Don "don't shoot!" Blanscet (Official Spokesman for the Ill Eagle Helmet Company) has done it again. While many of us were napping (myself included), Blanscet was working to figure out a way to get rid of the helmet law . . . and as usual, he produced!!

    Get this: California Assemblyman Dick Floyd, the author of California's Helmet Law, and living epitome of anti-biker bigotry, in a sure and certain response to requests from the CHP -- who have been getting their ass kicked up one side and down the other for their unique approach to enforcing the helmet law -- FOUND the "solution" to the problems with enforcement of California's helmet law. (Actually, he thought he found the answer; but like most bigots, he's too stupid to realize what he actually did instead!)

    AB-483 is Floyd's answer to the CHP's enforcement problems. AB-483 is on it's way to passing all the way through the Legislature like a pay-raise bill, and then it's let the games begin! AB-483 bill is an open confession of the vagueness of the helmet law, by the author . . . not to mention, a testament to the truth of NO LIST? NO LAW! -- you see, this just goes to show that they can't make a list "approved" helmets, and in the absence of a list of "approved" helmets, we will have "approved" "CHP standards" . . . and we can't wait!

    The language of the bill is below. Following that comes the "COMMENTS" section also prepared by California's Legislative Counsel (their review of the helmet law). First, read the bill v-e-r-r-r-r-y carefully and then read the "COMMENTS". (We'll be including our own comments (in white) for the benefit of those who are new to these issues -- nobody here expects you to know what you don't know.)

"SUBJECT: Motorcycle helmets"

"SUMMARY: This measure would require the manufacturers and sellers of motorcycle safety helmets to either meet specified standards or to label helmets that do not comply with those standards. Failure to do so would be punishable as a misdemeanor. Specifically, this bill:

"1) Would prohibit the manufacture of a safety helmet that does not meet the requirements established by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) pursuant to existing law."

Now there's a good idea . . . put the CHP in charge of establishing helmet requirements. Even if it were a good idea, they can't adopt anything but FMVSS-218 -- that is unless NHTSA is willing to adopt CHP standards instead (now THAT's a joke!). The CHP ain't gonna like it, that is having to abide by NHTSA's standards. They never have, but that's all they get. "Irony." That's what Blanscet calls it, "irony." (The court cases will be FLYING!!)

"2) Requires a helmet that does not meet the CHP requirements to be labeled in a distinguishable size and color, "This Helmet Does Not Comply with Federal and State Safety Laws".

Just close your eyes and picture that label. Then imagine it on your baseball cap helmet, that you can assume the liability of the manufacturer and certify as compliant (it doesn't matter what the statute says, they can't touch you for "self-certifying" your own helmet unless you try to "sell" your helmet). It's never been about safety, and certification of a helmet has nothing to do with safety. It has to do with product liability, with indemnification. Remember, "he who certifies, indemnifies"?

3) Requires any person who manufactures, sells or advertises the sale of a helmet that does not meet the CHP requirements to disclose to the buyer or in the advertisement that the helmet does not meet the requirements.

50% of all helmets tested by NHTSA in the past 10 years have failed. Can you imagine the surprise when the CHP shows up at the Bell Helmet Company offices and hauls off the CEO because he didn't manage to get the "this helmet failed testing" sticker on those tens of thousands of full-face helmets already out there that have failed? And if they don't go after Bell's CEO, they can't come after any of us!

"4) Makes a violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor.

Does that mean, by the same standards, that GM and Ford executives (and all the Jap car makers) will be facing misdemeanor charges when their cages fail to meet Federal Standards -- most of them do, you know? This jewel is going to go over about like a turd in a punch bowl! COME ON AB-483!!

"5) Clarifies that these provisions do not apply to bicycle helmets."

"EXISTING LAW:"

"1) Requires the driver and passenger of a motorcycle to wear a safety helmet.

"2) Authorizes the CHP to adopt regulations which establish the specifications and standards for safety helmets which must, among other things, include the requirements imposed by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218.

"3) Requires every helmet to be conspicuously labeled in accordance with the federal standard, which constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the helmet conforms to the federal safety standard.

4) Makes a violation of these provisions punishable as an infraction."

"FISCAL EFFECT:"

"1) Minor nonreimbursable local jail costs.

    "2) Potential increased penalty revenue to the extent the labeling requirement clears up confusion in the courts over whether motorcyclists are in a position to know if their helmets comply with existing requirements or not." (Added by Legislative Counsel when AB483 was sent to Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 20, 1997.)

"BACKGROUND:"

"1) Rationale. Mandatory helmet use by motorcyclists was enacted in 1992. Some motorcyclists have purchased 'minimal headcoverings' for use while riding and, if cited for not wearing an approved helmet, they are often able to convince a court that there was no way to tell if the helmet satisfied standards or not since there is no explicit label indicating so. The labeling requirement should help to remove confusion in the courts regarding these citations."

"Confusion in the courts? I guess, and on the streets . . . and even, apparently, in the Legislature. Like Blanscet says, "Right, the courts are confused. They're so confused they can't even figure out the helmet law is vague!"

"2) Misdemeanors vs Infractions. The author states the existing infractions are inadequate in stopping the sale of noncomplying helmets to motorcyclists. The author believes the chance of serving jail time would better deter manufacturers, retailers and advertisers of these sub-standard helmets from providing them to motorcyclists." (Added by Legislative Counsel when AB483 was sent to Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 20, 1997.)

If "the author" (Dick "the prick" Floyd) can manage to get this bill passed, he will have more volunteers than he count running around the major helmet outlets reporting on the 50% of all helmets that NHTSA tests, that fail! By the time a few of these retailers fulfill the wishes of Floyd to do a little jail time, the State may be hard-pressed to find anyone to sell helmets at all! Can they keep in a helmet law when no one can find a place to buy one? We think not. "Rationale" that, Floyd! --q)

"COMMENTS: Since the requirement for motorcycle helmet use was enacted in California in 1992, there has been considerable confusion and controversy surrounding which helmets meet the federal and state safety requirements." (California Legislative Counsel)

"Confusion and controversy" I guess!! The first injunction EVER against the CHP for an entire enforcement policy . . . I guess you could call that "controversy." And the "confusion" eminating from the same source.

"The federal safety standard is a self-policing regulation which calls for self-certification by helmet manufacturers that their product meets all federal standards. Compliance by some manufacturers has been inconsistent, but enforcement action by the federal government has been even less consistent." (California Legislative Counsel)

In a nutshell, the translation of this paragraph is: "NHTSA don't have a clue what they're doing, and manufacturers can't be counted on to do the right thing behind "self policing regulation"; so, LET'S LET THE CHP TAKE CARE OF IT!! (Like they're qualified . . . see previous comments.)

"When confusion arose over what helmets were approved and which were not, many motorcyclists began to challenge citations in court, and the courts often ruled on their behalf, finding it inappropriate to hold a motorcyclist responsible for wearing a non-conforming helmet if that person had no knowledge that the helmet was faulty." (California Legislative Counsel)

"You want the helmet law out, you don't do it by schmoozing the Legislature. You create a problem for them on the streets and in the courts, and the Legislature will be forced to try to fix it. When they find out they can't, the law will go away . . . for good!" (Steve Bianco -- July 1992)

This measure would correct this problem by requiring anyone that manufactures or sells a helmet to clearly label it as non-conforming if the helmet fails to meet federal and state requirements." (California Legislative Counsel)

Yeah, right!

quig

Questions or comments? Speak your mind!