I have been riding in Cali for 10 years...riding longer just only 10 in Cali. Anyway I wear a novelty and have never been pulled over for a helmut. I know of only one time it happening and it was at Hollister a couple years back when my buddy's son got pulled over and didn't have his endorcement. When my buddy picked the bike up the cop made him go get a real helmut as he had a novelty at the time.

I also never had any blinkers, baffles or mirrors on my custom builds and had sideways plates to boot and never got pulled over for it as an infraction. I also rode for 7 years in Cali without my endorcement and wasn't bothered about it either...

 

sound good to me

 

Our representatives don't care about the Constitution out here..

 

I guess it's time to bring the beanie back out.

 

Leave me alone,,,,,,,it's my head..........

 

Not exactly sure when, but yes, we have that law.
I don't think it's a bad thing for the kids tho. I just don't like the bike drivers being forced to wear them.

 

And this is a surprise to anyone? This is the peoples republic of chinafornia...I say give it back to mexico and I'll find someplace else to live...oh wait, they already gave it back to mexico...well at least a little at a time...

 

Here is a good site http://www.boltofca.com/ to see how things are going with respect to the helmet law. Funny how they find the "no list no law" to be the sole reasoning behind why it should be a fix it citation as opposed to simply writing that citation based on the "reasonable person" ruling which pretty much expects people to have a bit of common sense. No list No law came into play in the original case People of the State of California v. Melody Robin Woods, which occurred around a 1992 citation written by CHP Officer Victor Vasquez under CVC section 27803b. This section provides for the rider of a motorcycle to wear a helmet that meets or exceeds section 27802. CHP bulletin #34, which was offered as evidence in the case explained how helmets of the type worn by Woods did not meet DOT standards. Woods testified that she was on a limited budget and after shopping at numerous motorcycle shops found a helmet that had a DOT sticker affixed and purchased said helmet for $35.00. In other words, the court found that Woods had made a reasonable attemp to comply with the law and since the law was found to be vague no list no law came into being.

The state of Tennessee has determined that a helmet must have a certain thickness of padding and clearifies things to the point they can and do write citations based of the helmet not meeting their requirements. I would expect california to amend the CVC to make things much clearer and I seriously doubt they will repeal their helmet law. Rather, it will simply be amended as necessary.

 

CA wrote the helmet about 20 years ago. We don't need no stinkin' new laws from big brother protecting us from ourselves and we do not need any 20 year old laws ammended for that cause either.

Let those who ride decide. I have a "novelty", DOT half (pictured below), and a FF helmet and wear which ever I choose depending on the ride and conditions. Heck, when I cross state lines into AZ/UT, I will ride with no helmet when I feel like it.

It is nice to see that we may be able to at least ride with our novelty helmets, if we "choose" to wear them, and not be worried about getting hassled by law enforcement.

 

There may be hope for California yet.