DOT helmet label | GTAMotorcycle.com

DOT helmet label

viccont

viccont

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I just bought suomy spec 1r and noticed that there is no safety sert on the back. Is it true cops stop u 4 having no DOT label.
 
I've got a Schuberth S1 no DOT sticker, it is EU certified which is a higher standard but not recognized in Canada. Have never been bothered about it, and have been pulled over for speeding while wearing it and was not asked about it. If you wear a full face it is unlikely you will be bothered, but it is a potential ticket. Just my 2 cents.
 
there should also be the sticker inside the helmet if it is DOT certified.
 
Stop being paranoid. Cops don't pull riders over for helmet violations if they are wearing a fullface. They only ticket riders wearing small beanies.
 
viccont said:
I just bought suomy spec 1r and noticed that there is no safety sert on the back. Is it true cops stop u 4 having no DOT label.
Click to expand...

Check the inside, under the liner. If it meets any of the following specifications, then it's OK.

Canadian Standards Association Standard D230 Safety Helmets for Motorcycle Riders and shall bear the monogram of the Canadian Standards Association Testing Laboratories;

Snell Memorial Foundation and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the Snell Memorial Foundation;

British Standards Institute and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the British Standards Institute; or

United States of America Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 and shall bear the symbol DOT constituting the manufacturer's certification of compliance with the standard. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 2.
 
RetroGrouch said:
Stop being paranoid. Cops don't pull riders over for helmet violations if they are wearing a fullface. They only ticket riders wearing small beanies.
Click to expand...

elton_t said:
i dont think most cops know there is the DOT helmet violation existence.
Click to expand...

The OPP spot check just south of Hamilton airport on the way to Port Dover this year saw them checking the backs of full-face helmets too, including mine.
 
Unless you've just paid 20 bucks for a helmet from a guy off the street, I just assumed that it had the proper certifications. Maybe I'm naive?

How likely is it that a brand name full-face helmet purchased from a motorcycle store of some sort (let's say costing over $100 for argument's sake) would NOT meet legislated minimums? I am truly curious - has this happened to a lot of people? Has anyone been burned?
 
You are not going to get an illegal helmet from a Canadian or American retailer, but it can be a different story for folks buying from Ebay in which case the helmet ships in from who knows where.

A good many perfectly fine European-market helmets meet ECE 22-05, which is every bit as reputable a standard as any of the standards accepted here ... but it isn't legally accepted here! Some of those helmets might meet the BSI standard, but it's not guaranteed. The DOT standard legally means nothing in Europe just as the ECE standard legally means nothing here.
 
My understanding is that every BMW System 6 series helmet sold in Canada has an agreement contract signed by the buyer that they won't import the helmet to the US.

So, if somebody buys one here, and rides over the border, then technically, they have an illegal helmet?


.
 
It is possible that the US wants DOT and won't accept anything else (since that is a US government specification) whereas that helmet probably meets BSI but is not DOT. Is that the case?
 
How about this, then:

LEO: The outside of your helmet doesn't say DOT. Show me the inside.
Rider: Show me the search warrant first. Then I'll take off the helmet.

And then the rider simply needs to wait for the idiot LEO to subside.
This is a good time to record the LEO's actions and words.
 
a few years back, i was wearing a half helmut, and got stopped for speeding with a buddy, i was riding my 1974 triumph t150 and he was on his 1976 t160. the first thing the cop said was he wanted to see our dot stickers. this does happen, maybe he was a motorcycle cop on radar duty in halton. any way you can buy those stickers with out buying a helmut at any bike week event, like daytona and strugess.
 
Salos Dafee said:
How about this, then:

LEO: The outside of your helmet doesn't say DOT. Show me the inside.
Rider: Show me the search warrant first. Then I'll take off the helmet.

And then the rider simply needs to wait for the idiot LEO to subside.
This is a good time to record the LEO's actions and words.
Click to expand...

And the rider will be required to show the helmet, as proof that it has the necessary gear to be able to ride legally. It has already been adjudicated that a helmet examination is a reasonable part of a traffic stop, just as examination of license, registration, and insurance card is. R. v. Hayes, 2003, for example.

No warrant required.
 
Salos Dafee said:
How about this, then:

LEO: The outside of your helmet doesn't say DOT. Show me the inside.
Rider: Show me the search warrant first. Then I'll take off the helmet.

And then the rider simply needs to wait for the idiot LEO to subside.
This is a good time to record the LEO's actions and words.
Click to expand...

Edit: just read Rob's answer - much better than mine.

IIRC, there is a combination of laws from the Highway Traffic Act and the Criminal Code of Canada (those dealing specifically to drugs and alcohol) that removes a lot of your standard rights against search and seizure that you have in your own home. I'm pretty sure that your car can be searched inside and out on a cop's hunch, forget a warrant. Think about the RIDE program: they can, without reason to believe that you are impaired, stop you and force any number of roadside tests to determine whether you've been drinking alcohol before you got behind the wheel.

If riding a motorcycle falls under the same laws (and I can't see why not), then a cop can claim that he thought that you were acting a little funny, and suspected that you had some drugs hiding in the liner of your helmet and "whoops!", he discovered that said helmet was not legally approved safety gear.
 
Last edited:
I think that Rob and Charles are incorrect.

Here is my reference: http://www.vex.net/~occ/page.py?page_id:11

Here is what I find there:

Helmet Law in Ontario

Here are the points of the ruling brought down by the Ontario Supreme Court in the Wayne Hayes helmet case. Again congratulations to Wayne and the law offices of Alan Gold.


1. The police erred in escalating a simple Highway Traffic Act charge into the Criminal charge of Obstruct Police.


2. The police in the future may demand you to surrender your helmet or take it off for inspection on the side of the road. You the rider don't have to be subjected to this kind of treatment anymore because of the Hayes case. The police can still issue you a ticket for improper helmet under the HTA , if they feel your helmet is improper , but you the rider don't have to take off your helmet on the side of the road for any kind of inspection. They cannot seize or impound your helmet. If they have reason to suspect that the helmet is not compliant, they the police have two options; issue a ticket for improper helmet or they can issue you a written notice of compliance under sec.82(1) to bring in your helmet for an inspection on the date specified on the written notice.


We trust this information will be passed along to your members, and others in our community that may be affected by this ruling.


R. v. Hayes
129 of the Criminal Code - obstructing police officer - motorcyclist refusing to surrender his helmet to police officer for examination at roadside as required by s. 82(1) of the Highway Traffic Act - accused liable to conviction under s. 82(4) of the HTA, but s. 82(3) requiring that accused first be given written notice given of obligation to submit to examination - police not attempting to give written notice, but instead charging appellant under the Criminal Code with obstructing police - a refusal to submit the helmet for examination cannot, in these circumstances, amount to an attempt to obstruct the police - semble, where a statute creates a duty to co-operate with the police and provides a penalty for failure to do so, the failure cannot be elevated into a criminal offense - "If the appellant had interfered with the officer's attempt to issue written notice for a vehicle inspection, the offense of obstruct police could have been made out. However, since the officer did not attempt to enforce his power to inspect the helmet under s. 82(3) by issuing the written notice he was not entitled to invoke the far more serious offense of obstruct police....". R. v. Hayes (2003), 177 C.C.C. (3d) 543, 65 O.R. (3d) 787 (Ont. C.A.)

***********************
(bold and underline are mine, not present on the web site.)

If the above is accurate, then my surmise is correct.

No warrant, no search.

And a close reading of HTA 82 (2) and again (3) says that the operator must "submit the vehicle, together with its equipment" to an inspection. The helmet is not equipment of the vehicle; rather it is garb or gear of the RIDER, a wholly different category.

If I move to Ohio, you can bet I am going to live in DEFIANCE County.
That is by a long distance, my favourite place name.
 
Salos Dafee said:
Here is the conclusion of Regina v. Hayes, 2003:

[43] I would allow the appeal, set aside the conviction, and enter an acquittal.


"R. Roy McMurtry C.J.O."
"I agree. K. M. Weiler J.A."
"I agree. John I. Laskin J.A."


RELEASED: July 10, 2003 "RRM"

I found the above at the web site of Ontario's Supreme Court,
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/search/en/OntarioCourtsSearch_VOpenFile.cfm?serverFilePath=D%3A\Users\Ontario Courts\www\decisions\2003\july\hayesC36130.htm
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the relevant parts of that ruling that pertains specifically to helmet inspection and the right of a cop to demand you remove said helmet to facilitate inspection:

This ruling was more on the "obstruct police" charges than the right to refuse to remove a helmet. The judge's ruling was that there was already a $1000 fine penalty stipulated by the HTA for failing to comply with an order to allow inspection, and that as a result the cop should have applied that charge and penalty rather than the obstruct police charge.

[27] The Crown argues that the police must have the ancillary power to demand that motorcyclists remove their helmets for inspection, as this is the only manner in which the helmet provisions of the HTA can be enforced. I agree that without the ability to look inside helmets, the police will not be able to enforce the safety helmet provisions effectively. They would not be able to check some helmets for safety stickers, or examine their protective padding. However, I do not agree that this authority should be found under the ancillary powers doctrine. As I will set out below, it is my view that s.82 of the HTA provides the police with the statutory authority to examine helmets and imposes a duty on motorcyclists to remove their helmets and submit them for examination. In light of the specific statutory authority in the HTA to inspect equipment, including helmets, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to look to ancillary powers.
Click to expand...
[34] Section 82(1) empowers the police officer to "require" the driver to "submit" the vehicle or its equipment for examination. The provision does not merely authorize the officer to act, it imposes an obligation on drivers to submit the vehicle and its equipment to examination. In my view, the obligatory language of the provision, which requires drivers to participate in the examination to the extent of "submitting" their equipment to inspection[2],imposes a duty on motorcyclists to remove their helmets and provide them to police officers for examination, so long as the request is for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act.
Click to expand...
[36] With respect to the appellant's second argument, it is my view that a motorcycle helmet falls squarely within the meaning of "equipment" under s.82. Section 104 of the HTA, which requires motorcyclists to wear helmets, is found under Part VI of the Act, which is entitled "Equipment". The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) defines 'equipment' as "things used in equipping; articles used or required for a particular purpose; apparatus". Under the HTA, an approved helmet is "required" for the "particular purpose" of operating a motorcycle on a highway. In this respect, a helmet is no different than a horn or muffler.
Click to expand...
[37] Thus, I conclude that the appellant had an obligation to remove his helmet and turn it over to P.C. Lessard so that he could examine it under s.82(1) of the HTA.
Click to expand...
 
Salos Dafee said:
How about this, then:

LEO: The outside of your helmet doesn't say DOT. Show me the inside.
Rider: Show me the search warrant first. Then I'll take off the helmet.

And then the rider simply needs to wait for the idiot LEO to subside.
This is a good time to record the LEO's actions and words.
Click to expand...

Leo: The outside of your helmet doesn't say DOT. Show me the inside.
You: Show me the search warrant first. Then I'll take off the helmet.
Leo: Fine, here's a ticket for Improper Helmet. Call a tow truck because you are not allowed to ride with an improper helmet.

And then the idiot LEO laughs at you while you are on the side of the road waiting for a tow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom