BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1835 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 1, 2014 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair AB 1835 (Olsen) - As Introduced: February 18, 2014 SUBJECT : Recreational off-highway vehicles: helmets: exemption SUMMARY : Exempts operators and passengers of recreational off-highway vehicles (ROHVs) who are 18 years of age or older from the requirement to wear a helmet. Specifically, this bill : 1)Exempts operators and passengers of ROHVs from the requirement to wear a helmet as long as all of the following circumstances apply: a) The operator or passenger is 18 years of age or older; b) The ROHV is equipped with a roll bar by the manufacturer; c) The operator or passenger is seated in a manufacturer-installed seat; and, d) The operator or passenger is wearing a seat belt. EXISTING LAW : 1)Defines an ROHV as a vehicle designed by the manufacturer for operation primarily off of the highway, with a steering wheel for steering control, non-straddle seating, manufacturer-installed seating for 2014 or later model year vehicles, designed maximum speed capability of 30 miles per hour (mph) or less, and an engine displacement of equal to or less than 1,000 cubic centimeter (cc). 2)Requires that ROHVs display an identification plate issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). 3)Prohibits a person from operating or allowing passengers to ride in an ROHV unless the operator and passengers are wearing safety helmets that meet the requirements established for motorcycles and motorized bicycles. AB 1835 Page 2 FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : AB 1595 (Cook), Chapter 165, Statutes of 2012, set forth the definition of an ROHV and established certain requirements for their safe operation on public lands including, among other things, the requirement that all ROHV operators and passengers wear safety helmets. After the passage of AB 1595, the ROHV community learned of this bill's requirements and expressed concerns, among other things, about the newly imposed helmet requirement. They, along with the author, contend that adult ROHV users should be allowed to decide for themselves whether helmet use is necessary and appropriate, particularly since ROHVs have a lower center of gravity, shoulder harnesses, seat belts, and roll bars, all of which, they believe, adequately protect the safety of an adult user. To address these concerns, the author has introduced this bill which would exempt adult drivers and passengers in ROHVs from the requirement to wear a helmet as long as the vehicle is equipped with a roll bar by the manufacturer, the operator or passenger is seated in a manufacturer-installed seat, and they are wearing a seat belt. Writing in support of this bill, the Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California agrees that helmet use should not be required for persons using ROHVs. They note that the requirement to wear a helmet would negatively impact hunting, fishing, and other forms of outdoor recreation in California. A number of ROHV operators expressed similar concerns in addition to the inequity that ROHV users must wear helmets when users of other "open" vehicles, such as golf carts, do not have similar requirements. Many supporters also expressed that ROHV's inherently safe design provides adequate protection for users. Writing in opposition to the bill, the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association, a not-for-profit trade association formed to promote the safe and responsible use of ROHVs and the sponsor of AB 1595, notes that the presence of roll bars and the use of seat belts while riding in ROHVs does not mitigate the need to wear a helmets. Specifically, they cite the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) studies showing that lack of helmet use is implicated in 53 percent of ROHV injury and fatality accidents. Also writing in opposition to the bill, the California Medical AB 1835 Page 3 Association claims that requiring drivers and passengers of ROHVs to wear helmets is grounded in sound public policy. They cite similar CPSC statistics regarding ROHV injuries noting that nearly 70% of crashes involved rollovers which resulted in the ejection of passengers and the majority of deaths, despite the presence of roll bars and other safety measures. Related legislation : SB 1450 (Fuller) is a spot bill related to off-highway vehicles. That bill is currently in the Senate Rules Committee pending assignment. Previous legislation : AB 1595 (Cook), Chapter 165, Statutes of 2012, defined ROHVs and prescribed safety regulations for their use on public lands among which included the requirement that all ROHV passengers and operators must wear safety helmets. AB 1266 (Nielsen), Chapter 529, Statutes of 2012, delayed until July 1, 2013, the effective date of the requirement that all passengers occupy seats provided by the manufacturer and deleted the requirement that an ROHV passenger must be able to put both feet flat on the floorboard when seated upright and grasping the handhold with the safety harnessed fastened. SB 234 (Walters), Chapter 179, Statutes of 2013, limited the requirement that passengers in recreational ROHVs may only sit in seats installed by the original manufacturer to ROHV's with a 2014 or later model year. AB 64 (Donnelly), Chapter 548, Statutes of 2013, the introduced version of the bill would have made ROHV helmet requirements not applicable to children secured in a child safety seat. This provision was later removed and ultimately, that bill was gutted and amended to address fifth-wheel travel trailer lengths. SB 334 (Fuller) of 2013, would have delayed for 18 months state law that requires passengers in ROHVs to occupy seats provided by the manufacturer of the ROHV. That bill died in the Senate. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support American Brotherhood Aimed Toward Education (ABATE) Barstow 4-Wheelers AB 1835 Page 4 Nick's Computer Works/Charla's Tools Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California 102 Individuals Opposition California Medical Association Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319- 2093