DOT helmet label

[Rob MacLennan]

Here is the conclusion of Regina v. Hayes, 2003:

[43] I would allow the appeal, set aside the conviction, and enter an acquittal.


"R. Roy McMurtry C.J.O."
"I agree. K. M. Weiler J.A."
"I agree. John I. Laskin J.A."


RELEASED: July 10, 2003 "RRM"

I found the above at the web site of Ontario's Supreme Court,
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/search/en/OntarioCourtsSearch_VOpenFile.cfm?serverFilePath=D %3A\Users\Ontario Courts\www\decisions\2003\july\hayesC36130.htm

As turbodish stated, the appeal was with respect to the "obstruct police" charge being an incorrect charge. It upheld the examination of the helmet.

In other words you can refuse to show your helmet, should you wish, but you will be walking home with a $1000.00 ticket in your pocket, not riding home with a stupid grin plastered on your face.

[RetroGrouch]

Don't know what kind of cops you guys are concerned about but I've never been pulled over for wearing a fullface helmet that's not DOT. And I wear some funky old fullface helmets that are so obviously not DOT.

[omnivore]

You probaby just got soaked for that helmet. It was likely a free sample that helmet companies provide retailers....they are not for resale.....the retailer you bought it from likely got it free and made 100% profit margin on it.

[geoff-9]

Leo: The outside of your helmet doesn't say DOT. Show me the inside.
You: Show me the search warrant first. Then I'll take off the helmet.
Leo: Fine, here's a ticket for Improper Helmet. Call a tow truck because you are not allowed to ride with an improper helmet.

And then the idiot LEO laughs at you while you are on the side of the road waiting for a tow.

+1. thats exactly how it would go down.

[OpenGambit]

I took the DOT sticker off the back of my Shoei, there is one on the inside.

If a cop actually wants to check, I will simply remove my helmet and show him the sticker on the inside.

It is 100 % legit for a cop to check your helmet the same way that he can check your ownership, registration and insurance.

If i say anything else, it won't be very nice, so I'll just save it.

[Salos Dafee]

You guys are sure difficult to comprehend.

If a cop does not like the way somebody is driving, the cop can stop that driver and issue a charge for careless driving, for example. That charge is an allegation, and its issuance alone, absent evidence of impairment for example, does not permit the cop to prevent the charged driver from getting into or onto the stopped vehicle and driving away.

If a cop notices a malfunctioning taillight on a vehicle, the cop can stop the driver and issue a charge for no functioning taillight. That charge is an allegation, and its issuance does not permit the cop to prevent the charged driver from getting into or onto the stopped vehicle and driving away.

Yet you offer the opinion that a cop who doesn't like my helmet, after issuing me a ticket for that helmet's appearance, can use that allegation to prevent me from riding away. I thought you folks opposed roadside convictions and seizures, yet here you come out praising such circumstances and each others' opinions in favour of such draconian actions.

Everyone is welcome to an opinion. Simple politeness requires that somebody offering an opinion expresses it as an opinion. It is, in my opinion, the height of childishness to express an opinion as if is a fact, simply because the holder of the opinion strongly believes it.

[turbodish]

If a cop notices a malfunctioning taillight on a vehicle, the cop can stop the driver and issue a charge for no functioning taillight. That charge is an allegation, and its issuance does not permit the cop to prevent the charged driver from getting into or onto the stopped vehicle and driving away.

Yet you offer the opinion that a cop who doesn't like my helmet, after issuing me a ticket for that helmet's appearance, can use that allegation to prevent me from riding away. I thought you folks opposed roadside convictions and seizures, yet here you come out praising such circumstances and each others' opinions in favour of such draconian actions.

A cop can most certainly keep you from driving away if he or she believes the vehicle equipment to be sufficiently unsafe that continued operation would endanger the driver or others on the road.

As per the link that you yourself provided, case law has already established that a helmet is considered to be part of the vehicle's "equipment" that is subject to inspection by a cop. From that flows the right of a cop to keep you from simply driving away in what is a vehicle in unsafe condition or with unsafe "equipment".

The following is also part of the HTA sect 82 that is referred to in the link that you yourself gave.

Use of vehicle prohibited
(12) Where any vehicle examined or tested under subsection (2), (3) or (4), or any of its equipment, is found to have a prescribed defect or to be in a dangerous or unsafe condition, with or without a prescribed defect, the police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act making the examinations or tests may,

(a) require the driver, owner or operator of the vehicle to have the prescribed defect repaired and the vehicle and its equipment placed in a safe condition;
(b) order the vehicle to be removed from the highway; and

(c) prohibit the operation of the vehicle on the highway until the prescribed defect has been repaired and the vehicle and its equipment are in a safe condition. 1999, c. 12, Sched. R, s. 14.


Seizure of plates, vehicle inspection sticker

(13) Where the operation of a vehicle has been prohibited under subsection (12), the police officer or officer may,
(a) seize the number plates of the vehicle; and
(b) remove the vehicle inspection sticker, or comparable device issued by another jurisdiction, from the vehicle. 1999, c. 12, Sched. R, s. 14.

[Rob MacLennan]

You guys are sure difficult to comprehend.

If a cop does not like the way somebody is driving, the cop can stop that driver and issue a charge for careless driving, for example. That charge is an allegation, and its issuance alone, absent evidence of impairment for example, does not permit the cop to prevent the charged driver from getting into or onto the stopped vehicle and driving away.

If a cop notices a malfunctioning taillight on a vehicle, the cop can stop the driver and issue a charge for no functioning taillight. That charge is an allegation, and its issuance does not permit the cop to prevent the charged driver from getting into or onto the stopped vehicle and driving away.

Yet you offer the opinion that a cop who doesn't like my helmet, after issuing me a ticket for that helmet's appearance, can use that allegation to prevent me from riding away. I thought you folks opposed roadside convictions and seizures, yet here you come out praising such circumstances and each others' opinions in favour of such draconian actions.

Everyone is welcome to an opinion. Simple politeness requires that somebody offering an opinion expresses it as an opinion. It is, in my opinion, the height of childishness to express an opinion as if is a fact, simply because the holder of the opinion strongly believes it.

There is opinion and there is fact. It is a fact that a helmet is considered to be a part of the necessary equipment, for operating a motorcycle. It is a long standing fact that police can stop you from operating a vehicle, that does not have the required equipment to do so. You can not more operate a motorcycle without a helmet, under the law, than you can if it is determined that you have bald tires, no headlights, or a gaping hole in your floorboards.

It is a reasonable accommodation, under the law, that you be prevented from operating an unsafe vehicle for the safety of both you, and other road users, and this principle dates back as long as there have been such standards. When you are stopped, for having a vehicle that does not meet the operating standards, it doesn't magically become safe after you have been stopped. A drunk is still drunk but a speeder may no longer speed, someone who made an illegal left turn may not make another, and a person who failed to obey a stop sign will likely obey the next.

[Wingboy]

Riding in Ontario with a non dot helmet will only get attention if it's a beanie type imho.I used Airoh flip lids for years with no problems whatsoever.Bottom line...ride around with a wwii german lid and you'll get busted.Wearing a full coverage lid with no sticker won't be a problem unless you give an officer a reason to look at you closer than he normally would.

[Salos Dafee]

There is opinion and there is fact. ...

EXACTLY.

Please note that items [24] [34] [36] and [37] of R. v. Hayes, all exhaustively quoted above, are very VERY VERY carefully stated as opinions. In the context of the Ontario courtroom in which those opinions were uttered, they were the personal views of ONE of the judges. The other judges were silent on these matters, so the expressed views constitute minority opinions, worthy of respect but certainly not creating precedents.

The conclusions of Regina versus Hayes are very differently expressed. They are given as directives to subordinate courts, and expressly agreed to by the other two judges. THERE is your FACT.

So as you say there are opinions, such as the requirement to strip off your helmet on demand, and there are facts, such as the limitation on police, not to turn any curbside reluctance into a charge of obstruction.

I am glad we agree that opinions, expressed as opinions,
(as one judge did and some in this forum do not) belong in this discussion.

I hope we also agree that opinions remain opinions, no matter who expresses them.
A personal opinion of mine bears some weight.
A personal opinion of yours bears some weight.
A personal opinion of a judge bears some weight.

We all have opinions about how much weight each of these opinions bears ...

BUT none of the three turns into a fact or a law,
simply because of the costume, role, or insignia of the speaker.

[turbodish]

EXACTLY.

Please note that items [24] [34] [36] and [37] of R. v. Hayes, all exhaustively quoted above, are very VERY VERY carefully stated as opinions. In the context of the Ontario courtroom in which those opinions were uttered, they were the personal views of ONE of the judges. The other judges were silent on these matters, so the expressed views constitute minority opinions, worthy of respect but certainly not creating precedents.

Um, no.

CONCLUSION
[43] I would allow the appeal, set aside the conviction, and enter an acquittal.
"R. Roy McMurtry C.J.O."
"I agree. K. M. Weiler J.A."
"I agree. John I. Laskin J.A."

The appeal court's ruling are often written by only one of the judges writing on behalf of the majority. If there is dissent, one of the minority dissenting judges may also write their opion on behalf of the dissenting judges. In this case, there is no dissent as the other two judges have their agreement noted on the bottom of the ruling.

Because of the court's stature, those "opinions" in effect become binding on the lower courts who rely on such rulings to guide their own decisions. Those things you dismiss as being merely opinions do work to define our common law when they are expressed as part of a ruling by a judge sitting in a higher court.

[Rob MacLennan]

EXACTLY.

Please note that items [24] [34] [36] and [37] of R. v. Hayes, all exhaustively quoted above, are very VERY VERY carefully stated as opinions. In the context of the Ontario courtroom in which those opinions were uttered, they were the personal views of ONE of the judges. The other judges were silent on these matters, so the expressed views constitute minority opinions, worthy of respect but certainly not creating precedents.

The conclusions of Regina versus Hayes are very differently expressed. They are given as directives to subordinate courts, and expressly agreed to by the other two judges. THERE is your FACT.

So as you say there are opinions, such as the requirement to strip off your helmet on demand, and there are facts, such as the limitation on police, not to turn any curbside reluctance into a charge of obstruction.

I am glad we agree that opinions, expressed as opinions,
(as one judge did and some in this forum do not) belong in this discussion.

I hope we also agree that opinions remain opinions, no matter who expresses them.
A personal opinion of mine bears some weight.
A personal opinion of yours bears some weight.
A personal opinion of a judge bears some weight.

We all have opinions about how much weight each of these opinions bears ...

BUT none of the three turns into a fact or a law,
simply because of the costume, role, or insignia of the speaker.

You are incorrect. The judgment stands based on the derivation of fact, based on statement of law and legal precedent. Without that, and without the assent of the other judges to those conclusions, there would be no judgment.

That is fact.

[Salos Dafee]

You are entirely welcome to read those opinions, which were explicitly stated
as being one man's opinions, and infer more importance than was stated.

I don't know or care why you do that. If the situation arises,
perhaps we will learn one police officer's opinion of the situation.

It appears that our opinions will differ, concerning this matter. That's OK.

[Rob MacLennan]

You are entirely welcome to read those opinions, which were explicitly stated
as being one man's opinions, and infer more importance than was stated.

I don't know or care why you do that. If the situation arises,
perhaps we will learn one police officer's opinion of the situation.

It appears that our opinions will differ, concerning this matter. That's OK.

One JUDGE'S opinion, agreed to by three. One judge prepares the decision for all, based on their conclusions. If there is any dissent from the other judges, on any and all portions of the decision, then it is appended separately. The 'Anaysis' section, of the written decision, sets forth the law applicable, where the 'Facts' section is concerned. I simply don't see why you can't understand how the court process operates.

[Charles Darwin]

Why would someone choose to NOT wear a DOT (or similarly-approved) helmet when so many are available at a wide range of cost and styles? Doesn't this just diffuse the whole debate?

Don't wear one, and in one way or another you increase your risk of being injured or fined. It is a law, and DOT is a safety rating. Isn't that much true? That's enough for me.

[RetroGrouch]

Why would someone choose to NOT wear a DOT (or similarly-approved) helmet when so many are available at a wide range of cost and styles?

If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

[OpenGambit]

You are entirely welcome to read those opinions, which were explicitly stated
as being one man's opinions, and infer more importance than was stated.

I don't know or care why you do that. If the situation arises,
perhaps we will learn one police officer's opinion of the situation.

It appears that our opinions will differ, concerning this matter. That's OK.

Your opinions are wrong and should not be followed by anyone reading this forum.

After reading your "opinions" on the law, the legal system and what a person should actually do above, I suggest that you enter a career in creative writing.

So please... stop.

[Charles Darwin]

If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

LOL. You got me.

[Griffin]

Why would someone choose to NOT wear a DOT (or similarly-approved) helmet when so many are available at a wide range of cost and styles? Doesn't this just diffuse the whole debate?

Don't wear one, and in one way or another you increase your risk of being injured or fined. It is a law, and DOT is a safety rating. Isn't that much true? That's enough for me.

A lot of folks choose their equipment, including their helmet, by the style they want to portray. If you're riding a Brit Cafe Racer you'll want one of those goofy half helmets with the leather bit on the bottom and a stripe up the middle to go with your white woolen knee socks folded over your paratrooper boots. That helmet probably isn't DOT. No offence intended to the riders of Brit Cafe Racers - I actually like the look of the bikes and the style of gear.

One thing I've been very suprised by over the last few years is the number of cruiser riders wearing reasonable gear and half decent helmets. There was a time when you would see NO ONE on such a bike wearing a full face helmet, for instance.