PDA

View Full Version : Legislation Impacting the Department - November 2009



Jarhead
November 7th, 2009, 11:27 AM
If you haven't had a chance to visit: http://www.michigandnr.com/legislation/

The Legislation Impacting the Department is updated weekly when the house and senate are in session. The Department position is available only after the Director has signed the bill analysis.

Here's a few Bill's that may impact Our Sport:

House Bill 4411 (2009)
Vehicles; off-road; operation of an ATV on a nondesignated trail by a person over 60 years of age or a person with a disability; allow. Amends sec. 81133 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.81133).
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HB-4411



House Bill 4507 (2009)
Natural resources; other; counties eligible for operation of off-road vehicles on road shoulders; expand. Amends sec. 81131 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.81131).
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HB-4507



House Bill 5007 (2009)
Vehicles; off-road; operation of an off-road vehicle by certain individuals under the influence of or visibly impaired by alcohol or a controlled substance; prohibit. Amends secs. 81101, 81134, 81136, 81137, 81140, 81141 & 81144 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.81101 et seq.); adds sec. 81140b & repeals sec. 81135 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.81135).
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HB-5007



House Bill 5008 (2009)
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for operating ORV under influence of alcoholic liquor; revise to include operating with any amount of schedule 1 controlled substances in operator's body. Amends sec. 13g, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.13g). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5007'09
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HB-5008



House Bill 5087 (2009)
Natural resources; other; definition of off-road recreation vehicle; modify. Amends sec. 81101 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.81101).
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HB-5087



House Bill 5274 (2009)
Crimes; drunk driving; repeat drunk driving offenders; establish license sanctions for DWI/sobriety court participants. Amends secs. 303, 322, 625n, 732a & 904d of 1949 PA 300 (MCL 257.303 et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5273'09
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HB-5274



House Bill 5497 (2009)
Vehicles; registration; permanent registration sticker; provide for ORVs used for law enforcement. Amends sec. 81116 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.81116).
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-hb-5497

Rocky
November 8th, 2009, 09:05 PM
Can somebody please help me make ANY sense with HB 5087?
Am I missing something?

HB 5087 would amend the definition of the term ATV and ORV. The term ATV would now include 6 wheeled vehicles and the maximum engine size for an ATV would be raised from 500cc to 1000cc.

Under the current law, a 6 wheeled vehicle is already coinciderd a ORV. ORV's do not have age restrictions on their use and those under the age of 16 can operate any ORV if they have a ORV safety certificate and visual supervision of an adult while operating.

In Sheltrowns report, it states the following,

*Is it wise to prohibit young children from operating 3-4 wheelers but to allow them to operate larger 6 wheelers? [ this is where Sheltrown loses me ]

Does this Represenative even have a ''clue'' as to what he's talking about? I say this because even IF HB 5087 passes and we call a 6 wheeled vehicle a ATV in Michigan, it would be completely illegal to operate one until you are 12 years old , you have a valid ORV safety certificate and are under the direct visual supervision of an adult.

If the law stays as it is, than the 6 wheeled vehicle is an ORV under Michigan law and can be operated by a youth at ANY age as long as they have a valid ORV Safety Certifucate and visual supervision of an adult while operating.

What is Sheltrown trying to acchomplish with this Bill? I see no purpose for a Bill like this.

2TrakR
November 8th, 2009, 10:08 PM
Currently ATVs are singled out amongst the ORV category. ATVs are defined as 50 to 500 CC, 4 wheels.
Technically, then, a 600cc four wheeler is NOT an "ATV" under MI legal definition, it's just an "ORV".

Children have restrictions on what ORVs they can operate, primarily on what ATVs they can ride. Under 10, for example, means no ATVs. However, they can operate an ORV which includes dirt bikes and other vehicles that fall under the "ORV" category. Hence, they can, legally/technically, ride a four wheeler that's 650CC as that is not "technically" an "ATV" by MI's definition.

The same applies for those under 16 operating one of those 6 wheeled Argos. Right now, they can legally do so.

Rocky
November 9th, 2009, 08:17 AM
Currently ATVs are singled out amongst the ORV category. ATVs are defined as 50 to 500 CC, 4 wheels.
Technically, then, a 600cc four wheeler is NOT an "ATV" under MI legal definition, it's just an "ORV".

Children have restrictions on what ORVs they can operate, primarily on what ATVs they can ride. Under 10, for example, means no ATVs. However, they can operate an ORV which includes dirt bikes and other vehicles that fall under the "ORV" category. Hence, they can, legally/technically, ride a four wheeler that's 650CC as that is not "technically" an "ATV" by MI's definition.

The same applies for those under 16 operating one of those 6 wheeled Argos. Right now, they can legally do so.

I 100% completely understand ALL of the above, however, it still does not answer my question of WHAT Sheltrown is suppose to acchomplish with this Bill because the only thing it changes is now the maximum engine size for an ATV now goes from 500cc up to 1000cc and now instead of 5 year old Joey being legally able to operate daddy's 6 wheeler [ ORV ], little Joey now wont be able to operate it until he is 12 years old [ ATV ]..

If Sheltrown UNDERSTANDS what he is doing, than WHY does he make the following statements in the ''argument'' section of his own HB 5087?

QUOTE
*Is it wise to prohibit young children from operating 3-4 wheelers but to allow them to operate larger 6 wheelers?

*The Bill as written would allow 6-wheeled ATVs with engine sizes of up to 1000cc to be operated by children of any age
END QUOTE

The above two comments are just further proof that some of the guys making our ORV laws in Lansing dont have a clue of what they are doing, because anybody who understands ATV/ORV laws, understands that BOTH the above comments would be incorrect if HB 5087 changes a 6 wheeled vehicle from an ORV, over to an ATV.

2TrakR
November 9th, 2009, 12:56 PM
Sorry, misunderstood and, clearly, didn't read the bill as closely as I should have.

This proposed legislation would now include 500-1000cc ATVs in Michigan's legal definition of an ATV. It would also include the tandem axle ATVs in the "ATV" definition since they would otherwise not be an "ATV" as they have more than 4 wheels (ie the "6 wheeled"). It would not necessarily affect Argos, as I had incorrectly originally presumed.

As to your specific question... The "Against" portion of the legislation summary has two paragraphs:


Against:

Children are injured or killed in a disproportionate number of ATV accidents. Under current Michigan law (MCL 324.81129), children under the age of 16 are prohibited from riding a 3-wheeled ATV, due to safety concerns. Children under the age of 12 are prohibited from riding a 4-wheeled ATV, except that children who are at least 10 years old may operate a 4-wheeled ATVs on a parent's or legal guardian's own land. If the definition of ATV is expanded to include 6-wheeled ATVs and those with larger engines up to 1,000cc in size, shouldn't the Legislature consider including corresponding age or place of operation restrictions as it has with the 3-wheeled and 4-wheeled ATVs? Is it wise to prohibit young children from operating 3-wheelers and 4-wheelers but to allow them to operate larger 6-wheelers?

According to the National Safety Council, ATVs with an engine size of 70cc to 90cc should be operated by people at least 12 years of age. ATVs with an engine size of greater than 90cc should only be operated by people at least 16 years of age. The bill as written would allow 6-wheeled ATVs with engine sizes of up to 1,000cc to be operated by children of any age.

The first clearly should be in the "for" and not "against" as it makes the point that if they are regulating 3 & 4 wheelers, than 6 wheelers should be in there too.

The second paragraphs is just incorrect where it states "The bill as written would allow 6-wheeled ATVs with engine sizes of up to 1,000cc to be operated by children of any age. " That is obviously not correct as it is the current issue that the legislation attempts to change.

Blaming either statement on Sheltrown, not sure. Reading the document, I'm seeing that "Legislative Analyst: Shannan Kane" is who made the analysis and not Sheltrown.

Rocky
November 9th, 2009, 01:35 PM
The first clearly should be in the "for" and not "against" as it makes the point that if they are regulating 3 & 4 wheelers, than 6 wheelers should be in there too.

The second paragraphs is just incorrect where it states "The bill as written would allow 6-wheeled ATVs with engine sizes of up to 1,000cc to be operated by children of any age. " That is obviously not correct as it is the current issue that the legislation attempts to change.

Blaming either statement on Sheltrown, not sure. Reading the document, I'm seeing that "Legislative Analyst: Shannan Kane" is who made the analysis and not Sheltrown.

Jeramey,
Please correct me if im wrong but since Sheltrown is the Sponser of this Bill, would'nt it be wise for him to be sure the analysis posted is correct, regardless of who prints it, so as to not have mistakes in it like this BEFORE it goes public and riles folks up?

Brods
November 9th, 2009, 02:25 PM
As 2TrakR pointed out you need to look at the bottom of the document you are quoting from where it says:
This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.So we have no way of knowing who wrote or said what in those documents!



Not so sure they are mistakes either. MCL 324.81129 is ridiculous mess. It would appear that just because something is classified as an ATV that doesn't mean it is included in the child protection laws. The laws specifically call out 3 and 4 wheel atvs and say nothing of 6 wheel atvs. So it appears classifying a 6 wheel vehicle as an atv makes no difference in regards to children and it still falls under the general ORV vehicle rules.
(1) Subject to subsections (2), (3), (17), and (18), a parent or legal guardian of a child less than 16 years of age shall not permit the child to operate an ORV unless the child is under the direct visual supervision of an adult and the child has in his or her immediate possession an ORV safety certificate issued pursuant to this part or a comparable ORV safety certificate issued under the authority of another state or a province of Canada. So if I am interpreting it all correctly a child of any age with an ORV safety cert can operate a 1000cc six wheel atv under their parent's supervision, but children under 16 years old cannot operate any 3 wheeler atv and children under 10 cannot operate any 4 wheeler atv.

I do not see it as "against the bill" so much as it points to a shortcoming in MCL 324.81129.

Having an upper limit on engine size makes no sense to me. If you throw your leg over it and it has more then two wheels its an atv.



As far as why the bill was introduced I guess a few questions are in order. Are there ATV only trails? Are there rules that would restrict ORVs but allow ATVs, such as when hunting? Are there any advantages to manufacturers to have their vehicles classified as ATVs rather than regular ORVs? Etc.

2TrakR
November 9th, 2009, 02:35 PM
MCL 324.81129 is ridiculous mess. It would appear that just because something is classified as an ATV that doesn't mean it is included in the child protection laws. The laws specifically call out 3 and 4 wheel atvs and say nothing of 6 wheel atvs.

I agree that 324.81129 would also require modifications for the intent of this legislation to be effective. The legislative interpretation would stand as correct then, in regards to not preventing children from driving the 6 wheeled beasts. Too funny.

Jarhead
November 12th, 2009, 04:48 PM
All discussion and comments are welcome here. If you find a point you disagree with, or desire additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the bill sponsor via e-mail.

If you are uncertain as to acquiring this information...post the question as well. if you are uncertain, your apt to be in good company with others being uncertain.