Originally Posted by steveo
ever consider getting your colon irrigated? its a pretty well known fact that quad trails are for QUADS. ask a dumbass question, get a sarcastic answer.
I bet you feel pretty stupid after making that comment.
Originally Posted by kb8ymf
If the trail is conspicously narrow such that it appears to be designed for a Quad AND you are wider than 50" you 'could' get a ticket. Once again it is subject to 'some' interpetation from the DNR Officer.
The problem come in how the trail was developed. Many <50" trails are really 2 tracks in the woods that had the entrance relocated to go through two trees 51" wide. Once you pass through the strainer, the trail opened up to a old logging road. Wide enough for a full size rig. USFS is notorious for this tactic.
There are also forest roads marked with 'ORV Trail' triangles. If it's got two tracks and obvioulsy shows signs of travel, it's legal to be there. The ORV Trail sign in itself does NOT regulate what size vehicle is allowed on the trial.
Case in point, Look at Drummond. Those roads were marked for ORV Trail because they wanted to allow unlicensed Quads and M/C on the trail. Street legal vehicles were already allowed there. However, due to a total lack of this understanding, the Quad and M/C community believed they were the only ones allowed on that trail. There is some discussion to revise this trail system to alleviate this mis-understanding.
The other rub comes with the fact I do not see in the law where it is illegal for dull size rigs to be on ,50" trails. The law only say's these are the two sizes for vehicles in the woods. It says designed for vehicles <50", NOT illegal for those over 50" to be on them.
The 50" width is a nationwide width. Which is why the Plaris Razor has become popular. 50" wide on the button and sits' two abreast. Much like the old Honda Odysey except update with new technology.
95Geo answered the slippery road condition question. In fact GLFWDA has a letter from the DNR that spells out that situation exactly. We'll get that posted in the very near future.
Relative to the definition of 'conventional'? This is a situation where the law has failed to keep pace with technology. The DNR refuses to remove the 2WD clause from the current law because it was put there to stop the cross country travel that they (DNR) say the Quads and M/C were doing after the original P.A. 319 was passed in the late 70's. It took till 1991 for them to 'figure out a method' to get them back on the forest road. That revision however went un-noticed when the law was revised.
Every time we try to revise it, we get stymied by the DNR. The Legislature always ask's the DNR for their opinion on revision to the ORV law. If the DNR doesn't want it changed, it won't get changed unless we get substantual momentum and leverage from the Legislature.
'Cliff notes for CC' If you fit reasonabally legitimately, your OK. Unless the DNR officer is having a bad day!
So it is basically legal, as long as you can fit.
Originally Posted by steveo
was warned years ago when i wandered onto an atv trail that wasn't clearly marked out by our Bitley deer camp. i was driving my truck at the time, and a neat trail crossed the seasonal road i was on, so i went down it. I was much younger at the time, so he just warned me to stay off of roads i wasnt sure of.
This is how bad information starts. A DNR officer makes a mistake, abuses power, then it becomes "the law". It takes people to stand up and fight for whats legal.