CHP BULLETIN #34, the law that is not law.

CHP Information Bulletin #34 is the boat that won't float. There are too many holes in it . . . gaping holes. The first and most obvious hole is:

CHP Bulletin #34 is not Law!

On June 2, 1992, Deputy Commissioner Dwight "Spike" Helmick, of the California Highway Patrol, initiated a news release to any media source that would listen stating that he had ruled that E&R Helmets were no longer "DOT approved", and that anyone "caught" wearing one would be stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol.

Helmick followed up this news release with an All Agencies Bulletin -- the now famous (or infamous) CHP Bulletin #34 -- designed to inform all police agencies, and the courts, that the E&R Helmet did not comply with the Federal Standard, and therefore anyone wearing one was doing so in violation of the helmet law. The CHP subsequently pronounced these helmets "unapproved" "bogus" or "illegal" and began a state-wide campaign of citing wearers of such helmets.

However, all of this happened without any legal foundation. The California Highway Patrol has, in fact, been given the authority by the California Legislature to "adopt reasonable regulations" for helmets "sold" or "offered for sale" in California; but nothing along the lines of authority to modify the helmet law to prohibit the use of helmets which they deem "unapproved."

So, the first hole they had to patch is the fact that they did not have any jurisdiction to rule on this matter, much less begin this campaign of enforcement.

What the California Highway Patrol has done is to attempt to make law, by arbitrary edict, and shove it down the throats of California motorcyclists -- primarily Harley Davidson riders -- and in so doing have violated the Separation of Powers protections of both State and Federal Constitutions.

The Legislative Branch of government makes law; not the Executive, of which the California Highway Patrol is a part.

The fact that CHP Bulletin #34 has been treated as law by not just the CHP, but, as anticipated when they issued the bulletin, most of the other police agencies in the state, and far too many of the courts, does not make it law. There simply is no statutory language to support an allegation of violation of the helmet law by "wearing an unapproved helmet". Period.

CHP Bulletin #34 was not, is not, and cannot be Law. At least not until such time as the California Legislature puts their stamp on it (which they never will, but that's another story).

CHP Bulletin #34 is not accurate!

Directing your attention to figure #1: the phrase "DOT approved" is used twice and "unapproved" also twice. There are also two references to "approved" styles and types of helmets.

The inaccuracy begins with the fact that DOT (The United States Department of Transportation) does not "approve" anything . . . as is no-thing.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has carefully, repeatedly, made that point clear in communication after communication with the California Highway Patrol, that neither they, nor any other Federal agency, "approve" anything.

Accordingly, what about the reference to "DOT Approved Helmet Styles" in figure #2? A style of helmet is DOT approved? I don't think so, and the NHTSA says not, so what's with figure #2? More of that just makin' it up as we go stuff from the CHP? . . . Right!.

Then, there is figure #3. The DOT does not "unapprove" anything either, so what does the CHP mean by "unapproved helmet"? By who, and with what authority, is a helmet "unapproved". Who says this, or any other helmet, is "unapproved'? Call NHTSA for yourself, they will tell you that they do not "approve" helmets, or anything else. Nor do they "unapprove" anything. Not helmets, and not anything else. So, who unapproved this helmet?

It is clear that the CHP has acted to deceive, or are pitifully uninformed. They had no valid information to support this bulletin, just a whim . . . and an attitude.

CHP Bulletin #34 is discriminatory!

The fact is that the beanie style helmet has fallen under attack by the California Highway Patrol with no good reason. Over 30,000 citations have been written in response to Bulletin #34. 30,000 citations have been issued for violating a CHP Bulletin over the alleged failure of less than 10,000 helmets. 30,000 citations issued to consumers, in the name of "safety", in the absence of a single "unapproved" "illegal" or "bogus" helmet related injury or death.

On the other hand, over 5,000,000 (yes, five million!) cars have had reported seatbelt test failures from NHTSA, and scores of people die every month in the State of California from faulty seatbelts. Yet, as of today, not one Information Bulletin has been issued in this regard. And, it is a sure bet that if such a bulletin were issued concerning seatbelts, there is no way that the Deputy Commissioner would even suggest citing the driver for wearing an "unapproved" seatbelt.

The only seeming motivation for this whole mess is founded in the fact that the California Highway Patrol is bigoted against "bikers". Little wonder when you consider the amount and types of information they receive on the subject; but, that is no excuse.

All the evidence points to the fact that the ban on the beanie style helmets -- for lack of evidence to the contrary -- rests in the bigoted attitudes and practices of the California Highway Patrol toward Harley Davidson riders -- a.k.a. "bikers."

There are a myriad of other holes (of a more quasi-technical nature) which, in and of themselves, should ultimately sink this boat; yet, as of the date of this writing, there has been not even a hint of a retraction from the CHP with regard to Bulletin #34. Why?

There has been no outcry by the Legislature. Why?

There has been no condemnation by the courts. Why?

The law that is not Law, CHP Bulletin #34, is still on the books, and the willing enforcers of this non-law are, seemingly, everywhere. Why?

EPILOG:This article was written sometime in middle of late 1992 -- the first year of California's helmet law for adults. There's still been no outcry from the legislature, the courts have sidestepped dealing with the problems head-on (although Federal Judge Jones did injoin the CHP for the first time in the 75-year history for the practices defined by #34) and the CHP is still coming one bad bulletin after another . . . shame on them. Shame on them all!!

quig