Helmet law particulars

[dazed1]

Try getting a cop to take a report for an accident in a parking lot.

Not sure if this would be private property or not, but I had a hit and run in Walnut Creek, the parking garage at the cinema, Fleming's steak house, etc. They did come, take a report, find the other car, and give her a ticket.

 

[Archimedes]

I think it both sounds good and is true. In your first example, you're talking CVC 23103, reckless driving. There is no requirement that it be on public highways, so you can get arrested for it no matter where you are...maybe even your bedroom, if you have a large enough bedroom. In your second example, when he proved it was private property, the charge was dismissed. And in any case, grandpa's land wasn't "maintained for public use" so isn't even germain to this discussion.

Where does it say the reckless driving statutes apply to parking lots but the helmet law doesn't? And actually, IIRC, it was contest of speed that they got him on, not reckless endangerment.

Regarding the second case, you're missing my point. The only reason he got out of it was because they convinced the judge that it was truly private property, not available/accessible to the general public. The land was an orchard and packing company and the cop argued it was a public place. They had to convince them that it was not and that it was only available to approved contractors and employees, or he would have been f$cked.

A parking lot maintained by anyone for use by the general public is considered a highway and the CVC applies - all of it. The OP can fight it and maybe win for any number of reasons, but it won't be by arguing the law doesn't apply in that parking lot.

 

[Razel]

21107.6:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, in the case of the OP, the city held the appropriate hearings, and the CVC applies.

A

You have to include 21107.8 in the mix, though. Sign needs to be posted, essentially, for the CVC to be enforceable (outside of DUI, reckless-CVC 23103, speeding-22350 & 23109 and handicap parking-CVC 22507.8).

 

[DaveT319]

Not sure if this would be private property or not, but I had a hit and run in Walnut Creek, the parking garage at the cinema, Fleming's steak house, etc. They did come, take a report, find the other car, and give her a ticket.

Because hit-and-run is a CRIME. Once again, cops will enforce something like that anywhere. But if it's something that just carries a fine (infractions) they do not enforce them on private property.

Dave

 

[Wack]

If no points are involved fight it. You can reduce the Gov's profit margin by rescheduling your hearing date twice. The OT for the cop will eat up most of the fine anyway. They only make good $$ if you send them a check. When you finally do have you day in court they will be totally under water on the cite even if they win.

 

[Gabe]

Why do I waste time researching and posting stuff? You're like the global-warming denier who told me straight up that no matter what the evidence was the other way, he'd never believe it. Jehovah himself could come down from on high: "Archimedes, you're full of shit!" and you would still argue with him. Please believe what you want, but the facts and law are not in your favor.

Anyway, here's the statute for Reckless Driving. There's no such thing as "reckless endangerment" in the CVC:

Reckless Driving

23103. (a) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.
(b) A person who drives a vehicle in an offstreet parking facility, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12500, in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

(c) Persons convicted of the offense of reckless driving shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than five days nor more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than one hundred forty-five dollars ($145) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, except as provided in Section 23104 or 23105.

Amended Sec. 19, Ch. 739, Stats. 2001. Effective January 1, 2002.
Amended Sec. 16, Ch. 682, Stats. 2007. Effective January 1, 2008.

Oh, and here's how the CVC defines "offstreet parking facility":

As used in this subdivision, "offstreet parking facility" means any offstreet facility held open for use by the public for parking vehicles and includes any publicly owned facilities for offstreet parking, and privately owned facilities for offstreet parking where no fee is charged for the privilege to park and which are held open for the common public use of retail customers.

Why do they need to define off-street parking facility if the CVC applies to any public thoroughfare as you say? Hmmm.

Where does it say the reckless driving statutes apply to parking lots but the helmet law doesn't? And actually, IIRC, it was contest of speed that they got him on, not reckless endangerment.

Regarding the second case, you're missing my point. The only reason he got out of it was because they convinced the judge that it was truly private property, not available/accessible to the general public. The land was an orchard and packing company and the cop argued it was a public place. They had to convince them that it was not and that it was only available to approved contractors and employees, or he would have been f$cked.

A parking lot maintained by anyone for use by the general public is considered a highway and the CVC applies - all of it. The OP can fight it and maybe win for any number of reasons, but it won't be by arguing the law doesn't apply in that parking lot.

 

[ST Guy]

So, I was testing out a new bike I just got in a small parking lot of a local restaurant in Sunnyvale. I got on and rode maybe 50 ft turned around and rode back to test out the gears and brakes a little. I never left the restaurant parking lot. I was on the bike for maybe 45 seconds total.

Just then some cop comes flying into the parking lot and proceeds to give me ticket for not wearing a helmet. I was under the impression that I can ride without a helmet on private property. Does anyone know this law? They are charging me $225 for this!

OK, so you're testing a bike you're unfamiliar with and you don't know what may or may not be wrong with it on top of that. And you're not wearing your helmet. Whether it was legal or not to ride without a helmet in the parking lot, you derseve the wakeup call. Sorry.

 

[ST Guy]

Hey, that's why I have a $39.99 scooter helmet. Who knows if it will protect my head, but if I have to roll around the block or down to the store, it is definitely better than nothing, and I won't get a ticket.

What's the point in wearing a crappy helmet? Just so you can avoid a ticket? Why don't you replace the seatbelts in your car with ones made from cotton? The cops will never know the difference.

Sorry, just had to be said. If you're gonna use a helmet, make it a good one.

 

[Archimedes]

Why do I waste time researching and posting stuff? You're like the global-warming denier who told me straight up that no matter what the evidence was the other way, he'd never believe it. Jehovah himself could come down from on high: "Archimedes, you're full of shit!" and you would still argue with him. Please believe what you want, but the facts and law are not in your favor.

I'm not sure why you waste time researching and posting irrelevant stuff. I'm not talking about reckless driving, I'm talking about stuff like speeding, not wearing a helmet, etc. If the city has an ordinance extending the CVC to these premises, the CVC applies. If you don't believe me, Google the topic and read the answers given by lawyers who are paid to deal with this stuff. The answer is yes, the CVC can be enforced in a parking lot that is open to the public, if the ordinance is on the books and the officer witnessed the offense.

In the instant case, I'm going to go out on a limb and make the wild assumption that the city involved here has an ordinance or it's unlikely the cop would have written the ticket. Should take the OP all of about 5 minutes to call the city and find out the answer.

One other point, if you look in the 2009 California Driver's handbook it specifically states that you can be ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt while driving in a private parking lot that is open to the public. Is that another exception to the law like reckless driving? Seems to me if you can be ticketed for no seatbelt, you can probably be ticketed for no helmet as well.

 

[Archimedes]

OK, so you're testing a bike you're unfamiliar with and you don't know what may or may not be wrong with it on top of that. And you're not wearing your helmet. Whether it was legal or not to ride without a helmet in the parking lot, you derseve the wakeup call. Sorry.

As I believe someone else pointed out already, do you wear a helmet when you jog?

I'm a gear nazi, but I ride my neighborhood without a helmet all the time when I'm just running down the street somewhere at a snail's pace.

 

[Traq]

This thread amuses me.

There is the law, there is an officer's interpretation of the law, and then there is the traffic court's interpretation of the law. In an ideal world all three of those align. In the real world they frequently do not. One would hope that when the officer's interpretation of the law is in error that the traffic court will throw out a citation. However, just because a court doesn't toss an erroneous citation does not mean that the erroneous interpretation that led to the cite is correct under the law. That's why we have appeals courts, but that level of judicial review is rarely pursued for simple traffic citations.

The bottom line is that the cite was bogus (feel free to read Division 12 [sections 24000 to 28150] of the CVC if you disagree). That doesn't mean the OP will win in court though.

24001. This division and Division 13 (commencing at Section 29000), unless otherwise provided, applies to all vehicles whether publicly or privately owned when upon the highways, including all authorized emergency vehicles.

27803. (a) A driver and any passenger shall wear a safety helmet meeting requirements established pursuant to Section 27802 when riding on a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle.
(b) It is unlawful to operate a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle if the driver or any passenger is not wearing a safety helmet as required by subdivision (a).
(c) It is unlawful to ride as a passenger on a motorcycle, motor-driven cycles, or motorized bicycle if the driver or any passenger is not wearing a safety helmet as required by subdivision (a).
(d) This section applies to persons who are riding on motorcycles, motor-driven cycles, or motorized bicycles operated on the highways.
(e) For the purposes of this section, "wear a safety helmet" or "wearing a safety helmet" means having a safety helmet meeting the requirements of Section 27802 on the person's head that is fastened with the helmet straps and that is of a size that fits the wearing person's head securely without excessive lateral or vertical movement.
(f) This section does not apply to a person operating, or riding as a passenger in, a fully enclosed three-wheeled motor vehicle that is not less than seven feet in length and not less than four feet in width, and has an unladen weight of 900 pounds or more, if the vehicle meets or exceeds all of the requirements of this code, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and the rules and regulations adopted by the United States Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
(g) In enacting this section, it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that all persons are provided with an additional safety benefit while operating or riding a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle.

360. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

Private parking facilities are not publicly maintained. Publicly maintained means the maintenance is paid for by the public, i.e. your taxes pay for it. It does not mean anything else.

Nor is 21107.8 relevant as it isn't in the same division of the VC. Not only that but that section only states that 3 specific codes from division 11 will be enforceable by action of the local authority (basic speed law, reckless driver, and exhibition of speed), and all of division 16.5, but only when it is posted. Disabled parking is always enforceable. Again, the helmet law is in division 12, not 16.5.

Continue meaningless arguing below.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

 

[ST Guy]

As I believe someone else pointed out already, do you wear a helmet when you jog?

I'm a gear nazi, but I ride my neighborhood without a helmet all the time when I'm just running down the street somewhere at a snail's pace.

No, I wouldn't wear a helmet if I jogged. But a bike is a different thing. It's more likely that something's going to go awry while on a motorcycle than if you're just puttin' one foot in front of the other. I also wear a good helmet every time I'm out on the bicycle. 'Used to know someone who worked at Agnews State Mental Hospital. She said people had no idea how many vegetables there were at the hospital from nothing more than bicycle related head injuries. Who's to say that while you're just going down the street at that snail's pace that some kid doesn't jump out from a couple parked vans chasing a ball. Or some old geezer gases is backing out of their driveway.

Oh, and if you ride around your neighborhood without a helmet, you're most certainly not a gear nazi.

 

[Gabe]

This thread amuses me.

There is the law, there is an officer's interpretation of the law, and then there is the traffic court's interpretation of the law. In an ideal world all three of those align. In the real world they frequently do not. One would hope that when the officer's interpretation of the law is in error that the traffic court will throw out a citation. However, just because a court doesn't toss an erroneous citation does not mean that the erroneous interpretation that led to the cite is correct under the law. That's why we have appeals courts, but that level of judicial review is rarely pursued for simple traffic citations.

The bottom line is that the cite was bogus (feel free to read Division 12 [sections 24000 to 28150] of the CVC if you disagree). That doesn't mean the OP will win in court though.





Private parking facilities are not publicly maintained. Publicly maintained means the maintenance is paid for by the public, i.e. your taxes pay for it. It does not mean anything else.

Nor is 21107.8 relevant as it isn't in the same division of the VC. Not only that but that section only states that 3 specific codes from division 11 will be enforceable by action of the local authority (basic speed law, reckless driver, and exhibition of speed), and all of division 16.5, but only when it is posted. Disabled parking is always enforceable. Again, the helmet law is in division 12, not 16.5.

Continue meaningless arguing below.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

Thanks for clearing that up, Traq. Too bad there are those in the world who don't care what the facts are, they choose to believe whatever they want. Arguing with them is like arguing with a schizophrenic, who just keeps making stuff up and twisting logic and adding hypothetical until it "proves" they are right. Just look at the Birther and Troofer forums to see what I mean.

 

[Razel]

This thread amuses me.

Nice that you're easily amused

Nor is 21107.8 relevant as it isn't in the same division of the VC. Not only that but that section only states that 3 specific codes from division 11 will be enforceable by action of the local authority (basic speed law, reckless driver, and exhibition of speed), and all of division 16.5, but only when it is posted. Disabled parking is always enforceable. Again, the helmet law is in division 12, not 16.5.

Probably subject to interpretation, but relevant in bold:

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a), no ordinance or resolution enacted thereunder shall apply to any offstreet parking facility described therein unless the owner or operator has caused to be posted in a conspicuous place at each entrance to that offstreet parking facility a notice not less than 17 by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than one inch in height, to the effect that the offstreet parking facility is subject to public traffic regulations and control.

Codes in (a) doesn't need the notification, but need an ordinance. (b) says there has to be a sign for the CVC to be enforcable on private party. (d) Handicap parking doesn't require an ordinance or a sign advising of police enforcement on private property.

Pickup your consolation prize at the door on your way out ...

 

[Traq]

Nice that you're easily amused

Probably subject to interpretation, but relevant in bold:
Codes in (a) doesn't need the notification, but need an ordinance. (b) says there has to be a sign for the CVC to be enforcable on private party. (d) Handicap parking doesn't require an ordinance or a sign advising of police enforcement on private property.

Pickup your consolation prize at the door on your way out ...

You are not reading 21107.8 correctly.

Subdivision (a) states the locals may declare by ordinance or resolution that there are private parking facilities open to the public. It then states that after that ordinance or resolution is passed that sections 22350, 23103, 23109 and all of division 16.5 shall apply as long as the requirement of subdivision (b) is met.

Subdivision (b) requires notice be posted that the facility is subject to public traffic regulations (in other words, subject to sections 22350, 23103, 23109 and all of division 16.5).

Subdivision (d) states that disabled parking is always enforceable even without an ordinance or resolution required by (a) or the notification required by (b).

Again, the helmet law is in division 12. Not division 16.5, nor is it one of the other 3 sections listed. Thus, 21107.8 is not relevant to the discussion of a helmet law citation.

Incidentally, division 11 (the division that 21107.8 is part of) starts off with this:

21001. The provisions of this division refer exclusively to the operation of vehicles upon the highways, unless a different place is specifically referred to.

You cannot simply pick and choose sections of the code and apply them to other sections of the code. That's not how it works or is written. Read the general provisions at the start of each division to understand where anything in the division is applicable, and do not try to relate sections from different divisions unless they are explicitly referred to.

I'm surprised someone hasn't tried to whip out section 21 yet.

 

[Archimedes]

Private parking facilities are not publicly maintained. Publicly maintained means the maintenance is paid for by the public, i.e. your taxes pay for it. It does not mean anything else.

You start by arguing interpretation is key, but then you make a big assumption about the interpretation of the words publicly maintained. I would not agree that your interpretation is necessarily correct. The intent and interpretation of that clause may very well have nothing to do with whether public tax dollars are being used to physically maintain the property or not. In fact, I'd defer to the opposite, as I think they would have been more specific if that was the intent. My initial interpretation of publicly maintained in that context is that they likely intended it to mean nothing more that the property is made continually available to the public.

If your interpretation were correct, how come the California Drivers handbook states that you may be ticketed for not wearing a seatbell in a public parking lot? There is no exemption in the CVC that I'm aware of. Again, I had a friend go through this very issue in Southern California many years ago and he had to prove it was truly private property to get out of the tickets. And he was on family owned property.

The OP in this case should simply go to court and contest it and see what happens. If it's a bogus ticket, he should walk. Either way, he could come back and educate everyone about what he learned.

 

[}Dragon{]

That your new favorite thing to post?

What, twice in this thread?

Can't you just post "cops are heroes who are incapable of fucking up" or something?

Maybe you didn't bother to read my other posts in the thread.

 

[Traq]

You start by arguing interpretation is key, but then you make a big assumption about the interpretation of the words publicly maintained. I would not agree that your interpretation is necessarily correct. The intent and interpretation of that clause may very well have nothing to do with whether public tax dollars are being used to physically maintain the property or not. In fact, I'd defer to the opposite, as I think they would have been more specific if that was the intent. My initial interpretation of publicly maintained in that context is that they likely intended it to mean nothing more that the property is made continually available to the public.

Your interpretation is redundant and that fact alone should be more than enough proof that your interpretation is therefore wrong.

However, it's obvious you're not going to agree with a logical statement like that, so here you go:

"'[P]ublicly maintained' mean 'maintained by some public agency or body.'"

/thread or at least /tangent

 

[Razel]

You are not reading 21107.8 correctly.

Or, probably I am ... (b) starts off with "Notwithstanding".
Like wikipedia, subject to other opinion, www.dictionary.com gives this for "Notwithstanding":

Preposition: in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by:

(a) is listing exceptions to the provisions in (b), i.e. these won't need the sign.

Subdivision (a) states the locals may declare by ordinance or resolution that there are private parking facilities open to the public. It then states that after that ordinance or resolution is passed that sections 22350, 23103, 23109 and all of division 16.5 shall apply as long as the requirement of subdivision (b) is met.

Subdivision (b) requires notice be posted that the facility is subject to public traffic regulations (in other words, subject to sections 22350, 23103, 23109 and all of division 16.5).

It doesn't state it just applies to subsection (a). (a) states that essentially, the following codes, 22350, 23103, and 23109 (and division 16.5) don't have the requirement for a sign to be posted only for those sections of the code to be enforced on offstreet parking facilities. Everything else (in the CVC) requires both the ordinance and the sign for the CVC to be enforced. If it were as you interpret it, why have (b) at all, since nothing would need a sign? What else would (b) refer to?

Subdivision (d) states that disabled parking is always enforceable even without an ordinance or resolution required by (a) or the notification required by (b).

Agreed.

Again, the helmet law is in division 12. Not division 16.5, nor is it one of the other 3 sections listed. Thus, 21107.8 is not relevant to the discussion of a helmet law citation.

Well, I disagree. To me, (b) is inclusive of all divisions "... public traffic regulations and control".
If there's no sign, it's a moot point. The lack of wearing a helmet shouldn't earn a citation on private property. If there's a sign posted, it's going to be tough to beat is (other than in Santa Cruz).

Incidentally, division 11 (the division that 21107.8 is part of) starts off with this:

21001. The provisions of this division refer exclusively to the operation of vehicles upon the highways, unless a different place is specifically referred to.

You cannot simply pick and choose sections of the code and apply them to other sections of the code. That's not how it works or is written. Read the general provisions at the start of each division to understand where anything in the division is applicable, and do not try to relate sections from different divisions unless they are explicitly referred to.

But ... offstreet parking is "specifically referred to" in both (a) and (b). No picking and choosing here.

I'm surprised someone hasn't tried to whip out section 21 yet.

True, dat.

 

[Razel]

My initial interpretation of publicly maintained in that context is that they likely intended it to mean nothing more that the property is made continually available to the public.

Definition of "maintained". While I understand your interpretation, publicly maintained has traditionally meant that public funds pay for the maintenance. Judge/traffic commissioner makes the call, I bet.

If your interpretation were correct, how come the California Drivers handbook states that you may be ticketed for not wearing a seatbell in a public parking lot? There is no exemption in the CVC that I'm aware of. Again, I had a friend go through this very issue in Southern California many years ago and he had to prove it was truly private property to get out of the tickets. And he was on family owned property.

Unfortunately, you can't use the California Drivers Handbook as a legal reference. You'll find a few instances where the CDH and the CVC are in conflict. Traffic commissioners go with the CVC every time. They might consider a reduction in the fine, though.

The OP in this case should simply go to court and contest it and see what happens. If it's a bogus ticket, he should walk. Either way, he could come back and educate everyone about what he learned.