Definitely not treading lightly - Page 3 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Land Use > Rules, Regulations, Trail, and ORV Park Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 21st, 2008, 09:57 PM   #41
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,539
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kb8ymf View Post
It's not whether YOU can drive it in 2WD, but rather can the officers grandma do it? And NOT with your Jeep, rather an 81 Buick.

j-kb8ymf
That would be decided by a judge, not by the officer. I would LOVE to receive a ticket for something I deem legal, but an officer deems illegal. The problem is, every CO i've ever met on the trail has been awesome, and really nice. I've yet to find the dicky officer everybody talks about...
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old February 21st, 2008, 10:01 PM   #42
Buggy_Tim
(513) 891-8372
 
Buggy_Tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sault Sainte Marie
Posts: 11,824
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kb8ymf View Post
Check this:

P.A. 451 shown in the actual MCL 324.81133 section (o)

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(pzb...&highlight=orv


Jim-kb8ymf
Not sure what yer getting at there...(o) says : o) In or upon the waters of any stream, river, bog, wetland, swamp, marsh, or quagmire except over a bridge, culvert, or similar structure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kb8ymf View Post
It's not whether YOU can drive it in 2WD, but rather can the officers grandma do it? And NOT with your Jeep, rather an 81 Buick.

j-kb8ymf
The law does not say an 81 Buick. It says a conventional vehicle.
Buggy_Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2008, 10:02 PM   #43
Buggy_Tim
(513) 891-8372
 
Buggy_Tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sault Sainte Marie
Posts: 11,824
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
That would be decided by a judge, not by the officer. I would LOVE to receive a ticket for something I deem legal, but an officer deems illegal. The problem is, every CO i've ever met on the trail has been awesome, and really nice. I've yet to find the dicky officer everybody talks about...
x2. Firm, but not really what I would call dicky.
Buggy_Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2008, 10:12 PM   #44
CreativeFab
used to be Ironman
 
CreativeFab's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-01-05
Location: midland
Posts: 3,214
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws View Post
I don't think it really does. I think you are referring to the definition of a forest road:



This is no where near cut and dry. It doesn't say you "can't use 4 wheel drive". And what exactly is a 2-wheel drive 4-wheeled conventional vehicle? In some situations my Ram in 2 wd would be able to travel a path that my minivan, also 2 wd could not. Both are stock, conventional vehicles. Then in other cases my minivan, being front wheel drive, might be able to better travel some terrain. My Jeep, in 2 wd, would be able travel much harsher terrain, including the steps, than my mother in laws Malibu.

I also would run the steps and take the ticket. Based on past experience, I don't think it would make it to a judge....none of my past tickets have. I do not believe they want case law set on this matter.
A two wheel drive, 4 wheel conventional vehicle is one that does not have AWD or the option of engaging a front drive axle in conjunction with a rear drive system. Being a shop teacher that should be a no-brainer

And Jim is refering to a forest road, the road going to Marble Head is a forest road according to the state of Michigan. If it is not than you cant be on it anyway.

Just because you are in two wheel drive does not matter if you have the availabilty of a tranfer case. My old club,Delta Fourwheelers had a member that was trail riding and recieved a ticket when the CO thought he could not get down the trail in his car. The club member said he was in two wheel drive as his transfer case was broke an two wheel drive was all he had.

The CO didnt care as he said it is available to you and if you choose to fix it on the trail you have that option. Ticket issued and paid.
CreativeFab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2008, 10:13 PM   #45
kb8ymf
Not as old as Whiterhino
 
kb8ymf's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-01-06
Location: Dryden,Mi.
Posts: 1,105
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws View Post
Not sure what yer getting at there...(o) says : o) In or upon the waters of any stream, river, bog, wetland, swamp, marsh, or quagmire except over a bridge, culvert, or similar structure.



The law does not say an 81 Buick. It says a conventional vehicle.
That repy was to the guy asking for the driving on water question.

And, It's NOT your definition of a conventional vehicle but rather the officer.

That being said, would i like to see someone challenge the law, you bet. Has anyone done it, Yep, Marv. An he won only because the Judge used the road he got the ticket on to go fishing.

Biggest problem is that the violation is a misdemeanor and require legal represntation. Hey CC, why not run this by your lawyer and see if he thinks it's beatable? He will after all need to represent you in court. We'll all come and watch
jim-kb8ymf
kb8ymf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2008, 10:14 PM   #46
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,539
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kb8ymf View Post
Biggest problem is that the violation is a misdemeanor and require legal represntation. Her CC, why not run this by your lawyer and see if he thinks it's beatable? He will after all need to represent you in court. We'll all come and watch
jim-kb8ymf

I don't think my lawyer is very knowledgeable in orv stuff.
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2008, 10:19 PM   #47
kb8ymf
Not as old as Whiterhino
 
kb8ymf's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-01-06
Location: Dryden,Mi.
Posts: 1,105
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws View Post
I also would run the steps and take the ticket.
Let us know when, we'll all come watch.

Quote:
Based on past experience, I don't think it would make it to a judge....none of my past tickets have. I do not believe they want case law set on this matter.
So have you gotten a ticket for 4WD usage on a 2WD trail that you beat?

j-kb8ymf
kb8ymf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 12:27 AM   #48
Buggy_Tim
(513) 891-8372
 
Buggy_Tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sault Sainte Marie
Posts: 11,824
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kb8ymf View Post
Let us know when, we'll all come watch.



So have you gotten a ticket for 4WD usage on a 2WD trail that you beat?

j-kb8ymf
yes...well....actually that depends on your def of "beat". it never got to a judge, it went before the referee and was "dismissed" with no ruling.

As for needing legal help, my father in law is a lawyer and has been wheeling with me several times on Drummond, in Canada, and all over the U.P. Some of you have met him. We have hunted out on Drummond for as long as I have been married. He knows our plight and our fight.
Buggy_Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 12:33 AM   #49
Buggy_Tim
(513) 891-8372
 
Buggy_Tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sault Sainte Marie
Posts: 11,824
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironman View Post
A two wheel drive, 4 wheel conventional vehicle is one that does not have AWD or the option of engaging a front drive axle in conjunction with a rear drive system. Being a shop teacher that should be a no-brainer
A no brainer....really? I must be confused then. I mean there are 2wd dodge rams, there are 2 wd mazda miatas...both rear drive...so are you actually saying that they would be able to travel the same distance on rough terrain? How about a Honda civic?

I could name off hundreds of these comparisons. "A two wheel drive, 4 wheel conventional vehicle" can mean MANY MANY different things. Being a shop teacher and working for all 3 U.S. makers and one of the Imports kinda taught me that. WTF kind of comment was that?
Buggy_Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 05:42 AM   #50
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 21,349
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Default

It's been my understanding that the description of a conventional 2wd vehicle is describing a 2wd car. You know, that thing that has about 6" of ground clearance and 26-28" tall street tires. Not a newer model SUV that has taller tires or more ground clearance. Why is this a debatable subject between everyone here? You guys are playing word games with each other rather than banding together to find a way to challenge the law.

Yes, I would like to see a ticket challenged also. I was dissapointed that the ticket on Marble head was dismissed rather than challenged.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 06:42 AM   #51
KartRacer
Blowd up
 
KartRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-05
Location: Riverside, MI 49084
Posts: 6,335
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to KartRacer
Default

I think it is clear that these laws are not clearly written.
KartRacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 06:50 AM   #52
Buggy_Tim
(513) 891-8372
 
Buggy_Tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sault Sainte Marie
Posts: 11,824
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
It's been my understanding that the description of a conventional 2wd vehicle is describing a 2wd car. You know, that thing that has about 6" of ground clearance and 26-28" tall street tires. Not a newer model SUV that has taller tires or more ground clearance. Why is this a debatable subject between everyone here? You guys are playing word games with each other rather than banding together to find a way to challenge the law.

Yes, I would like to see a ticket challenged also. I was dissapointed that the ticket on Marble head was dismissed rather than challenged.
In my experience for a law to stand up, it has to be very clear. I shouldn't have to "guess" or speculate as to what vehicle they are talking about. I am not 100% sure, but I am guessing that this neon here has less than 6 inches of clearance.

I thought we WERE on the same page as far as this law goes as this has been discussed many times and is always the lw that we say needs to be changed, clarified or removed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KartRacer View Post
I think it is clear that these laws are not clearly written.
Buggy_Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 07:36 AM   #53
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,174
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
Running over trees and driving on the beach!

Way to leave your name, date you were there, and your license plate numbers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironman View Post
So has someone sent in the vid yet? Michigan.gov/DNR
Kyle Publiski (sp?) is the officer that was writing all the tickets. I don't have his email, but I'd bet Pat Hallfrisch would be more than willing to forward it on to him. Pat Hallfrisch HALLFRIP@michigan.gov is in charge of the eastern UP for FMFM. He'd probably also like a copy. :tonka:

Last edited by Trail_Fanatic; February 22nd, 2008 at 08:16 AM.
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 07:38 AM   #54
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,174
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws View Post
my father in law is a lawyer and has been wheeling with me several times on Drummond, in Canada, and all over the U.P. He knows our plight and our fight.

Sounds like we should talk with him.
Think he'd be interested in helping out from time to time?
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 07:51 AM   #55
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,121
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Default

I posted in another thread.

Quote:
Any law that leaves interpretation to be the deciding factor is a bad law.
Even "WE" can not decide what 2wd vechicle really means, and we are gear heads, what do the lawmakers know?

The problem I see is that instead of making the law easier to interprate, they will just say fine, no vehicles, 2wd or 4wd.
kickstand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 07:58 AM   #56
Roadhouse
DrivewayJeeper
 
Roadhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sanford
Posts: 10,956
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UP_ROKTOY View Post
I posted in another thread.



Even "WE" can not decide what 2wd vechicle really means, and we are gear heads, what do the lawmakers know?

The problem I see is that instead of making the law easier to interprate, they will just say fine, no vehicles, 2wd or 4wd.
good point
Roadhouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 08:07 AM   #57
kb8ymf
Not as old as Whiterhino
 
kb8ymf's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-01-06
Location: Dryden,Mi.
Posts: 1,105
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws View Post
In my experience for a law to stand up, it has to be very clear. I shouldn't have to "guess" or speculate as to what vehicle they are talking about.

I thought we WERE on the same page as far as this law goes as this has been discussed many times and is always the lw that we say needs to be changed, clarified or removed.
There is a law on the books that says on unmarked roads the speed limit is 'prima facia or reasonable for present road conditions'. This mean that it's subject to the interpetation of the officer if your speed met the requirements.
Ask me how I know.....I recieved a ticket for driving UNDER the speed limit but the road was wet. The officer said I was traveling to fast. He gave me a ticket for 'impeding traffic'. I went to court and fought it. I LOST. The judge said it's up to the discretion of the officer if he thought I was going to fast, and he did. So, $100 later........
No one's arguing the fact we need the law changed. The problem is finding a friendly legislator to help us through the process. The current House Bill 4232 that opened the county roads would have been perfect place to add it on as that bill is modifying P.A. 451 (ORV law). The problem was that those lobbying for that bill felt that stipulation would jeapordize the passage and decided to leave it off.
jim-kb8ymf
kb8ymf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 08:12 AM   #58
kb8ymf
Not as old as Whiterhino
 
kb8ymf's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-01-06
Location: Dryden,Mi.
Posts: 1,105
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Yes, I would like to see a ticket challenged also. I was dissapointed that the ticket on Marble head was dismissed rather than challenged.
And the ones the MudChugger group got at Sno-Blind a year of so back were just paid.
When is someone going to fight this once and for all put an end to this?
Every time some one or some group has an opportunity, some 'deal' is worked out or the fine is just paid.
jim-kb8ymf
kb8ymf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 08:19 AM   #59
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 21,349
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws View Post
In my experience for a law to stand up, it has to be very clear. I shouldn't have to "guess" or speculate as to what vehicle they are talking about. I am not 100% sure, but I am guessing that this neon here has less than 6 inches of clearance.

I thought we WERE on the same page as far as this law goes as this has been discussed many times and is always the lw that we say needs to be changed, clarified or removed.





Well I certainly think that if I get a ticket using a full time or 4wd vehicle and the CO cites the conventional 2wd rule, no judge is going to look at my 4wd/awd and say "you're right, it looks just like a car".

I don't think there is anything vague or ambigious about how the law is written.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 08:26 AM   #60
kb8ymf
Not as old as Whiterhino
 
kb8ymf's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-01-06
Location: Dryden,Mi.
Posts: 1,105
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trail_Fanatic View Post
Kyle Publiski (sp?) is the officer that was writing all the tickets. I don't have his email,
Kyle's......publiskk@michigan.gov
kb8ymf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Land Use > Rules, Regulations, Trail, and ORV Park Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:07 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.43648 seconds with 81 queries