ATV forum participants focus on rules for responsible use

4 people showed up! Well I guess that says it all. This isn't for saving money with the gas prices high, it is only for fun. I vote no.

Thats the sound of a lawsuit against the city of Beatrice when someone from out of town hits an ATV. NO

Do we assume that Mr. Pieper's farm ground doesn't require him to drive on any state highways to get there??

Unfortunately poor turnouts for political meetings are quite common.

ATVs are no more dangerous, loud, etc. than motorcycles, mopeds, convertibles, small Asian imports, etc. and they are all allowed so why descriminate against ATVs?

Not to exceed over 30mph...won't that tie up traffic of people trying to get to places especially after work, on roads that are 35mph???

If only four people are interested in this then why not let them? I doubt four would cause too much trouble!

I think we all know this would be much more popular!

It's too bad that many of those who would like this opportunity aren't interested enough to help promote and support it, but that's the way it goes with most political or group activities - everyone else wants someone ELSE to do the work but once the work is done the rest of the herd will rush into reap the benefits!

I feel this is a silly discussion - it's just another form of transportation but it's no better or worse than other forms we already allow so why not?

Very little real interest in ATVs. Has anyone talked about Golf Carts? If the issue is really about saving energy... why not electric golf cart use? I don't think they go over 20 mph, with little to no noise.

with WHY NOT. Well said.

Have you been to any well attended public forums recently? School Board meetings, City Council meetings, Supervisors Meetings are all poorly attended. Many parents don't even involve themselves with PTO meetings.

I'm afraid you can't base your argument for/against based on attendance at a public meeting.

Let 'em ride and let's move on to the next issue.

Who (specifically) can we write to if we are unable to attend these meetings?

I am definitely interested in speaking my opinion, but am concerned that I may not be able to make it to a meeting. Any information regarding meetings or specific contact individuals would be appreciated.

I think it's quite ironic that during the last discussion on the subject, someone complained about being compared to Fairbury...seems they are setting a decent the precedent for the area.

It would be wise to obey the State Statute. Please remember the trouble the your city was in the last time they tried to do something that was not allowed by the State. (Mr. Fairbanks reminds you in the article.) If you want to ride your ATV on state highways, please talk to your local senator.

Are you sure you want your friends and families buzzing here and there on 4 wheelers? Are you sure you want your 16 year old racing 4 wheelers in parks or side streets? Maybe only 4 today, but pass it and they will be everywhere until enough people are hurt, mamed or killed. Will these people carry full liability coverage? Are the insurance companies ready to place full liability coverage for highway use?
Who will enforce the tire pressure law.
They are banned on state hiways so how would that work to get across court.
Just say no and move on. Doug, get a smaller truck.

Doug Pieper wants to jump on his ATV in his driveway and then drive to his fields or farm but ATV's can't be driven on Highways. How is he going to get there?

I am truly amused at the number of excuses that are thought up in an effort to put down the idea of ATV use on city streets. If they are treated just like other motor vehicles (Taxed, Licensed and Insured per law) how can they be singled out as an "unnecessary" vehicle to commute with? If a decison is going to be based on impeding traffic--notice the number of elderly persons in our community (my grandparents included) that drive between 10-15 mph under the speed limit. If elderly people drive slow, does that mean that they should be banned from driving? I don't think so because we will all be old some day, and driving slow just might prevent an accident (granted, it is annoying at times). I do not own an ATV, but support the idea of legalizing them on Beatrice's streets. Undisputibly, 4 wheels are safer than 2, especially when it comes to stopping and avoiding accidents. Thanks!

I mentioned golf carts and it is a good idea. Much safer that ATV's little to no noise and they can't go as fast. You can have a cover on them so they can be driven in the rain. If they are going to do this for the reasons they say they want to then golf carts would win over ATV's hands down.

I want to drive my 4 wheel lawn mower. I will get a canopy over the seat so I won't get wet when it rains.

Four people is not a very large turnout. I'm sure more people here in town attend a AAA meeting with a bigger crowd. If these are allowed on the streets, and can only be driven at 30 MPH, they will be on the side streets. Alright, they must have a five foot pole, with a orange flag.

If there were cars parked along the street, and someone was at a stop sign at an intersection, these ATVs are not tall enough to be seen. What are we supposed to do in our vehicles at a stop sign? Look both ways 8 times to make sure we don't see any orange flags a coming at 30 MPH? Such a stupid idea, and law suits will follow once someone gets killed riding one right here within city limits. I'll surely vote NO.

Joe, if you can't see a rider on a four wheeler at an intersection then how would you see a pedestrian in the crosswalk? Or a bicyclist at an intersection? or my brother-inlaw's little Hyundai?

We have a responsibility to be observant when we're driving and we should be looking for everything - from other vehicles to a child suddenly chasing a ball out in the street.

Are U Sure:

*) If my friends and family are licensed drivers and aware of the special rules concerning ATVs, then yes I do want them to have the right to choose one as a method of transportation, just like they can choose a motorcycle, moped, convertible, or small car.

*) 16 year old misbehaving while driving is not a new issue and occurs no matter what the vehicle is. A 30mph crash while they are helmeted up may be better than a 100+mph crash with no seat belts! AND, where would you hide a six pack on an ATV? It's a LOT easier to drink and drive with a car or truck!

*) I'm sure you are right, if they are allowed many will take advantage of them - I just wish more would help promote them now!

*) Yes, liability insurance is readily available.

*) Tire pressure, as well as other general vehicle condition laws, would be enforced the very same way they are for all the currently approved vehicles.

*) To cross a public highway you get off of it and push it across, then get back on it.

*) Yes, Doug could get a smaller truck but how long before someone says it's too dangerous and wants to ban it in favor of a large SUV in the name of safety? He could also get a noisey, dangerous motorcycle, or strap a 50cc engine on a bicycle and be perfectly legal (but safer? Ever done 25mph on a bicycle?).

*) Why doesn't anyone want to look at the areas who have legalized them? Most of the comments just downgrade such communities, but they don't address the findings of how legalizing these vehicles affected their communities. I've talked to a couple and they said they are no problem what so ever and doing a little research I can find no area that's legalized them and then found them to be too much of a problem and repealed their law. Basically they've passed the law and had no problems. Daily Sun - why not put a reporter on this? Why not talk to the officials in the towns where ATVs are allowed and see exactly what/if any issues of arised so we can get replace all these dire predictions with facts?

that would be investigative reporting and I don't think this particular paper is in favor of that.

Let me understand this. You can't ride an ATV on State Highways? Ok so if Doug wants to cross 77 he has to push the ATV across the street?

People do a google search on ATV accidents or golf cart accidents and look at what happens when an ATV is in an accident.

My riding lawn mower has four wheels, can travel at 30mph, and I could put a five foot pole with an organge flag on it. I can put a cover on top to keep off rain. It is safer than a motorcyle, which is already legal. It makes less noise than a Harley or a car needing a new muffler. It is also another form of transportation. Why not legalize riding lawn mowers for the street? If the city council passes ATV use, why not pass riding lawn mowers?

Yes, if you want to cross a public highway you push it across.

Probably no more dangerous than our walking trail that crosses 6th (hwy 77), ever see what happens when a pedestrian gets hit by a car?

I'm thinking that getting off to push an ATV to get across the highway might be more dangerous than riding it across. Maybe that's just me...but I'm not sure I could jump off and get the thing across the 4 lanes of highway before any cars come by.

Most lawn mowers don't have brake lights and stuff. If they did have all the required equipment then it wouldn't bother me at all.

We need to move beyond what we call these items. We need to just define what we consider a valid motor vehicle for street use and if whatever you want to use meets that definition and you can get insurance for it then by all means it should be allowed. We shouldn't descriminate by looks - I could care less if it looks like a lawn mower, golf cart, rocket ship, or whatever (I don't hear people complaining about RVs which are really portable houses being driven around! They are more dangerous to drive due to limited viewing, the need to rely on mirrors, their length, sluggish power response, etc.) - if it meets criteria and you can get insurance it's good enough for me!

The state statute makes it very clear what an atv is:
1.) has to be 50 inches or less in width,
2.)a dry weight of 900 lbs or less,
3.)travels on 3 or more low pressure tires,
4.)is designed for one passanger or designed by the manufacturer for operator and one passanger,
5.) has a seat designed to be straddled by the operator, and
6.) has handlebars or other steering assembly for steering control.

Regarding the push across hiway 77(or 136), by state law you are allowed to ride them across state highways. You don't need to "push them to cross"

Anyone that has internet access can access the state statutes. Here is the website. Under keywords type in "all terrain vehicles" and the statutes are listed. http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/web/public/home

ATVs should be afforded the same privilages as motorcycles and yet they are required to be more restriced than motorcycles. You ask yourself, if you were involved in a wreck, would u rather be on an atv or motorcycle. Your body on the motorcycle is exterior to the footprint of a motorcycle. That's what is going to get hit first. On an atv, your body is within the interior of the foot print and the atv may absorb more of the impact over a larger area and less likely to tip over or slide underneath a car. ATVs have received a "bad rap" because most of the accidents you hear about are involved off-road conditions and involving underage kids. The city ordinance, I'm sure, would not allow underage kids to ride on streets.

Well said, ATV supporter :) I thought it was allowed to cross highways, just not ON highways (as in, riding down them). I wasn't sure, so I wasn't about to say anything.

I think it does all come down to the freedom of choice. I would like the option to drive what I want to. (As long as all the rules are followed) I would enjoy riding my ATV even if I have to push it across the highway. This would make my personal quality of life more enjoyable. Given the ammount of interest I don't think there will be alot of these ATV to deal with. So why not let people choose how they get from point A to point B.

My only beef with this whole idea is the notion of having to get a motorcycle endorsment. If I had that I would just go out and purchase a motorcycle that I could drive on the highway and go from here to Lincoln on. I think that point should be discussed in more detail before any decision is made on the issue.

I think it states that they can not cross a "controlled access highway" with more than two lanes. Are Hwy 4 & 136 considered "controlled access highways"? If not riding across or even on them may be leagal. (I'm no lawyer...)

I know a guy who got a ticket for riding across hwy 4 to the Country Store from Plymouth.

want to save money, get a bike and pedal. Rather than spend money on a ladder truck or a courthouse roof....Beatrice could expand its bike paths so more people can save money by pedaling to work, plus its good exercise.

I would like the freedom to ride my horse around and park him in my back yard. Im going to go ask the city council why MY YARd cant be grandfathered in like Glenover horses!!He doesnt make any noise and occasionally fertilizes whereever he goes. So he is good for the environment too. He also cuts grass. Can you say that about your ATV? Oh yeah and he can go 25 miles and hour sometimes.

I recently came from a visit at a resort town and they all drive golf carts everywhere there. It was great! Why can't Beatrice be a little more progressive without running it in the ground? Driving golf carts would be very economical and way less dangerous than ATV's! Lets include golf carts in this issue while we are at it.

Lets drop it people, accidents will increase with ATV's on the street, it will be more hazardous. They don't belong here.

Gas Man - Riding a bike isn't feasible for many of us, mostly due to time constraints (we all have busy lives and schedules to keep) as well as carrying capacity of the vehicle (groceries for a family of four would probably be a chore on a bike, and would probably make it more unstable and dangerous), etc.. Besides, bicycles in general are probably more dangerous than what we are discussing!

Qualtity of Life... - The problem is with the fact you are discussing an animal and proper facilities for their care, nuesance pests from having them around, etc. would be problematic in a residential area. Besides, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Maybe if you looked at it this way - people were allowed to ride donkeys and camels, but you weren't being allowed to ride a horse - would that make any sense?

Bugz - I agree that golf carts could be handy. As the energy crunch gets worse we're going to have to loosen our grip on our old gas hogs and give -serious- consideration to alternate forms of transportation. The electric car I'm sure will be a good contender for one of those slots. When is an electric car and not a golf cart? Have you seen the new mini cars being used in Europe? The air powered car being used in India and Mexico? Both are great ideas that are working out well but it seems many here wouldn't even consider them.

drop it - This forum is for story comments and the exchange of ideas, commanding people to drop it because many don't share your point of view is kinda rude. Again, the energy crunch is going to get worse and we're simply going to have to consider alternate ways to go about our lives, different types of vehicles are certainly going to be a big part of that so I know many of us are enjoying this thread. As far as safetty goes, shouldn't we allow the individual to make the decision as to what level of safety they want? Motorcycles are dangerous, but we allow them anyway. Mopeds are dangerous, but we allow them anyway. Bicycles are dangerous, but we allow them anyway. Convertibles are dangerous, but we allow them anyway. If we want to go with what's safe then many things would need to be banned, but I don't think any of us want that.

In Lincoln, there are lanes specifically just for people on a bike.
Why not have a ATV lane here?
Makes sense.......right?

you can still have a car and a bike...doesn't mean you have to get your groceries by bike...I may use my bike to go to work, but I still drive my motor vehicle to do errands I can't with my bike. What does convertibles have to do with anything....Its still a car...and by the way, bikes are used to travel on the road or sidewalk, and if on the road..on the side of the road not in traffic. and just because I say drop it, doesn't make it rude. I said drop it because its a "stupid idea" by "stupid individuals"

Daily reader did it again, if it has a motor or engine and all the mentioned safety equipment why not. It may cause more work for law enforcement to check and control, but if it takes cars off the streets then it may work.

ATVs are NOT designed for use on paved roads. Read the warning labels that were mandated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission on every ATV, is there any reference about them being use on streets or roads? No. In fact the warning label on an ATV says DO NOT ride on roads. Why? Most all models except for the very newest models have straight axles. Straight axles are not conducive for use on paved streets. All ATVs have tires that are high profile and bouncy. While this is fine on a loose surface, it is not at all safe on a paved surface. ATVs are great farm, ranch and recreational machines! However they are not at all suited for paved streets and roads unless they are modified for this purpose such as what is done in Europe.

Most people who ride ATVs have no idea how dangerous they can be. I've ridden 1000's of miles on ATVs over the last 25 years, I know how those who don't take these machines seriously have suffered for their lack or respect, judgment and ability to physically operate the machines while cornering, traveling a high speeds and backing up.

One other thing to consider is that once this ordinance is passed, every Tom, Dick and Harry with an old three wheeled and four wheeled ATV will be on the streets. Many of the older machines have brake problems, throttle problems and wheel bearing problems. Three wheelers are killers no matter how you look at them and there are still a lot of them hidden in garages or setting in the weeds.

Any ordinance MUST include the use of helmets and it’s a good idea requiring that all those who ride on a street or road be required to have documentation that they completed an ATV RiderCourse. I suggest that the idea to legalize them on city streets be rejected. The liability to the City is much too high as the City, upon passing an ordinance are assuming that they are safe for anyone with a type O drivers license to use with other traffic with absolutely no training other than their own judgment that ‘they can do it’.

If you want to save gas, get a motorcycle or moped. If you can't ride those, then what business do you have on an ATV? Also these towns are not that big, the argument that people need them to save gas is totally bogus as they don’t get much better mileage as a small car. If you can’t walk a few blocks, what business do you have being on an ATV, a machine that takes physical dexterity to operate?

One more thing about fuel prices, diesel could well reach $7 or $8 a gallon in a few years and gas could reach $6 a gallon. Knowing this I bought a small car. My newer 15 mpg in town and 21 mpg on the highway 3500 diesel pickup stays in the garage unless I have to haul something. The car never gets less than 28 mpg in town and can be used year round including in the rain and snow, not to mention it’ a heck of a lot safer than riding an ATV and gets the same or better mileage.

Drop It -

Most of us would probably end up driving our car rather than riding our bike, again a bike isn't a very viable source of everyday transportation for many of us due to distance and time constraints. They are fine for recreation, but as main transportation they are not really good for most. ATVs get better mileage and many of us prefer the more open feeling associated with riding a motorcycle, ATV, convertible, etc.. We allow motorcycles, mopeds, and convertbiles so why descriminate against ATVs? (or are you advocating eliminating those vehicles too, if not then why not? Why are they OK?)

What do convertbiles have to do with anything? They are much less safe than a standard closed cab motor vehicle and safety seems to be a primary concern to many opposing the ATVs.

Are bicycles legally supposed to be on the sidewalk? I thought they weren't, but their use on sidewalks was tolerated by the police for small children, less trafficed sidewalks, etc.. Having someone zipping along at a good clip on a narrow sidewalk congested with pedestrians (such as the downtown business area) sounds like a safety hazard to me! Bicycles riding on the street are also not so safe - most don't have mirrors, most are ridden by adolescents, etc. so their behavior is unpredictable. Still, they are allowed and the drivers on the roads are expected to be vigilant and drive defensively. We're allowing bicycles and mopeds so adding one more type of vehicle I don't think will put much more burden on us.

Commanding people to drop it and stating that in your opinion it's a stupid idea by stupid people is not rude? We certainly were raised differently evidently!

ATVs are no less safe than other items we already allow - want to strap a 50cc engine to a bicycle? Sure, go ahead! It's completely legal! Want to ride an ATV? Oh no, that's waaay to dangerous!?

The energy crunch is not going to get better any time soon, so we're simply going to have to look at some alternate forms of transportation. Beyond that, simple freedom of choice is a founding principle for our society and we need to respect that.

I'll be interested to see what the final results of the online poll were - for the majority of the time the poll was open it was about 50/50, with those favoring it being slightly more than those opposing (it was usually running 51 or 52 for to 48 or 49 against). It climbed quickly after atv supporter posted the exact definition of what an ATV legally is and what the requirements for their use is required to be by the state if a city allowed their use (thanks for posting that atv supporter!).

Many communities are allowing this and so far no one has provided any information as to any determintal affects in those communities - that kinda says a lot doesn't it? Others of have done it and there's been no problems, so why do we think we're different and will have problems?

Have you ever read the msds sheet for rubbing alcohol? It says NOT to apply it to the skin and to wear gloves when handling it! The safety warnings these days have become literally useless due to everyone wanting to cover themselves in the event of a law suit. Just because it says it's not designed for a particular use doesn't mean that it wont work just fine.

Many older and classic cars use beam suspensions, do not have ackerman steering, etc. but they are still allowed, the driver is simply expected to know the characteristics of his vehicle.

ATVs do handle differently, but again it's up to the rider to realize that. A chopper motorcycle handles differently than a rice rocket does also. An SUV such as a Jeep handles much differently than a Corvette too, but still we allow the individual to make the decision as to which type of vehicle he wishes to drive.

I haven't seen many ATVs sitting in the weeds just waiting for this ordinance to pass and I seriously doubt there will be mass resurections of delapidated machines.

Again, why are we speculating? Daily Sun - could you have a reporter do a little research and article on towns that have allowed this?

I personally called two friends in Fairbury and both said there's been no issues they are aware of. I also called a friend in Kansas and he said the same thing, no issues at all. His son has one and enjoys riding it, however he is required to push his across the highway down there, at least that's what he's been told and it may be different since it's a different state.

I also called and asked my insurance agent if this passed if I would be able to get insurance reasonably and the answer was yes - it's no problem at all. Now if they were a huge safety concern and were involved in large numbers of accidents then the insurance would be impossible/hard to find, and if it could be found it would be expensive but in this case it's easy to find and it's just as cheap as motorcycle insurance. That tells me the insurance industry has not found these vehicles to be a problem and they are an industry based on statistics and risk assessment.

I don't understand why the city would be opened up to legal issues if this passed - the state is who said it was allowable, they are just giving control to the city. This is much like fireworks, the state says what's legal and when they can be sold and allows the cities to impose further restrictions or bans if they want, but I've never heard of a city being liable for damage caused by fireworks simply because they allowed them to be sold in accordance with the state law. The city also allows liquor sales - are they liable for drunk drivers, spousal abuses, etc.?

If you've been reading, the state law already requires the use of helmets, a flag, etc..

Not all of this is about saving gas. Some of it is about enjoyment and freedom of choice, and I think in the future it may be about experimentation as I think you may see many alternate types of vehicles being experimented with as the energy crunch tightens up. Some of the best breakthroughs have been by individual experimenters working out of their garages (just think, we may not have cars if our ancestors had banned the early experimental ones from the roads for being too dangerous, scaring horses, etc.! They didn't, they had the spirit of freedom within them and they shared the roads and allowed the development to occur).

I don't know if its against the law to ride your bike on the sidewalk or not...I don't think it is against the law, otherwise the cops would be giving 6 year old kids tickets all day long. I know that alot of people enjoy walking in the morning and evening, but most of those people walk in the street (i do think that is against a city ordinance). Plus these people who are on the street walking do nothing to get out of your way.

And it is a stupid idea. And as far as I was brought up...well, I wasn't brought up to support something stupid like this.

I believe there was a Bellwood man who lost his life this weekend on an ATV. Plus I know two girls are in the hospital from an ATV accident that happened a few days ago.

The one who wrote in as "ATV Expert" has the right idea.

"Daily Reader"...have you seen the gas prices lately...maybe those people in garages should have not invented cars, then we wouldn't be in this mess. Yeah, okay, thats probably far fetched.

Any insurance salesman will sell you anything you want.

Fairbury is not Beatrice.


Remember this issue is not about if people will enjoy riding them or expiermental issues, but rather if they belong on our streets. Within the last few months, the city has okayed the repairs on the roof of a courthouse and the purchase of a new ladder truck (even though they don't consider how much it will cost us taxpayers). Those issues were passed for the benefit of the city. How will this benefit our city?????

Hmmm, anyone look at the online poll results in yesterday's paper?

1,295 votes and 52% were FOR allowing this. It seems when people don't have to show up for a meeting or particpate in a forum such as this (and risk being called stupid!) and can just click a mouse to give their opinion they are much more comfortable! Can't say as I blame them!

Tanner - An insurance salesman will sell you what he can, but he HAS to find an underwriter before he can offer it. Almost anything can be insured, but if the underwriters find what you want to be insured a huge risk they either wont offer it or they will charge exorbinate rates for it. In this case there's NO problem finding a company that offers the insurance and it's not any higher than motorcycle insurance. The insurance industry is based on facts, figures, and risk assessments so if insurance is available easily and reasonably priced then they've not found a problem with it. It's just that simple.

It's true that Beatrice is not Fairbury, but we owe it to ourselves to look at other communities when we are looking at making a change. Whether it be a law change, or upgrade to our infrastructure, or whatever. I also noted that Chadron allows this too and I know a guy in Chadron too, so I called him up last night. Once again, NO problems at all!

You don't find allowing something people will enjoy is not a benefit to the city? Allowing alternate forms of transportation that someday may develop into mainstream forms would also have no benefit? Allowing vehicles that are smaller and more fuel effecient isn't a benefit?

This really pretty simple.

*) The State has said that an ATV is a motor vehicle if it meets a certain set of criteria. Most golf carts, lawn mowers, or whatever don't meet the criteria given. If one would want to use one of those they would have to take it up with the state before the city could ever address it, so for now we're discussing ATVs and only ATVs, and only ATVs that fall within the state specified criteria.

*) The state has said they are motorvehicles, but they are allowing the local communities to decide if they want to allow them.

*) We're not the trailblazers here, other communities have already allowed this and so far NO ONE is having any problems from it.

*) Yes, most ATVs have a statement on them they are not for on-road use, but that's a blanket cya statement driven by the preponderance of frivilous lawsuits so common these days. The state has said they are acceptable as a motorvehicle and the insurance industry who maintains facts and figures and constantly does risk assessments has not found them to be any more of a risk than motorcycles and other similar modes of transportation.

*) The insurance industry currently has no issue with ATVs, insurance is easy and affordable to get and it wouldn't be if they were inherently more dangerous than other similar vehicles. (yes, a man in Kearney was just killed on one - but a man was just killed in Lincoln on a motorcycle too and I'm sure if you do a search someone was seriously injured in a car somewhere too. Accidents happen and no vehicle is 100% safe.)

*) Allowing people to derive some enjoyment from their vehicle of choice IS a benefit and is currently allowed. Motorcycles, mopeds, convertibles, bicycles, etc. are all more dangerous. Many give no mileage benefit, but people just plain enjoy them and they are allowed. Allowing an individual the freedom of choice is a founding principle of our society.

*) The energy crunch isn't going to get better any time soon, so allowing alternate vehicles is almost certainly going to have to happen. The state will evaluate the various modes of transportation and then pass their findings along to the rest of us through their published definitions and specifications for allowable vehicles. Once a vehicle is deemed allowable by the state one would think that progressive thinking communities would want to allow the public access to these vehicles so their usefulness could be evaluated in real life situations which would help drive further development.

*) There's been dire warnings of the city being liable if someone is hurt, but no facts given as to why. If it's a state approved motor vehicle being allowed we shouldn't have any more liability than we already have by allowing motorcycles, mopeds, convertibles, small Asian imports, RVs, etc..

*) If allowing ATVs is such a bad idea, then what makes motorcycles, mopeds, or even high powered sports cars capable of speeds well in excess of the interstate speed limit, highly modified jacked up 4x4s, thinly constructed Asian imports, etc. so much better? If they aren't then why aren't we taking steps to ban them also? Fair is fair, if they are allowed then ATVs should be also. Such vehicles may not be everyone's cup of tea, but individualism is something we all want and enjoy so if you want to drive a corvette, a hyundai, a jeep, a full sized pickup, a mini-pickup, a motorcycle, a scooter, a moped, or whatever as long as the state says it's allowable on the road and you have it licensed and insured (and your licensed) the choice should be yours.

ATV Expert -

Are you the same as "ATV Lover" who posted the exact same comment on the Black Hills Pioneer comments on 6/13/08?

If you are, are you local to Beatrice or from South Dakota, or ???

If you are not and you cut and pasted the comment here then please be aware that it's common courtesy to give the author reference and credit when quoting their work. Also it makes one wonder if you truly are an "expert" (even the original author didn't claim to be an "expert", just a "lover"), do the qualifications listed - i.e. driven thousands of miles on an ATV over 25 years, bought a small car, also own a 3500 pickup, etc. apply to you also or just the original author?

http://www.bhpioneer.com/articles/2008/07/13/opinion/doc487a5e5bc5534674912211.txt

you call it a benefit to the city just because a FEW people who can afford it can enjoy it???

Daily Reader,
Don't you realize that on these online polls that you're able to vote multiple times, are the vote counts? There could have been 52% for, 48% against. I don't vote on these polls, since they don't really count. It's just something to post in the paper. Dump your cookies each time you vote, and you can rack up points.

Okay, everyone, hands away from the keyboard. Now, take a deep breath...from your gut...innnnnnnnn....and ouuuuuut...again...innnnn...and ouuuut. Good! Now remember, there will never be any winners or losers here. Everyone will always have their own opinions. Let's keep hold of our senses and remember to treat others the way you would like to be treated.

I was under the impression one wasn't to call names on this forum. How did that get by the "comment police"? Enforce it.

Just get rid of your fancy gas guzzlers and get a fuel efficient car. It will be winter soon and then there won't be a question as to wether to take your atv without protection or your nice warm car with a heater. We chose the first option, we had two gas guzzlers and purchased a high milage vehicle. Less than 20 miles a gallon compared to 40 miles per gallon makes a big difference. And PLEASE, noone come back and say everyone can't afford a different car, sell the fancy guzzler you will come out on top in the long run.

Jon - I just tried this and no, dumping your cookies does not allow you to vote again, it says "You've already voted, thanks!"

Though such polls are unofficial they do give the general consensus usually and in this case the poll was running at about the same ratio the whole time (that's why the view poll button is there - so if you've already voted you can still view how the poll is going).

Tanner,

More than a FEW people can enjoy an ATV. Many of us already have them, and for those who don't a used ATV is really pretty affordable.

Again though, I feel they should be treated as any state recognized motor vehicle - motorcycles, mopeds, etc..

Heck, if you've driven an RV before you'd realize what an animal they are to drive - there really ought to be a special license for driving one of them, but there's not. They are big, cumbersome, have low visibility, get poor mileage, usually are for pure pleasure use (though some use them in their jobs), and are only affordable to a very select few but we allow them none the less.

Lookup the moped laws - they'll scare ya! You can actually ride a moped down the highway legally! (if the road is a 45mph or high speed limit road you have to stay on the right side of the lane, if it's a 45mph road you are entitled to a full lane (but can split the lane with another moped or motorcycle)). We allow them none the less though, so why descriminate? Or are you advocating banning motorcycles, mopeds, RVs, convertibles, jacked up 4x4s, corvettes, ferraris . . . . pretty much anything that's more dangerous than most to drive, or anything that only a few can afford?

guzzler verses no guzzler - Have you tried to trade off a gas guzzler recently? A friend of mine tried to trade their Durango off for something with better mileage and the dealer already had a lot full of them and wouldn't trade for it, at least not for a reasonable price (basically what they owed on it).

As the energy crunch gets worse and worse who's going to want the gas guzzlers? Oil prices have climbed so fast that the demand for these vehicles has dimished dramatically, with low demand the value of those vehicles goes through the floor and anyone with a loan on them is pretty much stuck with them.

I've just run across a website with credible information that sez that if you add fluordiated water to a gallon of gas, it will extend your milage enough to pay for school administration salary raises and make up for any flaws that your city board or County Attorny ever made! Except it doesn't work in Fairbury. This is a FACT - especially since I said so.

Did I hear the mayor right? Did he say that even if Beatrice opened up the roads for ATV's, they couldn't legally cross either bridge over the Blue River because those roads are state/national roads vs. local roads? I might have heard that wrong.

By the way, I love to drive like a maniac in my hotrod, my 4x4,my giant SUV and my quad runner. None of you will be safe with me out there, no matter what you or I drive. And I will pay $12 per gallon just to get a chance to squeel the tires on my lawnmower. I love driving! But motorcycles are unsafe.

I'm not trying to ban everything. ATV's just don't belong on the street in this city. nuff said

I have ridden "dirt bikes" and ATVs and they are both very dangerous to drive, especially turn, on hard surface roads compared to driving on dirt, mostly because of the tires tread. My street bike has been in storage since 1987 after the helmet law was passed. But I think it´s time to break it out again. The greatest danger for bikes and motorcycles are the car and truck drivers that have a hard time seeing you. And for the record, I was able to vote three different times and could have a fourth. The poll is unscientific. ATVs and motorcycles are more dangerous to drive because of their smaller size than cars and trucks. I feel dirt bikes and ATVs should be driven on the dirt, not in town.