AB 1595 please read! new side x side laws at Dumont (CA)

[dunefreak]

Do you have some way to verify? I've had a few people email me asking.

[mineurbiz]

The seats are grandfathered in, I believe 2013 and older, can still run the back seats.

[Adam @ GTP Off Road]

This is from post #49 in this thread... There is some other info on page 2 of this thread.

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES

AB 1266 Signed by the Governor Today

I am thrilled to report that today Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1266 into law. I want to thank you all for your advice and support in getting this passed. I could not have done it without you.

AB 1266 removes the language requiring passengers to be able to sit "with both feet flat on the floorboard" while restrained. This will ensure that children can continue to ride, allowing families to continue enjoying off-roading together.

This bill also delays the implementation of the provision prohibiting the use of post-manufactured seats until July 1, 2013. This will give legislators time to work on a solution that would allow operators who have safely modified their vehicles to continue riding.

Now that AB 1266 has been signed into law, my office will work on securing an author for a bill to resolve your remaining concerns. I will update you in the coming weeks on the progress of draft legislation as well as information about which legislators will be carrying the legislation next year.

Thank you again for all of your input and support over the past two months.

Sincerely,

Assemblyman Paul Cook

65th Assembly District

[dunefreak]

The biggest concern is the aftermarket back seats. That bill only postponed the ruling until July 2013...so what came of that part? I looked up AB 1266 and it has nothing to do with offroad. It's some same sex pupil rights crap. ? Lol

According to AB 1595, there was no grandfathering and the seats are illegal. So we're still in need of something current to confirm this.

[mineurbiz]

Trying to find the updated version, but here is an additional link

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB1266

[mineurbiz]

Here you go Pete http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/ab_64_cfa_20130419_132025_asm_comm.html

1)Prohibits a driver of a ROHV from allowing a passenger to              occupy a separate seat location not designed and provided by a              manufacturer if the ROHV is model year 2014 or later.

2)Authorizes passengers in ROHVs of model year 2013 or earlier              to occupy seat locations not designed and installed by the              manufacturer provided that the occupant is fully contained              inside the vehicle's rollover protection structure at all              times while the vehicle is being operated

Edited August 7, 2013 by mineurbiz

[Just Mike]

I hope the LEO'S are going to discuss this with people before they start handing out tickets. Seems like they did a good job of revising it though. Does not affect me personally but I hate to see people get tickets for not know about new rules.

[dunefreak]

Thanks Mark. Seems to clear things up. I really wish the BLM would have this information on their website. Where else are we supposed to find it? Google?

[mineurbiz]

Thanks Mark. Seems to clear things up. I really wish the BLM would have this information on their website. Where else are we supposed to find it? Google?

Yeah kills me, BLM is where most would think to go and check on riding rules, yet they don't have this listed, one of the biggest rule changes!!

[ynot]

Why would you expect BLM, a federal Bureau to have information about California's laws? I would think one would look up the law on the California DMV or other site which would pertain to OHV use. Just my 2 cents worth but it's a separate issue as far as the federal laws would pertain. I don't think Federal LEO's can cite for California vehicle infractions unless they have a cooperative agreement between the county Sheriff's office and the Local office of jurisdiction of the BLM . At our last sub-group meeting the two entities were working on getting that agreement signed and in place. Otherwise you would have to be cited for a Ca. violation by a San Bernadino Sheriff's Deputy if I understand the way it has worked in the past. Federal officers can only cite for federal violations and although many of them are the same the fines and court appearances differ and where the fine's go . As of now they are trying to get it into the San Bernadino County fund to keep the Leo's budget high enough for them to come out when needed. Their budget in Barstow was cut in half so they are doing everything they can to keep that office running and manned.

[dunefreak]

Why would you expect BLM, a federal Bureau to have information about California's laws?

Because their Federal BLM rangers are the ones who enforce these rules and write us tickets. They have lots of other rules on their website that are also California laws. Why leave out a new and important one like this?

I'm just trying to stay educated and keep people informed.

[mineurbiz]

Because their Federal BLM rangers are the ones who enforce these rules and write us tickets. They have lots of other rules on their website that are also California laws. Why leave out a new and important one like this?

I'm just trying to stay educated and keep people informed.

DITTO!!!

They are the one source that you should go to, since they are (like Pete said) enforcing the laws on those lands.

[ynot]

Because their Federal BLM rangers are the ones who enforce these rules and write us tickets. They have lots of other rules on their website that are also California laws. Why leave out a new and important one like this?

I'm just trying to stay educated and keep people informed.

They only can write you tickets that are violations of federal law. Which are very similar to state motor vehicle laws I.E. DUI/ open container/no flag, no helmet etc' However Ca. LEO has to write for Ca. violations. If a Federal LEO writes you for say open container the citations go to federal court and the fine goes into the US Goverment general fund. If a Sheriff's deputy writes a cite for open container then it goes to San Bernadino county general fund and helps keep the Leo's from San Bernadino at the dunes. That's why they are trying to get this agreement signed so BLM can write for local violations. That way all the money stays local.

I am not trying to be a smart a$$ but it's just that most BLM leo's don't know all the new CA. OHV laws, they should but I doubt it as they don't because up until now they couldn't write them. This had some positives because federal violations were usually a little less fines and no points and usually no notification to insurance companies. That's all I am trying to point out. BLM will leave the publishing of Ca. Vehicle codes to Ca. as the same goes for NV, OR, ID and all the other 50 states.

[White Rhino]

Wow Terry learned something new just now thanks!!

Great news on the back seat deal too. I was wondering that same thing.

[JoeDuner]

So, does the law just state 1000cc or less needs to wear a helmet? So, I can show them proof that I did a big bore kit (receipt from shop) and made my SxS 1050cc and be good to go with no helmet?

[Just Mike]

So, does the law just state 1000cc or less needs to wear a helmet? So, I can show them proof that I did a big bore kit (receipt from shop) and made my SxS 1050cc and be good to go with no helmet?

I am pretty sure it has to be stock from the factory 1000cc or better. I think at that point the companies have to jump through a lot more hoops with the EPA to get certified.

[ynot]

You should also remember that the "Companies" were the ones that wanted this law, wrote most of it, lobbied for it and got the wheels moving to get it passed. There will never be a SXS that will have a larger than 1000 CC engine unless they change the class to a sand car. There have been to many lawsuits against Yamaha, Polaris and Kawasaki to change that. If you aren't obeying the law and you get hurt it makes it harder to sue the "Companies" for damages. In all the cases against Yamaha for injuries and deaths it is my understanding that none of them ever were won. Usually the person suing had made modifications, wasn't wearing a seat belt nor a recommended helmet. It may have cost millions to protect Yamaha but they never had to pay an owner of a Rhino for doing something stupid and making changes to a stock vehicle or driving in a manner the vehicle was not designed for. The "Companies" finally had enough of it and went to the capital of OHV use and without any consulting of the OHV users got this law passed to protect themselves, no body else just them. I cannot see where the state can tell me that driving a 1000 cc machine or a 450HP car is different. The actual truth is that if the manufacturers would spend a little more in cage, frame and seat belt design most of the claims would have never happened.

[JoeDuner]

Soooooooo......back to the original question....lol. Does anyone have the verbage on the 1000cc law?

[mineurbiz]

As for as what Joe? The helmet law refers to anything under 1000cc's and over 30 MPH capable from the factory, or were you looking for other info? When they look at the specs, your big bore kit is not how it came from the factory, so by law yours still falls under the 1000CC law.

A vehicle designed by the manufacturer 

That seems to be the common verbiage before every definition

Edited August 8, 2013 by mineurbiz

[foolofsand]

As for as what Joe? The helmet law refers to anything under 1000cc's and over 30 MPH capable from the factory, or were you looking for other info? When they look at the specs, your big bore kit is not how it came from the factory, so by law yours still falls under the 1000CC law.

A vehicle designed by the manufacturer 

That seems to be the common verbiage before every definition

and it goes over 30 mph anyway

[JoeDuner]

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 500 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
500. "Recreational off-highway vehicle" means a motor vehicle
meeting all of the following criteria:
(a) Designed by the manufacturer for operation primarily off of
the highway.
(b) Has a steering wheel for steering control.
© Has nonstraddle seating provided by the manufacturer for the
operator and all passengers.
(d) (1) Has a maximum speed capability of greater than 30 miles
per hour.
(2) A vehicle designed by the manufacturer with a maximum speed
capability of 30 miles per hour or less but is modified so that it
has a maximum speed capability of greater than 30 miles per hour
satisfies the criteria set forth in this subdivision.
(e) Has an engine displacement equal to or less than 1,000cc (61
ci).
SEC. 2. Section 38012 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
38012. (a) As used in this division, "off-highway motor vehicle
subject to identification" means a motor vehicle subject to
subdivision (a) of Section 38010.
(b) As used in this division, "off-highway motor vehicle"
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) A motorcycle or motor-driven cycle, except for any motorcycle
that is eligible for a special transportation identification device
issued pursuant to Section 38088.
(2) A snowmobile or other vehicle designed to travel over snow or
ice, as defined in Section 557.
(3) A motor vehicle commonly referred to as a sand buggy, dune
buggy, or all-terrain vehicle.
(4) A motor vehicle commonly referred to as a jeep.
(5) A recreational off-highway vehicle as defined in Section 500.
SEC. 3. Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 38600) is added to
Division 16.5 of the Vehicle Code, to read:

It says has to have all....and the statement about 1000cc isn't prefaced with "by the manufacturer" in the same sentence???

[JoeDuner]

What has Polaris rated the RZR 170 at MPH? If under 30, then those don't require helmets?

[JoeDuner]

(d) has a sub-category of 1. and 2., but (e) is it's own statement.

And the laws say "Recreational off-highway vehicle" means a motor vehicle
meeting all of the following criteria:"

Wish we had a lawyer on the forum to explain this....LOL

[ynot]

Joe, unfortunately I think this has been beaten to death. You would have a tough time getting out of a citation with your argument that the engine size was increased after purchase. I think you should get used to the helmet gig, sorry

[FE135]

Joe, I agree with you. Just be prepared to prove the cc's in court. The cops aren't looking at your engine and are probably trained that if it looks like a SxS, the law applies. You can keep a copy of the law and proof of your engine size with you and it should work with a reasonable officer. I do agree that the law states "Has", as in current cc's. A letter form the builder or a spec sheet with bore and stroke should be enough. Worst case is you pay the $75 fine and take one for the team or best case, you set the precedent for success.