First off I agree with you 100%... also it is nice for a change to find a young adult that can articulate a point without resorting to type-by-phonics you see all too often. I salute your teachers in school and your personal inititative to learn the correct way to communicate.

Now for the size versus age limits argument. For one thing, they are in most states nothing more than guidelines, they are not LAW, although most generally, a dealer will try to enforce them, if he wants to keep his dealership that is... the real problem is the manufacturers themselves. THEY are the money behind the rider safety courses being offered and the ones that dreamed up the guidelines in the first place. The whole reason they fund it in the first place is to appease our great and wonderful congress.

I think it is very obvious that there are issues with the criteria... and I sure wish people would take up the issue with their congressional leaders, because it will not change unless it is forced upon them. One person is not enough.. everyone must get involved.

I also would support a national safety course that all ATV riders must pass to gain certification prior to operating an ATV without having a certified rider along with them. Hopefully a parent or guardian.

I'd give kids under 12 a break, but once they reach that magic age, they should be required to pass a safety course. I do not however feel that a kid who is 9 years old, weighs a hundred pounds or more and stands over 5 ft tall should be denied the safety course because he has an 80 cc machine, and not a 50 like the standards call for.

I do not understand how they can deny the person that needs the course the most... I might just as well sell all of 4 of my quads and buy a boat, at least then my entire family can enjoy time together out fishing... All I have to do there is make sure they have a life preserver on...

My son can take a hunter's course and shoot a gun, but can't ride his 80... something wrong with the system folks...

 

you may want to look into a\the new viper 90r. reverse is always a good thing

 

Dark -

I have a small airplane that you might want to drive also. It does about 200 mph. Its small - so a 15 year old would fit. And there are just about the same amount of controls to operate. Why don't we let the you or even that 4 year old try that? After all - if the parent says its OK then why shouldnt we?

It is when parents don't make sound decisions that the government steps in and draws the lines for them. The 90cc limit may not seem perfect - but its the line that was drawn after so may parents failed to choose wisely. Its not a punishment - its what is believed to be appropriete. Good or bad - its the law.

 

If it's law then what section and what code?

 

Here its the law. Some states are simular - some are not.
See - http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/84/9256.html

 

Note these sections - where a adult who owns or has control over a adult size quad can be tagged for ALLOWING a person under 16 to operate it.
I quess thats why the Sherrif and CO's here will call the parents after stopping their kid and tell them to bring a trailer and thier checkbook.

Also note that you can loose your drivers license if found guilty of ATV violations.

In Minnesota anyways.

Subd. 3. <B> Prohibitions on person in lawful control.</B>
It is unlawful for any person who is in lawful control of an
all-terrain vehicle to permit it to be operated contrary to this
section.


Subd. 4. <B> Suspension.</B> When the judge of a juvenile
court, or its duly authorized agent, determines that a person,
while less than 18 years of age, has violated sections 84.92 to
84.929, or other state or local law or ordinance regulating the
operation of an all-terrain vehicle, the judge or duly
authorized agent shall immediately report the determination to
the commissioner and (1) may recommend the suspension of the
person's all-terrain vehicle safety certificate, or (2) may
recommend to the commissioner of public safety, the suspension
of the person's driver's license. The commissioner may suspend
the certificate without a hearing.

 

See, that's what I was wondering. It's not a federal law but simply guidelines established by the CPSC, right? I find where these guidelines were regurgitated by the Texas Department of Public Safety but I can't find where Texas has actually adopted any laws that coincide with these guidelines????




If anybody is interested, here's all I've been able to find for Texas:

§ 663.031. SAFETY CERTIFICATE REQUIRED. (a) A person
may not operate an all-terrain[0] vehicle[0] on public property unless
the person:
(1) holds a safety certificate issued under this
chapter or under the authority of another state;
(2) is taking a safety training course under the
direct supervision of a certified all-terrain[0] vehicle[0] safety
instructor; or
(3) is under the direct supervision of an adult who
holds a safety certificate issued under this chapter or under the
authority of another state.
(b) A person to whom a safety certificate required by
Subsection (a) has been issued shall:
(1) carry the certificate when the person operates an
all-terrain[0] vehicle[0] on public property; and
(2) display the certificate at the request of any law
enforcement officer.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


§ 663.032. OPERATION BY PERSON YOUNGER THAN 14. A
person younger than 14 years of age who is operating an all-terrain[0]
vehicle[0] must be accompanied by and be under the direct supervision
of:
(1) the person's parent or guardian; or
(2) an adult who is authorized by the person's parent
or guardian.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


§ 663.033. REQUIRED EQUIPMENT; DISPLAY OF
LIGHTS. (a) An all-terrain[0] vehicle[0] that is operated on public
property must be equipped with:
(1) a brake system maintained in good operating
condition;
(2) an adequate muffler system in good working
condition; and
(3) a United States Forest Service qualified spark
arrester.
(b) An all-terrain[0] vehicle[0] that is operated on public
property must display a lighted headlight and taillight:
(1) during the period from one-half hour after sunset
to one-half hour before sunrise; and
(2) at any time when visibility is reduced because of
insufficient light or atmospheric conditions.
(c) A person may not operate an all-terrain[0] vehicle[0] on
public property if:
(1) the vehicle[0] has an exhaust system that has been
modified with a cutout, bypass, or similar device; or
(2) the spark arrester has been removed or modified,
unless the vehicle[0] is being operated in a closed-course competition
event.
(d) The coordinator may exempt all-terrain[0] vehicles[0] that
are participating in certain competitive events from the
requirements of this section.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


§ 663.034. SAFETY APPAREL REQUIRED. A person may not
operate, ride, or be carried on an all-terrain[0] vehicle[0] on public
property unless the person wears:
(1) a safety helmet that complies with United States
Department of Transportation standards; and
(2) eye protection.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

 

wait 100 LBS or CC? never heard if a 100 lb. 3 or 4 year old!!!

 

Hey, just because your kids aren't healthy eaters....[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]



Read on.

 

Rap -

My understanding is that the CPSC rules "were" law until they expired in 1990 something. They were then considered "common law" but didnt have the legal teeth any longer.

I think your right about it not currently being a enforceable Federal law any longer. But I also understand the most states have incorporated the CPSC rules into State statutes that are laws. I have been told that the original manufactures that signed the original consent agreement - still consider all the provisions mandated. Thats why you dont see Polaris or Honda building two rider ATV's but Arctic cat does - as Artic Cat never signed the consent agreement becuase they were not building ATV"s while it was effective.

I don't know a whole lot about other states. Just Minnesota.