Mayhem Riders
legal issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mayhem Riders legal issues |
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
||||
|
|||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The present testing standard for motorcycle helmets (FMVSS-218) was created almost 30 years ago. The helmet manufacturer's
are required to perform all motorcycle helmet testing in a laboratory on a headform. The result is a motorcycle helmet designed
to pass the testing standard which is to protect a headform in a laboratory. The testing does not simulate what would happen
to a motorcyclist wearing that helmet in the event of an actual accident. The present testing standard does not exceed a simulated
impact speed of 13.66 mph, nor does it take into account the stresses that would be transferred to a motorcyclist's neck and
spinal cord, the reduced vision and hearing, the effects of a chin strap around the throat, or the effect on the brain when
the helmet bounces. As many State's (including California) have enacted laws that mandate motorcyclist's wear a helmet (or
become a criminal), the testing standards should reflect what, exactly a helmet will do to a motorcyclist in the event of
an actual accident. If the safety of the motorcyclist is the primary concern, then the testing standards should reflect that As it stands now,
the safety Nazi's say that helmets are safe, when the real troth is that helmets can only be proven to protect a headform
in a laboratory. Until the testing standards are designed with the motorcyclist's safety as the primary objective, motorcyclist's
who ride in mandatory helmet law States will be required, by law, to wear a helmet that is designed to protect a headform,
not a motorcyclist. If the testing used crash dummies with sensors (to detect possible injuries), in realistic accident situations
(like a car turning left in front of the motorcyclist), we could determine if, in fact, helmets can actually cause injuries.
The laws of physics state that a 4 pound helmet, at 50 mph, becomes 200 pounds upon impact. This is a law that cannot be repealed
by anyone and it is an indication that the present motorcycle helmets are not as safe as some would claim. One of the requirements
of FMVSS-218 is an impact test performed by dropping the helmet (and headform) onto an anvil from a height of no more than
72 inches which simulates an impact speed of 13.66 mph. Using a Newton equation' for a 170 pound rider, with deceleration
of the brain being the controlling factor, the following helmet thicknesses would be required: Another requirement of FMVSS-218 (S5.4) is that a helmet provides no less than 105 degrees peripheral vision. A drivers
license test requires 140 degrees peripheral vision, and a motorcyclist with only 105 degrees peripheral vision is considered
to be legally blind Also, when wearing a helmet, the acute decrease in hearing would prevent a person from receiving a drivers
license. Therefore, according to DMV regulations, when wearing a helmet a motorcyclist is legally deaf & blind! Helmet's are not a safety device for motorcyclist's, and mandatory helmet laws are nothing more than a mandatory dress
code with the ability to cause injury and death. But a helmet will protect a headform in a laboratory (up to 13.66 mph), unfortunately,
headforms do not ride motorcycles.
The following has been developed to aid in your defense when you have
been stopped and ticketed for wearing an “unapproved” helmet. Read the following to the judge
as your defense and ask that the charges be dismissed. This is not to be considered legal advice. YOUR HONOR, I was wearing a motorcycle helmet acquired in a good faith attempt to comply with the State’s
Mandatory Helmet Law. The helmet, at the time I acquired it, had a “DOT” sticker on the back.
Thus, I was improperly ticketed and the case should be dismissed. THERE ARE TWO ISSUES IN THIS CASE THAT THE STATE MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT. (1) The helmet
I was wearing failed to comply with Federal Laws. (2) I knew my
helmet did not comply with Federal Law. The State Mandatory Helmet Law has incorporated Federal Standards
set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1996 and in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (“FMVSS”)
No. 218. Section 1392(d) of the Safety Act states that once a federal standard
is adopted, that federal standard has supremacy…the states may enforce no standards which are not identical the federal
standards. The “DOT” sticker, on the back of the helmet, raises
the presumption that the helmet meets Federal standards. The Federal Law places a burden on the manufacturer and the seller
of certification and compliance with the standards set forth by Federal Law, “FMVSS” 218, and not the user. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Section L397(a)(1)(A)
(1) No person
shall- (A) manufacture
for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import
in to the United States, any motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety standard takes effect under the subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard. Under section 1403, the evidence of certification with regards to
helmets, is a “DOT” sticker on the back of the helmet, FMVSS 218 section 5, 6 and 1 (e) Federal law only requires the exercise of due care by the user at
the time of acquisition. National Safety Act of 1996, Section 1397(b). (2) Paragraph (1)(A) subsection (a) of this section shall not apply
to any person who establishes that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that such vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment is not in conformity with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or to any person, who,
prior to such, first purchase, holds a certificate issued by the manufacturer or importer of such motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment, to the effect that such vehicle or equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards,
unless such person knows that such vehicle equipment does not so conform. Therefore, Federal law only requires good faith compliance and the
exercise of due care at the time of acquisition of the helmet. The “DOT” sticker raises the
presumption of good faith compliance. Federal law prohibits the Department of Transportation from
establishing a list of approved helmets. And, to my knowledge, there is no list of approved helmets available to the general
public published by anyone. The absence, at the time of the issuing of the citation, of a sticker
on the back of the helmet is not evidence of lack of compliance because Federal Law does not require the sticker remain on
the helmet. (See NTMVS Act of 1966 and MVSS 18) The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my helmet does not meet FMVSS
218 and that I was aware of this fact. Proof that my helmet does not meet Federal standards requires expert
opinion and actual testing of this helmet. A traffic officer lacks the personal knowledge of actual testing
and lacks special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education regarding FMVSS 218 and testing procedures. Expert opinion is not proper testimony unless my helmet was actually
tested. To my knowledge, there is no case law in this state to support the use of expert opinion without
actual testing when a technical test is required by law to prove compliance with a standard. If the State proves the helmet did now comply with Federal standards,
they still must show I knew the helmet was not in compliance at the time I got it. At the time I acquired
the helmet, it possessed a “DOT” sticker on the back and, therefore, I acted in good faith and the State cannot
prove otherwise. Therefore, I respectfully request that this case be dismissed. WARNING! BEFORE READING THESE ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT, BE SURE TO PLEAD NOT GUILTY!
These defenses will only work if you acquired the helmet with the “DOT” sticker on the
back or a label on the inside, which indicated that the helmet complied with the “DOT” standards.
If the helmet had a label on the inside, everywhere in the argument that it says “sticker on the back”,
insert the words “label on the inside.” (The very first way to get a dismissal that has been working so far is lack of evidence.) Motorcycle Checkpoints and Your Rights The New York State Police, along
with local police and sheriff department personal, conducted a motorcycle safety checkpoint on October 9, 2007. They
checked for proper licenses, safety helmets, exhaust systems and other safety and regulatory violations. In the report,
it was stated that the checkpoint was to increase motorcycle safety by insuring compliance with applicable Vehicle & Traffic
Laws and they expected to expand this program statewide in the summer of 2008. Roadblocks are used to stop individuals
who otherwise would not be. The courts have found them legal and a legitimate law enforcement tactic but this does not mean
you don’t have rights once you enter a roadblock. Law enforcement does not have the
authority to search you or your bike without probable cause. This is your Fourth Amendment right. If they ask you for permission,
then it’s likely they don’t have a reason to do so. Never permit a voluntary search of your person or bike, or
take off your helmet. Many times an officer will persist or will say to you something similar to “if you don't
have anything to hide, why object to a search?". This should be met with a response that you do
not consent to any searches of your private property. If the law enforcement
suspects a DUI/DWI, do not say that you have had a drink. You do
not have to answer questions about where you have been or where you are going, whether or not you have been drinking or what
items are contained in your bike. The Fifth Amendment protects you against self-incrimination and
you do not have to answer any questions that the police ask you. You have a right to
terminate your encounter with law enforcement unless you are being detained under
police custody or have been arrested. You can ask the officer
“Am I free to go?”. If the answer is yes, leave immediately. The officer may avoid the question or ask you
unrelated questions, persist by asking "am I being detained, or can I
go now?" If you are detained and placed under arrest, do not answer any questions without your attorney present. Assert your Fifth and Six Amendments rights by saying these exact words: "Officer, I have nothing to
say until I speak with a lawyer." Also be aware that
law enforcement vehicles are equipped with audio and video recording devices
and are activated as soon as the lights go on. Remain calm, courteous and non-confrontational at all times. The New York Freedom
Riders oppose roadblocks but would like you to know your rights if you encounter them. For further information visit
our website at: www.newyorkfreedomriders.com or email us at: nyfreedomriders@localnet.com.
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||