+ 999,999,999 ---- Please stop protecting me ---- I can't take much more !!!

 

In Oregon it's illegal to drive using a cell phone without a "hands free device." You see people all the time with phones up to their ears and nobody stops them. Oregon requires helmets too. I bet if I rode without a helmet they wouldn't ignore me.

 

The SC ruled that check points are not a violation of the Forth Amendment as long as they are conducted within certain parameters but 12 states don’t allow them due to the states’ own constitutions or for other reasons.

Sobriety Checkpoint Laws

I am against random stops for DDs or equipment violations without reasonable suspicion / probable cause - it’s one of those slippery sloops to be avoided IMHO.

I have been through only one of them in my lifetime and it only took a couple of minutes. The LEO was very polite, respectful and professional… but still what business is it of the government where I have been and what hotel I was staying at ? If a car like mine was seen leaving a crime scene or if I was swerving - I get that.

There is a debate of the effectiveness of checkpoints vs roving patrols, even within LE. I for one, am willing to accept an increased risk of getting hurt or killed because of a drunk driver or safety equipment violator in exchange for me being able to travel freely, unquestioned and uninterrupted.

 

Its quite difficult to identify texting from another car. Or even after they wreck, and unless its a very serious accident the process to check is horrible, and then not really proof. Cell phone usage is not illegal in Georgia, while texting is.
From my bike I see many drivers texting (off duty, not a bike cop) but on duty its nearly impossible to detect with certainty.

 

Sig pic says otherwise....

 

Exactly, you beat me to it.

The people to be angry with are your ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES that made/passed the law. Not the cop doing what he is paid to do.

And if you didn't vote, you have no bitch. Just sayin......

 

IMHO....laws are necessary to protect individual rights and assure that those rights are not infringed upon. THAT is the true test of whether or not a law is valid or just...

The choice to not wear a helmet does not infringe on anyone elses rights. It's that simple. Helmet laws are unjust.

For those who think that laws should always be followed and never questioned...... simply because "it is the law"..... keep in mind that with thinking like that, all of you would currently be living under the rule of the "Crown".

As for the arguement of "general safety" for the good of the public, family responsibility and to appease the insurance ****'s, why not make everyone wear a DOT helmet, even while driving a car. Don't people in car crashes get head injuries sometimes? How many of you would support a national law to force you to wear a DOT helmet every time you drive your car? How about a law making you wear a helmet all day long, every day, everywhere.... just in case you trip or fall down. Isn't that really the best thing to insure that you are always there for your family?

Anyway, that's my point of view.. Now I need to blow off some steam so I think I'll take a little run around the block..............with scissors.... hope I don't get stopped.

 

Ever heard of reasonable suspicion? Some of you that don't see a problem are watching as we lose more and more rights each day. We have to protect each and every one. Not having anything to hide is not the problem. The problem is "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" is being allowed to die on the vine! We must protect our rights because once we give them up, people have to die to get them back. Now that the cop knows the helmet IS legal, how many more will he check just to see. He's fishing and that is, in the opinion of many, unconstitutional.

 

Wrong

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. The OP said he was wearing a german helmet I believe, and many of those are novelty.

 

Wearing a helmet that doesn't meet dot specs isn't criminal activity man.