|If you were wearing a helmet, but
a police officer wrote a helmet
ticket to you anyway, scan and
send a copy of that ticket to the
It is important to realize that
ticket is worth its weight in gold.
If you plan on either paying it or
fighting it, email a copy of the
ticket to BOLT of California.
|There is a core group represented here that had vowed to do "whatever it takes" to
protect themselves against bad laws and bad cops. This began BOLT of California.
At this HLDL/BOLT Summit we also hammered out the well known
list of 12 questions for the NHTSA/DOT.
Later, this jokingly became our salute.
|BOLT appreciates the donations and support Freedom minded
riders in California and across the country have provided by
contributing to this fund.
Thomas Jefferson said the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.
This website explains what that vigilance is, and what you can
do to BE vigilant.
How much of your own freedom are you willing to earn?
|Show your support by wearing the BOLT logo.
Contact us for BOLT SUPPORT shirt prices
All official BOLT SUPPORT shirts are known for
quality because they are printed by White Hawk
|As a result of our 2008 legal actions against the California Highway Patrol, Quigley v.
CHP and CHP v. Superior Court, the CHP has negotiated an enforcement policy change
Management Memorandum 08-071 represents one of three aspects of this negotiated
The CHP petitioning of the California Judicial Counsel represents the second of the three
aspects of this negotiated settlement.
This resulted in the change to the Bail & Penalty schedule. Helmet violations ARE
correctable. If a rider is wearing no helmet at all - it is not considered correctable.
The CHP's dropping their demand for additional court costs was the third of three aspects
of this negotiated settlement.
Why did we sue the CHP?
Article by Don Blanscet
What does this mean for motorcyclists in California?
We don't know the future, but we can give our opinion.
It is important to note that this policy change is by the CHP and only effects their
officers, but it does, in fact, reflect the changes to the Bail and Penalty schedule which sets
penalties statewide. Therefore, we would expect all allied enforcement agencies to align
their policy with the CHP.
However, this new CHP policy ignores the ruling from Buhl v. Hannigan, that says neither
an officer nor a consumer is expected to be able to determine compliance by visual
inspection, a proposition that the Buhl court said was "absurd"
Note the reference in 08-071 to the phrase "obviously not a motorcycle helmet," which
assumes a visual inspection enables one to determine proper fabrication. It assumes a
motorcycle manufacturer cannot fabricate a helmet that visually resembles another type
Also ignored are the intent requirements (burden of proof on the people) established in
Bianco V. CHP, which requires the following:
formal determination of non compliance and proof that the rider knows their helmet is
non compliant, regardless of whether LEO is writing a "fix it ticket" or a straight
violation. Buhl and Bianco are still in effect and no citation should be issued without the
ability to meet the requirements of Buhl and Bianco.
While we have no doubt that the CHP is stuck between a rock and a hard place when it
comes to helmet law enforcement, we also see the good faith effort they are showing in an
attempt to legally enforce a vague and ambiguous law, both as written and applied.
The new policy does take steps to minimize Rights violations by LEO, but it does not fix
the problem. The only fix in our opinion would be a list
of compliant helmets; thus we continue to say: No list? No Law!
The presiding Judge in Quigley v CHP did not rule that the helmet law was not vague,
only that we had not presented ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO MAKE THE CASE. The
vagueness issue is still viable. The Judge stated that the law needs to be "cleaned up."
Those requirements in Buhl and Bianco are reiterated by Federal Judge Napoleon Jones
in the EasyRiders v. Hannigan case.
On May 25, 1995, the district court issued its decision on Easyriders' request for a
permanent injunction. Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 887 F. Supp. 240 (S.D.
Cal. 1995). The district court found that under the California helmet law as interpreted by
Buhl and Bianco, a motorcyclist wearing a helmet that does not comply with Standard
218 can violate the helmet law in two situations:
(1) where the helmet did not bear a certification of compliance at the time of sale, or
(2) where the helmet did bear a certification but
(a) the helmet has been shown, by failing a FMVSS 218 test, not to conform with federal
safety standards and
(b) the person being cited has actual knowledge of a showing of non-conformity with
Scan and send a copy of any and every helmet ticket
whether you want to fight it, or pay the fine without a defense.