Jump to content

Welcome to DDR!

We are your Dumont Dunes community & information source!

New here? Join the community! (You must sign in to post.)

Returning users: Sign In with your display name or email address.

Troubles signing in? Please contact us. Forgot your password? Reset it here.

 

Sign In

Sign in to follow this  
DunerDan

AB 1595 please read! new side x side laws at Dumont (CA)

Recommended Posts

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.

I have been reading this over several times and still keep thinking something is not right. How can they be so stupid as to open themselves up to a ACLU lawsuit. Consider disabled people or kids with no legs.

Look at it this way: 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.

Buckle up those kiddies and enjoy the dunes! Get a helmet though.

Edited by FE135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would say a reasonable enforcer would not harrass a parent for driving around with their child. and may have something to do with trying to state "how" a person should be properly seated more then the fact that a child can't reach the floor. There is no mentions of children and if properly secured with a helmet i don't think they will be bothered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Lets try this one, the manufacturer designed and provided a seat in a specified location on the vehicle. Nowhere does this prohibit an aftermarket seat to be used in the manufacturer specified location. Seats can wear out, need replacement. I'm not forced to use the original manufacturers model as long as it is mounted in the designated location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing in there about aftermarket cages or any other mods. Wear a helmet, be 16 years old if by yourself, get the safety class when one becomes available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would say a reasonable enforcer would not harrass a parent for driving around with their child. and may have something to do with trying to state "how" a person should be properly seated more then the fact that a child can't reach the floor. There is no mentions of children and if properly secured with a helmet i don't think they will be bothered.

Remember the "OR", one side is about seatbelts and shoulder straps. The other side is about a harness. Child seats have a harness. If your kid cant reach the floor, install a harness. Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I think this bill might get thrown out. with it being so specific about the feet on the floor back against the back of the seat it might get thrown...but we will see.

my buddy's wife is only 5'1 and can't reach the floor and handle....

I'm sticking with over 1000cc's. it doesn't say "cc by manufacturer"

I think BLM will only enforce if your being an idiot and unsafe....let's hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the BLM won't bother you if you and a child are seat belted in, with helmets on and they have no real reason to harrass you.

what you smokin? blm not harass. they dont need an excuse they have the power and know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I have been reading this over several times and still keep thinking something is not right. How can they be so stupid as to open themselves up to a ACLU lawsuit. Consider disabled people or kids with no legs.

Look at it this way: 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.

Buckle up those kiddies and enjoy the dunes! Get a helmet though.

Boy I hate the English language sometimes. That word "and" just before shoulder belt may have blown my whole argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what you smokin? blm not harass. they dont need an excuse they have the power and know it.

I think he was referring to Dumont BLM, not those Glamis d*cks. I have never been harassed at Dumont unless I was already being cited for doing something wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well I for one will not change what I am doing. I am not going to invest $1000 in the new cage I was considering. But I will put my kids in helmets and see how it goes.

I have not been harassed at BLM at Dumont EVER. I will say if your being an a$$ be prepared to get a ticket!! and for stuff that other peeps are doing rite next to you but not being a d*ck...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well I for one will not change what I am doing. I am not going to invest $1000 in the new cage I was considering. But I will put my kids in helmets and see how it goes.

I have not been harassed at BLM at Dumont EVER. I will say if your being an a$$ be prepared to get a ticket!! and for stuff that other peeps are doing rite next to you but not being a d*ck...

exactly what I'm hoping for....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My T4 is well equipped with all of the needed safety features except the floor part. It would be great to get a riser they could place their feet on that comes on and off with a quick release type system. They have a grab bar that runs the entire length of the rear seat they hold on too easily but the feet issue is so dumb. Helmets are not an issue since they always wear them when riding. I guess I can throw one on if it came to it. I am not against the safety concerns one bit, but when they try and take the fun away from my kids when I specifically bought this Teryx 4 to bring the family out, that pisses me off!

Edited by 1BADYFZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like they will go off the VIN do saying your over 1000cc's won't get you out of it...

ya that's what I'm against, they're taking the fun away from kids and keeping family's from going riding together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i still think they aren't going to enforce the floor part...i think it's geared towards the drunks fools that stand up, or put their feet on the windsheild area type stuff.

Are they going to tell a Veteran who lost his leg to a IED that he can't ride in the sxs since he only has one foot to put on the floor... I would certainly hope not.

Similar for the kids, if they are seated properly, with helmet and belts i don't think there will be an issue. The "feet on the floor" to me is a poor description of being "properly seated" in the sxs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok we have been calling Paul Cooks office and they are trying to delete the two measures for feet on the floor and adding the fourth seat.

they are also going to rewrite the helmet law and if you have 5 pt you shouldn't need one as it will greatly reduce your field of vision

so we shall see....

Edited by DunerDan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE!!!!!

I just got off the phone with a guy from the Americans with disabilities act. I explained my daughters situation and he said I have a great reason to file a complaint. He was going to make some calls and look into the situation, and here is some more good news

quoted from rhinoforums.net and rzrforums.net

Quote: Originally Posted by Tim.Itnyre

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is cool he took the time to look at the websites and do some research. They obviously didn't put out this bill for review to the OHV community or people would have spoken up.

I just called and Timothy was on another call about this same issue. I talked to a girl that answered the phone. She mentioned they have received maybe 100 calls on this issue this week. It seems they will get the 2 issues fixed, but the helmet law will take effect January 1st, 2013 unless they can delay it. Then address the helmets later.

Edited by Rap_Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to go to the beach for a week to get the wife some R&R. Looks like good things have happened since I last checked in. Being in the market for a RZR XP900 and being 6'4" I definitely do not want to bear the weight or the loss of vision that comes with having to wear a helmet in one of these.

I applaud Col. Cook taking the time to listen to our opinions and maybe even acting on them. Would have been nice for the info in the bill to be up for discussion and out to the public before it was slid through.

Glad they are entertaining our thoughts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think they have a choice. All it would take is one disabled person's lawsuit to kill it. Lets see how long it takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they tried to slide it through, but not a fan of any politician really. I really think they just didn't get the word out properly. Hopefully they will learn a lesson and hopefully even use some of the Forums for input. Now that they have heard from us. :)

I did put my 2 cents in about areas getting closed down to. I forgot to say anything about the OHV funds being robbed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got this emailed to me today:

Off-Highway Vehicles

Update on the AB 1595 Fix

I want to provide everyone with an update on the status of the AB 1595 fix. We have a limited window to get any bill passed, so I have been working closely with the Senate and Assembly Transportation Committees on language that can be passed before the legislature adjourns on August 31. I believe I have been able to reach an agreement on two provisions that will guarantee that come January you will still be able to ride with your kids while using aftermarket seats. It will also provide time for a more complete legislative fix next year.

The fix will remove the provision dealing with passengers' feet being required to touch the floorboards and will delay the implementation of the restrictions on aftermarket seats until July 1, 2013. This will give everyone another 11 months to get a more thorough and permanent fix drafted and passed during the next legislative session.

I expect that we will have a bill for this fix by early next week, at which point I will send out an email to all of you with the bill number. I expect this to move through the legislature extremely quickly and should be headed to the governor's desk for signature before the end of session.

I want to thank the American Sand Association, the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of California's Department of State Parks, the California Off-Road Vehicle Association, and all of the other groups and individuals who have provided assistance to my office in preparing this fix.

Sincerely,

Assemblyman Paul Cook

65th Assembly District

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE

Email i got today

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES

AB 1266 Signed by the Governor Today

I am thrilled to report that today Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1266 into law. I want to thank you all for your advice and support in getting this passed. I could not have done it without you.

AB 1266 removes the language requiring passengers to be able to sit "with both feet flat on the floorboard" while restrained. This will ensure that children can continue to ride, allowing families to continue enjoying off-roading together.

This bill also delays the implementation of the provision prohibiting the use of post-manufactured seats until July 1, 2013. This will give legislators time to work on a solution that would allow operators who have safely modified their vehicles to continue riding.

Now that AB 1266 has been signed into law, my office will work on securing an author for a bill to resolve your remaining concerns. I will update you in the coming weeks on the progress of draft legislation as well as information about which legislators will be carrying the legislation next year.

Thank you again for all of your input and support over the past two months.

Sincerely,

Assemblyman Paul Cook

65th Assembly District

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • image.gif?ctc=DDR

×
×
  • Create New...