California helmet law - Page 2 - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > Land Use and Trails > Land Use Issues
Notices

Reply
 
Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-29-2012, 10:24 AM   #26 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 8,809
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Thank you.
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars??? Click Here
Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 10:28 AM   #27 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonebone View Post
Still, we need to fight this infringement of liberties. Weather it affects us, or not. It is all incrimental, and if we let them do this to one group, they won't stop. THEY will come for the rest of us in short order.
I agree and am very glad that I was wrong!!!

Last edited by LYIN' KING; 07-29-2012 at 10:30 AM.
LYIN' KING is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-30-2012, 09:44 AM   #28 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
JeepinJP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Member # 6420
Location: other coast
Posts: 532
For the UTV items I saw the seem very similar to ROHVA`s own guidelines..as I recall them.
__________________
Thanx JP
OlllO
911 NEVER FORGET
semper fi
http://www.wheelersforthewounded.org
http://www.sharetrails.org
http://www.wheelersforthewoundednj.org
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
JeepinJP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 06:26 PM   #29 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Member # 128380
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 460
Those who know me from posting to this forum find that I'm usually one to do some digging to find "the rest of the story".

I'm here to provide information and not the debate the issue.

What I've found out in the past couple of days is why this bill was introduced. I have not checked-out all the fine details of what I was told, but my sources are very, very reliable.

It seems that the US Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") has been involved with the whole UTV "issue" for a number of years. They have some proposed regulations that would affect what is manufactured and offered for sale that might well go in to effect in 2014. The essence of the regulations would be vehicles built much like the Honda Big Red.

In an attempt to continue to make the kind's of toy's we like today, the industry is taking an approach (much like it did back in the 1980's with the ATV "issue") to attempt to address issues the CPSC has raised via the legislative approach.

Please remember, the CPSC has the authority to promulgate regulations that none of the industry, dealers, or the consumer will like as an end result.

While the legislation is not perfect in the eyes of some who participated in this thread, I'm of the mind that the industry is attempting to take a pro-active approach to allow us to continue to enjoy this vehicle type without regulations that might be forced on us.
__________________
Partnership for Johnson Valley - A Division of CTUC
http://www.pfjv.org
aphantomduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 07:19 PM   #30 (permalink)
MotorsportsSolutions
 
Jeff Knoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Member # 13974
Location: Chaos
Posts: 4,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by aphantomduck View Post
Those who know me from posting to this forum find that I'm usually one to do some digging to find "the rest of the story".

I'm here to provide information and not the debate the issue.

What I've found out in the past couple of days is why this bill was introduced. I have not checked-out all the fine details of what I was told, but my sources are very, very reliable.

It seems that the US Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") has been involved with the whole UTV "issue" for a number of years. They have some proposed regulations that would affect what is manufactured and offered for sale that might well go in to effect in 2014. The essence of the regulations would be vehicles built much like the Honda Big Red.

In an attempt to continue to make the kind's of toy's we like today, the industry is taking an approach (much like it did back in the 1980's with the ATV "issue") to attempt to address issues the CPSC has raised via the legislative approach.

Please remember, the CPSC has the authority to promulgate regulations that none of the industry, dealers, or the consumer will like as an end result.

While the legislation is not perfect in the eyes of some who participated in this thread, I'm of the mind that the industry is attempting to take a pro-active approach to allow us to continue to enjoy this vehicle type without regulations that might be forced on us.

Looks like I am late to the Party Make Note. I agree with the Duck, he is spot on. Looks like the other question is cleared up as well, thanks for caring if I died LK. (Still think Darwin does a better job than legislation.)
__________________
Northern Nevada's Newest Week-long 4WD Festival,Yes Jeff is back in the Event Business!

Carrera Performance Group, LLC Off Road Solutions, from Marketing to Management
Jeff Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 08:58 AM   #31 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Knoll View Post
Looks like I am late to the Party Make Note. I agree with the Duck, he is spot on. Looks like the other question is cleared up as well, thanks for caring if I died LK. (Still think Darwin does a better job than legislation.)
Really glad we were both wrong!!

You brought the CPSC facet to light elsewhere on the 26th as you might recall.

Up with Darwin . . .
LYIN' KING is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 03:25 PM   #32 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Member # 32975
Location: Foxfield, Co
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by aphantomduck View Post
Those who know me from posting to this forum find that I'm usually one to do some digging to find "the rest of the story".

I'm here to provide information and not the debate the issue.

What I've found out in the past couple of days is why this bill was introduced. I have not checked-out all the fine details of what I was told, but my sources are very, very reliable.

It seems that the US Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") has been involved with the whole UTV "issue" for a number of years. They have some proposed regulations that would affect what is manufactured and offered for sale that might well go in to effect in 2014. The essence of the regulations would be vehicles built much like the Honda Big Red.

In an attempt to continue to make the kind's of toy's we like today, the industry is taking an approach (much like it did back in the 1980's with the ATV "issue") to attempt to address issues the CPSC has raised via the legislative approach.

Please remember, the CPSC has the authority to promulgate regulations that none of the industry, dealers, or the consumer will like as an end result.

While the legislation is not perfect in the eyes of some who participated in this thread, I'm of the mind that the industry is attempting to take a pro-active approach to allow us to continue to enjoy this vehicle type without regulations that might be forced on us.
Appreciate your response.

A couple of things are really confusing me. First, this bill started out as a tax reduction bill and ends up as an OHV bill to satisfy the CPSC? Not sure how that happens. Second, it was passed with ZERO no votes,and yet when members from other forums call their Reps, none of them even seemed to know what the bill included. Lastly, there is no reason to suspect the other 49 states will ever pass anything like this, so how is it the CPSC is going to be satisfied with only California enacting this?

I have to think that if the CPSC is after UTV's, this bill will hardly stop them. Afterall, it is a fact that the Government knows more about how to take care of us, then we do ourselves.
redcj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 04:20 PM   #33 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcj7 View Post
Lastly, there is no reason to suspect the other 49 states will ever pass anything like this, so how is it the CPSC is going to be satisfied with only California enacting this?

I have to think that if the CPSC is after UTV's, this bill will hardly stop them. Afterall, it is a fact that the Government knows more about how to take care of us, then we do ourselves.
Given that the CPSC (an independent agency of the United States government) is apparently the main driver behind this; it won't stay within CA borders . . . IMHO.
LYIN' KING is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 10:20 AM   #34 (permalink)
Team 261 - VP
 
atvobsession's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Member # 31923
Posts: 1,913
It will be interesting to see how this is enforced on like the Rubicon, where Jeeps, Buggies, RZR's, Rhino's....all go about the same speed...1-10 MPH.

I wear a helmet in my RZR (see Jeff's comment on Darwin) when I'm trail riding, desert riding...etc...where high speed is involved. But I never wear a helmet in my Jeep to go 5MPH, so why would I in a fully caged UTV going the same exact SPEED!! I am as safe as anyone...and there is NO FREAKING WAY I'm wearing a full face helmet on the Rubicon.
__________________
Regards,
Ken Hower - KOH #1962 Close Enough Racing
Rubicon Trail Foundation - Director 2011-Present
Click Here for a calendar of Rubicon Events
Raceline Wheels and Falken Tires!! Thanks guys for sponsoring the Tacos at this Years Event!!
atvobsession is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 07:28 PM   #35 (permalink)
MotorsportsSolutions
 
Jeff Knoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Member # 13974
Location: Chaos
Posts: 4,717
Most basic update,

It looks like Cook has taken a beating from the UTV owners on the phone and is looking into an amendment. ROHVA does not support that. This will be interesting.
__________________
Northern Nevada's Newest Week-long 4WD Festival,Yes Jeff is back in the Event Business!

Carrera Performance Group, LLC Off Road Solutions, from Marketing to Management
Jeff Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 08:44 AM   #36 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Member # 128380
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcj7 View Post
Appreciate your response.

A couple of things are really confusing me. First, this bill started out as a tax reduction bill and ends up as an OHV bill to satisfy the CPSC? Not sure how that happens. Second, it was passed with ZERO no votes,and yet when members from other forums call their Reps, none of them even seemed to know what the bill included. Lastly, there is no reason to suspect the other 49 states will ever pass anything like this, so how is it the CPSC is going to be satisfied with only California enacting this?

I have to think that if the CPSC is after UTV's, this bill will hardly stop them. Afterall, it is a fact that the Government knows more about how to take care of us, then we do ourselves.
From what I can see, the tax bill was really a "spot bill". A spot bill is a placeholder bill for future use during the legislative year. Usually, the bill has some verbage that would give the reviewer an idea of what the bill is or will be about. Professional lobbyist scan all bills introduced for potential impact on those they lobby for within about of the bill being introduced.

Each legislative year, there is a time frame for introduction of all bills and usually in the first week of February, that timeframe closes.

The precise reason this bill didn't get any notice from the OHV groups was that the initial version had nothing to do with them.

Spot bills are then amended as the author has gathered information necessary to refine their bill into what they really want the bill to say.

Many members of the legisature have no clue of what they have voted for or against on most bills passed. They usually listen to their staff and look on how the Committee(s) voted and then proceed. Frankly, this bill was all about safety and how can someone vote against safety?

As to the other 49 states; California is a bellweather state that has set the tone for other states to follow. I suspect that the industry is working hard behind the scenes in other states for similar legislation. All they need to do is point to what California did.

This is how it worked back in the 1980's when the ATV controversy eventually got CPSC's attention. CPSC had all kinds of public hearings and was set to regulate ATV's out of production.

The industry, much like what we are seeing today, proposed some "model legislation" and presented it to CPSC to ascertain if CPSC would back-off from the regulation if indeed the industry could get laws passed in the states regulating the use of the vehicle.

I, through CORVA, was very involved in this and worked with the late Assemblyperson Doris Allen from Cypress CA on getting the laws passed to save the vehicle type.

I hope this answers your questions.
__________________
Partnership for Johnson Valley - A Division of CTUC
http://www.pfjv.org
aphantomduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 08:53 AM   #37 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Member # 128380
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Knoll View Post
Most basic update,

It looks like Cook has taken a beating from the UTV owners on the phone and is looking into an amendment. ROHVA does not support that. This will be interesting.
I'm hearing much the same Jeff.

The problem is: I don't see a way to "amend" a Chaptered bill.

I think the best the opposition could hope for is a new bill addressing their concerns be introduced in the new session in December.

I've read of two major complaints: 1. Feet touching the floor. 2. Seats in places not designed by the manufacture.

I can see that the feet issue being one that might have a chance of some sort of compromise, I don't see the seat issue changing.

Yamaha will likely fight like hell in this aspect of any amendment. Too many expensive lawsuits from those using the Rhino in a manner never intended or engineered for have caused Yamaha to spend much more money than their ever made on the Rhino.
__________________
Partnership for Johnson Valley - A Division of CTUC
http://www.pfjv.org
aphantomduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 09:47 AM   #38 (permalink)
MotorsportsSolutions
 
Jeff Knoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Member # 13974
Location: Chaos
Posts: 4,717
Word I hear, RUMOR ONLY is that there is still a couple spot bills on the books. I have no idea if that's an option this late, but its a rumor. I think Cook may be doing Damage control, but who knows? Hoping to get a meeting with him and Imus.
__________________
Northern Nevada's Newest Week-long 4WD Festival,Yes Jeff is back in the Event Business!

Carrera Performance Group, LLC Off Road Solutions, from Marketing to Management
Jeff Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 02:52 PM   #39 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Member # 224879
Posts: 16
utv community coming alive

It is great to see thousands of utv owners rising up and fighting this issue. It appears our voices are being heard. It is too bad that the community knew nothing of this until after being signed into law.

I noticed that aphantomduck mentioned earlier that he knew of this a few months ago. My question is why did you not sound the horns and rally the troops then? At the very least mention it somehow to see what people think of it. Even if you agree with the legislation it is still only fair for both sides to know what is going on and to let their voices be heard. Not trying to start crap here with aphantomduck I am just curious why you were silent on this before.

Frankly I think everyone is wanting to know if the ASA, Corva, and others knew about this earlier and didn't say anything either. Makes us wonder sometimes about why we donate and support these groups. We rely on groups like this to stay on top of these issues and keep us informed. Maybe they are just understaffed and underfunded and can't keep up. This law has been public for over a week and yet they still have yet to issue even a statement at all about this. I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people who are affected by this law that still have no idea that it exists. These groups need to get on the ball. If people could see a big push by them then they would be a lot more likely to make donations.
Family man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 03:41 PM   #40 (permalink)
Registered User
 
LibertySand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Member # 178400
Location: Montclair, CA
Posts: 567
Send a message via AIM to LibertySand
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchboy101 View Post
Can't believe why anyone would still want to live in California. It's amazing the crazy laws is capable of writing up time after time. (A) What's sad is that you'll see other states follow suit. (B) Glad I live in Texas. Um, reread (A) again. Texas isn't completely untouchable either.
__________________
You are my Crumple Zone!

MY 76 LOADSTAR RESCUE/RV
LibertySand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 04:09 PM   #41 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Family man View Post
It is great to see thousands of utv owners rising up and fighting this issue. It appears our voices are being heard. It is too bad that the community knew nothing of this until after being signed into law.

I noticed that aphantomduck mentioned earlier that he knew of this a few months ago. My question is why did you not sound the horns and rally the troops then? At the very least mention it somehow to see what people think of it. Even if you agree with the legislation it is still only fair for both sides to know what is going on and to let their voices be heard. Not trying to start crap here with aphantomduck I am just curious why you were silent on this before.

Frankly I think everyone is wanting to know if the ASA, Corva, and others knew about this earlier and didn't say anything either. Makes us wonder sometimes about why we donate and support these groups. We rely on groups like this to stay on top of these issues and keep us informed. Maybe they are just understaffed and underfunded and can't keep up. This law has been public for over a week and yet they still have yet to issue even a statement at all about this. I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people who are affected by this law that still have no idea that it exists. These groups need to get on the ball. If people could see a big push by them then they would be a lot more likely to make donations.
While understanding your take Paul and having been into this stuff with you, as you know, it is incumbent upon all public land users to assume some personal responsibility for remaining informed of issues that may affect them and not depend solely on our orgs or their members for the initial skinny on every issue.

Looking at over a dozen various UTV forums I use to provide this sort of stuff to, there is STILL little if any mention about this specific topic.

Just an observation . . . no offense intended please.
LYIN' KING is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 04:25 PM   #42 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Member # 32975
Location: Foxfield, Co
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by aphantomduck View Post
From what I can see, the tax bill was really a "spot bill". A spot bill is a placeholder bill for future use during the legislative year. Usually, the bill has some verbage that would give the reviewer an idea of what the bill is or will be about. Professional lobbyist scan all bills introduced for potential impact on those they lobby for within about of the bill being introduced.

Each legislative year, there is a time frame for introduction of all bills and usually in the first week of February, that timeframe closes.

The precise reason this bill didn't get any notice from the OHV groups was that the initial version had nothing to do with them.

Spot bills are then amended as the author has gathered information necessary to refine their bill into what they really want the bill to say.

Many members of the legisature have no clue of what they have voted for or against on most bills passed. They usually listen to their staff and look on how the Committee(s) voted and then proceed. Frankly, this bill was all about safety and how can someone vote against safety?

As to the other 49 states; California is a bellweather state that has set the tone for other states to follow. I suspect that the industry is working hard behind the scenes in other states for similar legislation. All they need to do is point to what California did.

This is how it worked back in the 1980's when the ATV controversy eventually got CPSC's attention. CPSC had all kinds of public hearings and was set to regulate ATV's out of production.

The industry, much like what we are seeing today, proposed some "model legislation" and presented it to CPSC to ascertain if CPSC would back-off from the regulation if indeed the industry could get laws passed in the states regulating the use of the vehicle.

I, through CORVA, was very involved in this and worked with the late Assemblyperson Doris Allen from Cypress CA on getting the laws passed to save the vehicle type.

I hope this answers your questions.
Once again, I appreciate our response.

Looking at motorcycle helmet laws, only 18 states and the District of Columbia require helmets on riders over 21. I have to believe it will be an uphill battle to get helmet laws passed for a vehicle with seat belts and a rollcage, unless they sneak it by the citizens as California did.

I guess I'm still thinking that CPSC won't be happy until they take away another product for the actions of a few irresponsible idiots.
redcj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 04:44 PM   #43 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Member # 224879
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by LYIN' KING View Post
While understanding your take Paul and having been into this stuff with you, as you know, it is incumbent upon all public land users to assume some personal responsibility for remaining informed of issues that may affect them and not depend solely on our orgs or their members for the initial skinny on every issue.

Looking at over a dozen various UTV forums I use to provide this sort of stuff to, there is STILL little if any mention about this specific topic.

Just an observation . . . no offense intended please.
I fully agree that we all need to make our own efforts. It just appears that this whole thing was kept secret before being passed. There is no way these groups did not know of this legislation. The silence this last week is deafening. I really feel like at this point I'm donating to some of these organizations for no reason. Imo Corva and others knew of this bill and kept quiet because they agree with it. Yes we as a community need to do much better at banding together. The problem as I see it is that we use and donate to these orgs as a way of banding together and to have our voices heard. Well if they are not representing our views then how are they on our side? All these California off roaders sleeping good at night because Corva is fighting for there rights. Guess what Corva watched all this happen and did nothing and still is sitting there doing nothing.
Family man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 04:48 PM   #44 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Member # 32975
Location: Foxfield, Co
Posts: 67
I copied this post off the RZR Forum:

Re: CA - Helmets required and other new bans?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, my name is Tim Itnyre and I'm the Legislative Director for Assemblyman Paul Cook. I've spoken with several of you on the phone over the past couple of days about the significant problems in AB 1595. I've been following the discussions in the forum since yesterday and thought that I owed it to you to reach out directly to explain what happened with AB 1595 and to explain what Assemblyman Cook is doing to fix it.

First, here's the background on AB 1595. Last winter, our office was approached by ROHVA (the sponsor of the bill) with proposed language that would add a definition of "recreational off-highway vehicles" to state code and put in place a couple of basic safety regulations. The regulations as we understood them were basic stuff such as having restraints, having a parent or adult directly supervising in vehicle when you have children younger than 16 driving ROHVs, and some sort of helmet law. These regulations were supposed to be pretty minor and there was already some pressure from state agencies to act on this or there was the prospect of some sort of administrative action with no direct accountability to the voters. Running the bill would head off administrative action and give off roaders a lot more opportunity for input during the legislative process. Additionally, Assemblyman Cook knew that by agreeing to be the author of the bill, he would be able to control its contents. Specifically, as it went through hearings any portions of the bill that the off-road community raised objections to could be modified or eliminated. If necessary, the entire bill could be killed with a single phone call if he was the author.

Unfortunately, the legislative process broke down when the legislature heard nothing from the off-road community during the legislative process. The language that makes up AB 1595 was in print from March 29 until it became law on July 24, and during that time, there was not a single individual, group, club, or off-roading organization that raised any objections to the contents of the bill. Because of this, it went through hearings in 4 different committees and passed off the floor of both houses of the legislature without a single "No" vote. A single call, email, or fax at any point during that process would have caused us to halt the bill and fix or kill it entirely.

I'm not trying to pass the buck on this one, we clearly made a mistake by assuming that the silence of the off-roading community meant that there were no complaints or issues with the contents of this bill. I'm just trying to explain to you how it appeared from our perspective. As far as why AB 1595 started as a tax bill, that was because of a pretty common legislative process known as "gut and amend". Because there are limits on how many bills can be introduced adn when they can be introduced, bills that have stalled or failed are often "gutted and amended" into new bills during the process to deal with new issues that come up. AB 1595's sales tax reduction was dead on arrival in Assembly Tax and Revenue Committee, so we gutted and amended it on March 29 to run the Off-Highway Vehicle Safety bill.

That's all the past though and what we're focused on now is the future. There are several provisions of AB 1595 that have been brought to our attention that need an immediate fix. The following two sections have been the focus of about 90% of the calls and emails that we've recieved:

Section 38603: This is the section requiring that factory-installed seats be used. When we had read the bill and talked with the sponsors and state agencies, we had understood that this was supposed to prevent people from "mad max"-style seats strapped on to vehicles with bungee cords, etc that were inherently unsafe. Over the past couple days, the off road community has done an excellent job educating us about the huge market in after market seating, much of which is even safer than the original factory installed seating. This provision is clearly far too broad and would cripple the aftermarket industry in California while leaving countless California offroaders with vehicles that they can no longer legally use.

Section 38604: This section requires that passengers be able to grab the safety handhold while their feet are on the floor and they are fully strapped or harnessed in. When we talked with the sponsors about the bill, we heard that this was a safety requirement to ensure that the harness worked correctly. Unfortunately, we learned after the bill was signed into law and off-roaders began contacting our office that this will prevent children, indivduals with dwarfism, and possibly even amputees from being able to use ROHVs. This was never Assemblyman Cook's intent and is completely unacceptable to him.

The fix that we are running is simple. Both Section 38603 and Section 38604 will be eliminated entirely. Remember what I wrote earlier in the post about "Gut and amends"? That is the method that I'll be using to run the fix and get it passed in the four weeks remaining in legislative session. I've already begun speaking with committee officials from the relevant committes and they all appear very understanding of the problems with these provisions and open to doing what is necessary to move this bill through over the next four weeks. The fix should be in print on monday or tuesday of next week and as soon as it is, I'll post the bill number for the fix on this forum and let you all know what the first committee that it will be assigned to will be.

One other thing that I'd like to briefly touch on: the helmet provision. Unlike the two sections I listed above, there has been significant division in the position of callers vis a vis helmets. There appear to be three camps that I've heard from so far among off-roaders:

1) Those who more or less support the helmet provision as written.

2) Those who would support some sort of helmet law, but want some changes to it.

3) Those who are opposed to any sort of helmet law.

The debate over helmets and vehicles has been going on in California for at least the past 25 years. With the abbreviated four week timeframe, turning the fix bill into the latest chapter in the helmet battle would almost certainly guarantee that the bill is delayed, which will effectively kill it for the year. I'd rather get the two parts that I know we can fix immediately done. Once we get this fix, I would be glad to help you find an author willing to carry a bill fixing the helmet provisions of the law for next year (since Assemblyman Cook will be termed out of the Assembly this December).

Fixing AB 1595 has become Assemblyman Cook's top legislative priority for the remainder of his time in the Assembly and I will be glad to serve as a direct line of communication either here on the forum or via email (tim.itnyre@asm.ca.gov) or by calling our Capitol Office (916-319-2065) as we move forward.

Timothy Itnyre
Legislative Director
Office of Assemblyman Paul Cook
#315 Today, 09:41 AM

Wonder how ROHVA will react to the proposed changes?
redcj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 05:11 PM   #45 (permalink)
Phobohomic
 
fermentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Member # 55687
Location: sacramento
Posts: 964
Quote:
Fixing AB 1595 has become Assemblyman Cook's top legislative priority for the remainder of his time in the Assembly and I will be glad to serve as a direct line of communication either here on the forum or via email (tim.itnyre@asm.ca.gov) or by calling our Capitol Office (916-319-2065) as we move forward.

Timothy Itnyre
Legislative Director
Office of Assemblyman Paul Cook
#315 Today, 09:41 AM
Tim needs some LOVE!
__________________
Dale
RUBICON ROCK HEADS

______________________________________________

R.I.P. Dennis Mayer. W2DWM. Rubicon Rock Head & Pirate of the Rubicon.

Last edited by fermentor; 08-02-2012 at 05:12 PM. Reason: can't spell
fermentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 09:23 PM   #46 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Member # 224879
Posts: 16
About time the Asa gets on board.


ASA News :* New CA Law Will Impact How You Operate Your SXS
Many people have contacted us to express concerns regarding the newly passed AB 1595 which changes the vehicle code to define a Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle (ROV) and establishes requirements for their operation, which includes requirements to wear helmets, seat belts, driving age limits, physical size requirements and prohibits modifications to add seating.*

In response to the surprise passage of this law, the ASA has been in contact with the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) which is the vehicle manufacturer organization that sponsored AB 1595.* They are currently accepting inquiries regarding the law that will go into effect on January 1, 2013.* All questions should be directed to their Washington, DC office by calling (703) 416-0444 or emailing info@rohva.org. *
*
ROHVA recently released a statement providing further information about the recently passed legislation. "AB 1595 contains five provisions regulating the use of ROVs in California. Each of those requirements directly address hazards identified by the Consumer Product Safety Council in incidents resulting in serious injuries and fatalities. In order to ensure that ROVs continue to be available, and safely used, it is critical that industry and enthusiasts support legislation to ensure the vehicles are used as designed and recommended by the manufacturers."

The California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMVR Division) is the agency responsible for administering the law. The ASA has been in discussions with the Division to determine how they intend to enforce the new law.* At this time, the Division is still int he process of reviewing AB 1595 and will not make an immediate determination until they have adequate time to conduct their review.* In the meantime, the OHMVR Division would like to receive input regarding your legitimate concerns.* They understand that the law is somewhat vague and your input may help them determine the best way to enforce it.

Please note that the OHMVR Division did not create this law, they are the agency responsible for disseminating information to the law enforcement agencies that have to enforce it.* They are creating an email address for the public to submit questions to one central location and it will be available in about a week.* We will provide it to you as soon as it is received. Please be respectful when contacting these agencies.

The ASA has also been in contact with the Yucaipa and Sacramento offices of Assemblyman Paul Cook who carried AB 1595. They are currently working on supplemental legislation to amend items 38603 and 38604 pertaining to ROVs.* A press release was issued by Assemblyman Cook's office responding to the off-road vehicle safety guidelines contained in AB 1595 with the following: "I'm proposing two deletions to this law to address concerns over restrictions on aftermarket seats and passenger height. My goal is to move these clarifications through the Legislature before the end of session." *
*
We've been told the supplemental legislation should receive a bill number early next week.* At that time, ASA will provide our membership the guidance required to contact Assemblyman Cook and your own legislators. If you feel that this legislation is flawed, we will be asking you to take this opportunity to voice your opinion to those who can reverse the negative impacts before they an take effect.

The ASA knows that our members have many concerns regarding this new law. We assure you that we are staying on top of this matter and will keep you up to date on the latest information as it becomes available.
More information regarding AB 1595 can be found on the State of California's Legislative website Here
Family man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 08:54 AM   #47 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Member # 128380
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Family man View Post
I noticed that aphantomduck mentioned earlier that he knew of this a few months ago. My question is why did you not sound the horns and rally the troops then? At the very least mention it somehow to see what people think of it. Even if you agree with the legislation it is still only fair for both sides to know what is going on and to let their voices be heard. Not trying to start crap here with aphantomduck I am just curious why you were silent on this before.
You poise a fair question.

I heard about this in late April from a lobbyist friend. I took a quick peek at the bill and didn't really think too much about it as to me, most of the bill made sense in its form at that time. This version was March 29.

I didn't really take another look at the bill until about mid June, because another lobbyist I know called me and told me that the bill was a done deal and had, or would pass without a Nay vote.

About 1-2 weeks later, a friend called me and told me that this was discussed in the OHV Commission meeting. Once this was announced at the OHV Commission meeting, I would have thought it would be public information and if anyone had an issue (individual or OHV group), they would have brought this up.

One needs to remember that most of the OHV groups in California have a full time lobby presence in Sacramento. ORBA, District 37 AMA Competition, (American Sand Association) and CA4WDC all use or have used Aaron Read and Associates and specifically Terry Mc Hale.

Since none of the groups listed above raises an issue with the bill in the Committee's it was heard in, I was under the assumption that none had any issue with the bill.

Since CORVA does not, at this time, have a full time lobby presense in Sacramento; I went to CORVA leadership on July 10 and asked if I could submit an article for the newletter and web site about the bill as an information piece for the membership. I sent the article to them on the same day. It is now printed in the latest news letter.

On July 26, I posted the same article on glamisdunes.com as an information piece. I wanted to get this information out to the public in the sand community so that they were prepared for the upcoming season.

I suspect most of the news of this bill was spread on other sites after my topic posted on this site and the discussion took a direction.

Currently, there is 250 posts on the above site to the thread I started.

Frankly, I never dreamed of the response my thread would get. I was amazed at the response.

You are correct to ask questions of the groups as to why they didn't know about the bill (especially the one's who pay a lobbyist) and I'd support that.

CORVA is a group that I'm close to and I did my best to inform the membership. By the time CORVA knew anything about the bill, so much water had gone under the bridge, it would have been impossible to stop the train.

I hope this helps.
__________________
Partnership for Johnson Valley - A Division of CTUC
http://www.pfjv.org

Last edited by aphantomduck; 08-03-2012 at 08:58 AM. Reason: Spelling
aphantomduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 11:23 AM   #48 (permalink)
Wheeler
 
UglyJeepThing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Member # 95197
Location: Clarksburg, CA
Posts: 238
For elucidation's sake: The Assemblyman's aide made a mention of the language for the bill being out since March, but that statement is a bit disingenuous.

If you want people to know about the bill, and really want their comments and input, you go to them and ask! It's really that simple.

The first I heard about the bill was at the OHV Commission meeting on June 23rd in Oroville, when great dismay was expressed on behalf of the OHMVR Commission that neither the commissioners, nor the Chief of the Division, Phil Jenkins, was approached or consulted about the language contained therein.

It could be assumed that Assemblyman Cook, or his aides, would be aware of the existence of the Chief, who is the lead law enforcement person in regard to OHV for the State of California, and would by convention or respect seek out his advice, yet neither was done.

Let's not play the 'blame game". No organization, including CORVA , has ANYTHING to gain by keeping any information from their members, nor would we want to. Are we perfect - no, but most of us have been trying really hard to keep up with happenings in the Capitol during this last budget cycle.

If I had know n anything about it, on behalf of my organization I would have said something. What we have done in our analysis of the bill is realize that there are negative implications in the bill that would affect some street-legal vehicles as well, so we've engaged a person with expertise in Jeeps and other 4WD vehicles legislatively to contact Assemblyman Cook's office and work out language that doesn't negatively affect anyone, yet considers all consequences, unintended or not.

The reality is - no one is at fault, the community is not to blame, and neither are any organizations. What we need to do now is work together to make sure the amendments that are proposed are the clearest and best possible.

Amy Granat
__________________
California Off-Road Vehicle Association
The 'kick-ass' organization fighting for your access
UglyJeepThing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 12:26 PM   #49 (permalink)
Pirate4x4 Addict!
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 347
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 10,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyJeepThing View Post
What we need to do now is work together to make sure the amendments that are proposed are the clearest and best possible.
This!
randii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 02:25 PM   #50 (permalink)
MotorsportsSolutions
 
Jeff Knoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Member # 13974
Location: Chaos
Posts: 4,717
X3,


Can I go back to being naive? It was so much easier living in the matrix.
__________________
Northern Nevada's Newest Week-long 4WD Festival,Yes Jeff is back in the Event Business!

Carrera Performance Group, LLC Off Road Solutions, from Marketing to Management
Jeff Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.