Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Atv Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee rejects bill to allow ATVs on gravel and dirt roads; health and safety concerns cited

2682456 · March 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 261, which would have allowed ATVs to operate on gravel or dirt roads unless a county quorum court opted out by a two‑thirds vote, failed in committee after testimony raised safety and local‑control concerns.

Senate Bill 261 failed to pass out of the House Transportation Committee after debate over public‑safety risks and the mechanism that would let counties opt out. The bill would have permitted operation of all‑terrain vehicles (ATVs) on gravel or dirt roads under conditions including a driver's license and liability insurance; it also allowed a county’s quorum court to prohibit such operation by a two‑thirds vote.

Sponsor Richard Womack said the measure had been negotiated and that the quorum‑court provision was included to give counties discretion to prohibit ATV operation on unpaid roads. But committee members and witnesses, including pediatrician Dr. Kristen Jeffries, urged caution. Dr. Jeffries, who studies injury prevention, said over half of ATV/UTV injuries happen on roads and urged stricter age limits or an 18‑and‑older restriction. She cited Arkansas data showing 84 children died from ATV‑related injuries between 2000 and 2020 and said allowing ATVs on roads increases crashes.

Representative Steinle and others raised concerns about the two‑thirds threshold for county opt‑out, describing it as a high barrier that could lock in statewide permissions. Police chiefs’ concerns were noted by committee members though no chief signed up to testify. Representative Womack said the provision was negotiated and could be amended.

After discussion the motion to pass was met with more “no” than “aye” responses and the committee chair announced the bill failed. Several members said they supported the intent for rural mobility but opposed the statewide prescription and the opt‑out threshold.