DUNERS was invited to attend a noise level workshop, so Tom Simrak, DUNERS board member and all around good guy, sat through a seminar presented by California State Parks yesterday regarding the new noise level restrictions.

One of his first comments was how strongly this was backed by everyone in attendance. He also said he was encouraged by how much of the manufacturing community is rising to the occasion. Seems the race is on to devise modifications or something that would keep us all from having to re-purchase expensive systems.

While speaking to an officer from the IV Sheriff's Dept. Tom mentioned that Glamis lovers pretty much feel this is an unnecessary restriction for wide open areas like Glamis and he was told that if exceptions are made for one area, you have to make them for all areas.

Actually, I strongly disagree with that or else we wouldn't have different speed limits for school zones.

Don't get me started :rant:

I don't know if Tom's going to post more about this here, but there is a discussion taking place about this on the DUNERS BBS if you're interested.
http://www.hostboard.com/duners/ubbthreads...n=1006#Post1013

Seems buggies can rest easy for now but the rest of us will be ticketed by all other LEOs besides the BLM, who has said they will use this season to educate, not regulate.

Vicki

QUOTE

the new noise level restrictions.

Can you say [b][size=24]BULLSHIET! >:<

I don't think we should refer to the Imperial County Sheriffs as law enforcement. They should be called graft collection agents. I bet the ones who support this the most are the same ones who enjoy going into bars and ticketing old ladies for smoking.

And I am not talking about the graft that they will get from the tickets, I am talking about the graft from the OHMVR commission that they are so willing to fuck over their fellow man for.

QUOTE

Seems buggies can rest easy for now but the rest of us will be ticketed by all other LEOs besides the BLM, who has said they will use this season to educate, not regulate.

Where do you get this from?

According to the California Vehicle Code:

QUOTE

(1) Noise emissions of competition off-highway vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1998, shall be limited to not more than 96 dbA, and if manufactured prior to January 1, 1998, to not more than 101 dbA, when measured from a distance of 20 inches using test procedures established by the Society of Automotive Engineers under Standard J-1287, as applicable. Noise emissions of all other off-highway vehicles shall be limited to not more than 96 dbA if manufactured on or after January 1, 1986, and not more than 101 dbA if manufactured prior to January 1, 1986, when measured from a distance of 20 inches using test procedures established by the Society of Automotive Engineers under Standard J-1287, as applicable.

QUOTE

Definitions 38012.   (a) As used in this division, \"off-highway motor vehicle subject to identification\" means a motor vehicle subject to the provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 38010. ( As used in this division, \"off-highway motor vehicle\" includes, but is not limited to, the following:   (1) Any motorcycle or motor-driven cycle, except for any motorcycle which is eligible for a special transportation identification device issued pursuant to Section 38088.   (2) Any snowmobile or other vehicle designed to travel over snow or ice, as defined in Section 557.   (3) Any motor vehicle commonly referred to as a sand buggy, dune buggy, or all-terrain vehicle. (4) Any motor vehicle commonly referred to as a jeep.

QUOTE

Where do you get this from?

I'm not sure which "this" you mean, so I'll try to answer both parts

If the "this" is buggies resting easily this year...

They do not have the equipment for testing buggies yet... and basically they're just not sure how to quite go about it. The regulation leaves too much room for interpretation as to exhaust and noise regarding buggies. That's what was said at yesterday's meeting and, being the overly cautious girl that I am, I confirmed it this morning. A study is being conducted and the results will be presented to the OHMVR division which will in turn be presented to the stakeholders and then maybe a system will be designed by next year. Maybe not.

It was also stated (I haven't confirmed this part) that the noise regulation itself addresses motorcycles and quads specifically but not buggie.

As for the BLM educating and not regulating, that has been stated over and over and over again. The problem is, the other LEOs out at the dunes. DUNERS is working on this problem... keep your fingers crossed. The rules have changed this year and where only 50% of the ticket money earned at Glamis would go to Imperial County, now a full 100% goes to the county. It's logical, but for the poorest county in California it makes it awfully tempting to use that to fill the coffers. Again, DUNERS is working on this and we'll keep you posted.

Vicki

I don't have faith that even DUNERS can stand between a whore and his money.

This whole state has become a whore >:<

If you just take without paying that's rape

ewwwwwwww :x

Someone should wash your mouth out.

Once a Troll always a Troll. Sheesh.

Vicki

QUOTE

It was also stated (I haven't confirmed this part) that the noise regulation itself addresses motorcycles and quads specifically but not buggie.

Ok, well... I posted the actual regulation above and it is very clear. Off-Highway Vehicles are subject to this new test and Off-Highway Vehicles includes vehicles "commonly referred to as dune buggies".

Thanks Vicki...

Vor

QUOTE

QUOTE It was also stated (I haven't confirmed this part) that the noise regulation itself addresses motorcycles and quads specifically but not buggie. Ok, well... I posted the actual regulation above and it is very clear. Off-Highway Vehicles are subject to this new test and Off-Highway Vehicles includes vehicles "commonly referred to as dune buggies". Thanks Vicki... Vor

Interesting. Then maybe the confusion is only in the "how" to regulate buggies. At least, that's what the study is supposed to address.

Tom has more information. According to his post on DUNERS:

QUOTE

As of now, one county is NOT testing buggies. reason is because the law is worded as \"motorcycles and ATV's\" this will change someday. But for now it limited to bikes, not buggies. That does not say a ranger wont test you anyway and write a ticket. He might. There is a law that states buggies \"shall at all times be equipped with a silencer or other device.\" But it doesn't limit the dbA on a buggy.

Following this train of thought, it would be up to the buggy owner that gets a ticket to decide if they want to pursue it in front of a judge.

Remember, in the eyes of the legal system, the LEOs are NOT responsible for determining the validity of a law or even their own actions. They act and a judge determines if it was worthy or if the facts support the action/citation.

Vicki

QUOTE

As of now, one county is NOT testing buggies. reason is because the law is worded as \"motorcycles and ATV's\" this will change someday. But for now it limited to bikes, not buggies. That does not say a ranger wont test you anyway and write a ticket. He might. There is a law that states buggies \"shall at all times be equipped with a silencer or other device.\" But it doesn't limit the dbA on a buggy.

What law is being referred to? The CVC plainly states "Off-Highway Vehicles" and makes no mention whatsoever of "Motorcycles and ATV's".

QUOTE

Remember, in the eyes of the legal system, the LEOs are NOT responsible for determining the validity of a law or even their own actions. They act and a judge determines if it was worthy or if the facts support the action/citation.

They may not be responsible for determining the validity of a law but they are CERTAINLY responsible for their own actions. An officer cannot VIOLATE the law in the process of UPHOLDING the law.
And, just as you or I cannot use the excuse "But, I didn't know it was against the law"... neither can an officer say... "But, That's what I THOUGHT the law said."
If an officer violates your rights while in the process of doing his duty then he has broken the law and is subject to civil and maybe even criminal lawsuits.

Vor

QUOTE

If an officer violates your rights while in the process of doing his duty then he has broken the law and is subject to civil and maybe even criminal lawsuits. Vor

You're right, but it won't be determined while you're head-to-head with him in the sand.

It will be determined in a court.

No one has said they would or should be allowed to violate any laws while they uphold the one they've pulled you over for, only that it is not up to them to decide if a law/regulation that is on the books is valid or right or "good." If they act on a law/regulation that is on the books and you feel they had no cause or purposely misread the law/regulation, tell it to the judge.

Vicki

Pulling me over or subjecting me to a search when an officer has no probable cause is a violation of my rights, granted in the Constitution.

I never said I am advocating not cooperating with law enforcement officers. What I am trying to figure out is what is legal and what is not so that when I DO end up in court it is the Law enforcement officer who is wrong and not me.

The best test of this law is going to be the fifth amendment test. Am I within my rights to refuse to start my vehicle for the officer because in doing so I may incriminate myself?

It has been said that there are provisions in the CVC for dealing with uncooperative tests. That will be my next search.

Is an officer entitled to impound your vehicle if you refuse to start it for his test? Is he entitled to start it himself? How far does probable cause allow the officer to go?

Also, how is the state able to get a law passed that makes perfectly legal vehicles all of a sudden, illegal? As far as I know the Constitution forbids this, also. Another test for the courts!

Vor

I really hate this, I cant always answer things here because my home pc doesn't get this page. computer error i guess. I have to post my replys on the other pages. But i have a minute here.

Vor, as I read what you have posted ref the veh code sections, one section you posted apply to sound limits, it does not specify buggies. the other section you posted applys to registaration. Dont mix up your sections. the sound section does not state anywhere that it applies to buggies.

Vicki, because I cannot normally get this page on my internet at home, maybe you could forward questions to me or refer thenm to duners where aI can answer them from home.
Sorry for the hassle.

It's no hassle Tom, will do

Thanks for all the time you're putting into this. I'm thinking DUNERS needs to set up some neighborhood meetings to help spread the word!

Vicki

[quote]If you just take without paying that's rape[/quote]


Show me an instance where the State doesnt take the opportunity to take from the Public?

[quote][quote]If you just take without paying that's rape[/quote]


Show me an instance where the State doesnt take the opportunity to take from the Public?[/quote]

That is the nature of all government. To take. That is all it has to offer. Force.

And Brian, the Constitution does not "grant" you rights. It was meant as a constraint against the government taking away those rights that are naturally yours.

I have someone researching this issue. The preliminary information indicates there are ways to fight this, at least for Glamis.

So you DUNERS members out there... I need to hear from you about this before we spend too much time on it.

Vicki

[quote]If you just take without paying that's rape[/quote]

So you support prostitution. Must be something that runs in your ancestry.

QUOTE

QUOTE If you just take without paying that's rape So you support prostitution. Must be something that runs in your ancestry.

RIGHT ON JET! :bounce: That's some funny shiot!

It is hard for one to not support that from which they came.