Apparently iceman is one of those boy in blue.

 

That LEO was out of line. We are taught early on that you CAN NOT pull someone over just to check a helmet anymore than you can to check a driver's license. You must have a legitimate reason - a known violation of the law - to pull someone over and checking the legality of a helmet isn't one.

Happened to me a few years ago in AZ on I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson. A DPS sergeant pulled me over because I wouldn't pass him. He was well under the speed limit and I was just staying out of his way in case he was working something. Well, I got pissed at him and told him that 'not passing him' was not a violation of the law and that he had violated my constitutional rights. BTW, at the time I was a sergeant with the Tucson PD. The DPS sgt backed down and apologized saying there are lots of stolen cars in the area and he thought mine might be one of them. Maybe so but cops still have to operate by the book.

Point is: don't let the LEO's violate your rights. Most LEO's mean well but there are some that need to be reigned in. Contact their internal affairs if you think you've been wronged.

 

Thank you AZ. Good to actually get some good advice from an LEO instead of the same old comply and be happy we are keeping you safe B.S.

 

I guess they weren't wearing their seat belt then. Head injury would occur if one wasn't wearing a seat belt in an econobox and hit their melon on the windshield or A pillar. Don't like my logic, don' wear a helmet. I have seen too many injuries that could have been avoided by either A) seat belt, or B) Helmet.


Not sure, why the cat's in 09 and up? I'm no emissions guru.

 

That would be because they are not wearing their safety belt. Short of a T-bone...safety belts prevent any head injuries. No need for a helmet.

 

Tell that to my friend who died when the car he was riding shotgun in struck a tree w.the passenger side front quarter panel and the impact of his head on the cars b-pillar/window. He was wearing a seat belt.

Oh wait you can't, he's dead.

 

So.... I can get pulled over because I might be speeding or do a lane change without a signal in the future and now I am a criminal. Get real.
We are talking at best about an equipment violation, that's like pulling vehicles over to check and see if the lights work, and if they don't then issue a ticket. If an on duty cop observes a equipment failure then there is a pullover not before. Many states require z rated eye protection, so now we pull people over because of z ratings. Or do you mean to tell me that you guys are trained to spot the rating of the eye protection from a distance.


In the end all of this comes down to money. The monies the state gets from the federal govt and the fines that help pay the bills.

 

Like I said, short of a T-bone, which this emulates, or very close to it...side impact.

Ask your friend why they were in a car with a driver who lost control of their car and ran into a tree on the passenger side that killed your friend, or better yet, since your friend can't respond, ask the driver of that car.

 

Now, of course, we all know, because we have all been told, that driving is a privilege. Not a right. Therefore they, authorized goverment officials, are not violating your rights when you are pulled over for anything during the exercise of the privilege provided.

Though you are a member of society, perhaps even a citizen of the country, though you pay taxes, perhaps in the form of road taxes when you purchase fuel for your vehicle(s), you do not have a right to drive on a public roadway. It is a revokable privilege. A privilege that can be revoked by one given proper authority. You may, at this time, still view the roadway from a distance. Often through a woven wire (Cyclone type) fence. But you have no right to be there.

As such, you surrender your rights when you accept, and use, the license provided that allows you the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on a roadway.

((No, I do not believe this. I believe that as a citizen of our country I have the right to use all public lands. Including the improvements made to the lands. Yes, I do believe, as a citizen, that I must assist in the maintenance of these improvements in the form of taxes. However, I believe that a license is only a document that shows I have been properly trained in the use of the public facilities the license is issued for. Note that I use the word "issue" and not provided. I believe that a license is a "must issue" document once I meet the requirements of proper training. I do not believe that a license is required for all rights. Though training is a good idea for many things, such as the proper use of a table saw, a powder actuated device (a nail gun that uses cartriges similar to a firearm), or a hand gun, I do not believe that such items should be required to have training for their use. Just as I do not believe that a vehicle operator's license or a vehicle registration should not be required if the vehicle is used only on privately owned properties. Here in California one must register any vehicle. Whether it is used on public roadways or private.))

 

No its harrassement. DUI/DWI is a totally different check from helmet check.

I think the helmet laws are retarded anyways. Here in FL you dont need a helmet,but yet when I get in my car I need a seat belt. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.