Comments sought on ORV/county road legislation

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

We need supportive comments sent in on this item. There were 38 responses sent in. NINE of those were AGAINST IT!!

That's one out of every four people who do not want you riding your ORV on the road to access local services like gas stations.

Please email Mr. Sheltrown's office with a "yes, I support your legislation to allow counties the choice to open their roads to ORVs.". Email them to: dist103@house.mi.gov

Scott - if you want to ride your unlicensed bike from the tight single track to the gas station and back, then you should favor this legislation. The legislation favors all ORV operators and expands the options counties have in permitting ORVs (bike/quad/etc) to use county roads to gain access to food, fuel and other services as well as access to the trail systems.

However, if you prefer to ride back to the parking lot after 30 miles, load up and then head to town for lunch, then drive back, unload and ride some more, then this legislation is definitely not for you.
If you prefer that ATVs stick to the ORV trails, force them on the trails if you will, instead of allowing them on the wider roads, then this is not for you.
If you prefer to trailer the 100 yards from your cabin to the trail down the road instead of riding to it, then this is not for you.

Most counties, when they open their roads, set a speed limit for the ORVs. This has generally been 25mph. The law enforcement types have reported, and I believe it, that the speeding has decreased when the county opened their roads. This is mainly because Joe Rocket no longer has to run WFO from point to point in fear of being caught.
Not everyone is a good citizen, we all know this, but generally and overall it's been VERY GOOD. There will still be the jerk with the loud pipe tearing things up. We've found in places like Ogemaw county, that those jerks are now being reported by the legit ORV Users and subsequently shut down by the proper authorities. Those fellow ORV Users would not have had the opportunity previously to even report the violation since they would not have been on that road - but we both know the jerk+obnoxious pipe WOULD have been on the road regardless.
This isn't theory, it's been documented by the counties who opened up in the last couple years.
You have a legit concern, it's shared by most of those who are opposed to opening the county roads. In practice, and using Ogemaw county as an example, it's been just the opposite.

Direct impact -
The CCC Rose City Color Tour would not be happening out of Bentwheel's property this year and last if the roads were not open.
TrailFest @ LMC would not need a special permit for unlicensed bikes to run from the JP Lodge to the trail IF that county was open. Same for their Pine Cone run.
The CCC Kids Kamp (which you attended) would not have happened, the way it happened, at Wolverine out of the campground they used.

salgeek said:

In other posts I believe you have talked about riders getting tickets classed as "off trail" or something of that such. Problem being this over represents true off trail incidents and helps those that support doing away with ORV users. Would Joe/Jane MX running down the side of the county road without an ORV sticker get written up as "off trail" and only add to our problems?

Click to expand...

Those are "Operating in a Closed Area" tickets.
I've not heard of the situation you describe happening; the ordinances are not written so as to openly require the ORV sticker, so the chances of the ticket being issued initially are slim and actually being prosecuted are even slimmer. A citation for no sticker is more likely, if at all.

If you are operating illegally on an open county road, you will not receive a ticket for operating in a closed area - you will get the ticket for whatever violation is actually happening. The road would have to be closed to ORVs to get the "operating in a closed area" ticket. Since the road would not be closed, that ticket would not be issued. Instead a no helmet, no spark arrestor, speeding, reckless, or whatever ticket would be issued.

If the road is closed to ORVs, then they normally issue an "operating in a closed area" ticket. They use these tickets as arguments why counties should not open their roads - not because the ORV was ON a county road, but because they were in a "closed area". They imply this closed area was one of the sensitive areas, like a hill climb, marsh, wetland, etc. They (the DNR) do not say "we gave out 50 tickets last year to ORVs that were on county roads".

Remember, all of the counties in the UP have all or most of their county roads open to ORVs. Five counties in the LP also have opened most or all of their roads. This legislation will ensure the counties can continue to make such choices and allow other counties to follow suit.

WildBill said:

Technical question, does a golf cart qualify as an ORV? I can only imagine coming across a golf cart lumbering down the trail.

Click to expand...

What timing - was just researching this for another discussion.

Golf Carts can be considered either Low-Speed Vehicles (LSV) or ORVs. Both designations come with certain requirements and usage restrictions.

If it's electric powered, then it can be registered as a LSV and has specific usage restrictions - it's NOT an ORV if it's registered as a LSV. That means if it's registered as an LSV it could not be operated on county roads that were open to ORVs.

If it's gas powered or not registered as an LSV, then it IS an ORV and can be used on open county roads. Slap an ORV sticker on it and away you go..

Reason you would want to register one as an LSV is they can be operated on roads, if the speed limit for that road is less than 35MPH - like in subdivisions and stuff. Rural county roads generally have the state imposed 55MPH limit and so wouldn't be open to these machines.

Golf cart usage on DNR ORV Trails would be allowed if the golf cart were less than 50" wide. They would be allowed on ORV Routes. USFS has different rules and would not allow golf carts on ORV Trails regardless of width.

Certainly can be complicated.
Simplest way to look at it is to put an ORV sticker on it if you are in a county that has opened it's roads to ORVs.