Comments sought on ORV/county road legislation

[YZMAN400]

Ya know I was wondering how some counties can allow orv's on the roads without having them carry insurance on that viechle. I mean isn't a state law that street veichles carry insurance. Seems like they are walking a fine line with that one.

I got that golf cart e-mail also. They mentioned possibily having carts upgrade there viechles to have street legal requirements.... ie blinkers, mirrors, dot tires...yada yada yada. But that seems to have a hitch. As it is you cant have a solid axle viechle on the road. Its in the SOS inspection form. You have to have a differential. If they overturn that section of the law that would open it up so ATV's can be made street legal. I dont think they want to go there. Most atv's arn't safe enough to ride in the woods much less on the road.

 

[2TrakR]

Existing legislation provides for "release of liability" for the actions of counties/etc for opening their roads to ORVs.
For comparison questions:
Do you need insurance to operate your bicycle on a road? How about your farm tractor?

Insurance recommended but not required.
You're correct about state law requiring insurance, but it only applies to some vehicles (such as those registered under PA300).

Golf Carts registered as Low-Speed Vehicles DO have to have insurance. Funny stuff.

 

[WildBill]

Wow, thanks for the info. It's amazing how such a simple idea can get so complicated so quickly. Thanks for your efforts on all of our behalf... :ride:

 

[Trailridin]

Is there a website where the existing snowmobile laws are posted for County Road locations/access? It seems to me that this is what we are ultimately for: to be treated exactly like our snowmobiling friends in access to food, lodging, etc. These laws could be used as a template for ORV access laws.

Also, I think that the draft should include any townships of counties north of T12N, otherwise this would exclude Newaygo County from opening up County Road access. T12N cuts Newaygo County in half (the northern half includes the western end of the MCCCT).

 

[2TrakR]

Is there a website where the existing snowmobile laws are posted for County Road locations/access?

Michigan's Compiled Law contains the language which affects snowmobiles as well.
MCL 324-82124 has the basic piece enabling ordinances to allow sleds on a road.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(v2y4....aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-324-82124

MCL 324-82119 has the details. It was used as the basis for the ORV bill being formed.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(v2y4....aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-324-82119

 

[Tomck]

Jeramey,

Thanks for bringing this proposal to our attention, and for providing the information that made it so easy for us to send comments.

Tom

 

[Fred T]

I just got this update. We need MORE INPUT!


As most of you know, Representative Sheltrown is polling the ORV community as for preferance to a proposal he is willing to submit in the next session of legislature making it easier to allow ORV's on county roadway in northern Michigan.

The press release and text of his proposal can be viewed at www.amad14.org In checking with his office this morning, there have been 38 responses thus far, with 9 being opposition.

I urge all of you to view the release and the text, send your comments to Representative Sheltrown. If you have a website, please post on there for your members to respond. If nothing more, a note of Thanks to Representative Sheltrown for his involvement.

A few months back, the AG's office sent out a letter, putting a shadow of doubt on the legality of such ordinances. In doing so, the issue generated over 300 phones calls in one day to the AG's office.

We now have opportunity to correct the situation and we again need your responses to Representative Sheltrowns office. Please put the matter high on your "things to do" list.

Your action here will clearly change the future of our sports.

later, Dick

 

[KTM Mike]

My email sent now to!

 

[sanford]

I'm sorry to say but putting ORV's on county roads is not the answer. It may work in the UP due to less population.

Dont think of ORV's the same way as snowmobiles. Snowmobiles in my opinion do not sound as "loud". Can you image having a peaceful year around or weekend home up north and the next thing you know, a bunch of dudes in fox jerseys are twisting back their CR 500s as they roost past your house creating cloud of dust. Beleive me, if that was me, I would be pissed. :yell:

You have to think about the idiots that use are ORV trails and give us a bad name. The good thing is, those idiots stay in the woods and the exposure to the public is limited. NOW, those idiots are on the roads too! The C.O.'s hate ORV's as it is. How do you think they will treat ORV users now that they are on the road.

Big mistake!!!!!!!!!!

 

[2TrakR]

I'm sorry to say but putting ORV's on county roads is not the answer. It may work in the UP due to less population.

This is already allowed/lawful in 5 counties in the lower peninsula. Has been that way in three of those counties for 10+ years. There is no big change here, only setting guidelines and enabling more counties to be consistent as well as fully follow the law. This also does not automatically open the roads in all counties, it ONLY gives the counties the ability and guidelines to open them if they so decide.

Speed limits with the new law are 20MPH. Hard to roost/rip at that speed. Most counties already have similar speed restrictions in effect.

Your concerns, while valid and plausible in theory, have proven over many years to be a non-issue. Communities who have recently instituted laws allowing ORVs on their county roads have found that the speeding/nuisance issues have DECREASED. This has been primarily due to people no longer needing to speed-so-as-to-not-get-caught-by-the-man.

ORV based tourism is far exceeding snowmobile tourism in many parts of the state (lack of snow is a big contributor). These communities are seeing the potential revenue as a major life/business saver.

 

[Wolverine423]

Yes that all sounds good 2TrackR but past history shows "Give an inch" and ORV'ers will take a mile hands down every time pleading ignorance! I agree with Sanford as it does us no good in the big picture...

DW

 

[KTM Mike]

DW - while I agree you are in general correct ("give an inch...."), I certainly have not seen that be the case here in Montmorency county. We have had this ORV ordinance in place for YEARS (over 10?) and to the best of my knowledge, it is not a huge issue. Even the Montmorency County Road Commission has written letters in SUPPORT of a similar effort in Oscoda county! Local cops dont seem to have issue either. I literally ride right past ones home almost every time I ride from my house! He just smiles and waves as we go by.

This is not to say some people wont do exactly as you describe. I know of several locals that flat out abuse the priviledge actually. I am somewhat uncertain if i agree with total access, but from a legislative standpoint, I think that needs to be left up to the counties. In some areas, total county road access may work fine - in other areas i think it likely should be limited to defined routes for direct access to legal trails, services etc. only. I do see to many local cases of ORV's simply being "transportation" around the neighborhood, or to run into town. I dont realy think this is what we intend or want. Again, lets allow the counties to decide.

I do think that enforcement needs to step up - dont get me wrong, I dont want to call in the artilery on ourselves, but when I see some idiot on an unplated bike riding a wheelie down the road...damn straight he should get a ticket!

When my boys and I ride from our house, we do about 6 miles of road to get to the trail. I sure love being able to do that - not being able to would limit my riding to much. I will fight long and hard to help assure we can continue to do so. But when we do it - we stay to the extreme right (as conditions best allow) and we keep our speed down. (though we will have to work at that 20 mph thing...i would say we generally run about 30 mph when on the roads).

Valid concerns certainly, but lets allow the counties to decide! Not some muckity muck in Lansing with no clue of local circumstances. To me, this is what this legislation is all about.

 

[Wolverine423]

DW - while I agree you are in general correct ("give an inch...."), I certainly have not seen that be the case here in Montmorency county.

I find that were your located and then to the north including the UP the people are good about the privilege for the most part, but the farther south one goes from your location the worst it will escalate! Baldwin & Irons will be a total disaster zone fo sho.

DW

 

[KTM Mike]

I find that were your located and then to the north including the UP the people are good about the privilege for the most part, but the farther south one goes from your location the worst it will escalate! Baldwin & Irons will be a total disaster zone fo sho.

DW

Yup...it is all the fault of them damn city slicker flat landers..you know...anyone that lives south of oh...M-55! :nener:

 

[Wolverine423]

Ya anybody south east & west of me falls in that category! :laugh:

 

[tdunn976]

DW - while I agree you are in general correct ("give an inch...."), I certainly have not seen that be the case here in Montmorency county. We have had this ORV ordinance in place for YEARS (over 10?) and to the best of my knowledge, it is not a huge issue. Even the Montmorency County Road Commission has written letters in SUPPORT of a similar effort in Oscoda county! Local cops dont seem to have issue either. I literally ride right past ones home almost every time I ride from my house! He just smiles and waves as we go by.

This is not to say some people wont do exactly as you describe. I know of several locals that flat out abuse the priviledge actually. I am somewhat uncertain if i agree with total access, but from a legislative standpoint, I think that needs to be left up to the counties. In some areas, total county road access may work fine - in other areas i think it likely should be limited to defined routes for direct access to legal trails, services etc. only. I do see to many local cases of ORV's simply being "transportation" around the neighborhood, or to run into town. I dont realy think this is what we intend or want. Again, lets allow the counties to decide.

I do think that enforcement needs to step up - dont get me wrong, I dont want to call in the artilery on ourselves, but when I see some idiot on an unplated bike riding a wheelie down the road...damn straight he should get a ticket!

When my boys and I ride from our house, we do about 6 miles of road to get to the trail. I sure love being able to do that - not being able to would limit my riding to much. I will fight long and hard to help assure we can continue to do so. But when we do it - we stay to the extreme right (as conditions best allow) and we keep our speed down. (though we will have to work at that 20 mph thing...i would say we generally run about 30 mph when on the roads).

Valid concerns certainly, but lets allow the counties to decide! Not some muckity muck in Lansing with no clue of local circumstances. To me, this is what this legislation is all about.

The non issue has been good in the counties that have adopted the practice ,problems are down and enforcement agencies for most part pleased.
As for the further south we go you must remember NO trail below M20,s so these counties are not effected.

AS for us muckity mucks in Lansing, should I take offense!? :whoa:

 

[sanford]

Speed limits with the new law are 20MPH. Hard to roost/rip at that speed. Most counties already have similar speed restrictions in effect.

Because the speed limit is 20 mph doesn't mean ORV users will travel less than 20 mph. For instance, ORV users are supposed to stay on a properly marked trails. Do you think all riders obey those rules?...not a chance.

I dont want a 12 year old boy or girl riding their ORV on the road. There is NO good argument for this.

If you want to do something to help ORV's in the state of Michigan, stay off the roads. You are simply opening up a can of worms. Enjoy what we have and until you get a license plate on your bike, stay on the trail.

 

[2TrakR]

Do you think all riders obey those rules?...not a chance.

Of course there are violators. People break the rules in all aspects of life (from bikes to church, taxes to Nascar). Still, most will agree that we should not close down I-75 because 1 in a hundred drive 82MPH instead of the posted 70..

Law enforcement is there to keep the 1% in check and has proven to be reasonably effective.

I dont want a 12 year old boy or girl riding their ORV on the road. There is NO good argument for this.

Interesting point. I suppose the required direct adult supervision would be of no consequence.
On the other hand, 12 and UNDER are regularly allowed on streets and roads withOUT adult supervision on their other wheeled vehicles (bicycles, skateboards, rollerblades, etc.). I see these kids each day when I pass through school zones. It's interesting this type of activity would be OK, but one that requires Mom & Dad to be supervising within a few feet would not be OK..

On your previous loud bikes vs sleds opinion, I'd have to suggest one only needs to look at the current threatened lawsuits near Cheboygan to see that sound issues continue to cause grief for the cold weather crowd. My 600ZRT is like three 200SX bikes tied together but held at 3/4 WOT and running just one silencer - way more noise than the majority of ORVs put out.

Just think, a pack of _plated_ CR500s with cramped-wrist syndrome in front of Joe OldBloke's cabin would do plenty of damage to the ORV community but be entirely legal. Bad press is bad press, whether it's from legal activity or not.

 

[TCTrailrider]

I support the Leglislation. Communities should have the opportunity to do what they feel is right for them. If it causes problems they can go back to the old way. Increasing legal riding opportutities will decrease the need to violate laws.

The Tomahawk B loop is only legal to ride on a street legal bike. Some great single track with a fiew very short road connectors. This bill would give authority to the local community to change this. This is the best loop up there and non legal bikes ride it all the time. Wouldn't it be nice to ride that loop without looking over your shoulder as you hammer it down the road sections? Or ride from the campground to the trailhead without worries. :nod: I've never ridden the B loop with a group that were all legal, those who arent have an uneasy feeling, takes some of the fun out of it, but doesn't stop many from riding it.

 

[CAN-AM KEVIN]

E-Mail sent

 

[bruno670]

[/QUOTE]Just think, a pack of _plated_ CR500s with cramped-wrist syndrome in front of Joe OldBloke's cabin would do plenty of damage to the ORV community but be entirely legal. Bad press is bad press, whether it's from legal activity or not.[/QUOTE]

Watch the comparison. CR500 rider here.
If anyone out there wants to stop allowing the few of us who want to ride to the trail or between the trails (point A to point B) then they should relax some of the requirements to plate our bike(s). I myself and the wife are careful not to offend anyone while riding on the road. (Example: Sturgeon River campground to the C loop) 20 to 25 mph trying our best to keep the noise down. We appreciate any relaxed laws that we can get.

 

[2TrakR]

No offense meant, bruno670, just using Sandford's earlier example to illustrate that the same "potentially bad" outcome can be realized whether the rider is legal by license (plated) or by ordinance (ORV on county road).

Curious, what requirements on getting a plate do you think should be changed? I know several CR500s that were plated with relatively little effort.

 

[KTM Mike]

AS for us muckity mucks in Lansing, should I take offense!? :whoa:

Absolute NOT Tom! You are on our side, and are not a state employee or politician (oh oh...in just a couple weeks I will start on the State's payroll...i had better be careful what I say!)

I think one thing we all do need to keep in mind with this legislation - I dont think it's intent is to make it such a kid can ride his CR/KX/Banshee?whatever every night to his girlfriends house... and I do have concern if that is what it end up becoming. I would not mind seeing some limits placed to prevent that actually. ORVs shoudl not become a replacement for a car. Locally, I do see some of this clearly happening - but again, leave that to the counties - not Lansing. Leaving it in local control is a key reason why i support this.

 

[tdunn976]

Do not know if this was the right place to post,
:bang: But I spoke yesterday with Ozzie Bryant DNR enforcements head to Chief Marble:
Although there is laws in place to allow only Motorcycles on 24" trail the enforcement division of the DNR, WILL NOT enforce!
They see it as: "If an ATV can fit down the trail of public land, no matter the trail markings, we feel they have a right to be there"
Makes Magoo's petition all that MORE important!

 

[morgan]

Curious, what requirements on getting a plate do you think should be changed? I know several CR500s that were plated with relatively little effort.

I've always found the process quite simple here in Michigan. No speedo, no turn signals, let you use a helmet mirror, etc. Bout the only grind would be the DOT tire requirement.

Guys talking on the fourms say some of the other states really make the process hell---if not impossible.

Think we've got it pretty good. That is as long as Jennifer GrandMole doesn't change the process. :whoa: