Author Topic: CA Definition Amendment  (Read 6559 times)

2Rivers

  • Rincon Status
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
CA Definition Amendment
« on: March 07, 2018, 09:53:10 PM »
I'd posted this topic on one of the sub pages, but I'm seeing it's getting a lot of traction on social media groups including the kayaking community. I know this page gets more traffic so I'm posting the link here.
https://www.standupzone.com/forum/index.php/topic,33246.0.html
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1247

The last word own this topic is that adding the definition of "machinery" to the CA HNC, it will allow law enforcement the ability to better enforce current laws against those using a "vessel" while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Supposedly they can't perform a field sobriety test on those aboard a "mechanically propelled vessel" that's non-motorized.
So it sounds like CA simply does not want to allow one to get drunk and/or high and go paddleboarding. ;)
Any other thoughts? Some think it's a first attempt to modify the classification of "vessels" so more people in CA will be required to be registered with the State. I don't see this, but maybe I'm missing something.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 10:10:26 PM by 2Rivers »
King's Type-S 14' | Soul Firestorm 8'9
ZRE Power Surge ZX4 80sq" | Kialoa Big Eddy
Larry Allison Dolphin Keel

OUTSIDEWAVE

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1894
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2018, 08:35:49 AM »
seems like i tmight pretty hard to do in the firstplace. Second how would they tell when I paddle I weave and fall off :o :-\
SEA BIRDS THEY DO TOUCH AND GO AS THE WORLD JUST TANGOES BY.... SO I SADDLE UP MY SEAHORSE WITH MY FLYROD IN MY HAND.... 10'3 King custom  10'6"  c4 da beachboy

2Rivers

  • Rincon Status
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2018, 06:26:58 PM »
The proposed bill is to modify existing language in the definitions so that law enforcement can adequately do their job. It's not increasing regulation, it's improving it.

The only issue (currently) is the interpretation of some definitions, like a "personal watercraft" as example. If the proposed definitions were to remain as is without any other modifications going forward, a vessel such as an 11' paddleboard with someone standing on it and using a paddle for means of propulsion, could then be defined as a "personal watercraft" based on the current language. A kiteboard could be defined as a "power driven vessel" based on the current language.

However the language in the proposed bill is going to be amended before it's sent out. As you can see it's already incorrect with the inclusion of the word "rudder". A rudder is a device to allow a vessel to steer (turn). It's not a device for the mechanical propulsion of a vessel, which is the sole focus of the amendment.

Word has it that the Dept. of Boating and Waterways is monitoring this proposed bill to make sure it does not cause any negative impacts on existing boating laws.
King's Type-S 14' | Soul Firestorm 8'9
ZRE Power Surge ZX4 80sq" | Kialoa Big Eddy
Larry Allison Dolphin Keel

TallDude

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 5714
  • Capistrano Beach
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2018, 06:39:39 PM »
My question is, what does Senator Ted Gaines gain from this? He's an insurance guy......????? Who's fronting the $$$?
It's not overhead to me!
8'8" L-41 ST and a whole pile of boards I rarely use.

2Rivers

  • Rincon Status
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2018, 06:49:49 PM »
My question is, what does Senator Ted Gaines gain from this? He's an insurance guy......????? Who's fronting the $$$?
Nothing. He was approached by the Sheriff department within his District to doctrine up the new bill for them. Law enforcement does not create new legislation, they only enforce it.
King's Type-S 14' | Soul Firestorm 8'9
ZRE Power Surge ZX4 80sq" | Kialoa Big Eddy
Larry Allison Dolphin Keel

clay

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1138
    • View Profile
    • www.clayisland.com
    • Email
Re: CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2018, 07:57:53 PM »
Any other thoughts?
Thanks for sharing, I prefer to know about proposals like this before they become law.

In my experience all laws/legislation are a power/money grab.  I've been in the ocean for 40 years and never needed nor wanted any government intervention.

I know lots of people with DUIs, all of them snagged by checkpoints or cops waiting to grab someone.  Not one was in an accident nor caused any harm to anyone, all of them paid big fines and legal fees. 

My cousin, a lifelong surfer, was "pulled over" by a giant coast guard cutter while he was on a SUP.  He had paddled a ways offshore to round a buoy.  He was fine until the wake of the cutter almost bucked him off his board.  They gave him crap about having pfd/light/whistle.  He probably had a decade or more experience than anyone on that boat.
 The power to abuse...
Aloha, I welcome and appreciate all responses of positivity and good feeling.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOIE6FWr1SpWvbPJIIiEgog

southwesterly

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2679
    • View Profile
Re: CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2018, 08:15:44 PM »
What’s weird about the whole thing is that you can do a downwinder from Davenport to Santa Cruz in some of THE most wild and open ocean conditions on the North Coast.

It’s only when you reach the inside of the Santa Cruz harbor are you required to have a PFD.

hbsteve

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1701
    • View Profile
Re: CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2018, 08:48:16 PM »
Southwesterly--Please show me where in the CA or USGS regulations where pfd's aren't required beyond a certain distance from shore.
I don't recall any wording that does that.

ForeverBlue232

  • Malibu Status
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2018, 09:17:46 PM »
My 2 cents as a paddleboarding cop:  I'm doubting it's really about trying to be able to arrest people for paddling while intoxicated.  Sound to me to be more about working towards regulating (making money off of) SUP.  I don't know CA laws, as I'm in Indiana.  But here I can just arrest a drunk paddler for Public Intoxication, if I feel I need to arrest them.  PI is a B Misdemeanor.  OWI (under .15 BAC) is only a C Misdemeanor.  And really, how often is a cop going to encounter a drunk SUP'er?  Almost never.  Certainly not enough of a problem to warrant a change in law.  This is about regulation/registration....  And it's not a surprise it's in CA either.

TallDude

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 5714
  • Capistrano Beach
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2018, 11:01:47 PM »
  Certainly not enough of a problem to warrant a change in law.  This is about regulation/registration....  And it's not a surprise it's in CA either.
California is the regulation capitol of the world. People throwing frezbies or a football or ball at the beach or in a park can be fined. Our city said they adopted the ordinance just in case they need to enforce it. Most cities have followed suit. I'm surprised they haven't adopted a similar ordinance for surfing or body boarding. Just in case. I'm trying not to say something political....... but some of the city council members I listen to are just outright idiots.  "Anyone want to second that (stupid) motion?" ...... " Well, I'm not that clear about what you just said, but I wholeheartedly agree you!" :) 
It's not overhead to me!
8'8" L-41 ST and a whole pile of boards I rarely use.

Califoilia

  • Axis Demo Rep
  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1510
  • San Clemente
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2018, 08:19:16 AM »
  Certainly not enough of a problem to warrant a change in law.  This is about regulation/registration....  And it's not a surprise it's in CA either.
California is the regulation capitol of the world. People throwing frezbies or a football or ball at the beach or in a park can be fined. Our city said they adopted the ordinance just in case they need to enforce it. Most cities have followed suit. I'm surprised they haven't adopted a similar ordinance for surfing or body boarding. Just in case. I'm trying not to say something political....... but some of the city council members I listen to are just outright idiots.  "Anyone want to second that (stupid) motion?" ...... " Well, I'm not that clear about what you just said, but I wholeheartedly agree you!" :)
TD, if you ever want to watch a good comedy on TV, tune into one of your local city council meetings, and listen to the public comment portion of it. Example...

San Clemente council meeting this past week: Lady gets up, and does her 3-minute presentation with PowerPoint included wanting SC to adopt a public no smoking ordinance (actually just a ruse as her way to try to get rid of the homeless she sees smoking around town). She goes on, and on about the negative health effects of smoking, and secondhand smoke, shows her research into surrounding cities with their no smoking ordinances, and when several of them put them on the books, has all the numbers, and stats we've seen for just about ever now.....when she concludes the audience gives her applause.

One council member at the end of public comment then reads the San Clemente no smoking in public ordinance that was approved, and put on the books in 2008 (expanded to included public parks in 2011). You can't make this stuff up...research all the cities around you to try to make some sort of point...but never check the city you're looking to complain to about something that they've already been doing for as long or longer than some of the cities you used in your "study" to try to scold them with.  ;D

Another guy talking/complaining about the homeless problem from the Santa Ana River encampment they busted up, and sent them all to OC cities, whined about seeing one of "them" with a machete in his possession, and how that should not be allowed in SC....as he stood at the lectern with a machete hanging from his belt at a crowded council meeting, and no one blinked an eye.  :o ??? 

I could go on, as those were just a small sample of the hilarity of the night...and some of the nonsense that these council folk have to deal with on a bi-weekly basis (if not daily via all of the emails they get as well). Not saying the council members didn't/don't come up with a few knee-slappers themselves, but when you're having to try to respond to some of the petty problems, annoyances, irritations, and inconveniences that these hand-wringers bring to you continually...it's no wonder one starts thinking/responding in kind to some of the nonsense presented to them.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2018, 08:31:43 AM by SanoSup »
Me: 6'1"/185...(2) 5'1" Kings Foil/Wing Boards...7'10 Kings DW Board...9'6" Bob Pearson "Laird Noserider"...14' Lahui Kai "Manta"...8'0" WaveStorm if/when the proning urges still hit.

eastbound

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
    • View Profile
Re: CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2018, 06:40:28 AM »
clay,

how do you feel about gov't intervention to prevent pollution from offshore drilling? to enforce proper safety in production shipping and development, so as to prevent polluting situations and accidents? like deepwater horizon, exxon valdez, etc etc--long list

how is that a money grab? yeah lawyers etc are employed to write the legistlation, and media is engaged to promote---but the money grab potential is much more about the polluters, who seek to pay as little $$ as possible to insure their businesses dont pollute, so that their businesses are as profitibable as possible---more of a profitability grab---where businesses seek to avoid the expense of proper handling of their pollutants and toxins, and not be accountable for the cost to all humans of their careless, profitable, activities.

how, but for regulation, and financial penalty,  do we rein in businesses that pollute?-- where it's just more profitable to pollute than to take precaution not to?

i am guilty of politicking, tho this thread seems to invite it.

and what's wrong with CA regualtions? i mean, CA broke challenging trail to get US auto exhaust pollution addressed---without CA, and catlaytic convertors, etc, US air and water would be much filthier today, where it is vastly improved, based on CA taking a stand---long before any other states saw the light at all--and again, some made money as these appropriate laws came into being, but the real money issue was that the auto manufacturers fought these regualtions tooth and nail--their profitability was crimped as they complied--but the result has been good, and good for all of us--not just shareholders and executives at auto companies--airbags? seatbelts? money grab?---not in my opinion---more a case where available safety technology was not getting put in cars due to the profitability crimp providing such would impose--so our democratically elected (this goes back a few years!) law makers made laws (lottaa years ago!) that forced the auto makers to do the right things to keep US drivers as safe as reasonably possible---the prevalence of effective safety equipment in cars would be much less, and unnecessary accident death and damage much greater, without those laws---cost the carmakers some profit, but seems a better longterm outcome for all us ordinary folk

regulation has been villified by those whose profits can be crimped by it--but aint no invisible hand preventing deepwater horizons in the future--strong regulation and enforcement is how you make dangerous industrial businesses safer for ordinary folk
Portal Barra 8'4"
Sunova Creek 8'7"
Starboard Pro Blue Carbon  8'10"
KeNalu Mana 82, xTuf, ergoT

goodfornothin

  • Sunset Status
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2018, 10:43:25 AM »
Dude, you gave examples of govt and private industry collusion.  The GOM event and corex nightmare was allowed due to govt lookimg the otherway, and go read some Palland, he explains the valdez nightmare really well. It was the govt that allowed that shit, and valdez is dead, people up there still waiting on govt checks.  All thats left is collin and his worlybirds dropping dudes off on top of peaks. 

There is a govt law or tax that is righteous, theres a money pull behind every crooked law

Bean

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4211
    • View Profile
Re: CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2018, 11:14:16 AM »
... and go read some Palland, he explains the valdez nightmare really well. It was the govt that allowed that shit,

GFN, are you referring to the fact that in Valdez spill, the USCG had unofficially but openly, allowed outbound ships to use the inbound shipping lane to avoid the heavier ice to get up to cruising speed much sooner and getting the crude to market sooner?

goodfornothin

  • Sunset Status
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: CA Definition Amendment
« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2018, 12:29:20 PM »
I hadnt read that, interesting

 I did say i was goodfornothin, i spelled the authors name wrong, oops

Greg pallast, vultures picnic  is the book

He explains the shennanigans gibt eas playing with the oil companies.  He desrcibes, through good investigative reporting, how clean up crews and emergency response was shuffled around to look as though govt and big oil where there to protect the iceam if anything went wrong.  It did go wrong, and the clean up crews that that where promised where not there.  The govt and big oil colkuded once again in the name of big business, nit the ocean nor the people.

The cold hard truth is, this law benefits some corporation or honey pot for the tax lovers. There is no benevelonce here aiming to help fellow humans or the ocean.  Its a little sophmoric at this point, or maybe a mayberry look on life, i dont know. But i do know the govt doesnt regulate for us, its for the corporations.  That was insured in the 1800's  then again in 1913,,,
Nice little recap on corporate rights,,,govt is looking after anything but the profit margins
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.alternet.org/10-supreme-court-rulings-turned-corporations-people%3famp

 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal