Digital Camera

The Dorr Township Board Thursday night voted 4 to 2 to recommend expansion of areas suitable for off-road vehicles’ use.

A hefty crowd of nearly 50 in attendance encouraged the action in which the recommendation now will be sent to the Allegan County Road Commission for final action.

Proponents wanted the township’s blessing for adding four areas to what already is permitted locally for use by ORVs:

• 142nd Avenue from 21st Street to 16th Street.

• 18th Street from 144th Avenue to 140th Avenue.

• 14th Street from 144th Avenue to 142nd Avenue.

• 144th Avenue east to Division in Moline.

Members of the group contend that closure of roads to ORVs “limits (operators’) legal access to goods and services in Dorr.”

Justin Pepper, one of the principal representatives, told board members he used the recreational vehicles in Lake County, which has opened up all of its roads to ORVs without any problems.

Brent Wusman said, “There’s a lot of interest from business owners in town” because opening up more roads to ORV users would help their businesses.

When someone suggested ORV users lack liability, Scott Beltman of Monterey Township said, “When we take our ORVs on the road, we have to assume the risks.”

It was pointed out that Lee and Trowbridge townships in Allegan County have gone to all roads being open and there have no problems reported as a result.

The ORVs are not permitted to go faster than 25 miles per hour and most of the arteries they seek have speed limits of 35. They would be allowed to ride their vehicles on the edge of the pavement.

Supervisor Jeff Miling said, “I think it would be a good idea to at least try it… If it doesn’t work out, we could always revoke it.”

One man, who did not identify himself, rose to express oppition, saying, “I don’t believe this is the proper place for an ORV, after all it’s an off-road vehicle.” He said his concern is about safety.

Trustee Chandler Stanton agreed, saying, “I’m all for freedom, but I’m also all for safety… I’ve seen example of rotten apples who spoil it for everyone else.”

Dan Caywood countered with data that says 65 counties have gone to opening up roads to ORVs and no one has asked for repeal.

Stanton and Clerk Debbie Sewers voted “no” to the proposal while Miling, Dan Weber, John Tuinstra and Patrick Champion voted in the affirmative.

Champion, however, begged people in the audience to “please police yourselves.”

4 Comments

Buzz Abbot
February 25, 2022
None of those "reasons" holds water really if you think more than 3 seconds about it. The repairing of the roadsides turned into rutted 2-tracks will be on all taxpayers. Just a bunch of lawless, lazy rednecks wanting to have "fun" at everybody else's expense. Same group is draining Medicare slurping down “free” diabetes and blood pressure meds whilst they keep shopping for bigger belts.
0
Reply
Ed Nickels
February 25, 2022
Mr. Abbot, I'm not going to say if I agree or disagree with you. However, insulting people who hold a differing viewpoint is not a great way to form a consensus around your position. You would be better served if you calmed down a bit before hitting the enter key.
0
Reply
Concerned Citizen
February 25, 2022
Thank you Debbie Sewers and Chandler Stanton for again trying to be the voice of reason in our township. As stated by a Dorr citizen at last night's meeting, the majority of those of us living in Dorr do not support this at all. The vehicles in question are called Off Road Vehicles for a reason, they are meant to be driven on trails, not public roads.
0
Reply
Slim
February 25, 2022
One of the problems with using the roadsides for vehicles is that it adds a lane of traffic in each direction. The street, driveway, and sidewalk approaches, the turn lanes etc, are not really laid out or designed to accommodate this right now. So, you’re adding potentially hazardous conditions at every one of these points. Could the liability as well as the maintenance and repair of the roadside right-of-way fall on the township? Seems like a question that should be answered before the damage is done. One potential compromise solution is to drop the speed limits and put the vehicles in the traffic lanes like every other vehicle. Then perhaps by necessity and ordinance require the DOT standard lighting, signals, and licensed drivers on all. If needed then the costs of managing the effort, new limit signage etc, could be covered through some sort of licensing. (Pretty commonly done in Florida) Is there any assumed liability in making a conscious decision to put vehicles that meet none (or very few of) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) automobile safety requirements on our streets? And could you cover it with the few licenses actually sold? There are communities that know the answer, I’m sure. Be worth asking. From a progressive green perspective there’s opportunity here. Look at it from say 16th street and then west to 18th on 142nd. Just for example. Drop the speed limit to 20. Call it whatever you want but any ATV, UTV, ORV, Cart, custom contrivance, that is not a registered, licensed, motor vehicle must be electric. You could use The American Rescue Plan infrastructure resources to develop charging stations in parking lots at say the hardware, the grocery store, the bar, the park, wherever. You’ve got a small community model now for greenhouse gas reduction moving forward. Encouraging quiet, eco-friendly freedom of movement while building the infrastructure back bone for even more EV support down the road.
0
Reply

Post your comment

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading