AB 2453 adds Section 38605 to the California Vehicle Code to exempt peace officers and first responders from the chapter of law that regulates recreational off‑highway vehicles (ROVs) when those personnel operate ROVs in the course of their official duties. The exemption is broad: it uses a “notwithstanding any other law” clause to remove the chapter’s requirements for covered responders.
This matters to public‑safety agencies, risk managers, insurers, and land managers. The bill grants operational flexibility for off‑road response and rescue work but removes a uniform set of statutory safety requirements, pushing decisions about occupant restraint, equipment use, training, and risk mitigation into agency policy and post‑incident liability calculus.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts Vehicle Code Section 38605, stating that the chapter governing ROV operation does not apply to peace officers (as defined in Penal Code Chapter 4.5) or first responders, including firefighters, when they operate ROVs while carrying out official duties. The exemption is framed to override other state law.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are state and local law enforcement, fire departments, rescue teams and other designated first responders who use ROVs for emergency operations, plus their employers, insurers, and negligence litigants. Indirectly affected are land managers and private citizens who share off‑highway terrain with emergency operations.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces a statutory floor for certain ROV safety requirements with agency discretion for responders — a practical tradeoff between responder mobility and a single statewide safety standard. That shift has predictable consequences for training, SOPs, insurance exposure, and post‑incident legal disputes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
California currently regulates how recreational off‑highway vehicles are operated on lands open to the public; those rules include occupant‑safety requirements such as seating and restraint conditions for passengers. AB 2453 does one narrow but consequential thing: it creates a carve‑out from that chapter for peace officers and first responders when they are operating ROVs while performing their jobs.
The bill identifies peace officers by reference to Penal Code Chapter 4.5 (beginning with Section 830) and explicitly mentions firefighters among first responders, but it does not enumerate an exhaustive list or add procedural conditions for when the exemption applies beyond the phrase “in the course of their duties.” It also uses the phrase “notwithstanding any other law,” which signals a legislative intent to make the exemption broad within state law.Because the statute removes the chapter’s applicability rather than creating alternative state rules, the practical effect is to leave safety choices — seatbelts, passenger positioning, handholds, and other occupant protections — to responder agencies, manufacturers’ guidance, and existing tort and workers’‑compensation regimes. The bill does not mandate training, reporting, or recordkeeping tied to the exemption; those remain matters of agency policy or collective bargaining.Finally, the exemption narrows the class of people who must follow the chapter when using ROVs, while leaving open several implementation questions: how agencies will codify alternative safety practices, how insurers and courts will treat incidents that occur under the exemption, and how the exemption interacts with non‑state rules (for example, federal land regulations or local ordinances) that also govern off‑highway vehicle use.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2453 adds a single new statutory provision — Vehicle Code Section 38605 — that removes a whole chapter’s application for covered responders rather than amending individual requirements.
The term “peace officers” in the exemption points to Penal Code Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830), tying the bill to existing statutory definitions rather than creating a new roster of officers.
The bill explicitly names “first responders, including, but not limited to, firefighters,” creating an open‑ended category that can encompass professional and volunteer emergency personnel.
The exemption applies only when the responder is acting “in the course of their duties,” which limits coverage to operational activity but leaves the phrase’s boundaries undefined in the text.
By prefacing the exemption with “Notwithstanding any other law,” the bill attempts a broad state‑level carve‑out from the chapter’s rules, heightening preemption within state law while not addressing conflicts with federal or non‑statutory requirements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a sweeping exemption from the ROV chapter for responders
This is the bill’s operative sentence: the new section states that the Vehicle Code chapter regulating recreational off‑highway vehicles “shall not apply” to peace officers or first responders when they operate ROVs in the course of their duties. The mechanics are simple — a single statutory carve‑out — but the consequence is broad: every rule in that chapter is unavailable as a statutory basis to regulate responder conduct during official activity.
Leverages existing legal definition of peace officers
Instead of defining peace officer within the Vehicle Code, the bill references the Penal Code’s Chapter 4.5 definitions. That ties the exemption to an established statutory taxonomy (covering sheriffs, police officers, probation officers in some cases, etc.), which clarifies inclusion for many agencies but leaves open edge cases—such as specialized enforcement personnel—until courts or agencies interpret the reference.
Broad, inclusive language for first responders
The text explicitly lists firefighters as an example but uses open language for first responders generally. Practically, that allows agencies to treat a wide range of emergency personnel — from paramedics to volunteer search‑and‑rescue teams — as covered, but it also creates uncertainty about who qualifies absent further administrative guidance or case law.
Operational limitation and preemption reach
The exemption is conditional on official duty performance, which narrows the temporal and functional scope but offers no statutory tests for when ordinary travel or training falls inside the carve‑out. The “notwithstanding” language signals a state intent to override conflicting state rules, increasing the exemption’s force within state law while leaving unresolved how it interacts with federal land rules, local ordinances, or manufacturer instructions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Local and state law enforcement agencies — gain operational freedom to use ROVs in rescues, patrols, and emergency transport without being constrained by the chapter’s seatbelt/occupant positioning rules, simplifying rapid response in rugged terrain.
- Fire departments and rescue teams (professional and volunteer) — obtain statutory cover to adapt vehicle use to mission needs, such as moving equipment or patients when standard passenger restraints would impede rescue tasks.
- Emergency medical service providers and rescued civilians — in practice could receive faster extrication or evacuation because responders can prioritize operational constraints over strict compliance with ROV occupant rules.
- Agency risk managers and training officers — receive clearer statutory authority to develop mission‑specific operating procedures that depart from the Vehicle Code chapter.
Who Bears the Cost
- Occupants and passengers — when responders operate outside the chapter’s safety rules, passengers may face higher physical risk because statutory minimums for seating and restraint no longer apply.
- Municipalities and counties that operate ROV fleets — may face increased liability exposure, higher insurance premiums, or the need to invest in training, documentation, and alternative safety equipment to defend operations.
- ROV manufacturers and fleet procurement officials — risk conflicts between manufacturer safety instructions (which often advise specific seating/restraint use) and agency practice, potentially creating warranty or product‑liability complications.
- Insurers and self‑insured public entities — will absorb shifts in claims risk and may demand stricter internal policies or exclude certain operations absent clear training and supervision protocols.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: AB 2453 prioritizes operational flexibility for emergency response over a single, statewide statutory safety standard for ROV passengers; in doing so it transfers risk management from uniform law to agency policy, creating faster response options but increasing reliance on internal controls, insurer oversight, and post‑incident adjudication to protect occupant safety.
The bill flips a uniform statutory safety floor into discretionary, agency‑level decision‑making for a defined set of operators. That has predictable administrative advantages (speed, flexibility) but leaves unanswered how agencies will demonstrate that their alternative practices provide an acceptable standard of care.
Courts will likely evaluate post‑incident conduct against agency policies, training records, and manufacturer guidance rather than the Vehicle Code chapter, which shifts the evidentiary battleground in negligence and workers’‑compensation claims.
Another unresolved area is the bill’s interplay with non‑state rules. The “notwithstanding any other law” phrase strengthens the exemption against conflicting state statutes, yet it cannot override federal regulations on federal lands or private contractual restrictions where federal authority applies.
The bill also leaves “first responder” open‑ended and does not require agencies to adopt specific mitigations (training, reporting, equipment standards) to offset the statutory removal of safety requirements. That combination invites a patchwork of practices across agencies and potential litigation over who qualifies for the carve‑out and when it applies.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.