[ca8920]

Okay, I personally know dozens of Ca PF and 100’s of riders in California that would say differently but okay....

Okay, I cited CA Vehicle Code section 28703(f) which pertains to the actual law in CA that references helmet requirements, what is your legal statute? You are simply posting inuendo not law and you are helping no one.

 

[Kfio32]

Okay, I cited CA Vehicle Code section 28703(f) which pertains to the actual law in CA that references helmet requirements, what is your legal statute? You are simply posting inuendo not law and you are helping no one.

I’m actually helping someone looking to purchase and ride a Slingshot. My answer is to how the law is enforced. I was very clear that it was the LAW to wear a helmet in CA.

if there are more California owners and riders on this forum they will tell you rlthe same thing.

Not sure where you interpreted that I said it was NOT the law because I never said that.

 

[wjfyfe]

Wow! You guys are so short in vision for not seeing that the only reason the SlingShot is allowed to operate without the requirements subjected to automobiles is that it is uniquely allowed to remain as a motorcycle. If it ever looses this unique privilege, and is adopted as the automobile that so many folks want to turn it into, be prepared for legislatures to start regulating it as an automobile, with all of the automobiles required safety requirements.

Bill

 

[ca8920]

I’m actually helping someone looking to purchase and ride a Slingshot. My answer is to how the law is enforced. I was very clear that it was the LAW to wear a helmet in CA.

if there are more California owners and riders on this forum they will tell you rlthe same thing.

Not sure where you interpreted that I said it was NOT the law because I never said that.

You are wrong. If the slingshot has a top, they are not required.... Stop posting false information if you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[ca8920]

Wow! You guys are so short in vision for not seeing that the only reason the SlingShot is allowed to operate without the requirements subjected to automobiles is that it is uniquely allowed to remain as a motorcycle. If it ever looses this unique privilege, and is adopted as the automobile that so many folks want to turn it into, be prepared for legislatures to start regulating it as an automobile, with all of the automobiles required safety requirements.

Bill

The chances are nil, you would have to add all the safety equipment of a car to license a slingshot as one, hence the MC status.

 

[ca8920]

I’m actually helping someone looking to purchase and ride a Slingshot. My answer is to how the law is enforced. I was very clear that it was the LAW to wear a helmet in CA.

if there are more California owners and riders on this forum they will tell you rlthe same thing.

Not sure where you interpreted that I said it was NOT the law because I never said that.

Again, your legal statute?

 

[wjfyfe]

You are wrong. If the slingshot has a top, they are not required.... Stop posting false information if you do not know what you are talking about.

I apologize, but I must disagree, just because somebody has installed basically an umbrella on their SlingShot, which is not structural in any sense of the imagination, it is still not considered "fully enclosed." Again, this topic has been discussed so many many times over the years, you all are just rehashing things that have been long dismissed. May I suggest searching, and reviewing, these topics from the archives here?
Bill

 

[Kfio32]

You are wrong. If the slingshot has a top, they are not required.... Stop posting false information if you do not know what you are talking about.

I own 30 Slingshots and a rental business in NV. I have been sending customers to California for 4 years (With helmets behind the seats) NOT ONE ticket or incident in 4 years on over 1000 rides on Slingshots with NO roofs.

So I think I’m more than qualified to speak about the Slingshots thru actual experience and more rides than you or one person will do in a lifetime.

 

[wjfyfe]

I own 30 Slingshots and a rental business in NV. I have been sending customers to California for 4 years (With helmets behind the seats) NOT ONE ticket or incident in 4 years on over 1000 rides on Slingshots with NO roofs.

So I think I’m more than qualified to speak about the Slingshots thru actual experience and more rides than you or one person will do in a lifetime.

Just because law enforcement has been lenient allowing folks to get away with doing this does not necessarily mean that it is legal. When law enforcement ultimately grow weary of folks continually breaking the law, well....................................

..................and may I add that of the many folks of this Forum that have been cited in California for not wearing a helmet, and where it has actually gone to court, I cannot recall a single instance where any one of those folks returned here to state that they had won their case!

Bill

 

[Kfio32]

Just because law enforcement has been lenient allowing folks to get away with doing this does not necessarily mean that it is legal. When law enforcement ultimately grow weary of folks continually breaking the law, well....................................

Bill

FOR RHE LOVE IF GOD!!! I stated in my first reply to the gentleman that it was THE LAW TO WEAR A HELMET.

I’m on here to try and help answer questions to future and current owners as I have vast knowledge of these things since I’ve been in business since the day they cane out.

I know have to leave this forum because of people like you that like arguing to be RIGHT and lose the focus of the question.

everyone enjoy their Slingshots....God Bless

 

[wjfyfe]

FOR RHE LOVE IF GOD!!! I stated in my first reply to the gentleman that it was THE LAW TO WEAR A HELMET.

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but after your making the above statement, but then you followed up with this statement:

I have been sending customers to California for 4 years (With helmets behind the seats) NOT ONE ticket or incident in 4 years on over 1000 rides on Slingshots with NO roofs.

Please pardon my obvious ignorance, but I do not understand the point that you are trying to make?

Bill

 

[Kfio32]

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but after your making the above statement, but then you followed up with this statement:



Please pardon my obvious ignorance, but I do not understand the point that you are trying to make?

Bill

The point is Bill I am NOT trying to make a point. I’m simply stated the law (Must wear helmet) and then gave my personal experiences which are many that it is rarely if ever enforced.

 

[wjfyfe]

OK, when you put it that way I can partially agree with you, but from drawing on the history of of this Forum, there have been numerous folks in California that have challenged the law in California, where they have indeed been stopped and cited, who have further tried taking their case to court, and have ultimately lost. So, I do not think that advising somebody that they probably won't get stopped, or cited, is a wise, or even fair, thing to be doing. But, that is only my opinion, where obviously it is up to the OP to make his own decisions, hopefully based on the facts of the law, and understanding that the SlingShot in no way offers the safety and protection of an automobile, which so many try to associate it with..

Bill

 

[ca8920]

I apologize, but I must disagree, just because somebody has installed basically an umbrella on their SlingShot, which is not structural in any sense of the imagination, it is still not considered "fully enclosed." Again, this topic has been discussed so many many times over the years, you all are just rehashing things that have been long dismissed. May I suggest searching, and reviewing, these topics from the archives here?
Bill

Bill I could care less what you think. I'm stating the current state of the law in CA. If you don't like it that up to you. It's still the current state of the law per CHP...

 

[ca8920]

The point is Bill I am NOT trying to make a point. I’m simply stated the law (Must wear helmet) and then gave my personal experiences which are many that it is rarely if ever enforced.

Wrong

 

[ca8920]

I own 30 Slingshots and a rental business in NV. I have been sending customers to California for 4 years (With helmets behind the seats) NOT ONE ticket or incident in 4 years on over 1000 rides on Slingshots with NO roofs.

So I think I’m more than qualified to speak about the Slingshots thru actual experience and more rides than you or one person will do in a lifetime.

So no legal statue, simply wives tales..... Good information.

 

[wjfyfe]

Bill I could care less what you think. I'm stating the current state of the law in CA. If you don't like it that up to you. It's still the current state of the law per CHP...

As you keep requesting from others, will you please show us the statute(s) of which you are referring?

Thank you,

Bill

 

[openair]

This topic has been discussed hundreds of times since the conception of the SlingShot of which there is a very simple solution to this issue, either don't purchase a SlingShot, or plan on wearing a helmet if you do.

Bill

Too easy. Too much common sense. Plus what about their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to die of traumatic brain injury?

 

[openair]

This whole thread reminds me of the seat belt wars many years ago.
The faux constitutional lawyers of the time stated:
I WILL NOT WEAR A SEAT BELT, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
Today, most people with inter-connected brain cells wear their seat belt.
Now, the new CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT is to go in public without a mask. Many of those people are not being allowed in some stores.

 

[techkraut]

I'm retired CA Law Enforcement, living in Northern Nevada and wanted to know the same thing. I'm attaching a response from a FB user forum that someone received from CHP HQ in Sacramento. As the answer is ambiguous and doesn't really answer the question I sought further help and asked a retired CHP Sgt. friend of mine. He contacted a friend at the CHP academy and was told the answer evolves around section 27803 of the CA Vehicle Code and the wording "fully enclosed." Basically CA exempted parking controllers from having to wear a helmet by adding the language "fully enclosed." Per CHP, if the slingshot has a roof they are considering fully enclosed and you do not have to wear a helmet. If it doesn't have a roof, it is not enclosed and you do have to wear a helmet. When my friend asked about convertibles?, he was told they are cars with safety equipment so the issue did not apply. Bottom line, we have a roof so we do not wear helmets but we carry small skid lids just in case.

Hope this helps.

Chris

The CHP academy definitely teaches to ticket slingshot drivers without helmets. Some have beaten these tickets in court. Others have not. I believe in helmets on motorcycles, but helmets and seatbelts are a dangerous combination (without a HANS device). My recommendation is to wear a helmet, but to find the lightest helmet in the style you select. Unfortunately these also tend to be the most expensive. I sometimes wear mine and sometimes don't, but always have it with me. I have been pulled over and convinced one officer by showing him the law, just to be pulled over by another cop from the same department who doesn't even want to listen to anything I have to say. So far I have not received a ticket, just a verbal warning. I have a tall windshield and wear impact-proof sunglasses when I don't wear my helmet.