Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

DISTRICT OFFICE 34932 Yucaipa Blvd. Yucaipa, CA 92399 909-790-4196, 909-790-0479 fax

CAPITOL OFFICE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the post Mr. Cook. That is good news!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the post Mr. Cook. That is good news!

Sorry, i'm not Mr Cook. I just copied text from his email. Read it carefully, they still are outlawing aftermarket rear seats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is NOT acceptable! It look's as is the foot on the floor boards is being removed. But all he is doing is delaying the modified rear seat until July 1, 2013. At that point he is long gone and out of office.

He then says "This will give everyone another 11 months to get a more thorough and permanent fix drafted and passed during the next legislative session."

No all that gives is more time for the lawyers and manufactures to get more support and then they can re-introduce the foot on the floor and modified rear seat issues.

START CALLING AND TELL PAUL COOK THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH! THIS IS A STALL TACTIC UNTIL HE IS OUT OF OFFICE AN POSSIBLY IN CONGRESS

THIS JUST MEANS OUR FIGHT WILL CONTINUE THROUGH JULY 1st 2013!

Also after this letter came out of Cook's office I called the Capitol office and I asked them who is going to take this on once Cook is out of office?

They said there are two or three Assemblymen willing to continue with this next year. One being Manual Perez (District 80 Imperial Valley) someone from District 5 and third she could not tell me as she was not sure of the name.

I asked them to please post who these people are so we will know. If not we will continue to call Cook's office. She said she expects their office will write some sort of letter explaining who is going to continue working this bill in 2013. They want those Assemblymen to be ready for all the calls as Cook has been getting slammed since this law became public knowledge. She expects who ever takes over fixing this for Cook will be getting hammered by phone calls too.

Assemblymen Brian Jones is a huge OHV guy, I will call him and beg that he considers taking this on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With freedom comes a lot of responsibility. Too bad so many people have given up so many of their freedoms for security. This is the type of $hit we can look forward to in the future as so many people rely on the government to regulate, replenish and financially support their lives, bank accounts and cupboards. Thank you government for sucking a$$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the helmets ? Is that still going to be law.....Putting a 2 lb weight on a kids head is asking for a neck injury in the back of a SXS.

This entire thing is :bs:

:poule:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With freedom comes a lot of responsibility. Too bad so many people have given up so many of their freedoms for security. This is the type of $hit we can look forward to in the future as so many people rely on the government to regulate, replenish and financially support their lives, bank accounts and cupboards. Thank you government for sucking a$$.

Ding Ding Ding... that rang the bell - Nicely said

Too many laws, too much big Government - vote out the Big government folks, and lets keep fighting on this one.

Its funny how most people have not felt the loss of freedom over the last several years until now when it hits home.

I have become more of a constitutionalist over the last couple years, and all this scares me. If they end up showing one slanted story that this law somehow saved a life, this will just be the beginning. I can see off road 25MPH speed limits next...

Edited by fullthrottleguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for maximum freedom, minimum regulations.

Here is the problem. A lot of people got injured or killed driving UTVs that rolled over.

Do we ignore these deaths and injuries? Chalk it up to natural selection? That works for me, since I personally never felt that model was safe, and never bought one. But that train of thought then leads to the conclusion that certain people shouldn't drive UTVs. Do we just leave it at that? Some people are just naturally going to die trying to have fun off roading?

Or do we (as a nation) ask the gov't to try to help those who just can't seem to help themselves? Seriously, people have died, so do we act like nothing happened, or do we try to solve the problem?

I don't think this legislation is the answer. I feel the mfrs shold make safe vehicles, and if they won't do it voluntarily, then someone like the CPSC will make them. After all, that's what the agency was founded for.

So what is the right answer?

1. Let mfrs build what they want and let people figure out for themselves which vehicles are safe and how to drive them.

2. Force people to take a lesson in driving a UTV off road.

3. Enact a testing program that won't issue an off road license until one passes a performance test.

4. Test vehicles for safety and recommend changes to make them safer (this is the option the CPSC chose).

5. Write legilation like this that doesn't address the real issue, but places restrictions on operators. (This is the option the mfrs, via ROHVA, chose.)

There may be other options, I'm open to suggestions.

Which is the best choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a cage and a seat belt. Use them.

Screw the helmets. I can see where the bolting of a cage and a back seat can be a problem for the manufacturers, as they woudl probably get sued even if they didnt install it. Other than that the govt needs to butt out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The modified rear seat law has nothing to do with lawsuits and everything to do with selling the 4 seaters made by the manufactures.

If people in other states don't think a similar law is coming to them in the near future, they are foolish. The manufactures want this in every state!

Unfortunately, the manufactures think they can isolate themselves from lawsuits. However, nothing will change as people will continue to sue and lawyers will find loopholes to make it happen (that is why they are hired). If the law was black and white and there were no gray areas there would be no need for lawyers.

If the manufactures want the lawsuits to stop, then stop paying out and take these claims to trial and win. When plaintiff's lawyers see they are in for a fight and it will not be a quick endeavor less are willing to take it on. Lawsuits are expensive for both sides. A Plaintiff's attorney must front the cost of experts, depositions and court cost in hopes of a recover. If there is no recover, there is no money coming in to cover the cost. This weeds out the lawyers who are in it for nothing but a quick buck. You will only see a few law firms big enough to absorb the cost take on these cases and they will be very selective in the ones they do take on.

Also, if the legislatures would make plaintiff's responsible for payment of all parties cost (if they lose), you would see a huge reduction in lawsuits. The average person will not take a chance on a marginal or B.S. claim.

Edited by Sand Shark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In everything, balance.

That's the problem with trying to legislate safety. Laws are by nature black and white; often it seems that by legislating (or prohibiting) certain behaviors, one loses the middle ground that common sense would dictate.

Everyone has to wear a helmet? Even an infant? We can say without too much fear of contradiction that the added weight of a helmet on an infants' neck would likely cause fatal injuries in an otherwise-survivable wreck. (That said, I'm a big proponent of helmet use, and STRONGLY suggest that any passengers in my rail wear theirs. I always wear mine.) Feet have to touch the floor? What if I HAVE no feet, being an amputee, and bought a UTV for that very reason? Or maybe I'm a midget. No four-seat cages? I'd bet that some mfrs cages exceed the OEM safety factor by a significant margin, even with the added passenger capacity. I can say for certain that the use of aftermarket seats and four-or-five-point belts greatly increases the safety factor over OEM equipment in UTVs, having been subject to moderate impacts in both scenarios.

Bottom line, this line of thinking gets us into the silliness that we see at Glamis, where hypervigilant enforcement of every conceivable regulation leads to a lot of bent egos and empty wallets, with no appreciable effect on the fatality rate.

I believe in a reasonable level of regulation; if you build a four-seat cage, it should perform to a certain standard of safety with respect to rollover protection and occupant safety. This standard could be statutory, like federal seat-belt laws for automobiles; voluntary, like CPSC compliance; or an industry standard, like UL listings. The latter two, of course, are wholly dependent on the industry being willing to police itself as an alternative to legislation.

I like the middle-ground approach; I'm aware that the manufacturers recommend, and the CPSC concurs, that my daughter should be at least 16 to operate her 400 quad. I accept, on her behalf as her parent, the risk inherent in providing that vehicle to her at 13. I appreciate that the government allows me as a responsible parent to take into account the totality of her experience, training, and maturity level to make the determination that she is indeed capable of safely operating that vehicle.

As far as the Darwinian aspect of the sport... anytime you mix flesh and bone with steel moving at speed, you create the potential for injury and/or death. To some extent, it's that knowledge that makes the sport attractive; the adrenaline rush. I hate to see anyone get hurt or killed, but the reality is that no matter how much the government tries to bubble-wrap us, some people will die doing this.

One could argue that by legislating safety standards the government is actually making off-roading more dangerous, by attracting less-capable people with the implicit guarantee that the activity is "safe." That's one of the knocks on UTVs as a vehicle class, since they require less talent and training to operate than a quad. You could also apply that thinking to quads vs. ATCs, or ATCs vs. motorcycles... the logical progression goes on.

My $.02...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Amy with CORVA,

Interesting morning, and fruitful, I believe

The origin of the bill came about because of a need to define UTV's in the California Vehicle Code so rules pertaining to their use could be enforceable. There were already ongoing discussions with the CPSC where it was made clear if the industry didn't start regulating the usage of UTV's, more stringent rules would be instituted than the industry may like. AB 1595 was written to solve both these issues. If you read the minutes for the CPSC meeting held 12/15/2010, you will see how the elements in the bill were taken directly from the plans ROHVA presented to the CPSC in response to CPSC concerns: http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/mee...va12152010.pdf

1. I've confirmed the amendments with Assemblyman Paul Cook's office are definitely going through, with the involvement ( and agreement) of the manufacturers. These concern the backseat issues and the feet on the floor conundrum.

2. I have put forth Kyle's name to become a citizen representative for issues relating to UTV's, and attend CSPC meetings and hearings in the future. We should know more about that soon. The way the CPSC hearings are publicized and people notified is eye-opening.

3. The manufacturers won't budge, at the moment, on the helmet law. So we are going to have meetings to present different scenarios, as well as hear their points of view. We have to listen to their reasoning, while countering with well-crafted arguments of our own, and see where a balance can be struck. I already suggested that the requirement for helmets be limited to children, but I also think loosening the requirement on the DOT helmet should be a proposal we make. We need empirical evidence why a certain type of helmet would work, or wouldn't work. Is size an issue? Is visibility an issue?

4. Part of the problem is the way this was pushed through the legislature, in an under-the-table fashion, and the other part is that we just don't know all the facts behind the need for the change. We need to hear from them about this, and I've asked the manufacturers to get us that information. We will have it in a few days.

5. The meetings will take place shortly, with a major goal of repairing relationships. I want them to understand your complaints, issues, problems; and on the flip side the user community has to hear about the pressures they've faced. Getting them to meet with us to present our arguments is a big deal, and I'm glad they agreed.

6. The manufacturers were astounded with the response they received from all of you, without all that pressure I don't think they would have agreed with the amendments.

7. How about putting together an online petition that expresses the feelings of betrayal held by many enthusiasts, and calls on the manufacturers to insure the wants and needs of the community are taken into account, and members of the community are consulted with any further changes to usage?

Amy

Please feel free to spread this information around....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Friday! This has not gone away!

Call Paul Cook and ask why we have not been told the new bill number. Let him know you think his office is stalling and if this does not get passed you will do what ever you can to support Gregg Imus for Congress!

FIND YOU STATE REPRESENTATIVES

http://192.234.213.69/amapsearch/

Paul Cook Assemblymen & author of the bill (Let them know if this is not fixed you will support Gregg Imus for Congress!)

909-790-4196 main office

916-319-2065 Capitol office

V Manuel Perez 80th district Assemblymen (Imperial Valley & Glamis)

760-336-8912 El Centro office (They need more calls!)

916-319-2080 Capitol office (They need more calls!)

Brian Jones 77th district Assemblymen (San Diego County including Anza Borrego & Cleveland National Forest) (Off-Roader himself)

619-441-2322 Santee office

916-319-2077 Capitol office

Juan Vargas District 40 Senator (Cleveland National forest, Anza Borrego & Glamis)

619-409-7690 Chula Vista Office

760-335-3442 El Centro office

916-651-4040 Capitol office

Tim Donnelly District 36 Assemblymen (Hemet, Lucerne valley) OHV Supporter

760-244-5277 Hesperia office

916-319-2059 Capitol Office

Joel Anderson District 36 Senator (El Cajon, Temecula, Cleveland National Forest) OHV Supporter

619-596-3136 El Cajon office

Congressmen Bob Filner 51st district (San Diego, El Centro, Superstition, Glamis, Salton Sea)

(619) 422-5963 San Diego office

(760) 355-8800 Imperial Valley office

(202) 225-8045 Capitol

Assemblymen Connie Conway (San Bernardino)

(559) 636-3440 Main office (Needs more calls)

(916) 319-2034 Capitol office

Senator Bill Emerson (District 37 Riverside County)

(760) 568-0408 Palm Desert office (Needs more calls)

(916) 651-4037 Capitol office (Needs more calls)

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Open 10:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m Eastern Time

800-514-0301 (Long automated message, Dial 7 for assistance)

Or (202) 307-0663

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Helmet law needs to be removed for anyone over the age of 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well lets see here. (as a non UTV owner/user) i buy a 2 seat UTV, then feel it needs more seats so i install a cage and aftermarket rear seat. i (or someone i loan it to) then crash and either hurt myself or others and sue the manufacturer for making a 2 seat vehicle capable of my aftermarket changes and blame them for me getting injured. then the manufacturer see's the loss of Millions of dollars in law suits and asks the gov't for stricter laws about using a 2 seat vehicle with 4 passengers. and instead of buying a 4 seat UTV, i get angry i cannot continue using the 2 seat UTV that i originally got injured with in the first place. Huh? am i the only one seeing the problem here?

if i was to take a 2 seat sand car and mount a bench seat high above the engine and weld a cage around it, i would get more people here angry and told i was stupid for doing it, and that it is not safe, especially in a rollover. imagine it people. you know it would be a laughing stalk of the forum. you are not fighting city hall or the any branch of the Gov't here. you are fighting the manufacturers of UTVs. sure they want to sell 4 seaters. as they also want to sell 2 seaters. but if you need a 4 seater, BUY A 4 SEATER. if you are smart you could recoupe alot of your investment by selling your 2 seater right now to someone that only needs a 2 seater, or to someone in another state. but i wouldnt wait too long folks. it is only a matter of time till those 2 seater will become undesirable and worth very little.

face it. the rules were bent by taking a 2 seat UTV and making it a 4 seat UTV and we got caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well lets see here. (as a non UTV owner/user) i buy a 2 seat UTV, then feel it needs more seats so i install a cage and aftermarket rear seat. i (or someone i loan it to) then crash and either hurt myself or others and sue the manufacturer for making a 2 seat vehicle capable of my aftermarket changes and blame them for me getting injured. then the manufacturer see's the loss of Millions of dollars in law suits and asks the gov't for stricter laws about using a 2 seat vehicle with 4 passengers. and instead of buying a 4 seat UTV, i get angry i cannot continue using the 2 seat UTV that i originally got injured with in the first place. Huh? am i the only one seeing the problem here?

if i was to take a 2 seat sand car and mount a bench seat high above the engine and weld a cage around it, i would get more people here angry and told i was stupid for doing it, and that it is not safe, especially in a rollover. imagine it people. you know it would be a laughing stalk of the forum. you are not fighting city hall or the any branch of the Gov't here. you are fighting the manufacturers of UTVs. sure they want to sell 4 seaters. as they also want to sell 2 seaters. but if you need a 4 seater, BUY A 4 SEATER. if you are smart you could recoupe alot of your investment by selling your 2 seater right now to someone that only needs a 2 seater, or to someone in another state. but i wouldnt wait too long folks. it is only a matter of time till those 2 seater will become undesirable and worth very little.

face it. the rules were bent by taking a 2 seat UTV and making it a 4 seat UTV and we got caught.

Geee, Lets see....I but a 2 seater with a bed capiable of holding a load thats is more than my 2 kids weigh.....HHMMMMMM I delete the entire heavy bed (75 lbs)with a SDR Bed delete kit (5 lbs)/ have a MUCH SAFER cage built that adds 2 kid seats to the back (kid weight + or less the load rating) / add Long Travel To make the S X S safer and perform

So now, I am Safer and lighter than a standard 2 seat S X S with a load with MUCH better suspension.....wider stance,.........add doors that are worth a dam, put in high quality bugy seats with 5 point harnesses that replace the substandard off road seat belts that the thing comes with and wala........here is a new law(that you support) designed to protect me ??????? :wtf:

I don't need you or some stupid law to tell me to "BUY A 4 SEATER" ....They were not even avaliable when most of us poured our hard earned $$$ into building superior to stock rigs that accomadated 2 kids in the back. The ones many of us have built are awesome and MUCH SAFER than whats out there.

Thanks for cheerleading the State and their commi laws. Please tell me that you were not in support on the law that wouldn't allow kids quads to be purchased last year made by the same incompitent officials

:poule:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well lets see here. (as a non UTV owner/user) i buy a 2 seat UTV, then feel it needs more seats so i install a cage and aftermarket rear seat. i (or someone i loan it to) then crash and either hurt myself or others and sue the manufacturer for making a 2 seat vehicle capable of my aftermarket changes and blame them for me getting injured. then the manufacturer see's the loss of Millions of dollars in law suits and asks the gov't for stricter laws about using a 2 seat vehicle with 4 passengers. and instead of buying a 4 seat UTV, i get angry i cannot continue using the 2 seat UTV that i originally got injured with in the first place. Huh? am i the only one seeing the problem here?

if i was to take a 2 seat sand car and mount a bench seat high above the engine and weld a cage around it, i would get more people here angry and told i was stupid for doing it, and that it is not safe, especially in a rollover. imagine it people. you know it would be a laughing stalk of the forum. you are not fighting city hall or the any branch of the Gov't here. you are fighting the manufacturers of UTVs. sure they want to sell 4 seaters. as they also want to sell 2 seaters. but if you need a 4 seater, BUY A 4 SEATER. if you are smart you could recoupe alot of your investment by selling your 2 seater right now to someone that only needs a 2 seater, or to someone in another state. but i wouldnt wait too long folks. it is only a matter of time till those 2 seater will become undesirable and worth very little.

face it. the rules were bent by taking a 2 seat UTV and making it a 4 seat UTV and we got caught.

Geee, Lets see....I but a 2 seater with a bed capiable of holding a load thats is more than my 2 kids weigh.....HHMMMMMM I delete the entire heavy bed (75 lbs)with a SDR Bed delete kit (5 lbs)/ have a MUCH SAFER cage built that adds 2 kid seats to the back (kid weight + or less the load rating) / add Long Travel To make the S X S safer and perform

So now, I am Safer and lighter than a standard 2 seat S X S with a load with MUCH better suspension.....wider stance,.........add doors that are worth a dam, put in high quality bugy seats with 5 point harnesses that replace the substandard off road seat belts that the thing comes with and wala........here is a new law(that you support) designed to protect me ??????? :wtf:

I don't need you or some stupid law to tell me to "BUY A 4 SEATER" ....They were not even avaliable when most of us poured our hard earned $$$ into building superior to stock rigs that accomadated 2 kids in the back. The ones many of us have built are awesome and MUCH SAFER than whats out there.

Thanks for cheerleading the State and their commi laws. Please tell me that you were not in support on the law that wouldn't allow kids quads to be purchased last year made by the same incompitent officials

:poule:

I feel for you man, i really do. but you got it all wrong. this has nothing to do with how safe and capable you made your 2 seater to carry 4 people. it has to do with the manufacturers getting sued. i am totally with you when you say the aftermarket products actually made the UTV safer, stronger, and better. aftermarket companies do not want to get sued either so they make a better product. i get it, i get it all. you need to understand this has nothing to do with you and your safe UTV. it has to do with big companies trying to cover their butts.

you may think i am for these new laws and you can be no further from the truth. all you read was because i didnt come out and complain about them you think i am for them. not so one bit. i still think you should sell your 2 seater as soon as possible though. i dont care how much you complain about it and try and fight it through our gov't officials, you are going to loose your rights, and thats it man. do you really believe most of our laws are to protect us and our rights? almost every law ever put on the books has been so for the main reason, as a way to make money, wether you want to believe it or not.

i am not against you and the rest of our offroad family. but i am a realist that knows that these laws NEVER get reversed. buck it up man, and face the fact that you DID modify a manufactured vehicle wether for the better or worse and spent a lot of your hard earned money to do so, and now you got screwed. it sucks big time, but you can not use the excuse there were no 4 seat UTVs available at the time of your purchase. there are now and if we want to have 4 people ride in our UTV, we need to buy 4 seat UTVs. plain and simple. it has nothing to do with right or wrong, safe or unsafe, paper or plastic. it is all about BIG money and how the big companies can save themselves from losing it.

is your UTV safer by removing the cargo bed and adding a seat, cage and better doors? absolutely so. but remember too that the cargo bed was to carry CARGO, not passengers. and since that is what the manufacturer designed it to do, they will use that to cover their butts. there is no liability issues for cargo.

i am sure you can remember when the three wheeler got a bad rap too. they fist came out with laws and rules to try and cover the manufacturers butts because they got sued BIG time. were do you think the mandatory driving school for offroad ATVs came from? yep, that was the next step. then what happened? they actually made the three wheeler outlawed for sale. again we ALL got screwed. luckily for most of the aftermarket manufacturers, and the makes of the three wheeler itself, the four wheeler was created and saved everyones business. same thing here dude, the 4 seater is now available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i am sure you can remember when the three wheeler got a bad rap too. they fist came out with laws and rules to try and cover the manufacturers butts because they got sued BIG time. were do you think the mandatory driving school for offroad ATVs came from? yep, that was the next step. then what happened? they actually made the three wheeler outlawed for sale. again we ALL got screwed. luckily for most of the aftermarket manufacturers, and the makes of the three wheeler itself, the four wheeler was created and saved everyones business. same thing here dude, the 4 seater is now available.

Victor,

The 3 wheelers were not outlawed or illegal.....The mfgs chose not to make them or let their dealers sell them. dealers were instructed to destroy them. The ones that were sold are perfectly legal and are still being ridden all over the world. In fact, many of the gd.com peeps have lots of them / I have eight myself.

although some issues are similar, this is a different story.

:poule:

Edited by POULE43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what Victorfb is saying.

Back when the ATCs were involved in a lot of accidents, the mfrs wanted to distance themselves from the class of vehicle, the lawsuits and the bad publicity. I remember at that time thinking that the mfrs put up virtually no resistance to the new laws making it illegal to sell new ones.

Then when the new quads came out called ATVs, they were over $1,000 more for basically the same frame and engine, just one extra wheel up front. It really looked to me like not only were they glad to stop selling ATCs, they were even more eager to crank up the price for higher profit margins for a very similar product with a different name.

Now we have the almost exact same scenario with UTVs. Some people died in rollovers, just like ATCs. Some people have no problem driving them, like ATCs. The gov't has decided too many people got injured or killed, like ATCs. So the gov't and mfrs have passed a law defining exactly what a UTV is, like they did with ATCs.

Now the mfr's can distance themselves (especially Yamaha) from ROHVs and define a different class, like the ATC vs the ATV. They might call it the STV, Sport Terrain Vehicle.

This way they can widen the track, add more travel, and slap 5 pt harnesses on it and crank up the price to $25K.

Just in case feedmelies is reading this, this is how capitalism works. Sell one defective product after another (how many different versions of Windows did MS sell before they finally got a stable version??) and if people die in the process, rename the product and crank the price way up.

Edited by socaldmax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second Update on the AB 1595 Fix

I just wanted to give everyone an update and a timeline for the AB 1595 fix. We were able to secure a bill to use as a vehicle for fixing AB 1595 this week. The new bill will become! eligible for amendments on Tuesday, so the amended language s! hould be in print and available for you to read online on Wednesday (August 22).

I'll send out an update to everyone with a bill number and a link to where you can read the language of the fix on Wednesday. My office has worked with the Transportation committees in the Senate and Assembly and I believe they will waive holding a hearing on the bill. This means that it will be voted on directly on the Senate floor, possibly as early as next Friday. Following that vote, it will move over to the Assembly where it will be voted on sometime during the final week of session (The week of August 27-31). From there it will move on to the Governor for signature.

DISTRICT OFFICE

34932 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399

909-790-4196, 909-790-0479 fax

CAPITOL OFFICE

State Capitol, Room 5164

Sacramento, CA 95814

916-319-2065, 916-319-2165 fax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning! Keep the calls going.

Some new found info it might be easier to fight this helmet law. One could argue that UTV owners are being singled out and our rights are being wrongly taken away.

Per the BLM website it clearly states that only ATV's require helmets and that motorcycles do not require them, but suggest that riders wear them. (CVC 38505.)

So in short you can ride a motorcycle in the dunes or in any part of the Imperial Valley desert areas without a helmet, yet a vehicle built by the manufactures with a roll cage, seat belts and side protection nets must wear helmets.

This should be good info for the legal teams to bring to the attention of lawmakers, that mandating helmets in in UTV's and not motorcycles is just stupid.

BLM.Gov OHVS website, Imperial Sand Dunes FAQ

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/re...nda.html#helmet

When you call Cook's office or any other Rep's office ask them why Motorcycles are not required off-road, yet ATV's are and now they are wanting UTV's to hear helmets? Ask them how does that make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the response to Motorcycles not needing helmets would be along the lines of "gee, thanks for the information, let's include them too"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to put motorcycle helmets in to law, they will have to write a new bill. The current AB1595 is specifically for identifying 4 wheel vehicles and giving the UTV a category. But yes they could write and pass a bill stating that Motorcycles must wear helmets. To be honest I figured off-road motorcycles already had to wear helmets. ATV"s do, why do bikes not have to? Pretty much everyone I have spoke to and the ones who brought this to my attention assumed motorcycles had a helmet law way before ATV's did. The OHV lobbyist are the ones who will us this sort of info to show how flawed this current bill is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third Update on the AB 1595 Fix per Paul Cook office;

I'm happy to report that the bill to begin fixing AB 1595 is now in print and available to be read online. The bill is AB 1266. I'm joined by Assemblyman Jim Nielsen and Assemblyman V. Manuel Pérez in authoring this fix. You can view the text of AB 1266 at the following link:

New Bill # AB1266

This bill will do two things:

1)$ It eliminates the "feet flat on the floorboards" provision that would prevent children (and short adults) from riding as a passenger in a recreational off-highway vehicle.

2)$ It delays the implementation of the non-factory seating locations provision until July 1, 2013. While I would have liked to do a more permanent fix for this provision right now, that would require committee hearings before the Assembly and Senate Transportation Committees, which are no longer meeting at this point in the session. Both of the committees are aware of the issues with this section of the current law, however, and legislation for a more permanent fix will be moving forward in January. The delay in implementing this section will give plenty of time for the new legislation to be drafted and passed by the next legislature.

I expect AB 1266 to be voted on in the California Senate on Monday, August 27, although there is a possibility that it may be pushed back until Tuesday. I will take the bill up in the Assembly within 1-2 days of it passing the Senate. After the Assembly passes it, it will be sent to the Governor for signature. Because the Senate will be the first chamber voting on this bill, I would urge you all to contact your state senator urging them to support AB 1266. I'll continue to update you at every step of the process, and once again, I'd like to thank you all for contacting my office with your comments and concerns.

Sincerely,

Assemblyman Paul Cook

65th Assembly District

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Start calling your Reps today!!

This is expected to be voted on in the California Senate on Monday, August 27.

We need to be heard! Let your Reps know to Vote YES!

Edited by NIKAL

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.

  • Preview Post

More Links

©2001 GlamisDunes.com.
All rights reserved.

×
×
  • Create New...