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/billinf...illnumber=1003

 

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/billinf...1029&year=2005

 

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....

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

<u>Yet what HASN'T come out of this whole (justifiable) uproar is the following facts</u>:

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 <u>fund</u> 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 <u>deserve</u> 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. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

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.

 

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"...[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] ).

 

Looks like SB 1003 is still moving along.