SB 586 off-road/out of class e-powered bikes

[Jim Baross]

SB 586

I like it. It might help ID devices that look like Electric Bicycles but aren't, primarily if the devices must be sold with appropriate marking/display of status.

Must display info of their status as "off road" only.

SB 586, as amended, Jones. Off-highway motor vehicles: eMotos.

Existing law regulates the operation of bicycles, motorized scooters, and electric personal assistive mobility devices, as defined.

This bill would define the term “eMoto” as an electric two-wheeled device built on a bicycle infrastructure that does not have pedals or an engine number and is not subject to registration under the Vehicle Code.

Existing law defines an off-highway motor vehicle as a motor vehicle that operates on lands, other than a highway, that are open and accessible to the public, as specified. Existing law establishes rules for the operation of an off-highway vehicle and imposes specified safety requirements, including, among other things, a requirement that a person operating an off-highway vehicle wear a safety helmet. Existing law requires every off-highway motor vehicle that is not registered under the Vehicle Code to display an identification plate or device issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, except as specified. A violation of these rules and requirements is a crime.

This bill would classify an eMoto as an off-highway motor vehicle, thereby subjecting eMotos to the rules and regulations relating to off-highway motor vehicles, including requiring eMotos to be subject to identification. The bill would require the Department of the California Highway Patrol, in consultation with local law enforcement, to implement a program to educate the public on the proper use and operation of eMotos as off-highway vehicles and to promote the compliance of eMotos with the rules and regulations described above. By expanding the scope of existing crimes with respect to eMotos, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

Jim Baross

[David Whiteman]

Jim, please forgive my lack of legal expertise. Does the red strikeout type regarding the CHP mean that the original bill had a section saying that the CHP will establish a program educating the people about off highway vehicles, and that section was removed in the bill that passed the state senate? Do you know why that section was removed?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXezKcE-OuKjZN-oTh5cxNONNaXfeQewA5KUXi1xDrRO6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Wachtel]

If you look carefully at the page Jim linked, you'll see "NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation." See here for the latest draft on LegiScan, or here at Leginfo. If you click the Bill Analysis tab on Leginfo, you can find the committee and floor analyses of the bill.

David Whiteman wrote:

Does the red strikeout type regarding the CHP mean that the original bill had a section saying that the CHP will establish a program educating the people about off highway vehicles, and that section was removed in the bill that passed the state senate? Do you know why that section was removed?

Yes, it means the May 23 amendments removed that language from the previous version of the bill. The Senate Appropriations Committee analysis from May 10 helps explain why: "CHP estimates one-time costs of approximately $280,000 to consult with local law enforcement stakeholders to develop and implement a public education program on the proper use and operation of eMotos as OHVs and promote compliance with OHV laws." A later analysis, dated May 23, shows that the Appropriations Committee then amended the bill to delete that provision, presumably for fiscal reasons.

~ Alan

[Clinton Sandusky]

Hi David and all!

I concur with Alan's assessment. It always comes down to funding and California doesn't have it!

That's the same reason I believe CABO's lobbying for the defining of OCEVs (Out-of-Class Electric Vehicles) - Bill Text - SB-455 Electric bicycles. - and of course our hope for a CA Bicycle Driver Handbook in the past failed!

Respectfully,

Clint Sandusky

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Calif. Bicycle Driving Advocates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to calif-bicycle-driving...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/calif-bicycle-driving-advocates/CAG28zXezKcE-OuKjZN-oTh5cxNONNaXfeQewA5KUXi1xDrRO6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Scott Mace]

At last week's annual SVBC summit, CalBike executive director Kendra Ramsey said that the DMV told CalBike that a Bicycle Driver Handbook would cost $4 million, money not in the DMV budget.

Scott Mace

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAPNKBZ3k0y1en-p_JzDgwNJu6LT-DQK2eScr3VM0eA-w4e3NFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Clinton Sandusky]

Scott,

Yes, as shown in the Bill Text - AB-1188 Transportation: bicycle safety handbook. "Bill Analysis: 202320240AB1188_Assembly Appropriations.pdf. Subsequently, we had proposed a digital version that would highly reduced the cost!

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/b5a6b22e-bb8f-438e-8c17-2e5f70a4219b%40wiredmuse.com.