Post by Wyldcomfort on Mar 3, 2007 22:48:59 GMT -5
From Lindy
Wow, so it looks like someone else has already had a pretty good start on inventing our wheel........Found this today doing homework - wanted to pass it on...this is similiar in the direction we would like to see SAFETYride develop....maybe with some nice parks grants...
Lindy
PAOHV Home Page
PAOHV Officers
PAOHV Members
PAOHV Membership Application
PAOHV Constitution & Bylaws
PAOHV Meeting Minutes
PAOHV Newsletter
PAOHV Rider Training & Safety
OHV Press Releases
SAAC Home Page
SAAC Bylaws
SAAC Membership & Contacts
SAAC Meeting Minutes
Useful Links
Archives
Email Webmaster
Consumer Product Safety Commission Testimony
Michael Babusci, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Off Highway Vehicle Association
(PaOHV)
Morgantown, WV
June 5, 2003
Hello, my name is Michael Babusci and I’m the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Off-Highway Vehicle Association (PaOHV). The PaOHV is a statewide organization of individuals and clubs interested in promoting the safe and responsible use of ATVs and off road motorcycles. Our organization is relatively new but we are actively working with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) through our involvement on the newly created Snowmobile ATV Advisory Committee (SAAC). ATV safety and safety training happens to be one of the issues that we are currently addressing as part of the advisory committee activities.
I would like to thank the Commission for providing us with an opportunity to address the issues that were raised in the subject petition. I’m sure we are going to hear, and have already heard, a lot of statistics and interpretation of those statistics that both support and contradict the proposed action suggested in the petition. I’m equally sure we are going to be hearing testimony that speculates on ulterior motives of some of the petitioners. But beyond all of the testemony that may take place today, the Commission eventually needs to focus on safety. Specifically, the safety of a product, ATVs, and of a user group for that product, children under 16.
It’s my understanding that this is really “Round Two” of the ATV safety discussion. Many of the same issues raised in the current petition were raised in a previous petition to the CPSC in the mid 1980’s. That discussion ended with a consent decree that effectively removed three wheeled ATVs from the product line of off-road vehicle manufacturers and instituted a largely voluntary effort for implementing a safety-training program.
Over the past 15 years we have had an opportunity to see the strengths and weaknesses of this decree. I would like to offer some observations that we feel are pertinent to this discussion.
It’s clear that ATV users are being injured. I’ll leave it to the statisticians to argue whether;
1. the injury figures that are being quoted in the petition are accurate,
2. they represent a significant portion of overall users,
3. they fall within expected ranges for the number of ATVs that have been sold in the past 15 years, and
4. they are comparable with injuries sustained in other physical recreational activities.
We are willing to concede that some individuals, especially children, are being injured on ATVs and that number, whatever it may be, is too high.
It’s our contention that the machines themselves are not the problem. The past petition and resulting consent decree effectively eliminated three wheeled ATVs (which were judged to be unstable) and replaced them with four wheeled ATVs (which were assumed to be significantly more stable and therefore safer). It’s apparent from the language in the petition that this was for naught because, as the petition states, “the relative increase in safety is negligible.” In our judgment, it would be difficult to alter, accessorize, or modify an ATV to make it significantly safer without creating an altogether different riding experience.
We feel that many of the causative factors that result in ATV injuries are related in part to a lack of training, but also in a large part to a lack of common sense by the user. Alcohol use (or I should say abuse) is often linked to ATV accidents as well as riding without a helmet, riding too fast for conditions, operating an ATV in a dangerous or reckless manner, etc. If you review enough accident reports you are going to find your fair share of the following
“A forty-eight year old male died when the ATV he was operating on a lake was driven into open water. It was later determined that the driver had a blood alcohol content of 0.23 and that he did not have a safety training certificate.” or
“Two teenagers were killed when the ATV on which they were riding hit a utility pole. The driver, apparently driving at an excessive rate of speed, skidded on loose gravel and lost control of the vehicle. Neither teenager was wearing a helmet.”
So what do we do about this?
Following the consent decree, the ATV Safety Institute (ASI) in conjunction with the ATV manufacturers and dealers began offering safety training to those individuals who purchased new ATVs. The training program was voluntary but most manufacturers offered some type of rebate as encouragement to attend the training. The curriculum of the training program is very comprehensive and consists of classroom style training as well as actual “hands on” training using an ATV.
Anyone that I talk to who either taught the program or has attended the program, agrees that the technical content and format of the course are commendable. There are however two “administrative” flaws that are almost universally mentioned as needing correction.
While the cost of the course is waived for anyone who purchases a new ATV, there is a significant fee associated with attending the course on your own. These fees ($125 for adults and $75 for children) are enough to dissuade many users from attending a course, especially if you want to attend as a family. The second flaw has to do with the age to machine size limitations that are largely a product of the consent decree. The ASI requires that children from 6 years old to 11 must be trained on ATVs whose displacement is limited to 70 cc’s or less; children from 12 to15 must be trained on ATV’s that have a displacement of 90 cc’s or less. Establishing machine size limits based upon a child’s age is inadequate and misguided. Kids under 16 vary widely in height, weight, and ability. Anyone who has ever seen a 6-foot tall, 15 year old trying to squeeze onto a 90 cc ATV will realize the ludicrous nature of this requirement.
With the help of the PaOHV, Pennsylvania’s DCNR has prepared a modified safety training program that rectifies both of these issues and they are in the process of implementing it statewide. The Pennsylvania training program uses essentially the same technical information as that of the ASI, however it eliminates the mandatory fee structure and leaves the decision of whether an ATV is appropriately sized for a user, up to the instructor. Instructors will be permitted to schedule training sessions without prior consent from a governing body such as the ASI. They are entitled to charge any reasonable fee for an individual’s training, provided that it does not exceed $50.00. The trainers are expected to use their own good judgment in determining machine fit for trainees. This will permit large and small children the opportunity to be trained on an appropriately sized machine. Some examples of machine fit criteria include the following.
· Do the driver’s feet easily reach the foot pegs of the ATV?
· Can the driver comfortably reach the handlebars while sitting in an upright position?
· Can the driver easily manipulate the levers and shifters on the machine?
· Can the driver turn the handlebars from lock to lock?
· Does the driver understand and can they operate the starting and stopping features of the ATV.
· Does the driver have proper safety equipment.
All of these criteria can be easily observed or tested before the machine needs to be started.
The Pennsylvania training program also requires the parents of minors to sign a consent form on the day of the training. The parents are also encouraged to attend the training their children, perhaps with the hope that they will pick up a few things on their own, but primarily so they can reinforce the training as the need may arise. The training program stresses the importance of parental supervision while operating ATVs.
The Pennsylvania ATV safety-training program is not designed to compete with the ASI program. The intent is to supplement it and to provide a formal training program that is more affordable and easier to access. At the PaOHV, we are hopeful that the administrative revisions to the training program will allow the program to be extended to groups of children, teenagers, and even adults at venues and times that are unrelated to a specific ATV purchase. Individuals who do not own an ATV and are driving one for the first time incur their fair share of injuries. It’s not inconceivable that children could receive ATV safety training as a part of a school, club, or extracurricular activity such as the 4-H program or Boys Scouts and Girl Scouts of America.
The Pennsylvania DCNR is also taking the steps needed to make sure children and teenagers of all ages and sizes can be trained on appropriately sized machines. We are hopeful that no more teenagers will have to be turned away from a training session because the machine they are riding exceeds some arbitrary standard for their age.
I hope the Commission will take these comments into consideration and I hope they will see that, at least in Pennsylvania, we are concerned about ATV injuries and we are taking what we feel are prudent steps to address these concerns.
I thank you for your time.
Wow, so it looks like someone else has already had a pretty good start on inventing our wheel........Found this today doing homework - wanted to pass it on...this is similiar in the direction we would like to see SAFETYride develop....maybe with some nice parks grants...
Lindy
PAOHV Home Page
PAOHV Officers
PAOHV Members
PAOHV Membership Application
PAOHV Constitution & Bylaws
PAOHV Meeting Minutes
PAOHV Newsletter
PAOHV Rider Training & Safety
OHV Press Releases
SAAC Home Page
SAAC Bylaws
SAAC Membership & Contacts
SAAC Meeting Minutes
Useful Links
Archives
Email Webmaster
Consumer Product Safety Commission Testimony
Michael Babusci, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Off Highway Vehicle Association
(PaOHV)
Morgantown, WV
June 5, 2003
Hello, my name is Michael Babusci and I’m the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Off-Highway Vehicle Association (PaOHV). The PaOHV is a statewide organization of individuals and clubs interested in promoting the safe and responsible use of ATVs and off road motorcycles. Our organization is relatively new but we are actively working with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) through our involvement on the newly created Snowmobile ATV Advisory Committee (SAAC). ATV safety and safety training happens to be one of the issues that we are currently addressing as part of the advisory committee activities.
I would like to thank the Commission for providing us with an opportunity to address the issues that were raised in the subject petition. I’m sure we are going to hear, and have already heard, a lot of statistics and interpretation of those statistics that both support and contradict the proposed action suggested in the petition. I’m equally sure we are going to be hearing testimony that speculates on ulterior motives of some of the petitioners. But beyond all of the testemony that may take place today, the Commission eventually needs to focus on safety. Specifically, the safety of a product, ATVs, and of a user group for that product, children under 16.
It’s my understanding that this is really “Round Two” of the ATV safety discussion. Many of the same issues raised in the current petition were raised in a previous petition to the CPSC in the mid 1980’s. That discussion ended with a consent decree that effectively removed three wheeled ATVs from the product line of off-road vehicle manufacturers and instituted a largely voluntary effort for implementing a safety-training program.
Over the past 15 years we have had an opportunity to see the strengths and weaknesses of this decree. I would like to offer some observations that we feel are pertinent to this discussion.
It’s clear that ATV users are being injured. I’ll leave it to the statisticians to argue whether;
1. the injury figures that are being quoted in the petition are accurate,
2. they represent a significant portion of overall users,
3. they fall within expected ranges for the number of ATVs that have been sold in the past 15 years, and
4. they are comparable with injuries sustained in other physical recreational activities.
We are willing to concede that some individuals, especially children, are being injured on ATVs and that number, whatever it may be, is too high.
It’s our contention that the machines themselves are not the problem. The past petition and resulting consent decree effectively eliminated three wheeled ATVs (which were judged to be unstable) and replaced them with four wheeled ATVs (which were assumed to be significantly more stable and therefore safer). It’s apparent from the language in the petition that this was for naught because, as the petition states, “the relative increase in safety is negligible.” In our judgment, it would be difficult to alter, accessorize, or modify an ATV to make it significantly safer without creating an altogether different riding experience.
We feel that many of the causative factors that result in ATV injuries are related in part to a lack of training, but also in a large part to a lack of common sense by the user. Alcohol use (or I should say abuse) is often linked to ATV accidents as well as riding without a helmet, riding too fast for conditions, operating an ATV in a dangerous or reckless manner, etc. If you review enough accident reports you are going to find your fair share of the following
“A forty-eight year old male died when the ATV he was operating on a lake was driven into open water. It was later determined that the driver had a blood alcohol content of 0.23 and that he did not have a safety training certificate.” or
“Two teenagers were killed when the ATV on which they were riding hit a utility pole. The driver, apparently driving at an excessive rate of speed, skidded on loose gravel and lost control of the vehicle. Neither teenager was wearing a helmet.”
So what do we do about this?
Following the consent decree, the ATV Safety Institute (ASI) in conjunction with the ATV manufacturers and dealers began offering safety training to those individuals who purchased new ATVs. The training program was voluntary but most manufacturers offered some type of rebate as encouragement to attend the training. The curriculum of the training program is very comprehensive and consists of classroom style training as well as actual “hands on” training using an ATV.
Anyone that I talk to who either taught the program or has attended the program, agrees that the technical content and format of the course are commendable. There are however two “administrative” flaws that are almost universally mentioned as needing correction.
While the cost of the course is waived for anyone who purchases a new ATV, there is a significant fee associated with attending the course on your own. These fees ($125 for adults and $75 for children) are enough to dissuade many users from attending a course, especially if you want to attend as a family. The second flaw has to do with the age to machine size limitations that are largely a product of the consent decree. The ASI requires that children from 6 years old to 11 must be trained on ATVs whose displacement is limited to 70 cc’s or less; children from 12 to15 must be trained on ATV’s that have a displacement of 90 cc’s or less. Establishing machine size limits based upon a child’s age is inadequate and misguided. Kids under 16 vary widely in height, weight, and ability. Anyone who has ever seen a 6-foot tall, 15 year old trying to squeeze onto a 90 cc ATV will realize the ludicrous nature of this requirement.
With the help of the PaOHV, Pennsylvania’s DCNR has prepared a modified safety training program that rectifies both of these issues and they are in the process of implementing it statewide. The Pennsylvania training program uses essentially the same technical information as that of the ASI, however it eliminates the mandatory fee structure and leaves the decision of whether an ATV is appropriately sized for a user, up to the instructor. Instructors will be permitted to schedule training sessions without prior consent from a governing body such as the ASI. They are entitled to charge any reasonable fee for an individual’s training, provided that it does not exceed $50.00. The trainers are expected to use their own good judgment in determining machine fit for trainees. This will permit large and small children the opportunity to be trained on an appropriately sized machine. Some examples of machine fit criteria include the following.
· Do the driver’s feet easily reach the foot pegs of the ATV?
· Can the driver comfortably reach the handlebars while sitting in an upright position?
· Can the driver easily manipulate the levers and shifters on the machine?
· Can the driver turn the handlebars from lock to lock?
· Does the driver understand and can they operate the starting and stopping features of the ATV.
· Does the driver have proper safety equipment.
All of these criteria can be easily observed or tested before the machine needs to be started.
The Pennsylvania training program also requires the parents of minors to sign a consent form on the day of the training. The parents are also encouraged to attend the training their children, perhaps with the hope that they will pick up a few things on their own, but primarily so they can reinforce the training as the need may arise. The training program stresses the importance of parental supervision while operating ATVs.
The Pennsylvania ATV safety-training program is not designed to compete with the ASI program. The intent is to supplement it and to provide a formal training program that is more affordable and easier to access. At the PaOHV, we are hopeful that the administrative revisions to the training program will allow the program to be extended to groups of children, teenagers, and even adults at venues and times that are unrelated to a specific ATV purchase. Individuals who do not own an ATV and are driving one for the first time incur their fair share of injuries. It’s not inconceivable that children could receive ATV safety training as a part of a school, club, or extracurricular activity such as the 4-H program or Boys Scouts and Girl Scouts of America.
The Pennsylvania DCNR is also taking the steps needed to make sure children and teenagers of all ages and sizes can be trained on appropriately sized machines. We are hopeful that no more teenagers will have to be turned away from a training session because the machine they are riding exceeds some arbitrary standard for their age.
I hope the Commission will take these comments into consideration and I hope they will see that, at least in Pennsylvania, we are concerned about ATV injuries and we are taking what we feel are prudent steps to address these concerns.
I thank you for your time.