Phila Inquire: Rough going for state-planned ATV park

[Millbilly]

I have my doubts that will pass. The state DMV has no jurisdiction over what you do on private property with a motor vehicle.

They could effectively shut down auto-racing on private tracks under that law.

Do you have a link to the proposed bill for this?

I wouldn't be so sure... The Assembly bill has already passed two readings in the assembly in it's currents form! The dmv SHOULDN'T have any jurisdiction, but then again they would get 50% of the funds from this mandatory registration anyway. This IS New Jersey, where the politicians are all lawyers writing laws to cash in on when their out of office.

Go to: www.njleg.state.nj.us
and search Assembly Bill A-4172 and mirror Senate Bill S-3024

The way the proposed law is written, it CAN be enforced on private property if you do not have the land owners written permission to be there. I understand what the main intention is with these bills. The problem with these bills is:

1. The wording (all registered vehicles, 2-6 wheels that could be considered OHV's, that could mean street-legal dual-sport motorcycle or 4wd truck/Jeep; they leave it to interpretation!)

2. Requiring mandatory ATV/OHV registration without providing a service/using the funds on the vehicles their collected from (you wouldn't register a car if you would receive the same penalty as a unregistered car, what's the point?)

3. Mandatory registration and stiff fines does NOT solve the issue of illegal/irresponsible OHV use. Individuals will go further into the woods where it is harder to get them. The issue is that these people have no where to legally recreate. There are no state run riding areas (Chatsworth is private). When the only OHV in NJ hits capacity, Chatsworth has to turn people and their families away. Multiple riding parks or legal areas are needed. With legal areas comes respect for the land, organization, safer use and open space preservation just to name a few benefits. Multiple use recreational lands work well in other states (PA for instance), it can work in NJ. The funds for state run motorized recreation are there (over $9 million from the federal government!), the funds to keep it going are there too (registration). Now if only the environmental elitist would compromise that open space preserved is open space preserved, whether a hiking trail, horseback trail or ATV trail meander through it. Either way, wildlife will remain. Allow a housing development/soccer field/strip mall there and that open space/wildlife habitat is lost forever!

 

[Ben Ruset]

Well, what I was getting at about the DMV regulating the use of private property was more along the lines of them banning the use of my own personal ATV (if I owned one) on my own land, or if I had given permission for someone else to ride their ATV on my own land.

As for point #1, they mention an engine restriction of less than 600cc, so this wouldn't include Jeeps/etc.

Point #2: All ATV's should be insured. As a rider, you should have liability insurance to cover any damage/injuries that you may cause inadvertently. You may also want to have comprehensive coverage to cover your ATV if it gets stolen. The difference here is that motor vehicles have to be registered/insured to be driven on state roads, and new/used cars sold by dealers need to be registered/insured at the point of sale. ATVs do not have that restriction (and I firmly believe they should.)

Registration fees are inexpensive, as is insurance. And it's very very foolish to ride without insurance. It only serves to protect you.

3. I agree with you. The plans to open up parks solves the problem of giving the majority of responsible riders a place to go. Better to give them a park then let them loose in the woods. Anybody who chooses to not go to a park when there are facilities in place to accommodate them, should face stiff penalties.

The day that there are good parks open for ATV riders, I'll support whatever legislation the PPA/DEP/etc. want to come up with to deal with irresponsible riders.

 

[Millbilly]

I read their definition of OHV (2-6 wheel, less then 600cc) back when I originally read the bill for the first time. There are many ATV's/UTV's and other machines above the 600cc limit, so would they still be classified as OHV's because they only meet one of the definitions or would they be allowed in the state forest? Unfortunately, this is the part about "interpretation of the law/wording" that is going to affect alot of forest users, legal or illegal. I highly doubt if I am operating a utility vehicle (side x side) with a 700cc motor, insured and registered on established dirt roads on state land at or below the speed limit that I wouldn't be harassed. The bill(s) mention "swamp buggies" on this list of mandatory registration/illegal on state land list. Couldn't a lifted, highly modified truck/jeep/SUV be interpreted as a "swamp buggy" by law enforcement? It's vague, doesn't designate between responsible user groups and the irresponsible minority and leaves too much to interpretation.

Registration and insurance are definitely good things. All of my motorcycles are and I recommend everybody to do it. Taking peoples money for registration without giving anything in return is stealing, though.

 

[Ben Ruset]

Registration is a requirement for insurance. Insurance is a good thing.

What do I get from the registration fees for my Jeep?

 

[Millbilly]

To able to drive 'legally' down public roads including state forest roads at this point and time. That is the service provided (maintaining public roads/paving/snow plowing/bridge up-keep/etc.).

You need insurance prior to being able to register. Both are good as long as your registration money is funding a service, not padding somebody else's wallet.

 

[relayer]

I suppose one is expected to applaud people like Fred Akers and the environmental groups attacking the use of ATVs and ORVs in the pines, but I can not. While the Inquirer may see these folks as fearless warriors for good, I see them as an army seriously off mission. Preservation groups need to stop looking for cheap thrills and cheap victories obtained at the expense of potential allies and apply themselves to the real work of preserving the natural and cultural resources of the Pine Barrens from development. If they let go of distractions and focus on preserving as much of those resources as possible, they may actually succeed in saving what’s left of the Pines. Then, when the work is done, there will be plenty of time to squabble about recreational use.

relayer

 

[Millbilly]

I suppose one is expected to applaud people like Fred Akers and the environmental groups attacking the use of ATVs and ORVs in the pines, but I can not. While the Inquirer may see these folks as fearless warriors for good, I see them as an army seriously off mission. Preservation groups need to stop looking for cheap thrills and cheap victories obtained at the expense of potential allies and apply themselves to the real work of preserving the natural and cultural resources of the Pine Barrens from development. If they let go of distractions and focus on preserving as much of those resources as possible, they may actually succeed in saving what’s left of the Pines. Then, when the work is done, there will be plenty of time to squabble about recreational use.

relayer

Good post (nice name & location reference to some of Yes best albums)! I have been saying this for years! One thing off-highway motorized recreation enthusiast and environmentalist have in common is that we both want to preserve open space. It is beyond me why the environmental groups would rather work against OHV users than compromise and work together against the real threat to our open spaces. Developers.

 

[pinelandpaddler]

Preservation groups need to stop looking for cheap thrills and cheap victories obtained at the expense of potential allies and apply themselves to the real work of preserving the natural and cultural resources of the Pine Barrens from development.

Nicely said! One wonders if the intentions of these so-called "environmental activists" are truly for protecting the environment rather than for, say, collecting revenue...

 

[entropysedge]

I read their definition of OHV (2-6 wheel, less then 600cc) back when I originally read the bill for the first time. There are many ATV's/UTV's and other machines above the 600cc limit, so would they still be classified as OHV's because they only meet one of the definitions or would they be allowed in the state forest? Unfortunately, this is the part about "interpretation of the law/wording" that is going to affect alot of forest users, legal or illegal. I highly doubt if I am operating a utility vehicle (side x side) with a 700cc motor, insured and registered on established dirt roads on state land at or below the speed limit that I wouldn't be harassed. The bill(s) mention "swamp buggies" on this list of mandatory registration/illegal on state land list. Couldn't a lifted, highly modified truck/jeep/SUV be interpreted as a "swamp buggy" by law enforcement? It's vague, doesn't designate between responsible user groups and the irresponsible minority and leaves too much to interpretation.

Registration and insurance are definitely good things. All of my motorcycles are and I recommend everybody to do it. Taking peoples money for registration without giving anything in return is stealing, though.

So this way this is phrased, my XT225 which is under 600 cc would be outlawed even tho' it is street legal, registered and insured.

 

[Teegate]

So this way this is phrased, my XT225 which is under 600 cc would be outlawed even tho' it is street legal, registered and insured.

I see them having a hard time stopping street legal insured bikes. It would be a crime if they did. Just drive around a little and there is no doubt that cars and trucks do more damage then all the bikes out there. And one new house trumps all the vehicles together any day. I think someone needs to redirect their energy and join the real world.

Guy

 

[woodjin]

I haven't posted on this disscussion because I have expressed my views on this subject so many times in previous threads but I just have to say how incredibly DEAD ON some of the comments posted here are.

Street legal (enduros) motorcycles should absolutely be allowed in the state forest. To outlaw this is absurd! These environmental groups who I normally support are totally wasting their efforts and influence on this. The parks are a great idea but not so that motorcyles are outlawed in the SF. The parks can be there for the motocrossers, who prefer a closed track anyway. No park can substitute for the vastness and freedom one experiences by exploring the barrens in it's entirety on a motorcycle. Motorcycles are fun to ride, but many of us particularly appreciate the experience of exploring on them.

the enduro clubs have been a pine barrens staple for much longer than most realize and conduct their events in the most organized and respectful manner. The problem primarily lies with out of state and north jersey riders and juvenilles. And that problem is far down the list of far more threatening problems facing the ecology of the pine barrens.

Jeff

 

[Millbilly]

So this way this is phrased, my XT225 which is under 600 cc would be outlawed even tho' it is street legal, registered and insured.

Correct! So are all of my street-legal, quiet, dual-sport motorcycles if this passes!

Guy, good post!

Jeff, you are soooo right! Excellent post!

 

[whitingrider]

Whiting... just help me understand your position a little better. In another thread you said:



It sounds like you plan to continue riding where you choose, and won't use the parks even if they're built. Or maybe I didn't understand you?

This was a response to this thread. Sorry, I have been going back and forth from several of these related threads. I didn't consider it an attack. Bronzeman had a great post on the other thread, and I'll leave it at that. And that's where all of this is going.