No ATV riding on Gilpin roads |
Valley News Dispatch

No ATV riding on Gilpin roads


After hearing extensive opinions on both sides of the issue for several months, the move to allow all-terrain vehicles on Gilpin roads succumbed quietly.

A motion to allow ATVs on selected township roads died Monday night.

Supervisors were considering an ordinance that would have allowed township roads to be designated “multi-use roads” and ATV operators would have been required to obtain annual permits from Gilpin police.

In addition to state highways and state-maintained roads, eight township roads would have been off limits. The proposal allowed ATV usage only between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m.

Supervisors Susan Brown made the motion, adding that she had done “a lot of research” on the issue. But there was silence when supervisors Chairman Charles Stull asked for her measure to be brought to a formal vote of the township supervisors.

Those who spoke before the attempted vote either opposed the idea or asked for caution in allowing the usage.

Resident Jim Teeters said allowing ATVs “wouldn’t enhance the safety and welfare of the community.”

Teeters added that he had been regularly attending supervisors’ meeting since 2005 and “this was the most asinine measure to ever come before this board.”

Dr. Mark Diamond of the Pennsylvania Academy of Pediatrics said ATV accidents caused more than 100,000 visits to emergency rooms and many of the vehicles are “too powerful for kids to handle.”

“I have seen accidents, and I have seen people suffer,” Diamond said. “How will you feel after the first accident takes place?”

Supervisors said Solicitor Tim Miller, absent from Monday’s meeting, advised against the measure and said there’s no point in opening the township up to more liability.

George Guido is a Tribune-Review contributing writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.