"I do not have great expectations of success in the legislature this year, though we will try again anyway in the interest of perseverance. Our initial bill will be a flat repeal of CVC 27803; no age specification at all. We may have to modify that at some point to gain needed votes, but we start with total repeal as our opening position, and will stick to it as long as it is still viable." (emphasis added)
-- this is not exactly a winning attitude.
"Tell me, for a million dollars, would you go up to my room and have sex with me?"
The young woman replied, "For a million dollars? Sure."
He said, "Well then, how about for a buck?"
She scowled, "A buck? What do you think I am?"
He replied, "We've already established that, all we're negotiating now is price."
ABATE of California and MMA have done some excellent work in debunking the "safety benefit" claims, as well as the "public burden" theory. HLDL has the situation with the vagueness of the helmet law wrapped. They stand prepared to take on anyone, particularly NHTSA, over the problems resulting from the absence of a clear standard -- the "list of approved helmets" -- which render all helmet laws unconstitutionally vague. And BOLT of California has the goods on the fraud perpetrated by Floyd, based on his bigotry, as well as the inside stuff on the CHP's discriminatory enforcement (including unauthorized modifications) of the California Helmet Law.