Steve Wright: Should ATVs be allowed on town roads?

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Steve Wright, of Craftsbury, who was commissioner of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department from 1985-1989.

[W]hen Gov. Phil Scott visited Island Pond recently, more than one resident asked to have state land opened to ATVs. It reminded me of similar ATV proposals 30 years ago; as a state bureaucrat I had a duty to consider them. Today’s deliberations about ATV use have expanded to include allowing ATVs on other “public land,” specifically town roads. This conversation is unfolding in many Vermont towns, mine included.

The casual observer may have noticed that opening roads to ATVs has increased illegal ATV use in Orleans County. A call to the sheriff can confirm. Violations observed include riding through state waters in a wildlife management area, and driving on state highways and town roads not open to ATVs.

ATVs are not manufactured for on-road use, and do not qualify as “motor vehicles” regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation. States have the authority to allow ATVs on public roads. In Vermont, the Legislature gave that authority to towns. Yet, the ATV Safety Institute, the not-for-profit subdivision of the national association for ATV manufacturers, Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, states in their Tips and Practice Guide for the All Terrain Vehicle Operator, “ATVs are intended for off-road use only. Never operate an ATV on public roads, and always avoid paved surfaces. ATVs are not designed for use on public roads.” This disconnect sends a mixed message to towns, residents, and ATV users.

Consumer Federation of America, a 50-year-old association of nearly 300 nonprofit consumer groups, states in their 2014 report, ATVs on Roadways: A Safety Crisis: “In spite of warnings from manufacturers, federal agencies, and consumer and safety advocates that all terrain vehicles (ATVs) are unsafe on roadways, for several years an increasing number of states have passed laws allowing ATVs on public roads. The majority of ATV deaths take place on these roads and action is needed to reverse this dangerous trend.”

Those promoting ATV use on town roads cite economic benefits to retail businesses, and their “right” as taxpayers to use municipal roads. These claims, like most town decisions, can be considered in the context of costs and risks to taxpayers. The tire design that makes ATVs safe off-road, makes them unsafe on roads. It’s a tough sell to ignore physics.

If we look at town roads through the “public lands” lens the considerations include public safety, traffic, enforcement, noise, signage (required by statute), and road maintenance. Public safety, traffic, and noise indirectly affect a town’s financial stability because each can influence property values and quality of life that drives housing purchases. (A test case in Nova Scotia resulted in a 15 percent reduction in property value on a residence adjacent to an ATV trail.) Enforcement, road signage and unanticipated road maintenance add direct costs.

Questions about public safety, noise, and enforcement are at the heart of the “do we, don’t we” vote.

What about noise? The background noise level in rural areas is generally 30 to 40 decibels (dB). A research paper, “The Impact of Traffic Noise on Housing Values,” gives this number context: “According to World Health Organization (WHO, 1999), noises under 45 dBA are endurable. However, for outdoor activities, exposure levels exceeding 55 dBA are deemed highly unpleasant and unacceptable as defined by EPA (1981).” In other words, a passing ATV, estimated at 75 – 89 dB at 45 feet (Noise NavigatorTM Sound Level Database), will sound loud, and have a high probability of being annoying. If two or more ATVs pass by together the noise level rises and can exceed 15 times background levels typical in rural areas.

Who will enforce the law that governs ATV traffic in a town – likely a town ordinance? Vermont ATV Sportsman’s Association (VASA) states on its website that they contract with Fish and Wildlife wardens for enforcement on their trail network. The Orleans County Sheriff’s office confirmed VASA contracts with them to enforce on roads open to ATVs. Given the amount of illegal ATV traffic, the current level of enforcement is not reassuring. Residents expect enforcement, and may be reluctant to approve ATV travel without an effective plan for enforcement.

It is the most natural of human instincts to care most about change that will affect the enjoyment and value of our homes, and our personal safety. There is a wealth of easily accessible policymaking guidance on issues of public safety, noise, and enforcement that taxpayers, potential new property owners, and voters can draw from to make informed decisions.

Is it time for state policymakers to acknowledge the economic and quality of life issues raised by ATV use on town roads? For now, towns are on their own to manage ATV traffic. The first step is to ensure voters have a voice, that the decisions to open town roads to ATVs, and their regulation, are made by the voters. Australian ballot voting, with the option of absentee ballots, gives a voice to all voters.

Regulating the use of public lands is, at best, a balancing act. Data and precedence are helpful. In the end, there is almost always a measure of risk. Decisions come down to how much risk a regulatory body, or a community, is willing to take. What are you willing to gamble?