SandBlasted

I agree with all you said. The motorcycle has acceptable safety equipment which is recognized nationwide and in all states. If I meet all the safety equipment of Nevada then I feel that argument is moot. Then again I've never been accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer either. If you run the VIN of my Rhino at the DMV, the DMV categorizes it as a motorcycle. You are allowed to register a dirt bike as a street bike in Nevada after meeting the street safety requirements. I don't think anyone can argue that my "Motorcycle" is less safe than the next motorcycle with my roll over protection and seat belts. The only thing in Nevada Law that says my Rhino is not a motorcycle is that pesky law that says no more than 3 wheels. But that contradicts what the DMV says my Rhino is, and then there is the voyager kit. The voyager kit which makes motorcycles like a trike, puts 4 wheels on the ground and no one has enforced that 3 wheel law against them. The Manufacture says it has not heard of anyone getting a ticket for it in any state. Now I know the police can give a ham sandwich a ticket for having mayo on it, but making it stick is another situation. Our police chief in BC is on video record saying there is not much it can do as this was brought up in a town meeting as far as someone riding one here from AZ. I live in Nevada with a Nevada drivers license, is there any law that says I can't borrow a vehicle from someone out of state? How I plan to do it is to register it in AZ in my name and a family member's name who resides in AZ. I plan on being the lien holder. I know there are ways to live in Nevada and have an out of state registration, even an out of state license. A few of my friends have been doing it for years and I mean more than 10. The whole family and most of their friends have their vehicles registered out of state. Cars Trucks Motorhomes and more. All out of state paying a 15.00 registration fee. Two of them must carry a Nevada drivers license because of their jobs. (I think the wives carry the out of state license.) The BCPD targeted them for a time because it is a small town and they know them and after several attempts to make something stick and under threat of a lawsuit the PD backed off. This is a last ditch effort if nothing else works. I value your opinion, where am I going wrong?

I put a question to an on-line attorney web site about registering the Rhino in AZ and operating it here in NV. My question is, has anyone been actually cited for this? From what I understand, people have told me the CHP has said "have a nice day" and let people go in CA. with UTV's registered in AZ. Here is the response I received from the online attorney. Sent to Legal Experts June 14 1:59 p.m. ________________________________________ I own a Yamaha Rhino that I wish to register in AZ., with legal ties to AZ, but I live in Nevada. AZ registers these as motorcycles. My question is: If I meet the Nevada State law as far as safety equipment even though Nevada law defines a motorcycle as having no more than 3 wheels, can it be operated in the state of Nevada? Optional Information: Boulder City, Nevada vegasfireman (Online) -- 1 Accepts/1 Questions Status: We're Waiting For You Value: $30 1 Answer Accepted Answer June 14 2:14 p.m. (15 minutes and 51 seconds later) ACCEPTED ________________________________________ If the vehicle is legally registered and allowed to be operated on the streets of AZ, then Nevada is bound to recognize the registration under the Comity Clause. It is the same as driving at 16 on a license from a state that issues licenses at that age in a state that doesn't issue licenses until 17. As long as you have a valid street license plate on the vehicle, the other states are supposed to honor that registration. I hope you found my answer helpful, please click on the GREEN ACCEPT button so that I can get credit for assisting you. Your question will not close, and you will still have the opportunity to follow-up if needed. Leaving a bonus and positive feedback is not required, but doing so is certainly appreciated! __________________ ________________ THIS IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP EXISTS. PLEASE CONSULT A LAWYER IN YOUR STATE FOR LEGAL ADVICE. PaulMJD (Online) -- Attorney -- 99% Positive Feedback on 265 Legal Accepts 4 Years Employment/Labor Law, General Litigation and over 20 Years Law Enforcement Your Reply Sent June 14 2:23 p.m. (9 minutes and 1 second later) ________________________________________ Do you have any reference to the Comity Clause I can use? I'm going to get a ticket here as the police hae already told me they would. vegasfireman (Online) -- 1 Accepts/1 Questions Answer June 14 2:32 p.m. (8 minutes and 55 seconds later) What should I do? ________________________________________ The U.S. Supreme Court says so: JOHN T. HENDRICK, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF MARYLAND. No. 77. Argued November 11 and 12, 1914. Decided January 5, 1915. [235 U.S. 610, 611] Messrs. Osborne I. Yellott, Jackson H. Balston, Clement L. Bouv e, and William E. Richardson for plaintiff in error. [235 U.S. 610, 613] Mr. Edgar Allan Poe, Attorney General of Maryland, and Mr. Enos S. Stockbridge for defendant in error. [235 U.S. 610, 618] Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff in error was tried before a justice of the peace, Prince George's county, Maryland, upon a charge of violating the motor vehicle law. A written motion to quash the warrant because of conflict between the statute and the Constitution of the United States was denied; he was found quilty and fined. Thereupon an appeal was taken to the circuit court,-the highest in the state having jurisdiction,-where the cause stood for trial de novo upon the original papers. It was there submitted for determination by the court upon an agreed statement of facts grievously verbose, but in substance as follows: The cause was originally brought July 27, 1910, before a justice of the peace for Prince George's county by the state against John T. Hendrick for violating 133 of the motor vehicle law effective July 1, 1910. He is and then was a citizen of the United States, resident and commorant [235 U.S. 610, 619] in the District of Columbia. On that day he left his office in Washington in his own automobile and drove it into Prince George's county, and while temporarily there was arrested on the charge of operating it upon the highways without having procured the certificate of registration required by 133 of the motor vehicle law. He was brought before a justice of the peace and fined $15 after having been found guilty of the charge set out in a warrant duly issued,-a motion to quash having been denied. Whereupon he filed his appeal. At the time and place aforesaid he had not procured the certificate of registration for his automobile required by 133. Upon the foregoing the court shall determine the questions and differences between the parties and render judgment according as their rights in law may appear in the same manner as if the facts aforesaid were proven upon the trial. Either party may appeal. The Maryland legislature, by an act effective July 1, 1910 (chap. 207, Laws 1910, p. 177), prescribed a comprehensive scheme for licensing and regulating motor vehicles. The following summary sufficiently indicates its provisions: The governor shall appoint a commissioner of motor vehicles, with power to designate assistants, who shall secure enforcement of the statute. Before any motor vehicle is operated upon the highways the owner shall make a statement to the commissioner and procure a certificate of registration; thereafter it shall bear a numbered plate. This certificate and plate shall be evidence of authority for operating the machine during the current year ( 133). Registration fees are fixed according to horsepower-$6 when 20 or less; $12 when from 20 to 40; and $18 when in excess of 40 ( 136). No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon the highway until he has obtained at a cost of $2 an operator's license, subject to revocation for cause [235 U.S. 610, 620] ( 137). Any owner or operator of an automobile, nonresident of Maryland, who has complied with the laws of the state in which he resides requiring the registration of motor vehicles, or licensing of operators thereof, etc ., may, under specified conditions, obtain a distinguishing tag and permission to operate such machine over the highways for not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in a calendar year without paying the ordinary fees for registration and operator's license ( 140a); but residents of the District of Columbia are not included amongst those to whom this privilege is granted ( 132). Other sections relate to speed, rules of the road, accidents, signals, penalties, arrests, trials, fines, etc. All money collected under the provisions of the act go to the commissioner, and, except so much as is necessary for salaries and expenses, must be paid into the state treasury to be used in construction, maintaining, and repairing the streets of Baltimore and roads built or aided by a county or the state itself. Section 140a is copied in the margin. 1 [235 U.S. 610, 621] Plaintiff in error maintains that the act is void because-it discriminates against residents of the District of Columbia; attempts to regulate interstate commerce; violates the rights of citizens of the United States to pass into and through the state; exacts a tax for revenue- not mere compensation for the use of facilities-according to arbitrary classifications, and thereby deprives citizens of the United States of the equal protection of the laws. If the statute is otherwise valid, the alleged discrimination against residents of the District of Columbia is not adequate ground for us now to declare it altogether bad. At most they are entitled to equality of treatment, and in the absence of some definite and authoritative ruling by the courts of the state we will not assume that, upon a proper showing, this will be denied, The record fails to disclose that Hendrick had complied with the laws in force within the District of Columbia in respect of registering motor vehicles and licensing operators, or that he applied to the Maryland commissioner for an identifying tag or marker,- prerequisites to a limited use of the highways without cost by residents of other states under the plain terms of 140a. He cannot therefore set up a claim of discrimination in this particular. Only those whose rights are directly affected can properly question the constitutionality of a state statute, and invoke our jurisdiction in respect thereto. New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152, 161 , 51 S. L. ed. 415, 422, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188, 9 Ann. Cas. 736; Williams v. Walsh, 222 U.S. 415, 423 , 56 S. L. ed. 253, 256, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 137; Collins v. Texas, 223 U.S. 288, 295 , 296 S., 56 L. ed. 439, 443, 444 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 286; Missouri, [235 U.S. 610, 622] K. & T. R. Co. v. Cade, 233 U.S. 642, 648 , 58 S. L. ed. 1135, 1137, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 678, and cases cited. The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves. Their success depends on good roads, the construction and maintenance of which are exceedingly expensive; and in recent years insistent demands have been made upon the states for better facilities, especially by the ever-increasing number of those who own such vehicles. As is well known, in order to meet this demand and accommodate the growing traffic the state of Maryland has built and is maintaining a system of improved roadways. Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection of those within its own jurisdiction the state put into effect the above described general regulations, including requirements for registration and licenses. A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation for the use of facilities provided at great cost from the class for whose needs they are essential, and whose operations over them are peculiarly injurious. In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines,-a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens; and it does not constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce. The reasonableness of the state's action is always subject to [235 U.S. 610, 623] inquiry in so far as it affects interstate commerce, and in that regard it is likewise subordinate to the will of Congress. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 30 , 31 S., 28 L. ed. 923-925, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 480 , 31 S. L. ed. 508, 513, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 136 , 38 S. L. ed. 385, 388, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U.S. 628, 631 , 41 S. L. ed. 853, 854, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 392 , 42 S. L. ed. 780, 791, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285, 298 , 43 S. L. ed. 702, 707, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549, 568 , 55 S. L. ed. 328, 338, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 259; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U.S. 280, 291 , 58 S. L. ed. 1312, 1317, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829. In Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 480 , 31 S. L. ed. 508, 513, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564, consideration was given to the validity of an Alabama statute forbidding any engineer to operate a railroad train, without first undergoing an examination touching his fitness, and obtaining a license, for which a fee was charged. The language of the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Matthews, in reply to the suggestion that the statute unduly burdened interstate commerce and was therefore void, aptly declares the doctrine which is applicable here. He said: 'But the provisions on the subject contained in the statute of Alabama under consideration are not regulations of interstate commerce. It is a misnomer to call them such. Considered in themselves, they are parts of that body of the local law which, as we have already seen, properly governs the relation between carriers of passengers and merchandise and the public who employ them, which are not displaced until they come in conflict with express enactments of Congress in the exercise of its power over commerce, and which, until so displaced, according to the evident intention of Congress, remain as the law governing carriers in the discharge of their obligations, whether engaged in the purely internal commerce of the state or in commerce among the states.' The prescribed regulations upon their face do not appear to be either unnecessary or unreasonable. In view of the many decisions of this court there can be [235 U.S. 610, 624] no serious doubt that where a state at its own expense furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in commerce, interstate as well as domestic, it may exact compensation therefor. The amount of the charges and the method of collection are primarily for determination by the state itself; and so long as they are reasonable and are fixed according to some uniform, fair, and practical standard, they constitute no burden on interstate commerce. Parkersburg & O. River Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691, 699 , 27 S. L. ed. 584, 587, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 732; Huse v. Glover, 119 U.S. 543, 548 , 549 S., 30 L. ed. 487, 490, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 313; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312, 329 , 330 S., 37 L. ed. 463, 469, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622; Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) 230 U.S. 352, 405 , 57 S. L. ed. 1511, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, and authorities cited. The action of the state must be treated as correct unless the contrary is made to appear. In the instant case there is no evidence concerning the value of the facilities supplied by the state, the cost of maintaining them, or the fairness of the methods adopted for collecting the charges imposed; and we cannot say from a mere inspection of the statute that its provisions are arbitrary or unreasonable. There is no solid foundation for the claim that the statute directly interferes with the rights of citizens of the United States to pass through the state, and is consequently bad according to the doctrine announced in Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L. ed. 745. In that case a direct tax was laid upon the passenger for the privilege of leaving the state; while here the statute at most attempts to regulate the operation of dangerous machines on the highways, and to charge for the use of valuable facilities. As the capacity of the machine owned by plaintiff in error does not appear, he cannot complain of discrimination because fees are imposed according to engine power. Distinctions amongst motor machines and between them and other vehicles may be proper,-essential, indeed,-and those now challenged are not obviously arbitrary or oppressive. The statute is not a mere revenue measure, [235 U.S. 610, 625] and a discussion of the classifications permissible under such an act would not be pertinent. There is no error in the judgment complained of, and it is accordingly affirmed. Footnotes [ Footnote 1 ] '140a. Any owner or operator not a resident of this state, who shall have complied with the laws of the state in which he resides, requiring the registration of motor vehicles or licensing of operators thereof and the display of identification or registration numbers on such vehicles, and who shall cause the identification numbers of such state, in accordance with the laws thereof, and none other, together with the initial letter of said state, to be displayed on his motor vehicle, as in this subtitle provided, while used or operated upon the public highways of this state, may use such highways not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in each calendar year, without complying with the provisions of 133 and 137 of this subtitle, if he obtains from the commissioner of motor vehicles and displays on the rear of such vehicle a tag or marker which the said commissioner of motor vehicles shall issue in such form and contain such distinguishing marks as he may deem best; provided that if any nonresident be convicted of violating any provisions of 140b, 140c, 140d, 140e, and 1401 of this subtitle, he shall thereafter be subject to and required to comply with all the provisions of said 133 and 137 relating to the registration of motor vehicles and the licensing of operators thereof; and the governor of this state is hereby authorized and empowered to confer and advise with proper officers and legislative bodies of other states of the Union, and enter into reciprocal agreements under which the registration of motor vehicles owned by residents of this state will be recognized by such other states, and he is further authorized and empowered, from time to time, to grant to residents of other states the privilege of using the roads of this state as in this section provided in return for similar privileges granted residents of this state by such other states.' __________________ ________________ THIS IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP EXISTS. PLEASE CONSULT A LAWYER IN YOUR STATE FOR LEGAL ADVICE. PaulMJD (Online) -- Attorney -- 99% Positive Feedback on 265 Legal Accepts 4 Years Employment/Labor Law, General Litigation and over 20 Years Law Enforcement

Email Sent To The Director Of The DMV. The Govs office put me in contact with her. To Director Ginny Lewis 555 Wright Way Carson City, NV 89711 From Craig Castleberry Re: Registering UTV’s and Speed Modified Golf Carts as Low Speed Vehicles in the State of Nevada. Dear Director Lewis. Thank you for taking the time to read our information regarding the above. At a time with high fuel prices and dependency and concerns about air quality, the Low Speed Vehicle (LSV) time has come. While we are asking to be allowed to have our Rhino UTV registered as a LSV, I would also like to address for consideration modified golf carts in general. Our Yamaha Rhino UTV has been rebuilt to conform to federal law 571.500 and Nevada Law NRS 484.527 which we will be happy to offer to the DMV for inspection to confirm the our Rhino UTV meets the requirements set forth in law. With the introduction of new speed limiting technology, we have digitally programmed our Rhino UTV not to exceed 25 Mph. All of the safety requirements addressed by Federal and State law have been met by our Rhino UTV. This includes lights, brake lights, turn signals, reflectors, seat belt assemblies, mirrors and windshield that meets the AS-5 Glazing standard addressed in federal law. Currently the DMV will not allow registering the UTV, and the reasons given are as follows. 1. The DMV does not register ATVs The UTV is a completely different class of vehicle than a UTV and the UTV is not addressed by Nevada Law. An ATV differences are many when compared to a UTV. With an ATV, the rider straddles a seat; has a handle bar like that of a motorcycle. ATVs are not made with seat belts or roll over protection. UTV’s have seat that you sit in same as a standard vehicle, seat belts with shoulder restraints for all occupants, steering wheel and roll over protection. They are operated with the same type of foot controls as a standard vehicle. 2. The DMV does not register off road vehicles The DMV does register off road vehicles. A person may purchase a dirt bike that was never intended for on road use and then convert it to a dual sport motorcycle providing it is rebuilt to meet street legal requirement address in law. This includes adding speed odometer, lights and turn signals, mirrors and DOT tires. (LSV’s are not required to run DOT tires due to their low speeds.) When this conversion is complete, the motorcycle is inspected and it is titled and registered by the DMV. We have also seen many dune buggies on the road with plates. One that runs here in Boulder City does not even have roll over protection, just a plastic windshield. It is my opinion that if our UTV meets the requirements of a LSV then it is no longer an off road vehicle and since it meets the requirement as a LSV, the off road vehicle law that is being used against registration is not valid and should not apply. 3. The vehicle can’t be converted to a LSV, and only made a LSV by a licensed manufacture. Nowhere in federal law or Nevada law can I find the requirement that a golf cart or any other vehicle can’t be converted by the owner. To the contrary, federal law discusses the conversion of golf carts to LSV’s and the standard for them to meet was purposefully reduced over a standard motor vehicle to keep conversion costs down. A manufacture or modifier of LSV’s has a higher standard to meet than those who would convert their own vehicles; this is purely in certification, as our Rhino UTV meets the same standards listed in law. If an owner converts or has his golf cart or UTV, or has it converted by a modifier, it should be inspected and signed off using the RD-64 Form provided by the DMV or have it inspected at the DMV for compliance. Considering we believe our Rhino UTV to be in full compliance with Federal Law and NRS statutes and that we are willing to have our Rhino UTV inspected by the DMV as to meeting the requirements set forth in law, the DMV should after confirming that our Rhino UTV meets those requirements, title and register our Rhino UTV as a LSV. We are at your complete disposal in this matter and look forward to working with you on this. We are willing to bring our Rhino UTV to Carson City so you may inspect it as you see fit to your office in Carson City, or at any other DMV office you choose. Respectfully submitted Craig Castleberry Exhibits Federal Rule 500:571 CLICK Discussions On Federal Rule 500:571 CLICK cc: Senator W. Hardy, Assemblyman J. Hardy.

We are all ranting. I'm still waiting for someone to call me from the Legislative Council on the LSV angle. I've talked to my reps twice, I'll wait another week. I also have received a name to contact at the governors level which I intend to call tomorrow. We'll see what happens. My Rhino is complete save the windshield. It has everything required and it will only go 25mph. I’m setting up an email list for interested parties so we can get active about this. The email list is lsv@xoatv.com. Your email will only be used for this issue. We may all have to start calling if we can't get any action on this. I have placed a web page about this. I'm not the world’s best writer so if it is long winded I will accept re-writes on the subject and any other help I can get. http://www.xopco.com/html/utv_as_lsv_-_low...ed_vehicle.html We want people with UTV's as well as golf cart owners who are interested in getting this on. There is an election coming up as well as 09 session if we need a new law and now is the time to act.

Nice! 70 MPH too I wonder what Yamaha is gonna do? I don't see anything new in their 09 line up. Well Yamaha? You gonna do something or just lay there and bleed?

I missed that. We will see what happens. Like I was saying earlier, I don't think we need a new law to get them registered as a LSV. I think the DMV is misusing the law from others areas not connected with the LSV law to keep us from registering them.

:mischevious: This is where we do have some stats on injuries thanks to the feds. While reporting was not done through the DMV since golf carts were not tracked by the DMV's there are stats reported through NEISS with golf carts. On road injuries were far less than off road injuries 726 reported nationwide with only 1 on road fatality, 23 on road injuries compared to 693 off road injuries for a 5 year period in golf carts. According to the NEISS stats, it looks like the “kids” would be better off on-road. It's just unfounded hysteria by ignorant people. We dealt with them when we tried getting golf carts on the street here in Boulder City a year or so ago. When people don’t want something new they start with the safety and children angle, something that they usually have no idea what they are talking about. Most people when they look at a UTV compared to a GEM car or a golf cart see the UTV as being safer. On this issue we have a lot of things going for us. Less air pollution which is a big issue here in S. Nevada, fuel prices and oil dependency. I'm not just trying to get the UTV's on the road but also the speed modified golf carts that will meet the standards. All which will reduce the amount of fuel we use and the emissions we produce. As anyone can tell you I'm a tree hugg'n, plant screwing lover of green. :beer_bang:

Will do ... thanks!

And we are still waiting Someone from the warehouse told me "it's a mess" I think he was referring to the fact that Dynatek has never had demand all at once for anything they have produced like this. Over 3,000 back orders. I think they are overwhelmed.

I'm sorry I missed this question. Looney tuned does have replacment head pipes you can buy with the steel flange. I have not called Two Bros and see if they have changed to a steel flange.

I can't agree with you more. We have been trying to get these on the streets for almost 2 years now. It is really sad when you live in a free society (so they tell me) you now have to find a law that allows you to do something. When you can't find a law that does not say you can't do this or that, some unelected official will IMO miss apply the law from others areas so he can say no. Many in the DMV say we can do it when they read the law, every cop I've talked to says we can, but the top a$$ hats at DMV say no.

If we have to get a law change we are going to have to get everyone involved with getting it done. There are to many people in Carson City worried about your safety and they feel they have been chosen by god to protect you. We ran across this when trying to change the helmet laws for street MC's and ran across the safety factor when trying to get them on the streets as golf carts here in Boulder City. (Ours is registered now as a golf cart) No one had any facts about golf cart injuries, they just were blabbing about something they knew nothing about. Now we have some facts.

Trikes don't need a helmet here in Nevada. Hopefully we would not need them either. If we get it on as a LSV it will need a windshield which conforms to AS-1 or AS-5 Glazing. AS-1 is glass and AS-5 is plastic, but not all plastic meets AS-5 Standards. Lexan should meet the standard, but then if the DMV wants to push it, it may have to be engraved as meeting the AS-5 standard just like any other vehicle on the road. This is where I'm having the trouble now. I can get a company to cut me a piece of glass with the AS-1, but glass is heavier and would be harder to install and crack easier than Lexan.

That will probably require a law change to get the UTV's registered as a MC. This is where I'd like to go, but I'll take whatever I can get. I don't think we need a law change for the LSV's and this is where I'm going if we have to have a new law and see if we can get something passed when the Legislature meets in '09 It's been about a week and I still have not heard back from the Legislative Counsel. I guess it's time to give them a call.

The arm of the knuckle is what usually bends. if you look close, you may see a slight difference in height of the arm where it connects at the tie rod end when compaired to the other side. A slight bend there can make a big difference at the wheel. If you need your Rhino in a hurry we do stock the knuckle (Spindle) If it is a tie rod, Yamaha will try and sell you a rack. The tie rods are not serviceable separate from the tie rods from Yamaha. Frap makes a tie rod that will replace the stock one. It's a little stronger and costs a lot less than buying the whole rack.

lol I'm waiting for someone from the Legislative Counsel to call me back. We have to see if we need a new law (I don't think so IMO) or just kick DMV in da

Did you try that? What was the reason they gave for not allowing it? Our Police Chief (Boulder City) is on video at one of the city meetings saying that if someone did that due to state reprocity there is not much we can do about it. From 3rd hand reports from a few people the California highway patrol has pulled over AZ licensed UTV's and looked at all of their stuff, insurance, equipment and said have a nice day.

There are legislators that actually like the off road community and off roading themselves and try an promote it. I would also add I'm pretty sure this idea did not come from him, but someone in the off road industry. There are not a lot of people IMO with good critical reasoning skills that would be willing to kill a 11 billion dollar industry in the state and some may actually support it if they knew what it it brings to the state. The 2 Legislators I'm working with our own issues know that Nevada is missing the boat as far as getting UTV's on the streets and the OHV industry as a whole especially in Rural Nevada. They look at Utah and others states and believe as I do that off-roading is a good thing for the economy.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but its not my parade, just passing on the information. It was nice to learn however that the offroad industry in Ca is worth 11 billion.

This Just Came in From the ASA Dear OHV Friend, Most people have no idea that 4.5 million Californians enjoy off-roading, or that it’s an 11 billion dollar industry. However, if we all displayed a specialized OHV license plate on our automobiles, everyone would see how widespread and important off-roading is to state’s economy. Similar to "Save the Whales" and other Special Interest Plates , Assemblymember Joel Anderson (77th District) is starting a petition drive to authorize a specialized OHV license plate. California will produce the plate only if it receives an initial order of 7,500. To guarantee the success of this petition, we need to collect the names and addresses of 10,000 people willing to buy an OHV plate for their street vehicle. As of January 14th, 2986 names have been received. Please help us collect these signatures by signing the petition online at: www.OHVPlates.org PLEASE TELL or FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT ENJOYS OFF ROADING.

LSV registration is 33 bucks!

I had a conversation with Senator Warren Hardy. Senator Hardy seemed all for the UTV's on the streets. He owns 6 ATV's and is a avid rider. He was right on board with the fact that Nevada is missing the boat when it comes to places like Utah and Arizona who allow them on the road. I told him what was going on at the DMV, told him that the DMV stated to me today (supervisor) that even if we met all the requirements for the LSV's we will not register it. The DMV is using laws from all over the books to stop us from registering them. He is looking at all the material and sending it to the legal team to see what law needs to be changed to allow them. I told him I don't beleive any law needs to be created, i think there are enough laws on the books to allow this, we just need the burecrats out of the way. To make a long story short, he is going to check and see if we need a new law or just kick DMV in the A$$. I told Senator Hardy we read the laws and to police officers, some DMV officials and other reasonable people that look at the law, it is allowed. When you get to the nuts and bolts and try to get it done, burecrats start dragging laws from all over showing why you can't. I told him is like trying to follow all the rules to make an ice cream cone for your kid and someone bomb shells you with a law that you have to have a heath permitt to do it. The new legislature meets feb 9th 2009 If news laws need to be created, then we need everyone effort to ge this done. The DMV’s arguments for not registering our Rhino as a LSV It has to be made a LSV by the manufacture. It can’t be modified. The DMV has a form for builders and rebuilders, RD-64, to meet state requirements. This form also includes Low Speed Vehicles. We have a state licensed body shop willing to certify that our Rhino meets the requirements (When Completed) in state law NRS 485.320, and meets the Federal Rule 571.500. The Body Shop is getting me the windshield that conforms to the AS-4 Requirement In the hearings of the Federal Rule, it was clear that they wanted the standards reduced so it was less costly for people to modify existing golf carts to meet LSV requirements. Golf Carts and UTV’s are off-road vehicles and since the manufacture states its not for on road use, it can’t be registered. Golf Carts being driven on roads in designated communities are not classified as on road vehicles but registered by the state for use on roads. A dirt bike motorcycle can be converted to dual sport use and licensed by the DMV for on street use. Several dune buggy’s with Volkswagen engines are remanufactured and are licensed in the state of Nevada. The Rhino is a off road vehicle and can't be registered. If we meet the standards set for NRS 485.320 and the Federal Rule 571.500 then it should be allowed to be licensed as a LSV. The Rhino is an ATV and we don’t register ATV’s An ATV is in different class than a UTV (Rhino, Mule, ETC.) An ATV has a saddle for a seat, and not built with seat belts. The Manufacture of Rhino Mules Etc. call them a UTV. A UTV has a regular seat like a automobile, seats 2 people side by side and is made with seat belts and roll cages. UTV’s are not address by state law. It is apparent if you read the intent of the 571.500, it was intended that there be away that conversion be allowed and at a minimal cost. Most of the regulation is for commercial ventures and that regulation standard is lowered to make cost more reasonable. We now have electronic speed controllers that limit the Rhino's ability to exceed 25 MPH I’m willing to test this in front of DMV inspectors when the conversion is completed. We should allow individuals to be able to convert their golf carts and other small 4 wheeled vehicles as long as they are inspected and meet state law and the federal rule requirements. The City Of Palm Desert estimates that 16 tons of CO2 have been reduced per year because of the use of Golf Carts And LSV. The federal Rule recognizes small 4 wheeled LSV's reduce emissions and lower CO2 even small gos powerd LSV's Safety The following table presents incidents for "golf carts" reported by CPSC's NEISS during the years 1993-1997: NEISS REPORTED INCIDENTS 1993 - 1997 Type of Injury 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 5 year total pedestrian injury 36 19 18 16 30 119 off-road injury 96 138 145 146 168 693 on-road injury 3 4 5 5 6 23 on-road fatality 1 0 0 0 0 1 rollover injury 4 4 8 4 7 27 ejection injury 26 17 14 11 12 94 total(21) 100 142 149 161 174 726 Based on the data in the above table, the agency has estimated the total national injuries associated with "golf carts" of all types and uses (i.e., on-road as well as on golf courses) to be 6,372, 6,808, 7,603, and 7,218 for the years 1993 through 1996.

I've been reseaching the NRS law and federal law of the low speed vechicles. Someone at the DMV is just making up stuff... On The DMV Web site it states: "Low speed vehicles (LSV) are small, four-wheeled vehicles that are built to specific federal vehicle standards by licensed manufacturers. Homemade vehicles and retrofitted golf carts do not qualify. Dealers and other businesses in the industry must be licensed by the DMV." The Nevada Law Reads NRS 484.527 “Low-speed vehicle” defined; highways upon which low-speed vehicles may be operated; exception. 1. As used in this section, “low-speed vehicle” means a motor vehicle: (a) Designed to carry not more than four persons; (B) Designed to operate at a maximum speed of at least 20 but not more than 25 miles per hour; © Having at least four wheels in contact with the ground; (d) Having an unladen weight of less than 1,800 pounds; and (e) Complying with the standards for safety of such a vehicle set forth in Federal Motor Safety Standard No. 500 at 49 C.F.R. § 571.500. 2. If registered, a low-speed vehicle may be operated upon a highway where the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour or less. A person shall not operate a low-speed vehicle upon a highway where the posted speed limit is greater than 35 miles per hour, except to cross such a highway at an intersection. CLICK for the CFR on LSV's

We have tried that. See there are a bunch of conflicts that are in play here. Federal law says if it goes more than 25 MPH it is a motor vehicle. It is subject to all the laws regarding a car or truck. If we try and register it as a slow moving vehicle, it has to be built to federal standards for the Low speed neighborhood vehicles. The DMV says it can't be homemade or a refitted golf cart and has to be built to specific federal vehicle standards by licensed manufacturers. The only thing special it has to have is a windshield that meets the ANSI Z26.1–1996 requirements that GE Lexan meets and a top speed of 25MPH that the programmable CDI’s (Made for the Rhino’s.) that are made by Dynatek The normal stuff like seat belts and turn signals ar also required but from wht I’m reading don’t need to be the federal standard that autos must meet. A programmable CDI will be available for the Teryx as well in the future and we don't know what the RZR CDI will be yet. Arizona licenses them as a motorcycles. When Nevada DMV runs a Rhino VIN, it comes up as a motorcycle. The best case is to get these recognized as a motorcycle. Since there are 4 wheel motorcycles on the road with the Voyager kits, IMO it is possible to do. The other is finding out a way for a licensed manufacture to install a windshield that meets the standards and get DMV to recognize it or better yet, get Nevada to allow an owner to install a windshield that meets the fed requirements. What we need is a campaign writing to our reps and getting the law changed. We have our Rhino licensed with the DMV as a golf cart. When we put them on the street in Boulder City, the city and DMV came up with a law or rule that they can only operate in areas designated as a golf cart community. No one can actually find that law, except it is now on the DMV’s web site under the golf cart registration info. This was added after we registered them. I was ticketed and while I got out of it, I was told that certain officers would ticket me every time they saw me on the road.

I'm looking for input and photos of your street legl UTV. If you are from AZ and have any photos I can you please send them to me. I'm writing my rep here in Nevada I thought I'd share this for input before I send it. Dear Assemblyman Hardy. I’m writing you today to ask that we come up with a way where we can license through the state the UTV’s. Arizona allows this and it is a big business in AZ. Every time tourism slows the state goes into panic mode as revenues plummet. More about that later… I have a Yamaha Rhino here at our shop in Boulder City and it’s getting everything installed to be licensed in Arizona with legal ties to Arizona. We are adding a horn, turn signals everything needed to make it street legal in Arizona. (All necessary components needed for it to be licensed as a motorcycle in AZ) Arizona licenses the UTV’s as Motorcycles. Our Rhino will also meet the Nevada equipment requirements necessary for a motorcycle or a trike. (3 Wheeler) If I were to remove one wheel from the rhino and put the single wheel in the center front or rear, Nevada would have to register the Rhino as a trike. In California one enterprising person designed a single rear wheel on his Raptor 660 and the state of California licensed it as a trike. (Photo Enclosed) Nevada does allow 4 wheeled motorcycles on the road. There is a kit that is legal that is basically training wheels for motorcycles. I’ve seen many on the road in Nevada (photo enclosed) this kit makes the motorcycle have 4 wheels on the ground. This is a kit where you can take it off and on at will. ( http://www.mtcvoyager.com/ ) Motorcycles sold as dirt bikes that are not street legal, can be modified with an aftermarket kit that converts them into a dual sport motorcycle. This is then licensed by the state of Nevada for street use. Whenever gas cost start climbing the popularity of these kits goes up. Many owners thru out the state of Nevada would like to register these UTV’s. With that brings a whole new industry to Nevada in the form of making these vehicles street legal. This could be a new revenue to the state in the form of registration fees. Sales tax revenue would increase from people spending thousands of dollars to customize the UTV’s The average person with a Rhino spends about 1,000.00 to 3,000 in aftermarket parts just for the dirt. In Arizona where the UTV’s are street legal, owners will spend far more. He wants his UTV to stand out from the crowd like a Harley owner does, spending 1000’s in the process. Most of that money is now being spent in California and Arizona the main manufacturing centers for custom UTV parts and accessories. These parts are being purchased in other states and Nevada is not getting the sales tax revenue due to the sales being placed on line out of state. We have had customers purchase 8,000.00 to over 11,000.00 in aftermarket parts for these UTV’s on a single invoice. I’m not writing asking for this because I want to sell more products, I already send hundreds of thousands of dollars per year of parts and accessories out of the state. I’m asking this because we want it. Young and old, people across the state want this to enjoy the lands in Nevada. I hear from more older Nevadans on this subject than anyone other age group. Currently many people including myself, seldom ride in Nevada. We ride in California, Utah and Arizona. This is tourism dollars that will never be spent in Nevada but dollars that go to other states that are UTV friendly. States like Utah where all the small towns along the 270 mile loop that encompasses HWY 89, where you can ride your UTV into town and get fuel and supplies, stay in a motel for the night, get repairs and then head back out to the trail for more adventure. It is a shame we only seem to promote the mighty gambling dollar. The federal government claims ownership of most of the land in Nevada. Miles and miles of roads are closed to our vehicles simply because it is not street legal. People can take a street legal dirt bike, a street legal dune buggy, car, truck, jeep or SUV and ride on these roads, but in Nevada we are excluded simply because we are not street legal. We cannot take our UTV into the national park service and admire the lake from the designated roads accessed from Boulder City, simply because we are not street legal however cross the dam into Arizona and have a Arizona street legal UTV and you are allowed. We are not allowed to drive down to the river on the Nevada side on a designated dirt road for the same reason. We have heard from the nay says talk about safety and frankly most of these people are just against anything new. With the current laws which allow so many like vehicles to be registered, there is not legitimate reason these should not be allowed on the streets. UTV are designed safer than the new Neighborhood Vehicles on the road today. Include safety cages that will help protect better than the major three wheel manufactures made in the country and the plastic found on the Neighborhood Vehicles. Arguments like all ATVs will be on the roads is false if laws are written correctly. A UTV is not an ATV. It is separate and in my opinion can be distinguished in law. If you would like to see an example of a Arizona street legal Rhino please come by our shop in Boulder City. Photos Enclosed: Several UTV Examples The 4 wheel motorcycle conversion kit, Street legal in Nevada The California street legal Raptor 660 The new Can-AM street Legal 3 wheeler being sold in Henderson. The GEM car, street legal. Respectfully yours, Craig Castleberry 895 Shirley Ln Bouder City, NV 8905 eXtreme Outdoor Products ( www.xopco.com ) 728 Canyon Rd Boulder City, NV 89005 702-987-0202