BARF - Bay Area Riders Forum

Go Back   BARF - Bay Area Riders Forum > Moto > LEO Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-12-2020, 01:44 PM   #16
Caddywumpus
4N631
 
Caddywumpus's Avatar
 
AMA#: 2809543
Contributor
Roadside Angel

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The Grove
Motorcycles: Happy
Name: o'/<
Does anyone have a link to that court ruling??
__________________
The adventure is in the rider, not the bike.
Get Trained! www.pacificmotorcycletraining.com
My dad used to own a Buell, until one day when he accidentally left his garage open overnight. Now he owns three.

Delay gratification and exercise financial responsibility, you say?
Why do you hate America?
RIP Mahito. 11/7/2010 AMA #2809543
Caddywumpus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2020, 02:14 PM   #17
squidworth
Veteran
 
squidworth's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SF
Motorcycles: So many
Name:
You are absolutely correct! I was merely giving the OP an option. What they do with that, is up to them. A Schuberth most definitely exceeds DOT standards, but a helmet like this........

https://www.alibaba.com/product-deta...15ce3ef5mUAquQ


Quote:
Originally Posted by bojangle View Post
Buying a DOT sticker off Amazon doesn't make a helmet compliant.
squidworth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2020, 02:18 PM   #18
Nick
Uncarlfarbmanlike
 
Nick's Avatar
 
BARF Moderator
Founding Member
Contributor +

Join Date: May 2002
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Motorcycles: 2004 Honda Metropolitan
Name: .
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojangle View Post
Buying a DOT sticker off Amazon doesn't make a helmet compliant.



If you're talking motorcycle/car insurance payment or any other type of civil liability, it probably wouldn't be non-payment. For example, if someone else caused the collision, they'd still be civilly liable. But it would provide ammo the insurance companies / attorneys would use to try and reduce liability. They would argue that had the rider been wearing a DOT compliant helmet, their injuries would be less severe (whether true or not) and that they should only be liable for partial medical expenses, etc. Why give them that ammo?
It was discussed in another thread within the last 6 months or so, but... I think that if a helmet does not meet DOT standards, that does. It make it inferior. Many ECE standards are higher than DOT/Snell. If the rider can show that the helmet met higher standards, even if not technically DOT certified I think they would be ok in the long run. It would take a competent attorney with an understanding of Euro certs and stuff, because if it’s that serious where there is litigation, the rider is probably in no position to bring forward that information.

If I remember correctly, Suomy helmets are not DOT certified. But..... if they are good enough for the MotoGP grid and meet FIM standards I can’t imagine anyone making a successful argument that the lid is less safe.

EDIT: Correction.... Suomy helmets are DOT, but not Snell certified. The point remains, though.
__________________
BARF Terms of Service
Last edited by Jesus; Yesterday at 01:32 PM...

Last edited by Nick; 08-12-2020 at 02:20 PM..
Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2020, 03:52 PM   #19
bojangle
FN # 40
 
bojangle's Avatar
 
BARF Moderator
Contributor

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Bay
Motorcycles: Kawasaki Versys 1000LT, Prior: Honda 600RR Graffiti, Kawi 650R
Name: Dave
^^^ Yeah, good point.
__________________
BARF Terms of Service

I use micro agressive trigger words.

""This is my shield. I bear it before me into battle, but it is not mine alone. It protects my city. I will never let my brother out of its shadow nor my city out of its shelter. I will die with my shield before me... facing the enemy." Author Unknown "
bojangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2020, 06:37 PM   #20
kuksul08
Suh Dude
 
kuksul08's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hoon Valley
Motorcycles: Whee!
Name:
Most are dual certified DOT/ECE. I wouldn't even worry for a second as long as it's certified.
kuksul08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2020, 10:02 AM   #21
HadesOmega
Veteran
 
HadesOmega's Avatar
 
Barfie Winner 2017

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Jose
Motorcycles: Empulse TT, ZR7, DR650, KLR650, 750 Turbo, Light Bee MX, KLX140L
Name: Merlin
Interesting I put one of them Amazon DOT stickers on my Caberg Tourmax man moons ago.

So your saying if I rode around with my US Army kevlar helmet I wouldn't get in trouble? Like I'd want to wear it around but I always thought it would look cool if I did it once haha.
HadesOmega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2020, 01:28 PM   #22
berth
Veteran
 
berth's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Orange County
Motorcycles: KRS-1200
Name:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick View Post
Many ECE standards are higher than DOT/Snell. If the rider can show that the helmet met higher standards, even if not technically DOT certified I think they would be ok in the long run.
Ok with who?

See the fundamental issue is when would this statute actually come in to play?

As has been mentioned, a peace officer (apparently) can not cite for DOT compliance.

Can an insurance company deny claims because you were "violating the law"?

But if you are not cited, then how do they know you were violating the law?

An ECE standard may be higher than DOT/Snell, but it is also, notably NOT DOT compliant -- thus against the statute. It can't be sold in this country, and it's illegal to wear in this state IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW.

Which brings up another question, are helmets required for off road use? If I'm riding a pit bike at the track without a helmet, is that against the law?

If not, then if I'm wearing an ECE helmet on my pit bike and fall, since I've not "violating the law", an insurance company wouldn't be able to use the fact that I'm wearing a non-DOT helmet as a reason to deny claims (unless there's a clause in the policy regarding helmet use, of course, they anything goes).

So, like a bunch of other laws, when is this one going to reach actual contact with a citizen. I don't see this happening in a courtroom, unless for some silly reason a DA is piling on the charges.

"Not only was this person riding at high speed in a school zone, when they struck the crossing guard in the crosswalk, with an illegal exhaust system, and illegals bike lighting, they were wearing an illegal helmet!!"

"Charges: Manslaughter. Riding with out proper lights. Riding without a DOT helmet. Riding with a loud exhaust. Failed to yield to crossing guard."

And then there's simply whether insurance companies are able to deny claims due to illegal activity.

So, in the end, just not sure when this really matters any more.
__________________
#69 #45 NP
berth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2020, 03:39 PM   #23
Nick
Uncarlfarbmanlike
 
Nick's Avatar
 
BARF Moderator
Founding Member
Contributor +

Join Date: May 2002
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Motorcycles: 2004 Honda Metropolitan
Name: .
Insurance companies are a private business. They don’t have to have a violation of law to deny a claim.

Any litigation with an insurance company would be handled in civil court, not criminal.
__________________
BARF Terms of Service
Last edited by Jesus; Yesterday at 01:32 PM...
Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.