OZ ATV :: The Australian ATV Forum

[gazman]

survey done x2.
i must contact derm about the master plan they were working on for OUR forests.
gazman

[Dino]

And after years of asking for the permit policies from QPS, I stumbled over it myself!
From here:
http://www.police.qld.gov.au/rti/published/policies/traffic-manual/12/Ch_12.htm
Specifically:

12.6 Local government authorities may issue permits

Section 66 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act provides that a local government may make local laws about some matters which are also dealt with in Chapter 5 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act, for example, a local government, under s. 66, may make local laws for the regulation of roadside vending. In cases where local laws have been made the provisions of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act cease to apply.

PROCEDURE

Members of the Service who issue permits should acquaint themselves with the provisions of any local laws which may impinge upon the issue of permits.

12.7 Permits under the Traffic Regulation

A small number of sections in the Traffic Regulation allow the Commissioner to issue permits to allow a person to act contrary to specified provisions of the Traffic Regulation. In the case of s. 126B: 'Carrying signs on roads', the Commissioner has delegated those powers to other officers, see Delegation No. D 25.29.

PROCEDURE

Officers issuing permits under the Traffic Regulation should use a 'General Permit' form (PT32) as the form of permit.

12.8 Special event permits and special circumstances permits

An authorising officer may issue a permit to allow:

(i) for a special event permit, a person conducting or taking part in a special event; or

(ii) for a special circumstances permit, the permittee,

to not comply with stated provisions of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation and the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Road Rules) Regulation (see ss. 101 to 107 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation).

Officers authorised to issue special event and special circumstances permits are described within Delegation Nos. D 25.23 and D 25.24 respectively.

A special event for which a permit may be issued is defined in s. 102 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation.

Examples of special circumstances which may warrant the issuing of a special circumstances permit are shown in s. 106 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation.

ORDER

Officers authorised to issue special event permits or special circumstances permits are to comply with ss. 103 and 106 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation as appropriate.

PROCEDURE

Officers authorised to issue special event permits or special circumstances permits should:

(i) use 'General Permit' form (PT32) as the form of permit for special event permits and special circumstances permits unless the permit relates to the use of an excess dimension vehicle (see Chapter 10: 'Excess Dimension Vehicle Permits' of this Manual); and

(ii) include such conditions in the permit as are necessary to minimise danger to the all road users and to manage the impact of the permittee or persons taking part in a special event on other road users.
_________________
Remember. We elect politicians, but we have to deal with bureaucracy.
Notice that crazy in the bureaucrats.

[Dino]

My response to the Chief of Staff TMR Ministers Office:

"Attention ***** *****.(They get all funny if their names are made public.)
Chief of Staff.

Thank you for formulating the short reply, as requested by the Minister.

Yes, I, as part of a group, have written to this department previously.
And will continue to do so.

As stated in my previous correspondence, miss-truths, misleading and completely false statements from this department have been forthcoming. Answers to direct questions have not been forthcoming. And despite the clarity of our intentions being highlighted, many of the responses have taken a tangent unrelated to our stated goals.
Given the high value our elected officials place upon sound advise, one questions this soundness when a twenty minute web search reveals that much of this advice is flawed and incorrect.

This latest response has been similar, in not answering direct questions.

We have a elected government that has promised transparency and accountability.
We have asked for nothing more than truthful and positive relevant dialogue in a reasonable time frame.
Should such meaningless dialogue continue, we will left with no choice but to resort to higher authorities.
It really does not need to be this hard.

To clarify one point you have raised though. Specifically: "TMR will be removing the requirement for an applicant to provide proof of access or a permit issued by the relevant authority prior to the granting of the conditional registration."
Is this removal of proof of access or permit by all authorities or the just a relevant authority?
As currently, we need land manager/owner and QPS permission to even apply for the limited registration..

The changes that you have mentioned bring us back some 5 years.
Even so, this is a welcome removal of some of the discrimination shown.

We look forward to progress on these matters."
_________________
Remember. We elect politicians, but we have to deal with bureaucracy.
Notice that crazy in the bureaucrats.

[Dino]

I've just recieved another official response from DTMR about recent changes to the conditional registration scheme.
So, as things currently stand, the below makes it pretty clear:

"Dear Mr Hunter

Thank you for your email of 29 May 2013 to Mr ***** ***** Chief of Staff, about the registration requirements for quad bikes. Mr ***** has asked that the department respond on his behalf.

As you are aware, the Department of Transport and Main Roads has streamlined the administrative processes for granting conditional registration to riders of quad bikes. From 1 June 2013 a person can now apply for and be granted conditional registration to participate in recreational activities or an event without having to provide any evidence of holding an authorisation issued by any authority.

However, once a vehicle has conditional registration, you will still be required to obtain authorisation from the land and or/road owner where the vehicle is intended to be used prior to operation. Further, a police permit is required if the vehicle is restricted to operating on a designated route.

I hope this clarifies your question, if you require further information, please call me."

We will continue to fight for a fairer go.
_________________
Remember. We elect politicians, but we have to deal with bureaucracy.
Notice that crazy in the bureaucrats.

[Dino]

According to the DTMR advisors, this type of thing must not exist, because they said so! ( In writing!)

http://www.wmur.com/escape-outside/1000mile-atv-trail-system-in-north-country-launches-saturday/-/18282296/20538936/-/a6o4iu/-/index.html

So it must be the imaginary Governor of New Hampshire, USA, who is launching this next imaginary network of trails, 6 months after a imaginary meeting, with imaginary support, this imaginary saturday....
The Govenor also said this imaginary statement:
"He said Berlin has allowed such off highway road vehicle access to some of the city roads where ATV riders can go to gas stations, stores and restaurants. He said it has not been a serious safety problem."

I guess that the imaginary money, from the imaginary tourism, is why I imagine the local communities are smiling as much as the ATV riders.
_________________
Remember. We elect politicians, but we have to deal with bureaucracy.
Notice that crazy in the bureaucrats.

[Dino]

Some fairly solid communications lately have highlighted some issues which are not our agenda. ( Quite possibly from some business, with a vested interest in not seeing a form of recreational rego occurring, but not from us.
And I'll be very clear about these five points.

POINT ONE:
We DO NOT want Unlimited Access to the full road network.
NOT OUR AGENDA.
We are only concerned with obtaining access to suitable areas and some Council controlled back roads. NOT State controlled roads.
This is to allow us to contribute to local communities, tourism and provide a mutual benefit and support to these areas between locals and riders.
That such a level of access is pre-qualified. It works just fine in Tasmania, grosses $8 million annually for the State of Arizona in the USA, and is in widespread use in the USA, liability and public risk leader of the western world.
THIS IS OUR AGENDA.

POINT TWO:
We are not advocating the kids tag along on such outings, riding their own bikes. Knock that idea on the head!
The LAW is clear. ONLY LICENSED RIDERS> ONLY REGISTERED machines on PUBLIC roads and the various definitions of public roads/areas. (Includes some Forestry and beaches for example.)
If people want their kids doing this, then pay your money to some event underwritten by a business such as MA. (Should they ever move beyond actually saying they can do something and to actually doing it.)
In the eyes of those who make the rules, it is no different to letting your 7 year old drive you to the shops in the family car. Not on.
NOT OUR AGENDA.

POINT THREE:
We do not support the Federal Govt.,and other States, view that a basic car license is a sufficient level of qualification to safely operate a quad bike. They are a vehicle which requires a specialised skill set requiring a dynamic operating style. People operating recreation maritime vessels require a endorsement to their car license to operate their craft under a set of specific location rules. We ask for the same.
THIS IS OUR AGENDA.

POINT FOUR:
That PPE Equipment such as described by legislation for operation of motor cycles should be mandated by law for use of vehicles, such as quad bikes, under the same areas and road definitions as motorcycles.
Specifically, DOT approved helmets and enclosed footwear. The mandatory use of protective jackets, pants and gloves should also be encouraged. This is a liability nightmare for unqualified Govt. Authority staff to be made to contend with.
THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE WITH ACCESS. THIS IS OUR AGENDA.

POINT FIVE:
Quad bikes and the likes will never get ADR approvals to get full rego.
QUOTE from a Federal Transport Beurea communication:
"... such a scheme is unlikely to occur in the near or distant future.
The costs to develop and administer such a compliance regime would be uneconomical for any administration. Discussions with importers have revealed a very limited ability to contribute to the extensive costs involved and the sales figures do not support such a contribution. Very limited exceptions based on overseas qualifications have occurred, such as the vehicle mentioned. ( CanAm Spyder btw.)...." This means our rides will only ever be offered a rego suitable for Non ADR compliant vehicles.
NOT OUR AGENDA.
_________________
Remember. We elect politicians, but we have to deal with bureaucracy.
Notice that crazy in the bureaucrats.

[Dino]

The recent review of the conditional registration was officially about access.
So, if you were wondering, like many of us, why safety issues were not addressed, it was not within the scope of the review.

So obligatory safety requirements for motor bikes, like DOT approved helmets and enclosed footwear are still neither law nor policy for the riding and use of quads and UTV's, SxS's on or in the public domain.
This is still left up to the authorities expected to write up a permit, which is still a pretty big hassle.

Where to from here?

QPS, NPRSR and DAFF, who are the authorities concerned with the administration of the changes will have a series of meetings to decipher, communicate and implement changes to their policies.
In normal terms, that means the cops, forestry and National Parks will get together. I'm not led to believe the public will be invited to attend.

However, the authorities will have to consider "other information" in the formulation and policy reviews.
I suggest writing to these authorities and putting forward your case.

Because, they are unlikely to get much in the way of rego figures if it's a fee for nothing service.
_________________
Remember. We elect politicians, but we have to deal with bureaucracy.
Notice that crazy in the bureaucrats.

[Dino]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io0TW4i11Ec&feature=youtu.be
_________________
Remember. We elect politicians, but we have to deal with bureaucracy.
Notice that crazy in the bureaucrats.

[Dino]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/1173753_420231764749255_312488565_n.jpg

_________________
Remember. We elect politicians, but we have to deal with bureaucracy.
Notice that crazy in the bureaucrats.

[Dino]

So, with the usual Qld bureaucracy (beurocrazy(?)) way of slipping things thru, the submissions for this amendment to several key legislations close, conveniently on the next black friday. I got the tip off today from the CEO of a organisation who is going in to make submissions on behalf of our outdoors industry.
The below is my reply:
" Hi *****.

Please pardon my frank language. I’ve use my quota of fancy terms this week already.

I will admit that after such a long time campaigning for better access for safe, legal and responsible quad bike use, I’m sure I’ve been fed every red herring the various(too many) bodies have to feed such feisty people as myself. But in amongst that, and my dealings with other bodies, some actual, and relevant, facts have eventuated, which has been the cause of much stone-walling. Some of road blocks are legislation, but most of it is policy and attitude.

Broadly speaking, the perception of civil liability litigation risk and exposure, ( also known as legal bullshit) to individual workers has been an underlying foundation for much of the stone-walling. And this has been privately confessed to me by many individuals, both field and remote management based, in positions of authority to grant/deny access or permits.
This has translated into an outright policy, and a culture, of denying access and permission to both individuals and community groups.

A significant proportion of these amendments are about transferring that risk of liability back to the state, their bosses, and, indirectly, our employees. If this brings about a change in policy, to allow clubs, groups and organisations better access, larger legal numbers and improved ( co-constructed) facilities, I am all for it. We’ve watched it go downhill since 2003 and we, as Queenslanders, want this situation better than it currently is.

Much mention is indirectly made of better implementation of management plans. To be blunt, we are currently over managed and under resourced. Every plan I have seen is a very long read and not much sunshine at the end of it. And this type of management is costing, and in more than a financial aspect. I have no problem with an over-riding framework of managing these areas in future, so long as local needs, management and most importantly, local Govt. and communities have the ability to benefit and provide communication to the final over-arching authority. Local Govt. that works to better their local communities is the key to unlocking this scenario in my opinion.

As a member of both one of the few Incorporated Bodies, and QORF, it is readily apparent to me that members such as myself represent <3% of all parks/forest users. So our voice is significant in that we are recognised and regarded as legitimate. I would like you to use that loud voice in your presentation ********.

The other 97% are individuals and small social groups that have continued to flout the rules/policy/legislation and happily carry on in defiance, or bliss, depending on your viewpoint. They need to be taken into consideration, in my view. Not viewed as shadowy people carrying out non-sanctioned activities, but viewed as entitled to be “out there� and contribute to our society.
Do so legitimately. Not in hiding. Not in fear. Not under the radar any longer. The best policing we can provide our areas is ordinary everyday people, who want to be there. In Tony Abbott's own words, let the goodies have a go.
Quite honestly, if even a third of them were provided legitimate access on a, very modest, fee for access basis, our state’s coffers, and our areas, whether land or maritime, would be better off. Better off financially, socially and most importantly, physically and mentally. Go in and bat for us all mate.

Regards Dino
_________________
Remember. We elect politicians, but we have to deal with bureaucracy.
Notice that crazy in the bureaucrats.

[Dino]

BETTER SIT DOWN!

Todd Pikeposted toQueenslanders for better dirtbike recreation venues
2 hours ago
Todays meeting went well withe top tmr ministerial advisors. Some good outcomes.
1. Tmr admitted conditional rego is not working
2. A review of new safety and old safety rules and legislation. To be work with recreational riders.
3. A full Government & advisors approach.
4. A review of statistics and separated recreational statistics from current road traffic statistics to prevent wrong information getting out to public etc. Also this means our statistics wont be publish to road traffic accidents or deaths.
5. To review a new rec rego system to include councils or other government agencies to provide safe riding areas.

This is current (today) and from one of the many face book pages about.
This forum is comparatively quiet to what it used to be, but I'll continue to use it for those who don't do face book.
_________________
Remember. We elect politicians, but we have to deal with bureaucracy.
Notice that crazy in the bureaucrats.

[Prokiwi]

Good work Dino , sounds a little more positive...
_________________
It's time too ride !!!!!!!

[Dino]

Excerpt from latest communicatrion....
"Thank you for meeting with representatives from the Department of Transport and Main
Roads (TMR) to talk about your ideas to improve the conditional registration scheme for
recreational users.
I have been told you asked for clarification on how a road is defined for the purposes of road crash statistics. A road is broadly defined in the Queensland Road Crash Database Manual as "an area that is open to or used by the public and is developed for or has as one of its main uses, the driving or riding of motor vehicles." For more details on inclusions and exclusions to this definition, please refer to Attachment 1.
The Queensland Government is committed to reducing red tape. For example, from 1 June 2013 TMR removed the requirement for an applicant to provide proof of access or a permit issued by the relevant authority prior to granting conditional registration. This change to the conditional registration process does not affect the current requirement of a registered operator of a conditionally registered vehicle to obtain authorisation from the land owner, road authority and/or Queensland Police Service where the vehicle is intended to be used. This means that the land owner, road authority and the Queensland Police Service remain the people responsible for allowing access to areas within their responsibility.
As a result of your meeting, I have asked Mr Neil Scales, the Director-General of TMR to write to his colleagues in the Department of National Parks, Sport, Recreation and Racing, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection and the Department of Natural Resources and Mines to see what assistance they can provide in streamlining their land access approval process and to work collaboratively to find a suitable solution.
Following the meeting I asked TMR to investigate the pOints you raised about creating a network of linked trails to further improve the conditional registration scheme for recreational users. I have also asked TMR to look at personal protective equipment requirements for quad bike users operating on the road network. However please be aware that finding a suitable solution will take some time and we will ensure you are kept updated with the work TMR is doing."
_________________
Remember. We elect politicians, but we have to deal with bureaucracy.
Notice that crazy in the bureaucrats.

[Dino]

The crew from the FNQuadriders have, after years of lobbying, finally got some politicians aboard the pillion seats and took them on one of their legal road rides.
To say the least, it was a very informative ride.

The safety aspects, environmental benefits and versatility of the machines was well highlighted.
After leaving town, it seemed like: "one minute, travelling safely and comfortably @ 100 km'h down the bitumen council controlled roads, and the next minute weaving through overgrown fire trails in some of Far north Qld's rainforests."

None of the elected representatives could make any sense of TMR's lack of action. By the rides end, they were very happy to endorse a Tasmanian style of recreational registration being trialled in FN Qld.
_________________
Remember. We elect politicians, but we have to deal with bureaucracy.
Notice that crazy in the bureaucrats.

[hojoos]

Many thanks for the explanation! Now it is much clearer to me. But I want to clarify something else. Do I understand it correctly that IP address is changing when you change your physical location? So my IP will change if I move out of my zip code area https://worldpostalcode.com/united-states/arizona/phoenix And this is how the dynamic IP address works? Let me know if I am right or wrong.