Photo by Whitehorse Star
Dave Pruden
Officials anticipate some dissent from ATVers
ATV riders in the city could be subject to new rules by the end of July.
ATV riders in the city could be subject to new rules by the end of July.
If city council votes to go ahead with the first reading of the proposed ATV Bylaw update next Monday, a public input session on the changes would follow at the July 9 council meeting.
That would be followed with a report on the hearing prior to second and third readings of the bylaw coming forward on July 23.
The input portion could mark the final consultation session on the bylaw that's being rewritten after 22 years.
The topic has been the subject of much public debate in the form of three surveys and an open house, and is being worked on by a task force representing various interests in ATV use.
At this week's council meeting, bylaw services manager Dave Pruden said officials made an effort to keep the ATV regulations consistent with the recently revised snowmobile bylaw.
He went on to outline the three major changes ATV riders will notice if the bylaw comes into effect:
• Similar to the snowmobile regulations, local ATV operators would be required to get a card to ride within the city no later than Jan. 6, 2014.
The Safe ATV Card would not be required by operators who are not Whitehorse residents and in the city for a period shorter than two weeks.
The requirement is suggested as a matter of public safety and operator awareness, Pruden stated in his report to council.
• ATVs would be permitted on roads, provided the driver is heading between his or her home to and from the nearest multi-use motorized trail, also consistent with the snowmobile bylaw.
In addition to taking the most direct route between their home to the trail system, those using the road must drive as close to the right curb or edge of the road as possible and no faster than 30 kilometres an hour.
• Unlike the snowmobile bylaw, those driving ATVs would be limited to using multi-use motorized trails (along with roads to get to and from the trails).
While both snowmobile and ATV operators are required to stay out of environmentally sensitive areas, ATVs would have to stay on the trail while snowmobiles could venture off.
As Pruden pointed out, the proposal comes due to the lack of ground cover to protect the land, which is more sensitive in the spring, summer and fall than in the winter.
The requirement also came forward as a recommendation of the task force.
Requirements that riders wear helmets and have insurance will remain in the bylaw.
City officials aren't anticipating overwhelming applause for the new rules.
Pruden's report to council noted not everyone will be happy with the proposed rules.
"Emphasis must be made that bringing forward a new ATV Bylaw will be unpopular in many circles and will not go far enough for others,” his report states.
With new subdivisions planned for the city, there's a need to plan trail systems and develop legislation that meets both community and environmental needs, working with the trail system and plans for the future.
"With adequate legislation in place to meet the needs of the community, the city can then focus on a robust education campaign to inform the public and ATV operators of the regulations,” it's stated.
As it does with many new bylaws, enforcing new regulations would come only after the education campaign.
"A key part of the education would be having operators write a test to ensure they know and understand the regulations about ATV use in Whitehorse,” reads the report.
"Online testing can be provided, which would allow people to complete a test of their knowledge on the ATV Bylaw and Tread Lightly material, as noted in the trail plan.”
Many, it was suggested, "will point out” Whitehorse isn't like other places, and they would be correct.
Yellowknife has about 20 kilometres of trails which aren't maintained within the city, and other jurisdictions in Canada have trails that mainly exist on private property.
"Adversely, the City of Whitehorse has approximately 135 km of designated motorized multiple-use trails and over 700 km of other trails under its care or control,” Pruden stated in the report, which seems to praise the city's trails.
"This existing trail system is maintained by volunteers, grant funds and taxpayer dollars.
"Our city is unique in this way and has a very active trail system used by many different users.
"All users need to respect each other's rights, respect safety and respect the environment and to abide by local legislation.”
Coun. Florence Roberts was quick to praise the work of bylaw staff and the task force in coming up with the revised regulations after Pruden brought forward his report Monday.
Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (15)
Up 0 Down 0
Billy Polson on Jul 1, 2012 at 12:47 am
Geez Patrick...is the sky falling? Can you provide more proof of this rampant drinking and driving before casting all ORV owners as drunks?
Are there fields of ruts and scarring out there? Your boots leave prints in the soft ground too....ban boots! God knows some folks drink and walk.
Up 0 Down 0
Patrick on Jun 28, 2012 at 7:33 am
To Susan Rogan
While insurance will likely not prevent poor driving habits and drinking and driving it promotes more accountability. You need a drivers license to get insurance if you use streets or roads and if you do drink and drive it may cost you a license suspension and a large increase in your insurance policy. I see damaged habitat from 4 wheelers all the time. In some cases the plants will colonize again and the bare patches will eventually be covered but the question I have is why do we allow this destruction- temporary or long term. My driveway is close to a city trail and people regularly leave beer cans there prior to drinking on a city street. So they are drinking and driving- often late at night ocasionally in lighting conditions that are marginal. Recent case law in the Yukon has shown that you can be charged and convicted of impaired driving after drinking and driving but not being over the legal limit.
As a taxpayer why should I have to put up with the noise and thoughtlessness of those individuals and the potential of our pets or people walking on the trails being injured by them.
The city is so large that many trails are never visited by bylaw.
Up 0 Down 0
north_of_60 on Jun 27, 2012 at 11:40 am
Insurance and a city license should be mandatory. The city license should be large enough that it is easily seen by people so infractions can be reported.
I am fine with a large, identifying license to be displayed on the bikes because that could be meaningful in terms of identifying people...
...and a large identifying license tag is the bylaw the city should have brought forward. Of course they didn't because this 'bylaw' isn't supposed to do anything but appease the squeaky wheels that are complaining.
This city government is an expensive but ineffective joke... October elections will bring a welcome change in 'leadership'.
Up 0 Down 0
Jackie Ward on Jun 27, 2012 at 10:08 am
There should be roundabouts on every ATV trail. Especially all the walking trails in Whitehorse. And photos and a recorded message from our commander in chief Bev "Taxes R 2 Low" Buckway, every 15 feet. I would do the same to downtown so we can better help the tourists put a face and voice to their disappointment.
Up 0 Down 0
Susan Rogan on Jun 26, 2012 at 9:15 am
I am out riding on a regular basis and have never once seen a person have even one drink before or while riding. I have never seen a 'cowboy attitude' displayed by the people I ride with either. Just remember that you are addressing the 95% who are responsible trail riders when you talk about imposing insurance in order to go after the 5% who are 'drinking and driving' and who have 'bad driving habits'. Plus, as I said before, a requirement for insurance is not going to affect those people anyway. What is needed is a bylaw presents on the trail and enforcement of existing and new rules that address noise, dangerous driving, and environmental protection. Insurance requirements will not magically change the behaviour of the bad actors. I am very interested in hearing how you believe liability insurance will change these behaviours, which are already illegal and not enforced.
Up 0 Down 0
Susan Rogan on Jun 26, 2012 at 9:07 am
Patrick, can you tell me why you think insurance will prevent the poor driving habits and drinking and driving that you believe is occasionally happening on city trails? I am fine with a large, identifying license to be displayed on the bikes because that could be meaningful in terms of identifying people who are in fact drinking and driving, or who are driving badly, or wrecking habitat. But to impose expenses such as insurance, there should be direct justification and a very clear path between the insurance, and how it will help reach the goals of the bylaws.
Up 0 Down 0
Patrick on Jun 26, 2012 at 8:17 am
My personal experienced with motorized vehicles on city trails is that there is some drinking and driving and the driving habits are on occasion, very poor.
Insurance and a city license should be mandatory. The city license should be large enough that it is easily seen by people so infractions can be reported.
If there are complaints in some areas they can be targeted by city bylaw enforcement and the RCMP.
Lets progress and stop the drinking and driving and the cowboy attitude that is shown by motorized vehicle operators. Lets clean up our trail use.
Up 0 Down 0
JayManC on Jun 25, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Absolutely Stupid!! what a crock of poo! Than bicyclists should need the same thing as well, for driving on the road, with no helmets and no lights. Unbelievable!
Up 0 Down 0
Northone on Jun 24, 2012 at 1:14 am
Agreed, law won't be enforced, isn't meant to be, much like any other environmental laws in the Yukon.
Furthermore, given that bylaw officers are not peace officers, they do not have arrest and seizure capability. It would appear that they'd have trouble enforcing this bylaw even if there was a will to do so.
Up 0 Down 0
north_of_60 on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:22 am
Yet another un-enforcable bylaw which will be ignored.
The ineffective 'jokes for laws' will continue until ALL motor vehicles are required to clearly display a license tag, with seizure of untagged motor vehicles the penalty.
Up 0 Down 0
susie rogan on Jun 22, 2012 at 5:01 am
I called my insurance company, TD Melloche Monex. They insure each bike individually, they do not give insurance to 'a rider'. The insurance is between $110 and $300 per bike, per season. The average policy is, "about $175", and each bike and quad must have its own policy at full price. The expense per summer will add up quickly, especially for families and people with more than one ATV. In any case, the insurance is not valid for riders under 16 years of age, or for anyone who does not have a motorcycle driver's license. Meanwhile no drivers license is required by the City of Whitehorse in order to operate ATV's on City trails. Is it your intention to deny poor people and young people the right to operate an ATV in the city? Be aware of the implications before requiring liability insurance. This requirement will exclude legitimate users, particularly the young and poor.
Up 0 Down 0
susie rogan on Jun 22, 2012 at 4:53 am
Regarding the insurance clause: How do third party liability claims or complaint of injury made against an ATV user on City of Whitehorse trails compare with complaints or injuries due to dog bites or mountain bike riders? Do pet owners and bicycle riders need liability insurance in order to use City of Whitehorse trails? Why is it that ATV riders are the only user group being targeted for liability insurance?
As with most user groups, be they bicyclists, dog owners, kids at the Games Center, most of the problems come from 5% of people. Those people should be targeted with laws regarding noise, speed, destruction of ecology, and reckless endangerment of others.
However, existing laws regarding ATV use in the City have not been enforced against those people, and this has been a problem for years. Adding new laws will not affect this cohort any more than the existing laws do.
Insurance does not target yahoos, it targets everyone. There is no demonstrated need for liability insurance to pay liability claims, which is the only legitimate justification for liability insurance.
Given history in the City of Whitehorse, perhaps people should need $2 million in liability insurance in order to enter the Canada Games Center.
Accidents, vandalism and bad behaviour happen in all areas of life yet no one is expected to have liability insurance to use Whitehorse facilities and trails except for ATV users. The blatant discriminatory targeting of ATV users should call in to question the motivations of people behind these bylaws.
They are not seeking liability insurance requirement because ATV's have been proven to be uniquely dangerous, nor because of incidents which have proven the need for such insurance. It is simply an unjustified obstacle for a certain type of trail user. There should have to be direct justification for the insurance requirement, such as proof that ATV users have been repeatedly sued for damages but have not paid up. This justification does not exist.
I am not buying for one minute that this is about protecting people who have not been paid third party liability settlements, and that alone is the only legitimate justification for requiring liability insurance.
Up 0 Down 0
Guncache on Jun 22, 2012 at 3:07 am
This is just one of many bylaws that the City passes that they cannot or will not enforce. I think they pass them to appease the crowd that complains the most. Bylaw has no mandate to stop moving vehicles and as a result there is no point in stopping. If you are on a trail near a highway and a bylaw officer on the highway waves you over, why stop? Is the bylaw officer going to run after you? I think not. No matter how many laws are passed there is always a small element who will recklessly drive. Most ATV'ers drive responsibly but they get penalized and have to have their "Safe card". What a joke, and to think that the taxpayer wastes money on these fools that dream this stuff up.
Up 0 Down 0
Patrick on Jun 22, 2012 at 2:52 am
Good luck with the enforcement.
In my part of the city I would prefer that skidoos and 4 wheelers use trail access points which require some travel along public roads.
This will provide easier monitoring, check stops for licenses, drinking and driving and noise violations for dirt bikes.
Up 0 Down 0
Just Say'in on Jun 21, 2012 at 11:34 am
Just remember. All these buerocrats that move here and decide it should be just like Calgary Vancouver or Toronto, are not protecting the environment "For You" rather they are protecting it "From You". Remember whatever it is you like to do will be next!!!!