Check this out: Only the first step

[firecracker22]

From RacerX online:
April 24, 2003

Federal Safety Agency Sets Hearings on ATVs

PICKERINGTON, Ohio -- The federal Consumer Products Safety Commission -- the agency that banned three-wheeled all-terrain vehicles in the 1980s -- will hold a new series of public hearings on ATV safety beginning in June, the All-Terrain Vehicle Association reports.

According to a notice published in the Federal Register today, the commission will hold a public hearing June 5 in Morgantown, W.Va. The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. at West Virginia University in the Robert C. Byrd Health Science Center.

The commission states that it is "concerned about the dramatic increase in ATV-related injuries and the continued increase in ATV-related deaths, and believes that holding a hearing will provide an opportunity for the interested public to share their concerns about ATVs and ATV safety."

The commission will take testimony on issues ranging from the availability of safety training to whether there should be "performance standards" set for ATVs. The commission notes that there has been an increase in the number of injuries to riders using ATVs with engine sizes of 400cc and greater.

The commission also will take testimony on a proposal by a coalition of groups made up of the Consumer Federation of America, the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition, the Bluewater Network and others seeking a ban on the sale of adult-sized ATVs sold for use by children under 16.

The coalition originally called for a ban on all ATV use by those under the age of 16 but the CPSC said that it could not enforce such a ban. ATVA Director Doug Morris noted that under a longstanding agreement between the ATV industry and the federal agency, only the smallest ATVs -- those with engines displacing 90cc or less -- have been sold for use by riders in that age group.

In addition, Morris questioned the motivation behind some of the groups involved in this attack on ATVs. He noted that the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition and the Bluewater Network have never had any involvement with, or interest in, ATV safety. Instead, their agenda has been to block access to public lands for ATV riders and others involved in motorized recreation.

"Including these anti-access organizations in this coalition makes for an odd alliance at the very least," Morris said, "since the interests of two of the coalition partners are in eliminating ATVs, not making them safer."

To testify before the Consumer Product Safety Commission in West Virginia, contact Rockelle Hammond, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C., 20207. Tel: (301) 504-6833. Fax: (301) 504-0127. E-mail: rhammond@cpsc.gov.

You can also send written testimony until July 5 to Attn: ATV Hearing, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C., 20207.

 

[mx547]

yep, we're next.

 

[flynbryan]

Scary, its convenient how these organizations could care less about our "health" and all of a sudden they want to ban the vehicles we have so much fun on to "protect ourselves from ourselves". What a load of crap. We absolutely have to make ourselves be heard on this. Just because its ATVs doesn't mean it doesn't pertain to us.....it soon WILL. OHV will always be easy targets, and we have to be ever diligent in preserving our right to ride. Where is the AMA for this one? Well done firecracker, what are these people looking for in reference to a written testimony? How atv's have positively influenced their lives? If we're responsible operators? Once again as usual, its always the idiots that ruin it for the rest of us. :| I think it would be interesting to see how many of the ATV related fatalities involved the use of alcohol, improper usage(5 people on one atv? You know 3 on the seat and one on each rack), and how many of them were even using ANY kind of protective gear? I can't tell you how many idiots I see buzzing around on ATV w/no helmets.

 

[XRpredator]

y'no, it's becuz we's all just two stoopid to no wuts best for us dumb durt bikers.

at least that's what these legislators think:|

unfortunately, you can't legislate intelligence.

 

[Joepro9]

people think they are safe on 4 wheels, heh.. There is a guy we call the nut, because he has a tricked out 400 ex, wears a t **** and jean shorts, nothing else. He climbs the 120 ft coal piles, jumps anything he sees. Not to metion the guy on the kx500 that jumps our 50 ft doubles with out a helmet. Granted they are both beyond belief good, and have been riding all there lives, I constantly see kids, that see them without helments. Next think you know they dont have theres on. That how a local rider died not to long ago, came down on of those hills too fast, slam, tree, dead. I think that these organizations should not attack the riders tho, once you purchase the vehicle, its yours, and your responsiblity. I agree, didtbikes will be next. Hell they will probably move to street bikes and cars next. That must be why all the futuristic cars fly in the movies.

 

[flynbryan]

True good arguing point......Thousands of people are killed a yr. in automobile accidents. Should we now remove them from sale for the saftey of the general public? Please, lets see the real motive behind these peoples actions. :flame:

 

[Joepro9]

ya its insane, I bet the ration if people killed compared tot he number sold is way higher that the number of riders kill compared to the number of atvs and dirtnikes sold. That would not be good if they took away car, my dad would loose his job :(

 

[gwcrim]

There's something to be said for 'natural selection.' You just can't legislate intelligence.

 

[guggie]

natrual selection! I learned that in school the other day. (suprising) first atvs cause people are getting injured (its going to happen U idiots!!!), then dirtbikes because they are loud and people are getting hurt, then boats because they make the water yucki, then cars because they pollute, Then mowers are too loud, then people will have a speed limit on their electric wheelchairs, Then bycicles will roll to fast and there will be a bearing performance restriction, Then planes will only be able to fit 3 passengers at a time because of the abundance of deaths at once, J3sus F***ing Chr1st!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! people are so friggin stupid!!! who the hell was thinking to themselve I am going to start a petition so atv's cant ride anymore???? Whats the friggin point???? Why do they care about these things??? mind your on damn buisness!!!!!!

 

[splatt]

It seems like all the hobbies that I have an interest in some horses backside is trying to get it banned:flame: :flame:

 

Steve 

 

[gwcrim]

first atvs..... then dirtbikes.......

I dunno..... two wheelers have been around forever. Three wheelers were very tip happy. So they tried quads. They're more stable but far from "safe." More people are riding them and that means there's more injuries to hit the news.

Quads are not as safe as bikes when put in marginal situations. Situations such as high speeds or very steep terrain. And that's where people are getting hurt.

 

[dirty~d~]

I'm sure this is nothing to lose sleep over gang. My guess is this is just a way for the legislature to justify spending our tax money on themselves. Think about it... if they shut down ATV sales, how many companies would suffer SERIOUS losses? Now is this something our government REALLY wants to do when our economy is already in the pot? Probably not. Now if you want to wake someone up on this, start getting numbers and dollar amounts from the manufacturers, if you can. Then forward that to your representatives and show them how hard this would impact the economy. Money is what they care about, right? Wake them up to how much will be lost if they pull this stunt. ;)

 

[Tahuya Rat]

Originally posted by dirty~d~
Think about it... if they shut down ATV sales, how many companies would suffer SERIOUS losses? Now is this something our government REALLY wants to do when our economy is already in the pot?

In a word, yes.

PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION - PAGE 1 OF 11 JAMES L. BUCHAL
MURPHY & BUCHAL LLP
1500 SW 1 ST AVENUE, SUITE 1135
PORTLAND, OR 97201
TEL (503) 227-1011 FAX (503) 227-1034
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR KITTITAS COUNTY
NORTHWEST MOTORCYCLE ASSOCIATION,
WASHINGTON STATE MOTORSPORT
DEALERS ASSOCIATION, PAUL OSTBO,
RICHARD LAW, and BYRON STUCK,
Petitioners,
vs.
STATE OF WASHINGTON INTERAGENCY
COMMISSION FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
and LAURA ECKERT JOHNSON, in her capacity
as Director,
Respondents.
No.
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION
Petitioners Northwest Motorcycle Association, Washington State Motorsport
Dealers Association, Paul Ostbo, Richard Law, and Byron Stuck allege:
PARTIES
1.
Respondent Interagency Commission for Outdoor Recreation is a statutory entity
created by RCW Chapter 79A.25.
2.
Respondent Laura Eckert Johnson is the Director of IAC, whose powers and
duties are set forth in RCW 79A.25.020, and is sued in her official capacity.

3.
Petitioner Northwest Motorcycle Association (NMA) is a Washington nonprofit
corporation. NMA strives to inform, educate and organize off-highway motorcyclists
within Washington State to preserve and expand off-highway motorcycling opportunities.
4.
Washington State Motorsport Dealers Association (WSMDA) is a Washington
nonprofit corporation. WSMDA promotes the interests of motorsport dealers in
Washington.
5.
Petitioner Paul Ostbo (Ostbo) is a member of NMA and resident of Kittitas
County, Washington. Petitioner Byron Stuck (Stuck) is a member of NMA and a resident
of King County, Washington. Richard Law (Law) is a member of NMA and resident of
Snohomish County, Washington. Petitioners Ostbo, Law and Stuck and other members
of NMA have suffered specific injury from respondents’ acts as alleged herein.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.
Jurisdiction in Kittitas County Superior Court is proper under RCW 34.05.570
and venue is property pursuant to RCW 34.04.514 in that petitioner Paul Ostbo resides in
Kittitas County, and because property affected by challenged actions of the respondents
is situated in Kittitas County

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7.
Article II, Section 40 of the Constitution of the State of Washington provides that
“all fees collected by the State of Washington as license fees for motor vehicles and all
excise taxes collected by the State of Washington on the sale, distribution or use of motor
vehicle fuel and all other state revenue intended to be used for highway purposes, shall be
paid into the state treasury and placed in a special fund to be used exclusively for
highway purposes.”
8.
In or about 1972, the Legislature set aside 1% of the gasoline fuel excise tax to
provide funding for a Nonhighway and Off-Road Vehicle Activities (NOVA) program.
In 1986, the Legislature amended the statute to provide a specific distribution of funds
available to IAC.
9.
Pursuant to RCW 46.09.170(d),
“54.5% [of that 1%], together with the funds received by the interagency
committee for outdoor recreation under RCW 46.09.110, shall be credited
to the nonhighway and off-road vehicle activities program account to be
administered by the committee for planning, acquisition, development,
maintenance, and management of ORV recreation facilities and
nonhighway road recreation facilities; ORV user education and
information; and ORV law enforcement programs. The funds under this
subsection shall be expended in accordance with the following limitations:
“(i) Not more than twenty percent may be expended for ORV
education, information, and law enforcement programs under this
chapter;
“(ii) Not less than an amount equal to the funds received by the
interagency committee for outdoor recreation under RCW
46.09.110 and not more than sixty percent may be expended for
ORV recreation facilities;
“(iii) Not more than twenty percent may be expended for
nonhighway road recreation facilities.
As alleged below, respondents and their allies have induced the Legislature to alter these
percentages in Second Substitute House Bill 1698, passed by the Senate on April 11,
2003, and, upon information and belief, shortly to be signed by the Governor.
10.
RCW 46.09.020 provides that "`nonhighway road’ means any road owned or
managed by a public agency, or any private road for which the owner has granted a
permanent easement for public use of the road, other than a highway generally capable of
travel by a conventional two-wheel drive passenger automobile during most of the year
and in use by such vehicles and that is not built or maintained with appropriations from
the motor vehicle fund.”
11.
RCW 46.09.020 provides that "`ORV recreation facility’ includes ORV trails and
ORV use areas.”
12.
RCW 46.09.020 does not define “nonhighway road recreation facilities”.
Section 1(14) of Second Substitute House Bill 1698 adds the following definition:
“`Nonhighway road recreation facilities’ means recreational trails and facilities
that are accessed by nonhighway roads and are intended solely for nonmotorized
recreational uses.” (Emphasis added.)
13.
For many years, petitioner NMA has monitored IAC’s expenditure of funds
pursuant to RCW 46.09.170. NMA has resisted expenditures on trails that cannot be
used by motorized off-road vehicles, particularly since nearly all motorized use trails are
multiple-use trails that may also be used by hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrian users.
14.
In or about March 2002, the IAC staff, acting in an alliance with
environmentalists, lobbied the Legislature to authorize the spending of gasoline excise
tax monies upon trails that could not be used by motorized vehicles at all. NMA was
unaware of this activity until after the Legislature acted.
15.
On March 28, 2002, Governor Locke signed (with partial vetoes not pertinent to
this petition) Engrossed Senate Bill 6396, set forth in Chapter 238, Laws of 2002, and
which contained, at Section 123(3)(b), an amendment to RCW 46.09.170(d), which reads
as follows:
“Funds may be expended for nonhighway road recreation facilities which may
include recreational trails that are accessed by nonhighway roads and are intended
solely for nonmotorized recreation uses”.
As a budgetary act, this language expires on June 30, 2003.
16.
In or about July 2002, respondents adopted a plan to guide expenditures under the
Nonhighway and Off-Road Vehicles Activity (NOVA) Program, for the years 2002-2008,
entitled “NOVA Plan 2002-2008”. The Plan sets forth policies with regard to the
expenditure of the 20% of nonhighway road (NHR) funds specified in RCW
46.09.170(d), the first of which was to “encourage a nonmotorized primary management
objective designation (hiking, equestrian, mountain bicycling, etc.) on trails receiving
NHR funding”.
17.
Petitioner NMA participated in the administrative proceedings leading up to the
2002 NOVA Plan and objected vigorously to this policy, pointing out that it was blatantly
unconstitutional to spend fuel tax monies on facilities that could not be utilized by
motorized vehicles, but respondents adopted it anyway.
18.
Respondents further particularized IAC policy regarding funding of Non-Highway
Road funding in a policy manual issued January 28, 2003. This policy declares
that maintenance and operation projects pertaining to “facilities open to both motorized
and nonmotorized use is also eligible for funding, provided that the primary management
objective of the facility is clearly non-motorized recreation”.
19.
Upon information and belief, there are no facilities within the State of
Washington that are open to both motorized and non-motorized use with non-motorized
recreation being the primary management designation. As a practical matter, respondents
will not fund the development, maintenance or operation of motorized trails with NHR
funding.
20.
Pursuant to ESB 6346 and its policies, respondent IAC funds projects for
recreational trails that are intended solely for nonmotorized recreation uses. In the most
recent grant cycle, none of the projects funded with NHR funding provided motorized
recreation benefits.
21.
Pursuant to ESB 6346 and its policies, respondent IAC has denied funding of
several projects that would have provided motorized recreation facilities, including DNR
Burnt Hill, U.S.F.S Domerie Peak, DNR ORV Planning, USFS Sasse/Corral
Reconstruction, and State Parks, Riverside ORV.
22.
Because IAC’s funding authority is finite, and more project applications are
typically received than can be funded, IAC’s decisions to fund recreational trails which
are intended solely for nonmotorized recreation uses directly reduce recreational
opportunities available to NMA and its members.
23.
NMA and its members have suffered substantial prejudice from the policy and
funding decisions of respondent IAC, including but not limited to reduced recreational
opportunities by the failure to fund the projects listed above.
24.
Upon information and belief, IAC staff and their agency and environmentalist
allies have lobbied the Legislature to pass additional legislation expanding upon the
provisions of ESB 6346 about which petitioners complain.
25.
Second Substitute House Bill 1698 amends RCW 46.09.170 to provide that the
NOVA funds received by IAC are reduced from 54.5% to 52.5%, to be expended as
follows:
“(i) Fifty percent must be expanded on facilities . . . for nonhighway road
recreation projects or nonhighway and ORV education, information, and law
enforcement programs under this chapter. For purposes of this section,
nonhighway road recreation projects include, but are not limited to, campgrounds,
trails, restrooms, interpretive facilities, signage, and building maintenance;
“(ii) Of the amount not expended in (d)(i) of this subsection not less than an
amount equal to the funds received by the [IAC] under RCW 46.09.110 and not
more than sixty percent may be expended for ORV recreation facilities;
“(iii) Of the amount not expended in (d)(i) of this subsection not more than sixty
percent may be expended for nonhighway road recreation facilities.
When and if enacted into law, the likely effect of the measure will be to expand the
unconstitutional NOVA expenditures from 20% of the program to 80% of the program.
26.
If it is enacted, respondents will make funding decisions pursuant to Second
Substitute House Bill 1698 that will continue to divert excise tax revenues on facilities
solely intended for nonmotorized users, injuring plaintiffs.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
27.
Petitioners reallege paragraphs 1-26 as if set forth herein
28.
Pursuant to RCW 34.05.570(2), petitioners are entitled to a declaration that
respondent IAC’s plans and policies are unconstitutional as alleged above, that
§ 123(3)(b) of Chapter 238, Laws of 2002, is unconstitutional as alleged above, and that
§ 1(14) and/or § 2(1)(d) of Second Substitute House Bill 1698, if enacted, will also be
unconstitutional as alleged above.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
29.
Petitioners reallege paragraphs 1-28 as if set forth herein.
30.
Petitioners’ clear legal rights to agency action in compliance with the laws of
Washington, and its Constitution are being violated by respondents.
31.
As set forth above, petitioners have a well-grounded fear of invasion of such
Rights
32.
Petitioners are suffering an actual, substantial and continuing injury insofar as
respondents continue unlawfully to spend excise tax monies, thereby reducing
recreational opportunities for NMA and its members.
33.
Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law.
34.
Petitioners are entitled to an order enjoining respondents from relying upon IAC’s
plans and policies, § 123(3)(b) of Chapter 238, Laws of 2002, or §§ 1(14) and/or § 2 of
Second Substitute House Bill 1698 , if enacted, to expend any funds from excise tax
revenues for trails which are intended solely for nonmotorized recreation uses.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, petitioners pray for judgment as follows upon petitioners' causes
of action against respondents:
1. For a judgment declaring IAC’s plans and policies unconstitutional; §
123(3)(b) of Chapter 238, Laws of 2002, unconstitutional; and §§ 1(14) and/or 2(1)(d) of
Second Substitute House Bill 1698, if signed into law, unconstitutional, all to the extent
these authorities are construed as authorizing respondents to expend excise tax revenues
on facilities intended solely for nonmotorized users.
2. For an injunction barring respondents, their employees and agents from
relying upon IAC’s plans and policies, § 123(3)(b) of Chapter 238, Laws of 2002, and
§§1(14) and/or 2(1)(d) of Second Substitute House Bill 1698, if enacted, for expending
any funds from excise tax revenues for trails which are intended solely for nonmotorized
recreation uses.
3. For an award of petitioners’ attorney fees, costs and other expenses
pursuant to RCW 4.84.350(1), insofar as petitioners constitute “qualified parties” within
the meaning of RCW 4.84.340(5).
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED April 16, 2003.
MURPHY & BUCHAL LLP
/s/ James L. Buchal
_____________________________
James L. Buchal, WSBA # 31369
Attorney for Petitioners

 

[Can Can Kev]

ahhh i dont think they will go after us 2 wheelers , its just like why they stopped making the 3 wheelers , 1 there heavy 2 they tip easy bikes arent as dangerous as far as the thing rolling on top of you and killing you , i klnow there are exceptions but hey OFFROADING IS A (excuse my french)**** HAPPENS SPORT! hmmm i need to make that into a sticker or somtrhin......

 

[jmics19067]

They will go after anything that someone else might think is a liability. they say that 3 wheelers where unsafe because of too many many fatalities. Nobody who has there head on straight would blame a vehicle if the majority of the fatalities< like 80%> where not wearing a helmet and an alarming number <about 50%> involved drugs, alchohol and unsafe practices like riding two people on it . I fail to see how it can be a design flaw of the vehicle being unsafe.Of course it can't be the numbskull on it that is unsafe , that recquires accountability.

In New Jersey they have signs all over the place about no riding of dirt bikes, mini bikes, atv, fourwheelers or any off road vehicles in the Pinelands . yet a car or something with a liscence plate is legal<funny most of the four wheelers I know of are liscenced street vehicles and dual sport bikes are street legal dirt bikes aren't they?> One of big deals with that is the majority of these offroad vehicles don't have a spark arrestor causing forest fires in the dry times. Anybody ever think on how hot a catylitic converter gets on a car? someone throwing a lit cigarette out of it? or my favorite is Fort Dix practing with live ammunition lobbing shells right into the tinder box. Yet my bike does have spark arrestor.

Or go buy a new kdx 200 in california or new hampshire and try and ride it somewheres. hmmm 3 wheels illegal 2 strokes illegal, trying to make 4 wheelers illegal loud four strokes illegal how long do you actually think it will be before everything we might possibley enjoy that involves a motor sport will be illegal if you dont ride on a cosed course track having to pay huge insurance or EPA /DEP fees.


helmet laws for street bikers and seat belt laws "because if it saves one life it is worth it " and yet half of the school buses out there don't have seat belts.

wearing a walk man while driving is illegal because you cant hear whats going on yet new cars a being sold with 100 watt stereo systems let alone what you can buy aftermarket. New cars and suvs with seatbelts ,air bags, crumple zones and crash bumpers but with cup holders, phone jacks and tv's?
The amount of times my kids make some hurried excited response trying to get me to see what Barney did even if was on a video tape they saw a thousand times is too many to begin with. Just what I need while changing lanes while zipping thru traffic trying to turn down the stereo so I can answer my phone while eating my supersized fries at 85, 90 miles an hour. :silly:

smokers suing tobacco companies, fat people suing mcdonalds oh the list is endless of numbskulls and idotic ideas but making new laws and banning things will not bring good judgement and common sense to people.If I choose to be a fat, smoking, helmetless, 3wheel rider it should be my choice A law shouldn't be made to ban these things, a law should be made though to keep lawyers from profiting from it when I have a heart attack crashing because I got light headed from lack of oxygen.

 

[flynbryan]

Its a shame that most the time I would rather ignore all this crap cause all it does is aggrivate me. It seems endless all the attack that lawyers and tree hugging associations take on us. Why don't these organizations annoy factories, automobile manufactuers, alcoholic beverage manufactuers, etc. You know why? Because they all have so much money and weight in corporate america that they have lawyers FOR their lawyers. Its plain and simple; We're an easy target! The general public is for the most part very uninformed about our sport, and there for are very easily swayed to think negatively of it. The only thing I really know to do is to support organizations like the AMA who help to protect our right to ride, be involved w/issues that concern your area, and try to be involved w/other issues outside of your area that you can make your voice heard.

 

[dirty~d~]

Tahuya Rat, you missed my point. I was not referring to the taxes. I was referring to the dollars exchanged from the manufacturing/importing/exporting/selling of the vehicles. On a business level, not a government level.

 

[Tahuya Rat]

I didn't miss the point, D.

The 1st point is that special interest groups are successfully lobbying our government officials into outlawing our sport.

The 2nd point is that same government officials couldn't give a rat's ass what effect it has on the economy, whether it's from lost taxes from sales of vehicles, equipement, parts and labor, or the drain on society from increased unemployement and the bancruptcy of firms that depend on our business. Remember, good economy = 4 more years of Bush. Bad economy, he takes the same dive his dad did (IMO).

The situation in Ohio is comparable to where we stood in this state 1 year ago, when the BS fuel use survey came out. 1698 has now been passed into law, and the modified RCWs will make it impractical to spend ORV funds on ORV trails - unless they're primarily non-motorized trails, the combination of which don't exist, i.e, no mo ORV trail funds for ORVs.

Just a slightly different yet at least equally devious method as they're using in Ohio.

 

[yzfman]

i think that the banning of anything is dumb, because the people that still have them are goin to ride them. and it's not the machines that are hurting people it's the operator. not wearing a helment and riddin while drunk isn't smart and they have saftey warnings on the quads and dirtbikes when you buy them. so i don't see the point of all of this