Recently, new legislation was introduced in Sacramento, it is known as Senate Bill 1228 and is authored by Senator Abel Maldonado (R-15).

This new legislation attempts to accomplish the following:

• Requires ATV riders to follow guidelines for appropriate sized ATV’s:
  Age 6 and older - under 70 cubic centimeter engine
  Age 12 and older- 70cc to 90cc
  Age 16 and older- over 90cc
  
• Requires riders to provide a safety certificate to law enforcement personnel on demand. Riders are certified through an ATV Rider Course taught by a California licensed instructor.
  
• Extends existing law requiring parental supervision from age 14 to age 16

This applies to public land only, not private lands.

______________________________________________________

On California League of Off Road Voters (CLORV) Lobby Day last week (April 7th), a small group representing CLORV met with Senator Maldonado. In addition, both lobbyist for the various OHV Orgs, Terry McHale and Pete Conaty were present as well as a representative from Blue Ribbon Coalition. We voiced our concerns with his bill and explained why we opposed it unless amended. Here’s a few of the points and stats we talked about:

-Child safety is of great importance to the OHV community. AB 2755 which made parents responsible for the illegal operation of ATVs by children under the age of 14 was whole heartedly supported by the OHV Community.

-ATV related fatalities and injuries in California are markedly lower than in most states in the US. For example:

• California ATV related fatalities per 100,000 population in 2005 was 0.21. (Tied with New Jersey for the third lowest state in the U.S.)

• California ATV fatalities per 1000 ATVs sold in 2004 was 0.62 (the lowest rate for any state in the U.S.)

• In California State Vehicular Recreation Areas, where detailed accident statistics are maintained, OHV injury data for 2003 to 2006 shows that while overall attendance increased by 55%, injuries rates have decreased:

o Injuries overall decreased by 51%
o Injuries due to speed decreased by 47%
o Injuries due to unable to reach controls decreased by 54%
o ATV related injuries decreased by 36%
o Injuries to juveniles under 16 decreased by 63%
o Injuries to juveniles under 16 involving ATVs decreased by 60%

-ATV safety training has clearly played a beneficial role in reducing ATV related injuries and fatalities. The All Terrain Vehicle Safety Institute, a not-for-profit division of the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, was formed in 1988 to implement an expanded national program of all-terrain vehicle (ATV) safety education and awareness.

• When a buyer purchases a new Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA) member company ATV, the buyer and all age eligible family members are offered the ATV Safety Institute’s ATV RiderCourse for free.
• In California, all ATV riders under the age of 18 can take the ATV RiderCourse for free under an agreement with California Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreations Division (OHMVR).

-We acknowledge that the improper use of these vehicles by children can have devastating effects. But this bill, as written, does not take into account the fact that kids come in all sizes, shapes and ability levels. The specific decision as to what size ATV should be ridden by a child is best left to the parent.

-Recent statistics published by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in its “2006 Annual Report of ATV Related Deaths and Injuries” show ATV fatalities nationwide have been decreasing. There was an 11% decrease from 2004 to 2005 and a 17% decrease from 2005 to 2006. (This report can be found at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/atv2006.pdf)

2004 – 745 fatalities nationwide
2005 – 666 fatalities nationwide
2006 – 555 fatalities nationwide

-CPSC data shows that 92 percent of all ATV-related fatalities are the result of warned-against behaviors. These behaviors include: not wearing a helmet, riding on public roads, carrying a passenger on a single-rider ATV, riding the wrong size ATV, youth riding unsupervised, and riding with no formal ATV training.

__________________________________________________


Other points we discussed with the Senator were the following regulations that already exist here in California:

-All-terrain vehicle (ATV) operators under 18 years of age must comply with the following California Vehicle Code requirements when operating an ATV on public lands. The Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMVRD) currently provides funding for ATV safety certificate training for those age 6 through 17. For more information and to sign up for training contact the ATV Safety Institute at (800-887-2887).

-Ability to Reach and Operate Controls
The operator of an off-highway motor vehicle shall be able to reach and operate all controls necessary to safely operate the vehicle. (CVC 38304)

-Conditions for Operation: Minors
No person under the age of 18 years shall operate an all-terrain vehicle on public lands of this state unless the person satisfies one of the following conditions:

(a) The person is taking a prescribed safety training course under the direct supervision of a certified all-terrain vehicle safety instructor.

(b) The person is under the direct supervision of an adult who has in their possession an appropriate safety certificate issued by this state, or issued under the authority of another state.

© The person has in possession an appropriate safety certificate issued by this state or issued under the authority of another state (CVC 38503).

-Conditions for Operation: Additional Requirements
No person under 14 years of age shall operate an all-terrain vehicle on public lands of this state unless the person satisfies one of the conditions set forth in Section 38503 and, in addition, is accompanied by and under the direct supervision of a parent or guardian or is accompanied by and under the direct supervision of an adult who is authorized by the parent or guardian (CVC 38504).

38504.1. (a) Neither a parent or guardian of a child who is under 14 years of age, nor an adult who is authorized by the parent or guardian to supervise that child shall grant permission to, or knowingly allow, that child to operate an all-terrain vehicle in a manner that violates Section 38504.

(b) A person convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) is punishable as follows:
(1) For a first conviction, the court shall either impose a fine of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125) or order the person to take or retake and complete an all-terrain vehicle safety training course pursuant to Section 38501. If ordered to take or retake and complete the safety training course, the person shall provide the court a copy of the all-terrain vehicles safety certificate issued as a result of that completion.
(2) For a second conviction, a fine of not less than one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125) nor more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
(3) For a third or any subsequent conviction, a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500).

SEC. 2. Section 38504.2 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read: 38504.2. If a person under 14 years of age was not properly supervised or accompanied in accordance with Section 38504, and the parent or guardian of that child or the adult who was authorized by the parent or guardian to supervise or accompany that child is in violation of Section 38504.1, upon a conviction pursuant to Section 38504, the court may order that child to attend and complete the all-terrain vehicle safety training course accompanied by the person who violated Section 38504.1. If so ordered, the child under 14 years of age shall provide the court a copy of the all-terrain vehicles safety certificate issued as a result of that completion.

__________________________________

Senator Maldonado isn’t the only one we shared the stats and current laws with, but they were given to each representative that was visited by the attendees of Lobby Day too.

The following introduced language can be found here, SB 1228 – Introduced Version

SB 1228 was scheduled to go before Senate Appropriations tomorrow, April 14th according to the Bill Status but the Senate Appropriations Agenda states otherwise.

I’m not sure why it’s not on the Agenda, I’d like to think it’s because Senator Maldonado pulled it to (at the very least) make amendments instead of an oversight but I am not 100% sure. I will make phone calls tomorrow morning to gather more information.

So this verbage is still in the bill as it stands?? Thank you for working on this!!!


(2) The person is in possession of a safety certificate issued
pursuant to Section 38501 or issued under the authority of another
state.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a person under 12 years
of age shall not operate an all-terrain vehicle that is of a size
that displaces more than 70 cubic centimeters.
(2) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a person 12 years of age or
older but under 16 years of age shall not operate an all-terrain
vehicle that is of a size that displaces more than 90 cubic
centimeters.

Yes, it's still there.


Also, the way it's written makes for a minor unable to take the prescribed safety course on public lands too.


A person under 16 years of age shall not operate an all-terrain vehicle on public lands of this state unless the person satisfies all of the following conditions:

(1) The person is accompanied by, and under the direct supervision
of, a parent or guardian or is accompanied by, and under direct
supervision of, an adult who is authorized by a parent or guardian.


(2) The person is in possession of a safety certificate issued
pursuant to Section 38501 or issued under the authority of another
state.

(b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a person under 12 years
of age shall not operate an all-terrain vehicle that is of a size
that displaces more than 70 cubic centimeters.
(2) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a person 12 years of age or
older but under 16 years of age shall not operate an all-terrain
vehicle that is of a size that displaces more than 90 cubic
centimeters.

That is going to duck for alot of people who's kids are already on bikes bigger than they are allowed. My kids have been riding since they were 2, so I felt like I knew when they were ready to move up. I would hate to have to get rid of the bikes because they are too big for the kids. My daughter is almost there, but my sone has a few years to go.

So you are telling me that when I was 15 years old at 5'11" and 200 lbs that a 90cc bike would be the safest bike for me. I highly doubt that. I think a fullsize bike would be much safer for a 15 year old who is larger that the average man than a 90 cc bike would be. The raptor 700 I have now is dialed in for someone who is 175 lbs. How does this bill make sense. If a teenager or younger can ride safely ride the bike then let them. My oldeset (2years old) will be on a 50 next year after spending the last two seasons on plasitc quads. Teach them how to ride young and they will be safer and better riders as they grow older.

I completely understand your feelings, I too have kids that ride ATVs that they would no longer be able to ride (6yr old on a trx90 and 11yr old on trx250ex) if this bill was to pass. It's a scary reality that we parents are facing.


We'll continue to work with the author of the bill to remove the age to engine size restrictions. He really supports children under 16 to be under direct supervision of a parent/guardian....that part of the bill will be a tough battle.

Thank You...

Unfortunately, yes, that's what I'm telling you. It is felt strongly by the medical community (American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Pediatricians, California Medical Assoc) that children under 16 years old should not even be on ATVs but if they are, then they should be following the guidelines pointed out in this proposed legislation. I'm with you dawg53, to us responsible parents, this bill doesn't make sense.....why are we to be punished for the irresponsibility of others?

This bill is very sensitive. While we don't want to look like we're OK with killing children by opposing it, we want these decisions of age/size/ability to be left for the parents. The stats are our defense. (We've also pointed out, large children on small ATVs cause a risk for injury too)

More history on this bill. The sponsor of the bill is an Emergency Room Physician at the hospital near Oceano Dunes. He's been trying to get legislation on the books for some time. He's a constituent of Senator Maldonado's.


If you had to give on this bill, would you agree with mandatory safety classes for children? Or having children to be under direct supervision of a parent/guardian until age 16?

No kidding! Naturally this comes around just as we were ready to start thinking about a bigger quad for Jordan. If this were to pass, he would no longer be able to ride his 90 and we'd have to get him a 70. He is way too big for a 70 and actually is getting too big for his 90.

Who do we need to contact to respectfully show our disagreement with the current verbage of the bill?

By the way, SB 1228 didn't go before Senate Appropriations today. It's still not on the Agenda for next week but that can change at any time. Let's hope they're working on amending this bill.

I don't think mandatory safety classes would be that bad. We all have to go through driver's ed and driver's training to drive a car. Now I don't think a license type deal is appropriate but I would send the kids to a safety class to allow them to continue riding.

I would give on the safety courses for my kids if that means there is no size restriction. Everyone would probably learn a thing or two in the safety course even the seasoned rider.

When you folks contact your legislative representitives, here's some adolescent injury statistics to show that the "acceptable" sports send MANY kids to the doctors:

http://www.lpch.org/DiseaseHealthInfo/Heal...escent/sis.html

Ride on
Brewster

Im ok with the safety class if they are available. Availability seems to be an issue for the current class. I am also ok for supervision, but I dont agree with it being parent until 16- perhaps authorized adult ( over 18? 25?) up to 14 or 15? Reason being- some of us no longer ride but my 16 yr old kid goes with his uncle or one of my friends on many rides without me. I wouldnt want the boy stuck in the little dunes by camp because I cant see him. Also, at 16 kids can legally drive a vehicle on the road- Im still way more nervous with him behind the wheel than on a quad. Seems unfair to restrict legal drivers of age...


Thanks for getting this info out!

Vicki:

Other than the age stuff, I believe that safety classes have been mandatory for some time.

i dont mind the adult supervision. your kid cant drive alone on the street unless he's 16, why should off-road be any different?

its a whole lot more dangerous riding off-road. ill try and always have my kids close to me.

besides, whats better than dune'n with your own kids???

Safety classes mandatory - Absolutely (my kids already took it)
Supervision up to 16 years old - I have to agree with that one. You wouldn't send someone under 16 out on to the streets where there are laws and rules so why would you send them out ATVing where the rules of the road are non-existent for the most part?
Engine size to age - Written by someone who has no clue what any of those bikes look like. Putting a 14 year old on a 90CC is asking for injury.

Seems to me, maybe the state needs to give the current law (it just recently went into effect, right?) time to demonstrate its effectiveness, before imposing yet another poorly-researched mandate on their constituents. Perhaps the documented drop in fatality and injury rates indicates that legislation like this might be overkill (for lack of a better word)?

I don't have a problem with requiring some level of mandated education and proficiency testing, or a "license" requirement. Ditto any requirement for direct parental supervision. Parents should be watching their kids ride, at the very least... really ought to be riding with them, but I'll make allowances for age and infirmity...

My daughter (9) just moved up to a 90... after passing the Rider Safety Course appropriate for her age last summer (on her 50) with flying colors. Why did she do so well on the test? Because she has a) been riding since she was 4; b) is constantly supervised (and instructed) while she rides; and c) constantly demonstrates the level of responsibility necessary to continue her riding privilege. We don't use the quad as a baby-sitter. Frankly, being able to take family rides together has probably saved my marriage, hopefully to a greater extent than the sandrail has endangered it

Seriously tho... I'd like Senator Maldonado to explain to my daughter, face to face, why he feels that she's no longer qualified to go on "family putts."

Thanks to each of you for sharing your thoughts about this proposed bill. So far we're all pretty much on the same page about safety and supervision. Of course, no new regulations would be best but if that's not possible, we have to have ideas about what we're OK with.....and all of the responses so far show that each of you are responsible parents.

We also agree that the age/engine size restrictions are unacceptable.


SB 1228 goes before Senate Appropriations next Monday, April 21st.

Well, kind of mandatory. If a family of 4 were out riding, somewhere out of that mix, there has to be a safety certification. If at least one of the parents had it, then both kids are riding legally. Or if both children had their own certifications, they'd still be compliant to the following.



The new proposed legislation would mandate the safety course for the minor. But here's something....the new language doesn't account for the minor taking a safety course on public lands.....did they do that on purpose? or was that an oversight?

SB 1228 is on the Agenda today to be heard before Senate Appropriations.

If anyone is interested in watching, here's the link:

http://www.calchannel.com/MEDIA/encode_3.asx

So what happened??

The Bill went to "Suspense".

Now the fiscal impact will be looked at. Once that is done, it will go before committee again to be heard. That is when the members will hear the bill, hear from those is support and in opposition as well as Dept. of Finance regarding how much money it's going to cost.

Still no amendments.

Here's the latest analysis:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/s...0_sen_comm.html