Pages: 1
Posted by: dual-sporter
thanks for posting this. I agree- i think it would be great to have the forest service roads & DNR roads opened to us...
but the other bill sounds like a bad idea from every angle that i look at it.
Posted by: dual-sporter
Quote
Originally posted by: RidinLCWA
Also, this week two bills were introduced on noise ordinances. SB 5089 by Senator Tim Sheldon (D-Shelton) prohibits riding "On lands zoned as residential within six hundred feet of another property owner's residence, or within six hundred feet of another property owner's barn, stable, penned area, or similar structure." This is likely the result of a property in Thurston County where they have set up a practice ATV racetrack. It has been the subject of press stories and neighbor complaints.
so let me get this right: in order to ride an atv on private land, they are attempting to make you have a 200 yard border around the area that you might ride in! that's insane! this needs to be forwarded to all track owners.
Posted by: dual-sporter
i agree that a rider certification program would require funds to support it... and I believe that's where our legislature will shoot it down.
the age limits only set it up for disaster & it sounds like a page right out of the 1980's CPSC arguments. the greatest problem with it is that many times it forces a rider to ride a machine too small for them, which is just as unsafe as a rider being on too large of a machine for thier ability.... and we all know it
the only way i would support a ceritification program for anyone would be eliminating the age limits in favor of rider size, skills and abilities dictating what size ATV they could ride. making it similar to the motorcycle liscence program... when a rider shows they can safely handle a larger machine; they can test & prove it. displacement stages could be 70, 90, 200 & open. if a child under 16 is found riding a machine larger than they are certified for the parents can get fined.
also, if a certificate is required to ride public areas, what's to be done about riders from out of state, where they don't have the same or any similar program? to me, it sounds like this would discourage tourism.
Posted by: dual-sporter
the proposal to pay off thurston county coming from a a democrat does not surprise me in any way. that's no solution at all IMO.
the article then goes on to lie... that the money comes from gas tax, it did at one point but after the enviros gutted our funds from that, we had our ORV tabs more than doubled in cost... to save the riding areas. and now this D wants to take 1.6M from what we have and pay it to thurston county so they can pay it back to the state... in the general fund! and we, the end users, get the shaft coming & going.
if this was some liberal fund/cause they were killing, they'd be screaming bloody murder!
Posted by: dual-sporter
thanks for the updates.
i plan on being in olympia the 25th.
just a clarification- HB1003 makes it legal to ride on non-highway public roads... does that mean a one could ride the neighborhood streets as long as it is not designated as a highway?
Posted by: bigben
We use ATV's on our farm daily to check on our livestock. It's going to be hard to see the pigs if I can't get within 600'.
Posted by: blackballed
I'll give you a couple things to look out for regarding training kids that we are battling today here in Michigan.
A while back, the agency responsible for providing boating, firearms, sledding, etc. for our children decided to suddenly give this instruction up to (realistically) unqualified instructors who were able to throw out the "hands-on" portion of these atv safety training classes and make the course "quiz only". Bad decision...no doubt about it.
Yet what HASN'T come out of this whole (justifiable) uproar is the following facts:
You had instructors charging PARENTS $25 to sit in on their kid's training classes.....
One instructor continually rallied (and still does today) to throw out the possibility of any nationally recognized ASI course ever being taught again in this state....in favor of his curriculum that, with the elimination of the competition, basically puts his (non-profit, of course) "business" at a distinct advantage......
"Contract" instructors (under the old system) were making $40 per student to train and maintain their facilities; while the "administrator" of the grant was making $60/student for setting up the class/doing the paperwork......
None of these people fighting to rightfully bring the present system around, wants to talk about any of these facts or even just exactly how much they figure the State of Michigan should now fund their vital services (must be that upwards to $125 per student was "fair" in many eyes).
I've hosted youth atv safety classes myself and obviously believe that a properly taught orv class is a HUGE part of molding the next generation of riders. Yet when you have two sides so far apart on just exactly what the government's role is in all of this and throw in the way some of these people bastardize the concept of "non-profit organization" (these people deserve to make a decent wage at this...but at what price?)....you really have one thing happening.
Kids suffer the most....as they always inevitably do.
Posted by: blackballed
I agree wholeheartedly that this state is acting like real men/women should on the issues above and just wanted to point out that we have one STATE issue here that never should have gotten to this point. Our state has actually regressed in their policy concerning the safety of children and even allowed a less than forthright instructor to run roughshod over the training program itself for years on end while attempting to "cowboy" orv legislation in the same manner (I'm just here to say "don't let it happen to you"...).
Posted by: Dragginbutt
Gee I don't know if that sound restriction is going to go over well with farmers... I can see amaximum Db level, but come on.. how many barns are that close to another persons farm anyway? What about barns that are closer to the roads? DUH
As for the restriction bill, there isn't anything there I'd argue with other than the age vs size limit, and totally eliminating under 12 riding... that I'd have to take offense to... But wearing helmets, training programs, goggles etc, all good ideas that I think a lot of people have come to accept as being wise choices anyway.
However, if the state is going to impose a certification program, then they have to provide funding for it to... otherwise it is meaningless. Which all means a huge investment... and a level of committment that says they are looking at the sport as a long term thing, and not trying to get rid of them altogether as some states are threatening.
Posted by: Dragginbutt
Dual sporter.. a couple thoughts... First off, I'd not throw too many stones at the CPSC folks... truth be known, they were forced to accept the guidelines as we know them today... they fought tooth and nail not to have them, but it was the manufacturers who pressed for them.. not the other way around.
I can't say I disagree with the age versus CC rating concept, however I do not think they are realistic in relationship to the technology employed today... Back when the machines were first introduced, and suspensions were pretty much non existant, they made sense I suppose, but today, the technology is filtering down to the mini level, and the machines are just better, and more importantly, SAFER than they used to be, so an increase in CC's, especially in the 11 to 12 yrs to 16 yrs range needs some tweaking. I agree with you that some form of certification would be nice, if a means for moving up in class is introduced in lieu of upping the CC per age ratio...
The problem with the whole concept, is that the Feds leave it up to the states to manage their own programs... If they want one that is... And there is not a movement afoot to introduce and enforce one standard...
The CPSC guidelines COULD be a good start, however like I said, they need to be reviewed every so often to make sure they are in tune with the sport and technology. Right now, nobody wants to tackle it...
Posted by: Dragginbutt
Check out the blueribboncoalition website to get the skinny on the logging road issue... I think I heard somewhere that they had successfully countered the environmentalist's attempt to keep them off limits to ATV riding.... At least for now anyway. Sounded like the Forests service was on our side on this issue.... but you need to read it first hand.
Posted by: Dragginbutt
Great active reporting... this is what needs to be done all over the country where our access rights are under threat... Keep up teh good word, and maybe let us know how you got involved, and how you came across the information.. It may help others who want to take action, but do not know how.
Posted by: Dragginbutt
There are a lot of mildly handicapped and elderly persons who depend on ATV's to provide them access to the outdoors. What many do not realize is that legislation like this may affect their ability to recreate... Perhaps involving the handicapped lobby may be in order.
Posted by: Dragginbutt
I think I can answer that with a little story. I just received a note from the Sierra Club yesterday. In it, they talk about how the Bush administration is considering allowing logging in the sequoia national forests... and that this means 300,000 truck loads of "virgin" forests would be lost, and talked about all the damage that the equipment would do to the environment yada yada.. and they wanted me to send them a check so they could continue to fight against this.... Nowhere did they say that the actual seqoias would be put at risk, only that there was going to be some logging in the area. They claimed that there would be a truckload every 3 minutes... What a crock....
Anyway, they use sensational methods to get a donation, then use the funding to fight many different battles.. like getting rid of ATV's.... so you never know where the $ is spent. They do the same with alliances with other lobby groups. They get them to agree on one subject, and all of a sudden, they use the affiliation on all their projects.... which is a little deceptive... but it happens.
Needless to say, they are going to get an empty envelope to go along with their empty claims.....
Posted by: Dragginbutt
When is it going to end??? Why not attack chain saws... or lawn mowers.. Heck, soon we will all be using goats to keep the grass down, and beavers to cut down trees. Not very efficient, but a good reason for justifying the cost of wood products. These damn environmental nut cases will eventually ruin this country. What started as a good idea, has become an organization run by the insane, idiots that used to carry their furry rabbit stuffed animal around in their toy wagons as a child, while people like me grew up with a cork gun in my hands planning ambush attacks from behind the couch. Those floppy eared fuzz balls didn't stand a chance...
I got into really big trouble when I field dressed my sister's new pink stuffed bunny that she got in her Easter basket one year... My mom didn't have much in the way of a sense of humor...
Posted by: Dragginbutt
This is an example where allowing URL's on this list could be a benefit to all... We all understand the URL issue.. you don't want anyone to leave your site... because it cuts into your revenues... Just wondering how many people are driven away to sites that support getting out the message.
These are issues that are important to the survival of our sport... I would recommend a modification to your URL policy under certain limited circumstances.
As for the legislaation in Washington state... I think you are now undergoing what has been happening in other states. Mostly I think you will find it is driven by the environmental lobby... I believe the proposals are inline with the CPSC guidelines, however they have been aggressive in their under 12 proposals.
Welcome to the crusades...
Posted by: Dragginbutt
I encourage everyone to read the bill... It is a pretty good model, and mirrors what I ahve been talking about for a long time. First, it requres certification for riders 16 and below. (NOTE, it does NOT outlaw riders under 16 like many states are trying to do) It establishes a training program that mirrors the CPSC course, and accepts certification from non residents.
It licenses the instructors... (NOTE, I am unsure if there are provisions for liability insurance, which should be there). It is very unrestrictive concerning non certified persons from out of state that wish to ride the public trails there, however, I'd recommend the number of days in a calandar year be upped to at least 14.
It even allows a child without a certificate to demonstrate their ability and be granted a temp certificate.
It establishes a minimum safety equipment requirement.
It sets aside funds that can only be used to fund training programs... although it needs to define who is actually eleglible to draw from those funds... ie any licensed instructor?
It establishes how to cross roads etc...and defines what they consider roads.
It also defines ORVs and the rules for them.
It clearly states the parental supervision responsibilities for riders under 16.
All in all, I think it is a very good bill that establishes ATV's as a legitimate sport that the state is spending efforts to grow.... I know some may consider the certification a bother... but many feel it is one pill that will not be too hard to swallow.
I'd suggest some sort of registration program as well.
The IMPORTANT THING that you need to notice is what is NOT in the bill . NO REFERENCE TO ENGINE SIZE versus AGE....
Posted by: Dragginbutt
Yes I noticed that potential problem with the road designation... if I read this right... if a road that is being used as a trail is maintained or improved with government funds, it could potentially be re-classified and thus become off limits to trail riding... You might end up with some nice trails that nobody can use.
As for raiding the fridge... the answer to that is to get more projects going and spend the money on beneficial programs before they get their hands on it.
Still, I think it could have been MUCH worse. It sounds like the drafter's of the bill are in tune with the needs of the enthusiast, and are taking steps that placate the naysayers, while entrenching programs that will guarantee the access for generations to come....
A lot of people won't see it that way... but that is what is happening... It is hard to walk away from a huge investment down the road and totally politically incorrect. I think this is one time that the lawmakers painting themselves into a corner is a good thing for the ATV industry.
Posted by: Dragginbutt
I agree the local system may not be perfect.. but at least the State is reacting with positive programs that indicate a willingness to work with the industry instead of what we are seeing in other states where they either totally ignore the issues hoping they go away, or they eliminate riding altogether... problem solved... Neither approach is in our best interests. Getting our foot in the door is the fist step... working with them to contunually improve the system is the only way we are going to see positive changes.
Posted by: Dragginbutt
Did the road designation issue get resolved in the later version? Other than that snafu, I thought it was a well thought out bill.
Posted by: Dragginbutt
I can see where this will be a boon for all the RUV owners, although just the thought of someone with a modified Rhino blasting down the road sure gives me cold chills when thinking about the increased grip and it's effect on handling. I sure hope we do not see a rash of flipped vehicles.
Posted by: Ragged
thanks for the link over here...I'll be sending a e-mail of support ......I hope Buck can get the job done....and fight off the greenie dem's........
Ragged
Posted by: Ragged
thanks for the updates! finially something good might happen....instead of looseing more ground we gain..
Ragged
Posted by: Elkaholic
Quote
Originally posted by: RidinLCWA
Also, this week two bills were introduced on noise ordinances. SB 5089 by Senator Tim Sheldon (D-Shelton) prohibits riding "On lands zoned as residential within six hundred feet of another property owner's residence, or within six hundred feet of another property owner's barn, stable, penned area, or similar structure." This is likely the result of a property in Thurston County where they have set up a practice ATV racetrack. It has been the subject of press stories and neighbor complaints.
WHAT is going on with this one??? Does anyone know???
Posted by: Elkaholic
5.00 fee to director.....$10.00 fee to director.......... I see the true reasons now for sb 5031 wrapped up sweetly in "PC" concerns of safety.
As for the other bill I believe the "critical areas" ordinances of king county are NOTHING compared to this one as for restrictions for land use one your own property. 600'????? You could own 50 acres or more and potentially not be able to ride any of it!!
OH the joys of living in a "blue" state............................
Posted by: Elkaholic
Quote
Originally posted by: Dragginbutt
There are a lot of mildly handicapped and elderly persons who depend on ATV's to provide them access to the outdoors. What many do not realize is that legislation like this may affect their ability to recreate... Perhaps involving the handicapped lobby may be in order.
This would SEEM to make sense, But then Why do the supporters of the Wild Sky wilderness proposal CLAIM to have the handicapped lobby (or whatever) on thier side?? Maybe they have the mentally handicaped?
Posted by: Elkaholic
Quote
Originally posted by: Elkaholic
5.00 fee to director.....$10.00 fee to director.......... I see the true reasons now for sb 5031 wrapped up sweetly in "PC" concerns of safety.
As for the other bill I believe the "critical areas" ordinances of king county are NOTHING compared to this one as for restrictions for land use one your own property. 600'????? You could own 50 acres or more and potentially not be able to ride any of it!!
OH the joys of living in a "blue" state............................
Have any of the rest of us here in the socialist state on Washington recieved our ALERT letter (Via USPS) from the BRC with 2 pages of issues detrimental to OHV users yet?? If you haven't you will be soon and the news is not good. As above.....Safety???????My butt!!!!
Posted by: Elkaholic
Quote
Originally posted by: Elkaholic
Quote
Originally posted by: Elkaholic
5.00 fee to director.....$10.00 fee to director.......... I see the true reasons now for sb 5031 wrapped up sweetly in "PC" concerns of safety.
As for the other bill I believe the "critical areas" ordinances of king county are NOTHING compared to this one as for restrictions for land use one your own property. 600'????? You could own 50 acres or more and potentially not be able to ride any of it!!
OH the joys of living in a "blue" state............................
Have any of the rest of us here in the socialist state on Washington recieved our ALERT letter (Via USPS) from the BRC with 2 pages of issues detrimental to OHV users yet?? If you haven't you will be soon and the news is not good. As above.....Safety???????My butt!!!!
Here is a quick outline of the five separate issues going through the state legislature in this alert
Issue; 1. OHV use on Private Land
Issue; 2. OHV Users Robbed of OHV Funds Via Budget Proposal ( This one sounds real sweet)
Issue; 3. ATV Safety Bill More About RESTRICTION Than Safety (Provides for NO effective safety training Program, and would
ban completely ALL riding under the age of 12 on Public Land!!!)
Issue; 4 California Red Sticker Program Proposed For Waswhington State (California????AIN'T no way that can be good!!!!!!!)
Issue; 5 Legislation Allows OHV users to "Make The Loop" (Finally agood one!!!!!!!!)
BRC Put a URL To the AMA to link to these bills, but it didn't work or I would have posted the link
Posted by: Treacherous
Looks like SB 1003 is still moving along.
Posted by: Treacherous
Quote
Originally posted by: Treacherous
Looks like SB 1003 is still moving along.
Apr 12 Placed on second reading by Rules Committee.
Posted by: Treacherous
-- IN THE HOUSE --
Apr 19 House concurred in Senate amendments.
Passed final passage; yeas, 98; nays, 0; absent, 0; excused, 0. (Roll Calls)
Posted by: Treacherous
Quote
Originally posted by: Treacherous
-- IN THE HOUSE --
Apr 19 House concurred in Senate amendments.
Passed final passage; yeas, 98; nays, 0; absent, 0; excused, 0. (Roll Calls)
UPDATE
-- IN THE SENATE --
Apr 22 President signed.
-- OTHER THAN LEGISLATIVE ACTION --
Delivered to Governor. (Original Bill) (PDF Version)
Posted by: Treacherous
A ranger from Cle Elum Ranger district replied to an inquiry that I made that they are already creating route signs for ORV/ATVs. There is a meeting on May 2nd to discuss what roads would be opened. It might be a good idea to contact your local ranger district to support opening specific roads if bill is signed.
Posted by: Treacherous
I guess I need to start looking at the Road Legal accessories for my Sportsman. :-)
Posted by: Treacherous
SB1003 was signed by governor today. Section 8 was vetoed. It appers it created a redundant task force. Here is what it says:
"April 28, 2005 To the Honorable Speaker and Members, The House of Representatives of the State of Washington Ladies and Gentlemen: I am returning, without my approval as to Section 8, Engrossed House Bill No. 1003 entitled: "AN ACT Relating to the operation of off-road vehicles on roadways." Sections 1 through 7 and 9 of Engrossed House Bill 1003 provide for increased flexibility and improved safety requirements when operating an off-road vehicle. Specifically, no person under the age of thirteen (13) years may operate an off-road vehicle unless directly supervised by a person over the age of eighteen (18). Any person operating an off-road vehicle must wear an approved helmet unless the vehicle is equipped with seat belts, roll bars or an enclosed passenger compartment. Engrossed House Bill 1003 provides further flexibility for off-road vehicle users by permitting, in certain circumstances, the operation of the vehicle on non-highway roads to facilitate greater access to off-road vehicle specific trails. Section 8 of Engrossed House Bill 1003 creates a task force for the purpose of studying and making recommendations regarding off-road vehicle noise. I am vetoing Section 8 because the task force created in that section is identical to the task force created in Engrossed Substitute House Bill 5089 (Sec. 1), which I signed April 22, 2005. For these reasons, I have vetoed Section 8 of Engrossed House Bill 1003. With the exception of Section 8, Engrossed House Bill 1003 is approved. Respectfully submitted, Christine O. Gregoire Governor "
Posted by: Treacherous
For Forest Service roads I strongly encourage you to contact the forest service office in the area that you are interested in opening up. I am told they plan to open areas up in stages. To help make sure your interests are heard let them know. The contact for the Cle Elum area can be contacted via this website.
Posted by: quadduck
I have rode in several different state and US forest lands here in Washington and I was just curious on besides posted state forest roads where it tells you to stay on designated routes only, what state forest roads are not legal to ride on? I know that the US forest service won't let you(accept in the Umatilla forest, Blue Mountains) ride on the gravel and dirt roads, but what state land areas don't?
One other thing that worries me is my 2 kids own lt80's and are only 8 and 9. If the state passes this new law will they buy back the new 80 I bought this summer?I guess I already know the answer to that one.
Posted by: quadduck
So ridinlcwa whats the latest? BTW a bunch of people who ride from the mason co area will be at the capitol with thier bikes and quads on the 25th to speak out.
Posted by: quadduck
Cool but what about the cpsc standards? And when are we going riding?
Posted by: quadduck
BTW I will o riding with you if your willing even though you are a swampetowner
Posted by: quadduck
I can't wait, I'd love to see my freshly modded eiger run against the vinny just to see if its any closer to being a real runner.
Posted by: mywifesquad
Ever wonder how much riding area we could have "out west" if their were no liberals. Feeling your pain in Ca.
Posted by: RidinLCWA
Washington's legislature is in session and there are two bills affecting ATVs. I'll post information as I come across it.
On the good side, Representative Bill Hinkle (R-Cle Elum) introduced HB 1003 to allow ORVs (including ATVs) on nonhighway roads. This would let us ride on DNR and Forest Service roads! Hinkle and colleague Rep. Cary Condotta (R-Wenatchee, owner of Condotta Motorsports) are working hard to expand ORV opportunities and protect our rights.
On the worrisome side, HB 1029/SB 5031 would enact all sorts of new regulations on ATV use. New regulations would include mandatory safety training certificate to ride on WA public lands, minimum 12 years old to ride 70cc to 90cc ATV, minimum 16 years old to ride 90cc or greater, under 16 would have to be under direct adult supervision to ride on public lands, mandatory lights/brake lights/muffler/spark arrester, mandatory eye protection, mandatory helmet, ban carrying a passenger, ban sales of 70cc or greater ATVs for use by persons under 12 years, requirements around road crossings including having headlights on, BAN riding on public roads except for crossing, bans crossing limited access highways. So, parents of ATV riders will want to review this bill closely as will those who ride on public lands (i.e. all of us).
So, the fun has begun. It didn't take long for the new legislature (which is controlled in all branches by Democrats) to jump on ATV regulations. With Democrats running the show, likely we will see more bad bills introduced in the next few weeks. I encourage everyone from WA to pay close attention.
For more information go to http://www.leg.wa.gov/ and enter in the bill numbers (just the numbers not the HB or SB).
Posted by: RidinLCWA
ATV Legislative Update
On Tuesday, January 18, there is a public hearing on Rep. Hinkle's bill (HB 1003) to allow ORVs on public roads before the House Natural Resources, Ecology & Parks Committee. The hearing is at 1:30 p.m. and will be held in the House Hearing Room D at the Capitol in Olympia.
If you have time, this is a good chance to voice your opinion on this subject before the legislature. It is very easy to testify.
If you want to send comments via e-mail, the chair of the Committee is Representative Brian Sullivan (D-Mukilteo, Sullivan_Br@leg.wa.gov) and the ranking Republican is Jim Buck (R-Port Angeles, Buck_Ji@leg.wa.gov). Both are good people. Buck is an avid outdoorsman and hunter, so is understanding of our issues.
For more information go to: www.leg.wa.gov. You can get e-mail information for committee members, details on the bill and committee hearing information.
Posted by: RidinLCWA
Also, this week two bills were introduced on noise ordinances. SB 5089 by Senator Tim Sheldon (D-Shelton) prohibits riding "On lands zoned as residential within six hundred feet of another property owner's residence, or within six hundred feet of another property owner's barn, stable, penned area, or similar structure." This is likely the result of a property in Thurston County where they have set up a practice ATV racetrack. It has been the subject of press stories and neighbor complaints.
Posted by: RidinLCWA
The other bill SB 5043 by Senator Mulliken (R-Ellensburg) clarifies state law to provide that "local governments retain primary responsibility for the enforcement of rules" associated with noise control. It also increases the fines from $100 to $300 for noise violations. On a positive note it requires the state Department of Ecology to update its noise rules based on "best available science" and to "clarify rules on low bass frequency decibel levels." Likely, the intent of the bill is to limit DOE's rulemaking on noise issues.
Stay tuned, this is just the beginning.
Posted by: RidinLCWA
REMINDER: HEARING, TUESDAY, JAN 18, 1:30 P.M. STATE CAPITOL IN OLYMPIA.
House Hearing Room D, John L. O'Brien House Building.
I have been in contact with several organizations and most of the major ATV and motorcycle groups in the state (at least in Western WA) plan to be at the hearing. But, there is room for more. The environmental groups are flocking to the Capitol in the last week. You can be sure they will be there in force. It is vital to have a good turn out of support for Representative Bill Hinkle. Please pass the word. If you can't attend, go to www.tvw.org for a live webcast of the hearing. After the hearing you can also get the audio from TVW.
Posted by: RidinLCWA
The restrictions on road riding are in state law -- vehicles must be licensed and street legal.
Posted by: RidinLCWA
The hearing on HB 1003 went very well today. There was near acclamation of support. The Northwest Motorcycle Association and the SW Washington Offroad Riders Assn testified in support of the bill. The WA Snowmobile Assn signed up in support of the bill, but did not testify. The most helpful testimony was from the US Forest Service and the WA Department of Natural Resources supporting the bill. Their support is vital to getting the votes to pass it. In general the testimony talked about freeing up more usable land for safe riding by allowing roads for dual use (e.g. connector for trails and automobile access). They discussed that more trail opportunities will help entice rider away from illegally creating trails in private forests or going off trail on public lands. The USFS and DNR support the bill giving them a better ability to manage recreation activties on their lands.
The only sour note was from the Sierra Club, who testified with "concerns" but not opposed to the bill. Their basic concern is that the bill may give ORVs greater access to sensitive lands and increase the need for enforcement patrols to ensure new illegal trails are not created. Don't go ballistic, they are not opposing the bill and are not a problem at this point.
There apparently is a new version of the bill that is being discussed (text is not yet available). The new version would include a helmet requirement (with certain exceptions) and require direct adult supervision of minors riding on public lands. Both had the support of the ORV users at the hearing and from the land managers. A question was raised if this bill would negatively affect the current exemptions to such laws for agriculture lands and private lands. It would not. The bill would not change any laws about ORVs use on ones own land (or a friends) and would not require helmets for people riding on private lands.
Now that the bill has had a hearing, it can be considered for passage by the committee. This hearing was an important step in passing the bill. Look for a committee vote soon.
You can listen to the hearing from the Windows Media Link. HB 1003 is the first issue and the hearing lasts about 23 minutes. The recording goes longer, but unless you want to learn more about salmon habitat, you can cut it off after 23 minutes. The Recording cuts in and out for the first few minutes when the staff is providing a general overview (the guy was not speaking into his microphone!). Don't worry, stick with it and you'll get the substance. You will have to cut and paste the link, I could not get it work on the forum.
mms://198.239.32.152/Archives/200501/2005011078.wma
Real Audio Version:
http://198.239.32.151/ramgen/Archives/200501/2005011078.ra
Posted by: RidinLCWA
On another note, please send your thanks to Representatives Hinkle for sponsoring the bill and DeBolt, Kretz and Orcutt for thier vocal support during the hearing. Finally, the hearing would not have been possible, nor would the bill move, without the support of the Committee Chair, Representative Brian Sullivan. Sullivan's leadership on this is crucial to its success.
You can get information on how to reach the committee members here:
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/NREP/
Posted by: RidinLCWA
Good questions on noise controls. There is a committee hearing on Tuesday, January 25, at 3:30 p.m. regarding SB 5089 restricting riding and associated noise. The hearing is before the Senate Water, Energy and Environment Committee.
On Wednesday, January 26, at 1:30 p.m. the Senate Transportation Committee is holding a hearing on SB 5031, enacting new age and other restrictions on ATV riding. The industry views this bill as particularly onerous.
As you can see, there is a multifront attack on ATV and ORV riding in Washington state. What we may gain from Rep. Hinkle's bill could be offset by new restrictions enacted by other bills. ATV riders must be dilligent in responding to all of these bills. It is important to talk to your legislators about issues impacting ATV riders.
You can get more information on the bills and find your legislator at http://www.leg.wa.gov
Posted by: RidinLCWA
There is a hearing before the House Natural Resources, Ecology & Parks Committee on Friday, February 11, at 1:30 p.m. to enact severe new restrictions on the noise generated by ATVs and other off-road vehicles. The bill is HB 1455. To read the bill go to http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm?billnumber=1455&year=2005.
This is one of several bills mentioned on this sight already that would negatively impact ATV riders. This bill was introduced to specifically
Also, a report in The Olympian, last week indicates that the Thurston County ORV park may be closed permanently. Senator Karen Fraser (D-Olympia) is proposing to rob $1.3 million out of the state's ORV fund to pay for the costs to close the park. You can read the complete article here:
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20050203/southsound/80927.shtml
Posted by: RidinLCWA
Thank you for asking about the status of ATV bills. There are several bills that have survived thus far.
Engrossed House Bill (EHB) 1003, is Representative Hinkle's bill to allow riding on public roads, when authorized by the agency that owns or operates the land. It passed the House of Representatives on March 4 by a vote of 90-6 (2 excused).
Senate Bill (SB) 5089 to basically ban you from riding on your own property if your neighbors complain, is out of the policy committee and in the Senate Rules Committee. That means that it is one step away from being voted on by the full Senate. The fine for a violiation is set for not less than $100. The kicker on this bill is that fines double each time a new infraction is issued. It could get expensive quick.
A related bill SB 5043, to clarify in state law that local governments have the responsibility for setting noise ordinances, is also in the Senate Ways & Means Committee. It had to pass by today. I'll know tomorrow if it passed. This is a fairly innocuous bill, except it gets Department of Ecology out of the noise standards setting business.
Another bill, HB 1029 to enact further restrictions on road riding, require mandatory rider training and other provisions passed House Transportation Committee today. It now goes to the Rules Committee for consideration of when it would go before the full House for a vote.
For the status of any of these bills go to: http://www.leg.wa.gov and enter the bill number (just the number without the HB or SB).
I'll be around on the 25th and will try to make the rally. I hope there is a good turnout.
Everyone should thank Representatives Bill Hinkle, Cary Condotta and Brian Sullivan for their leadership on ATV issues this session.
Posted by: RidinLCWA
Quadduck,
There was a substitute version passed today for HB 1029. I don't have a copy yet. They were going to limit mandatory training to those under 16 years and with less than a certain number of years of experience. I think they were going to remove the vehicle size limits from the bill, but will have to wait to read the new version.
As for riding, I'm grounded for a few more weeks until the legisaltive session lightens up on me. Hopefully, after the next cutoff on March 16, most of my big bills will be finished. Also, my ATV is torn apart for me to replace the front part of the frame. I got a little up close and personal with a tree (actually three trees on separate occassions, but the last one finshed her off until repaired). I'm waiting on the part to arrive (hopefully this week or next). I should be back in the saddle by late March for some short weekend rides. Session ends April 24 and I should be wide open from there on out for the Summer and Fall.
Posted by: RidinLCWA
Good news on the ATV Legislation.
SB 5089 has been substituted with a study-only bill to study the issue of ORV noise. All of the proposed restrictions have been removed from the bill.
HB 1029 has been significantly altered from its original bill. The very problematic provisions have been removed. The Department of Transportation will still create a training program, in conjunction with local clubs and national training organizations. The intent is that they will adopt the standards of the ATV Safety Insitute and approve local clubs and trainers who train to that standard. The training is now only mandatory for persons under 16 years of age who are riding on public lands. One can also get a certificate without training if he or she has been riding for more than a year. Fees collected under this portion of the bill are restricted to be used ONLY for ATV safety training. Section 7 of the bill still is a bit problematic. It appears to conflict with HB 1003, by prohibiting riding on public roads, when 1003 approves this practice under certain circumstances. The bill continues to prohibit the use of an ATV on public lands for those under 16 without a helmet or eye protection. A sensible provision. Also those persons must be under "continuous supervision" of an adult.
I encourage you to look at the bill it appears to be much improved. Go to http://www.leg.wa.gov and enter 1029.
On another note, check out HB 1257, it creates new rights for motorcycle riders when getting insurance. It appears to be a good bill.
SB 5043 to clarify noise ordinance provisions appears to be dead for the year. It did not get out of the Ways & Means Committee by the cutoff date.
As mentioned previously, HB 1003 has passed the House. The good news is that it allows ORV use on non-highway public roads. A new provision was inserted making it an offense to ride on a private nonhighway road without permission. It also includes a helmet requirement when riding on a nonhighway road. However, it does clarify that the helmet provision does not apply to operators on their own land or on agricultural lands. The helmet provision also does not apply to ORVs equipped with a roll cage, such as the side-by-side car-like Yamaha Rhino, etc.
All bills must pass their house of Origin by 5 p.m Wednesday March 16. HB (house bills) must pass the House and SB (senate bills) must pass the Senate. You can check the status of any of these bills by going to http://www.leg.wa.gov and entering the bill number (without the HB or SB, just the number).
Posted by: RidinLCWA
HB 1003 leaves the decision of access and riding on roads to the land owner or government agency with jurisdicition. Thus, I suppose if a city were to pass an ordinance allowing ATV riding on the street, it might be allowed. You should review the bill text for a better understanding of its provisions. It's pretty simple to read. There are also bill reports that explain its impacts.
I know that in Idaho and Utah, several towns allow street riding. Try this link for more information on the bill:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm?billnumber=1003
Posted by: RidinLCWA
Engrossed Subsitute House Bill 1029, enacting new restrictions on ORVs and riders, just passed the State House 59-38. There was a lively debate on the bill. In the end, many felt that the restrictions went too far and could harm the sport and the tourism industry it generates in our state. I encourage you to take a look at the bill for yourself. It still must pass the Senate.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm?billnumber=1029&year=2005
Posted by: RidinLCWA
Dragginbutt,
Thank you for your insights. Most ATV riders agree with the training and safety equipment provisions. The ATV companies typically provide a financial incentive for training after the purchase of a new ATV. Suzuki sent me $100 for taking a free training course. Overall the bill was substantially improved from when it was introduced.
The road provisions in the bill are problematic, in that they conflict with another bill, HB 1003 that seeks to expand riding opportunities for ORVs on nonhighway, public roads. Likely, the differences will get sorted out in the Senate.
ATVs, motorcylces (that are not street legal) and other ORVs in Washington State must be registered in Washington (or another state) and display an ORV sticker on the front and back of the vehicle. The fees are dedicated for ORV purposes. Though, the fund is regularly raided by the legislature for other purposes.
There is not a requirement that riders or owners carry insurance for ORVs (there is for street-legal vehicles).
Posted by: RidinLCWA
Monday at 3:30 p.m. in Olympia, the Senate Natural Resources, Ocean & Recreation Committee is holding a hearing on EHB 1003. This is Rep. Bill Hinkle's proposal to allow riding on public roads with the permission of the owning or managing agency. This is a good bill and needs support. It would great to have some "real" people there to testify. Spread the word. The hearing is in the Senate Hearing Room 2, in the John A Cherberg Senate Building. It's very easy to get the Capitol (take exit 105 and follow the signs). It's also easy to sign in and testify. Or, you can just sign in and indicate you don't want to testify but support the bill. Hope to see folks there.
Posted by: RidinLCWA
HB 1003 just passed the Senate (44-1). It has to go back to the House because there was an amendment in the Senate (technical correction). It looks very likely the bill will make it to the governor.
Posted by: RidinLCWA
There bill continues to include the right to ride on non-highway roads, provided the local government owning the land allows such riding. Senator Karen Fraser (D-Olympia) added an amendment to create a study committee on ORV noise. This is similar to the study authorized in Senator Tim Sheldon's (D-Shelton) bill that passed the Senate earlier in the year. The study was agreed to by the supporters of the bill and the bill's sponsor. Here is the text of the underlying committee amendment that was substituted: Senate Committee Amendment.
Posted by: RidinLCWA
The governor is scheduled to sign EHB 1003 tomorrow after 3 p.m. Again, it leaves it up to the government owning the property to set the rules. It would behoove us to start working with our counties and the USFS, DNR to open up new riding areas.
As for the riding on highways, there are other restrictions besides just having a plate in the regulations. Headlights and brakelights must be a certain height, you must have turn signals, mirrors, horn and other requirements. Here are the RCW's for authorized road use: RCW 46.37. Look at 46.37.522-539.
Posted by: Sig121
Okay, maybe someone who is better at reading these things can help me out a bit here. It says in in Section 3 (1) (F) that you cannot ride on the shoulder, slope or median of a highway road. It then goes on in Section 6 (1) to say that you must have a plate, registration, etc., to operate a motor vehicle on highway roads. If they do not say you cannot ride on the highway, just that you have to have a plate, are they leaving a gap open here for someone to plate their ATV and ride on say, state highways? Did I miss something? If I did, please point me to the appropriate place so I can read the RCW section.
Posted by: Sig121
Thanks RidinLCWA.
