Get your helmets ready....

Blonda

Blonda

New member
CA and Governor Brown are getting out of control. Does this really mean what I think it does? You would need to wear a helmet to legally offroad in a Jeep? Seriously? :grayno:


http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB1595

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.
 
It's all interpretation. This section lists vehicles subject to this section are those that fall under 38010 CVC. That section specifically refers to vehicle that are solely used for off-highway use or "green tags" per se. I think you're in the clear as long as your vehicle is registered for on-highway use. Hope this helps. :)
 
May not apply to your everyday JK specifically but could be applied (probably open to interpretation--it's vague) to any Jeep that is built up for primarily offroad use but, of course, is still street legeal. You could argue that Jeep did not design their Jeeps "primarily for off highway" but then why do they specifically call out a Jeep? The only part that doesn't make sense is item (e) engine displacement which doesn't meet the criteria. What Jeep has only 1000 cc? None. (except sometimes it feels like it only does LOL) But why is "Jeep" on the list?

This section was added in to the amended law that was signed in by brown the end of July this year:
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 the provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 38010.
(b) As used in this division, “off-highway motor vehicle” includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Any A motorcycle or motor-driven cycle, except for any motorcycle which that is eligible for a special transportation identification device issued pursuant to Section 38088.
(2) Any A snowmobile or other vehicle designed to travel over snow or ice, as defined in Section 557.
(3) Any A motor vehicle commonly referred to as a sand buggy, dune buggy, or all-terrain vehicle.
(4) Any A motor vehicle commonly referred to as a jeep.
(5) A recreational off-highway vehicle as defined in Section 500.
 
Last edited:
I would think that Section 500 applies to the UTV crowd mainly as they have gained recent popularity and may have fell into a few grey areas.
 
Last edited:
Blonda said:
You could argue that Jeep did not design their Jeeps "primarily for off highway" but then why do they specifically call out a Jeep?
Click to expand...

That's a very good point, and I for one, don't know the answer. I wish I'd heard about this sooner...This would be a real bummer.

I'm going to read this again after I wake up today and make a few calls...
 
Last edited:
I do not think any of you guys in cali have to worry. This is a very vague law that is up for interpretation, as usual and therefore even if they were to hassle u i dont think any fine would stick. I have personally interpreted this that "motor vehicle commonly referred to as jeep" does not actually mean our jeeps (jks). If u take in to consideration that the average person in the populous who doesnt see jeeps the way we do, would refer to truck thats capable of going offroad as a jeep. Especially something that is modified. I think that is what they are trying to cover because if they were attacking Jeep, then why not put any vehicle manufactured by Jeep? Our jks arent a vehicle commonly referred to as jeeps they are jeeps. And i also agree that it wouldnt make sense since they are made for on road use. They gray area is for someone who has highly modified a jeep.
 
Hey look! Imagine that, another California law that is ambiguous and doesn't make sense.

Who would have thought?
 
MTG said:
Hey look! Imagine that, another California law that is ambiguous and doesn't make sense.

Who would have thought?
Click to expand...

ummm, what are you trying to say? that californian laws are stupid? :thinking: :crazyeyes: :sigh:

this whole thing is just lame :naw:
 
wayoflife said:
ummm, what are you trying to say? that californian laws are stupid? :thinking: :crazyeyes: :sigh:

this whole thing is just lame :naw:
Click to expand...

I'm just annoyed that I'll have to buy a helmet to keep in the jeep like my mud flaps and light covers.
 
You would think that if Chrysler was aware of the proposed legislation that they might have something to say about vehicles being classified as "Jeeps" or "Jeep like" or have some sort of objection with their name being used as such.

Just spit ballin' here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom