A while back I talked about the proposed CPSC guideline changes and here is a link to them. It is a long read. Pay special attention to the section where they state that they will be getting away from age versus engine size, and going to classes and speed limitations. A new class of machines have been designated that are called T gor transitional. They specifically recognise that mini quads are too small for many in teh 13 to 16 yr bracket. Additionally, they have come around to allowing lights on minis, and are starting to define paraental rights and responsibilities and decisions being made regarding their children. The availability of material prior to purchase decisions, and a focus on parental education is stated now too.

I think all in all, it is moving in teh right direction, and shows that they have been listening to enthusiasts and not the doom and gloom naysayers. I doubt that they will please everyone... but I think we are seeing some workable policies and a willingness to change.

The biggest thing I see is a mandate to review the guidelines from top to bottom every 5 years. A lot is riding on reduction of injuries... I suspect this could go the other way if we do not continue to stress the importance and keep the stats moving in the right direction.

 

Dragginbutt, you forgot the link bro! Anyway, thanks for the update. There is definitely change afoot, from the CPSC, the industry, and the consumer. Let's just hope the changes continue to go our way.

 

they were talking about a transitional model since 2006. i still think CPSC should not be totally regulating ATVs. ATVs should not be regulated by a group that overses the toaster or kitchen appliances or toys. ATVs should be moved tot he DOT like motorcycles and just have CPSC issue recalls etc, like it was meant to do informe the public, "protect" the public. Too often they get vendettas against something, like atvs. but the way it is now is that they are in total control of the reglation of the atv industry. DOT, licensing are where it needs to be headed. Treat it like a car or motorcycle; you need licenses for both of those to help or atleast attempt to weed out the idiots. Of course parental control and proper trainng are a must regardless. too many idiot parents out there.

 

Oh man... I am sorry. It was after Midnight.. these old bones are pretty tired once it gets past 9 PM.

The short version is here <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/meetings/mtg07/atvs.pdf
">http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FO.../mtg07/atvs.pdf
</a>

Additional info: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/atv/atv.html
">http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/atv/atv.html
</a>

Trying to navigate the CPSC is difficult as best, as they tend to publish things over and over again... and the search engine pulls in everything. There is a lot of reading here but it is a start. The short version above gives you the crux of the changes. The second is a list of links that can lead you to the the big versions. They are pretty large documents because they contain the testing data and all the public response letters. The majority of which were mostly negative by the way. Thankfully, the CPSC seemed to have a direction already planned out and followed through with their ideas.

You have to forgive me, I spent hours looking through this stuff last night, and every time I try to get back to it, I go down a different path. The data is there if you want to look for it, but it is buried in FOIA reports etc. I think the links on the second one above will get you where you want to be.. but you have to sift through a great deal of noise to get there.

 

20 Caracters, I agree partly... There are parents out there making bad choices, but on the other hand, there are just as many if not more that are seeking the information to educate themselves about the sport and looking for data on how to make a good judgement etc. The real challenge is that we as "Informed" riders need to insist that this information is presented in a way that the average person can understand. The bubba approach isn't working for sure.

I think the CPSC is in a precarious position. First of all, they have congressional mandate to resolve and monitor these issues. Congress established their authority and gave them the power to act so that THEY did not have to get involved. Before State authorities can act, a national policy had ot be developed, and that is what we have been operating under since it's inception.

With this new review, after spending hours reading the data, I have to say that I am getting the impression that the CPSC IS trying to look out for the sport. They acknowledge the many problems that the old guidelines had with engine size versus age criteria, lack of lighting on small models etc. I think their approach to speed versus age shows a willingness to look at the problems from a different perspective and they are actively looking for a new criteria. Obviously with the new transitional machine, it would solve the "Fit" problem we have today. I blame the manufacturers somewhat for that, however when they build to the old standards, their hands were tied by the limitations imposed. Using speed is a natural evolution as it allows a parent to purchase a machine the kid can grow on, yet be"legal" by utilizing limiting technolgy like throttle stops, CDI governors etc. Will it halp? I thin kthe majority of riders will feel limited, however the goal of slowing them down and making them safer is probably going to be met if the machines are operated in the way they are designing them. Will they get modified.. Of course they will.
I especially like the direction regarding defining the parrental responsibilities etc. Accountability is now being defined, and we all know that this will be followed with enforcement... which isn't all bad.
They also lay out training programs etc. Which have been pretty widely excepted as one way to reduce injuries by providing the basic skills. Whether a kid follows them once they leave the training field is really up to Parents to enforce and monitor. But even when you have a parent that eats and breaths safety watching their child like a hawk accidents still occur. My 13 year old is sitting for two weeks because he disobeyed me and ended up sliding backwards down a steep hil that I knew he could not make it up. He had something to prove, and got bounced in the end.. and had his machine taken away from him as well because of it. Still it could have been far worse than a bruised ego.
I think they are trying to deal with a very difficult subject that frankly isn't going to please everyone. I still do not agree with everything in there, and in some regards I wish they could go further, but if taken as a whole, I think the new guideline will be significantly better than the old one.

The real question I have now is how this will be reflected in the state programs around the country. Many are based on this federally mandated document, and it will be interseted to see how it is interpretted and implimented. I think we are seeing round two in a fight that has not even been recognized by many states. It will however give them a basis to impliment a more consistant policy across the country .

 

Personally I'd rather see the CPSC totally abolished. One of countless thousands of unconstitutional and destructive federal organizations that are nothing but instruments of tyranny.

The federal government has zero role in ATVs, their design, who sells them or who rides them.

 

Well capt, whether we love them or hae them, their job is necessary. Without them, there would be a lot of sub standard products out there and consumers would have no recourse if their child was injured, killed etc. I can remember as a child a time when the CPSC wasn't around... back then, you took your chances and if you were injured or worse, oh well. You had no way to know if something was unsafe etc. The UL lab was the first testing organization that I can recall.. and the CPSC seems to be more involved with policy.. which in this case I think is a necessary evil.

We can agree to disagree on this one. I believe there are stong feelings in both camps. I have probably been one of the most vocal antagonists when it came to their outdated policies and the sport today. I am one of the lucky ones whose children .. well two out of the three anyway, are very tall for their ages. Both my older son who is 6'4", and my youngest who is pushing 6 ft and is just turning 13 this week are way outsized and unable to comply with the current CPSC guidlines. If they were to sit on a Yamaha 80 for example, their knees would actually hit the bars and prevent them from turning. I doubt anyone would argue that this was an unsafe condition, however under the old guidelines, they were limited to the 80 to be legal.

I for one welcome the changes. Not only in creating a new class of transitional machines, and using something different than engine size and age, but also I welcome the new definition of parental responsibilities. If it means that some parents have to pay more attention to their children under 16 so be it. IT should have been part of their normal activity to begin with. I can't say what effect it will have on the injury statistics, but I have to think there should be some positive impact in this regard. Time will tell I guess.

The bottom line is that the old system was broken. Simply maintaining the status quo would not benefit anyone, and sooner or later the outcry from those who would love to see the ATV go away would eventually gain the upper hand. I think from that perspective, the changes, and the solution is going to have to come from guys like you and me. With the current CPSC board willing to at least listen to what we are saying, and willing to work with us to come up with comprehensive and workable solutions, I think we should count ourselves lucky. This was not the case back in the dark ages when 3 wheelers were done away with, with the stroke of a pen.

We are so far past the "My rights are being violated" stage in this argument. We can either work within the system to effect change, or complain about it when the government comes out with a decree that as of this date, ATV's are illegal. It has happend before, and will happen again if we do not police ourselves. After all, mankind has already proven incapable of agreeing on anything... that is why organizations such as this were created in the first place.

You are right though, the last thing we need is congress getting directly involved. They tend to not listen, and act irrationally. Generally they would be inclined to fix the problem by getting rid of ATVs, and that is something we must prevent at all costs.

 

Just an additional thought. There are threads out there that ask what can be done ot reduce the injuries. Most of our discussion has been centered on either the machines themselves, or training programs. I'd like to throw something else out there. There could also be a trail building standard... Generally built around width guidelines. Some advocate narrow trails, while others think wider is better. Personally, for a novice rider, I think the wider the better. In fact, put them in a field with no trees to run into for several hundred feet. One debate being kicked around several months ago centered on a trail width of 60 inches. This would allow the Side by side crowd to participate too. This seems to be working on major trail system like Hatfield McCoy for the easy trails at least. I'd also consider one way trail systems... the argumant against 60 inch standard centered around the thrill factor of a narrow trail. Somehow the experience would be less with a wider trail. I thought this odd as I would think with a wider trail you could go faster.. but that is just my humble opinion...

 

I notice that this CPSC meeting took place two years ago. I guess that IF they did agree to any changes that we could expect those changes to take place right about the time that our kids are ready for retirement.

Jaybee

 

trails are a part of the puzzle that the cpsc will more than likely stay out of. this is where the EPA and forrestry service and the sierra club will screw us on. that is if this admin doesnt sell all our public lands to help pay the national debt down. its hapening now, and what a stupid idea. its not going to even make a dent in our debt and it gets rid of OUR public, taxpayer paid land for private industry.

we do need more trails and places to ride though. it would benefit the oems so much if they bought land and donated it to organizations (or dare i say the atva) for the purpose of orv riding. it completes the circle for oems. if there is nowhere to ride, people sell and get out of riding and that furhter hurts the industry; if no one is buying bikes because there is nowhere to ride them then the oems will cut back or eliminate them and we are back at square one, in the dark ages of atving again.