Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.

I don't think it would matter one bit if you can prove you increased the CC's, they are based off of the OEM specs, not the changes you made later. There is no way to prove the motor is what you say, without a tear down and even with that, they are still going to go off of original specs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it would matter one bit if you can prove you increased the CC's, they are based off of the OEM specs, not the changes you made later. There is no way to prove the motor is what you say, without a tear down and even with that, they are still going to go off of original specs.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I not worried about what's been beaten to death, I just want to know what the real law is? From my understanding of the English language, the way it's written leans toward current cc's. So, if your engine is built to 1001cc you are legal to not wear a helmet. Would I challenge it, probably not. Do I want to know the law as it's written, of course!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

OK it is very simple and has been shown in other specific, besides how would they know what your motor is, beyond what the manufacturer says it is? I don't see them checking bore and stroke, so what else would they go on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Receipt proves nothing, all they have to go on really is what the manufacturer put in the unit to begin with. You can debate it all you want, but it won't change the fact that they are going to go by what it was when it came off of the show room floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Receipt proves nothing, all they have to go on really is what the manufacturer put in the unit to begin with. You can debate it all you want, but it won't change the fact that they are going to go by what it was when it came off of the show room floor.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they can write the ticket pretty much no matter what, then it's up to you and the judge.

pretty sure they meant anything under 1000cc when built even though that's not what it says. Guessing some LEOs might let you go, but others won't.

For any duners that want to try it out GTP Off Road is happy to install a big bore kit on your RZR and any others to get them above the 1000cc. (we promise nothing in reguards to the laws though) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For any duners that want to try it out GTP Off Road is happy to install a big bore kit on your RZR and any others to get them above the 1000cc. (we promise nothing in reguards to the laws though) :)

There is still no way to verify that you installed this kit or what size kit you put in without a tear down and doing a bore/stroke check and I don't know about you, but I don't want a ranger doing that.

We can debate this, but I bet it is simple, they will go off of what the machine was when it came from the show room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are going enforce the law based on what the manufacturer says the motor size is.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:beatdeadhorse: You guys are going nowhere with this. You can try to challenge it as much as you want, but you know damn well what they mean. Who has the time and money to try and fight the wording of this law in court...on a weekday...in Barstow. Not me. Wear a helmet and shut up. :laughing: Or is it that you want to install a bench seat in the back of a big bore RZR 1000? :blink: Would that even be safe?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the real question is , What exactly are we arguing for? Is it the fact that we just don't like being told that a helmet is required in a SXS or is it the law itself and the fact that the state of California requested no input from the users and OHV advocates? I didn't hear all this when a helmet was required on a 4 wheeler or a Motorcycle so I am just curious. Me personally I don't like being told what I can and can not do, but I like to drive my RZR so I will go along with it and hope that I never have a wreck to see if the law is justified.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought we were actually having a semi intelligent conversation about the ACTUAL law itself, and not "what we think they meant". Like Neal, I like to disect a law and understand it. But oh well, we as Americans have learned to become little sheep,SHUT UP, and lay down for the government. :hello: There, I put a smiley on it to make it less whatever. :idiot:

Edited by JoeDuner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the real question is , What exactly are we arguing for? Is it the fact that we just don't like being told that a helmet is required in a SXS or is it the law itself and the fact that the state of California requested no input from the users and OHV advocates? I didn't hear all this when a helmet was required on a 4 wheeler or a Motorcycle so I am just curious. Me personally I don't like being told what I can and can not do, but I like to drive my RZR so I will go along with it and hope that I never have a wreck to see if the law is justified.

Actually you don't go along with it Terry, you actully knowingly wear an illegal helmet......you are the REBEL, and not the Sheep.... :rockon:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds to me like everyone should stop by the shop and get a big bore/ stroke kit. then everyone can fight it at once.... and we get to install a bunch of kits. :) sounds perfect to me.

all we have to do is the install, it's up to the owner to prove it. but we will help in anyway we can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez Joe, thanks for "outing" me in a public forum. I understand where you are all coming from, however with that being said I am not a resident of that state I just spend my time using their desert to enjoy my hobby. If I need to wear a helmet to keep the LEO's away from me than although I disagree with the way the law was put together there is nothing I as an out of stater can do about it. I can write all the Legal ese letters but as a non resident who does not vote in the state elections I can't see where it would be of any advantage. I however would be much more upset if I lived in a state that passed a law without contacting nor accepting input from those people who it does effect. That is what pisses me off about this law. It also pisses me off that the manufacturers went to the state capital spent a lot of money on lawyers, lobbyist's etc. and pushed this BS through instead of spending that money on actually building a cage that would withstand an accident and built in 5 point harnesses instead of the mickey mouse seat belts that allow an occupant to be put in danger in almost any kind of an incident. Joe you knew this and went and spent the money on a cage, harnesses etc, some people blindly put there faith in the factories and are surprised when the cage collapses.

I am sorry if I don't want to argue the intricacies of the law but i can guarantee that even if you had a Subaru in a SXS and did not have a helmet you would still have to go to court to fight the ticket. Been there fought that to many times in my life. Sometimes being a boulder in the middle of a stream is fruitless. thanks again Joe for the "outing" not that any LEO's read this or anything. :slap:

Edited by ynot
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • VIP RV

×
×
  • Create New...