By Tommy Acosta
Sedona, AZ — In the upcoming fight between the city and companies that rent Off Highway Vehicles, the city is going to lose .
Simply put, the city has no jurisdiction over state-owned highways. Period.
It can manage its own streets and pass ordinances to promote public safety on them, but it can do nada to ban OHVs on S.R.179 or S.R. 89A.
Who remembers the fight over dark skies and the light poles on S.R.89A?
ADOT had its way no matter how hard the opponents fought. It’s the same here.
Can one really believe that Polaris, with outlets across the country, would allow a precedent to be set where municipalities can ban OHVs on state-owned highways that run through their cities?
The answer is a resounding “hell no.”
Again, this is not a judgement on whether those vehicles should or should not be banned from Sedona streets. This is simply an observation. The effort to ban the ATVs could be considered noble and meritorious but unless ADOT gets behind it, it’s a lost cause.
The City of Sedona could lose tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands in court and it will lose in the end no matter how much money it spends trying.
Personally, I rarely see off-road vehicles on either of the highways nor have I ever witnessed one being driven in an unsafe or irresponsible way. And I drive through Sedona almost every single day. I do not live in the sections of the city where ATVs impact the quality of life for residents. Nor do I own or rent such vehicles. I am neutral on this issue. It’s the impossibility of the the public roads ordinance ever being legally adopted that I address.
The city does however have the right to pass anti-OHV ordinances prohibiting the vehicles from being driven on local and city-owned streets.
But that’s it. Could it prevent these vehicles from being driven on any of the surrounding Sedoa-owned thoroughfares like Dry Creek Road? Perhaps. And maybe that could be an end run to get the ban done and effectively control OHVs.
But that too would probably be challenged in court.
The bottom line is that these vehicles, whether deemed unsafe or “not recommend by manufacturers for highway use,” is that they are allowed to be driven, regardless of safety issues, on state-owned highways.
If the city actually passes such an ordinance the state will challenge it on the basis that these highways belong to them, and not the city, and will prevail. That’s if ADOT has not given the city permission to ban them.
Polaris and the other companies that rent these vehicles will also take the city to court and sue the pants off the council. Such a ban, if imposed and supported in court, would destroy those businesses. They will hire the most expensive lawyers they can find and would fight to the bitter end.
Regardless of the merit for banning these vehicles from ADOT-owned highways running through Sedona, any effort to do so would end in a financial loss for the city.
This is an advertisement
11 Comments
Thank you and lots of good thoughts concerning the upcoming proposed ordinance in Sedona. Seems weird that the city does not show any safety problems within the city and I am sure they have looked at their own data. It is agreed that they do not have any power to control a state highway so the ordinance would not change much.
Thanks again.
Tommy you may be right to a point. Sure ADOT has strict rules and regulations behind everything they do but the manufacturers of said vehicles have declared them unsafe for roadways and ADOT does NOT enforce law- not traffic or any other motor vehicle laws nor can they enact them. ADOT builds roads to NTSB/NHS safety standards and they supposedly maintain them to keep them within those standards.
Can the City enforce traffic and safety laws on 89A and the 179? Heck yes they can and already do! So if the City government passes ordinance stating these vehicles are illegal on these roads than they can and will enforce them on all roads within city jurisdiction as they currently already do!
Arizona has a massive amount of UTV / ROV’s on the road. The success story, that is not being told, is the amount of vehicles on the road that are driven by long time off roaders. Success of people that are experienced and have had a very good driving record.
The City of Sedona is focusing on a small number of incidents. What needs to be shown is the bigger picture of how many of these vehicles are on the road.
Total off road vehicles Sold?
% of fatalities / OHV sold?
Total # Off highway vehicles owned USED + NEW?
% of fatalities / OHV owned?
2020 saw a spike due to huge uptick in new ROV owners with little experience.
# Off highway vehicles rented / year?
% of fatalities / OHV rented?
% owned vs rented vehicle deaths?
Make it relative to the entire market.
Compare it to people that die on a golf coarse per year.
How much training did these new drivers have?
How many years experience off-road?
How long did they own the vehicle?
I propose that there are many ways to control new inexperienced drivers & Rental drivers.
Mandatory Guides assigned to people that have little to no experience.
Training required for no experience drivers.
Age minimum: 30 years and over to rent a vehicle.
Speed limiting programmed into the vehicles computer (ECU flashed to 35 mph max speed).
GPS tracking to penalize a rental car driver that exceeds the speed.
Window nets mandatory. Speed limits into turns.
5 point harnesses. Helmets mandatory. Fire extinguisher mandatory.
TIRES:
Modern UTV tires are being designed for racing applications where the tires see 50-100 mph in the dirt. They are run at high temperatures for hundreds of miles. On highway, at 55mph or under, the danger is very low.
I would argue that the lack of experience make up a majority of the incidents. As a community we should encourage rental companies to better manage their customers, or lose their business license.
New owners need 1-2 weeks of driver training at minimum. That cost could be part of the purchase of a new vehicle.
I agree with much of what FR has to say here. What I would add is there should be a differentiation between ATV/OHV owners and renters. However since neither requires any actual off road license testing or training many accidents obviously run parallel to one another albeit owner or renter operating these vehicles in an unsafe manner. I have seen both owner and renter drive like complete morons with zero regard for the risk they put themselves and others in and zero regard for rule of law or care for the environment.
In my humble opinion the very best thing voters could do at all levels of government for themselves and others is to vote for stringent off road vehicle operator safety courses that cover all applicable off road motor vehicle law, state and national park and BLM regulations and environmental enforcement for ATV/OHV drivers, self recovery and first aid classes. Nobody should be permitted to rent one of these vehicles nor operate them without first having attended said course or an out of state equivalent. All this would eliminate the need for small town municipalities like Sedona to have to regulate itself.
How about the envoirnment?
1) do off road vehicles meet on road vehicle emission standards?
2) Noise, the lug type tires that are ideal for off road are noisy, they disturb and frighten wildlife.
3)Traffic, at one time people wanted to restrict Sedona tourists to buses and on foot, now a few greedy individuals want tourists in small gas powered vehicles, many of which hold one or two passengers?
4) Sedona once upon a time was a new age spiritual magnet. Show me a spiritual individual that wants someone driving by in a noisy off road vehicle. Or a resident for that matter.
Ok assume Sedona can’t keep ORV from the state owned highways, Sedona can ban them from city streets. Sedona can post a noise limitation for exhaust and tire noise. Remember, those lug type tires are not legal for highway use. For a reason. Look for the DOT approval on the tire sidewall, I bet 90 percent of the time you won’t find one. They have to have a DOT approval on tires for on road use.
Beautiful Sedona was deflowered by greed. Kudos to the Mayor and City council for trying to restore Sedonas spirit.
THANK YOU MIKE H.. ALL GOOD POINTS. MY BIGGEST ISSUE IS THE EXTREME NOISE ON THE HWY’S WITH ALSO RADIOS BLASTING AT FULL LEVEL DOWN BACK O’BEYOND ROAD AND ALL THE CHAPEL NEIGHBORHOOD CITY STREETS. SEEMS WE USED TO HAVE CITY ORDINANCES ON NOISE LEVELS IN TOWN….ALSO ON THE LOUD MOTORCYCLES WITH RADIOS BLASTING. SEDONA USED TO BE VERY PEACEFUL.
I’m not a fan of ATVs, but the businesses that rent them are legitimate businesses that pay sales tax and have valid Sedona business licenses.
The city shouldn’t have the right to change business rules after the fact.
This ATV law is more about property rights and the role of government.
ATV standards and manufacturing regulations are state and federal government issues, not local cities.
We all know this will cost the city a lot of money to defend, and they will lose in the end, but our city Council will come off as heroes.
Why is Sedona the only city in Arizona worried that ATVs are a “danger to the public,” or is it about getting re-elected?
One city Council person told me this was the only way they could get the SUV operators in Sedona to come to the table and negotiate. Negotiate what, following all state and federal regulations!
.
Legislation should always be the last resort, and it should be handled at the state level and should be even-handed. Let’s not fall victim to The tyranny of the majority,
@Steve Segner,
According to Steve, as long as a business pays tax,and might bring business for his rentals, everything is good no matter what damage happens.
Steve, I thought you said you were for negative population, and yet you are still here.
Careful of unintended consequences. Electic bicycles could be swept in. 2 wheel propelled boards. Golf carts are licensed in VOC. They have certain highway limitations and in a court of law would certainly be shown as a vehicle that is not up to motor vehicle crash standards.
But then neither is a motorcycle. A CanAm is a 3 wheeled unit, classified as a motorcycle, but most ATVs are more robust than a CanAm.
The tires are a bogus issue. There are tires on trucks and Jeeps that are not recommended for street driving, but they are tons tougher than regular street tires with more surface area in contact with pavement
This is just a few places this could go. I own a quad, street legal, but choose to trailer it. 2 weeks ago there were two large trailers on Forest 525 that unloaded quads. All this banning talk is not going to keep off the road vehicles off NFS dirt roads. The National Forests are for recreation, and to generate income and are managed by the Department of Agriculture for public use.
The banning in Sedona is pretty much hot air that is not going to go anywhere except to cost the city a lot of money.
Personally, whether they do it or not doesn’t matter, but I would sure like to see our leaders and tax dollars go to more productive things.
@Michael Schroeder
There are tires that are not recommended for on road, and there are tires that are not LEGAL for on road, that is not DOT approved, that’s the Department of Transportation for all you that think you know everything but don’t.
I have DOT approved racing tires on my street licensed performance car. It’s not my daily driver and it is suicidal to drive in the rain. So I don’t drive it in less than perfect weather. Assuming all tourists or rich people know enough about unusual vehicles is not a good bet.
What, no airbags, ABS, poor rear visibility, lost tourists in traffic circles and 80 year old drivers that are just trying to get to the market?
As Steve. would say, the rental businesses pay taxes. As if that was all that mattered. I hear you can tax prostitution and drugs too. Having both might bring more tourists !! Would you want to encourage that next door to your home?
Thanks for weighing in Mike Schroeder, with your history in Sedona, we all know that you never support what’s right for our city. We have you to thank for our traffic by killing the 4 lanes proposed by ADOT. You thought you were so smart during the Hollywood star’s campaign for mayor that you had to use CHARLES to throw the newcomers off.