New law requiring helmets in california

[NIKAL]

Called Cook's Capitol office. They are hoping to have a bill number later today or Monday. The lady said the two bills they were hoping to attach this to were already on the Assembly floor. They have another bill they are going to attach this too, but wont know the number until then.

Was told that this has already been fast tracked and as soon as it is attached to the bill, it will be on the Assembly floor for a vote. So they still dont see it being an issue before the end of the month.


I have told them we are starting to feel this is all a stall tactic. I was assured this is no stall tactic. The lady said she hoped another e-mail would be going out later today or maybe over the weekend. She said even though our offices are closed on weekend's that they have still been working. This just happens this time of year.

I then called Cook's main office and was told for the most part the same thing. Except this guy did not know or say anything about a new e-mail going out today or over the weekend. He said he hopped they would have the bill number early next week and at that time a e-mail would go out with the new bill number.


Stay on these guys!!! Without that new bill number it is hard to call the other Rep's and tell them to support Paul Cook's amendments as we dont have a number to reference. Almost every other office I have called as asked for the new bill number. Then told me to call back when I have one.

Here is the latest e-mail from Cook's office. I have to give them credit. They said they should have a new e-mail released today or over the weekend.

Second Update on the AB 1595 Fix

I just wanted to give everyone an update and a timeline for the AB 1595 fix. We were able to secure a bill to use as a vehicle for fixing AB 1595 this week. The new bill will become eligible for amendments on Tuesday, so the amended language should be in print and available for you to read online on Wednesday (August 22).
I'll send out an update to everyone with a bill number and a link to where you can read the language of the fix on Wednesday. My office has worked with the Transportation committees in the Senate and Assembly and I believe they will waive holding a hearing on the bill. This means that it will be voted on directly on the Senate floor, possibly as early as next Friday. Following that vote, it will move over to the Assembly where it will be voted on sometime during the final week of session (The week of August 27-31). From there it will move on to the Governor for signature.
I want to thank all of you again for your input so far and I'll keep you all in the loop as the fix moves forward.
Sincerely,
Assemblyman Paul Cook
65th Assembly District

 

[Flyingbryan]

The problem is they are still going to require helmets.

I almost always wear a helmet but for people that bought a SxS and added back seat to do slow trail riding I don't see that the government should have the right to say you have to buy a jeep without a roll bar to go down the same trail when they have one or two small kids that are too young for a helmet.

As far as the helmet part I think there should be a speed part to the law. Maybe 25 MPH. The Can Am Commander already has a key that when used will limit the speed to 25 MPH. They also have one that limits the speed to 15 MPH but that would be unrealistic to go that slow down a 10 mile trail.

And yes I have been making calls, thanks for the phone numbers. But for what ever reason i have not been getting the the emails from Cooks office. Guess I need to shake them up.

Bryan

 

[NIKAL]

Good Morning! Keep the calls going. Ask to be put on Cook's AB 1595 e-mail list if your not already.

BTW as it looks to stand Cook's amendments will keep the helmet part of the bill. But with some new found info it might be easier to fight this helmet law. One could argue that UTV owners are being singled out and our rights are being wrongly taken away.

Per the BLM website it clearly states that only ATV's require helmets and that motorcycles do not require them, but suggest that riders wear them. (CVC 38505.)

So in short you can ride a motorcycle in the dunes or in any part of the Imperial Valley desert areas without a helmet, yet a vehicle built by the manufactures with a roll cage, seat belts and side protection nets must wear helmets.

This should be good info for the legal teams to bring to the attention of lawmakers, that mandating helmets in in UTV's and not motorcycles is just stupid.

BLM.Gov OHVS website, Imperial Sand Dunes FAQ
http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elce...ra/dunesinfo/lawenforcement/qanda.html#helmet


When you call Cook's office or any other Rep's office ask them why Motorcycles are not required off-road, yet ATV's are and now they are wanting UTV's to hear helmets? Ask them how does that make sense?

 

[Jeff Knoll]

I think its important to again bring up the fact that the CPSC is the real villain in this. There are going to be ramifications for any change in this legislation that may not be what the industry (meaning all of us) wants to see.

I have been trying to reach an attorney for ROHVA through my contacts to find out what the CPSC might be doing with changes to AB1595. I understand that a final determination was scheduled on the lead ban, but the CPSC held it over to include when they discussed the UTV safety standards. Not sure when that will take place, but this week is NOVAC in Montana so I doubt its this week.

From what I gather tomorrow we are expected to see the written language of a bill to correct the seating issue. Transportation has agreed to help stream line the process so it gets through before recess. Helmets are not going away.

I am still working on a face to face with Cook. His staff is very helpful but the Assemblyman is extremely busy with his campaign in full swing. I am currently in Cooks district so I will eventually get my meeting.

Soap box time.
No matter what association you support you have to understand that the few can not do the work for everyone. NIKAL has spent a ton of time carrying this ball. Don't just assume that he will always do it, don't assume someone will always do this stuff for you.

Landuse activism is a fickle thing. It burns you out fast. This is why OHV groups often lose, we don't have a legion of staff that works on it full time and are trained in this stuff.

There is a title wave of issues facing OHV users.

Thanks NIKAL for staying on point. we need more like you to defend our sport with action.

 

[JoeyD23]

Thank you to all of you who continue to fight this battle!!!

 

[Jeff Knoll]

Small update, I have seen a copy of the new law, but rumor is it might be Thursday until we see a hard copy. I will disseminate and post the info later this afternoon. 10,000 foot level view is that feet on floor is gone. Provision to kick seat arrangement down the road. This gives an open door to changes in the next session by an organized group.

I still have very large concerns over if this change will satisfy the CPSC. I will not have answers until later this week on the subject.

Rushing this through IMHO means we might end up with subjective language. The OHV division is also interested in your concerns, and have set up an email address.

[FONT=&quot]ohvinfo@parks.ca.gov

Subject line AB1595

I suggest everyone send a positive email with concerns to this address.


[/FONT]

 

[JoeyD23]

Thanks for the insight Jeff!!

 

[Rusty5150]

Email sent.

 

[Rzrcsi]

e-mail sent

 

[Familyman]

Small update, I have seen a copy of the new law, but rumor is it might be Thursday until we see a hard copy. I will disseminate and post the info later this afternoon. 10,000 foot level view is that feet on floor is gone. Provision to kick seat arrangement down the road. This gives an open door to changes in the next session by an organized group.

I still have very large concerns over if this change will satisfy the CPSC. I will not have answers until later this week on the subject.

Rushing this through IMHO means we might end up with subjective language. The OHV division is also interested in your concerns, and have set up an email address.

[FONT=&quot]ohvinfo@parks.ca.gov

Subject line AB1595

I suggest everyone send a positive email with concerns to this address.


[/FONT]

Thanks Jeff. I hope you don't mind but I Quoted your post on rzr forum too.

 

[NIKAL]

Here was something I posted on another forum. The topic was kid helmets and how some feel that the BLM are going to ticket everyone if the helmets are not DOT, even kids.


When this law first came out, I called the El Centro BLM office as I had spoke to and dealt with a particular BLM agent in the past. At the time he was unaware of this new law as they only are told about new laws once they go into effect.

I explained this helmet law and asked his opinion on how strict does he think the Leo's will be enforcing this law and the others in the bill. He said; As far as helmets, if the law states you must have one, and if they see you without it, they will probably stop and ticket you. He said they will not stop people just to see if those helmets are DOT, and even if you were stopped he felt it was highly unlikely they would check the DOT label or tag in the helmet.

He said if people are trying to follow the laws then we dont need to get into the small details. He understood and thinks a full size DOT helmets on small children is not a good idea either. He said; If I saw a family riding and the kids were in bicycle helmets, I would not bother them, as I know they are attempting to follow the law, and yet do the right thing for their children. Many people wear full face Parker Pumper style helmets and those are Snell rated. Snell is better then DOT, but per the law DOT is what you must wear, so again he said he does not feel the Leo's will be looking at the small details. Now if the operator of the UTV was being reckless, under the influence, or when stopped became belligerent with the officer, then dont be surprised when they ticket/charge you with every detail they can find.

As far as the modified rear seat like in Rhino's. Same thing if the law states you cant have them and if they were to see passengers riding in them, you will probably get stopped. If you have the seats and no one is riding in them, then there is really no law broken and they should not stop you.

As he has said to me before when I have called asking questions. "The ones who will have the most trouble are the ones attracting the trouble. The ones who are doing something to attract the Leo's attention are the ones who get the fines."

He said off the record (I ride in Plaster City and Superstition) if he was to see my group riding and it was an off weekend and we were all traveling responsibly, and if one in our group had Rhino with small kids in the back. He said most likely he would look the other way and not see me. If it was a busy weekend I might have to stop you and warn you about the back seat. If it was a big holiday weekend, then we would have to stop and warn or ticket you as we have to set a precedence.

Many times these laws are at the discretion of the officer. Quiet days in the desert when people are not causing problems they can be more lax. Busy weekends when you have more issues, more people drinking giving the Leo's a harder time, well you are probably going to get a more strict officer, who is not going to want to cut slack or look the other way.

 

[Desertcat]

Email sent and I posted on another forum. Thank you guys

 

[Slacker]

E mail sent!

 

[Dunecrusher]

Email sent

 

[SD Rhino]

email sent

 

[bigkat660]

Got this email today...



Third Update on the AB 1595 Fix

I'm happy to report that the bill to begin fixing AB 1595 is now in print and available to be read online. The bill is AB 1266. I'm joined by Assemblyman Jim Nielsen and Assemblyman V. Manuel Pérez in authoring this fix. You can view the text of AB 1266 at the following link:

leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1251-1300/ab_1266_bill_20120823_amended_sen_v98.html

This bill will do two things:

1)$ It eliminates the "feet flat on the floorboards" provision that would prevent children (and short adults) from riding as a passenger in a recreational off-highway vehicle.

2)$ It delays the implementation of the non-factory seating locations provision until July 1, 2013. While I would have liked to do a more permanent fix for this provision right now, that would require committee hearings before the Assembly and Senate Transportation Committees, which are no longer meeting at this point in the session. Both of the committees are aware of the issues with this section of the current law, however, and legislation for a more permanent fix will be moving forward in January. The delay in implementing this section will give plenty of time for the new legislation to be drafted and passed by the next legislature.

I expect AB 1266 to be voted on in the California Senate on Monday, August 27, although there is a possibility that it may be pushed back until Tuesday. I will take the bill up in the Assembly within 1-2 days of it passing the Senate. After the Assembly passes it, it will be sent to the Governor for signature. Because the Senate will be the first chamber voting on this bill, I would urge you all to contact your state senator urging them to support AB 1266. I'll continue to update you at every step of the process, and once again, I'd like to thank you all for contacting my office with your comments and concerns.

Sincerely,

Assemblyman Paul Cook

65th Assembly District

 

[NIKAL]

Start calling your Reps!

Tell them to support AB1266.

 

[Desertcat]

Delay of the extra seat sounds like they are just passing the buck to me.

 

[warlock]

Delay of the extra seat sounds like they are just passing the buck to me.

Yep. Sounds to me like You Kalifornians with Modified SXSs for your Kids will be having to dump them for 1/2 price and step up and buy a new factory Built Kawasaki or Polaris 4 seater. Sweet. Thats Gonna suck but you Have a year to do it in.

 

[Flyingbryan]

"Recreational off-highway vehicle" means a motor vehicle
meeting all of the following criteria:[/COLOR]
(a) Designed by the manufacturer for operation primarily off of
the highway.
(b) Has a steering wheel for steering control.
(c) Has nonstraddle seating provided by the manufacturer for the
operator and all passengers.
(d) (1) Has a maximum speed capability of greater than 30 miles
per hour.
(2) A vehicle designed by the manufacturer with a maximum speed
capability of 30 miles per hour or less but is modified so that it
has a maximum speed capability of greater than 30 miles per hour
satisfies the criteria set forth in this subdivision.
(e) Has an engine displacement equal to or less than 1,000cc (61
ci).
SEC. 2. Section 38012 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
38012. (a) As used in this division, "off-highway motor vehicle
subject to identification" means a motor vehicle subject to
subdivision (a) of Section 38010.
(b) As used in this division, "off-highway motor vehicle"
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) A motorcycle or motor-driven cycle, except for any motorcycle
that is eligible for a special transportation identification device
issued pursuant to Section 38088.
(2) A snowmobile or other vehicle designed to travel over snow or
ice, as defined in Section 557.
(3) A motor vehicle commonly referred to as a sand buggy, dune
buggy, or all-terrain vehicle.
(4) A motor vehicle commonly referred to as a jeep.
(5) A recreational off-highway vehicle as defined in Section 500.
SEC. 3. Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 38600) is added to
Division 16.5 of the Vehicle Code, to read:
CHAPTER 8. RECREATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES


38600. A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle
shall be at least 16 years of age, or be directly supervised in the
vehicle by a parent or guardian or by an adult authorized by the
parent or guardian.
38601. A person shall not operate, or allow a passenger in, a
recreational off-highway vehicle unless the person and the passenger
are wearing safety helmets meeting the requirements established for
motorcycles and motorized bicycles pursuant to Section 27802.
38602. A person operating, and any passenger in, a recreational
off-highway vehicle shall wear a seatbelt and shoulder belt or safety
harness that is properly fastened when the vehicle is in motion.
38603. A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle
shall not allow a passenger to occupy a separate seat location not
designed and provided by the manufacturer for a passenger.
38604. A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle
shall not ride with a passenger, unless the passenger, while seated
upright with his or her back against the seatback with both feet flat
on the floorboard, can grasp the occupant handhold with the seatbelt
and shoulder belt or safety harness properly fastened.
SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.

If I read this correct, using a Commander 25 mph key limits the Commander by the manufacturer to less than the 30 mph stated by the law.
So one could argue if using the 25 mph key helmets are NOT required.

Bryan