- Jan 1, 2002
- 794
- 0
Representative Sheltrown has drafted legislation to update the regulation of ORVs on county roads. This is a very good thing. Mr. Sheltrown has shown he cares about northern MI communities and the ORV Users in our State.
Some counties have elected to pass an ordinance that allow ORVs to be operated on the far right side of a county road. Those counties have seen the benefits to this both financially and in regards to safe operation of ORVs.
The Michigan Attorney General's Office (assistant) has issued a non-binding opinion that maybe these ordinances are not legal. Mr. Sheltrown hopes to make such ordinances legal by introducing legislation that clarifies a counties ability to regulate ORV traffic on it's roads.
Mr. Sheltrown is looking for positive feedback and comments on how best to revise this document before it's proposed as legislation. Remember, even in current "less than perfect" form, this is POSITIVE LEGISLATION for the ORV community.
Even if you don't have any alterations or other comments, simply sending Mr. Sheltrown a "thanks" would not hurt.
I don't have the text, only a PDF, of the latest Draft I've seen. I have posted a copy here:
http://www.gldsmc.org/public/ORV_Draft.pdf
Mr. Sheltrown will take public comment on the proposed legislation until November 15, 2006. The bill will be introduced in January 2007. To receive a copy of the proposed legislation and to make suggestions for changes, contact Joel Sheltrown at dist103@house.mi.gov or at toll-free 1-888-347-8103.
I've included my comments below:
Comments on proposed revisions to MCL 324.81131, proposed by Mr. Sheltrown's office.
This is in reference to the document titled "07449'06 Draft 2".
The intent and most of the changes are fantastic. It's clear much work has been put into the draft - I applaud Mr. Sheltrown's efforts! I do have several major concerns:
Section 1 requires the "access route" to be directly linked to the ORV system as administered by the DNR. This severely hampers a counties ability to provide access to goods and services as so desired by ORV operators. It also prevents ORVs from legally accessing the frozen waters that are directly accessible by county roads for such purposes as ice fishing. We do not want the DNR having to approve each road that is opened by a county for ORV use, nor do we want to restrict those roads to "point A to B", nor do we want to use the term "access route".
This section should be modified to state:
(1) A local unit of government may pass an ordinance establishing ORV routes along streets and roads under it's jurisdiction, if those ORV routes do not involve state or federal highways. Consent of a state or federal land management agency shall be obtained for the locations of these ORV routes if they use land that is under that agency's jurisdiction.
Section 4, flag requirement. This must be removed. Flags pose a safety hazard when used in Michigan's forested trails. They can easily be snagged in overhanging branches causing a motorcyclist to crash; they can also easily be broken off and become a dangerous spear laying in the trail for other ORV operators.
Compromise could be to require a flag only if the ORV has no functional head or tail lights.
Note the flag height requirement is "minimum 8 foot" and the ORV trails, by DNR specification, are maintained to "50 inches wide by 8 foot high". This ensures the flags will hit branches/trees when operated on the ORV trails.
Section 11, violations. We certainly need to have steep fines to keep the infractions to a minimum. We definitely do not, however, want this to be a misdemeanor. This should be a civil infraction as there is no criminal activity or intent nor is there jail time for the offense. It should not be a misdemeanor to operate 45 minutes after sunset.
Counties should also be able to increase the repeat offender maximum fine.
/Jeramey
Some counties have elected to pass an ordinance that allow ORVs to be operated on the far right side of a county road. Those counties have seen the benefits to this both financially and in regards to safe operation of ORVs.
The Michigan Attorney General's Office (assistant) has issued a non-binding opinion that maybe these ordinances are not legal. Mr. Sheltrown hopes to make such ordinances legal by introducing legislation that clarifies a counties ability to regulate ORV traffic on it's roads.
Mr. Sheltrown is looking for positive feedback and comments on how best to revise this document before it's proposed as legislation. Remember, even in current "less than perfect" form, this is POSITIVE LEGISLATION for the ORV community.
Even if you don't have any alterations or other comments, simply sending Mr. Sheltrown a "thanks" would not hurt.
I don't have the text, only a PDF, of the latest Draft I've seen. I have posted a copy here:
http://www.gldsmc.org/public/ORV_Draft.pdf
Mr. Sheltrown will take public comment on the proposed legislation until November 15, 2006. The bill will be introduced in January 2007. To receive a copy of the proposed legislation and to make suggestions for changes, contact Joel Sheltrown at dist103@house.mi.gov or at toll-free 1-888-347-8103.
I've included my comments below:
Comments on proposed revisions to MCL 324.81131, proposed by Mr. Sheltrown's office.
This is in reference to the document titled "07449'06 Draft 2".
The intent and most of the changes are fantastic. It's clear much work has been put into the draft - I applaud Mr. Sheltrown's efforts! I do have several major concerns:
Section 1 requires the "access route" to be directly linked to the ORV system as administered by the DNR. This severely hampers a counties ability to provide access to goods and services as so desired by ORV operators. It also prevents ORVs from legally accessing the frozen waters that are directly accessible by county roads for such purposes as ice fishing. We do not want the DNR having to approve each road that is opened by a county for ORV use, nor do we want to restrict those roads to "point A to B", nor do we want to use the term "access route".
This section should be modified to state:
(1) A local unit of government may pass an ordinance establishing ORV routes along streets and roads under it's jurisdiction, if those ORV routes do not involve state or federal highways. Consent of a state or federal land management agency shall be obtained for the locations of these ORV routes if they use land that is under that agency's jurisdiction.
Section 4, flag requirement. This must be removed. Flags pose a safety hazard when used in Michigan's forested trails. They can easily be snagged in overhanging branches causing a motorcyclist to crash; they can also easily be broken off and become a dangerous spear laying in the trail for other ORV operators.
Compromise could be to require a flag only if the ORV has no functional head or tail lights.
Note the flag height requirement is "minimum 8 foot" and the ORV trails, by DNR specification, are maintained to "50 inches wide by 8 foot high". This ensures the flags will hit branches/trees when operated on the ORV trails.
Section 11, violations. We certainly need to have steep fines to keep the infractions to a minimum. We definitely do not, however, want this to be a misdemeanor. This should be a civil infraction as there is no criminal activity or intent nor is there jail time for the offense. It should not be a misdemeanor to operate 45 minutes after sunset.
Counties should also be able to increase the repeat offender maximum fine.
/Jeramey
