City Council nixes ATV proposal

to bad daily reader.....told ya it wouldn't pass

ATV's are no more dangreous then Motor Cycles scooters or motorized bikes..... The beatrice police Dept. just doesnt want more to do (Like they have anything todo)I can see where you guyz are coming from but if they cann't be on the streets then NO One should be able to drive them around in the winter to "PLOW SNOW" Ive seen alot of people around beatrice in the winter that drive there atvs around to push snow so that sould be looked at also. THANKS Just a Resident Of Beatrice......

Thanks city council, I really didnt want my city to look like a 200 pop. cowtown.

What is with people thinking that ATVs are strictly "redneck" vehicles? Have you been up to Star City Motorsports or Rod's and seen some of the people purchasing ATVs?

I'm glad it didn't pass. If it would have, more then likely it'd be a short time before someone was injured on one. They are not meant for street hard surface use. It doesn't matter what a person looks like when debating a purchase of a ATV, I too think it would be like a redneck town here. If the roads and streets here were all dirt, gravel, sand and mud then ride on.

take kids bikes away, ban scooters and motorcycles, ban skateboards.....they are all a form of transportation that people use carelessly.
What a town, that is supposed to be in the GOOD LIFE state!

whats up Reader....do we now need to keep with the jones's attitude here. It doesn't matter who's buying ATVs. Whats your point?

The council said it all when they asked how ATVs on the streets of Beatrice would benefit the citizens of Beatrice. The vehicle clearly states not for highway use. Since only 4 people showed up to support their use, why on earth would the council approve it? They did the right thing.

If you were concerned with Beatrice looking like a "redneck town"...are you concerned about the ATVs themselves making the town look that way? Or the individuals purchasing and buying them? I was just curious as to why individuals riding/citizens that let their town allow ATVs are considered "redneck communities". Guess it doesn't matter now...

Good news! It seems that ATVs will probably be on the streets soon!

I just got a note from a gentlemen at Honda America and he had some interesting information. In the past the manufacturers did not have any interest in making ATVs street legal since they weren't legally recognized as motor vehicles in any state and they already produced motorcycles for the street people. There was just no interest in developing a streetable version.

Since they have been legally declared a motor vehicle in some areas though and it is possible in some areas to use them on the street the interest has went WAY up which has caught the attention of the manufacturers so the manufacturers are now working on getting them to meet standards and working with the federal and state governments to get the local control stipulations lifted so they are treated like any other motor vehicle.

A few issues they are addressing:

The off road use statements. Those were attached simply because they hadn't been tested or intended for on road use, they were never tested for stability, etc.. Those tests are now being conducted and they are even doing it retroactively, 10 model years is what I was told.

The CPSC warnings. They really don't mean a thing. People were getting hurt on them on the street. They weren't supposed to be on the street so it's an easy thing to issue a statement that they shouldn't be used on the street!

The tire issue. Most of them are passing with their normal tires, but stability can be improved with different tire formulations and the tires will last longer to boot, so special street rated tires are being developed as we speak and will be available soon. This will fix the highway use issue as that's what's been keeping them off of highways is the unapproved tires.

Beyond those issues there's just a bunch of small things - they need lights, they need a horn, most states want a speedometer, etc..

What in the planning stages right now is that new ATVs would be available for street use right from the dealer. If you buy an off road version and later want to use it on the road, or have a 10 year old or newer unit and want to use it on the road then you will be able to bring your vehicle to the nearest dealer. They will inspect it and make sure it's still in the proper configuration with no signifcant modifications. They will install all the necessary items to make it road worthy and affix stickers shows the safety standards, etc. have all been met (just all motorcycles now have). This is a great boon for the manufacturers as they'll make money doing these conversions. The figure I heard was $250 unless you needed tires, which is quite reasonable in my opinion.

From what I gather there are lots of changes coming soon - many manufacturers and energy conservation groups are currently working with the government to revise many of the archaic motor vehicle laws that are keeping many viable forms of energy efficient vehicles off the streets (whether it be by federal, state, or short sighted local governments). One of the companies heavily involved in this is the Smart Car people (the car you see on the Nintendo Wii commercials).

It'll be an interesting next few years as the energy crunch continues and vehicle innovation is forced. I'm glad to see the federal and state governments recgonizing this and taking steps to address the issue and not letting the short sighted local governments make the decisions.

PCK,

I didn't really care if it passed or not. I don't own one and at my age don't have any urge to get one.

I simply don't like to see inconsistancies in public policies and it seems very silly to allow so many other similar vehicles and descriminate against these. Things should be fair and fair for everyone.

It's been many years since I was in public service, but I like to think we were doing a little better job of making rational, fair decsions back then - not like today when six figure city jobs are being handed out without actively seeking qualified applicants, misuse of public funds and equipment are pretty much swept under the rug, and we allow someone to strap a motor to a bicycle and ride down the street but wont allow an ATV.

Mimi - How do motorcycles benefit the city? Many get no better mileage than a small asian import car but are more dangerous. How do jacked up 4x4 pickups benefit the city? How do high performance cars such as corvettes benefit the city?

Freedom of choice of what we would like to drive is a huge benefit - how would we like it if we were told that only one particular vehicle was approved and that was it?

The vehicle states it's not for on road use simply because it didn't meet the criteria for a licensable motor vehicle when it was built, but those conditions have changed now.

I didn't really care either way, but I did care about the process. One of my friends who didn't think this was a good idea talked to one of the Councilmen and was told to relax because there was no way they were going to pass it, they were simply going to give it the minimal attention they had to and move on. That attitude is unnacceptable from a public servant to me. We are in an energy crunch and we need to explore ways to help alleviate it. One of the reasons the State has allowed the ATV use is because of this so you would think it would warrant honest consideration, but it was obvious that it was not being given an honest shot. Beyond the energy, traffic congestion elleviation, etc. issues it's also an issue of fairness, if other similar forms of transportation are allowed then there shouldn't be descrimination, but again there was a closed mindset from the very beginning and that's very concerning.

"The information, taken from the ATVSafety.gov Web site, stated that ATVs should not be driven on paved roads because they are at the risk of being hit by cars and other vehicles"

Anyone else find this kinda humorous?

Anytime there's more than ONE of anything on the road it's in danger of being hit, isn't it?!

The issue of whether motor cycles, scooters or jacked up trucks is good for Beatrice was not the issue being looked at by the City Officials. The issue was whether or not adding ATVs to the mix would have any benefit.

Daily Reader: you have some good points regarding decision making in this city by our officials...however, I believe allowing ATV's on the street would be a safety issue and could tie up traffic. I'm sure you'll say other vehicles would cause traffic stalls, etc. But we have enough of those...we don't need anymore.

I agree with that statement from the web site...I think they will be easier for other vehicles to hit if they are allowed on the street. Didn't really find anything humorous about it

I would like to think Beatrice is a forward thinking city. But I am disappointed when some comes forward with a forward thinking idea and it gets "shot down" in 2 council sessions. There are already states and muncipalities that are legalizing atvs as a form of transportation. ATV manufacturers realize this are gearing up for the demand for road-ready atvs. Where will be in a couple of years when everyone but, Nebraska and Beatrice will be the only places where ATVs arent legal? Then it wont look so dumb will it? I think the council needs to do their research and revisit the atv issue. I wonder how many of these council people's grandparents were on city council when cars were in the minority and horses were in the majority? Let's at least make it a "vote of the people" and place it on the November ballot as an issue like the fluoride issue. I think the council needs to be forward thinking and be ahead the rest of the nation on this and not be in the rear. ATVs are no different than motorcycles, mopeds, bicycles, or motorized bycycles as a mode of transportation.

The issue of whether motor cycles, scooters or jacked up trucks is good for Beatrice may not have been the specific issue being looked at by the City Officials, but when addressing issues such as this why wouldn't we want to look at the big picture? The issue was whether to allow a particular type of vehicle so why wouldn't we want to look at what other vehicles are currently allowed and how the proposed vehicle compares to those? It's just common sense to do so in my opinion.

PCK -

Again, we should look at the big picture. It's not fair to allow other types of vehicles that have the same or worse safety records while not giving serious consideration to the ATV request (or serious consideration to banning the other types of vehicles since they are so dangerous).

Saying we have enough of those types of vehicles is again a question of fairness. Exactly how many of those types of vehicles is fair, are we going to set quotas or something?

Paul -

Is an ATV that's fully capable of going the speed limit on the streets they were to be allowed on, and that's sporting a bright flag any more dangerous than mopeds and bicycles?

Life is inheriently dangerous, let the individual choose his safety/comfort level.

As far as humor in the statement, maybe give it another read - "ATVs should not be driven on paved roads because they are at the risk of being hit by cars and other vehicles". The humor comes from the fact that ALL vehicles on the road are at risk of being hit by cars or other vehicles, collisions are not just an ATV problem!

If they are allowed on streets then is it safe to assume they will be required to buy one of our overpriced license plates? If not that's a heck of a savings right there.

True,, all vehicles can be prone to be hit by other vehicles. However, I'm sure the survival rate of being hit while inside of an ATV is less than of an enclosed vehicle. However, that should be said for Motorcyles to....lets put this to rest. I'm in favor of allowing ATV's on the streets for a trial period to see if it is safe for our city

Is to comment on here, so Daily Reader has something to do. I guess we can't comment to stories, it's all better left unsaid.