By Ryan Whisner
The Ordinance Committee of the Fort Atkinson City Council has directed city staff to draft an ordinance for its review, allowing ATV and UTV use on city streets.
Recently, the city has been described by some as an island in Jefferson County; it has become one of the only area municipalities which has not yet approved the use of recreational vehicles on city-owned roadways.
County roads, several area towns, and other cities and villages in the area have approved ordinances allowing ATV and UTV riders to use roadways with added restrictions to the existing state statute which governs the use of such vehicles.
As other communities have approved the use of ATVs, Fort Atkinson city staff has maintained opposition to moving forward with such an ordinance, citing enforcement and safety concerns.
In the wake of other area municipalities, including the town of Koshkonong, approving the use of ATVs on their roadways, at least two area ATV club members came forward during the Fort Atkinson City Council’s July 6 meeting, speaking in support of ATV/UTV use on city-owned streets.
Based on input from council members and the public, the city’s Ordinance Committee discussed the concept during its July 6 meeting.
While no vote was taken, council president Bruce Johnson and council member Kyle Jaeckel both supported directing city staff to draft an ordinance to be brought back to the committee or the council for review.
No timeline has been offered as to when the ordinance may be brought back to the committee.
Before any direction was given to city staff, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Conservation Warden Jason Roberts and Fort Atkinson Police Chief Adrian Bump addressed the Ordinance Committee to assist its members in understanding the general nature of the issue and related concerns.
“I don’t really have a dog in this fight,” Roberts said. “The legislators are pretty much clear about trusting the local communities and municipalities to decide as to whether they feel it’s appropriate to open their roads to ATVs and UTVs. It is a growing trend.”
He noted that Waukesha County is the only area county that is holding off on approval, adding that, in general, public road access for ATVs has gone from about 50,000 miles to about 80,000 miles of roadway in about five years.
“Municipalities are opening roads everywhere,” Roberts said. “What that’s going to mean, I guess we’ll have to wait and see as far as accidents, complaints, and that kind of stuff.”
Traditionally, ATV road routes have been routine in the western and northern portions of Wisconsin where ATV trails are more common, and the areas are more rural.
“This part of the state is kind of the canary in the coal mine as to whether or not we’re going to see a jump in statistics with accidents and fatalities because of the urban nature of this area,” Roberts said.
To date, Roberts said there have been 16 fatalities involving ATVs or UTVs this year, of which seven were identified as being on public roads or routes. In 2022 those numbers were 22 and 11 respectively and in 2021 there were 47 fatalities from ATV/UTV with 31 of those occurring on roadways.
DNR data collected in 2020 indicates the most common contributing factors to ATV crashes are inexperience, vehicle speed, and operator error.
In addition, factors leading to fatal crashes are nearly identical and include drinking and drugs, operator error, and vehicle speed.
“The problem we have is we have a body of law that governs ATV and UTV use in the state,” Roberts said. “It’s very antiquated, it’s built around them being used off-road, and now they’re on the public roadways.”
Depending on the type of traffic violation, enforcement may differ between a motor vehicle and an ATV or UTV. Roberts noted that violations such as fleeing, following too close or not stopping for a stop sign, can be treated under the traffic code.
However, among the biggest challenges is operating while intoxicated or OWI offenses. For those on ATVs, it falls under state statute 23.33 versus the traffic code in statute 346.
“It’s just the penalties are not the same,” Roberts said. “With a motor vehicle, you get your license suspended or if you get arrested or get your license revoked if you refuse. There’s none of that. It’s just basically a ticket once you go through all the other processes of it.”
Also, he said it does not count as an OWI against your regular driving record. If a driver has three motor vehicle OWIs on their record and gets an OWI on their ATV, it’s not a fourth offense, it’s a first-offense ATV OWI.
According to Roberts, the difference in enforcement relates to a lack of requirements regarding driver’s licenses and ATV use. In some cases, only a DNR safety certification is required, he said.
The DNR warden noted that in some communities that have opened their roadways to ATVs, people have started using ATVs or UTVs because they’ve lost their driver’s licenses because of OWI charges.
“They’re sort of getting a loop around their suspension or revocation by using ATVs and UTVs,” Roberts said.
He noted that most communities have addressed the issue by requiring a valid driver’s license as part of their ATV ordinance. In addition to partially addressing the OWI loophole, communities have also set an age restriction of 16, compared to the state, which permits 12-year-olds under supervision to operate an ATV.
Roberts said state law requires ATV registration. Other common restrictions found in the local community ordinances include liability insurance requirements, having no open intoxicants or limits to hours of operation until 10 p.m.
The warden suggested that any ordinance should likely include full adoption of the state code to allow enforcement of noise complaints.
“I know in our state we don’t address loud motorcycles,” Roberts said. “The state does address loud ATVs, snowmobiles, and UTVs. There’s a testing procedure we’ve been trained on so if you get complaints, you guys feel free to forward it off to us and it’s an actual standard that holds up to scrutiny.”
By law, he said, municipalities can create ordinances that are more restrictive than existing state law.
Under state law, the DNR has no review authority other than the individual municipality ordinances that are being approved.
Roberts noted that state statutes indicate that municipalities are meant to adopt ordinances that remain in “strict conformity” with the state law.
“Strict conformity doesn’t say you can keep a 12-year-old off the road,” Roberts said.
Nevertheless, communities have been setting those standards in the interest of public safety.
“Once again, it goes back to that idea that it’s supposed to be strict conformity,” Roberts said. “It’s just really challenging when every single community has different ordinances and they’re seemingly connected.”
When operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway, he noted that there is a principle that all drivers know what the basic standards are.
“We follow the street speed limit signs, we know what stop signs are, everything’s generally uniform,” Roberts said. “Now suddenly, I cross from your city into the township, and now I need liability and I can’t drive at 16 but you can drive at 12. If everyone followed the statute, which says strict conformity, it would be a lot nicer, but that’s not what’s happening. Everyone’s kind of just doing their own thing.”
Other than reviewing the concept of any ordinance the city might be considering, Roberts also shared some general information.
“ATVs inherently are designed for off-road use,” he said. “That’s how they’re engineered. They don’t handle quick turns very well, especially on paved surfaces. They’re built for the mud, the dirt, the gravel, the off-road conditions.”
On pavement, he said, when you take a turn too quickly the traditional low-pressure ATV tires can fold over themselves.
“If you hit the rim on the pavement they tip pretty easily, tipping to the side,” Roberts said.
Additionally, he said, there is a different dynamic that is occurring: Some people ride trails more aggressively, which he hasn’t seen on public roadways.
“I’ve seen more older folks, with very expensive units, treating them just like motor vehicles,” Robert said. “It’s really difficult to say how things are going to pan out.”
On ice or in rainy conditions, Roberts suggested it would likely be just as challenging as it would be with a regular motor vehicle.
“They’re more geared toward that kind of environment than your Michelin street tires but on bare conditions, that’s where you see the disparity,” Roberts said. “People are putting road tires on their ATVs because they have just been driving them on the roads and that’s way safer than the low-pressure all-terrain tires.”
Roberts said ATVs are not built for paved surfaces unless one puts the appropriate tires on them.
“Even then, the engineering and the intent of them is as an off-road machine.
“I don’t personally understand $25,000 for an ATV, I’d rather buy a Jeep to ride on the road, but I get it people like their toys, and it is fun to ride an ATV,” Roberts said.
Council member Mason Becker said he agreed with those members of city staff who have expressed that moving forward with an ordinance may not be the right path.
“I appreciate all the feedback and I appreciate the people that have been advocating for this,” he said. “I think they’ve been trying to go about it in a very respectful, thoughtful way.”
As a council member, Becker said he tends to err on the side of public safety. He cited as concerns insurance issues and enforcement challenges.
Becker noted that he was in northern Wisconsin recently and saw a Fourth of July parade that consisted primarily of ATVs and UTVs.
“They’re proud of it and it makes sense up there because it’s a rural area,” he said.
However, that same weekend, Becker said he witnessed ATV riders exhibiting behavior that he would not want to see in Fort Atkinson.
“There was no enforcement in that area because it’s just too rural,” he said. “Those would be things on my mind, and I would be very concerned with if we were to look at this any further.”
Based on the concerns cited by city staff, including those associated with state-level enforcement, Becker said he did not think the city was ready to move something forward right now.
Johnson strongly disagreed, arguing that Fort Atkinson was an island because the concept had been vetted all around it.
“It’s been vetted by many municipalities, counties, and towns,” he said. “It doesn’t go from us to just happening; we’re going to have to draft an ordinance and we’re all going to get to look at the ordinance and say, ‘this is a good ordinance’ or we need to change the ordinance and add or subtract from it until we’re comfortable that we’ve got a fair, safe and quality ordinance if we’re going to approve it.”
Becker added that he felt that it was a popular enough issue, expanding across the southern counties, that it is hard not to address it.
“I think that the public would like it because they have liked it in enough counties and places across the state as it’s growing,” Johnson said.
Becker said he had contacted a colleague in a neighboring community that had allowed ATVs on the public roads and learned that they had not had any problems.
“At the same time, the fact that everybody else is doing it, that’s not necessarily the most convincing argument for me,” he said. “Every community is different. What works in White Lake doesn’t necessarily work here. And what works in Jefferson may not work here or vice versa. I’m not convinced this is ready right now,” he said.
A story including comments from Fort Atkinson Police Chief Adrian Bump regarding a potential ATV/UTV use on city streets ordinance is here: https://fortatkinsononline.com/should-fort-allow-atv-utv-use-on-city-owned-streets-police-chief-weighs-in/.
File photo/unsplash.com.
This post has already been read 3298 times!
