New law requiring helmets in california

Jeff Knoll

Carrera Performance
Oct 20, 2010
206
5
0
www.isxsa.com
Did you know.........

Currently there is not a document that out lines the economic impact of the OHV industry in California? The most powerful tool we have had in raising awareness of the 29 Palms Marine base expansion was an economic impact report around visitors to Johnson Valley. Annually we found that visitors spent roughly $71 Million locally. That's Yucca Valley to Victorville. All in San Bernardino County. Our study found that Johnson Valley injected $2.3B into the national economy.

Our entire culture needs to get into the habit of keeping track of the money it spends, because I believe that is about the only thing that matters to politicians. Well that and getting re-elected.

I have been trying to raise money to complete a California based Economic Impact Study that will take 18 months.

Stuff takes money, and time, but I firmly believe the OHV industry is generating a lot of income for the State than it knows, and if Legislators knew how much more money we spend than the Bird Watchers we might get a different outcome on some of this stuff.
 

az_amsoil

Amsoil Arizona - UTVUnderground Approved
Jan 22, 2009
593
18
18
Did you know.........

Currently there is not a document that out lines the economic impact of the OHV industry in California? The most powerful tool we have had in raising awareness of the 29 Palms Marine base expansion was an economic impact report around visitors to Johnson Valley. Annually we found that visitors spent roughly $71 Million locally. That's Yucca Valley to Victorville. All in San Bernardino County. Our study found that Johnson Valley injected $2.3B into the national economy.

Our entire culture needs to get into the habit of keeping track of the money it spends, because I believe that is about the only thing that matters to politicians. Well that and getting re-elected.

I have been trying to raise money to complete a California based Economic Impact Study that will take 18 months.

Stuff takes money, and time, but I firmly believe the OHV industry is generating a lot of income for the State than it knows, and if Legislators knew how much more money we spend than the Bird Watchers we might get a different outcome on some of this stuff.
I bet El Centro, Brawley, Holtville, ect...would already have figures on the Glamis/Gordon Wells/Buttercup economic impact. A low cost way to generate a report is college students. Post graduate accounting programs require thesis to be submitted. Find a student who understands the UTV market and its a win/win.

Thank you Jeff for all your hard work and dedication.

My message to Paul Cook (District 65 & author of the bill):

"I'm contacting you since you authored Assembly Bill No. 1595; I am not a CA resident so I am using you as my point of contact. Unfortunately this tax bill has turned into a bill that will greatly limit the use of Off Highway Vehicles within the state of California. The new regulations to be enforced on ROVs will prevent mine and other families from off-roading in CA. Specifically two sections of the bill; 38603 & 38604. I currently own a 2008 Kawasaki Teryx that has been converted into a four seat ROV. Under section 38603, my four seat ROV is no longer legal in the CA. Additionally, section 38604 prevents my use of a DOT approved child seat (in any seating position) for my children. While I can understand the principle behind the changes, I do not believe you understand how these vehicles are modified and used. My conversion utilizes race approved suspension seats, 5-point safety harness, fully integrated 0.095” DOM roll cage, permanently mounted rear seat and fully integrated doors. The cargo capacity of my ROV is 500lbs. The total weight of my children is ~70lbs. I have over 2,500 miles on my ROV without incident, yet I’m 100% confident that my modified ROV is much safer than the stock OEM ROV. Because of these new restrictions, I will no longer be traveling to CA to off-road. I urge you to reconsider the wording in this law and allow for legal vehicles in other states access to CA."

I used his office address since I'm not a CA resident.
 

Beach Leo

Way-Good
Mar 6, 2011
327
11
18
Mt Shasta & Mt Diablo
How-bout just going to Sacramento and talking with our Governor. I am sure Mr Brown would set a time that we all could discuss this with Him. I will give him a call and see what is a good time for us all to meet him. He does work for us so I am sure he will listen. While we are there we can probably get him to open up more riding areas for every-one as well.
I think he will buy all of us lunch while we are there. I am sure the tv cameras would be rolling and it would be fun.
Does any-one have his Ph # ?
 

Rzrcsi

La Familia
Jun 18, 2012
1,218
71
48
Central Cal.
38604. A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle shall not
ride with a passenger, unless the passenger, while seated upright with his
<O:por her back against the seatback with both feet flat on the floorboard, can
<O:pgrasp the occupant handhold with the seatbelt and shoulder belt or safety
<O:pharness properly fastened.
<O:p

This paragraph has been bothering me... I am no lawyer but I work with a bunch of them and I'm going to solicit some opinions but this sounds like a description for being able to reach the handhold not a mandate for feet on the floor.... ???

Using grammar rules... if you take out the descriptive info it says:

"38604. A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle shall not
<O:pride with a passenger, unless the passenger, *** , can
<O:pgrasp the occupant handhold with the seatbelt and shoulder belt or safety
<O:pharness properly fastened."


Am I wrong ?? and how will this be interpreted by LEOs. Maybe a grammatical loop hole or maybe not even intended to require feet on the floor... ??

 

NIKAL

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2012
970
310
63
You NEED to write your Senator, Congressmen and the Governor. We are finding out more and more Senators and Congressmen did not know about Chapter 165 and all it in tales. This Bill 1595 was voted YES unanimously.

Take a few minutes to find out what District you are in. Ask you congressmen or Senator why they voted YES on this? Did they read or know about Chapter 165?

Here is a link to find out
Find your State Rep


Also let Congressmen Bob Filner who is the Congressmen for District 51 (Imperial Valley and the Dunes) and let Senator Jaun Vargas who is the Senator for District 40 (Imperial Vally and the Dunes) know how you feel. Even if you dont live in their districts, you still spend money in them, which in turn creates jobs, keeps business open, creates Taxes and that will keep the VOTERS in their districts VOTING for them.

Congressmen Bob Filner Contact
Put 'Glamis as your address, "Imperial Valley" as your city and 92251 as your zip code. Then let him know you visit and spend money in his dsitrict and will have to take your money out of state to AZ where these laws are not in effect.

Senator Jaun Vargas Contact
Put 'Glamis as your address, "Imperial Valley" as your city and 92251 as your zip code. Then let him know you visit and spend money in his dsitrict and will have to take your money out of state to AZ where these laws are not in effect.
 

Familyman

Family. It's about time.
Jan 24, 2011
27
0
0
Mesa, Az
38604. A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle shall not
ride with a passenger, unless the passenger, while seated upright with his
<O:por her back against the seatback with both feet flat on the floorboard, can
<O:pgrasp the occupant handhold with the seatbelt and shoulder belt or safety
<O:pharness properly fastened.
<O:p

This paragraph has been bothering me... I am no lawyer but I work with a bunch of them and I'm going to solicit some opinions but this sounds like a description for being able to reach the handhold not a mandate for feet on the floor.... ???

Using grammar rules... if you take out the descriptive info it says:

"38604. A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle shall not
<O:pride with a passenger, unless the passenger, *** , can
<O:pgrasp the occupant handhold with the seatbelt and shoulder belt or safety
<O:pharness properly fastened."


Am I wrong ?? and how will this be interpreted by LEOs. Maybe a grammatical loop hole or maybe not even intended to require feet on the floor... ??

That's the way that I hope that they are meaning it, but the problem is that the way it is written does leave that open to interpretation. I can see how it would be understood both ways. I do believe that the intention is the handhold. I think only time will tell how this law is enforced. If in fact it is deemed that the floorboards is not an issue then that is not near as bad.
 

warlock

Wanna Go Fast? - UTVUnderground Approved
Jan 23, 2009
1,041
170
63
50
az
The State of Kalifornia Law Makers should be spending more time on fixing the States Budget problems and easing up on the onerous Regulations on Buisnesses and getting there Economy going instead of shooting themselves in the foot once again.

With this new Law and there way of thinking maybe all Passengers in Street legal Passenger vehicles should be wearing Helmets also to cut down on the Head Injuries too. That would be Nice so the Ladies who just did there hair will have a nice Hemet Dooo. LOL.:cool:
 

tkrhino

Member
Apr 23, 2012
57
2
8
Thank ORBA, AMA D 37, and the ASA for these answers. They come from Ecologic partners, paid by the those three associations.

Just got off the phone with David Hubbard and the leadership of The three associations listed above. Here is some more information.

1.) Ex Post facto. Does not apply, It would only apply to giving you a ticket for something you did before the bill became law. Example A.) I get pulled over for no helmet next weekend, and they write me a ticket on Jan 1st for that infraction. Example B,) requiring me to smog my 2005 PSD Ford truck. I did not need to get a Diesel smogged when I bought it, but now I do. Same as all the Commercial trucks that are now illegal in the state.

2.) Lawsuit Not a lot of legs unless you can find a plaintiff who can file on the grounds of constitutionality. e.g violates the civil rights of a handicap person. Where you run into problems is two places IMHO with this approach. a.) Watch what you wish for because the manufacture will get heat in the suit, and the vehicle may become very different as a result. b.) The maunfacture operational guide clearly states the requirements that a rider must meet the basic limitations. BTW this is why a lawsuit would be difficult any other way.

3.) Who would fund this. As debated earlier, political ramifications within our industry.

4.) It passed unanimously, who would carry any amendments to the bill?

5.) Can you get around the law with some modifications? Helmets is pretty cut and dry, as is the belts, so that leaves the floor board. I know of two people who are already proto-typing sub floors. I also believe you can change the classification of your 2 seater that was converted to 4 seats to special construction. That gets you around the floor issue IF......

6.) Enforcement. (According to the folks on the call tonight) There is already some talks inside state parks on how best to enforce this. Because it is a California law, I assume BLM and USFS will look to Ca state parks LEO on what is what. Perhaps the next move is influence there?

I will see what I can find out from my contacts at State Parks later this week.

Again this info comes from Ecologic partners they pay the attorney and foster the brain trust that I got this info from.

Hope this helps, sorry if it burst anyone's bubbles.
Please then can we get clarified how atc got ban from production but not from operation? If the examples used above are true there are some serious holes in the argument. Even the smog thing on diesel trucks, the law on that states that 97 and prior are exempt as they were not manufactured with smog equipment. Your 2005 ford as well as my two 2005 ford trucks have smog equipment installed and would therefore have to comply with this. Therefore that argument can't stand as an example as to how this law can prove ok.
 

rebelmark

New Member
Jan 3, 2012
23
0
0
That is what I have been saying...they can't take something that is previously legal and then declare it illegal. If you look in the CA OHV Guide for Glamis, it even SAYS that 4 Seaters are LEGAL if they have a roll cage and seats with seatbelts. They can't just say its now illegal and can't be used. If the people advising OHV groups in this state can't see that, well its no wonder we are fucked!
 

rebelmark

New Member
Jan 3, 2012
23
0
0
This is right out of the BLM Handbook for GLAMIS:

Are seat belts required to be used on all the seats, front and rear on UTV's, Golf Carts, and Sandcars to be legal when riding off road in Calif. or Ariz.?
Seatbelts are required to properly fastened in the front seats when originally equipped by the manufacturer. Seatbelts in the rear are not specifically required; however, if the passengers are not wearing seatbelts, the officer has the discretion to cite the driver for a violation of CVC 38330.

CVC 38330. It is unlawful to operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in an unsafe condition, which is not equipped as required by this chapter or the equipment regulations of the governmental agency having jurisdiction over public lands, or which is not safely loaded.

43 CFR 8365.1-3(b) (1) The operator of a motor vehicle is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle in motion, unless the operator and each front seat passenger is restrained by a properly fastened safety belt that conforms to applicable United States Department of Transportation standards, except that children, as defined by State law, shall be restrained as provided by State law.


Link: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/recreation/ohvs/isdra/dunesinfo/lawenforcement/qanda.html
 

rebelmark

New Member
Jan 3, 2012
23
0
0
More:

What is required by law to have people ride in the back of UTV's (Rhino's, Golf Carts, Side X Side’s) at the ISDRA? Are Golf Carts in this category?

You need to have a properly mounted seat and use properly mounted seat belts to ride in the back of a UTV or golf cart. UTVs and golf carts are different types of vehicles under the definitions in the California Vehicle Code, however you should have properly mounted seats and use properly mounted seat belts, in both types of vehicles, or you may be cited under CVC 38330 which states it is unlawful to operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in an unsafe condition, which is not equipped as required by this chapter or the equipment regulations of the governmental agency having jurisdiction over public lands, or which is not safely loaded.

43 CFR 8365.1(b) (1) The operator of a motor vehicle is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle in motion, unless the operator and each front seat passenger is restrained by a properly fastened safety belt that conforms to applicable United States Department of Transportation standards, except that children, as defined by State law, shall be restrained as provided by State law.

Golf carts are not UTVs; however if modifications are made to a golf cart, it could be included in the same category as an OHV. A golf cart by definition (CVC Division 1, section 345) is, "a vehicle having not less than three wheels in contact with the ground, having an unladen weight less than 1,300 pounds, which is designed to be and is operated at not more than 15 mph and designed to carry golf equipment and not more than two persons including the driver".
 

Jeff Knoll

Carrera Performance
Oct 20, 2010
206
5
0
www.isxsa.com
That is what I have been saying...they can't take something that is previously legal and then declare it illegal. If you look in the CA OHV Guide for Glamis, it even SAYS that 4 Seaters are LEGAL if they have a roll cage and seats with seatbelts. They can't just say its now illegal and can't be used. If the people advising OHV groups in this state can't see that, well its no wonder we are fucked!
Help me understand what legal precedence you are using to come to this opinion? Don't kill the messenger, I am against helmet laws, but lets be real. We can debate online till the ends of the earth, but it means nothing. You and I are not in control. I can think of many things that used to be legal and now are not. Helmet law on my street bike, riding in the back of a pickup truck, riding dirtbikes on my property in Riverside County, Seatbelt, Cell phone,ect ect.

I am making an assumption, but I think the ATC (3 wheeler) example is exactly what the Consumer Products Safety Commission was/is looking to do. Ban the sale outright.

Would you not rather have the aftermarket and manufacture address the seating arrangements issue and see UTV sales continue?

Personally I will wear a helmet when and where I choose, I am willing to accept that I may be cited or worse, that's my choice. I still blatantly talk on the cell phone and if not for the alarm in my cars wearing a seat belt is not a priority. My street bike helmet is not DOT. I am pretty sure we all break the law on a regular basis.

So what I see is the Floorboard issue is the primary concern, as well as 4 seats in a 2 seat configuration. Both are easy fixes.

I am also Assuming "They" means the California Legislation? If so "They" can do anything we let them do. Just watch the news, "They" are doing far worse.


If given the choice between an outright ban of the sale of UTV's, and the requirements of this new law, I will choose the new law.

What is CORVA saying? Anyone know?
 

Jeff Knoll

Carrera Performance
Oct 20, 2010
206
5
0
www.isxsa.com
I just got off the phone with Paul Cooks Office, I don't think all is lost. They are going to try and get me an appointment with him, even if I have to go to Sacramento to get it done. Rest assured they are hearing your concerns.
 

NIKAL

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2012
970
310
63
Here is a little update and maybe some good news! This was from RZRForums.net. They are on it over there. It looks as if Assemblyman Cook did not understand the ramifications of his bill.

From [email protected];
I just got off the phone with the Legislative person in Assemblyman Cook’s office. The provision for the floorboards was one that slipped through, and they are doing a couple things to try and fix it. They hadn’t heard much feedback prior to it passing on this provision, so they are a bit off guard right now.
1) They are working with the parks department to keep that provision from being enforced.
2) They are going to go back, maybe during this session, but way more likely during the next to fix that provision and clarify it.

I also asked what the intention was for the other part, regarding the whole manufacturer thing. The intent was to address those who create items at home, from shoddy materials or like bungieing a lawn chair in the back of a prowler without a roll cage. Those who purchase items from manufacturers would not be affected by this statute.

I say keep up the pressure. We need it changed this year, not next.

I also just got off the phone with Tim who is the Legislative person in Assemblyman Cooks office and their phone is red from all the calls. They are trying to amend the bill before this session ends in five weeks or make a provision where it will not be enforced until amendments can be voted on. He is good to talk to and all input is very helpful to the problem. Keep calling (be nice) and let them know that you support the OHV industry and are very concerned about not being able to take your family out.


And this was posted by a business owner, Alternitive Offroad.

Tim was very nice, he was very understanding in our concerns as business owners in CA, he said that if they can't fix it in the next 5 weeks they are going to work with the parks to delay enforcement until next year when they can amend the law..On the two portions of the law, the floorboard portion and the 4-seater cage portion. The helmet law stays, and I can understand why.. KEEP CALLING GUYS. Tim also asked if I wanted to get on the mailing list, DO IT. If he doesn't ask, ask to be put on the list! It will keep you up to date on any changes in the law.


So keep calling! Even if you dont drive UTV's or dont live in California. If this stays then you know they will later change the laws to be all vehicles in the desert and the manufactures will know that if you back a Senator or Assemblyman you can push this though in any state.

Paul Cooks office
34932 Yucaipa Blvd.
Yucaipa, CA 92399
909-790-4196
909-790-0479 fax

Here is Clair with Assemblyman Cooks office #. She has been nice to speak with, so be nice to her.
916-319-2065
 

Familyman

Family. It's about time.
Jan 24, 2011
27
0
0
Mesa, Az
That is what I have been saying...they can't take something that is previously legal and then declare it illegal. If you look in the CA OHV Guide for Glamis, it even SAYS that 4 Seaters are LEGAL if they have a roll cage and seats with seatbelts. They can't just say its now illegal and can't be used. If the people advising OHV groups in this state can't see that, well its no wonder we are fucked!
What you are failing to understand is they did not make your 4 seat cage illegal. They made it illegal for anyone to sit there though. you are right that they can't come in after the fact and cite you for having passengers there before the law was in effect, but they can make it illegal to perform a certain act that was previously legal. If you think otherwise then you are misunderstanding the law.
 

Rusty5150

UTVUG PHOTOG
Jan 9, 2009
3,526
332
83
Take a minute and go this page and sign up. Become and member and help the ISA protect our sport.

http://isxsa.com/Forms/ISA Individual Membership.pdf

Why recreation SXS users support the ISA?

[FONT=Cambria,Cambria][FONT=Cambria,Cambria]The ISA is the only specialized Non profit dedicated to the promotion of UTV/SXS Opportunities. There are other fine Racing and Land use associations, but only the ISA focuses 100% of its efforts to the advancement of SXS Sports. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Cambria,Cambria][FONT=Cambria,Cambria]The ISA Board of Directors is made up of a wide selection of SXS Industry leaders who participate in SXS recreation, Land use issues, and racing. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Cambria,Cambria][FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Promotion of events, trails rides, and recreational [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria][FONT=Cambria,Cambria]activities. [/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria][FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Strategic partnership with established land use leaders such as ORBA help our message reach the right legislators. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Cambria,Cambria][FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Monthly Newsletter and National Recreation events [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria][FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Calendar [/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria][FONT=Cambria,Cambria]The ISA is your Voice for Land use issues! [/FONT][/FONT]

Charter Membership Application
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria][FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Name_________________________________________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Associate name______________________________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Address______________________________________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]City___________________________________________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]State__________________ Zip Code_____________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Phone Number______________________________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Email ________________________________________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Vehicle Make________________________________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Vehicle Model_______________________________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Model Year__________________________________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Race Class___________________________________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]T Shirt size__________________________________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]*Charter Membership $25.00 [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]**Associate Membership $10.00 _________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]***Racer Membership $25.00 _________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Total Membership Annual Dues. _________ [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria,Cambria]Yes, I would like to become a charter Mem-ber of the International Side X Side Associa-tion (ISA). I have included my first year’s membership dues. I have read and under-stand the rules for membership and racing with the ISA. I agree to the terms of member-ship in the ISA and will obey the rules for membership. [/FONT]
[/FONT]
 

NIKAL

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2012
970
310
63
Another Update UPDATE!!!!

I spoke to Tim Itnyre - Legislative Director. He said they realize now they made a mistake and made the requirements so stringent, that it discriminated against young children or people who have other circumstances where they cant reach the floor. He said they are working to strike 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 with both feet flat on the floorboard, can
grasp the occupant handhold with the seatbelt and shoulder belt or safety harness properly fastened


And not only that they are going to strike down RHINO OWNERS you are going to like this good news!!!!! 38603. A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle shall not allow a passenger to occupy a separate seat location not designed and provided by the manufacturer for a passenger.

The plan is to have this done in the next 4 weeks while Legislation is in office and they can have the Governor sign the amended bill. If this can not happen in time, they will contact all the Parks and BLM service and explain to not enforce this new law as it is in the process of being amended. The original intent was to categorize these new mass production manufactured vehicles and enforce a helmet and restraint law. he did not say this was pushed by the manufactures, but I guessed that was what he was getting at.

So keep the calls going as this will continue to put the pressure on them to get this amended before closing and the first of the year when the law would be in effect. Also if you call they woill put you on a e-mail list so when this gets put in front of the Legislature you will know about it. You will also get an e-mail as soon as the Governor signs the amendment. Just that is worth the phone call!

Paul Cook's office

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

Tim Itnyre - Legislative Director
State Capitol, Room 5164
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-2065
916-319-2165 fax
 

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
17,075
Messages
179,022
Members
11,777
Latest member
lopomota