Brad, don't call people names, argue and discuss the topic. It will be more productive.
Tire height is NOT an issue
Really?
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_rec_reiter_plng_committee_notes_052009.pdf
Consider a vehicle width limitation for vehicles on trails. (85")
Establish a size limitation for motorized vehicles on trails (i.e. wheel size?)
If they really are against width restrictions make it simple and put a 95 or 100" restriction on it. It'll be on paper and they won't actually exclude anyone which technically would fit their criteria.
I agree, just stating some facts that if they are going to limit 4x4s then limit quads and bikes to either DOT or lug size on the tiresI know most dirtbike, quad and UTV tires are not DOT approved. I am talking about DOT approved tire diameter. If the DOT approves the diameter on the street, the DNR should allow the diameter of tire on the trail IMO.
I also found out who the 85" width number came from and they are strongly against restrictions, but once again, they need a number on paper to "put in the books".
Tire height is NOT an issue.:beatdeadhorse:
You guys do know if this is the criteria the DNR gives the trail consultant you will end up with trails about 20' wide.
Jim your such a flip flopper.
You claim its the big tires guys (which you hate), then when its pointed out that your statement is the most ignorant view to have you quickly change your point to "IDIOTS with big tires"
ITS NOT THE TIRES JIM. ITS REALLY NOT.
Again, why does you opinion even matter? You DONT even wheel?:scratchhead:
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn77wwedvwo&feature=player_embedded[/YT]
Heres you sign Jim.:looser: hes one of your little tire guys that cause damage and then do whatever they want.
Us "big tire" guys dont do that, its against the rules.:kissmyass:
You guys do know if this is the criteria the DNR gives the trail consultant you will end up with trails about 20' wide.![]()
Most trail corridors at established DNR ORV areas are 20'-30' wide, allowing for what Gibby and the DNR have been discussing and doing: an easy line and a challenging line on the same trail.
WOW, talk about DEJA VU!
No ****...:eeek:
Gibby, I know we haven't always seen eye to eye... But, I do see you having the ability to listen and consider the opinion and views of others that may not agree with you...:awesomework:
I still may not agree with you all the time, but I try to understand your point of view...
I like the idea of have easy and hard lines as well...
If they really are against width restrictions make it simple and put a 95 or 100" restriction on it. It'll be on paper and they won't actually exclude anyone which technically would fit their criteria.
So then someone would go into an area with a rig this width and justifiably cut trees because his rig is within the range stated for the trail. Screw that!!
Keep 'em narrow!!