Cali helmets

Where do you buy those from?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Polaris Slingshot Forum mobile app

This one has some nice stay warm features....

A guy down here who has a red SL like mine got a ticket for no helmet. He has a custom full roll cage/top that he had built and he fought the ticket on the grounds that the top made it "fully enclosed" and there fore exempt from the helmet requirement. He had to take 2 days off work one to go to court to enter the not guilty plea and then a second time for the hearing - in the end the judge agreed that his slingshot was in fact "fully enclosed" and dismissed the ticket, but what a pain in the a$$

Bob, has something changed in the CA helmet laws that I haven't heard about?

The "fully enclosed" exemption for 3 wheeled motorcycles has always been there, but what is considered "fully enclosed" has always been left to the discretion of the courts and I dont have the time to waste fighting tickets even if I do win its not worth it

one thing I do know is that in California motorcycles are exempt from the mandatory seat belt laws

at the beginning of the law they say everyone in a "motor vehicle" must wear a seat belt and then they follow it with this which I cut and pasted right out of the code " (c) (1) As used in this section, “motor vehicle” means a passenger vehicle, a motortruck, or a truck tractor, but does not include a motorcycle.'

Because of this I added an old skool lap belt so that around town on hot days I dont have to have the dang strap across my chest making me sweat

Like you the first time I came to a light next to a panda I did cringe - not wearing the shoulder strap is something that is very clear in the slingshot, but I have not had any issues even sitting at a light and talking to the officer on his bike

Quote from SoCal

At the end of the day hopefully this will all get sorted out one way or the other possibly with an auto cycle designation that makes all things clearer

personally our state government has better things they should be spending their time and our money worrying about

Quote from edwardaneal

A guy down here who has a red SL like mine got a ticket for no helmet. He has a custom full roll cage/top that he had built and he fought the ticket on the grounds that the top made it "fully enclosed" and there fore exempt from the helmet requirement. He had to take 2 days off work one to go to court to enter the not guilty plea and then a second time for the hearing - in the end the judge agreed that his slingshot was in fact "fully enclosed" and dismissed the ticket, but what a pain in the a$$

Bob, has something changed in the CA helmet laws that I haven't heard about?

The "fully enclosed" exemption for 3 wheeled motorcycles has always been there, but what is considered "fully enclosed" has always been left to the discretion of the courts and I dont have the time to waste fighting tickets even if I do win its not worth it

Court system is designed to make it hurt you money wise and time consuming wise so you just give up and pay without a fight....basically forcing you to admit you are always guilty.

All they really want is your money....that’s why they let you plead speeding tickets 5 miles over so you can avoid the points....just pay the money....we like hurting your wallet...

Thanks for the video - - I had seen that one before, but had forgotten the comment on helmets. Not really sure how much weight it carries.

here is the motorcycle helmet code section of the law - section 27803, the last section (f) is the section that says a "fully enclosed" three wheeled motorcycle is exempt

As I said above it was this section that the guy I know down here used to get the ticked he received tossed - but unlike his SL mine does not have a full roll cage and I suspect it would not be considered "fully enclosed"

I also figure that since I am using the fact it is a motorcycle to avoid the seat belt laws by wearing only a lap belt - I sure cant argue that it really isnt a motorcycle if I am cited for not having a helmet

VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 27803

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.

Anyway as much as I would love to ditch the helmet around town I think until they actually change the law with a clear exemption than the "fully enclosed" thing I will keep using mine

Quote from SoCal

Just messin’ here - what about a Jeep- no doors, no roof, helmet needed?

I know your messing, but the obvious answer is that the slingshot is legally classified and registered as a motorcycle and a jeep is legally classified and registered as a car. as such each falls into different areas of the vehicle code.

As a side note if the slingshot were not classified as a motorcycle it wouldn't even be legal as a car, doesn't meet the federal safety requirements

Quote from SoCal

Just messin’ here - what about a Jeep- no doors, no roof, helmet needed?

Jeeps are considered automobiles not motor cycles.

Sent from my iPhone using Polaris Slingshot Forum mobile app

Quote from SoCal

And there lies the controversy, ambiguity and inconsistencies. I would argue strongly that the Slingshot is not a motorcycle.

I would argue that it is much easier to fall out of the jeep with no doors than a slingshot. Getting the classification as a motorcycle to avoid the safety requirements is totally understandable. Blurring the lines between motorcycles and cars has created uncertainties and a lot of questions Hence this thread.

Things will happen, people will challenge and hopefully someday soon we will get our own classification and Clarity.

be careful what you wish for - there is currently legislation that has been sitting before congress for a long time now that would create a federal classification for autocycles - its called the "Autocycle Safety Act"

here is a link to it - H.R. 2381 Text

Go look at it - if passed it would require this new class of vehicles to have air bags and to meet impact safety requirements that the Slingshot is not now required to meet.

“(4) meets the performance criteria relating to upper interior impact set forth in FMVSS 201 to the extent possible to reach the target points; and

“(5) is equipped with a steering wheel air bag, anti-lock brakes, and electronic stability control.

I believe that by classifying the Slingshot as a motorcycle Polaris got something special on the road that the government doesnt really like. The government knows it isnt really a motorcycle, its a three wheel sports car and they dont like that it isnt subject to all the safety laws that cars are subject to

I firmly believe that any attempt by the federal government to make the slingshot anything other than a motorcycle will not be done to benefit us, it will be done to increase the regulations and tighten up the safety requirements

Polaris got the Slingshot through a loophole - and in my opinion any attempt by the government to reclassify the slingshot will only be done because they want to close this loophole and end the manufacture and sale of what they see as unsafe cars

seriously, how often does government actually change the laws to make things better? especially California government?

As a secondary thought I suspect that if you were wearing the cool leather aviator hats in your OP most of the pandas will be perfectly happy and not give you any grief about a helmet - - unless perhaps they have pulled you over for something else. Fortunately I think that 99.9% of the cops out there have no desire to bother us over something they realize is silly

Quote from edwardaneal

As a secondary thought I suspect that if you were wearing the cool leather aviator hats in your OP most of the pandas will be perfectly happy and not give you any grief about a helmet - - unless perhaps they have pulled you over for something else. Fortunately I think that 99.9% of the cops out there have no desire to bother us over something they realize is silly

With that being said I have not worn a helmet in 3 years in North Carolina, Georgia, Tenn. or Virginia. South Carolina has no helmet law but I almost always have a ball cap on so the law enforcement folks see only that there is something on my head.