GateKeeper
Well-known member
And why would it not be heard by a judge if you request a trial ? and you disagree with the charge
my BAD not a judge but a JP
I stand corrected, and I would still take it at least that far.....
Last edited:
|
|
|
Got a ticket for wearing a DOT helmet
- Thread starter SONIC
- Start date
And why would it not be heard by a judge if you request a trial ? and you disagree with the charge
my BAD not a judge but a JP
I stand corrected, and I would still take it at least that far.....
Bike Cop
Well-known member
2. The helmet referred to in section 1 shall conform to the requirements of the, (a) Canadian Standards Association Standard D230 Safety Helmets for Motorcycle Riders and shall bear the monogram of the Canadian Standards Association Testing Laboratories;
(b) Snell Memorial Foundation and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the Snell Memorial Foundation;
(c) British Standards Institute and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the British Standards Institute;
(d) United States of America Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 and shall bear the symbol DOT constituting the manufacturer’s certification of compliance with the standard; or
(e) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 22, “Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Protective Helmets and of Their Visors for Drivers and Passengers of Motor Cycles and Mopeds”, and shall have affixed thereto the required international approval mark. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 2; O. Reg. 102/12, s. 1.
I think the officer is going after this part - not disputing whether or not the helmet says DOT on the back, but whether there is any corresponding label on the inside that meets the requirements of the U.S. Standard.
We have all heard stories about the DOT stickers being sold separately. How do we know that it's legit unless we look more carefully? As far as I know there is not minimum thickness for an energy-absorbing material on the inside, the officer was likely just measuring so he could describe it in the trial.
My hunch is that if your other equipment was really not up to par, you would have gotten more than one ticket. Best bet is to put off the trial until after 6 months have passed from the date of the traffic stop so those charges can't be laid after the fact.
A Judge won't hear it because it's going to traffic court, not criminal court. Only JP's sit in the Provincial Offences courts. I wouldn't hold your breath on a jury either.
(b) Snell Memorial Foundation and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the Snell Memorial Foundation;
(c) British Standards Institute and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the British Standards Institute;
(d) United States of America Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 and shall bear the symbol DOT constituting the manufacturer’s certification of compliance with the standard; or
(e) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 22, “Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Protective Helmets and of Their Visors for Drivers and Passengers of Motor Cycles and Mopeds”, and shall have affixed thereto the required international approval mark. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 2; O. Reg. 102/12, s. 1.
I think the officer is going after this part - not disputing whether or not the helmet says DOT on the back, but whether there is any corresponding label on the inside that meets the requirements of the U.S. Standard.
We have all heard stories about the DOT stickers being sold separately. How do we know that it's legit unless we look more carefully? As far as I know there is not minimum thickness for an energy-absorbing material on the inside, the officer was likely just measuring so he could describe it in the trial.
My hunch is that if your other equipment was really not up to par, you would have gotten more than one ticket. Best bet is to put off the trial until after 6 months have passed from the date of the traffic stop so those charges can't be laid after the fact.
A Judge won't hear it because it's going to traffic court, not criminal court. Only JP's sit in the Provincial Offences courts. I wouldn't hold your breath on a jury either.
GateKeeper
Well-known member
JP not Judge,,,,my bad......
DOT is on the helmet, OP has already told us this.....
sorry the COP is wrong and should be advised of his ignorance and over zealous attempt to harass a biker.....
my helmet has the DOT on the back, nothing on the inside.....so I guess mine is no good as well.....it's not a half helmet but a full face Joe Rocket, it even has SNELL on the back as well.....
the only thing on the inside I think is on how to wash the liner.....
you can almost make it out....
DOT is on the helmet, OP has already told us this.....
sorry the COP is wrong and should be advised of his ignorance and over zealous attempt to harass a biker.....
my helmet has the DOT on the back, nothing on the inside.....so I guess mine is no good as well.....it's not a half helmet but a full face Joe Rocket, it even has SNELL on the back as well.....
the only thing on the inside I think is on how to wash the liner.....
you can almost make it out....
Last edited:
Yea i agree. The DOT marking stamped into the Helmet is a marker that is has passed standard 218. OP i would get ZOX to confirm via email to present at trial that the helmet is legal.
GateKeeper
Well-known member
would this not pass then either.....
http://www.joerocket.ca/en/catalog/item.cfm?ItemsID=ab494b46-d2b0-4e36-8947-ffd3c535bdad
http://www.joerocket.ca/en/catalog/item.cfm?ItemsID=ab494b46-d2b0-4e36-8947-ffd3c535bdad
Boots
Well-known member
******* cop sounds like an absolute tool. Who does he think he is? Sherlock Holmes or something? LOL. I can't believe our tax dollars were actually wasted on this encounter. Put that guy back in the academy or something.
Having worked in bike shops for a few years, I have had a couple people come in saying a cop gave them a ticket for a non-DOT helmet when it in fact was. What we had to do was contact the manufacturer to get them to send us a certificate authenticating the DOT standard of the helmet. Yours is DOT, just looks like one of the common novelty ones. So if a judge looking at the helmet still doesn't believe it, you might want to try and get a certificate or something from the manufacturer stating it is legal.
Exactly, a bit ambiguous, and where i'm confused here.....so does every helmet out there need to have A-D or just E?
AFJ
Well-known member
xxxx
Last edited:
2motors
Well-known member
Measured your helmet liner with a measuring tape... , I'd love to fill a courtroom with bikers to laugh at this fool of a cop. Can't believe you let him put his tape in your hole either what a stupid f**k of a cop. That's not how you determine baffles or not.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
it is sort of common place in waterloo region for cruiser riders with obnoxious loud exhaust to get an illegal helmet,, excessive noise, and handle bar exceeds 320mm or what ever the number is... the cops rarely confiscate the helmet,, but sometimes they do , just to present it to the JP, and so you can't ride away with out more hassle... then they get an idea where and when you ride,, and stop you again, and again, if they have to... until the exhaust noise,, and or handle bars are up to their specs.. then you can wear any helmet you want ,, usually no hassles
cza888
Well-known member
To my knowledge GP Bikes (does not) sell novelty helmets. Your lid (is) DOT approved. Like mentioned above, contact Zox or have GP Bikes contact Zox, have them send details of DOT, that should satisfy the powers that be. My wife and daughter both have Zox helmets, they're legit. As for the cop, he's a complete tool 
As so many others have already stated, your helmet only needs to meet one of those safety standards. Consider that DOT will certify a half or 3/4 helmet, but Snell will only certify helmets that have a chin bar. The standards can also have mutually exclusive criteria which would make it possible to pass one, but impossible to pass another. Expecting one device to pass multiple standards, in this case, is unreasonable.
Though it's unlikely that the ticket can be vacated, at this point, I would still start with the division in which this particular officer is headquartered. This lack of understanding cannot stand. Unfortunately, however, you're likely bound for at least a first attendance. This ticket should not survive a first attendance as it is completely invalid.
At some time in the distant past I received a communication, from MTO, regarding helmet standards. I doubt that I still have it, after a couple of computer crashes, but I'll do my best to find it.
Though it's unlikely that the ticket can be vacated, at this point, I would still start with the division in which this particular officer is headquartered. This lack of understanding cannot stand. Unfortunately, however, you're likely bound for at least a first attendance. This ticket should not survive a first attendance as it is completely invalid.
At some time in the distant past I received a communication, from MTO, regarding helmet standards. I doubt that I still have it, after a couple of computer crashes, but I'll do my best to find it.
The cop gets paid to show up in court.
You lose a day's wages to show up in court.
The cop is not a fool in this instance.
Exactly they get to waste our time regardless if the charge has grounds or not.
This is the real problem. There needs to be some type of effective system to deter officers from writing tickets that should never have been written. The officer should have to think twice before writing a ticket. Not the typical ticket dispenser attitude and let the courts sort it out. That costs us too much time and money. Courts are expensive (for the tax payer).
I would think that having their tickets tossed out constantly... is probably not good for their career!?
AFJ
Well-known member
Last edited:
Depends on what the success criteria for the career is. Is it justice or revenue generation...?
|
|
|
|
|