Contact   Imprint   Advertising   Guidelines

California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

forum for kitesurfers


unbob
Medium Poster
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:49 am
Kiting since: 2008
Local Beach: The Gorge
La Ventana
Favorite Beaches: La Ventana
The Gorge
Style: Free/surf
Gear: Vader 5'1"
North Neo 6/8/10m
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: The Gorge/La Ventana

Re: California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

Postby unbob » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:18 am

Toby wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:36 am
Cab Driver wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:55 pm
Toby, maybe edit the title of this thread as the latest info doesn't seem to jive with the thread heading??
What do you suggest?
I suggest 'California seeks to regulate Everything!!'

Sure glad I'm not a CA resident - best of luck to all who are!!

madworld
Frequent Poster
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:52 pm
Kiting since: 2000
Local Beach: Northern California.
Style: Cruising
Gear: Ocean rodeo Prodigy.
Brand Affiliation: Ocean Rodeo

Re: California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

Postby madworld » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:22 am

TomW wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:06 pm
Is this another case of a troller trying to whip up conflict and polarisation?

There's no " criminalising " and there's apparently a concerned public servant trying to give authority to regulate dangerous behaviour.

I'm happy to see it didn't work.
Clearly you do not know what you are talking about and Trolling from Sweden. I succeeded in my goal of getting people to call the California state senator who proposed this legislation.

Here is the outcome of the telephone campaign.

First up, here is a link to all the info on the bill:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... 0180SB1247
At this link you can find the bill text, votes, history, any analyses of the bill, and you can compare bill language with current law. You can also write comments to the author of the bill from this link. But all of that may not be necessary at this point due to the info below.

I called Senator Gaines’ Capitol office, and his staffer, Peter, told me that their phones are blowing up thanks to all of you. 

Peter also let me know that the bill language that’s there now is in “spot” form, which means that there’s just some language in there to establish some sort of intent, but that the bill will be amended to clarify the intent as soon as they’re able, which is after March 18th.
Here’s info on what a spot bill is: http://www.legintent.com/what-does-it-m ... spot-bill/

Peter also told me that the bill, once amended, will be a public safety bill which will allow police officers to do breathalyzer tests on operators of sailboats WITHOUT motors. Apparently as the law stands now, they can only do breathalyzers on sailboats WITH motors. Peter stated that the bill will not affect wind sport equipment or your use of the waterways.
Peter will have the staffer who’s working on the bill send me the Fact Sheet for the bill as soon as it’s ready.

It’s pretty common for bills to be introduced in bare bones form, and it’s not shocking that the current bill language would raise red flags for the wind sport community, since right now it appears to call for greater regulation of your use of the waterways.

So, there you have it for now. If, for some reason, what Peter told me was not accurate, and I have no reason to believe it wasn’t, y’all can mobilize.

I’ve written a bit more info on the legislative process below, in case anyone is interested.

This is the second year of a two-year Legislative Session. The deadline to introduce bills was in mid-February.
From the info on the link above for SB 1247, the earliest the bill will be heard in the Natural Resources and Water Committee is March 18th. At that point, I assume the author will amend the bill to clarify the intent.
Once a bill passes the committee(s) it’s been scheduled to be heard in, it goes to the full house that it was introduced in, in this case, the State Senate. The deadline for passage through the Senate (the House of Origin in legislative terms) is June 1st. If the bill passes the Senate, it will move over to the Assembly, and will go through a similar process, and will likely be heard in the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee. If it passes through that committee, it will then likely go to the Assembly for a vote. The deadline for both houses of the legislature to pass bills is August 31st, and the Governor has 30 days to either veto the bill, or to sign it into law, or to ignore it, which also has the effect of approving the bill.
Last edited by madworld on Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

madworld
Frequent Poster
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:52 pm
Kiting since: 2000
Local Beach: Northern California.
Style: Cruising
Gear: Ocean rodeo Prodigy.
Brand Affiliation: Ocean Rodeo

Re: California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

Postby madworld » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:34 am

Also the Department of Boating and Waterways legislative office is inquiring to make sure the legislation does not have unintended consequences and conforms to other boating rules currently in place.

User avatar
purdyd
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:00 am

Re: California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

Postby purdyd » Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:30 am

unbob wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:18 am
Toby wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:36 am
Cab Driver wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:55 pm
Toby, maybe edit the title of this thread as the latest info doesn't seem to jive with the thread heading??
What do you suggest?
I suggest 'California seeks to regulate Everything!!'

Sure glad I'm not a CA resident - best of luck to all who are!!
I think you will find similar rules in other states, like Oregon

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills ... rs830.html

User avatar
purdyd
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:00 am

Re: California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

Postby purdyd » Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:11 am

After looking at this, it appears that the proposed change to make paddle and sail powered craft motorboats is a lazy way to close a loophole in section 655 which is about drinking and mostly applies to motor vessels.

This change in definition doesn’t make sense and is at odds with the federal defition of a motorboat

6 CFR 24.10-1 - Definitions.

Which appears to be what every state is using

It would be far better for section 655 to be changed to broaden it to vessel vice motorized vessel as needed.

I suggest f you care about this, you take the time to send a comment.

I think as crafted, well meaning or not, this is an entirely awkward change in legislation.

Da Yoda
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 683
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:20 pm
Kiting since: 2005
Style: Strapless Freestyle, Wave, Freeride
Gear: North, Firewire, Loyd, Shinn, Exile
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Western USA

Re: California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

Postby Da Yoda » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:37 pm

CA HNC 655
(b) No person shall operate any vessel or manipulate water skis, an aquaplane, or a similar device while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, any drug, or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug.

In this context, "any vessel" is applicable to ALL types of watercraft... both motorized and non-motorized.

It seems that the definition language under HNC 655.1(a) and CCR 6552(h) may be what's causing the problems:

655.1 "As used in this section, “mechanically propelled vessel” means any vessel actively propelled by machinery, whether or not the machinery is the principal source of propulsion."

6552 “Machinery” includes an inboard or outboard engine and any other type of motor or mechanical device capable of propelling a vessel.

I believe the problem is that the definitions do not adequately identify the "other" types of "machinery" capable for propulsion.
The proposed amendment is simply adding the "machinery" definitions for the other specific devices that are capable (e.g sails, paddles, oars, etc).
I'm still skeptical that law enforcement could not enforce the BUI laws against sailboats when a sailboat falls under the definitions for "any vessel". I'd bet what prompted this was a savvy lawyer got a BUI case overturned based on the language vagueness. That set the bar for future cases to be throw out and further prevented law enforcement from doing their job.

User avatar
Cab Driver
Frequent Poster
Posts: 412
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:12 pm
Kiting since: 0
Brand Affiliation: Cabrinha
Location: Distributor/Cabrinha/Miami

Re: California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

Postby Cab Driver » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:53 pm

unbob wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:18 am
Toby wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:36 am
Cab Driver wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:55 pm
Toby, maybe edit the title of this thread as the latest info doesn't seem to jive with the thread heading??
What do you suggest?
I suggest 'California seeks to regulate Everything!!'

Sure glad I'm not a CA resident - best of luck to all who are!!
"Potential Regulation of Kiteboarding in CA" ?? Since it doesn't seem to be crystal clear one way or the other?

User avatar
purdyd
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:00 am

Re: California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

Postby purdyd » Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:19 am

Da Yoda wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:37 pm
CA HNC 655
[i

I believe the problem is that the definitions do not adequately identify the "other" types of "machinery" capable for propulsion.
the problem is that machinery is defined as motors in federal law

The solution is not to change the definition of a motor boat but to change 655 so it addresses vessels as needed rather than motor boats specifically.

Changing the definition of a motor boat to include sail powered or paddle powered opens up all kinds of issues.

So you now need a muffler? 654

And restrictions on speed and being near things 655.2

And we haven’t even looked over in the vehicle code and how this impacts licensing.

Not to mention everyone knows what a power boat is and there are already definitions for it.

This is really a poor and lazy way to change this code

Da Yoda
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 683
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:20 pm
Kiting since: 2005
Style: Strapless Freestyle, Wave, Freeride
Gear: North, Firewire, Loyd, Shinn, Exile
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Western USA

Re: California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

Postby Da Yoda » Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:34 am

purdyd wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:19 am
the problem is that machinery is defined as motors in federal law

And restrictions on speed and being near things 655.2

And we haven’t even looked over in the vehicle code and how this impacts licensing.
purdyd wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:11 am
This change in definition doesn’t make sense and is at odds with the federal defition of a motorboat

6 CFR 24.10-1 - Definitions.
"Machinery" under CFR 24.10.1 is the definition under Title 46 and pertains to "Shipping" vessels only.

Title 33 CFR and the rules under Chapter 1 are applicable to our types of vessels:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33
However it doesn't matter since CA has their (and makes their) own legislation (like every state). Those are the rules that CA abides by and enforces first.

CA HNC 655.2 uses the following language:
Every owner, operator, or person in command of any vessel propelled by machinery is guilty of an infraction...
This code states "any vessel" which includes both motorized and non-motorized vessels. However what's more evident here is there's no established definition for the "machinery" in this context. That's the whole point of SB-1247.

The CA vehicle code will not be changing going forward. This proposed bill has no bearing on this.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detai ... fo/boatreg

Matteo V
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:42 pm
Kiting since: 2008
Local Beach: US, Iowa/Nebraska/Kansas/Utah/Oregon Coast
Favorite Beaches: Ft. Stevens, North coast of Oregon
Style: Just like school in summertime
Gear: Delta Kites and LF Kitefish QuadMod
Snowboard (Cambered and Rockered)
Foil kites on the snow
Brand Affiliation: NONE F--- the corporate world

Re: California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

Postby Matteo V » Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:17 pm

purdyd wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:19 am
the problem is that machinery is defined as motors in federal law
I think there is some precedent of California law superseding federal law, or at least challenging it to the point where a federal law is effectively negated. And it is not the only state where this happens. Many Federal laws are violated by (being allowed by) state law.

The above matters little to recreational users, as no "civil rights" issues are brought up by typical more stringent or more lax applications in this field of regulation by the states. Without a federal challenge, the states have free reign to do as they please, including enforcement of laws contradictory to federal law.

The real effect that users face in these type of (proposed) regulations, is that the state enforcement agencies will enforce these laws, while federal enforcement officials will not. So the reality is that you will not get a ticket from the Coast Guard, but you will get a ticket from the Sheriff, or California Department of Fish and Wildlife.


Last year, Oregon tried to slip this type of legislation through. It was really just a way for the state to "get its foot in the door" of regulation with a plan that the lawmakers could sell with an extremely low cost and low rate of return to the users. State Budget analysis for the cost of implementation and the creation of new enforcement officers was never made public, likely because it was not going to be "operating in the red" with the fee structure that was sold to the public. If it could have been passed, it would have been likely impossible to remove. This would have allowed increasing of the fee structure to bring the program back to "operating in the black".

The big question for regulation like this is first and foremost, "Is it needed?" If the answer to that question is, "yes", then you move on to, "will it do more good than harm?". Getting past the first question is a nearly insurmountable task in this case. But do not underestimate the will of lawmakers to seek to control (revenue and regulation) things which they have no plausible stake in. And remember, there is virtually no negative consequence for those law makers for creating the next boondoggle. This is California, and outdoor users may not have enough influence to stop this, given the larger issues that California faces.

My recommendation is for local California kiteboarders to join forces with other water users to make their voice more impactful on the careers of the lawmakers supporting this bill. Kayakers, non-motorized fishermen, Dinghy or catamaran sailors, SUP'ers, and even surfers could eventually be swallowed by the net that this legislation would start to weave.


Return to “Kitesurfing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], noellco and 10 guests

cron