Interesting morning, and fruitful, I believe
The origin of the bill came about because of a need to define UTV's in the California Vehicle Code so rules pertaining to their use could be enforceable. There were already ongoing discussions with the CPSC where it was made clear if the industry didn't start regulating the usage of UTV's, more stringent rules would be instituted than the industry may like. AB 1595 was written to solve both these issues. If you read the minutes for the CPSC meeting held 12/15/2010, you will see how the elements in the bill were taken directly from the plans ROHVA presented to the CPSC in response to CPSC concerns: http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/mee...va12152010.pdf
1. I've confirmed the amendments with Assemblyman Paul Cook's office are definitely going through, with the involvement ( and agreement) of the manufacturers. These concern the backseat issues and the feet on the floor conundrum.
2. I have put forth Kyle's name to become a citizen representative for issues relating to UTV's, and attend CSPC meetings and hearings in the future. We should know more about that soon. The way the CPSC hearings are publicized and people notified is eye-opening.
3. The manufacturers won't budge, at the moment, on the helmet law. So we are going to have meetings to present different scenarios, as well as hear their points of view. We have to listen to their reasoning, while countering with well-crafted arguments of our own, and see where a balance can be struck. I already suggested that the requirement for helmets be limited to children, but I also think loosening the requirement on the DOT helmet should be a proposal we make. We need empirical evidence why a certain type of helmet would work, or wouldn't work. Is size an issue? Is visibility an issue?
4. Part of the problem is the way this was pushed through the legislature, in an under-the-table fashion, and the other part is that we just don't know all the facts behind the need for the change. We need to hear from them about this, and I've asked the manufacturers to get us that information. We will have it in a few days.
5. The meetings will take place shortly, with a major goal of repairing relationships. I want them to understand your complaints, issues, problems; and on the flip side the user community has to hear about the pressures they've faced. Getting them to meet with us to present our arguments is a big deal, and I'm glad they agreed.
6. The manufacturers were astounded with the response they received from all of you, without all that pressure I don't think they would have agreed with the amendments.
7. How about putting together an online petition that expresses the feelings of betrayal held by many enthusiasts, and calls on the manufacturers to insure the wants and needs of the community are taken into account, and members of the community are consulted with any further changes to usage?
Please feel free to spread this information around....