One Saturday afternoon, Paul Hazelwood was driving down the road on his Polaris when he saw an officer behind him. He didn’t think the officer was signaling for him to pull over. He was only doing about 15 mph, maybe 20 tops. But, yes, those lights were for him.
It’s not legal for just anybody to drive an ATV, UTV or other off-road vehicle on roads in Brown County, Hazelwood learned that day.
“He said, ‘In Brown County we don’t allow that unless you’re using it for farming.’ And I said, ‘I’m not’ — I’m not going to lie to the guy — and he was very nice,” Hazelwood said.
“He said, ‘A lot of people want it changed; you can see about getting ahold of the county and see if they’re willing to change the ordinance,’” the officer told him.
That’s what Hazelwood is working on now.
He posted a petition on change.org a few weeks ago and started a Facebook group, “Brown County UTV and ATV Ordinance,” on March 24.
As of April 16, the petition had 1,159 signatures of its 1,500 target and the Facebook group had 61 members. At least 650 of the signatures came from Brown County people, he said.
The Facebook page is where you can find a draft ordinance that Hazelwood plans to present to the Brown County Commissioners, the board that can decide to change the rule which doesn’t allow ATVs, UTVs or other off-road vehicles (ORVs) like snowmobiles on county roads.
But before Hazelwood takes that step, he wants to gather more opinions from residents, more signatures and more information.
Whats and whys
ATVs are all-terrain vehicles, like three-wheelers and four-wheelers, where the rider straddles the seat.
UTVs are utility terrain vehicles, like Hazelwood’s Polaris or a John Deere Gator, where the rider sits on a more car- or tractor-like seat. UTVs sometimes have roll cages and/or roofs.
ORVs include ATVs and UTVs, plus other vehicles that can be driven off-road.
Sixty-five of Indiana’s 92 counties allow off-road vehicles on county roads. Three other counties only allow their use on roads for agricultural purposes.
Brown County doesn’t allow their use on county roads at all — though Hazelwood said the officer who stopped him said that if he threw a bale of hay or a bag of feed in the back, he probably wouldn’t have gotten stopped.
“I believe that if you’re using it within the scope of what they’re designed for, with the speed limit and conditions, and you’re on the right side of the road, it’s no different than a golf cart, a tractor, or another vehicle. … So, I think it’s an antiquated law,” he said.
ATVs and UTVs can be driven on private property now, and they also can be driven along the shoulder of a road if it’s safe to do so. But on some county roads, there is no rideable shoulder, requiring an ATV or UTV to be trailered and taken to a property where it is to be ridden.
When he’s riding from one piece of his property to another, or to a neighbor’s house to help cut up a tree or get firewood, it doesn’t make sense to Hazelwood why he couldn’t just ride it on the road.
He’s ridden ATVs since he was 15, and once broke a leg and landed himself in a hospital for three weeks, so he knows what’s safe operation and what is not. Now, as a father of a 15-year-old, he lets his child ride with him as long as she’s wearing a helmet, which follows state law.
He’d argue that his Polaris, which has a roll cage and seat belts, is safer than riding a motorcycle or a bicycle on Brown County roads.
“How many motorcycle accidents have there been? And UTVs are safer,” Hazelwood said. “… I think I’d have a lot better shot at surviving an accident at 30 or 45 mph with a UTV than in a motorcycle or on a bike or even walking. So, I think it’s a perceptions thing” that UTVs aren’t safe for roads, he said.
Laws and stats
A state law that dates back to at least 1995 made off-road vehicles illegal on roads in every Indiana county, but it allowed counties, cities or towns to pass their own laws to allow them if they choose.
In the nine-county Indiana Department of Natural Resources district that includes Brown County, Morgan County is the only one to legalize ORVs for on-road use.
The DNR is the law enforcement agency that primarily deals with off-road vehicle matters. Other law enforcement agencies also can enforce those laws and investigate accidents.
Why does state law default to “illegal” for riding off-road vehicles on roads?
“It’s safety,” said Angela Goldman, a conservation officer for DNR District 6. “Ultimately, nearly all traffic laws were put in place for safety, and that would be the case here. Not all county roads are safe to be ridden on.”
In the past five years, the DNR has investigated 31 ORV accidents in Morgan County, where they’re legal on county roads. Fifteen of those accidents have been on roads, according to DNR statistics.
Over that same time period, the DNR handled 23 ORV accidents in Brown County, with eight of them being on a road, the agency reported.
Those figures may not include accidents investigated by other law enforcement agencies.
“Their name implies that they are off-road vehicles. They are not manufactured to be ridden on the roadway,” even if they do have some safety features that other vehicles do, Goldman said.
Brown County drivers have received 15 citations and 14 warnings from DNR officers over the past five years for operating an ORV in a road — more proof that some drivers are doing it anyway even when it’s not legal.
Counties that have legalized ORV use on their roads may have varying restrictions, such as exempting some roads, only allowing riding at certain hours or for drivers of a certain age, or not allowing all kinds of off-road vehicles.
Hazelwood grabbed Morgan County’s ORV ordinance to use as a base for a Brown County ordinance. In his draft:
ORVs could not be operated on state highways, on streets in Nashville town limits or on state lands in Brown County, only in unincorporated areas. The county commissioners could designate any road as “unsuitable for off-road vehicular traffic” by posting signs.
Drivers would have to be 18 or older with a valid driver’s license, insurance and registration.
The vehicles would have to be registered with the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and meet all the requirements in state law to receive registration, and have the appropriate decals displayed on the vehicle.
The vehicles allowed on county roads would include ATVs with at least three tires, recreational off-road vehicles with at least four tires, snowmobiles, amphibious machines, “multi-wheel-drive or low-pressure-tire” vehicles, “ground effect air cushion” vehicles, and “other means of transportation deriving motive power from a source other than muscle or wind.”
ORVs driven on roads would have to have a working muffler “to prevent excessive or unusual noise and annoying smoke.”
An ORV driving on a road between 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise would have to display headlights and taillights.
ORVs could not be driven within 100 feet of a dwelling between midnight and 6 a.m. unless it’s on the person’s own property or as a guest.
Anyone on the vehicle who’s 18 or younger would have to wear a U.S. Department of Transportation-approved helmet. This is state law.
No passengers younger than 6 could be on the vehicle, and the number of passengers would be limited to the number of seats on the vehicle.
There are other provisions in the draft about carrying firearms or bows on an ORV, and about driving them in or across waterways, railroads, cemeteries, planting areas and frozen bodies of public waters.
Golf carts are currently not included in the draft ordinance, primarily because they cannot get up to road speeds and Hazelwood doesn’t see that they have as much use out in the county as what they might have in more of a neighborhood setting.
“If someone wanted to include golf carts, great, I don’t have a preference one way or another, but I just don’t see a golf cart being a valuable tool for me going down the road and back,” he said.
Goldman confirmed that is legal for a person to ride an ORV on the shoulder of a road to do something like get to another part of their property or check on their animals, but beyond that is where you could get into citation territory.
“There’s a difference between running up the highway in the middle of the lane, the county road, taking up a lane of travel to run from your house down the road a mile to your neighbor’s house, versus using a four-wheeler to check on your cattle or run feed, and you’re on your property, but you have to be on the roadway to get to and from. It’s kind of a different end purpose,” she said.
“But ultimately, it still needs to be registered if you’re going to operate in or on a roadway, even on the non-traveled portion.”
Hazelwood said he’d still rather get the law changed rather than risk getting pulled over again.
“Legally, I could take my Polaris and ride on the shoulder and off the line … but that’s open to interpretation by the officer that decides to pull you over. … Why risk it? I want to do things right and try to make sure that it’s all done correctly.”
Then and now
About a decade ago, in January 2010, another group of county residents approached the commissioners who were in office at that time and asked for ORV use to become legal on Brown County roads. Supporters had a petition with about 130 signatures on it. Many of them were people who used them as a tool on their rural properties.
Residents who spoke against it at that time mentioned the dangers of driving on Brown County’s hilly roads, potential road damage, potential operation of these vehicles by tourists who don’t know the roads or the dangers, and greater severity of injuries from accidents on ORVs versus accidents in other vehicles.
After hearing public comments, the county commissioners at that time decided not to change the law.
Hazelwood said that there have been a lot of advances in technology since then and he thinks the safety concerns have been mitigated.
Commissioners President Jerry Pittman said on Friday that he was aware of the current petition and that a couple people had talked with him about it. Pittman, a farmer, said he said he could see the utility of allowing ORVs on county roads, but safety would be his concern.
“I don’t think I’ve developed a solid position on it yet, but I think I would probably favor it — unless someone can explain to me why it’s not a good idea,” he said.
[sc:pullout-title pullout-title=”On the Web” ][sc:pullout-text-begin]
ORV laws in Indiana: in.gov/dnr/outdoor-recreation/trails/off-roading
Petition: “Allow ATV and UTV use on public roads in Brown County Indiana” on change.org.
Facebook page: “Brown County UTV and ATV Ordinance”
[sc:pullout-text-end][sc:pullout-title pullout-title=”Town temporarily bans motorized scooter businesses” ][sc:pullout-text-begin]
The Nashville Town Council is discussing whether or not another form of alternate transportation is appropriate for town: motorized scooter rentals.
At the April 15 council meeting, Town Administration Manager Phyllis Carr told the council that she’d received an inquiry from scooter company Bird about operating in Nashville. She hadn’t answered them because the town doesn’t currently have a process to license this kind of business.
In the spring of 2019 and again in the fall, Town Attorney James T. Roberts talked with the council about a preemptive ordinance regulating scooter businesses, seeing their popularity in other communities. Most council members at that time said that they were against them. The council asked him to draft something. It came before the council last week, but it didn’t pass.
Instead, the council voted 4-0 with President Jane Gore absent to pass a resolution banning motorized scooter companies from operating in Nashville until at least June 17, which is the date of the June council meeting. Council member Nancy Crocker, who drafted that resolution on the back of some scratch paper during the meeting, said that before then, a small group of town employees including herself, Roberts, Chief of Police Ben Seastrom and Strategic Direction Adviser Dax Norton would come up with some rules for how a scooter rental business could operate here.
Roberts’ draft ordinance which didn’t pass at last week’s meeting would have prohibited motorized scooters from operating on sidewalks, pedestrian walkways (like the Salt Creek Trail) or public parks. Each scooter would be treated like a separate business, requiring a separate $30 business license from the town. Any motorized scooter left unattended in a public parking area for more than 24 hours would be impounded. Scooter riders would have to obey all rules of the road and licensing requirements.
Seastrom expressed concern about how to enforce the ordinance, especially considering his limited police staff.
Council member David Rudd made a motion to accept that ordinance so they’d have something in place for the time being but Anna Hofstetter voted against it. Because it wasn’t unanimous, it could not be adopted that night. Hostetter said she didn’t feel comfortable voting for it yet. Instead, Crocker drafted the resolution banning motorized scooters and the licensing of shared-use motorized scooters until June when the council could consider some different rules.
[sc:pullout-text-end]
