California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

[wind chaser]

So, USCG approved flotation device would be required.

You know this is coming... coastguard approved flotation device and helmet laws.

[Da Yoda]

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.

You were in the ballpark regarding Federal laws. I spoke with my CG friend today and he informed me that the definitions under Title 46 are more refined for identifying vessel types vs. under Title 33. T33 is more focused on the navigational "rules" for vessels.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/2101
Note the definition for a "Recreational Vessel".

[Da Yoda]

So, USCG approved flotation device would be required.

You know this is coming... coastguard approved flotation device and helmet laws.

I've been waiting for (but not wanting) lifejackets to be enforced since kiteboarding was confirmed as being a "vessel" by Federal definition back in 2007. "Recreational vessels" are required to be carrying or wearing an approved life preserver under CA and Federal law.

[foilonfoil]

I believe there has been some overreaction to this bill...

http://www.bayareakiteboarding.com/foru ... =1&t=14803

Local feedback is it has nothing to do with kiteboarding and the document is an early draft.

[purdyd]

I believe there has been some overreaction to this bill...

http://www.bayareakiteboarding.com/foru ... =1&t=14803

Local feedback is it has nothing to do with kiteboarding and the document is an early draft.

This is a classic case of internet echo chamber. The same people are posting the same thing in different forums and then there is a circular reference.

The sky is not falling. However, this is not something we should simply ignore.

We do not want sups, windsurfers, kitesurfers, etc to be defined as motor boats and be subjected by default to all of the limitations currently imposed on them,

The definition of propulsion machinery should not be changed as proposed.

If the intent it to fix loop holes in the ability for law enforcement to take a blood test or give a breathalyzer test because the specific section of the code specifies motor boat, then that section should add the term vessel.

Just as the section on requiring personal flotation devices does.

Although, I have to wonder is there really a problem that needs fixing?

[Matteo V]

....Although, I have to wonder is there really a problem that needs fixing?

Good point.

This is a classic case of internet echo chamber. The same people are posting the same thing in different forums and then there is a circular reference.

Bad, or no point? Would not kiteforum, or any kiting forum, kind of be an echo chamber for kiters by definition??? So should we get some non-kiters in here to even things out.

Sorry for being critical, and maybe I just need some clarification on this.

[purdyd]

It appears that in committee the bill was changed so the section covering drinking now states simply vessel instead of powered vessel.

A kite board. Sailboard, kayak etc would not be a motor boat.

Democracy in action or maybe just some common sense.

My comment on echo chamber relates to the comment that the bay area kite forum is monitoring this and I suppose by assumtion, mine, they will take care if this.

In reality, it was mostly the same people posting here.

I think it was incumbemt on those in California to let the legislature know our thought's rather than expecting that everything will work out and they will take care of it.

[madworld]

Here is the amended legislation for California Senate Bill 1247 dated April 2, 2018 all that mention of machinery and it's definition have been removed.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0180SB1247

This legislation will close some loop wholes that only really applies to the Sheriffs jurisdiction on inland lakes regarding water skiing, wake Boarding behind power boats. And Jet skies.

[Matteo V]

Whether or not you believe big government is good or bad, that is what most left leaning states have - big government. And some tendencies are inherent with big government, such as broadly and increasing nets of regulation. It is typical for a piece of legislation to be narrowly defined in it's initial offering, then broadened closer to it's passing so that affected groups are unaware or have less time to mount an opposition to it. This was the case in Oregon last year. But some of us did not "swallow the cool-aid" and opposed the legislation in it's original form, and subsequent forms. What made it easy was the Oregon legislation was clearly of no benefit to non-motorized water users. Had there been an actual benefit, then the legislation may have passed.

A note on benefits - It is difficult for lawmakers to give something tangible back to the public. Often, with user fees, the enforcement of those fees takes up all of the revenues that the law generates. But the money is still tempting to add to the state treasury, and lawmakers are always looking to increase government employee count at the expense of the tax payer.

Bottom line is that the state is not really concerned with kitesurers. They simply want more users to regulate so as to increase (potential) revenues from more users/activities/sports.

I would only support new legislation/regulation in a state where the government is fiscally responsible AND only if the law benefited the users. I will never support legislation/regulation that only supports the new government agencies it creates.

Now I am sure someone will say that we can legislate safety, right?