OFF THE WIRE
In brief, what it means is they gave the state police an impossible task. As you know. What it accomplished, was to have the State Police switch the burden on themselves to the the DOT by adopting the requirements of FMVSS218 as the basis upon which a helmet is determined to be approved. More impossible bullshit.
Rule 1. Motorcycle helmets shall meet the model specifications established by the United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Administration. These specifications, located at and identified as "Motorcycle Helmets", 49 C.F.R. § 571.218, published April 15, 1988 in the Federal Register (53 FR 12529), effective October 3, 1988, are adopted in these rules by reference. Printed copies of 49 C.F.R. § 571.218 are available for inspection and for distribution to the public at cost at the offices of the Michigan Department of State Police, Field Operations Division, Traffic Services Section, 714 S. Harrison Road, East Lansing, Michigan 48823. Printed copies of Chapter 49, Transportation, Pts. 400-999, containing 49 C.F.R. § 571.218, are also available from the United States Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, Pa 15250-7954, at a cost of $57.00 at the time of the adoption of this rule.
A complete copy of Motorcycle Protective Headgear, Rule R28.951, can also be viewed at the Office of Regulatory Reform Administrative Rule website.
http://www.michigan.gov/msp/1,1607,7-123-1589_1711_4587-16062--,00.html
Thorsblood...
Mike wrote,
This makes the Michigan State Police burden of proof impossible.
The traffic court judges will set themselves up for reversal upon appeal.
This bill, if made law, inherently, will make a tremendous training ground for young, aspiring BOLT members.
Nothing like being young and prevailing in court.
Tigerlily wrote,
Looks like Michgan's bill is better than Nevada's. In addition to the 21 year condition, it also requires one years experience (how do you prove that one?) AND a requirement to have a safety course. Though at the last minute the senator that introduced the bill asked to get the requirements grandfathered in to apply to new riders only.
Dave and I got in this late in the game. I testified in the senate cmte hearing in support of helmet choice. If it gets to the assembly (and Dave and I are squealing like pigs not to let this piece of legislation get tossed) then I will argue that choice with condition is better than no choice at all and will make the points that like Jan said, our vets should come home to a more free Nevada - how immoral would it be for our vets to have to go to a neighboring state to be able to feel the wind in their hair and the sun in their faces - just because they are not yet 21?
That's the other new enlightment Dave pointed out. Fuck these assholes that tell us that helmet choice should not be about wind in our hair and sun in our faces. It should be a choice - and unless a helmet is forced on everyone using highways, then it is a discriminatory law.
Sorry if I missed an email, but has this MI bill gotten any hearings?
TigerLily
