I have been made aware of this just today.

I'm going to post the basics here and not all the bill as proposed.

What is everyone's thoughts on this?

_________________


BILL NUMBER: AB 134 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Blakeslee

JANUARY 20, 2009

An act to amend Sections 1803 and 12810 of, and to add Section
38304.1 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 134, as introduced, Blakeslee. Vehicles: off-highway motor
vehicles.
(1) Existing law requires the operator of an off-highway motor
vehicle to be able to reach and operate all controls necessary to
safely operate the vehicle.
This bill would prohibit a parent or guardian of a child who is
under 14 years of age, or an adult who is authorized by the parent or
guardian to supervise that child, from granting permission to, or
knowingly allowing, that child to operate an off-highway motor
vehicle in a manner that violates the above-described requirement. By
creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local
program. The bill would require a court, upon a 1st conviction, to
impose a fine of $125. The bill would also impose fines upon a 2nd or
subsequent conviction.
(2) Existing law requires the clerk of a court in which a person
was convicted of a violation of the Vehicle Code to prepare within 5
days after conviction and immediately forward to the Department of
Motor Vehicles an abstract of the record of the court covering the
case in which the person was so convicted.
This bill would expand the Vehicle Code violations that the clerk
of a court is required to report to the department to include
violations of special regulations with respect to operating a vehicle
on public lands, local ordinances prohibiting entry into mountain
fire districts, proper supervision requirements for a child under 14
years of age operating an off-highway vehicle, and proper supervision
requirements for a child under 14 years of age operating an
all-terrain vehicle.
(3) Existing law establishes that specified convictions and
violations under the Vehicle Code and traffic-related incidents count
as points against a driver's record for purposes of the suspension
or revocation of the privilege to drive and that certain other
violations do not result in a violation point count.
This bill would expand the list of violations that do not result
in a violation point count to include violations of special
regulations with respect to operating a vehicle on public lands,
local ordinances prohibiting entry into mountain fire districts,
proper supervision requirements for a child under 14 years of age
operating an off-highway vehicle, and proper supervision requirements
for a child under 14 years of age operating an all-terrain vehicle.
(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.

One short coming from this bill is what happens if the supervising adult isn't a licensed driver? Or isn't a resident of California? Kind of hard for the DMV to include it on their non existant file.

Ride on
Brewster

we do not need more laws... this does not fix any problems... it only gives more revenue bases for our government officials.

I believe that is a big part of this bill IMHO





Ya, no chit. I'm all for safety but don't need the government to protect me from myself.



I really don't understand why they want to ad a point to the driving record of those in fire areas and such. That doesnt make much sense. The whole purpose behind points on the driving record was to identify, and punish I assume, those who commit traffic offenses that involve public safety... ie speeding, red lights, etc.

mixed feelings...

This bill would prohibit a parent or guardian of a child who is
under 14 years of age, or an adult who is authorized by the parent or
guardian to supervise that child, from granting permission to, or
knowingly allowing, that child to operate an off-highway motor
vehicle in a manner that violates the above-described requirement.

Since this law is already in place, they are just putting teeth into it. Not a bad idea really.

(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.

This is cool, since the actuall offenders will be paying the price and not me!

Brewster is right as well, it could be hard to enforce. No provisions for the things he mentioned.

But do we need any more laws on the books??????? Gawd, it's getting outa control....

All of you are right! We don't need more laws!


BUT

Last year, Senator Maldonado introduced legislation that would have affected our children riding their ATVs but it was killed before it came law. We knew that it wasn't over....the same group that asked the Senator would be back trying again....so this year, Assemblyman Blakeslee introduced new legislation with his own spin on it.

There's a long, long history running behind anything ATV and Children related.

Read here for last year's information. http://www.glamisdunes.com/invision/index....=136036&hl=

Current law regarding size restrictions for ATVs only comes under one blanket code, that is CVC 38304



So how did we get to this new piece of legislation?


Currently, a law enforcement officer can only cite the minor for riding without supervision.

This new legislation is a support tool for law enforcement to hold the parent (or supervising adult) accountable. So basically it's a tweak to current law.

Also, something to discuss is the amounts for the fines. Existing fines start at $35. (Don't forget to add in the bail amount which usually quadruples the starting amount)



With this legislation just being introduced, it is being gone through with a fine-tooth comb. More details to come shortly.

If it keeps these 8 yr olds from racing around in Golf carts around camps, then I am for it. Too many kids driving them around with their tippy toes on the gas, they pretty much have to stand up to hit the brakes.

But then again, who let's their kids ride a quad if they can't reach the Brakes?

I vote no....regardless of the dumbass kids

I am firmly opposed to any blanket regulations that use a child's age (or the displacement of an OHV, for that matter) to establish that child's "ability" to ride an OHV. Some four-year-olds (mine, for example... six years ago ) are perfectly capable of operating an appropriate-sized quad. On the other hand, I wouldn't trust some 14-year-olds with anything more complicated than a crayon. Come to think of it, that goes for some politicians too.

The law is fine as it is. It's a judgment call on the part of the observing officer, which is as it should be. Leave it alone, and leave the "nanny state" outta my desert.

My read of this is along the same lines as Vicki C. The basic law is (and has been) in effect for many years. The proposed legislation here puts teeth in it to allow LEO's and the Court's more teeth and hopefully compliance.

It appears to "ratchet-up" an existing law more than create a new one.

If you compare what we could have faced last year (law would have been size/age restrictions based off the manufacturer's recommendation) to this new proposal.....

which would you rather have?

This new proposal still leaves the judgment up to the LEO. Just before, the LEO wasn't able to cite the 5 year old sitting on a banshee.


Let me paint a picture.....

You're sitting right out of you camp...watching your kids ride in the little dunes. Your kids have been riding since they were old enough to squeeze the throttle on the 50 and now they're 7 and 12.

A family and their friends pull up to camp next to you, unload their quads, UTVs, golf carts....and/or all the above. You've been going to the desert a long time, you know when someone is new to the sport...right?

Well next thing you see is their little kids (you really don't know their age, but you can guess) hopping on Dad's 700 another one getting behind the wheel of the rhino but has to sit on the edge of the seat to reach anything...and can't get their seatbelt on properly and they take off to ride around and none of the parents are watching.


A lot of different scenarios can play out from here...right? So I'll start with one that directly affects the responsible parent.



So while you are still hanging with your kids, you hear that 700 getting on it. Just when you look over, you watch that 6 year old go flying over the handle bars and that quad come crashing down on him....he's hurt and needs medical attention.

Regardless if that child is hurt or killed, that accident is documented by the EMS/ER/Drs/etc as an unsupervised child on an over-sized ATV who was injured or killed.


Anyone get where I'm going? I could paint a different scenario at the end but when it's all said and done, what ever happens is used against that responsible parent hanging with their kids, teaching them the right way to ride and advancing them to the next bike when they're ready.

(I'd continue but I need to take my kids to school..gotta go!)

Interesting read this evening.

CORVA has got out to its membership via its web site today about this proposal.

www.corva.org

And from what I've learned, they don't have a lobbyist in Sacramento at this time. Volunteers and members have discovered this. Good job

This is the first OHV org in California that I've seen make a statement about this.

Are we discussing the legislation? Or the orgs performance yet again...





Good points Vic. My son has been riding since he was 4, and he will be 11 this summer. I'd hate to see that family you mentioned roll up next to my camp, for the very reasons you mention.

The stats they have now are what's driving these bills, there are lots of doctors pushing for them, and there is a mom's group out there that is similar to MADD, that is REALLY pushing hard to get some of these bills through. Every one of these mom's has had a child lost to an ATV accident. They are a very scary group of people, and i can say this because I've talked directly to them, they are driven by their loss, and it's sad.

Part of the legislative process is the support or opposition to it.

Hijacked Thread?

Please calm down here Rivermobster. You often demonstrate a propensity towards reading things into what I post, that in reality are lacking adequate foundation.

There is/was no org bashing.

What I posted was nothing more than an observation of factual information and a pat on the back of the volunteers who work so hard to bring us this type of information.

I would have to agree with this law. It gives teeth to the LEO's which means it higher prioritizes it to get these parents to start paying for putting 7 year olds driving a Rhino with other 7 year olds inside and a 3 year old hanging off the passenger side. Saw it happen too many times. This law isn't protecting us against us, it is protecting kids from hurting themselves and punching the parents in the mouth for allowing them to hurt themselves or others.

Sand Tramp, good to see ya back posting here.

From the few I've spoken to or exchanged e-mail's that involve themselves in the state legislative issues, they seem to generally agree with Vicki and you. I'm leaning towards this stance also. I just need a bit more time to digest this proposal as I have some other pressing items on my agenda.

This law is BS..a money making scam for the state..what the state fails to realize is kids are bigger younger, and much more developed younger. Video games are partly to blame for this. (If you call it blame) My 11 yr old rides a 700, and has for 2 years. He reaches all brakes/gears. He is 184 LB and stands 5'7"....I am 6'5"..so my kids are big....
as stated, it comes down to stupid parenting of kids and them driving these rhino's/etc. when they have no business being on them.