PRESIDING CHAIRMAN: Senator Ciotto

SENATORS: Ciotto, Finch, DeFronzo, McDonald

REPRESENTATIVES: Guerrera, Mikutel, Scribner, Bielawa, Boucher, Caron, Davis, Drew, Fox, Gibbons, Harkins, Hetherington, Janowski, Jutila, Leone, McCluskey, Mioli, O'Connor, Panaroni, Perone, Sawyer, Serra

SENATOR CIOTTO: The first hour, if necessary, is dedicated and reserved for the people from the government agencies and public sector. Then the public will be allowed. We're limiting everybody to three minutes this morning.

So please be concise, and those of you who have written testimony, you won't be able to read it all. Please make sure that our clerks get it so we'll have it for our deliberations and consideration.

The first one on my list on elected officials or agency representatives is an attorney, John Yacavone of Department of Motor Vehicles. Good morning, John.

JOHN YACAVONE: Good morning, Sir, Representative Guerrera, and Members of the Committee. I've signed up this morning to talk to you briefly about one bill on your agenda which the Department supports, and also to share with you some information that the Department has put together concerning these vehicles known as pocket bikes or rocket scooters, various other designations.

First of all, with respect to the bill, you have on your agenda Raised S.B. 937. It's actually on the bottom of the agenda, and the purpose of that bill is to facilitate the transition to the new license classification system that was established under Public Act 04-217.

We've submitted written testimony on that, so I'll be brief. Basically, Public Act 04-217 did not include transition provisions to address how the new classification system would be implemented.

This bill will enable us to make the necessary changes as each license comes up for renewal at the time when a new document is issued. Basically, the effective date of last year's legislation was this past January 1^st. But it was always the intent of the Department to change over the classification on the license document at the time that the license-holder comes in for renewal.

Unfortunately, the legislation last year didn't specify that, and this bill is intended to clarify that point, that we will make the change as each license comes up for renewal. That's the easiest way for the Department to do it, and that's also the best way for license-holders, so as not to cause any inconvenience.

Just to give you an example of what I'm talking about, my own license is a Class II, which allows me to drive a passenger motor vehicle.

Under the new system that was adopted last year, that will become a Class D license, so that under this legislation, this license will be valid until I go in for the renewal, at which time the Department will change the II designation over to the D designation. So that's basically what that bill is intended to do.

SEN. CIOTTO: Are you finished with the testimony?

JOHN YACAVONE: Yes, Senator.

SEN. CIOTTO: It may be a little bit confusing to some of the Members here. Let's stop right now and see if they have any questions at this particular point in time, before you go on to the additional testimony.

Anyone have any questions? I know that this was the smartest Committee in the whole Legislature when we started, and now they just confirmed it right now. Thank you all very much. Okay, Counselor, proceed to the other bill that you're testifying to.

JOHN YACAVONE: Well, actually, as I said, Senator, we just wanted to share some information with you on these vehicles known as pocket bikes. There's several bills on your agenda.

Basically, the position of the Department has been that these vehicles are not eligible for registration because they're not suitable for highway operation. To be accepted for registration, all vehicles have to meet certain design and safety equipment standards.

While there are some differences among individual makes and models, and we've done a study of all of the various pocket bike-type vehicles that you can purchase here in Connecticut, basically in general, with few, if any, exceptions, they cannot meet minimum sustained-speed requirements, and they may or may not have proper lighting signals, fenders, brakes on both wheels, rearview mirror, operable horn, and various other items of safety equipment.

In addition, the extremely low carriage of these vehicles puts the operator in dangerous proximity to the road surface. Many of these vehicles are only about two feet tall.

Given these deficiencies, it's our position that the issue of whether or not an operator's license should be required to drive these vehicles is really beside the point. The basic issue is the vehicle characteristics, not whether or not the operator is licensed.

We must recognize the fact that our highways and city streets now contain many larger vehicles such as vans and SUV's traveling at considerable speeds, and really do not present a safe environment to share with these pocket bike- or mini-cycle-type vehicles.

So basically, although these vehicles, perhaps in some locations, perhaps in some cities, perhaps elsewhere in the world, they might make sense in our driving environment.

With the size of the vehicles that we have and the speeds that you have to sustain, we don't intend to register these vehicles, and it's our position that they really should not be operated on a highway in proximity to other motor vehicles, and we'd also, you know, be glad to work with the Committee in fashioning any standards in this area.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, John. Any other questions? Yes, Representative.

REP. BOUCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. Do you know if in fact our State Statutes explicitly prohibit the use of these vehicles on city or town roads and/or highways, in order for us to facilitate better enforcement of keeping them off.

From what I understand, there's quite a bit of safety issues and even a death associated with them.

JOHN YACAVONE: Right, I would say that our State Statutes do not exclusively prohibit them from state roads. These types of vehicles are really not specifically addressed in Title XIV. In order to come up with standards under existing law, you really have to interpret several different statutes together and make inferences, and in some cases those are arguable.

We really do need to have some more specific standards in Title XIV, whatever position may be adopted. We really need to make those changes.

REP. BOUCHER: So my understanding is you would support a change in our Statutes to actively prohibit these from operation in those unsafe areas for the public, and that may be the direction we need to go with this.

JOHN YACAVONE: Well, that's basically the Department's position. You know, perhaps there are other thoughts that may come out in your hearing or may come to your attention. Perhaps there's still some room for local decision-making on this. But as far as the Department is concerned, the vehicles characteristics just make them unsafe.

REP. BOUCHER: Thank you, that's very helpful.

SEN. CIOTTO: John, it's my understanding that several towns in the State have already passed legislation banning the use of these so-called pocket bikes, as we understand it by definition, and that's been causing confusion.

I mean, I can go from Wethersfield, which has one ordinance, and I can go into Cromwell, perhaps has another ordinance, and then to New Britain, which has another ordinance.

Does the Department recommend totally specific, uniform legislation that would be effective statewide concerning the use of these insofar as their highway use is determined?

JOHN YACAVONE: Well, what's happening, Senator, because of the lack of specific statewide standards in Title XIV, several cities and towns have, as you said, enacted ordinances to control these vehicles or restrict them.

They're allowed to do that under our home rule provisions, just because the State hasn't, at this point, adopted uniform statewide standards. The concern with the local ordinances and regulations is consistency, as is usually the case in a case like this.

On the other hand, there might be some roads where these types of vehicles could possibly be operated. But, again, it's the position of the Department that we don't know of any, considering the very small size of these vehicles and the lack of the safety equipment that they have.

REP. GUERRERA: Representative Leone, to be followed by Representative Sawyer.

REP. LEONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does the DOT have any information on the difference between pocket bikes and so-called mini bikes, so that we're pretty much clarifying what we're talking about?

JOHN YACAVONE: Well, there are a number of different types of these vehicles, and, as I said before, we've compiled information on various different kinds.

But when we're talking about pocket bikes, which could also be referred to, I guess, as mini-cycles, there's actually a definition of a type of a vehicle called the mini-cycle in our Statutes now, but there are no standards in the Statute.

There's really no other provision in there that uses that term. We're basically talking about vehicles that weigh approximately 50 pounds, that are only about 2 feet high, that all list their engine size as 49cc or less, because otherwise they would come under federal standards as a motor vehicle.

They are capable at top end of speeds up to about 45 miles an hour. But I don't think they can really sustain that speed. These types of vehicles, you know, can be distinguished from other types of low-speed vehicles, some of which may be eligible for registration or at least for certain purposes.

But, as I testified, these vehicles do not have federal vehicle identification numbers, they lack basic safety items, and so we're putting those all together in this category of pocket bikes.

REP. LEONE: Some follow-up questions, has the DOT searched with any other states that have addressed this issue with their proposed legislation so that we can either piggyback or use similar language?

JOHN YACAVONE: Well, this is an issue nationwide. There have been similar discussions in other legislatures. We're willing basically to provide as much information as we can to the Committee.

We haven't actually proposed any legislation ourselves on this issue at this time. But, again, we don't see how these types of vehicles can be operated safely in proximity to other large motor vehicles.

REP. LEONE: Well, as we go forward, I think we're going to debate the issue quite well, in terms of coming up with some kind of solutions, because I myself feel that we can't have certain towns putting regulations and other towns not having any.

In my mind, this really needs to be a statewide issue so there isn't any confusion. What those details are will remain to be seen. But as we go forward, will the DOT weigh in with their input so that we stay on track?

JOHN YACAVONE: We'll give you whatever information we can get.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative Leone. Representative Sawyer?

REP. SAWYER: In your view, from listening to your testimony carefully, is it correct to say that the Department is not taking a position on banning the sale, but they are taking a position that there should be regulations for no street-riding? Is that correct?

JOHN YACAVONE: I think that's basically correct, Representative, because we recognize that our jurisdiction is with respect to motor vehicles using the public highways, and proposals to ban the sale probably wouldn't come under the purview of the Department of Motor Vehicles.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative Sawyer. Representative Hetherington?

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Do you happen to know how our neighboring states handle these vehicles, Massachusetts and New York, for example?

JOHN YACAVONE: I think there has been legislation at the state level in a few jurisdictions, and I could try to get that information for you. I have information here with me today concerning other states, where pretty much the same pattern has occurred as what has occurred so far in Connecticut.

For example, I have a lot of information on New Jersey, where there were differences of opinion under their state law as to whether these things were legal or not, whether you needed a license or not, and you had various townships and municipal governments enacting different types of ordinances. I think that's probably the most prevalent situation.

REP. HETHERINGTON: And they have gone to a uniform law in New Jersey?

JOHN YACAVONE: I know there was a proposal. I don't whether it passed or not. I know there were proposals in California to license operators of these vehicles and allow them, I believe, to use certain roadways based on speed limit. But I'm not sure whether those were enacted, and I'm not sure whether that was statewide.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative Hetherington. Representative Fox?

REP. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have you been able to identify who the primary users of these pocket bikes are, what age bracket? Is it under 16?

JOHN YACAVONE: We haven't done any specific research on that. I'm not sure exactly how we would get that information, and obviously the anecdotal information that we have is that, for the most part, these are kids under 16 looking to use these vehicles. I haven't seen many personally.

REP. FOX: Do you know what speed these vehicles can travel, or how fast they can go up to?

JOHN YACAVONE: Some of the more high-powered ones can go up to about 45 miles an hour. Lesser-powered ones, you may be around 25, 30 miles an hour.

But I don't know that any of them can sustain 45 miles an hour, which is a requirement to use the highway, a general requirement for motor vehicles.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative Fox. Representative Drew?

REP. DREW: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question I have, do you know if there's any limitation as to how far the Legislature can go in prohibiting the use or the sale of these, but particularly the operation, whether it be limited to state highways, town roads, private lots, private roads?

JOHN YACAVONE: That's a legal question. I mean, I think there are some questions there in terms of the way the existing statutes are set up, with regard to the jurisdiction that's been given to local traffic authorities.

It's my belief that we could have statewide regulation on these, and that could take any form. But I think there are some legal issues there, and I don't really want to try to give a legal opinion on those. But I think it's something we have to look at.

REP. DREW: Thank you, and a follow-up question –

SEN. CIOTTO: Excuse me, if I just might. We can check with our legal counsel. That's our LCO office, and that's a good question for us to bring to their attention. We may have to go to the Attorney General's office, but it's a good question, without putting the attorney from the DMV on the spot on that one.

REP. DREW: Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and the follow-up question, are you aware if there's any federal initiatives regarding the regulation of the pocket bike?

JOHN YACAVONE: No, there has been national highway safety. Traffic Administration has taken a look at other types of low-speed vehicles.

In fact, they've approved very different types of vehicles that they refer to as low-speed vehicles. These are four-wheel vehicles that are used in retirement communities and so forth, quite different than these.

But as far as I know, there's been no federal position taken with respect to these by any of the federal highway safety organizations, primarily because they're not considered motor vehicles.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative. Any other questions? Thank you, John.

SEN. CIOTTO: The next one that's put on this list is Tom Saadi from the City of Danbury. Did I pronounce that name correct, Tom?

SEN. CIOTTO: Yeah, I usually call you Sahadi, but I got it down by now. Saadi.

TOM SAADI: Good morning, Sir. I'm appearing with regard to the various bills on pocket bikes. Senator Ciotto, Representative Guerrera, Members of the Transportation Committee, as the Senator stated, my name is Tom Saadi. I'm currently a member of the Danbury Common Council, the City of Danbury's legislative body.

I'm speaking on behalf of myself as well as Council President Vincent Nolan, who may not be able to testify due to other business within the building today.

We want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak in support of the regulation of pockets bikes, on behalf of the City of Danbury.

The City of Danbury Common Council recently adopted a resolution urging the General Assembly to amend Section 14.4 of the General Statutes to prohibit the operation, or regulate the operation, of pocket bikes on our public highways of our State, or to provide municipalities with the express authority to do so.

I have included copies of the resolution and cover letter, as well as news articles with my testimony submitted to the Committee.

On behalf of the entire Common Council, I urge you to amend the General Statutes to clearly include pocket bikes within the definition of mini-bike, and to prohibit the use of both mini-bikes and pocket bikes on the public roads of our State.

These pocket bikes have become a public nuisance in Danbury and in other municipalities throughout our State. Members of the Council, including myself, have received numerous complaints from constituents regarding these vehicles.

Many pocket bikes, as Attorney Yacavone stated, lack some of the most basic motor vehicle safety equipment. You can see that from the attachments that I've included.

Even some of the largest sellers and distributors and manufacturers of these pocket bikes warn the riders not to operate these vehicles on public roads, and in fact some of the manufacturers disclaim any responsibility for harm if the vehicle is operated on a public road and an accident should occur.

Some of these vehicles, as you can see from the attachment, may only be 16 inches in height and can accelerate at speeds of in excess of 40 miles an hour, even approaching close to 50 miles an hour, which is one of the advertising statements made in order to better market these vehicles.

These high speeds, the low profile, the lack of some basic motor vehicle safety equipment, make them far too dangerous to be operated on our public highways and public roads.

Whether or not they should be operated on private tracks is a different issue, and that would probably most likely not be dealt with by these bills, and in fact would not be a prohibition on the sale, but simply a regulation as to where these motor vehicles, or these bikes, can be used.

Therefore, in conclusion, I ask that this Committee and the Members of the General Assembly, pass a bill that removes these vehicles from our public roads, expressly limits them to off-road activities.

And further the bill should require that those sellers and distributors to the public of these vehicles, be required to provide written notice to consumers and purchasers of the regulations pertaining to this bike, to these types of vehicles, and their prohibition, should this Committee and the General Assembly choose to so regulate them.

I'd be more than happy to respond to any questions.

REP. GUERRERA: Any questions? Representative Janowski?

REP. JANOWSKI: Thank you. Just a quick question, has your town had any problems with any of these vehicles being driven on sidewalks?

TOM SAADI: We've had problems with the vehicles being driven on sidewalks, on roads, on narrow walkways and alleys. My district happens to be a fairly downtown-oriented district and geographic location, and not only do I hear from my constituents, but I've seen them myself being operated both on the roads and the sidewalks.

The greater concern is that the operation of them on the public reads then leads to them being utilized in other areas. If they were prohibited to off-road activities, that would, I think, at least from the position of the Danbury Common Council and of my constituents and my concern, address our issues without unduly burdening those who sell them and the businesses that sell them.

REP. JANOWSKI: Okay, so it isn't just a problem on the roads, because they are mechanized, but it could conceivably be a problem with operating those things on sidewalks as well, that would increase a town's liability, etc.

TOM SAADI: Correct. That is a concern, and I believe that some, whether it's law enforcement or the Attorney General, have submitted testimony to the Committee encouraging both the banning or at least the regulation or the banning on public roads and sidewalks as well.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative Janowski. Representative Davis?

REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Has the City of Danbury, or do you know of any other cities or locales that have worked on providing off-road trails or parks for these bikes?

TOM SAADI: The City of Danbury does not currently have tracks per se. I know some towns may have them. I know other states, I've seen these off-road tracks for the vehicles provided.

It's similar to the skateboard park issue, where municipalities have stepped up and provided an opportunity for youth to utilize skateboard and skateboard parks. We don't currently have any types of off-road race tracks.

And just to continue on that, these vehicles were developed initially in Europe for that purpose, to be utilized as racing and recreational vehicles, not public transportation, or transportation by members of the public.

REP. DAVIS: Okay, just a follow-up, without using the vehicles on public roads, at this point there's really no other place other than if somebody had private property that they could use them on?

TOM SAADI: That's true, and in fact the Legislature and the State has been dealing with that issue for decades in the regulation of ATV's and other motor vehicles that are prohibited from our public roads. They use private properties or tracks that are provided.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative Davis. Anyone else? Thank you very much.

SEN. CIOTTO: Okay, we'll move along, then, to the Honorable MaryAlice Dwyer Hughes, I believe, from the Town of East Hartford. Nice to see you here.

HONORABLE MARYALICE D. HUGHES: Oh, that sounds so good.

HONORABLE MARYALICE D. HUGHES: Chairman Ciotto, Chairman Guerrera, and Members of the Transportation Committee, thank you very much. I come before you and speak to you as a member of East Hartford's Town Council.

I'm going to be speaking on both all-terrain vehicles and pocket bikes. I urge you, please, require all ATV's to register with the DMV, and that the registration fees be split between the DMV and the DEP.

The biggest complaint heard from ATV owners is that there are too few places for them to ride legally. The monies provided by these registration fees could be used by the DMV to cover the cost of processing, and the DEP could use their funds to build and maintain ATV trains, thereby getting ATV's off the roads and off private property.

Further, I would like to see the height of letters required for display on these vehicles be increased to four inches, to assure better visibility for law enforcement.

East Hartford has many acres of wetlands along the Connecticut River, and once the snow melts, this area is inundated with ATV's throughout and the spring, summer, and fall.

For a time last summer, before the Police were able to locate the ATV owners, people from all over the State were pulling up trailers carrying three and four ATV's to the entrance of East Hartford's north end section of the Connecticut Dike, and driving right past the very large posted town sign stating No Motorized Vehicles Allowed.

Now, I live in this neighborhood, and I can't emphasize enough the irritation property owners feel having to listen to the noise these vehicles make, as well as breathe the dust they kick up.

Most of these operators do not wear helmets, and most of the ATV's are carrying passengers also not wearing helmets. The East Hartford Police do the best job they can enforcing existing statutes. But it's very difficult to catch an ATV operator who can take off through woods and wetlands.

To this end, I feel a fine of no less than $100 should be imposed for those ATV riders who break the law, and the fine should be split between the municipality where the infraction occurred and the DEP. This split would allow the municipality the funds to purchase an ATV of their own for law enforcement.

As for pocket bikes, East Hartford has recently enacted an ordinance outlawing their use on our public roads and sidewalks. Pocket bike owners should also be required to register their vehicles with the DMV and also be required to wear helmets, and fines should be implemented to encourage safety.

Now, if you could only legislate common sense, we'd all be better off. But until then, do everyone a favor and change the statutes to require registration of all ATV's and pocket bikes. Thank you very much.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you. Any questions? Representative Boucher?

REP. BOUCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yes, just one question, and then you for your testimony. Would you, in allowing registration, then also allow riders of these vehicles to access our roadways, both in your city or on our public highways?

HONORABLE MARYALICE D. HUGHES: No, ATV's, no, not on the roads, not on the sidewalks, and neither pocket bikes. That's a safety issue. They're just too small.

REP. BOUCHER: Okay, so you're inconsistent with the testimony by the DMV that would prohibit its use in those areas, on those public roads?

HONORABLE MARYALICE D. HUGHES: Yes, on all public roads and sidewalks, yes.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative. Anyone else? Thank you, MaryAlice.

HONORABLE MARYALICE D. HUGHES: Thank you very much, appreciate your time.

VINCENT NOLAN: Thank you. I apologize for being late.

DANBURY CITY COUNCIL PRES. VINCENT NOLAN: I just wanted to take the opportunity as President of Danbury City Council to support the previous testimony of our legislative leader, Tom Saadi, who spoke to you with regard to pocket bike regulations.

Our City Council acted in a very bipartisan manner in putting forth a resolution to you, asking that you take this up and that you give us the power at the local level to use local law enforcement to regulate these vehicles by taking care of the inadequacies in the current law that don't regulate these particular vehicles.

We've had a number of complaints. We've had issues with people who are legitimate drivers on the roads nearly having serious accidents with regard to these little pocket bikes coming out of nowhere, and we just think it's just a small wrinkle in the current law that needs to be corrected, and we hope that you will do that, and I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any further. But I'm sure Mr. Saadi covered most of the pertinent detail.

DANBURY CITY COUNCIL PRES. VINCENT NOLAN: Thank you very much.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you. Next on our list is Chief Armeno from the City of Bridgeport. Welcome, Chief.

SEN. CIOTTO: We could say other things too about Bridgeport, but we won't.

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: I'd like to thank Senator Biagio, Representative Guerrera, Senator Finch, Representative Mikutel, ranking Members–-

SEN. CIOTTO: I repeat, Biagio is my first name. Ciotto is the second name. With the name of Armeno, it shouldn't be a problem.

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: I apologize. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to give you this testimony today.

This year the City of Bridgeport has seen an increase in the use of bicycles with helper motors. These vehicles have become accessible to the consumer and have created great concern for public safety.

Helper motors means a motor having a capacity of less than 50cc. That's the piston displacement. I'm sure this information was given to you by the DMV regarding their use.

They are marketed as recreational toys. I have some information here regarding the marketing of these vehicles to our children. Unfortunately, our children, working in a capacity maybe in a paper route or getting monies from their families, are buying these and putting them on the street.

The youngsters have no driving exp. Adolescent riders are too young to handle the operation of these motor vehicles, and tall riders risk injury because they're just too big for these vehicles.

None of these vehicles, as a matter of fact, are DOT-registered. Most have inadequate brakes. Many have inadequate or no lighting capabilities on them.

The City of Bridgeport, through the efforts of the Bridgeport Police Department and the Bridgeport City Council, held a news conference in June of 2004.

That's an attachment that's also to make the public aware of the dangers involving the operation of pocket bikes and to discuss the requirements and guidelines for utilizing such vehicles on city streets.

Additionally, due to public outcry on this issue, State Representative Don Clemens held a public hearing, and that's an attachment also in this testimony, in Bridgeport on August 3, 2004, to solicit comment and input from the community to assist in drafting bills to address the riding problem.

I'm going to give you some arrest information that we had and some confiscation information that we had, that's also included in the testimony.

Since June 1, 2004, Bridgeport confiscated 36 bikes, made 10 custodial arrests, issued 49 infractions, 25 misdemeanor summonses, and 24 warnings.

There has already been one casualty. A 15-year-old rider was critically injured after being struck by a pickup truck on June 9, 2004. That in and of itself, I plead with everyone in the Legislature, to make sure that our children are not killed or injured by these pocket bikes that are out there.

In my 20-year career, I've never seen anything that's out there that can operate at such speeds that some of these pocket bikes can operate, and there's children as young as seven, eight, nine years old that are given them as gifts that are out there on the city streets with them.

Although the issue exists in suburban communities, it's becoming disastrous in urban centers, due to the lack of safe and adequate open space for riders.

While pocket bikes are street-legal, and I use that very carefully, street-legal, they are not DOT-legal. They don't have adequate braking, they don't have adequate suspension, they don't have adequate lights.

Pocket bikes are dangerous modes of transportation and are difficult to see for the operators of cars and trucks. Anyone can go on the Internet, they can look up the pocket bikes right now.

Some of them are being designed, some companies in Bridgeport, I know, and some of our neighboring cities, they're making this more of a trendy issue, making the bikes now into custom chopper pocket bikes, into pocket bikes with the 50cc motors being enhanced, so that the speeds can be increased, without the concern of the safety of the individual rider.

And whether or not the rider be licensed operator or not, these vehicles are just not safe. These vehicles are poorly constructed in many cases, some of which that have motors that perform inadequately, may stall, braking systems that just are not adequate, and the buyers, who are usually young children, don't have the basic life experience, let alone road or motor vehicle experience, to even operate these.

I know Mayor Fabrizi and the Bridgeport Police Department are hand-in-hand in trying to make sure that we can save some lives of our children who currently have these pocket bikes in their garage right now, and with the cold weather are just waiting to take them out in the spring and summer months, and we owe it to our community, our community leaders owe it to our children and the constituents of the State of Connecticut as well as the City of Bridgeport, to make sure that we protect our children, protect the citizens.

The City of Bridgeport is urging you to pass legislation that would prohibit them from city streets and sidewalks and require their sale and operation contingent upon proof of a valid Connecticut driver's license.

I would go beyond that in saying some of them shouldn't even be out there for sale. I think there should be an oversight, a state oversight, possibly through the Department of Transportation and the Motor Vehicle Department, to make sure that the individual--

Some mom-and-pop stores are selling them, some stores that are selling them are carwashes. The opportunity for the profit on these vehicles is unbelievable. They're purchasing them in bulk manner for $100 or less, and they're reselling them upwards of $200 and $250, and now it seems, as I mentioned earlier, to be expanding to modifying these vehicles now so that their speed and performance is increased, however the capability for safety of these vehicles is minimal.

SEN. CIOTTO: Thank you, Chief. Does the Town of Bridgeport have an ordinance prohibiting these right now?

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: No, we don't. We have a minimal ordinance that requires 50cc or under not to be governed under the Department of Transportation or Motor Vehicle law.

We feel mini-bikes we used to have in my day and age that were out on the street, these, as I made mention to, you know, the cubic-centimeter displacement of the engine gives a lot of power to a lightweight rider with these motors, and without the benefit of braking, lights, any kind of life experience, let alone motor vehicle experience.

They're ballistic motor vehicles that are going out there, and children are getting injured. Even if they're not making contact with other vehicles, hitting curbs, we've seen a lot of damage.

Not knowing any of the motor vehicle safety laws, young children, even kids 15, 16 years old, we're having a really strong concern with them.

I've never seen anything, in my 20-year career, that flooded the market as quickly as these pocket bikes did in the last couple of years. I think it has a lot to do with the media introducing these motorcycle programs on TV, which are great for adults, but the kids try to emulate this on a smaller scale with these pocket bikes, and we're having some catastrophic results.

REP. SAWYER: Has the City approached the issue of ATV's and off-road bikes as well, or is it just the pocket bikes that have been the issue?

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: Well, in Bridgeport, the ATV market has been, we see them in certain locations. We see them up in the 90 Acres area, which is a little park-like setting in Bridgeport.

But because of the urban environment, we see so much more of the pocket bikes being sold, most probably because the sale is, they're $150 and $200 item, where a quad or an all-terrain vehicle is up in the thousands of dollars, $1,000 or more.

So the availability and the sale structure for the pocket bikes is greater in the mere fact that they're cheaper to buy. But we do see them. To answer your question, we do see them. But usually the ones we see in the quads are few and far between, once in awhile, after a snowstorm or in the summer in a secluded area. Not like the pocket bikes in volume.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative Sawyer. Representative Scribner?

REP. SCRIBNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chief Armeno. I'm just curious, you mentioned in your testimony earlier and in written testimony provided to us, about the number of arrests and summonses that have been issued.

Absent a State statute or local ordinance, what is the basis of those arrests and warnings that have been issued?

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: Well, they all are on-site violations. What we're seeing is in many cases groups of four, five, six youngsters, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen years old, driving around in either a reckless manner, in a manner that they're interfering with the normal traffic flow, or in a manner that's conducive to public safety concerns.

What we have is we have a lot of different events in Bridgeport that bring a lot of individuals, such as our parades. We've had some concerns also with some of the individuals that are operating the pocket bikes that are going into the parades and causing a concern also there.

REP. SCRIBNER: Thank you. In addition to that, can you give us some idea of what kind of fines, the level of fines that are levied for the infractions that you've issued?

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: Certainly, 14-286B would be a $93 fine. That's riding a bicycle with a helper motor without a license, and we have to be very careful with this without a license.

I don't want it to be perceived that a license can validate the use of these, because a license on something that is in many cases so poorly constructed is not going to fight the concern we have. It's only going to almost validate their use.

So we have to be very careful on how we structure that, and I'll leave it at that. Some of the other fines are improper operation of a bicycle with a helper motor, and those would be like the old Moped type. Some of these are based on the old Moped bikes that used to be out years ago, and that's a $93 fine.

No bicycle helmet under 15 years old, so if an individual is out there with a helper-type pseudo-bicycle with a helper motor, they would be charged with that, and failure to ride a bike as near to the right side as possible, and I have to also engage the fact that individuals have no experience on the roadways.

You have a younger group of individuals that are operating them, and they don't know motor vehicle law, and that runs into the concern I had that I'm very strong about. We can't say, okay, we'll license their operations, and then we'll be okay with it, because as a motor vehicle license for operation of a motorcycle, that's a whole set of different parameters that's necessary and that has to be learned to operate a motorcycle.

If we were going to go down that road and the smaller motorcycles were DOT-approved, then maybe we could look at a motorcycle application and having to have a motorcycle license for its operation.

But I don't think that's the issue here. I think these are the inexpensive, poorly constructed bikes that our children are using out there, and we're risking their lives and the lives of other individuals.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative Scribner. Representative Bielawa?

REP. BIELAWA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I believe my questions were answered, because they are the same questions as Representative Scribner, and so I'm satisfied there. Thank you.

REP. LEONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief, who are the sellers of these bikes? Are they reputable businesses, or I've heard of instances where they've been sold from the back of trucks, and so therefore they're sort of like fly-by-night operations. Have you experienced any of those types of circumstances?

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: None of which that were sold like in the back of trucks. I've seen them sold at flea markets. We have a flea market that's in the University of Bridgeport area in Bridgeport.

They've been sold at flea markets. Most of them are sold out of locksmiths on Main Street in Bridgeport, that they can make a quick profit on, out of carwashes where they know the volume of individuals going into the carwash, usually having children with them are there.

They're sold out of legitimate, if you will, businesses. However, they're not businesses as you would see a motorcycle being sold from a Honda or a Harley-Davidson dealership, or a car being sold out of a Chevrolet dealership. These are sold as a sub sale out of a mom-and-pop store, a locksmith, a carwash.

REP. BIELAWA: So in essence, anyone who wanted to make a quick buck can, if you can start your own little business, purchase a bunch of these in bulk and turn around and sell them, and there's really no regulation to –

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: You're absolutely correct, and that's the unfortunate part of it. Individuals are making huge profits on these, at the expense of our children.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative Bielawa. Representative Boucher?

REP. BOUCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also to the Chief. It seems that as the testimony continues here this afternoon, this issue seems to be appearing a little bit more problematic than originally I thought.

The first set of circumstances was should we regulate them with regards to where they're allowed to be driven, in other words prohibit them on major roadways, town roads, and so forth.

The other issue is about licensure and also where they're sold. It seems that if you have a licensure rule, that it makes more sense for them to be sold only at reputable dealerships so that they can proceed in that way.

Yet if you go to licensure of this particular vehicle, you could be licensing this to an 8-, 9-, 10-, 12-, 14-year-old child versus an adult. So should we then only allow licensure for an adult?

SEN. CIOTTO: Let me just add a little something here. I go way back, far enough when I was at Motor Vehicles Department and the mini-bikes came in. They made the requirement you had to be age 16, which was the age at that time that you had to have a driver's license.

I don't believe this Department would ever consider 12, 13, and 14 year olds, empowering them or licensing them, to go on our roads and our streets. They have enough trouble with those that are there.

I don't know any of the youngsters, but so many people on the road, that would be just the wrong thing to do. That was the reason they had to be 16 to operate a mini-bike at the time, because that was the legal age, and correct me if I'm wrong, John. Is that the history of the thing?

JOHN YACAVONE: Yeah, I think you're referring, Senator, and the Chief also referred to Section 14-286, which is also known as the bicycle and helper motor. That was some specific legislation that was done a couple decades ago.

We consider this a different [inaudible] vehicle.

REP. BOUCHER: I'm trying to highlight the issue that I'm having with this, is that if this is something that a young child is currently driving or can, because there's no restriction whatsoever, but yet they're on our roadways in a very dangerous situation, are you still advocating that they should be licensed and in addition prohibited from being driven on our major roads?

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: I'm almost certain of the fact that if you were to legitimize them by licensing, you won't have too many people over the age of 17, 16, 17, 18 years old that would even want them.

They appeal to non-licensed individuals because of the fact that it's a motor vehicle. Anyone in that age group, 16, 17, and 18 years old, are going to have something, you know, they're usually driving a car-- [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1A to Tape 1B.]

--under 16-year-olds. So if you were to legitimize them by making sure, first of all, they were DOT-approved, so that they had the correct safety equipment on them, it would bring the price up, it would take the price right out of the younger market's hand, and then you're basically having a motorcycle.

It's going to take it out of the pocket bike realm. So it'll pull the young kids from either able to afford them or able to operate them.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative. Representative Hetherington?

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief, help me understand this, if you will. You're no doubt more familiar with the regulations than I am.

In order to cite someone for not having a driver's license, the thing, the piece of machinery, whatever it is that is being operated, has to be in some way recognized as a motor vehicle, doesn't it? I mean, isn't the offense operating a motor vehicle without a license or –

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: The Motor Vehicle law would state that.

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: The Motor Vehicle law would. However, as individuals that are operating in violation of a statute, there are some city statutes and some state Motor Vehicle law, that states that under 50cc, that, as was made mentioned to, was for the mini-bike era.

What these pocket bikes did was they slid in to emulate a mini-bike, but with more power than a mini-bike does.

REP. HETHERINGTON: But if you find someone without a license, which most of them would be, operating a pocket bike, can they be cited for operating a pocket bike without a license?

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: Yes, unlicensed operation, they can be cited for that.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Even though the pocket bike is not a motor vehicle?

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: Well, if they're operating it in a roadway, or what has been defined under Motor Vehicle law as a highway, divided highway, any roadway, they can be cited operated a pseudo-motor vehicle, even if the definition of what the pocket bike doesn't fit a motor vehicle on the roadway.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Okay, well, what I was getting at is, would it be helpful if we recognized the pocket bike as a motor vehicle for some purposes, so that then anybody who operated it would clearly have to have a license, and that would mean that probably 90%, from what I've heard, of the operators wouldn't be licensed to operate?

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: I don't think you could, because of the fact of how they're constructed and what engine size there is, to identify it as a motor vehicle.

I follow your question and your reasoning behind it. But because they are a small-capacity, small-cylinder displacement vehicle, they are not in the same category as a motor vehicle is.

That's why there's statute for it to be under the size, somewhere less than a motorcycle, less than a car, maybe in some cases more than a mini-bike, because a mini-bike was little motors from lawnmowers that were utilized in it.

They were constructed for one intent and one intent only, and that was to provide internal-combustion motor travel for children, for young kids. The group that ride them above the age of 17 years old is very, very few, only because individuals will want a regular motorcycle.

Very, very few, and the ones that are above the age of 16 are unlicensed operators. So if we put them in a DOT category of how well-constructed are these vehicles, they're not very well constructed. The majority of them are not.

They are to replicate, in many cases, some motor vehicle choppers, which are enhanced larger motorcycles, or some sport bikes. If you see some of these pocket bikes, they try to emulate what a sport bike looks like, the Honda, the Yamaha, Suzuki, and that's to attract that younger market into them.

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: You're most welcome, Mr. Chairman.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative. Senator Finch?

SEN. FINCH: Welcome, Chief. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First off, I'd just like to welcome you here, on behalf of the people who you help every day, and tell the Committee that, it may surprise you, but the Chief's been on the job, what, ten days, eight days?

SEN. FINCH: So his command of the information is remarkable, and your poise under questioning is terrific. You make me very proud that you're representing the City of Bridgeport, and I want to thank you very much.

SEN. FINCH: Not to mention the fact that you agree with me on this issue. I'm very happy that you're here.

I would like to ask you just a couple quick questions. Isn't one of the issues that we're dealing with here the ability of the regular, run-of-the-mill motor vehicle operator like you and I to be able to see these vehicles, especially if they are passing you on the right while you're in city traffic?

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: Absolutely correct, Senator. These vehicles are extremely small. Some of the diameters of the wheel probably don't measure more than 12 inches in diameter.

The ride height is so small. There is no way conceivably, especially in this day and age, where we have so many of the SUV's on the roadway, where their ride height is so high, that you can even see these.

And also, again, Senator, I have to mention the fact that they don't have anything progressive or anything that meets any sort of lighting system or adequate brake system. The visibility is almost nonexistent when one of these are coming up on you.

SEN. FINCH: And I believe that in the fatality and the other accidents in Bridgeport, your reports often show that the inability of the driver of the standard motor vehicle was one of the proximate causes of the accident.

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: That was the main cause, as well as the approach speed of some of these vehicles, because they're coming in and out of traffic. Absolutely, Senator, that was the cause.

SEN. FINCH: So I think one of the things that we're dealing with as a Committee is the conflict between some of the laws that are on the books that these fit in, and then the fact that these vehicles, under the best of circumstances, are not registerable under our current Motor Vehicle law.

So on the one hand we're saying, while if they meet these criteria, then they might be legal, but there's many other criteria they don't meet, and you can't register these vehicles.

There's never been a case in Bridgeport, for example, where the pocket bike was registered, was there?

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: Not to my knowledge. They don't meet any of the requirements of a legitimate registerable vehicle, lighting and the braking.

And I keep going back to that, Senator, because it's such an important fact that anyone can sell these bikes, anyone could put gasoline in these bikes and set them off on a street. They're not made for off-road use. They're made to be operated on pavement, and unfortunately, to the results that we've found with loss of life and serious injury.

SEN. FINCH: And just one last point, the City was able, to a large extent, to control these. I know Chief Chapman before you had them towed often, and the problem that he cited to us during Representative Clemens' hearing was that the law wasn't clear.

And although they were towing these things, it was presenting a lot of problem to the Department and you were looking to the State to try to clarify the law.

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: Yes, absolutely. It's a big problem.

SEN. CIOTTO: I'd like to move along. We have a lengthy day here today. I don't want to limit anybody. That's never my intent. But I'll go one last question, then we have to move along. I think we have a pretty good idea of where we're going and what we're learning. We're learning a lot more than we ever anticipated, I believe, this morning.

Representative, Drew, I'm going to give you the last shot here this morning at this one, at least with the Chief, because we have other people to testify.

REP. DREW: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief.

REP. DREW: Regarding the practical reality of effective enforcement, I'm mindful of, years ago I recall, the mini-bikes, used that expression, were unlawful as far as I knew, with minors particularly riding them without adequate brakes and so forth.

To be practical about it, what kind of law would a police department need to cause people to stop operating these illegally? In other words, if we had a law that prohibited them, and everyone just broke the law, how would you respond to that situation?

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: We'd seize them. We didn't harm them, and it would be an on-site violation that will require the seizure of the vehicle.

I keep going back to it. The vehicles are not safe even to be on the roadway to begin with. But we can't get caught up with, well, let's try to license them, let's try to legitimize their operation.

We take them off the street, and, like Senator Finch made mention to, now we have a concern because now we warehouse these. We can't in good faith give them back, and it's basically a seizure for someone's bike.

REP. DREW: And then what do you do with them, if you had a law like that?

CHIEF ANTHONY ARMENO: Impound. We have a garage full of them.

REP. DREW. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Chief.

SEN. CIOTTO: Thank you for your brevity, Representative. Chief Salvatore, and this will be the last public official at this time, and then we're going to the general public's testimony. Thank you.

CHIEF ANTHONY SALVATORE: Senator Ciotto, Representative Guerrera.

CHIEF ANTHONY SALVATORE: Good morning, Sir. It's a pleasure to be back before you again on behalf of the Connecticut Police Chiefs' Association. I'll be extremely brief, because a lot of what was said before your Committee already is the feeling of our Association.

Also we supplied, myself and Chief Strillacci, Salvatore, Strillacci, Ciotto, Bridgeport – at any rate –

SEN. CIOTTO: You're going to get me in trouble there, Chief Salvatore. You're my constituent. I've got to be careful.

CHIEF ANTHONY SALVATORE: I know, Senator, I'm very close to Representative Guerrera also, next town down.

At any rate, our Association is in full support of the concept of passing a ban on pocket bikes. We believe that you take a combination of the best of what's been proposed before you, put it together, and come out with a uniform state statute banning pocket bikes and similar type devices on our highways and sidewalks, as previously mentioned.

Both of our communities, Cromwell and West Hartford, approve these types of bans, as well as a number of other municipalities within the State of Connecticut.

In addition, we oppose any expansion, as listed in one of the proposals, the use of Segway-type devices beyond what is permitted on existing State Statutes, specifically banning them from sidewalks.

In addition, we provided you with the ordinance for the Town of Cromwell that demonstrates what is enacted by some of the municipalities in a local ordinance.

We do have the ability to seize these types of bikes. We do return them in Cromwell to a responsible adult. However, there is a mechanism for fining the operators as well as disposing of the bikes if they're held longer than 72 hours.

Again, we also would commend you for any type of legislation on ATV's, although I have to admit that right now the pocket bikes are more prevalent of a problem for law enforcement. They have no business on any municipal or state roadway or sidewalk. They're a danger. They're too small to be seen, as was pointed out.

And the problem that we're having statewide is there's an inconsistency between our good friends here with the DMV and the State's Attorney, and it's a gray area. So therefore it makes it very hard for law enforcement to enforce it without specifically coming out with legislation on the local level.

A uniform state statute would definitely alleviate this problem, and I think also address those individuals that are underage riding these types of devices within our municipality, and I'll gladly try to answer any question briefly.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Chief. Any questions? Thank you very much.

REP. GUERRERA: We're moving to the general public. The first name on the list is Dr. Philip Brewer.

DR. PHILIP BREWER: Hi, how are you? I represent the Emergency Medicine Physicians in the State, and I have to tell you, if you want input on public health and public safety issues, you want to listen to the people who are on the front line.

We've had several police representatives here who have given you, I think, excellent advice based on experience. I have the same type of advice to offer.

Out of 1,000 people in a given year, about 350 will be in an emergency room somewhere, and my organization represents the 400 full-time, board-certified physicians in the State who provide emergency care.

And my colleagues around the State, with reference to pocket bikes, are beginning to see significant injuries, and we support a ban on the sale and possession of these toys.

I mentioned to one of the Bridgeport officers who was here, it's too bad they couldn't have just brought one, so you could actually see it in this room. You can fit one on this desk.

There is no way that a fully grown person, a person of an age to have a license, can ride one of these without looking completely ridiculous and being completely unsafe. They are toys.

They're manufactured in China. They are manufactured absolutely as cheaply as possible, and I feel that a 9-, 10-, 11-year-old child has no business having a toy that can propel through space at 30 and 40 miles per hour.

The reason that we support a ban on, not just use on roadways, but sale and possession, is that if children have these devices, they will put them on streets and sidewalks. You can pass laws against it, but they will not be obeyed, and there will be further serious injuries and deaths associated with these horrible toys.

There's a lot of other toys kids can have that are safe, fun, and instructive, and I think these have no place in the garage or front porch.

The previous speaker mentioned releasing them to a responsible adult. To me, that's an oxymoron. No responsible adult would allow a 9- or 10-year-old child to use one of these devices. They're just plain dangerous.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Doctor. Any questions? Representative Bielawa?

REP. BIELAWA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you have any statistics or numbers as far as the number of children that have been admitted due to injuries from riding on pocket bikes?

DR. PHILIP BREWER: At this point, with reference to this particular product, it's such a recent phenomenon that there are not very good statistics.

For instance, with reference to, say, motorcycle crashes, the most recent data that's really good data, nationallybased, is about 2002, 2003. There's a lag time of a couple of years, and this has been such a recent phenomenon.

I'm at the Yale Trauma Center, where I've been for 16.5 years, and I've noticed a couple of spots around town in New Haven and West Haven where somebody will pull up with what looks to be an old U-Haul truck that he's bought, take a bunch of these bikes, pull up to a vacant lot, put a bunch out on display and sell them, and then he's gone.

There's no accountability at all. They're not licensed, the person selling them can't be found. So there's no recourse against them when the use of one of these unsafe products results in a death or a disability, and I think in a year or two, if we continue to allow their propagation, we're going to have some very sad statistics.

But for right now, it's more what my colleagues around the State are telling me.

REP. BIELAWA: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. CIOTTO: May I just, before, I just want to point out to everybody, just so you'll all know, we have 37 members of the general public that have signed up to testify, and we have a couple of more left on the public officials' list.

So, bearing that in mind, I do so hope we don't try to be too repetitious. Get the information we really need to help us, enable us, to go along and do our job, and that's all I'm going to suggest to you in my usual kind way. Thank you.

REP. BOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, point very well taken, and I was only going to remark that we had a presentation on a Segway, which was here in this Transportation Committee room a couple of years back, in my previous term, under this gracious Committee.

SEN. CIOTTO: Not to interrupt you, but I'm sure we'll be hearing from the Segway people again this year, Representative.

REP. BOUCHER: Ah, and what is interesting to note is that their maximum speed, they were saying, would be 17 miles per hour, and it would be self-propelled by a person on that, and we had quite a number of deliberative conversations about the safety of that just on sidewalks. It was not meant for the road, and so this is even, I am surprised to learn that this is an, in fact, 30 to 40 miles an hour on this very small –

DR. PHILIP BREWER: As sold, they can go 30 miles per hour, and--

SEN. CIOTTO: Not to interrupt, but [inaudible] more than 45.

DR. PHILIP BREWER: Well, as sold, the advertisements say they'll go 30. It doesn't take a lot of tinkering, and that's the first thing a lot of kids will do with it, is to tinker it to get more speed out of it, because they'll get bored of only 30 miles an hour, and they'll want 40 and 45.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative. That's it? Thank you, Doctor.

DAVID EVANS: senator Ciotto, Representative Guerrera, and Members of the Committee, my name is David Evans. I'm a legislative consultant and lobbyist for the Brain-Injured Association in Connecticut.

I don't want to belabor the point. But we support the previous testimony, both by the local police and by the emergency room physicians.

With emphasis on prevention, there are some statistics in the testimony that we offered, particularly with all-terrain vehicles. A 2004 University of Rochester/Strong Memorial Hospital study reviewed all-terrain vehicles, ATVR's and traumatic brain injuries in the United States, and the statistics were alarming.

Between 1992 and 2000, there were 379,725 emergency-department-attended ATV injuries. Children represented, and it's important to note this, 58.5% of all injured cases and 31% of all ATV cases sustained a TBI.

And it's important for the Committee to understand the cost to society here is once those children are injured, it's a lifetime injury, and it's a cost that's shared among all of us in society.

The primary preventive efforts, such as rider helmet laws and minimum age requirements should be encouraged for ATV's, and the Brain-Injured Association supports an outright ban on the pocket bikes, because they do appeal to young children.

And just a little aside, from our personal experience, I know with having a 15-year-old, what raging testosterone does at that age, and they all want to go faster, and when they buy, my son doesn't have an ATV or a pocket bike, but he had one of those little motor scooters, and he bought it online.

Once the brakes go, unlike the motor vehicle's that are constantly inspected, once the brakes go, those kids will continue to ride those vehicles. They don't want to get it fixed. Because of the low cost of them, they don't want to spend the money.

So they're inherently unsafe, after they come in their original package, both for the pocket bikes and for other motor scooters. So I think you ought to keep that in mind, and particularly with emphasis on the children. Thank you very much.

WAYNE BUDNEY: Good morning, Chairman Ciotto and Representative Guerrera and Members of the Committee. I want to thank you all for giving me an opportunity to speak this morning.

My name is Wayne Budney. I'm a farmer in the Towns of Lebanon and Goshen, Connecticut. I'm here on behalf of the Connecticut Farm Bureau membership and frustrated landowners across Connecticut to express that our common sense request be incorporated into the proposed bills H.B. 5251 and H.B. 5469.

Too many ATV riders, lacking parental supervision and equipped with wire-cutters, develop an attitude of catch-me-if-you-can.

Cut fences, openings made in stone walls, destroyed pasture gates, vandalized farm equipment, grass fires and loose livestock have all been reported on our farm and by other landowners across the State.

Regardless of whether it is underage children racing on neighborhood streets or older operators trespassing on private property, ATV's do not display identification plates.

We must have, one, large identification plates affixed to ATV's at the time of purchase, two, stiff penalties for obscuring or removing plates, three, criteria to revoke operator certificates, and, four, criteria to seize and auction an ATV, with proceeds going to the Conservation Fund.

Just as laws are made for honest people, penalties are imposed for bad behavior. Offenders can learn something when it comes out of their own pockets.

We implore the Transportation Committee to help us protect ourselves. High-visibility identification plates and significant penalties for those rare opportunities when offenders are apprehended would go a long way to controlling malicious behavior.

In short, gentlemen, we're not opposed to ATV's. We have quad ATV's on the farm. Most farmers do.

But it's not too much to ask that these ATV's have identifying numbers on them, so that we can identify the perpetrators. I thank you.

SEN. CIOTTO: Thank you, Mr. Budney. Anyone have any questions? Hold on, Sir.

CAROLYN BENDER: My name is Carolyn Bender. My father and I own a beef farm in Lebanon, Connecticut. My experience with ATV's has been extremely frustrating and costly.

On our farm, ATV riders cut down our fences, which in most cases we've had to replace with new fencing. And when our cattle get loose because of the openings, ATV riders call us complaining, then demand money for damages to their property.

Trails created by ATV's have changed the water flow, causing flooding in our fields, and causing large trees to fall due to the eroding of their root system.

The sound of an ATV's motor changes our cattle's behavior from calm into a violent, uncontrollable hysteria.

For example, on August 2^nd or last year, I was walking my 1600-pound cow on our private road by the barn. Two red ATV's with no mufflers, and I saw red ATV's, because that's the only way that we can identify who it is, came out from the woods on our private road, raced the engines, then performed what they call wheelies, and drove off down the road.

The ATV's not only caused my cow to panic and take off on me, but also caused the rest of our herd in the barnyard to become violent in a productive state.

My father was there in the middle of it. Luckily, he was near the bunks, where he was able to climb out, but not before being pushed around a bit, being bruised up by the cows, and being covered head to toe in manure.

A month ago, a hunter was telling me about what happened earlier that day when he was hunting turkey, and I quote this, he said, you wouldn't believe it. I was sitting for over an hour when finally a tom, adult male turkey, came by. I was just about to take a shot when an ATV scared it off. I was so mad I decided not to move, thinking the turkey might come back.

The ATV sounded like it was getting close and closer, but I couldn't see it because of all the brush. But seeing it sounded really close and I was afraid that he wouldn't see me because of my camouflage outfit.

So I stood up, and it was a good thing. The rider was headed right for me. When I stood up, I startled the kid, and he ran into a tree.

I went to see if he was all right. He was fine, and he continued with angry remarks about losing his tom that he'd been waiting to see.

Not only are the ATV's a nuisance in the country, but also in the city. In November of last year, my father and I were in Willimantic on Route 66 on our way to Wal-Mart.

We reached the lights at the junctions for Route 14 and 195. There was a young adult male on a blue ATV performing wheelies in the middle of the cross-section.

He was also cutting off cars. He chased two girls on the sidewalk and was driving through stoplights, and the reason why I saw all of this was because he was performing wheelies. We couldn't go anywhere.

Further up the road, across from a car dealership, there were two Town police officers parked on the side of the road. We decided to stop and inform them about the ATV's.

They replied that they knew about it and that they couldn't catch him. The Police Officer said that they were just waiting for someone to hit him.

There needs to be some kind of control over ATV's and the riders before someone gets hurt or, worse yet, killed.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Carolyn. Any questions? Thank you very much for your testimony. I believe Senator Handley came in. Good afternoon, Senator.

SEN. HANDLEY: Good afternoon. Thank you very much. I have to confess in the rush, I was in Rockville Court all morning, but I don't know the number of the bill that I'm speaking on.

But you have several bills on the pocket bikes, and it is that list of bills that I am here to speak, both individually and as a representative of my town.

We are very much concerned, I'm concerned personally, and the Town of Manchester particularly, is concerned about the development of these small bikes, and I think for a number of reasons.

One, the engineering is such that they are a danger, regardless of who is using them. They are too small, they go too fast, and they are a danger to the person who is riding them and also a danger to the rest of the vehicles and folks who are on the road.

I think particularly they're dangerous because of the issue of children riding them, children who, you know, God knows when they're riding a bicycle, young children don't have a sense of the danger that they're in. Kids generally don't have a sense of the danger they're in.

But when they're on bike, because they're around, they think they have a certain amount of power, and when they are driving something that can go 30 miles an hour that is structurally dangerous to them and to others, they are putting themselves and everybody else in danger.

So I really urge you to make this a statewide ban. Going town by town is difficult and I think awkward, and I would certainly encourage whatever you can do to eliminate these very dangerous pieces of equipment.

I saw a little kid the other day. He was in his driveway, but nonetheless clearly not knowing what he was doing on this thing. So, please, I urge you to do what you can.

Okay, thank you for your time, and thank you for taking me out of--

ADAM MOORE: Good afternoon, Chairman Ciotto, Chairman Guerrera and Members of the Transportation Committee.

ADAM MOORE: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I've submitted written testimony, so I will summarize in the interest of time. You're welcome.

I'm the Executive Director of the Connecticut Forest and Park Association. We're the oldest conservation group in Connecticut. We maintain the 700-plus miles of Blue-Blazed Hiking Trails that are open to the public in Connecticut.

And over our history, we've created, or helped to create, many of our State Parks and Forests. Over the past few years, we've noticed increasing problems with all-terrain vehicle use on trails and conservation land and farmland in general.

And what we're striving for mainly is legislation so that the vehicles bear some sort of identification marking, be it a license plate or a four-inch-high sticker, something of that nature.

We also recognize that there are many ATV's in Connecticut, many ATV riders that have few, if any, legitimate places to ride them, and we support some type of effort to find an appropriate place.

We don't believe that the State Forests and Parks are the appropriate places to have ATV trails, however. Perhaps some of the money that goes into purchasing an ATV or registering an ATV could be channeled into a fund that the DEP or another agency could use to create and maintain an ATV trail.

I have specific comments on three bills, H.B. 5089. We support this bill that would require minors to wear helmets while riding ATV's, and that applications be signed by a parent or guardian.

H.B. 5251, we support this bill, which would require that ATV's be registered before being ridden on State lands, or rather any land in the State.

And proposed H.B. 5469, we support this bill that would increase the registration fee to $35, dedicate the fee to an ATV fund, and use the fund for education and trail purposes, including purchasing and maintaining ATV facilities. It also has a provision for safe operator certification and also has a provision to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat.

My interest in this issue came about from one episode where a person who worked for maintaining trails, was doing so wearing a helmet and using a chainsaw around a blind corner, and you couldn't see or hear what was coming.

And two youngsters on an ATV were coming towards him on the trail, also wearing helmets and riding an ATV, and could neither see nor hear what they were approaching.

And the two of them met, and fortunately my employee jumped out of the way in time. But in doing so, his running chainsaw came within two inches of the neck of one of the youngsters, and he called me immediately and was shaken by it and said, you have to try to do something about it.

And that's what I'm interested in striving for is that there's permission, that there's identification of ATV's. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Mr. Moore. Any questions?

SEN. CIOTTO: Have you worked with the DEP people to try to establish some fields for these people to use these ATV's? Has there been any effort there, I mean, for minor notification?

ADAM MOORE: Yeah, the DEP has come up a policy on ATV's.

SEN. CIOTTO: Somebody's shaking his head no back there. He'll be testifying later, but go on.

ADAM MOORE: Yeah, and we supported a policy. But as far I know, they've not taken an effort to say that we ought to use this place, we ought to use that place. So as far as I know, it has been left to the policy.

SEN. CIOTTO: In your own opinion, do you think the State has enough land that can be converted to be used for these ATV's without harassing farmers and other people and so forth?

ADAM MOORE: Well, that's a good question. It's a tight fit in a small state like Connecticut.

SEN. CIOTTO: I realize that I'm basically a suburb guy and a city guy. I haven't seen much of this. That's why I need your opinion to help me in my deliberations here.

ADAM MOORE: Right. I think that it would make sense to have funds to acquire additional land for this purpose. There may be some rights-of-way. There may be some gravel pits. There may be some land that is suited to either a long-distance trail or a trail on one spot, on one property.

So I think that new lands should be acquired for the purpose.

SEN. CIOTTO: So you think the State and DEP could be doing more in this--

SEN. CIOTTO: How about they raise the fees of these ATV's and some of that money went towards this project? Do you think that would be a problem with the ATV people?

ADAM MOORE: Well, there would not be a problem with our organization. But I won't speak for them.

REP. BOUCHER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, very briefly, please, because I know we're in a big hurry here, but does this raise the issue of maybe the delay as far as liability? What's your view on the liability if the State were to do this?

ADAM MOORE: Well, I think liability would be a big issue. I don't know how it would affect the liability of the State of Connecticut. I can't answer that.

I know private landowners are concerned about liability for people that go on their property. There is a landowner liability law, however. There's a strong law that protects private landowners, as long as they're not doing something to harm someone who's crossing their property.

If they were willfully trying to harm somebody riding an ATV, then they would be liable and they ought to be.

But the private landowners do enjoy liability protection. That doesn't mean they're not concerned about liability, however.

REP. GUERRERA: Okay, Mr. Moore, one of the questions I have for you is that, meeting with some of the people that own ATV's, it seems as though it's been very difficult to get some trails for them, and every time they approach agencies, it seems like they have to go through this bureaucratic so-called mess, if you don't mind me saying that, that they can't get anything done. Why is that?

ADAM MOORE: I think the policy that DEP had written is challenging, and appropriately so. I think there's a lot of issues that you heard about today about the ability to veer off the trail and trespass on farmland or someone's property, the issue of speed and safety, environmental issues, the effects on the plants and animals that surround what might be a trail, liability, and so forth.

So I think there's a lot of issues to address, and that's why it's difficult.

REP. GUERRERA: And I don't disagree with you, but I think if we address these issues, we won't have so many complaints about people crossing farmlands and so forth. They need a place to ride. That's what it comes down to.

ADAM MOORE: Yep, I think if there were places to ride, that would address legitimate users. But to relieve a problem, I think, of youngsters who do not have the pickup trucks that they can transport the vehicle to a designated facility, that's one of the reasons we're looking for identification tags so that you can call the police or call the parents about that youngster.

REP. GUERRERA: Sure, and there's always going to be a few bad applies. But the people that do abide by the law and who want to do the right thing for safety reasons and so forth, have been complaining quite a bit that they need places to ride.

REP. GUERRERA: And they've gone in front of the agencies, and they just feel as though they run up against a brick wall, and they just keep going and going, and there's nothing getting done.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you. Representative, I'm sorry, Senator Finch.

SEN. FINCH: Mr. Moore, you maintain about 700 miles of footpaths, foot trail system, that kind of thing?

ADAM MOORE: There's about 100 volunteers, and some of them have crews of volunteers that assist them.

SEN. FINCH: And so any proposal that would accommodate ATV's would require the same kind of attention by the volunteers?

ADAM MOORE: If one were to create a system that resembles this, yes, you'd need volunteers who were willing to maintain the trails.

SEN. FINCH: The ATV riders that use your trails illegally right now, do they offer to help maintain them?

ADAM MOORE: Well, technically, it's up to the landowner exactly who uses the trail. But we've not had offers of help from ATV operators. But we're not looking for it either. We're not maintaining the trails for ATV purposes.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Senator. Anyone else? Thank you, Mr. Moore.

MATT DALIDA: Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. How are you? The pesky Segway guy's back again. For the record, my name is Matt Dalida. I'm the Director of Regulatory and Government Affairs for Segway LLC, developer and manufacturer of the Segway Human Transporter, and I appreciate it, Representative. Thank you for remembering our demonstration a few years back.

I won't bore you with all of the details of our product. You've all heard of it before. Let me just say that since the last time I was here, our use has expanded, including here in Connecticut.

Several police departments are using the Segway HT, and that our record for safety remains flawless, and we're very proud of that and we're committed today to introducing the HT in a very controlled and educated fashion.

We, like you, have read many stories about pocket bikes. We're concerned about them and their use and how it may impact our use.

In the last year-and-a-half, several cities, including Chicago, Seattle, New York City, Providence, Worcester, and seven here in your State, Hartford, West Hartford, and Manchester, have enacted pocket bike either bans or restrictions.

In common to all of them that they have exempted Segways, and we're very happy, and we hope that the State will also seek to do that within any type of legislation you may write concerning the HT.

And we also hope, part of our commitment to safety, is working with the federal and state and local legislatures to make sure that our product is specifically regulated, that it doesn't fall into a gray area, like many of these pocket bikes, that it's specifically regulated under your State law, and also gives guidance to local control.

And so on that you have my written testimony, I think, which goes into much more detail. But in the essence of time, I want to be brief and certainly will answer any questions. Thank you.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Mr. Dalida. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you.

MATT DALIDA: And I just did want to, you had, Representative, mentioned 17 miles an hour. The top speed of our device is 10 miles an hour. So there's a lot of misinformation out there about it.

REP. GUERRERA: Next, David Sutherland. Good afternoon, David.

DAVID SUTHERLAND: Good afternoon. Good to see you.

My name is David Sutherland, and I am here today representing the Nature Conservancy and also the Land Conservation Coalition for Connecticut, which is an alliance of about 100 organizations from around the State that advocates for open space acquisition and protection.

The Nature Conservancy is an international organization that maintains a large network of nature preserves throughout the United States and here in Connecticut.

And I'm here today to express our strong support for H.B. 5251 and H.B. 5469, which would require registration of all ATV's.

I listed some other bills that we're in favor of and a couple that we're opposed to that are in other committees, just figuring that they might come here at some point, so I'd let you know our position on those.

Many, if not most, ATV riders are very responsible, respectful, and law-abiding. But based on large, large numbers of complaints that we hear from land trusts and other entities that manage natural lands, there are a lot of ATV riders who are not law-abiding and who are not respectful.

And I'm not just talking about people trespassing here. They don't have many places to ride legally, so you're probably going to see some trespassing.

But it's the manner in which we're seeing a lot of trespassing, people who are seemingly, very purposely, destroying natural systems.

One of the websites that one of the ATV clubs maintains here in central Connecticut, if you click on their site, they've got a link to videos of their club rides, and the first one I clicked on showed a young man sitting in a stream bed with an ORV just for two or three minutes, churning up the mud, and they're all having a good time, a couple of people watching, laughing and all.

You know, I understand you're going to have bad apples. Every group, whether it's hikers or horse people or mountain bike, everyone has bad apples. But to have an official club showing it on their website the destruction of a stream bed, it just, I don't think the ATV-ers have been doing a good enough job policing their own people.

I think we really need to see that cooperation on their part. I know some of them are trying. But when you see a website like that, it really makes you wonder.

We've got a 2,000-acre preserve out in western Connecticut that includes 1,000 acres of farm fields, and we've had many, many, many problems. I've got pictures in my briefcase of just horrible ruts that have been dug in those fields.

And they come on with chainsaws. When we cut trees across, trying to prevent access, they chainsaw those trees down.

So we've got to have better ways of registering these bikes and being able to enforce laws. I think you'll hear the complaint that why make the whole group suffer for a few bad apples. But we do that in every area.

Most of us don't try to smuggle things onto airplanes. But we have to go through long security lines. We do it in all parts of society. We have to sometimes put up with bureaucratic burdens because of the few bad apples among us. So we think it's only appropriate in this case that this be done.

We feel the DEP's policy, just to direct your question, Representative Guerrera, is a very good one, of requiring these groups to organize and incorporate and make proposals to DEP-- [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1B to Tape 2A.]

-– interested in biological diversity. And when we haven't been able to convince DEP to buy certain lands, we've raised private money, and it's a pain in the neck raising private money. But we've done it to go out and buy these areas up ourselves.

The hiking groups, the hunting groups, have donated millions of dollars over the past several decades to help DEP buy lands that can be used by all citizens.

And, yeah, is it a bureaucratic pain in the neck to have to do that sometimes? When we're donating money, we actually have to hire attorneys to deal with some of the bureaucracy.

But we know that we're dealing with public resources and public staff that represent all of the State's citizens, so we have to be very, very careful.

We feel the DEP's existing policy is a very good one, and we urge your support for it. Thank you.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, David. Any questions? Yes, Representative.

REP. MIKUTEL: Would you support any use of State land for setting aside for the use of ATV's?

DAVID SUTHERLAND: Well, probably in general, our first reaction against State forest land would be to be against that.

REP. MIKUTEL: I'm not talking State forests. I'm talking any possible State land.

DAVID SUTHERLAND: Yeah, well, that's DEP's policy, sort of encourages groups to look at DOT lands, DPW lands, other types of lands.

Sid Holbrook's in the building today talking about an idea of using former landfills and developing trails on those. So, no, we're not opposed to the idea of using State lands per se for these.

I think everyone should be trying to find some good areas to use, appropriate areas. Because of the noise of these machines, we do have to be sensitive to neighborhoods.

I love to play loud music, but I close my windows, even in the summer when I'm doing it, so I don't impose on my neighbors, and I think getting better mufflers on these machines would reduce a lot of the complaints we hear about noise, at least.

So I think that's another thing you've got to be sensitive to. But, no, we're not opposed to use of State lands for these.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative. Any other questions? Thank you, David.

TOM CLEVELAND: Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon. I am Tom Cleveland. I'm here on behalf of the Town of Branford. I'm a Commissioner on the Parks and Open Space Authority, as well as a member of the Branford Land Trust.

The Town of Branford has 1250 or so of open space, and the Land Trust has about 800 acres of open space. Both this public and private land has been severely impacted by the illegal use of ATV riders.

I'm here in support of proposed H.B. 5251 and H.B. 5469. You all have probably heard time and time again how destructive ATV use can be on open public land.

Our town has had an escalating problem with ATV's over the last ten years, and our police department is spending more and more time going out and trying to catch these guys, which is easy to do once they're on a State road, but which is almost impossible to do when they're on Town Preserves or on private land.

We've still got a couple of farms in Branford. All of the farmers have serious complaints about ATV's.

I'm on the Property Management committee on the Land Trust. We have 80 properties, but probably 10 big ones. All of the big ones have had ATV problems this year.

I've presented some written remarks. As appends to the written remarks, we've got some photographs of ATV use and the damage they've done.

We've in favor of requiring all ATV's to be registered. The key about registering them is to get ownership information down somewhere and make identification very prominent on these vehicles, because identification is the only way that we're going to weed out the good apples from the bad apples and make the bad apples pay for destroying town and private property.

I'm happy to answer any questions. I'm here, I guess, on behalf of our First Selectman John Opie, who's specifically endorsed our testimony today.

REP. GUERRERA: Excuse me, Sir. We have one question.

REP. MIKUTEL: The argument I hear from ATV operators is that, if you require them all to register, they still have no place to ride, because there's no State facility where they can ride.

You know, we're selling ATV's in the State. Dealers are not telling them where they can ride, or maybe not giving the information about where they can ride. So they think they can ride on State land and all that.

How are we going to get a handle on all this issue of selling ATV's and not having a place to ride?

TOM CLEVELAND: I would recommend that you require ATV distributors and dealers to have a written receipt on their person once they sell a vehicle to somebody that they've delivered and the person signs and says, yes, I received all of the written instructions which inform me that I'm not allowed to ride these things on State land.

I'm not allowed to ride these things on private land without having the written permission of the landowner on my person, and, yes, I understand there's a whopping fine for obscuring the identification number, which somebody ought to weld onto these things front and back.

That's the way I would suggest dealing with the problem. It's not hard. I think that people must be making quite a bit of money selling ATV's, and it's a reasonably profitable business.

My basic response is that ATV owners don't have anywhere legal to drive in the State of Connecticut on public land, and certainly not on any Town land. It is legal to ride an ATV on your own land.

I think that by far the majority, in my experience, in the Town of Branford, I would contest that Mr. Sutherland, the prior guy testifying here, that most ATV riders are law-abiding. Most ATV riders in the Town of Branford have flagrantly and repeatedly broken both private property laws as well as Town ordinances, and they trespass regularly.

REP. MIKUTEL: To follow up on that, would it make sense for somewhere in this State, on public land, to set aside some property for use by ATV's, so that they don't violate municipal land, private farmland and all that?

I mean, we seem to have a real big problem with having some State land somewhere set aside for ATV use. I mean, to me, what do you think?

TOM CLEVELAND: I totally agree. I think there ought to be, ATV's are, you know, loud, they disturb wildlife, they consume an inordinate public resource, which is, I go out on a trail, you want peace and quiet, you want a feeling of your being out in nature.

So all of the reasons we've set aside public lands in the past, for habitat production, for passive recreational purposes, are just incompatible completely with the use of motorized vehicles on any of this property.

I totally agree that if I wanted to buy an ATV, riding ATV's is a lot of fun. I think it's incumbent upon ATV owners to find properties in the State where you're not going to be wrecking wildlife habitat, ruining, you know, wetlands.

I think that, under transmission lines, if you've got any old gravel pits, if you've got landfills, you got other pieces of land which are, frankly, probably a hell of a lot more fun to ride on if you're 25 years old, 30 years old, and you want to go up and down over hills and have, you know, cool little trails with a lot of ins and outs and some variety to it.

So, yeah, I'd very strongly support, I bet you almost any land trust in the State would support, that. The trick is going to be finding an appropriate spot.

But my friends on the other side of the table seem to have a heck of a lot of energy, and I bet if they put their shoulders to it, they'll come up with some pretty good places in the State to legitimately use this, you know, edgy kind of a thing.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you for your time, Tom. Next, Patty Pendergast.

PATTY PENDERGAST: Senator Ciotto, Representative Guerrera, Transportation Committee, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity today to speak.

PATTY PENDERGAST: I will make this very short, real short. I'm in support of the registration of ATV vehicles, and I'm also in support, I would like to amend any of the bills here that we have to include identification that passers-by can identify ATV's that are trespassing illegally and the like.

I'll cut right to the chase. The ATV policy put out by the DEP is modeled on things that a lot of conservation organizations have to do.

The Blue Trails, for example, and I'm not representing Connecticut Forest and Parks today. I'm representing myself because I spend a lot of time out in the woods. But the Blue Trails, for example, I'm a volunteer with them as well as a paid employee.

The guys who go out there are in their 60's and 70's. All of our trails, 60% of them are on private land, 40% of them are on public land. we maintain them at no cost to the landowner, no cost to the public, no cost to the taxpayer, no cost to the State, and we raise all that money, we buy lands, we do all of the legal work on it too.

The ATV policy the DEP has put out is a good, solid one. To date, not one ATV proposal has been sent in to DEP for land to be considered to be opened, not one. I talk to DEP a lot, and there is not one that I have heard anything of or soon, okay?

REP. GUERRERA: Excuse me. This is not a debate, as I, please.

PATTY PENDERGAST: Thank you very much. But then the other thing is there is also a trails program for funding that they can get through the State that comes off of some federal dollars, and very few proposals have been stuck into that too.

I just want to know, it just doesn't make any sense to me, that we're taxpayers too, and we put in thousands of hours, the CFP volunteers put in thousands of hours a year maintaining trails, again, at no cost to anybody.

Why are ATV people asking to be held to a lower standard than we are? We have to jump pretty high fences to get trails. We have our policies that we have to follow through DEP. Why are the ATV people just allowed to have less? I don't understand it and I'd love to have them explain that. Thank you very much.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Patty. Any questions? Thank you very much.

BOB HILLEN: Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, Members, my name is Bob Hillen, and I'm with the Jacobs Vehicle Systems, which is the manufacturer of the Jacobs Engine Brake, more commonly known as the Jake Brake, and I am here on proposed S.B. 331, concerns on reducing noise of Jake Brakes.

The Jacobs Engine Brake is a product that was invented back in 1931 by Clessie L. Cummins, often called the father of the on-highway diesel engine and founder of the Cummins Engine Company.

The purpose of the Engine Brake was to make a diesel engine work just as hard going downhill as it has to work going uphill, and the purpose of the Jake Brake is to do just that, to assist the vehicle as much as possible from slowing in control on downgrades, leaving the service brakes ready and capable of complete and emergency stops.

It also allows the vehicle to slow down in half the time and distance of non-retarder-equipped vehicles on flat ground without having to use their service brakes, minimizing speed differentials between cars and trucks.

The Engine Brake develops its retarding power by opening up the engine exhaust valves just prior to top dead center of the engine's compression stroke.

All the energy in that cylinder exits through the exhaust system, resulting in a zero-power-producing diesel engine. This energy release is a distinct sound that the Engine Brake makes.

The sound level from the Engine Brake going through a standard truck muffler does not exceed the established federal noise standards. The problem comes when the mufflers are removed and the exhaust exits through straight pipes.

This can raise the noise level to 100 decibels or greater, making the sound objectionable to nearby residents.

Jacobs has worked with the State of Maryland on this same issue. Maryland went so far as to use sound measuring equipment in their weight stations. Their program started in the summer of 2000, and they have found that the vehicles that were over the federal noise standards and objectionable to residents were always non-muffler-equipped or vehicles with defective or improper mufflers.

On the same issue, ten western states joined together to mandate a no-unmuffled-engine-brake-use legislation to stem the noise concerns from their residents.

These solutions to this problem have two benefits, one, the Engine Brake can be used to help heavy vehicles operate with greater control and slowing power, and, two, it keeps the emitted noise levels below federal standards.

This is briefly what is in the package that we have submitted to you to read, and with that I say thank you very much for your time and attention.

REP. GUERRERA: Any questions for Mr. Hillen? Representative Panaroni?

REP. PANARONI: Thank you for being here today and waiting. Can we put Jake Brakes on pocket bikes?

REP. PANARONI: ATV's, not all-TV's, ATV's. Got a couple of kayaks to throw it on too. I know in your testimony you talked about it, but one of the big problems with Jake Brakes and the noise are the guys that take the mufflers off and put straight pipes.

REP. PANARONI: And then I read some of your information here. Where mufflers are on the trucks, the decibel level goes down considerably.

REP. PANARONI: To a level that is accepted, an acceptable level. So one of the things that we could look at is to insure that these companies just make sure they have noise-reduction mufflers, similar to your testimony – I forget where it was, that I read in your testimony that they're looking at putting specific mufflers on these trucks for noise reduction.

BOB HILLEN: Yeah, there are muffler products on the market today that reduce the amount of sound tremendously. However, we've found that all new vehicles are mandated to have mufflers installed from the vehicle manufacturers.

What happens, unfortunately, is, even before the vehicles takes to the road, the muffler is removed, chrome stacks, etc., are replaced, and that just defeats the purpose of the low-noise effect that the mufflers would generate for it.

REP. PANARONI: One of my other questions is this bill specifically addresses Jake Brakes.

REP. PANARONI: Are there other braking-retarding systems on the market today that they shouldn't be just targeting Jake Brakes in this bill?

BOB HILLEN: The Jake Brake is a registered trademark of Jacobs Vehicle Systems. The compression-release engine-retarder, which is kind of a generic, is manufactured by three or four other companies besides Jacobs Vehicle Systems.

So to answer your question, yes, there are other engine brakes, other Jake Brakes, that are on the market today.

REP. PANARONI: With Jake being the most popular one and probably the most well-known--

REP. PANARONI: --almost all retarder system is a Jake Brake.

BOB HILLEN: And unfortunately in some cases, that's correct. We have everything now that's a retarder is called a Jake Brake, whether it's our particular product or a competitor's product.

REP. PANARONI: And if we were to eliminate a Jake Brake, does not a Jake Brake help in the area of safety on the highway? Would you consider that a Jake Brake or a retarding system actually works towards safety's sake on the highway?

BOB HILLEN: The Engine Brake and retarders in general are designed to help the foundation brake of the vehicle to slow and control the vehicle.

As you know, heat is the biggest enemy to the foundation brakes. When heat builds up in the foundation brakes, then its ability to slow down and stop is diminished.

Engine Brakes, or retarders, don't have that drawback. You can use the Engine Brake. It can supply up to 600 continuous horsepower, so it is always there to provide a slowing and decelerating feature for the vehicle, so that when a driver has to put his foot on the foot brake for emergency or complete stop, it can give it its total capacity to perform that function. So, yes, I would agree with you.

REP. PANARONI: And just to go one step further, a truck traveling on the highway at 60 miles an hour and with normal flow of traffic, with their Jake Brake set on high, could, if a car stops or another truck stops suddenly in front, between the brake itself and the actual mechanical braking system, it actually slows that vehicle down to a point where it's tolerable to stop, where you can actually stop with that vehicle, where a vehicle at 80,000 pounds going on the highway 60 miles an hour, with just the benefit of a conventional braking system, would have a harder time stopping.

REP. PANARONI: Thank you very much for being here today. I appreciate your testimony and looking for your testimony.

SEN. CIOTTO: Now, these Jake Brakes, or Jacobs, your company was the company that originally come up with this process, or patented this process?

BOB HILLEN: Actually, the original invention was invented by a gentleman called Clessie L. Cummins, and Mr. Cummins was called the father of the on-highway diesel engine and the founder of the Cummins Engine Company.

Jacobs Manufacturing started to produce the product in 1961, and we have produced it ever since.

SEN. CIOTTO: Excuse me, this company's located in West Hartford, isn't it?

BOB HILLEN: Actually, we're in Bloomfield, Connecticut.

BOB HILLEN: We were at #1 Jacobs Road in West Hartford, Connecticut.

SEN. CIOTTO: Wasn't it called Jacobs Trucks at one time?

BOB HILLEN: Exactly. The Jacobs Manufacturing Company started in 1903.

SEN. CIOTTO: How many are employed there now, Sir?

SEN. CIOTTO: That's wonderful. Well, I don't think we're going to be doing it with Jake's Brakes. I think our concern here is how we're going to lower this noise a little bit, and it's my understanding you people are working on that. There may be something that can be done in this area?

BOB HILLEN: You know, we have worked for several states, Maryland, the ten western states, all states that have concerns on noise. The single biggest issue is the muffler issue.

In our industry, for whatever reason, mufflers are oftentimes left off the vehicle or taken off the vehicle, and we've found that the actual straight pipes, the sound-emitting true straight pipes, makes the overall vehicle louder.

But it also raises the distinct sound that the Engine Brake makes, and that seems to be what is really causing the residents' objection to the product.

SEN. CIOTTO: I'll confess up a week ago Jake's Brakes [inaudible – microphone not on]

SEN. CIOTTO: Okay, good. [inaudible – microphone not on] If you believe it, I believe it. [inaudible – microphone not on]

REP. MIKUTEL: Okay, thank you very much. [inaudible – microphone not on] We think a lot of the problem is tampering with the system. People put straight pipes on.

BOB HILLEN: Actually, I don't think it is picked up. I don't think that's one of the areas that really gets a lot of scrutinization or a lot of look. You know, they look at brakes, they look at other things, but they don't really look at the muffling systems.

BOB HILLEN: Well, we propose that, you know, I mean, we think so, in light of the fact that we are getting more complaints from residents over noise and noise emissions.

The fact of the matter is we do have mufflers in place, and with the mufflers in place the whole vehicle maintains itself within federal guidelines for decibel ratings.

So we think that, you know, if you take the muffler off, you're defeating that whole purpose.

REP. MIKUTEL: Well, not only defeating the purpose. Aren't you operating illegally?

BOB HILLEN: You know, I don't know the actual legal ramifications of taking the muffler off.

THOMAS KEARNEY: My name is Thomas Kearney. I'm President of the Local 379 UAW located in Bloomfield, Connecticut.

Jacobs Manufacturing was founded in 1903 in West Hartford, Connecticut, where we made the first drill truck. In 1961, we engineered and manufactured the world's first Engine Brake.

Because of our hard work and dedication, this spot is now a national historic landmark, and the first such ever award ever awarded to a company in the trucking industry.

We are proud to be manufacturing in Connecticut, and are proud that our Jake Brakes are well-known around the world. You will find a Jake Brake not only in the U.S., but also Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, Holland, France, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and many, many more countries.

Jacobs employs over 450 people in Connecticut, most of which are UAW members. As members of the oldest Connecticut UAW Local and as a fellow citizen of the State of Connecticut, we are proud to be living and working in Connecticut, at the time that Connecticut and all of New England is struggling to keep its manufacturing base.

We are working hard to keep these good-paying jobs right here at home. Not only do we work hard to keep manufacturing in Connecticut. We aim to continuously improve manufacturing jobs in Connecticut.

It is our dedication and pride that ensures the longevity of the 450 jobs that are housed in Bloomfield and will be a shame to threaten to lose these jobs.

We are not only concerned about our jobs, but also the health and safety of our co-workers and fellow citizens.

The men and women employed at Jacobs are also involved in several community projects where we assist those less fortunate. We are helping needy families in Bloomfield and support food-share programs in Windsor. We are committed to keeping strong jobs and also strong communities.

Any legislation to outlaw the use of Engine Retard is detrimental to us. Our main objectives, which are health, safety, and good-paying jobs right here in Connecticut, cannot be compromised.

SEN. CIOTTO: Thank you, Sir. [inaudible – microphone not on]

JOSEPH GERSTEN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Joseph Gersten. I represent New England Cycle Center over here at 73 Liebert Road in Hartford, Connecticut.

I wanted to voice our opposition to S.B. 330 and S.B. 565, specifically the issues of banning the sale of ATV's.

A number of reasons, the first being that the State Statutes themselves are inconsistent as to what an ATV is. We've been talking about ATV's. I find at least three sections in the Statutes where an ATV is defined in three separate manners. So I'd encourage the Committee to look at that as an issue, before any decision is made.

I want to talk now about the economic impact that banning the sale of ATV's would have on the State. First, I believe a Mr. Libby told me earlier today that about 8,000 units are sold in the State. To ban the sale of ATV's would then cut back on sales tax and registration fees to the State.

The owners of the dealerships that sell these ATV's would see an impact. The particular dealership that I represent does about one-third unit sales in ATV's. Obviously, there would be an impact on him and his business, and that's just unit sales. That's not talking about service and parts.

SEN. CIOTTO: What would you say the average price is on an ATV?

JOSEPH GERSTEN: Average price, I believe, would go anywhere from $2,000 to about $8,000.

JOSEPH GERSTEN: Up to $10,000 now, and there are, again, this gets into a whole issue, because the definition of ATV in the State also can include the Motocross Dirt Bikes.

It's not just these four-wheel units that most people think of under the State Statute. It also includes dirt bikes, and there's also a push now with the manufacturers, Yamaha and Suzuki, are making these new side-by-sides. They're four wheels, but they have the two-passenger with side-by-side, roll cages, and the whole shebang, and those are also very pricey.

So the State loses out on revenue, the dealership loses out on revenue. As a result of that, you're going to start putting employees out on the street, because the dealerships won't have the business to employ them.

And then there also are a number of individuals in the State that compete, semi-professionally and professionally, in ATV and Motocross. You're now going to take away from them that ability to make a living by banning the sale of these units in the State.

The last point that I wanted to bring up was, I believe it was S.B. 565, the statement of purpose is to promote public safety.

You may or may not be aware of this. The Consumer Product Safety Commission on actually January 26, 2005, just last week, came out with their annual report of ATV-related deaths and injuries for the year 2003.

The Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, which is a conglomerate of companies like Suzuki, Yamaha, Kawasaki, put together a report on that report, if I may, and I passed out, as part of the testimony, this report from the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, January 26, 2005.

A report released today by the Consumer Product Safety Commission shows that, while the number of four-wheel all-terrain vehicle ATV's in use increased by 700,000 units between 2002 and 2003, the estimated injuries per 10,000 ATV's declined for the second year in a row.

The report indicates that the ATV injury rate has declined 6.2% from 2001 to 2003. Although the overall number of injuries has increased, when the rising popularity of ATV's is taken into account, there has been no appreciable upward trend in jury risk during the six-year time period since the Consumer Product Safety Commission's new inquiry sample and methodology ha been in place.

As noted, the injury risk has in fact declined from 2001 to 2003. A further report shows that the proportion of total ATV injuries sustained by riders under 16 has fallen from 37% in 1998 to 31% in 2003. The report also indicates that the risk of fatality per 10,000 ATV's has declined 21% from 1999 to 2002.

So, taking this into account, if the purpose is to promote public safety, the banning of ATV's, which the industry in and of itself, the injury rate is falling, doesn't seem to be an appropriate avenue to pursue.

So, as I said, we would oppose a ban on any sale of ATV's in the State.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Mr. Gersten. Any questions? Representative Sawyer?

REP. SAWYER: I'm just trying to do some quick math here with the aid of a calculator, and I rounded out the price of an ATV at $5,000, just for the sake of argument, times 0.6%, and then multiplied about the $300 that they pay times the 8,000, and I came up to a very, very high figure.

I had another question for you. Do you know if many of them, people are registering them presently, because we do have a registration policy in this State? I know some people are registering them so that they can ride out of state and for different functions. Do you encourage registration or –

JOSEPH GERSTEN: I know that Gary Moore, who is the General Manager of New England Cycle, does recommend registration. The Specialty Vehicle Institute of America has a model legislation, actually, that promotes things such as protective gear requirements, prohibiting of passengers, youth age limits, adult supervision, all these things.

It's all voluntary, but, again, the major manufacturers, Suzuki, Yamaha, Honda, they abide by these. In the State of Connecticut, it's not required. They abide by these, and my client does, when he sells a particular unit, recommends registration.

As to the age questions, if someone comes in and is buying, let's say, a 90cc ATV, and the person says, oh, this is for my 12-year-old, well, a 90cc is not appropriate for a 12-year-old.

My client will not go any further and will just say to him, we're not selling you this unit. And they, oh, no, no, really it's for me, and my client will say, sorry, you blew it when you started. I can't do it.

So I think you'll find that most of the dealers in the State that are selling the units represented by the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America abide by these things and are really contributing towards the safety with ATV's in terms of, there are things like free rider training. If you buy a Yamaha or Suzuki ATV, there's free training on operation.

There are incentives, monetary incentives, for helmets, things of that nature. These are all things that now fall into like H.B. 5469 and H.B. 5251, those bills, which I guess should be looked at. But our position is an outright ban will not benefit anyone.

REP. SAWYER: Well, certainly it would be a hole in our pocketbook if my $2.4 million figure in taxes--

JOSEPH GERSTEN: And that's just taxes and registration. Now you're talking about possibly putting, like I said, my client, one-third of his business, that will put him out of business. He's out of business, his staff, everyone in the service department, they're out of business. It's a snowball effect, which can be remedied by more training and possibly following this model legislation from SVIA.

REP. SAWYER: I just want to thank you for your advocacy for rider safety, because I think that's very important. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative Sawyer. Anyone else? Representative Perone?

REP. PERONE: Mr. Chair, I just had a question. You said that the safety rates have improved, you know, that the incidence of injury. What would you attribute that to?

JOSEPH GERSTEN: Again, I believe, I haven't had an opportunity to fully go through the Consumer Product Safety Commission, but there's a new methodology by which they're measuring these things.

However, the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, to be a member, the Suzuki's, the Yamaha's, the Honda's, they give free rider training. There are, you know, helmet incentives, things of that nature.

So I can tell you this much, in Connecticut, there have been a total of, I believe, 19 deaths due to ATV's from 1982 to 2003. There have only been three from the year 2000 to 2003.

REP. PERONE: And the [inaudible – microphone not on] secondary market?

JOSEPH GERSTEN: Generally, I guess both. At point of retail, you're given certificates that you're being offered free rider training from the manufacturer, you're being offered helmet incentives.

Then a secondary individual comes in, somebody that's paid by Yamaha or Suzuki, to give you that course and things of that nature. So they have a really good program out there, and I hate to say that there are some bad apples out there. But I think that's what you'll find, that the number of injuries that are still out there are those bad apples.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative Perone. Anyone else?

REP. GUERRERA: Excuse me. Representative Mikutel?

REP. MIKUTEL: How familiar are you with these ATV organizations in the State of Connecticut?

JOSEPH GERSTEN: Well, there's a number of them. So are you talking about safety organizations or the private organizations, a couple guys get together, there's clubs –

REP. MIKUTEL: No, the private organizations that have a membership. I heard they have 100's of members.

Here's my question. We heard earlier that DEP has a policy on what an ATV organization needs to do in order to put together a proposal on selecting a site and using that site and maintaining that site. They have a policy.

To date, I don't think any ATV organization has submitted a proposal to DEP.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible – microphone not on]

REP. MIKUTEL: Well, if they have, it's probably been one proposal. This policy has been in effect for years.

My question is, is the DEP policy getting anywhere, or is it a failure? Why aren't there ten proposals to DEP on file, saying here's our site, we followed your policy, these are our sites, and now we want you to act on it? Why isn't that taking place?

JOSEPH GERSTEN: I can speak to that very briefly. The gentleman who is going to testify behind me is, I think, more the expert that could tell you more about it.

It comes along with DEP has said, you, the organization, the ATV riders, will identify a site, you will do the site inspections, you will do all the different inspections that are possible, contamination, etc.

And I believe the gentleman behind me can give you better figures, but something like $100,000 to get one of these, just plans, there are like 37 potential sites, that's, what, $3.7 million, and then the DEP still reserves the right to veto any of these plans.

So I believe that's the hang-up with the plans that we're talking about. But, like I said, the gentleman who is going to speak behind me can better answer.

DAN SALOMONE: Senator Ciotto and Representative Guerrera.

DAN SALOMONE: Would you mind if I let Jill Garofalo testify in my spot, and I'll testify later? She has to be somewhere, and she has some pretty important testimony that I think should be heard.

SEN. CIOTTO: I don't have a problem with that. Go ahead.

DAN SALOMONE: You don't mind? Thank you very much.

REP. GUERRERA: If you could just please give your name?

JILL GAROFALO: My name is Jill Garofalo, and I reside in Derby, Connecticut. On March 30^th of '04, my son Timmy was killed in an ATV accident. He was 16 years old.

Two of the safety rules put in place to protect him were broken on that day, the first one being that he had no helmet. However, being 16, it's not a rule that he's mandated to wear a helmet. He did have a helmet. He just didn't wear it that day.

The second rule that he broke was that he was riding on a public road. Although even looking at a quad these days saddens me, it is a form of recreation that is enjoyed by others and especially was enjoyed by my son.

It is in his memory and to promote the safety and education of other ATV users that I come before you today.

I wish to see legislation to provide a safe place for ATV riders to go and enjoy in the State of Connecticut, as has been previously proposed.

When that area is provided, I wish to see people, only registered ATV users use that land, those who have been issued a license, very similar to boating safety in the State of Connecticut. All boat operators, even children, are required to take an eight-hour boating safety class, pass a test, and get their boaters' license.

Recently, laws were passed prohibiting the use of wave-runners for those 16 and under without an adult onboard. The rivers and Long Island Sound have law enforcement present to make sure that all the laws are followed.

I know the legislation that was in place has helped to prevent some accidents from occurring, while still allowing those who follow the rules to enjoy their boat.

I would like to see a bill promoted for registration of ATV's, more public information, environmental responsibility, noise control, and minimize age requirements, rider education and safety, protective clothing and equipment, proper riding areas in the State, parental supervision of minors, funding for riding areas, and rider education.

I feel as if, if my son had to sit through an eight-hour course on safety rules for ATV, and saw the consequences of him not following the rules, perhaps it would have prevented his temptation to take the quad out on that eventful day.

I do not wish to see a ban on ATV's. They do serve a useful purpose for farmers, emergency personnel, and if used properly, with safety equipment, can be very fun to use.

My son had very little training when we purchased the quad. We were given a safety video, and the quad was delivered to our house. I would like to see legislation to prevent that from ever happening again.

I thank you for the time to present my testimony, and I will take any questions that anyone has.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Ms. Garofalo, for that courageous testimony. Any questions for Ms. Garofalo? Thank you again.

JOHN MAJEWSKI: Hello, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is John Majewski, Jr., and I have lived in the Town of Norwich, Connecticut my entire life.

I am here to voice my opinion against Senate S.B. 300, S.B. 565, and H.B. 5251. I am the Connecticut State Representative for the National Off-highway Vehicle Conservation Council.

I have worked over 30 years as a volunteer maintaining-- [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 2A to Tape 2B.]

-–complete construction projects such as bridges, parking areas, with monies from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act, and labor provided by ATV users.

We are the recipient of the Governor's Green Circle Award for our work in the environment. I have personally worked as a volunteer to represent recreationalists in the development of Connecticut's Forest Resource Plan for the next ten years.

As some people would like to portray the ATV users in the State as unlawful destroyers of our State forests and private lands, I stand here to provide otherwise.

We are people with respect in values that are in every community. We use our ATV's to plow snow, harvest cordwood, transport feed and hay, and even transport a handicapped person to their favorite fishing or hunting spot.

There are people in our State that think ATV's should not be allowed. To them I say, come and volunteer. Help educate through ATV rider program which promote safety, respects, rights of private land use, and allow peoples to enjoy our outdoors.

Many New England states have working models of ATV programs that all we have to do is follow. Thank you.

REP. GUERRERA: Any questions for Mr. Majewski? Representative Sawyer?

REP. SAWYER: I would just like to thank him for all the work that he's done environmentally down in Pachaug State Forest, because it's been extensive, and we appreciate all your efforts.

Have you been involved in Massachusetts with any of the trail maintenance on the federal lands that NETRA and that organization have provided?

JOHN MAJEWSKI: Partially. Mostly I concentrate all my efforts here in Connecticut.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative Sawyer. Anyone else? Thank you, Mr. Majewski. Next, Gene Savoie?

GENE SAVOIE: Good afternoon. My name is Gene Savoie, and I live in Columbia, Connecticut. I'm here representing myself.

I have a wife and two daughters who are age 11 and 13. All 4 of us enjoy ATV's. I'm here today to speak out against a couple of the bills that are currently before the Committee, S.B. 330, the ban on the sale and operation of ATV's.

I can't believe a bill such as this would even be considered. Not only would this bill devastate an industry, and the loss of sales tax would be substantial.

If this is being done in the name of public safety, you would have to ban everything from automobiles, boats, horseback riding, to hot coffees and pencils. Any of these items could pose a danger in the wrong hands.

Also, I am against H.B. 5251 in its current form. I have no problem with a law that requires you to register an ATV, dirt bike, snowmobile, any other vehicle to be used on public trails in the State.

I do have a problem, though, with a law that requires the public to register when their machine will be used on private land only.

We have many farmers and homeowners in Connecticut that use ATV's as a tool around their property, and do not use them at all for recreational purposes. There are also many people such as myself who own child-size ATV's, which are not appropriate for trail use, which are ridden in my yard only. I don't believe I should have to register a vehicle like that.

People on ATV's, dirt bikes, pocket bikes, that are causing the problems are the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of owners operate their bikes in a safe, law-abiding manner.

Opening legal riding areas in Connecticut would go a long way to eliminate these problems. I would love to have a local trail system where I could take my family and enjoy a day of family riding.

I believe owning ATV's has taught my daughters a lot of important life lessons. They understand that they must work before they can play, and their school grades reflect the fact that they enjoy riding. In our house, bad grades equals no riding.

They understand that their ATV's are machines and not toys, and they know that they must treat with the respect, and they know that the consequences of fooling around could be serious injury or worse.

They also know that to enjoy many safe riding experiences, they must maintain their machines and their safety gear. Both of my girls do full safety checks before and after riding.

They only ride when I or my wife is there to supervise them, and they are well aware that the day that they start their ATV's when we're not there to supervise them is the day that they go up for sale.

I truly believe that the lessons that they are learning today will help them throughout their life, and I think it will make them a better driver when they reach that age.

I believe the bans will not help the situation. I also believe that having areas in the State to enjoy this recreational opportunity, such as we have for boaters, bicyclists, hikers, campers, horseback riders, is the right thing to do. Thank you.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Mr. Savoie. Any questions? Representative Sawyer.

REP. SAWYER: Just a quick question for you, at what age did you start your children riding?

GENE SAVOIE: They started at about ten years old.

REP. GUERRERA: Good afternoon. This must be Brianna Patton also?

BRYAN PATTON: Yes, this is Brianna. My name is Bryan Patton, and this is my daughter Brianna. I'm the trophy person for the New England Motocross Association, with which my daughter, my son, and myself race motorcycles. There's 1,000 members in our organization.

I am here today because I strongly oppose the efforts to ban ATV's and pocket bikes as per S.B. 330 and S.B. 565. I am also greatly concerned that H.B. 5251 would require registration of ATV's used on private land. If you can't ride an ATV on your own land without restriction, where do you draw the line? Is a golf cart okay or how about a riding mower, a snowmobile, farm equipment?

I like to think that I can do what I like on my own land, within reason, without undue interference. This is a free country, after all.

I am in favor of rider education in the use of appropriate safety equipment, including helmets, goggles, boots, and gloves at a minimum, regardless of the age of the rider.

My kids are required to wear every bit of safety equipment available, to the tune of about $500 each. Proper equipment goes a very long way to help prevent or minimize injuries.

All commercial riding areas and all racing organizations require extensive protective gear, which includes a DOT-approved helmet, goggles, body armor, knee and elbow pads, kidney belt, special boots, special pants and gloves.

Perhaps purchasers should be required to prove that they own the appropriate riding gear at the time of sale.

I want to mention that there is a difference between some of the casual riders that really don't have the equipment and the training, and the dedicated riders and racers of Connecticut.

I'd like to punish those that break the law, but really not the law-abiding public. I support the idea of putting ID on bikes and ATV's. Our racing bikes have numbers eight inches tall, and you'll have no trouble reading our numbers, and if you want to see us, you can probably see us at St. Patty's Day parade, because we'll probably have 20 or more kids and adults riding in it.

ATV's and pocket bikes are also used for legitimate closed-course racing, in addition to recreational riding.

I clearly feel there's a problem with pocket bikes. They were never designed for on-road use or sidewalks or anything like that. If there's an organized activity on a closed private course, I don't think they should be banned.

Let's see here. Connecticut actually has certain riding areas. Connecticut Motocross in Rocky Hill has a riding area specifically for ATV's.

And that's another thing that concerns me. ATV is a broad definition. It may include the dirt bikes that we race, as well as pocket bikes and four-wheel vehicles and things of that nature, and I'm unclear as to what exactly they're trying to ban.

MX338 Racetrack in Southwick, Mass., has ATV races in addition to motorcycle races and other off-road vehicles. There are dozens of tracks within a few hours of Hartford.

I wish to point out that many other sports are dangerous. Hockey, equestrian sports, soccer, basketball, baseball, football, all have their share of injuries, sometimes serious ones.

The decision whether or not to let your child participate in these activities has always been the parents' decision, and it should stay the parents' decision.

With our personal freedoms being increasingly limited, due to the fight on terror, travel restrictions, reduced privacy rights, I expect our other rights to remain intact, the right of a parent to oversee their children's activities.

Effective laws already exist, risk of injury to a minor, negligence, the fact that it is illegal to operate these vehicles on public roadways. We don't need more laws. We need to enforce the ones we have now.

Common sense dictates that a parent closely monitor all their children's activities, especially involving a motorized vehicle. But common sense is very difficult to write into the letter of the law.

Riding and racing have lots of positive aspects many people are probably unaware of, not having been involved in these activities themselves. ATV's and motorcycles require a substantial investment in both time and money.

My daughter's motorcycle costs about $3,000 new, plus all the equipment, race fees, travel expenses, and the like. The parents, and usually the entire family, are involved in riding or racing. Many times the parents ride themselves and enjoy teaching their children this challenging and rewarding skill.

The parents are involved not in just the purchase of the machine, but in the training and practice, supervision, the maintenance, the travel, and the camping that is often required. This is quality one-on-one time, both time-consuming and enjoyable for parents and kids alike.

Kids learn balance and coordination. My daughter is nine, but she rides a motorcycle with a six-speed manual transmission and a clutch.

Kids learn responsibility, and many times their riding is tied to getting good grades and having good behavior. Racing in particular leads to an understanding of rules and conflict resolution when disputes arise, and respect for authority. The head referee is well-respected by the kids.

Kids learn to make real, meaningful decision that directly affect their well-being, how fast they should go, how hard they should try, how much risk they are comfortable with.

They're learning good sportsmanship and enjoy the camaraderie of their fellow riders. Making important decisions about their riding enables them to make better decisions about other things, like how fast it's safe to drive a car and how to resist peer pressure.

Kids learn skill sets most people never have, like threshold braking, controlling both over steer, under steer and skidding, maintenance and repair, and reading terrain, which often includes dirt, mud, ruts, berms, jumps, roots, rocks, and other obstacles.

They're learning determination and toughness, how to keep going when things aren't easy. My daughter rides in a boys' class with no handicap. She beats half of them or more on a regular basis. I figure that this experience will serve her well later in life.

I ask that the Legislature keep us safe by fighting terror and child predators, by making our schools better, not by undue interference with our personal activities. More common sense and fewer laws.

Thank you for your time and consideration today, and thank you for the interest you've shown by the questions you've asked here today. Brianna has a few words to say.

BRIANNA PATTON: Hi, my name is Brianna Patton, and I am nine years old. I have been riding off-road motorcycles since I was three and racing with my Dad since I was five.

I like to ride and race because I get to see my friends and because it's challenging and I like challenges.

I've learned many things from riding. I've learned responsibility from my Dad, who says, if you want to ride, you have to keep track of your gear and make sure you don't miss your race.

I think other children should be allowed to ride, because it is a lot of fun and because I learn responsibility and to listen better.

I've also learned how to fix my bike, so when I'm older, it won't be so hard to fix a car. Riding is important to me because if I didn't ride or race, on just about every other weekend, then I'd be at home doing nothing except watching TV and playing on the computer.

Riding is also important to me because I think it's fun to go fast and jump. I also like camping out and riding with my friends and family.

I think the best part of motor cars are that I get to meet new people, go fast and have fun, and sometimes you get trophies.

This year I won a sixth place championship trophy in class with all boys besides me. I now have nine trophies. I rode long and hard to get them.

Riding can be dangerous, but wearing the proper equipment and learning how to do it properly makes it a lot safer. Please don't ban ATV's and other off-road bikes, because they are a lot of fun, and other kids should have a chance to try it too. Thank you.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Brianna. Any questions for the Pattons? Yes, Representative Sawyer.

REP. SAWYER: Brianna, can I ask you a question? Do you ride a motorcycle or a four-wheeler?

REP. SAWYER: A two-wheeler? And do you find that it is the envy of the kids in your class? Do you find that other kids in school like to hear what you do? Are they interested in what you do?

BRIANNA PATTON: Yeah, they're very interested, and they're always thinking that I'm going to have another story for them.

REP. SAWYER: Is that right? Well, congratulations on your trophy this year.

BRYAN PATTON: On the paperwork we handed out, there's actually a picture of her riding, if you take a look at it.

REP. GUERRERA: Hold on, Mr. Patton. We have some other questions.

REP. DREW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask a question of Brianna's father. I'm trying to understand the distinction, particularly the recreational use, between what I would generally call motocross bikes, to the extent I understand that, as opposed to what I generally understand to be pocket bikes.

Regarding the recreational use, I'm thinking particularly of the off-road use. Are the recreational uses fundamentally different in the competitions they have? It sounds like there's competitions.

REP. DREW: Is there fundamental distinction between the motocross and the pocket bikes?

BRYAN PATTON: Yes, there really is. There is some organized racing with pocket bikes, but it's relatively new. They are specifically meant for pavement. Typically they would set up maybe a road course in a parking lot or something.

But they are primarily sort of a toy. Motocross racing is well-established. It falls under the purview of the American Motorcycle Association, which also controls the professional sports you see on TV.

Motocross and the extreme sports are right now the second fastest growing motorized sport, right behind NASCAR. You know, it's very popular right now, and there are hundreds of clubs throughout the U.S., and there are thousands and thousands of youth riders and adult riders that compete in the regulated amateur competition all over the country and all over the world.

In fact, the pinnacle of the youth competition is to be invited to the invitational Loretta Lynn's Championship in Tennessee. Motocross is a big deal.

REP. DREW: And let me ask, the activities that Brianna, perhaps, if I recall, you have one or more other children involved as well, is this motocross, or is this pocket bike?

REP. DREW: What I perceive as your enthusiasm for the motocross and the enjoyment of the recreation, would your expressions and sentiments also apply equally to pocket bikes, or do you make a distinction?

BRYAN PATTON: It could be. There are racing organizations, and there are people that do compete with pocket bikes, and I feel that's a legitimate use for a pocket bike. It's under controlled conditions, off the road, there would be rules and regulations, there'd be safety requirements, things of that nature.

I don't support the ban of pocket bikes, but I do believe they have no place on city roads and sidewalks, and I am completely in agreement with that. I just don't want to see them banned.

REP. DREW: Let me ask this also. My general familiarity, and it's very, very limited, regarding what I perceive as the motocross competitions, up the hills and the dirt paths and so forth, those courses would not seem to be appropriate for pocket bikes from my observation.

BRYAN PATTON: No, no, they are really meant for pavement. They're not going to go on dirt or mud or sand or anything like that.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative Drew. Anyone else?

BRYAN PATTON: I did want to give you an idea. You know, the thing is, ATV's may encompass what we do, and I think what we do is a really good thing. Thank you.

REP. GUERRERA: Next, John Slater. Good afternoon.

JOHN SLATER: Good afternoon. Thank you, Committee. My name is John Slater. I own and operate Slater Racing Products, a small plastic manufacturing company in Milford, Connecticut. That's right, manufacturing of this industry.

I've been racing motocross for 33 years. I started riding when I was 6 years old, and it's therapy for me.

I just think the sport of motocross and ATV's, some people are so uneducated, such as yourselves, of what it is we actually do.

It's been an underground sport for the longest time. It's really starting to get mainstream now, between ESPN and ABC. As a matter of fact, Disney Channel actually made a movie called Motocross that was on Disney Channel, for the kids.

And what we do at Slater Racing Products is strictly off-road. We don't do anything with street bikes. It's just strictly ATV's and dirt bikes, and, quite frankly, it's almost impossible for me to run a business in this State.

We do manufacturing of plastics. I just had one of my riders at the X games in Colorado Saturday evening was on national television running my product. That's pretty big.

We're trying to get the point across to legislation, as we need legalized riding areas. I had tried opening a track in North Haven. $20,000 later, they shut the door and were going to sue me.

I tried to open another track in Milford, Connecticut. Two weeks before election time was my public hearing. I had gotten past the Wetlands Committee in one session through Wetlands Committee. They thought it was a great idea, keep the kids off the wetlands, we'll have a place for them, if we catch them, we'll have a place for them to go legally. I got shot down.

Everyone says, well, just buy a piece of property and have people come ride on there yourself. Okay, that's what we wanted to do. They shot us down.

So it's not so much at my end of it is getting the State to give me property or whatnot. It's letting some of these zoning boards say okay, you know, in the proper areas, we can do these things.

Some of the testimony before of some of the guys from Branford and West Hartford and whatnot, we have 1700 acres of trails that we have. Well, how about 50 acres for the off-road community? No, they don't want to do it.

Well, why is that? They had all this land that you're harboring, Land Trust use and public land use and this and that. But you got it for mountain bikers, you got it for hikers and bird watchers. Okay, well, then give us 50 acres of that, of taxpayers' money, you know, land, and let us go there.

With the recent thing now, with Sikorsky's losing that contract, and that's going to be detrimental to some of the machine shops that I use to manufacture my parts, some of the plastic manufacturing companies that I use down here in lower Fairfield County, it's going to hit pretty hard.

Sikorsky's already told one of my clients right now that they might have to start, you know, they don't know how much work they're going to give him now.

So I think, with the coalition of people that we've had come up here before testimony to how good the sport really is, you definitely got to take that into consideration.

Now, there's a lot of motorcycle dealerships with these ATV's and dirt bikes, such as Joe representing Cycle Dynamics over there.

It's a big tax, I mean there's a lot of money that we're spending in this State, and if we were to open up more places to ride, there's going to be a lot more people coming to this State to spend money, and I know a lot of it, what it comes down to in zoning and in the local municipalities is how are we contribute to the grand list, because the bottom line, we all know it, it comes down to dollars and cents. What is it that you're going to do for our town? We've got to make money.

So I think on certain issues, like I'm particularly working with a town now that is really interested in opening up a facility for ATV and dirt bike use and possibly the pocket bikes.

It would be an old abandoned landfill that is in the middle of just about nowhere, and it's been capped, and my background is construction.

I've been in construction for 15 years, and, like an idiot, I got out of it and started my own company, thinking I was, you know, doing the entrepreneur thing, but unfortunately I did it in an industry that's not welcome in Connecticut, the ATV's.

See, I do nothing in street bikes. A lot of these other shops do things with street bikes, which offsets, you know, there's more money in street bikes, basically.

So I'm working with a town right now to possibly open up a facility that the State wouldn't have the liability, and I think if that S.B. 519 that would eliminate some of the frivolous lawsuits on municipalities was to pass, I think that would help us out quite a bit with some of your municipalities to encourage more riding areas.

Now, one of the biggest problems we've had is the DEP, which, to tell you the truth, all the DEP agents that I have met were really, really nice people.

When I was trying to do the track in North Haven, the DEP agents would pull people over and instead of giving them a ticket, they'd say, listen, I'm going to give you a warning, but there's going to be a track opening over here. Go over there. It's going to be legal, and if we catch you over here again, then we'll impound your vehicle or whatnot, which makes sense. You know, I mean, you buy a quad for $5,000, $6,000, that's $300, $400 in sales tax that the State's getting, but we're not getting anything back.

And I do know that, what's that, that – [inaudible] bill and--

REP. GUERRERA: Excuse me, you got about another minute here, because we're already up to time already.

JOHN SLATER: Okay, so basically, to make a long story short, some of these proposals are kind of ridiculous, the ban of ATV's. I mean, Senator Finch ain't even here, and he's the one that's putting it up.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible – microphone not on]

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible – microphone not on]

JOHN SLATER: I understand, Sir. I understand. Well, the bottom line is, you know, we need places to ride, done legally, so we're not criminals. That's all.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you. Any questions? Representative O'Connor?

REP. O'CONNOR: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. A quick question, how much acreage do you need to accommodate your sport, as far as an individual site, to make it workable?

JOHN SLATER: A workable site, depending on what you're going to do, anywhere from 40 acres and up, 40.

JOHN SLATER: I mean, because that allows enough for parking, enough for some, see, now, with motocross and racing, like that's what we do, we do the closed-course competition, the trails systems are obviously different. You would want a bigger woods loop, maybe like a couple-mile loop.

But like for the motocross and the ATV's, you know, hey, anything we can get is going to work. I've been a member of the American Motorcycle Association for 25 years. I'm a lifetime member, and I've actually raced professionally quite a bit my whole life, and in 1992 was the pinnacle of my racing career, I was on the United States Grand Prix Racing Team, where I stood underneath the American flat at Unadilla Valley Sports Center in upstate New York.

So, I mean, that's kind of like playing in the Olympics in any other sport. You know, I was able to do that.

REP. O'CONNOR: Okay, and excuse me for my naiveté here. Are there any located right here in Connecticut now, a private facility, that's a good example for us to look at?

JOHN SLATER: Rocky Hill, right around the corner, Exit 24, is a really nice place. They have a place for the bikes and they have a peewee track for the little kids, and a quad track.

The problem that we run into, it's on the Connecticut River, and you can only ride there a certain amount of months out of the year, and it does get crowded, because the sport is growing and growing and growing.

I'm looking to open up our own place that's privately run, so we wouldn't have the burden of State having the liability issues, although what we'd do is to ask maybe the State to say, okay, guys, let's sit down and really think about this and let's open this particular place up. So I'm looking for help basically.

REP. GUERRERA: Thanks very much. Any other questions? Thank you very much.

BERT GUERRETTE: Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, my name is Bert Guerrette, and I live in Somers, Connecticut, and I'm here, first and foremost I'm an ATV enthusiast, dirt bike enthusiast, have been all of my life, which has led to me holding a position in the industry.

I'm the District Sales Manager for Polaris Industries for the State of Connecticut, and very concerned about the possible banning of ATV sales here in the State.

I just wanted to say I personally use an ATV to work around the house, plow the driveway, do yard work, in going into my dealerships and meeting their customers, and I've heard that today, which is encouraging, that there are a lot of decent folks that use the product as they're intended to be used.

I believe there's current legislation in place that is maybe more of an enforcement issue as far as riding them on streets, public roads, that sort of thing.

You know, if one person gets hurt on the product, that's one person too many. We definitely don't want that. We want to work to make sure those sorts of things don't happen.

As we've heard from other people too, we need land. We need to figure out a way to all come together on that issue.

It is a big industry. You've heard some of the numbers earlier in the day. It does represent quite a bit of income to the State, and I just want to say that, you know, the manufacturers and the dealers here in the State are committed to doing whatever it takes to work through the issues that the industry is facing at this time.

Our relationship with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the safety training done at the time of delivery with Polaris product, the only thing I would want to bring up to everybody here is that we're seeing an unlevel playing field develop a little bit in the industry.

You've got your major manufacturers that are committed to promoting the safe use of the product. But we're seeing quite a bit of competition come into the country now from China and Taiwan.

I won't mention the companies' names, but we'll submit that, that are not doing the same amount of training with the product. Their dealers can be set up, as was mentioned earlier, at, you know, a carwash or whatever, and they're just selling the product and not going over any of the requirements needed for the product.

So I think that the Legislators should take a look at that. That's all I have. Thank you for your time.

REP. GUERRERA: Any questions for Mr. Guerrette? Thank you, Mr. Guerrette.

JOHN JAKAN: Good afternoon. I'm just fine. Thank you. I've got basically the H.B. 5251, S.B. 330, and S.B. 565, and what I'm going to do is basically read you some of the information that I've given most of you people these booklets.

My name is John Jakan. I'm the President of the Central Cycle Club, Inc., and also the President of New England Sports Committee, Inc. Both are motorcycle organizations.

Our track is located on South Cady Lane in Plainfield, Connecticut. Our membership is 350 at the present time with 25 new members a year. We have at the present time a 3-year waiting list. Our club is owned by our membership.

Central Cycle Club was established in 1967 and incorporated in 1974. We are a member of the Chamber or Commerce, and we support the following through our racing, the Lyons Club of Plainfield, Mossup Little League, Tri State Horseman's Association, American Legion Post 91, American Veterans over Japan Day, American Cancer Society, Senior Citizen Center of Plainfield, Plainfield High School Graduating Class, St. Vincent De Paul Homeless Kitchen, March of Dimes, Cystic Fibrosis, Plainfield Neighborhood Watch, Plainfield Midget Football, Connecticut Legislative Action, Women's Center of Northeastern Connecticut, Canterbury Fire Department, Central Fire Department, Save the Kids, and Hospice, the Candle Light ceremonies, and many more.

Pocket bikes should be outlawed on the road, this I agree with. Now, 4-wheelers, 3-wheelers, and dirt bikes do not fall under this same category.

Ask yourself how many of the elected officials that make our rules and regulate our laws have ever been to a bike event.

This is a family sport. Our kids are so busy training that they don't have time to get into trouble. The bike organizations throughout the country have standards they go by.

In order to ride for an organization, whether it's Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Husqvarna, or Team Green, you have to produce your quarterly grades when you're in school.

Families that ride together stay together. Most motorcycle riders belong to a conscientious, hard-working family that enjoys riding and working for the sport.

If they had more open space to ride legally, they would not have the problems and the people trespassing and misuse of land or people riding on roads illegally.

Halfway through the year in 2004, our DMV Racing Division stopped coming to our track. When I asked why, no one had any answers.

Here we go again. With all the new rules, who is going to enforce them? Do you have enough people to handle the rules and laws you have on the books?

Central Cycle Club is the only bike racetrack in the State of Connecticut. Under the State laws, no racetrack can start racing before noon on Sunday. When Central asked the DMV Racing Division if they could start at 10 a.m., we were told it had to be approved by the Town.

We are the only racetrack in Connecticut with a 10:00 start on Sundays. Our rules and regulations fall under car racing, even though we are not dealing with the amount of gas, horsepower, or danger car racing has.

As President of the New England Sports Committee, a racing organization that covers New England, Connecticut is the only state with an age restriction. Around 14 or 16 years ago, the age of kids to race in Connecticut was lowered to 13 years of age.

My sons had to race in other states and could not race at their home track until age 13. Like any sport, it is easier to learn at an early age. We have over 1500 riders that belong to NESC. Many of our families that would like to race in Connecticut, but because of the age limit, kids cannot race.

When the kids are small, they need small motorcycles, 50's and 60's, to ride. They learn from their families in a family setting at an early age in life.

I am asking for the opportunity to give you more information before you make any decisions that affect so many people. I have enclosed two rule books, one from Central Cycle Club, Inc., and the other from New England Sports Committee. Please take the time to read before you pass any more laws.

Thank you for letting me speak today. If you need any future information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I have enclosed my phone number, my address, and if you have any questions, please ask.

REP. GUERRERA: Do you have any questions? Thank you very much.

ROBERT GURSKY: Thank you for inviting me to speak. My name is Robert Gursky, and I live in Glastonbury, Connecticut.

I own an ATV, and it's registered with the State of Connecticut as an off-road vehicle. I paid sales tax for the ATV at the time of the purchase, and I pay property tax to the Town of Glastonbury each year on the ATV.

I ride in Connecticut on private property where I have written permission of the owner. I wear a helmet and other safety gear. I display the ID tag that was issued to me by DMV.

I speak to you today as a responsible person, rider, voter, and tax payer. I am opposed to S.B. 330, the ATV ban.

ATV's are completely legitimate recreational and utility vehicles. Riding ATV's on State land, public roads, or where you would be trespassing is already against the law.

There's no reason to pass a complete ban to prevent something that's already banned. This issue and the issue of allowing the ATV's on State property is a completely different issue, and I respect the fact that there's contrasting opinions on it. Please don't confuse land use issues with S.B. 330.

I am also opposed to Proposed S.B. 565. That's the combined pocket bike and ATV ban. Pocket bikes and all-terrain vehicles are completely different vehicles, apples and oranges. I was very confused to see them both in the same bill. I think it's wrong to lump both types of vehicles in the same category.

I'm also opposed to S.B. 5469. That's the increase in registration fee, and wouldn't provide anything to the ATV users. Additionally, the riders who are trespassing and causing damage to properties are not going to register their vehicles anyway. They don't now, and increase in the fees aren't going to affect them.

The one bill I am in favor of H.B. 5089. That's the one that promotes safe operation for minors. My only recommendation, or something you should consider, is perhaps opening up a small portion of land where private instructors could teach safety courses.

The ATV manufacturers already have course material in place. I've taken the course. It's very good. They have a train-the-trainer program, and I think as one of the distributors or dealerships pointed out, the major manufacturers, Honda, Kawasaki, Bombardier, all support that. In fact, I think they paid me $100 to take the course.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Mr. Gursky. Any questions for Mr. Gursky? Seeing none, thank you very much.

REP. GUERRERA: Next is Damon Libby, Libby's Motoworld.

DAMON LIBBY: Thank you for letting me speak on this subject. My name is Damon Libby. I'm owner of Libby's Motoworld in New Haven. I've been in the business for over 30 years, so I do have some experience to talk on this subject.

On behalf of myself and the Connecticut Motor Sports Business Association, I'd like to respond to S.B. 330 on the banning on ATV's.

The word ATV used to mean, still does, all-terrain vehicles. But as of last year, it also encompasses off-road motorized vehicles, as dirt bikes. So when we use that terminology, we're also using the terminology including dirt bikes.

I'm going to just give you some facts. There are about 8,000 ATV's sold in the State of Connecticut, which, as Pam Sawyer figured out, it generates over $2 million worth of sales tax revenue. That's not counting the hundreds that are sold out-of-state and brought into the State to circumvent the sales tax.

Right now, very conservative estimates, there's over 100,000 ATV's being used in the State of Connecticut. That's quite a few. Out of that 100,000, there's revenue generated on service, replacing parts, accessories, revenue that the State direly need.

I personally employ about three people that are devoted just to the ATV market, and I'm just one dealership. Throughout the State, there's hundreds of employees that work on just the ATV market, and they work, they generate sales tax, they spend money in the State of Connecticut.

Another fact, right now there's over close to 1.5 million ATV's sold throughout the United States. Matter of fact, in 2002, USA Today did a survey questioning whether ATV's should be banned from national state parks such as Yellowstone. Seventy-eight percent of the people spoke and said they should not. That's quite a few. Is Connecticut any different?

Another fact, ATV's, close to 65% of all ATV's sold are those of the utility type. Those are the type that are used by your co-workers, your neighbors, to plow snow, work their yards. Those ATV's should not have to be registered. That's your own private property.

I have a customer who enjoys the outdoors, and while serving his country, he sustained an injury, and the only way he could go through the woods and see the outdoors is by way of an ATV. We shouldn't take that right away from him.

You know, this hearing should not be about banning ATV's. This hearing should be about opening up, as other people said, safe, designated areas to ride. The fact is, there's a State Statute, 23-26C on Connecticut books, states Connecticut should provide designated State land for ATV use. Why is Connecticut in violation of their own State Statute by not providing land?

I've heard questions. Why is it up to the organizations, the individuals, to provide land? Why isn't it up to the State? It's on their books. The State is in violation.

You know, by violating this State Statute, where do people ride? Remember, there's 100,000 of us out there. They have to ride illegally. You're forcing families who like to bring up their children, teach them values, but they're riding illegally, and unfortunately we've had one death that we heard from the mother because somebody was forced to ride illegally.

All states surrounding Connecticut, Massachusetts, so on and so forth, have designated riding areas. A lot of my customers who buy ATV's, where do I ride? Well, you got to go out of state.

I have five gentlemen that just bought ATV's. They go twice a month. They travel three hours to Pennsylvania, they buy a state sticker, they pay to use the land, they spend the weekend there. There's hundreds of dollars just for five people, revenue spent out of the State of Connecticut.

I propose that the State open up State land as per their Statute, and the reasons being are very positive, a win-win situation. The State charges a fee for the privilege of riding on State land, needed revenue.

Designated State trails would eliminate the possibility of injuries and deaths, because they're safely maintained. People know where they're going. They're not going around a corner and off a cliff. The State would have more control over the ATV's, and that's what I heard today.

They would not issue state stickers if the ATV was not in safe condition, if the pipes are too loud, or the riders don't wear safety equipment or have some sort of rider knowledge or education.

Also, there was a two-year study done in Utah, that by having, opening State land, there was less of a negative impact on the environment. That I've heard also.

Also, the Committee probably doesn't realize that there are groups such as NETRA, Pathfinders, who will not only build these trails at no cost to the State, they would maintain these trails at no cost to the State, whereas the State is charging a fee to use them. It's a win-win situation.

And on top of that, through the TEA Act 21, which is the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century, Connecticut receives annually over $700,000 which is supposed to be designated only for motorized trail use, not horses, not hiking. Where does that money go?

I also hear about renegade riders, and I'm against that. I like to abide by the law. I think I like to do that. And one of the things is by having-- [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 2B to Tape 3A.]

-–aware that what the DEP does so many weekends of so many months, where they send out their officials at $40, $50 an hour in their $40,000-50,000 SUV's chasing ATV's through the woods.

That's a lot of money being wasted that could be well-spent elsewhere. That's not counting when they have the helicopters running at several hundred dollars an hour chasing kids around on ATV's.

Therefore the kids run. Next thing you know, they hit a tree, and there's an accident.

REP. GUERRERA: I just want to ask you if you could wrap this up, please. We're going on five minutes.

DAMON LIBBY: Okay. Well, you know, basically, I'll wrap it up. But I wish that there were more Committee Members here to listen, because this is an important issue. I mean, these citizens who ride these ATV's, either for sport, pleasure, or for utility, they vote for you. I mean, they pay State taxes. They work here. Any questions?

REP. GUERRERA: We believe it's an important issue too. That's why we're having a public hearing, Sir.

REP. GUERRERA: Any questions? Representative Mikutel.

REP. MIKUTEL: Yes, it is an important issue, and I'm glad you raised the point that there is a law in the State that requires DEP to select a site for ATV operations. That is a law. It's not being implemented.

To me, we got a situation that's getting out of control. We're selling ATV's all over the State, and we're not providing a safe and regulated place to operate.

It seems incumbent upon the State to provide that kind of facility. Now, I just want to let you know that to me it all begins with selecting a site, and it's going to be safer for everyone if we have a site that's selected and meets the requirements, that minimizes any environmental damage, and that way we can, as you say, stop the police from chasing these kids around and itself causing them to get into accidents as a result of that trying to run for cover.

But there is a bill in the Environment Committee. It's a study bill that's going to require DEP to investigate all State property, come up with some sites for safe operation. So I hope that you'll spread the word and come out in support of that bill later on. Thank you.

DAMON LIBBY: I will. But I'd also like to say that I have letters here from Senator Dodd, Arthur Rhode, David Keith, Deputy Commissioner of the DEP. These are all dated in 2000. That was five years ago. I've been communicating, working with Committees to try to open a plan.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of stonewall, there's always one or two people who have the power, and they don't want either land opened, noise, or whatever the case. I'm always open, as all these other clubs, to work with Committees so therefore land can be opened. But when we do try to contact people, and, again, I have paperwork here, we just get stonewalled, which is unfortunate.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Mr. Libby. And just let me just add this little comment to you and to the members that are out there.

If you don't see Members in this Committee, there are other Committee hearings being held today, as Judicial and Environmental.

And let me say this again. This is a very important issue. We do believe it's important. That's why we're here to 2:00, still talking about this, because we want to hear testimony on it.

And if for some reason, there's more that you want to give us, you can write it in, you can hand it over to us, and we'll be more than willing to accept that, so at any time.

DAMON LIBBY: I have already, and I appreciate, and I thank you. But I'm a hard-working guy. I have to run a business, and I'm here until 2:00 here too.

REP. GUERRERA: I understand that. Thank you. We appreciate you doing that.

JEFF ELSTON: Thank you. My name is Jeff Elston, and I currently live in Glastonbury, Connecticut, and I'm a member of the American Motorcycle Association, Connecticut Motocross, and the New England Sports Committee, which is the competitive league in which we race motocross throughout New England.

I came in here today to express my opposition on the ban of ATV's in the State of Connecticut, specifically S.B. 330 and S.B. 565, and I'm also opposed to being required to register an ATV if it's going to be used on private land.

If it's on public land, I feel that's fine. I mean, you don't have to register a car if it's not being used on the road. I don't feel I should have to register my motocross bike if I'm not using it in a public area and it's being operated on private land.

Some other things I wanted to get across is the definition of an ATV is kind of unclear, and, you know, I race motocross. This is on a closed course, and I think motocross bikes should be separated from ATV's, which are four-wheeled quads that are made to go in the woods on land.

Other issues is from a rider's perspective, I know there's so many issues with people trespassing. I believe that's very unfortunate, and I think there's also no education out there as to where you can and cannot ride, from a consumer.

I mean, I mountain bike in the State Forest, you know, and I come across people riding bikes, and they're like, what do you mean we can't ride here? In other states, you can ride on state land.

So there is some misunderstanding amongst these people too, and then obviously there is the blatant violators.

I totally agree with Bryan, the NEMA, and John Slater about how positive motocross has been in my life, and some model places I think are Uxbridge Motocross Park in Massachusetts and Connecticut Motocross and CTmotocross.com, which is a private track where ATV's and dirt bikes are allowed to go pay a fee.

And that's all I have to say. Are there any questions?

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Mr. Elston. Any questions? Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Kevin.

KEVIN CUNNINGHAM: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and Committee Members. I'm just going to read through my testimony first.

The Legislative Committee, I would like the Members of the Connecticut General Assembly and the people of Connecticut to know that there is an untapped revenue waiting at the door.

It's possible for the State of Connecticut to generate enormous revenues from the DMV registration and sales tax when the creation of four recreational ATV sites are established. These revenues would more than outweigh the staffing and upkeep of designated ATV riding sites.

The first step in generating these untapped revenues would be to study where these sites could be placed, then working through the guidelines of how the sites would be maintained.

It is conceivable that there is only a small percent of ATV owners who register their vehicles. Their unwillingness to register is due in part to the lack of opportunities to ride within this State.

Nowhere does the State supply opportunities to do any recreational riding, no State-run training, no facilities for families, no forms of encouragement at all to support the need to register and pay taxes on these vehicles.

Now, I'm going to apologize. Some of these numbers that I have here are from items that I've taken out of newspaper clippings, because it's all the information I have, or from some of the online sites that I've found information from.

But if you look back over the past ten years, you can calculate that approximately $4.5 million of revenue received for registering and tax collection on ATV's has been done in the State of Connecticut.

If the percentages of the owners who have registered is less than 10%, and I've done my own polls by going to different businesses throughout the area, to some of the clubs, a lot of people and friends that I have also done the same thing, we've asked around, there's a very minimum amount of people actually registering vehicles at this time.

But you can see the opportunities there are immense. There would also be opportunities for future revenue-generation, as supporting and staffing of these sites could be paid by a small one-time users' fee.

Another benefit would be from the ATV sales companies within Connecticut who will help to generate more sales tax due to the support from the proposed ATV parks.

Giving the owners of these vehicles a safe place to ride and available training, or having the ability to bring a family for a day of fun is simply a better solution than asking the local police and DEP to handle the problems that the State has ignored over the years.

ATV riders, as well as people who don't ride, would encourage the creation of these designated sites around Connecticut. It is a step in the right direction, and in order to take these steps, I encourage the passing of a bill which isn't listed here, but is an association to what you're doing. This bill is H.B. 05927.

The other things I'm opposed to are obviously mentioned by a lot of other people, S.B. 330 and S.B. 565, the outright ban, and some of the other comments that I've heard earlier today, I'd like to make a comment back on.

We talked about the sale of these items from a lot of facilities which are first-time sales, brand new units. But you haven't also talked about the resale items.

People are going around selling to their friends, and you're going to generate a lot more revenue there as well.

And as far as generation of these sites, I think it's like putting the horse before the cart. You really have to have something there in place for these people to ride on in order for you to generate the revenue, and that's it.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. Any questions? Representative O'Connor.

REP. O'CONNOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As far as the sites, are the closed sites preferred or the trail sites are something that's more expansive?

KEVIN CUNNINGHAM: I hate to make it sounds like I'm not, I mean, I'd like to see anything at this point. We've put a lot of money into this State and we haven't done anything at all.

I would like to see at least, to start off with a closed site. I think the trail riding would be fantastic, but I think that a study group from the bill that's being proposed right now would help to evaluate that better than I.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Representative O'Connor. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Cunningham.

MELISSA GREEN: My name is Melissa Green, and I am formerly a Board of Director for the New England Trailrider Association and a member of the Connecticut Ramblers, who is an off-road club motorcycle enthusiast, primarily just dealing with just two-wheeled ATV's.

But now we are, by definition, under the ATV's that you apparently seem to have the most difficulty with.

I am opposing S.B. 330, S.B. 565, H.B. 5251, and H.B. 5469, mainly in regards to registration fees. There is no one in this room that has spoken in opposition to these things that would have a problem with registration fees or what their amount was, provided we had someplace to ride.

Within the writings of that bill, it says that it would maintain improved facilities for ATV's. Yet there are no places to maintain or improve. We need to develop them, and yet that is nowhere in the writings of what the registration fees will go toward.

Instead, they are enforcing ATV laws and repairing damage to State and agricultural lands caused by these ATV's.

I would like to apologize to any of the public landowners and public officials that had experienced a blatant disregard by people who are just uneducated in regards to safety and what our mission is.

Anytime we ban the sale of anything that directly affects someone's livelihood, we jeopardize and sacrifice not only our communities but the State as a whole.

I believe to ban the sale of ATV's will alienate the State's dealerships, dealerships who have the ability to assist us in a mission to educate riders of all ages in safe off-road vehicle use, dealerships who could be an integral part in the collection of the registration fees that you are trying to increase.

As I consider the trickling effects of these detrimental bills, we should anticipate the adverse effects that it will have on home sales, car sales, insurance and finance companies, gas stations, restaurants, decline in property taxes, property values, and a quality of life.

As a member of the Connecticut Ramblers and New England Trailrider Association, I have worked hand-in-hand with the DEP in trying to formulate policy and procedure in order to have organized events.

Most of the people that you have difficulty with are rogue people who do not belong to organizations, but as organizations what do we have to offer them to come and join us? If we had land that we could say to them, you join this, we can do some work on the land, it would increase the likelihood that they would join those and become more organized instead of just being a bunch of three and four people that go out on the weekend or whenever and do some riding.

So if you give something to us, then the organizations can give something back to you, and I think it becomes a more amicable situation for everyone involved.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Ms. Green. Any questions? Thank you very much for your testimony.

REP. GUERRERA: This last name's going to be tough.

REP. GUERRERA: Is he here? How did we do on that one, John?

JOHN PRZYBYLSKI: Good afternoon. You have my written testimony in hand, and it pretty much echoes what we've been talking about here today.

I think everybody in this room is pretty much in agreement that we don't want a ban on ATV's. I haven't heard anybody say they're in agreement with that ban, and everybody wants to see a riding area for the ATV's.

We've all talked about the law that's been on the books directing the DEP to do something about that, since 1986, and we want to know who is going to get this land, where is it going to come from.

I'm President of the Connecticut Ramblers Motorcycle Club. We have worked with the DEP for many years and have held an Enduros in the State of Connecticut for the past 50 years. These Enduros have traversed State property and have gone on all trails except the Blue Dot Trail.

In my opinion, the DEP is not even aware of some of the trail systems that they had available to them out there, and that the Connecticut Ramblers, the New England Trailriders Association, is willing to work with the DEP to document these trails, find out where we want to bring and let ATV use be allowed in the State.

I seem to hear a lot of the not-in-my-backyard attitude from private land trust groups, trail groups, and such. But we have to find someplace for the ATV's to use.

One of the things we've run into with the DEP is the same type of attitude, not in my backyard. Look at the DOT lands, look at other lands. We're hoping that everybody can work together to try and find these lands. Thank you.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, John. Any questions? Thank you very much, John.

JIM GREEN: My name is Jim Green. I would like to speak in observation of S.B. 330, S.B. 565, H.B. 5251, and H.B. 5469.

As an independentlyowned motorcycle, snowmobile, ATV repair shop, I face the loss of my livelihood with the success of these bills. It appears evident to me that banning the sale and operation of these vehicles jeopardizes the economy as a whole.

If I can't pay the bills, I can't support my family or my community. As a rider of dirt bikes, I assure you that no one speaking today has objection to increasing registration fees or mandating registration for State and land use.

However, in return we expect and deserve somewhere to ride them. As a landowner, I will never support the government's attempt to mandate who can ride on land that I own, maintain, and pay taxes for. Thank you for your consideration in these matters.

REP. GUERRERA: Any questions? Thank you, Jim. Next, Steve Litvinchyk. How are you, Steve?

STEVE LITVINCHYK: I'm just here to speak in opposition against S.B. 330 and S.B. 565. I don't think anything should be banned, because I just think it'll start a snowball effect on anything that hurts anybody, and the bottom line is, out of all the testimonies today, it sounds like we need a place to ride. It will just alleviate a lot of problems.

And on another hand, I maintain a lot of private land trails, and I've noticed over the years, in 20 years, all the riding we've done on these lands, it didn't affect the wildlife. They love to run the trails, on the conservation end. I just wanted to put that in there, and that's all I have to say. Thank you.

REP. GUERRERA: Any questions? Thank you very much, Steve. Ralph Deluco? Is Ralph Deluco here? How about Joe Eaton?

JOE EATON: My name is Joe Eaton. I live in the Town of Mansfield. I'm a member of the American Motorcycle Association, and a member of the New England Trailrider Association, and a member of the Rams Motorcycle Club. I'd like to speak in opposition to S.B. 330 and S.B. 565, banning the sale and operation of ATV's.

It seems that such a ban would just be a disservice to the people that already own these. The citizens legally purchased these vehicles, many of them for recreational purposes, though many were purchased for utilitarian purposes and are used in the course of their business such as agriculture, dairy farming, logging, construction, home maintenance, public safety.

Also, the ban of the sale of all of these would severely impact the revenue of the State of Connecticut to the tune of much more, $2 million. That's only in sales tax revenue from the sale of new vehicles, and it doesn't account for the sale of replacement parts and safety apparel and dealer labor, nor the tax monies that come from the gasoline that's used to power these.

I'd also like to say that I'm opposed to H.B. 5469. I think a registration fee would be good, if there were something that would come in return from it, instead of just the money just going to the State and be lost into the general fund. Then when time to run a project comes along, say, well, we don't have any money.

I think that the vast majority of a lot of the riders would not mind paying a fee if they would see that there would be some benefit that they would derive from it.

I want to thank you for having the opportunity to speak with you here today.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Mr. Eaton. Any questions for Mr. Eaton? Thank you very much.

REP. GUERRERA: Next we have Dan Salomone. Good afternoon, Dan. Thank you for letting Ms. Garofalo go before you there. That was nice of you.

DAN SALOMONE: No problem. Very touching. Senator Ciotto and Representative Guerrera, basically, my testimony is submitted. You guys can read it.

I'm opposed to S.B. 330, S.B. 565, H.B. 5251, S.B. 5469. I am in favor of H.B. 5089, which requires safety equipment.

Basically, we've been, as an organization, first off, I'm a member of NETRA, and I'm the President of Connecticut Trail Users, which is kind of chapter of NETRA, a legislative group. We've hired Delores Melloy as our lobbyist to, you know, really work with the DEP to open trails for ATV use.

We started this really working with DEP four to five years ago, and we tried to take the high road and do the right thing, because the problem is there's no place to ride. So kids are going out and they're riding illegally.

We would like to partner with DEP. We'd like to have open communication with groups that oppose us, to try to work on a plan that works for everyone.

I did submit 14 properties in the State of Connecticut to DEP. They were all State Forest, and the reason why 4 of those properties had established trails developed by NETRA in the late 60's, that have been there since the 60's and are still there and are still in good shape.

My thought was that the environmental impact would be much reduced if we used trails that were established rather than going and cutting new property.

I do, however, if DEP feels that they want to keep us out of the forest and help us find properties that would work, we're all for it. We don't have to be in a State Forest. However, we need large parcels of property for closed-loop trails, and we also need sand pits and things for closed-course competition.

So, and the other thing I just want to make people aware of, pocket bikes are totally different than dirt bikes and ATV's. I think we've pretty much established that by now. They're really made just for the road, and any riding on the road should be illegal for ATV's and pocket bikes.

REP. GUERRERA: Dan, I have a question. You said you had 14 sites you proposed to DEP?

REP. GUERRERA: And when you proposed them, what happened?

DAN SALOMONE: Basically, it was sent back to me, that they wanted a more in-depth look at the property. What they wanted us to do is go out, find these properties, map out trails, and then bring them to them, to DEP, for them to say, guys, yes, this works or, guys, this doesn't work.

Our proposal to DEP was to work together. They know already what properties are not going to work for us. So instead of us wasting the time and the man-hours to get out there, it's going to be 100 man-hours just to do that, and then the ATV Policy was put in place after we initially asked DEP to open trails.

So now, you know, it's going to cost us an estimated $100,000 to do environmental studies, traffic studies, just all these things that no other group in the State has had to do in the past.

So I feel like we're kind of being singled out a little bit with that issue. But, again, we are 100% willing to work with DEP and become partners. There are going to be issues down the road that we're going to need to work together on. That is our mission.

REP. GUERRERA: And I tend to agree with you on that, Dan, in respect that I appreciate you stating that you want to work with the DEP and so forth.

I just get a little mind-boggled when they tell you to go out and do all this, and then you come back, and they say it's no good, and I don't understand why they would put any type of services that you provide or whatever, to do something like that, then come back and say no, when they already must know if they want to do that or not.

And I'm just a little confused about that. But I guess I'll talk to DEP about that when this should come forward again.

DAN SALOMONE: Yeah, we've gone as far as offering to do all the maintenance and upkeep on the trails. NETRA has a standing record and a relationship with Massachusetts. They take care of all the motorcycle trails, the upkeep, they build bridges.

I mean, this is a program where certification would be instrumental, safety training. We want the safety issues. We don't want to just, you know, hey, let's go without helmets and fly anywhere we feel like.

We want established trails to have a really good program that works for everyone. We want to continue to work on noise problems. There's standard tests that address all that. And we want that to be part of what we're trying to do.

REP. GUERRERA: And I have to agree. I think that, if you had places to ride, I think 99% of these issues would not be up here today.

Just real quick, can you give me the sizes of a pocket bike? Do you have any of that information?

DAN SALOMONE: You know, I went on a website last night, and each of you have my testimony. The best I can determine, and they're foreign to me. I live in Higganum, and I've never seen a pocket bike in my life, other than in the stores.

DAN SALOMONE: But I understand it's a huge problem in the Cities. Basically, they have seat heights about 25 inches. They're tiny little bikes.

My son's motorcycle in the garage is about the same height and dimension of a pocket bike, and my fear is that, if pocket bikes are banned and there's a lot of legislation written about pocket bikes, it could easily cover my son's motorcycle, which is totally designed for off-road only.

So I guess the difference is pocket bikes are only designed for asphalt use.

REP. GUERRERA: Asphalt use, and also the size of the engine, is it different than the pocket bike, or are you talking about the same?

DAN SALOMONE: It's exactly the same, yeah. So I want to make sure that there's a clear understanding that they are similar but very different. You know, dirt bikes go from 50cc up to 550cc. ATV's go, I think, up to about 800cc now from 50cc.

So, you know, these are all vehicles designed to be used off-road.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you very much. Any other questions for Mr. Salomone? Thank you very much, Dan. Next, Gary D'Andrea. Gary D'Andrea? How about Avi Laub? John McNabb? Oh, Avi's here. How are you, Avi?

AVI LAUB: Oh, pretty good, thanks, and good afternoon.

AVI LAUB: I appreciate the time to say a couple words. My name is Avi Laub. I work with Bombardier Recreational Products. We're the manufacturer for Ski-Doo snowmobiles, Seadoo watercraft, and Bombardier ATV's.

I live in the State of Connecticut, have so my whole life. Actually, Mr. Davis was my swimming coach about 25 years ago. It's been a long time.

A few things I just wanted to clarify, based on Proposed S.B. 330 and S.B. 565. I think there needs to be a clear distinction, and I think we've made that today, between pocket bikes and ATV's, two separate items, and I think to lump them together does a disservice to a lot of the businesses as well as consumers.

Next, registration, I think, would equal land use. We've made that point pretty clear today that if we ask consumers to register, the consumers are going to ask for land use.

If we mirror some of the other states around us, New York requires registration on all ATV's and off-road motorcycles, the State of Vermont, the State of Massachusetts, and in all those states, they have open ATV riding areas open off-road for motorcycle use.

Working for a manufacturer, one of the big seven ATV manufacturers, we work with the SVIA, the Specialty Vehicle Industry Association, we pay consumers $100 if they take the SVIA course. We pay them for taking the course.

So we want and we promote safety, and all the seven large manufacturers for ATV's promote safety, and that's probably the biggest point, I think, we need to go across.

If we look around in other states, different systems we can mirror, we can look at Vermont, the VAST Association, the Vermont Association of Snow Travelers, that has a training program for kids under 16 years old to ride a snowmobile, or VASA, the Vermont ATV Safety Association, again, a trail system that's brought together by different groups all around the state that promote safe trail riding. And that's really it.

SEN. CIOTTO: Wait, let me ask one. You say your organization pays the purchaser $100 if they actually go and get this course? Who gives the safety course?

AVI LAUB: The Specialty Vehicle Industry Association trains instructors. For one, Ron Hills, of Litchfield Hills Motor Sports, is a safety-trained instructor. He went to Texas to take a five-day course, and he came back, and he offers his services to any groups or any individuals that want to take the course. The individual pays them, and then the manufacturers reimburse the consumer for having the certificate.

SEN. CIOTTO: Do you have any numbers on how many people take this course?

SEN. CIOTTO: Just a question, I'm wondering about the safety end of it. If these dealers or companies are offering this type of service, I find that rather interesting, and to even pay them $100 to take it, I find that doubly interesting, because that's usually not the way in this business.

AVI LAUB: Well, it's Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki, Bombardier, and does Polaris –

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, we have our own [inaudible – microphone not on]

AVI LAUB: You have your own. They train at the time of delivery, so six out of the seven pay the consumer, and the seventh ATV manufacturer makes sure that all consumers are trained before they leave.

So safety training is probably the biggest part of awareness.

SEN. CIOTTO: If you find time to get that number, I'd appreciate it if you'd send it to the Committee, and the more I hear about everybody's working [inaudible] DEP, I've become more concerned, that you should have to spend, what did Dan say, $100,000?

DAN SALOMONE: Well, that's what we estimate it would be, yes, to do traffic studies, environmental studies--

SEN. CIOTTO: This comes out of the organization's money?

DAN SALOMONE: Yes, we don't have that kind of money, so--

DAN SALOMONE: Yes, the private organizations and clubs are supposed to pay the money for the traffic pattern surveys, the endangered species surveys, everything, with no promise that that'll go through as an area. It's just a proposal--

SEN. CIOTTO: No, I mean you report the findings, your results?

SEN. CIOTTO: What your recommendations are, and then you're shot down?

SEN. CIOTTO: Have they ever accepted any of them?

DAN SALOMONE: No. Just for the record, we haven't done the studies or gone that route, just because we kind of know where it was going--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Senator, if I may, two years ago I sat in the basement at the DEP building with two of the DEP officials, with three other people, looking at different areas, and it was a very negative tone in the whole representation of what would happen. Would there be ATV or offer of land use in the State of Connecticut? It was very unsupportive.

SEN. CIOTTO: Yeah, I would like to have Dan repeat what he just said so we can record this. If we don't get it recorded on our tape, then we won't know who said what and we get nothing. I'm trying to help you people reach a fair conclusion. Would you repeat what you just said?

DAM SALOMONE: The DEP ATV policy would require us to go out and evaluate properties, do traffic studies, environmental studies, endangered species studies, and then bring our findings back to the DEP for their yes or no on properties.

So, you know, it's a policy that we feel is very unfair and unbiased. I don't know of any other policy of its kind or it's like that any other group has to go through.

SEN. CIOTTO: Let's have that gentleman behind you. Would you stand up there and give your name and identification again?

JOHN MAJEWSKI: My name is John Majewski. I'm from the Central Cycle Club in Central Village. I presently maintain the only motorcycle trail system legal in the State of Connecticut, which is a 70-mile trail system in Pachaug State Forest. So I've dealt with basically every division of the DEP.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible – microphone not on]

REP. GUERRERA: Next, John McNabb. Is John McNabb here?

REP. GUERRERA: Patrick Timothy from KTM Motorcycles.

PATRICK TIMOTHY: It's nothing, really. I oppose, obviously, S.B. 330 for lots of reasons, none of which weren't spoken on by pretty much everybody here. So I'll save the mundane task of saying it all again, but I will just give you my personal feelings on it, you know.

I've spent a lot of time with my father. He taught me how to ride, and we shared a lot of good times in 25 years of riding, and I've been able to parlay that into a career.

So for a lot of reasons, I'm against this bill, and I that every point I was going to make on that was spoken on here today.

I also oppose the H.B. 5251, which is the requirement to register ATV's. I'm not against the requirement, just as probably the way it's worded, as in reference to private land.

I believe that if you choose to use an ATV on private land, you should not be subject to State registration, similar to having a lawnmower. You know, it's a motorized vehicle. I mean, if you pay your property taxes, I don't feel that it's really fair to force that on the citizens of Connecticut.

I do agree on having it for State land, if they do provide riding areas, and I think we know we need that, and we're all willing to work together on this, and I hope we can get something done. So that's about it.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Patrick. Any questions for Mr. Timothy? Seeing none, thank you very much. The last on our list, but not least, is Allen Gerard.

ALLEN GERARD: Senator Ciotto and Representative Guerrera, thank you for hearing our testimony.

I'm opposed to S.B. 330, S.B. 565, H.B. 5251, and H.B. 5469. I'm a municipal police officer in the State of Connecticut for the past 26 years, and I've been off-road motorcycle riding for 37, and I'm an avid outdoorsman. So I have a concept of both sides of the issue.

I applaud the efforts of various current elected officials and their current attempts to address the all-terrain and pocket bike issues.

I must, however, oppose the above bills for a variety of sound reasons. We've already been over most of this. My primary reason is there's no place to ride, and that should come first.

Most of the bills that are being presented today are already in place in other Statutes, or they conflict with other Statutes, or are previous S.B. 851, which we've already done a lot of work on, and with DEP.

There's a strong desire to have a single, all-inclusive ATV bill in place, rather than branching off on tangents with a variety of separate bills.

Law enforcement's designated to enforce each and every new law, which takes time away from other worthy functions. Increasing demands on law enforcement is not the best approach to our already-limited resources.

If a law lacks adequate research, it will likely create a whole new batch of problems that need to be addressed. Legislators recognized the need of many of these same issues 19 years ago in 1986 when they wisely enacted Connecticut General Statute 2326C.

They recognized an increase in popularity regarding ATV family recreation, and at the same time a decrease in the available riding areas. The Statute allows for our residents to share the use of our State land in a fair, ethical manner for family recreation.

To date, DEP hasn't provided any land, and as a result we have confusion and an everyone-for-themselves attitude and subsequently some abuse.

We are all striving for a team effort approach in order to achieve voluntary compliance and positive peer pressure among ATV enthusiasts.

Various off-road groups, such as New England Trailriders, have donated their time, knowledge, experience, and services free of charge to the State in an effort to remedy the problem.

They have offered to construct and maintain trail systems in Connecticut as they have successfully done in other states. In these tough economic times, volunteerism and community service should be encouraged and embraced.

I don't have personal objection to banning pocket bikes, however, as I believe they are damaging to the legitimate motorcycling image. However, there is no clear, concise definition of them, and I'm concerned that the smaller motorcycles will be inadvertently included.

My suggestion for that issue immediately, if possible, would be to request the DEP Commissioner have a Commissioner's Ruling, and that's used usually for when there's technicalities of motor vehicle law or a new technology out there that needs clarification.

They've done that in the past, past instances where they outlawed radar detectors and there was an issue with commercial vehicles using commuter parking lots.

It's a quick-fix remedy to say, they don't fit into the moped category, they don't fit into motorcycle, therefore you can't use them on the road, much like a go-cart you can't, and we can use existing laws such as the reckless use of the highway or whatever to address that.

We had a mother here earlier whose son was unfortunately killed on an ATV, and she apparently wasn't aware that during that time period there had been laws on the books for 18 years mandating safety classes and places to ride.

I've talked to her about that, and she doesn't know if it would have made a difference or not, but she feels that, you know, she'd like to have known that her son had the opportunity to take a safety class and/or riding area.

And I'm sure this Committee is very sincere and takes this seriously. I'm optimistic that we will get a riding area to ride in, and if so, maybe consider naming it after her son, Tim.

One more clarification, when the 2326C went into effect, and that's the Statute to provide State-sanctioned riding areas, it didn't really say who was responsible for it.

It stayed on the books for 16, 17 years, and it wasn't until recent meetings with S.B. 851 that DEP came out and said, well, it should be the rider's responsibility to do all this, and that was just like a last-ditch effort to have somebody do it, because nobody was.

But then we got into the money aspect of it, and it's not really feasible to do. So when they say it's our responsibility, that's not in the Statute. That's just something DEP said, and I've worked with them on a professional level, and they're great, and they've had some leadership problems.

Now, with Jan McCarthy coming in, she has, from Massachusetts, they have seven or eight State Parks all with ATV access, and she really knows what's going on. So when you say you're talking to DEP, I think we're going to make some progress here. I'm very optimistic about that.

REP. GUERRERA: Thank you, Mr. Gerard. Any questions for Mr. Gerard? Thank you very much.

REP. GUERRERA: Yeah, is there anyone else in the public that we might have missed on this sheet that would like to testify or sign up?

JACK COFIELL: I've never been to one of these things before.

REP. GUERRERA: Can you please just give your name?

SEN. CIOTTO: Tell him to relax. There's a first time for everything. Make yourself right at home. This is your building. you have no problem. Speak up.

JACK COFIELL: My name is Jack Cofiell, and, at least until I retired, I was the owner of Cofiell Sport and Power.

JACK COFIELL: Cofiell, from Glastonbury. I'm the kind of guy, I rode ATV's, I ride motorcycles, I ride the boats, I have snowmobiles. We have a place in Vermont.

The fun I get out of all of this stuff, I wouldn't want to give up. It just seems like every time you turn around, somebody's kicking you out of a park. Look at what they tried to do to Yellowstone. By the way, we'd be glad when what's-his-name, Kerry, didn't win the election, because I know he was going to take that away from us too.

And I'm very excited that you people really seem to be interested in helping us get places for people to ride. It appeared at one time that, I took you guys like another DEP members.

These guys, they don't want to help nobody. They really don't want to help anybody, and all they want to do is arrest people.

We got a place in Glastonbury there that his name is, oh, boy, names and me don't go along, Duffert, and he's right there, and the DEP comes down and writing tickets for everybody, and they guy said, I told them they could ride it, and he says, I don't care, wrote out tickets.

One guy got a ticket because his ATV was on the back of his truck and he was parked in the yard. These are the kind of things that got to go. You following what I'm saying?

SEN. CIOTTO: Sometimes the wrong thief will have a bag, Sir.

JACK COFIELL: That's all I want to say, but I hope you guys, you sound like you're going in the right direction, and I really feel you are.

SEN. CIOTTO: Go home and tell everybody your debut was a successful one. Thank you very much. Thank you. That being it--