconstitutional.

(Evidently, at least one court in California has agreed.)

No helmet law in Utah. I would say about 50% wear one

[misunderstood]

I wasn't trying to stir the pot (although my wife calls me a pot stirrer). Just found it interesting. I for one hate the helmet law, but will always wear one. I hate that some states require a seatbelt, but not a helmet. Makes no sense to me. Just feel we should all be able to make that personal decision for ourselves. Again, just an interesting twist on it all.

[phenrichs]

Here in SD the law reminds me of a George Carlin bit about how we have to protect the children but once your 18 your f***ed. The law here states everyone under 18 must wear a helmet, over 18 no helmet required. Just eye protection unless you have a windshield that is taller than your head.

The one that scared me was when I lived in Iowa. They dont even require eye protection. OUCH

[cactusjack]

The seat belt law has federal teeth if the states don't enforce it. ie: withholding of federal highway funds. On the other hand, a helmet law is a state standard, so some states have enacted one, others have not.

The dude's argument holds water, IMO. The state is not going to publish a list of "approved" helmets because to do so would create a situation of liability if someone were killed wearing said approved helmet. Since there is no list of approved helmets, the law becomes vague. And as stated in the video, vague laws are unconstitutional and can't be upheld. This dude is brilliant!

I don't want my state to enact a helmet law. Not that I don't already wear one (usually), but I like to have the choice. You can only go so far to protect a person from themselves. I liked the producers comment "I think everyone should wear a helmet?" Why? Probably because he wears one, which is fine. In CA he really doesn't have a choice.

[scion0]

Originally Posted by wolfman

No helmet law in Utah. I would say about 50% wear one

Same here in Il, no law but many wear.

[scion0]

Originally Posted by cactusjack

The seat belt law has federal teeth if the states don't enforce it. ie: withholding of federal highway funds. On the other hand, a helmet law is a state standard, so some states have enacted one, others have not.

The dude's argument holds water, IMO. The state is not going to publish a list of "approved" helmets because to do so would create a situation of liability if someone were killed wearing said approved helmet. Since there is no list of approved helmets, the law becomes vague. And as stated in the video, vague laws are unconstitutional and can't be upheld. This dude is brilliant!

I don't want my state to enact a helmet law. Not that I don't already wear one (usually), but I like to have the choice. You can only go so far to protect a person from themselves. I liked the producers comment "I think everyone should wear a helmet?" Why? Probably because he wears one, which is fine. In CA he really doesn't have a choice.

The producer does wear one and also said he went down a week later and was glad he had it.

Originally Posted by cactusjack

...The dude's argument holds water, IMO. The state is not going to publish a list of "approved" helmets because to do so would create a situation of liability if someone were killed wearing said approved helmet. Since there is no list of approved helmets, the law becomes vague....

Well, we sort of have an approved helmet. California requires helmets to be DOT approved, pushing the business into that grey area between the federal and state. If the Feds approve, California approves. Now a state court means nothing and you have to go to federal court to resolve anything.

At least that's my theory.

[gopjohnny]

please give me a list of DOT helmets and show me where they have been tested to meet those requirements. I dont think you can find such a list

Maybe there is no actual list available. I haven't looked. The government doesn't actually test all of them either. Helmet manufacturers may have a test lab or pay an independant lab to do the testing. The lab submits the results to DOT and then the manufacturer has the right to claim DOT certification. Assuming they don't lie. ;)

I found this quote interesting:

"How does the DOT monitor compliance with FMVSS 218? Would you be surprised to learn it's based on the honor system? Yes, you read that correct. The government relies on the manufacturer's word that the helmet was tested and passed!

Does the government do any testing? Yes, they do very, very limited testing of helmets. How limited? In 2001, they tested 40 helmets. Under the honor system, we shouldn't have to test any helmets.

What if a helmet fails? They publish the data and rely on the manufacturer to bring the product into compliance. In 2001, 20% of the tested helmets failed the performance tests."

Yeah, it sounds like a hokey business designed to save lives as an afterthought but mostly designed to sell helmets.

Hmm...evidently there is a published list of the small number of helmets the government actually tested itself, which rates them as "pass" or "fail". Here's the one for last year.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testin...8/2007s218.pdf

[namvet]

I was a Police Officer in the State of Michigan when they passed the helmet law. I always felt it was in violation of the person's rights to decide for themselves, thus I never did enforce it on my part. I felt the same with seat belt laws and again never wrote a citation for lack of use. I would in both cases advise the person of the law and the increased safety value from the use of both. These laws were pushed into effect by big money from the Insurance lobbies with millions going into various campaign funds, with no regard to individual rights. Of course I was from the old school, where each police officer was trained to be an individual thinker and enforcement of the laws leaned toward the keeping of the peace rather than keeping everyone in line. This was before moving radar and the desire by politicians to make police department a source of tax income thru tickets and fines. So the safety issue here became an immediate source of additional income for many cities counties..etc.

[coacha]

Good video, he is a smart man and makes a lot of sense. I personally think it should be your choice to wear or not. Me, only have ridden once without and will never do it again.

[moenko]

Connecticut has no helmet law. Objectively, those riding without one usually own the same brand of motorcycle which I will rather not mention