Northwest Kiteboarding
Forum | Classifieds | Lost & Found | CGKA | Industry | Sensors | Forecast | Spots | Seattle | Decals | RSS | Facebook

Events | Photos | Search | Register | Profile | Log in to check your messages | Log in 

California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Northwest Kiteboarding -> Gorge / Portland / Oregon Coast
previous topic :: next topic  
Author Message
Godlike

Since 25 Sep 2008
88 Posts

 



PostWed Mar 07, 18 10:00 am    California seeks to regulate kite-boarding Reply with quote

SB-1247 Vessels: machinery: mechanically propelled vessel.

“Personal watercraft” means a vessel 13 feet in length or less, propelled by machinery, that is designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel, rather than in the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside the vessel. (l) (1) “Machinery” means any sail, rigging, rudder, oar, paddle, or similar device.
(2) Any vessel that uses machinery in its operation is a mechanically propelled vessel.

I interpret this to mean they want CF numbers, on Kayaks, SUP, Windsurf and kite boards. meaning A fee and they also just criminalized kite-boarders into the same regulations of motorized watercraft like jet skies and speedboats.


Everyone please contact your state senator. And also call Senator Ted Gaines District 1 who has sponsored this Legislation.1-916-651-4001

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1247

Last edited by Godlike on Wed Mar 07, 18 12:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user's profile Send private message
Godlike

Since 25 Sep 2008
88 Posts

 



PostWed Mar 07, 18 12:50 pm     Reply with quote

Reading through existing regulations of Harbors and Navigation Code:
655.2. (a) Every owner, operator, or person in command of any vessel propelled by machinery is guilty of an infraction who uses it, or permits it to be used, at a speed in excess of five miles per hour in any portion of the following areas not otherwise regulated by local rules and regulations:
(1) Within 100 feet of any person who is engaged in the act of bathing. A person engaged in the sport of water skiing shall not be considered as engaged in the act of bathing for the purposes of this section.
(2) Within 200 feet of any of the following:
(A) A beach frequented by bathers.
(B) A swimming float, diving platform, or lifeline.

No more waterstarts within 200ft ?

655.7
(c) Every personal watercraft shall, at all times, be operated in a reasonable and prudent manner. Maneuvers that unreasonably or unnecessarily endanger life, limb, or property, including, but not limited to, jumping or attempting to jump the wake of another vessel within 100 feet of that other vessel, operating the personal watercraft toward any person or vessel in the water and turning sharply at close range so as to spray the vessel or person, or operating at a rate of speed and proximity to another vessel so that either operator is required to swerve at the last minute to avoid collision, is unsafe or reckless operation of a vessel.

I bet any jump past another kiter/windsurfer/paddle boarder can be considered "attempting to jump the wake of another vessel"...

(d) A person shall not operate a personal watercraft at any time between the hours from sunset to sunrise.

658.3. (c) A person on board a personal watercraft or a person being towed behind a vessel on water skis, an aquaplane, or similar device, except for an underwater maneuvering device intended for use by a submerged swimmer, shall wear a United States Coast Guard-approved wearable personal flotation device that is used in accordance with approval labels and manufacturer’s instructions.

So, USCG approved flotation device would be required.

View user's profile Send private message
Windian

Since 28 Apr 2008
745 Posts
Newport, OR
Addicted



PostWed Mar 07, 18 1:01 pm     Reply with quote

Sounds like a bunch of over regulation and ridiculous to try and enforce. Best to try and flush this bill down the toilet.

Twisted Evil

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Godlike

Since 25 Sep 2008
88 Posts

 



PostWed Mar 07, 18 4:31 pm     Reply with quote

https://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28754 go to Section 6, page 10. I think I have some others that I saved on my favorites. Let me find them and I'll pass them along. Please stand by. Wink

View user's profile Send private message
Godlike

Since 25 Sep 2008
88 Posts

 



PostWed Mar 07, 18 6:59 pm     Reply with quote

First up, here is a link to all the info on the bill:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1247
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-mean-the-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.

View user's profile Send private message
Nak

Since 19 May 2005
3556 Posts
Camas
XTreme Poster

CGKA Member


PostWed Mar 07, 18 7:22 pm     Reply with quote

Ah yes, the People's Republic Of California strikes again.
_________________
Stay away from the jumping seals!

The CGKA is your advocate for Kiteboarding in the Gorge!

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
WindSki

Since 14 Dec 2012
303 Posts
Portland
Obsessed



PostWed Mar 07, 18 8:29 pm     Reply with quote

Can you guess what the USA will be like in 100 years !!!

View user's profile Send private message
fisherman

Since 06 Aug 2007
81 Posts

 



PostFri Mar 09, 18 6:45 pm    USSA Reply with quote

Your senator comrade Feinstein is up for reelection in the fall. There is a chance to re[place those commies like her, Nancy P. and Jerry Brown one by one. They are the problem since they come up with one freedom limitation after another. The whole demcommunist party fraud sucks. Start with replacing her with someone honorable. Michael Savage for example.

View user's profile Send private message
Godlike

Since 25 Sep 2008
88 Posts

 



PostSat Mar 10, 18 6:57 am    Re: USSA Reply with quote

fisherman wrote:
Your senator comrade Feinstein is up for reelection in the fall. There is a chance to re[place those commies like her, Nancy P. and Jerry Brown one by one. They are the problem since they come up with one freedom limitation after another. The whole demcommunist party fraud sucks. Start with replacing her with someone honorable. Michael Savage for example.



BULLSHIT DETECTED. And a TROLL for bringing up partisan politics on a kite forum.

This bill is submitted by State Senator Ted Gaines district 1 a REPUBLICAN.

View user's profile Send private message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
318 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostSat Mar 10, 18 11:35 am    Re: USSA Reply with quote

Godlike wrote:

BULLSHIT DETECTED. And a TROLL for bringing up partisan politics on a kite forum.

This bill is submitted by State Senator Ted Gaines district 1 a REPUBLICAN.


I have found that "sides" can not clearly be differentiated in behavior/actions when the focus of a law is not directly related to clear partisan politics. If you eliminate the media buzz, those claiming affiliation to either right or left become indistinguishable.

_________________
MSN has temporarily removed commenting on our websites while we explore better ways for you to engage in discussion on the issues you care about.

View user's profile Send private message
dwaynej

Since 09 Sep 2013
194 Posts

Stoked

CGKA Member


PostSat Mar 10, 18 1:48 pm     Reply with quote

This is a work in progress and the Bay Area Kiteboarding site is tracking progress... Nothing to do with kiteboarding.

View user's profile Send private message
Da Yoda

Since 12 Mar 2009
65 Posts

 



PostSat Mar 10, 18 4:44 pm     Reply with quote

dwaynej wrote:
This is a work in progress and the Bay Area Kiteboarding site is tracking progress... Nothing to do with kiteboarding.

On the contrary, it does have an affect on kiteboarding, but it will not impact kiting in any negative way.
Kiteboarding meets the Federal definition of a "vessel" and the type of vessel is a "recreational vessel" under their definition. The manor in which many CA laws are written are applicable to "any vessel" propelled by machinery, but they don't adequately define the "machinery" for propulsion. SB-1247's goal is add those definitions so the existing laws can be better enforced. Under the proposed bill, "sails" would be defined as a form of "machinery", and a kite is regarded as a sail. They could also go as far as to include the word "kite" in the definition. The proposed definition is to eliminate any loopholes in the interpretation of what the "machinery" actually is.

View user's profile Send private message
dwaynej

Since 09 Sep 2013
194 Posts

Stoked

CGKA Member


PostMon Mar 12, 18 8:13 pm     Reply with quote

Da Yoda wrote:
dwaynej wrote:
This is a work in progress and the Bay Area Kiteboarding site is tracking progress... Nothing to do with kiteboarding.

On the contrary, it does have an affect on kiteboarding, but it will not impact kiting in any negative way.
Kiteboarding meets the Federal definition of a "vessel" and the type of vessel is a "recreational vessel" under their definition. The manor in which many CA laws are written are applicable to "any vessel" propelled by machinery, but they don't adequately define the "machinery" for propulsion. SB-1247's goal is add those definitions so the existing laws can be better enforced. Under the proposed bill, "sails" would be defined as a form of "machinery", and a kite is regarded as a sail. They could also go as far as to include the word "kite" in the definition. The proposed definition is to eliminate any loopholes in the interpretation of what the "machinery" actually is.


Its a work in progress. Its not the final draft. Words will change.

View user's profile Send private message
Ho-Toe

Since 30 Apr 2014
118 Posts
thread-killer; non sequitur specialist
Upwelling Specialist



PostMon Mar 12, 18 10:03 pm    Re: USSA Reply with quote

fisherman wrote:
...Start with replacing her with someone honorable.


Perhaps the honorable Gibson Haynes?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d8MpCIebBVc

Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Northwest Kiteboarding -> Gorge / Portland / Oregon Coast All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum