Changes to the ORV intoxicated Laws - Bill AB439 Please read the last sentence

100 Mile Snow Safari General Chat
Post Reply
User avatar
snohawk
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:17 pm

Changes to the ORV intoxicated Laws - Bill AB439 Please read the last sentence

Post by snohawk »

Significant changes to ORV intoxicated laws, Motor Vehicle license revocation and elimination of Snowmobile Safety Classrom hours requirement have been proposed.

AB-439 was introduced by Representative Bies on December 20, 2011
Bill History: [url]http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2011/data/AB439hst.html[/url]
Relating to: intoxicated operation of all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, motorboats, and motor vehic...
[url]http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/re ... sals/ab439[/url]


Wisconsin law currently has separate groups of statutes that regulate three types of Off Road vehicle operation: ATV, motorboat and snowmobile operation under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. To make this summary simpler, lets call these three types: “Off-Road Vehicle” (ORV) intoxicated operation. Car/truck/motorcycle is referred to as Motor Vehicle (MV) intoxicated operation. This law makes the statutory provisions of ORV intoxicated operations more consistent for all three types.

Assembly Bill 439 proposes these changes. It has been assigned to the Assembly Transportation Committe initially. This summary is in the same order, as the Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau at the beginning of the bill. This law will take effect on the 1st day of the 4th month beginning after publication.

----------------------------

1. It raises the age of absolute sobriety (zero tolerance) for snowmobile and ATV’s to 21, which makes it consistent with motorboats.

2. Where the penalties for a type of ORV intoxicated operation or refusal to test, is less than for another type of ORV, the higher penalty is adopted for all.

3. Increased penalties for violating ORV intoxicated operation or ORV refusal to test, if the ORV has a passenger under 16 years of age.

4. Repeals the increased penalties for ATV operation with a Blood Alcohol Concentrations (BAC) of 0.17% or more.

* Currently repeat offense penalties only count previous convictions on the SAME TYPE of Off-Road Vehicle. This bill would count convictions on any of the three ORV’s in the previous 5 years (staring with this bill’s effective date) when imposing a penalty.

* Requires a court to suspend the operator’s privilege on all ORV operations for between 12 and 16 months when a penaly is imposed for ORV intoxicated operation or ORV refusal. It also provides a forfeiture and additional 6 month operating privilege suspension for violating the order of suspension (operating with a suspensed privilege).

>>* If found guilty of a repeat violation of ORV intoxicated operation or ORV refusal within the previous five years, the court is required to revoke the Motor Vehicle (MV) privilege (driver’s license) for not less than 6 months and not more than 12 months. This person may be eligible for an occupational driver’s license at any time during the revocation period. Reinstatement of the revoked MV driver’s privilege has a $140 fee.

>>* If a person has had their MV operating privilege suspended or revoked for violation of MV operation while intoxicated, they may not operate an ORV for that same period. It also provides a forfeiture and additional 6 month operating privilege suspension for violating the order of suspension (operating with a suspensed privilege).

* Similar to existing MV operation law, persons with 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenses of the ORV intoxicated operation or refusal law, may have their sentences reduced if the violator succesfully completes a period of probation that includes an alcohol and drug treatment program. A person can receive this sentence reduction only once.

>>. This bill repeals the requirement for persons under the age of 16, to receive 6 hours of classroom instruction, and it repeals the option for the instructor to provide up to 2 additional hours of instruction on a snowmobile as to how it is actually operated.
xltman
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:30 pm

Post by xltman »

Are you kidding?!? Am I reading this right or does it say that there no longer required snowmobile safety course?:shrug:
User avatar
Pat1
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:04 am

Post by Pat1 »

[QUOTE=xltman;13547]Are you kidding?!? Am I reading this right or does it say that there no longer required snowmobile safety course?:shrug:[/QUOTE]

That is what I am reading, too. However, similar to ATV, would there still be an online course requirement?
User avatar
snohawk
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:17 pm

Post by snohawk »

[QUOTE=xltman;13547]Are you kidding?!? Am I reading this right or does it say that there no longer required snowmobile safety course?:shrug:[/QUOTE]
Yes that is what this bill would get rid off. Not sure how everyone else feels but when you teach some of the young kids snowmobile safety, you wonder if they really understand the point and if the only course required would be an online course we are all domed when these 12-16 year old come head on driving the parents 800 sled. Good job to the Politicians they are almost in the same league as the weather people that said this was suppose to be the worst of all winters :thumbdown: Got to get the lawn mower out now :lol:

Will find out more at the next county meeting on the 11th, will try to find out more infromation


[QUOTE=Pat1;13550]That is what I am reading, too. However, similar to ATV, would there still be an online course requirement?[/QUOTE]
User avatar
Av25842
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Townsend

Post by Av25842 »

I think even with the course the parents should be the ones teaching and enforcing safe riding. Some things you can't learn in books and lectures. A little bit of discipline goes a long way.
User avatar
Pat1
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:04 am

Post by Pat1 »

[QUOTE=Av25842;13553]I think even with the course the parents should be the ones teaching and enforcing safe riding. Some things you can't learn in books and lectures. A little bit of discipline goes a long way.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree. I took the course with my son and my wife took the course with our daughter. We wanted our kids to see we took it seriously. We never ride without helmets, even if we are just riding the sled from the cabin to the ice fishing hole a hundred yards out. Kids will watch their parents and do as they do, not necessarily as they say.
zr600rider
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:37 am

Post by zr600rider »

[QUOTE=xltman;13547]Are you kidding?!? Am I reading this right or does it say that there no longer required snowmobile safety course?:shrug:[/QUOTE]

Yeah i agree and that this is a joke. The state is doing the same thing with the hunter safety courses as well. If your 10 and older i believe, you dont have to take the courses but you have to hunt with somebody that has a hunter certificate or was born the years before they made the courses a required thing. These kids are not going to get the required knowledge about the outdoors dealing with hunting and such or how to properly handle a firearm.
Dont know why the state is making all these weird changes:shrug:, but it's not good:thumbdown:
Post Reply