And this is why Paul Cook is not a safe choice for conservatives or recreationalist or anyone who has a love of Liberty.
Paul Cook our current Assemblyman and Congressional Candidate has authored what might be a final stab in the back for Off Road Recreational Families.
california legislation > AB 1595 (Cook): Vehicles: recreational off-highway vehicles.
Warning! This is a not the current version of this legislative bill.
Italicized text includes proposed additions to law or the previous version of the bill.
Struck text includes proposed deletions to law or the previous version of the bill.(pdf version)
PASSED THE SENATE JULY 6, 2012
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY MAY 25, 2012
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 21, 2012
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 10, 2012
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 29, 2012INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Cook
FEBRUARY 6, 2012
An act to amend Section 38012 of, to add Section 500 to, and to
add Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 38600) to Division 16.5 of,
the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 1595, Cook. Vehicles: recreational off-highway vehicles.
…..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.
(c) 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:
CHAPTER 8. RECREATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES38600. A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle
shall be at least 16 years of age, or be directly supervised in the
vehicle by a parent or guardian or by an adult authorized by the
parent or guardian.
38601. A person shall not operate, or allow a passenger in, a
recreational off-highway vehicle unless the person and the passenger
are wearing safety helmets meeting the requirements established for
motorcycles and motorized bicycles pursuant to Section 27802.
38602. A person operating, and any passenger in, a recreational
off-highway vehicle shall wear a seatbelt and shoulder belt or safety
harness that is properly fastened when the vehicle is in motion.
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.
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.
……
Paul Cook is not and has never been a friend of the Off Road Community. His conspicuous failure to support the Friends of Johnson Valley and their fight to keep Johnson Valley OHV area open is now compounded with this nitwit moronic legislation that warms the cockles of the left-wing cactus caressers, is proof positive he is an enemy of the outdoor recreation community.
Candidate for the 8th Congressional District Gregg Imus posted on his web Blog:
I have read the summary of AB 1595 and would like to start off by saying that I don’t need Sacramento or Washington telling me what to do or how to live. The duty of government is to protect our individual freedoms, rights and liberties, not take them away from us. I grew up riding dirt bikes and at one time owned 7 off road motorcycles for myself and my family. My wife and I would spend weekends riding with the kids. It was my obligation as a father to teach my kids safety, not the governments. This bill is nothing more than the expansion of government into the privacy of our lives and recreation. AB 1595 tells us that we do not have the ability to know what is best for our families. The arrogance of the Sacramento politicians that feel they know what is best for us is appalling. They can’t even take care of the fiscal crisis that faces the state, and until they fix that mess they should not be allowed to do anything else. After all, they work for us, not us for them.
Cook told reliable sources that he is backtracking and trying to change some of the language so as not piss the Off Road Community off as it has become apparent that this might well lose him most of the rural, desert and mountain vote.
“This will do nothing to save lives, and it will further hamper a family orientated recreation that is under assault by the nanny state”, said Friends of Giant Rock Member Mark Lanham of Landers.
Paul Cook looks pretty bad here. He once again listens to the vocal fringe and fails to think of the collateral damage and unintended consequences of stupid legislation.
What a goof ball idea…. Hey Paul did you think this was not going to piss rural families off?
Gregg Imus vs Paul Cook: Paul Cook Pushes for another Boneheaded Nanny State Assault on Outdoor Recreation,
You might be interested
Gregg Imus vs Paul Cook: Open Letter To Paul Cook
Gregg Imus vs Paul Cook: Chipping Away At The Sandstone
Gregg Imus vs Paul Cook: Sometimes the Little Guys Come In First
Gregg Imus’ Responses to Paul Cook’s Accusations
Gregg Imus vs Paul Cook: High Desert Politics | Paul Cook Can’t Be A Marine
Gregg Imus vs Paul Cook: Update on this supposed Imus warrant
Gregg Imus vs Paul Cook: Imus puts on Great Event Saturday Night At Las Palmas
below is a copy of the ASA newsletter, its already signed into law by gov “moon beam”.
ASA News : New CA Law Will Impact How You Operate Your SXS
Many people have contacted us to express concerns regarding the newly passed AB 1595 which changes the vehicle code to define a Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle (ROV) and establishes requirements for their operation, which includes requirements to wear helmets, seat belts, driving age limits, physical size requirements and prohibits modifications to add seating.
In response to the surprise passage of this law, the ASA has been in contact with the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) which is the vehicle manufacturer organization that sponsored AB 1595. They are currently accepting inquiries regarding the law that will go into effect on January 1, 2013. All questions should be directed to their Washington, DC office by calling (703) 416-0444 or emailing info@rohva.org.
ROHVA recently released a statement providing further information about the recently passed legislation. “AB 1595 contains five provisions regulating the use of ROVs in California. Each of those requirements directly address hazards identified by the Consumer Product Safety Council in incidents resulting in serious injuries and fatalities. In order to ensure that ROVs continue to be available, and safely used, it is critical that industry and enthusiasts support legislation to ensure the vehicles are used as designed and recommended by the manufacturers.”
The California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMVR Division) is the agency responsible for administering the law. The ASA has been in discussions with the Division to determine how they intend to enforce the new law. At this time, the Division is still int he process of reviewing AB 1595 and will not make an immediate determination until they have adequate time to conduct their review. In the meantime, the OHMVR Division would like to receive input regarding your legitimate concerns. They understand that the law is somewhat vague and your input may help them determine the best way to enforce it.
Please note that the OHMVR Division did not create this law, they are the agency responsible for disseminating information to the law enforcement agencies that have to enforce it. They are creating an email address for the public to submit questions to one central location and it will be available in about a week. We will provide it to you as soon as it is received. Please be respectful when contacting these agencies.
The ASA has also been in contact with the Yucaipa and Sacramento offices of Assemblyman Paul Cook who carried AB 1595. They are currently working on supplemental legislation to amend items 38603 and 38604 pertaining to ROVs. A press release was issued by Assemblyman Cook’s office responding to the off-road vehicle safety guidelines contained in AB 1595 with the following: “I’m proposing two deletions to this law to address concerns over restrictions on aftermarket seats and passenger height. My goal is to move these clarifications through the Legislature before the end of session.”
We’ve been told the supplemental legislation should receive a bill number early next week. At that time, ASA will provide our membership the guidance required to contact Assemblyman Cook and your own legislators. If you feel that this legislation is flawed, we will be asking you to take this opportunity to voice your opinion to those who can reverse the negative impacts before they an take effect.
The ASA knows that our members have many concerns regarding this new law. We assure you that we are staying on top of this matter and will keep you up to date on the latest information as it becomes available
Assembly Bill No. 1595
CHAPTER 165
An act to amend Section 38012 of, to add Section 500 to, and to add Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 38600) to Division 16.5 of, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
[ Approved by Governor July 24, 2012. Filed Secretary of State July 24, 2012. ]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 1595, Cook. Vehicles: recreational off-highway vehicles.
(1) Existing law establishes rules for the operation of, and requirements for equipment of, an off-highway vehicle. A violation of these rules and requirements is a crime.
This bill would define an off-highway motor vehicle to include a recreational off-highway vehicle, as defined. The bill would establish additional requirements governing the operation of a recreational off-highway vehicle. Because a violation of these provisions is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Digest KeyVote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES
——————————————————————————–
Bill TextThe 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:
CHAPTER 8. Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
38600. A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle shall be at least 16 years of age, or be directly supervised in the vehicle by a parent or guardian or by an adult authorized by the parent or guardian.
38601. A person shall not operate, or allow a passenger in, a recreational off-highway vehicle unless the person and the passenger are wearing safety helmets meeting the requirements established for motorcycles and motorized bicycles pursuant to Section 27802.
38602. A person operating, and any passenger in, a recreational off-highway vehicle shall wear a seatbelt and shoulder belt or safety harness that is properly fastened when the vehicle is in motion.
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.
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.
SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
mike
Well I was going to keep a low profile on the Congressional campaign but this Mother Flocker is going to become my project. Either he has bumped his head or he is in the pocket of the Environmental Wackos. He sure as hell does not represent the vast conservative community. We are freedom loving, independent lot who believe in LESS REGULATION not more!!
Its all the way with Gregg Imus. ITS Live Free or Die!!!
I like this passage of the law. It should really piss of quite a few off roaders.
(4) A motor vehicle commonly referred to as a jeep.
This will really go over well don’t ya think. Me, I’m Rule 13 from here on out. No more green stickies for me.
Dear Mr. O’Brien,
Instead of getting everybody worked up into a lather about AB 1595, why not ask them to research it for themselves?
What in the bill was not already covered under prior existing law?
I compared Cook’s version to prior existing law and it appears that they simply clarified what an O.H.V. is, plus, among other things, they LOWERED a drivers age from 18 to 16.
As the bill is now it tells drivers and occupants to strap themselves in, wear a helmet, and their feet must touch the floor. This is something that PRIOR existing law required as well. If anybody wants to take the time to study the operators manuals from the manufacturer’s of these vehicles they will find that it also suggests the same thing. (The manual can be found online).
Also, when the state assembly along with the senate voted on AB 1595 there was not a single NO vote. Neither republican or democrat. Not one! So collectively, are they all now consumed to remove our freedoms by voting yes on this?
As for Imus, give me a break. He tells a lovely, where’s-my-handkerchief-I- think-I’m-gonna cry-story that he owned, “7 dirt bikes.”
Big deal.
This bill does not place one iota of restrictions on dirt bikes. And if he doesn’t know that he should.
You want me to vote for a guy who didn’t even spend ten minutes researching the entire bill or comparing it to prior existing law before chiming in?
He cut and pasted his comment by only mentioning what suited his argument while leaving out pertinent details that did not suit his argument.
How truthful is that?
By his comment alone he revealed that he did not do his homework as he did not fully research the facts before posting a comment which has ZERO merit regarding the bill. This only proves that if elected the man will vote on issues while not fully prepared to understand what he’s voting for or against.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS HERE.
As for Cook, he has indicated that he will revise the bill to take into account aftermarket improvements so as not to make these vehicles obsolete as Humphreville complained about.
Bottom line is the manufacturer’s probably got tired of being sued by drivers and passengers who can’t follow simple safety procedures so they asked the government to do the policing for them.
Finally, at Tim:
As much as I chaff at all the rules and reg’s regarding building and safety, should we go back to the old days where restrictions were lax with homes less safe than they are today — like no G.F.I.’s at wet locations where somebody occasionally gets zapped while washing the dishes?
The great thing about America is we have the freedom of speech and can disagree. And in this case you don’t even have to express a reasonable smidgen of logic on your part. The great thing about this election cycle is the extreme Left has an attractive candidate to promote and adore.
I reject your argument. I am glad that Cook fits the bill for those of you that are forever wanting more government and more regulation.
I imagine that Cook is quite pleased that the Left has picked up his banner and is championing him as “their guy”…. You go for it Scot… Tell us why you love Cook.
As for me “I’m not about to Cook my goose.”
Hello Dan,
This has nothing to do with a love affair for Paul Cook.
It has to do with the facts of the bill. The first fact is combined between the state assembly and senate the vote was 107 yeas, 0 noes.
You rejected my entire argument based on the facts of the bill yet did not offer a rebuttal to any of it with facts of your own.
Doesn’t 107 yeas to 0 noes tell you something?
As for your guy, he’s the one who decided to twist the words of AB 1595 when he threw out the claim that by its passage his rights are now restricted on a dirt bike.
Since he’s your guy, why not hold his feet to the fire and ask him to show us where that language is in the bill?
Like I said before, he saw what he wanted to see and discarded the rest.
As for why I’m voting for Cook, that’s easy: He worked his butt off to get where he’s at and he did not get there on the backs of others nor has he ever resorted to sleazy campaign tactics to tear an opponent down; he has stood on his record and his word, period.
As for your guy who seems to have plenty of time on the trail blogging his opinions, Cook is in Sacramento fulfilling his obligations to the voters who put him there.
Other than a short video showing your guy taking target practice (I’m sure Cook can handle a weapon as well)I have yet to see a record on what he has accomplished in the public arena so why should I vote for him?
By the way, just read your Garble post. Huh…..?
Scotts Slant, if the votes were 107 to 0 for slavery would that negate slavery as being wrong? As for your question about where is Gregg Imus’s words in the bill? I expect comments like that from a 10 year old like, your mamma and because I said to be among your next retorts. Mark Clemons is right. Guys like you vote for guys like Paul then wonder why things are so screwed up. BTW, your decree of being part of the public arena would disqualify many a president including George Washington.
Yeah 107 to 0 means something…. it means the whole bunch in Sacramento are F’ed Up. We are Billions in debt to the point of Bankruptcy and the whole bunch are guilty. That is what it means
California thinks it has some right to go beyond the national norm. CARB and now this nit wit law that goes way way beyond the national standard so it makes some stupid lawmaker feel he has done his part to save us from ourselves.
You need to get out and go to an event with Gregg Imus… talk with him you might change your mind.
I know Cook does not have the answers and his track record is mostly useless feel good proclamations or legislation doing the bidding of State Government Hacks.
So I guess we are at loggerheads…. I am not going to consider Cook as a candidate and you not Imus…
Side Note: I got to ask you are you this weekend’s designated liberal? I mean it seems you guys work in shifts.
You’re killing me Dan: “This weekends designated liberal?”
That’s good.
As for your sidekick, Papa, is dragging my mother into this or claiming my comment is equal to a 10 year old the best he has?
Obviously empty handed, he can’t argue the facts so he he attacks the man.
Nice.
And his George Washington comment? Is he really comparing Imus to the same General George Washington who is referred to as the father of our country?
Quite a stretch of imagination there….
Scots Slant. Here’s a fact. More regulation. Period. Prove that it’s not and I’ll admit your not an idiot. As for the George Washington analogy. Using your criteria of holding an elected position as a prerequisite to holding office is idiocy to say the least. My analogy holds true. Sorry those are the facts, as for you being the designated liberal. Just because your comments are idiotic doesn’t make you a liberal. They just make you an idiot. Trying to insinuate that I dragged your mother into this and lying that I compared Gregg Imus to George Washington shows that your an idiot by every stretch of the imagination.
Cook with his co-horts always goes to the current gas wind blowing..especially now with the farts and red hot gas fissures of getting other side voters to think they can help him win this forthcoming election…no way Jose…Cook is cooked, IMUS is the new cat in town…he will take that kitty litter and spray it on the fab ex five in the posh area of yucca valley..excuse me..have they ever seen bevelry hills? time for change no career politicians which we are loaded with.only caring about themselves, their pockets and do not give a hoot too the people who actually vote…hell..our local fire department in yv can only respond to two incidents ..meaning..if there are 4 incidents..they must choose the top two to attend..this was told to me by a local stipend…sounds serious folks…so dont call 911 more than once please….
Scots Slant – “What in the bill was not already covered under prior existing law?” – Yea right!
Ok everybody, will helmets now be required in all the cars and trucks on the road as well? Why not, same difference ain’t it?
Picture the California socialists, including Cook and his passenger Slant, all cruising the boulevards in their shinny new brain buckets? God bless good little lemmings everywhere!
Mike, Next on Paul Cooks agenda is to require that everyone wears floaties when they go for a swim. After all, liberty and freedom is only for those who know whats best for you.
I would hate to miss something important! Can anyone tell me what the hell Peytonplace is babbling about?
For those who wish not to remain entirely ignorant of AB1595, the last two sentences in the second paragraph is interesting….
Irvine, CA (8/6/2012) – The Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) is the national industry organization representing the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle (ROV) industry. ROHVA is sponsored by the major manufacturers and distributors of ROVs: Arctic Cat, BRP, John Deere, Kawasaki, Polaris and Yamaha.
ROHVA’s mission is to promote the safe and responsible use of ROVs and to preserve and protect the ROV industry. Since its inception in 2007, ROHVA has pursued its mission by developing safety programs and guidelines including Model State Legislation. ROHVA also has developed voluntary vehicle design standards under the auspices of the American National Standards Institute.
ROHVA sponsored – and all of its member companies strongly support – AB 1595 in California. AB 1595 was developed by adapting ROHVA’s Model State Legislation, published since 2008, in the context of California’s existing off-highway vehicle (OHV) regulatory scheme. AB 1595 created ROVs as a separate class of OHV with an engine size not greater than 1,000 cc. The ROV provisions of AB 1595 expressly do not apply to vehicles known as sand buggies, dune buggies, ATVs or jeeps.
AB 1595 contains five provisions regulating the use of ROVs in California. Each of those requirements directly address hazards identified by CPSC in incidents resulting in serious injuries and fatalities. In order to ensure that ROVs continue to be available, and safely used, it is critical that industry and enthusiasts support legislation to ensure the vehicles are used as designed and recommended by the manufacturers.
About ROHVA:
The Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association is a national industry organization that promotes the safe and responsible use of ROVs. ROHVA is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to develop equipment, configuration and performance standards. Based in Irvine, Calif., the not-for-profit association is sponsored by Arctic Cat, BRP, Polaris and Yamaha. For more information visit http://www.rohva.org.
So what you are saying is in this one case you support the 1%… you know the corporate oligarchy? The key to this supposed support is “manufactures” You know, people that build ohvs? ROHVA is a well known front for the environmentalists. They were the cause of 3973′s terrible anti liberty provisions. They sat as stakeholders with the County and didn’t know a f’n thing they were talking about.
So what you are saying is because some manufactures have figured that if they support draconian legislation they might be able to sell a few more Vehicles?
Hell if I was a manufacture I would be all for making all previous vehicles obsolete…. It makes great business sense.
Argument dismissed.
ROHVA stated in their PR: The ROV provisions of AB 1595 expressly do not apply to vehicles known as sand buggies, dune buggies, ATVs or jeeps.
Read it and weep from your pervious comment…. The Law:
Did you get that Scot??? Were you able to grasp that ROHVA doesn’t know what it is talking about… This law effects everything that might be considered being able for off road use.
Definition: “Recreational Off-highway Vehicle” (per AB 1595)
(a) Designed by the manufacturer for operation primarily off of
the highway.
(b) Has a steering wheel for steering control.
(c) Has nonstraddle seating provided by the manufacturer for the
operator and all passengers.
(d) Has a maximum speed capability of greater than 30 miles
per hour.
(e) Has an engine displacement equal to or less than 1,000cc.
Note 1:
Definition (a) is meaningless. How is primary usage decided and by whom? And who or what is a “manufacturer? Like Tim, thousands of folks purchase side by sides and upgrade them with far better and safer equipment than the original. Seats, seatbelts, role-cages, mirrors, tires and wheels are a few that come to mind. And like mine, thousands of machines are home built to be off-road capable and equipped to be legally street-able as well. Individuals and Small shops build thousands of beautiful custom jobs too, so the term “manufacturer” is somewhat obscure. How about the term “off of the highway”, does it include private land? What about sanctioned racing etc. etc. etc.?
Note 2:
Definition (e) is too easily circumvented. A simple re-boar or an engine swap to 1,000 + 1 cc and according to the requirement you no longer need helmets. So what happens then? Does the state up the ante – 2,000 cc… then the law will include dune buggies, small pickup trucks and Mom’s old Pinto.
Q: Other than definitions (a) and (e), how does this so called “Recreational Off-highway Vehicle” differ from your family sedan?
A: It doesn’t!
So what size helmet will Mother need and will you tell her this revolting development was partly your fault, Mr. Slant?
Yes, I already read this Dan and I’m not weeping.
The section merely describes what is classified as an O.H.V.
What you are missing is the law only applies to what is classified as an “R.O.V.”; the new breed of O.H.V. (Rhino, etc.)
Compare the entire text of the old law versus the new one and it is reasonably clear what the intent is.
As for, “Argument dismissed,” not.
I am the decider of when to dismiss the argument….
Scots Slant said, I am the decider of when to dismiss the argument…. If your trying to be witty, your not, if your trying to be bold, your not, if your trying to impress yourself you may have succeeded. 2 idiots were lost in the forest, they came upon some tracks, one said those are deer tracks, the other said nope, I hear a rumbling noise, those are elephant tracks.
Then the train hit them.
Q: Other than definitions (a) and (e) below, how does this so called “Recreational Off-highway Vehicle” differ from your family sedan?
(a) Designed by the manufacturer for operation primarily off of
the highway.
(b) Has a steering wheel for steering control.
(c) Has nonstraddle seating provided by the manufacturer for the
operator and all passengers.
(d) Has a maximum speed capability of greater than 30 miles
per hour.
(e) Has an engine displacement equal to or less than 1,000cc.
A: It doesn’t! …So what size helmet will your dear Mother need and will you tell her this revolting development was partly your fault?
Does Cook even realize his law requires helmets to be worn in vehicles that already have industry approved role over protection? Surly not! But while they are interesting observations, the curious helmet ramifications are not the biggest point of contention with this ill-conceived law. Unneeded and poorly written law is the expected product when clueless legislatures listen to influence peddling without bothering to seeking public input. I believe this is once again the case and that is the real problem.
This law was written – at the request – on the advice – and for the benefit – of a consortium of off-road related businesses, not the general off-roading public and ROHVA is not above “crying wolf” to promote their interests. As Dan mentioned, the same thing happened in San Bernardino County and resulted in the creation of an incredibly stupid off-road ordinance that took a tremendous unified effort and years of persistence to correct. If Mr. Cook really wanted to, he could better serve Off-Roaders by simply listening to them. There are hundreds of websites where Off-road enthusiasts are telling it like it is, every day. Getting a clue is so easy, even Slant could do it.
I’d like to thank all the Californians who voted for term limits. Come November Cook will need to leave the Assembly. Please do not send him to the US Senate! Rather send him your best wishes and let the old fart retire. His multiple pensions will provide plenty of green pasture.
So then… am I a minority? I guess we’ll know in November eh, but right now it seems there are just a handful who think that the meddling, nanny-state, gaggle of socialists presently minding the store, are out of touch. I don’t think they know the will of the people when it’s slapping them in the face. They seem to be marching to the beat of their own drum, writing their own agenda, and that’s not what I hired them to do, did you?
I didn’t ask for this legislation. Did you? And the freaking Governor singed it… unbelievable!
Q: Do they do it just to piss us off?
A: They must! There is no other possible reason.
Note 1:
Definition (a) is meaningless. How is primary usage decided and by whom? And who or what is a “manufacturer? Like Tim, thousands of folks purchase side by sides and upgrade them with far better and safer equipment than came with the vehicle originally. Seats, seatbelts, role-cages, mirrors, tires and wheels are a few that come to mind. And like mine, thousands of machines are home built to be off-road capable and equipped to be legally street-able as well. Individuals and Small shops build thousands of beautiful custom jobs too, so the term “manufacturer” is somewhat obscure. How about the term “off of the highway”, does it include private land? What about sanctioned racing etc. etc. etc.?
Note 2:
Definition (e) is too easily circumvented. A simple re-boar or an engine replacement to 1,000 + 1 cc and according to the requirement you no longer need helmets. So what happens then? Does the state up the ante – 2,000 cc, then 3,000… then the law will include dune buggies and small pickup trucks…
Note 3:
It is obvious (a) and (e) fail any real world test! Bell makes good helmets.
Does Cook even realize his law requires helmets to be worn in vehicles that already have industry approved role over protection?
Beware of the Influence Peddler, the truth is not in him! This law was written – at the request – on the advice – and for the benefit – of a consortium of off-road related businesses, not the general off-roading public and ROHVA is not above “crying wolf” to promote their interests. As Dan mentioned, the same thing happened in San Bernardino County and resulted in the creation of an incredibly stupid off-road ordinance that took a tremendous unified effort and years of persistence to correct. If Mr. Cook really wanted to, he could better serve Off-Roaders by simply listening to them. There are hundreds of websites where Off-road enthusiasts are telling it like it is, every day. Getting a clue is so easy, even Slant could do it.
I’d like to thank all the Californians who voted for term limits. Come November, Cook will need to leave the State Assembly. Please do not send him to the US Congress! Rather thank him kindly for the decades of service, give him his gold watch and let the old fart retire. His multiple pensions will provide plenty of green pasture.