Why I now must wear a helmet! or How a bill REALLY becomes law!

This state bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Paul Cook (R-Yucca Valley), started out as a tax reform bill.

Assembly man Cook Introduces Bills to Cut Taxes on Californians


Bill text here, which shows what was original and what was "amended"

It didn't pass the legislature, so it was

"gut and amend". Because there are limits on how many bills can be introduced adn when they can be introduced, bills that have stalled or failed are often "gutted and amended" into new bills during the process to deal with new issues that come up. AB 1595's sales tax reduction was dead on arrival in Assembly Tax and Revenue Committee, so we gutted and amended it on March 29 to run the Off-Highway Vehicle Safety bill.

source

With a little help from a slimy Attorney who has started this whole mess. An industry attorney paid to influence.

Voted on by fellow party members

A Legislative Director told me why this bill went through with out any Republican nays. It was authored by a Republican, it went through 2 committees without any Republican objections and was recommended as a ye vote by Republican consultants. Fact is they have so many bills during the session that they don't all get read. This one, again, having no objections by peers, groups or voters was voted on through. Even if every Republican voted against it the Democrats could have passed it.

source

because

The fact that it was miss represented (by the bill author, another republican, which also bothered Tim) and not vetted in the full assembly means it was passed by consent. There are many bills that are written into law this way because of the shear volume of legislation that moves through our state government.

So, my friends, I have to wear a helmet, because legislatures "gut and amend" (which is more like "bait and switch") a bill that is influenced by industry, and legislatures don't read what they vote on but rely on inaccurate presentations.

Since it started out as a tax bill, then switched to an off road helmet bill, it flew under the radar of off road organizations. I have duly noted my objections to my state reps, and off road individuals/groups in and out of state are organizing for action against.

It also smacks of industry writing a law to help sell new products, as there is an engine size cut off. Gotta make users buy newer machines if they don't want to wear a helmet!

reply to post by desert


Ever hear of ALEC??

reply to post by desert


saves ya head comming apart

I had the unfortunate experiance of being thrown from a vfr800 at 60 mph with barely a helmet and overalls with leather boots,the rest of my body waas wrecked but if i hadnt had the helmet on i would be a vegetable or dead....i used to hate the idea of being forced to wear it...but now wouldnt ride without one

Originally posted by ScottishBiker420
I had the unfortunate experiance of being thrown from a vfr800 at 60 mph with barely a helmet and overalls with leather boots,the rest of my body waas wrecked but if i hadnt had the helmet on i would be a vegetable or dead....i used to hate the idea of being forced to wear it...but now wouldnt ride without one

That is wise. Everyone thinks it won't happen to them until...it does. Wear the damned helmet!

I honestly can say wihout a shadow of a doubt im amazed i got away with severe road rash muscle damage and a broken foot,even an open faced helmet wouldnt have saved my head,only facilitated the front of my face meeting the back of my skull...i honestly cant beleive in this day and age people dont wanna wear them

reply to post by seeker1963


Great ALEC explanation! I wonder if this is shown in Civics classes (said somewhat rhetorically) ? This is REALLY how legislation is conducted. What I was taught now seems quaint. a romantic notion.

Much as was said in 1980 by a Reagan campaign aide (Richard Wirthlin) about democracy:

'American democracy is less a form of government than a romantic preference for a particular value structure.’

What America is today was predicted in 1985 but fell on deaf ears:

The battery of technologies and techniques combined with the new system of PAC-financing and lobbying legislation, are moving the political process beyond ‘representational democracy.’ The tools and techniques are obviously business-derived (especially from marketing, advertising , public relations and data processing), and the real power for determining political campaigns and legislation resides with business-interested. Democracy is now becoming a Big Business. And yet, in order for such a system to function – given our ‘ romantic preference for a particular value structure’ – it must disguise itself as something else. It must maintain a careful façade which promises and pretends that ‘democracy’ is government of the people, by the people, for the people. The mainstream media, themselves owned by large corporations with their own special interests, are the best means for maintaining this façade.. Not surprisingly, television is the most important of them all for such management, maintenance and smooth engineering. Like the computer, its power derives in large part from the fact that people perceive it to be apolitical, merely a servant to their own pleasure. The Manages Democracy depends on just this naivete.

source-an interesting read

I thought I'd better explain the helmet situation.

In California, all riders of motorcycles, dirt bikes, and quads must wear helmets, unlike some other states. I have no beef with that, as, via experience, my helmeted head hit the hard dirt in an accident as a passenger on a two-up quad (a quad built for two). Without that protection, I for sure would have had some damage to the brain.

What I ride in now is a UTV, a "side by side", which is a four wheeled off road toy, where, unlike the above, two people sit next to each other; are harnessed in (5 point racing in my case), and have a cage or rollbar. Until now, UTV riders were exempt from wearing helmets.

My engine is 800cc, but according to the new law, I wouldn't need a helmet if I rode a SLIGHTLY larger (or same sized even) UTV, with a +1000cc engine. The company whose name is connected to the bill is going to come out with a +1000cc. What a great marketing scheme to get a jump on the competition.

This helmet part of the bill makes no sense. I must ride a slower machine with a helmet, but a UTV with more power is exempt.
Besides the bait and switch of the bill's content, absolutely no input was asked of those affected, the "stakeholders" as politicians like to say.

Some on the off road forums are angrily blaming "liberals" and Democrats for this bill, but it was Republicans, who claim to not be liberal and who say they support off roaders, who started and supported the law.

Bottom line, I need a helmet to putt around my campsite at 20mph, but a legally exempt unhelmeted rider flies by at 70mph. Makes no sense.

Originally posted by ScottishBiker420
I had the unfortunate experiance of being thrown from a vfr800 at 60 mph with barely a helmet and overalls with leather boots,the rest of my body waas wrecked but if i hadnt had the helmet on i would be a vegetable or dead....i used to hate the idea of being forced to wear it...but now wouldnt ride without one

I took a slide while popping a wheelie on my 94 FZR 1000. It was lot more than 60 mph thats for sure I had my helmet on as it was the law in the state I lived back then (1997). I walked away with lots of road burns but no broken bones. I later on saw that the chin portion of the helmet was scratched...it could have been my chin and ultimately the head possibly tossed around too. I totally agree using a helmet as the speeds are amazingly fast to be on a 2 wheeler and with the surrounding traffic.