FE135

Well, I'll throw my observation out there. The organizers did an outstanding job. Hard to believe I would say that but when you consider all of the curve balls the park police threw down over and over, they needed a case of beer after the event. Every little hiccup with the crowd, airspace, fence, anything caused the police to shut it down. They were excessively strict! Hell, I accidentally departed my little bitty press box by a toe length and got the wrath of the press nazi who was watching us ALL DAY!!!! Someone in the far off distance had their arms over the fence and that caused a shutdown. A radio control airplane got to close to our airspace and shutdown. All those drones with gopros look like predator birds to the Snowy Plover, BAM, SHUTDOWN!!! Drivers meeting at 0730 delayed till about 0900 by park police for all sorts of what I would call anal reasons. Someone got on their control radio frequency and called a red light during a attempted jump. Someone else was messing with them badly on the radio several times. All those idiots who jumped the fence or decided to drive through and all the so called media fakes who would just walk up and claim they were with MTV or some random organization without a freaking camera or vest, SHUTDOWN! Look, the organizers complied with everything. Had plans, time schedules and a monster truck to fill some gaps but had no way of anticipating just how strict the park police would be and other variables such as BJ Baldwin creating his own mini event and not listening to them trying to get him to stop or even stopping the the event because two helicopters were in the area and OMG, do they know about the other one?? They were even guessing the altitude of one and stopping things if they thought he was too low. Guessing mind you! Doesn't matter that they are adhering to established VFR flight rules and are on the same frequency and have altimeters or anything. Absolutely fun sucking over reaching strict! On another note, had fun, meet some big wigs in the magazine world and got some awesome photos. Next stop Idaho.

I guess I should mention that I did not ask about helmets. That would be later once I get their read on the law. My questions were very specific on the legal aspects. I personally think a helmet is a good thing but feel freedom of choice is more important. I can't change the law. I can accept it, but so should law enforcement if it turns out aspects of it are more favorable to us then they thought. Changing the law is a whole different thread and requires effort and a lot of money.

I think ---> would be about right!

Here is part of an email I got back from the Parks department. Didn't think I would get a response back so quickly. I left out names and such. " Neal, Great questions. We have been receiving many questions about these new laws, many of which are on the OHV website under the Q&A sections. Your questions have not been specifically addressed yet. I will discuss this with my chain of command and get back to you next week. If you have any other questions please let me know. I will be in touch," Very interested how they reply.

Well I sent a letter to the California department of parks and recreation asking for clarification on specific parts of CVC section 500. If and when I get a positive (for us) reply, my next step is to take that information and send a letter to San Bernardino county Sheriff's office. If that turns out positive (for us), the BLM will get a letter next mostly to inform them of the reading/clarification. Basically I'm going for clarification of the law itself and enforcement options from the cops. Let's see what happens.

I meant no flame or disrespect. Perhaps a badly worded attempt to lighten things up. I apologize if I came across that way.

I might draft up a letter and run it through my friend Nicole who is with the ASA. She has already been part of the lobbying effort to remove the feet on the floorboard parts of the law. Then send it to the Attorney Generals office. Nothing to loose. I have seen this done before with successful results. The hard part is not looking like your trying to find loopholes in a law when you are. , LOL.

Thanks for reminding me Joe. I forget that this is generally a younger crowd then I and forgot to use the correct vernacular to show that I respect folks opinions even when I don't agree. Here is my happy face, And as I learned on Facebook, everything is ok if you end it with a LOL, LOL!

It's not going nowhere. Discussions like this generated great ideas that enabled Californians to gain back use of guns that were originally banned. It was the exact same scenario. It even led to the formation of CalGuns that has done more for our rights then the NRA. Because of the lessons learned, we could start by writing a correctly worded letter to the Cal department of justice with specific questions on the law. You might be surprised. Or, shut up and put your helmet on and continue to b*tch, moan, and except the incremental-ism till it really hurts. I don't care about the helmet issue by itself. If the group think has set in on "you know what they mean", so be it.

I'm stuck on what your basis is for this statement. Nothing in the law even comes close to this interpretation. Your saying basically that if I as the owner, remove the original engine, and replace it with a different or modified one, it is still the original engine by law because that is what the original manufacturer installed. There is no room for modifications. This interpretation has been proven wrong in parallel arguments in California in regards to cars and even many of the gun laws. The only intent implied by the law is to define a new class of vehicles, the ROV, based on plain text defined features. If one of those features doesn't exist, then it is not in that class anymore. And, "They", came be educated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

Based on what? What fact am I missing? Your shown the statute and it doesn't mean what it says?

The thing is that you have already taken the engine apart and had the kit installed. The proof is in the receipt. Should show everything needed for the judge. Why would he question it further? If its over 1000cc's, win! Then you have case law for everyone. And, you have a judgement to show the next cop who tries to ticket you. They wrote the law with a set of specifics, no wiggle room, I could put an LS1 in there. Now you also need to understand that I'm not a lawyer but as a hobby like to read law opinions, especially appellate and supreme court. So I think I'm highly qualified to render very bad legal advice.

Nowhere in the law does it say that or even reference OEM specs. It is very specific on its criteria. (e) Has an engine displacement equal to or less than 1,000cc (61 ci). I read this as either you do or don't.

Joe, I agree with you. Just be prepared to prove the cc's in court. The cops aren't looking at your engine and are probably trained that if it looks like a SxS, the law applies. You can keep a copy of the law and proof of your engine size with you and it should work with a reasonable officer. I do agree that the law states "Has", as in current cc's. A letter form the builder or a spec sheet with bore and stroke should be enough. Worst case is you pay the $75 fine and take one for the team or best case, you set the precedent for success.

Let me save you the trouble, like I needed an excuse.

Glad you like it! You get a mention at the bottom of the page. I'm working on a project with the magazine that hopefully will let me get more folks pictures in it. Might even be the next issue (???), shhh, it's a secret.

I got to look at an advanced copy of the magazine and the article looks great. Due out in a few days. There is even one picture from Sand Chick in there. They did use a panoramic shot I made to try to get the whole crowd so if you see yourself, post up! If your attending the Sand Sports Super Show in September, this is the issue they give away for free.

The dunes have a fever! Yea it was hot!! Biggest turnout in years for night drags. Even had some pretty badass four strokes show up. I was doing good on getting photos till their light cart overheated. By that point, I didn't need much of an excuse to pack it in myself.

One of my Norway pilots did a strafing run on the range today and we grabbed some bullets. He wanted to send a photo home so I did a quick setup with some copy paper and used a little bounce flash to make the shot more presentable. These are 20mm bullets out of a rotary cannon in the wing root. Something different.

Having the camera on your helmet seeing the visor with the quad moving around underneath reminds me of a first person shooter type game. I felt I could steer you around if I only had a joystick. Nice video, the dunes look great.

You should just email that story and photos to backpacker magazine or similar. Good story!

Nice! And the bikes too!

I didn't use a speedlight. Just a maglite flashlight. My discipline on white balance lacks most of the time. Normally not a problem since I'm looking for a unique look but when it might be important for like the street sign, I cheat. I'll use an adjustment brush to change the temp locally if needed. Nice shot BTW!

I just light them away from the camera so they don't reflect on it.

Since the question of lighting a sign came up I thought you might like this. I'm thinking about entering a local contest and went out and did this about two months ago. The first is the original and the second is the edited for contest version. I went black and white and gritty to give it an old look to emphasise the historic road. I did a few with passing cars but liked this one better. This was taken about 20 minutes after sunset.