For one she didn't have a seatbelt on and two no helmet. Both are listed in the operation manual and it is DRIVERS responsibility to make aware the manuals information, much like a amusement park ride operator. I was suspended in the air by my seatbelt after two full rolls, my passenger who is about 230 lbs had the seatbelt fail but still held him in by the lap, both uninjured other than the aftermarket windshield and mirror. Based on your description the same thing could have happened in a truck or SUV at or near the same rate of speed.

Accidents happen and unfortunately it was a sad loss. We all feel for you however the owner should have been more careful. at 10 -15 miles an hour a EXPERIENCED rider should have been aware of the tiping issue especially at the speed and over-correction that he had done. It was simply driver error and a small hump in the dirt can cause a low pressure tire to "roll" and increase the chances of it tiping the vehicle, experience tells the racers to lower a tire profile to prevent this however these was designed for off-road terrain therefor a low-profile would damage rims.

Again, there is negligence on many accidents but the manufacture seldom is to blame unless a product routinely fails. There is a reason these was designed with a cage, seatbelts and a governor in the CDI along with many warning stickers and a manual to go along with it. Why it is not illegal for children not to have helmets in them still along with it not required on private land still baffles me, but there is also that lawyer that pushes our bill of rights against our governments ability to look after the "stupid people"

It is always hard to overcome a loss of yours without wanting to point it at the manufacture of the "damn vehicle" or something. However, always understand accidents happen due to neglect to prevent and some things cannot be prevented.

Synopsis and Summary of 2008 OHV Legislation
2008 General Session
SB 76—State Parks and Recreation Amendments

Introduction
SB 76 modifies the Motor Vehicle Act and the State Boating Act by giving the Board of
Parks and Recreation authority to set fees for the OHV and Boating Education courses.
Previously, those were established in statute. It also amends the definition of a Type I
ATV by modifying the definition of a low-pressure tire.
Changes
Under existing statute, the maximum fees we could collect for our OHV and Boating
Education courses have been set by the Legislature. The Board then had authority to set
the actual fee up to the limit in the code. This change allows the Board to set the fee,
allowing the Division to react to changes in the program needs in a faster manner. It will
also allow us to set the fees for the OHV and Boating programs at the same level to
minimize confusion.
A Type I ATV has been defined, in part, as having three or more low pressure tires. Low
pressure tires have been defined as “any pneumatic tire six inches or more in width
designed for use on wheels with rim diameter of 12 inches or less…” Recently, many
utility type ATVs have come from the manufacturer with 14 inch wheels. Other
aftermarket sources have aggressively marketed 14 inch wheels as the new standard for
utility grade ATVs. By definition, a 14 inch wheel is no longer a “low pressure tire”.
Since a standard (Type I) ATV with 14 inch wheels is no longer operating on low
pressure tires, it ceases to be a Type I ATV and becomes a Type II ATV. Under the law,
children are not required to wear helmets on Type II ATVs. This creates a safety
concern.
HB 291—Off-highway Vehicle Amendments
Introduction
HB291 modifies the Motor Vehicle Code by amending provisions governing the use of
off-highway vehicles by minors. It creates a definition for “direct supervision” and
establishes a requirement for supervision of unlicensed minors while operating OHVs
under certain circumstances. The Chief Sponsor of the bill was Representative Michael
Noel at the request of the Utah Sheriff’s Association, with Senator Mike Dmitrich acting
as the Senate Sponsor. The bill takes effect July 1, 2008.
Defining “Direct Supervision”
“Direct Supervision” is defined as “Oversight at a distance of no more than 300 feet and
within which visual contact is maintained and advice and assistance can be given and
received.”
The new requirement
Under HB 291, the operator of an off-highway vehicle on public lands must meet one of
the following criteria:
1. Be under the direct supervision of a certified off-highway vehicle safety
instructor during a regularly scheduled training course; or
2. Have in his or her possession a valid driver’s license; or
3. Have in his or her possession an appropriate safety certificate issued or
approved by the division, and if under 18 years of age, be under the direct
supervision of a person who is at least 18 years of age if operating on a public
highway that is open to motor vehicle use and not reserved exclusively for offhighway
vehicles.
It was fairly clear that the legislative intent of the bill is to have an adult supervising
young riders during any time when they may come into contact with full size vehicles
operating on the same route. That would include county roads, forest roads, city streets,
and similar highways (highways = travel routes). The legislature was less concerned
about the direct supervision requirement in places where full size vehicles would not be
found, such as narrow trails, closed courses (racetracks) and the like. Implements of
husbandry are not included in this requirement.
Traditionally, the fine for violating this part of the OHV law has been “not more than
$50” per offense. HB 291 raises that limit to “not more than $100” per offense. Judicial
discretion will still apply.
What does it mean?
Kids will need to be supervised on 80% of the “trails” in the state.

[size=18]SB181S01—Off-highway Vehicle Use on Public Highways

Introduction
SB181S01 modifies the Insurance Code and the Motor Vehicles Code by amending
provisions governing the use of off-highway vehicles, specifically ATVs, on public
highways. It creates by definition a new class of motor vehicles known as “Street-Legal
All-terrain Vehicles, or Street-Legal ATVs”, defines the operational and equipment
requirements for street-legal ATVs, and modifies the law as it relates to county and
municipality authority to designate highways under their respective jurisdictions for
OHV use. The Chief Sponsor of the bill was Senator Scott Jenkins, with Representative
Michael Noel acting as the House sponsor. The bill takes effect on October 1, 2008.
Creating a Street Legal ATV
Both Type I ATVs and Type II ATVs are eligible to become “Street-Legal ATVs” under
the new law. In order for an ATV to become “street-legal” under SB181S01, it must
have the following equipment:
ü One or more headlamps that meet the requirements set forth for standard motor
vehicles
ü One or more tail lamps
ü A white tail lamp or other lamp to illuminate the license plate
ü One or more red reflectors on the rear
ü Amber electric turn signals, one on each side, both front and rear
ü A braking system that meets requirements for standard motor vehicles, except
street legal ATVs do not require a parking brake
ü A horn or other warning device (No sirens, whistles or bells; must be audible
from 200 feet; may not be “unreasonably loud or harsh”)
ü A muffler and emission control system
ü Rearview mirrors on the right and left side of the driver
ü A windshield, unless the operator wears eye protection while operating
ü A speedometer, illuminated for nighttime operations
ü “For vehicles designed by the manufacturer for carrying one or more passengers,
a seat designed for passengers, including a footrest and handhold for each
passenger.”
ü Seatbelts for each occupant in vehicles with side by side seating.
Registration and Licensing
A street-legal ATV must comply with the same requirements as a motorcycle for:
· Traffic rules under the Traffic Code
· Driver licensing under the Uniform Driver License Act (at least 16 years
old, with a valid driver’s license and a motorcycle endorsement)
· Registration, titling, odometer statement, vehicle identification, license
plates, and registration fees
· Fees in lieu of property tax
· County motor vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance programs
A street-legal ATV must comply with the same requirements as a motor vehicle for:
· Motor vehicle insurance
· Safety inspection requirements (except that a street-legal ATV shall be
subject to a safety inspection when registered for the first time.) Safety
inspection will be a verification of the required equipment.
A street-legal ATV must comply with the requirements set forth for off-highway vehicles
in all other circumstances, including the payment of fees as established in law. In
practical terms, this means that a street-legal ATV will pay both the highway and offhighway
fees.
Operations
Street-legal ATVs may be operated on any highway of the state which has one lane in
each direction, except
§ Highways under the jurisdiction of any first class county (Salt
Lake County is the only first class county in the state at present)
§ Highways under the jurisdiction of any municipality in a county of
the first class, or
§ Highways under the jurisdiction of any municipality with a
population of 7500 or more.
Provisions are made in the law for first class counties and municipalities to designate
routes open to street-legal ATVs, notwithstanding the above-mentioned prohibitions.
Street-legal ATVs are still prohibited on interstate freeways and controlled access
highways, as are all off-highway vehicles.
While operating a street-legal ATV, the operator may not exceed the posted speed limit,
or 45 MPH, whichever is less. Otherwise, all traffic laws apply.
Other Provisions of the new law
In addition to addressing the issue of street-legal ATVs, SB181S01 clarifies an often
misunderstood section of OHV law. It has been unclear whether or not a county or
municipality could designate highways under their control for general OHV use, or only
as routes for access to and from designated riding areas. SB181S01 clarifies this issue,
stating that a county or municipality may designate highways under its jurisdiction as
1. Open for street-legal ATV operation;
2. Open for general off-highway vehicle operation; or
3. Open for limited off-highway vehicle operation to allow OHVs to gain direct
access to and from a public or private riding area.
What doesn’t change
1. Counties and municipalities may still designate routes under their respective
jurisdiction for use by OHVs, and should be encouraged to do so. Allowing
the street-legal designation to replace local designation will disrupt tourism
related use of our established trail systems and community connectors by
eliminating family use, since non-licensed operators are not allowed to operate
as street-legal.
2. The Division’s responsibility remains the same, which is to assist Counties,
municipalities, and federal agencies in managing the recreational use of offhighway
vehicles.
3. Travel planning by federal agencies should not be greatly affected. Streetlegal
ATVs will be limited to routes designated for motor vehicle travel. They
will likely be allowed on routes otherwise limited to full sized vehicles, but
non-motorized trails are still off-limits to street-legal ATVs.
What we still don’t know…
1. We don’t know how many ATVs will be licensed as street-legal. Arizona
reports approximately 30% of their ATVs made the switch.
2. We don’t know what the safety ramifications will be in mixing ATVs (at 45
MPH) and larger vehicles (at speeds up to 65 MPH) but are concerned that it
will present a significant safety hazard. However, we don’t know if it could
be worse than having bicycles on highways, a condition that we live with
daily.
3. If there are safety issues, we don’t know how that will affect the future of
OHV recreation. We have seen a recent increase in scrutiny by the CPSC and
various consumer protection organizations, with the backing of some
environmental extremists, in attacking OHV use in general as unsafe.
4. We don’t know if this change will become a disincentive to agencies or
counties in designating OHV routes, but certainly hope it will not be.
5. It is unclear which agency will be the lead agency in enforcing provisions of
the law. It appears that this is primarily a highway issue, rather than a
recreational use issue.
6. We still don’t know what forms the basis of the population figures used to
determine whether a city is above or below the 7500 mark. Moreover, visitors
will have an even tougher time making this determination!
7. We don’t know how this will play with our nonresident program. That is still
to be determined. The law requires the Board to set reciprocity standards for
other states with similar programs.[/size]

Marysvale main street, where else can you get away that easy today?

I like the decorated version of the razor better from the 24th!

Redman,
So is Moab going to work with the offroad laws? I would love to see this place open up a little. Since you know best it would be appreciated if you could put a exact list together of what we need to pass the new UTAH street legal laws, it's jumble if you try to read the governments lingo on the subject.

Ron Woods pipe or Alba? I like both systems but never used spring clip design.

Is there any fear of having the springs break under vibration from the rhino vs a atv?

Who has the best known hp gain on all there exhaust applications?

That's the other issue! what exhaust is near the same db level, won't break and show possible gains? Anyone have a favorite that won't be over 500? :?:

Exhausted at studying exhausts!  :? which one is going to give me the least grief in the long run, low noise and some possible performance gain? My stock is cracked at the head of the muffler.