SB 22 Need some Suggested Changes

[utahmike]

Okay the simple version of what’s going on this: In the original legislation to allow ATV's the option of registering as a street legal ATV we included both type I and TYPE II ATV's. Type I's are primarily what we all know as a 4-wheeler. Side by sides, and pretty much ANYTHING else that isn't street legal under other definitions in the motor vehicle code. i.e. sand rails trail rigs, etc are considered type II ATVs. The bill sponsor from last year has got his chain yanked by DPS to make some corrections to last year’s bill. His solution was to remove ALL type II ATV's from having a street legal ATV option and create a new class of vehicle called "Utility Vehicle" to include side by sides and other smaller buggies. We are fine with the new class of vehicle BUT we are not fine with removing the option for other larger vehicles from being able to register their rigs as street legal ATVs. So we have a few options to correct the bill. The most efficient way is to tinker with the height, tire and weight requirements of the new utility class vehicle to encompass most other trail rigs, rails, etc. For the sake of brevity and clarity we won't discuss the other options here. I will list the PROPOSED requirements for utility vehicles. I would like all of you to read them, and then suggest changes to them in order to accommodate those who want to make their rigs or buggies a street legal ATV. Clear as Mud? Here are the proposed reqs:

(71) (a) "Utility type vehicle" means any recreational vehicle designed and capable of
320 travel over unimproved terrain:
321 (i) traveling on four or more tires;
322 (ii) having a width of 30 to 70 inches;
323 (iii) having an unladen dry weight of 2,200 pounds or less;
324 (iv) having a seat height of 30 to 40 inches when measured at the forward edge of the
325 seat bottom; and
326 (v) having side by side seating with a steering wheel for control.
...
and
389 (o) tires that:
390 (i) do not exceed 26 inches in height;
391 (ii) are not larger than the tires that the all-terrain vehicle manufacturer made available
392 for the all-terrain vehicle model; or
393 (iii) have at least 2/32 or greater tire tread.

For the complete bill in it's full context go here http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/sbillamd/sb0022.htm

It may come down to having to kill this bill, but we want to try to make it work before we do that.

 

[Bear T]

have you even read the original bill? It exclusively excludes "rock crawlers". You want my support, make this an issue. Why can't we make it legal to drive our rigs on the road in rural areas?

 

[gijohn40]

and this new addition or tweak as you call it...the wheel or is it tire size that can only be up to 26 inch tall.... most everything in the 4x4 world is bigger than that..... unless your talking about the wheel not the tire size...

 

[mbryson]

I don't have much of an opinion on the UTV/utility vehicles. If they stay on the trail, I'm all for them. If they don't, I think they should be fined and have their vehicles confiscated (well, maybe that's a little harsh, but maybe not).

 

[anderson750]

What will it take for Utah to adopt simialr laws to Colorado in regards to buggies? The thing I see with the current bill is that tire size requirement pretty much excludes buggies.

 

[drtsqrl]

These are the PROPOSED changes? C'mon, how many full sized rigs weigh less than 2200 lbs and have a tire size of 26" or less?

We need a law where we could make our jeeps/buggies legal for the same roads as the ATVs. Lights, turn signals, basic safety equipment, mudflaps, even full tire coverage is doable, but tire size and weight restrictions are ridiculous. A well-engineered and equipped rock buggy is every bit as safe on the road (assuming that basic requirements are met) as an ATV. We should be given the same opportunities.

 

[scoutabout]

The bill sponsor from last year has got his chain yanked by DPS to make some corrections to last year’s bill. His solution was to remove ALL type II ATV's from having a street legal ATV option...

Why did he get his "chain yanked by DPS"?

What is the underlying issue that makes the DPS desireable of this change?

Why is Jenkins beholden to the DPS?

We are fine with the new class of vehicle BUT we are not fine with removing the option for other larger vehicles from being able to register their rigs as street legal ATVs.

I agree that's how the 4x4 community would/does see it.

For the clarity of the readers, there were some motivations behind the original "street legal ATV bill" that are very valid. It's important to allow the street legal ATV option for many rural counties. Providing a street legal ATV option also allows many rural recreational trail systems to intersect with paved roads and even use short sections of paved roads to connect trails and make more loop and long distance opportunities. Also, it was sold to me originally as a way to bring ATV and motorcycle users into the RS2477 fight.

To your question,

322 (ii) having a width of 30 to 70 inches;

Width of a full-size Dana 60 axle is 67" to 75" wms to wms depending on application. Add tires to that, and you're well into the 80" to 90" range. A width restriction would have to be removed to allow OHV buggies in the "Utility" class.

323 (iii) having an unladen dry weight of 2,200 pounds or less;

As mentioned, it'd be hard to find a an OHV buggy below 2200 lbs. It would have to be more like 4200 lbs if not even higher.

324 (iv) having a seat height of 30 to 40 inches when measured at the forward edge of the

Most seats would be higher than 40 inches, but we could attach a "seat" the front bumper and make it between 30 and 40 inches for inspection purposes.

389 (o) tires that:
390 (i) do not exceed 26 inches in height;

Most tires would be in the 33" to 48" range.

391 (ii) are not larger than the tires that the all-terrain vehicle manufacturer made available

This would have to be removed completely.

If this "class" is where the only restrictions exist in this bill, it would have to be modified heavily to include 4x4 "buggies". Seems unlikely, but I defer to your expert opinion. It seems more likely that there might be someway to address the issues at the root of the perceived need for this bill.

Unless I'm missing something, this entire bill seems targeted at excluding 4x4 OHV buggies from the "street legal ATV" law.

It may come down to having to kill this bill, but we want to try to make it work before we do that.

Based on how it is now, making it work seems hard, but you've referred to your outstanding relationship with Noel and others in the past. Getting this killed, if necessary, shouldn't be a problem. Thanks for going on the "record" on this.

 

[utahmike]

Why did he get his "chain yanked by DPS"?

What is the underlying issue that makes the DPS desireable of this change?

Why is Jenkins beholden to the DPS?

He was approached by them because he was the original sponsor of the bill last year.

They have supposedly had a number of vehicles "pushing" (their words not mine) the limits. Sen Jenkins has said his intent last year was to pass a bill for smaller vehicles. He did not envision it allowing HUGE crawlers (he claims his son has one) and crazy modified ATV's. He claims to have a pictures provided to him by DPS of a 4-wheeler that has huge tires, extended axles, and a lift so tall that a small adult could walk underneath it. Again his description not mine. I will see these photos in the next few days. As well as other photos taken by DPS that had attempted registration and they denied. Most I believe are from the Moab area. DPS has broad discretion in allowing vehicles to pass safety inspections for registration. They have an empowerment clause in state code that gives them the ability to pretty much deny registration of any vehicle they deem unsafe. Sen Jenkins says he is trying to get the bill under control.

DPS REALLY didn't want the bill last year. They will try to whittle away at it until it meets their wants. Not to be over simplistic but it creates more work for them. And they have jurisdiction of vehicle safety in our state. If they had jurisdiction over trampolines they would be pushing to have them outlawed or more heavily regulated as well. What else can I say?

Sen. Jenkins is not beholden to DPS, but most legislators try to work with all state agencies for the good of Utah's citizens.

 

[Bart]

A vehicle the size that a small adult can walk underneath it would not venture onto most trails. It would be sad to see this go through and eliminate all the full sized buggies. 99% of the people that have these buggies and go to all the work of adding lights, brake lights and turn signals know all about Tread Lightly and off road etiquette. This bill should not exclude full sized buggies!

If they want to put restrictions on, do 80" wide, 46" tall tires and 5000 lbs.

 

[utahmike]

Hey if you or anyone you know has registered a full size rig \ buggie as a STREET LEGAL ATV please contact me. I would love to get some pictures and talk. It would help me fix this bill. Email me at mike@usaall.org or call me at 801-830-9112.

Also can anyone explain to me if you can get insurance on such a vehicle, and how does it work, are you covered for street use only, how do they determine value, etc? The Insurance Commission is claiming that an insurance product does not exist for a full size vehicle that would qualify for street legal ATV registration.

DPS is now claiming that the same size restrictions and safety guidelines that prevent full size vehicles from becoming street legal (same as any other vehicle) still apply to street legal ATV's (for the exception of low pressure tires). So they are asking why we care if they remove type II ATVs from the bill. They claim it will make no difference. I don't know if this is true but if I need to find out. So who has registered their crawler as a street legal ATV?

 

[Bart]

Mine will be ready to register as a street legal ATV in the next couple of months. I plan to insure it as an ATV and I"m guessing my value will be based on my estimates. I haven't looked into it that far yet.

 

[scoutabout]

Hey if you or anyone you know has registered a full size rig \ buggie as a STREET LEGAL ATV please contact me. I would love to get some pictures and talk. It would help me fix this bill. Email me at mike@usaall.org or call me at 801-830-9112.

Let's see 'em guys! Any pics of buggies that HAVE been registered as a "street legal ATV" or anything that would qualify under the law as it is now.

Also can anyone explain to me if you can get insurance on such a vehicle, and how does it work, are you covered for street use only, how do they determine value, etc?

Buggy guys, how do you insure your ride? I'm guessing liability only. Is there a clause stating off-highway use only or something similar? Let's hear how your buggy is insured.

DPS is now claiming that the same size restrictions and safety guidelines that prevent full size vehicles from becoming street legal (same as any other vehicle) still apply to street legal ATV's (for the exception of low pressure tires). So they are asking why we care if they remove type II ATVs from the bill. They claim it will make no difference. I don't know if this is true but if I need to find out.

For many buggies, that is no doubt true. But there are a lot of purpose built buggies that aren't above the tire/height limits. RME, show us some samples!

 

[utahmike]

have you even read the original bill? It exclusively excludes "rock crawlers". You want my support, make this an issue. Why can't we make it legal to drive our rigs on the road in rural areas?

Was this question directed at me ? And by original do you mean the proposed changes or last year's bill. Either way neither ever uses the term rock crawler. Rock crawler is not a legally defined term. And the proposed change doesn't "exclusively exclude" rock crawlers it eliminates a classification of ATVs that rock crawlers and other vehicles fall within. We are NOT in support of the changes.

Could you imagine me trying to support or argue against a bill and not understand in detail what it contains . I helped draft the original bill and I am now trying to fix the proposed amendments to it. These changes were created without consulting us, hence the need to fix the bill.

Under the current law you CAN register and drive your rigs on rural roads. The proposed changes would take that away...that’s what we have been talking about. And since we HAVE been making it an issue and since USA-ALL was the ONLY voice of opposition to the legislative committee I hope we have your support .

 

[utahmike]

I am submitting some suggested changes to this bill today. I will use the measurements from scoutabout's post. We just need the largest measurements that would allow the bill to include most of the rigs that would want to do this. If anyone else has other ideas you need to contact me ASAP.

It seems there are about a 4 or 5 people that really want us to fight for these changes. So far I cannot find 1 single person that has opted to register their trail rig as a street legal ATV over going regular street legal. Seriously guys I need some ammo.

 

[Bart]

Mike, I just finished building my buggy and will start on the hot rod wiring harness in the next few weeks. I need that in order to hook up the headlights, brake lights, turn signals and horn to register it. As soon as that's in I will be heading to the DMV. I am very serious about wanting this to be a street legal ATV but I'm not quite to that point yet.

Most buggy owners are fine with a regular OHV tag which is why there's not a lot of action on this. That's why it's a big deal for those that want to. I want more and I"m willing to put in the work and money to do it.

 

[drtsqrl]

I am submitting some suggested changes to this bill today. I will use the measurements from scoutabout's post. We just need the largest measurements that would allow the bill to include most of the rigs that would want to do this. If anyone else has other ideas you need to contact me ASAP.

It seems there are about a 4 or 5 people that really want us to fight for these changes. So far I cannot find 1 single person that has opted to register their trail rig as a street legal ATV over going regular street legal. Seriously guys I need some ammo.

Mike, I know of probably at least a dozen people here in Moab that would be very interested in being able to register their rigs as a street-legal ATV. Personally, I (and other members of our club) try very hard to meet the intent of the safety inspection laws, and so far we have been able to get through inspection by adding huge fender flares, mudflaps, etc, and finding an inspection station that will let us slide on some of the other stuff. But it is getting harder and harder to pass inspection, and I'm afraid that soon it will be impossible for a very large percentage of trail rigs.

We want to be able to drive our rigs from our homes or motel/campground to the trail and back. We usually don't need to travel on major highways. But we need to be able to register a rig with modified suspensions, big tires, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would guess that most of the guys with full-blown, tube-frame buggies are still going to trailer them. But many of us with modified stock-based vehicles would be willing to cover our tires, use mudflaps, and have basic safety equipment if we could use them on the same roads as the ATV's can.

My rig passed inspection last year. Who knows if it will this year. Some of the things that I have been told are illegal on mine are beadlock wheels, fenders not wide enough (I can add some flares to get by), mud flaps too small (easily fixed), front bumper too narrow, suspension modifications, no mechanical emergency brake (I use a line lock). I'm sure that a picky inspector could find a dozen other things that "technically" are not legal. But regardless of all this, I feel that my vehicle is every bit as safe to drive on the street as an ATV, as long as I have the same safety equipment. Given the choice, I'd prefer to have full legal right to use it on the street, but if the ATV law is my only choice, I'll take it any day over trailering everywhere. And by the way, I do not know of anyone who has successfully registered their rig as a street-legal ATV.

 

[rkillpack]

I am not really sure what I can do myself to help with this kind of thing other than lend some support. I am looking at building a buggy and I would be overjoyed to be able to drive it to a trail head instead of putting it on a trailer.
I have looked at the DMV registration types and was hoping that "Specially Constructed Vehicles" could be an option but those that I have talked to tell me it would be an almost impossible fight.
I wish us luck with this and would be interested in hearing about ways to help so that the laws get arranged so that larger vehicles could benefit.

 

[utahmike]

Don't say I don't love ya. Here is a link to the amendment for this bill it still has to pass a floor debate and then have the senate reapprove.

http://le.utah.gov/~2009/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0022.htm

 

[Bart]

Don't say I don't love ya. Here is a link to the amendment for this bill it still has to pass a floor debate and then have the senate reapprove.

http://le.utah.gov/~2009/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0022.htm

The changes look great. Good luck with the floor debate and then with the Senate. The weight changes will keep the huge trucks out of the ATV status, where they shouldn't be anyway.

This saves me from trying to make my rig street legal. Looking forward to driving my buggy legally through Moab and up to the Sand Flats area at EJS this year.

 

[Bart]

Looks like this passed the House on the third reading and was sent back to the Senate. Hope they leave it alone.