Low Speed Vehicle Law Has Been Drafted

[SandBlasted]

Senator Warren Hardy as promised intoduced SB179 to modifiy the law to allow modified side by sides to be registered as a low speed vehicle.

I, and I assume other interested parties my be called to testify the Friday 03/13/09 in support of the bill in Las Vegas VIA teleconference.

Anyone wishing to do so as well, please drop me a note a LSV@xoatv.com.

We were wanting golf carts to be registered as well, and make sure 4 seater Side By Sides are included, so when I speak to Senator Hardy, it will see if we can get these included.

Copy of Bill

SB179

REQUIRES TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE (§ 1 + NRS 482.480)

S.B. 179

- *SB179*

SENATE BILL NO. 179–SENATOR HARDY

MARCH 9, 2009

____________

Referred to Committee on Energy, Infrastructure and Transportation

SUMMARY—Expands the definition of a low-speed vehicle to

include certain utility terrain vehicles. (BDR 43-904)

FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: Increases or Newly

Provides for Term of Imprisonment in County or City

Jail or Detention Facility.

Effect on the State: Yes.

~

EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new; matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.

AN ACT relating to motor vehicles; expanding the definition of a

low-speed vehicle to include certain utility terrain

vehicles; providing a penalty; and providing other matters

properly relating thereto.

Legislative Counsel’s Digest:

1 Existing law allows a low-speed vehicle which has been registered with the

2 Department of Motor Vehicles to be operated on a highway where the speed limit is

3 35 miles per hour or less. (NRS 484.527) This bill expands the definition of a low4

speed vehicle to include a utility terrain vehicle which has been modified to comply

5 with the standards for safety of a low-speed vehicle set forth in Federal Motor

6 Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500 at 49 C.F.R. § 571.500.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN

SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1 Section 1. NRS 484.527 is hereby amended to read as follows:

2 484.527 1. As used in this section [, “low-speed] :

3 (a) “Low-speed vehicle” means a motor vehicle:

4 [(a)] (1) Designed to carry not more than four persons;

5 [(B)] (2) Designed to operate at a maximum speed of at least

6 20 but not more than 25 miles per hour;

7 [©] (3) Having at least four wheels in contact with the

8 ground;

– 2 –

- *SB179*

1 [(d)] (4) Having an unladen weight of less than 1,800

2 pounds; and

3 [(e)] (5) Complying with the standards for safety of such a

4 vehicle set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500

5 at 49 C.F.R. § 571.500.

6 The term includes a utility terrain vehicle which has been

7 modified to comply with the standards specified in

8 subparagraph (5).

9 (B) “Utility terrain vehicle” means a motor vehicle:

10 (1) Designed with a roll cage and two seats installed side by

11 side;

12 (2) Designed to be driven on a variety of terrains;

13 (3) Having at least four wheels in contact with the ground;

14 and

15 (4) Having the capability of four-wheel drive.

16 2. If registered, a low-speed vehicle may be operated upon a

17 highway where the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour or less. A

18 person shall not operate a low-speed vehicle upon a highway where

19 the posted speed limit is greater than 35 miles per hour, except to

20 cross such a highway at an intersection.

21 Sec. 2. This act becomes effective:

22 1. Upon passage and approval for the purpose of adopting

23 regulations and performing any other preparatory administrative

24 tasks that are necessary to carry out the provisions of this act; and

25 2. On January 1, 2010, for all other purposes.

H

[dunefreak]

:laughoff: That's GREAT news, Craig! Good job with all the work you have put into this and keeping everyone posted. Hopefully it passes.

[mush]

great job this would be awsome...

[White Rhino]

WOW Craig, you may have done it!

I sure hope it passes! ALL SXS owners would owe you!!

Thanks for all your hard work!

[Warrior07]

:?: :rhino:

[Richard Cheese]

kick

now you just need to move to CA and help us straighten our :poop: out

[White Rhino]

kick

now you just need to move to CA and help us straighten our :poop: out

Oh dude u can forget CA, tooooo many tree huggers there driving there Mercedes, Land Rovers and Hummers LOL

[Bryan M]

Tommorow morning at 8am Grant Sawyer building @ 500 E. Washington if you wanna testify in favor of this....

[SandBlasted]

We have a hiccup in our bill. Basically no one has listen to me in 3 years. Senator Hardy had a meeting with the DMV and the DMV stated that even if the bill passed the DMV may still not be able to register our Side by Sides and golf carts as LSV’s because the manufacture says it is for off road use only.

For almost 3 years, I have been telling everyone that the DMV does register off road vehicles that the manufacture does not recognize as a off road vehicle. If you buy a dirt bike, that was never intended for on road use, the owner can buy a kit that has the lights and turn signals and accessories for on road use and the DMV registers it. Every time I have asked the DMV about this they have not addressed it, just ignoring it.

If you are planning to speak at tomorrow’s meeting Senator Hardy has asked me just to bring on one other person. I have chosen a person from the golf cart industry to speak. Badass Golf Cars has a golf cart that meets LSV requirements and is manufactured as a LSV in California with the MSO that states it is a LSV but the DMV has stated it will not register it because it is a golf cart. This is totally different than what the DMV has told me when it comes to LSV’s and manufactures.

Also anyone wishing to view tomorrow’s meeting may do so on line at http://leg.state.nv.us/audio/AudioVideo.cfm

I don’t know if these links will work tomorrow but look for the below info to view from the page above.

03/13/09

8:00 AM Senate Energy, Infrastructure and Transportation

Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, 401 S. Carson St., Carson City, NV.

Videoconference to 4412E of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 E. Washington Ave., Las Vegas, NV.

View (low speed) View (high speed) Listen AGENDA 1

Please keep in mind I’m not a public speaker…so go easy on me. I get nervous lol

[SandBlasted]

A Rep from Badass Golf Carts and myself testified today in support of SB179. It seemed to go well, but you know politicians..... :freakin_nuts: You never know what they are thinking.

Anyhow nothing new to report, the DMV says it has 5 points of contention that needs to be addressed; however they did not say what those are at the meeting.

There was a news program on TV last night about people living in the state and not paying for registration in Nevada. One of the reps asked me if she heard me right and I wanted to pay registration fees to put these on the road and I said yes.

She seemed to be in favor and I think she was making a point in a roundabout way that was agreeing with what I was saying about increased revenue for the state.

Just a little side note, Don (Dumont Host) was here today picking up his Rhino and was asking about a person with a Rhino who had a Nevada Plate on it. I think it was Pat D..... Red White And Blue Rhino. Anyhow I'm trying to find out more info if this is true. Don is going to find him and see if he will call me.

I don't think I embarassed myself to much at the meeting with my mumble F!@@#k speak :?: when I get nervious lol

I'll keep everyone posted....

Craig

[SandBlasted]

I have a meeeting in Caron City on the 24th of this month with Senator Hardy And DMV officials.

I received the DMV's 5 points and it is the exact same already discussed.

1. The Department of Motor Vehicles does not register or title vehicles that are labeled and manufactured for off-road use only. This process would be inconsistent with the Department’s purpose.

Actually the DMV does register vehicles labeled and manufactured for off-road use only. Dirt bike motorcycles can be converted to on-road motorcycles and are registered by the State of Nevada.

2. These vehicles are not designed by the manufacturer or approved by NHTSA for on-highway use. The State must be willing to accept liability in the event of serious injury or death if we allow them to operate on roads within the state*

When the vehicle is modified for on-road use the vehicle is approved by the NHTSA as long as it meets the applicable FMVSS. The manufacture states as it originally produced the vehicles, they are not for on-road use as they don’t meet the FMVSS. Please see (a,b) below.

3. Nevada may potentially lose Federal highway funds if these vehicles are registered and allowed to operate on Nevada’s roadways.

Since it is legal to convert these vehicles as long as it meets the FMVSS at the time of conversion, it is impossible for Nevada to lose our federal highway funds as long as the vehicle meets the FMVSS. For LSV’s the applicable FMVSS is 571:500

4. Federal regulations and the manufacturers of these vehicles prohibit or recommend against the use of these vehicles on roadways.

5. A low-speed vehicle cannot, by Federal regulation, be modified to meet the specifications of a low speed vehicle.

Item 4 is misleading and 5 is just plain wrong. According to NTHSA legal counsel on the legality of conversion of these vehicles. Any off-road vehicle can be modified or converted for on-road use including a low speed vehicle as long as it conforms to the FMVSS for the type of vehicle it is being registered as. The NHTSA objections are only if it is operated on the street before being modified to meet applicable FMVSS.

I have included excerpts from letters on this from NHTSA Legal Council. See exhibits a and b

(a) Because conventional golf carts are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to any FMVSS as originally manufactured. Therefore, a conventional golf cart cannot be taken out of compliance with an FMVSS, because none apply. As such, the "make inoperative" provision does not apply.

The act of modifying a golf cart for use on the public roads would, however, create a motor vehicle to which new-vehicle FMVSSs would become applicable at the time of the modification. For purposes of compliance with NHTSA’s regulations, we would regard the (1) modifier as the manufacturer. As a motor vehicle manufacturer, the modifier would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle conformed to all applicable safety standards. These would vary depending on whether the vehicle was an LSV or some other type of motor vehicle.

Jacqueline Glassman Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:500 d.4/16/04

(b) The issue of whether the ATVs were required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is dependent on whether they are considered "motor vehicles." I have enclosed several interpretation letters which address the criteria which NHTSA applies in determining whether a vehicle with on and off-road capability is a motor vehicle (addressed to Mr. Matthew Plache, dated December 3, 1991; Mr. Hiroshi Kato, dated October 31, 1988; Mr. Wayne Kirby, dated February 8, 1983; and Mr. Leonard Fink, dated March 25, 1982). If an ATV is a motor vehicle, it must be certified to comply with all applicable safety standards.

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA d:9/19/95

(1) The manufacture would be the owner if the vehicle is owner modified. There is no formal certification that an owner-modifier must submit to the NHTSA or DOT, However the state may require certification as it does with other modified vehicles thru the RD-64 form.

Just to head off another item that has been brought up in the past, is the issue of low speed vehicles with cargo beds not being able to registered as an LSV. Some of the GEM Cars have cargo beds. According to Stu Seigel of the NHTSA this has been superseded.

VIA e-mail from Stu Seigel NHTSA: First see the attached document which is the current regulation concerning LSV’s. It is noted that there is no discussion or restriction for a pickup bed as this was a requirement that has been superseded.

*Idaho provided the following response to our questionnaire regard their OHV program and liability: “They are restricted from interstates because lawmakers were afraid they could lose federal funding. When asked about the possibility of lawsuits, given that many manufacturers state specifically the units are meant for off-road use only, he said that is a question for the legislators. He would hope they have thought of that.”

With Idaho’s OHV program which includes ATV’s and UTV’s as written, the ATV’s and side by sides do not meet any FMVSS. Since Idaho does not require seat belts, turn signals or windshield, I can’t find any FMVSS that Idaho’s law would meet. Even a street licensed motorcycle must have turn signals.

Since Idaho is allowing ATV’s and Side By Sides that do not meet FMVSS, In my opinion Idaho has much more liability than Nevada.

SB179 requires owners who wish to register their side by sides and golf carts as LSV’s, be in full compliance with 571:500 and in doing so would meet FMVSS.

Side by sides and golf carts modified to FMVSS would be excluded from interstate and controlled access freeways simply because of the 35 MPH limit of roads they may travel.

Edited March 19, 2009 by SandBlasted

[foolofsand]

other arguments that can be used, since they keep talking about all this federal crap. utah and arizona both have these utv's licensed for the street. what is nevadas problem? we already have a problem having to buy 800 other registraton stickers to ride, where is nevadas stickers? time nevada ponies up to get this handled. the problem is the dmv doesnt want more work. my problem with that statement--you work 8 hrs a day and get paid, what difference does it make what you do during that 8 hr shift? I was on the original committee to get registration for nevada, but between the greenies adding all the crap to the bill and the dmv crying like babies, we just folded it up and said forget it. hopefully you can move on and get these registered for street and along with it, registration for all utvs etc in nevada.

[SandBlasted]

other arguments that can be used, since they keep talking about all this federal crap. utah and arizona both have these utv's licensed for the street. what is nevadas problem? we already have a problem having to buy 800 other registraton stickers to ride, where is nevadas stickers? time nevada ponies up to get this handled. the problem is the dmv doesnt want more work. my problem with that statement--you work 8 hrs a day and get paid, what difference does it make what you do during that 8 hr shift? I was on the original committee to get registration for nevada, but between the greenies adding all the crap to the bill and the dmv crying like babies, we just folded it up and said forget it. hopefully you can move on and get these registered for street and along with it, registration for all utvs etc in nevada.

It is very frustrating. These are the same arguments and responses brought up under the old administration 6 or 8 months ago. Having talked with the NHTSA and being sent the legal interpretations from the same, DMV is wrong on many of their assertions.

I can't figure out how Arizona gets the ATVs on the road as motorcycles since AZ MC law is the same as ours. (No More than 3 wheels) I can't find any law in AZ that allows registration of all the things they do register.

[Free Agent]

Oh dude u can forget CA, tooooo many tree huggers there driving there Mercedes, Land Rovers and Hummers LOL

I have nothing worth adding to this post!! - I have nothing worth adding to this post!! - x2

There it is.

It would be so cool to be able to take the golfcart to the Grocery store on a warm day.

[foolofsand]

It is very frustrating. These are the same arguments and responses brought up under the old administration 6 or 8 months ago. Having talked with the NHTSA and being sent the legal interpretations from the same, DMV is wrong on many of their assertions.

I can't figure out how Arizona gets the ATVs on the road as motorcycles since AZ MC law is the same as ours. (No More than 3 wheels) I can't find any law in AZ that allows registration of all the things they do register.

heres an address for both the arizona an utah law. we should just use theirs

(http://www.eztsk.com/StreetLegalOHV.html)

there are other places too.

[SandBlasted]

heres an address for both the arizona an utah law. we should just use theirs

(http://www.eztsk.com/StreetLegalOHV.html)

there are other places too.

This is the new law. What I was looking for was the old law. I'm trying to fugure out exactly how AZ registered ATV and side by sides as motorcycles, when the AZ law defining a MC is the same as ours. Both laws define a MC as having no more than 3 wheels. The new law is a restricted plate and reduces where the atvs and side by sides can be ridden.

Under the old law, as I understand it, side by sides were registered as a MC with no restrictions. I'm also curious if you can still get the side by side registered without the restricted plate.

[desertskyz]

I think it is how LEO's want to enforce the law. In Boulder City people drive them around all of the time. I was going to try to register my golf cart..(gas motor) and all I really needed was Head lights, tail Lights, blinkers, wind shield and a vin. number. It was a kit you could buy online.

Edited March 24, 2009 by desertskyz

[SandBlasted]

I think it is how LEO's want to enforce the law. In Boulder City people drive them around all of the time. I was going to try to register my golf cart..(gas motor) and all I really needed was Head lights, tail Lights, blinkers, wind shield and a vin. number. It was a kit you could buy online.

Boulder City squashed it soon as more started doing it.

[bp-guy]

I have a California plate on my Golf cart. Wasn't any trouble at all. I can go on any public road with a posted speed of 25MPH. I pick up my daughter from school in it some times. All the other kids get jealous.

[SandBlasted]

I have a California plate on my Golf cart. Wasn't any trouble at all. I can go on any public road with a posted speed of 25MPH. I pick up my daughter from school in it some times. All the other kids get jealous.

Oh yea? Well IF we get this on we will be able to drive'em on roads with aposted speed limit of 35 MPH so Na Na Na Na

[Bryan M]

Oh yea? Well IF we get this on we will be able to drive'em on roads with aposted speed limit of 35 MPH so Na Na Na Na

Any updates on this?

[florida boy]

i feel all your pain im trying to get the military to let us drive them to work. all the cilv. working on post get to drive the gem karts and the mules around. trying to find out what we have to do to drive a sxs 5 min up the road to work.

[SandBlasted]

Any updates on this?

The DMV just keeps standing in the way giving false information, saying we could lose our highway funds etc. In a nutshell, I went back to the NHTSA and got all new written info which has proved the DMV wrong.... Again.

One of the DMV's main sticking part is the manufacture part. I got the NHTSA to put in writing they regard a owner modifier as the manufacture, requiring no formal certification from the feds.

I asked Sen. Hardy if we can place in the bill that an owner modified vehicle is the manufacture and all liability resides on the owner manufacture.

He has submitted it to the legal department to see if this will fly.