I said pre-teens Glimp. 6-12 year olds. I'm all for teens on bigger machines. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

ahh sorry...

This is a frustrating topic to me. I doubt any of us taking part in this discussion are part of the problem. The odds that one of our children will ever need regulations, beyond those imposed by us as parents, are slim.

 

Agreed! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

If anyone doubts that things are rolling around us as we speak, take some time to look at some of the articles on teh ATV safety institute's website.. www.atvsafety.org Pay special attention to the section on media releases... If you scroll down, you will find their version of safety rules... which appears to be a rehash of existing guidelines, with more restrictions added. These are the same folks that are asked to speak before state legislatures when the states are trying to develope policies... A real eye opener.. and all teh more reason we need to get actively involved... Hopefully we can work together...

On another note, when the suggestion for weights came into the mix.. one thing I want to make clear is that I think that whatever we come up with , it should have some flexability built in, and provide alternative methods for use in determiningproper size/fit etc. What I am suggesting is that we expand on possibilities, and not be tied into one method of measurement. This would provide a path that a child can follow to the next larger class as they are able to demonstrate their abilities. Not be the all kids grouped together system we have now.

And lastly, lets not debate the worthiness of anyone's suggestions at this point. Lets just get them on the table and then hash them out later when we have a good sampling of ideas.... Anyone else?

 

Just finished reading some of the statistical information used/published by the CPSC when it speaks at public hearings in support of increased controls/limitations.. and I have to say it was an eye opener for sure... however being a sceptic.. I also understand that simple numbers can be manipulated to support a position so I looked at it from a different light.

I wondered how the numbers of injuries and deaths compare to the increased number of machines being sold or are in use? Certainly it is difficult to compile, since many states do not register their ATV's. but it would be interesting to see how they faired. Also, I read somewhere that the numbers are coming down this year, thanks to increase awareness I suspect.

Any way I found a few issues worth noting.

1) the majority of deaths are under 16, and most are related to kids riding adult sized machines (I assume they are using engine size as the measurement, which I'd rather see them use Physical size of the machines and perhaps the child , not engine size... At least provide the flexibility to use one or more method.

2) Although they still advocate not selling a larger quad if the kid isn't old enough for the CC rating, it appears that sales are occurring.

3) Findings indicated that less than 4 percent of the kids had received any sort of formalized training. They specifically criticised dealers for not providing any training or orientation prior to the sale. (TAKE NOTE OF THAT LAST SENTENCE) I do not agree with shifting blame from parent to dealer... but it looks like that may be a possible solution... Current taining programs in some areas are innadequate to handle the influx of riders that the gorwing sport has produced. No current requirement exists to make it mandatory in all states for a child to complete a rider safety course. No formal dealer education program is mandated, nor has a program been developed or recommended. Distribution and production costs should be handled by orgainzations such as this that are independent of the dealer network to reduce their liability and free of manipulation. Although there was no mention of a certification recommendation.. that is always a possibility at a later date.

4) Total lack of suggestion or blame regarding parental responsibilities. I believe that is a gross error on their part. They are quick to point fingers at a dealer or the manufacturers, but are totally adverse in saying that a parent has anything to do with the decision process during purchase, and they do not expound on after the sale actions such as monitoring of children under 12, ensuring the child gets proper training etc. Also, many parents fall victim to thinking that ATV's are in teh same category as bicycles or scooters. They do not educate themselves enough to fully understand the dangers that the ATV clearly represents. If it were a weapon, most parents recognise teh damngers of their children handling such a device... education must focus on educating the parents as well as the novice rider of the dangers.

5) Statistics do not reflect use or lack there of, of safety gear. Too often, after spending serious cash on an ATV, parents either scrimp on safety gear, or ignore it totally. I think it is safe to say that most agree that children under 18 should wear a helmet period... no discussion. However other gear is available that should also be manadatory. Proper eye protection, gloves, boots over the anckles, long pants should all be mandatory.. with chest protection, neck protection etc highly recommended items.

6) The report does not address kids riding double up on machines not suited for such activity. Sharing of the experience is not excuse for riding double up on a machine. At the moment, only adult sized models designed for double up riding is available. If two or more are riding on a mini, that should be discouraged...

Although the CPSC has made comments to the effect that they would eliminate all under 16 riding, so far, cooler heads have prevailed. But without hearing alternate opinions from citizens that are riding, it is only a matter of time before our voice is drowned out... With some of the simple suggestions already made, I think we can manage to work with the CPSC to address the above issues... the biggest danger we all face is the fact that the statistics continue to rise, and kids are getting killed or maimed.. and PARENTS are still ignorant to the dangers and shirk their parental responsibilities. It is my hope that any program suggested for young riders includes an adult requirement to attend right along with the child. Sort of a train the trainer sort of program....

 

i think they should have better signs on trails, they should have every trail system have signs that tell u whats ahead, because every trail i have been on i have been suprised by mud pits, whoops coming out of a straight away, i dont think hitting whoops at a high speed is very safe, so i would like to see whats ahead before i get there, jus my 00.02 cents

 

Agreed, but if polled, I'd suspect that the majority of riders do not use marked trails.

The industry is in a phase shift these days towards what I like to refer to as destination riding. In recent years, you have started to see areas become destinations where families pack up and go there to ride ATV's versus the conventional vacation where you go to the lake or something. Silver country in ID, dunes in Oregon, Indiana and California, rocks in MOAB, the Paiute trail system in UT, the Hatfield-McCoy in WV are all notable destinations... but other states like Wisconsin, PA, New York and TN etc are working on getting up to speed. So the ATV craze is only in it's infancy right now.

Surely, there is a need for good trail marking when using these trail systems. Consistant signage/symbology would be a help too. One that uses nationally recognized symbols so you dont have to learn each area's system.

Most trails systems are supported and managed by clubs... with members providing many hours of volunteer time going out and marking and re-marking trails. They can always use another pair of hands... so step up and give them a hand. You just might meet a lot of people with like interests, and you will not have any trouble finding a riding buddy when you do decide to go for a ride.

Although not part of the original query, I'll keep these ideas available for use if I get the chance.....

thanks for your inputs.

Dragginbutt

 

Gary went off topic first so I feel justified to thow my 2cents out.

Signs? I know a good sign - Slow The Hell Down!

We average about 6mph over a several hour ride. whoops is when the front wheels start to come up without the Mrs sitting on the front rack and we aim for mud pits.

LOL

 

I wouldn't mind requiring kids under 16 to use all safety gear not just helmets. My 13 year old rolled a Yamaha Breeze down a mountain side on Fathers day. I require my kids to wear all their gear Helmets, chest protectors, boots, gloves, long pants and long sleeved shirt. Result of the roll 13 year old dismounted after first roll quad went over at least 10 times. Quad totalled child fine no injuries. Wearing full gear has protected mine and several other children that I know of. The accidents that I have seen have convinced me that there is a need to keep the weight down on the quads kids ride. My 13 year old was on a 125 weighs less than 300 pounds. I heavier quad compared to child size increases the chances of serious injury as much as speed does. I will also coment that if the 125 had a more capable suspension I don't think the accident would have happened. I could settle for a 90 if it had more torque and a suspension that can handle terrain. I have seen older kids get in trouble because the suspension of the little quads couldn't handle the rocks in the trail or a small jump without bouncing all over the place. We have modded a LT80 up so it can easly out run a 125 but I have to hold them back on it because the suspension can't handle the speed if the trail gets any ruffer than a dirt road. I think more people would keep their kids on smaller or midsized quads if they would make them more competent for trails. 2 inchs of suspension travel and sized for a 4 year old doesn't cut it. They need to make more machines like the LT160, Yamaha Breeze, size and power wise but put real suspensions on them. I think there needs to be an option that allows the kid who is too big for a 90 to move up without having to jump to adult sized. This would allow a better opertunity to apply the size verses fit standards. Kind of a rant on my part but I think improving the smaller machines would help people to not feel the need to move them up so quick. That and I want to smack every parent I see who lets a young child ride without at least a helmet on.

 

DirtVH, Not sure how to respond or quantify all that you have here.. much is off topic, but all important all the same.so I'll risk it again. I'll try to address the applicable part first.. I think you are saying that you would like to see lighter machines, and ones with more capability built into the suspensions. Also, I think you are calling for a new class of machine that is somewhere in between a full sized machine and the current crop of mini's...
This is atough one, as I am sort of on both sides of the fence on the suspension issue.. at least for mini quads. I think the current mini configuration could stand to have increased width... and am not sure increased suspension is required... I will agree that the suspension could be improved to the point where it should be able to handle situations that the ATV is likely to encounter at the speeds it is capable of attaining.. however it should be noted that in many cases, they get modified to the point where they exceed the factory design specs. Speed capabilities are addressed by the class guidelines.. so it may have a lead in. You need to look at the reason a max speed was considered for the mini's.. and I can only guess at this, but I think a lower speed for let's say a 50 is desired because they are considered to be a learning tool.. and nothing more.
I agree that kids do reach the 50's class design capabilities quickly and should have a way to progress to a 90's class machine when they can handle it. But the engine size issue should not be the only factor.

You mentioned a mid line machine to bridge the gap so to speak. One with a little more capable suspension without going to a big bore engine, or a full sized quad... Makes perfect sense to me... perhaps a realignment of the class requirement in the guide could address this. I do not advocate giving the 50 class any more suspension, or raising the center of gravity any more than it is today. Rather I'd prefer they go wider and make them more stable. Few in that class will see riding conditions that need more than currently available.

As for weight.. it is unfair to compare the ATV to a dirt bke of any type since with the 4 wheels/tires, and bodywork, larger seat etc.. you are not going to get it down to a comparable weight.. at least not cheaply... plus I think injuries on a dirt bike are less because they are easier to get off of when crashing, and generally the crash dynamics are way different. Dirt bikes normally wash out the front end and are laid down, while a quad rolls to the outside.. exactly where the rider's body is going to end up as well. And that causes them to get the crushing type injuries generally associated with ATV crashes.

I think one area that the guideline really needs improvement is the relying of simply age versus cc as the measurment. I like your suggestion that if a bridge machine could be developed, engine size would not be as relevent. A 90 to 125 cc engine with more suspension capability that is light weight, but not as big size wise as an adult machine would be your ideal then? Something slightly smaller than a Blaster in size.... I wonder if 125 is too large an engine though, as they can produce a lot of HP with one. And I can agree with lighter weight and more suspension as long as the width is increased to to counter the increase in center of gravity.

I'd also like to see the mini as we know it today, be a formula that lets kids move from a 50 to a 90, but still on a size/class of machine (mini) that will keep parents from modifying the heck out of them.

Just my thoughts.. but let's hear more ideas... keep them coming They have all been great so far...