New law requiring helmets in california

The Lyin King

Public Lands Advocate
Feb 7, 2009
630
17
0
She and her evil twins Boxer and FeinSwein all have to go, too bad the Swein already got four more years out of this damn State!

The Republicans in D-8 hold a 28% advantage in number over Dems but there are 74k non-affiliated folks.

From what I’ve seen even though Cook has far more money in the race (wonder why???) than Imus, the majority appear to favor Imus.

You have a valid point . . .
 

dkiewicz

Space Cadet - UTVUnderground's La Familia
Nov 28, 2009
1,582
58
48
66
Hesperia Ca
Start working with Tim Donnelly, he is all over this and IS a friend of the OHV community. JV is in his backyard and he IS concerned about this topic.

I've already talked with him about the helmet law, and JV, he is on our side!

http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/59/
 

tkrhino

Member
Apr 23, 2012
57
2
8
As much as I dont think Paul Cook is the right guy for district 8 (when it comes to supporting the OHV community in regards to JV) I think we also need to look big picture and see either Paul Cook or Gregg Imus would be better then Nancy Pelosi.

We need to make sure at the end of the day we do not divide our votes and give the election to Democrat Nancy Pelosi She is the incumbent and she has done nothing to support the OHV community and in fact she is not a supporter of OHV.

Pelosi is a supporter of Green Energy and renewable energy like solar & wind. She also is big into the Clean Air Act & Global Warming. (CARB)
I am not sure Crook is going to be any better than Pelosi. In the end he will sell all of his supporters and his district out if it means he gets paid.
 

The Lyin King

Public Lands Advocate
Feb 7, 2009
630
17
0
I am not sure Crook is going to be any better than Pelosi. In the end he will sell all of his supporters and his district out if it means he gets paid.
Most of the "career" types are just sleight of hand Crooks for hire, he's already shown his hand to our community.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Knoll

Carrera Performance
Oct 20, 2010
206
5
0
www.isxsa.com
So Ed is looking for someone to send to DC to help close down Johnson Valley also. If Cook makes it to DC (I hope not) watch him vote and I bet he votes for anything the marines want regardless of who he steps on doing it. I don't care what people say I don't think Cook is trust worthy and I hope he looses to Imus and I don't even live in that district.


I think its great that district 8 has two republicans running, and we don't have to worry about losing the seat Lewis leaves behind to a democrat. I have had the good fortune of speaking with both candidates I believe both will consider the options regarding Johnson valley.

Lion King I am not going to keep chasing you around multiple message boards, but sir you are missing the mark on this one. Don't let your hate of CORVA cloud your judgement. If you care to know my feelings on the subject you have my number.
 

The Lyin King

Public Lands Advocate
Feb 7, 2009
630
17
0
I think its great that district 8 has two republicans running, and we don't have to worry about losing the seat Lewis leaves behind to a democrat. I have had the good fortune of speaking with both candidates I believe both will consider the options regarding Johnson valley.

Lion King I am not going to keep chasing you around multiple message boards, but sir you are missing the mark on this one. Don't let your hate of CORVA cloud your judgement. If you care to know my feelings on the subject you have my number.
Jeff,

You say one thing in PMs to me and another in public, chasing me is your choice.

I don't hate CORVA, I just find them worthless excepting their main claim to fame in "Truck Haven" and if folks bothered to look at your past take on them I think they'd find that you've had more heartburn with them than me.

It just so happens that the election of Crook aligns you and their "Dead Presidents" so it's convenient for you to make the statement you have.

Bob . . .
 

Jeff Knoll

Carrera Performance
Oct 20, 2010
206
5
0
www.isxsa.com
Jeff,

You say one thing in PMs to me and another in public, chasing me is your choice.

I don't hate CORVA, I just find them worthless excepting their main claim to fame in "Truck Haven" and if folks bothered to look at your past take on them I think they'd find that you've had more heartburn with them than me.

It just so happens that the election of Crook aligns you and their "Dead Presidents" so it's convenient for you to make the statement you have.

Bob . . .
As I said I am stopping that chase, you have more time than I do, and I don't know everywhere you post.

CORVA remarks; That is true

I just wonder why the hate for Cook? I think you are off the mark on Cook, and its absolutely opposite of what I see on the subject. It has nothing to do with the various people or groups I have spared with in the past, its my own personal experience with him, and his staff, as well as extensive research on the subject of AB 1595.

Just feels odd. Nothing changes regarding the PM on Pirate4x4.com.

I am gonna be so happy after tomorrow and the election is over. As I said I will be happy to share offline, but I lack the skill to explain myself on a message board.
 

Jeff Knoll

Carrera Performance
Oct 20, 2010
206
5
0
www.isxsa.com
Speaking of Truckhaven.:D

ECOLOGIC PARTNERS WIN CEQA LAWSUIT AGAINST STATE PARKS:
TRUCKHAVEN TRAILS STAY OPEN
After nearly 18 months of hard-fought litigation, EcoLogic Partners, Inc. (“EcoLogicâ€) has prevailed in its CEQA lawsuit against the California Department of Parks and Recreation (“State Parksâ€) over the closure of recreational vehicle routes in Truckhaven (also known as the “Freeman Propertyâ€). On October 16, 2012, Judge Jeffrey Jones of the Imperial County Superior Court issued his final Judgment in the action, finding that State Parks violated CEQA when it approved a “boundary signage and fencing†project without first analyzing whether and to what extent the project would have adverse impacts on natural and recreational resources. As a result of the Court’s ruling, State Parks’ decision to approve the boundary signage and fencing project has been set aside.
State Parks first approved the project on February 8, 2011, claiming that it was “categorically exempt†from CEQA because it only involved the installation of signs and fences. EcoLogic brought suit alleging that the project had the obvious, if not intended, effect of closing pre-existing recreational vehicle routes – a discretionary action for which no CEQA exemption exists. Both parties submitted extensive briefing to the Court, which held two hearings on the merits of the case. Ultimately, the Court ruled in EcoLogic’s favor:
“As is acknowledged by respondent [State Parks], a major component of the project is the closure, or opening, of roads to vehicular travel . . . . It is beyond argument that the determination of where roads are is a determination likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

“Respondent’s implicit determination that designation of traversable roads and trails is categorically exempt from CEQA review is unsupported by any evidence in the record.

“For the foregoing reasons, the petition is GRANTED.â€
Later this week, the Court is expected to execute the Writ of Mandate setting aside State Parks’ decision to approve the boundary signage and fencing project. The practical effect of the Writ is to reopen those trails which were either closed or slated for closure as part of State Parks’ decision from February 2011. As the prevailing party in the litigation, EcoLogic will now seek an order from the Court directing State Parks to pay EcoLogic’s attorneys fees and costs. For additional information, please contact attorney David Hubbard at (760) 431-9501 or [email protected].
Ecologic partners is; ORBA, American Sand Association, and AMA District 37. (Additional funding for the lawsuit was provided by; San Diego Off Road Coalition, Tierra Del Sol, and the California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs.) The lawsuit is the first time in California an OHV group has successfully challenged a state trail or route closure
 

The Lyin King

Public Lands Advocate
Feb 7, 2009
630
17
0
As I said I am stopping that chase, you have more time than I do, and I don't know everywhere you post.

CORVA remarks; That is true

I just wonder why the hate for Cook? I think you are off the mark on Cook, and its absolutely opposite of what I see on the subject. It has nothing to do with the various people or groups I have spared with in the past, its my own personal experience with him, and his staff, as well as extensive research on the subject of AB 1595.

Just feels odd. Nothing changes regarding the PM on Pirate4x4.com.

I am gonna be so happy after tomorrow and the election is over. As I said I will be happy to share offline, but I lack the skill to explain myself on a message board.
Jeff,

I have ALL the correspondences that have EVER been shared between us, both PMs and otherwise. I will keep them to myself out of respect for you!

Having said that, you are a man of changing missions and opinions! I enjoy the luxury of maintaining my line.

I said to you not but an hour ago in another venue that I consider you a valuable voice in the OHV arena for all and I meant it.

I'll leave it at that!!!

Peace Bro . . . Bob
 

EFAJEEP

Member
Jul 21, 2010
56
1
8
52
Well between all the elections we are going to have to keep our eyes on the prize. Weather its Cook or Imus we have to see what we have to do to keep moving forward on rewording the rear seat law and see about the helmet laws and maybe getting some flexability on the helmets for the kids.

There is alot at stake for the SXS community, families,fabricators and state parks with these laws and it was good to hear the voices protesting and getting heard. There is still work to be done and both of you guys ( Lion King, Jeff Knoll)have been great voicing your views and giving us different perspectives
 

Jeff Knoll

Carrera Performance
Oct 20, 2010
206
5
0
www.isxsa.com
Jeff,

I have ALL the correspondences that have EVER been shared between us, both PMs and otherwise. I will keep them to myself out of respect for you!

Having said that, you are a man of changing missions and opinions! I enjoy the luxury of maintaining my line.

I said to you not but an hour ago in another venue that I consider you a valuable voice in the OHV arena for all and I meant it.

I'll leave it at that!!!

Peace Bro . . . Bob
I stand by everything you have kept on record. There is a reason for the position I am taking on this subject. It would be easy for me to storm the castle with a pitchfork, but I have been learning that while we need warriors, we also need diplomats. There are many layers to an onion.

You and I agree on almost every issue. This is the first time I can think of, that we disagree, perhaps we should have outlined our disagreement in a different medium and saved the public the bandwidth?

Moving on. ;)
 

The Lyin King

Public Lands Advocate
Feb 7, 2009
630
17
0
I stand by everything you have kept on record.
Yur the only person who PMs me and I don't empty my mailbox 'cause I'm too lazy! :)



There is a reason for the position I am taking on this subject. It would be easy for me to storm the castle with a pitchfork, but I have been learning that while we need warriors, we also need diplomats. There are many layers to an onion..
Yeah, there always is. When they talk about "the shifting sands of time", I often see the dunes reshape in minutes with you. But there is only one way to peel layers off an onion. :D


You and I agree on almost every issue. This is the first time I can think of, that we disagree, perhaps we should have outlined our disagreement in a different medium and saved the public the bandwidth?..
Hmm, you ran around layering your onion around my posts not the other way around. It was up to you how the bandwidth was used. ;)


Moving on. ;)
I got a truck and strong back if you need help . . . :rolleyes:
 

RnJ

New Member
Nov 10, 2012
1
0
0
Arizona
Regulations and control!!! Didnt you know you are not capable of making your own decisions and taking care of yourself? :p Seriously. But the reality is, this is now the law there and until that changes we'll have to comply to avoid the headache of fines etc.

That said, found this forum in hopes of finding some recommendations for lightweight helmets. We have invested in some serious safety of our RZR, including a custom radius cage, 4 pnt harnesses & Dragon Fire doors. And NOW we get to invest in helmets too.

Before this law, our friends used some low profile, lightweight helmets from Simpson basically to keep heads from hitting the cage. (Which would be tough to happen with the modifications we made.) However, these helmets are not DOT approved. The typical motocross helmets are so big.

What will you all use?
 

The Lyin King

Public Lands Advocate
Feb 7, 2009
630
17
0
It appears most agree that AB 1595 would have harmed the aftermarket, retail market, imposed the helmet law and made current ROV owners aftermarket cages, rear seats plus some other additions illegal.

There has been speculation that Cook tried to win favor with the groups harmed under AB 1595 as written, by introducing AB 1266. At least ROV owners could keep their aftermarket cages, seats, etc and the aftermarket could keep producing same. Of course this upset the manufactures whose plan was to produce legal “factory†aftermarket parts.

So much for trying to get a Politician to do your bidding the way it was handed to them.

I don't recall seeing any SWAG specific to what the CPSC originally had planned or what the effect may have been on manufactures, retailers, the aftermarket and future or current ROV owners?

I guess we'll see what they had in mind when other States refuse to follow California's example or the CPSC decides that the efforts of Cook and company are simply not enough!

Either way ROV owners in CA are still stuck with helmets off-highway where it’s unsafe to ride without one. Now that we temporarily have legal use of OHVs on Inyo County roads Chaptered into law, will ROVs be required to wear a helmet on road? One could assume ATVs would have the same requirements as motorcycles but ROVs too? Helmets aren't legal on road in street licensed Jeeps running topless with no doors, ain't much difference.

In any event, I sure hope we get the mileage out of Cook in the JV fight as promised by his supporters!!!
 

EFAJEEP

Member
Jul 21, 2010
56
1
8
52
Has anyone heard anything about them "re-thinking " the 4 seat conversions? I know they exthended enforcing the law untill June but I havent heard anything else.
 

The Lyin King

Public Lands Advocate
Feb 7, 2009
630
17
0
Voluntary Standards


Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (Last Updated 05/04/2011)


Background

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff is participating in voluntary standard activities related to recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs). ROVs are motorized vehicles having four or more tires designed for off-road use and intended by the manufacturer for recreational use by one or more persons.

ROVs are intended to be used on terrain similar to that on which all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are used. ROVs are distinguished from ATVs by the presence of a steering wheel instead of a handle bar for steering, bench or bucket seats for the driver and passenger(s) instead of straddle seating, and foot controls for throttle and braking instead of levers located on the handle bar. In addition, ROVs have a rollover protective system (ROPS), restraint systems, and a maximum speed greater than 30 mph.

CPSC staff reviewed 329 reports of ROV-related fatality and injury incidents that occurred between January 2003 and September 2010. These reports included 169 fatalities and 299 injuries. A significant hazard pattern associated with the ROV-related incidents involved a quarter turn lateral rollover of the vehicle, full or partial ejection of the occupant, and subsequent crushing of the occupant’s head or body by the vehicle. Additionally, it is known that at least 42 percent of occupants were not wearing a seat belt, and 42 percent had unknown seat belt use status. Similarly, at least 53 percent of occupants were not wearing a helmet, while 44 percent of occupants had unknown helmet use status. Reporting for this time period is ongoing; CPSC staff expects to receive further reports of ROV-related incidents occurring in this time-frame.


Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) Activities

CPSC staff is participating in the revision of the American National Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles, ANSI/ROHVA 1-2010. In 2011, CPSC staff reviewed a canvass copy of draft proposed revisions to ANSI/ROHVA 1-2010. The draft revised standard includes new requirements for lateral stability and occupant protection performance. ROHVA proposed a dynamic constant steering wheel angle test that is conducted on a paved surface to evaluate the rollover propensity of a vehicle. ROHVA also proposed that ROVs possess visual seat belt usage reminders; leg/foot barriers; shoulder/hip barriers; and arm/hand barriers to restrict occupant egress and excursion from the vehicle during a rollover event; in addition, ROHVA proposed mandatory recommendations for helmet use.

Based on CPSC staff’s experience with vehicle dynamics testing and occupant protection performance testing of ROVs, staff believes that the proposed revisions to ANSI/ROHVA 1-2010 do not adequately address vehicle stability, vehicle handling, and occupant protection performance. Staff presented these concerns in a letter to ROHVA, dated 03/11/2011.


Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) Activities

CPSC staff is also participating in the development of the American National Standard for Multipurpose Off-Highway Utility Vehicles, ANSI/OPEI B79.1-20XX. “Multipurpose Off-Highway Utility Vehicles†(MOHUVs) are defined as vehicles with: (a) four or more wheels, (b) a steering wheel, (c) non-straddle seating, and (d) maximum speeds between 25 mph and 50 mph. In addition, MOHUVs have foot controls for throttle and braking, occupant restraints, and rollover protective structures. MOHUVs with maximum speeds in excess of 30 mph meet the definition of an ROV.

In 2011, CPSC staff reviewed a canvass copy of the draft proposed standard, ANSI/OPEI B79.1-20XX, which addresses design, configuration, and performance aspects of ROVs. OPEI proposed a dynamic J-turn test that is conducted on pavement to evaluate the rollover propensity of a vehicle. OPEI also proposed the addition of visual seat belt reminders and side retention devices to address occupant excursion in the event of a vehicle rollover.

Based on CPSC staff’s experience with vehicle dynamics testing and occupant protection performance testing of ROVs, staff believes that the draft proposed American National Standard for Multipurpose Off-Highway Utility Vehicles, ANSI/OPEI B79.1-20XX, does not adequately address vehicle stability, vehicle handling, and occupant protection performance. Staff presented its concerns to OPEI in a letter dated 04/14/2011.

CPSC staff is continuing to conduct static and dynamic testing of ROVs to evaluate rollover thresholds, vehicle steering characteristics, and occupant protection performance. The information will be used to support voluntary standard development or to develop draft mandatory standard requirements for Commission consideration to improve consumer safety.


Source and more here




American Sand Association


ROHVA August 24, 2012


ROHVA August 24, 2012-1
 

EFAJEEP

Member
Jul 21, 2010
56
1
8
52
I know we have had a ton of discussion on the helmets but I sure hope we can get something done about the rear seat situation.

Imagine all the SXS owners out there who are not a member of some type of forum who are going to be hit with the law come mid year. The helmet law sucks but for $400 you can outfitt the family with helmets. The money dumped into 4 seat conversions will be a HUGE hit to the pocket
 

The Lyin King

Public Lands Advocate
Feb 7, 2009
630
17
0
Wear a helmet, or we will regulate!

The CPSC has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of many products, such as UTV’s . . . they have NO AUTHORITY to require the use of helmets.

The State didn't impose the helmet law on us to avoid ORV regulation by the CPSC anymore than manufacturers tried to avoid regulation by handing Cook the text of AB 1595.

Cook tried to win favor with the groups harmed under AB 1595 as written, by introducing AB 1266. At least ROV owners could keep their aftermarket cages, seats, etc and the aftermarket could keep producing same. Of course this upset the manufactures whose plan was to produce legal “factory†aftermarket parts.

So much for trying to get a Politician to do your bidding the way it was handed to them.

Not all States will implement a helmet law for ORVs, and even if they did that would not satisfy the CPSC! So the CPSC WILL regulate these things and change them into something far different than what we have come to enjoy.

In 2011 The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) advocated for a change in the canvass copy of the draft proposed standard American National Standard for Multipurpose Off-Highway Utility Vehicles, ANSI/OPEI B79.1-20XX, which addresses design, configuration, and performance aspects of ROVs.

The OPEI proposed adding a dynamic J-turn test to the draft that is conducted on pavement to evaluate the rollover propensity of a vehicle (in other words they want them to perform like street driven sedans) along with even more warning signs all over the damn things.

Anybody have a rig they think would do a "J" turn on pavement at 40 mph without rolling?

The CPSC rejected the revised draft in April of 2011 and is STILL conducting tests. In their words they intend to "use the information to support voluntary standard development or to develop draft mandatory standard requirements for Commission consideration to improve consumer safety".

The ROV community got helmets and new rigs WILL be changed by CPSC MANDATE into something nobody can sell.

The manufactures WANT the CPSC to throw down MANDATES so they are forever absolved from further lawsuits . . . simple as that!!!
 

loco

Loco Time - UTVUnderground Approved
Jan 18, 2009
162
2
18
45
Placerville, CA
If I'm reading right ab1266 still states "38604. A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle shall not ride with a passenger, unless the passenger, while seated upright with his or her back against the seatback, can grasp the occupant handhold with the seatbelt and shoulder belt or safety harness properly fastened"

That means kids while in their seats and seatbelts fastened can't reach handhold. So kids still can't ride. Or am I wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
17,292
Messages
179,387
Members
12,145
Latest member
felipebenjamin000