OK so maybe were 180 out on some things LOL, but at least we agree on the main issue of making things safer for everyone in our sport.

I can understand your desire to help "fix" things thru making example of those who are responsible etc, but I just can not see how it can help at all or in anyway in the actuall instances presented. I also know we cant as a country allow things to continue on the way they are, and getting peoples attention thru news coverage of family members facing serious charges in these cases will raise awareness.

Still I have a problem with charging a father, mother, brother or other family member as a serious criminal. Just something wrong about about the surviving children starving on welfare, and only visiting their father every other weekend in prision. Much as I try I cant see the positive in this result.

I wont debate the idea of who is actually responsible for their own children, and who should be playing God with the whole family situation, and lets leave that for another thread or another place. I just dont want to get anymore off track than we have already.

I guess we cant all agree on everything, but I would love to get more into who really should be responsible for our actions and our children, but just not in this thread.

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

 

From what I recall of your earlier post, the only area we don't agree on is holding the responsible adult accountable; even if it is a parent. I too don't wish to get stuck on this point. However, this idea is only one measure of a 4 point plan originally proposed in February 2007, and repeated in November 2007. This plan brings together most of the more reasonable ideas pushed by many. Please take a moment to review this and see if it doesn't get us moving in the right direction.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
Originally posted: 02/27/2007 03:21 PM

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What ATV community can do to reduce the number of serious injuries?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can push for uniform state level legislation in the following four areas:

1. Require participation in an ATV Safety Institute approved operator education course, before the machine leaves the dealer with a new operator. Experienced operators would present proof of completion at the time of purchase to satisfy this requirement. Dealerships would be required to have a certified in-house ATVSI instructor and courses offered at least once a week. As manufacturers and dealers profit from increased after-market sales, the safe return of customers would more than offset the cost.

2. While stopping short of licensure, upon request by law enforcement officials, require proof of completion of an ATV Safety Institute approved course, by all operators of ATV's/UTV's, regardless of age. This could be similar to the proof of insurance requirements already in place for motor vehicle operators.

3. Adopt the CPSC guidelines prohibiting underage operation of ATV's and UTV's not designed for the age group of the operator. Expand these guidelines and develop a "skills testing" procedure, administered by ATVSI instructors, for 14 and 15 year-olds who demonstrate the ability to safely operate larger machines; with a limit of 250cc. Also, establish a new limit of 500cc for 16 and 17 year-olds.

4. Include all motorized off-highway vehicles (OHV's defined as ATV's - UTV's - dirt and trail bikes, and other motorized OHV's), operated on or off roads, in traffic statutes prohibiting operation without required training, underage operation, unsafe or reckless operation, and operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs (already enforced in many states). Allow for enforcement of these statutes by state, county and local law enforcement, as well as wildlife, fish & game, forest and park rangers. Penalties should be progressively more severe for each subsequent offense.

************************************************** ******************</end quote></div>
I don't expect everyone to agree with every word of the plan. But, as in all healthy discussions revolving around a major problem, you have to first find some common ground and then move the discussions forward until a solution in reached.

That said, while this article involves a snowmobile fatality in Wisconsin, many of the same elements in fatal ATV accidents are present. Alcohol, speed, unfamiliar with trail, and 2 riders on a machine for one.
"Snowmobile Death Leads to Homicide Charge"
At last count, there are 46 articles about this incident. Isn't it reasonable to expect this event, and its' serious outcome for the operator, is being discussed at every snowmobiler's watering hole in Wisconsin?

 

EER,
As a previous ASI instructor, I could'nt DISAGREE with you further on mandidtory ''ASI'' training for our youth.

WHY?

1.ASI safety courses actually IMPEDEs training to youth because of the REDICULES AGE/CC guidelines that an ASI instructor MUST abide by, which are

*AGE 6-11, must ride an ATV not over 69cc
*Age 12-15 not over 90cc

I got into the ASI Instructors program to help out our youth. The way the ASI-CPSC guidlines are structured, I taught 50x more ADULTS than I did youth.[at least]

In Michigan, we do NOT use the ASI age/cc guidelines to teach our youth, instead, we go to a proper size/fit for our kids when we put them on the track.

ASI guidlines for youth training will NOT work. We MUST go to a proper size/fit for ATV use. These CPSC Guidlines are WAY OUT DATED and need to be re-vamped. I have NEVER agreed with them and I NEVER will.

 

Excellent points you made in your post Bill.
As a rule, one size fits all rules normally do not fit anyone well. Generic guide lines? Sure. Side boards for exceptions? absolutely.
I would suppose training should be geared to the terrain and conditions the riders will actually encounter. My wife and I took a course, the instructor knew his stuff, he followed the guidelines, he gave the riders the benefit of his considerable experience and then we rode circles, figure eights, took corners, wore helmets, gloves, eye protection and so on. All on ground as flat as a desk top. There is very little flat ground in the state of Oregon for riding.
A set of rules makes no difference if they do not fit the situation............Tass

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>In Michigan, we do NOT use the ASI age/cc guidelines to teach our youth, instead, we go to a proper size/fit for our kids when we put them on the track.


ASI guidlines for youth training will NOT work. We MUST go to a proper size/fit for ATV use. These CPSC Guidlines are WAY OUT DATED and need to be re-vamped. I have NEVER agreed with them and I NEVER will.

MUDDY4LIFE</end quote></div>

Guys, you really need to read beyond the headlines.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>3. Adopt the CPSC guidelines prohibiting underage operation of ATV's and UTV's not designed for the age group of the operator. Expand these guidelines and develop a "skills testing" procedure, administered by ATVSI instructors, for 14 and 15 year-olds who demonstrate the ability to safely operate larger machines; with a limit of 250cc. Also, establish a new limit of 500cc for 16 and 17 year-olds.
EEResQ</end quote></div>

The ATVSI was proposed as the lead training organization for two reasons:

#1. ATVSI already has a nationwide footprint.

#2. The major players in the ATV business already financially support them.

Guidelines, regulations, policies, procedures and laws can, and do, change.

However, they rarely do if those most affected by them don't propose the changes.

 

I have the ASI card in my bill fold. That is the organization I was describing. Good intentions.......good material.....good for flat ground and an introduction to the machines if someone has not ridden before. Stay away from the headlines, stay away from the newspaper. Look at the world of ATV operation and observe the cause of the issues. Enforcement will never take the place of proper training and application of common sense............Tass

 

ASI and SVIA [Speciality Vehicle Institute of America] is steadily losing ground as the leader in ATV training in many States because of the redicules age/cc guidlines that instructors MUST follow. Instead, many States are starting to do the samething that Michigan is doing and is going to a proper size/fit instead of age/cc guidlines.

ASI is much better suited for 1st time riders, aged 16 and older who have little to no training time on an ATV.

It simple DONT WORK for our youth under the age of 16 years old.

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>"It simple DONT WORK for our youth under the age of 16 years old."</end quote></div>

So, work toward changing it!

 

So, work toward changing it!
END OF QUOTE*

I do not and will not support the ASI safety courses for youth. I have been VERY instrumental in assisting to develope Michigans DNR ORV safety course though. In fact, I am one of about 10 selected ORV Safety specialist that are assisting the DNR with the Michigan ORV safety course.

SO---------As you can clearly see--------I AM indeed making CHANGES.

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: EEResQ

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>"Now I am not saying this 16 yr old is without blame, and there is a need to show how serious his poor decision was and help avoid it from happening etc, but this is just a child as well, and exactly what would be gained from making him a criminal?"

440EX026</end quote></div>



Actually, the irresponsible adult "responsible" for the serious injuries suffered by the 6-year-old child, is 19-years-of-age. (Probably just transposed the 6-year-old with the 19-yeard-old.)



The crimes he should be charged with are:



1. Child Endangerment

(For the conscious act of placing an unprotected child on the ATV with him.)



2. Reckless Aggravated Battery

(For recklessly engaging in a activity which resulted in serious injuries to a child.)



3. Felony fleeing the scene of an accident.

(In stead of staying and attempting to aid the injured child, he ran away!)



4. Resisting An Officer

(A somewhat lessor offense resulting from the foot chase.)



As far as charges filed in MVA's, all but the most minor MVA's are investigated by law enforcement. Not for insurance reasons, but for public safety concerns and to determine if charges are applicable in the situation. Insurance and civil concerns are always secondary. Often, charges are brought only after review of the MVA report by a prosecutor, or a Grand Jury.



I agree, we can't have a law titled: "Criminal Stupidity"

But after a year of discusion, and so many tragic examples, where do we draw the line on holding the responsible adult "responsible" for the outcome of these events?



When an adult is responsible for the preventable serious injury or death of a child, he or she should be held accountable. I really feel it's that simple.</end quote></div>


EEQ I read this again and some thoughts came to mind.

First is the strange fact that somehow popular opinion in many areas and even our lawmakers seem to believe that a 19 yr old is not an adult. They are sort of a provisional adult, and by that I mean it depends on what the person at a certain time wants them to be. Parents keeping their children at home until their in the late 20's or 30's, the legal drinking age being 21 (not 18 as it once was when we were taught responsibility much younger than today) and others, but still a 14 yr old can be charged as an adult for certain crimes etc, and an 18 yr old can sign contracts and join the army etc.

And we wonder why they are confused.

The list of charges just dont seem to address the problem at hand. Sure child endangerment sounds nice, but what the he!! almost anything can be argued to be endangering to a child.

As agreed earlier there seems to be a need to have some kind of example punishment in order to get people to pay attention and take things seriously, but sadly not one thing on that list jumps out and says to me that its going to make a difference, and the one thing they all have in common is that they are of a nuiance type of law.

Maybe creating a "anti-stupid" law wouldnt be such a bad idea, but I will let you guys out there write one up first so you can show the rest of us how to enforce it [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]