I disagree... The machines we have on the market today are WAY overpowered when you get to the top of the food chain. 800 cc's, Come on, who needs that? It is nothing more than marketing hype, and the majority of fools that actually think they can't live without having the biggest you know what in the crowd. Talk about a MAN thing

The truth be known, most riding areas in the woods and mountains, are so narrow in many cases that you can't use all that speed anyway. With the exception of track racing, and dunes, and I want to make sure you understand the difference, you just do not need the speed available these days. Also, you put kids on a smaller machine, and they will find a way to have fun on it. Hell, I can put my rather large frame on my kid's Raptor 80 and hgave a blast on it. So the whining little buggars don't carry much weight in my book. They should consider themselves lucky.... a lot of kids out there would kill for a machine, even an underpowered one...

I think many here think that sport riders are the majority in the sport... sadly they are not. Utility machines, and trail riders greatly outnumber the sport machines by something like 5 or 6 to one in one article I read a few months back. I can't vouch for the accuracy of those figures, but judging at least on the local market in Virginia, where mountain trails, and hunting are the only game in town, I'd have to say the numbers may be even higher,

I agree with Deeplaker when he says we need a change in mentality. Slow them down, ride responsibly, widen the width of the machines beyond the 48 inche standard, and change the definition of ATV's to reflect that. I'd like to see trails be widened to minimum of 60 inches too, so machines like the Rhino and Polaris trail boss could be included in the definition of an ATV. Currently they are too heavy and too wide by definition. Maybe even mandatory speed restrictions.

 

"--what type of rider are you? no offense, but maybe you should look into getting a street bike, golf cart or another car."


Hey 20C. I'm more than a rider. I'm a guy a looks at things that are, and questions whether that's what has to be. I think outside the box. I like your idea of the hovercraft. Maybe there is a solution in some form of that. The technology would need refinement, but if someone could develop a fun machine that goes quiety through the woods and leaves no trace, they'd probably get rich quick. A hover type machine could be ridden in places where our 4-wheelers can't go. Just imagine coming to a lake or river and going right over it.

We can be certain that what we have now is not acceptable to a lot of people for a lot of obvious reasons, and that bigger, more powerful machines and destructive riding will take us to a place where all ATV's are banned from public land, except maybe on Jeep trails. I would hate to see that.

 

I am not wanting to start a word war here, but I can't help feel I need to come to Deeplaker's defense here.

For one thing, he is one of a very select few individuals that is involved in the politics of the sport way past the average rider who gasses up his machine and goes for a ride that someone volunteered many hours to create and maintain... In my book, that gives him my respect, and we are all in dept to him and the people like him that make it possible for us to ride.....

When we can say we all put our time, talents, and sweat into a sport the way he has in the past, we can begin to debate the subject at his level... but until then, I think a little respect is in order....

 

I have to agree with DB on engine size - it's getting ridiculous. I ride an AC 500i, and almost never use full throttle - I'd be eating a tree if I did, where I normally ride.

It's one upmanship by the manufacturers to get those with large wallets to spend more. 500, then 600, then 650, then 700 - why not just go to 800 (the max size allowed) in the first place? Simple - they want you to keep buying new, so they up the size slowly. And even the 500s and 650's are detuned as it is (compared to their street bike cousins), so a few performance mods will yield a lot better results than another 50cc's. There are 600cc street bikes with over 100 hp.

The problem isn't really in engine size, it's in the child killing, land ripping, rut cutting, crop destroying, mudhole creating image. Until that is changed, ATV riders are going to have a tough time. Like it or not, they are the minority. The rest of the public is the majority, and right now, the majority seems to be opposing trails. The 'I have as much right to tear this land up as you do to camp on it' argument doesn't carry much weight with them.

 

the points are well taken, believe me. i am not here to attack anyone and commend those that are trying to keep areas open, so please dont interpret it like im against anyone. and maybe i did look at it more from a sport prospective b/c thats what we usually ride....how narrow-minded of me!

The bottom-line is we appear to have a people/atv-abuse problem more than a design problem... but a hover craft like in star wars or somethin would be cool but it would cost alot of money and i think it is years away...

i also agree with the fact that an 800cc machine is a little over the top and WAY to heavy. but when a child gets killed on one, it is NOT the machine's fault - it is the idiotic parent's fault. sadly, this recently happened to a neighbor kid. she was riding somewhere (i wasnt there so i dont know) with several people on ONE machine
(error 1) , they went up a hill they werent skilled for(error 2) and it flipped over, she could not get out the way in time and it fell on her. non wore protective gear(error 3). but would it have helped in a case like this? maybe not. those kids should not have been on that bike - parents' fault (error 4) but these bikes do weigh too much...

i am not an ATV vigilante who thinks he can tear up other peoples' land either. I and everyone I ride with ALWAYS stay on designated trails and legal riding areas. If only all of us did that, i dont think we would be talking about this. The atv abusers are the ones making us look bad but from their prosective- they paid registration fees so there should be places to ride. That is understandable. But no one ever reccommends destroying others' property. I do think that there should plenty of places in every state to ride. THe OEMS should help out with this. The US is not exactly running out of land. I think a recent article i read said that everyone in the US could live in texas with about 2.2 acres each. While it was interesting, I dont know how factual it was, but most areas that we used to ride on down here were bought by private "hunting" clubs and shut down to the public for buttholish reasons. Ive tried to join everyone of them to ride in the off season and pay the dues but they wont hear it. crazy. another area was shut down b/c it kept getting trashed up with garbage. (it was sand, so ruts werent an issue). That was totally sensless on the atvers' part - they screwed themselves and my family out of a nice, close place to ride. People like that shouldnt be on an atv.

Another article i read last year that cited the number ONE reason a place gets shut down- NOISE. Loud pipes should be outlawed and i respect places that have a db limit and offer no sympathy to the whiners that need to be excessively loud. Loud doesnt always equal better performance. I prefer to be quiet and stealthy. its more mysterious and you should see the look on their faces when they lose a little competition that we do in our legal, open place to ride. priceless.

I think that our voice needs to be heard so that we all win and get to ride on the type of terrain we like and be environmentally freindly by staying on trails. Its not that hard and there's really no sense in veering off the trail, unless its impassable. of course, we need the land to do this on. NOTE TO OEMs: take a little R&D money and buy riding areas in all states, operate clubs, charge, whatever, make money on the land and when you sell the bike. its a win-win situation for you and greatly appreciated by your customers.

But, hey, this is a nice little discussion and i reiterate that something does need to be done and our voice needs to be heard; we need places to ride and we need the atv abusers to repect property or get off the atv.

 

While reading this thread it becomes obvious, as in other threads of this nature, that a small percentage of ATV riders do recognize the fact that general public and private resistance to ATVs is centered on destructive aftermath of unregulated riding and the noise often associated with that destruction. These threads seemingly always provide intellectual focus on this factual image problem, but a few clicks to other forum topics displays overwhelming support of breaking public and private trespassing laws, resistance to any type of regulation and that bigger, faster and louder are better.

I don't think many private landowners such as myself will ever relinquish our privacy factor or invite liability exposure by opening our property to any and all ATV riders, it just isn't our responsibility or desire to do so. As one poster accurately points out, land is no longer cheap and nothing tears it up faster than irresponsible ATV riders. When I see a trailer loaded with four ATVs pull up to my gate, all with tires designed to designed to put D8 Cat traction to shame and obvious aftermarket performance enhancements not including winches, my impression is not a group looking to explore the woods but bent on trail blazing and trash littering at any cost, my cost.

It would surprise me if OEMs get into the business of real estate held for recreational ATV riding. They have deep pockets and would be immediate, prime targets in our litigious society. Honda is big in Formula car racing, but they have no track ownership and their racing team sponsorship is detached by private team ownership. The thought of ATV riding liability would make any corporate counsel shudder with fear.

With the unrestrained growth of ATV popularity, public lands are the only logical solution for riding areas. Overcoming the justified image of destruction and noise will be the challenge. People being people, changing or restricting that image will require stringent regulation including enforcement, something cash strapped public entities put way down on the 'to do'list. It will, as usual, be up to the small core of responsible riders to implement necessary regulations, enforcement and then show entrance fees, stickers, etc. revenue as justifying trail improvements to expand riding access. There is no free lunch; you're looking at a business plan, nothing else.

 

Well said, george.
I would add that if the business communities surrounding these areas pay no more attention to these issues than what we observe in the largest system here in Michigan...their here-to-for believed 'titled' money will be drained into the more populous areas at the expense of more remote and possibly scenic areas in any state. (ie. our soon to be built big city slicker riding area outside Detroit).

If business people don't care more about their ability to draw customers than the users do (we sit back in amazement here in Michigan as the good sledding days are fewer and fewer each year) ...they run the risk of falling prey to the different larger systems in any given area...and the big sucking sound of future divided sticker money revenue that inevitably follows.(all these people in Detroit have to do is produce "numbers served" for their shining new suburban riding areas v.s. some awesome new scenic trail in the U.P. surrounded by a couple of bar owners who don't keep up on the issues...and the opportunity for more of this beautiful land being open to the public instead of building another pay-to-play just outside these big city lights...is swallowed up by those realizing just 'how' to run this orv 'business' in the first place).

Again, great response...the landowners are sick of us not taking responsibility for what we damage or even tread on legally...and the business man sits right around the corner licking his lips trying to figure out just how much of that sticker money can be diverted <U>not</U> equally among ALL the systems...but into his pocket and his <U>alone</U>.

 

Georged, I certainly understand your position, and I agree with it to a point... and I think there are alternative paths that can be explored. First off, I want it understood that in no way would I suggest to anyone to give up their ownership rights to the land under their control, nor would I suggest that you do not have the right to say "NO' to any person or group...

Obviously, you have been burned by irresponsible riders at one point or anotiher. That same point can be made about hunters, hikers, bicyclists, and yes even fishermen etc... The important thing is that not all of us are this way, nor do we advocate or tollerate this kind of behaviour. Which is why many of us do comment and try to offer sane solutions to the many ills.

In a perfecet world, you might try to cantact riding clubs to see if their are any in the local area whose members are compatible with YOUR ideas of what responsible use might be. In exchange, they assume the duties of trail maintenence, and liability. I also know that many states are working in partnership with local land owners in the issue of land use and do assume the same responsibilities. Plus they can offer law enforcement to their program.

Obviously, if we have to rely on government agencies to provide everything, we are doomed.

Do a little research on how the Hatfield McCoy or the Paiute trail in Utah were built.... Interesting reads both of them. Throw in the silver country in Idaho, and you can see the benefit that these "Systems" have presented to the local economies.

We as responsible riders advocate enforcement of local laws as a means of getting rid of the bad element. Maybe then, we can earn back your trust, and the trust of others that own the land, and feel the same way you do....

 

First of all, georged, that was a really well written post. The whole thing was a good post. But I took the liberty of extracting a section about the real estate issue. It is above as you can tell. The OEMS may never get into the real estate business, but it would be a refreshing change if they did. And as far as legal liabilities are concerened, that's the easy part. WAIVER WAIVER WAIVER. One place we ride makes you sign one upon entry or you dont ride there. period. And it is perfectly legal for them to do this. OEMs could do the same thing and they would also be facilitating their own sport. They could either buy and operate it through middle men or turn it over to communities with the explicit purpose of ATVING (gotta be careful here b/c politicians will try to take it over and declare it NOT for atvs). I think they should buy it, keep it 'private' AND help get public land and help with getting things more stringently licensed, like a car (sorry it must be done).

I mean in the NFL and other sports, you dont have a Candlestick Park anymore or any other name, you have corporate sponsered facilities like 3COM Park (or whatever it is now), what used to be the COMPAQ center for the Houston rockets...and countless others. I think our Superdome is the only major sports land mark that they dont call buy a corporate sponsered name (yet). Almost all the major arenas, feilds, etc are corporate now...

The same kinda thing could happen for us. Corporately owned, OEM owned, aftermarket parts manufacturer owned, or whatever. As long as we have LEGAL places to ride, i dont care who owns them. But it needs to happen.

As far as ATV liabilities are concerned- just a note, in the late 80's/early '90s just about OEMs except Yamaha stated that they would never make 'racing' high performance atvs again....Suzuki reps said the name "QUADRACER" would NEVER return...Well, they all make them again and the names are back. You know how they get around it? Waivers- when you buy it-you sign it. Unless there is a serious flaw of where it suddenly blows up or wheel falls off, if you are riding one a flip it, you cant sue them (well you can- but prob wont win since you signed the waiver agreeing to ride it always in a safe manner). They covered their butts better this time and they could do the same if they owned land for atv riders, their customers. I think it's posssible.

 

As much as we are on the same page 99% of the time, DB....I'd have to argue that the H/M system was originally built around the absence of any local laws (or even support of such) governing our sport and that there has been absolutely nothing done in other hugely popular areas http://www.kyoutdoors.com/portal/ http://www.windrockatv.com/ to show me that this community has a handle on simply standing up for what is right. (The Rockhouse RidgeRunners club membership in WV perhaps being the exception).
Many folks believe that as long as they stay on the trails in these areas and pick up after themselves; they are upstanding members of the orv community.
Yet when you witness (as I have) two helmetless kids go rip-roaring doubled up the mountainside alone....and you don't have the ***** to publicly say something <U>about</U> if not this; even the pay-to-play fees that will lift your area out of its economic doldrums?....then I don't see evidence of these riders being "responsible" one bit.
EVERY DAMN PERSON WHO WATCHED THOSE TWO KIDS RIDE PAST THEM AT THAT HUGE EVENT (INCL. ME) IS JUST AS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM THAT DAY AS THEY ARE EACH AND EVERY DAY AFTERWARDS THAT THEY REMAIN 'AFRAID' TO SAY A DAMN THING ABOUT IT OR USE THEIR POWER AS NATIONAL ORV LEADERS TO SHINE THE LIGHT OF SHAME ON THE <U>TRUE</U> DEFINITION OF "RESPONSIBILITY" ITSELF.
There is absolutely no advocacy groups in <u>any</u> of these areas pushing for the enforcement of anything even remotely resembling proper behavior or the fact that you must pay to play....and that's a <u>fact.</u>
As I learned here in Michigan...most of the riders out there care more about having fun and not getting caught...than they do about advocating enforcement or getting rid of folks who eerily resemble <u>themselves.

</u>Sorry to be so pessimistic...it's just that I have been one of the few over the years who has been willing to call out some of these people calling themselves orv 'advocates'...and I blame the leadership within our own community for not having the <u>guts</u> to endanger their non-profit's annual membership money(ie. their job)....more than the actual people themselves.

Still think the world of you, my friend [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]....just giving another opinion. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]